Exploring BPA alternatives - Environmental levels and toxicity review.

Bisphenol A alternatives are manufactured as potentially less harmful substitutes of bisphenol A (BPA) that offer similar functionality. These alternatives are already in the market, entering the environment and thus raising ecological concerns. However, it can be expected that levels of BPA alternatives will dominate in the future, they are limited information on their environmental safety. The EU PARC project highlights BPA alternatives as priority chemicals and consolidates information on BPA alternatives, with a focus on environmental relevance and on the identification of the research gaps. The review highlighted aspects and future perspectives. In brief, an extension of environmental monitoring is crucial, extending it to cover BPA alternatives to track their levels and facilitate the timely implementation of mitigation measures. The biological activity has been studied for BPA alternatives, but in a non-systematic way and prioritized a limited number of chemicals. For several BPA alternatives, the data has already provided substantial evidence regarding their potential harm to the environment. We stress the importance of conducting more comprehensive assessments that go beyond the traditional reproductive studies and focus on overlooked relevant endpoints. Future research should also consider mixture effects, realistic environmental concentrations, and the long-term consequences on biota and ecosystems.

Thresholds of adversity for endocrine disrupting substances: a conceptual case study.

For endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) the existence of "safe exposure levels", that is exposure levels that do not present an appreciable risk to human health is most controversially discussed, as is the existence of health-based reference values. Concerns have been especially raised that EDCs might not possess a threshold level such that no exposure level to EDCs can be considered safe. To explore whether or not threshold levels can be identified, we performed a screening exercise on 14 pesticidal and biocidal active substances previously identified as EDCs in the European Union. The respective substances are ideal subjects for case studies to review for endocrine activity and disruptive potential following well-defined regulatory assessment based on solid data to effectually establish adversity as consequence of endocrine disruption. Dimethomorph, metiram and propiconazole for which the weight of evidence demonstrating endocrine disruption was the strongest were used as subjects for further study. Epoxiconazole was additionally selected as its effects on the endocrine system are extensive. For all four substances, analysis of the toxicological data clearly indicated thresholds of adversity below which no adverse effects mediated through an endocrine mechanism were observed. Particular emphasis was placed on mechanistic considerations including homeostasis and the concept of adversity. As a proof of concept this study provides evidence that like other substances of toxicological concern EDCs have threshold levels for adversity. While for some EDCs the respective thresholds might indeed be very low this shows that, data allowing, for other EDCs sufficiently protective reference values can be derived.

Endocrine disruption in teleosts and amphibians is mediated by anthropogenic and natural environmental factors: implications for risk assessment.

Environmental variation in the Anthropocene involves several factors that interfere with endocrine systems of wildlife and humans, presenting a planetary boundary of still unknown dimensions. Here, we focus on chemical compounds and other impacts of anthropogenic and natural origins that are adversely affecting reproduction and development. The main sink of these endocrine disruptors (EDs) is surface waters, where they mostly endanger aquatic vertebrates, like teleost fish and amphibians. For regulatory purposes, EDs are categorized into EATS modalities (oestrogenic, androgenic, thyroidal, steroidogenesis), only addressing endocrine systems being assessable by validated tests. However, there is evidence that non-EATS modalities-and even natural sources, such as decomposition products of plants or parasitic infections-can affect vertebrate endocrine systems. Recently, the disturbance of natural circadian light rhythms by artificial light at night (ALAN) has been identified as another ED. Reviewing the knowledge about EDs affecting teleosts and amphibians leads to implications for risk assessment. The generally accepted WHO-definition for EDs, which focuses exclusively on 'exogenous substances' and neglects parasitic infections or ALAN, seems to require some adaptation. Natural EDs have been involved in coevolutionary processes for ages without resulting in a general loss of biodiversity. Therefore, to address the 'One Health'-principle, future research and regulatory efforts should focus on minimizing anthropogenic factors for endocrine disruption. This article is part of the theme issue 'Endocrine responses to environmental variation: conceptual approaches and recent developments'.

Metabolism-Disrupting Chemicals Affecting the Liver: Screening, Testing, and Molecular Pathway Identification.

The liver is the central metabolic organ of the body. The plethora of anabolic and catabolic pathways in the liver is tightly regulated by physiological signaling but may become imbalanced as a consequence of malnutrition or exposure to certain chemicals, so-called metabolic endocrine disrupters, or metabolism-disrupting chemicals (MDCs). Among different metabolism-related diseases, obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) constitute a growing health problem, which has been associated with a western lifestyle combining excessive caloric intake and reduced physical activity. In the past years, awareness of chemical exposure as an underlying cause of metabolic endocrine effects has continuously increased. Within this review, we have collected and summarized evidence that certain environmental MDCs are capable of contributing to metabolic diseases such as liver steatosis and cholestasis by different molecular mechanisms, thereby contributing to the metabolic syndrome. Despite the high relevance of metabolism-related diseases, standardized mechanistic assays for the identification and characterization of MDCs are missing. Therefore, the current state of candidate test systems to identify MDCs is presented, and their possible implementation into a testing strategy for MDCs is discussed.