↓ Skip to main content

Crucial role of mechanisms and modes of toxic action for understanding tissue residue toxicity and internal effect concentrations of organic chemicals

Overview of attention for article published in Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Crucial role of mechanisms and modes of toxic action for understanding tissue residue toxicity and internal effect concentrations of organic chemicals
Published in
Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, December 2010
DOI 10.1002/ieam.100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beate I Escher, Roman Ashauer, Scott Dyer, Joop LM Hermens, Jong‐Hyeon Lee, Heather A Leslie, Philipp Mayer, James P Meador, Michael SJ Warne

Abstract

This article reviews the mechanistic basis of the tissue residue approach for toxicity assessment (TRA). The tissue residue approach implies that whole-body or organ concentrations (residues) are a better dose metric for describing toxicity to aquatic organisms than is the aqueous concentration typically used in the external medium. Although the benefit of internal concentrations as dose metrics in ecotoxicology has long been recognized, the application of the tissue residue approach remains limited. The main factor responsible for this is the difficulty of measuring internal concentrations. We propose that environmental toxicology can advance if mechanistic considerations are implemented and toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics are explicitly addressed. The variability in ecotoxicological outcomes and species sensitivity is due in part to differences in toxicokinetics, which consist of several processes, including absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME), that influence internal concentrations. Using internal concentrations or tissue residues as the dose metric substantially reduces the variability in toxicity metrics among species and individuals exposed under varying conditions. Total internal concentrations are useful as dose metrics only if they represent a surrogate of the biologically effective dose, the concentration or dose at the target site. If there is no direct proportionality, we advise the implementation of comprehensive toxicokinetic models that include deriving the target dose. Depending on the mechanism of toxicity, the concentration at the target site may or may not be a sufficient descriptor of toxicity. The steady-state concentration of a baseline toxicant associated with the biological membrane is a good descriptor of the toxicodynamics of baseline toxicity. When assessing specific-acting and reactive mechanisms, additional parameters (e.g., reaction rate with the target site and regeneration of the target site) are needed for characterization. For specifically acting compounds, intrinsic potency depends on 1) affinity for, and 2) type of interaction with, a receptor or a target enzyme. These 2 parameters determine the selectivity for the toxic mechanism and the sensitivity, respectively. Implementation of mechanistic information in toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TK-TD) models may help explain time-delayed effects, toxicity after pulsed or fluctuating exposure, carryover toxicity after sequential pulses, and mixture toxicity. We believe that this mechanistic understanding of tissue residue toxicity will lead to improved environmental risk assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Master 16 13%
Other 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 15 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 48 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 15%
Chemistry 12 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 26 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,836,328
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management
#121
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,888
of 192,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.