Health Effects of Naphthalene Exposure: A Systematic Evidence Map and Analysis of Potential Considerations for Dose-Response Evaluation.
Saved in:
| Title: | Health Effects of Naphthalene Exposure: A Systematic Evidence Map and Analysis of Potential Considerations for Dose-Response Evaluation. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Yost, Erin E.1 Yost.Erin@epa.gov, Galizia, Audrey1, Kapraun, Dustin F.1, Persad, Amanda S.1, Vulimiri, Suryanarayana V.1, Angrish, Michelle1, Lee, Janice S.1, Druwe, Ingrid L.1 |
| Source: | Environmental Health Perspectives. Jul2021, Vol. 129 Issue 7, p1-30. 30p. 7 Diagrams, 8 Charts, 4 Graphs. |
| Subject Terms: | *Hydrocarbons, *Environmental exposure, Reference values, Online information services, Respiratory organs, Blood, Health status indicators, Immune system, Developmental psychobiology, Risk assessment, Eye, Dose-effect relationship in pharmacology, MEDLINE, Reproductive health |
| Abstract: | BACKGROUND: Naphthalene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that has been associated with health effects, including cancer. As the state of the science on naphthalene toxicity continues to evolve, updated toxicity reference value(s) may be required to support human health risk assessment. OBJECTIVES: We present a systematic evidence map of studies that could be used to derive toxicity reference value(s) for naphthalene. METHODS: Human and animal health effect studies and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models were identified from a literature search based on populations, exposures, comparators, and outcomes (PECO) criteria. Human and animal studies meeting PECO criteria were refined to a smaller subset considered most informative for deriving chronic reference value(s), which are preferred for assessing risk to the general public. This subset was evaluated for risk of bias and sensitivity, and the suitability of each study for dose–response analysis was qualitatively assessed. Lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were extracted and summarized. Other potentially relevant studies (e.g., mechanistic and toxicokinetic studies) were tracked as supplemental information but not evaluated further. Existing reference values for naphthalene are also summarized. RESULTS: We identified 26 epidemiology studies and 16 animal studies that were considered most informative for further analysis. Eleven PBPK models were identified. The available epidemiology studies generally had significant risk of bias and/or sensitivity concerns and were mostly found to have low suitability for dose–response analysis due to the nature of the exposure measurements. The animal studies had fewer risk of bias and sensitivity concerns and were mostly found to be suitable for dose–response analysis. CONCLUSION: Although both epidemiological and animal studies of naphthalene provide weight of evidence for hazard identification, the available animal studies appear more suitable for reference value derivation. PBPK models and mechanistic and toxicokinetic data can be applied to extrapolate these animal data to humans, considering mode of action and interspecies metabolic differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Environmental Health Perspectives is the property of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | GreenFILE |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | BACKGROUND: Naphthalene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that has been associated with health effects, including cancer. As the state of the science on naphthalene toxicity continues to evolve, updated toxicity reference value(s) may be required to support human health risk assessment. OBJECTIVES: We present a systematic evidence map of studies that could be used to derive toxicity reference value(s) for naphthalene. METHODS: Human and animal health effect studies and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models were identified from a literature search based on populations, exposures, comparators, and outcomes (PECO) criteria. Human and animal studies meeting PECO criteria were refined to a smaller subset considered most informative for deriving chronic reference value(s), which are preferred for assessing risk to the general public. This subset was evaluated for risk of bias and sensitivity, and the suitability of each study for dose–response analysis was qualitatively assessed. Lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were extracted and summarized. Other potentially relevant studies (e.g., mechanistic and toxicokinetic studies) were tracked as supplemental information but not evaluated further. Existing reference values for naphthalene are also summarized. RESULTS: We identified 26 epidemiology studies and 16 animal studies that were considered most informative for further analysis. Eleven PBPK models were identified. The available epidemiology studies generally had significant risk of bias and/or sensitivity concerns and were mostly found to have low suitability for dose–response analysis due to the nature of the exposure measurements. The animal studies had fewer risk of bias and sensitivity concerns and were mostly found to be suitable for dose–response analysis. CONCLUSION: Although both epidemiological and animal studies of naphthalene provide weight of evidence for hazard identification, the available animal studies appear more suitable for reference value derivation. PBPK models and mechanistic and toxicokinetic data can be applied to extrapolate these animal data to humans, considering mode of action and interspecies metabolic differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00916765 |
| DOI: | 10.1289/EHP7381 |
