Cargando…

The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD

Human exposure to perchlorate is commonplace because it is a contaminant of drinking water, certain foods, and breast milk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a perchlorate risk assessment in 2002 that yielded a reference dose (RfD) based on both the animal and human toxicology...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ginsberg, Gary, Rice, Deborah
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16140613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8254
_version_ 1782126096416768000
author Ginsberg, Gary
Rice, Deborah
author_facet Ginsberg, Gary
Rice, Deborah
author_sort Ginsberg, Gary
collection PubMed
description Human exposure to perchlorate is commonplace because it is a contaminant of drinking water, certain foods, and breast milk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a perchlorate risk assessment in 2002 that yielded a reference dose (RfD) based on both the animal and human toxicology data. This assessment has been superceded by a recent National Academy of Science (NAS) review that derived a perchlorate RfD that is 20-fold greater (less stringent) than that derived by the U.S. EPA in 2002. The NAS-derived RfD was put on the U.S. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database very quickly and with no further public review. In this commentary we raise concerns about the NAS approach to RfD development in three areas of toxicity assessment: the dose that the NAS described as a no observable adverse-effect level is actually associated with perchlorate-induced effects; consideration of uncertainties was insufficient; and the NAS considered the inhibition of iodine uptake to be a nonadverse effect. We conclude that risk assessors should carefully evaluate whether the IRIS RfD is the most appropriate value for assessing perchlorate risk.
format Text
id pubmed-1280387
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-12803872005-11-30 The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD Ginsberg, Gary Rice, Deborah Environ Health Perspect Commentaries & Reviews Human exposure to perchlorate is commonplace because it is a contaminant of drinking water, certain foods, and breast milk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a perchlorate risk assessment in 2002 that yielded a reference dose (RfD) based on both the animal and human toxicology data. This assessment has been superceded by a recent National Academy of Science (NAS) review that derived a perchlorate RfD that is 20-fold greater (less stringent) than that derived by the U.S. EPA in 2002. The NAS-derived RfD was put on the U.S. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database very quickly and with no further public review. In this commentary we raise concerns about the NAS approach to RfD development in three areas of toxicity assessment: the dose that the NAS described as a no observable adverse-effect level is actually associated with perchlorate-induced effects; consideration of uncertainties was insufficient; and the NAS considered the inhibition of iodine uptake to be a nonadverse effect. We conclude that risk assessors should carefully evaluate whether the IRIS RfD is the most appropriate value for assessing perchlorate risk. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2005-09 2005-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC1280387/ /pubmed/16140613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8254 Text en http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, ?Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives?); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
spellingShingle Commentaries & Reviews
Ginsberg, Gary
Rice, Deborah
The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD
title The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD
title_full The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD
title_fullStr The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD
title_full_unstemmed The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD
title_short The NAS Perchlorate Review: Questions Remain about the Perchlorate RfD
title_sort nas perchlorate review: questions remain about the perchlorate rfd
topic Commentaries & Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16140613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8254
work_keys_str_mv AT ginsberggary thenasperchloratereviewquestionsremainabouttheperchloraterfd
AT ricedeborah thenasperchloratereviewquestionsremainabouttheperchloraterfd
AT ginsberggary nasperchloratereviewquestionsremainabouttheperchloraterfd
AT ricedeborah nasperchloratereviewquestionsremainabouttheperchloraterfd