Health related guide values for drinking-water since 1993 as guidance to assess presence of new analytes in drinking-water

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Hermann H. Dieter
• 关键词：Drinking-water contaminants ; Human toxicology ; New analytes ; Health related precaution ; Guide value ; Indication value ; Emerging contaminants
• 刊名：International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
• 出版年：March, 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：217
• 期：2-3
• 页码：117-132
• 全文大小：780 K

文摘

Regulatory toxicologists, when going into assessment of a new analyte in drinking-water, very often miss the occasion to revert to scientifically consensual virtually safe lifetime exposure reference doses and corresponding health-related guide values (HRGV) for drinking-water, be those derived either to avoid concern over 鈥渢hreshold effects鈥?or concern over exceedance of an unacceptable non-threshold cancer risk level. They then need a more restrictive precautionary yet science-compatible approach to directly avoid concern over the presence (measured concentration) of a new analyte in drinking-water. Therefore, the German Environment Agency (UBA, Umweltbundesamt) decided in 2003 to extrapolate international toxicological expertise collected since 1993 from assessing 鈥渙ld鈥?analytes in drinking-water on new ones in form of five HRIV = health related indication values. They indicate the reasonable lowest maximal concentration from which on tiered or stepwise human toxicological evaluation of a new analyte might be necessary and meaningful. Their regulatory-toxicological function is that of placeholders as long as a possibly higher scientific HRGV or a surrogate value based on a threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) was not broadly agreed by science. The five-step HRIV scale between 0.01 and 3.0 渭g/l combines international toxicological experience gained from 鈥渙ld鈥?analytes since 1993 with the concepts of safety factors (SF_D) to assess database deficiency and science-related extrapolation factors (EF) to extrapolate experimental data on humans. Each HRIV is valid and safe for a 2 l/day drinking-water exposure scenario either counting for 10% relative source contribution (compounds with threshold effects) or for a lifetime non-threshold cancer risk of up to 10^鈭? and is the higher the more positive information exists regarding possible effects at critical toxic endpoints and for length of possible exposure. Past (historical) and present evaluations of 鈥渙ld鈥?analytes were available in form of hundreds of HRGVs to count in 2 liters per day and person for 10% RSC or a 10^鈭? non-threshold risk. These HRGVs were calculated by the present author either from ADI-, TDI- or RfD-values derived since 1993 by six large health authorities or they were identified directly at their websites or in the literature, always looking for confirmed or assumed worldwide relevance for drinking-water (resources). 36 of these up to 200 鈥渙ld鈥?analytes were ascribed since 1993 at least once an HRGV at or below 1 渭g/l for (confirmed or provisionally assumed) 鈥渉igh鈥?or 鈥渧ery high鈥?threshold chronic toxicity. None but one of the corresponding 113 scientific HRGVs fell distinctly short of 0.3 渭g/l. Only 14 carcinogens turned out as being relevant for drinking-water due to confirmed occurrence and coincident toxicological significance there. 13 of these exhibited a structural alert for genotoxicity. Ten of these 13 were 鈥渉igh-potency鈥?genotoxic carcinogens with presently calculated non-threshold 10^鈭? risk minimal HRGVs between 0.06 渭g/l and 0.005 渭g/l (9 compounds) or possibly down to 0.0007 渭g/l (1 compound). This motivated UBA to propose a precautionary range between a minimal HRIV₀ = 0.01 and a HRIV₁ = 0.1 渭g/l to assess new analytes bearing a structural alert for genotoxicity. The HRGVs for the remaining three (from 13) carcinogens with alerts for genotoxicity were at best similar for both genotoxic and non-genotoxic effects and higher or equal to 0.3 渭g/l. Therefore, a minimal HRIV of 0.01 渭g/l (HRIV₀) or even 0.1 渭g/l (HRIV₁) would have appeared too low for assessing the presence in drinking-water of new analytes with no other human toxicity data than proven absence of both genotoxicity and of structural alerts for such. Instead, UBA proposes to provisionally assess such compounds by its next higher precautionary of HRIV₃ = 0.3 渭g/l. Any value once set is open for falsification upwards to either 1.0 渭g/l (HRIV₄) or 3.0 渭g/l (HRIV₅) or even for being replaced by an HRGV > 3.0 渭g/l if pertinent high toxicity effect potentials different from genotoxicity are similarly ruled out by either mechanistic and TTC-based arguments or a tiered experimental (in vitro and/or in vivo) approach.

Conclusion

Regulatory-toxicological expertise gained since 1993 with 鈥渙ld鈥?analytes in drinking-water (resources) and its extrapolation by analogy on new analytes with patchy human toxicological database allows for provisional assessment of their presence in drinking-water in form of five precautionary HRIVs. Selecting a HRIV, instead referring to a TTC or a virtually safe reference dose, just asks an expert judgment on the degree of formal completeness and informational potential of a new analyte's human toxicity database. Exceedance of a HRIV indicates need for supplementary toxicological data to improve assessment, their nature and comprehensiveness depending on degree and expected length of exceedance. The regulatory function of a HRIV is that of a placeholder for a possibly higher TTC-based surrogate HRGV_TTC or a highest possible science-based HRGV.