-------
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Lee. H.C; Yamanouchi. K; Nishihara. M. (2006b). Effects of perinatal exposure to phthalate/adipate
esters on hypothalamic gene expression and sexual behavior in rats. J Reprod Dev 52: 343-352.
http://dx.doi.ore 52/ird. 17096
Lee. MH; Pai I < 1 -hung. SW; Kam r%\ t im. SH; Kim. TS. (2004). Enhancement of interleukin-4
production in activated CD4+ T cells by diphthalate plasticizers via increased NF-AT binding
activity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 134: 213-222. http://dx.doi.ors 100078768
lil, Hu. T; Su. H: Chen. Z: Liang. Y: Zham hu. D; Sha» \ \ U i Uu < >an. Q;
Ge. RS. (2015). In utero exposure to diisononyl phthalate caused testicular dysgenesis of rat fetal
testis. Toxicol Lett 232: 466-474. http://dx.doi.oi ^ 10 101 /j .toxlei JO I I I I 0J I
1 i N. Papandonatos. GD; Calafat. AM \ t'hon. i 1 anpheai r%P 1 jion \ .un. IM. (2019).
Identifying periods of susceptibility to the impact of phthalates on children's cognitive abilities.
Environ Res 172: 604-614. http://dx.doi.org/10 J 016/i .envres.201'" 0 '< 009
Liao. KW: Kuo. PL; Huang. HB; Chang. JW; Chiang. HC: Huang. PC. (2018). Increased risk of
phthalates exposure for recurrent pregnancy loss in reproductive-aged women. Environ Pollut
241: 969-977. http://dx.doi.on .envpol.2018.06.022
Lington. AW; Bird. MG; Plutnick. RT; Stubblefl a. RA. (1997). Chronic toxicity and
carcinogenic evaluation of diisononyl phthalate in rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 36: 79-89.
http://dx.doi.ore oxsci/36.1.79
Ma. P; Ln> \ < \
-------
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Miura. T; Suemizu. t i < go. M; Sakai. N: Iwata. H; Shimizu. M, \ nmazaki. H. (2018). Human urinary
concentrations of monoisononyl phthalate estimated using physiologically based
pharmacokinetic modeling and experimental pharmacokinetics in humanized-liver mice orally
administered with diisononyl phthalate. Xenobiotica 49: 1-8.
http://dx.doi.ore 10 1080/00498254.20IN II I m
MoreiiTi Fernandez. MA; Card-' il < 1 arneiro. MM; Andre 1 (* (2019). Study of possible association
between endometriosis and phthalate and bisphenol A by biomarkers analysis. J Pharm Biomed
Anal 172: 238-242. http://dx.doi.oi^ 10 101 j/i.jpba.-O I" 0 I 0 W
Mustieles. V; Mtnguez-Alarcon. L; Christou. iihiI JH. 1 Hiiiitriadis. I; Hauser. R; Souter. I;
Messerlian. C. (2019). Placental weight in relation to maternal and paternal preconception and
prenatal urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations among subfertile couples. Environ Res 169:
272-279. http://dx.doi.Hv 10 101 5/i.envres.2Q I s II 0.2
NASEM. (2017). Application of systematic review methods in an overall strategy for evaluating low-
dose toxicity from endocrine active chemicals. In Consensus Study Report. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press, http://dx.doi. *26/24758
Neier. K; Cheatham idrosian. LP; Dolinov. DC. (2018). Perinatal exposures to phthalates and
phthalate mixtures result in sex-specific effects on body weight, organ weights and intracisternal
A-particle (LAP) DNA methylation in weanling mice. J Dev Orig Health Dis 10: 1-12.
http://dx.doi.ore 10 101 S2040I i 11 \Q00430
Neier. K; Cheatham. D; Bedrosian. LP; Gregg. BE; Sons. PXK; Dolinov. DC. (2019). Longitudinal
metabolic impacts of perinatal exposure to phthalates and phthalate mixtures in mice.
Endocrinology 160: 1613-1630. http://dx.doi.org/10.12 10/en.2019-00287
NICNAS. (2012). Priority existing chemical assessment report no. 35: Diisononyl phthalate. (PEC35).
Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
https://www.indiistrialchemicals.gov.aii/sites/defaiilt/files/PEC35-Piisononyl-phthalate-
NICNAS. (2015). Priority existing chemical draft assessment report: Diisodecyl Phthalate & Di-n-octyl
Phthalate. Sydney, Australia: Australian Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial
Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme.
https://www.indiistrialchemicals.gov.aii/sites/defaiilt/files/PEC39-Diisodecyl-phthalate-DIPP-
Pi-n-octyl-phthalate-PnOP.pdf
N (2003). NTP-CERHR monograph on the potential human reproductive and
developmental effects of di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (pp. i-III90). (NIH Publication No. 03-
4484). Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of
Risks to Human Reproduction.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/phthalates/dinp/dinp monograph final.pdf
ODPHP. (2023a). Healthy People 2030 - Social determinants of health literature summaries:
Neighborhood and built environment [Website], https://health.gov/healthvpeople/prioritv-
areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries#neighborhood
OPPHP. (2023b). Healthy People 2030 - Social determinants of health literature summaries: Poverty
[Website], https://health.gov/healthvpeople/prioritv-areas/social-deterrninants-health/literature-
summ aries/povertv
OPPHP. (2023c). Healthy People 2030 - Social determinants of health literature summaries: Social and
community context [Website], https://health.gov/healthvpeople/prioritv-areas/social-
determinants-health/literature-summaries#social
OECP. (2022). Series on Testing & Assessment, No. 156: Guidance notes on dermal absorption studies
(Second edition). (ENV/LM/MONO(2011)36/REV1). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Pevelopment (OECP).
Page 110 of 184
-------
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
https://www.oecd.ore/otTicialdociiments/piiblicdisplaydociimentpdf/7cote ;
MQNQC 5%20&doclanguage=en
Parks < Ostbv. IS; Lambrieht. CR: Abbott iv. LE. Jr. (2000).
The plasticizer diethylhexyl phthalate induces malformations by decreasing fetal testosterone
synthesis during sexual differentiation in the male rat. Toxicol Sci 58: 339-349.
http://dx.doi.ore oxsci/58.2.339
Pens. L. (2015). Mice brain tissue injury induced by diisononyl phthalate exposure and the protective
application of vitamin e. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 29: 311-320.
http://dx.doi. ore/10.1002/i bt. 21700
Philippat. C; Heude. B; Botton < Ufaidy. N: Calafat. AM; Slama. R; Group. EMCCS. (2019). Prenatal
Exposure to Select Phthalates and Phenols and Associations with Fetal and Placental Weight
among Male Births in the EDEN Cohort (France). Environ Health Perspect 127: 17002.
http://dx.doi.ore 39/EHP3523
Push. G; Isenbere. J; Kamendulis. L; Ackley. D; Clare 1 . Urown. R; Lineton \ v mith. J; Klaunig. J.
(2000). Effects of di-isononyl phthalate, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, and clofibrate in cynomolgus
monkeys. Toxicol Sci 56: 181-188. http://dx.doi.ore 10 10°'< ioxsci/56.1.1S1
Radk i am. JM; Meekei H * per. GS. (2018). Phthalate exposure and male reproductive
outcomes: A systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence [Review], Environ Int
121: 764-793. http://dx.doi.ore .envint.2018.07.029
Radk Lin. JM; Nachman. KM; Cooper. GS. (2020a). Phthalate exposure and
neurodevelopment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human epidemiological evidence
[Review], Environ Int 137: 105408. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i.envint.2019.105408
Radke. EG; Galizia. A; Thayer. KA; Cooper. GS. (2019a). Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: A
systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence [Review], Environ Int 132: 104768.
http://dx.doi.ore 10 101 |.envint.-0 I • > 0 i 0 SO
Radke. EG; Glenn. BS; Braun. JM; Coop (2019b). Phthalate exposure and female reproductive
and developmental outcomes: A systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence
[Review], Environ Int 130: 104580. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .envint.2019.02.003
Radke. EG; Yost. EE; Roth. N; Sathyanaravana. S; Whaley. P. (2020b). Application of US EPA IRIS
systematic review methods to the health effects of phthalates: Lessons learned and path forward
[Editorial], Environ Int 145: 105820. http://dx.doi.o /i.envint.2020.105820
Roy. P; Salminen. H; Koskimies. P; SimoLt < * metiv \ Saukko. P; Huhtaniemi. IT. (2004). Screening
of some anti-androgenic endocrine disruptors using a recombinant cell-based in vitro bioassay. J
Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 88: 157-166. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i jsbmb.200 '< I I 00
Sadakane. K; Ichinose. T; Takano. H; Yanaeisawa. R; Koike. E. (2014). Effects of oral administration of
di-(2-ethylhexyl) and diisononyl phthalates on atopic dermatitis in NC/Nga mice.
Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 36: 61-69. http://dx.doi.ore/10.3109/08923973.2013.866678
Schw\in 1 < Christiansen. S; Ha 1 ^ o thgi. L; Axelstad. M; Lobl. NM; Svineen. T. (2021). On the
use and interpretation of areola/nipple retention as a biomarker for anti-androgenic effects in rat
toxicity studies [Review], Front Toxicol 3: 730752.
https://heronet.epa.eov/heronet/index.cfm/reference/download/reference id/10492323
Scott. 'ueard. PH; Ramsey. JD; Rhodes. C. (1987). In vitro absorption of some o-phthalate diesters
through human and rat skin. Environ Health Perspect 74: 223-227.
http://dx.doi.ore/10-23(
Sedha. S; Gautam. AK; Verm a imad. R; Kumar. S. (2015). Determination of in vivo estrogenic
potential of Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) and Di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) in rats. Environ Sci
Pollut Res Int 22: 18197-18202. http://dx.doi.on 10 100 v I I > m 01 ¦> -0. I
Setti Ahmed. K; Kharoubi. O; Aoues. AEK; Bouchekara. M; Khal; (2018). Effect of
gestational and lactational exposure to dehp, dinp, and dep on intestinal morphology,
Page 111 of 184
-------
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
disaccharidases, and alkaline phosphatase in rats during postnatal development. Am J Perinatol
35: 1251-1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1642Q27
Shin. HM; Bennett r%arkov i i < \ o \ t jlafat. AM; Tancredi O, Hertz-Picci otto. I. (2019).
Variability of urinary concentrations of phthalate metabolites during pregnancy in first morning
voids and pooled samples. Environ Int 122: 222-230.
http://dx.doi.ore 10 101 i.envint..^ I * I n' I _
Shin. HM; Sebum it M < qncr-'ili I* r^irkoski. J; Ozonoff. S; Bennett. PH.; Hertz-Picciotto. I. (2018).
Prenatal exposure to phthalates and autism spectrum disorder in the MARBLES study. Environ
Health 17: 85. http://dx.doi.ors 86/s 12940-018-0428-4
Silva. MI; R ti. JL. Jr.; Needham. LL; Calafat. AM. (2006). Oxidative metabolites of
diisononyl phthalate as biomarkers for human exposure assessment. Environ Health Perspect
114: 1158-1161. http://dx.doij 9/ehp.8865
Smith. JH; Isenberg. IS; Ptigh. G. Jr.; Kamendulis. LM; Acklev. D; Lington. A.W; Klaunig. JE. (2000).
Comparative in vivo hepatic effects of Di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) and related C7-C11 dialkyl
phthalates on gap junctional intercellular communication (GJIC), peroxisomal beta-oxidation
(PBOX), and DNA synthesis in rat and mouse liver. Toxicol Sci 54: 312-321.
http://dx.doi.ore B/toxsci/54.2.312
Soomro. MH; Baiz. N; Philipp let. C; Siroux. V; Nichole Maesano. C; Sanyal. S; Slama. R;
Bomehag. CG; Annesi-Maesano. I. (2018). Prenatal exposure to phthalates and the development
of eczema phenotypes in male children: results from the EDEN mother-child cohort study.
Environ Health Perspect 126: 027002. http://dx.doi.org/10 I-N9/EH*11S J9
Suzuki \ \ phliina^i J. Mizumoto. Y; Serizawa. S; Shiraishi. H. (2012). Foetal exposure to phthalate
esters and anogenital distance in male newborns. Int J Androl 35: 236-244.
http://dx.doi.ore 10 I I I I j I '< : J 0: .01 I 01 rO \
Swenber; nan-Mckeeman. LP. (1999). Alpha 2-urinary globulin-associated nephropathy as a
mechanism of renal tubule cell carcinogenesis in male rats [Review], In CC Capen; E Dybing;
JM Rice; JD Wilbourn (Eds.), IARC Scientific Publications (pp. 95-118). Lyon, France:
International Agency for Research on Cancer.
http://apps.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detartl ¦jsp?sesslan=l&codlan=l&codcol=73&codcch=14
7
Takeuchi. S; Iida. M; Kobavashi. S; Jin. K; Matsuda. T; Koiima. H. (2005). Differential effects of
phthalate esters on transcriptional activities via human estrogen receptors a and P, and androgen
receptor. Toxicology 210: 223-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.tox.2005.02.002
Tanner. EM; Hallerback. Mil; Wikstrom. S; Lindh. C; Kiviranta. H; Penning ornehag. CG.
(2020). Early prenatal exposure to suspected endocrine disruptor mixtures is associated with
lower IQ at age seven. Environ Int 134: 105185. http://dx.doi.org/10 J 016/i .envint.201'" ! 0 ^ i s
Thompson. CI; Ross. SM; Her I \ 1 * >u. K; Heinze. Si N >nmg. SS; Gaido. KW. (2005). Differential
steroidogenic gene expression in the fetal adrenal gland versus the testis and rapid and dynamic
response of the fetal testis to di(n-butyl) phthalate. Biol Reprod 73: 908-917.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod. 105.042382
Trasande. L; Sathyanaravana. S; Traehtman. H. (2014). Dietary phthalates and low-grade albuminuria in
US children and adolescents. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 100-109.
http://dx.doi. org/10.2215/C JN. 045 70413
>€. (2001). Report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Chronic Hazard
Advisory Panel on diisononyl phthalate (DINP). Bethesda, MD.
>€. (2010). Toxicity review of Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP). Bethesda, MD.
http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/126539/toxicityDI.MP.pdf
Page 112 of 184
-------
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
>€. (2014). Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates and Phthalate Alternatives (with
appendices). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for Health
Sciences. https://www.cpsc.eov/s3fs-piiblic/CHAP-REPORT-With-Appendices.pdf
(1991a). Alpha-2u-globulin: Association with chemically induced renal toxicity and
neoplasia in the male rat [EPA Report], (EPA625391019F. PB92143668). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
https://ntrl.ntis. eov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults.xhtml?searchQuerv= 58
1 \ (1991b). Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assessment. Fed Reg 56: 63798-63826.
(1993). Reference Dose (RfD): description and use in health risk assessments background
document 1A, March 15, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, https://www.epa.gov/iris/reference-dose-rfd-description-
and-use-health-risk-assessments
(1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of
inhalation dosimetry [EPA Report], (EPA600890066F). Research Triangle Park, NC.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/fecofdisplay.cfm?deid=?1993«S 829&CFTOKEN=2
U.S. EPA. (2002a). Hepatocellular hypertrophy. HED guidance document #G2002.01 [EPA Report],
Washington, DC.
(2002b). A review of the reference dose and reference concentration processes.
(EPA630P02002F). Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
)cum ents/ ifd-f in al. p df
U.S. EPA. (2005a). Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment [EPA Report], (EPA630P0300IF).
Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-
09/documents/cancer guidelines final 3-25-05.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2005b). Revised technical review of diisononyl phthalate. Office of Environmental
Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Analytical Support Branch.
https://www.regiilations.gov/dociiment/EPA-HQ-TRI-2005-0004-0003
U.S. EPA. (201 la). Exposure factors handbook: 201 1 edition [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-090/052F).
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment.
https://nepis.epa. gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P 100F2QS.txt
U.S. EPA. (201 lb). Recommended use of body weight 3/4 as the default method in derivation of the
oral reference dose. (EPA100R110001). Washington, DC.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/recommended-use-of-bw34.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2012). Benchmark dose technical guidance [EPA Report], (EPA 100R12001). Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum.
https://www.epa.gov/risk/benchmark-dose-technical-guidance
U.S. EPA. (2016). Developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) guidance document. NAFTA Technical
Working Group on Pesticides (TWG). https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-
pesticide-risks/developmental-neurotoxicity-study-guidance
U.S. EPA. (2020). Draft scope of the risk evaluation for di-isononyl phthalate (CASRNs 28553-12-0 and
68515-48-0) [EPA Report], (EPA Document No. EPA-740-D-20-033). Research Triangle Park,
NC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (202 la). Draft systematic review protocol supporting TSCA risk evaluations for chemical
substances, Version 1.0: A generic TSCA systematic review protocol with chemical-specific
methodologies. (EPA Document #EPA-D-20-031). Washington, DC: Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention. https://www.regiilations.gov/dociiment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2'
0005
Page 113 of 184
-------
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
U.S. EPA. (202 lb). Final scope of the risk evaluation for di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (1,2-benzene-
dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-diisononyl ester, and 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched
alkyl esters, C9-rich); CASRNs 28553-12-0 and 68515-48-0 [EPA Report], (EPA-740-R-21-
002). Washington, DC: Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
https://www.epa.eov/system/files/documents/2021-08/casrn-2l di-isononyl-phthalate-
final~scope.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2022). ORD staff handbook for developing IRIS assessments [EPA Report], (EPA 600/R-
22/268). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment.
https://cfpub.epa.eov/ncea/iris drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=356370
U.S. EPA. (2023a). Draft Proposed Approach for Cumulative Risk Assessment of High-Priority
Phthalates and a Manufacturer-Requested Phthalate under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
(EPA-740-P-23-002). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. https://www.reeulations.eov/document/EPA-HQ-
QPPT-2022-0918-0009
U.S. EPA. (2023b). Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals meeting minutes and final report. No.
2023-01 - A set of scientific issues being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency
regarding: Draft Proposed Principles of Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and a Draft Proposed Approach for CRA of High-Priority Phthalates and
a Manufacturer-Requested Phthalate. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0918). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
https://www.reeiilations.eov/dociiment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0918-0067
U.S. EPA. (2023c). Technical review of diisononyl phthalate (Final assessment). Washington, DC:
Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Data Gathering and Analysis Division and Existing
Chemicals Risk Assessment Division.
U.S. EPA. (2024a). Draft Cancer Human Health Hazard Assessment for Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP).
Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
(2024b). Draft Risk Evaluation for Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) - Systematic Review
Protocol. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
(2024c). Draft Risk Evaluation for Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) - Systematic Review
Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation Information for Human Health Hazard Animal
Toxicology. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
U.S. EPA. (2024d). Draft Risk Evaluation for Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) - Systematic Review
Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation Information for Human Health Hazard
Epidemiology. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Valle^ i i juehtei \K Tnmn. CS; Cannelle. S: Swanson. CL; Cattlev. RC: Corton. JC. (2003). Role
of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha in responses to diisononyl phthalate.
Toxicology 191: 211 -225. http://dx.doi.o /S0300-483X(03)00260-9
Wan. Y; North. ML; Navaranian. G: Ellis. AK; Siee .mond. ML. (2021). Indoor exposure to
phthalates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to Canadian children: the Kingston
allergy birth cohort.
https://heronet.epa.eov/heronet/index.cfm/reference/download/reference
Waterman. SI: Ambroso. JL; Kelb'i I u < iimmer. GW; Nlkiforov. Al; Harris. SB. (1999).
Developmental toxicity of di-isodecyl and di-isononyl phthalates in rats. Reprod Toxicol 13:
131-136. http://dx.doi.c 5/S0890-6238(99)00002-7
Waterman. SJ: Kethn 1 U < iimmer. GW; Freeman, < < 'x ildfoic U Harris. SB; Nicolich. MI;
McKee. RH. (2000). Two-generation reproduction study in rats given di-isononyl phthalate in
the diet. Reprod Toxicol 14: 21-36. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/50890-6238(99)00067-2
Page 114 of 184
-------
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Welsh. M; Saunders. PTK; Fisken. M; Scott. HM; Hutchison. GR: Smith. LB; Sharpe. R.M. (2008).
Identification in rats of a programming window for reproductive tract masculinization, disruption
of which leads to hypospadias and cryptorchidism. J Clin Invest 118: 1479-1490.
http://dx.doi.ore ci34241
in 1 i ( \L. P 1 i
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
3578 Appendix A EXISTING ASSESSMENTS FROM OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES OF
3579 DINP
3580 The available existing assessments of DINP are summarized in TableApx A-l, which includes details regarding external peer-review, public
3581 consultation, and systematic review protocols that were used.
3582
3583 Table Apx A-l. Summary of Peer Review, Public Comments, and Systematic Review for Existing Assessments of DINP
Agency
Asscssmcnt(s) (Reference)
External
Peer-
Review?
Public
Consultation?
Systematic
Review Protocol
Employed?
Remarks
U.S. EPA (IRIS
Program)
Phthalate exposure and male reproductive
outcomes: A systematic review of the
human epidemiological evidence (Hadke et
a.L 2018)
Phthalate exposure and female
reproductive and developmental outcomes:
A systematic review of the human
epidemiological evidence dladke et aL
2019b)
Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects:
A systematic review of the human
epidemiological evidence dladke et aL,
2019a)
Phthalate exposure and neurodevelopment:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of
human epidemiological evidence (Hadke et
al.. 2020a).
No
No
Yes
- Publications were subjected to peer-review prior to
being published in a special issue of Environment
International
- Publications employed a systematic review
process that included literature search and
screening, study evaluation, data extraction, and
evidence synthesis. The full systematic review
protocol is available as a supplemental file
associated with each publication.
U.S. EPA
Technical review of diisononyl phthalate
(Final assessment) (U.S. EPA, 2023c)
No
Yes
No
- Technical review of DINP was reviewed by two
internal EPA reviewers, but was not subjected to
external peer-review
- Draft technical review of DINP was subjected to a
public review period. Public comments available
here: httos://www.reeulations.eov/docket/EPA-HO-
TRI-2022-0262/comments
U.S. CPSC
Toxicity review of Diisononyl Phthalate
(DINP) (U.S. CPSC. 2010)
Yes
Yes
No
- Peer-reviewed by panel of four experts. Peer-
review report available at:
Page 116 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
A^cncv
Asscssmcnt(s) (Reference)
External
Peer-
Review?
Public
Consultation?
Systematic
Review Protocol
Employed?
Remarks
Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on
Phthalates andPhthalate Alternatives
(IIS. CPSC. 20141
httDs://www.CDSC.gov/s3ts-Dubiic/Peer-Review-
Reno rt-Co m me nts.odf
-Public comments available at:
httDs://www.cDsc. eov/chao
- No formal systematic review protocol employed.
- Details regarding CPSC's strategy for identifying
new information and literature are provided on page
12 of (U.S. CPSC, 2014)
NASEM
Application of systematic review methods
in an overall strategy for evaluating low-
dose toxicity from endocrine active
chemicals fNASEM. 2017)
Yes
No
Yes
- Draft report was reviewed by individuals chosen
for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise
in accordances with the National Academies peer-
review process. See Acknowledgements section of
(NASEM, 2017) for more details.
- Employed NTP's Office of Heath Assessment and
Translation (OHAT) systematic review method
Health Canada
State of the science report: Phthalate
substance grouping 1,2-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diisononyl ester;
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-
branched alkyl esters, C9-rich (Diisononyl
Phthalate; DINP). Chemical Abstracts
Service Registry Numbers: 28553-12-0 and
68515-48-0 fEC/HC. 2015)
Supporting Documentation:
Carcinogenicity of Phthalates - Mode of
Action and Human Relevance (Health
Canada. 2015)
Supporting documentation: Evaluation of
epidemiologic studies on phthalate
compounds and their metabolites for
hormonal effects, growth and development
and reproductive parameters (Health
Canada. 2018b")
Yes
Yes
No (Animal
studies)
Yes
(Epidemiologic
studies)
- Ecological and human health portions of the
screening assessment report (ECCC/HC, 2020) were
subject to external review and/or consultation. See
uase 2 of (ECCC/HC, 2020) for additional details.
- State of the science rcDort (EC/HC, 2015) and
draft screening assessment report for the phthalate
substance group subjected to 60-day public
comment periods. Summaries of received public
comments available at:
httDs://www.canada.ca/en/health-
canada/services/chemical-substances/substance-
grouDings-initiative/Dhthalate.html#al
- No formal systematic review protocol employed to
identify or evaluate experimental animal toxicology
studies.
- Details regarding Health Canada's strategy for
identifying new information and literature are
orovided in Section 1 of (EC/HC, 2015) and
(ECCC/HC. 2020)
Page 117 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
A^cncv
Asscssmcnt(s) (Reference)
External
Peer-
Review?
Public
Consultation?
Systematic
Review Protocol
Employed?
Remarks
Supporting documentation: Evaluation of
epidemiologic studies on phthalate
compounds and their metabolites for
effects on behaviour and
neurodevelopment, allergies,
cardiovascular function, oxidative stress,
breast cancer, obesity, and metabolic
disorders (Health Canada, 2018a)
- Human epidemiologic studies evaluated using
Downs and Black Method (Health Canada. 2018a.
b)
Screening Assessment - Phthalate
Substance Grouping (ECCC/HC, 2020)
NICNAS
Priority existing chemical assessment
report no. 35: Diisononyl phthalate
(NICNAS. 2012)
No
Yes
No
- NICNAS (2012) states "The report has been
subjected to internal peer review by NICNAS
during all stages of preparation." However, a formal
external peer-review was not conducted.
- NICNAS (2012) states "Applicants for assessment
are given a draft copy of the report and 28 days to
advise the Director of any errors. Following the
correction of any errors, the Director provides
applicants and other interested parties with a copy
of the draft assessment report for consideration.
This is a period of public comment lasting for 28
days during which requests for variation of the
report mav be made." See Preface of (NICNAS.
2012) for more details.
- No formal systematic review protocol employed.
- Details regarding NICNAS's strategy for
identifying new information and literature are
provided in Section 1.3 of (NICNAS, 2012)
ECHA
Evaluation of New Scientific Evidence
Concerning DINP and DIDP in Relation to
Entry 52 of AnnexXVII to REACH
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (ECHA.
2013b)
Yes
Yes
No
- Peer-reviewed by ECHA's Committee for Risk
Assessment (ECHA, 2013a)
- Subject to 12-week public consultation
- No formal systematic review protocol employed..
Page 118 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
A^cncv
Asscssmcnt(s) (Reference)
External
Peer-
Review?
Public
Consultation?
Systematic
Review Protocol
Employed?
Remarks
- Details regarding ECHA's strategy for identifying
new information and literature are provided on
raees 14-15 of (ECHA. 2013b)
EFSA
Update of the Risk Assessment ofDi-
butylphthalate (DBF), Butyl-benzyl-
phthalate (BBP), Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Di-
isononylphthalate (DINP) and Di-
isodecylphthalate (DIDP) for Use in Food
Contact Materials (EFSA, 2019)
No
Yes
No
- Draft report subject to public consultation. Public
comments and EFSA's response to comments are
available at:
httDs://doi.ore/10.2903/so.efsa.2019.EN-1747
- No formal systematic review protocol employed.
- Details regarding EFSA's strategy for identifying
new information and literature are provided on page
18 and Aroendix B of (EFSA. 2019)
NTP-CERHR
NTP-CERHR monograph on the potential
human reproductive and developmental
effects of di-isononyl phthalate (DINP)
^NTP-CERHR. 2003)
No
Yes
No
- Report prepared by NTP-CERHHR Phthalates
Expert Panel and was reviewed by CERHR Core
Committee (made up of representatives of NTP-
participating agencies, CERHR staff scientists,
member of phthalates expert panel)
- Public comments summarized in Appendix III of
(NTP-CERHR. 2003)
- No formal systematic review protocol employed.
3584
Page 119 of 184
-------
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Appendix B SUMMARY OF LIVER TOXICITY STUDIES
This Appendix contains more detailed information on the available studies described in the liver toxicity
hazard identification (Section 3.2), including information on individual study design.
Humans
No epidemiologic studies were identified by Health Canada (2018a) or by IRIS assessment that
examined the association between DINP and/or its metabolites and biomarkers of liver injury.
New Literature: EPA considered new studies published since Health Canada's assessment (Health
Canada. 2018a) {i.e., studies published from 2018 to 2019); however, no studies were identified that fall
within this date range and evaluated liver injury for DINP and/or its metabolites.
Laboratory Animals
Existing assessments have consistently identified the liver as one of the most sensitive target organs
following oral exposure to DINP in experimental animal studies (ECCC/HC. 2020; EFSA. 2019;
EC/HC. 2015; ECHA. b, - VTNAS. 2012; U.S. CPSC. 20 h'. { P \ N U'
CERHR. 200 , "i v i PSC. 2001). Short-term (>1 to 30 days), subchronic (>30 to 90 days) and chronic
(>90 days) exposure studies have reported significant liver effects. Available studies include: 11 short-
term oral studies (six studies on rats, four studies on mice, 1 study on cynomolgus monkeys); nine
subchronic oral exposure studies (six on rats, one on mice, one on beagle dogs, and one on marmosets)
and five chronic oral exposure studies (four on rats and one on mice) Available studies are summarized
in TableApx B-l, TableApx B-2,and TableApx B-7, and are discussed further below.
Considerations for Interpretation of Hepatic Effects: Consistent with previous guidances (Hall et at..
201 J; 1 c. i i1 \ . K)2a), EPA considered hepatocellular hypertrophy and corresponding increases in
liver size and weight to be adaptive non-adverse responses, unless accompanied by exposure-related,
biologically significant changes in clinical markers of liver toxicity {i.e., decreased albumin; or
increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase
(ALP), gamma glutamyltransferase, bilirubin, cholesterol) and/or histopathology indicative of an
adverse response {e.g., hyperplasia, degeneration, necrosis, inflammation). Further, phthalates, including
DINP, can induce peroxisome proliferation in the livers of mice and rats (Gorton et at.. 2018; Lapinskas
et at.. 2005; Valles et at.. 2003). and EPA considered evidence supporting a role for PPARa activation in
peroxisome-induced hepatic effects of DINP. For purposes of identifying study NOAEL and LOAEL
values, effects consistent with peroxisome proliferation and PPARa activation were also considered
relevant for setting the LOAEL.
Short-Term (>l to 30 Days) Exposure Studies: EPA evaluated 12 short-term exposure animal studies
from existing assessments that evaluated liver effects following oral exposure to DINP (Ma et at.. 2014;
Kwack et at.. 2010; Kwack et at.. 2009; Valles et at.. 2003; Kaufmaim et at.. 2002; Push et at.. 2000;
Smith et at.. 2000; Hilts AG. 1992; Hazleton Labv t'U*k \ Ps86; Bio/dynamics. 1982a;
Midwest Research Institute. 1981). The database includes six studies in various strains of rat, three
studies in mice, and one study in monkeys. One short-term dermal exposure study in female B6C3F1
mice was identified (Butala et at.. 2004). These studies provide data on relative/and/or absolute liver
weights, histopathology, hepatic enzyme levels and/or activity {e.g., AST, ALT, and ALP), and other
parameters useful to determining the effects of DINP on the liver. These studies are summarized in
Table Apx B-l.
Eight of the available short-term studies reported increases in absolute and/or relative liver weights or
incidences of hepatocyte proliferation or other nonneoplastic lesions following oral exposure to DINP
Page 120 of 184
-------
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
(Ma et al.. 2014; Kwack et al.. 2009; Valles et ai. 2003; Kaufmann et ai. 2002; Smith et al.. 2000; Hills
\ ^ rs°2; Hazleton Lahv l Li, \ l 986; Bio/dynamics. 1982a). These observations sometimes
coincided with increases in peroxisomal volume, peroxisomal beta oxidation, and activity of enzymes
such as palmitoyl-CoA oxidase, indicative of PPARa activation, which is discussed in further detail in
the mechanistic section.
The BIBRA (1986) study evaluated the ability of DINP to induce peroxisome proliferation in male and
female F344 rats fed 0, 0.6, 1.2, or 2.5 percent DINP in the diet for 21 days (equivalent to 0, 639, 1,192,
or 2,195 mg/kg-day [males] and 0, 607, 1,193, or 2,289 mg/kg-day [females]). Body weights were
significantly reduced in males (6 to 12 percent decrease) and in females (6 to 14 percent decrease) in a
time- and dose-dependent manner. Food intake was also significantly reduced (19 to 49 percent) in
males and females. Significant dose-dependent increases in absolute and relative liver weight were
observed in males and females beginning in animals from the low dose group (639 mg/kg-day in males;
607 mg/kg-day females). The effects observed on liver weight were considered exposure-related even
though terminal body weights were significantly reduced in males and in females in a dose-dependent
manner, and body weight gain was reduced in animals at the highest dose level. In parallel with the
increases in liver weights, the authors reported dose-dependent increases in cyanide-insensitive
palmitoyl-CoA oxidation levels in males and females of the mid- and high-dose groups, dose-dependent
increases in microsomal protein levels of males and females (all dose levels) and increases in lauric acid
11- and 12-hydroxylase activities in males of the low-dose group (639 mg/kg-day in males).
Hydroxylase activities were increased in high-dose females. The authors also reported decreases in total
cholesterol in males (9 to 24 percent) and females (14 to 24 percent), as well as dose-dependent
decreases in serum triglycerides in males (24 to 48 percent). However, dose-dependent increases in
serum triglycerides (24 to 26 percent) were observed in females. The inconsistency of effects between
sexes is source of uncertainty in the dataset. The authors also examined liver tissue via electron
microscopy and observed increases in peroxisome proliferation in males and females from the highest
exposure groups. However, these effects were not further quantitatively described, which is another
limitation of the dataset.
Data from BIBRA (1986) were consistent with Kwack et al. (2009). In the Kwack study, male SD rats
were administered 0 or 500 mg/kg-day DINP daily via gavage for 4 weeks. Increased relative liver
weight (45 percent) was observed, which coincided with perturbations in several clinical chemistry
parameters. Increases were observed in the serum levels of AST (32 percent), ALP (260 percent), and
triglycerides (53 percent). The observed effects were considered adverse because the liver weight
changes were accompanied by clinical chemistry markers of hepatoxicity. Interestingly, these results
were not wholly consistent with a study by the same authors with a shorter exposure duration (Kwack et
al.. 2010). In that study, male SD rats were again administered to 0 or 500 mg/kg-day DINP daily via
gavage for 2 weeks. Increases in AST levels (31 percent) and ALP (159 percent) were observed as well
as increases in serum triglycerides. There was no change in ALT levels and no significant change in
relative liver weight.
Several other studies reported increases in relative and/or absolute liver weight with concomitant
changes in other hepatic endpoints in B6C3F1 mice (Valles et al.. 2003; Kaufmann et al.. 2002; Smith et
al.. 2000; Hazleton Labs. 1991a) and/or F344 rats (Smith et al.. 2000; Hub \ ^
-------
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
weeks exposure to 6,000 ppm DINP (equivalent to 900 mg/kg-day). The LOEL in each species was the
high-dose of DINP (1,200 mg/kg-day for rats, 900 mg/kg-day in mice). Valles et al. (2003) reported
similar findings in male and female B6C3F1 mice fed diets containing 0, 150, 1,500, 4,000, or 8,000
ppm of DINP (CASRN 68515-48-0) for 2 weeks. Relative liver weight was significantly increased in
both sexes at the two highest dose groups and in females at the mid dose-group. The percent change in
relative liver weight for the high dose group was 37 percent in males and over 50 percent in females.
The other statistically significant increases in females were less than 10 percent over controls, while
relative liver weight in males of the 4,000 ppm increased by almost 17 percent.
Two other studies (Kaufmann et al. 2002; Hazleton Lai ) reported similar findings at lower
doses after similar exposure durations {i.e., 4 weeks). In Kaufmann et al. (2002). male and female
B6C3F1 mice were exposed to 0, 500, 1500, 4000, or 8000 ppm DINP in the diet for 4 weeks
(equivalent to 0, 117, 350, 913, 1860 mg/kg-day [males]; or 0, 167, 546, 1272, or 2806 mg/kg-day
[females]). Significant increases in absolute and relative liver weight were observed in males and
females, which corresponded with increased peroxisomal volume and peroxisomal enzyme activity
(cyanide-insensitive palmitoyl-CoA) at doses as low as 350 mg/kg-day in males or 546 mg/kg-day in
females. The LOEL/NOEL was 350/117 mg/kg-day in males and 546/167 mg/kg-day in females.
Hazleton Labs (1991a) reported similar LOEL values for liver effects in males (635 mg/kg-day) and
females (780 mg/kg-day). That study exposed male and female B6C3F1 mice to 0, 3000, 6000, or
12,500 ppm DINP in the diet for 4 weeks (equivalent to 0, 635, 1,377, 2,689, or 6,518 mg/kg-day
[males]; 0, 780, 1761, 3,287, or 6,920 mg/kg-day [females]) and evaluated liver weights, histopathology,
and serum liver enzymes at study termination. Increases in absolute and relative liver weights were
observed in all male and female exposure groups except the low dose, and increased ALT activity was
observed in males and females from the high dose only. Additional findings included enlarged and
discolored livers, increased incidence of hepatocytomegaly (all male dose groups; all female dose
groups except low dose), and increased incidence of coagulative necrosis and/or separate chronic
inflammatory foci in high-dose males (6,518 mg/kg-day) and females (6,920 mg/kg-day) as well as
females of the 3,287 mg/kg-day group. Similar findings were reported in a study by Ma et al. (2014).
which administered 0.2, 2, 20 or 200 mg/kg-day DINP to male Kunming mice via oral gavage daily for
14 days. This study established a NOAEL at 20 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL at 200 mg/kg-day based on
significantly increased incidences of histopathologic lesions of the liver, including central vein dilation,
congestion, and narrowing of the sinusoid with loose cytoplasm in animals exposed to the highest dose
of DINP.
The findings that support liver toxicity in mice and the rat study by Smith et al. (2000) were consistent
with two additional rat studies. A study by the Midwest Research Institute (1981) fed male and female
F344 rats 0, 0.2, 0.67, or 2 percent DINP in the diet for 28 days (estimated doses: 0, 150, 500, 1,500
mg/kg-day [males]; 0, 125, 420, 1,300 mg/kg-day [females]). Increases in hepatic catalase and carnitine
acetyltransferase activity were observed in low dose males (150 mg/kg-day) and females (125 mg/kg-
day). Increases in absolute and relative liver weight were also observed in the mid dose males (500
mg/kg-day) and females (420 mg/kg-day) with no corresponding change in body weight. Additionally,
Bio/dynamics ( la) administered 0 or 1,700 mg/kg-day DINP in the diet to male rats for 1 week and
then evaluated liver weight, general appearance (i.e., macroscopic observation), and clinical chemistry
parameters, including serum ALP at study termination. At study termination, the treated animals had
increased absolute and relative liver weight, as well as increased body weight, and the authors noted
slight congestion in all lobes of the liver in animals exposed to DINP. No statistically or biologically
significant changes were observed for serum ALP levels. A 14-day study by Hiils AG (1992) exposed
female F344 rats to 0, 25, 75, 150, or 1,500 mg/kg-day and then evaluated liver weights, clinical
chemistry parameters, and histopathology at study termination, as well as activities of several
Page 122 of 184
-------
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
microsomal enzymes. In general, effects were observed at the highest dose, including increases in
absolute and relative liver weight, and increases in EROD. A dose-dependent increase was observed in
lauric acid hydroxylase, beginning at 25 mg/kg-day. Of note, this study was not reasonable available to
EPA, and data reported on this study reflect those reported by Health Canada's Hazard Assessment
(EC/HC. 2Q15Y
Not all studies identified in existing assessments reported hepatic effects consistent with peroxisomal
beta-oxidation and/or PPARa activation. Indeed, one study in cynomolgus monkeys (Push et at.. 2000)
reported no effect on relative liver weights, histopathology, or serum chemistry parameters in monkeys
administered 0 or 500 mg/kg-day DINP daily via oral gavage for 14 days.
New Literature: EPA identified one new study published between 2015 and 2020 that provided data on
toxicological effects of the liver following short term exposure to DINP ('Meier et at.. 2018). The
developmental exposure study by Neier et al. (2018) evaluated absolute and relative liver weights as
well as hepatic triglyceride levels in PND21 male and female yellow agouti (Avy) mice. Dams were
administered 0 or 75 ppm DINP in the diet (equivalent to 15 mg/kg-day) beginning 2-weeks before
mating and lasting through PND21. Increased absolute (27.6 percent) and relative (15.5 percent) liver
weights were observed in exposed female offspring at PND21. No significant changes were observed in
males. No significant changes were observed in hepatic triglyceride levels, suggesting that differences in
liver weight were not attributed to increases in lipid accumulation in the liver in this study.
TableApx B-l. Summary of Liver Effects Reported in Animal Toxicological Studies Following
Short-Term Exposure to DI
NP
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/
LOAEL
(m«/k«-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Remarks
Kunming mice (males only);
gavage; 0, 0.2, 2, 20, 200
me/ke-dav: 14 davs (Ma et al.
2014)
20/200
Markers of oxidative
stress (t ROS, j GSH,
|MDA, t 8-OH-dG) &
inflammation (|IL-1, f
TNFa) at > 20 mg/kg-
day
Other liver effects:
Liver histopathology: t incidences of
edema (20 mg/kg-day); central vein
dilation, congestion, edema, &
narrowing sinusoidal with extremely
loose cytoplasm (200 mg/kg-day).
Considerations: BW not reported.
Limitations: Historatholoev
qualitative only (no incidence data or
statistical analysis); organ weight and
clinical chemistry not evaluated
F344 rats (females only);
gavage; 0, 25, 75, 150, 1,500
me/ke-dav: 14 davs (Hills AG.
1992)
25 (LOEL)
t lauric acid hydroxylase
(dose-dependent
beginning at 25 mg/kg-
day)
Other liver effects: t absolute and
relative liver weight at 1,500 mg/kg-
day; t liver microsomal enzyme
activities (pentoxyresorufin O-
desalkylase (PROD) and lauryl-CoA
oxidase) at 1,500 mg/kg-day
F344 rats (both sexes); dietary;
0, 0.2, 0.67, 2% (est. 150, 500,
1,500 mg/kg-day [males]; 0,
125, 420, 1,300 mg/kg-day
Ifcmalcsl): 28 davs (Midwest
Research Institute. 1981)
ND/125
(females)
ND/ 150
(males) (LOEL)
t in hepatic catalase and
carnitine
acetyltransferase activity
Other liver effects: t absolute and
relative liver weight (500 mg/kg-day
[males]; 420 mg/kg-day [females])
Page 123 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/
LOAEL
(mg/kg-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Remarks
B6C3F1 mice (both sexes);
dietary; 0, 500, 1500, 4000,
8000 ppm (est. 117,350,913,
1,860 mg/kg-day [males]; 0,
167, 546, 1,272, 2,806 mg/kg-
day [females]); 1 or 4 weeks
(Kaufmann et aL 2002)
117/350
(males)
167/546
(female)
t abs. and rel. liver
weight; t peroxisomal
volume, and
peroxisomal enzyme
activity; t hepatocyte
proliferation in males
Other liver effects:
Liver histopathology: t hepatocyte
proliferation in females at >1272
mg/kg-day.
Considerations: Multiple zones of the
liver examined for quantitative
measurement of hepatocyte
proliferation; BW not reported.
SD rats (males only); oral
gavage; 0, 500 mg/kg-day; 28
davs (Kwack et aL 2009)
ND/500
i body weight gain; f
relative liver weight;
clinical chemistry (f
AST, ALP &
triglycerides)
Considerations: J. bodv weisht sain
(-10%) in DINP exposed mice
F344 rats (both sexes); diet; 0,
0.6, 1.2, 2.5% (est. 639, 1192,
2,195 mg/kg-day [males]; 607,
1,198, 2,289 mg/kg-day
ffemalesl): 21 davs (BIBRA.
1986)
ND/639
(males)
ND/607
(females)
t absolute and relative
liver weight (abs.
increase in males: 136,
150, and 165%; rel.
increase in males: 136,
173, 232%; abs. increase
in females: 124, 164,
and 198%; rel. liver
weights in females: 131,
175,231%)
t 11-and 12-
hydroxylase activity,
hypolipidemic effects
Considerations: Bodv weishts and
food intake were significantly reduced
in males (6 to 12%) and in females (6
to 14% decrease). Food intake was
also significantly reduced (19 to 49%)
in males and females.
B6C3F1 mice (both sexes);
dietary; 0, 3000, 6000, 12,500
ppm (est. 635, 1,377, 2,689,
6,518 mg/kg-day [males]; 780,
1761, 3,287, 6,920 mg/kg-day
1 Females 1): 4 weeks (Hazleton
Labs. 1991a)
ND/635 (males)
ND/780
(females)
(LOEL)
Enlarged and discolored
livers; t incidence of
hepatocytomegaly
Other liver effects:
t incidence of coagulative necrosis
and/or separate chronic inflammatory
foci.
B6C3F1 mice (males only);
dietary; 0, 500, 6000 ppm (est.
0, 75, 900 mg/kg-day); 2 or 4
weeks (Smith et aL 2000)°
75 (NOEL)/
900 (LOEL)
t in relative liver weight
at 4 weeks
Other liver effects: t PBOX. t DNA
synthesis; inhibition of GJIC
Limitations: BW not rcDortcd
F344 rats (males only); dietary;
0, 1000, 12,000 ppm (est. 0, 100,
1200 mg/kg-day); 2 or 4 weeks
(Smith et aL. 2000)°
100
(NOEL)/ 1200
(LOEL)
t in relative liver weight
at 4 weeks
Other liver effects: t PBOX. t DNA
synthesis; inhibition of GJIC
Considerations: significant increases
in relative liver weight observed at 4-
week but not 2-week timepoint.
Limitations: onlv males were
evaluated.
F344 rats (males only); dietary;
0, 2% (est. 1,700 mg/kg-day); 7
davs (Bio/dvnamics, 1982a)
ND/1,700
t abs. and rel. liver
weight; macroscopic
liver observations;
changes in clinical
chemistry (J,
triglycerides)
Page 124 of 184
-------
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/
LOAEL
(m«/k«-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Remarks
Cynomolgus monkeys (males
only); 0, 500 mg/kg-day; oral
eavaee: 14 davs (Push et al.
2000)
500/ND
No statistically or biologically
significant effects were observed
SD rats (male and female); 0 or
500 mg/kg-day; gavage; 14 days
(Kwack et al. 2010)
ND/500
t AST activity (31%), t
ALP (159%); | serum
triglycerides
Other liver effects: liver weishts.
serum biochemistry, and urinalysis
Considerations: No chanee in serum
ALT
" Dose equivalent calculated from 75 mg DINP/kg chow/day based on the assumption that pregnant and nursing female
mice weigh approximately 25g and eat approximately 5 g chow/day.
b Data for the Huls AG studv (1992) were not reasonably available to EPA; Data here reflect those reported bv Health
Canada's Hazard Assessment (EC/HC. 2015).
c Smith et al. (2000) evaluated two isomers of DINP: DINP-1 [CAS 68515-48-0] and DINP-A [CAS 71549-78-5], The
DINP-A isomer is outside the scope of the hazard evaluation; all results herein refer to the DINP-1 isomer.
Sub-chronic (>30 to 90 Days) Exposure Studies: EPA identified nine studies from existing assessments
that provide data on the toxicological effects of DINP on the liver following subchronic duration oral
exposure, including six studies in rats (Hazleton Laty l lb, ^ V t l \ , «11<> dynamics. 1982b. c;
Hazleton Lai 1_, 1971). one in mice (Hazleton Labs. 1992). one study in dogs (Hazleton
Laboratories. 1971). and one study in marmoset monkeys (Hall et at.. 1999). The available studies are
summarized in Table Apx B-2 and discussed further below. One dermal exposure study in New Zealand
white rabbits was also available (Hazleton Laboratories. 1969).
The lowest achieved dose across these rodent studies was 50 mg/kg-day and the highest was 5,770
mg/kg-day (Table_Apx B-2). All studies reported increases in absolute and/or relative liver weight,
sometimes in parallel with exposure-related histopathological effects on the liver (e.g., hepatocytic
hypertrophy), and sometimes coinciding with increases in liver enzymes (i.e., ALT, ALP), suggesting
impaired liver function. These data suggest that the liver is a target organ for DINP, which is consistent
with conclusions from previous assessments by regulatory agencies.
Hazleton Laboratories ( ) reported increased absolute and relative liver weights in both sexes at 500
mg/kg-day as well as exposure-related changes in liver histopathology in males (hepatocytic
hypertrophy throughout the panlobular section). In that study, albino rats were exposed to 0, 50, 150, or
500 mg/kg-day DINP for 13 weeks via diet. Two additional dietary exposure studies in rats by Hazleton
Labs (1991b. 1981) reported increased liver weights, and increased incidences of histopathological
lesions or altered clinical chemistry parameters that suggest liver toxicity. Consistent with the earlier
Hazleton study ( ), Hazleton Labs ( ) found evidence to suggest liver toxicity in F344 rats
exposed to 0, 2500, 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 ppm DINP for 13 weeks via feed (equivalent to 0, 176, 354,
719, or 1,545 mg/kg-day [males]; 0, 218, 438, 823, or 1,687 mg/kg-day [females]). Increases in absolute
and relative liver weight were accompanied by hepatocellular enlargement in the highest treatment
group. The LOEL was 176 mg/kg-day in males and 218 mg/kg-day in females based on increased liver
weights.
Another study from Hazleton Labs (1981) administered 0, 1,000, 3,000, or 10,000 ppm DINP to male
and female albino rats for 13 weeks in feed (equivalent to 0, 60, 180, or 600 mg/kg-day). Exposure
related increases in absolute and relative liver weights were observed in males and females from the
Page 125 of 184
-------
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
high dose groups (absolute weights: 33 percent increase in males, 23.3 percent increase in females;
relative liver weights: 30.2 percent increase in males; 33.3 percent in females). Unlike the other
Hazleton rat studies (1991b. 1971). exposure-related nonneoplastic lesions in the liver were not
observed, although hepatocellular degeneration was noted in two individual high-dose (600 mg/kg-day)
males. Moreover, the authors note that exposure-related changes in histopathology were limited to the
kidneys of high dose males. Dose-related decreases in several clinical chemistry parameters were
observed in both sexes, including total protein, globulin, and total bilirubin, apart from total bilirubin
from males of the mid-dose group (180 mg/kg-day). The decrease in globulin levels reached statistical
significance in mid- (180 mg/kg-day) and high-dose (600 mg/kg-day) females. Decreased bilirubin
reached statistical significance in high-dose males.
Two similarly designed studies in rats from Bio/dynamics (1982b. c) also reported increased absolute
and/or relative liver weight at similar doses in parallel with changes in clinical chemistry parameters. In
the first Bio/Dynamics study, male and female F344 rats were administered 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1.0, or 2.0
percent DINP in diet for 13 weeks (equivalent to 0, 77, 227, 460, 767, or 1,554 mg/kg-day)
(Bio/dynami 2b). In the second study, male and female SD rats were administered 0.3 or 1.0
percent DINP in diet for 13 weeks (equivalent to 0, 201 or 690 mg/kg-day [males]; 0, 251 or 880 mg/kg-
day [females]) (Bio/dynamics. 1982c). In the first study, increased absolute and relative liver weights
and decreased cholesterol were observed in females exposed to 227 mg/kg-day (LOAEL)
(Bio/dynami 2b). Other effects included increases in ALT in the two highest doses in males (767
or 1,554 mg/kg-day) and highest dose in females. In the second study, increased relative liver weight
and decreased serum triglyceride levels were observed in males exposed to doses as low as 201 mg/kg-
day and females exposed to 251 mg/kg-day (LOEL), as well as at higher doses. These changes were
accompanied by a 49 or 53 percent increase in ALP (in males or females, respectively) and 31 percent
increase in ALT (males) in rats from the high dose groups. In both studies, terminal body weight was
decreased by at least 10 percent in high-dose males and females. In the SD rat study, terminal body
weight was also reduced in the low dose animals by 24 percent (males; 201 mg/kg-day) or over 15
percent (females; 25 1 mg/kg-day) (Bio/dynamics. 1982c).
An additional study from BASF ( 7) reported effects on clinical chemistry and other hepatic changes
related to hepatotoxicity with similar LOAELs to the Bio/dynamics studies. In that study, male and
female Wistar rats were fed 0, 3000, 10,000, or 30,000 ppm DINP in the diet for 13 weeks (equivalent to
0, 152, 512, 1,543 mg/kg-day [males]; 0, 200, 666, 2,049 mg/kg-day [females]). Decreased triglyceride
levels and peripheral fat deposits in hepatocytes were reported in low-dose male (152 mg-kg-day) and
female (200 mg/kg-day) rats. Increased absolute and relative liver weights were observed at 1,101
mg/kg-day [males] and 1214 mg/kg-day [females]), which are doses much higher than those in which
increased liver weights were observed in the two Bio/dynamics studies (1982b. c). The BASF study
(1987) was not reasonably available to EPA in English; it was identified from Health Canada's Hazard
Assessment (EC/HC. 2015) and therefore is not further considered.
One sub chronic duration study in mice provided evidence that the liver is a target of DINP (Hazleton
Labs. 1992). In that study, male and female B6C3F1 mice were administered 1500, 4000, 10,000, or
20,000 ppm DINP (equivalent to 365, 972, 2,600, or 5,770 mg/kg-day) in the diet for 13 weeks.
Increases in absolute and relative liver weight, as well as histopathologic effects such as hepatocyte
enlargement, liver degeneration, necrosis, and pigment in Kupffer cells as well as in the bile canaliculi
were observed in the 972 mg/kg-day group (LOAEL). One limitation of this study was the small sample
size, which results in limited statistical power to detect differences between treated groups and controls.
Page 126 of 184
-------
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Not all studies have consistently demonstrated the liver toxicity of DINP. Indeed, studies in non-rodent
species, including one study in beagle dogs (Hazleton Laboratories. 1971) and one study in marmoset
monkeys (Hall et al. 1999). have reported contrasting findings. In a study by Hazleton Laboratories
(1971). 0, 0.125, 0.5, 2 percent DINP was administered to beagles in the diet for 13 weeks (equivalent to
0, 37, 160, or 2,000 mg/kg-day). Increases in absolute and relative liver weights were observed at 160
mg/kg-day in males and 2,000 mg/kg-day in both sexes. Histopathologic changes were also observed,
including hepatocyte hypertrophy associated with decreased prominence of hepatic sinusoids at 2,000
mg/kg-day in both sexes. Serum ALT levels increased by 37 percent in males and 48 percent in females
from week 4 at 160 and 2,000 mg/kg-day. Dose-responsive increases in ALT levels were observed in
males (47, 32 and 60 percent increase) and females (48, 74, and 107 percent increase) at study
termination. Limitations of this study include the small sample size and lack of statistical analysis,
which increase uncertainty in the data from this study. Nevertheless, existing assessments of DINP have
supported NOAEL and LOAEL values of 37 and 160 mg/kg-day based on increased absolute and
relative liver weights accompanied with histopathological changes at the highest dose (2,000 mg/kg-
day) tested (EC/HC. 2015). or a LOAEL of 37 mg/kg-day with no NOAEL based on increase liver
weight and serum ALT (ECHA. 2013b; ECB. 2003). Additional limitations of this study include
reporting deficiencies, including the lack of statistical analyses and inconsistencies between text and
tables. These limitations increase uncertainty in the data from this study.
In contrast, a study in marmoset monkeys by Hall et al. (1999) did not observe any statistically
significant liver effects. In that study, male and female marmoset monkeys were administered 0, 100,
500, or 2,500 mg/kg-day DINP daily via oral gavage for 13 weeks. Exposure to DINP increased liver
weight in males, but the effect was not dose-dependent nor statistically significant at any dose, which the
authors attribute to low sample size and high variability.
New Literature: EPA did not identify any new studies published from 2015 through 2020 that provided
data on toxicological effects of liver following chronic exposure to DINP.
TableApx B-2. Summary of Liver Effects Reported in Animal Toxicological Studies Following
Subchronic Exposure to DINP
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/LOAEL
(mg/kg-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Comments
Beagle dogs (both sexes);
dietary; 0, 0.125, 0.5, 2% (est.
37, 160, 2,000 mg/kg-day); 13
weeks (Hazleton Laboratories.
1971)
37/160
t abs. and rel. liver wt.;
t ALT activity
Other liver effects:
Hepatocytic hypertrophy associated
with decreased prominence of
hepatic sinusoids at 2000 mg/kg-day.
Hepatocytic cytoplasm varied from
fine granular to vacuolated
appearance.
Considerations: No NOAEL
established due to absence of
statistical analysis and some
inconsistencies in data reporting (i.e.,
text and tables in the study).
F344 rats (both sexes); dietary;
0,0.1,0.3,0.6, 1.0, 2.0% (est.
0, 77, 227, 460, 767, 1,554
mg/kg-day); 13 weeks
(B io/dvnamics. 1982b)
77/ 227
t abs. and rel. liver wt.;
i cholesterol (females)
Other liver effects: t ALT (males of
767 and 1,554 mg/kg-day males;
1,554 mg/kg-day females); j
cholesterol (227, 460, 767, and 1,554
mg/kg-day females)
Page 127 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/LOAEL
(mg/kg-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Comments
Considerations:
i BW gains in the 767 mg/kg-day
males, j terminal BW (> 10%) at
1554 mg/kg-day in both sexes.
Wistar rats (both sexes);
dietary; 0, 3000, 10,000,
30,000 ppm (est. 0, 152, 512,
1,543 mg/kg-day [males]; 0,
200, 666, 2,049 mg/kg-day
Ifcmalcsl): 13 weeks ((BASF.
1987) as cited by Health
Canada (EC/HC. 2015V)3
ND/152 (males)
ND/ 200
(females)
Clinical chemistry and
liver changes related to
hepatotoxicity
(J, triglyceride level and
i peripheral fat deposits
in hepatocytes)
Considerations:
I BW in males at 152 and 1543
mg/kg-day. Insufficient information
to discern if reported BW was
terminal or B W change.
F344 rats (both sexes); dietary;
0, 2500, 5000, 10,000, 20,000
ppm (est. 0, 176, 354, 719,
1545 mg/kg-day [males]; 0,
218, 438,
823, 1,687 mg/kg-day
Ifcmalcsl): 13 weeks (Hazleton
Labs. 1991b)
ND/176 (males)
ND/218 (females)
t liver weights
Other liver effects:
Hepatocellular enlargement at the
highest dose.
Considerations:
i BW gain at 1545 mg/kg-day in
males and females. j terminal BW
> 10%. (Body weight gains were
decreased in both sexes at 1545
mg/kg-day, along with decreases in
terminal body weight >10% relative
to controls).
SD rats (both sexes); dietary; 0,
1000, 3000, 10,000 ppm (est. 0,
60, 180, 600 mg/kg-day); 13
weeks
LOEL = 180
i total protein and
globulin levels (males)
Other liver effects: t liver weishts
(high dose (both sexes); j total
protein, and total bilirubin
Considerations: historatholoeical
findings limited to the kidney
SD rats (both sexes); dietary; 0,
0.3, 1.0% (est. 201, 690 mg/kg-
day [males]; 251, 880 mg/kg-
day [females]); 13 weeks
(B io/dvnaniics, 1982c)
ND/201 (males;
LOEL)
ND/251 (females;
LOEL)
I terminal body
weights in both sexes; t
abs. and rel. liver wt.
accompanied by j in
triglycerides.
Other liver effects: t ALP (males &
females) and t ALT (males) from the
high dose groups
Considerations:
I Terminal B W by 24% and 28% in
201 mg/kg-day and 690 mg/kg-day
males, respectively. j Terminal BW
by >15% and 31% in 25 lmg/kg-day
and 880 mg/kg-day females,
respectively.
Albino rats (both sexes);
dietary; 0, 50, 150, 500 mg/kg-
dav: 3 months (Hazleton Labs.
1971)
150 (NOEL)/500
(LOEL)
t abs. and rel. liver wt.
and t hepatocyte
hypertrophy
Considerations:
Slight non-significant j BW gain in
500 mg/kg-day males. BW gain
similar across all female groups.
Terminal BW within 10% of controls
for all male and female exposed
groups.
B6C3F1 mice (both sexes);
dietary; 0, 1500, 4000, 10,000,
20,000 ppm (est: 0, 365, 972,
2,600, 5,770 mg/kg-day); 13
weeks (Hazleton Labs. 1992)
365/972
t abs. and rel. liver wt;
hepatocyte
enlargement; other
histopathology in liver
[i.e., pigments in
Kupffer cells and bile
Considerations: J. BW sain and J.
terminal BW of males and females at
5770 mg/kg-day.
Page 128 of 184
-------
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/LOAEL
(mg/kg-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Comments
canaliculi, liver
degeneration/ necrosis]
Marmoset (both sexes); 0, 100,
500, 2,500 mg/kg-day; oral
savase; 13 weeks (Hall et al.
1999)
500/ND
i body weight and
body weight gain
Considerations: J. relative liver
weight (males) but not dose-
dependent & did not reach statistical
significance
" The BASF studv (1987) was only available in German; EPA reports its use bv Health Canada's Hazard Assessment
(EC/HC. 2015).
Chronic (>90 days) Exposure: EPA identified five studies from existing assessments that provide
information on the toxicological effects of DINP on the liver, including two oral exposure studies
conducted in F344 rats (Covance Labs. 1998c; Lington et ai. 1997). one oral study in SD rats
(Bio/dynami 7), one oral exposure study conducted in B6C3F1 mice (Covance Labs. 1998b). and
a combined one and two generation study in SD rats (Waterman et at.. 2000; Exxon Biomedical. 1996a.
b). No chronic exposure data on DINP are available for humans or other primates. Available studies are
summarized in TableApx B-7.
Two studies in F344 rats reported similar findings, most notably of nonneoplastic lesions of the liver
including spongiosis hepatis (Covance Labs. 1998c; Lington et at.. 1997). Lington et al. (1997)
administered 0, 300, 3,000, or 6,000 ppm DINP to F344 rats in the diet for up to 24 months,
corresponding to mean daily intakes of 0, 15, 152, or 307 mg/kg-day in males and 0, 18, 184, or 375
mg/kg-day in females, respectively. Male and female rats in the mid- and high-dose groups had
statistically significant increases in absolute and relative liver weights throughout the exposure period
and study termination, where relative weight increased 19 to 31 percent in males and 16 to 29 percent in
females. Increases in liver weight corresponded with increases in liver enzyme levels. In males, dose-
related increases of 1.5- to 3-fold were observed in ALP, AST, and ALT activities of mid- and high-dose
groups throughout the study. No significant differences were observed in females. Increased incidences
of several non-neoplastic histopathological lesions were observed in the liver at 18 months, including
minimal to slight centrilobular to midzonal hepatocellular enlargement in high-dose males (incidence:
9/10 vs. 0/10 in controls) and females (10/10 vs 0/10 in controls). At study termination {i.e., 24 months),
dose-related increases were observed in the incidence of focal necrosis, spongiosis hepatis, sinusoid
ectasia, hepatocellular enlargement, and hepatopathy associated with leukemia (Table Apx B-3). The
study authors did not report statistical significance for any of the observed lesions. EPA conducted an
independent review of the incidences of spongiosis hepatis and hepatopathy associated with leukemia
and determined that these histopathology findings were significantly increased in mid- (152 mg/kg-day)
and high-dose (307 mg/kg-day) male rats (Table Apx B-3). Additionally at the high dose in the males,
the incidences of sinusoid ectasia, hepatocellular enlargement, and focal necrosis were significantly
increased over controls. In females, dose-related increases in the incidence of focal necrosis,
hepatopathy associated with leukemia, and hepatocellular enlargement were noted at study termination.
The independent statistical analysis determined that the incidences of hepatocellular enlargement and
hepatopathy associated with leukemia were significantly increased in high-dose females. The NOAEL
and LOAEL for non-cancer hepatic effects in this study were 15 and 152 mg/kg-day, respectively; both
are based on a statistically significant increase in the incidence of spongiosis hepatis in mid-dose male
rats that was accompanied by increased absolute and relative liver weights and changes in serum
enzyme activities.
Page 129 of 184
-------
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx B-3. Incidence of Selected Non-neoplastic Hepatic Lesions in F344 Rats Exposed to
DINP for 24 Months (Liiigton et ai. 1997)
Lesion
Dose Group
mg/kg-day (ppm)
Control
15 M/18 F
(300)
152 M/184
(3,000)
307 M/375
(6,000)
Males"
Spongiosis hepatis
24/81
(29.6%)
24/80
(30%)
51/80*
(63.8%)
62/80*
(77.5%)
Hepatopathy
associated
with leukemia
22/81
(27.2%)
17/80
(21.3%)
34/80*
(42.5%)
33/80*
(41.3%)
Sinusoid ectasia
16/81
(19.8%)
16/80
(20.0%)
24/80
(30.0%)
33/80*
(41.3%)
Hepatocellular
enlargement
1/81
(1.2%)
1/80
(1.3%)
1/80
(1.3%)
9/80*
(11.3%)
Focal necrosis
10/81
(12.3%)
9/80
(11.2%)
16/80
(20.0%)
26/80*
(32.5%)
1 vi miles
l ocal necrosis
13/81
(16.0%)
11/81
(13.6%)
19/80
(23.8%)
21/80
(26.3%)
Spongiosis hepatis
4/81
(4.9%)
1/81
(1.2%)
3/80
(3.8%)
4/80
(5.0%)
Sinusoid ectasia
9/81
(11.1%)
4/81
(4.9%)
6/80
(7.5%)
10/80
(12.5%)
Hepatocellular
enlargement
1/81
(1.2%)
0/81
(0%)
0/80
(0%)
11/80*
(13.8%)
Source: Table 7 in Lington et al. (1997)
M = male; F = female
"Number of animals with lesion/total number of animals examined. Percent lesion incidence in parentheses.
* Statistically significant at p < 0.05 when compared to the control incidence using Fischer's Exact test;
statistical analysis performed by EPA.
Another 2-year study in F344 rats with comparable dose levels to Lington et al. (1997) provided data to
support the liver toxicity of DINP (Covar s. 1998c). In that study, DINP was administered to rats
at dietary concentrations of 500, 1,500, 6,000 or 12,000 ppm (equivalent to average daily doses of 29,
88, 359, or 733 mg/kg-day in males, and 36, 109, 442, or 885 mg/kg-day in females for 104 weeks.
Additional groups of male and female rats were given 12,000 ppm (637 and 774 mg/kg-day,
respectively) for 78 weeks and received basal diet only for the remainder of the study (26 weeks) to
evaluate the reversibility of DINP toxicity (recovery group). Increased absolute and relative liver
weights were observed in the two highest dose groups in males and females at multiple timepoints
throughout the study as well study termination. Relative liver weights were increased 35 to 61 percent in
males and 26 to 71 percent in females. There were no significant changes in absolute liver weights in the
recovery group at the end of the 26-week recovery period, suggesting a reversibility of liver
enlargement. Significant increases in activities of serum enzymes (AST and ALT) were also observed in
both sexes at the two highest doses at weeks 52, 78, and study termination. Serum liver enzyme
activities were also increased in the recovery group. Increases in palmitoyl-CoA oxidase activity were
observed in high dose male and female rats, which is further discussed in the mechanistic section below.
Page 130 of 184
-------
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Histological evidence of liver toxicity was observed in parallel with increases in liver weight and
alterations in serum enzyme activity. Incidences of select non-neoplastic lesions from the Covance study
are summarized in TableApx B-4. A dose-responsive increase in the incidence of spongiosis hepatis
was observed at doses as low as 359 mg/kg-day in males. Other lesions observed in males, such as
cytoplasmic eosinophilia, diffuse hepatocellular enlargement, pigment, and individual cell degeneration
or necrosis were generally observed at higher doses, suggesting spongiosis hepatis was the most
sensitive histopathological response to DINP. EPA's independent review determined that diffuse
hepatocellular enlargement was significantly increased in high-dose males and females at study
termination.
Table Apx B-4. Incidence of Selected Hepatic Lesions in F344 Rats Exposed to DINP in the Diet
for 2 Years (C ovan- < 1 'Us. 1998c)
Dose Group mg/kg-day (ppm)
Lesion
29 Ml
88 Ml
359 M/
733 Ml
Recovery" 637
Control
36 F
109 F
442 F
885 F
M/ 774 F
(500)
(1,500)
(6,000)
(12,000)
(12,000)
\la
OS
Spongiosis
5/55b
5/50
2/50
13/55*
21/55*
9/50
hepatis
(9.1%)
(10.0%)
(4.0%)
(23.6%)
(38.2%)
(18.0%)
Cytoplasmic
0/55
0/50
0/50
0/55
31/55*
0/50
eosinophilia
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(56.4%)
(0%)
Diffuse
0/55
0/50
0/50
0/55
17/55*
0/50
hepatocellular
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(30.9%)
(0%)
enlargement
Increased
1/55
0/50
1/50
0/55
7/55*
9/50
pigment
(1.8%)
(0%)
(2.0%)
(0%)
(12.7%)
(18.0%)
Individual cell
0/55
0/50
0/50
1/55
5/55*
0/50
degeneration/
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(1.8%)
(9.1%)
(0%)
necrosis
Ivimik-s
Spongiosis
0/55
0/50
0/50
1/55
2/55
0/50
hepatis
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(1.8%)
(3.6%)
(0%)
Cytoplasmic
0/55
0/50
0/50
0/55
35/55*
0/50
eosinophilia
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(63.6%)
(0%)
Diffuse
0/55
0/50
0/50
0/55
33/55*
0/50
hepatocellular
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(60.0%)
(0%)
enlargement
Increased
7/55
8/50
9/50
5/55
16/55*
10/50
pigment
(12.7%)
(16.0%)
(18.0%)
(9.1%)
(29.1%)
(20.0%)
Individual cell
0/55
0/50
0/50
0/55
0/55
0/50
degeneration/
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
necrosis
Page 131 of 184
-------
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Dose Group mg/kg-day (ppm)
Lesion
29 M/
88 Ml
359 M/
733 Ml
Recovery" 637
Control
36 F
109 F
442 F
885 F
Ml 174F
(500)
(1,500)
(6,000)
(12,000)
(12,000)
Source: Tables 10A and 10C in Covance Labs (1998c)
M = male; F = female
* = significantly different from control (p < 0.05) by Fisher's Exact test as performed by EPA.
a The 12,000 ppm recovery group received 12,000 ppm DINP in the diet for 78 weeks, followed by a 26-
week recovery period during which the test animals received basal diet alone.
h Number of animals with lesion/number of animals with livers examined; percentage is given in parentheses.
Incidence is sum of lesions observed in unscheduled deaths and at terminal sacrifice.
A third study in rats by Bio/dynamics (1987) provided data on liver weights, histopathology, and effects
on clinical chemistry parameters following chronic exposure to DINP. In that study, male and female
SD rats were administered 0, 500, 5,000, or 10,000 ppm DINP in the diet for up to 2-years (equivalent to
0, 27, 271, or 553 mg/kg-day in males and 0, 33, 331, or 672 mg/kg-day in females). Increased absolute
and relative liver weights were observed in high-dose males and females at the 12-month interim
sacrifice and study termination; all increases were between 14 and 34 percent. In the mid-dose females,
there were non-significant increases in absolute (14 percent) and relative (11 percent) liver weight at
interim sacrifice and absolute liver weight (15 percent) at terminal sacrifice, and a significant increase in
relative liver weight (16 percent) at terminal sacrifice. In mid-dose males, a nonsignificant increase of
11 percent was seen in the mid-dose group at interim sacrifice. Histopathological findings were
observed at lower doses than changes in liver weights. Increased incidences of spongiosis hepatis and
minimal-to-slight hepatic focal necrosis were observed in males from the mid-dose group (271 mg/kg-
day). The increases in liver weights and incidences of nonneoplastic lesions were attributed to the
administration of DINP. Incidences of select non-neoplastic lesions from the Bio/dynamics (1987) study
are summarized in Table Apx B-5.
In parallel with increases in liver weight and histopathological findings, changes in clinical chemistry
parameters were observed. Serum ALT was significantly increased in high-dose males at interim
sacrifices on months 6, 12, and 18 by 292, 203, and 232 percent, respectively. A non-statistically
significant increase of 218 percent was observed in males at study termination (24 months). Serum ALP
was significantly increased at months 6 and 12 in high-dose males by 88 and 76 percent, respectively.
Non-significant increases in AST were observed in males from the mid and high dose groups. In
females, non-significant increases in AST (63 percent) and ALT (89 percent) were observed at 6
months. Serum ALP was significantly increased in females of the high-dose group by 81 percent at 18
months, while a non-significant increase of 38 percent was observed at study termination. No exposure-
related changes in serum ALP were observed at earlier timepoints in this group or in females of the low-
or mid-dose groups. The increased serum AST, ALT, and ALP in treated males were for the most part
not statistically significant; however, these findings were considered treatment-related due to the
consistency with which they were noted in the treated males at most timepoints. The increased ALP in
females of the high-dose group at month 18 and month 24 is considered treatment-related and adverse.
However, the increased AST and ALT values in females of the high-dose group at month 6 were not
considered treatment-related due to their isolated occurrence in only one animal at only one timepoint.
Moreover, data from this animal were considered to be statistical outliers via the Grubb's outlier test.
Overall, the Bio/dynamics study (1987) supports a NOAEL of 27 mg/kg-day in male rats based on
treatment related increases in histopathologic lesions {i.e., spongiosis hepatis, focal necrosis) and
increases in serum ALT, AST, and ALP at the LOAEL of 271 mg/kg-day.
Page 132 of 184
-------
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx B-5. Overall Incidence of Selected Tumors in Male and Female Sprague Dawley Rats Exposed
to DINP for 2 Years (Bio/dvnamics. 1987)
Lesion
Dose Group
mg/kg-day (ppm)"
Control
27 MI 33 F
(500 ppm)
271 Ml 331F
(5,000 ppm)
553 M/ 672 F
(10,000 ppm)
Males
nb
70 (57)c
69 (57)
69 (59)
70 (59)
Hepatocellular carcinoma^
2
2
6
4
Neoplastic nodulefs)
5
lemales
6
5
n
70 (59)
70 (56)
70 (60)
70 (59)
Hepatocellular carcinoma
ot
0
5
7*
Neoplastic nodule(s)
1
1
5
2
Source: Aroendix K. Fieure 1. dd. 11 (uu. 426 of the studv rcDort PDF) (Bio/dvnamics. 1987).
Statistical significance for an exposed group indicates a significant pairwise test. Statistical significance for the vehicle
control group indicates a significant trend test.
M = males; F = females; ppm = parts per million
* Statistically significant (p < 0.05) from the control group by a two-tailed Fisher's exact test
t Statistically significant trend (p < 0.05) based on a Chi-square contingency trend test calculated for this review.
" Equivalent doses in mg/kg-day, administered doses in ppm
h Number of animals with tissue examined microscopically; includes all animals throughout the study; i.e., including the
interim sacrifice, the terminal sacrifice, and unscheduled deaths.
c Sample size excluding animals that died or were sacrificed early, which was used for performing statistical analysis for
hepatocellular carcinoma.
d Number of animals with lesion. Percent lesion incidence in parentheses.
One chronic study in mice by Covance Labs (1998b) was identified from existing assessments. Covance
Labs exposed male and female B6C3F1 mice to 500, 1,500, 4,000, or 8,000 ppm DINP for at least 104
weeks. These concentrations corresponded to average daily doses of 0, 90, 276, 742, and 1,560 mg/kg-
day in males and 0, 112, 336, 910, and 1,888 mg/kg-day in females. Evidence of liver toxicity was
observed in treated animals of both sexes. At interim sacrifice, significant increases were observed in
relative liver weights in mid-dose males (742 mg/kg-day) and females (910 mg/kg-day) and in high-dose
males (1,560 mg/kg-day). At study termination, significant increases were observed in absolute (13 to
33 percent increase) and relative (25 to 60 percent increase) liver weights in males exposed to 742 or
1,560 mg/kg-day DINP. Relative liver weight was also significantly increased 32 percent in the recovery
group. In females, increases in absolute liver weight (18 to 34 percent increase) and relative liver weight
(24 to 39 percent) were observed in females exposed to 910 or 1,888 mg/kg-day DINP, as well as in the
recovery groups. However, the responses were not statistically significant.
Exposure-related changes in serum chemistry profiles were also observed and supported the liver as a
target organ. AST and ALT activities were increased in high-dose males (1,560 mg/kg-day) and
recovery group males and females. Exposure-related increases in the serum levels of total protein,
albumin, and globulin were also observed in high-dose males. Increases in albumin and globulin were
also observed in recovery males.
Gross findings, including liver masses, occurred with greatest frequency at the 910 and 1,560 mg/kg-day
dose groups, as well as the recovery group. These masses corresponded to hepatocellular neoplasms or
involvement by lymphoma or histiocytic sarcoma and are discussed further in ( 024a).
Page 133 of 184
-------
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Increased incidences of several nonneoplastic lesions were observed in the livers of high-dose males and
females, including cytoplasmic eosinophilia, diffuse slight to moderate hepatocellular enlargement, and
slight to moderate pigment (TableApx B-6). These changes were also observed in the recovery group,
but generally at lower incidences than in the high-dose groups. No other statistically significant or dose-
related nonneoplastic lesions of the liver were observed in the Covance study (1998b). Liver weights in
recovery group animals were comparable to those of controls, and histological evidence of liver
enlargement was not observed in the male or female recovery groups. The incidences of non-neoplastic
lesions in the recovery groups were decreased at study termination relative to the high-dose groups, but
in most cases were significantly greater than the control values. These data suggest that DINP-induced
liver toxicity was partially reversed in the recovery groups.
EPA identified a LOAEL value from the Covance study (1998b) of 742 mg/kg-day in males and 910
mg/kg-day in females based on increased incidence of liver masses in males, and increased absolute and
relative liver weights, and decreased absolute and relative kidney weights (Section 3.3). ANOAEL of
276 mg/kg-day in males or 336 mg/kg-day in females was identified based on non-cancer and cancer
effects.
Table Apx B-6. Incidence of Selected Non-neoplastic Lesions in B6C3F1 Mice Exposed to DINP in
the Diet for 2 Years (Covance Labs. 1998b)
Dose Group
mg/kg-day (ppm)
Lesion
Control
90 M
112 F
(500)
276 M
336 F
(1,500)
742 M
910 F
(4,000)
1,560 M
1,888 F
(8,000)
Recovery''
1,560 M
1,888 F
(8,000)
NhiL-s
Diffuse hepatocellular
enlargement
0/55fl
(0%)
1/50
(2.0%)
1/50
(2.0%)
2/50
(4.0%)
45/55*
(81.8%)
10/50*
(20.0%)
Increased cytoplasmic
eosinophilia
0/55
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
52/55*
(94.5%)
10/50*
(20.0%)
Pigment
0/55
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
49/55*
(89.1%)
6/50*
(12.0%)
Ivnuk-s
Diffuse hepatocellular
enlargement
0,55
(0%)
0.51
(0%)
0,50
(0%)
1.50
(2.0%)
52/55*
(94.5%)
6,50*
(12.0%)
Increased cytoplasmic
eosinophilia
0/55
(0%)
0/51
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
0/50
(0%)
53/55*
(81.8%)
6/50*
(12.0%)
Pigment
1/55
(1.8%)
1/51
(2.0%)
2/50
(4.0%)
2/50
(4.0%)
41/55*
(74.5%)
3/50
(6.0%)
Source: Tables 11A and 11C in Covance Labs (1998b).
M = male; F = female
* = significantly different from control (p < 0.05) by Fisher's Exact test performed by Syracuse Research
Corporation.
" Number of animals with lesion/total number of animals examined; percent incidence of lesion in parentheses.
Incidences are sum of unscheduled deaths and lesions observed at terminal sacrifice.
b The 8,000 ppm recovery group received 8,000 ppm for 78 weeks, followed by a 26-week recovery period during
which the test animals received basal diet alone.
Page 134 of 184
-------
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Waterman et al. (2000) assessed the potential toxicity of DINP in one- and two-generation studies
conducted in SD rats. In the one-generation study, male and female animals were administered 0.5, 1.0,
or 1.5 percent DINP in the diet for 10 weeks prior to mating and lasting throughout the mating period.
The females were subsequently exposed throughout gestation and lactation until PND 21. Mean received
doses in units of mg/kg-day are shown in Table 3-5. Parental body weight gain was significantly
reduced at the 1.0 and 1.5 percent dose groups in both sexes during the premating phase and in females
during gestation and lactation. Absolute liver weights in both sexes were significantly increased at all
doses, except in PI females at the 1.5 percent level.
For the two-generation study, male and female SD rats were fed DINP at dietary concentrations of 0.0,
0.2, 0.4, or 0.8 percent for 10 weeks before mating and for an additional 7 weeks, through mating,
gestation, and lactation continuously for two-generations. Mean received doses in units of mg/kg-day
are shown in Table 3-7. Absolute liver weights of PI males and females were increased over controls at
all DINP treatment levels. Minimal to moderate increases in cytoplasmic eosinophilia were observed in
all males and females from all dose groups of parents in both generations.
TableApx B-7. Summary of Liver Effects Reported in Animal Toxicological Studies Following
Chronic Exposure to DINP
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/ LOAEL
(mjj/kjj-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Remarks
F344 rats (both sexes); dietary; 0,
0.03, 0.3, 0.6% (est. 0, 15, 152, 307
mg/kg-day [males]; 0, 18, 184, 375
mg/kg-day [females]); 2 years
(Lington et al, 1997)
15/152
(males)
18/184
(females)
t abs. and rel. liver
weight; t in serum
ALT, AST; | non-
neoplastic lesions
(e.g., focal necrosis,
spongiosis hepatis)
SD rats (both sexes); dietary; 0, 500,
5000, 10,000 ppm (est. 0, 27, 271,
553 mg/kg-day [males]; 0, 33, 331,
672 mg/kg-day [females]); 2 years
(B io/dvnamics, 1987)
27/271 (males)
t serum ALT, AST,
ALP (males); t
spongiosis hepatis; t
hepatic focal necrosis
Other liver effects: t absolute and
relative liver weight (both sexes); t
serum ALP (females); t incidence
of hepatocyte necrosis at low- and
high-doses (males)
GLP-compliant study, non-guideline
Considerations: J. BW sains in
females (672 mg/kg-day); no
change in terminal B W in males; t
food consumption for females at
multiple timepoints during study
(672 mg/kg-day)
Male and female SD rats
(30/sex/dose) fed diets containing 0,
0.5, 1.0, 1.5% DINP (CASRN
68515-48-0) starting 10 weeks prior
to mating, through mating, gestation,
and lactation continuously for one
generation (received doses in units of
mg/kg-day shown in Table 3-5)
(Waterman et al., 2000; Exxon
Biomedical 1996a).
ND/ LOEL = 301
t absolute and
relative liver weight
for PI and P2 males
and females; |
incidence of minimal
to moderate
cytoplasmic
eosinophilia
Male and female SD rats
(30/sex/dose) fed diets containing 0,
0.2, 0.4, 0.8% DINP (CASRN
68515-48-0) starting 10 weeks prior
to mating, through mating, gestation,
Page 135 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Brief Study Description
(Reference)
NOAEL/ LOAEL
(mg/kg-day)
Effect at LOAEL
Remarks
and lactation continuously for two-
generations. Received doses in units
of mg/kg-day shown in Table 3-7.
(Waterman et aL 2000; Exxon
Biomedical 19965).
B6C3F1 mice (both sexes); dietary;
0, 500, 1500, 4000, 8000 ppm (est. 0,
90, 276, 742, 1,560 mg/kg-day
[males]; 0, 112,336,910, 1,888
mg/kg-day [females]); 2 years
Recovery study; 0, 1,377 [males]; 0,
1,581 [females]); diet; 78 weeks,
followed by 26 weeks recovery.
(Covance Labs. 1998b)
GLP-compliant and adhere to EPA
guidelines (40 CFR Part 798.330)
276/742
(males)
336/910
(females)
t abs. liver weight,
histopathological
changes in the liver
and i body weight
gain) (females); (t
incidence of liver
masses (males)
Significant neoplastic findinss: t
hepatocellular carcinoma; t
incidence of total liver neoplasms
(combined carcinomas and
adenomas)
Considerations:
i mean body weights in males
(>742 mg/kg-day) and females
(>336 mg/kg-day)
F344 rats (both sexes); dietary; 0,
500, 1500, 6000, 12,000 ppm (est. 0,
29, 88, 359, 733 mg/kg-day [males];
0, 36, 109, 442, 885 mg/kg-day
[females]); 2 years
Recovery study: 0, 637 mg/kg-day
[males]; 0, 774 mg/kg-day
[females]); diet; 78-week exposure,
followed by 26 week recovery period
(Covance Labs. 1998c)
GLP-compliant and adhere to EPA
guidelines (40 CFR Part 798.330)
88/359
(males)
109/442
(females)
t abs. and rel. liver
wt.; t in serum ALT
and AST;
histopathological
findings in liver.
Significant neoplastic findinss
t incidence of mononuclear cell
leukemia; t in hepatocellular
carcinoma; t in combined
hepatocellular carcinoma and
adenoma (See (U.S. EPA. 2024a)
for further discussion)
Limitations:
Did not report results for statistical
analyses of lesion incidence data
4033
Page 136 of 184
-------
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Appendix C FETAL TESTICULAR TESTOSTERONE AS AN
ACUTE EFFECT
No studies of experimental animal models are available that investigate the antiandrogenic effects of
DINP following single dose, acute exposures. However, there are studies of dibutyl phthalate (DBP)
available that indicate a single acute exposure during the critical window of development {i.e., GD14-
19) can reduce fetal testicular testosterone production and disrupt testicular steroidogenic gene
expression. Two studies were identified that demonstrate single doses of 500 mg/kg DBP can reduce
fetal testicular testosterone and steroidogenic gene expression. Johnson et al. (2012; ) gavaged
pregnant SD rats with a single dose of 500 mg/kg DBP on GD 19 and observed reductions in
steroidogenic gene expression in the fetal testes three (Cypl7al) to six {Cypllal, StAR) hours post-
exposure, while fetal testicular testosterone was reduced starting 18 hours post-exposure. Similarly,
Thompson et al. (2005) reported a 50 percent reduction in fetal testicular testosterone 1-hour after
pregnant SD rats were gavaged with a single dose of 500 mg/kg DBP on GD 19, while changes in
steroidogenic gene expression occurred 3 (StAR) to 6 {Cypllal, Cypl7al, Scarbl) hours post-exposure,
and protein levels of these genes were reduced 6 to 12 hours post-exposure. Additionally, studies by
Carruthers et al. (2005) further demonstrate that exposure to as few as two oral doses of 500 mg/kg DBP
on successive days between GDs 15 to 20 can reduce male pup AGD, cause permanent nipple retention,
and increase the frequency of reproductive tract malformations and testicular pathology in adult rats that
received two doses of DBP during the critical window.
In summary, studies of DBP provide evidence to support use of effects on fetal testosterone as an acute
effect. However, the database is limited to just a few studies of DBP that test relatively high (500 mg/kg)
single doses of DBP. Although there are no single dose studies of DINP that evaluate anti androgenic
effects on the developing male reproductive system, there are four studies that have evaluated effects on
fetal testicular testosterone production and steroidogenic gene expression following daily gavage doses
of 500 to 1,500 mg/kg-day DINP on GDs 14 to 18 (5 total doses) (Gray et al.. 2021; Furr et al.. JO I I;
Hannas et al.. 2012; Hannas et al.. 2011)—all of which consistently report anti androgenic effects at the
lowest dose tested (500 mg/kg-day).
Page 137 of 184
-------
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Appendix D SUMMARY OF EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES ON
REPRODUCTIVE OUTCOMES
Radke et al. (2018) report the results of a systematic review that evaluated the association between
DINP and male reproductive outcomes. In examining the relationship between DINP exposure and
AGD, the authors found that there is little evidence linking DINP to AGD. The combination of low
exposure levels {i.e., poor sensitivity) and data availability {i.e., fewer accessible studies) may account
for the weaker evidence of an association between AGD and DINP. When evaluating the relationship
between DINP exposure and sperm parameters, the author determined that the association was moderate
due to the morphology's consistency across studies. In examining the association between DINP and the
time until pregnancy in males, the authors did not report a relationship for DINP and the evidence was
deemed inconclusive due to the small number of studies and narrow range of exposure. Finally, when
examining the relationship between DINP metabolite (MINP or MCiOP) exposure and testosterone, the
authors found that there is moderate evidence linking DINP metabolites to lower testosterone levels.
Another systematic review by Radke et al. (2019b) evaluated the association between DINP and female
reproductive and developmental outcomes and also found no clear evidence of association due to
inadequate sensitivity in the available data. When examining the relationship between DINP exposure
and pubertal development the authors found that there was no association linking DINP and pubertal
development and the strength of the evidence was deemed indeterminate. Study evaluations of the
relationship between DINP and a woman's time to pregnancy found that the evidence of an association
between fecundity and exposure to DINP was deemed indeterminate due to lack of the evidence of
relationship for the key fecundity outcomes. The authors also found that in studies that measured the
relationship between DINP and spontaneous abortion, there was no association between early loss and
total loss. Thus, the evidence for an association between DINP and spontaneous abortion was deemed
indeterminate. Finally, when evaluating the association between DINP and gestational duration, the
authors found slight evidence for the association between DINP exposure and preterm birth, however
while there was modest increase in the odds of preterm birth with higher DINP exposure the association
was not statistically significant. In summary there was indeterminate evidence linking DINP and female
reproductive and developmental outcomes.
EPA identified 11 new studies (8 medium quality and 3 low quality) that evaluated the association
between DINP metabolites and developmental and reproductive outcomes. The first medium quality
study, a longitudinal cohort study, by Berger et al. (2018). using data from Center for Health Assessment
of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) cohort examined prenatal urinary DINP levels and
the association with timing of puberty milestones (thelarche, menarche, pubarche, gonadarche) in
children. The authors found an association between pubarche and menarche age increased in "normal"
weight girls per log2 increase in MCOP. The authors also found gonadarche and pubarche age decreased
in all obese boys. There was not significant a significant association between thelarche age increased in
all girls per log2 increase in MCOP.
A medium quality birth cohort study, by Philipat et al. (2019). Etude des Determinants pre et postnatals
du developpement et de la sante de l'Enfant (EDEN) cohort, evaluated associations between DINP
metabolites (MCOP, MCNP) and a set of outcomes measured at birth (birth weight, placental weight,
placental-to-birth weight ratio). MCNP and MCOP were both associated with lower placental-to-birth
weight ratio; MCNP was additionally associated with lower placental weight. MCOP was associated
with lower placental-to-birth weight ratio (PFR) in multipollutant elastic net penalized regression
models. MCOP was not associated with birth weight or placental weight based on elastic net regression
models.
Page 138 of 184
-------
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
A medium quality cross-sectional pilot study, by Zota et al. (2019). included a racially diverse
population of premenopausal women within the Fibroids Observational Research on Genes and the
Environment (FORGE) study presenting to a university gynecology clinic and undergoing either
hysterectomy or myomectomy for symptomatic uterine fibroids to examine the potential associations
between urinary DINP biomarkers and two measures of fibroid burden (uterine volume and fibroid size).
Higher urinary concentrations of MCOP and MCNP were significantly associated with odds of greater
uterine volume. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, each log-unit increase in MCOP was
significantly associated with 2.1 (95% CI: 1.2-3.5) times increased odds of greater uterine volume, and
each log-unit increase in MCNP was associated with 2.8 (95% CI: 1.2-3.5) times increased odds of
greater uterine volume, p < 0.05. Results from additional multivariate linear regression analyses of
urinary phthalate exposure on percent increase in uterine volume were positive but not significant.
Results from multivariate logistic regression analysis of urinary DINP exposure on odds of fibroid size
increase for MCOP were non-significant. Results from additional multivariate linear regression analyses
of urinary MCOP phthalate exposure on percent increase in fibroid size (cm) were also non-significant.
A medium quality cross-sectional study, by Chang et al. (2019). evaluated the association between sex
hormone levels (luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), sex hormone binding
globulin (SHBG), inhibin B, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-
S), androstenedione (AD), estrone (El), estradiol (E2), total testosterone (TT), free testosterone (FT),
dihydrotestosterone (DHT), dihydrotestosterone/total testosterone ratio, estradiol/total testosterone ratio,
estradiol/estrone ratio), Oxidative stress/Inflammation [(malondialdehyde (MDA), inducible nitric oxide
synthetase (iNOS), 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG)] and benign prostatic hyperplasia (prostate
specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume) and DINP exposure. There were significant positive
associations between the outcomes, FSH, Inhibin B, DHEA, iNOS and MINP with regression
coefficients of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.98), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.97), 1.58 (95% CI: 1.40, 1.79) and 1.61
(95%) CI: 1.29, 2.03) respectively, p < 0.05. Multivariate regression coefficients showed significant
results for FHS, Inhibin B, iNOS and DHEA, but showed nonsignificant results for LH, SHBG, DHEA-
s, AD, El, E2, TT, FT, DHT, MDA, 8-OHdG, PSA, and prostate volume.
A medium quality study, by Mustieles et al. ( ), used data from a small cohort of subfertile couples
in the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study to analyze the association between
paternal and maternal preconception urinary DINP metabolites (MCOP), as well as maternal prenatal
DINP metabolites, and measures of placental weight. The authors did not find any significant
association between paternal and maternal preconception urinary phthalates, as well as maternal prenatal
phthalates, and measures of placental weight and MCOP.
A medium quality cohort, by Machtinger et al. (2018). examined the association between urinary
concentrations of DINP with intermediate and clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. There was
an association (adjusted means) between urinary MCOP concentration and intermediate outcomes of
assisted reproduction (total oocytes and mature oocytes) [total oocytes T2 = 10.2 (95% CI: 9.3, 11.2), T2
vs. T1 < 0.05; mature oocytes T2 = 8.4 (95% CI: 7.6, 9.3) T2 vs. T1 < 0.05], However, there was no
significant association (adjusted means) between urinary MCOP concentration and intermediate
outcomes of assisted reproduction (fertilized oocytes, top quality embryos). While there was an
association (adjusted means) between urinary MINP concentration and intermediate outcomes of
assisted reproduction (total oocytes) [total oocytes T2 = 9.2 (95% CI: 8.2, 10.2), T2 vs. T1 < 0.05]; there
was not an association (adjusted means) between urinary MINP concentration and intermediate
outcomes of assisted reproduction (mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes, top quality embryos).
Associations between MOiNP or MONP and intermediate outcomes of assisted reproduction (total
oocytes, mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes, top quality embryos) and live birth following assisted
Page 139 of 184
-------
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
reproduction were all non-significant for T2, T3 versus T1 intermediate outcomes and for p-trend of live
birth.
A medium quality case-control study, by Lee et al. (2020). assessed the relationship between uterine
fibroids and DINP metabolite concentrations. The authors did not find any statistically significant
associations between uterine fibroids and DINP metabolite concentrations. The authors did find
associations between cases and controls for OH-MINP concentrations (p-value: 0.042) as mono(4-
methyl-7-hydroxyoctyl) phthalate (OH-MINP) concentrations were significantly higher in the cases than
controls, but it was not statistically significant.
A medium quality occupational short longitudinal study, by Henrotin et al. (2020), observed the three-
day changes in levels of total and free testosterone and oxidized MINP exposure in male factory
workers. A significant inverse association was found between the decrease in serum total testosterone
(TT) concentrations between T1 and T2 and an increase in urinary OXO-MINP. There was no
significant associations observed for total testosterone and models for OH-MINP, or CX-MINP. No
significant associations were noted for free testosterone and oxo-MINP, OH-MINP, or CX-MINP.
Bivariate analyses of sexual health scales (IIEF-5 and ADAM) between DINP exposed and non-exposed
groups: No association was observed between the level of urinary oxo-MINP concentrations and FSH,
LH, index of aromatase activity (ratio of total testosterone to estradiol (TT/E2). No association was
observed between the level of urinary OXO-MINP concentrations and bone turnover biomarkers (P1NP,
CTX).
The first low qualtiy study, a case control study, by Durmaz et al. (2018), examined the association
between DINP metabolites (MINP, MHiNP, MOiNP, MCiOP) and serum luteinizing hormone (LH),
plasma follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and serum estradiol in non-obese girls aged 4 to 8 years with
premature thelarche. DINP metabolites (MINP, MHiNP, MOiNP, MCiOP and their sum) measured in
spot urine samples were compared among cases and controls. Spearman correlations with uterine
volumes, ovarian volume and pubic hair growth varied but were largely weak, negative and/or not
significant, with some significant positive correlation for the association between MCiOP, MINP and
pubic hair growth, rho = 0.440, p = 0.002 and rho = 0.480, p = 0.000, respectively. Thyroid hormone
levels had largely negative Spearman correlations with DINP metabolites, however MCiOP had a
significant negative correlation with fT4 (rho = -0.335, p = 0.041). Spearman correlations between
DINP metabolites (MCiOP, MiNP, MHiNP, MOiNP, SumDiNP) and BMI and weight were positive and
significant.
A low quality case-control study, by Moreira Fernandez et al. (2019). of women in Brazil evaluated the
association between one DINP metabolite (MINP) and endometriosis. The authors found that there was
a positive but non-significant association for the relationship between MINP and endometriosis (OR=2.5
[95% CI: 0.46, 13.78]).
A final low quality study, a case-control study, by Liao et al. (2018). examined associations between
exposure to one DINP metabolite (MINP) measured in urine samples and recurrent pregnancy loss
among women in Taiwan. The MINP samples was below the limit of detection. The highest sample was
70.4 ng/mL in controls (detection rate 2.6 percent) and 1.43 ng/mL in cases (detection rate 2.9 percent).
Page 140 of 184
-------
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Appendix E BENCHMARK DOSE ANALYSIS OF LINGTON ET AL.
(1997)
E.l Background
OCSPP requested that CPHEA run benchmark dose (BMD) models that are available in EPA's
Benchmark Dose Software version 3.3.2 (BMDS 3.3.2), to estimate risk from DINP for select endpoints
from a chronic exposure study (Lington et al. s , ^ >vnamics. 1986) using specified benchmark
response (BMR) levels. The specific endpoints and BMRs provided by OCSPP for analysis are:
1. Liver weight relative to bodyweight at terminal sacrifice (males and females)
o BMR: 1 control SD, 5%, 10%, 25%
2. Serum ALT at 6- and 18-month sacrifices (males only)
o BMR: 1 control SD, 10%, 20%, 100% {i.e., 2x)
3. Incidence of focal necrosis in the liver (males and females)
o BMR: 5%, 10%
4. Incidence of spongiosis hepatis in the liver (males only)
o BMR: 5%, 10%
5. Incidence of sinusoid ectasia in the liver (males only)
o BMR: 5%, 10%
While BMD and BMDL values are provided for all of the BMRs, this report provides detailed model run
outputs for only the models that were run using the standard BMRs generally recommended by EPA for
these endpoints, 10 percent relative deviation from the control mean (10 percent RD) for the
dichotomous endpoints and organ weight change and 1 standard deviation change from the control mean
(1 SD). Detailed modeling results for all standard noncancer models are provided for all six endpoints
using all of the BMRs requested by OCSPP in separately delivered BMDS Excel output files.
E.2 Summary of BMD Modeling Approach
All standard BMDS 3.3.2 dichotomous and continuous models that use maximum likelihood (MLE)
optimization and profile likelihood-based confidence intervals were used in this analysis. Standard
forms of these models (defined below) were run so that auto-generated model selection
recommendations accurately reflect current EPA model selection procedures EPA's benchmark Dose
Technical Guidance ( ). BMDS 3.3.2 models that use Bayesian fitting procedures and
Bayesian model averaging were not applied in this work.
Standard BMDS 3.3.2 Models Applied to Continuous Endpoints:
• Exponential 3-restricted (exp3-r)
• Exponential 5-restricted (exp5-r)
• Hill-restricted (hil-r)
• Polynomial Degree 3-restricted (ply3-r
• Polynomial Degree 2-restricted (ply2-r)
• Power-restricted (pow-r)
• Linear-unrestricted (lin-ur)
Standard BMDS 3.3.2 Models Applied to Dichotomous Endpoints:
• Gamma-restricted (gam-r)
• Log-Logistic-restricted (lnl-r)
• Weibull-restricted (wei-r)
Page 141 of 184
-------
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
• Dichotomous Hill-unrestricted (dhl-ur)
• Logistic (log)
• Log-Probit-unrestricted (lnp-ur)
• Probit (pro)
General Model Options Used for Individual Endpoint Analyses:
• Risk Type: Extra Risk
• Preferred Continuous Endpoint BMRs
o Relative Liver Weight: 0.1 (10%)
o Serum ALT: 1 Standard Deviation (1 SD)
• Preferred Dichotomous Endpoint BMR: 0.1 (10%)
• Confidence Level: 0.95
• Background response: Estimated
• Model Restrictions: Restrictions for BMDS 3.3.2 models are defined in the BMDS 3.3.2 User
Guide and are applied in accordance with EPA BMD Technical Guidance (U.S. EPA. 2012).
Model Selection:
The preferred model for the BMD derivations was chosen from the standard set of dichotomous and
continuous models listed above. The modeling restrictions and the model selection criteria facilitated in
BMDS 3.3.2, and defined in the BMDS User Guide, were applied in accordance with EPA BMD
Technical Guidance ( ) for noncancer endpoints.
With respect to the continuous endpoints, responses were first assumed to be normally distributed with
constant variance across dose groups. If no model achieved adequate fit to response means (BMDS Test
4 p > 0.1) and response variances (BMDS Test 2 p > 0.05) under that assumption, models that assume
normal distribution with non-constant variance, variance modeled as a power function of the dose group
mean ( ), were considered. If no model achieved adequate fit to response means and
variances (BMDS Test 2 p > 0.05) under that assumption, a BMD/BMDL was not derived, and a
LOAEL was selected as POD for the endpoint.
E.3 Summary of BMD Modeling Results
TableApx E-l. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results from Selected Endpoints in Male
Section
Endpoint
Sex
Selected
Model"
BMDio
(mg/kg-d)
BMDLio
(mg/kg-d)
E.4
Continuous endpoints
E.4.1.1
Relative Liver weight at terminal sacrifice
Male
Linear, CV
106
85.0
E.4.1.2
Relative Liver weight at terminal sacrifice
Female
LOAEL (184 mg/kg-day)
E.4.2.1
Serum ALT at 6-month sacrifice
Male
Linear, NCV
12.5
8.68
E.4.2.2
Serum ALT at 18-month sacrifice
Male
Power, NCV
37.2
17.4
i: ?
Didiolomous 1 indpoinls
E.5.1.1
Focal necrosis in the liver
Male
Logistic
159
125
Page 142 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Section
Endpoint
Sex
Selected
Model"
BMDio
(mg/kg-d)
BMDLio
(mg/kg-d)
E.5.1.2
Focal necrosis in the liver
Female
Log-Probit
222
34.3
E.5.2
Spongiosis hepatis in the liver
Male
Log-Probit
31.9
8.57
E.5.3
Sinusoid ectasia in the liver
Male
Log-Probit
125
14.4
" As described in Section 2, BMDs for noncancer endpoints were derived from the standard set of models as defined in
the EPA BMD technical guidance and as identified in BMDS 3.3.2 as defaults. Since the standard approach gave
adequate results for all endpoints, non-standard models were not considered for BMD derivations.
CV = constant variance model; NCV = non-constant variance model
4277 E.4 Continuous Endpoints
4278 E.4.1 Relative Liver Weight - Terminal Sacrifice
4279 E.4.1.1 Male F344 Rats
4280
4281 Table Apx E-2. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Relative Liver Weight at Terminal Sacrifice in
Male F344 Rats Following 2-Year Exposure to D
NP (Lington et al., 1997)
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Mean
Standard Deviation
0
61
0.032
0.006
15
54
0.034
0.008
152
50
0.038
0.008
307
51
0.042
0.008
4283
Page 143 of 184
-------
4284
4285
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx E-3. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Relative Liver Weight at Terminal Sacrifice in Male F344 Rats
Models "
Restriction''
I5MR = 10%
1' Value
AIC
I5MDS
Recommends
HMDS Recommendation
Notes
I5MR = 5%
I5MR = 1 SI)
I5MR = 25%
15M1)
I5MDL
HMD
I5MDL
I5MI)
I5MDL
I5MI)
I5MDL
Exponential 3
Restricted
116.26
95.59
0.3786
-1497.4
98773
Viable -
Alternate
Modeled control response
std. dev. >1.5 actual
response std. dev.
59.51
48.93
248.94
206.95
272.19
223.80
Exponential 5
Restricted
79.84
36.41
0.3253
-1496.4
71899
Viable -
Alternate
37.70
16.38
218.32
131.93
248.11
147.52
Hill
Restricted
154.16
151.00
NA
-1488.6
14597
Questionable
Residual at control > 2
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test cannot
be calculated)
85.09
83.34
303.22
296.39
340.22
333.23
Polynomial
Degree 3
Restricted
36.76
10.37
NA
-1495.3
18631
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test cannot
be calculated)
16.01
4.92
272.09
29.48
283.55
31.16
Polynomial
Degree 2
Restricted
88.20
49.76
0.3087
-1496.4
03289
Viable -
Alternate
42.54
23.75
225.74
141.55
254.52
155.99
Power
Restricted
106.22
85.08
0.4626
-1497.8
97726
Viable -
Allemale
53.11
42.54
241.06
195.89
265.55
212.69
1.incur
1 nrc>lrielcd
HNi.44
X4.%
M.4(.2~
I4T.X
25
\ inlilc
Recommended
1 OHC-I \l<
50.59
42.54
241.50
195.75
266.10
211.11
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL = benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable.
" Selected Model (bolded and shaded gray); residuals for doses 0, 15, 152, and 307 mg/kg-day were -0.8549, 0.7132, 0.4739, and -0.2682, respectively.
b Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
Page 144 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4287
Model Summary with BMR of 0.1 Rel. Dev. for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
0 0455334
U.U4J J JJt
H 041^334
¦
0.0375334
0.0335334
n rm ^^a
U.Uj 1 j j
0.0295334
-43 7 57 107 157 207 257 307
MG/KG-DAY
Frequentist Exponential Degree 3 Estimated Probability Frequentist Exponential Degree 5 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Hill Estimated Probability Frequentist Polynomial Degree 3 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Polynomial Degree 2 Estimated Probability Frequentist Power Estimated Probability
Frequentist Linear Estimated Probability • Data
Page 145 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4288
Selected Frequentist Linear Model with BMR of 0.1 Added Risk for
the BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
f) 044SQQ7
U.UttJ J J /
0 049SQQ7
U.Uft ujj/
U.U4UJ33 /
U.UjOj /
Ct n2CCQQ7
(
>
n 034^007
n n^?qqQ7
<
U.UjZ jjj /
C
n n^n^qQ7
~
U.UjU J" J /
n mcic;QQ7
0.0265997
-43 7 57 107 157 207 257 307
MG/KG-DAY
Estimated Probability Response at BMD • Data BMD BMDL
4289
Page 146 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - Linear, CV (Unrestricted) - Rel. Dev., BMR = 0.1
User Input
Model Results
Benchmark Ddse
BMD
105.440033
BMDL
34.95359659
BMD'J
139.9032525
AIC
-1497.897925
Test 4 P-value
0.452657772
D.O.F.
2
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
3
Variable
Estimate
£
0.032S14937
beta
3.08295E-05
alpha
5.54312E-05
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Size
Estimated
Median
Cale'd
Median
Observed
Mean
Estimated
5D
Calcd
SD
Observed
5D
Scaled
Residual
0
61
0.032814937
0.032
0.032
0.00744522
O.OD6
0.006
-0.854892965
15
54
0.0332773S
0.034
0.034
0.00744522
O.OOS
O.OOS
0.713230418
152
50
0.037501021
0.038
0.038
0.00744522
0.008
O.OOS
0.47390353
307
51
0.042279594
0.042
0.042
0.00744522
O.OOS
0.008
-0.268185348
Likelihoods of Interest
Model
Log Likelihood*
# of Parameters
AIC
A1
752.7197303
5
-1495.43946
A2
755.9925165
8
-1495.98503
A3
752.7197303
5
-1495.43946
fitted
751.9489626
3
-1497.S9793
R
726.8720033
2
-1449.74401
Tests of Interest
Test
-2*LoEUikelihocd Ratio)
Test ^
p-value
1
58.24102629
6
<0.0001
2
6.545572396
3
0.0878S246
3
6.545572396
3
0.0S788246
4
1.541535303
2
0.46265777
4290
Page 147 of 184
-------
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
E.4.1.2 Female F344 Rats
Table Apx E-4. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Relative Liver Weight at
Terminal Sacrifice in Female F344 Rats Following 2-Year Exposure to DINP
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
Number per
Group
Mean
Standard Deviation
0
65
0.031
0.005
18
57
0.032
0.007
184
48
0.036
0.008
375
53
0.04
0.007
4296
Page 148 of 184
-------
4297
4298
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx E-5. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Relative Liver Weight at Terminal Sacrifice in Female F344
StiiiHliml Models "
Restriction''
I5MR = 10%
1' Virtue
AIC
HMDS Recommends
HMDS Recommendation
Notes
HMR = 5%
I5MR = 1 SI)
I5MR = 25%
I5MI)
ISM 1)1 y
15M1)
HMDL
15M1)
HMDL
15M1)
HMDL
Exponential 3
Restricted
143.27
118.57
0.2610
-1596.49
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
Modeled control response
std. dev. >1.5 actual
response std. dev.
73.34
60.66
268.59
219.51
335.42
277.61
Exponential 5
Restricted
86.77
35.03
0.3336
-1596.24
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
39.99
15.51
199.97
114.18
309.91
167.83
Hill
Restricted
135.95
99.63
NA
-1592.96
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test
cannot be calculated)
69.29
48.44
263.02
194.84
338.00
256.96
Polynomial Degree 3
Restricted
72.04
14.45
NA
-1594.31
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test
cannot be calculated)
31.23
6.76
207.53
28.21
350.14
44.06
Polynomial Degree 2
Restricted
91.72
58.72
0.3068
-1596.13
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
44.59
27.86
204.48
123.24
308.82
189.00
Power
Restricted
131.94
106.23
0.3428
-1597.04
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
65.97
53.08
257.01
205.66
329.86
265.74
Linear
Unrestricted
128.47
105.83
0.3429
-1597.04
Questionable
Non-constant variance test
failed (Test 3 p-value <
0.05)
62.63
53.11
256.89
204.62
329.42
264.54
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL =benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable.
" No selected model due to inadequate fit of constant or non-constant variance models.
b Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
Page 149 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4300
Model Summary with BMR of 0.1 Rel. Dev. for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
n HAA1 7A3
n f)4?1743
U.Utt l/tJ
n D401743
u.utui / to
n 03R1743
U.UJOl / to
n A3C1 "7/ia
n H3/11 ~7A 3
0.0321743
D 0301743
u.uoui / to
n mai 7A3
5 25 75 125 175 225 275 325 375
MG/KG-DAY
Frequentist Exponential Degree 3 Estimated Probability Frequentist Exponential Degree 5 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Hill Estimated Probability Frequentist Polynomial Degree 3 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Polynomial Degree 2 Estimated Probability Frequentist Power Estimated Probability
Frequentist Linear Estimated Probability • Data
Page 150 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4301 E.4.2 Serum ALT - Male F344 Rats
4302 E.4.2.1 6-Month Sacrifice
4303
4304 Table Apx E-6. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Serum ALT Levels in Male F344
Rats Following 6-Month Exposure to DIN
P (Lineton et aL. 1997)
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Mean
Standard Deviation
0
10
37
8
15
10
38
7
152
10
81
52
307
10
128
145
4306
Page 151 of 184
-------
4307
4308
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx E-7. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Serum ALT Levels in Male F344 Rats Following 6-Month
Models "
Restriction 6
15MR = 10%
1> Value
AIC
HMDS Recommends
HMDS
Recommendation
Notes
HMR= 1 SI)
HMR = 20%
HMR = 100%
HMD
HMDL
HMD
HMDL
HMD
HMDL
HMD
HMDL
Exponential 3
Restricted
20.05
15.84
0.0692
382.00
Questionable
Goodness of fit p-
value <0.1
Modeled control
response std. dev.
>1.5 actual response
std. dev.
40.15
28.50
38.35
30.29
CF
CF
Exponential 5
Restricted
CF
CF
CF
CF
Unusable
BMD computation
failed
124.58
27.19
CF
CF
CF
CF
Hill
Restricted
19.94
9.12
NA
382.16
Questionable
d.f.=0, saturated
model (Goodness of
fit test cannot be
calculated)
34.15
16.39
CF
CF
123.97
90.11
Polynomial Degree 3
Restricted
40.68
11.16
NA
380.67
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio >
3 d.f.=0, saturated
model (Goodness of
fit test cannot be
calculated)
55.33
20.32
56.49
22.31
134.04
98.56
Polynomial Degree 2
Restricted
13.99
0
0.1351
380.89
Unusable
BMD computation
failed; lower limit
includes zero
BMDL not estimated
26.33
14.94
27.79
16.84
132.49
87.19
Power
Restricted
18.76
9.26
0.2143
380.20
Viable - Alternate
32.59
16.63
33.74
18.51
131.87
91.22
1 iiu;ii
1 nre-lricled
12.52
S.(.S
0.3050
3~').03
\ ialile Recommended
1 i m e»l VIC
23.42
15.50
25.04
17.37
125.20
86.83
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL = benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable; CF = computation failed
" Selected model (bolded and shaded gray); residuals for doses 0, 15, 152, and 307 were 0.5396, -0.7686, 0.1084, 0.0955, respectively.
1 Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
4309
Page 152 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Model Summary with BMR of 0.1 Rel. Dev. for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
1 39 9fiQQR
IjZ.ZDjjO
119 9fiQQR
11Z.ZD330
Q9 9P1QQR9
79 9P1QQR9
J,
CO OCOOQO
32.269982
-43 7 57 107 157 207 257 307
MG/KG-DAY
— Frequentist Exponential Degree 3 Estimated Probability Frequentist Hill Estimated Probability
Frequentist Polynomial Degree 3 Estimated Probability Frequentist Polynomial Degree 2 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Power Estimated Probability Frequentist Linear Estimated Probability
• Data
4310
Page 153 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Frequentist Linear Model with BMR of 0.1 Added Risk for the
BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
193 opi7f;Q
¦
¦
O
J.Z j.OO/ UI7
103.86769
Q2 QC7CQC
OJ.OO / UOD
UJ.OU / uou
/I3 QC7CQC t
^O.OD/OOD
Z j.Ou / uou
J.OO / OOJ j
43
-16.13231
57 107 157 207 257 30
MG/KG-DAY
Estimated Probability Response at BMD • Data BMD BMDL
4311
Page 154 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - Linear, NCV (Unrestricted) - Rel. Dev., BMR = 0.1
User Input
Model
Data
Dependent
Variable
mg/kg-day
Independe
nt
Variable
Total # of
Observatio
n
4
Info
Model
Frequentist Linear,
NCV
Dataset
Name
Male F344 Rats
Serum ALT 6mon
Formula
M[dose] = g + bl
*dose
Var[i] = alpha
*meanfil A rho
Options
Risk
Type
Rel. Dev.
BMR
0.1
Confiden
ce Level
0.95
Distributi
on
Normal
Variance
Non-Constant
Model Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
12.51986155
BMDL
8.683091255
BMDU
12.77902268
AIC
379.0287425
Test 4 P-value
0.304955816
D.O.F.
2
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
4
Variable
Estimate
8
35.85553524
beta
0.286389228
rho
4.902699939
alpha
1.07545E-06
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Size
Estimated
Median
Calc'd
Median
Observed
Mean
Estimated
SD
Calc'd
SD
Observed
SD
Scaled
Residual
0
10
35.85553524
37
37
6.7074289
8
8
0.539568203
15
10
40.15137365
38
38
8.85168002
7
7
-0.768581876
152
10
79.38669783
81
81
47.0696879
52
52
0.108386302
307
10
123.7770281
128
128
139.825984
145
145
0.095505923
Likelihoods of Interest
Model
Log Likelihood*
# of Parameters
AIC
A1
-228.508524
5
467.017048
A2
-184.1836225
8
384.367245
A3
-184.3267829
6
380.653566
fitted
-185.5143713
4
379.028743
Page 155 of 184
-------
4313
4314
4315
4316
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
E.4.2.2 18-Month Sacrifice
TableApx E-8. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Serum ALT Levels in Male F344
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Mean
Standard Deviation
0
9
42
10
15
10
39
7
152
10
69
39
307
10
128
126
4317
Page 156 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4318 TableApx E-9. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Serum ALT Levels in Male F344 Rats Following 18-Month
Exposure to DI>
P (Non-constant Variance) (Line!
ton et al., 1997)
Models "
Restriction 6
BMR = 10%
1> Value
AIC
BMDS Recommends
BMDS
Recommendation
Notes
BMR = 1 SI)
BMR = 20%
BMR = 100%
HMD
BMDL
BMD
BMDL
BMD
BMDL
BMD
BMDL
Exponential 3
Restricted
28.31
19.66
0.0433
371.30
Questionable
Goodness of fit p-value
<0.1
Modeled control
response std. dev. >1.5
actual response std. dev.
56.70
37.76
52.87
37.61
191.28
143.00
Exponential 5
Restricted
103.76
21.91
NA
370.80
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3;
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test
cannot be calculated)
113.99
40.10
113.67
39.87
154.96
134.70
Hill
Restricted
61.57
28.62
NA
371.00
Questionable
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test
cannot be calculated)
CF
CF
82.15
46.68
182.90
133.66
Polynomial Degree 3
Restricted
63.43
20.61
NA
370.94
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test
cannot be calculated)
85.51
40.83
84.98
40.09
200.71
131.37
Polynomial Degree 2
Restricted
29.49
14.27
0.0428
371.32
Questionable
Goodness of fit p-value
<0.1
56.99
28.32
55.73
28.45
210.39
132.17
1'inwr'
Reminded
r. 4?
0.0')25
3~0.04
(Jiieolhinnlile
( ilMldlK'NN 0|* Ml |)-
\:ilur 0.1
62.51
33.36
59.71
33.45
179.20
134.31
Linear
Unrestricted
20.06
12.52
0.0655
370.67
Questionable
Goodness of fit p-value
<0.1
40.61
24.79
40.11
25.04
200.56
125.22
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL = benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable
a Selected Model is bolded and shaded gray; residuals for doses 0, 15, 152, and 307 were 0.7610,-0.6609, -0.2070, and 0.0131, respectively.
b Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
c Despite p < 0.1, the Power model fit would pass at p > 0.05, the variance model passed p > 0.05, and visual fit of model to data is still adequate for BMD calculation.
4320
Page 157 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Model Summary with BMR of 0.1 Rel. Dev. for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
-43
130
110
107 157
MG/KG-DAY
307
Frequentist Exponential Degree 3 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Hill Estimated Probability
Frequentist Polynomial Degree 2 Estimated Probability
¦Frequentist Linear Estimated Probability
Frequentist Exponential Degree 5 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Polynomial Degree 3 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Power Estimated Probability
O Data
4321
Page 158 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4322
Frequentist Power Model with BMR of 0.1 Added Risk for the
BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
Estimated Probability Response at BMD • Data BMD BMDL
Page 159 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - Power, NCV (Restricted) - Rel. Dev., BMR = 0.1
User Input
Model
Data
Dependent
Variable
mg/kg-day
Independe
nt
Variable
Total # of
Observatio
n
4
Info
Model
Frequentist Power,
NCV
Dataset
Name
MaleF344Rats_S eru
m ALT 18mon
Formula
M[dose] = g + v *
dose A n
Var[i] = alpha *
mean[il A rho
Options
Risk
Type
Rel. Dev.
BMR
0.1
Confiden
ce Level
0.95
Distributi
on
Normal
Variance
Non-Constant
Model Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
37.19126348
BMDL
17.45080887
BMDU
37.96112263
AIC
370.0444752
Test 4 P-value
0.092488008
D.O.F.
1
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
5
Variable
Estimate
8
39.8382544
V
0.019980069
n
1.464367921
rho
4.643124981
alpha
2.69559E-06
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Size
Estimated
Median
Calc'd
Median
Observed
Mean
Estimated
SD
Calc'd
SD
Observed
SD
Scaled
Residual
0
9
39.8382544
42
42
8.5216504
10
10
0.761030608
15
10
40.89222207
39
39
9.05422294
7
7
-0.66087743
152
10
71.14361683
69
69
32.7473294
39
39
-0.207000441
307
10
127.4742711
128
128
126.82257
126
126
0.013108871
Likelihoods of Interest
Model
Log Likelihood*
# of Parameters
AIC
A1
-217.2980126
5
444.596025
A2
-178.4089743
8
372.817949
A3
-178.6069741
6
369.213948
fitted
-180.0222376
5
370.044475
4324
Page 160 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4325 E.5 Dichotomous Endpoints
4326 E.5.1 Focal Necrosis in the liver
4327 E.5.1.1 Male F344 Rats
4328
4329 Table Apx E-10. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Focal Necrosis of the Liver in Male
4330 F344 Rats Following 2-Year Exposure to DINP (? ^ A )
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Incidence
0
81
10
15
80
9
152
80
16
307
80
26
4331
Page 161 of 184
-------
4332
4333
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx E-ll. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Focal Necrosis of the Liver in Male F344 Rats Following 2-Year
Models "
Restriction ''
HMR = 10%
P Value
AIC
HMDS Recommends
HMDS Recommendation
Notes
HMR = 5%
HMD
liMDL
HMD
BMDL
Dichotomous Hill
Restricted
154.87
48.90
NA
305.83
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test cannot be
calculated)
132.94
18.97
Gamma
Restricted
161.40
85.98
0.7925
303.85
Viable - Alternate
100.26
41.86
Log-Logistic
Restricted
160.91
78.23
0.7930
303.85
Viable - Alternate
100.39
37.06
Multistage Degree 3
Restricted
162.13
85.74
0.7420
303.89
Viable - Alternate
94.76
41.74
Multistage Degree 2
Restricted
162.13
85.74
0.7420
303.89
Viable - Alternate
94.76
41.74
Multistage Degree 1
Restricted
126.33
84.11
0.8212
302.17
Viable - Alternate
61.50
40.94
Weibull
Restricted
161.48
85.94
0.7832
303.86
Viable - Alternate
98.74
41.84
1 ."ni-lir
1 nreNlriiled
I5S.52
124.50
O.'MI"
30l.')0
\ iiilile Recommended
l.owe-l \l(
88.34
69.47
Log-Probit
Unrestricted
159.84
46.47
0.8230
303.83
Viable - Alternate
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
104.60
12.63
Probit
Unrestricted
153.31
118.45
0.9368
301.91
Viable - Alternate
83.82
64.96
Quantal Linear
Unrestricted
126.33
84.11
0.8212
302.17
Viable - Alternate
61.50
40.95
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL = benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable
"Selected Model is bolded and shaded gray; residuals for doses 0, 15, 152 and 307 were 0.2347, -0.2546, 0.0189 and 0.0007, respectively.
bRestrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
4334
Page 162 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Model Summary with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
CD
U
£
CD
¦g
u
£
0.5
0.45
n a
\J. *T
0.35
n 3 i
n 9^:
U.Zj
0.15
0.05
-43
57
107 157
mg/kg-day
207
257
307
Frequentist Dichotomous Hill
Estimated Probability
Frequentist Gamma Estimated
Probability
Frequentist Log-Logistic Estimated
Probability
• Frequentist Multistage Degree 3
Estimated Probability
Frequentist Multistage Degree 2
Estimated Probability
¦ Frequentist Multistage Degree 1
Estimated Probability
¦ Frequentist Weibull Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Logistic Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Log-Probit Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Probit Estimated
Probability
4335
Page 163 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Frequentist Logistic Model with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the
BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
i
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
^^Estimated Probability
Response at BMD
O Data
BMD
BMDL
57
107 157
mg/kg-day
207
257
307
Page 164 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - Logistic (Unrestricted) - Extra Risk, BMR = 0.1
User Input
Info
Model
Logistic
Dataset Name
Male F344 Rats-
Formula
P[dose] =
l/[l+exp(-a-b*de
Options
Risk Type
Extra Risk
Model Data
BMR
0.1
Dependent Variable
mg/kg-day
Confidence
Level
0.95
Independent Variable
Incidence
Total # of Observation
4
Background
Estimated
Model Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
158.52
BMDL
124.56
BMDU
239.50
AIC
301.50
P-value
0.94
D.O.F.
2.00
Chi3
0.12
Slope Factor
158.52
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
2
Variable
Estimate
a
-2.0393
b
0.00426
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Estimated
Probability
Expected
Observed
Size
Seated
Residual
0
0.115134137
9.32586507
ID
81
0.2347
15
0.121808403
9.744672223
9
80
-0.2546
152
0.199154436
15.932354SS
16
80
0.0189
307
0.324963347
25.99710772
26
80
0.0007
Analysis of Deviance
Model
Log Likelihood
# of Parameters
Deviance
Test dX
P Value
Full Model
-14S.SS97738
4
-
NA
Fitted Model
-148.950072
2
0.12059642
2
0.9414837
Reduced Model
-156.0920707
1
14.4045939
3
0.0024031
4337
Page 165 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
User Input
Info
Model
Logistic
Dataset Name
Male F344 Rats-
Formula
P[dose] =
l/[l+exp(-a-b"dc
Options
Risk Type
Extra Risk
Model Data
BMR
0.1
Dependent Variable
mg/kg-day
Confidence
Level
0.95
Independent Variable
Incidence
Total it of Observation
4
Background
Estimated
Model Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
158.52
BMDL
124.56
BMDU
239.50
AIC
301:90
P-value
0.94
D.O.F.
2.00
Chi3
0.12
Slope Factor
158.52
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
2
Variable
Estimate
a
-2.0393
b
0.00426
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Estimated
Probability
Expected
Observed
Size
Scaled
Residual
0
0.115134137
9.32586507
10
81
0.2347
15
0.121808403
9.744672223
9
SO
-0.2546
152
0..199154436
15.93235483
16
SO
0.0189
307
0.324963S47
25.99710772
26
80
0.0007
Analysis of Deviance
Model
Log Likelihood
# of Parameters
Deviance
Test cJX.
P Value
Full Model
-14S.S897738
4
-
NA
Fitted Model
-148.950072
2
0.12059642
2
0.9414837
Reduced Model
-156.0920707
1
14.4045939
3
0.0024031
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
Page 166 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4346 E.5.1.2 Female F344 Rats
4347
4348 Table Apx E-12. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Focal Necrosis of the Liver in
Female F344 Rats Following 2-Year Exposure to
DINP (Liiigtoi! et al, 1997)
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Incidence
0
81
13
18
81
11
184
80
19
375
80
21
4350
Page 167 of 184
-------
4351
4352
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx E-13. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Focal Necrosis of the Liver in Female F344 Rats Following 2-
Models "
Restriction b
BMR = 10%
P
Value
AIC
BMDS Recommends
BMDS Recommendation Notes
BMR = 5%
BMD
BMDL
BMD
BMDL
Dichotomous Hill
Restricted
179.57
19.90
NA
323.73
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
d.f.=0, saturated model (Goodness of
fit test cannot be calculated)
148.09
7.87
Gamma
Restricted
247.12
136.68
0.7185
320.19
Viable - Alternate
120.31
66.54
Log-Logistic
Restricted
239.78
125.46
0.7335
320.15
Viable - Alternate
113.58
59.43
Multistage Degree 3
Restricted
247.12
136.68
0.7185
320.19
Viable - Alternate
120.31
66.53
Multistage Degree 2
Restricted
247.12
136.68
0.7185
320.19
Viable - Alternate
120.31
66.54
Multistage Degree 1
Restricted
247.12
136.68
0.7185
320.19
Viable - Alternate
120.31
66.54
Weibull
Restricted
247.12
136.68
0.7185
320.19
Viable - Alternate
120.31
66.54
I .ogistic
Unrestricted
275.16
179.48
0.6509
320.39
Viable - Alternate
148.92
98.02
l.iiSi-Pnihil
I nreslriiled
222.0N
34.30
0.4N0')
322.03
Viable - Recommended
Limes 1 BMDL
BMD/BMDL ralio>3
96.76
0.90
Probit
Unrestricted
271.03
173.31
0.6617
320.36
Viable - Alternate
144.53
93.23
Quantal Linear
Unrestricted
247.12
136.68
0.7185
320.19
Viable - Alternate
120.31
66.54
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL = benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable.
" Selected Model is bolded and shaded gray; residuals for doses 0, 18, 184 and 375 were 0.3259, -0.4779, 0.3508 and -0.1977, respectively.
h Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
4353
Page 168 of 184
-------
4354
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.1
0.05
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Model Summary with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
Frequentist Dichotomous Hill
Estimated Probability
Frequentist Gamma Estimated
Probability
Frequentist Log-Logistic Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Multistage Degree 3
Estimated Probability
Frequentist Multistage Degree 2
Estimated Probability
¦ Frequentist Multistage Degree 1
Estimated Probability
¦ Frequentist Weibull Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Logistic Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Log-Probit Estimated
Probability
¦ Frequentist Probit Estimated
Probability
0
-25 25 75 125 175 225 275 325 375
mg/kg-day
4355
Page 169 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4356
Female F344 Relative Liver Weight vs mg/kg-day; LogProbit model
with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence
Limit for the BMDL
0.35
0.1
0.05
0
-25 25 75 125 175 225 275 325 375
mg/kg-day
Estimated Probability
Response at BMD
O Data
BMD
BMDL
Page 170 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - ^4)gPyqbi^ (Unrestricted) - Extra Risk, BMR = 0.1
User Input
Info
Model
Log-Pro bit
Dataset
Name
Female F344 Rats - focal necrosis
Formula
Pfdose] =
g+(l-E) * KmMDOT[atb*LDSfDose))
Options
Risk Type
Extra Risk
BMR
0.1
Confidence
Level
0.95
Background
Estimated
Model Data
Dependent Variable
mg/kg-day
Independent Variable
Incidence
Total # of Observation
4
Model Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
222.0606266
BMDL
34.3001408
BMDU
Infinity
AIC
322.0-314517
P-value
0.48 QUI 731
D.O.F.
1
Chi2
0.496782444
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
3
Variable
Estimate
Background (g)
0.147649782
a
-3.644150287
b
0.437272073
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Estimated
Probability
Expected
Observed
Size
Scaled
Residual
0
0.147649782
11.95963234
13
81
0.3258509
18
0.155022564
12.55682771
11
81
-0.477945
184
0.221220007
17.69760055
19
80
0.3508162
375
0.2723415S
21.7873264
21
80
-0.197738
Analysis of Deviance
Model
Log Likelihood
# of Parameters
Deviance
Test .it
P Value
Full Modell
-157.7653174
4
-
NA
Fitted Model
-158.0157259
3
0.50081701
1
0.4791414
Reduced Model
-160.5735074
1
5.61638012
3
0.1318411
4357
4358
Page 171 of 184
-------
4359
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4360
4361
4362
4363
E.5.2 Spongiosis hepatis in the liver - Male F344 Rats
Table Apx E-14. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Spongiosis Hepatis of the Liver
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Incidence
0
81
24
15
80
24
152
80
51
307
80
62
4364
Page 172 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4365 TableApx E-15. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Spongiosis Hepatis of the Liver in Male F344 Rats Following 2-
4366 Year Exposure to DINP (Lington et ai. 1997)
Models"
Restriction*
BMR = 10%
P Value
AIC
BMDS Recommends
BMDS Recommendation Notes
BMR = 5%
BMD
BMDL
BMD
BMDL
Dichotomous Hill
Restricted
53.05
9.92
1
394.27
Viable - Alternate
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
37.76
4.81
Gamma
Restricted
26.33
20.77
0.8496
390.93
Viable - Alternate
12.82
10.11
Log-Logistic
Restricted
30.45
11.96
0.7322
392.47
Viable - Alternate
17.20
5.67
Mutlistage Degree 3
Restricted
26.33
20.77
1
-9999
Unusable
AIC not estimated
12.82
10.11
Mutlistage Degree 2
Restricted
26.33
20.77
1
-9999
Unusable
AIC not estimated
12.82
10.11
Mutlistage Degree 1
Restricted
26.33
20.77
0.8496
390.93
Viable - Alternate
12.82
10.11
Weibull
Restricted
26.33
20.77
0.8496
390.93
Viable - Alternate
12.82
10.11
Logistic
Unrestricted
42.42
35.87
0.6349
392.50
Viable - Alternate
21.74
18.35
Lo^-Prohil
I nresl riiied
3I.NN
8.57
O.NI37
3')2.37
Viable - Recommended
Limes i BMDL; BMD/BMDL ralio >3
20.08
4.03
Probit
Unrestricted
42.55
36.41
0.6037
392.70
21.70
18.55
Quantal Linear
Unrestricted
26.33
20.77
0.8496
390.93
12.82
10.11
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL = benchmark dose lower limit
" Selected Model is bolded; residuals for doses 0,15, 152, and 307 were 0.1279, -0.1656, 0.0941, and -0.0539, respectively.
4 Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
4367
Page 173 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Model Summary with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and
0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
—1—
n q
U.J
n £
U.o
n 7
u. /
n F>
¦
u.o
n c:
n A
n 5
U.3
n i
n 1
U. -L
0
-43 7 57 107 157 207 257 307
MG/KG-DAY
Frequentist Dichotomous Hill Estimated Probability Frequentist Gamma Estimated Probability
Frequentist Log-Logistic Estimated Probability Frequentist Multistage Degree 3 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Multistage Degree 2 Estimated Probability Frequentist Multistage Degree 1 Estimated Probability
Frequentist Weibull Estimated Probability Frequentist Logistic Estimated Probability
Frequentist Log-Probit Estimated Probability Frequentist Probit Estimated Probability
Frequentist Quantal Linear Estimated Probability • Data
4368
Page 174 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4369
Frequentist Log-Probit Model with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the
BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
1
n q
0.8
0.7
0.6
rt c
n A -r- T ^0^0000"^
0.3 i—
n ? -L
r
n 1
U. -L
0
-43 7 57 107 157 207 257 307
MG/KG-DAY
Estimated Probability Response at BMD • Data BMD BMDL
4370
Page 175 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - LogProbit (Unrestricted) - Extra Risk, BMR = 0.1
Model
Info
Options
Data
Model
Log-Probit
Risk
Dependent
Dataset
Name
Male F344
Type
Extra Risk
Variable
mg/kg-day
Rats spongiosis
BMR
0.1
Independe
hepatis
Confiden
nt
P[dose] = g+(l-g) *
ce Level
0.95
Variable
Incidence
Formula
CumNorm(a+b*Log(
Dose))
Backgrou
nd
Estimated
Total # of
Observatio
n
4
Vlodel Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
31.87966632
BMDL
8.566931336
BMDU
77.63938389
AIC
392.3657526
P-value
0.813651618
D.O.F.
1
Chi2
0.055562904
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
3
Variable
Estimate
Background (g)
0.288658724
a
-4.003497521
b
0.786242291
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Estimated
Probability
Expected
Observed
Size
Scaled
Residual
0
0.288658724
23.38135661
24
81
0.1279398
15
0.310314502
24.82516015
24
80
0.1656122
152
0.629151263
50.33210107
51
80
0.094143
307
0.780322211
62.4257769
62
80
-0.053889
Analysis of Deviance
Log
#of
Test
Model
Likelihood
Parameters
Deviance
d.f.
P Value
Full Model
-193.1328632
4
-
-
NA
Fitted Model
-193.1828763
3
0.10002618
1
0.7517982
Reduced Model
-222.4986873
1
58.6316221
3
0.7517982
4371
Page 176 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4372 E.5.3 Sinusoid Ectasia in the Liver Male F344 Rats
4373
4374 Table Apx E-16. Dose-Response Modeling Data for Sinusoid Ectasia of the Liver
4375 in Male F344 Rats Following 2-Year Exposure to DINP (? ^ ^ A )
Dose (mg/kg-dav)
Number per Group
Incidence
0
81
16
15
80
16
152
80
24
307
80
33
4376
Page 177 of 184
-------
4377
4378
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
TableApx E-17. Summary of Benchmark Dose Modeling Results for Sinusoid Ectasia of the Liver in Male F344 Rats Following 2-
Models "
Restriction b
BMR = 10%
P
Value
AIC
BMDS Recommends
BMDS Recommendation
Notes
BMR=5%
BMD
BMDL
BMD
BMDL
Dichotomous Hill
Restricted
126.62
19.59
NA
374.75
Questionable
BMD/BMDL ratio > 3
d.f.=0, saturated model
(Goodness of fit test cannot
be calculated)
79.29
7.58
Gamma
Restricted
121.73
68.52
0.9441
372.76
Viable - Alternate
66.95
33.36
Log-Logistic
Restricted
122.39
58.96
0.9572
372.75
Viable - Alternate
69.06
27.93
Multistage Degree 3
Restricted
118.39
68.47
0.9930
370.77
Viable - Alternate
60.57
33.33
Multistage Degree 2
Restricted
118.39
68.47
0.9930
370.77
Viable - Alternate
60.57
33.33
Multistage Degree 1
Restricted
104.19
68.30
0.9746
370.80
Viable - Alternate
50.72
33.25
Weibull
Restricted
121.20
68.51
0.9372
372.76
Viable - Alternate
65.82
33.35
Logistic
Unrestricted
128.86
97.30
0.9836
370.78
Viable - Alternate
68.24
51.73
l.iiSi-Pnihil
I nreslriiled
125.23
14.42
O.'WI 1
372.75
Viable - Recommended
Limesi BMDI.
BMD/BMDI. ralio >3
76.52
2.40
Probit
Unrestricted
125.62
93.71
0.9883
370.77
Viable - Alternate
65.79
49.29
Quantal Linear
Unrestricted
104.19
68.30
0.9746
370.80
Viable - Alternate
50.72
33.25
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BMD = benchmark dose; BMDL =benchmark dose lower limit; NA = not applicable.
" Selected Model is bolded; residuals for doses 0,15, 152 and 307 were -0.0075, 0.0082, -0.0013 and 0.0007, respectively.
4 Restrictions defined in the BMDS 3.3 User Guide.
4379
Page 178 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
4380
4381
Model Summary with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95
Lower Confidence Limit for the BMDL
0.5
0
-43 7 57 107 157 207 257 307
mg/kg-day
^^—Frequentist Dichotomous Hill
Estimated Probability
Frequentist Gamma Estimated
Probability
Frequentist Log-Logistic Estimated
Probability
^^—Frequentist Multistage Degree 3
Estimated Probability
^^—Frequentist Multistage Degree 2
Estimated Probability
^^—Frequentist Multistage Degree 1
Estimated Probability
^^—Frequentist Weibull Estimated
Probability
^^—Frequentist Logistic Estimated
Probability
^^—Frequentist Log-Probit Estimated
Probability
^^—Frequentist Probit Estimated
Probability
Page 179 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Male F344 Relative Liver Weight vs mg/kg-day; LogProbit model
with BMR of 10% Extra Risk for the BMD and 0.95 Lower Confidence
Limit for the BMDL
Page 180 of 184
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Results for Selected Model - LogProbit (Unrestricted) - Extra Risk, BMR = 0.1
wwWvavwwvvvw-
User Input
Options
Info
Risk Type
Extra Risk
Model Data
Model
Log-Probit
BMR
0.1
Dependent Variable
rng/kg-day
Dataset Name
Sinusoid Ectasia -
Confidence
Level
0.95
Independent Variable
Incidence
Formula
Pjdose] = g+(l-g)
Total # of Observation
4
Background
Estimated
Model Results
Benchmark Dose
BMD
125.23
BMDL
14.42
BMDU
247.62
AIC
372.75
P-value
0.99
D.O.F.
1.00
Chi2
0.00
Model Parameters
# of Parameters
Variable
Estimate
g
0.197861854
a
-4.343490179
b
0.73743943
Goodness of Fit
Dose
Estimated
Probability
Expected
Observed
Size
Scaled
Residual
0
0.197861854
16.02681018
16
SI
-0.0075
15
0.199634872
15.97073978
16
SO
0.00S2
152
0.300063561
24.00543434
24
SO
-0.0013
307
0.412461541
32.99692324
33
SO
0.0007
Analysis of Deviance
Model
Log Likelihood
of Parameters
Deviance
Test slX.
P Value
Full Model
Full Model
-133.3755714
4
-
Fitted Model
Fitted Model
-183.3756339
3
0.00012493
1
Reduced Model
Reduced Model
-139.500S934
1
12.2506439
3
Page 181 of 184
-------
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
Appendix F CALCULATING DAILY ORAL HUMAN
EQUIVALENT DOSES AND HUMAN EQUIVALENT
CONCENTRATIONS
For DINP, all data considered for PODs are obtained from oral animal toxicity studies in rats, mice, or
beagles. Because toxicity values for DINP are from oral animal studies, EPA must use an extrapolation
method to estimate HEDs. The preferred method would be to use chemical-specific information for such
an extrapolation. EPA identified one study reporting a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for
DINP based on humanized liver mice (Miura et ai. 2018). Since the study made use of genetically
modified animals and has not been validated by the Agency, it was not considered fit-for-purpose or
used to calculate HEDs. EPA did not locate other DINP information to conduct a chemical-specific
quantitative extrapolation. In the absence of such data, EPA relied on the guidance from U.S. EPA
(2 ), which recommends scaling allometrically across species using the three-quarter power of body
weight (BW3/4) for oral data. Allometric scaling accounts for differences in physiological and
biochemical processes, mostly related to kinetics.
For application of allometric scaling in risk evaluations, EPA uses dosimetric adjustment factors
(DAFs), which can be calculated using EquationApx F-l.
EquationApx F-l. Dosimetric Adjustment Factor
U.S. EPA (2 ), presents DAFs for extrapolation to humans from several species. However, because
those DAFs used a human body weight of 70 kg, EPA has updated the DAFs using a human body
weight of 80 kg for the DINP risk evaluation ( |). EPA used the body weights of 0.025,
0.25, and 12 kg for mice, rats and dogs, respectively, as presented in U.S. EPA (2 ). The resulting
DAFs for mice, rats, and dogs are 0.133, 0.236, and 0.622, respectively.
Use of allometric scaling for oral animal toxicity data to account for differences among species allows
EPA to decrease the default intraspecies UF (UFa) used to set the benchmark MOE; the default value of
10 can be decreased to 3, which accounts for any toxicodynamic differences that are not covered by use
of BW3 4 Using the appropriate DAF from Equation Apx F-l, EPA adjusts the POD to obtain the HED
using Equation Apx F-2:
Equation Apx F-2. Daily Oral Human Equivalent Dose
Where:
DAF
BWa
BWh
Dosimetric adjustment factor (unitless)
Body weight of species used in toxicity study (kg)
Body weight of adult human (kg)
HEDDaily — PODDauy X DAF
Where:
HEDnaily
P ODDaily
DAF
Human equivalent dose assuming daily doses (mg/kg-day)
Oral POD assuming daily doses (mg/kg-day)
Dosimetric adjustment factor (unitless)
Page 182 of 184
-------
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
For this draft risk evaluation, EPA assumes similar absorption for the oral and inhalation routes, and no
adjustment was made when extrapolating to the inhalation route. For the inhalation route, EPA
extrapolated the daily oral HEDs to inhalation HECs using a human body weight and breathing rate
relevant to a continuous exposure of an individual at rest, as follows:
EquationApx F-3. Extrapolating from Oral HED to Inhalation HEC
wrrn r BWh
HECDaily, continuous ~ H E D Daily X ( )
in^ * EiU£
Where:
HECoaily continuous = Inhalation HEC based on continuous daily exposure (mg/m3)
HEDoaiiy = Oral HED based on daily exposure (mg/kg-day)
BWh = Body weight of adult humans (kg) = 80
IRr = Inhalation rate for an individual at rest (m3/hr) = 0.6125
EDc = Exposure duration for a continuous exposure (hr/day) = 24
Based on information from U.S. EPA (201 la). EPA assumes an at rest breathing rate of 0.6125 nrVhr.
Adjustments for different breathing rates required for individual exposure scenarios are made in the
exposure calculations, as needed.
It is often necessary to convert between ppm and mg/m3 due to variation in concentration reporting in
studies and the default units for different OPPT models. Therefore, EPA presents all PODs in
equivalents of both units to avoid confusion and errors. Equation Apx F-4 presents the conversion of the
HEC from mg/m3 to ppm.
Equation Apx F-4. Converting Units for HECs (mg/m3 to ppm)
mg 24.45
X ppm = Y —5- x
m3 MW
Where:
24.45 = Molar volume of a gas at standard temperature and pressure (L/mol), default
MW = Molecular weight of the chemical (MW of DINP = 418.62 g/mol)
F.l DINP Non-cancer HED and HEC Calculations for Acute and
Intermediate Duration Exposures
The acute and intermediate duration non-cancer POD is based on a BMDLs of 49 mg/kg-day, and the
critical effect is decreased fetal testicular testosterone. The BMDLs was derived by NASEM (2017)
through meta-regression and BMD modeling of fetal testicular testosterone data from two studies of
DINP with rats (Bobere et al. JO I I; liannas et al. 2011). R code supporting NASEM's meta-regression
and BMD analysis of DINP is publicly available through GitHub). This non-cancer POD is considered
protective of effects observed following acute and intermediate duration exposures to DINP. EPA used
Equation Apx F-l to determine a DAF specific to rats (0.236), which was in turn used in the following
calculation of the daily HED using Equation Apx F-2:
mq mq
11.6 — = 49- — X 0.236
kg — day kg — day
Page 183 of 184
-------
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
May 2024
EPA then calculated the continuous HEC for an individual at rest using EquationApx F-3:
mq mq 80 kq
63-0 —j = 11.6- x( ^ )
m kg day 0.6125 * 24 hr
hr
Equation Apx F-4 was used to convert the HEC from mg/m3 to ppm:
mq 24.45
3.68 ppm = 63.0 —- x
HH m3 418.62
F.2 DINP Non-cancer HED and HEC Calculations for Chronic Exposures
The chronic duration non-cancer POD is based on a NOAEL of 15 mg/kg-day, and the critical effect is
liver toxicity (i.e., increased relative liver weight, increased serum chemistry (AST, ALT, ALP),
histopathologic findings (e.g., focal necrosis, spongiosis hepatis)) in F344 rats following two years of
dietary exposure to DINP (Lington etai. 1997; Bio/dynamics. 1986). EPA used Equation Apx F-l to
determine a DAF specific to rats (0.236), which was in turn used in the following calculation of the daily
HED using Equation Apx F-2:
mq mq
3.55 — = 15- — x 0.236
kg — day kg — day
EPA then calculated the continuous HEC for an individual at rest using Equation Apx F-3:
mq mq 80 kq
19.3-|= 3.55 x( ^ )
m kg day 0.6125 * 24 hr
hr
Equation Apx F-4 was used to convert the HEC from mg/m3 to ppm:
mg 24.45
1.13 ppm = 19.3 —7 x ^ ^ ^
m3 418.62
Page 184 of 184
-------