During the past few decades, the science of toxicology has been undergoing a transformation from observational to predictive science. New approach methodologies (NAMs), including in vitro assays, in silico models, read-across, and in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE), are being developed to reduce, refine, or replace whole animal testing, encouraging the judicious use of time and resources. Some of these methods have advanced past the exploratory research stage and are beginning to gain acceptance for the risk assessment of chemicals. A review of the recent literature reveals a burst of IVIVE publications over the past decade. In this review, we propose operational definitions for IVIVE, present literature examples for several common toxicity endpoints, and highlight their implications in decision-making processes across various federal agencies, as well as international organizations, including those in the European Union (EU). The current challenges and future needs are also summarized for IVIVE. In addition to refining and reducing the number of animals in traditional toxicity testing protocols and being used for prioritizing chemical testing, the goal to use IVIVE to facilitate the replacement of animal models can be achieved through their continued evolution and development, including a strategic plan to qualify IVIVE methods for regulatory acceptance.

The quality of exposure assessment is a major determinant of the overall quality of any environmental epidemiology study. The use of biomonitoring as a tool for assessing exposure to ubiquitous chemicals with short physiologic half-lives began relatively recently. These chemicals present several challenges, including their presence in analytical laboratories and sampling equipment, difficulty in establishing temporal order in cross-sectional studies, short- and long-term variability in exposures and biomarker concentrations, and a paucity of information on the number of measurements required for proper exposure classification. To date, the scientific community has not developed a set of systematic guidelines for designing, implementing and interpreting studies of short-lived chemicals that use biomonitoring as the exposure metric or for evaluating the quality of this type of research for WOE assessments or for peer review of grants or publications. We describe key issues that affect epidemiology studies using biomonitoring data on short-lived chemicals and propose a systematic instrument--the Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument--for evaluating the quality of research proposals and studies that incorporate biomonitoring data on short-lived chemicals. Quality criteria for three areas considered fundamental to the evaluation of epidemiology studies that include biological measurements of short-lived chemicals are described: 1) biomarker selection and measurement, 2) study design and execution, and 3) general epidemiological study design considerations. We recognize that the development of an evaluative tool such as BEES-C is neither simple nor non-controversial. We hope and anticipate that the instrument will initiate further discussion/debate on this topic.

The development and application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models in chemical toxicology has grown steadily since their emergence in the 1980s. However, critical evaluation of PBPK models to support public health decision-making across federal agencies has thus far occurred for only a few environmental chemicals. In order to encourage decision makers to embrace the critical role of PBPK modeling in risk assessment, several important challenges require immediate attention from the modeling community. The objective of this contemporary review is to highlight three of these challenges, including: (1) difficulties in recruiting peer reviewers with appropriate modeling expertise and experience; (2) lack of confidence in PBPK models for which no tissue/plasma concentration data exist for model evaluation; and (3) lack of transferability across modeling platforms. Several recommendations for addressing these three issues are provided to initiate dialogue among members of the PBPK modeling community, as these issues must be overcome for the field of PBPK modeling to advance and for PBPK models to be more routinely applied in support of public health decision-making.

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling analysis does not stand on its own for regulatory purposes but is a robust tool to support drug/chemical safety assessment. While the development of PBPK models have grown steadily since their emergence, only a handful of models have been accepted to support regulatory purposes due to obstacles such as the lack of a standardized template for reporting PBPK analysis. Here, we expand the existing guidances designed for pharmaceutical applications by recommending additional elements that are relevant to environmental chemicals. This harmonized reporting template can be adopted and customized by public health agencies receiving PBPK model submission, and it can also serve as general guidance for submitting PBPK-related studies for publication in journals or other modeling sharing purposes. The current effort represents one of several ongoing collaborations among the PBPK modeling and risk assessment communities to promote, when appropriate, incorporating PBPK modeling to characterize the influence of pharmacokinetics on safety decisions made by regulatory agencies.

Biomonitoring is the process by which biomarkers are measured in human tissues and specimens to evaluate exposures. Given the growing number of population-based biomonitoring surveys, there is now an escalated interest in using biomarker data to reconstruct exposures for supporting risk assessment and risk management. While detection of biomarkers is de facto evidence of exposure and absorption, biomarker data cannot be used to reconstruct exposure unless other information is available to establish the external exposure–biomarker concentration relationship. In this review, the process of using biomarker data and other information to reconstruct human exposures is examined. Information that is essential to the exposure reconstruction process includes (1) the type of biomarker based on its origin (e.g., endogenous vs. exogenous), (2) the purpose/design of the biomonitoring study (e.g., occupational monitoring), (3) exposure information (including product/chemical use scenarios and reasons for expected contact, the physicochemical properties of the chemical and nature of the residues, and likely exposure scenarios), and (4) an understanding of the biological system and mechanisms of clearance. This review also presents the use of exposure modeling, pharmacokinetic modeling, and molecular modeling to assist in integrating these various types of information.