Suppr超能文献

案例研究:热敏纸中双酚 S 是否比双酚 A 更安全?

Case study: Is bisphenol S safer than bisphenol A in thermal papers?

机构信息

Instituto de Bioingeniería, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, 03202, Elche, Alicante, Spain.

出版信息

Arch Toxicol. 2019 Jul;93(7):1835-1852. doi: 10.1007/s00204-019-02474-x. Epub 2019 May 20.

Abstract

The Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemical Agency released a scientific opinion alerting that the risk associated with dermal occupational exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) via thermal paper might not be adequately controlled because the estimated exposure was around twice the Derived No Effect Level (DNEL) and the European Commission will effectively restrict BPA in thermal paper as soon as 2020. Bisphenol S (BPS) is currently being used as a BPA surrogate and is already widespread in thermal paper receipts. Based on publically available information in the scientific literature, we assessed the risk associated with dermal BPS exposure via thermal paper for the general and occupational populations to compare with BPA situation. We developed two exposure scenarios; one based on the total excreted BPS and another on exposure estimations by transferring BPS from the thermal paper matrix to skin. Both scenarios yielded similar exposures for the general population (0.016-0.013 µg/kg bw/day), but the exposure estimated for the workers in the second scenario (0.96 µg/kg bw/day) was around 17-fold higher than that estimated for the workers in the first scenario. The systemic DNELs for the general and workers populations were 0.45 and 0.91 µg BPS/kg bw/day, respectively, which were 4.6- and 19-fold higher than the respective dermal DNELs. Risk Characterisation Ratio (RCR) (estimated exposure through urinary excretion compared with the systemic DNEL) in the first and most reliable scenario suggested that the risk was adequately controlled. In the second scenario, however, the RCR suggests that the risk might not be adequately controlled for both the general population and workers. This work raises the necessity of generate more toxicodynamic and toxicokinetic information, specially using dermal exposures, to properly assess the risk associated to dermal BPS exposure because the situation might presumably get worse after 2020.

摘要

欧洲化学品管理局风险评估委员会发布了一项科学意见警报,称由于热纸中经皮职业接触双酚 A(BPA)的估计暴露量接近可耐受每日摄入量(DNEL)的两倍,因此可能无法充分控制相关风险,且欧盟委员会将在 2020 年之前有效地限制热纸中的 BPA。双酚 S(BPS)目前正被用作 BPA 的替代品,且已广泛用于热敏纸收据。根据科学文献中公开的信息,我们评估了普通人群和职业人群经皮接触 BPS 而产生的风险,以与 BPA 情况进行比较。我们开发了两种暴露情景;一种基于 BPS 的总排泄量,另一种基于将 BPS 从热敏纸基质转移到皮肤的暴露估计。两种情景均导致普通人群的暴露量相似(0.016-0.013μg/kg bw/天),但第二个情景中工人的暴露量(0.96μg/kg bw/天)比第一个情景中工人的暴露量高约 17 倍。普通人群和工人的系统 DNEL 分别为 0.45 和 0.91μg BPS/kg bw/天,分别比相应的经皮 DNEL 高 4.6 倍和 19 倍。在第一个也是最可靠的情景中,通过尿排泄估计的风险特征比(RCR)与系统 DNEL 相比,提示风险得到了充分控制。然而,在第二个情景中,RCR 表明,普通人群和工人的风险可能都没有得到充分控制。这项工作提出了需要生成更多的毒代动力学和毒动学信息,特别是使用经皮暴露,以正确评估与经皮 BPS 暴露相关的风险,因为在 2020 年之后,情况可能会变得更糟。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验