Efforts to corroborate the ARC models using test substances that were not used to build the ARC models produced mixed results, and further development and refinement of the ARC models is recommended before they can be reliably applied to all HBPS. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”
“The repeat-dose and developmental toxicities of certain petroleum refinery streams are related to their polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC) content (Feuston

et al., 1994). Building on this foundation, and working within the context of the US EPA High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge Program, we:

(1) characterized relationships between PAC content and repeat-dose and developmental selleck products toxicities of high boiling petroleum substances (HBPS), and

(2) developed statistical models that can be used to predict critical effects of similar selleck chemical untested substances.

Data from 39 dermal toxicity studies of HBPS were used to develop statistical models to predict the dose-response relationships between the weight percent concentration of each of their 1-7 aromatic ring classes and 4 repeat-dose and 3 developmental endpoints (absolute thymus weight, hemoglobin count, platelet count, liver to body weight, live fetus count, fetal weight, and percent resorptions). The correlations between the observed and model-predicted values are >0.90. The predictive ability of the models was tested via a series

of evaluation or corroboration methods.

As is shown in the paper, using only compositional data of untested HBPS, the models can be used to predict the effect at a given dose or the dose that causes an effect of a stipulated magnitude. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.”
“An expert peer consultation panel reviewed a report by the PAC Analysis Task Group, which hypothesized that systemic, developmental, and reproductive toxicity

observed in repeated-dose dermal toxicity studies was related to polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC) content. Peer consultations seek to solicit scientific and technical input from experts on the scientific basis and merits of the subject report. This peer consultation panel included nine scientists with expertise in petroleum chemistry, biostatistics, toxicology, risk assessment, structure activity, and reproductive and developmental toxicology. The panel evaluated the technical quality learn more of the PAC report and provided recommendations for improving the statistical and biological approaches. The PAC report authors revised their methods and documentation, which are published elsewhere in this supplement. A review of the post peer consultation manuscripts confirmed that many of the key suggestions from expert panel members were considered and incorporated. In cases where the PAC report authors did not fully incorporate panel suggestions from the peer consultation, they have provided an explanation and support for their decision.