Costa Daniel L
Pulmonary Toxicology Branch, Experimental Toxicology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2008 Jun;60(2-3):105-9. doi: 10.1016/j.etp.2008.01.001. Epub 2008 May 16.
Requirements under the new European Union rules regarding Registration, Evaluation & Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) necessitate widespread toxicological safety testing of existing and new chemicals. Given the enormity of new and already in-service chemicals that fall under this new rule, obtaining inhalation toxicity testing data has unique challenges when compared to most biotesting regimes due to the complexity, time and expense involved in conducting standardized inhalation assessments of whole animals. A number of in vitro approaches have been used to obtain respiratory system-related information, but there is no universal or accepted test system to replace inhalation exposure studies. There are many considerations that must be satisfied before adopting any single in vitro bioassay or battery of such assays to substitute for whole animal inhalation data. These considerations relate mostly to the relevance of the bioassay(s) regarding selection of bioassay cell type(s), dose, and fundamental study procedures. There are data in the literature although these have not been well-assessed for such applications, and there exist perhaps more relevant unpublished data in the private sector that could provide guidance on this issue. The formation of a coalition of scientists to assess current knowledge and perhaps to consider a basic comparative study where consensus approaches (with frank discussions of their strengths and weaknesses) would be invaluable to the testing community and to the ultimate protection of human health. In May 2007, a Congress of government, industry, and academic scientists met at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, on the subject of Alternative Test Methods in Inhalation Toxicology. The stimulus for the meeting arose from the European Union's (EU) recent implementation of the new REACH safety testing requirements for commercial chemicals and products. Attendees at the meeting presented a panoply of data and perspectives on the state of the science on alternative testing methods and how these might aid safety assessments of inhaled materials. The focus of many presentations was on the fundamental attributes of inhalation toxicology and how these are translated or otherwise addressed in alternative in vitro test methods. There was recognition of the needs and the potential for progress through collaboration, but there remains a clear need for continued discussion and proactive support to a broad-based comparative study. The present discussion provides one perspective of this complex issue and how the science community might collaborate to develop acceptable alternative approaches based in science that have utility in inhalation toxicological assessments.
欧盟关于化学品注册、评估、授权和限制(REACH)的新规定要求对现有化学品和新化学品进行广泛的毒理学安全测试。鉴于受此新规定约束的新化学品和已投入使用的化学品数量巨大,与大多数生物测试方法相比,获取吸入毒性测试数据面临独特挑战,因为对全动物进行标准化吸入评估涉及复杂性、时间和费用。一些体外方法已被用于获取与呼吸系统相关的信息,但尚无通用或被认可的测试系统来替代吸入暴露研究。在采用任何单一的体外生物测定法或此类测定法组合来替代全动物吸入数据之前,必须满足许多考虑因素。这些考虑因素主要涉及生物测定法在生物测定细胞类型选择、剂量和基本研究程序方面的相关性。文献中有相关数据,尽管这些数据尚未针对此类应用进行充分评估,而且私营部门可能存在更多相关的未发表数据,可为该问题提供指导。组建一个科学家联盟来评估当前知识,并可能考虑进行一项基础比较研究,在该研究中采用共识方法(坦率讨论其优缺点)对测试界以及最终保护人类健康将非常宝贵。2007年5月,政府、行业和学术科学家大会在柏林的联邦风险评估研究所(BfR)召开,会议主题为吸入毒理学替代测试方法。此次会议的契机源于欧盟最近对商业化学品和产品实施的新REACH安全测试要求。与会者就替代测试方法的科学现状以及这些方法如何有助于吸入物质的安全评估提供了大量数据和观点。许多报告的重点是吸入毒理学的基本属性以及这些属性在替代体外测试方法中如何转化或以其他方式处理。会议认识到通过合作的必要性和取得进展的潜力,但显然仍需要继续讨论并积极支持开展一项广泛的比较研究。本讨论提供了对这个复杂问题的一种观点,以及科学界如何合作开发基于科学的可接受替代方法,这些方法在吸入毒理学评估中具有实用性。