Literature DB >> 19907906

Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals - a report by the transatlantic think tank for toxicology (t(4)).

Costanza Rovida1, Thomas Hartung.   

Abstract

The EU REACH legislation for chemicals of 2006 represents the largest investment into consumer product safety ever. A reanalysis of cost and animal use estimates was carried out based on the final legislation, test guidance for industry published by the European Chemical Agency, and the preregistration completed in December 2008. The new estimates for the number of substances falling under REACH range from 68 to 101,000 chemicals, substantially exceeding the earlier estimates of 29,000 substances. The latter estimates were, however, based on data before 1994 and both expansion of the EU and growth of the chemical industry since have contributed to higher numbers today. The lower estimate of 68,000 chemicals was carried through current testing requirements with due regard to emerging alternative approaches, using in all cases the most optimistic assumptions (minimal animal numbers per test and neglecting most triggering of additional tests and confirmatory (re-)tests as well as tests requested but not yet defined for endocrine disruption, respiratory irritation, respiratory sensitization and developmental neurotoxicity). The most demanding studies are in the area of reproductive toxicity testing with about 90% of all animal use and 70% of the required costs for registration. The overall result suggests a demand of 54 million vertebrate animals and testing costs of 9.5 billion euro. This clearly challenges the feasibility of the program without a major investment into high-throughput methodologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19907906

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ALTEX        ISSN: 1868-596X            Impact factor:   6.043


  52 in total

Review 1.  T-cell recognition of chemicals, protein allergens and drugs: towards the development of in vitro assays.

Authors:  Stefan F Martin; Philipp R Esser; Sonja Schmucker; Lisa Dietz; Dean J Naisbitt; B Kevin Park; Marc Vocanson; Jean-Francois Nicolas; Monika Keller; Werner J Pichler; Matthias Peiser; Andreas Luch; Reinhard Wanner; Enrico Maggi; Andrea Cavani; Thomas Rustemeyer; Anne Richter; Hermann-Josef Thierse; Federica Sallusto
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 9.261

2.  Comparison of toxicogenomic responses to phthalate ester exposure in an organotypic testis co-culture model and responses observed in vivo.

Authors:  Sean Harris; Sanne A B Hermsen; Xiaozhong Yu; Sung Woo Hong; Elaine M Faustman
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 3.143

3.  Chemical regulators have overreached.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung; Costanza Rovida
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Probabilistic hazard assessment for skin sensitization potency by dose-response modeling using feature elimination instead of quantitative structure-activity relationships.

Authors:  Thomas Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; James M McKim; Thomas Hartung; Andre Kleensang; Vanessa Sá-Rocha
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.446

5.  Pathways of Toxicity.

Authors:  Andre Kleensang; Alexandra Maertens; Michael Rosenberg; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Justin Lamb; Scott Auerbach; Richard Brennan; Kevin M Crofton; Ben Gordon; Albert J Fornace; Kevin Gaido; David Gerhold; Robin Haw; Adriano Henney; Avi Ma'ayan; Mary McBride; Stefano Monti; Michael F Ochs; Akhilesh Pandey; Roded Sharan; Rob Stierum; Stuart Tugendreich; Catherine Willett; Clemens Wittwehr; Jianguo Xia; Geoffrey W Patton; Kirk Arvidson; Mounir Bouhifd; Helena T Hogberg; Thomas Luechtefeld; Lena Smirnova; Liang Zhao; Yeyejide Adeleye; Minoru Kanehisa; Paul Carmichael; Melvin E Andersen; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 6.043

6.  Predicting the future: opportunities and challenges for the chemical industry to apply 21st-century toxicity testing.

Authors:  Raja S Settivari; Nicholas Ball; Lynea Murphy; Reza Rasoulpour; Darrell R Boverhof; Edward W Carney
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 7.  Big-data and machine learning to revamp computational toxicology and its use in risk assessment.

Authors:  Thomas Luechtefeld; Craig Rowlands; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.524

8.  Identifying and designing chemicals with minimal acute aquatic toxicity.

Authors:  Jakub Kostal; Adelina Voutchkova-Kostal; Paul T Anastas; Julie Beth Zimmerman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Assessment and validation of the CAESAR predictive model for bioconcentration factor (BCF) in fish.

Authors:  Anna Lombardo; Alessandra Roncaglioni; Elena Boriani; Chiara Milan; Emilio Benfenati
Journal:  Chem Cent J       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 4.215

10.  Rapid behavior-based identification of neuroactive small molecules in the zebrafish.

Authors:  David Kokel; Jennifer Bryan; Christian Laggner; Rick White; Chung Yan J Cheung; Rita Mateus; David Healey; Sonia Kim; Andreas A Werdich; Stephen J Haggarty; Calum A Macrae; Brian Shoichet; Randall T Peterson
Journal:  Nat Chem Biol       Date:  2010-01-17       Impact factor: 15.040

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.