Search

Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical widely used in the production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, has been associated with a variety of adverse effects in humans including metabolic, immunological, reproductive, and neurodevelopmental effects, raising concern about its health impact. In the EU, it has been classified as toxic to reproduction and as an endocrine disruptor and was thus included in the candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHC). On this basis, its use has been banned or restricted in some products. As a consequence, industries turned to bisphenol alternatives, such as bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF), which are now found in various consumer products, as well as in human matrices at a global scale. However, due to their toxicity, these two bisphenols are in the process of being regulated. Other BPA alternatives, whose potential toxicity remains largely unknown due to a knowledge gap, have also started to be used in manufacturing processes. The gradual restriction of the use of BPA underscores the importance of understanding the potential risks associated with its alternatives to avoid regrettable substitutions. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the potential hazards related to BPA alternatives prioritized by European Regulatory Agencies based on their regulatory relevance and selected to be studied under the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC): BPE, BPAP, BPP, BPZ, BPS-MAE, and TCBPA. The focus is on data related to toxicokinetic, endocrine disruption, immunotoxicity, developmental neurotoxicity, and genotoxicity/carcinogenicity, which were considered the most relevant endpoints to assess the hazard related to those substances. The goal here is to identify the data gaps in BPA alternatives toxicology and hence formulate the future directions that will be taken in the frame of the PARC project, which seeks also to enhance chemical risk assessment methodologies using new approach methodologies (NAMs).

The focus on implementation of systematic review (SR) principles in chemical risk assessments (CRAs) is growing as it has the potential to advance the rigour and transparency of the CRAs. However, the SR and CRA communities use their own specific terminologies. Understanding the meaning of core SR and CRA terms and where they overlap is critical for application of SR methods and principles in CRAs. Moreover, it will increase the possibility for cross-sectorial collaboration, avoid misunderstandings, and improve communication among risk assessors, researchers, and policy makers. We present a process for the cross-mapping of core CRA terms and core SR terms. Core terms for study appraisal, evidence synthesis and integration used in the SR and CRA communities will be included. The outcome will be an overview of how core SR terms map onto core CRA terms and vice versa, and a description of the relationship and conceptual overlap between the terms. The cross-mapping is divided in three phases, where in the first phase the core SR and CRA terms will be identified. In the second phase, existing SR and CRA definitions will be mapped. In the third phase, descriptions of the relationship and conceptual overlap between the terms will be derived. The third phase will include weekly one-hour online meetings for SR and CRA experts., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Completed declaration of interest forms for each author are available as supplementary materials. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this protocol.