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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 This assessment has been superceded by a recent National Academy of Science (NAS) review that derived a perchlorate RfD that is 20-fold greater (less stringent) than that derived by the U.S. EPA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 |