The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dioxin-Like and Non-Dioxin-Like Toxic Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Implications For Risk Assessment
Abstract
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic contaminants in the environment. Individual PCB congeners exhibit different physicochemical properties and biological activities that result in different environmental distributions and toxicity profiles. The variable composition of PCB residues in environmental matrices and their different mechanisms of toxicity complicate the development of scientifically based regulations for the risk assessment. In this article various approaches for the assessment of risks of PCBs have been critically examined. Recent developments in the toxic equivalency factor (TEF) approach for the assessment of toxic effects due to dioxin-like PCBs have been examined. PCB exposure studies that describe non-dioxin-like toxic effects, particularly neurobehavioral effects and their effective doses in animals were compiled. A comparative assessment of effective doses for dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like effects by PCBs has been made to evaluate the relative significance of non-ortho-and ortho-substituted PCBs in risk assessment. Using mink as an example, relative merits and implications of using TEF and total PCB approaches for assessing the potential for toxic effects in wildlife was examined. There are several advantages and limitations associated with each method used for PCB risk assessment. Toxic effects due to coplanar PCBs occur at relatively smaller concentrations than those due to non-dioxin-like PCBs and therefore the TEF approach derives the risk assessment of PCBs, in the environment. The need for the refinement of TEF approach for more accurate assessment of risks is discussed.
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
Poland, A., Glover, E., & Kende, A. S. (1976) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(17)33205-2 · Cited by 1,370
Epidemiological and Laboratory Evidence of PCB-lnduced Neurotoxicity
Seegal, R. F. (1996) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.3109/10408449609037481 · Cited by 242
Corsolini, S., Focardi, S., Kannan, K., Tanabe, S., & Tatsukawa, R. (1995) · Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/bf00213088 · Cited by 36
Self-citation
Cited by
WHITE, S. S., & BIRNBAUM, L. S. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C · doi:10.1080/10590500903310047 · Cited by 386
Wu, B., Zhang, Y., Kong, J., Zhang, X., & Cheng, S. (2009) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.08.005 · Cited by 46
Age- and sex-dependent distribution of persistent organochlorine pollutants in urban foxes
Dip, R., Hegglin, D., Deplazes, P., Dafflon, O., Koch, H., & Naegeli, H. (2003) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.6226 · Cited by 34
Folland, W. R., Newsted, J. L., Fitzgerald, S. D., Fuchsman, P. C., Bradley, P. W., Kern, J., Kannan, K., & Zwiernik, M. J. (2015) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.3203 · Cited by 5
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Giesy, J. P., & Kannan, K.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 511-569
- ISSN
- 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
- 1040-8444
- 1547-6898
- OpenAlex
- W1990726783
- Cited by
- 494
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.06
- 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.