The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Application of Mass Balance Models and the Chemical Activity Concept To Facilitate the Use of in Vitro Toxicity Data for Risk Assessment
Abstract
Practical, financial, and ethical considerations related to conducting extensive animal testing have resulted in various initiatives to promote and expand the use of in vitro testing data for chemical evaluations. Nominal concentrations in the aqueous phase corresponding to an effect (or biological activity) are commonly reported and used to characterize toxicity (or biological response). However, the true concentration in the aqueous phase can be substantially different from the nominal. To support in vitro test design and aid the interpretation of in vitro toxicity data, we developed a mass balance model that can be parametrized and applied to represent typical in vitro test systems. The model calculates the mass distribution, freely dissolved concentrations, and cell/tissue concentrations corresponding to the initial nominal concentration and experimental conditions specified by the user. Chemical activity, a metric which can be used to assess the potential for baseline toxicity to occur, is also calculated. The model is first applied to a set of hypothetical chemicals to illustrate the degree to which test conditions (e.g., presence or absence of serum) influence the distribution of the chemical in the test system. The model is then applied to set of 1194 real substances (predominantly from the ToxCast chemical database) to calculate the potential range of concentrations and chemical activities under assumed test conditions. The model demonstrates how both concentrations and chemical activities can vary by orders of magnitude for the same nominal concentration.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toward a consistent evaluative framework for POP risk characterization
Arnot, J. A., Armitage, J. M., McCarty, L. S., Wania, F., Cousins, I. T., & Toose-Reid, L. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es102551d · Cited by 33
Self-citation
Cited by
Ankley, G. T., Cureton, P., Hoke, R. A., Houde, M., Kumar, A., Kurias, J., Lanno, R., McCarthy, C., Newsted, J., Salice, C. J., et al. (2020) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4869 · Cited by 454
Dawson, D. E., Lau, C., Pradeep, P., Sayre, R. R., Judson, R. S., Tornero-Velez, R., & Wambaugh, J. F. (2023) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics11020098 · Cited by 56
Dimitrijevic, D., Fabian, E., Nicol, B., Funk-Weyer, D., & Landsiedel, R. (2022) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00128 · Cited by 34
Houck, K. (2022) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.2203041 · Cited by 20
“Here we used nominal cell culture medium concentrations; however, there are numerous parameters affecting actual exposure that need consideration (Armitage et al., 2014; Wambaugh et al., 2019).”
Landsiedel, R., Birk, B., Demuth, P., Fabian, E., Hewitt, N. J., Hollnagel, H. M., & Scheel, J. (2024) · Applied In Vitro Toxicology · doi:10.1089/aivt.2023.0018 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Armitage, J. M., Wania, F., & Arnot, J. A.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-07-21
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 9770-9779
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2314745102
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.