4.8 Article

Organizing mechanism-related information on chemical interactions using a framework based on the aggregate exposure and adverse outcome pathways

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105673

关键词

Chemical interactions; Mixture toxicity; Adverse outcome pathway; Aggregate exposure pathway

资金

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  2. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a framework for organizing and accessing mechanistic data on chemical interactions. The framework is designed to support the assessment of risks from combined chemical exposures. The framework covers interactions between chemicals that occur over the entire source-to-outcome continuum including interactions that are studied in the fields of chemical transport, environmental fate, exposure assessment, dosimetry, and individual and population-based adverse outcomes. The framework proposes to organize data using a semantic triple of a chemical (subject), has impact (predicate), and a causal event on the source-to-outcome continuum of a second chemical (object). The location of the causal event on the source-to-outcome continuum and the nature of the impact are used as the basis for a taxonomy of interactions. The approach also builds on concepts from the Aggregate Exposure Pathway (AEP) and Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP). The framework proposes the linking of AEPs of multiple chemicals and the AOP networks relevant to those chemicals to form AEP-AOP networks that describe chemical interactions that cannot be characterized using AOP networks alone. Such AEP-AOP networks will aid the construction of workflows for both experimental design and the systematic review or evaluation performed in risk assessments. Finally, the framework is used to link the constructs of existing component-based approaches for mixture toxicology to specific categories in the interaction taxonomy.

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

4.8
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