Literature DB >> 18818964

Integrated testing and intelligent assessment-new challenges under REACH.

Jan Ahlers1, Frauke Stock, Barbara Werschkun.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND, AIM AND SCOPE: Due to a number of drawbacks associated with the previous regime for the assessment of new and existing chemicals, the European Union established a new regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH). All relevant industrial chemicals must now be assessed. Instead of the authorities, industry itself is responsible for the risk assessment. To achieve better and more efficient assessments while reducing animal testing, all information-standard, non-standard and non-testing-has to be used in an integrated manner. To meet these challenges, the current technical guidance documents for risk assessment of new and existing chemicals had to be updated and extended considerably. This was done by experts in a number of REACH Implementation Projects. This paper presents the most relevant results of the expert Endpoint Working Group on Aquatic Toxicity in order to illustrate the change of paradigm in the future assessment of hazards to the aquatic environment by chemical substances. MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES: REACH sets certain minimum data requirements in order to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment. It encourages the assessor to use alternative information instead of or in addition to standard one. This information has to be equivalent to the standard information requirement and adequate to draw overall conclusions with respect to the regulatory endpoints classification and labelling, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) assessment and predicted no-effect concentrations (PNEC) derivation. The main task of the expert working group was to develop guidance on how to evaluate the toxicity of a substance based on integration of information from different sources and of various degrees of uncertainty in a weight of evidence approach. INTEGRATED TESTING AND INTELLIGENT ASSESSMENT: In order to verify the equivalence and adequacy of different types of information, a flexible sequence of steps was proposed, covering characterisation of the substance, analysis of modes of action, identification of possible analogues, evaluation of existing in vivo and in vitro testing data as well as of QSAR results. Finally, all available data from the different steps have to be integrated to come to an overall conclusion on the toxicity of the substance. This weight of evidence approach is the basis for the development of integrated testing strategies (ITS), in that the available evidence can help to determine subsequent testing steps and is essential for an optimal assessment. Its flexibility helps to meet the different requirements for drawing conclusions on the endpoints classification and labelling, PNEC derivation as well as PBT assessment. The integration of all kinds of additional information in a multi-criteria assessment reduces the uncertainties involved with extrapolation to the ecosystem level. The weight of evidence approach is illustrated by practical examples. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: REACH leads to higher challenges in order to make sound decisions with fewer resources, i.e. to move away from extensive standard testing to an intelligent substance-tailored approach. Expert judgement and integrated thinking are key elements of the weight of evidence concept and ITS, potentially leading to better risk assessments. Important sub-lethal effects such as endocrine disruption, which are not covered by the current procedure, can be considered. Conclusions have to be fully substantiated: Risk communication will be an important aspect of future assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18818964     DOI: 10.1007/s11356-008-0043-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int        ISSN: 0944-1344            Impact factor:   4.223


  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of EU risk assessments existing chemicals (EC Regulation 793/93).

Authors:  C W M Bodar; F Berthault; J H M de Bruijn; C J van Leeuwen; M E J Pronk; T G Vermeire
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.086

2.  A strategy to reduce the use of fish in acute ecotoxicity testing of new chemical substances notified in the European Union.

Authors:  S Jeram; J M Riego Sintes; M Halder; J Baraibar Fentanes; B Sokull-Klüttgen; T H Hutchinson
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.271

3.  Prediction of estrogenicity: validation of a classification model.

Authors:  A Gallegos Saliner; T I Netzeva; A P Worth
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 4.  Ten challenges for improved ecotoxicological testing in environmental risk assessment.

Authors:  Magnus Breitholtz; Christina Rudén; Sven Ove Hansson; Bengt-Erik Bengtsson
Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.291

Review 5.  SAR and QSAR modeling of endocrine disruptors.

Authors:  J Devillers; N Marchand-Geneste; A Carpy; J M Porcher
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.000

6.  Nature of the binding interaction for 50 structurally diverse chemicals with rat estrogen receptors.

Authors:  Susan C Laws; S Yavanhxay; Ralph L Cooper; J Charles Eldridge
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 4.849

7.  Acute to chronic ratios in aquatic toxicity--variation across trophic levels and relationship with chemical structure.

Authors:  Jan Ahlers; Caroline Riedhammer; Michaela Vogliano; Ralf-Uwe Ebert; Ralph Kühne; Gerrit Schüürmann
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.742

8.  Structural alerts--a new classification model to discriminate excess toxicity from narcotic effect levels of organic compounds in the acute daphnid assay.

Authors:  Peter C von der Ohe; Ralph Kühne; Ralf-Uwe Ebert; Rolf Altenburger; Matthias Liess; Gerrit Schüürmann
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.739

  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  An indispensable asset at risk: merits and needs of chemicals-related environmental sciences.

Authors:  Andreas Schaeffer; Henner Hollert; Hans Toni Ratte; Martina Ross-Nickoll; Juliane Filser; Michael Matthies; Joerg Oehlmann; Martin Scheringer; Ralf Schulz; Alfred Seitz
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung; Tom Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; Andre Kleensang
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.043

3.  Are pharmaceuticals with evolutionary conserved molecular drug targets more potent to cause toxic effects in non-target organisms?

Authors:  Sara Furuhagen; Anne Fuchs; Elin Lundström Belleza; Magnus Breitholtz; Elena Gorokhova
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Eco-Benign Orange-Hued Pigment Derived from Aluminum-Enriched Biogenous Iron Oxide Sheaths.

Authors:  Katsunori Tamura; Yuri Oshima; Yuta Fuse; Noriyuki Nagaoka; Tatsuki Kunoh; Makoto Nakanishi; Tatsuo Fujii; Tokuro Nanba; Jun Takada
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-04-10

Review 5.  The pros and cons of ecological risk assessment based on data from different levels of biological organization.

Authors:  Jason R Rohr; Christopher J Salice; Roger M Nisbet
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 6.184

6.  Evaluation of acute-to-chronic ratios of fish and Daphnia to predict acceptable no-effect levels.

Authors:  Martin May; Wiebke Drost; Sabine Germer; Tanja Juffernholz; Stefan Hahn
Journal:  Environ Sci Eur       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.893

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.