Comparison of toxicokinetic properties of eleven analogues of Bisphenol A in pig after intravenous and oral administrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the restrictions of its use, Bisphenol A (BPA) has been replaced by many structurally related bisphenols (BPs) in consumer products. The endocrine disrupting potential similar to that of BPA has been described for several bisphenols, there is therefore an urgent need of toxicokinetic (TK) data for these emerging BPs in order to evaluate if their internal exposure could increase the risk of endocrine disruption. We investigated TK behaviors of eleven BPA substitutes (BPS, BPAF, BPB, BPF, BPM, BPZ, 3-3BPA, BP4-4, BPAP, BPP, and BPFL) by intravenous and oral administrations of mixtures of them to piglets and serial collection of blood over 72 h and urine over 24 h, to evaluate their disposition. Data were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling and a comparison was made with TK predicted by the generic model HTTK package. The low urinary excretion of some BPs, in particular BPM, BPP and BPFL, is an important aspect to consider in predicting human exposure based on urine biomonitoring. Despite their structural similarities, for the same oral dose, all BPA analogues investigated showed a higher systemic exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of the unconjugated Bisphenol) than BPA (2 to 4 fold for 3-3BPA, BPAF, BPB and BPZ, 7-20 fold for BP4-4, BPAP, BPP, BPFL, BPF and BPM and 150 fold for BPS) due mainly to a considerable variation of oral bioavailability (proportion of BP administered by oral route that attains the systemic circulation unchanged). Given similarities in the digestive tract between pigs and humans, our TK data suggest that replacing BPA with some of its alternatives, particularly BPS, will likely lead to higher internal exposure to potential endocrine disruptive compounds. These findings are crucial for evaluating the risk of human exposure to these emerging BPs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".