Systems Biology and Biomarkers of Early Effects for Occupational Exposure Limit Setting

REFERENCES

• National Research Council (NRC): Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accounting Office: Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program, 2005. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05458.pdf) (accessed January 7, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Toxicity Testing in The 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Kitano, H.: Computational systems biology. Nature 420(6912):206–210 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohl, P., E.J. Crampin, T.A. Quinn, and D. Noble: Systems biology: an approach. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 88(1):25–33 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, S.W., and R.J. Preston: Systems biology and mode of action based risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 106(2):312–318 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHale, C.M., L. Zhang, A.E. Hubbard, and M.T. Smyth: Toxicogenomic profiling of chemically exposed humans in risk assessment. Mutat. Res. 705(3):172–183 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holsapple, M.P., and K.B. Wallace: Dose response considerations in risk assessment–an overview of recent ILSI activities. Toxicol. Lett. 180(2):85–92 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Biological markers in environmental health research. Environ. Health Perspect. 74:3–9 (1987).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulte, P.A., and F.P. Perera: Validation. In Molecular Epidemiology: Principles and Practices, P.A. Schulte and F.P. Perera (eds.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Schadt, E.E.: Molecular networks as sensors and drivers of common human diseases. Nature 461(7261):218–223 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aardema, M.J., and J.T. MacGregor: Toxicology and genetic toxicology in the new era of “toxicogenomics”: Impact of “-omics” technologies. Mutat. Res. 499(1):13–25 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R.S., S.C. Wesselkamper, N.C. Wang et al.: Temporal concordance between apical and transcriptional points of departure for chemical risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 134(1):180–194 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boogaard, P.J., S.M. Hays, and L.L. Aylward: Human biomonitoring as a pragmatic tool to support health risk management of chemicals: examples under the EU REACH programme. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 59(1):125–132 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, M.L.: An animal protection perspective on 21st century toxicology. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 13(2–4):291–298 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, M.E., and D. Krewski: Toxicity testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. Toxicol. Sci. 107(2):324–330 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krewski, D., M. Westphal, M. Al-Zoughool, M.C. Croteau, and M.E. Andersen: New directions in toxicity testing. Ann. Rev. Publ. Health 32:161–178 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavlock, R.J., G. Ankley, J. Blancato et al.: Computational toxicology: a state of the science mini review. Toxicol. Sci. 103(1):14–27 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusyn, I., and G.P. Daston: Computational toxicology: realizing the promise of the toxicity testing in the 21st century. Environ. Health Perspect. 118(8):1047–1050 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reif, D.M., M.T. Martin, S.W. Tan et al.: Endocrine profiling and prioritization of environmental chemicals using ToxCast data. Environ. Health Perspect. 118(12):1714–1720 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judson, R.S., R.J. Kavlock, R.W. Setzer et al.: Estimating toxicity-related biological pathway altering doses for high-throughput chemical risk assessment. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24(4):451–62 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R.S., H.J. Clewell, III, B.C. Allen et al.: Application of transcriptional benchmark dose values in quantitative cancer and noncancer risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 120(1):194–205 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, I., and J. Wambaugh: Virtual tissues in toxicology. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 13(2–4):314–328 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Q., S. Bhattacharya, M.E. Andersen, and R.B. Conolly: Computational systems biology and dose-response modeling in relation to new directions in toxicity testing. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 13(2–4):253–276 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz, P., M. Mumtaz, J. Osterloh, J. Fisher, and B.A. Fowler: Interpreting NHANES biomonitoring data, cadmium. Toxicol. Lett. 198(1):44–48 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, B.A.: Biomarkers in Toxicology and Risk Assessment. In Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology, A. Luch (ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Basel AG, 2012. pp. 459–470.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, B.A.: Computational Toxicology: Applications for Risk Assessment. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishers, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Cote, I., P.T. Anastas, L.S. Birnbaum et al.: Advancing the next generation of health risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 120(11):1499–1502 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dix, D.J., K.A. Houck, M.T. Martin, A.M. Richard, R.W. Setzer, and R.J. Kavlock: The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol. Sci. 95(1):5–12 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casciano, D.A., and J. Woodcock: Empowering microarrays in the regulatory setting. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(9):1103 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fostel, J.M.: Future of toxicogenomics and safety signatures: balancing public access to data with proprietary drug discovery. Pharmacogenomics 8(5):425–430 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P.O., and D. Botstein: Exploring the new world of the genome with DNA microarrays. Nat. Genet. 21(1 Suppl):33–37 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R.S., B.C. Allen, A. Nong et al.: A method to integrate benchmark dose estimates with genomic data to assess the functional effects of chemical exposure. Toxicol. Sci. 98(1):240–248 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylward, L.L., and S.M. Hays: Biomonitoring-based risk assessment for hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 214(3):179–187 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukushige, S., and A. Horii: DNA methylation in cancer: a gene silencing mechanism and the clinical potential of its biomarkers. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 229(3):173–185 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild, C.P.: Complementing the genome with an “exposome”: the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 14(8):1847–1850 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesko, L.J., and A.J. Atkinson, Jr.: Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41:347–366 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittal, S., A.K. Shah, D.T. Barkmeier, and J.A. Loeb: Systems biology of human epilepsy applied to patients with brain tumors. Epilepsia 54(Suppl 9):35–39 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusis, A.J., A.D. Attie, and K. Reue: Metabolic syndrome: from epidemiology to systems biology. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9(11):819–830 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, T., J.G. Garcia, and W. Zhang: Epigenetic regulation in particulate matter-mediated cardiopulmonary toxicities: a systems biology perspective. Curr. Pharmacogen. Person Med. 10(4):314–321 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gangwal, S., J.S. Brown, A. Wang et al.: Informing selection of nanomaterial concentrations for ToxCast in vitro testing based on occupational exposure potential. Environ. Health Perspect. 119(11):1539–1546 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdörster, G.: Nanotoxicology: in vitro-in vivo dosimetry. Environ. Health Perspect. 120(1):A13 (2012); author reply A.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson, K., P.J. Borm, G. Oberdorster, K.E. Pinkerton, V. Stone, and C.L. Tran: Concordance between in vitro and in vivo dosimetry in the proinflammatory effects of low-toxicity, low-solubility particles: the key role of the proximal alveolar region. Inhal. Toxicol. 20(1):53–62 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton, E.K., J. Jiang, S.S. Leonard et al.: Concept of assessing nanoparticle hazards considering nanoparticle dosemetric and chemical/biological response metrics. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 73(5-6):445–461 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): “TLV/BEI Resources.” Available at http://www.acgih.org/TLV/ (accessed January 6, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Hays, S.M., L.L. Aylward, J.S. LaKind et al.: Guidelines for the derivation of biomonitoring equivalents: report from the Biomonitoring Equivalents Expert Workshop. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 51(3 Suppl):S4–S15 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crump, K.S.: A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 4(5):854–871 (1984).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crump, K.S.: Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Anal. 15(1):79–89 (1995).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. 2012. (http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf). (Accessed January 6, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Lohmueller, K.E., C.L. Pearce, M. Pike, E.S. Lander, and J.N. Hirschhorn: Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease. Nat. Genet. 33(2):177–182 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demchuk, E., B. Yucesoy, V.J. Johnson et al.: A statistical model for assessing genetic susceptibility as a risk factor in multifactorial diseases: lessons from occupational asthma. Environ. Health Perspect. 115(2):231–234 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scinicariello, F., A. Yesupriya, M.H. Chang, and B.A. Fowler: Modification by ALAD of the association between blood lead and blood pressure in the U.S. population: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environ. Health Perspect. 118(2):259–264 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, A.G., and N.R. Lazarus: Human variability and noncancer risk assessment: an analysis of the default uncertainty factor. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 27(1):3–20 (1998).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “A Review of The Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes.” 2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/rfd-final.pdf (accessed January 6, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Dourson, M., G. Charnley, and R. Scheuplein: Differential sensitivity of children and adults to chemical toxicity. II. Risk and regulation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 35(3):448–467 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS): “Harmonization Project Document No. 2: Chemical-Specific Adjustment Factors for Interspecies Differences and Human Variability: Guidance Document for Use of Data in Dose/Concentration-Response Assessment.” 2005. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241546786_eng.pdf (accessed January 7, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Samet, J.M., R. Schnatter, and H. Gibb: Epidemiology and risk assessment. Am. J. Epidemiol. 148(10):929–936 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stayner, L.T., and R.J. Smith: Methodologic issues in using epidemiologic studies of occupational cohorts for cancer risk assessment. Epidemiol. Prev. 14(53):32–39 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bogdanffy, M.S., G. Daston, E.M. Faustman et al.: Harmonization of cancer and noncancer risk assessment: proceedings of a consensus-building workshop. Toxicol. Sci. 61(1):18–31 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, publication no. Report #EPA/630/P-03/001b)
   Google Scholar
• Boobis, A.R., J.E. Doe, B. Heinrich-Hirsch et al.: IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 38(2):87–96 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haber, L.T., J.E. Strawson, A. Maier, I.M. Baskerville-Abraham, A. Parker, and M.L. Dourson: Noncancer Risk Assessment: Principles and Practice in Environmental and Occupational Settings. In Patty's Toxicology Sixth edition, E. Bingham, and B. Cohrssen (eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. pp. 89–132.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Current Intelligence Bulletin 63: Occupational Exposure to Titanium Dioxide. Cincinnati, OH: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2011, (Rice F publication no. 2011-160)
   Google Scholar
• White, R.H., I. Cote, L. Zeise et al.: State-of-the-science workshop report: issues and approaches in low-dose-response extrapolation for environmental health risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 117(2):283–287 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhomberg, L.R., J.E. Goodman, L.T. Haber et al.: Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 41(1):1–19 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crump, K.S., D.G. Hoel, C.H. Langley, and R. Peto: Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res. 36(9 pt.1):2973–9 (1976).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz, W.K.: Susceptibility differences in chemical carcinogenesis linearize the dose-response relationship: threshold doses can be defined only for individuals. Mutat. Res. 482(1–2):71–76 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarabek, A.M.: Considerations of temporal toxicity challenges current default assumptions. Inhal. Toxicol. 7:927–946 (1995).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalberlah, F., U. Föst, and K. Schneider: Time extrapolation and interspecies extrapolation for locally acting substances in case of limited toxicological data. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 46(2):175–185 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, B., A.M. Maier, A. Willis, and L.T. Haber: “Use of Early Effect Biomarker Data to Enhance Dose-Response Models of Lung Tumors in Rats Exposed to Titanium Dioxide.” Cincinnati, OH: Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA); 2013. Available at http://www.tera.org/Publications/Publications.html (accessed January 6, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Maier, A., R.E. Savage, Jr., and L.T. Haber: Assessing biomarker use in risk assessment–a survey of practitioners. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 67(8–10):687–695 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, M.K., and G.A. Churchill: Statistical design and the analysis of gene expression microarray data. Genet. Res. 77(2):123–128 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stekel, D.: Microarray Bioinformatics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, L., B.C. Allen, and R.S. Thomas: BMDExpress: a software tool for the benchmark dose analyses of genomic data. BMC Genom. 8:387 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filipsson, A.F., S. Sand, J. Nilsson, and K. Victorin: The benchmark dose method–review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 33(5):505–542 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanehisa, M., S. Goto, M. Furumichi, M. Tanabe, and M. Hirakawa: KEGG for representation and analysis of molecular networks involving diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 38(Database issue):D355–360 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bureeva, S., and Y. Nikolsky: Quantitative knowledge-based analysis in compound safety assessment. Expert. Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 7(3):287–298 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R.S., M.B. Black, L.Li et al.: A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol. Sci. 128(2):398–417 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katabami, M., H. Dosaka-Akita, K. Honma et al.: Pneumoconiosis-related lung cancers: preferential occurrence from diffuse interstitial fibrosis-type pneumoconiosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 162(1):295–300 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schins, R.P., and A.M. Knaapen: Genotoxicity of poorly soluble particles. Inhal. Toxicol. 19 Suppl 1:189–198 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driscoll, K.E., L.C. Deyo, J.M. Carter, B.W. Howard, D.G. Hassenbein, and T.A. Bertram: Effects of particle exposure and particle-elicited inflammatory cells on mutation in rat alveolar epithelial cells. Carcinogenesis 18(2):423–430 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuempel, E.D., R.J. Smith, D.A. Dankovic, and L.T. Stayner: Rat- and human-based risk estimates of lung cancer from occupational exposure to poorly-soluble particles: a quantitative evaluation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 151:012011 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Conolly, R.B.: The use of biologically based modeling in risk assessment. Toxicology 181–182:275–279 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis, D., P. Banati, and R. Goble: Distributions of individual susceptibility among humans for toxic effects. How much protection does the traditional tenfold factor provide for what fraction of which kinds of chemicals and effects?. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 895:286–316 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis, D., and K. Silver: Human interindividual variability–a major source of uncertainty in assessing risks for noncancer health effects. Risk Anal. 14(4):421–431 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crump, K.S., C. Chen, W.A. Chiu et al.: What role for biologically based dose: response models in estimating low-dose risk?. Environ. Health Perspect. 118(5):585–588 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS): “Characterization and Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models in Risk Assessment.” 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/pbpk_models.pdf (accessed January 7, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Hack, C.E., L.T. Haber, A. Maier et al.: A Bayesian network model for biomarker-based dose response. Risk Anal. 30(7):1037–1051 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budinsky, R.A., E.L. LeCluyse, S.S. Ferguson, J.C. Rowlands, and T. Simon: Human and rat primary hepatocyte CYP1A1 and 1A2 induction with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, and 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran. Toxicol. Sci. 118(1):224–235 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, M.B., R.A. Budinsky, A. Dombkowski et al.: Cross-species comparisons of transcriptomic alterations in human and rat primary hepatocytes exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Toxicol. Sci. 127(1):199–215 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourson, M., R. Hertzberg, B. Allen et al.: Evidence-based dose-response assessment for thyroid tumorigenesis from acrylamide. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 52(3):264–289 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demchuk, E., P. Ruiz, S. Chou, and B.A. Fowler: SAR/QSAR methods in public health practice. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 254(2):192–197 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, M.E., J.E. Dennison, R.S. Thomas, and R.B. Conolly: New directions in incidence-dose modeling. Trends Biotechnol. 23(3):122–127 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodruff, T., E. Wells, E. Holt, D.E. Burgin, and D.A. Axelrad: Estimating risk from ambient concentrations of acrolein across the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 115(3):410–415 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “Terminology Services.” 2012. Available at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/home/overview/home.do (accessed January 7, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, F.B., and V.S. Vaidya: Novel technologies for the discovery and quantitation of biomarkers of toxicity. Toxicology 245:167–174 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaddurah-Daouk, R., B.S. Kristal, and R.M. Weinshilboum: Metabolomics: a global biochemical approach to drug response and disease. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 48:653–683 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wishart, D.S.: Applications of metabolomics in drug discovery and development. Drugs R&D 9(5):307–322 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “Advancing the Next Generation (NexGen) of Risk Assessment.” 2013. Available at http://www.epa.gov/risk/nexgen/) (accessed January 7, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO): “Environmental Health Criteria 222: Biomarkers in Risk Assessment: Validity and Validation.” 2001. Available at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc222.htm (accessed January 17, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, publication no. Report #EPA/600/8-90/066F.
   Google Scholar