Developmental and reproductive toxicity hazard characterization of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP).

2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP™) is a widely used pH stabilizer in personal care products (PCPs); thus, the safety implications of dermal AMP exposure remain of interest. We have previously reported that exposure to AMP in PCPs when used as intended is not anticipated to result in an increased risk of hepatotoxicity (primarily steatosis and altered phospholipid homeostasis). The current study focuses on AMP in PCP's potential for developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) in humans, based on data from animal studies. Animal studies suggest that exposure to AMP can result in post-implantation loss. However, such effects occur at maternally toxic doses, posing a challenge for determining appropriate hazard classifications in the context of relevant consumer use scenarios. Our assessment concluded that human exposure to AMP in PCPs is not anticipated to result in DART at non-maternally toxic doses. Further, mode of action (MOA) analysis elucidated the potential biological pathways underlying DART effects observed in high-dose animal studies, such that perturbation of uterine choline synthesis was the most well-supported MOA hypothesis. Downstream uterine effects might reflect choline-dependent changes in epigenetic control of pathways important for implantation maintenance and uterine cell energetics. Since AMP-induced post-implantation loss occurs at doses higher than pathology related to liver toxicity, maintaining AMP exposures from exceeding the onset dose for maternal liver effects will also be protective of DART effects. Furthermore, dermal exposure to AMP expected from the use of PCPs is highly unlikely to result in toxicologically significant systemic AMP concentrations; thus, DART is not anticipated.

Can oral toxicity data for PFAS inform on toxicity via inhalation?

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous in the environment and are detected in wildlife and humans. With respect to human exposure, studies have shown that ingestion is the primary route of exposure; however, in certain settings, exposure via inhalation could also be a significant source of exposure. While many studies examined toxicity of PFAS via ingestion, limited information is available for PFAS toxicity via the inhalation route, translating into a lack of exposure guidelines. Consequently, this article examined whether route-to-route extrapolation to derive guidelines for inhalation exposure is appropriate for PFAS. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) were used as exemplary PFAS given the abundance of toxicity data for these two compounds. Our evaluation determined that available toxicity and toxicokinetic data support route-to-route extrapolation for PFAS in order to derive inhalation-based standards. Results from this analysis suggest that an air concentration of 7.0 × 10-5  mg/m3 (or 0.07 µg/m3 ) would be an appropriate RfC for PFOA and PFOS assuming the 2016 EPA RfD of 0.00002 mg/kg-day, whereas use of the interim RfDs proposed in 2022 of 1.5 × 10-9 and 7.9 × 10-9  mg/kg would yield much lower RfCs of 5.25 × 10-9 and 2.77 × 10-8  mg/m3 (or 5.25 × 10-6 and 2.77 × 10-5 µg/m3 ) for PFOA and PFOS, respectively.

Dose and exposure route analyses inform relationships between liver steatosis and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol: Implications for hazard characterization.

2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP™) is widely used as a neutralizer/pH stabilizer in personal care products (PCPs); however, the potential health implications of dermal AMP exposure remain to be fully elucidated. Consequently, an in-depth analysis was performed to determine if PCPs containing AMP pose an elevated risk in humans under the intended use conditions. Animal studies have shown that at high doses, oral AMP exposure could lead to liver steatosis; thus, this study focused on hepatotoxicity. Our assessment revealed that the derived margin of exposure (MoE) values for AMP-containing PCPs were above 100, indicating that dermal exposure to AMP is unlikely to present an elevated risk of hepatotoxicity. Further, mode of action (MOA) analysis was conducted to elucidate the potential mechanisms underlying the observed hepatotoxicity in animal studies. Our analysis proposed that AMP interferes with the CDP-choline pathway in hepatocytes via the inhibition of one or more enzymes integral to the pathway and/or the replacement of choline in the assembly of the phospholipid unit. Ultimately, these events halt the lipid export via very low-density lipoproteins, which can subsequently develop into fatty liver accompanied by hepatotoxicity and other pathological changes if AMP exposure persists at sufficiently high doses. MOA analysis corroborated that dermal exposure to AMP expected from use of PCPs is highly unlikely to result in toxicologically significant systemic concentrations of AMP and thus hepatotoxicity. We concluded that dermal exposure to AMP in PCPs is not anticipated to result in an increased risk of hepatotoxicity.

Hazard characterization of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity for short chain primary nitroalkanes.

Nitroalkanes are organic aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds with a nitro moiety that are commonly used as solvents or intermediates to synthesize a variety of organic compounds due to their inherent reactivity. In June 2020, a harmonized classification and labeling (CLH) proposal was submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for the following harmonized carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity ("CMR") classifications for nitromethane (NM), nitroethane (NE), and 1-nitropropane (1-NP): NM Carc. 1B and Repr. 1B; NE Repr. 1B; and 1-NP Repr. 2. In this assessment, a weight of evidence (WoE) evaluation of studies on animal carcinogenicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity, genotoxicity, and mode of action for these three nitroalkanes was performed to critically assess the relevance of the proposed CMR classifications. Overall, the WoE indicates that NM, NE, and 1-NP are not carcinogenic, genotoxic, nor selective reproductive or developmental toxicants. Based on our analysis, classifying NM, NE, and 1-NP as Category 2 reproductive toxicants is most appropriate. Furthermore, not classifying NE and 1-NP with respect to their carcinogenicity is appropriate based on the available studies for this endpoint coupled with negative results in genotoxicity studies, metabolism data, and in silico predictions. We determined that the classification for NM of Carc. 1B is not appropriate, based on the fact that rat mammary and harderian tumors are likely not relevant to humans and lung and liver tumors reported in mice were equivocal in their dose-response and statistical significance.

An evaluation of health-based federal and state PFOA drinking water guidelines in the United States.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a synthetic, perfluorinated organic acid previously used in fluoropolymer production in the United States. PFOA has been a recent focal point for regulation because of its ubiquitous presence in drinking water throughout the United States. In 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued a lifetime drinking water Health Advisory (HA) for PFOA of 0.07 µg/L; several states have also implemented their own drinking water guidelines for PFOA. The current study aimed to evaluate the basis and derivation of state and federal guidelines for PFOA in drinking water, with particular emphasis on the exposure parameters utilized. Twelve distinct PFOA drinking water standards were identified ranging from 0.0051 to 2 µg/L. The US EPA HA assumptions were evaluated using a Monte Carlo analysis that included distributions for drinking water intake (DWI) rate and the relative source contribution (RSC). We determined that US EPA's HA of 0.07 µg/L is protective of 99% of the population of lactating women. We also demonstrated that the health-based guidelines were highly variable across states and that the actual RSC of PFOA from drinking water is likely greater than 20%, based on studies of actual PFOA exposures from dust, water, and food. A sensitivity analysis was performed using the same equations as the US EPA, while substituting the RSC and DWI variables; resulting in HAs ranging from 0.074 to 0.346 µg/L. We also evaluated the contribution of PFOA in drinking water to the systemic PFOA body burden of the general population using an available biokinetic model. We conclude that more rigorous efforts are warranted to establish consistent health-based drinking water guidelines for PFOA, given that drinking water is a primary source of human exposure to PFOA in the United States.

Derivation of cancer no significant risk levels and screening safety assessment for 2-nitropropane in spray products.

Two proposition 65 no-significant-risk level (NSRL)-type values were derived for 2-nitropropane (2-NP), in the absence of a Californian published NSRL. In addition, a safety assessment was performed based on estimated typical consumer inhalation and dermal exposure to 2-NP during indoor application of paint from a spray can containing the solvent 1-nitropropane. For the NSRL derivation, benchmark dose (BMD) modeling was performed using hepatocellular carcinoma incidence data from 2-NP single exposure inhalation studies in Sprague-Dawley rats. Several BMD models provided an acceptable fit for the male rat hepatocellular carcinoma incidence data (gamma, log-probit, log-logistic and multistage); therefore, the mean of the BMD lower limits from each model were used as the point of departure to derive the inhalation cancer potency. The oral human cancer potency was derived from the inhalation human cancer potency based on the ratio of the uptake factors for inhalation vs. oral routes. The derived inhalation and oral NSRLs are 67 µg/day and 32 µg/day, respectively. For the inhalation and dermal exposure assessment, three key factors were analyzed: the 2-NP residual concentration in the spray paint product, the mass of spray paint used and the frequency of use. Based on the screening exposure assessment, potential consumer inhalation and dermal exposure to 2-NP from indoor application of paint from a spray can does not exceed our proposed NSRLs, and a warning label is therefore not required for spray can products containing the solvent 1-nitropropane where 2-NP is a minor contaminant.

Anthophyllite asbestos: state of the science review.

Anthophyllite is an amphibole form of asbestos historically used in only a limited number of products. No published resource currently exists that offers a complete overview of anthophyllite toxicity or of its effects on exposed human populations. We performed a review focusing on how anthophyllite toxicity was understood over time by conducting a comprehensive search of publicly available documents that discussed the use, mining, properties, toxicity, exposure and potential health effects of anthophyllite. Over 200 documents were identified; 114 contained relevant and useful information which we present chronologically in this assessment. Our analysis confirms that anthophyllite toxicity has not been well studied compared to other asbestos types. We found that toxicology studies in animals from the 1970s onward have indicated that, at sufficient doses, anthophyllite can cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Studies of Finnish anthophyllite miners, conducted in the 1970s, found an increased incidence of asbestosis and lung cancer, but not mesothelioma. Not until the mid-1990s was an epidemiological link with mesothelioma in humans observed. Its presence in talc has been of recent significance in relation to potential asbestos exposure through the use of talc-containing products. Characterizing the health risks of anthophyllite is difficult, and distinguishing between its asbestiform and non-asbestiform mineral form is essential from both a toxicological and regulatory perspective. Anthophyllite toxicity has generally been assumed to be similar to other amphiboles from a regulatory standpoint, but some notable exceptions exist. In order to reach a more clear understanding of anthophyllite toxicity, significant additional study is needed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.