ArticleArchives of toxicology2025
Prioritisation of co-formulants and plant protection products for non-dietary risk assessment using NAMs.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative toxicity of plant protection products, their active substances and mixtures in zebrafish embryos and HepaRG cells.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant protection products (PPPs) contain one or more active substances (AS) as well as a varying number of co-formulants. Whilst AS are amongst the most data-rich and well-investigated substances in toxicology, possibly toxic co-formulants and PPPs with potentially relevant mixture effects are not considered in risk assessment. This especially applies to operators who come in contact with the undiluted product. In this study, we investigated this concern by prioritising co-formulants and PPPs for further testing using new approach methodologies (NAMs). We combined in silico predictions of co-formulant nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity with AS and co-formulant kinetic interaction prediction and thus identified 427 PPPs for further investigation. In a next step, six PPPs were there assessed for their comparative AS and PPP toxicity in liver cells. One product displayed more than additive effects and was thus tested for in silico predicted kinetic interactions. Whilst permeability glycoprotein (P-gp) interaction could not be confirmed, the observed effect may likely be attributed to CYP2C19 interaction. In summary, the findings highlight that the use of in silico tools as a screening step is useful to limit the number of PPPs for further testing. Subsequent in vitro testing of a limited number of PPPs supported the application of the additivity concept and highlighted that prioritised co-formulants contribute additively. We propose the integration of such co-formulants into the Hazard Index (HI) approach currently applied in active substance combined risk assessment.
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.