ArticlePloS one2024
Toxicokinetic model of the pyrethroid pesticide lambda-cyhalothrin, main exposure route and dose reconstruction predictions in agricultural workers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A toxicokinetic model of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin (LCT) was developed to relate absorbed doses to urinary cis-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-en-1-yl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid (CFMP) metabolite levels used as a biomarker of exposure. The model then served to reconstruct absorbed doses in agricultural workers and their probability of exceeding the EFSA Acceptable occupational Exposure Level (AOEL). The toxicokinetic model was able to reproduce the temporal profiles of CFMP in the urine of operators spraying pesticides using the optimized model parameters (adjusted to human volunteer data). Modeling also showed that simulation of an inadvertent oral exposure mainly was the exposure scenario giving the best fit to CFMP urinary time-course data in applicators. With the dermal model parameters optimized from data in volunteers, simulation of a dermal exposure in applicators did not allow to reproduce the observed peak excretions and urinary metabolite levels; extremely high applied dermal doses would be required but still simulated dermal penetration rate would remain too slow. Simulation of an inhalation exposure allowed to reproduce the observed time-courses, but with unrealistic air concentrations. For applicators with the highest urinary concentrations, there was a probability of exceeding the AOEL at some points during the biomonitoring period [>50% probability of exceeding for 27% of 24-h samples]; for non-applicator workers the probability of exceeding the AOEL value was very low [corresponding value of 5%]. Furthermore, the median [95% CI] estimates of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations led to a biological reference value corresponding to the AOEL of 116 [113-119] ng/kg bw/d and 7.5 [7.3-7.7] μg/L. Overall, 7% of applicators and 1% of workers performing weeding and strawberry picking had a probability of exceeding this biological reference value. As a next step, it would be interesting to apply these methods to multiple exposure to various contaminants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.