3.9 Article

The use of new approach methodologies for the environmental risk assessment of food and feed chemicals

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100416

关键词

Environmental risk assessment; New approach methodologies; Toxi- cokinetics; Landscape modelling; Ecosystem services; Systems- based approaches

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) provide tools for risk assessment in the context of food and feed chemicals. This review highlights the tiered methods used in problem formulation, with in silico models filling data gaps and biologically-based models applicable in data-rich situations. Practical examples are provided to demonstrate the application of these approaches in real-world settings. Future perspectives include addressing challenges such as chemical mixtures and multiple stressors in various organisms and ecosystems.
New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) provide tools for supporting both human and environmental risk assessment (HRA and ERA). This short review provides recent insights regarding the use of NAMs in ERA of food and feed chemicals. We highlight the usefulness of tiered methods supporting weight-of-evidence approaches in relation to problem formu-lation (i.e., data availability, time, and resource availability). In silico models, including quantitative structure activity relation-ship models, support filling data gaps when no chemical property or ecotoxicological data are available, and biologically-based models (e.g., toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic models, dynamic energy models, physiologically-based models and species sensitivity distributions) are applicable in more data rich situations, including landscape-based model-ling approaches. Particular attention is given to provide prac-tical examples to apply the approaches described in real-world settings. We conclude with future perspectives, with regards to the need for addressing complex challenges such as chemical mixtures and multiple stressors in a wide range of organisms and ecosystems.

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

3.9
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