探索混合评估或分配系数(MAF):当前讨论概述

Thomas Backhaus
{"title":"探索混合评估或分配系数(MAF):当前讨论概述","authors":"Thomas Backhaus","doi":"10.1016/j.cotox.2024.100460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability requests to include a mixture assessment factor (MAF) into the safety assessment of chemicals, in order to account for the elevated risks of chemical mixtures. This text first reflects on the conceptual background of the MAF, and then provides an overview of current stakeholder positions and of the studies attempting to quantify an appropriate size of the MAF.</p><p>Stakeholders from industry, civil society organizations (NGOs), and regulatory authorities have already put forth statements regarding the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the MAF approach, sometimes without providing detailed arguments. A consensus seems to emerge that the so-called MAF<sub>factor</sub> is not a suitable instrument, due to its indiscriminatory nature that penalizes even chemicals that contribute only marginally to the mixture risk. Members of the larger MAF<sub>ceiling</sub> family, in particular the MAF<sub>exact,</sub> overcome this limitation and are therefore suggested as the way forward.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93968,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in toxicology","volume":"37 ","pages":"Article 100460"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the mixture assessment or allocation factor (MAF): A brief overview of the current discourse\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Backhaus\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cotox.2024.100460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability requests to include a mixture assessment factor (MAF) into the safety assessment of chemicals, in order to account for the elevated risks of chemical mixtures. This text first reflects on the conceptual background of the MAF, and then provides an overview of current stakeholder positions and of the studies attempting to quantify an appropriate size of the MAF.</p><p>Stakeholders from industry, civil society organizations (NGOs), and regulatory authorities have already put forth statements regarding the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the MAF approach, sometimes without providing detailed arguments. A consensus seems to emerge that the so-called MAF<sub>factor</sub> is not a suitable instrument, due to its indiscriminatory nature that penalizes even chemicals that contribute only marginally to the mixture risk. Members of the larger MAF<sub>ceiling</sub> family, in particular the MAF<sub>exact,</sub> overcome this limitation and are therefore suggested as the way forward.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93968,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current opinion in toxicology\",\"volume\":\"37 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100460\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current opinion in toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202024000020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202024000020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲化学品可持续发展战略》要求在化学品安全评估中纳入混合物评估因子 (MAF),以考虑化学品混合物的高风险。本文首先反映了 MAF 的概念背景,然后概述了当前利益相关者的立场,以及试图量化 MAF 适当大小的研究。似乎出现了一种共识,即所谓的 MAF 因子并不是一个合适的工具,因为它具有不加区分的性质,甚至会惩罚那些对混合物风险影响很小的化学品。更大的 MAFceiling 系列,特别是 MAFexact,克服了这一局限性,因此被认为是未来的发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring the mixture assessment or allocation factor (MAF): A brief overview of the current discourse

The European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability requests to include a mixture assessment factor (MAF) into the safety assessment of chemicals, in order to account for the elevated risks of chemical mixtures. This text first reflects on the conceptual background of the MAF, and then provides an overview of current stakeholder positions and of the studies attempting to quantify an appropriate size of the MAF.

Stakeholders from industry, civil society organizations (NGOs), and regulatory authorities have already put forth statements regarding the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the MAF approach, sometimes without providing detailed arguments. A consensus seems to emerge that the so-called MAFfactor is not a suitable instrument, due to its indiscriminatory nature that penalizes even chemicals that contribute only marginally to the mixture risk. Members of the larger MAFceiling family, in particular the MAFexact, overcome this limitation and are therefore suggested as the way forward.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current opinion in toxicology
Current opinion in toxicology Toxicology, Biochemistry
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
64 days
期刊最新文献
Adverse outcome pathway networks as the basis for the development of new approach methodologies: Liver toxicity as a case study New approach methodologies (NAMs) in drug safety assessment: A vision of the future Editorial: Transforming toxicology one cell at a time: A special issue on the application of scRNA-seq to the study of environmental response Editorial Board Practical lessons of the 3Rs: Learning from the past and looking toward the future
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1