In June 2005, a World Health Organization (WHO)-International Programme on Chemical Safety expert meeting was held in Geneva during which the toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for dioxin-like compounds, including some polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were reevaluated. For this reevaluation process, the refined TEF database recently published by Haws et al. (2006, Toxicol. Sci. 89, 4–30) was used as a starting point. Decisions about a TEF value were made based on a combination of unweighted relative effect potency (REP) distributions from this database, expert judgment, and point estimates. Previous TEFs were assigned in increments of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, etc., but for this reevaluation, it was decided to use half order of magnitude increments on a logarithmic scale of 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, etc. Changes were decided by the expert panel for 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) (TEF = 0.3), 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) (TEF = 0.03), octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzofuran (TEFs = 0.0003), 3,4,4′,5-tetrachlorbiphenyl (PCB 81) (TEF = 0.0003), 3,3′,4,4′,5,5′-hexachlorobiphenyl (PCB 169) (TEF = 0.03), and a single TEF value (0.00003) for all relevant mono-ortho–substituted PCBs. Additivity, an important prerequisite of the TEF concept was again confirmed by results from recent in vivo mixture studies. Some experimental evidence shows that non-dioxin–like aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists/antagonists are able to impact the overall toxic potency of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, and this needs to be investigated further. Certain individual and groups of compounds were identified for possible future inclusion in the TEF concept, including 3,4,4′-TCB (PCB 37), polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, mixed polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, polyhalogenated naphthalenes, and polybrominated biphenyls. Concern was expressed about direct application of the TEF/total toxic equivalency (TEQ) approach to abiotic matrices, such as soil, sediment, etc., for direct application in human risk assessment. This is problematic as the present TEF scheme and TEQ methodology are primarily intended for estimating exposure and risks via oral ingestion (e.g., by dietary intake). A number of future approaches to determine alternative or additional TEFs were also identified. These included the use of a probabilistic methodology to determine TEFs that better describe the associated levels of uncertainty and “systemic” TEFs for blood and adipose tissue and TEQ for body burden.

Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) have routinely been added to consumer products for several decades in a successful effort to reduce fire-related injury and property damage. Recently, concern for this emerging class of chemicals has risen because of ...

As the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants, is declining, the use of organophosphate ester flame retardants (OPFRs) is increasing. In this paper, we ask whether OPFRs are a better choice than PBDEs. To address this question, we compared OPFRs with PBDEs for a wide range of properties. Exposure to OPFRs is ubiquitous in people and in outdoor and indoor environments, and OPFRs are now often found at higher levels compared to PBDE peak exposure levels. Furthermore, data from toxicity testing, epidemiological studies, and risk assessments all suggest that there are health concerns at current exposure levels for both halogenated and nonhalogenated OPFRs. Obtaining the scientific evidence needed for regulation of OPFRs can take many years. Given the large number of OPFRs in use, manufacturers can move toward healthier and safer products by developing innovative ways to reduce the risk of fire for electronics enclosures, upholstered furniture, building materials, and other consumer products without adding flame retardant chemicals.

This document is a summary statement of the outcome from the meeting: ???Bisphenol A: An Examination of the Relevance of Ecological, In vitro and Laboratory Animal Studies for Assessing Risks to Human Health??? sponsored by both the NIEHS and NIDCR at NIH/DHHS, as well as the US-EPA and Commonweal on the estrogenic environmental chemical bisphenol A (BPA, 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane; CAS# 80-05-7). The meeting was held in Chapel Hill, NC, 28???30 November 2006 due to concerns about the potential for a relationship between BPA and negative trends in human health that have occurred in recent decades. Examples include increases in abnormal penile/urethra development in males, early sexual maturation in females, an increase in neurobehavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism, an increase in childhood and adult obesity and type 2 diabetes, a regional decrease in sperm count, and an increase in hormonally mediated cancers, such as prostate and breast cancers. Concern has been elevated by published studies reporting a relationship between treatment with ???low doses??? of BPA and many of theses negative health outcomes in experimental studies in laboratory animals as well as in vitro studies identifying plausible molecular mechanisms that could mediate such effects. Importantly, much evidence suggests that these adverse effects are occurring in animals within the range of exposure to BPA of the typical human living in a developed country, where virtually everyone has measurable blood, tissue and urine levels of BPA that exceed the levels produced by doses used in the ???low dose??? animal experiments