Assessment of aquatic experimental versus predicted and extrapolated chronic toxicity data of four structural analogues

Chemosphere

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 56-64

  Dom, Nathalie ^a   Knapen, Dries ^a   Blust, Ronny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Acute to chronic ratio; Chlorinated anilines; Chronic toxicity; QSAR prediction; Sensitivity distributions; Species

Indexed keywords

ANILINE; CELL PROLIFERATION; EXTRAPOLATION; FORECASTING; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION;

4-CHLOROANILINE; ACUTE-TO-CHRONIC RATIOS; CHRONIC TOXICITY; INDIVIDUAL-BASED; SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS; SPECIES; SPECIES SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS; STRUCTURAL ANALOGUE;

TOXICITY;

2,3,4 TRICHLOROANILINE; 3,5 DICHLOROANILINE; 4 CHLOROANILINE; ANILINE; ANILINE DERIVATIVE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

CHEMICAL POLLUTANT; CRUSTACEAN; CYPRINID; ECOTOXICOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GROWTH RATE; POLLUTION EXPOSURE; REPRODUCTIVE PRODUCTIVITY; TOXICITY TEST;

ACUTE TOXICITY; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; AQUATIC SPECIES; ARTICLE; CHRONIC TOXICITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAPHNIA; FISH; NEWBORN; NONHUMAN; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPECIES COMPARISON; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; ZEBRA FISH;

DANIO RERIO; DAPHNIA MAGNA;

EID: 82555191419     PISSN: 00456535     EISSN: 18791298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.08.050     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ahlers J., Riedhammer C., Vogliano M., Ebert R.U., Kuhne R., Schuurmann G. Acute to chronic ratios in aquatic toxicity - variation across trophic levels and relationship with chemical structure. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2006, 25:2937-2945.
2. Aldenberg T., Slob W. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1993, 25:48-63.
3. Baas J., Jager T., Kooijman B. Understanding toxicity as processes in time. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408:3735-3739.
4. Bradbury S.P., Russom C.L., Ankley G.T., Schultz T.W., Walker J.D. Overview of data and conceptual approaches for derivation of quantitative structure-activity relationships for ecotoxicological effects of organic chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22:1789-1798.
5. Calow P., Forbes V.E. Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37:146A-151A.
6. Chapman P.M., Fairbrother A., Brown D. A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1998, 17:99-108.
7. Cronin M.T.D. The current status and future applicability of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) in predicting toxicity. ATLA, Altern. Lab. Anim. 2002, 30:81-84.
8. Dom N., Knapen D., Benoot D., Nobels I., Blust R. Aquatic multi-species acute toxicity of (chlorinated) anilines: experimental versus predicted data. Chemosphere 2010, 81:177-186.
9. Duboudin, C., 2003. Species Sensitivity Weighted Distribution Developed by Electricité de France with Insitute de l'envrionment industriel et des risque.
10. Duboudin C., Ciffroy P., Magaud H. Effects of data manipulation and statistical methods on species sensitivity distributions. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004, 23:489-499.
11. EC, 2003. European Commission Technical Guidance Document (TGD) on Risk Assessment in Support of the Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for New Notified Substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for Existing Substances.
12. EC, 2006. European Commission. 2006. Regulation No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency.
13. Forbes V.E., Calow P. Extrapolation in ecological risk assessment: Balancing pragmatism and precaution in chemical controls legislation. Bioscience 2002, 52:249-257.
14. Hansson S.O., Malkiewicz K., Ruden C. Assessment factors for extrapolation from short-time to chronic exposure-Are the REACH guidelines adequate. Toxicol. Lett. 2009, 189. S243-S243.
15. Hengstler J.G., Foth H., Kahl R., Kramer P.J., Lilienblum W., Schulz T., Schweinfurth H. The REACH concept and its impact on toxicological sciences. Toxicology 2006, 220:232-239.
16. Jager T., Kooijman S. A biology-based approach for quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) in ecotoxicity. Ecotoxicology 2009, 18:187-196.
17. Lange R., Hutchinson T.H., Scholz N., Solbe J. Analysis of the ECETOC aquatic toxicity (EAT) database - II - Comparison of acute to chronic ratios for various aquatic organisms and chemical substances. Chemosphere 1998, 36:115-127.
18. LeBlanc G.A. Crustacean endocrine toxicology: a review. Ecotoxicology 2007, 16:61-81.
19. Marchini S., Hoglund M., Broderius S., Tosato M. Comparison of the susceptibility of daphnids and fish to benzene derivatives. Sci. Total Environ. 1993, 134(1):799-808.
20. Martin-Creuzburg D., Westerlund S.A., Hoffmann K.H. Ecdysterold levels in Daphnia magna during a molt cycle: determination by radioimmunoassay (RIA) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2007, 151:66-71.
21. Mayo-Bean, K., Nabholz, J., Meylan, W., Howard, P., 2009. User's Guide for the ECOSAR Class Program Ver. 0.99 for Microsoft Windows, Risk Assessment Division, US EPA, Washington, USA and Syracuse Research Corporation, Syracuse, USA.
22. Mebane C.A., Hennessy D.P., Dillon F.S. Developing acute-to-chronic toxicity ratios for lead, cadmium, and zinc using rainbow trout, a mayfly, and a midge. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2008, 188:41-66.
23. Moore D.R.J., Caux P.Y. Estimating low toxic effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1997, 16:794-801.
24. Netzeva, T., Pavan, M., Worth, A., 2007. Review of Data Sources, QSARs and Integrated Testing Strategies for Aquatic Toxicity; EUR 22943. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
25. Newman M.C., Ownby D.R., Mezin L.C.A., Powell D.C., Christensen T.R.L., Lerberg S.B., Anderson B.A. Applying species-sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2000, 19:508-515.
26. Oberg T. A QSAR for baseline toxicity: validation, domain of application, and prediction. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2004, 17:1630-1637.
27. Posthuma L., Traas T.P., Suter G.W. General introduction to species sensitivity distributions. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology 2002, CRC Press LLC, USA. L. Posthuma, G.W. Suter, T.P. Traas (Eds.).
28. Raimondo S., Montague B.J., Barron M.G. Determinants of variability in acute to chronic toxicity ratios for aquatic invertebrates and fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2007, 26:2019-2023.
29. Ramos E.U., Vaes W.H.J., Verhaar H.J.M., Hermens J.L.M. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for the aquatic toxicity of polar and nonpolar narcotic pollutants. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38:845-852.
30. Roex E.W.M., Van Gestel C.A., Van Wezel A.P., Van Straalen N.M. Ratios between acute aquatic toxicity and effects on population growth rates in relation to toxicant mode of action. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2000, 19:685-693.
31. Schaafsma G., Kroese E.D., Tielemans E., Van de Sandt J.J.M., Van Leeuwen C.J. REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 53:70-80.
32. Sijm D.T.H.M., van Wezel A.P., Crommentuijn T. Environmental Risk Limits in the Netherlands. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology 2002, CRC Press LLC, USA.
33. Solomon K.R., Giddings J.M., Maund S.J. Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional analyses of laboratory aquatic toxicity data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20:652-659.
34. Vaal M., van der Wal J.T., Hoekstra J., Hermens J. Variation in the sensitivity of aquatic species in relation to the classification of environmental pollutants. Chemosphere 1997, 35:1311-1327.
35. von der Ohe P.C., Kuhne R., Ebert R.U., Altenburger R., Liess M., Schuurmann G. Structural alerts - a new classification model to discriminate excess toxicity from narcotic effect levels of organic compounds in the acute daphnid assay. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2005, 18:536-555.
36. Walthall W.K., Stark J.D. A comparison of acute mortality and population growth rate as endpoints of toxicological effect. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1997, 37:45-52.
37. Wang B., Yu G., Huang J., Hu H.Y. Development of species sensitivity distributions and estimation of HC5 of organochlorine pesticides with five statistical approaches. Ecotoxicology 2008, 17:716-724.
38. Wheeler J.R., Grist E.P.M., Leung K.M.Y., Morritt D., Crane M. Species sensitivity distributions: data and model choice. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 45:192-202.
39. Worth A.P., van Leeuwen C.J., Hartung T. The prospects for using (Q)SARS in a changing political environment-high expectations and a key role for the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2004, 15:331-343.
40. Zvinavashe E., Murk A.J., Rietjens I. On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity. Toxicol. Lett. 2009, 184:67-72.