466 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10189582)
1. Incorporation of potential for multimedia exposure into chemical hazard scores for pollution prevention.
Whaley DA; Meloy TP; Barrett SS; Bedillion EJ
Drug Chem Toxicol; 1999 Feb; 22(1):241-73. PubMed ID: 10189582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Incorporation of endocrine disruption into chemical hazard scoring for pollution prevention and current list of endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Whaley DA; Keyes D; Khorrami B
Drug Chem Toxicol; 2001 Nov; 24(4):359-420. PubMed ID: 11665649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Field trials--measuring progress in pollution prevention using a chemical hazard score.
Whaley DA; Barrett SS
Drug Chem Toxicol; 2000 Nov; 23(4):645-70. PubMed ID: 11071399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Computational toxicology as implemented by the U.S. EPA: providing high throughput decision support tools for screening and assessing chemical exposure, hazard and risk.
Kavlock R; Dix D
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2010 Feb; 13(2-4):197-217. PubMed ID: 20574897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mode of action and the assessment of chemical hazards in the presence of limited data: use of structure-activity relationships (SAR) under TSCA, Section 5.
Auer CM; Nabholz JV; Baetcke KP
Environ Health Perspect; 1990 Jul; 87():183-97. PubMed ID: 2269224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Environmental and risk screening for prioritizing pollution prevention opportunities in the U.S. printed wiring board manufacturing industry.
Lam CW; Lim SR; Schoenung JM
J Hazard Mater; 2011 May; 189(1-2):315-22. PubMed ID: 21398034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Environment and health in Gela (Sicily): present knowledge and prospects for future studies].
Musmeci L; Bianchi F; Carere M; Cori L
Epidemiol Prev; 2009; 33(3 Suppl 1):7-12. PubMed ID: 19776462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Environmental hazard and risk assessment under the United States Toxic Substances Control Act.
Nabholz JV
Sci Total Environ; 1991 Dec; 109-110():649-65. PubMed ID: 1815379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Integrated testing and intelligent assessment-new challenges under REACH.
Ahlers J; Stock F; Werschkun B
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2008 Oct; 15(7):565-72. PubMed ID: 18818964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Aiding alternatives assessment with an uncertainty-tolerant hazard scoring method.
Faludi J; Hoang T; Gorman P; Mulvihill M
J Environ Manage; 2016 Nov; 182():111-125. PubMed ID: 27454102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations.
Dearfield KL; Gollapudi BB; Bemis JC; Benz RD; Douglas GR; Elespuru RK; Johnson GE; Kirkland DJ; LeBaron MJ; Li AP; Marchetti F; Pottenger LH; Rorije E; Tanir JY; Thybaud V; van Benthem J; Yauk CL; Zeiger E; Luijten M
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Jun; 58(5):264-283. PubMed ID: 27650663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Impact of Pollution Prevention on Toxic Environmental Releases from U.S. Manufacturing Facilities.
Ranson M; Cox B; Keenan C; Teitelbaum D
Environ Sci Technol; 2015 Nov; 49(21):12951-7. PubMed ID: 26477531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Correlative and mechanistic QSAR models in toxicology.
Lipnick RL
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 1999; 10(2-3):239-48. PubMed ID: 10491852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The U.S. experience in promoting sustainable chemistry.
Tickner JA; Geiser K; Coffin M
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2005; 12(2):115-23. PubMed ID: 15859119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals.
Egeghy PP; Judson R; Gangwal S; Mosher S; Smith D; Vail J; Cohen Hubal EA
Sci Total Environ; 2012 Jan; 414():159-66. PubMed ID: 22104386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of chemical screening and ranking approaches: the waste minimization prioritization tool versus toxic equivalency potentials.
Pennington DW; Bare JC
Risk Anal; 2001 Oct; 21(5):897-912. PubMed ID: 11798125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim.
Vogel SA; Roberts JA
Health Aff (Millwood); 2011 May; 30(5):898-905. PubMed ID: 21555473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. U.S. EPA regulatory perspectives on the use of QSAR for new and existing chemical evaluations.
Zeeman M; Auer CM; Clements RG; Nabholz JV; Boethling RS
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 1995; 3(3):179-201. PubMed ID: 8564854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Control of chemicals in Sweden: an example of misuse of the "precautionary principle".
Nilsson R
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2004 Feb; 57(2):107-17. PubMed ID: 14759655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An initial probabilistic hazard assessment of oil dispersants approved by the United States National Contingency Plan.
Berninger JP; Williams ES; Brooks BW
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2011 Jul; 30(7):1704-8. PubMed ID: 21425326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
