Srebny Vanessa, Henneberger Luise, König Maria, Huchthausen Julia, Braasch Jenny, Escher Beate I
Department of Cell Toxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoser Str. 15, Leipzig 04318, Germany.
Environmental Toxicology, Department of Geosciences, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Schnarrenberger Str. 94-96, Tübingen 72076, Germany.
Environ Sci Technol. 2025 Aug 26;59(33):17457-17470. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c07018. Epub 2025 Aug 16.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a well-known endocrine disruptor linked to numerous adverse health outcomes and was, therefore, banned in food-contact materials in the European Union. Numerous alternatives are now in commerce, but their health hazards are often inadequately addressed. This study compared BPA and 26 alternatives in six in vitro bioassays for cytotoxicity, endocrine disruption, xenobiotic metabolism, adaptive stress responses, mitochondrial toxicity, and neurotoxicity. We developed a cumulative specificity ratio score that integrates the degree of specific activation and overall toxicological activity across a test battery, enabling direct comparison of BPA with its alternatives. Several alternatives with close structural resemblance showed similar or stronger activation of the estrogen receptor α (ERα) than BPA. The lack of estrogenicity for several BPA alternatives, e.g., 4-(4-phenylmethoxyphenyl)sulfonylphenol (BPS-MPE), was accompanied by a shift toward peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) activation, a receptor that is not relevant for BPA itself. Some alternatives additionally inhibited mitochondrial functions and caused neurotoxicity. Simulated phase I metabolism reduced the cytotoxicity of all alternatives except for methyl bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetate (Bz) and 4-[[4-(allyloxy)phenyl]sulfonyl]phenol (BPS-MAE), while estrogenic activity remained unchanged or decreased. This study demonstrates the utility of bioassays for rapid hazard assessment and comparative evaluation, suggesting that many BPA alternatives are regrettable substitutes, although 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol (TMCD) is a potentially more benign alternative.
双酚A(BPA)是一种广为人知的内分泌干扰物,与众多不良健康后果相关联,因此在欧盟被禁止用于食品接触材料。现在市场上有许多替代品,但它们对健康的危害往往未得到充分关注。本研究在六种体外生物测定中比较了双酚A和26种替代品,这些生物测定涉及细胞毒性、内分泌干扰、外源性物质代谢、适应性应激反应、线粒体毒性和神经毒性。我们开发了一种累积特异性比率评分,该评分整合了一系列测试中的特异性激活程度和总体毒理学活性,从而能够直接将双酚A与其替代品进行比较。几种结构相似的替代品对雌激素受体α(ERα)的激活作用与双酚A相似或更强。几种双酚A替代品,如4-(4-苯甲氧基苯基)磺酰基苯酚(BPS-MPE),缺乏雌激素活性,同时伴随着向过氧化物酶体增殖物激活受体γ(PPARγ)激活的转变,而PPARγ是一种与双酚A本身无关的受体。一些替代品还会抑制线粒体功能并导致神经毒性。模拟的I相代谢降低了除甲基双(4-羟基苯基)乙酸酯(Bz)和4-[[4-(烯丙氧基)苯基]磺酰基]苯酚(BPS-MAE)之外的所有替代品的细胞毒性,而雌激素活性保持不变或降低。本研究证明了生物测定在快速危害评估和比较评价中的实用性,表明许多双酚A替代品是令人遗憾的替代品,尽管2,2,4,4-四甲基-1,3-环丁二醇(TMCD)可能是一种更良性的替代品。