ToxSci Advance Access originally published online on February 2, 2006
Toxicological Sciences 2006 91(1):275-285; doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfj125
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recommended Relative Potency Factors for 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran: The Impact of Different Dose Metrics
* The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 48674; ChemRisk, Inc., San Francisco, California 94105; and TBS Associates, Raleigh North Carolina 27615–3700
Received April 6, 2005; accepted January 18, 2006
The recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer bioassays for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (4-PeCDF) permit a reevaluation of the current TEF value of 4-PeCDF. The data also allow for the derivation of relative potency factors (RPFs) for cancer, which are based not only on administered dose but also on potentially more informative dose metrics, such as liver concentration, area under the liver concentration curve, and lifetime average body burden. Our analyses of these data indicate that chi-squared tests of observed versus predicted liver tumor incidence for 4-PeCDF reject the current TEF value of 0.5 value as too high. 4-PeCDF RPFs were derived using estimation methods that either did or did not assume parallelism of the 4-PeCDF and TCDD dose–response curves. The resulting parallelism-based RPFs for administered dose, liver concentration at terminal sacrifice, liver concentration AUC, and lifetime average body burden are 0.26, 0.014, 0.021, and 0.036, respectively. The administered dose RPF estimate is approximately one-half the current TEF value of 0.5. However, the use of administered dose fails to take into account pharmacokinetic differences between congeners and the generally acknowledged belief that body burden or some other measure of cumulative dose is more appropriate for estimating the health risk posed by persistent chemicals. The other three dose metrics do account for these important factors, and the corresponding RPFs are at least 10-fold lower than the current TEF for 4-PeCDF. In summary, our analyses support an administered dose TEF no greater than 0.25 and one in the 0.05–0.1 range for internal dose metrics such as lifetime average liver concentration or body burden.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Simon, C. R. Kirman, L. L. Aylward, R. A. Budinsky, J. C. Rowlands, and T. F. Long Estimates of Cancer Potency of 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran Using Both Nonlinear and Linear Approaches Toxicol. Sci., December 1, 2008; 106(2): 519 - 537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N'Jai, D. R. Boverhof, E. Dere, L. D. Burgoon, Y. S. Tan, J. C. Rowlands, R. A. Budinsky, K. E. Stebbins, and T. R. Zacharewski Comparative Temporal Toxicogenomic Analysis of TCDD- and TCDF-Mediated Hepatic Effects in Immature Female C57BL/6 Mice Toxicol. Sci., June 1, 2008; 103(2): 285 - 297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B. Okey An Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Odyssey to the Shores of Toxicology: The Deichmann Lecture, International Congress of Toxicology-XI Toxicol. Sci., July 1, 2007; 98(1): 5 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|