QSARs in ecotoxicological risk assessment

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 24-35

  de Roode, Daphne ^a   Hoekzema, Conny ^b   de Vries Buitenweg, Selinda ^a   van de Waart, Beppy ^a   van der Hoeven, Jan ^c  

^a Notox BV   (Netherlands)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c VitrOmics BV   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Acute aquatic toxicity; Alternatives; QSARs

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL TESTING REDUCTION; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; ECOTOXICITY; ECOTOXICOLOGY; FISH; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ALGAE; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; DAPHNIA; FISHES; MODELS, THEORETICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 33646115183     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.01.012     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bradbury S.P. Quantitative structure-activity relationships and ecological risk assessment: an overview of predictive aquatic toxicology research. Toxicol. Lett. 79 (1995) 229-237
2. Cronin M.T., Dearden J.C., and Dobbs A.J. QSAR studies on comparative toxicity in aquatic organisms. Sci. Total Environ. 109-110 (1991) 431-439
3. Devillers J. A general QSAR model for predicting the acute toxicity of pesticides to Lepomis macrochirus. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 11 (2001) 397-417
4. Devillers J., and Flatin J. A general QSAR model for predicting the acute toxicity of pesticides to Oncorhynchus mykiss. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 11 (2000) 25-43
5. Di Marzio W., Galassi S., Todeschini R., and Consolaro F. Traditional versus WHIM molecular descriptors in QSAR approaches applied to fish toxicity studies. Chemosphere 44 (2001) 401-406
6. Dimitrov S., Koleva Y., Schultz T.W., Walker J.D., and Mekenyan O. Interspecies quantitative structure-activity relationship model for aldehydes: aquatic toxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23 (2004) 463-470
7. Dimitrov S., Dimitrova G., Pavlov T., Dimitrova N., Patlewicz G., Niemela J., and Mekenyan O. a stepwise approach for defining the applicability domain of SAR and QSAR models. J .Chem. Inf. Model 45 (2005) 839-849
8. ECOSAR, US-EPA OPPT Risk Assessment Division, ECOWIN v0.99, April 2004.
9. Eldred D.V., Weikel C.L., Jurs P.C., and Kaiser K.L. Prediction of fathead minnow acute toxicity of organic compounds from molecular structure. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 12 (1999) 670-678
10. European Chemicals Bureau, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, 2003. Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market.
11. European Commission 2002. Health and consumer directorate-general, Sanco/3268/2001 rev. 4. Guidance document on aquatic ecotoxicology.
12. European Commission 2003. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European chemicals agency and amending directive 1999/45/EC and regulation (EC) on persistent organic pollutants-COM (2003) 644 final, Brussels.
13. Gubbels-van Hal W.M.L.G., Blaauboer B.J., Barentsen H.M., Hoitink M.A., Meerts I.A.T.M., and van der Hoeven J.C.M. An alternative approach for the safety evaluation of new and existing chemicals, an exercise in integrated testing. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 42 (2005) 284-295
14. He L., and Jurs P.C. Assessing the reliability of QSAR model's predictions. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 23 (2005) 503-523
15. Hoekzema, C.C., Murk, A., van de Waart, E.J., van der Hoeven, J.C.M., de Roode, D.F., 2006. Alternative approaches can greatly reduce the number of fish used for acute toxicity testing. Accepted by Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
16. Hulzebos, E., Posthumus, R. Traas, T., Hakkert, B., 2005. Regulatory decisions using (Q)SAR under the EU new chemical legislation REACH: fact or fiction? Proceedings from SETAC Europe 15th Annual Meeting, p. 400.
17. Hutchinson T.H., Barrett S., Buzby M., Constable D., Hartmann A., Hayes E., Huggett D., Laenge R., Lillicrap A.D., Straub J.O., and Thompson R.S. A strategy to reduce the numbers of fish used in acute ecotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003) 3031-3036
18. Jaworska J., Nikolova-Jeliazkova N., and Aldenberg T. QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set in descriptor space : a review. ATLA 33 (2005) 445-459
19. Katritzky A.R., Tatham D.B., and Maran U. Theoretical descriptors for the correlation of aquatic toxicity of environmental pollutants by quantitative structure-toxicity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001) 1162-1176
20. Kulkarni S.A., Raje D.V., and Chakrabarti T. Quantitative structure-activity relationships based on functional and structural characteristics of organic compounds. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 12 (2001) 565-591
21. Lange A.W., and Vormann K. Experiences with the application of QSAR in the routine of the notification procedure. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 3 (1995) 171-177
22. Lessigiarska I., Wortha A.P., Sokull-Kluttgen B., Jeram S., Dearden J.C., Netzeva T.I., and Cronin M.T. Qsar investigation of a large data set for fish, algae, and Daphnia toxicity. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15 (2004) 413-431
23. Licht O., Weyers A., and Nagel R. Ecotoxicological characterisation and classification of existing chemicals. Examples from the ICCA HPV initiative and comparison with other existing chemicals. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 11 (2004) 291-296
24. Moore D.R., Breton R.L., and MacDonald D.B. A comparison of model performance for six quantitative structure-activity relationship packages that predict acute toxicity to fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003) 1799-1809
25. Netzeva, T.I., Worth, A., Aldenberg, T., Benigni, R., Cronin, M.T., 2005., Gramatica, P. Jaworska, J.S., Kahn, S., Klopman, G., Marchant, C.A., Myatt, G., Nikolova-Jeliazkova, N., Patlewicz, G.Y., Perkins, R., Roberts, D., Schultz, T., Stanton, D.W., van de Sandt, J.J., Tong, W., Veith, G., Yang, C., 2005. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52. ATLA 33, 152-173.
26. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1984. OECD guideline for Testing of Chemicals, guideline No. 201: "Algae, Growth Inhibition Test", Adopted June 7, 1984.
27. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004a. OECD guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, guideline No. 202: "Daphnia sp., Acute Immobilisation Test", Adopted April 13, 2004.
28. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1992. The OECD guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, guideline No. 203: "Fish Acute Toxicity Test", Adopted 17 July, 1992.
29. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004b. OECD Principles for the validation, for regulatory purposes, of (quantitative) structure-activity relationship- models.
30. Papa E., Battaini F., and Gramatica P. Ranking of aquatic toxicity of esters modelled by QSAR. Chemosphere 58 (2005) 559-570
31. Parkerton T.F., and Konkel W.J. Application of quantitative structure-activity relationships for assessing the aquatic toxicity of phthalate esters. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 45 (2000) 61-78
32. Salvito D.T., Senna R.J., and Federle T.W. A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21 (2002) 1301-1308
33. Salvito, D., 2005. The limitations of commonly used ecotoxicity QSARs-experiments in model validation. Proceedings from SETAC Europe 15th Annual Meeting, p. 395.
34. Sanderson H., Johnson D.J., Reitsma T., Brain R.A., Wilson C.J., and Solomon K.R. Ranking and prioritization of environmental risks of pharmaceuticals in surface waters. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 39 (2004) 158-183
35. Schultz T.W., and Cronin M.T.D. Essential and desirable characteristics of ecotoxicity quantitative structure-activity relationships. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003) 599-607
36. Silvani, M., Reuschenbach, P., Damman, M., Streicher, N.M., 2005. Validation of QSAR models predicting the toxicity of chemicals to aquatic organisms. Proceedings from SETAC Europe 15th Annual Meeting, p. 395.
37. 50 data for fish. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 72 (2004) 873-880
38. TOPKAT Version 6.1, Accelrys Inc., 2003.
39. United Nations, 2005. Globally Harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS), first revised edition, New York and Geneva. Annex 9: Guidance on hazards to the aquatic environment, OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No 27, Environment Directorate, Organization for economic Co-operation and Development, April 2001.
40. Verhaar H.J.M., van Leeuwen C.J., and Hermens J.L.M. Classifying environmental pollutants. 1: structure-activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity. Chemosphere 25 (1992) 471-491
41. Verhaar, H.J.M., Mulder, W., Hermens, J.L.M., 1995. QSARs for ecotoxicity. In: Overview of structure-activity relationships for environmental endpoints, Part 1: General outline and procedure. Hermens J.L.M. (ed.), Report prepared within the framework of the project "QSAR for Prediction of Fate and Effects of Chemicals in the Environment", an international project of the Environmental Technologies RTD Programme (DGXII/D-1) of the European Commission under contract number EV5V-CT92-0211.
42. Zeeman M., Auer C.M., Clements R.G., Nabholz J.V., and Boethling R.S. U.S.EPA regulatory perspectives on the use of QSAR for new and existing chemical evaluations. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 3 (1995) 179-201