ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2022
Benchmark Dose Modeling Approaches for Volatile Organic Chemicals Using a Novel Air-Liquid Interface In Vitro Exposure System.
Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of a human bronchoepithelial-air-liquid interface model to assess respiratory hazard of VOCs using a benchmark concentration modeling approach.Inhalation toxicology · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of Atmospheric Aging on the Respiratory Toxicity of Polystyrene Nanoplastic Particles.Chemical research in toxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- New approach methodologies (NAMs) for theFrontiers in toxicology · 2024Review
- The ToxCast pipeline: updates to curve-fitting approaches and database structure.Frontiers in toxicology · 2023Article
- Identifying xenobiotic metabolites withFrontiers in toxicology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inhalation is the most relevant route of volatile organic chemical (VOC) exposure; however, due to unique challenges posed by their chemical properties and poor solubility in aqueous solutions, in vitro chemical safety testing is predominantly performed using direct application dosing/submerged exposures. To address the difficulties in screening toxic effects of VOCs, our cell culture exposure system permits cells to be exposed to multiple concentrations at air-liquid interface (ALI) in a 24-well format. ALI exposure methods permit direct chemical-to-cell interaction with the test article at physiological conditions. In the present study, BEAS-2B and primary normal human bronchial epithelial cells (pHBEC) are used to assess gene expression, cytotoxicity, and cell viability responses to a variety of volatile chemicals including acrolein, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, 1-bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane, and trichloroethylene. BEAS-2B cells were exposed to all the test agents, whereas pHBECs were only exposed to the latter 4 listed above. The VOC concentrations tested elicited only slight cell viability changes in both cell types. Gene expression changes were analyzed using benchmark dose (BMD) modeling. The BMD for the most sensitive gene set was within one order of magnitude of the threshold-limit value reported by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and the most sensitive gene sets impacted by exposure correlate to known adverse health effects recorded in epidemiologic and in vivo exposure studies. Overall, our study outlines a novel in vitro approach for evaluating molecular-based points-of-departure in human airway epithelial cell exposure to volatile chemicals.
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.