170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28163056)
1. (Q)SAR tools for priority setting: A case study with printed paper and board food contact material substances.
Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Manganelli S; Braeken E; Ates G; Vanhaecke T; Van Miert S; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Apr; 102():109-119. PubMed ID: 28163056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Integrated strategy for mutagenicity prediction applied to food contact chemicals.
Manganelli S; Schilter B; Benfenati E; Manganaro A; Lo Piparo E
ALTEX; 2018; 35(2):169-178. PubMed ID: 28922667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prioritizing substances of genotoxic concern for in-depth safety evaluation using non-animal approaches: The example of food contact materials.
Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Vanhaecke T; Rogiers V; Mertens B
ALTEX; 2019; 36(2):215-230. PubMed ID: 30488084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Performance of In Silico Models for Mutagenicity Prediction of Food Contact Materials.
Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Vanhaecke T; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
Toxicol Sci; 2018 Jun; 163(2):632-638. PubMed ID: 29579255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Coatings in food contact materials: Potential source of genotoxic contaminants?
Mertens B; Van Bossuyt M; Fraselle S; Blaude MN; Vanhaecke T; Rogiers V; Verschaeve L; Van Hoeck E
Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Aug; 106(Pt A):496-505. PubMed ID: 28583787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An assessment of mutagenicity of chemical substances by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
Honma M
Genes Environ; 2020; 42():23. PubMed ID: 32626544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mutagenicity assessment strategy for pharmaceutical intermediates to aid limit setting for occupational exposure.
Araya S; Lovsin-Barle E; Glowienke S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Nov; 73(2):515-20. PubMed ID: 26454093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds.
Kulkarni SA; Barton-Maclaren TS
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(1):46-82. PubMed ID: 24598040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A risk classification strategy for migrants of food contact material combined with three (Q)SAR tools in silico.
Ma X; Sui H; Sun X; Ali MM; Debrah AA; Du Z
J Hazard Mater; 2021 Oct; 419():126422. PubMed ID: 34182426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Screening for Ames mutagenicity of food flavor chemicals by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
Honma M; Kitazawa A; Kasamatsu T; Sugiyama KI
Genes Environ; 2020 Nov; 42(1):32. PubMed ID: 33292765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Integration of structure-activity relationship and artificial intelligence systems to improve in silico prediction of ames test mutagenicity.
Mazzatorta P; Tran LA; Schilter B; Grigorov M
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 17238246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Printed paper and board food contact materials as a potential source of food contamination.
Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Vanhaecke T; Rogiers V; Mertens B
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Nov; 81():10-19. PubMed ID: 27389280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Predicting the mutagenic potential of chemicals in tobacco products using
Goel R; Valerio LG
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2020 Nov; 30(9):672-678. PubMed ID: 32752976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: A case study using aromatic amine mutagenicity.
Ahlberg E; Amberg A; Beilke LD; Bower D; Cross KP; Custer L; Ford KA; Van Gompel J; Harvey J; Honma M; Jolly R; Joossens E; Kemper RA; Kenyon M; Kruhlak N; Kuhnke L; Leavitt P; Naven R; Neilan C; Quigley DP; Shuey D; Spirkl HP; Stavitskaya L; Teasdale A; White A; Wichard J; Zwickl C; Myatt GJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Jun; 77():1-12. PubMed ID: 26879463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Use of in silico models for prioritization of heat-induced food contaminants in mutagenicity and carcinogenicity testing.
Frenzel F; Buhrke T; Wenzel I; Andrack J; Hielscher J; Lampen A
Arch Toxicol; 2017 Sep; 91(9):3157-3174. PubMed ID: 28091709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Toxicity testing and chemical analyses of recycled fibre-based paper for food contact.
Binderup ML; Pedersen GA; Vinggaard AM; Rasmussen ES; Rosenquist H; Cederberg T
Food Addit Contam; 2002; 19 Suppl():13-28. PubMed ID: 11962701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models.
Morita T; Shigeta Y; Kawamura T; Fujita Y; Honda H; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 30085209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Non-target and suspected-target screening for potentially hazardous chemicals in food contact materials: investigation of paper straws.
Rusko J; Perkons I; Rasinger JD; Bartkevics V
Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess; 2020 Apr; 37(4):649-664. PubMed ID: 32031499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program.
Bailey AB; Chanderbhan R; Collazo-Braier N; Cheeseman MA; Twaroski ML
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Jul; 42(2):225-35. PubMed ID: 15935536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities.
Sutter A; Amberg A; Boyer S; Brigo A; Contrera JF; Custer LL; Dobo KL; Gervais V; Glowienke S; van Gompel J; Greene N; Muster W; Nicolette J; Reddy MV; Thybaud V; Vock E; White AT; Müller L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Oct; 67(1):39-52. PubMed ID: 23669331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
