ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2018
In vitro tools for the toxicological evaluation of sediments and dredged materials: intra- and inter-laboratory comparisons of chemical and bioanalytical methods.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid extraction of total lipids and lipophilic POPs from all EU-regulated foods of animal origin: Smedes' method revisited and enhanced.Environmental sciences Europe · 2020Article
- Editorial: Special Issue "Effect-related evaluation of anthropogenic trace substances-concepts for genotoxicity, neurotoxicity and endocrine effects".Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of in vitro bioassays for the screening of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) into management guidelines of dredged material is of increasing interest to regulators and risk assessors. This study reports on an intra- and inter-laboratory comparison study between four independent laboratories. A bioassay battery consisting of RTL-W1 (7-ethoxy-resorufin-O-deethylase; EROD), H4IIE (micro-EROD), and H4IIE-luc cells was used to assess aryl hydrocarbon receptor-mediated effects of sediments from two major European rivers, differently contaminated with DLCs. Each assay was validated by characterization of its limit of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ), z-factor, reproducibility, and repeatability. DLC concentrations were measured using high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) and compared to bioassay-specific responses via toxicity equivalents (TEQs) on intra- and inter-laboratory levels. The micro-EROD assay exhibited the best overall performance among the bioassays. It was ranked excellent (z-factor = 0.54), reached a repeatability > 75%, was highly comparable (r
Indexed as
Identifiers
28913580What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.