COMPRENDO: Focus and approach.

Tens of thousands of man-made chemicals are in regular use and discharged into the environment. Many of them are known to interfere with the hormonal systems in humans and wildlife. Given the complexity of endocrine systems, there are many ways in which endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can affect the body's signaling system, and this makes unraveling the mechanisms of action of these chemicals difficult. A major concern is that some of these EDCs appear to be biologically active at extremely low concentrations. There is growing evidence to indicate that the guiding principle of traditional toxicology that "the dose makes the poison" may not always be the case because some EDCs do not induce the classical dose-response relationships. The European Union project COMPRENDO (Comparative Research on Endocrine Disrupters--Phylogenetic Approach and Common Principles focussing on Androgenic/Antiandrogenic Compounds) therefore aims to develop an understanding of potential health problems posed by androgenic and antiandrogenic compounds (AACs) to wildlife and humans by focusing on the commonalities and differences in responses to AACs across the animal kingdom (from invertebrates to vertebrates) .

Determination of endocrine-disrupting compounds in environmental samples using gas and liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry.

This paper describes certain applications for endocrine-disrupting compounds determination. LC-MS was applied using an electrospray ionization (ESI) technique in positive mode for alcohol polyethoxylates and nonylphenol and octylphenol polyethoxylates (NPEOn and OPEOn), and in negative mode for 4-nonylphenol (4-NP) and 4-octylphenol (4-OP) to determine targeted compounds in wastewater and sludge. GC-MS and GC-MS-MS were used to determine 4-NP, 4-tert.-octylphenol (4-t-OP), bisphenol A, estradiol-17beta, estriol estrone, testosterone, 17alpha-ethynylestradioL cholesterol, coprostan-3-ol, coprostan and coprostan-3-one in both surface water and wastewater after derivatization with N,O-bis(trimethyl-silyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA). Extraction from the water samples was by an SPE technique, using either a copolymeric (Oasis HLB) or C18 silica sorbents, depending on the target contaminants. Extraction from the sludge samples was by a Soxtec system using methanol. Percentage recoveries for most of the selected compounds, using either a copolymeric (Oasis HLB) or C18 silica sorbents, were satisfactory (>60%). Quantification limits for the target compounds were at ppb levels in both water and sludge samples when using LC-ESI-MS in both positive and negative modes. They reached ppt levels in water when using GC-MS (in large volume injection mode) and GC-MS-MS. The results revealed 4-NP, NPEOn and AEOs in sludge samples at a concentration range of 1.3-8.5 microg/g, and NPEOn, OPEOn and other compounds, such as coprostan and bisphenol A, in surface water and/or wastewater samples at concentrations ranging from the ppt to ppb levels.

Infiltration of acetochlor and two of its metabolites in two contrasting soils.

To obtain data concerning the risk of leaching of acetochlor (2-chloro-2'-methyl-6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethyl-acetanilide) and its major metabolites, ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) and oxanilic acid (OA), to ground water, we studied the fate of these products in two different soil types (luvisol and calcisol) under the same weather conditions. The metabolites were detected in the soils as early as 7 d after application, indicating a rapid onset of acetochlor degradation. Ethanesulfonic acid was predominant over OA in the calcisol, regardless of time or depth, whereas the ESA to OA ratio varied with both time and depth in the luvisol. The maximum depths at which they were detected were 60 to 70 and 10 to 20 cm for ESA and OA, respectively, in the luvisol, and 60 to 70 cm (maximum depth sampled) and 30 to 40 cm for ESA and OA, respectively, in the calcisol. Acetochlor was still detected in the surface layer of the two soils 344 d after its application, although the molecule was partially leached. The maximum depths at which acetochlor was detected (60-70 cm in the luvisol and 50-60 cm [maximum depth sampled] in the calcisol) were recorded during the first sampling 7 d after application. Acetochlor was not detected on later dates below the 30- to 40-cm layer in the calcisol or the 5- to 10-cm layer in the luvisol. The greater preferential flow in the luvisol, which would have favored leaching, might partially explain why the mass balances done 7 d after application were lower in the luvisol (approximately 26%) than in the calcisol (approximately 45%).