Hazard characterization of Alternaria toxins to identify data gaps and improve risk assessment for human health.

Fungi of the genus Alternaria are ubiquitous plant pathogens and saprophytes which are able to grow under varying temperature and moisture conditions as well as on a large range of substrates. A spectrum of structurally diverse secondary metabolites with toxic potential has been identified, but occurrence and relative proportion of the different metabolites in complex mixtures depend on strain, substrate, and growth conditions. This review compiles the available knowledge on hazard identification and characterization of Alternaria toxins. Alternariol (AOH), its monomethylether AME and the perylene quinones altertoxin I (ATX-I), ATX-II, ATX-III, alterperylenol (ALP), and stemphyltoxin III (STTX-III) showed in vitro genotoxic and mutagenic properties. Of all identified Alternaria toxins, the epoxide-bearing analogs ATX-II, ATX-III, and STTX-III show the highest cytotoxic, genotoxic, and mutagenic potential in vitro. Under hormone-sensitive conditions, AOH and AME act as moderate xenoestrogens, but in silico modeling predicts further Alternaria toxins as potential estrogenic factors. Recent studies indicate also an immunosuppressive role of AOH and ATX-II; however, no data are available for the majority of Alternaria toxins. Overall, hazard characterization of Alternaria toxins focused, so far, primarily on the commercially available dibenzo-α-pyrones AOH and AME and tenuazonic acid (TeA). Limited data sets are available for altersetin (ALS), altenuene (ALT), and tentoxin (TEN). The occurrence and toxicological relevance of perylene quinone-based Alternaria toxins still remain to be fully elucidated. We identified data gaps on hazard identification and characterization crucial to improve risk assessment of Alternaria mycotoxins for consumers and occupationally exposed workers.

Policy relevant results from an expert elicitation on the health risks of phthalates.

BACKGROUND: The EU 6th Framework Program (FP)-funded Health and Environment Network (HENVINET) aimed to support informed policy making by facilitating the availability of relevant knowledge on different environmental health issues. An approach was developed by which scientific agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps could be efficiently identified, and expert advice prepared in a way that is usable for policy makers. There were two aims of the project: 1) to apply the tool to a relevant issue; the potential health impacts of the widely used plasticizers, phthalates, and 2) to evaluate the method and the tool by asking both scientific experts and the target audience, namely policy makers and stakeholders, for their opinions. METHODS: The tool consisted of an expert consultation in several steps on the issue of phthalates in environmental health. A diagram depicting the cause-effect chain, from the production and use of phthalates to potential health impacts, was prepared based on existing reviews. This was used as a basis for an online questionnaire, through which experts in the field were consulted. The results of this first round of consultation laid the foundation for a new questionnaire answered by an expert panel that, subsequently, also discussed approaches and results in a workshop. One major task of the expert panel was to pinpoint priorities from the cause-effect chain according to their impact on the extent of potential health risks and their relevance for reducing uncertainty. The results were condensed into a policy brief that was sent to policy makers and stakeholders for their evaluation. RESULTS: The experts agreed about the substantial knowledge gaps within the field of phthalates. The top three priorities for further research and policy action were: 1) intrauterine exposure, 2) reproductive toxicology, and 3) exposure from medical devices. Although not all relevant information from the cause-effect chain is known for phthalates, most experts thought that there are enough indications to justify a precautionary approach and to restrict their general use. Although some of the experts expressed some scepticism about such a tool, most felt that important issues were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: The approach used was an efficient way at summarising priority knowledge gaps as a starting point for health risk assessment of compounds, based on their relevance for the risk assessment outcome. We conclude that this approach is useful for supporting policy makers with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge weighed by experts. The method can assist future evidence-based policy making.