4.7 Article

Does Rapid Metabolism Ensure Negligible Risk from Bisphenol A?

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 117, 期 11, 页码 1639-1643

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901010

关键词

beta-glucuronidase; bisphenol A; endocrine disruption; fetus; glucuronidation; metabolism; neonate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Bisphenol A (BPA) risks are being evaluated by many regulatory bodies because exposure is widespread and the potential exists for toxicity at low doses. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated evidence that BPA is cleared more rapidly in humans than in rats in relation to BPA risk assessment. DISCUSSION: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) relied on pharmacokinetic evidence to conclude that rodent toxicity data are not directly relevant to human risk assessment. Further, the EFSA argues that rapid metabolism will result in negligible exposure during the perinatal period because of BPA glucuronidation in pregnant women or sulfation in newborns. These arguments fail to consider the deconjugation of BPA glucuronide in utero by p-glucuronidase, an enzyme that is present in high concentrations in placenta and various other tissues. Further, arylsulfatase C, which reactivates endogenous sulfated estrogens, develops early in life and so may deconjugate BPA sulfate in newborns. Biomonitoring studies and laboratory experiments document free BPA in rat and human maternal, placental, and fetal tissues, indicating that human BPA exposure is not negligible. The pattern of these detections is consistent with deconjugation in the placenta, resulting in fetal exposure. The tolerable daily intake set by the EFSA (0.05 mg/kg/day) is well above effect levels reported in some animal studies. CONCLUSION: This potential risk should not be dismissed on the basis of an uncertain pharmacokinetic argument. Rather, risk assessors need to decipher the BPA dose response and apply it to humans with comprehensive pharmacokinetic models that account for metabolite deconjugation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据