4.8 Article

Predicting Arsenic Relative Bioavailability Using Multiple in Vitro Assays: Validation of in Vivo-in Vitro Correlations

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 49, 期 18, 页码 11167-11175

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02508

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation
  2. Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, University of South Australia
  3. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, previously established arsenic (As) in vivo-in vitro correlations (IVIVC) were assessed for their validity using an independent data set comprising As relative bioavailability (RBA) and bioaccessibility values for 13 herbicide- and mine-impacted soils. The validation process established the correlation between As RBA (swine model) and bioaccessibility (five in vitro assays), determined whether correlations differed significantly from previous relationships and assessed model bias and error. The capacity of in vitro assays to predict As RBA was demonstrated by the strength of IVIVC; goodness of fit ranged from 0.53 (DIN-I) to 0.74 (UBM-I). When compared to previous IVIVC (Juhasz et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 9487; Juhasz et al. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 197, 161), there was no significant difference (P < 0.01) in the slope and y-intercept for IVG-G, UBM-G, and UBM-I indicating the consistency of these assays for predicting As RBA. However, variability in model bias and prediction error was observed with significantly lower (P < 0.01) error determined for IVG-G suggesting that As RBA predictions using IVG-G may be more robust compared to UBM-G and UBM-I. In contrast, differences in the slope and/or y-intercept were observed for SBRC-I, IVG-I, PBET-G, PBET-I, DIN-G, and DIN-I suggesting that these methodologies may not be suitable for predicting As RBA.

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