Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Current acceptable exposure levels are largely based on animal models, which are costly, time-consuming, and may poorly predict adverse outcomes in humans. Alternative testing methods are needed to adequately tackle the large number of environmental chemicals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a method integrating human in vitro data and computational modeling to calculate acceptable exposure levels through a case study on early-life p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (p,p'-DDE) and developmental obesogenicity. METHODS: We reviewed in vitro studies of p,p'-DDE and obesogenicity-related endpoints to select points of departure (PODs). Nominal PODs were converted into lipid-based cellular concentrations using a dynamic mass-balance model. Cellular concentrations were converted into tolerable daily intakes and biomonitoring equivalents in pregnant individuals using a toxicokinetic model and uncertainty factors. We compared estimated biomonitoring equivalents to maternal and cord plasma levels measured in epidemiological studies reporting associations between early-life p,p'-DDE exposure and child adiposity. RESULTS: We estimated PODs for phenotypic (181,897 ng/g lipids) and transcriptomic (14,405 ng/g lipids) endpoints. Application of the toxicokinetic model and uncertainty factors led to tolerable daily intakes of 2.50-8.65 ng/kg/day (phenotypic) and 0.198-0.685 ng/kg/day (transcriptomic). Corresponding biomonitoring equivalents were 54.4-188 ng/g lipids (phenotypic) and 4.31-14.9 ng/g lipids (transcriptomic). Mean/median concentrations measured in epidemiological studies of p,p'-DDE exposure and child adiposity were mostly within or above the range of concentrations produced using the phenotypic in vitro POD. CONCLUSION: This study adds to a growing body of literature on the potential of in vitro data combined with computational modeling for chemical risk assessment, while also identifying challenges to regulatory adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bloch et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: