DOCSLIB.ORG

ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 EUROPEAN CENTRE OFOR EC TOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 Brussels, March 2021 ISSN-2079-1526-138 (online) ECETOC TR No. 138 1 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection 224504 ECETOC Technical Report No. 138 © Copyright – ECETOC AISBL European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Rue Belliard 40, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Applications to reproduce, store, copy or translate should be made to the Secretary General. ECETOC welcomes such applications. Reference to the document, its title and summary may be copied or abstracted in data retrieval systems without subsequent reference. The content of this document has been prepared and reviewed by experts on behalf of ECETOC with all possible care and from the available scientific information. It is provided for information only. ECETOC cannot accept any responsibility or liability and does not provide a warranty for any use or interpretation of the material contained in the publication. ECETOC TR No. 138 2 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Table of Contents 1. SUMMARY 6 2. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPLES 9 2.1. Background and Principles 9 2.2. Current Regulatory Framework and Guidance 10 2.2.1. Historical perspectives and the evolution of test guidelines 10 2.2.2. The evolution of guidance on dose level selection 11 2.2.3. The Maximum Tolerated Dose concept 14 2.2.4. The use of toxicity studies for Classification and labelling 16 2.2.5. Classification outcomes and their relationship to applied dose 17 2.3. Maternal toxicity in developmental toxicity studies 18 2.4. Animal Welfare considerations 20 2.5. Scientific Considerations 22 2.5.1. Relevance of high dose testing to humans 22 2.5.2. Kinetically informed dose level selection 23 2.6. Summary 24 3. USE OF TOXICOKINETICS TO INFORM DOSE SELECTION 26 3.1. TK requirements in each sector 26 3.2. How TK can be used for dose selection? 29 3.3. TK testing strategy 33 3.4. TK studies and TK models 34 3.4.1. Module 1 - Early in vivo studies 34 3.4.2. Module 2 - Integrated toxicokinetics 37 3.4.3. Module 3 - Full ADME 38 3.4.4 Additional considerations for assessment of in vivo data 38 3.4.5. Supporting evidence 42 3.5. Conclusion 45 4. TOXICODYNAMICS AND MODE OF ACTION 46 4.1. Approaches to investigating mode of action and working within defined mode of action groups 46 5. CROSS SECTOR PRE-REQUISITES FOR DOSE SELECTION 47 5.1. Dosing information from previous studies 47 5.2. Hazardous properties (e.g., irritant, corrosive, sensitisation) 47 5.3. Toxicokinetic data and bioavailability 48 5.4. QSARs 48 5.5. Data from structurally similar molecules 51 5.6. Estimate of human/worker exposure 51 5.7. Routes of relevance (oral gavage, dietary, dermal or inhalation) 52 6. SECTOR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND APPROACHES 65 ECETOC TR No. 138 3 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection 6.1. Pharmaceuticals 65 6.1.1. Dose selection for pharmaceuticals 65 6.1.2. General repeat dose toxicity studies 66 6.1.3. Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Studies 67 6.1.4. Body weight as an indicator of toxicity 68 6.1.5. Specific guidance 68 6.1.6. Biotherapeutics, ICH S6 (R1) 68 6.1.7. Conclusion and Approaches 72 6.2. Agrochemicals 72 6.2.1. Relevant Regulations 72 6.2.2. Human Exposure 73 6.2.3. Existing Guidance for dose level selection 73 6.2.4. In vivo genetic toxicity studies 75 6.2.5. ECETOC Recommendations for dose level selection 75 6.3 Industrial Chemicals 78 6.3.1 Relevant regulations (e.g., REACH and CLP) 78 6.3.2 Human exposure 78 6.3.3 Existing recommendations for dose selection 78 6.3.4 ECETOC recommendations for dose selection 80 6.3.5 Specific cases 84 6.4 Food Ingredients 87 6.4.1 Relevant Regulations 87 6.4.2 Human Exposure 88 6.4.3 Existing Guidance on Dose Level Selection 88 6.4.4 ECETOC Recommendations for Dose Level Selection 92 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 93 8. REFERENCES 95 APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS, GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 106 Acronyms 106 Glossary 111 APPENDIX B – MODE OF ACTION CASE STUDIES 112 Mechanistic factors 112 Issues related to dose selection: 117 Dose Selection for the 90-day toxicity according to OECD TG 408 study and the outcome. 118 Dose Selection for the developmental toxicity study according to OECD TG 414 and the outcome 118 Evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected dose levels 119 Dose level sections approaches when working with known modes of Action 120 Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor (PPAR) Agonist Therapeutics 120 HPPD Inhibitor Herbicides and Ocular Toxicity 121 Toxicodynamic factors and Dose level selection in carcinogenicity studies 124 Dose level selection in reproductive toxicity studies 126 APPENDIX C – TK CASE STUDIES 127 Saturation of metabolism (Ethylene Glycol) 127 Saturation of Metabolism (Afidopyropen) 130 Saturation of Metabolism (Ethylbenzene) 131 Saturation of Metabolism (Ethyl tertiary-butyl ether, ETBE) 133 Saturation of renal clearance (2,4-D) 134 APPENDIX D - AGROCHEMICALS CASE STUDIES 136 ECETOC TR No. 138 4 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Dose level selection based on predicted human exposure 136 Case study A 140 Case study B 143 APPENDIX E - INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CASE STUDIES 146 Case study 1: OECD 422 – N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, CAS # 80-30-6 146 Case study 2: High dose setting with an irritant in oral gavage rat studies 1,3- and 1,4- cyclohexandicarboxyaldehyde, EC # 482-020-3 148 Case study 3: Developmental toxicity study in rabbits – 1,3(4)-bis(tert-butylperoxyisopropyl) benzene, CAS # 25155-25-3 156 Case Study 4: EOGRTs (OECD 443) - Reaction mass of bis(2,3-epoxypropyl) terephthalate and tris(oxiranylmethyl) benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylate, EC # 940-592-6 157 Case study 5: Mutagenicity - 4,4'-methylenebis [N, N-bis(2,3-epoxypropyl) aniline], CAS # 28768-32-3 160 Case study 6: Mutagenicity – Theobromine, CAS # 83-67-0 166 APPENDIX F - FOOD INGREDIENTS CASE STUDY 170 MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE 171 MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 172 ECETOC TR No. 138 5 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection 1. SUMMARY Prior to registering and marketing any new pharmaceutical, chemical, agricultural chemical or food ingredient products manufacturers must, by law, generate data to ensure human (and environmental) safety. The safety testing requirements to ensure human safety vary depending on sector, product type and geographical region/country and for many will require repeat-dose testing in animals. Dose level selection is the most important aspect of the specification of repeat dose toxicity studies. It is the means by which we identify if a dose response is present, those exposures leading to relevant hazard and those exposure levels that should be used as the basis for human health risk assessment, normally based on the absence of adverse effects. Repeat dose studies span a wide range of toxicology study types with duration from 28 day systemic toxicity to 2-year carcinogenicity studies in a number of species. Assessment of systemic toxicity is done in the rat and mouse and for some sectors in dogs, while the assessments of reproductive and developmental toxicity is done in rats and rabbits. The advice on dose level selection provided in test guidelines, allied guidance documents and by individual regulatory authorities globally for most sectors is illustrated in this report but is not well harmonised; the pharmaceutical sector being the closest to having a globally aligned approach through the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). The various criteria used to set the highest dose level are even less well harmonised across the range of studies and geographies. These range from approaches that can be interpreted to allow a proportion of deaths at the highest dose tested to those that encourage high dose level selection based on signs of evident toxicity. The data provided by toxicity studies are used in all sectors to provide a point of departure from normality which can be used as the endpoint underling a human health risk assessment, and to provide information leading to hazard based classification (although the consequence of classification will vary across sectors, from very little practical impact to a denial of a registration). The recommendations of this report represent pragmatic approaches to selecting dose levels that allow accurate risk assessment and also enable hazard-based classification based on identification of relevant hazards. Analysis of classification outcomes supports the conclusion that there is no automatic relationship between positive classification outcomes and increasing dose, especially approaching the limit dose (currently 1000 mg/kg/d) for repeat dose toxicity studies across all major endpoints measured. This ECETOC TR No. 138 6 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection provides a reassurance that a workable and acceptable approach can be found that provides accurate information for risk assessment and assigning a hazard-based classification, and that these needs can co-exist and be served by the same study. It is recognised that different sectors have differing degrees of freedom to operate in dose level selection and this is reflected in the overall recommended approaches. These can be applied within the current regulatory frameworks, and also provide future options and approaches to science-based dose level selection. As recommended in test guidelines and guidance documents, wherever practically possible an understanding of internal exposure should be developed, through the deployment of toxicokinetic (TK) approaches, and used to guide dose level selection.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN INTRODUCTION to AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY This Page Intentionally Left Blank €ƒÂ€ an INTRODUCTION to AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
    AN INTRODUCTION TO AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY This page intentionally left blank AN INTRODUCTION TO AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY MIKKO NIKINMAA Professor of Zoology, Department of Biology, Laboratory of Animal Physiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Academic press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, UK 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangement with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic and Molecular Ecotoxicology: a Research Framework
    Genetic and Molecular Ecotoxicology: A Research Framework Susan Anderson,1 Walter Sadinski,1 Lee Shugart,2 Peter Brussard,3 Michael Depledge,4 Tim Ford,5 JoEllen Hose,6 John Stegeman,7 William Suk,8 Isaac Wirgin,9 and Gerald Wogan0 1Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California; 2Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 3University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada; 4University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK; 5Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 6 CCidental College, Los Angeles, California; 7Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts; 8National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; 9New York University Medical Center, Tuxedo, New York; 10Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts Participants at the Napa Conference on Genetic and Molecular Ecotoxicology assessed the status of this field in light of heightened concerns about the genetic effects of exposure to hazardous substances and recent advancements in our capabilities to measure those effects. We present here a synthesis of the ideas discussed throughout the conference, including definitions of important concepts in the field and critical research needs and opportunities. While there were many opinions expressed on these topics, there was general agreement that there are substantive new opportuni- ties to improve the impact of genetic and molecular ecotoxicology on prediction of sublethal effects of exposure to hazardous substances. Future studies should emphasize integration of genetic ecotoxicology, ecological genetics, and molecular biology and should be directed toward improving our understanding of the ecological implications of genotoxic responses. Ecological implications may be assessed at either the population or ecosys- tem level; however, a population-level focus may be most pragmatic.
    [Show full text]
  • Shortcomings of the Laboratory-Derived Median Lethal Concentration for Predicting Mortality in Field Populations: Exposure Duration and Latent Mortality
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 2147±2153, 2004 q 2004 SETAC Printed in the USA 0730-7268/04 $12.00 1 .00 SHORTCOMINGS OF THE LABORATORY-DERIVED MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATION FOR PREDICTING MORTALITY IN FIELD POPULATIONS: EXPOSURE DURATION AND LATENT MORTALITY YUAN ZHAO* and MICHAEL C. NEWMAN Department of Environmental and Aquatic Animal Health, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 1346, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062-1346, USA (Received 15 October 2003; Accepted 9 February 2004) AbstractÐExposure duration and intensity (concentration or dose) determine lethal effects of toxicants. However, environmental regulators have focused on exposure intensity and have considered duration only peripherally. Conventional testing for toxicology tends to ®x exposure time and to use the median lethal concentration (LC50) at that time to quantify mortality. Fixing the exposure duration and selecting the 50% mortality level for reasons of statistical and logistical convenience result in the loss of ecologically relevant information generated at all other times and ignore latent mortality that manifests after the exposure ends. In the present study, we used survival analysis, which is widely employed in other ®elds, to include both time and concentration as covariates and to quantify latent mortality. This was done with two contrasting toxicants, copper sulfate (CuSO4) and sodium pentachlorophenol (NaPCP). Amphipods (Hyalella azteca) were exposed to different toxicant concentrations, and the percentage mortalities were noted both during and after the exposure ended. For CuSO4 at the conventional 48-h LC50 concentrations, the predicted proportions dead after including latent mortality were 65 to 85%, not 50%.
    [Show full text]
  • European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals
    EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR ECOTOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR ECOTOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS ECETOC at a glance 2 Purpose 3 Values 3 Vision 3 Mission 3 Approach 3 Membership 4 ECETOC Member Companies 4 Membership benefits 5 Message from the Chairman 6 ECETOC Board of Administration 7 Report from the Secretary General 8 Science Programme 10 Foreword from the Scientific Committee Chairman 10 ECETOC revises its science strategy 11 Summary of the 2011 Science Programme 12 Highlights of 2011 15 Task forces established 16 Task forces completed 18 Workshops 21 Symposia and other meetings 24 Science Awards 28 Long-range Research Initiative 29 Communication 31 Publications 31 Online communication 32 External Representation 32 Members of the Scientific Committee 34 Members of the Secretariat 34 Finance 35 Abbreviations 36 ECETOC I European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals I Annual Report 2011 I page 2 Introduction Membership Message Board of Report from Science Science Long-range Communication Members of Finance Abbreviations from the Administration the Secretary Programme Awards Research the Scientific Chairman General Initiative Committee Established in 1978, ECETOC is Europe’s leading industry association for developing and promoting top quality science in human and environmental risk assessment of chemicals. Members include the main companies with interests in the manufacture and use of chemicals, biomaterials and pharmaceuticals, and organisations active in these fields. ECETOC is the scientific forum where member company experts meet and co-operate with government and academic scientists, to evaluate and assess the available data, identify gaps in knowledge and recommend research, and publish critical reviews on the ecotoxicology and toxicology of chemicals, biomaterials and pharmaceuticals.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
    Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks SCHER Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks SCENIHR Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety SCCS Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures The SCHER approved this opinion at its 15th plenary of 22 November 2011 The SCENIHR approved this opinion at its 16th plenary of 30 November 2011 The SCCS approved this opinion at its 14th plenary of 14 December 2011 1 Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures About the Scientific Committees Three independent non-food Scientific Committees provide the Commission with the scientific advice it needs when preparing policy and proposals relating to consumer safety, public health and the environment. The Committees also draw the Commission's attention to the new or emerging problems which may pose an actual or potential threat. They are: the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and are made up of external experts. In addition, the Commission relies upon the work of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). SCCS The Committee shall provide opinions on questions concerning all types of health and safety risks (notably chemical, biological, mechanical and other physical risks) of non- food consumer products (for example: cosmetic products and their ingredients, toys, textiles, clothing, personal care and household products such as detergents, etc.) and services (for example: tattooing, artificial sun tanning, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Toxicology: Environmental Contaminants and Their National and International Regulation" (2012)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research US Geological Survey 2012 Wildlife Toxicology: Environmental Contaminants and Their aN tional and International Regulation K. Christiana Grim Center for Species Survival, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Anne Fairbrother EcoSciences Barnett A. Rattner U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Geology Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Grim, K. Christiana; Fairbrother, Anne; and Rattner, Barnett A., "Wildlife Toxicology: Environmental Contaminants and Their National and International Regulation" (2012). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 969. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/969 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in New Directions in Conservation Medicine: Applied Cases in Ecological Health, edited by A. Alonso Aguirre, Richard S. Ostfield, and Peter Daszak (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). Authors K. Christiana Grim, D.V.M. Research Associate Center for Species Survival Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Front Royal, Vrrginia Anne Fairbrother, D.V.M., M.S., Ph.D. Senior Managing Scientist EcoSciences Exponent Seattle, Washington Barnett A. Rattner, Ph.D. Ecotoxicologist U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Beltsville Laboratory Beltsville, Maryland WILDLIFE TOXICOLOGY Environmental Contaminants and Their National and International Regulation K. Christiana Grim, Anne Fairbrother, and Barnett A.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL HEALTH AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Directorate C – Scientific Opinions on Health Matters Unit C2 – Management of Scientific Committees I Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment Brussels, C2/JCD/csteeop/Ter91100/D(0) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON TOXICITY, ECOTOXICITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CSTEE) Opinion on THE AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RISK OF CHEMICALS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS Opinion expressed at the 19th CSTEE plenary meeting Brussels, 9 November 2000 CSTEE OPINION ON THE AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RISK OF CHEMICALS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS FOREWORD AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT The concept "terrestrial environment" cannot be easily defined. It is characterised as the part of the biosphere that is not covered by water, less than one third of the total surface. From a geological viewpoint it just represents a thin line (a few meters wide) of the interface between both the solid (soil) and the gaseous (atmosphere) phases of the Earth, several orders of magnitude wider than this line. However, from the biological point of view, this thin line concentrates all non-aquatic living organisms, including human beings. Humans use the terrestrial environment for living and developing most of their activities, which include the commercial production of other species by agriculture and farming. Human activities deeply modify the terrestrial environment. Particularly in developed areas such as Europe, the landscape has been intensively modified by agricultural, mining, industrial and urban activities and only in a small proportion (mostly in extreme conditions such as high mountains, Northern latitudes, wetlands or semi-desert areas) of the European surface the landscape still resembles naive conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Profile
    INTERACTION PROFILE FOR: PERSISTENT CHEMICALS FOUND IN FISH (CHLORINATED DIBENZO-p-DIOXINS, HEXACHLOROBENZENE, p,p’-DDE, METHYLMERCURY, and POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry May 2004 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wishes to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its support in the production of this Interaction Profile. v PREFACE The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) shall assess whether adequate information on health effects is available for the priority hazardous substances. Where such information is not available or under development, ATSDR shall, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, initiate a program of research to determine these health effects. The Act further directs that where feasible, ATSDR shall develop methods to determine the health effects of substances in combination with other substances with which they are commonly found. To carry out the legislative mandate, ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology (DT) has developed and coordinated a mixtures program that includes trend analysis to identify the mixtures most often found in environmental media, in vivo and in vitro toxicological testing of mixtures, quantitative modeling of joint action, and methodological development for assessment of joint toxicity. These efforts are interrelated. For example, the trend analysis suggests mixtures of concern for which assessments need to be conducted. If data are not available, further research is recommended. The data thus generated often contribute to the design, calibration or validation of the methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecotoxicology Knowledgebase
    ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase: Modernizing the Literature Review and Data Curation Processes, and Mapping Ecological Toxicity of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Jennifer OlkerPhoto, image Postdoctoral area measures 2” H x 6.93” W and can be Researchermasked by a collage strip of one, two or three images. Colleen ElonenThe photo, imageECOTOX area is located 3.19” from coordinator left and 3.81” from top of page. Each image used in collage should be reduced or cropped to a maximum of 2” high, stroked with a 1.5 pt white frame and positioned edge-to-edge with accompanying images. US EPA ECOTOX Project Team: Colleen Elonen Jennifer Olker GDIT contract staff Dale Hoff SEE staff Rong-Lin Wang Office of Research and Development www.epa.gov/ecotox Overview • Background and History for ECOTOX Knowledgebase • Modernizing the ECOTOX Pipeline (C. Elonen, SOT 2020) • Mapping ecological toxicity of PFAS with ECOTOX Protocols (J. Olker, SOT 2020) 2 What is the ECOTOX Knowledgebase? Publicly available, curated database providing toxicity data from single-chemical exposure studies to aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife • From comprehensive search and review of open and grey literature – Data extracted from acceptable studies, with up to 250 fields – Updated quarterly • 30+ year history: www.epa.gov/ecotox/ Originated in the early 1980s, US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 3 Who uses the ECOTOX Knowledgebase? Clients Contacting ECOTOX Support line 2005 - 2016 (n = 2813) US EPA Headquarters Local Govt. International Govt. 4% 1% 8% Govt. Contractors 25% US EPA Regional Office 4% Unknown 5% University/Academia Other Federal 6% Agencies 4% US EPA Laboratory 4% State Govt.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Toxicology
    LECTURE NOTES For Medical Laboratory Science Students Toxicology Dr. Biruh Alemu (MD), Ato Mistire Wolde (MSC, MSC) Hawassa University In collaboration with the Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, The Carter Center, the Ethiopia Ministry of Health, and the Ethiopia Ministry of Education May 2007 Funded under USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 663-A-00-00-0358-00. Produced in collaboration with the Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, The Carter Center, the Ethiopia Ministry of Health, and the Ethiopia Ministry of Education. Important Guidelines for Printing and Photocopying Limited permission is granted free of charge to print or photocopy all pages of this publication for educational, not-for-profit use by health care workers, students or faculty. All copies must retain all author credits and copyright notices included in the original document. Under no circumstances is it permissible to sell or distribute on a commercial basis, or to claim authorship of, copies of material reproduced from this publication. ©2007 by Dr. Biruh Alemu, Ato Misire Wolde All rights reserved. Except as expressly provided above, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission of the author or authors. This material is intended for educational use only by practicing health care workers or students and faculty in a health care field. PREFACE The scope of toxicology widened tremendously during the last few years. An important development in this discipline is mandatory because of the expansion of different industrial, medical, environmental, animal and plant noxious substances.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Selected in Vitro Assays for Assessing the Toxicity of Chemicals and Their Mixtures
    COMPARISON OF SELECTED IN VITRO ASSAYS FOR ASSESSING THE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS AND THEIR MIXTURES Rola Azzi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Chemical Safety and Applied Toxicology Laboratories School of Safety Science Faculty of Science The University of New South Wales June 2006 Certificate of Originality Certificate of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any degree at UNSW or any other education institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contributions made to the research by others, which whom I have worked, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Rola Azzi June 2006 i Acknowledgments Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr Amanda Hayes for her assistance, constant encouragement and expertise. Without her support and guidance this project would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Associate Professor Chris Winder, for his constant support, advice, and scientific expertise throughout my work on this project. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to my uncle, Associate Professor Rachad Saliba, who was a constant support during the writing of this thesis, and was devoted to helping me grasp the science of statistics, and its ability to transform numbers into a story.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Zinc
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ZINC U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry August 2005 ZINC ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ZINC iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Zinc, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2003. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 ZINC vi *Legislative Background The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Public law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepare toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61332). For prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal Register notices dated April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744); April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20, 1988 (53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619); October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067); October 17, 1991 (56 FR 52166); October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801); and February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486).
    [Show full text]