Testing Methods for Developmental Neurotoxicity of Environmental Chemicals
Abstract
Human brain development is slow and delicate, involving many unique, though interrelated, cellular events. The fetus and child are often more susceptible to chemical toxins that alter the structure and/or function of the brain, although susceptibility varies for individual neurotoxicants. Early exposure to neurotoxins has been implicated in neurological diseases and mental retardation. Pesticide exposures pose a particular concern since many are designed to be neurotoxic to pests and can also affect humans. Acknowledging the potential for vulnerability of the developing brain, EPA recently began to "call in" data on developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) from manufacturers of pesticides already registered and considered to be neurotoxic-around 140 pesticides. Chemicals are to be tested following the DNT testing guideline (OPPTS 870.6300). This paper assesses whether tests performed according to this guideline can effectively identify developmental neurotoxicants. We found the testing guideline deficient in several respects, including: It is not always triggered appropriately within the current tiered system for testing; It does not expose developing animals during all critical periods of vulnerability; It does not assess effects that may become evident later in life; It does not include methodology for consideration of pharmacokinetic variables; Methodology for assessment of neurobehavioral, neuropathological, and morphometry is highly variable; Testing of neurochemical changes is limited and not always required. We propose modifications to the EPA testing guideline that would improve its adequacy for assessing and predicting risks to infants and children. This paper emphasizes that deficiencies in the testing methodology for developmental neurotoxicants represent a significant gap and increase the uncertainty in the establishment of safe levels of exposure to developing individuals.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Rodent models have long been the gold standard for testing developmental neurotoxicants.
“rodent models historically have served as the “gold standard” for evaluating developmental neurotoxicants,(64, 319)”
From Developmental toxicity of nicotine: A transdisciplinary synthesis and implications for emerging tobacco products (2017) · cites this paper as [319]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Potential developmental neurotoxicity of pesticides used in Europe
Bjørling-Poulsen, M., Andersen, H. R., & Grandjean, P. (2008) · Environmental Health · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-7-50 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
England, L. J., Aagaard, K., Bloch, M., Conway, K., Cosgrove, K., Grana, R., Gould, T. J., Hatsukami, D., Jensen, F., Kandel, D., et al. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.11.013 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
- Authors
- Claudio, L., Kwa, W. C., Russell, A. L., & Wallinga, D.
- Affiliations
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Natural Resources Defense Council (US)
- Venue
- Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-14
- ISSN
- 0041-008X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071814308
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 3.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pew Charitable Trusts
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Drug Abuse
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Keywords
- developmental neurotoxicity, environmental chemicals, pesticide neurotoxicity, tiered testing, pharmacokinetics, neurobehavioral assessment, neuropathology, neurochemical changes, children's exposure, risk assessment
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Behavior, Animal, Brain, Brain Chemistry, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Environmental Pollutants, Fetus, Humans, Toxicology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review