Suchergebnisse

Humans are exposed to a large number of chemicals from sources such as the environment, food, and consumer products. There is growing concern that human exposure to chemical mixtures, especially during critical periods of development, increases the risk of adverse health effects in newborns or later in life. Historically, the onechemical-at-a-time approach has been applied both for exposure assessment and hazard characterisation, leading to insufficient knowledge about human health effects caused by exposure to mixtures of chemicals that have the same target. To circumvent this challenge researchers can apply in vitro assays to analyse both exposure to and human health effects of chemical mixtures in biological samples. The advantages of using in vitro assays are: (i) that an integrated effect is measured, taking combined mixture effects into account and (ii) that in vitro assays can reduce complexity in identification of Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) in human tissues. We have reviewed the state-of-the-art on the use of receptor-based in vitro assays to assess human exposure to chemical mixtures and related health impacts. A total of 43 studies were identified, in which endpoints for the arylhydrocarbon receptor (AhR), the estrogen receptor (ER), and the androgen receptor (AR) were used. The majority of studies reported biological activities that could be associated with breast cancer incidence, male reproductive health effects, developmental toxicities, human demographic characteristics or lifestyle factors such as dietary patterns. A few studies used the bioactivities to check the coverage of the chemical analyses of the human samples, whereas in vitro assays have so far not regularly been used for identifying CECs in human samples, but rather in environmental matrices or food packaging materials. A huge field of novel applications using receptor-based in vitro assays for mixture toxicity assessment on human samples and effect-directed analysis (EDA) using high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) for identification of toxic compounds waits for exploration. In the future this could lead to a paradigm shift in the way we unravel adverse human health effects caused by chemical mixtures. ; European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme HBM4EU 733032

This report describes the proceedings of the BfR-RIVM workshop on validation of alternative methods which was held 23 and 24 March 2017 in Berlin, Germany. Stakeholders from governmental agencies, regulatory authorities, universities, industry and the OECD were invited to discuss current problems concerning the regulatory acceptance and implementation of alternative test methods and testing strategies, with the aim to develop feasible solutions. Classical validation of alternative methods usually involves one to one comparison with the gold standard animal study. This approach suffers from the reductionist nature of an alternative test as compared to the animal study as well as from the animal study being considered as the gold standard. Modern approaches combine individual alternatives into testing strategies, for which integrated and defined approaches are emerging at OECD. Furthermore, progress in mechanistic toxicology, e.g. through the adverse outcome pathway approach, and in computational systems toxicology allows integration of alternative test battery results into toxicity predictions that are more fine-tuned to the human situation. The road towards transition to a mechanistically-based human-focused hazard and risk assessment of chemicals requires an open mind towards stepping away from the animal study as the gold standard and defining human biologically based regulatory requirements for human hazard and risk assessment.

At a joint workshop organized by RIVM and BfR, international experts from governmental institutes, regulatory agencies, industry, academia and animal welfare organizations discussed and provided recommendations for the development, validation and implementation of innovative 3R approaches in regulatory toxicology. In particular, an evolutionary improvement of our current approach of test method validation in the context of defined approaches or integrated testing strategies was discussed together with a revolutionary approach based on a comprehensive description of the physiological responses of the human body to chemical exposure and the subsequent definition of relevant and predictive in vitro, in chemico or in silico methods. A more comprehensive evaluation of biological relevance, scientific validity and regulatory purpose of new test methods and assessment strategies together with case studies that provide practical experience with new approaches were discussed as essential steps to build up the necessary confidence to facilitate regulatory acceptance.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an important tool to survey the internal exposure of humans which represents the real life chemical body burden to chemicals and/or their metabolites. It results from total exposure to chemical substances from different sources and via different routes. These substances may be regulated under different legislative frameworks on chemicals (e.g., environmental, occupational, food safety etc). In occupational health, HBM has long traditions to control the exposures at workplaces. By providing accurate data on internal exposure, HBM data can improve human health risk assessment (RA) for both the general population and workers. Although the past few years have shown good examples on the use of HBM in the RA of chemicals, there is still quite some work to be done to improve its use in a regulatory RA. Under the scope of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (project HBM4EU, 2017-2021), the current study reviews the state-of-the-art of HBM use in chemicals RA with a special focus in Europe, and attempts to identify hurdles and challenges faced by regulators. To gather information on the use of HBM, including the availability of guidance on how to use it in RA, the RA schemes applied by different European or international organizations were analysed. Examples of such use were identified for a few selected groups of chemicals of concern for human health. In addition, we present the results of a survey, aimed at collecting information from national regulatory risk assessors on their day-to-day RA practices, the use of HBM data, and the obstacles and challenges related to their use. The results evidenced and explained some of the current obstacles of using HBM data in RA. These included the lack of HBM guidance values or biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), limited toxicokinetic information to support the interpretation of HBM data and, in the occupational health and safety (OSH) field, the lack of legal enforcement. Therefore, to support the integration of HBM in regulatory RA, we recommend, on one hand, the elaboration of a EU level guidance on the use of HBM in RA and, on the other hand, the continuation of research efforts to integrate HBM with new RA approaches using in vitro/in silico data and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs). ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 733032 HBM4EU, and received co-funding from the author's organizations. The authors thank to all other participants that contributed to this work. ; Sí

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an important tool to survey the internal exposure of humans which represents the real life chemical body burden to chemicals and/or their metabolites. It results from total exposure to chemical substances from different sources and via different routes. These substances may be regulated under different legislative frameworks on chemicals (e.g., environmental, occupational, food safety etc). In occupational health, HBM has long traditions to control the exposures at workplaces. By providing accurate data on internal exposure, HBM data can improve human health risk assessment (RA) for both the general population and workers. Although the past few years have shown good examples on the use of HBM in the RA of chemicals, there is still quite some work to be done to improve its use in a regulatory RA. Under the scope of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (project HBM4EU, 2017–2021), the current study reviews the state-of-the-art of HBM use in chemicals RA with a special focus in Europe, and attempts to identify hurdles and challenges faced by regulators. To gather information on the use of HBM, including the availability of guidance on how to use it in RA, the RA schemes applied by different European or international organizations were analysed. Examples of such use were identified for a few selected groups of chemicals of concern for human health. In addition, we present the results of a survey, aimed at collecting information from national regulatory risk assessors on their day-to-day RA practices, the use of HBM data, and the obstacles and challenges related to their use. The results evidenced and explained some of the current obstacles of using HBM data in RA. These included the lack of HBM guidance values or biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), limited toxicokinetic information to support the interpretation of HBM data and, in the occupational health and safety (OSH) field, the lack of legal enforcement. Therefore, to support the integration of HBM in regulatory RA, we recommend, on one hand, the elaboration of a EU level guidance on the use of HBM in RA and, on the other hand, the continuation of research efforts to integrate HBM with new RA approaches using in vitro/in silico data and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs).

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an important tool to survey the internal exposure of humans which represents the real life chemical body burden to chemicals and/or their metabolites. It results from total exposure to chemical substances from different sources and via different routes. These substances may be regulated under different legislative frameworks on chemicals (e.g., environmental, occupational, food safety etc). In occupational health, HBM has long traditions to control the exposures at workplaces. By providing accurate data on internal exposure, HBM data can improve human health risk assessment (RA) for both the general population and workers. Although the past few years have shown good examples on the use of HBM in the RA of chemicals, there is still quite some work to be done to improve its use in a regulatory RA. Under the scope of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (project HBM4EU, 2017–2021), the current study reviews the state-of-the-art of HBM use in chemicals RA with a special focus in Europe, and attempts to identify hurdles and challenges faced by regulators. To gather information on the use of HBM, including the availability of guidance on how to use it in RA, the RA schemes applied by different European or international organizations were analysed. Examples of such use were identified for a few selected groups of chemicals of concern for human health. In addition, we present the results of a survey, aimed at collecting information from national regulatory risk assessors on their day-to-day RA practices, the use of HBM data, and the obstacles and challenges related to their use. The results evidenced and explained some of the current obstacles of using HBM data in RA. These included the lack of HBM guidance values or biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), limited toxicokinetic information to support the interpretation of HBM data and, in the occupational health and safety (OSH) field, the lack of legal enforcement. Therefore, to support the integration of HBM in regulatory RA, we recommend, ...

International audience ; Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an important tool to survey the internal exposure of humans which represents the real life chemical body burden to chemicals and/or their metabolites. It results from total exposure to chemical substances from different sources and via different routes. These substances may be regulated under different legislative frameworks on chemicals (e.g., environmental, occupational, food safety etc). In occupational health, HBM has long traditions to control the exposures at workplaces. By providing accurate data on internal exposure, HBM data can improve human health risk assessment (RA) for both the general population and workers. Although the past few years have shown good examples on the use of HBM in the RA of chemicals, there is still quite some work to be done to improve its use in a regulatory RA. Under the scope of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (project HBM4EU, 2017-2021), the current study reviews the state-of-the-art of HBM use in chemicals RA with a special focus in Europe, and attempts to identify hurdles and challenges faced by regulators. To gather information on the use of HBM, including the availability of guidance on how to use it in RA, the RA schemes applied by different European or international organizations were analysed. Examples of such use were identified for a few selected groups of chemicals of concern for human health. In addition, we present the results of a survey, aimed at collecting information from national regulatory risk assessors on their day-to-day RA practices, the use of HBM data, and the obstacles and challenges related to their use. The results evidenced and explained some of the current obstacles of using HBM data in RA. These included the lack of HBM guidance values or biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), limited toxicokinetic information to support the interpretation of HBM data and, in the occupational health and safety (OSH) field, the lack of legal enforcement. Therefore, to support the integration of HBM in ...

International audience ; Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an important tool to survey the internal exposure of humans which represents the real life chemical body burden to chemicals and/or their metabolites. It results from total exposure to chemical substances from different sources and via different routes. These substances may be regulated under different legislative frameworks on chemicals (e.g., environmental, occupational, food safety etc). In occupational health, HBM has long traditions to control the exposures at workplaces. By providing accurate data on internal exposure, HBM data can improve human health risk assessment (RA) for both the general population and workers. Although the past few years have shown good examples on the use of HBM in the RA of chemicals, there is still quite some work to be done to improve its use in a regulatory RA. Under the scope of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (project HBM4EU, 2017-2021), the current study reviews the state-of-the-art of HBM use in chemicals RA with a special focus in Europe, and attempts to identify hurdles and challenges faced by regulators. To gather information on the use of HBM, including the availability of guidance on how to use it in RA, the RA schemes applied by different European or international organizations were analysed. Examples of such use were identified for a few selected groups of chemicals of concern for human health. In addition, we present the results of a survey, aimed at collecting information from national regulatory risk assessors on their day-to-day RA practices, the use of HBM data, and the obstacles and challenges related to their use. The results evidenced and explained some of the current obstacles of using HBM data in RA. These included the lack of HBM guidance values or biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), limited toxicokinetic information to support the interpretation of HBM data and, in the occupational health and safety (OSH) field, the lack of legal enforcement. Therefore, to support the integration of HBM in regulatory RA, we recommend, on one hand, the elaboration of a EU level guidance on the use of HBM in RA and, on the other hand, the continuation of research efforts to integrate HBM with new RA approaches using in vitro/in silico data and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs).

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; Stockholm University ; http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/69 ; am2014

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; ISSN:1476-069X

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.