Background:In the United States, one in six children are affected by neurodevelopmental disorders, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in flame-retardant chemicals are measured ubiquitously in children.Objective:We conducted a systematic a systematic review regarding developmental exposure to PBDEs and intelligence or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and attention-related behavioral conditions in humans.Methods:We searched articles published up to 26 September 2016, and included original studies that quantified exposures to PBDEs incurred any time in proximity to conception or during in utero, perinatal, or childhood time periods. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall quality and strength of the evidence according to the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology. We established criteria in advance to identify studies that could be combined using random effects meta-analyses (DerSimonian-Laird method).Results:Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria; 10 studies met the criteria for intelligence and nine for attention-related problems. We rated studies generally with “low” to “probably low” risk of bias and rated the overall body of evidence as “moderate” quality with “sufficient” evidence for an association between Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and PBDEs. Our meta-analysis of four studies estimated a 10-fold increase (in other words, times 10) in PBDE exposure associated with a decrement of 3.70 IQ points (95% confidence interval: 0.83, 6.56). We concluded the body of evidence was of “moderate” quality for ADHD with “limited” evidence for an association with PBDEs, based on the heterogeneity of association estimates reported by a small number of studies and the fact that chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.Conclusion:We concluded there was sufficient evidence supporting an association between developmental PBDE exposure and reduced IQ. Preventing developmental exposure to PBDEs could help prevent loss of human intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1632

Summary: Children in America today are at an unacceptably high risk of developing neurodevelopmental disorders that affect the brain and nervous system including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disabilities, and other learning and behavioral disabilities. These are complex disorders with multiple causes—genetic, social, and environmental. The contribution of toxic chemicals to these disorders can be prevented. Approach: Leading scientific and medical experts, along with children’s health advocates, came together in 2015 under the auspices of Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks to issue a call to action to reduce widespread exposures to chemicals that interfere with fetal and children’s brain development. Based on the available scientific evidence, the TENDR authors have identified prime examples of toxic chemicals and pollutants that increase children’s risks for neurodevelopmental disorders. These include chemicals that are used extensively in consumer products and that have become widespread in the environment. Some are chemicals to which children and pregnant women are regularly exposed, and they are detected in the bodies of virtually all Americans in national surveys conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The vast majority of chemicals in industrial and consumer products undergo almost no testing for developmental neurotoxicity or other health effects. Conclusion: Based on these findings, we assert that the current system in the United States for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken. To help reduce the unacceptably high prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in our children, we must eliminate or significantly reduce exposures to chemicals that contribute to these conditions. We must adopt a new framework for assessing chemicals that have the potential to disrupt brain development and prevent the use of those that may pose a risk. This consensus statement lays the foundation for developing recommendations to monitor, assess, and reduce exposures to neurotoxic chemicals. These measures are urgently needed if we are to protect healthy brain development so that current and future generations can reach their fullest potential.

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration hosted a workshop on “The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology,” on November 21, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. The workshop featured speakers from agencies and organizations applying systematic review approaches to questions in toxicology, speakers with experience in conducting systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, and stakeholders in industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Based on the workshop presentations and discussion, here we address the state of systematic review methods in toxicology, historical antecedents in both medicine and toxicology, challenges to the translation of systematic review from medicine to toxicology, and thoughts on the way forward. We conclude with a recommendation that as various agencies and organizations adapt systematic review methods, they continue to work together to ensure that there is a harmonized process for how the basic elements of systematic review methods are applied in toxicology.

Alternatives analysis (AA) is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, assess, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals. It requires toxicological data for the existing chemical and potential alternatives. Predictive toxicology uses in silico and in vitro approaches, computational models, and other tools to expedite toxicological data generation in a more cost-effective manner than traditional approaches. The present article briefly reviews the challenges associated with using predictive toxicology in regulatory AA, then presents 4 recommendations for its advancement. It recommends using case studies to advance the integration of predictive toxicology into AA, adopting a stepwise process to employing predictive toxicology in AA beginning with prioritization of chemicals of concern, leveraging existing resources to advance the integration of predictive toxicology into the practice of AA, and supporting transdisciplinary efforts. The further incorporation of predictive toxicology into AA would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients, and potentially increase the use of predictive toxicology in regulation more broadly. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:915-925. © 2017 SETAC.

Produced water is the largest waste stream associated with oil and gas exploration and production operations. Most produced water generated onshore is managed by permitted injection in deep underground wells, but alternative disposal options including reuse are increasingly being considered. However, insufficient understanding of the composition and toxicity of produced water imposes significant constraints on effective management of potential short‐term and long‐term risks associated with such alternative uses. As interest builds for management options, such as surface discharge, livestock watering, irrigation, and other industrial uses, research is needed to assess produced‐water hazards and exposures to both humans and the environment. This challenge affords an opportunity to capitalize on emerging risk assessment tools. Innovative and comprehensive approaches to filling data gaps and assessing produced water risks will be imperative. A group of experts from industry, academia, and government were assembled to define research needs to support objective decision making on the acceptability, or lack thereof, of produced water disposal alternatives. Presented here are key outcomes from that workshop and recommendations for a research framework to assess toxicity of produced water and associated risks from above ground discharge and reuse options. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:677–682. © 2019 SETAC.