Advertisement

Toxicologic Units

  • Jeannee K. Yermakoff
Part of the Life Science Monographs book series (LSMO)

Abstract

Toxicologic units have become an integral part of communicating information for the toxicologist. In human and animal studies, these units are used to conveniently summarize study results as a single value (e.g., the SMR and LD50, respectively). When describing exposure to a chemical, toxicologic units provide an indication of the purpose for selection of a given dose (e.g., the MTD) or an acceptable level of human exposure (e.g., the TLV). However, effective communication using this unique vocabulary of toxicologic abbreviations requires that the definitions be clearly understood. This is particularly important when these toxicologic units are used to communicate toxicologic information to individuals outside the realm of the practicing toxicologist.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1985.Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values,4th ed. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio. 486 pp.Google Scholar
  2. American National Standards Institute. 1974. American National Standard Acceptable Concentration of Acetic Acid, No. 237.39. American National Standards Institute, New York. 8 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, E. M. 1968. Prediction of drug toxicity: Assessment of drug safety before human use.Can. Med. Assoc. J. 98:278–293.Google Scholar
  4. Brownlee, K. A., J. L. Hodges, Jr., and M. Rosenblatt. 1953. The up-and-down method with small samples.J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 48:262–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns, T. 1979. The ED01 study: Introduction, objectives, and experimental design.J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 3:1–7.Google Scholar
  6. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985a. Title 40, part 798. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985b. Title 29, Part 1910.1200. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985c. Title 40, Part 162.10. Office of the Federal Register, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985d. Title 21, Part 170.22. Office of the Federal Register, Washington,D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985e. Title 41, Part 50–204.50. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985f. Title 29, Part 1910.1000. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Cornfield, J. 1951. A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data: Applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 11:1269–1275.Google Scholar
  13. European Economic Community. 1983. Commission Directive of July 1983 adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging, and labelling of dangerous substances, 83/467/EEC.Off. J. Eur. Commun. 26(L257):l–33.Google Scholar
  14. European Economic Community. 1985. Proposal for a Council Directive on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Relating to the Classification, Packaging, and Labelling of Dangerous Preparations. 85/C211/03.Off. J. Eur. Com mun. C211:3–l 5.Google Scholar
  15. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives). 1958. Procedures for the Testing of Intentional Food Additives to Establish Their Safety for Use. Technical Report Series No. 144. World Health Organization, Geneva. 19 pp.Google Scholar
  16. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives). 1974. Toxicological Evaluation of Certain Food Additives in a Review of General Principles and Specifications. Technical Report Series No. 539. World Health Organization, Geneva. 40 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Finney, D. J. 1971. Estimation of the median effective dose. Pp. 19–49 inProbit Analysis,3rd ed. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Food Safety Council. 1980.Proposed System for Food Safety Assessment. Food Safety Council, Washington, D.C. 160 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Freireich, E. J., E. A. Gehan, D. P. Rall, L. H. Schmidt, and H. E. Skipper. 1966. Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey and man.Cancer Chemother. Rep. 50:219–243.Google Scholar
  20. Hodge, H. G. 1965. The LD50 and its value.Am. Perfum. Cosmet. 80:57–60.Google Scholar
  21. Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group. 1979. Scientific bases for identification of potential carcinogens and estimation of risks. Report of the Work Group on Risk Assessment.Fed. Reg. 44:39858–39879.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, M. L. 1953. The occurrence of lung cancer in man.Acta Unio Intern. Contra Cancrum9:531–541.Google Scholar
  23. MacFarland, H. N. 1976. Respiratory toxicology. Pp. 121–154 in W. J. Hayes, Jr., ed.Essays in Tox icology,Volume 7. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Maki, A. W., and J. R. Duthie, Jr. 1978. Summary of proposed procedures for the evaluation of aquatic hazard. Pp. 153–163 in J. Cairns, Jr., K. L. Dickson, and A. W. Maki, eds.Estimating the Hazards of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life,ASTM ATP 657. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  25. Munro, I. C. 1977. Considerations in chronic toxicity testing: The chemical, the dose, the design.J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1:183–197.Google Scholar
  26. Murray, R. E., and J. E. Gibson, 1972. A comparative study of paraquat intoxication in rats, guinea pigs, and monkeys.Exp. Mol. Pathol. 17:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1983.Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,Volumes 1–3. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council. 1975.Principles for Evaluating Chemicals in the Environment. A report of the Committee for the Working Conference on Principles of Protocols for Evaluating Chemicals in the Environment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 454 pp.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. 1977a.Principles and Procedures for Evaluating the Toxicity of Household Substances. A report of the Committee for the Revision of National Academy of Sciences Publication 1138. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 130 pp.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. 1980a.Drinking Water and Health,Volume 3. A report of the Safe Drinking Water Committee. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 415 pp. National Research Council. 1980b.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. 1977b.Drinking Water and Health. A report of the Safe Drinking Water Committee. National Academy of Sciences ,Washington, D.C. 939 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Risk Assessment/Safety Evaluation of Food Chemicals. A report of the Committee on Food Protection ,Subcommittee on Food Technology. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 36 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1981.Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
  34. Page, N. P. 1977. Current concepts of a bioassay program in environmental carcinogenesis. Pp. 87-171 in H. F. Kraybill and M. A. Mehlman, eds.Advances in Modern Toxicology,Volume 3. Hemisphere ,Washington ,D.C.Google Scholar
  35. Park ,C.B. 1981. Attributable risk for recurrent events.Am. J. Epidemiol. 113:491–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker ,C. M., G. A. Van Gelder ,E. Y. Chai ,J. B. M. Gellatly ,D. G. Serota ,R. W. Voelker ,and S. D. Vesselinovitch. 1985. Oncogenic evaluation of tetrachlorvinphos in the B6C3F1 mouse.Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 5:840–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Popper ,H. 1975. Introduction to the problem, hepatic fibrosis and collagen metabolism in the liver. Pp. 1–14 in H. Popper and K. Becker ,eds.Collagen Metabolism in the Liver. Stratton Intercon--tinental Medicine Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
  38. Rogan, W. J., and S. M. Brown. 1979. Some fundamental aspects of epidemiology: A guide for laboratory scientists.Fed. Proc. 38:1875–1879.Google Scholar
  39. Savini, E. C. 1968. Estimation of the LD50 in mol/kg.Proc. Eur. Soc. Study Drug Toxicity 9:276–278.Google Scholar
  40. Smyth, H. F., C. S. Weil, J. S. West, and C. P. Carpenter. 1969. An exploration of joint toxic action: Twenty-seven industrial chemicals intubated in rats in all possible pairs.Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 14:340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sontag, J. M., N. P. Page, and U. Saffiotti. 1976.Guidelines for Carcinogen Bioassay in Small Rodents. NCI Technical Report Series No. 1, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 76–801, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 465 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Sperling, F. 1976. Nonlethal parameters as indices of acute toxicity: Inadequacy of the acute LD50. Pp. 177–191 in M. A. Mehlman, R. E. Shapiro, and H. Blumenthal, eds.Advances in Modern Toxicology,Volume 1, Part 1. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  43. Stephan, C. E. 1977. Methods for calculating an LC50. Pp. 65–84 in F. L. Mayer and J. L. Hamelink, eds.Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  44. Stokinger, H. E. 1962. Threshold limits and maximal acceptable concentrations.Arch. Environ. Health4:115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stokinger ,H. E. 1972. Concepts of thresholds in standard setting: An analysis of the concept and its applications to industrial air limits (TLVs).Arch. Environ. Health25:153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stora ,G. 1974. Computation of lethal concentrations.Mar. Pollut. Bull. 5:69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Styles ,J. A. 1977. A method for detecting carcinogenic organic chemicals using mammalian cells in culture.Br. J. Cancer36:558–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Symons ,M. J., and J. D. Taulbee. 1981. Practical considerations for approximating relative risk by the standardized mortality ratio.J. Occup. Med. 23:413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trevan, J. W. 1927. The error of determination of toxicity.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 101:483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weston, R. E., and L. Karel. 1946. An application of the dosimetric method for biologically assaying inhaled substances.J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 88:195–207.Google Scholar
  51. White, C., and J. C. Bailar. 1956. Retrospective and prospective methods of studying association in medicine.Am. J. Public Health46:35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zbinden, G., and M. Flury-Roversi. 1981. Significance of the LD50 test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances.Arch. Toxicol. 45:77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeannee K. Yermakoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Affairs and Safety DepartmentAmoco CorporationChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations