Hazards of current concentration-setting practices in environmental toxicology studies.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Jeffrey C Wolf, Helmut E Segner
{"title":"Hazards of current concentration-setting practices in environmental toxicology studies.","authors":"Jeffrey C Wolf,&nbsp;Helmut E Segner","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2023.2229372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The setting of concentrations for testing substances in ecotoxicological studies is often based on fractions of the concentrations that cause 50% mortality (LC<sub>50</sub> or LD<sub>50</sub>) rather than environmentally relevant levels. This practice can result in exposures to animals at test concentrations that are magnitudes of order greater than those experienced in the environment. Often, such unrealistically high concentrations may cause non-specific biochemical or morphologic changes that primarily reflect the near-lethal health condition of the animal subjects, as opposed to effects characteristic of the particular test compound. Meanwhile, it is recognized that for many chemicals, the toxicologic mode of action (MOA) responsible for lethality may differ entirely from the MOAs that cause various sublethal effects. One argument for employing excessively high exposure concentrations in sublethal studies is to ensure the generation of positive toxicological effects, which can then be used to establish safety thresholds; however, it is possible that the pressure to produce exposure-related effects may also contribute to false positive outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore issues involving some current usages of acute LC<sub>50</sub> data in ecotoxicology testing, and to propose an alternative strategy for performing this type of research moving forward. Toward those ends, a brief literature survey was conducted to gain an appreciation of methods that are currently being used to set test concentrations for sublethal definitive studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":"53 5","pages":"297-310"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2023.2229372","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The setting of concentrations for testing substances in ecotoxicological studies is often based on fractions of the concentrations that cause 50% mortality (LC50 or LD50) rather than environmentally relevant levels. This practice can result in exposures to animals at test concentrations that are magnitudes of order greater than those experienced in the environment. Often, such unrealistically high concentrations may cause non-specific biochemical or morphologic changes that primarily reflect the near-lethal health condition of the animal subjects, as opposed to effects characteristic of the particular test compound. Meanwhile, it is recognized that for many chemicals, the toxicologic mode of action (MOA) responsible for lethality may differ entirely from the MOAs that cause various sublethal effects. One argument for employing excessively high exposure concentrations in sublethal studies is to ensure the generation of positive toxicological effects, which can then be used to establish safety thresholds; however, it is possible that the pressure to produce exposure-related effects may also contribute to false positive outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore issues involving some current usages of acute LC50 data in ecotoxicology testing, and to propose an alternative strategy for performing this type of research moving forward. Toward those ends, a brief literature survey was conducted to gain an appreciation of methods that are currently being used to set test concentrations for sublethal definitive studies.

环境毒理学研究中当前浓度设定做法的危害。
在生态毒理学研究中,测试物质的浓度设置通常基于造成50%死亡率的浓度(LC50或LD50),而不是环境相关水平。这种做法可能导致动物暴露在测试浓度下,其数量级大于环境中所经历的浓度。通常,这种不现实的高浓度可能导致非特异性生化或形态变化,这些变化主要反映了动物受试者的近乎致命的健康状况,而不是特定测试化合物的特征效应。与此同时,人们认识到,对许多化学品来说,致死性的毒理学作用方式(MOA)可能与引起各种亚致死效应的毒理学作用方式(MOA)完全不同。在亚致死研究中采用过高暴露浓度的一个论点是,确保产生积极的毒理学效应,然后可用于确定安全阈值;然而,产生暴露相关影响的压力也可能导致假阳性结果。本文的目的是探讨急性LC50数据在生态毒理学测试中的一些当前使用问题,并提出一种替代策略来进行这类研究。为此,进行了一项简短的文献调查,以了解目前用于确定亚致死决定性研究的测试浓度的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Toxicology provides up-to-date, objective analyses of topics related to the mechanisms of action, responses, and assessment of health risks due to toxicant exposure. The journal publishes critical, comprehensive reviews of research findings in toxicology and the application of toxicological information in assessing human health hazards and risks. Toxicants of concern include commodity and specialty chemicals such as formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and pesticides; pharmaceutical agents of all types; consumer products such as macronutrients and food additives; environmental agents such as ambient ozone; and occupational exposures such as asbestos and benzene.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信