Voltar
Artigo Acesso aberto Revisado por pares
BIBTEX RIS

Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: Scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment

2013; Wiley; Volume: 11; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3132

ISSN

1831-4732

Tópico(s)

Agricultural safety and regulations

Resumo

EFSA JournalVolume 11, Issue 3 3132 OpinionOpen Access Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: Scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment EFSA Scientific Committee, EFSA Scientific CommitteeSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Scientific Committee, EFSA Scientific CommitteeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 March 2013 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3132Citations: 128 Scientific committee members: Jan Alexander, Diane Benford, Qasim Chaudhry, Anthony Hardy, Michael John Jeger, Robert Luttik, Ambroise Martin, Bernadette Ossendorp, Simon More, Alicja Mortensen, Birgit Noerrung, Joe Perry, Iona Pratt, John Sofos, Josef Schlatter, Kristen Sejrsen Correspondence: [email protected] Acknowledgement: The SC wishes to thank the members of the working group on Endocrine Active Substances: Jan Alexander, Jacques Auger, Diane Benford, Susy Brescia, Gisela Degen, Anthony Hardy, Karen Ildico Hirsch-Ernst, Peter Hoet, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Robert Luttik, Peter Matthiessen, Wim Mennes, Peter Pärt, Daniel Pickford, Thomas Platzek, Josef Schlatter, Emanuela Testai and Theo Vermeire for the preparatory work on this scientific output; the representatives of the European Commission and EU Agencies: Gabriele Schoening, Niklas Andersson, Jean-Marc Vidal, Dorota Jarosinska, Sharon Munn, Daskaleros Panagiotis, Michael Walsh; the hearing experts: Susan Jobling, Trine Husøy and EFSA staff: Bernard Bottex, Miriam Jacobs, Djien Liem, Reinhilde Schoonjans and Sarah Trattnig for the support provided to this scientific opinion. Adoption date: 28 February 2013 Published date: 20 March 2013 Question number: EFSA-Q-2012-00760 On request from: European Commission AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract Upon request of the European Commission, the Scientific Committee (SC) of the European Food Safety Authority reviewed existing information related to the testing and assessment of endocrine active substances (EASs) and endocrine disruptors (EDs). This work was conducted by a working group of experts in endocrinology, risk assessment and toxicology, together with observers from other EU agencies, namely EMA, ECHA and EEA. To distinguish between EDs and other groups of substances with different modes of action, it was concluded that an ED is defined by three criteria: the presence of i) an adverse effect in an intact organism or a (sub)population; ii) an endocrine activity; and iii) a plausible causal relationship between the two. As scientific criteria for adversity have not been generally defined, specific criteria for endocrine disrupting effects could not be identified. Hence, expert judgement is required to assess on a case-by-case basis the (eco)toxicological relevance of changes at the molecular to individual and/or (sub)population level following exposure to an EAS. The SC concluded that a reasonably complete suite of standardised assays for testing the effects of EASs is (or will soon be) available for the oestrogenic, androgenic, thyroid and steroidogenic modalities in mammals and fish, with fewer tests for birds and amphibians. Shortcomings in current tests and for other endocrine modalities and species were reviewed. Critical effect, severity, (ir)reversibility and potency aspects are part of the hazard characterisation of EDs. To inform on risk and level of concern for the purpose of risk management decisions, risk assessment (taking into account hazard and exposure data/predictions) makes best use of available information. Levels of concern are not determined exclusively by risk assessment but also by protection goals set by the risk management. References Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, Pelkonen O, Van Benthem J, Zuang V, Andersen KE, Angers-Loustau A, Aptula A, Bal-Price A, Benfenati E, Bernauer U, Bessems J, Bois FY, Boobis A, Brandon E, Bremer S, Broschard T, Casati S, Coecke S, Corvi R, Cronin M, Daston G, Dekant W, Felter S, Grignard E, Gundert-Remy U, Heinonen T, Kimber I, Kleinjans J, Komulainen H, Kreiling R, Kreysa J, Leite SB, Loizou G, Maxwell G, Mazzatorta P, Munn S, Pfuhler S, Phrakonkham P, Piersma A, Poth A, Prieto P, Repetto G, Rogiers V, Schoeters G, Schwarz M, Serafimova R, Tahti H, Testai E, Van Delft J, Van Loveren H, Vinken M, Worth A and Zaldivar JM, 2011. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Archives of Toxicology, 85, 367– 485. Akahori Y, Nakai M, Yakabe Y, Takatsuki M, Mizutani M, Matsuo M and Shimohigashi Y, 2005. Two-step models to predict binding affinity of chemicals to the human estrogen receptor alpha by three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships (3D-QSARs) using receptor-ligand docking simulation. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, 16, 323– 337. Allen Y, Scott AP, Matthiessen P, Haworth S, Thain JE and Feist S, 1999. Survey of estrogenic activity in United Kingdom estuarine and coastal waters and its effects on gonadal development of the flounder Platichthys flesus. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18, 1791– 1800. Andersen L, Holbech H, Gessbo A, Norrgren L and Petersen G, 2003. Effects of exposure to 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol during early development on sexual differentiation and induction of vitellogenin in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 134, 365– 374. Andersen ME, 2003. Toxicokinetic modeling and its applications in chemical risk assessment. Toxicology Letters, 138, 9– 27. Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, Serrrano JA, Tietge JE and Villeneuve DL, 2010. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29, 730– 741. Bars R, Broeckaert F, Fegert I, Gross M, Hallmark N, Kedwards T, Lewis D, O'Hagan S, Panter GH, Weltje L, Weyers A, Wheeler JR and Galay-Burgos M, 2011. Science based guidance for the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 59, 37– 46. Benfenati E, Roncaglioni A, Boriani E, Porcelli C, Spreafico M and Lo Piparo E, 2005. Validation of selected, non-commercial (Q)SAR models for Estrogen Receptor and Androgen Receptor binding. Final report of JRC contract CCR.IHCP.C430414.X0. 96 pp. Available from: ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/predictive_toxicology/information-sources/qsar-document-area/Final_report_Mario_Negri.pdf. Bern HA, Mills KT, Hatch DL, Ostrander PL and Iguchi T, 1992. Altered mammary responsiveness to estradiol and progesterone in mice exposed neonatally to diethylstilbestrol. Cancer Letters, 63, 117– 124. Blaauboer BJ, 2003. Biokinetic and toxicodynamic modelling and its role in toxicological research and risk assessment. Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA, 31, 277– 281. Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, Willcocks D and Farland W, 2006. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 36, 781– 792. Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, Meek M, Munn S, Ruchirawat M, Schlatter J, Seed J and Vickers C, 2008. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 38, 87– 96. Bouvier d'Yvoire M, Prieto P, Blaauboer BJ, Bois FY, Boobis A, Brochot C, Coecke S, Freidig A, Gundert-Remy U, Hartung T, Jacobs MN, Lave T, Leahy DE, Lennernas H, Loizou GD, Meek B, Pease C, Rowland M, Spendiff M, Yang J and Zeilmaker M, 2007. Physiologically-based Kinetic Modelling (PBK Modelling): meeting the 3Rs agenda. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 63. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 35, 661– 671. Bradford Hill A, 1965. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295– 300. Burman CF and Wiklund SJ, 2011. Modelling and simulation in the pharmaceutical industry - some reflections. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10, 508– 516. Castello P and Worth A, 2011. Information sources and databases on Endocrine Active Substances. JRC Technical Notes CT 31854. 28 pp. Available from: ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/food-cons-prod/endocrine_disrupters/eas_database/info-sources-databases-endocrine-active-substances. Chapin RE, Adams J, Boekelheide K, Gray LE, Hayward SW, Lees PS, McIntyre BS, Portier KM, Schnorr TM, Selevan SG, Vandenbergh JG and Woskie SR, 2008. NTP-CERHR expert panel report on the reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A. Birth defects research. Part B, Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology, 83, 157– 395. CHEM Trust 2011a. CHEM Trust's Contribution to the Ongoing Debate on Criteria for EDCs. 38 pp. Available from: www.chemtrust.org.uk/documents/CHEM%20Trust%20Position%20on%20EDC%20Criteria%20-%20Sept11.pdf. CHEM Trust 2011b. A CHEM Trust and HEAL Briefing: Challenges and solutions in the regulation of chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties. 8 pp. Available from: www.chemtrust.org.uk/documents/Criteria%20Briefing%20CT&HEAL%20FINAL.pdf. Clewell RA and Clewell HJ, 3rd, 2008. Development and specification of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology: RTP, 50, 129– 143. Colborn T and Corlie C, 1992. Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology, Volume XXI, Chemically-induced alterations in sexual and functional development: The wildlife/human connection. Princeton Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., New Jersey, USA, 403 pp. D'Ursi P, Salvi E, Fossa P, Milanesi L and Rovida E, 2005. Modelling the interaction of steroid receptors with endocrine disrupting chemicals. BMC Bioinformatics, 6 Suppl 4, S10. Dybdahl M, Nikolov NG, Wedebye EB, Jonsdottir SO and Niemela JR, 2012. QSAR model for human pregnane X receptor (PXR) binding: screening of environmental chemicals and correlations with genotoxicity, endocrine disruption and teratogenicity. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 262, 301– 309. Dybing E, Doe J, Groten J, Kleiner J, O'Brien J, Renwick AG, Schlatter J, Steinberg P, Tritscher A, Walker R and Younes M, 2002. Hazard characterisation of chemicals in food and diet. dose response, mechanisms and extrapolation issues. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40, 237– 282. EC (European Commission), 1997. Proceedings of the European Workshop on the Impact of Endocrine Disrupters on Human Health and Wildlife. Weybridge, UK. 58 pp. Available from ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/pdf/workshop_report.pdf. EC (European Commission), 1999. Community Strategy for Endocrine Disrupters - a range of substances suspected of interfering with the hormone systems of humans and wildlife. Available from: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=iOM:1999:0706:FIN:EN:PDF. EC (European Commission), 2000. First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures - Part 1: The Report of the Scientific Steering Committee's Working Group on Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures in the Scientific Committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health. Part 2: Appendices. 26–27 October 2000. Scientific Steering Committee, Health and Consumer Safety Directorate. Available from: ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out82_en.html. ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals), 2009. Guidance on Identifying Endocrine Disrupting Effects. Technical Report No 106, 133 pp. ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals), 2011. Risk Assessment of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Workshop Report No 21, 32 pp. EEA (European Environment Agency), 2012. The Impacts of Endocrine Disrupters on Wildlife, People and their Environments – The Weybridge+15 (1996–2011) Report. Technical Report No 2/2012. 116 pp. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection products and their Residues to evaluate the suitability of existing methodologies and, if appropriate, the identification of new approaches to assess cumulative and synergistic risks from pesticides to human health with a view to set MRLs for those pesticides in the frame of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. The EFSA Journal, 704, 1– 84. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009a. Guidance of the Scientific Committee on Transparency in the Scientific Aspects of Risk Assessments carried out by EFSA. Part 2: General Principles. The EFSA Journal, 1051, 1– 22. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009b. Existing approaches incorporating replacement, reduction and refinement of animal testing: applicability in food and feed risk assessment. The EFSA Journal, 1052, 1– 77. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010. Scientific Report of the Endocrine Active Substances Task Force. EFSA Journal, 8(11): 1932, 59 pp. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012. EFSA Scientific Colloquium XVII: Low-dose-response in toxicology and risk assessment. 64 pp. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/353e.pdf. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2009. Scientific Opinion on Risk Assessment for a Selected Group of Pesticides from the Triazole Group to Test Possible Methodologies to Assess Cumulative Effects from Exposure through Food from these Pesticides on Human Health. EFSA Journal, 7(9): 1167, 104 pp. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2012a. Scientific Opinion on Evaluation of the Toxicological Relevance of Pesticide Metabolites for Dietary Risk Assessment. EFSA Journal, 10(7): 2799, 187 pp. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2012b. Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees. (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal, 10(5): 2668, 275 pp. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2011. Statistical Significance and Biological Relevance. EFSA Journal, 9(9): 2372, 17 pp. Foster PM, 2005. Mode of action: impaired fetal leydig cell function - effects on male reproductive development produced by certain phthalate esters. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 35, 713– 719. Gehring U, Casas M, Brunekreef B, Bergstrom A, Bonde JP, Botton J, Chevrier C, Cordier S, Heinrich J, Hohmann C, Keil T, Sunyer J, Tischer CG, Toft G, Wickman M, Vrijheid M and Nieuwenhuijsen M, 2013. Environmental exposure assessment in European birth cohorts: results from the ENRIECO project. Environmental Health, 12, 8. Hartung T, Bremer S, Casati S, Coecke S, Corvi R, Fortaner S, Gribaldo L, Halder M, Hoffmann S, Roi AJ, Prieto P, Sabbioni E, Scott L, Worth A and Zuang V, 2004. A modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 32, 467– 472. Jacobs MN, 2004. In silico tools to aid risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Toxicology, 205, 43– 53. Jacobs MN, Dickins M and Lewis DF, 2003. Homology modelling of the nuclear receptors: human oestrogen receptorbeta (hERβ), the human pregnane-X-receptor (PXR), the Ah receptor (AhR) and the constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) ligand binding domains from the human oestrogen receptor α (hERα) crystal structure, and the human peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPARα) ligand binding domain from the human PPARγ crystal structure. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 84, 117– 132. Jacobs MN, Janssens W, Bernauer U, Brandon E, Coecke S, Combes R, Edwards P, Freidig A, Freyberger A, Kolanczyk R, Mc Ardle C, Mekenyan O, Schmieder P, Schrader T, Takeyoshi M and Van der Burg B, 2008. The use of metabolising systems for in vitro testing of endocrine disruptors. Current Drug Metabolism, 9, 796– 826. Jameson JL, 2010. Harrisson's Endocrinology, 2nd edition. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, USA, 560 pp. Japanese Ministry of the Environment 2005. MOE's Perspectives on endocrine disrupting effects of substances-ExTEND 2005. 36 pp. Available from: www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/ed/extend2005_full.pdf. Jensen GE, Niemela JR, Wedebye EB and Nikolov NG, 2008. QSAR models for reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption in regulatory use-a preliminary investigation. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, 19, 631– 641. Jobling S, Casey D, Rogers-Gray T, Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Pawlowski S, Baunbeck T, Turner AP and Tyler CR, 2004. Comparative responses of molluscs and fish to environmental estrogens and an estrogenic effluent. Aquatic Toxicology, 66, 207– 222. JRC (Joint Research Center), 2011. Applicability of (Q)SAR analysis in the evaluation of developmental and neurotoxicity effects for the assessment of the toxicological relevance of metabolites and degradates of pesticide active substances for dietary risk assessment. External Scientific Report. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/169e.htm. Kavlock RJ, Daston GP, DeRosa C, Fenner-Crisp P, Gray LE, Kaattari S, Lucier G, Luster M, Mac MJ, Maczka C, Miller R, Moore J, Rolland R, Scott G, Sheehan DM, Sinks T and Tilson HA, 1996. Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104 Suppl 4, 715– 740. Kidd KA, Blanchfield PJ, Mills KH, Palace VP, Evans RE, Lazorchak JM and Flick RW, 2007. Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 8897– 8901. Kitchin KT and Drane JW, 2005. A critique of the use of hormesis in risk assessment. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 24, 249– 253. Klopman G and Chakravarti SK, 2003. Structure-activity relationship study of a diverse set of estrogen receptor ligands (I) using MultiCASE expert system. Chemosphere, 51, 445– 459. Kortenkamp A, Backhaus T and Faust M, 2009. State of the Art Report on Mixture Toxicity. Final Report of EU Project Contract 070307/2007/485103/ETU/D.1. 391 pp. Available from: ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/pdf/report_Mixture%20toxicity.pdf. Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Faust M, Evans R, McKinlay R, Orton F and Rosivatz E, 2011. State-of-the-Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters. Final Report of EU Project Contract 070307/2009/550687/SER/D3. 135 pp. Available from: ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/4_SOTA%20EDC%20Final%20Report%20V3%206%20Feb%2012.pdf. Lo Piparo E and Worth A, 2010. Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 24522 EN. 32 pp. Main KM, Skakkebaek NE, Virtanen HE and Toppari J, 2010. Genital anomalies in boys and the environment. Best practice & research. Clinical endocrinology & metabolism, 24, 279– 289. Martina CA, Weiss B and Swan SH, 2012. Lifestyle behaviors associated with exposures to endocrine disruptors. Neurotoxicology, 33, 1427– 1433. Maslankiewicz L, Hulzebos EM, Vermeire TG, Muller JJA and Piersma AH, 2005. Can chemical structure predict reproductive toxicity? RIVM Report No. 601200005, 76 pp. Matthiessen P and Gibbs PE, 1998. Critical appraisal of the evidence for tributyltin mediated endocrine disruption in mollusks. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 17, 37– 43. Maunder RJ, Matthiessen P, Sumpter JP and Pottinger TG, 2007. Impaired reproduction in three-spined sticklebacks exposed to ethinyl estradiol as juveniles. Biology of Reproduction, 77, 999– 1006. Mayo D and Spanos A, 2008. Risks to health and risks to science: the need for a responsible "bioevidential" scrutiny. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 27, 621– 625. Melnick R, Lucier G, Wolfe M, Hall R, Stancel G, Prins G, Gallo M, Reuhl K, Ho SM, Brown T, Moore J, Leakey J, Haseman J and Kohn M, 2002. Summary of the National Toxicology Program's report of the endocrine disruptors low-dose peer review. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, 427– 431. Mombelli E, 2012. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox for the profiling of estrogen receptor binding affinities. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, 23, 37– 57. Mushak P, 2007. Hormesis and its place in nonmonotonic dose-response relationships: some scientific reality checks. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, 500– 506. Newbold RR, Padilla-Banks E, Jefferson WN and Heindel JJ, 2008. Effects of endocrine disruptors on obesity. International Journal of Andrology, 31, 201– 208. NRC (National Research Council), 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1992. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals: Test No 210: Fish, Early-Life Stage Toxicity Test. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1998. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals: Test No 409: Repeated Dose 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Non-Rodents. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004. OECD Principles for the Validation, for Regulatory Purposes, of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship Models. 2 pp. Available from: www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-assessment/37849783.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2005a. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 34: Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment. ENV/JM/MONO(2005)14, 96 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2005b. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals: proposal for a new test guideline, Avian Two-generation Toxicity Test in the Japanese Quail. Draft, Available from: www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edmvac/2gen_guide_gd_draft1.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2006. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 57: Detailed Review Paper: Thyroid Hormone Disruption Assays. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2007a. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 80: Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)28, 99 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2007b. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals: Test No 74: Detailed Review Paper for Avian Two-generation Toxicity Testing. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)21, 167 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2008. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals: Test No 97: Detailed Review Paper on the Use of Metabolising Systems for In Vitro Testing of Endocrine Disruptors. ENV/JM/MONO(2008)24, 95 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009a. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 102: The Guidance Document for Using the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox to Develop Chemical Categories According to the OECD Guidance on Grouping Chemicals. ENV/JM/MONO(2009)5, 118 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009b. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 111: Report of the Expert Consultation to Evaluate an Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity Model for Hazard Identification. ENV/JM/MONO(2009)33, 119 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009c. OECD Guidance Document No 140: The 21-Day Androgenised Female Stickleback Endocrine Screening Assay. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2010. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 135: Detailed Review Paper on Environmental Endocrine Disruptor Screening: The Use of Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Binding and Transactivation Assays in Fish. ENV/JM/MONO(2010)34, 64 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012a. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 150: Guidance Document on Standardised Test Guidelines for Evaluating Chemicals for Endocrine Disruption. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)22, 524 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012b. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 178: Detailed Review Paper on the State of the Science on Novel In vitro and In vivo Screening and Testing Methods and Endpoints for Evaluating Endocrine Disruptors. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)23, 213 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012c. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 181: Guidance Document on Standardised Test Guidelines for Evaluating Chemicals for Endocrine Disruption: Case Studies Using Example Chemicals. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)34, 316 pp. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012d. Work Plan for the Test Guidelines Programme (TGP). 24 pp. Available from: www.oecd.org/env/chemicalsafetyandbiosafety/testingofchemicals/August%20Work%20plan%20for%20the%20Test%20guidelines%20programme%20June%202013.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012e. Draft Proposal for a template and guidance on developing and assessing the completeness of Adverse Outcome Pathways. 17 pp. Available from: www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/49963554.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012f. Information on OECD Work Related to Endocrine Disrupters. 8 pp. Available from: www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testingofchemicals/50067203.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012g. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 171: Fish Toxicity Testing Framework. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)16, 174 pp. PAN Europe, 2011. PAN Europe position paper on criteria for endocrine disrupting pesticides. 8 pp. Available from: www.pan-europe.info/News/PR/110525.html. Plan EL, Maloney A, Mentre F, Karlsson MO and Bertrand J, 2012. Performance comparison of various maximum likelihood nonlinear mixed-effects estimation methods for dose-response models. The AAPS Journal, 14, 420– 432. Punt A, Schiffelers MJ, Jean Horbach G, Van de Sandt JJ, Groothuis GM, Rietjens IM and Blaauboer BJ, 2011. Evaluation of research activities and research needs to increase the impact and applicability of alternative testing strategies in risk assessment practice. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology: RTP, 61, 105– 114. Rhomberg LR and Goodman JE, 2012. Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose-responses of endocrine disrupting chemicals: has the case been made? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 64, 130– 133. Roncaglioni A and Benfenati E, 2008. In silico-aided prediction of biological properties of chemicals: oestrogen receptor-mediated effects. Chemical Society Reviews, 37, 441– 450. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), 2012. Memorandum on the use of the scientific literature for human health risk assessment purposes – weighing of evidence and expression of uncertainty. 46 pp. Available from: ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_s_001.pdf. SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks/Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks/Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), 2011. Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. 50 pp. Available from: ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_155.pdf. Swan SH, Main KM, Liu F, Stewart SL, Kruse RL, Calafat AM, Mao CS, Redmon JB, Ternand CL and Sullivan S, 2005. Decrease in anogenital distance among male infants with prenatal phthalate exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 1056– 1061. Toppari J, 2008. Environmental endocrine disrupters. Sexual Development, 2, 260– 267. U.S. EPA-SAP (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel), 2009a. An Effects-based Expert System to Predict Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity for Food Use Inert Ingredients and Antimicrobial Pesticides: Application in a Prioritization Scheme for Endocrine Disruptor Screening, Meeting Minutes. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0322, 70 pp. U.S. EPA-SAP (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel), 2009b. An Effects-based Expert System to Predict Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity for Food Use Inert Ingredients and Antimicrobial Pesticides: Application in a Prioritization Scheme for Endocrine Disruptor Screening, Meeting Materials. Available from: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0322. U.S. EPA-SAP (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel), 2011. Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment Strategies: Use of New Computational and Molecular Tools. FIFRA SAP. Final FIFRA SAP IATA Meeting Report May 2011. EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0284-0054, 81 pp. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 850.1500 Fish Life Cycle Toxicity. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2011a. Standard Evaluation Procedure OCSPP 890.1250: Estrogen Receptor Binding Assay Using Rat Uterine Cytosol (ER-RUC). 12 pp. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2011b. Standard Evaluation Procedure OCSPP 890.1150: Androgen Receptor Binding Assay (Rat Ventral Prostate Cytosol). 12 pp. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2011c. Standard Evaluation Procedure OCSPP 890.1200: Aromatase Assay (Human Recombinant). 11 pp. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2011d. Standard Evaluation Procedure OCSPP 890.1500: Pubertal Development and Thyroid Function in Intact Juvenile/Peripubertal Male Rats Assay. 19 pp. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2011e. Standard Evaluation Procedure OCSPP 890.1450: Pubertal Development and Thyroid Function in Intact Juvenile/Peripubertal Female Rats Assay. 19 pp. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2012a. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Universe of Chemicals and General Validation Principles. November 2012. 17 pp. Available from: www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edsp_chemical_universe_and_general_validations_white_paper_11_12.pdf. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2012b. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Universe of Chemicals. November 2012. 177 pp. Available from: www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edsp_chemical_universe_list_11_12.pdf. U.S. FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), online. Endocrine Disruptor Knowledge Base (EDKB). Available from: www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/bioinformaticstools/endocrinedisruptorknowledgebase/default.htm. U.S. NTP (U.S. National Toxicology Programme), 2001. National Toxicology Program's Report of the Endocrine Disruptors Low-Dose Peer Review. Available from ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/liason/LowDoseWebPage.html. Van Drie JH, 2003. Pharmacophore Discovery. In: Computational Medicinal Chemistry for Drug Discovery. Eds P Bultnick, H De Winter, W Langenaeker, JP. Tollenare CRC Press, New York, USA, 1196 pp. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Jr., Lee DH, Shioda T, Soto AM, vom Saal FS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT and Myers JP, 2012. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Reviews, 33, 378– 455. Vedani A, Dobler M and Smiesko M, 2012. VirtualToxLab - a platform for estimating the toxic potential of drugs, chemicals and natural products. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 261, 142– 153. Vinggaard AM, Niemela J, Wedebye EB and Jensen GE, 2008. Screening of 397 chemicals and development of a quantitative structure-activity relationship model for androgen receptor antagonism. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 21, 813– 823. Vrijheid M, Casas M, Bergstrom A, Carmichael A, Cordier S, Eggesbo M, Eller E, Fantini MP, Fernandez MF, Fernandez-Somoano A, Gehring U, Grazuleviciene R, Hohmann C, Karvonen AM, Keil T, Kogevinas M, Koppen G, Kramer U, Kuehni CE, Magnus P, Majewska R, Andersen AM, Patelarou E, Petersen MS, Pierik FH, Polanska K, Porta D, Richiardi L, Santos AC, Slama R, Sram RJ, Thijs C, Tischer C, Toft G, Trnovec T, Vandentorren S, Vrijkotte TG, Wilhelm M, Wright J and Nieuwenhuijsen M, 2012. European birth cohorts for environmental health research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 29– 37. WHO (World Health Organization), 2012. Endocrine disrupters and child health: Possible developmental early effects of endocrine disrupters on child health. 84 pp. Available from: www.who.int/ceh/publications/endocrine_disrupters_child/en/index.html. WHO/IPCS (World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety), 2002. Global Assessment of the State-of-the-science of Endocrine Disruptors. WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2, 180 pp. WHO/IPCS (World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety), 2009. Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food. Environmental Health Criteria 240. 689 pp. Available from: www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/principles/en/index1.html. WHO/UNEP (World Health Organization/United Nations Environment Programme), 2013. State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012. 296 pp. Available from: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/hormone_disrupting_20130219/en/index.html. Worth A, Fuart-Gatnik M, Lapenna S and Serafimova R, 2011. Applicability of QSAR analysis in the evaluation of developmental and neurotoxicity effects for the assessment of the toxicological relevance of metabolites and degradates of pesticide active substances for dietary risk assessment. EFSA External Scientific Report. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 174 pp. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/de/supporting/doc/169e.pdf. Zoeller RT, Brown TR, Doan LL, Gore AC, Skakkebaek NE, Soto AM, Woodruff TJ and Vom Saal FS, 2012. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and public health protection: a statement of principles from The Endocrine Society. Endocrinology, 153, 4097– 4110. Citing Literature Volume11, Issue3March 20133132 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Referência(s)