2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.10.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metabolic transformation as a diagnostic tool for the selection of candidate promutagens in effect-directed analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1b and d). The retention time of compounds correlating with the mutagenicity between 15 min and 30 min corresponds to a log K OW of 0.9-3.3 (see S2.3) and is in accordance with results from a previous study (Hug et al, 2015).…”
Section: Analysis Of the Peaks Detected As Co-varying With Mutagenic supporting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…1b and d). The retention time of compounds correlating with the mutagenicity between 15 min and 30 min corresponds to a log K OW of 0.9-3.3 (see S2.3) and is in accordance with results from a previous study (Hug et al, 2015).…”
Section: Analysis Of the Peaks Detected As Co-varying With Mutagenic supporting
confidence: 83%
“…The elemental composition of these 205 remaining peaks clearly discriminates the subset from non-co-varying peaks and supports their industrial origin. The selection of compounds eluting in the range between 15 and 30 min is in accordance with a conventional EDA study on samples from the WWTP effluent (Hug et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For AFT aliquots of gammarid and water extracts were dried under a nitrogen stream and residues were resuspended in 80 μL in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). The AFT was done with Samonella typhimurium tester strains TA98 as described by Hug et al 81 The mutagenic activity was determined from the exponential fit of the dose−response curves using the slope of the curve (b) expressed as revertants per L sample in L methanolic extract. 82…”
Section: ■ Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While assumptions can be made with regard to the toxicity of the tentatively identified compounds, on the basis of structural similarity to compounds with known toxicity, various tools for predicting the toxicity of suspect chemical structures are also available. These include the predictive in silico program VEGA-QSAR (quantitative structure–activity relationship) and VirtualToxLab (Biographics Laboratory 3R, Switzerland), , or bioactivity specific QSAR models, including the Online Chemical Database with Modeling Environment (OCHEM) and the Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project (CERAPP) platforms . Raies and Bajic recently reviewed the workflow to generate in silico toxicology tools, which included the various methods for generating these models .…”
Section: Future Directions In Identifying Toxic Transformation Productsmentioning
confidence: 99%