ReviewRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2022
Current ecotoxicity testing needs among selected U.S. federal agencies.
Review in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ecologically Safe Threshold Evaluation of Microplastics Contamination in Freshwater Ecosystems of South Asian Countries Using TWater environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2026Article
- Impact of Pesticide Exposure on Asthma and Allergic Airway Disease.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
- Screening for Endocrine Bioactivity Potential of Tobacco Product Chemicals Including Flavor Chemicals.Environmental toxicology · 2025Article
- Environmental persistence, bioaccumulation, and hazards of chemicals in e-cigarette e-liquids: short-listing chemicals for risk assessments.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Comparison of in silico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicity benchmarks suggests a role for ToxCast data in ecological hazard assessment.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 14 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
U.S. regulatory and research agencies use ecotoxicity test data to assess the hazards associated with substances that may be released into the environment, including but not limited to industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, food additives, and color additives. These data are used to conduct hazard assessments and evaluate potential risks to aquatic life (e.g., invertebrates, fish), birds, wildlife species, or the environment. To identify opportunities for regulatory uses of non-animal replacements for ecotoxicity tests, the needs and uses for data from tests utilizing animals must first be clarified. Accordingly, the objective of this review was to identify the ecotoxicity test data relied upon by U.S. federal agencies. The standards, test guidelines, guidance documents, and/or endpoints that are used to address each of the agencies' regulatory and research needs regarding ecotoxicity testing are described in the context of their application to decision-making. Testing and information use, needs, and/or requirements relevant to the regulatory or programmatic mandates of the agencies taking part in the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods Ecotoxicology Workgroup are captured. This information will be useful for coordinating efforts to develop and implement alternative test methods to reduce, refine, or replace animal use in chemical safety evaluations.
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.