4.8 Article

Are Adverse Outcome Pathways Here to Stay?

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 3-9

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es504976d

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Chemistry Council
  2. BioDetection Systems
  3. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals
  4. Environment Canada
  5. European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Center
  6. Human Toxicology Project Consortium
  7. International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Science Institute
  8. Research Council of Norway [221455]
  9. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
  10. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center
  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Social pressure to minimize the use of animal testing and the ever-increasing concern on animal welfare, together with the need for more human-relevant and more predictive toxicity tests, are some of the drivers for new approaches to chemical screening. These approaches must also be able to accelerate the screening and assessment of the thousands of chemicals that are currently in use and in development for potential hazards to human and ecological health. Ideally, approaches are needed that decrease (or eliminate) animal testing while increasing predictivity. Efforts in many countries have focused on a toxicological pathway-based vision for human health assessments relying on in vitro systems and predictive models,(1) vision equally applicable to ecological risk assessment.(2) A pathway-based analysis of chemical effects opens numerous opportunities to apply nontraditional approaches for understanding the risks of chemical exposure. Conservation of molecular initiating and key events leading to adverse outcomes of regulatory concern provide a defensible framework for extrapolating chemical effects across species, even if the specific adverse outcomes differ between them.(3)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available