4.4 Article

Quantifying the benefits of using read-across and in silico techniques to fulfill hazard data requirements for chemical categories

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 250-259

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.09.004

关键词

In silico; Category approach; Read-across; Trend analysis; (Q)SAR; HPV; Animal alternatives

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Substantial benefits are realized through the use of read-across and in silico techniques to fill data gaps for structurally similar substances. Considerable experience in applying these techniques was gained under two voluntary high production volume (HPV) chemical programs - the International Council of Chemical Associations' (ICCA) Cooperative Chemicals Assessment Programme (with the cooperation of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's HPV Challenge Program. These programs led to the compilation and public availability of baseline sets of health and environmental effects data for thousands of chemicals. The American Cleaning Institute's (ACI) contribution to these national and global efforts included the compilation of these datasets for 261 substances. Chemicals that have structural similarities are likely to have similar environmental fate, physical-chemical and toxicological properties, which was confirmed by examining available data from across the range of substances within categories of structurally similar HPV chemicals. These similarities allowed the utilization of read-across, trend analysis techniques and qualitative structure activity relationship ((Q)SAR) tools to fill data gaps. This paper presents the first quantification of actual benefits resulting from avoided testing through the use of read-across and in silico tools. Specifically, in the evaluation of these 261 noted substances, the use of 100,000-150,000 test animals and the expenditures of $50,000,000 to $70,000,000 (US) were avoided. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据