Literature DB >> 7591170

Fundamentals and possibilities of classification of occupational substances as developmental toxicants.

A Hofmann1.   

Abstract

It is now widely accepted that describing and labeling of chemicals as developmental toxicants on a purely qualitative basis does not make sense. Agents possessing the potential to induce reproductive or developmental toxicity present a risk of human harm only under certain conditions. This critical fact cannot be properly communicated with a simple designation as "positive" or "negative". Rather, a number of parameters that deal with dose or concentration, frequency, duration and route of exposure must also be conveyed. Unsubstantiated blacklisting is equally counterproductive for preventive medicine as downplaying of the toxicity of chemicals. Gender-based restrictions on exposure at workplaces of women of child-bearing age are neither socially acceptable nor scientifically justifiable. Therefore, the German Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area published in 1983 a quantitatively based classification concept, which became effective in 1985 and was modified in the following years. The present contribution summarizes what is required for an integrated judgment on the relevance of laboratory and epidemiological data for predicting the potential risk associated with exposure at workplaces to occupational chemicals. Methyl mercury, carbon disulfide, dimethylformamide, ethanol, toluene, N,N-dimethyl acetamide, nitrous oxide, methanol, ethyl benzene, and phosphorus pentoxide will be described as examples of classified substances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7591170     DOI: 10.1007/BF00626344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health        ISSN: 0340-0131            Impact factor:   3.015


  21 in total

1.  [MPEL levels and pregnancy].

Authors:  A Hofmann
Journal:  Gynakologe       Date:  1991-10

2.  Qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity. Williamsburg, Virginia, April 11-13, 1989.Proceedings.

Authors: 
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  1990 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.763

Review 3.  An evaluative process for assessing human reproductive and developmental toxicity of agents.

Authors:  J A Moore; G P Daston; E Faustman; M S Golub; W L Hart; C Hughes; C A Kimmel; J C Lamb; B A Schwetz; A R Scialli
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.143

4.  Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. I. Characterization of database and determination of no observed adverse effect levels.

Authors:  E M Faustman; B C Allen; R J Kavlock; C A Kimmel
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1994-11

5.  Calculation of benchmark doses from teratology data.

Authors:  T R Auton
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 3.271

6.  Guidance for the evaluation, risk assessment and control of chemical embryo-fetotoxins.

Authors:  B W Karrh; T W Carmody; R M Clyne; K G Gould; G Portela-Cubria; J M Smith; M Freifeld
Journal:  J Occup Med       Date:  1981-06

7.  Teratogenic potential of ethanol in mice, rats and rabbits.

Authors:  B A Schwetz; F A Smith; R E Staples
Journal:  Teratology       Date:  1978-12

Review 8.  Principles of developmental neurotoxicology.

Authors:  W Slikker
Journal:  Neurotoxicology       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.294

Review 9.  Evaluation of developmental toxicity data: a discussion of some pertinent factors and a proposal.

Authors:  W L Hart; R C Reynolds; W J Krasavage; T S Ely; R H Bell; R L Raleigh
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 4.000

10.  Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. III. Statistical models.

Authors:  B C Allen; R J Kavlock; C A Kimmel; E M Faustman
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1994-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.