Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1998 Apr;106(Suppl 2):441–451. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106441

13th Meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): alternative testing methodologies for ecotoxicity.

C Walker 1, K Kaiser 1, W Klein 1, L Lagadic 1, D Peakall 1, S Sheffield 1, T Soldan 1, M Yasuno 1
PMCID: PMC1533412  PMID: 9599690

Abstract

There is growing public pressure to minimize the use of vertebrates in ecotoxicity testing; therefore, effective alternatives to toxicity tests causing suffering are being sought. This report discusses alternatives and differs in some respects from the reports of the other three groups because the primary concern is with harmful effects of chemicals at the level of population and above rather than with harmful effects upon individuals. It is concluded that progress toward the objective of minimizing testing that causes suffering would be served by the following initiatives--a clearer definition of goals and strategies when undertaking testing procedures; development of alternative assays, including in vitro test systems, that are based on new technology; development of nondestructive assays for vertebrates (e.g., biomarkers) that do not cause suffering; selection of most appropriate species, strains, and developmental stages for testing procedures (but no additional species for basic testing); better integrated and more flexible testing procedures incorporating biomarker responses, ecophysiological concepts, and ecological end points (progress in this direction depends upon expert judgment). In general, testing procedures could be made more realistic, taking into account problems with mixtures, and with volatile or insoluble chemicals.

Full text

PDF
441

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bournias-Vardiabasis N., Teplitz R. L., Chernoff G. F., Seecof R. L. Detection of teratogens in the Drosophila embryonic cell culture test: assay of 100 chemicals. Teratology. 1983 Aug;28(1):109–122. doi: 10.1002/tera.1420280114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burgeot T., His E., Galgani F. The micronucleus assay in Crassostrea gigas for the detection of seawater genotoxicity. Mutat Res. 1995 Apr;342(3-4):125–140. doi: 10.1016/0165-1218(95)90022-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Christian M. S. Is there any place for nonmammalian in vitro tests? Reprod Toxicol. 1993;7 (Suppl 1):99–102. doi: 10.1016/0890-6238(93)90074-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooper J. F. Principles and applications of the limulus test for pyrogen in parenteral drugs. Bull Parenter Drug Assoc. 1975 May-Jun;29(3):122–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Frölich A., Würgler F. E. Drosophila wing-spot test: improved detectability of genotoxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Mutat Res. 1990 Apr;234(2):71–80. doi: 10.1016/0165-1161(90)90033-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Güsten H., Medven Z., Sekusak S., Sabljić A. Predicting tropospheric degradation of chemicals: from estimation to computation. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 1995;4(4):197–209. doi: 10.1080/10629369508032980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Johnson E. M., Gabel B. E. An artificial 'embryo' for detection of abnormal developmental biology. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1983 Jul-Aug;3(4):243–249. doi: 10.1016/s0272-0590(83)80135-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Könemann H. Quantitative structure-activity relationships in fish toxicity studies. Part 1: relationship for 50 industrial pollutants. Toxicology. 1981;19(3):209–221. doi: 10.1016/0300-483x(81)90130-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lagadic L., Caquet T. Invertebrates in testing of environmental chemicals: are they alternatives? Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Apr;106 (Suppl 2):593–611. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Meyers S. M., Wolff J. O. Comparative toxicity of azinphos-methyl to house mice, laboratory mice, deer mice, and gray-tailed voles. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1994 May;26(4):478–482. doi: 10.1007/BF00214150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Safe S. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and related compounds: environmental and mechanistic considerations which support the development of toxic equivalency factors (TEFs). Crit Rev Toxicol. 1990;21(1):51–88. doi: 10.3109/10408449009089873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Walker C. H. Biomarker strategies to evaluate the environmental effects of chemicals. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Apr;106 (Suppl 2):613–620. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES