Toxicological risks to humans of toxaphene residues in fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A revised risk assessment for toxaphene was developed, based on the assumption that fish consumers are only exposed to toxaphene residues that differ substantially from technical toxaphene due to environmental degradation and metabolism. In vitro studies confirmed that both technical toxaphene and degraded toxaphene inhibit gap junctional intercellular communication that correlates with the mechanistic potential to cause tumor promotion. In vivo rat studies established the NOAEL for degraded and technical toxaphene at the highest dose tested in the bioassay. Toxaphene residue intakes from European fishery products were estimated and compared to the provisional tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) from various regulatory agencies including Canada, the United States, and Germany. The estimated intake was also compared to a new calculated provisional MATT pTDI. The MATT pTDI is based on new toxicological information (in vivo rat studies) developed on a model for environmental toxaphene residues rather than technical toxaphene. A MATT pTDI (1.08 mg total toxaphene for a person of 60 kg) for tumor promotion potency was adopted for use in Europe and is referred to here as the MATT pTDI. These new data result in a better estimate of safety and a higher TDI than previously used. Based on realistic fish consumption data and recent baseline concentration data of toxaphene in European fishery products, the toxaphene intake for the consumers of Germany, Ireland, Norway, and the Netherlands was estimated. For an average adult fish consumer, the average daily intake of toxaphene was estimated to be 1.2, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.2 µg for the consumers of Norway, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands, respectively. The toxaphene intake of these average fish consumers was far below the MATT pTDI of 1.08 mg/60 kg bw. In conclusion, based on the most relevant toxicological studies and the most realistic estimates of fish consumption and recent concentrations of toxaphene in European fishery products, adverse health effects are unlikely for the average European consumer of fishery products. In no case is the MATT pTDI exceeded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".