Cargando…

Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment

Intrinsic/inherent chemical properties are characteristic, irrespective of the number of molecules present. However, toxicity is an extensive/extrinsic biochemical property that depends on the number of molecules. Paracelsus, often considered the father of toxicology, noted that all things are poiso...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCarty, L.S., Borgert, C.J., Burgoon, L.D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32986269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.4881
_version_ 1783626634121707520
author McCarty, L.S.
Borgert, C.J.
Burgoon, L.D.
author_facet McCarty, L.S.
Borgert, C.J.
Burgoon, L.D.
author_sort McCarty, L.S.
collection PubMed
description Intrinsic/inherent chemical properties are characteristic, irrespective of the number of molecules present. However, toxicity is an extensive/extrinsic biochemical property that depends on the number of molecules. Paracelsus, often considered the father of toxicology, noted that all things are poisonous. Because dose magnitude (i.e., number of molecules) determines the occurrence of poisonous effects, toxicity cannot be an intrinsic/inherent biochemical property. Thus, toxicology's task is to determine case‐specific risks resulting in adverse effects produced by the interaction of toxic doses/exposures, toxic mechanisms, and case‐specific influencing factors. Experimental testing results are known to vary within and between chemicals, test organisms, and experimental conditions and repetitions; however, hazard‐based approaches treat toxicity as a fixed and constant property. A logical alternative is the standard‐risk, case‐specific risk model. In this approach, testing data are defined as standard risks where the nature, magnitude, and toxicity effect is standardized to the organism, chemical, and test conditions. Interpolation/extrapolation of standard risks to site‐specific conditions (i.e., case‐specific risks) is challenging, requiring understanding of the influences of the complex interactions within and between differing species, conditions, and toxicity‐modifying factors. Therefore, Paracelsus's paradigm is perhaps better abbreviated as “dose–causality–response”, because a key interpretive requirement is establishing toxicity causality by separating mode/mechanism of toxic action from modifying factor influences in overall toxicity responses. Unfortunately, the current knowledge base is inadequate. Moving to a standard‐risk–specific‐risk paradigm would highlight the importance of improving the toxicity causality knowledge base. Thereby, a rationale would be provided for enhancing the design and interpretation of toxicity testing that is necessary for achieving advances in routine translation of standard‐risk to specific‐risk estimates—the raison d'être of regulatory risk decision making. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:2351–2360. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7756858
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77568582020-12-28 Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment McCarty, L.S. Borgert, C.J. Burgoon, L.D. Environ Toxicol Chem Critical Perspectives Intrinsic/inherent chemical properties are characteristic, irrespective of the number of molecules present. However, toxicity is an extensive/extrinsic biochemical property that depends on the number of molecules. Paracelsus, often considered the father of toxicology, noted that all things are poisonous. Because dose magnitude (i.e., number of molecules) determines the occurrence of poisonous effects, toxicity cannot be an intrinsic/inherent biochemical property. Thus, toxicology's task is to determine case‐specific risks resulting in adverse effects produced by the interaction of toxic doses/exposures, toxic mechanisms, and case‐specific influencing factors. Experimental testing results are known to vary within and between chemicals, test organisms, and experimental conditions and repetitions; however, hazard‐based approaches treat toxicity as a fixed and constant property. A logical alternative is the standard‐risk, case‐specific risk model. In this approach, testing data are defined as standard risks where the nature, magnitude, and toxicity effect is standardized to the organism, chemical, and test conditions. Interpolation/extrapolation of standard risks to site‐specific conditions (i.e., case‐specific risks) is challenging, requiring understanding of the influences of the complex interactions within and between differing species, conditions, and toxicity‐modifying factors. Therefore, Paracelsus's paradigm is perhaps better abbreviated as “dose–causality–response”, because a key interpretive requirement is establishing toxicity causality by separating mode/mechanism of toxic action from modifying factor influences in overall toxicity responses. Unfortunately, the current knowledge base is inadequate. Moving to a standard‐risk–specific‐risk paradigm would highlight the importance of improving the toxicity causality knowledge base. Thereby, a rationale would be provided for enhancing the design and interpretation of toxicity testing that is necessary for achieving advances in routine translation of standard‐risk to specific‐risk estimates—the raison d'être of regulatory risk decision making. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:2351–2360. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-11-10 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7756858/ /pubmed/32986269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.4881 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Critical Perspectives
McCarty, L.S.
Borgert, C.J.
Burgoon, L.D.
Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment
title Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment
title_full Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment
title_short Evaluation of the Inherent Toxicity Concept in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment
title_sort evaluation of the inherent toxicity concept in environmental toxicology and risk assessment
topic Critical Perspectives
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32986269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.4881
work_keys_str_mv AT mccartyls evaluationoftheinherenttoxicityconceptinenvironmentaltoxicologyandriskassessment
AT borgertcj evaluationoftheinherenttoxicityconceptinenvironmentaltoxicologyandriskassessment
AT burgoonld evaluationoftheinherenttoxicityconceptinenvironmentaltoxicologyandriskassessment