196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28922667)
1. 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]
2. (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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
8. Mutagenicity assessment of food contact material migrates with the Ames MPF assay.
Rainer B; Mayrhofer E; Redl M; Dolak I; Mislivececk D; Czerny T; Kirchnawy C; Marin-Kuan M; Schilter B; Tacker M
Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess; 2019 Sep; 36(9):1419-1432. PubMed ID: 31287381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity
Benfenati E; Golbamaki A; Raitano G; Roncaglioni A; Manganelli S; Lemke F; Norinder U; Lo Piparo E; Honma M; Manganaro A; Gini G
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):591-611. PubMed ID: 30052064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity.
Bakhtyari NG; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Martin T; Young D
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2013; 31(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 23534394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A novel QSAR model of Salmonella mutagenicity and its application in the safety assessment of drug impurities.
Valencia A; Prous J; Mora O; Sadrieh N; Valerio LG
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 273(3):427-34. PubMed ID: 24090816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and other substances of concern in food contact materials: an updated review of exposure, effect and risk assessment.
Muncke J
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol; 2011 Oct; 127(1-2):118-27. PubMed ID: 21073950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances.
Simon-Hettich B; Rothfuss A; Steger-Hartmann T
Toxicology; 2006 Jul; 224(1-2):156-62. PubMed ID: 16707203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Application of in silico modelling to estimate toxicity of migrating substances from food packaging.
Price N; Chaudhry Q
Food Chem Toxicol; 2014 Sep; 71():136-41. PubMed ID: 24923263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Establishing the level of safety concern for chemicals in food without the need for toxicity testing.
Schilter B; Benigni R; Boobis A; Chiodini A; Cockburn A; Cronin MT; Lo Piparo E; Modi S; Thiel A; Worth A
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Mar; 68(2):275-96. PubMed ID: 24012706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
