Intrinsic/inherent chemical properties are characteristic, irrespective of the number of molecules present. However, toxicity is an extensive/extrinsic biochemical property that depends on the number of molecules. Paracelsus, often considered the father of toxicology, noted that all things are poisonous. Because dose magnitude (i.e., number of molecules) determines the occurrence of poisonous effects, toxicity cannot be an intrinsic/inherent biochemical property. Thus, toxicology's task is to determine case‐specific risks resulting in adverse effects produced by the interaction of toxic doses/exposures, toxic mechanisms, and case‐specific influencing factors. Experimental testing results are known to vary within and between chemicals, test organisms, and experimental conditions and repetitions; however, hazard‐based approaches treat toxicity as a fixed and constant property. A logical alternative is the standard‐risk, case‐specific risk model. In this approach, testing data are defined as standard risks where the nature, magnitude, and toxicity effect is standardized to the organism, chemical, and test conditions. Interpolation/extrapolation of standard risks to site‐specific conditions (i.e., case‐specific risks) is challenging, requiring understanding of the influences of the complex interactions within and between differing species, conditions, and toxicity‐modifying factors. Therefore, Paracelsus's paradigm is perhaps better abbreviated as “dose–causality–response”, because a key interpretive requirement is establishing toxicity causality by separating mode/mechanism of toxic action from modifying factor influences in overall toxicity responses. Unfortunately, the current knowledge base is inadequate. Moving to a standard‐risk–specific‐risk paradigm would highlight the importance of improving the toxicity causality knowledge base. Thereby, a rationale would be provided for enhancing the design and interpretation of toxicity testing that is necessary for achieving advances in routine translation of standard‐risk to specific‐risk estimates—the raison d'être of regulatory risk decision making. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:2351–2360. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

中文翻译：

---

环境毒理学和风险评估中固有毒性概念的评估。

固有/固有的化学性质是特征性的，与存在的分子数目无关。但是，毒性是一种广泛的/外部的生化特性，取决于分子的数量。通常被认为是毒理学之父的Paracelsus指出，所有事物都是有毒的。因为剂量大小（即分子数）决定了毒性作用的发生，所以毒性不能成为固有/固有的生化特性。因此，毒理学的任务是确定因毒性剂量/暴露，毒性机制和因病而异的影响因素相互作用而产生不利影响的因病而异的风险。已知实验测试结果在化学物质，测试生物以及实验条件和重复次数之间和之间会有所不同；然而，基于危害的方法将毒性视为固定和不变的属性。合理的选择是标准风险，针对特定案例的风险模型。在这种方法中，将测试数据定义为标准风险，其中针对生物，化学物质和测试条件标准化了性质，大小和毒性作用。将标准风险插值/外推到特定地点的条件（即个案特定的风险）具有挑战性，需要了解不同物种，条件和毒性改变因素之间及其之间复杂相互作用的影响。因此，Paracelsus的范式也许可以更好地缩写为“剂量－因果关系－响应”，因为一个关键的解释要求是通过将毒性作用的模式/机理与修饰因子对总体毒性反应的影响分开来建立毒性因果关系。不幸的是，当前的知识库不足。转向特定于标准风险的风险范式将突出显示改善毒性因果关系知识库的重要性。因此，将为加强毒性试验的设计和解释提供依据，这对于实现常规将标准风险转换为特定风险估计值（监管风险决策的依据）的进步是必要的。环境毒性化学2020； 39：2351-2360。©2020作者。Wiley Periodicals LLC代表SETAC发布的《环境毒理学和化学》。