a b s t r a c tInhaled aerosol dose models play critical roles in medicine, the regulation of air pollutants and basic research. The models fall into several categories: traditional, computational fluid dynamical (CFD), physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK), empirical, semi-empirical, and "reference". Each type of model has its strengths and weaknesses, so multiple models are commonly used for practical applications. Aerosol dose models combine information on aerosol behavior and the anatomy and physiology of exposed human and laboratory animal subjects. Similar models are used for in-vitro studies. Several notable advances have been made in aerosol dose modeling in the past 80 years. The pioneers include Walter Findeisen, who in 1935 published the first traditional model and established the structure of modern models. His model combined aerosol behavior with simplified respiratory tract structures. Ewald Weibel established morphometric techniques for the lung in 1963 that are still used to develop data for modeling today. Advances in scanning techniques have similarly contributed to the knowledge of respiratory tract structure and its use in aerosol dose modeling. Several scientists and research groups have developed and advanced traditional, CFD, and PBPK models. Current issues under study include understanding individual and species differences; examining localized particle deposition; modeling non-ideal aerosols and nanoparticle behavior; linking the regions of the respiratory tract airways from nasal-oral to alveolar; and developing sophisticated supporting software. Although a complete history of inhaled aerosol dose modeling is far too extensive to cover here, selected highlights are described in this paper.
Cocktail effects and synergistic interactions of chemicals in mixtures are an area of great concern to both the public and regulatory authorities. The main concern is whether some chemicals can enhance the effect of other chemicals, so that they jointly exert a larger effect than predicted. This phenomenon is called synergy. Here we present a review of the scientific literature on three main groups of environmentally relevant chemical toxicants: pesticides, metal ions and antifouling compounds. The aim of the review is to determine 1) the frequency of synergy, 2) the extent of synergy, 3) whether any particular groups or classes of chemicals tend to induce synergy, and 4) which physiological mechanisms might be responsible for this synergy. Synergy is here defined as mixtures with minimum two-fold difference between observed and predicted effect concentrations using Concentration Addition (CA) as a reference model and including both lethal and sub-lethal endpoints. The results showed that synergy occurred in 7%, 3% and 26% of the 194, 21 and 136 binary pesticide, metal and antifoulants mixtures included in the data compilation on frequency. The difference between observed and predicted effect concentrations was rarely more than 10-fold. For pesticides, synergistic mixtures included cholinesterase inhibitors or azole fungicides in 95% of 69 described cases. Both groups of pesticides are known to interfere with metabolic degradation of other xenobiotics. For the four synergistic metal and 47 synergistic antifoulant mixtures the pattern in terms of chemical groups inducing synergy was less clear. Hypotheses in terms of mechanisms governing these interactions are discussed. It was concluded that true synergistic interactions between chemicals are rare and often occur at high concentrations. Addressing the cumulative rather than synergistic effect of co-occurring chemicals, using standard models as CA, is therefore regarded as the most important step in the risk assessment of chemical cocktails.
This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended.
During the past two decades, the phenomenon of hormesis has gained increased recognition. To promote research in hormesis, a sound statistical quantification of important parameters, such as the level and significance of the increase in response and the range of concentration where it occurs, is strongly needed. Here, we present an improved statistical model to describe hormetic dose-response curves and test for the presence of hormesis. Using the delta method and freely available software, any percentage effect dose or concentration can be derived with its associated standard errors. Likewise, the maximal response can be extracted and the growth stimulation calculated. The new model was tested on macrophyte data from multiple-species experiments and on laboratory data of Lemna minor. For the 51 curves tested, significant hormesis was detected in 18 curves, and for another 17 curves, the hormesis model described that data better than the logistic model did. The increase in response ranged from 5 to 109%. The growth stimulation occurred at an average dose somewhere between zero and concentrations corresponding to approximately 20 to 25% of the median effective concentration (EC50). Testing the same data with the hormesis model proposed by Brain and Cousens in 1989, we found no significant hormesis. Consequently, the new model is shown to be far more robust than previous models, both in terms of variation in data and in terms of describing hormetic effects ranging from small effects of a 10% increase in response up to effects of an almost 100% increase in response.
Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) developed an opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) models and their use in prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides and aquatic organisms. TKTD models are species-and compound-specific and can be used to predict (sub)lethal effects of pesticides under untested (time-variable) exposure conditions. Three different types of TKTD models are described, viz., (i) the 'General Unified Threshold models of Survival' (GUTS), (ii) those based on the Dynamic Energy Budget theory (DEBtox models), and (iii) models for primary producers. All these TKTD models follow the principle that the processes influencing internal exposure of an organism, (TK), are separated from the processes that lead to damage and effects/mortality (TD). GUTS models can be used to predict survival rate under untested exposure conditions. DEBtox models explore the effects on growth and reproduction of toxicants over time, even over the entire life cycle. TKTD model for primary producers and pesticides have been developed for algae, Lemna and Myriophyllum. For all TKTD model calibration, both toxicity data on standard test species and/or additional species can be used. For validation, substance and species-specific data sets from independent refined-exposure experiments are required. Based on the current state of the art (e.g. lack of documented and evaluated examples), the DEBtox modelling approach is currently limited to research applications. However, its great potential for future use in prospective ERA for pesticides is recognised. The GUTS model and the Lemna model are considered ready to be used in risk assessment. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union. As a third deliverable of this mandate, the PPR Panel is asked to develop a Scientific Opinion describing the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) models for aquatic organisms and prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides with the main focus on: (i) regulatory questions that can be addressed by TKTD modelling, (ii) available TKTD models for aquatic organisms, (iii) model parameters that need to be included and checked in evaluating the acceptability of regulatory relevant TKTD models, and (iv) selection of the species to be modelled.Chapter 2 presents the underlying concepts, terminology, application domains and complexity levels of three different classes of TKTD models intended to be used in risk assessment, viz., (i) the 'General Unified Threshold models of Survival' (GUTS), (ii) toxicity models derived from the Dynamic Energy Budget theory (DEBtox models), and (iii) models for primary producers. All ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.