Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Case study: Is bisphenol S safer than bisphenol A in thermal papers?

  • Regulatory Toxicology
  • Published:
Archives of Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemical Agency released a scientific opinion alerting that the risk associated with dermal occupational exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) via thermal paper might not be adequately controlled because the estimated exposure was around twice the Derived No Effect Level (DNEL) and the European Commission will effectively restrict BPA in thermal paper as soon as 2020. Bisphenol S (BPS) is currently being used as a BPA surrogate and is already widespread in thermal paper receipts. Based on publically available information in the scientific literature, we assessed the risk associated with dermal BPS exposure via thermal paper for the general and occupational populations to compare with BPA situation. We developed two exposure scenarios; one based on the total excreted BPS and another on exposure estimations by transferring BPS from the thermal paper matrix to skin. Both scenarios yielded similar exposures for the general population (0.016–0.013 µg/kg bw/day), but the exposure estimated for the workers in the second scenario (0.96 µg/kg bw/day) was around 17-fold higher than that estimated for the workers in the first scenario. The systemic DNELs for the general and workers populations were 0.45 and 0.91 µg BPS/kg bw/day, respectively, which were 4.6- and 19-fold higher than the respective dermal DNELs. Risk Characterisation Ratio (RCR) (estimated exposure through urinary excretion compared with the systemic DNEL) in the first and most reliable scenario suggested that the risk was adequately controlled. In the second scenario, however, the RCR suggests that the risk might not be adequately controlled for both the general population and workers. This work raises the necessity of generate more toxicodynamic and toxicokinetic information, specially using dermal exposures, to properly assess the risk associated to dermal BPS exposure because the situation might presumably get worse after 2020.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMDL:

Benchmark dose level

BMDL10:

Benchmark dose level lower confidence limit of 10%

BPA:

Bisphenol A

BPS:

Bisphenol S

DNEL:

Derived no effect level

EFSA:

European Food Safety Agency

GLP:

Good Laboratory Practice

HED:

Human equivalent dose

HEDF:

Human equivalent dose adjustment factor

LOAEL:

Lowest observed adverse effect level

NOAEL:

No observed adverse effect level

RAC:

Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemical Agency

RCR:

Risk characterisation ratio

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel A. Sogorb.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sogorb, M.A., Estévez, J. & Vilanova, E. Case study: Is bisphenol S safer than bisphenol A in thermal papers?. Arch Toxicol 93, 1835–1852 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02474-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02474-x

Keywords

Navigation