4.5 Article

A Case Study with Triazole Fungicides to Explore Practical Application of Next-Generation Hazard Assessment Methods for Human Health

期刊

CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 834-848

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00484

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports
  2. RIVM SPR Program
  3. NanoBio Lab (NBL)
  4. Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN)
  5. Bioinformatics Institute (BII)
  6. A*STAR, Singapore [H18/01/a0/A14, H18/01/a0/B14]
  7. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ongoing developments in chemical risk assessment have led to new concepts building on integration of sophisticated nonanimal models for hazard characterization. Here we explore a pragmatic approach for implementing such concepts, using a case study of three triazole fungicides, namely, flusilazole, propiconazole, and cyproconazole. The strategy applied starts with evaluating the overall level of concern by comparing exposure estimates to toxicological potential, followed by a combination of in silico tools and literature-derived high-throughput screening assays and computational elaborations to obtain insight into potential toxicological mechanisms and targets in the organism. Additionally, some targeted in vitro tests were evaluated for their utility to confirm suspected mechanisms of toxicity and to generate points of departure. Toxicological mechanisms instead of the current end pointby-end point approach should guide the selection of methods and assays that constitute a toolbox for next-generation risk assessment. Comparison of the obtained in silico and in vitro results with data from traditional in vivo testing revealed that, overall, nonanimal methods for hazard identification can produce adequate qualitative hazard information for risk assessment. Follow-up studies are needed to further refine the proposed approach, including the composition of the toolbox, toxicokinetics models, and models for exposure assessment.

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

4.5
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