Thresholds of adversity for endocrine disrupting substances: a conceptual case study.
Adversity
Endocrine disrupting chemicals
Human health
Pesticides
Risk assessment
Threshold
Journal
Archives of toxicology
ISSN: 1432-0738
Titre abrégé: Arch Toxicol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0417615
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 May 2024
05 May 2024
Historique:
received:
02
02
2024
accepted:
21
03
2024
medline:
5
5
2024
pubmed:
5
5
2024
entrez:
5
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38704806
doi: 10.1007/s00204-024-03748-9
pii: 10.1007/s00204-024-03748-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ et al (2010) Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):730–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.34
doi: 10.1002/etc.34
pubmed: 20821501
Anonymous (1979) CGA 64'250 techn.: Three months toxicity study on rats. Final report. Ciba-Geigy
Anonymous (1985) Two-generation reproduction study in albino rats with CGA 64 250 technical. Ciba-Geigy
Anonymous (1986) CME 151: 13 week dietary toxicity study in dogs. 635212 151AE-433–002 ! DK-425–002
Anonymous (1987) Enzyme induction studies of compound 205 259 in the rat
Anonymous (1988) SAG 151: 52 week dietary toxicity study in dogs, 636876 ! DK-427–003.
Anonymous (1989a) 19-week oral toxicity (feeding) study with Metiram premix 95% in the dog, 1989/5128
Anonymous (1989b) Study of the prenatal toxicity of Reg. No. 205 259 in rats after oral administration (gavage) range finding study
Anonymous (1990a) Biochemical report: Enzyme induction studies of compound 205 259 in the mouse
Anonymous (1990b) Study of the prenatal toxicity of Reg.No. 205 259 in rabbits after oral administration (gavage)
Anonymous (1990c) Study of the prenatal toxicity of Reg.No. 205 259 in rats after oral administration (gavage)
Anonymous (1991a) 52-week oral toxicity (feeding) study with Metiram Premix 95% in the dog, 1991/10786
Anonymous (1991b) SAG 151: 104 week dietary carcinogenicity study in rats. 435140 ! DK-428–005
Anonymous (1991c) SAG 151: 104 week dietary toxicity study in rats, 435140 ! DK-427–006
Anonymous (2014a) BAS 222 29 F (Metiram TK) - Repeated dose 90-day oral neurotoxicity study in Wistar rats - Administration via the diet, 2014/1315300
Anonymous (2014b) BAS 222 29 F (Metiram TK) and BAS 222 28 F – Study for comparing the toxicity in male Wistar rats – Administration via the diet for 28-days, 2014/1313072
Anonymous (1992a) Determination of hormone concentrations in Wistar rats treated with Reg.No. 205 259 - Interim report
Anonymous (1992b) Report on the study of the oral toxicity Metiram Premix 95% in B6C3F1 mice - Administration in the diet for 3 months, 1992/11223
Anonymous (1992c) Reproduction study with Reg.No. 205 259 in rats. Continuous dietary administration over 2 generations (2 litters in the first and 1 litter in the second generation)
Anonymous (1992d) Study of the chronic toxicity of Reg.No. 205 259 in Wistar rats - Administration via the diet over 24 months
Anonymous (1992e) Study of the oral toxicity of Metiram Premix 95% in Wistar rats - Administration in the diet for 3 months including the examination of neurotoxicology (neurofunctional observational battery), 1992/11224
Anonymous (1992f) Study of the potential carcinogenicity of Reg.No. 205 259 in C 57 BL mice - Administration via the diet for 78 weeks
Anonymous (1992g) Study of the potential carcinogenicity of Reg.No. 205 259 in Wistar rats - Administration via the diet over 24 months
Anonymous (1993) Study of the prenatal toxicity of Reg.No. 205 259 in rats after dermal application
Anonymous (2001) BAS 480 F: Maternal toxicity study in Wistar rats - Oral administration (gavage)
Anonymous (2011) BAS 222 29 F (Metiram TK) - Two-generation reproduction toxicity study in Wistar rats - Administration via the diet, 2011/1264813
Anonymous (2012a) Propiconazole - Estrogen receptor binding (rat uterine cytosol)
Anonymous (2012b) Propiconazole - Uterotrophic assay in ovariectomized rats
Anonymous (2014c) Extended one-generation reproduction toxicity study in wistar rats -Administration via the diet, 2014/1181670
Anonymous (2015) Amendment No. 1 to the report: Study of the oral toxicity of Metiram Premix 95% in Wistar rats - Administration in the diet for 3 months including the examination of neurotoxicology (neurofunctional observational battery), 2015/1171917
Anonymous (2018) Historical control data regarding BAS 550 F (Dimethomorph) extended one-generation reproduction toxicity study in Wistar rats. Administration via the Diet, 2018/1102438
AOP-19 (2021) Androgen receptor antagonism leading to adverse effects in the male foetus (mammals), June 04, 2021 10:27 (open for adoption). In. https://aopwiki.org/aops/19 Accessed 2022–12–15
AOP-306 (2021) Androgen receptor (AR) antagonism leading to short anogenital distance (AGD) in male (mammalian) offspring, June 04, 2021 16:32, included in OECD Work Plan
Autrup H, Barile F, Blaauboer BJ et al (2016) Response to “The path forward on endocrine disruptors requires focus.” Toxicol Sci 149(2):273–274
pubmed: 27213197
Borgert CJ, Matthews JC, Baker SP (2018) Human-relevant potency threshold (HRPT) for ERα agonism. Arch Toxicol 92(5):1685–1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-018-2186-z
doi: 10.1007/s00204-018-2186-z
pubmed: 29632997
pmcid: 5962616
Brescia S (2020) Thresholds of adversity and their applicability to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Crit Rev Toxicol 50(3):213–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2020.1740973
doi: 10.1080/10408444.2020.1740973
pubmed: 32228218
Browne P, Noyes PD, Casey WM, Dix DJ (2017) Application of adverse outcome pathways to US EPA’s endocrine disruptor screening program. Environ Health Perspect 125(9):096001. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp1304
doi: 10.1289/ehp1304
pubmed: 28934726
pmcid: 5915179
Chemtrust (2014) Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) and their Science & Regulation: Some common questions answered. In. http://www.chemtrust.org.uk Accessed 2023–07–10
Costa NO, Vieira ML, Sgarioni V et al (2015) Evaluation of the reproductive toxicity of fungicide propiconazole in male rats. Toxicology 335:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2015.06.011
doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2015.06.011
pubmed: 26169826
Demeneix B, Vandenberg LN, Ivell R, Zoeller RT (2020) Thresholds and endocrine disruptors: an endocrine society policy perspective. J Endocr Soc 4(10):085. https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvaa085
doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa085
Draskau MK, Svingen T (2022) Azole fungicides and their endocrine disrupting properties: perspectives on sex hormone-dependent reproductive development. Front Toxicol 4:883254. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2022.883254
doi: 10.3389/ftox.2022.883254
pubmed: 35573275
pmcid: 9097791
EC (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Off J Eur Union L 309:1–50
EC (2023) EU Pesticides Database - Active substance: Metiram. In: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/start/screen/active-substances/details/1385 Accessed 2023–07–10
ECHA (2012) Appendix I: Additional information report; for a substance under harmonised classification and labelling process; substance name: epoxiconazole. In: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/1a1bc71c-1543-423b-849e-137a606205d4 Accessed 2024–03–06
ECHA (2021a) Biocidal Products Committee (BPC): Opinion on the application for approval of the active substance: 2,2-Dibromo-2-cyanoacetamide (DBNPA); Product type: 4;ECHA/BPC/300/2021
ECHA (2021b) Biocidal Products Committee (BPC): Opinion on the application for approval of the active substance: Cyanamide; Product type: 3; ECHA/BPC/301/2021
ECHA (2021c) Biocidal Products Committee (BPC): Opinion on the application for approval of the active substance: Cyanamide; Product type: 18; ECHA/BPC/302/2021
ECHA (2022) Biocidal Products Committee (BPC): Opinion on the application for approval of the active substance: propiconazole; product type: 8; ECHA/BPC/324/2022
ECHA/EFSA (2018) Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. EFSA J 16(6):e05311. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311
EFSA (2013) Scientific opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment. EFSA J 11(3):3132. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3132
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3132
EFSA (2020) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mancozeb. EFSA J 18(12):e05755. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5755
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5755
EFSA (2021a) Development of Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) case studies on developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) risk assessment. EFSA J. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6599
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6599
EFSA (2021b) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance benthiavalicarb (variant assessed benthiavalicarb-isopropyl). EFSA J 19(9):e06833. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6833
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6833
EFSA (2021c) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance clofentezine. EFSA J 19(8):e06817. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6817
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6817
EFSA (2021d) Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance asulam (variant evaluated asulam-sodium). EFSA J 19(11):e06921. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6921
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6921
EFSA (2022b) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substance thiabendazole in light of confirmatory data submitted. EFSA J 20(3):e07212. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7212
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7212
EFSA (2022c) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance triflusulfuron-methyl. EFSA J 20(5):e07303. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7303
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7303
EFSA (2023a) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimethomorph. EFSA J 21(6):e08032. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8032
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8032
EFSA (2023b) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metiram. EFSA J 21(4):e07937. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7937
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7937
EFSA (2023c) Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metribuzin. EFSA J 21(8):e08140. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8140
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8140
EFSA (2022a) Overview of the endocrine disrupting (ED) assessment of pesticide active substances in line with the criteria introduced by Commission. Report 13–09–2022 - EFSA (Excel-file). In. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/applications/pesticides Accessed 2022–12–15
EPA (2005) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Metiram. List A Case No. 0644. US EPA EPA 73-R-05–017
EPA (2022) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Comptox Chemicals Dashboard. In. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical/details/DTXSID7034545
EU, (2012) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products Text with EEA relevance. Off J Eur Union L 167:1–123
EU, (2018a) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1659 of 7 November 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 in view of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties introduced by Regulation (EU) 2018/605. Off J Eur Union L 278:3–6
EU, (2018b) Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties. Off J Eur Union L 101:1–33
EU-NETVAL (2023) EU-NETVAL (European Union Network of Laboratories for the Validation of Alternative Methods). In. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/eu-reference-laboratory-alternatives-animal-testing-eurl-ecvam/alternative-methods-toxicity-testing/eu-netval-european-union-network-laboratories-validation-alternative-methods_en Accessed 2023–11–20
Fritsche K, Ziková-Kloas A, Marx-Stoelting P, Braeuning A (2023) Metabolism-disrupting chemicals affecting the liver: screening, testing, and molecular pathway identification. Int J Mol Sci 24(3):2686
doi: 10.3390/ijms24032686
pubmed: 36769005
pmcid: 9916672
Galbiati V, Buoso E, di Villa D, Bianca R et al (2021) Immune and nervous systems interaction in endocrine disruptors toxicity: the case of atrazine. Front Toxicol 3:649024. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2021.649024
doi: 10.3389/ftox.2021.649024
pubmed: 35295136
pmcid: 8915797
Goetz AK, Rockett JC, Ren H, Thillainadarajah I, Dix DJ (2009) Inhibition of rat and human steroidogenesis by triazole antifungals. Syst Biol Reprod Med 55(5–6):214–226. https://doi.org/10.3109/19396360903234045
doi: 10.3109/19396360903234045
pubmed: 19938956
Hodges RE, Minich DM (2015) Modulation of metabolic detoxification pathways using foods and food-derived components: a scientific review with clinical application. J Nutr Metab 2015:760689. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/760689
doi: 10.1155/2015/760689
pubmed: 26167297
pmcid: 4488002
Italy (2019) Draft Renewal Assessment Report prepared according to the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 1107/2009, Metiram Version 4. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/consultations/call/public-consultation-active-substance-metiram-regards-assessments
JRC (2013) Thresholds for Endocrine Disrupters and Related Uncertainties. Report of the Endocrine Disrupters Expert Advisory Group (ED EAG). European Commission, EUR 26068 – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018–5593 (print), ISSN 1831–9424 (online)
Kjærstad MB, Taxvig C, Nellemann C, Vinggaard AM, Andersen HR (2010) Endocrine disrupting effects in vitro of conazole antifungals used as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Reprod Toxicol 30(4):573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.07.009
doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.07.009
pubmed: 20708073
Kortenkamp A (2007) Ten years of mixing cocktails: a review of combination effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 115(1):98–105. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9357
doi: 10.1289/ehp.9357
pubmed: 18174957
pmcid: 2174407
Krewski D, Acosta D Jr, Andersen M et al (2010) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B 13(2–4):51–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2010.483176
doi: 10.1080/10937404.2010.483176
Laville N, Balaguer P, Brion F et al (2006) Modulation of aromatase activity and mRNA by various selected pesticides in the human choriocarcinoma JEG-3 cell line. Toxicology 228(1):98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2006.08.021
doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2006.08.021
pubmed: 16996190
Manibusan MK, Touart LW (2017) A comprehensive review of regulatory test methods for endocrine adverse health effects. Crit Rev Toxicol 47(6):440–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1272095
doi: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1272095
Marx-Stoelting P, Niemann L, Ritz V et al (2014) Assessment of three approaches for regulatory decision making on pesticides with endocrine disrupting properties. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70(3):590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.09.001
doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.09.001
pubmed: 25239592
Marx-Stoelting P, Rivière G, Luijten M et al (2023) A walk in the PARC: developing and implementing 21st century chemical risk assessment in Europe. Arch Toxicol 97(3):893–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-022-03435-7
doi: 10.1007/s00204-022-03435-7
pubmed: 36645448
pmcid: 9968685
Moné MJ, Pallocca G, Escher SE et al (2020) Setting the stage for next-generation risk assessment with non-animal approaches: the EU-ToxRisk project experience. Arch Toxicol 94(10):3581–3592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02866-4
doi: 10.1007/s00204-020-02866-4
pubmed: 32886186
pmcid: 7502065
Netherlands T (2017) Draft Assessment Report and Proposed decision of the Netherlands prepared in the context of the possible approval of dimethomorph under Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. Initial Renewal assessment report (July 2017), RMS The Netherlands, Co-RMS Germany
Niemann L, Choi J, Kneuer C, Tralau T (2023) Traditional and novel approaches to derive health-based guidance values for pesticides. Curr Opin Food Sci 54:101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101091
doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101091
OECD (2014) New scoping document on in vitro and ex vivo assays for the identification of modulators of thyroid hormone signalling
OECD (2018) Revised guidance document 150 on standardised test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption
Ohno K, Araki N, Yanase T, Nawata H, Iida M (2004) A novel nonradioactive method for measuring aromatase activity using a human ovarian granulosa-like tumor cell line and an estrone ELISA. Toxicol Sci 82(2):443–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfh292
doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfh292
pubmed: 15456920
Pallocca G, Mone MJ, Kamp H, Luijten M, Leist M (2022) Next-generation risk assessment of chemicals - rolling out a human-centric testing strategy to drive 3R implementation: the RISK-HUNT3R project perspective. Altex 39(3):419–426. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2204051
doi: 10.14573/altex.2204051
pubmed: 35404467
Reif DM, Martin MT, Tan SW et al (2010) Endocrine profiling and prioritization of environmental chemicals using ToxCast data. Environ Health Perspect 118(12):1714–1720. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002180
doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002180
pubmed: 20826373
pmcid: 3002190
Robinson JF, Tonk EC, Verhoef A, Piersma AH (2012) Triazole induced concentration-related gene signatures in rat whole embryo culture. Reprod Toxicol 34(2):275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2012.05.088
doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2012.05.088
pubmed: 22664269
Sanderson JT, Boerma J, Lansbergen GW, van den Berg M (2002) Induction and inhibition of aromatase (CYP19) activity by various classes of pesticides in H295R human adrenocortical carcinoma cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 182(1):44–54. https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2002.9420
doi: 10.1006/taap.2002.9420
pubmed: 12127262
Solecki R, Kortenkamp A, Bergman A et al (2017) Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement. Arch Toxicol 91(2):1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1866-9
doi: 10.1007/s00204-016-1866-9
pubmed: 27714423
Taxvig C, Hass U, Axelstad M et al (2007) Endocrine-disrupting activities in vivo of the fungicides tebuconazole and epoxiconazole. Toxicol Sci 100(2):464–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfm227
doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm227
pubmed: 17785682
Taxvig C, Hadrup N, Boberg J et al (2013) In vitro - in vivo correlations for endocrine activity of a mixture of currently used pesticides. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 272(3):757–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2013.07.028
doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2013.07.028
pubmed: 23954766
Tralau T, Oelgeschläger M, Kugler J et al (2021) A prospective whole-mixture approach to assess risk of the food and chemical exposome. Nature Food 2(7):463–468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00316-7
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00316-7
pubmed: 37117676
Vandenberg LN, Najmi A, Mogus JP (2020) Agrochemicals with estrogenic endocrine disrupting properties: lessons learned? Mol Cell Endocrinol 518:110860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2020.110860
doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2020.110860
pubmed: 32407980
pmcid: 9448509
Vieira ML, Costa NO, Pereira MR, Mesquita SD, Moreira EG, Gerardin DC (2017) Chronic exposure to the fungicide propiconazole: behavioral and reproductive evaluation of F1 and F2 generations of male rats. Toxicology 389:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2017.07.012
doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2017.07.012
pubmed: 28743513
Vinggaard AM, Hnida C, Breinholt V, Larsen JC (2000) Screening of selected pesticides for inhibition of CYP19 aromatase activity in vitro. Toxicol in Vitro 14(3):227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-2333(00)00018-7
doi: 10.1016/s0887-2333(00)00018-7
pubmed: 10806373
WHO/IPCS (2002) Global assessment on the state of the science of endocrine disruptors. 180
WHO/UNEP (2012) State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals 2012. 260
Woitkowiak C (2011) BAS 550 F (Dimethomorph) - Testing for potential androgenic and antiandrogenic activity using the YAS-assay (AR) (yeast androgen screening) 2011/1140605, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen/Rhein, Germany Fed. Rep
Zoeller RT, Bergman Å, Becher G et al (2014) A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environ Health 13(1):118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-118
doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-13-118
pubmed: 25533907
pmcid: 4298083