Toward a consistent evaluative framework for POP risk characterization.

The purpose of Annex E in the Stockholm Convention (SC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is to assess whether a chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted. To date, risk profiles for nominated POPs have not consistently selected assessment endpoints or completed mandated risk characterizations. An assessment endpoint hierarchy is proposed to facilitate risk characterization for the implementation of the SC. The framework is illustrated for a nominated POP, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), using three risk estimation methods. Based on current monitoring and toxicity data, the screening-level results indicate that humans and ecological receptors in remote regions such as the Arctic are unlikely to experience significant adverse effects (i.e., low risk) due to long-range environmental transport of HBCD. The results for birds are more uncertain than the results for fish and mammals due to the paucity of avian toxicity data. Risk characterization results for HBCD and for some listed POPs are compared to illustrate how the proposed methods can further assist decision-making and chemical management.

10th Anniversary Critical Review: The tissue-residue approach for toxicity assessment: concepts, issues, application, and recommendations.

The tissue-residue approach for toxicity assessment (TRA) is simply the use of tissue concentrations as the dose metric for characterizing toxicant potency. There are several advantages to using tissue residues over exposure concentrations (e.g., water, sediment, and diet) to calculate toxicity metrics. These include a large reduction in toxic response variability among all species for a given compound, an improved ability to address mixture toxicity, an increased use of information on modes and mechanisms of toxic action, a likely reduction in the number of species needed to characterize toxicant potency, the potential to improve ecological risk assessments, and the generation of more scientifically defensible tissue, water, and sediment toxicity guidelines or criteria. A keystone concept for the TRA is that the body/tissue residue reflects the target "dose" better than the traditional dose (e.g., water, air, soil/sediment, or diet) because the closer the dose surrogate is to the actual site of toxic action the less it is influenced by myriad modifying factors. Our goal for this review is to present the concepts and issues associated with the TRA and discuss some of the potential applications and expected improvements to the field of environmental toxicology that we believe will promote enhanced protection for species and ecosystems.

The chemical exposure toxicity space (CETS) model: Displaying exposure time, aqueous and organic concentration, activity, and onset of toxicity.

A 1-compartment toxicokinetic model is used to characterize the chemical exposure toxicity space (CETS), providing a novel graphic tool that can aid in the design of aquatic toxicity tests for fish and for interpreting their results. The graph depicts the solution to the differential equation describing the uptake kinetics of a chemical by a modeled fish under conventional bioassay conditions. The model relates the exposure concentration in the water to a dimensionless time and the onset of toxicity as determined by an estimated or assumed critical body residue or incipient lethal aqueous concentration. These concentration graphs are specific to each chemical and exposure and organism parameters and clearly demonstrate differences in toxicity between chemicals and how factors such as hydrophobicity influence the toxic endpoint. The CETS plots can also be used to assess bioconcentration test conditions to ensure that concentrations are well below toxic levels. Illustrative applications are presented using a recent set of high-quality toxicity data. Conversion of concentrations to chemical activities in the plots enables results for different baseline toxicants to be superimposed. For chemicals that have different modes of toxic action, the increased toxicity then becomes apparent. Implications for design and interpretation of aquatic toxicity tests are discussed. The model, and pictorial visualization of the time-course of aquatic toxicity tests, may contribute to improvements in test design, implementation, and interpretation, and to reduced animal usage. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1389-1396. © 2016 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Does GLP enhance the quality of toxicological evidence for regulatory decisions?

There is debate over whether the requirements of GLP are appropriate standards for evaluating the quality of toxicological data used to formulate regulations. A group promoting the importance of non-monotonic dose responses for endocrine disruptors contend that scoring systems giving primacy to GLP are biased against non-GLP studies from the literature and are merely record-keeping exercises to prevent fraudulent reporting of data from non-published guideline toxicology studies. They argue that guideline studies often employ insensitive species and outdated methods, and ignore the perspectives of subject-matter experts in endocrine disruption, who should be the sole arbiters of data quality. We believe regulatory agencies should use both non-GLP and GLP studies, that GLP requirements assure fundamental tenets of study integrity not typically addressed by journal peer-review, and that use of standardized test guidelines and GLP promotes consistency, reliability, comparability, and harmonization of various types of studies used by regulatory agencies worldwide. This debate suffers two impediments to progress: a conflation of different phases of study interpretation and levels of data validity, and a misleading characterization of many essential components of GLP and regulatory toxicology. Herein we provide clarifications critical for removing those impediments.

Issues at the interface between ecology and toxicology.

Although facing many similar problems, there are differences between ecology and toxicology in the nature and aspect of some issues. Scientific challenges relate to the fundamentals of toxicology and ecology. For dose and response, the metrics of dose and response, methods for extrapolation from lab to field, generally accepted definitions of adverse effects (including definitions for health and categorization of detectable versus adverse responses), and classification of mixture toxicity and effects are current areas of interest. Policy challenges are more related to the use of science in public policy and regulations; essentially, where and how science is used in decision-making. As both toxicology and ecology are employed in actions on environmental matters, interactions between policy decision-making and scientific knowledge generation are also examined.

Relationships between exposure and dose in aquatic toxicity tests for organic chemicals.

There is continuing debate about the merits of exposure-based toxicity metrics such as median lethal concentration (LC50) versus organism-based metrics such as critical body residue (CBR) as indicators of chemical toxicity to aquatic organisms. To demonstrate relationships and differences between these 2 metrics, the authors applied a simple one-compartment toxicokinetic mass-balance model for water-exposed fish for a series of hypothetical organic chemicals exhibiting baseline narcotic toxicity. The authors also considered the influence of several toxicity-modifying factors. The results showed that the results of standard toxicity tests, such as the LC50, are strongly influenced by several modifying factors, including chemical and organism characteristics such as hydrophobicity, body size, lipid content, metabolic biotransformation, and exposure durations. Consequently, reported LC50s may not represent consistent dose surrogates and may be inappropriate for comparing the relative toxicity of chemicals. For comparisons of toxicity between chemicals, it is preferable to employ a delivered dose metric, such as the CBR. Reproducible toxicity data for a specific combination of chemical, exposure conditions, and organism can be obtained only if the extent of approach to steady state is known. Suggestions are made for revisions in test protocols, including the use of models in advance of empirical testing, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of tests and reduce the confounding influences of toxicity-modifying factors, especially exposure duration and metabolic biotransformation. This will assist in linking empirical measurements of LC50s and CBRs, 2 different but related indicators of aquatic toxicity, and thereby improve understanding of the large existing database of aquatic toxicity test results.

Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. METHOD: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. DISCUSSION: Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. CONCLUSIONS: Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

The tissue residue approach for toxicity assessment: findings and critical reviews from a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Pellston Workshop.

Over the past few years, the "critical body residue" approach for assessing toxicity based on bioaccumulated chemicals has evolved into a more expansive consideration of tissue residues as the dose metric when defining dose-response relationships, evaluating mixtures, developing protective guidelines, and conducting risk assessments. Hence, scientists refer to "tissue residue approach for toxicity assessment" or "tissue residue-effects approach" (TRA) when addressing ecotoxicology issues pertaining to tissue (or internal) concentrations. This introduction provides an overview of a SETAC Pellston Workshop held in 2007 to review the state of the science for using tissue residues as the dose metric in environmental toxicology. The key findings of the workshop are presented, along with recommendations for research to enhance understanding of toxic responses within and between species, and to advance the use of the TRA in assessment and management of chemicals in the environment.

Can mode of action predict mixture toxicity for risk assessment?

Recent regulatory guidance for mixture risk assessments and for regulating pesticide chemicals recommends using information about the "mode" or "mechanism" of action of individual chemicals to predict dose response characteristics of mixtures. Dose addition is assumed for mixtures of chemicals that have similar mechanisms and response addition for those with dissimilar mechanisms. Three different sets of criteria have been formulated to guide the selection of an appropriate data set for characterizing a chemical's mode of action, but the sufficiency of those criteria to predict dose addition for a mixture has not been validated experimentally. Several examples from the pharmacological and toxicological literature challenge the premise that dose response characteristics of a mixture can be predicted from the modes of action of its components. Detoxification pathways may need to be understood before dose addition in the observable effect range can be extrapolated to mixture concentrations below the no observable effect levels of the mixture components. Because elucidating discreet mechanisms of action may be possible only for chemicals that exhibit a high degree of biological specificity and dose sensitivity, practical limitations on the approach must be defined. To reduce the large uncertainties inherent in the recommended approach, future research should be focused on defining the mechanistic features that predict dose additive toxicity in mixtures. A detailed characterization of pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and slope of dose response curves may be necessary to evaluate whether the toxicity of a mixture can be predicted by the mode of action of its component chemicals.