The future use of in vitro data in risk assessment to set human exposure standards: Challenging problems and familiar solutions

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 118, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1350-1354

  Crump, Kenny S ^a   Chen, Chao ^b   Louis, Thomas A ^c  

^a LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

21st century toxicology vision; Biologically based dose response models; In vitro data; Point of departure; Risk assessment; Toxicity pathway models

Indexed keywords

TOXIC SUBSTANCE;

ACCURACY; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; ASSAY; CALCULATION; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMAN; IN VITRO ASSAY; IN VITRO STUDY; MODEL; NONHUMAN; POINT OF DEPARTURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ASSAY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD; TOXICITY TESTING;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 77957893931     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1001931     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Andersen ME, Krewski D. 2009. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. Toxicol Sci 107:324-330.
2. Ankley GT, Daston GP, Degitz SJ, Denslow ND, Hoke RA, Kennedy SW, et al. 2006. Toxicogenomics in regulatory ecotoxicology. Environ Sci Technol 40:4055-4065.
3. Collins FS, Gray GM, Bucher JR. 2008. Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319:906-907.
4. Conolly RB. 2009. Commentary on "Toxicity testing in the 21st century: implications for human health risk assessment" by Krewski et al. Risk Anal 29(4):480-481.
5. Conolly RB, Kimbell JS, Janszen D, Schlosser PM, Kalisak D, Preston J, et al. 2003. Biologically motivated computational modeling of formaldehyde carcinogenicity in the F344 rat. Toxicol Sci 75:432-447.
6. Crump KS. 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol 4:854-871.
7. Crump KS, Chen C, Chiu W, Louis TA, Portier CJ, Subramaniam RP, et al. 2010. What role for biologically-based dose-response models in estimating low-dose risk? Environ Health Perspect 118:585-588.
8. Elliott ED. 2009. Needed: a strategy for implementing the vision. Risk Anal 29:482; doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01166.x [Online 9 December 2008].
9. El-Samad H, Kurata H, Doyle JC, Gross CA, Khammash M. 2005. Surviving heat shock: control strategies for robustness and performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2736-2741.
10. Goluch ED, Nam J, Georganopoulou DG, Chiesl TN, Shaikh KA, Ryu KS, et al. 2006. A biobarcode assay for on-chip attomolar-sensitivity protein detection. Lab Chip 6:1293-1299.
11. Hattis D. 2009. High-throughput testing-the NRC vision, the challenge of modeling dynamic changes in biological systems, and the reality of low-throughput environmental health decision making. Risk Anal 29:483-484.
12. Krewski D, Andersen ME, Mantus E, Zeise L. 2008. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Anal 29:474-479.
13. NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Rhomberg LR. 2009. Risk assessment in the 21st century: changes wrought by changing science. Risk Anal 29:488-489.
16. Stokstad E. 2009. Putting chemicals on a path to better risk assessment. Science 325:694-695.
17. Tsuji JS, Garry MR. 2009. Advances in toxicity testing herald improvements and challenges for risk assessment. Risk Anal 29(4):490-491.
18. U.S. EPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.