Abstract
Dose-response relationships are generally assumed to be nonlinear. Standard multiple regression models may approximate the relationship in a narrow dose range but may not adequately approximate the relationship over a wider dose range – which may have a sigmoidal shape. Further, when the number of components in a mixture is large, the required experimental design to test for interactions becomes infeasible using factorial designs. In contrast, tests for departure from additivity may be based on comparing additivity-predicted models to those of mixtures data along fixed-ratio rays of the components. As such, tests for departure from additivity in mixtures should accommodate both nonlinear relationships and efficient experimental designs. In this chapter, we illustrate the strategy using three different basic assumptions about the underlying response surface from single chemical data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Berenbaum, M.C. 1985. The expected effect of a combination of agents: The general solution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 114: 413–431.
Bliss, C.I. 1939. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly. Annals of Applied Biology 26: 585–615.
Casey, M., C. Gennings, W.H. Carter Jr, V. Moser, and J.E. Simmons. 2004. Detecting interaction(s) and assessing the impact of components subsets in a chemical mixtures using fixed-ratio mixture ray designs. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 9 (3): 339–361.
Casey, M., C. Gennings, and W.H. Carter Jr. 2006. Power and sample size calculations for linear hypotheses associated with mixtures of many components using fixed-ratio ray designs. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 13 (1): 11–23.
Gennings, C., W.H. Carter Jr, E.W. Carney, D.C. Grantley, B.B. Gollapudi, and R.A. Carchman. 2004. A novel flexible approach for evaluating fixed ratio mixtures of full and partial agonists. Toxicological Sciences 80: 134–150.
Greco, W., H.D. Unkelbach, G. Poch, J. Suhnel, M. Kundi, and W. Moedeker. 1992. Consensus on concepts and terminology for combined action assessment: The Saariselka agreement. Archives of Complex. Environmental Studies 4: 65–69.
Howard, G.J., J.J. Schlezinger, M.E. Hahn, and T.F. Webster. 2010. Generalized concentration addition predicts joint effects of aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists with partial agonists and competitive antagonists. Environmental Health Perspectives 118: 666–672.
Meadows-Shropshire, S.L., C. Gennings, and W.H. Carter Jr. 2005. Sample size and power determination for detecting interactions in mixtures of chemicals. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 10 (1): 104–117.
Rajapske, N., E. Silva, M. Scholze, and A. Kortenkamp. 2004. Deviation from additivity with estrogenic mixtures containing 4-nonylphenol and 4-tert-octyphenol detected in the E-SCREEN assay. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 6343–6352.
Scholze, M., W. Boedeker, M. Faust, T. Backhaus, R. Altenburger, and L.H. Grimme. 2001. A general best-fit method for concentration-response curves and the estimation of low-effect concentrations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20: 448–457.
Scholze, M., E. Silva, and A. Kortenkamp. 2014. Extending the applicability of the dose addition model to the assessment of chemical mixtures of partial agonists by using a novel toxic unit extrapolation method. PLoS One 9 (2): e88808.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Supplementary guidance for conducting health risk assessment of chemical mixtures, 209. (EPA/630/R-00/002). Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=4486
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix
Extracted data from Fig. 3 in Gennings et al. (2004)
Chemical | CONC | FoldIND | Chemical | CONC | FoldIND | Chemical | CONC | FoldIND |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MXC | 0 | 0.9 | b-HCH | 0 | 0.6 | BPA | 0 | 0.6 |
MXC | 0 | 1 | b-HCH | 0 | 1.1 | BPA | 0 | 1 |
MXC | 0 | 1.2 | b-HCH | 0 | 1.4 | BPA | 0 | 1.4 |
MXC | 1 | 0.8 | b-HCH | 1 | 0.8 | BPA | 0.008 | 1.4 |
MXC | 1 | 1 | b-HCH | 1 | 0.9 | BPA | 0.008 | 1 |
MXC | 2 | 0.9 | b-HCH | 1 | 1 | BPA | 0.008 | 0.08 |
MXC | 2 | 1.6 | b-HCH | 2 | 1 | BPA | 0.01 | 3.2 |
MXC | 2 | 1.6 | b-HCH | 2 | 1.3 | BPA | 0.01 | 2.4 |
MXC | 4 | 2 | b-HCH | 2 | 2.3 | BPA | 0.01 | 2.2 |
MXC | 4 | 3 | b-HCH | 4 | 1.8 | BPA | 0.02 | 3 |
MXC | 4 | 4.2 | b-HCH | 4 | 3 | BPA | 0.02 | 1.4 |
MXC | 8 | 3 | b-HCH | 4 | 4.2 | BPA | 0.02 | 1.4 |
MXC | 8 | 3.2 | b-HCH | 8 | 2.4 | BPA | 0.04 | 1.8 |
MXC | 8 | 3.5 | b-HCH | 8 | 3.4 | BPA | 0.04 | 1.2 |
MXC | 10 | 3.8 | b-HCH | 8 | 4.2 | BPA | 0.04 | 1 |
MXC | 10 | 6.6 | b-HCH | 10 | 2.4 | BPA | 0.08 | 1.1 |
MXC | 10 | 6.8 | b-HCH | 10 | 3 | BPA | 0.08 | 1.1 |
DPN | 0 | 0.6 | b-HCH | 10 | 4.3 | BPA | 0.08 | 1 |
DPN | 0 | 1 | OCT | 0 | 0.6 | BPA | 0.1 | 2.5 |
DPN | 0 | 1.4 | OCT | 0 | 1 | BPA | 0.1 | 1.5 |
DPN | 0.01 | 0.6 | OCT | 0 | 1.4 | BPA | 0.1 | 1.5 |
DPN | 0.01 | 1 | OCT | 0.01 | 0.8 | BPA | 0.5 | 2 |
DPN | 0.01 | 1 | OCT | 0.01 | 0.9 | BPA | 0.5 | 2.1 |
DPN | 0.02 | 1 | OCT | 0.01 | 1.2 | BPA | 0.5 | 3.2 |
DPN | 0.02 | 1.4 | OCT | 0.02 | 1 | BPA | 1 | 4.4 |
DPN | 0.02 | 1.4 | OCT | 0.02 | 1.2 | BPA | 1 | 8 |
DPN | 0.04 | 2.6 | OCT | 0.02 | 1.8 | BPA | 1 | 10 |
DPN | 0.04 | 4 | OCT | 0.04 | 0.9 | MIX | 0 | 0.06 |
DPN | 0.04 | 4.4 | OCT | 0.04 | 1 | MIX | 0 | 0.09 |
DPN | 0.08 | 4 | OCT | 0.04 | 3.6 | MIX | 0 | 0.09 |
DPN | 0.08 | 4.4 | OCT | 0.08 | 1 | MIX | 0 | 1 |
DPN | 0.08 | 4.4 | OCT | 0.08 | 1.2 | MIX | 0 | 1.1 |
DPN | 0.1 | 5.5 | OCT | 0.08 | 1.2 | MIX | 0 | 1.4 |
DPN | 0.1 | 6 | OCT | 0.1 | 1.6 | MIX | 0.2 | 0.8 |
DPN | 0.1 | 11.5 | OCT | 0.1 | 2.4 | MIX | 0.2 | 0.8 |
DDT | 0 | 0.8 | OCT | 0.1 | 2.8 | MIX | 0.2 | 1 |
DDT | 0 | 1 | OCT | 0.2 | 3.4 | MIX | 1 | 1 |
DDT | 0 | 1.2 | OCT | 0.2 | 3.4 | MIX | 1 | 1.1 |
DDT | 1 | 5 | OCT | 0.2 | 4.8 | MIX | 1 | 1.5 |
DDT | 1 | 6.8 | OCT | 0.4 | 4 | MIX | 2 | 1 |
DDT | 1 | 9 | OCT | 0.4 | 4.2 | MIX | 2 | 1.4 |
DDT | 2 | 4.8 | OCT | 0.4 | 6.8 | MIX | 2 | 1.8 |
DDT | 2 | 7 | OCT | 0.8 | 3.8 | MIX | 3 | 2 |
DDT | 2 | 7 | OCT | 0.8 | 6 | MIX | 3 | 2.4 |
DDT | 4 | 4.5 | OCT | 0.8 | 6.2 | MIX | 3 | 2.8 |
DDT | 4 | 6.5 | OCT | 1 | 5.5 | MIX | 4 | 3.2 |
DDT | 4 | 6.9 | OCT | 1 | 6 | MIX | 4 | 4.8 |
DDT | 8 | 11 | OCT | 1 | 7 | MIX | 4 | 6 |
DDT | 8 | 11.2 | MIX | 8 | 5.8 | |||
DDT | 8 | 11.2 | MIX | 8 | 6.2 | |||
DDT | 10 | 8.2 | MIX | 8 | 9.5 | |||
DDT | 10 | 9 | ||||||
DDT | 10 | 15.5 |
SAS Code for Example Data
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gennings, C. (2018). Comparing Predicted Additivity Models to Observed Mixture Data. In: Rider, C., Simmons, J. (eds) Chemical Mixtures and Combined Chemical and Nonchemical Stressors. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56234-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56234-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56232-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56234-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)