Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles Start‑class(Level 4)
WikiProject iconToxicology has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Hello, I would like to help improve toxicology page and I would like to have your suggestion in areas to improve and discuss. I am quite new to wikipedia and I am looking forward to your replys. Thank you.Myat T. Aung (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unclean food[edit]

The clean animals article and the Clean animals article has a section marked "scientific studies" that concentrates on the results of a notable pharmacologist David Macht.

Does anyone know if his results are uncontested, or are contested, and therefore if the section is neutral or not?

(Please edit that article rather than contacting me, I'm not that interested, I just noticed it had a neutrality problems sticker when I was going past it) Clinkophonist 16:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Methanol is Poisonous[edit]

The second paragraph in this article contains a significant error when it states "methanol, which is not poisonous itself". Actually, methanol is very toxic. The ACGIH TLV is 200 ppm. Bluntly, if you drink a little methanol, you will go blind - permanently, and, if you drink a lot, you will die. WVhybrid 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I agree with WVhybrid. The statement that you quoted is potentially misleading and should be deleted or at least reworded. Although it is, in fact, a metabolite of methonal that is responsible for biological damage, it is nonetheless correct to say that methanol is "poisonous". In other words, just because methanol needs to be metabolized to an active form for toxicity to take place, doesn't mean that methanol cannot be considered a "poison." It's just semantics, I know, but it could mislead some people into thinking that methanol is not toxic. Jay Litman 16:06, 22 September 2006

the point there, is that it is the metabolyte of methanol that has the poisonous effect; which is why ethanol is an antidote to methanol poisoning, which works by competitive inhibition. -- (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toxicology and animals[edit]

I noticed that the link in the info box to venomous animals went to a deleted page.

Also, I was looking for information on wildlife toxicology, which is alluded to in the concepts of bioaccumalation and biomagnification, but the article has little about the effects of pollutants on other species.

This is the first time I've looked at this page, and will start trying to figure out how to include these areas of information. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you all have way too much spare time :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New sections?[edit]

Should there be new sections included for medical toxicology and forensic toxicology? If I'm not mistaken, the lion's share of toxicology applications belong in these two fields and deserve their own sections. -- (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh, disregard this one... Right after I posted it I noticed that these are, in fact, separate articles on Wiki. Perhaps they should be linked, though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need an article on Medical toxicology[edit]

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doc James, agreed, see also closing edit, same date. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. That was a long time now. Has grown a little bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paracelsus quote[edit]

Where or when precisely did Paracelsus say "Sola dosis facit venenum." ? Because the Paracelsus article doesn't mention the quote, and instead gives a longer German equivalent. Did Paracelsus write in German or in Latin, and in which text might either of these be found? -- (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did add the reference to Paracelsus quote. To reply to the language question: Paracelsus was born in the German part of what we call now Switzerland, and the original quote was in German, see here: The dose makes the poison. I think we can remove that part from the talk page -- Moldeck (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toxicology Task Force[edit]

Just wanted to announce the creation of a new Toxicology Task Force under WikiProject Medicine. Feel free to come and sign up. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LD 50 testing on animals[edit]

it should be mentioned why LD-50 testing on animals is no longer required: because its value is greatly diminished when we now have good tests on cells that we can compare, combined with the inherent cruelty of killing large numbers of animals. -- (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference move — tag addition — three section restructuring[edit]

Moving unreferenced, outdated statement that is also ambiguous, as it fails to state anything regarding the median level of education associated with the stated median salary; the median salary for an MS or BS in this field is certainly not 84K. Between these three flaws ([citation needed],[needs update], and [ambiguous]), the sentence belongs here rather than in article:

  • " notes that the median annual salary for toxicologists as of 2011 was $84,000.[citation needed]

Note the citation needed tag appearing with the statement was place by another editor back in February. Otherwise, the lack of encyclopedic scope of the article was noted—I came looking for something on, or a reference to, the "Tox" part of standard early drug discovery "ADME-Tox", and there is nothing. But there is a Section that is all bullet points, and three sections (now one), without a single citation, on Toxicology as a profession. What is here is not representative of the field, or the profession.

Finally, the three sections on Toxicology as a profession were combined, and annotated (for complete lack of citations). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School Project[edit]

Hi everyone! I am doing a school project and want to edit and improve this article. Here I list some sources so feel free to comment/provide criticism on the sources or even provide some of your own sources that you find helpful for editing this article! Thank you for your feedback.

-Hodgson, Ernest, and J. A. Goldstein. "Introduction to biochemical toxicology." Toxicology 2 (2001): 2.

This source will help me with this article because it gives a lot of good basic information about the science of toxicology.

-Knight, Bernard. Forensic Medicine. Gower Medical, 1985.

This one is good because it ties forensic medicine in toxicology and connects them together.

-Klaassen, Curtis D., ed. Casarett and Doull's toxicology: the basic science of poisons. Vol. 1236. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill, 2013.

This source is another good source that will help me with some basic information needed for this article.

-Griffin, J. P. "Famous names in toxicology. Mithridates VI of Pontus, the first experimental toxicologist." Adverse drug reactions and toxicological reviews14.1 (1995): 1.

This source is good because of its history that it outlines in the toxicology field and the well known toxicologists it talks about. This could provide a lot of background.

-McNally, William Duncan. toxicology. Chicago: Industrial medicine, 1937. Web.

I found this one on the library website. I think it is good because it seems like a reliable source to help me learn more about the science of toxicology to contribute to this article.

Shelbybush (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

all of those sources are very old. You should use newer sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead Section[edit]

Hi everyone! I am looking to edit the lead section of this article and hope to get some feedback on what I have so far. Below is what I have so far and I am wanting to add different parts of this here and there in the lead section to make sure it properly represent the article. I hope to hear from everyone.


Toxicology is science that deals with poisons. More often than not, the poisoning of people. In this sense, poison refers to a substance that is harmful to a living organism. This makes toxicology very important to many other sciences. Toxicology is related to many other sciences including ones that it contributes significantly to such as forensic medicine and pharmacology. Forensic toxicology helps understand more of the medico-legal aspects of toxicology since it handles the detection of poisons and other substances in samples. [1]

Studying toxicology not only protects people and the environment from the harmful effects of toxins but also helps in the development of toxins that are helpful to us such as anticancer medicines and other medications. A branch of toxicology, epidemiology, has to do with chemical exposure and human disease. This branch really helps the population as a whole because it works to prevent diseases and make vaccines. [2]

Toxicology is one of the oldest practical sciences dating back to 1500 B.C. [3] Mathieu Orfila is commonly referred to as the father of toxicology. He wrote a few books about toxicology giving it a formal treatment. [4] Since the 1960's toxicology has developed from a science of description to a science that is important to all different medical fields. Even since the 1970's the emphasis of toxicology's uses and techniques have evolved. [5]

When measuring toxicity the goal is to find the adverse effects of a substance. Adverse effects can be caused by many things including age, sex, and health of the person. [6]

A toxicologist is someone that studies toxicology. A toxicologist performs toxicology tests in many different forms. These forms are divided into animal testing methods and alternative testing methods when testing on animals is being avoided. [7] Although there are no absolute requirements, to become a toxicologist you should have a bachelors degree in toxicology or something related such as biology or chemistry. [8]


  1. ^ Hodgson, Ernest, and J. A. Goldstein. "Introduction to biochemical toxicology." Toxicology 2 (2001): 2.
  2. ^ Hodgson, Ernest, and J. A. Goldstein. "Introduction to biochemical toxicology." Toxicology 2 (2001): 2.
  3. ^ Hodgson, Ernest, and J. A. Goldstein. "Introduction to biochemical toxicology." Toxicology 2 (2001): 2.
  4. ^  "Biography of Mathieu Joseph Bonaventure Orfila (1787–1853)". U.S. National Library of Medicine.
  5. ^ Hodgson, Ernest, and J. A. Goldstein. "Introduction to biochemical toxicology." Toxicology 2 (2001): 2.
  6. ^ Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1994). Science and judgement in risk assessment. The National Academic Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-309-07490-2.
  7. ^  "Existing Non-animal Alternatives". 8 September 2011.
  8. ^

Shelbybush (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking. Please read WP:LEAD. (really, please read that). What it says is that the lead just summarizes the body. So if you want to add content to the artlcle, the first thing to do is review the body of the article carefully and see if the information is already there and well sourced. If it is, you don't need to add redundant material. If it is not, add the new material. Once you are done with adding stuff, review the whole body again quickly and get a sense of how much WP:WEIGHT each part has. Now look at the lead, and see if it accurately summarizes the body and whether each summary part has weight corresponding to the body. If it needs to be updated or tweaked, do that. If not, it is good to go. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replacing animals[edit]

User:Tsailand this dif and this dif are not supported by the NRC report; and the press release from Harvard is not an RS for the major claim you want to make. I added content here using the NRC ref, which is good and interesting. IF you read it, it makes it clear that technologies for replacing animal studies were not here yet, as of the date of that report. Thanks for bringing that. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is Jytdog not accepting that the replaced statement is inherently flawed. Living organism...animal organism...or human organism? What is the point of that section? You have removed an essential key message that even the partial human system test is better than the whole living animal test. That revertion twice is totally uncalled for. I would say that you are the one who started the edit war not me. Please STOP reverting. Tsailand (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
In WIkipdia, content has to be supported by reliable sources. The content you added was not supported by reliable sources, as I mentioned above. You have to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if you want to work here. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is Jytdog not accepting that the replaced statement is inherently flawed. Living organism...animal organism...or human organism? What is the point of that section? You have removed an essential key message that even the partial human system test is better than the whole living animal test. That revertion twice is totally uncalled for. I would say that you are the one who started the edit war not me. Please STOP reverting.
Furthermore, what does "not there yet" mean? The getting there part is still already better that the whole animal test and torture, and is something. I am sick to the stomach of the smug dismisiveness in the face of smug acceptance of cruelty, not to mention promotion of it. Tsailand (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you follow it? You haven't answered the above question. What do you mean "not there yet" and what is the point of that section? What is it saying? That the whole living animal test should be done for the sake of itself? What is the purpose of getting the data. What for...animal or human? Which living organism? Where is YOUR proof? Tsailand (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the sources in the article make clear, technologies (like those described in the Harvard press release) are not yet validated and widely used as replacements for animal studies... yet. Animal studies are still the best thing we have. This is what the sources in the article say. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have now added the same content a third time. Content must actually be supported by the source you provide. What page of the NRC report supports the content you have added? Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must note that the "article" you mention has a conflict of interest. Notice the word "best thing." How can comparing apples and oranges be better than comparing oranges with oranges? You need to be careful about who posts what and what their sources are. Was it an elementary school project? You need to read the whole report before revering people's postings. Seriously you are breaking the rules yourself, and several of them, too. Tsailand (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, you have not engaged at all here on Talk. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the material again, and another editor has also removed it. The original version should remain in place until (and if) a consensus is reached to change it. I don't see a problem with the original version. The subsection is discussing animal testing and the current state of affairs. Alternate test methods are discussed in the following subsection, which would seem to be a better place for the new material if it is to be included.
I can't access either source right now, but the original is much more recent than the proposed new ref. Is the new ref (the 2007 NRC report) available online? Meters (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes it is - everything the NAP puts out, they make free as a pdf online and as a physical book you can buy - here is the ref in the article to make it easy -- National Research Council (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309151733. Lay summary -- Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'm not going to read all 200 plus pages. Unless Tsailand wishes to provide specific page numbers to back up the edits I'm going to have to go with with my impressions from a brief scan and searching for certain phrases. The document is almost 10 years old, and it was not discussing the current state of testing as much as the desired new toxicity-testing paradigm. Table 2-1 on pg 44 is particularly germane. Option III, the goal for 10 to 20 years after the report, is only mostly human testing (in vitro and in vivo). Option IV, the desired final goal of in vitro human testing does not even have a targeted timeline, and even it does not envision the complete elimination of animal testing. I don't see how this document can be used to support the claims made. Meters (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yep. the society for tox site referenced in the article is the most recent thing (from 2014) that we have. toxicologists would love to stop doing animal studies but there is nothing as good ....yet. nobody loves doing that. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toxicology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed addition to: Toxicology-Incidents[edit]

Can an educated individual please add a short but informative section covering the very recent US Baby Formula Shortage spurred by the bacteria Cronobacter sakazakii? If this isn't the correct talk section to mention this, can somebody please direct me to the proper area? JimBob128 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)JBReply[reply]