↓ Skip to main content

In vitro Environmental Toxicology - Concepts, Application and Assessment

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 5017: Defining and Controlling Exposure During In Vitro Toxicity Testing and the Potential of Passive Dosing
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Chapter title
Defining and Controlling Exposure During In Vitro Toxicity Testing and the Potential of Passive Dosing
Chapter number 5017
Book title
In vitro Environmental Toxicology - Concepts, Application and Assessment
Published in
Advances in biochemical engineering biotechnology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/10_2015_5017
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-945906-6, 978-3-31-945908-0
Authors

Kilian E. C. Smith, Sabine Schäfer, Kilian E.C. Smith

Editors

Georg Reifferscheid, Sebastian Buchinger

Abstract

Toxicity testing using in vitro bioassays is assuming an increasingly important role. Nevertheless, several issues remain with regard to their proper application, which mainly relate to the proper definition and control of the test chemical(s) concentrations to which the cells or tissues are exposed. This has fundamental implications for understanding the underlying relationship between the in vitro exposure regime and response, and leads to uncertainty in the resulting bioassay data. This chapter covers the definition and control of exposure of hydrophobic organic chemicals (HOCs) in in vitro bioassays aimed at measuring their toxicity. A review of the fate of HOCs in typical in vitro set-ups is followed by a discussion of how to define the test exposure. Currently applied approaches for introducing HOCs into in vitro bioassays are then related to these different definitions of test exposure. Finally, passive dosing as one possible approach for giving defined and constant dissolved concentrations of HOCs in in vitro toxicity tests is introduced, using examples taken from the literature, and how this might be better integrated into high throughput in vitro toxicity testing is discussed.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 4 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,427,593
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Advances in biochemical engineering biotechnology
#181
of 225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,567
of 394,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in biochemical engineering biotechnology
#20
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 394,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.