ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2022
Utility of the avian sub-acute dietary toxicity test in ecological risk assessment and a path forward to reduce animal use.
Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has long required both avian sub-acute dietary and acute oral studies to inform risk assessments for pesticides. Recently, the USEPA collaborated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to determine whether the results of the acute oral avian toxicity test or the sub-acute dietary toxicity test consistently generated the greatest risk predictions in USEPA tier 1 assessments for pesticides first registered between 1998 and 2017. Their study concluded that in 99% of the cases, risk conclusions were driven by the acute oral study (OPPTS 850.2100, OCSPP 850.2100, or similar) because using these data results in higher risk quotients than sub-acute dietary data. Shortly after publishing these results, the USEPA released a formal memorandum providing guidance for waiving the sub-acute dietary study for most pesticides. The USEPA will, however, retain the option to require sub-acute dietary studies for pesticides with certain chemical properties. However, as the avian sub-acute dietary study has an exposure regimen that is often more representative of how birds are exposed to pesticides under actual use conditions than does the acute oral study (i.e., as part of a dietary item eaten over the course of a day and not a bolus dose), this study can provide useful context for risk assessment on a case-by-case basis. Decision criteria are needed to determine a path forward that both minimizes vertebrate animal testing and positions the avian sub-acute dietary data as an option for risk refinement. Decision criteria are proposed here with recommendations for refining the design of avian sub-acute dietary studies to ensure that the data generated are optimized to support a science-based acute avian risk assessment, supported by a case study demonstrating when and how sub-acute dietary studies may be used in a higher-tier risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1629-1638. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.