An overview of current practices for regulatory risk assessment with lessons learnt from cosmetics in the European Union

References

• Al-Zoughool M, Bird M, Rice J, Baan RA, Billard M, Birkett N, Krewski D, Zielinski JM. 2019. Development of a database on key characteristics of human carcinogens. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 22(7–8):264–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage P, Doll R. 1954. The age distribution of cancer and a multi-stage theory of carcinogenesis. Br J Cancer. 8(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey J,  Thew M,  , Balls M. 2014. An analysis of the use of animal models in predicting human toxicology and drug safety. Altern Lab Anim. 42(3):181–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker N, Boobis A, Burgoon L, Carney E, Currie R, Fritsche E, Knudsen T, Laffont M, Piersma AH, Poole A, et al. 2018. Building a developmental toxicity ontology. Birth Defects Res. 110(6):502–518.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ball N, Bartels M, Budinsky R, Klapacz J, Hays S, Kirman C, Patlewicz G. 2014. The challenge of using read-across within the EU REACH regulatory framework; how much uncertainty is too much? Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, an exemplary case study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 68(2):212–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball N, Cronin MT, Shen J, Blackburn K, Booth ED, Bouhifd M, Donley E, Egnash L, Hastings C, Juberg DR, et al. 2016. Toward Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) guidance. ALTEX. 33(2):149–166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bal-Price A, Pistollato F, Sachana M, Bopp SK, Munn S, Worth A. 2018. Strategies to improve the regulatory assessment of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) using in vitro methods. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 354:7–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow S, Renwick AG, Kleiner J, Bridges JW, Busk L, Dybing E, Edler L, Eisenbrand G, Fink-Gremmels J, Knaap A, et al. 2006. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem Toxicol. 44(10):1636–1650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes DG, Dourson M. 1988. Reference dose (RfD): description and use in health risk assessments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 8(4):471–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benford DJ. 2016. The use of dose–response data in a margin of exposure approach to carcinogenic risk assessment for genotoxic chemicals in food. MUTAGE. 31(3):329–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benford D, Bolger PM, Carthew P, Coulet M, DiNovi M, Leblanc JC, Renwick AG, Setzer W, Schlatter J, Smith B, et al. 2010. Application of the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Food Chem Toxicol. 48(Suppl 1):S2–S24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berggren E, White A, Ouedraogo G, Paini A, Richarz AN, Bois FY, Exner T, Leite S, Grunsven LAV, Worth A, et al. 2017. Ab initio chemical safety assessment: a workflow based on exposure considerations and non-animal methods. Comput Toxicol. 4:31–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bessems JGM, Paini A, Gajewska M, Worth A. 2017. The margin of internal exposure (MOIE) concept for dermal risk assessment based on oral toxicity data - a case study with caffeine. Toxicology. 392:119–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhat VS, Meek MEB, Valcke M, English C, Boobis A, Brown R. 2017. Evolution of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) based on recent international experience; increasing utility and facilitating regulatory acceptance. Crit Rev Toxicol. 47(9):729–749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackburn KL, Ellison CA, Stuard SB, Wu S. 2019. Dosimetry considerations for in vivo and in vitro test data and a novel surrogate iTTC approach for read-across based on metabolites. Comput Toxicol. 10:145–157.
   Google Scholar
• Bolt HM. 2008. The concept of “practical thresholds” in the derivation of occupational exposure limits for carcinogens by the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) of the European Union. Genes Environ. 30(4):114–119.
   Google Scholar
• Botham PA. 2002. Acute systemic toxicity. ILAR J. 43(Suppl_1):S27–S30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carthew P, Clapp C, Gutsell S. 2009. Exposure based waiving: the application of the toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) to inhalation exposure for aerosol ingredients in consumer products. Food Chem Toxicol. 47(6):1287–1295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casati S. 2018. Integrated approaches to testing and assessment. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 123(Suppl 5):51–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chebekoue SF, Krishnan K. 2017. Derivation of occupational thresholds of toxicological concern for systemically acting noncarcinogenic organic chemicals. Toxicol Sci. 160(1):47–56.
   Google Scholar
• Chebekoue SF, Krishnan K. 2019. Derivation of internal dose-based thresholds of toxicological concern for occupational inhalation exposure to systemically acting organic chemicals. J Occup Environ Hyg. 16(4):308–319.
   Google Scholar
• Coecke S, Pelkonen O, Leite SB, Bernauer U, Bessems JGM, Bois FY, Gundert-Remy U, Loizou G, Testai E, Zaldívar J-M. 2013. Toxicokinetics as a key to the integrated toxicity risk assessment based primarily on non-animal approaches. Toxicol Vitro. 27(5):1570–1577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen BL. 2002. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 179(5):1137–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corvi R, Aardema MJ, Gribaldo L, Hayashi M, Hoffmann S, Schechtman L, Vanparys P. 2012. ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro cell transformation assays: general outline and conclusions of the study. Mutat Res. 744(1):12–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL. 1976. Estimation of toxic hazard – a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol . 16(3):255–276.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin MTD, Madden JC, Roberts D, Enoch S. 2013. Chemical toxicity prediction: category formation and read-across. In Chemical toxicity prediction. Vol. 17. London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry; p. 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin MTD, Madden JC, Yang C, Worth AP. 2019. Unlocking the potential of in silico chemical safety assessment – a report on a cross-sector symposium on current opportunities and future challenges. Comput Toxicol. 10:38–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crump KS. 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 4(5):854–871.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dankovic DA, Naumann BD, Maier A, Dourson ML, Levy LS. 2015. The scientific basis of uncertainty factors used in setting occupational exposure limits. J Occup Environ Hyg. 12(sup1):S55–S68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JA, Gift JS, Zhao QJ. 2011. Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA’s benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 254(2):181–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Abrew KN, Kainkaryam RM, Shan YK, Overmann GJ, Settivari RS, Wang X, Xu J, Adams RL, Tiesman JP, Carney EW, et al. 2016. Grouping 34 chemicals based on mode of action using connectivity mapping. Toxicol Sci. 151(2):447–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Abrew KN, Shan YK, Wang X, Krailler JM, Kainkaryam RM, Lester CC, Settivari RS, LeBaron MJ, Naciff JM, Daston GP. 2019. Use of connectivity mapping to support read across: A deeper dive using data from 186 chemicals, 19 cell lines and 2 case studies. Toxicology. 423:84–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong E, Barenys M, Hermsen SA, Verhoef A, Ossendorp BC, Bessems JG, Piersma AH. 2011. Comparison of the mouse Embryonic Stem cell Test, the rat Whole Embryo Culture and the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test as alternative methods for developmental toxicity testing of six 1,2,4-triazoles. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 253(2):103–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dent M, Amaral RT, Da Silva PA, Ansell J, Boisleve F, Hatao M, Hirose A, Kasai Y, Kern P, Kreiling R, et al. 2018. Principles underpinning the use of new methodologies in the risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients. Comput Toxicol. 7:20–26.
   Google Scholar
• Desprez B, Dent M, Keller D, Klaric M, Ouédraogo G, Cubberley R, Duplan H, Eilstein J, Ellison C, Grégoire S, et al. 2018. A strategy for systemic toxicity assessment based on non-animal approaches: the Cosmetics Europe Long Range Science Strategy programme. Toxicol In Vitro. 50:137–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desprez B, Birk B, Blaauboer B, Boobis A, Carmichael P, Cronin MTD, Curie R, Daston G, Hubesch B, Jennings P, et al. 2019. A mode-of-action ontology model for safety evaluation of chemicals: outcome of a series of workshops on repeated dose toxicity. Toxicol In Vitro. 59:44–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorato MA, Engelhardt JA. 2005. The no-observed-adverse-effect-level in drug safety evaluations: use, issues, and definition(s). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 42(3):265–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourson ML, Felter SP, Robinson D. 1996. Evolution of science-based uncertainty factors in noncancer risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 24(2 Pt 1):108–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drakvik E, Altenburger R, Aoki Y, Backhaus T, Bahadori T, Barouki R, Brack W, Cronin MTD, Demeneix B, Hougaard Bennekou S, et al. 2020. Statement on advancing the assessment of chemical mixtures and their risks for human health and the environment. Environ Int. 134:105267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dybing E, Doe J, Groten J, Kleiner J, O'Brien J, Renwick AG, Schlatter J, Steinberg P, Tritscher A, Walker R, et al. 2002. Hazard characterisation of chemicals in food and diet, dose response, mechanisms and extrapolation issues. Food Chem Toxicol. 40(2–3):237–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2002. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. OJ L. 31:1–24.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. OJ L. 396:1–849.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2008a. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. OJ L. 353:1–1355.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2008b. Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). OJ L. 142:1–739.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2009. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. OJ L. 342:59–209.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. OJ L. 276:33–79.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2018a. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council and the European economic and social committee. Commission General Report on the operation of REACH and review of certain elements, Conclusions and Actions. COM/2018/0116 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2018b. Commission staff working document accompanying the document communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council and the European economic and social committee. Commission General Report on the operation of REACH and review of certain elements Conclusions and Actions. SWD/2018/058 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2019a. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the European council, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. The European Green Deal. COM/2019/640 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2019b. Report from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Findings of the Fitness Check of the most relevant chemicals legislation (excluding REACH) and identified challenges, gaps and weaknesses. COM/2019/264 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission: New health Horizon 2020 research projects. October 2020. [accessed 15 2020 Dec 15]. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/research_and_innovation/research_by_area/documents/ec_rtd_new-health-h2020-projects.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• [ECHA] The European Chemicals Agency. 2012. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. Version 2.1. November 2012. ECHA-2010-G-19-EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [ECHA] The European Chemicals Agency. 2016. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Part E: Risk Characterisation. Version 3.0 May 2016. ECHA-2016-G-04-EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [ECHA] The European Chemicals Agency. 2017a. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.7a: Endpoint specific guidance. Version 6.0, July 2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [ECHA] The European Chemicals Agency. 2017b. Read-across assessment framework (RAAF) (2017) ECHA-17-R-01-EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• [ECHA] The European Chemicals Agency. 2020. The use of alternatives to testing on animals for the REACH Regulation Fourth report (2020) under Article 117(3) of the REACH Regulation. June 2020. ECHA-20-R-08-EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Edler L, Poirier K, Dourson M, Kleiner J, Mileson B, Nordmann H, Renwick A, Slob W, Walton K, Würtzen G. 2002. Mathematical modelling and quantitative methods. Food Chem Toxicol. 40(2–3):283–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to A Harmonised Approach for Risk Assessment of Substances Which are both Genotoxic and Carcinogenic. EFSA J. 282:1–31.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2012a. Guidance on selected default values to be used by the EFSA scientific committee, scientific panels and units in the absence of actual measured data. EFSA J. 10(3):2579.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2012b. Statement on the applicability of the margin of exposure approach for the safety assessment of impurities which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic in substances added to food/feed. EFSA J. 10(3):2578.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2014. Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment for plant protection products. EFSA J. 12(10):3874.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2017. Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J. 15(1):4658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2019b. Risk evaluation of chemical contaminants in food in the context of RASFF notifications: Rapid Assessment of Contaminant Exposure tool (RACE). EFSA Support Publ. 16(5):1625E.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2019a. Guidance on the use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach in food safety assessment. EFSA J. 17(6):5708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority and [WHO] World Health Organization. 2016. Review of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach and development of new TTC decision tree. EFSA Support Publ. 13(3):1006E.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] The European Food Safety Authority. 2011. Use of BMDS and PROAST software packages by EFSA scientific panels and units for applying the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach in risk assessment. EFSA Support Publ. 8(2):113E.
   Google Scholar
• Ellison CA, Blackburn KL, Carmichael PL, Clewell HJ, 3rd, Cronin MTD, Desprez B, Escher SE, Ferguson SS, Grégoire S, Hewitt NJ, et al. 2019. Challenges in working towards an internal threshold of toxicological concern (iTTC) for use in the safety assessment of cosmetics: Discussions from the Cosmetics Europe iTTC Working Group workshop. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 103:63–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escher SE, Mangelsdorf I, Hoffmann-Doerr S, Partosch F, Karwath A, Schroeder K, Zapf A, Batke M. 2020. Time extrapolation in regulatory risk assessment: the impact of study differences on the extrapolation factors. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 112:104584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escher SE, Tluczkiewicz I, Batke M, Bitsch A, Melber C, Kroese ED, Buist HE, Mangelsdorf I. 2010. Evaluation of inhalation TTC values with the database RepDose. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 58(2):259–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Union Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing: Zuang V, Dura A, Asturiol Bofill D, Batista Leite S, Berggren E, Bernasconi C, Bopp S, Bowe G, Campia I, et al. 2019. EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches, EUR 30100 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Evans RM, Martin OV, Faust M, Kortenkamp A. 2016. Should the scope of human mixture risk assessment span legislative/regulatory silos for chemicals? Sci Total Environ. 543(Pt A):757–764.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Falk-Filipsson A, Hanberg A, Victorin K, Warholm M, Wallen M. 2007. Assessment factors-applications in health risk assessment of chemicals . Environ Res. 104(1):108–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firman JW, Punt A, Cronin MTD, Boobis AR, Wilks MF, Hepburn PA, Thiel A, Fussell KC. 2021. Exploring the potential of ToxCast data in supporting read-across for evaluation of food chemical safety. Chem Res Toxicol. 34(2):300–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritsche E, Grandjean P, Crofton KM, Aschner M, Goldberg A, Heinonen T, Hessel EVS, Hogberg HT, Bennekou SH, Lein PJ, Leist M, Mundy WR, et al. 2018. Consensus statement on the need for innovation, transition and implementation of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing for regulatory purposes. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 354:3–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadaleta D, Golbamaki Bakhtyari A, Lavado GJ, Roncaglioni A, Benfenati E. Automated integration of structural, biological and metabolic similarities to improve read-across. 2020. ALTEX. 37(3):469–481.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gilmour N, Kern PS, Alépée N, Boislève F, Bury D, Clouet E, Hirota M, Hoffmann S, Kühnl J, Lalko JF, et al. 2020. Development of a next generation risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin sensitisation of cosmetic ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 116:104721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. 2007. Local lymph node assay (LLNA) for detection of sensitization capacity of chemicals. Methods. 41(1):54–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haber LT, Dourson ML, Allen BC, Hertzberg RC, Parker A, Vincent MJ, Maier A, Boobis AR. 2018. Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling: current practice, issues, and challenges. Crit Rev Toxicol. 48(5):387–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis D, Erdreich L, Ballew M. 1987. Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals—a preliminary analysis of pharmacokinetic data from normal volunteers. Risk Anal. 7(4):415–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartung T. 2017. Thresholds of Toxicological Concern - setting a threshold for testing below which there is little concern. ALTEX. 34(3):331–351.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henschler D. 1992. Evaluation of adverse effects in the standard-setting process. Toxicol Lett. 64-65:53–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrman JL, Younes M. 1999. Background to the ADI/TDI/PTWI. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 30(2 Pt 2):S109–S113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoersch J, Hoffmann-Doerr S, Keller D. 2018. Derivation of an inhalation TTC for the workplace based on DNEL values reported under REACH. Toxicol Lett. 290:110–115.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann GA, Weber B. 2019. Drug‐induced photosensitivity: culprit drugs, potential mechanisms and clinical consequences. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 19(1):19–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honma M, Kitazawa A, Cayley A, Williams RV, Barber C, Hanser T, Saiakhov R, Chakravarti S, Myatt GJ, Cross KP, et al. 2019. Improvement of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project. Mutagenesis. 34(1):3–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutson MS, Leung MCK, Baker NC, Spencer RM, Knudsen TB. 2017. Computational model of secondary palate fusion and disruption. Chem Res Toxicol. 30(4):965–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs MN, Colacci A, Corvi R, Vaccari M, Aguila MC, Corvaro M, Delrue N, Desaulniers D, Ertych N, Jacobs A, et al. 2020. Chemical carcinogen safety testing: OECD expert group international consensus on the development of an integrated approach for the testing and assessment of chemical non-genotoxic carcinogens. Arch Toxicol. 94(8):2899–2923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalkhof H, Herzler M, Stahlmann R, Gundert-Remy U. 2012. Threshold of toxicological concern values for non-genotoxic effects in industrial chemicals: re-evaluation of the Cramer classification. Arch Toxicol. 86(1):17–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlberg AT, Bergström MA, Börje A, Luthman K, Nilsson JL. 2008. Allergic contact dermatitis–formation, structural requirements, and reactivity of skin sensitizers. Chem Res Toxicol. 21(1):53–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawamoto T, Fuchs A, Fautz R, Morita O. 2019. Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for Botanical Extracts (Botanical-TTC) derived from a meta-analysis of repeated-dose toxicity studies. Toxicol Lett. 316:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Prieto S, Stanzel P, Kopp-Schneider A. 2013. Selection of test methods to be included in a testing strategy to predict acute oral toxicity: an approach based on statistical analysis of data collected in phase 1 of the ACuteTox project. Toxicol In Vitro. 27(4):1377–1394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirsch-Volders M, Aardema M, Elhajouji A. 2000. Concepts of threshold in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Mutat Res. 464(1):3–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A, Schilter B, Schlatter J, van Schothorst F, Vos JG, et al. 2004. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol. 42(1):65–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroes R, Renwick AG, Feron V, Galli CL, Gibney M, Greim H, Guy RH, Lhuguenot JC, van de Sandt JJ. 2007. Application of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) to the safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol. 45(12):2533–2562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanzoni A, Castoldi AF, Kass GE, Terron A, De Seze G, Bal-Price A, Bois FY, Delclos KB, Doerge DR, Fritsche E, et al. 2019. Advancing human health risk assessment. EFS2. 17(S1):E170712.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laufersweiler MC, Gadagbui B, Baskerville-Abraham IM, Maier A, Willis A, Scialli AR, Carr GJ, Felter SP, Blackburn K, Daston G. 2012. Correlation of chemical structure with reproductive and developmental toxicity as it relates to the use of treshold of toxicological concern. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 62(1):160–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman AJ, Fitzhugh OG. 1954. 100-Fold margin of safety. Assoc Food Drug Officials US Q Bull. 18:33–35.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Z, Huang R, Roberts R, Tong W. 2019. Toxicogenomics: a 2020 Vision. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 40(2):92–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu FC. 1988. Acceptable daily intake: inception, evolution, and application. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 8(1):45–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden JC, Enoch SJ, Paini A, Cronin MTD. 2020. A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Altern Lab Anim. 48(4):146–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahony C, Bowtell P, Huber M, Kosemund K, Pfuhler S, Zhu T, Barlow S, McMillan DA. 2020. Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for botanicals - concentration data analysis of potentially genotoxic constituents to substantiate and extend the TTC approach to botanicals. Food Chem Toxicol. 138:111182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masjosthusmann S, Blum J, Bartmann K, Dolde X, Holzer AK, Stürzl LC, Hagen Keßel E, Förster N, Dönmez A, Klose J, Pahl M, et al. 2020. Establishment of an a priori protocol for the implementation and interpretation of an in‐vitro testing battery for the assessment of developmental neurotoxicity. EFSA Suppor Publ. 17(10):1938.
   Google Scholar
• Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG. 1996. Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol. 34(9):829–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro IC, Kennepohl E, Kroes R. 1999. Application of a threshold of toxicological concern in the safety evaluation of certain flavouring substances. Food Chem Toxicol. 37(2–3):207–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro IC, Renwick AG, Danielewska-Nikiel B. 2008. The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) in risk assessment. Toxicol Lett. 180(2):151–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrell JA, Portier CJ, Morris RW. 1998. Characterizing dose–response I: critical assessment of the benchmark dose concept. Risk Anal. 18(1):13–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naumann BD, Silverman KC, Dixit R, Faria EC, Sargent EV. 2001. Case studies of categorical data-derived adjustment factors. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 7(1):61–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naumann BD, Weideman PA. 1995. Scientific basis for uncertainty factors used to establish occupational exposure limits for pharmaceutical active ingredients. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 1(5):590–613.
   Google Scholar
• Nelms MD, Patlewicz G. 2020. Derivation of new threshold of toxicological concern values for exposure via inhalation for environmentally-relevant chemicals. Front Toxicol. 2:580347.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelms MD, Pradeep P, Patlewicz G. 2019. Evaluating potential refinements to existing Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) values for environmentally-relevant compounds. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 109:104505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishimura Y, Inoue A, Sasagawa S, Koiwa J, Kawaguchi K, Kawase R, Maruyama T, Kim S, Tanaka T. 2016. Using zebrafish in systems toxicology for developmental toxicity testing. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 56(1):18–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [NRC] National Research Council (US) Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1987. Test No. 401: acute oral toxicity. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1992. Test No. 406: skin sensitisation. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Test No. 416: two-generation reproduction toxicity. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002a. Test No. 420: acute oral toxicity - fixed dose procedure. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002b. Test No. 423: acute oral toxicity - acute toxic class method. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2007. Test No. 426: developmental neurotoxicity study. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. Test No. 425: acute oral toxicity: up-and-down procedure. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2009. Test No. 231: amphibian metamorphosis assay. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 2. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2010a. GD129: guidance document on using cytotoxicity tests to estimate starting doses for acute oral systemic toxicity tests. Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2010b. Test No. 429: skin sensitisation: local lymph node assay. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Test No. 456: H295R steroidogenesis assay. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2013. Test No. 236: Fish Embryo Acute Toxicity (FET) Test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 2. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2014. The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation initiated by covalent binding to proteins. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications. Series on testing and assessment no. 168. Paris: OECD Publishing; p. 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2015a. Test No. 430: in vitro skin corrosion: Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance Test Method (TER). OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2015b. Test No. 435: in vitro membrane barrier test method for skin corrosion, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2015c. Guidance document on the in vitro Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation assay. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 214. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016a. Guidance document for the use of adverse outcome pathways in developing Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). OECD series on testing and assessment, no. 260. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016b. Test No. 455: performance-based test guideline for stably transfected transactivation in vitro assays to detect estrogen receptor agonists and antagonists. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016c. Test No. 421: reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016d. Test No. 422: combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016e. Test No. 476: in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation tests using the HPRT and XPRT genes. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016f. Test No. 473: in vitro mammalian chromosomal aberration test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016g. Test No. 487: in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2017a. Guidance document on an Integrated Approach on Testing and Assessment (IATA) for skin corrosion and irritation. OECD series on testing and assessment, No. 203. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017b. Guidance document on the reporting of defined approaches and individual information sources to be used within Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) for Skin Sensitisation. OECD series on testing and assessment, No. 256. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017c. Guidance document on considerations for waiving or bridging of mammalian acute toxicity tests. OECD series on testing and assessment, No. 237. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017d. Guidance document on the in vitro Bhas 42 cell transformation assay. Series on testing and assessment No. 231. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017e. Guidance on grouping of chemicals, second Edition. OECD series on testing and assessment, no. 194. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018a. Test No. 442D: in vitro skin sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test method. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018b. Test No. 414: prenatal developmental toxicity study. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018c. Test No. 443: extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018d. Revised guidance document 150 on standardised test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 150. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018e. Test No. 453: combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018f. Test No. 451: carcinogenicity studies. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2019a. Test No. 431: in vitro skin corrosion: reconstructed human epidermis (RHE) test method. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2019b. Guidance document on Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) for serious eye damage and eye irritation series on testing and assessment, No 263 (second edition). Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2019c. Test No. 432: in vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020a. Test No. 439: in vitro skin irritation: reconstructed human epidermis test method. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020b. Test No. 405: acute eye irritation/corrosion. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020c. Test No. 442C: in chemico skin sensitisation: assays addressing the adverse outcome pathway key event on covalent binding to proteins. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020d. Test No. 471: bacterial reverse mutation test. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Olson H, Betton G, Robinson D, Thomas K, Monro A, Kolaja G, Lilly P, Sanders J, Sipes G, Bracken W, et al. 2000. Concordance of the Toxicity of Pharmaceuticals in Humans and in Animals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 32(1):56–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paini A, Leonard JA, Joossens E, Bessems JGM, Desalegn A, Dorne JL, Gosling JP, Heringa MB, Klaric M, Kliment T, et al. 2019. Next generation physiologically based kinetic (NG-PBK) models in support of regulatory decision making. Comput Toxicol. 9:61–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paini A, Sala Benito JV, Bessems J, Worth AP. 2017. From in vitro to in vivo: integration of the virtual cell based assay with physiologically based kinetic modelling. Toxicol in Vitro. 45(Pt 2):241–248.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Partosch F, Mielke H, Stahlmann R, Kleuser B, Barlow S, Gundert-Remy U. 2015. Internal threshold of toxicological concern values: enabling route-to-route extrapolation. Arch Toxicol. 89(6):941–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel A, Joshi K, Rose J, Laufersweiler M, Felter SP, Api AM. 2020. Bolstering the existing database supporting the non-cancer Threshold of toxicological concern values with toxicity data on fragrance-related materials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 116:104718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patlewicz G, George H, Prachi P, Imran S. 2017. Navigating through the minefield of read-across tools: a review of in silico tools for grouping. Comput Toxicol. 3:1–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pauwels M, Rogiers V. 2007. EU legislations affecting safety data availability of cosmetic ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 49(3):308–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, Macleod M, Mignini LE, Jayaram P, Khan KS. 2007. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 334(7586):197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestana CB, Firman JW, Cronin MTD. 2021. Incorporating lines of evidence from New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) to reduce uncertainties in a category based read-across: a case study for repeated dose toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 120:104855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pistollato F, Madia F, Corvi R, Munn S, Grignard E, Paini A, Worth A, Bal-Price A, Prieto P, Casati S, et al. 2021. Current EU regulatory requirements for the assessment of chemicals and cosmetic products: challenges and opportunities for introducing new approach methodologies. Arch Toxicol. 95:1867–1897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prieto P, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Stanzel S, Albella B, Artursson P, Campillo N, Cecchelli R, Cerrato L, Díaz L, Di Consiglio E, et al. 2013. The value of selected in vitro and in silico methods to predict acute oral toxicity in a regulatory context: results from the European Project ACuteTox. Toxicol in Vitro. 27(4):1357–1376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly L, Serafimova R, Partosch F, Gundert-Remy U, Cortiñas Abrahantes J, Dorne JMC, Kass GEN. 2019. Testing the thresholds of toxicological concern values using a new database for food-related substances. Toxicol Lett. 314:117–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG. 1991. Safety factors and establishment of acceptable daily intakes. Food Addit Contam. 8(2):135–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG. 1993. Data-derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contaminants. Food Addit Contam. 10(3):275–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG. 1998. Toxicokinetics in infants and children in relation to the ADI and TDI. Food Addit Contam Suppl. 15(sup001):17–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG. 2000. The use of safety or uncertainty factors in the setting of acute reference doses. Food Addit Contam. 17(7):627–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG, Hattis D. 1996. Introduction to the workshop on variability in toxic response - human and environmental Rapporteurs’ summary. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2(2–3):79–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG, Lazarus NR. 1998. Human variability and noncancer risk assessment- an analysis of the default uncertainty factor. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 27(1 Pt 1):3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogiers V, Benfenati E, Bernauer U, Bodin L, Carmichael P, Chaudhry Q, Coenraads PJ, Cronin MTD, Dent M, Dusinska M, et al. 2020. The way forward for assessing the human health safety of cosmetics in the EU workshop proceedings. Toxicology. 436:152421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell WMS, Burch RL. 1959. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Sachana M, Bal-Price A, Crofton KM, Bennekou SH, Shafer TJ, Behl M, Terron A. 2019. International regulatory and scientific effort for improved developmental neurotoxicity testing. Toxicol Sci. 167(1):45–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sand S, Victorin K, Filipsson AF. 2008. The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment. J Appl Toxicol. 28(4):405–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasaki K, Huk A, Yamani NE, Tanaka N, Dusinska M. 2014. Bhas 42 cell transformation assay for genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. In: Sierra L, Gaivão I, editors. Genotoxicity and DNA repair. Methods in pharmacology and toxicology. New York (NY): Humana Press.
   Google Scholar
• [SCCS] Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. 2021. The SCCS notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation, 11th revision, SCCS/1628/21. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider K, Oltmanns J, Hassauer M. 2004. Allometric principles for interspecies extrapolation in toxicological risk assessment–empirical investigations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 39(3):334–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz TW, Amcoff P, Berggren E, Gautier F, Klaric M, Knight DJ, Mahony C, Schwarz M, White A, Cronin MTD. 2015. A strategy for structuring and reporting a read-across prediction of toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 72(3):586–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz TW, Cronin MTD. 2017. Lessons learned from read-across case studies for repeated-dose toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 88:185–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz TW, Richarz A-N, Cronin MTD. 2019. Assessing uncertainty in read-across: Questions to evaluate toxicity predictions based on knowledge gained from case studies. Comput Toxicol. 9:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• [SCs]. The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) 2012. Joint Opinion on the Use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) Approach for Human Safety Assessment of Chemical Substances with focus on Cosmetics and Consumer Products. SCCP/1171/08. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman KC, Naumann BD, Holder DJ, Dixit R, Faria EC, Sargent EV, Gallo MA. 1999. Establishing data-derived adjustment factors from published pharmaceutical clinical trial data. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 5(5):1059–1089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon TW, Zhu Y, Dourso M, Beck NB. 2016. Bayesian methods for uncertainty factor application for derivation of reference values. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 80:9–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith M. 2019. Characteristics of carcinogens. Tumour site concordance and mechanisms of carcinogenesis. No. 165. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Spielmann H, Seiler A, Bremer S, Hareng L, Hartung T, Ahr H, Faustman E, Haas U, Moffat GJ, Nau H, et al. 2006. The practical application of three validated in vitro embryotoxicity tests. The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/ZEBET workshop (ECVAM workshop 57). Altern Lab Anim. 34(5):527–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tcheremenskaia O, Battistelli CL, Giuliani A, Benigni R, Bossa C. 2019. In silico approaches for prediction of genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of cosmetic ingredients. Comput Toxicol. 11:91–100.
   Google Scholar
• Terron A, Bennekou SH. 2018. Towards a regulatory use of alternative developmental neurotoxicity testing (DNT). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 354:19–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tluczkiewicz I, Buist HE, Martin MT, Mangelsdorf I, Escher SE. 2011. Improvement of the Cramer classification for oral exposure using the database TTC RepDose–a strategy description. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 61(3):340–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tollefsen KE, Scholz S, Cronin MTD, Edwards SW, de Knecht J, Crofton K, Garcia-Reyero N, Hartung T, Worth A, Patlewicz G. 2014. Applying Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) to support Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 70(3):629–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travis KZ, Pate I, Welsh ZK. 2005. The role of the benchmark dose in a regulatory context. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 43(3):280–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truhaut R. 1991. The concept of the acceptable daily intake: an historical review. Food Addit Contam. 8(2):151–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuji R, Crofton KM. 2012. Developmental neurotoxicity guideline study: issues with methodology, evaluation and regulation. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 52(3):122–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [US EPA] United States of America Food and Drug Administration. 2000. Summary report of the workshop to peer review the BenchMark dose technical guidance document. Risk assessment forum. [accessed 2021 February 14]. https://archive.epa.gov/raf/web/pdf/bmd-tg-final-pr-mtg-rpt.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• [US EPA] United States of America Food and Drug Administration. 2012. Benchmark dose technical guidance. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum EPA/100/R-12/001.
   Google Scholar
• [US EPA] United States of America Food and Drug Administration. 2014. Guidance for applying quantitative data to develop data-derived extrapolation factors for interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation. Washington, DC: Risk assessment forum. EPA/100/R-14/002F.
   Google Scholar
• Valcke M, Krishnan K. 2014. Characterization of the human kinetic adjustment factor for the health risk assessment of environmental contaminants. J Appl Toxicol. 34(3):227–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeire T, Stevenson H, Pieters MN, Rennen M, Slob W, Hakkert BC. 1999. Assessment factors for human health risk assessment: a discussion paper. Crit Rev Toxicol. 29(5):439–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinken M. 2013. The adverse outcome pathway concept: a pragmatic tool in toxicology. Toxicology. 312:158–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White CR, Seymour RS. 2003. Mammalian basal metabolic rate is proportional to body mass2/3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100(7):4046–4049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams FM, Rothe H, Barrett G, Chiodini A, Whyte J, Cronin MT, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Plautz J, Roper C, Westerhout J, et al. 2016. Assessing the safety of cosmetic chemicals: Consideration of a flux decision tree to predict dermally delivered systemic dose for comparison with oral TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 76:174–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [WHO] World Health Organisation. 1999. Chemical risk assessment. Training module No. 3, Joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organization, and within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 1994. Assessing human health risks of chemicals: Derivation of guidance values for health-based exposure limits. Environmental health criteria 170, Joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2005. Chemical-specific adjustment factors for interspecies differences and human variability: guidance document for use of data in dose/concentration–response assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2009a. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240 Chapter 2: risk Assessment and its role in risk analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2009b. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240 Chapter 4: hazard identification and characterization: Toxicological and human studies. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2009c. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240 Chapter 5: dose–response assessment and derivation of health-based guidance values. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2009d. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240 Chapter 7: risk characterization. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2009e. Principles for modelling dose–response for the risk assessment of chemicals. Environmental Health Criteria 239. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2009f. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240. Chapter 8: maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO/IPCS] World Health Organisation International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2018. Guidance document on evaluating and expressing uncertainty in hazard characterization. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Wu S, Fisher J, Naciff J, Laufersweiler M, Lester C, Daston G, Blackburn K. 2013. Framework for identifying chemicals with structural features associated with the potential to act as developmental or reproductive toxicants. Chem Res Toxicol. 26(12):1840–1861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang C, Barlow SM, Muldoon Jacobs KL, Vitcheva V, Boobis AR, Felter SP, Arvidson KB, Keller D, Cronin MTD, Enoch S, et al. 2017. Thresholds of toxicological concern for cosmetics-related substances: new database, thresholds, and enrichment of chemical space. Food Chem Toxicol. 109(Pt 1):170–193.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang C, Cheeseman M, Rathman J, Mostrag A, Skoulis N, Vitcheva V, Goldberg S. 2020. A new paradigm in the threshold of toxicological concern based on cheminformatics analysis of a highly curated database enriched with antimicrobials. Food Chem Toxicol. 143:111561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar