Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Comparison of oral bioavailability of benzo[a]p...

Electronic data

  • Rat-vs-Swine-Final-no marks

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environment International. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environment International, 94, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.041

    Accepted author manuscript, 245 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

  • list of Figures-Final

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environment International. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environment International, 94, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.041

    Accepted author manuscript, 178 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

  • list of table modified 2

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environment International. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environment International, 94, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.041

    Accepted author manuscript, 55 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

  • supporting information

    Accepted author manuscript, 343 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 1/01/50

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Comparison of oral bioavailability of benzo[a]pyrene in soils using rat and swine and the implications for human health risk assessment

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>09/2016
<mark>Journal</mark>Environment International
Volume94
Number of pages8
Pages (from-to)95-102
Publication statusPublished
Early online date25/05/16
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Background: There are many uncertainties concerning variations in benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) soil guidelines protecting human health based on carcinogenic data obtained in animal studies. Although swine is recognised as being much more representative of the human child in terms of body size, gut physiology and genetic profile the rat/mice model is commonly used in practice. Objectives: We compare B[a]P bioavailability using a rat model to that estimated in a swine model, to investigate the correlation between these two animal models. This may help reduce uncertainty in applying bioavailability to human health risk assessment. Methods: Twelve spiked soil samples and a spiked silica sand (reference material) were dosed to rats in parallel with a swine study. B[a]P bioavailability was estimated by the area under the plasma B[a]P concentration-time curve (AUC) and faecal excretion as well in the rats. Direct comparison between the two animal models was made for: firstly, relative bioavailability (RB) using AUC assay; and secondly, the two assays in the rat model. Results: Both AUC and faecal excretion assays showed linear dose-response for the reference material. However, absolute bioavailability was significantly higher when using faecal excretion assay (p < 0.001). In aged soils faecal excretion estimated based on solvent extraction was not accurate due to the form of non-extractable fraction through ageing. A significant correlation existed between the two models using RB for soil samples (RBrat = 0.26RBswine + 17.3, R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001), despite the regression slope coefficient revealing that the rat model would underestimate RB by about one quarter compared to using swine. Conclusions: In the comparison employed in this study, an interspecies difference of four in RB using AUC assay was identified between the rat and swine models regarding pharmacokinetic differences, which supported the body weight scaling method recommended by US EPA. Future research should focus on the carcinogenic competency (pharmacodynamics) used in experiment animals and humans.

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environment International. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environment International, 94, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.041