The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals
ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is developing chemical screening and prioritization programs to evaluate environmental chemicals for potential risk to human health in a rapid and efficient manner. As part of these efforts, it is important to catalog available information on chemical toxicity and exposure from widely dispersed sources. The main objective of this analysis is to define important aspects of the exposure space and to catalog the available exposure information for chemicals being considered for analysis as part of the U.S. EPA ToxCast™ screening and prioritization program. Publicly available exposure data have been extracted into ACToR (Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource), which combines information for hundreds of thousands of chemicals from >600 public sources. We use data from ACToR to assess the exposure data landscape for environmental chemicals. Of the roughly 100,000 chemicals that have at least limited toxicity information available, less than one-fifth also have exposure information - and for most of these the information is of limited utility (e.g., production volume). Readily accessible data on concentrations in exposure-related media are only available for a much smaller fraction. Among these, the largest number of chemicals is measured in water with over 1150 unique compounds, followed by 788 substances measured in soil, and 670 in air. These small numbers clearly reflect a focus of resources on those substances previously identified as possibly posing a hazard to human health. Exposure to a much broader number of chemicals will need to be measured in order to fully realize the envisioned goal of using exposure information to guide toxicity testing.
- SourceAvailable from: Sverker Molander
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "First, operationalizing " exposure " as the control variable is difficult because of the high and poorly defined number of chemicals that fall under the umbrella of " chemical pollution " . More than 100,000 substances are in commerce (Egeghy et al., 2012), including pesticides, biocides and pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, building materials and substances in personal care products and cosmetics (e.g., Howard and Muir, 2010, 2011; ECHA, 2013) and very few of them have undergone adequate risk assessment for adverse effects. "
ABSTRACT: Rockström et al. (2009a, 2009b) have warned that humanity must reduce anthropogenic impacts defined by nine planetary boundaries if “unacceptable global change” is to be avoided. Chemical pollution was identified as one of those boundaries for which continued impacts could erode the resilience of ecosystems and humanity. The central concept of the planetary boundary (or boundaries) for chemical pollution (PBCP or PBCPs) is that the Earth has a finite assimilative capacity for chemical pollution, which includes persistent, as well as readily degradable chemicals released at local to regional scales, which in aggregate threaten ecosystem and human viability. The PBCP allows humanity to explicitly address the increasingly global aspects of chemical pollution throughout a chemical's life cycle and the need for a global response of internationally coordinated control measures. We submit that sufficient evidence shows stresses on ecosystem and human health at local to global scales, suggesting that conditions are transgressing the safe operating space delimited by a PBCP. As such, current local to global pollution control measures are insufficient. However, while the PBCP is an important conceptual step forward, at this point single ormultiple PBCPs are challenging to operationalize due to the extremely large number of commercial chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that cause myriad adverse effects to innumerable species and ecosystems, and the complex linkages between emissions, environmental concentrations, exposures and adverse effects. As well, the normative nature of a PBCP presents challenges of negotiating pollution limits amongst societal groups with differing viewpoints. Thus, a combination of approaches is recommended as follows: develop indicators of chemical pollution, for both control and response variables, that will aid in quantifying a PBCP(s) and gauging progress towards reducing chemical pollution; develop new technologies and technical and social approaches to mitigate global chemical pollution that emphasize a preventative approach; coordinate pollution control and sustainability efforts; and facilitate implementation of multiple (and potentially decentralized) control efforts involving scientists, civil society, government, non-governmental organizations and international bodies.Environment International 02/2015; 78:8-15. DOI:10.1016/j.envint.2015.02.001 · 5.66 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "What is provided is a component of this field of study, which is a practical set of instructions for estimating and interpreting a common set of parameters from disparate data presentations that is underrepresented in the general literature. Harmonized data are important for putting new research of ecological , environmental, and health related studies into perspective, especially within the concepts of general sustainability of chemical use, resource management, climate change, systems biology, and public health (Egeghy et al., 2011; Pleil, 2012; Pleil and Sheldon, 2011; Edwards and Preston, 2008). Further, the framework for linking environmental stressors with adverse health outcomes requires hard data for validating models and ultimately making defensible decisions (Sobus et al., 2011; Tan et al., 2012). "
ABSTRACT: The progression of science is driven by the accumulation of knowledge and builds upon published work of others. Another important feature is to place current results into the context of previous observations. The published literature, however, often does not provide sufficient direct information for the reader to interpret the results beyond the scope of that particular article. Authors tend to provide only summary statistics in various forms, such as means and standard deviations, median and range, quartiles, 95% confidence intervals, and so on, rather than providing measurement data. Second, essentially all environmental and biomonitoring measurements have an underlying lognormal distribution, so certain published statistical characterizations may be inappropriate for comparisons. The aim of this study was to review and develop direct conversions of different descriptions of data into a standard format comprised of the geometric mean (GM) and the geometric standard deviation (GSD) and then demonstrate how, under the assumption of lognormal distribution, these parameters are used to answer questions of confidence intervals, exceedance levels, and statistical differences among distributions. A wide variety of real-world measurement data sets was reviewed, and it was demonstrated that these data sets are indeed of lognormal character, thus making them amenable to these methods. Potential errors incurred from making retrospective estimates from disparate summary statistics are described. In addition to providing tools to interpret "other people's data," this review should also be seen as a cautionary tale for publishing one's own data to make it as useful as possible for other researchers.Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B 10/2014; 17(6):341-68. DOI:10.1080/10937404.2014.956854 · 5.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Statistical modeling approaches could be used to capture aggregate information embedded in the IPRs and these results could be combined with predictions from mechanistic models to improve estimates of potential exposure. When combined with rapid toxicity screening tools (Judson et al. 2010; Judson et al. 2011; Rotroff et al. 2010), methods to rapidly estimate potential for human exposure could contribute to improved health-risk-based prioritization of a wide range of chemicals of concern (Cohen Hubal et al. 2010; Egeghy et al. 2012). The chemical/source combinations of greatest concern can then be more comprehensively investigated. "
ABSTRACT: Background: Limited data are available to assess human exposure to thousands of chemicals currently in commerce. Information that relates human intake of a chemical to its production and use can help inform understanding of mechanisms and pathways that control exposure and support efforts to protect public health. Objectives: We introduce the intake-to-production ratio (IPR) as an economy-wide quantitative indicator of the extent to which chemical production results in human exposure. Methods: The IPR was evaluated as the ratio of two terms: aggregate rate of chemical uptake in a human population (inferred from urinary excretion data) divided by the rate that chemical is produced in or imported into that population’s economy. We used biomonitoring data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention along with chemical manufacturing data reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other published data, to estimate the IPR for nine chemicals in the United States. Results are reported in units of parts per million, where 1 ppm indicates 1 g of chemical uptake for every million grams of economy-wide use. Results: Estimated IPR values for the studied compounds span many orders of magnitude from a low of 0.6 ppm for bisphenol A to a high of > 180,000 ppm for methyl paraben. Intermediate results were obtained for five phthalates and two chlorinated aromatic compounds: 120 ppm for butyl benzyl phthalate, 670 ppm for di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 760 ppm for di(n-butyl) phthalate, 1,040 ppm for para-dichlorobenzene, 6,800 ppm for di(isobutyl) phthalate, 7,700 ppm for diethyl phthalate, and 8,000–24,000 ppm (range) for triclosan. Conclusion: The IPR is well suited as an aggregate metric of exposure intensity for characterizing population-level exposure to synthesized chemicals, particularly those that move fairly rapidly from manufacture to human intake and have relatively stable production and intake rates.Environmental Health Perspectives 12/2012; 120(12):1678-1683. DOI:10.1289/ehp.1204992 · 7.98 Impact Factor