4.6 Article

Investigating the interaction between melamine and cyanuric acid using a Physiologically-Based Toxicokinetic model in rainbow trout

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 370, 期 -, 页码 184-195

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2019.03.021

关键词

Physiologically-Based Toxicokinetic (PBTK) model; Toxicodynamics; Mixture; Interaction; Melamine; Rainbow Trout

资金

  1. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [EFSA/SCER/2014/06]
  2. French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development [190]
  3. French association ANRT (Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie)
  4. Analytica LASER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Following outbreaks of feed and food adulterations with a melamine and cyanuric acid mixture in 2007 and melamine in 2008 respectively, the kinetics and toxicodynamics of the mixture have been investigated particularly in sensitive species such as the rainbow trout. Tissue concentrations and intensity of the adverse effect, melamine-cyanurate crystal formation in kidney, were reported in similar experimental conditions. Here, a recent PBTK model for rainbow trout has been applied to model the kinetics of both single compounds based on residue levels in tissues. Both PBTK models for the single compounds were combined and a model of crystal formation for the mixture melamine-cyanuric acid was also added to predict the intensity of crystal formation under the assumptions that crystals formed either in urine or in kidney tissue. Modelling the kinetics of melamine and cyanuric acid provided a better understanding and prediction of intensity of crystal formation in case of sequential exposures with varying intensity or co-exposure. This study demonstrates, for the first time, how fish PBTK models can play a key role in the understanding and prediction of toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of mixtures. This study also illustrates how adverse effects may potentially occur even when the compounds are not administered together as a mixture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据