The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites
Abstract
From a theoretical point of view, it has often been argued that the model of independent action (IA) is the most correct reference model to use for predicting the joint effect of mixtures of chemicals with different molecular target sites. The theory of IA, however, relies on a number of assumptions that are rarely fulfilled in practice. It has even been argued that, theoretically, the concentration addition (CA) model could be just as correct. In the present study, we tested the accuracy of both IA and CA in describing binary dose-response surfaces of chemicals with different molecular targets using statistical software. We compared the two models to determine which best describes data for 158 data sets. The data sets represented 98 different mixtures of, primarily, pesticides and pharmaceuticals tested on one or several of seven test systems containing one of the following: Vibrio fischeri, activated sludge microorganisms, Daphnia magna, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Lemna minor, Tripleurospermum inodorum, or Stellaria media. The analyses showed that approximately 20% of the mixtures were adequately predicted only by IA, 10% were adequately predicted only by CA, and both models could predict the outcome of another 20% of the experiment. Half of the experiments could not be correctly described with either of the two models. When quantifying the maximal difference between modeled synergy or antagonism and the reference model predictions at a 50% effect concentration, neither of the models proved significantly better than the other. Thus, neither model can be selected over the other on the basis of accuracy alone.
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
Review of the toxicity of chemical mixtures: Theory, policy, and regulatory practice
McCarty, L. S., & Borgert, C. J. (2006) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.03.004 · Cited by 126
Cited by
Environmental Side Effects of Pharmaceutical Cocktails: What We Know and What We Should Know
Vasquez, M. I., Lambrianides, A., Schneider, M., Kümmerer, K., & Fatta-Kassinos, D. (2014) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.06.069 · Cited by 295
Review of Aquatic Toxicity of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products to Algae
Xin, X., Huang, G., & Zhang, B. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124619 · Cited by 170
Wolf, C. J., Rider, C. V., Lau, C., & Abbott, B. D. (2014) · Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.tox.2013.12.002 · Cited by 69
Bradley, P. M., LeBlanc, D. R., Romanok, K. M., Smalling, K. L., Focazio, M. J., Cardon, M. C., Clark, J. M., Conley, J. M., Evans, N., Givens, C. E., et al. (2021) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106487 · Cited by 43
Tien, C.-J., & Chen, C. S. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B · doi:10.1080/03601234.2012.693870 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Cedergreen, N., Christensen, A. M., Kamper, A., Kudsk, P., Mathiassen, S. K., Streibig, J. C., & Sørensen, H.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-07-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1621-1632
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W2084455775
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.99
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/07-474.1
- The paper
- Cedergreen, N., Christensen, A. M., Kamper, A., Kudsk, P., Mathiassen, S. K., Streibig, J. C., & Sørensen, H. (2008). A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/07-474.1
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.