Review of laboratory-based terrestrial bioaccumulation assessment approaches for organic chemicals: Current status and future possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the last decade, interest has been renewed in approaches for the assessment of the bioaccumulation potential of chemicals, principally driven by the need to evaluate large numbers of chemicals as part of new chemical legislation, while reducing vertebrate test organism use called for in animal welfare legislation. This renewed interest has inspired research activities and advances in bioaccumulation science for neutral organic chemicals in aquatic environments. In January 2013, ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute convened experts to identify the state of the science and existing shortcomings in terrestrial bioaccumulation assessment of neutral organic chemicals. Potential modifications to existing laboratory methods were identified, including areas in which new laboratory approaches or test methods could be developed to address terrestrial bioaccumulation. The utility of “non-ecotoxicity” data (e.g., mammalian laboratory data) was also discussed. The highlights of the workshop discussions are presented along with potential modifications in laboratory approaches and new test guidelines that could be used for assessing the bioaccumulation of chemicals in terrestrial organisms. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:109–122. © 2015 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC. Key Points Data and information on bioaccumulation of organic chemicals in terrestrial organisms, including plants, is often not considered or plays a minor role in current bioaccumulation assessments. Development of integrated assessment approaches that maximize and expand the use of laboratory toxicity data collected during regulatory testing is important to meet animal welfare concerns. Adaptation of available laboratory tests with terrestrial organisms (e.g., plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates such as birds, mice, rats, etc.) may provide data relevant for terrestrial bioaccumulation assessments. Relevant and meaningful metrics and a tiered framework for the expression and evaluation of the potential for bioaccumulation in terrestrial organisms and food chains need to be developed and agreed upon by the scientific and regulatory communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".