Human health risk assessment of triclosan in land-applied biosolids.

Triclosan (5-chloro-2-[2,4-dichlorophenoxy]-phenol) is an antimicrobial agent found in a variety of pharmaceutical and personal care products. Numerous studies have examined the occurrence and environmental fate of triclosan in wastewater, biosolids, biosolids-amended soils, and plants and organisms exposed to biosolid-amended soils. Triclosan has a propensity to adhere to organic carbon in biosolids and biosolid-amended soils. Land application of biosolids containing triclosan has the potential to contribute to multiple direct and indirect human health exposure pathways. To estimate exposures and human health risks from biosolid-borne triclosan, a risk assessment was conducted in general accordance with the methodology incorporated into the US Environmental Protection Agency's Part 503 biosolids rule. Human health exposures to biosolid-borne triclosan were estimated on the basis of published empirical data or modeled using upper-end environmental partitioning estimates. Similarly, a range of published triclosan human health toxicity values was evaluated. Margins of safety were estimated for 10 direct and indirect exposure pathways, both individually and combined. The present risk assessment found large margins of safety (>1000 to >100 000) for potential exposures to all pathways, even under the most conservative exposure and toxicity assumptions considered. The human health exposures and risks from biosolid-borne triclosan are concluded to be de minimis. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:2358-2367. © 2016 SETAC.

Systematic comparison of study quality criteria.

Approaches for the systematic review and evaluation of chemical toxicity are currently being reconsidered, with a specific focus on the evaluation of individual studies and their integration into the overall body of evidence. This renewed interest has arisen, in part, as a result of several prominent reviews of these approaches by special committees of the National Research Council (NRC), among others. We conducted a critical evaluation of several available frameworks for evaluating study quality. We assessed the criteria separately for human, animal, and in vitro studies as well as for systematic reviews. We then evaluated commonalities across disciplines. We also considered the potential implications of applying criteria frameworks and how they bear on fundamental risk assessment questions. We found that the available frameworks within each discipline differed in terms of their intended purpose and level of guidance for decision making. All the frameworks across disciplines shared common themes, however, including the adequate reporting of specific details of study conditions and design/protocol, selection and randomization of study groups (where applicable), outcome assessment methods and applicability (e.g., validity and reliability), avoidance of selective reporting, and the consideration of potential confounders or bias. We identified the most informative study quality considerations, which will enable researchers to implement more objective and standardized methods for evaluating studies and, ultimately, improve risk assessment methods.