Behavioral Screening for Toxicology

Moser, Virginia C.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-046884-6.01320-8

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the consensus among scientists in that field at the time was that toxicity thresholds using behavioral methods could only be obtained reliably by using multiple rather than single variables. A historical account of the development of behavioral screening for toxicology [ 34 ] states that a battery of tests is needed to find the most sensitive behavioral endpoint for a given agent. The testing arrays required are best described by the Functional Observational Battery (FOB) [ 35 ], first published in 1985 by the US Environmental Protection Agency to impose structure in neurotoxicity tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions

Héroux

Belyaev

Chamberlin

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1990s, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) restricted its risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in seven ways: (1) Inappropriate focus on heat, ignoring sub-thermal effects. (2) Reliance on exposure experiments performed over very short times. (3) Overlooking time/amplitude characteristics of RFR signals. (4) Ignoring carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, and other health conditions connected with RFR. (5) Measuring cellphone Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) at arbitrary distances from the head. (6) Averaging SAR doses at volumetric/mass scales irrelevant to health. (7) Using unrealistic simulations for cell phone SAR estimations. Low-cost software and hardware modifications are proposed here for cellular phone RFR exposure mitigation: (1) inhibiting RFR emissions in contact with the body, (2) use of antenna patterns reducing the Percent of Power absorbed in the Head (PPHead) and body and increasing the Percent of Power Radiated for communications (PPR), and (3) automated protocol-based reductions of the number of RFR emissions, their duration, or integrated dose. These inexpensive measures do not fundamentally alter cell phone functions or communications quality. A health threat is scientifically documented at many levels and acknowledged by industries. Yet mitigation of RFR exposures to users does not appear as a priority with most cell phone manufacturers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions

Héroux

Belyaev

Chamberlin

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An advantage to this type of screening is that a single animal may be repeatedly assessed to determine the onset, progression, duration, and reversibility of a neurotoxic injury. Over the years the FOB has been used across many laboratories to characterize effects of a variety of chemicals, including pesticides, organometals, solvents, industrial chemicals, water contaminants, and pharmaceuticals (Moser 2010). The results show that the tests are sensitive to chemicals acting by very different modes of action and that produce vastly different toxic syndromes.…”

Section: Screening Batteriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Assays for Neurotoxicity Testing

Moser

2010

Toxicol Pathol

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurobehavioral and pathological evaluations of the nervous system are complementary components of basic research and toxicity testing of pharmaceutical and environmental chemicals. While neuropathological assessments provide insight as to cellular changes in neurons, behavioral and physiological methods evaluate the functional consequences of disruption of neuronal communications. The underlying causes of certain behavioral alterations may be understood, but many do not have known direct associations with specific brain pathologies. In some cases, however, rapidly expanding mouse models (transgenic, knock-out) are providing considerable information on behavioral phenotypes of altered pathology. Behavior represents the integrated sum of activities mediated by the nervous system, and functional tests used for neurotoxicity testing tap different behavioral repertoires. These tests have an advantage over pathologic measures in that they permit repeated evaluation of a single animal over time to determine the onset, progression, duration, and reversibility of a neurotoxic injury. Functional assays range from a screening-level battery of tests to refined procedures to tap specific forms of learning and/or memory. This article reviews common procedures for behavioral toxicity testing and provides examples of chemical-specific neurobehavioral-pathological correlations in order to inform interpretation and integration of neuropathological and behavioral outcomes.

show abstract