This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brown, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brown, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comments on ‘Implications of hormesis for industrial hygiene’

R2C2, Oakland, California 94605, USA; slbrown{at}idiom.com

Although demonstrated evidence for hormesis of an agent could be important in setting occupational exposure limits (OELs) for industrial hygiene, several practical problems may limit the utility of toxicologic testing for hormesis. This commentary responds to the lead article of this section, in which Jayjock and Lewis propose using the results of tests for hormesis to guide the establishment of OELs. The principal difficulties may include: a different mechanism or even a different effect leading to the conclusion of hormesis; distinction between a threshold for a health effect and a crossover point in the dose response relationship; estimation of threshold or crossover point from limited test data and estimation of slope at this point; sensitivity of tests for hormesis; and cost of testing. Nevertheless, the proposals of Jayjock and Lewis have considerable merit, and exploratory testing could be useful.

Key Words: hormesis • low dose • occupational exposure limit • risk assessment • threshold

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 21, No. 7, 397-398 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327102ht267xx


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?