These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38146848)

  • 1. Authors' reply to "Response to comments by Barnhart and Flinders on the US Environmental Protection Agency's field-based method for deriving benchmark values for protection of freshwater communities from excess major ions".
    Barnhart B; Flinders C
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2024 Jan; 20(1):8. PubMed ID: 38146848
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Response to comments by Barnhart and Flinders on the US Environmental Protection Agency's field-based method for deriving benchmark values for protection of freshwater communities from excess major ions.
    Suter GW
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2024 Jan; 20(1):6-7. PubMed ID: 38146846
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development of biotic ligand model-based freshwater aquatic life criteria for lead following us environmental protection agency guidelines.
    DeForest DK; Santore RC; Ryan AC; Church BG; Chowdhury MJ; Brix KV
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2017 Nov; 36(11):2965-2973. PubMed ID: 28636272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's inhalation RfD methodology: risk assessment for air toxics.
    Jarabek AM; Menache MG; Overton JH; Dourson ML; Miller FJ
    Toxicol Ind Health; 1990 Oct; 6(5):279-301. PubMed ID: 1670284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A new paradigm for clean water infrastructure.
    Sandino J
    Water Environ Res; 2006 Jan; 78(1):3. PubMed ID: 16553159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of risk assessment.
    Doull J
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2006 Jan; 25(1):44-5. PubMed ID: 16459713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Revisiting inland hypoxia: diverse exceedances of dissolved oxygen thresholds for freshwater aquatic life.
    Saari GN; Wang Z; Brooks BW
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2018 Feb; 25(4):3139-3150. PubMed ID: 28401394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Probability surveys, conditional probability, and ecological risk assessment.
    Paul JF; Munns WR
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2011 Jun; 30(6):1488-95. PubMed ID: 21425319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Striving for consistency in the National Wetland Condition Assessment: developing a reference condition approach for assessing wetlands at a continental scale.
    Herlihy AT; Kentula ME; Magee TK; Lomnicky GA; Nahlik AM; Serenbetz G
    Environ Monit Assess; 2019 Jun; 191(Suppl 1):327. PubMed ID: 31222681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Identifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment framework.
    Diamond JM; Serveiss VB
    Environ Sci Technol; 2001 Dec; 35(24):4711-8. PubMed ID: 11775143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Beyond data management: how ecoinformatics can benefit environmental monitoring programs.
    Hale SS; Hollister JW
    Environ Monit Assess; 2009 Mar; 150(1-4):227-35. PubMed ID: 19051047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The perils posed by the US Environmental Protection Agency's transparency rule.
    Thurston GD
    Lancet Respir Med; 2018 Aug; 6(8):e40-e41. PubMed ID: 30070258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sediment toxicity data and excess simultaneously extracted metals from field-collected samples: Comparison to United States Environmental Protection Agency benchmarks.
    DeForest DK; Toll JE; Judd NL; Shaw A; McPeek K; Tobiason K; Santore RC
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2022 Jan; 18(1):174-186. PubMed ID: 34003570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The future direction of ecological risk assessment in the United States: reflecting on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Examination of risk assessment practices and principles".
    DeMott RP; Balaraman A; Sorensen MT
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2005 Jan; 1(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 16637151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. US Environmental Protection Agency's revised guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment: incorporating mode of action data.
    Dellarco VL; Wiltse JA
    Mutat Res; 1998 Sep; 405(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 9748625
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improving radioactive waste management: an overview of the Environmental Protection Agency's low-activity waste effort.
    Schultheisz DJ; Czyscinski KS; Klinger AD
    Health Phys; 2006 Nov; 91(5):518-22. PubMed ID: 17033466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines for applicator exposure monitoring.
    Reinert JC; Nielsen AP; Lunchick C; Hernandez O; Mazzetta DM
    Toxicol Lett; 1986 Oct; 33(1-3):183-91. PubMed ID: 3775816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A method for deriving water-quality benchmarks using field data.
    Cormier SM; Suter GW
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Feb; 32(2):255-62. PubMed ID: 23147651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Toxicology and human health assessment of decabromodiphenyl ether.
    Hardy ML; Banasik M; Stedeford T
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2009 Nov; 39 Suppl 3():1-44. PubMed ID: 19874087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Detections of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid in surface waters of three agricultural regions of California, USA, 2010-2011.
    Starner K; Goh KS
    Bull Environ Contam Toxicol; 2012 Mar; 88(3):316-21. PubMed ID: 22228315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.