4.6 Article

The use of in vitro metabolic parameters and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to explore the risk assessment of trichloroethylene

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 11, 期 3-4, 页码 259-271

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S1382-6689(02)00019-4

关键词

PBPK; trichloroethylene; radioactivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model has been developed for trichloroethylene (1,1,2-trichloroethene, TRI) for rat and humans, based on in vitro metabolic parameters. These were obtained using individual cytochrome P450 and glutathione S-transferase enzymes. The main enzymes involved both for rats and humans are CYP2E1 and the mu- and pi-class glutathione S-transferases. Validation experiments were performed in order to test the predictive value of the enzyme kinetic parameters to describe 'whole-body' disposition. Male Wistar rats were dosed orally or intravenously with different doses of trichloroethylene. Obtained exhaled radioactivity, excreted radioactivity in urine, and obtained blood concentration-time curves of trichloroethylene for all dosing groups were compared to predictions from the PBPK model. Subsequently, using the scaling factor derived from the rat experiments predictions were made for the extreme cases to be expected in humans, based on interindividual variations of the key enzymes involved. On comparing these predictions with literature data a very close match was found. This illustrates the potential application of in vitro metabolic parameters in risk assessment, through the use of PBPK modeling as a tool to understand and predict in vivo data. From a hypothetical 8 h exposure scenario to 35 ppm trichloroethylene in rats and humans, and assuming that the glutathione S-transferase pathway is responsible for the toxicity of trichloroethylene, it was concluded that humans are less sensitive for trichloroethylene toxicity than rats. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

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