Advances in computer sciences and hardware combined with equally significant developments in molecular biology and chemistry are providing toxicology with a powerful new tool box. This tool box of computational models promises to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness by which the hazards and risks of environmental chemicals are determined. Computational toxicology focuses on applying these tools across many scales, including vastly increasing the numbers of chemicals and the types of biological interactions that can be evaluated. In addition, knowledge of toxicity pathways gathered within the tool box will be directly applicable to the study of the biological responses across a range of dose levels, including those more likely to be representative of exposures to the human population. Progress in this field will facilitate the transformative shift called for in the recent report on toxicology in the 21st century by the National Research Council. This review surveys the state of the art in many areas of computational toxicology and points to several hurdles that will be important to overcome as the field moves forward. Proof-of-concept studies need to clearly demonstrate the additional predictive power gained from these tools. More researchers need to become comfortable working with both the data generating tools and the computational modeling capabilities, and regulatory authorities must show a willingness to the embrace new approaches as they gain scientific acceptance. The next few years should witness the early fruits of these efforts, but as the National Research Council indicates, the paradigm shift will take a long term investment and commitment to reach full potential.

Air change rates (ACRs) and interzonal flows are key determinants of indoor air quality (IAQ) and building energy use. This paper characterizes ACRs and interzonal flows in 126 houses, and evaluates effects of these parameters on IAQ. ACRs measured using weeklong tracer measurements in several seasons averaged 0.73 ± 0.76 h⁻¹ (median = 0.57 h⁻¹, n = 263) in the general living area, and much higher, 1.66 ± 1.50 h⁻¹ (median = 1.23 h⁻¹, n = 253) in bedrooms. Living area ACRs were highest in winter and lowest in spring; bedroom ACRs were highest in summer and lowest in spring. Bedrooms received an average of 55 ± 18% of air from elsewhere in the house; the living area received only 26 ± 20% from the bedroom. Interzonal flows did not depend on season, indoor smoking or the presence of air conditioners. A two-zone IAQ model calibrated for the field study showed large differences in pollutant levels between the living area and bedroom, and the key parameters affecting IAQ were emission rates, emission source locations, air filter use, ACRs, interzonal flows, outdoor concentrations, and PM penetration factors. The single-zone models that are commonly used for residences have substantial limitations and may inadequately represent pollutant concentrations and exposures in bedrooms and potentially other environments other where people spend a substantial fraction of time.