Title |
Alternative approaches to vertebrate ecotoxicity tests in the 21st century: A review of developments over the last 2 decades and current status
|
---|---|
Published in |
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, October 2016
|
DOI | 10.1002/etc.3603 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Adam Lillicrap, Scott Belanger, Natalie Burden, David Du Pasquier, Michelle R. Embry, Marlies Halder, Mark A. Lampi, Lucy Lee, Teresa Norberg‐King, Barnett A. Rattner, Kristin Schirmer, Paul Thomas |
Abstract |
The need for alternative approaches to the use of vertebrate animals for hazard assessment of chemicals and pollutants has become of increasing importance. It is now the first consideration when initiating a vertebrate ecotoxicity test, to ensure that unnecessary use of vertebrate organisms is minimized wherever possible. For some regulatory purposes, the use of vertebrate organisms for environmental risk assessments has been banned; in other situations, the number of organisms tested has been dramatically reduced or the severity of the procedure refined. However, there is still a long way to go to achieve a complete replacement of vertebrate organisms to generate environmental hazard data. The development of animal alternatives is based not just on ethical considerations but also on reducing the cost of performing vertebrate ecotoxicity tests and in some cases on providing better information aimed at improving environmental risk assessments. The present Focus article provides an overview of the considerable advances that have been made toward alternative approaches for ecotoxicity assessments over the last few decades. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:2637-2646. © 2016 SETAC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Norway | 1 | 33% |
Faroe Islands | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 126 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 27 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
Other | 19 | 15% |
Unknown | 31 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Environmental Science | 30 | 23% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 14% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 9% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 7% |
Chemistry | 5 | 4% |
Other | 10 | 8% |
Unknown | 44 | 34% |