Deriving predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs) using a novel assessment factor method

References

• Ahlers J, Riedhammer C, Vogliano M, Ebert RU, Kuhne R, Schuurmann G. 2006. Acute to chronic ratios in aquatic toxicity-variation across trophic levels and relationship with chemical structure. Environ Toxicol Chem. 25(11):2937–2945. doi:10.1897/05-701r.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldenberg T, Slob W. 1993. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 25(1):48–63. doi:10.1006/eesa.1993.1006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnot JA, Quinn CL. 2015. Development and evaluation of a database of dietary bioaccumulation test data for organic chemicals in fish. Environ Sci Technol. 49(8):4783–4796. doi:10.1021/es506251q
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Environment Agency [AEA]. 2009. Environmental risk assessment guidance manual for industrial chemicals. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Environment  Agency Pty Ltd., Commonwealth of Australia: Environment Protection and Heritage Council.
   Google Scholar
• Beasley A, Belanger S, Connors K, Embry M, Otter R. 2018. EnviroTox Platform: User guide. Washington (DC): Health and Environmental Sciences Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Belanger S, Barron M, Craig P, Dyer S, Galay-Burgos M, Hamer M, Marshall S, Posthuma L, Raimondo S, Whitehouse P. 2017. Future needs and recommendations in the development of species sensitivity distributions: Estimating toxicity thresholds for aquatic ecological communities and assessing impacts of chemical exposures. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 13(4):664–674. doi:10.1002/ieam.1841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment [CCME] . 2007. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life 2007. Winnipeg (Canada): Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D. 1998. A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 17(1):99–108. doi:10.1002/etc.5620170112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connors KA, Beasley A, Barron MG, Belanger SE, Bonnell M, Brill JL, de Zwart D, Kienzler A, Krailler J, Otter R, et al. 2019. Creation of a curated aquatic toxicology database: EnviroTox. Environ Toxicol Chem. 38(5):1062–1073. ): doi:10.1002/etc.4382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimitrov S, Koleva Y, Lewis M, Breton R, Veith G, Mekenyan O. 2003. Modeling mode of action of industrial chemicals: application using chemicals on Canada's domestic substances list (DSL). QSAR Comb Sci. 22(1):5–17. doi:10.1002/qsar.200390006
   Google Scholar
• Endo S. 2016. Re-analysis of narcotic critical body residue data using the equilibrium distribution concept and refined partition coefficients. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 18(8):1024–1029. doi:10.1039/c6em00180g
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environment Canada. 2012. Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP): Ecological risk assessment guidance. Gatineau (Canada): Environment Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2016. Science approach document: ecological risk classification of organic substances. Gatineau (QC): Environment and Climate Change Canada:; http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/A96E2E98-2A04-40C8-9EDC-08A6DFF235F7/CMP3%20ERC_EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals [ECETOC]. 2003. Aquatic Hazard Assessment II. Brussels (Belgium). Technical Report No. 91.
   Google Scholar
• European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals [ECCC]. 2004. Soil and sediment risk assessment of organic chemicals. Brussels (Belgium). Technical Report No. 92.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Bureau [ECB]. 2003. Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new modified substances, Commission Regulation (ED) No. 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Ispra (Italy): European Communities. EUR 20418 EN/2.
   Google Scholar
• Escher BI, Ashauer R, Dyer S, Hermens JLM, Lee J-H, Leslie HA, Mayer P, Meador JP, Warne MSJ. 2011. Crucial role of mechanisms and modes of toxic action for understanding tissue residue toxicity and internal effect concentrations of organic chemicals. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 7(1):28–49. doi:10.1002/ieam.100
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Escher BI, Eggen RI, Schreiber U, Schreiber Z, Vye E, Wisner B, Schwarzenbach RP. 2002. Baseline toxicity (narcosis) of organic chemicals determined by in vitro membrane potential measurements in energy-transducing membranes. Environ Sci Technol. 36(9):1971–1979. doi:10.1021/es015844c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2002. Opinion on the “Revision of the 1996 Technical Guidance Document (TGD) in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and Commission Regulation (EC) 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances [also being extended to provide guidance on risk assessment for biocides under 98/8/EC (excluding human exposure evaluation)]. Brussels (Belgium): European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals [ECETOC]. 2012. Category approaches, read-across, (Q)SAR. Brussels (Belgium). Technical Report No. 116.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency [ECHA]. c2007-2017. Registered substances database. Helsinki (Finland): ECHA. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency [ECHA]. 2008. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.10: characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for environment. Helsinki (Finland): ECHA.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency [ECHA]. 2012a. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.19: uncertainty analysis. Version 1.1. Helsinki (Finland): ECHA.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency [ECHA]. 2012b. How to report read-across and categories. Practical Guide 6. Helsinki (Finland): ECHA.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency [ECHA]. 2015. Read-Across assessment framework (RAAF). May 2015. Helsinki (Finland): ECHA.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency [ECHA]. 2016. Topical scientific workshop on New Approach Methodologies in Regulatory Science. Helsinki, 2016 Apr. 19–20. [Background Document]. Helsinki (Finland): ECHA.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority [EFSA]. 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the assessment of the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms with regard to the possibility of lowering the uncertainty factor if additional species were tested. EFSA Journal. 301:1–45.
   Google Scholar
• [ECOTOXicology database] [database] [ECOTOX]. 2000. Version 4. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency; National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory; Mid-Continent Ecology Division. [Accessed July 2015]. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox.
   Google Scholar
• Forbes VE, Calow P, Sibly RM. 2008. The extrapolation problem and how population modeling can help. Environ Toxicol Chem. 27(10):1987–1994. doi:10.1897/08-029.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes VE, Calow P. 2002. Extrapolation in ecological risk assessment: Balancing pragmatism and precaution in chemical controls legislation. BioScience. 52(3):249–257. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0249:EIERAB]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost T. 2007. Toxic and non-toxic disturbances: PNEC estimation and validation. Paper presented at: Environmental Risk Management System (ERMS) seminar, September 27, 2007; Oslo (Norway).
   Google Scholar
• Hahn T, Diamond J, Dobson S, Howe P, Kielhorn J, Koennecker G, Lee-Steere C, Mangelsdorf I, Schneider U, Sugaya Y, et al. 2014. Predicted no effect concentration derivation as a significant source of variability in environmental hazard assessments of chemicals in aquatic systems: an international analysis. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 10(1):30–36. doi:10.1002/ieam.1473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn T, Stauber J, Dobson S, Howe P, Kielhorn J, Koennecker G, Diamond J, Lee-Steere C, Schneider U, Sugaya Y, et al. 2009. Reducing uncertainty in environmental risk assessment (ERA): clearly defining acute and chronic toxicity tests. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 5(1):175–177. doi:10.1897/1551-3793-5.1.175
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heger W, Jung SJ, Martin S, Peter H. 1995. Acute and prolonged toxicity to aquatic organisms of new and existing chemicals and pesticides. Chemosphere. 31(2):2707–2726. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(95)00127-t
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwasaki Y, Kotani K, Kashiwada S, Masunaga S. 2015. Does the choice of NOEC or EC10 affect the hazardous concentration for 5% of the species? Environ Sci Technol. 49(15):9326–9330. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b02069
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junghans M, Chèvre N, Di Paolo C, Eggen RIL, Gälli R, Gregorio V, Häner A, Homazava N, Perazzolo C, Kase R. 2011. Aquatic risks of plant protection products: a comparison of different hazard assessment strategies for surface waters in Switzerland. Duebendorf (Switzerland): Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Eawag-EPFL.
   Google Scholar
• Kenaga EE. 1982. Predictability of chronic toxicity from acute toxicity of chemicals in fish and aquatic invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem. 1(4):347–358. doi:10.1002/etc.5620010410
   Google Scholar
• Kienzler A, Barron MG, Belanger SE, Beasley A, Embry MR. 2017a. Mode of action (MOA) assignment classifications for ecotoxicology: An evaluation of approaches. Environ Sci Technol. 51(17):10203–−10211. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kienzler A, Connors KA, Bonnell M, Barron MG, Beasley A, Inglis CG, Norberg-King TJ, Martin T, Sanderson H, Vallotton N, et al. 2019. Mode of action classifications in the EnviroTox database: Development and implementation of a consensus MOA classification. Environ Toxicol Chem. 38(10):2294–2304. doi:10.1002/etc.4531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kienzler A, Halder M, Worth A. 2017b. Waiving chronic fish tests: possible use of acute-to-chronic relationships and interspecies correlations. Toxicol Environ Chem. 99(7/8):1129–1151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klok C, de Vries P, Jongbloed R, Tamis J. 2012. Literature review on the sensitivity and exposure of marine and estuarine organisms to pesticides in comparison to corresponding fresh water species. Supporting Publications 2012: EN-357. Wageningen (Netherlands): IMARES (Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies). [Accessed Nov. 2019]. www.efsa.europa.eu/publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lange R, Hutchinson TH, Scholz N, Solbe J. 1998. Analysis of the ECETOC aquatic toxicity (EAT) database. II—comparison of acute to chronic ratios for various aquatic organisms and chemical substances. Chemosphere. 36(1):115–127. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)10024-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung KMY, Morritt D, Wheeler JR, Whitehouse P, Sorokin N, Toy R, Holt R, Crane M. 2001. Can saltwater toxicity be predicted from freshwater data? Mar Pollut Bull. 42(11):1007–1013. doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00135-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay D, Arnot JA, Petkova EP, Wallace KB, Call DJ, Brooke LT, Veith GD. 2009. The physicochemical basis of QSARs for baseline toxicity. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 20(3-4):393–414. doi:10.1080/10629360902949153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay D, McCarty LS, Arnot JA. 2014. Relationships between exposure and dose in aquatic toxicity tests for organic chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem. 33(9):2038–2046. doi:10.1002/etc.2649
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder V, Escher BI, Scheringer M, Hungerbühler K. 2004. Toxic ratio as an indicator of the intrinsic toxicity in the assessment of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals. Environ Sci Technol. 38(13):3659–3666. doi:10.1021/es0351591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malkiewicz K, Hansson SO, Ruden C. 2009. Assessment factors for extrapolation from short-time to chronic exposure-are the REACH guidelines adequate? Toxicol Lett. 190(1):16–22. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.06.858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May M, Drost W, Germer S, Juffernholz T, Hahn S. 2016. Evaluation of acute-to-chronic ratios of fish and Daphnia to predict acceptable no-effect levels. Environ Sci Eur. 28(1):16 doi:10.1186/s12302-016-0084-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mayer FL, Krause GF, Buckler DR, Ellersieck MR, Lee GH. 1994. Predicting chronic lethality of chemicals to fishes from acute toxicity test data—concepts and linear-regression analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem. 13(4):671–678. doi:10.1002/etc.5620130418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarty LS. 2013. Are we in the dark ages of environmental toxicology? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 67(3):321–324. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.09.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niculescu S. c2010-2012. [AIEPS] Artificial Intelligence Expert Predictive System. Version 3.0 [software]. Gatineau (Canada): Environment Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. 1992. Report of the OECD workshop on the extrapolation of laboratory aquatic toxicity data to the real environment. OECD Environment Monographs, No. 59. Paris (France): OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. 2007a. Manual for Investigation of HPV Chemicals, Chapter 4: Initial assessment of data. Paris (France): OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. 2007b. Report on the regulatory uses and applications in OECD member countries of (quantitative) structure-activity relationship [(q)sar] models in the assessment of new and existing chemicals. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 58. Paris (France): OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD]. 2014. Guidance on grouping of chemicals, 2nd edition. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications; Series on Testing & Assessment, No. 194. Paris (France): OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, LMC (Laboratory of Mathematical Chemistry, University “Prof. Dr. Assen Zlatarov”) [OECD]. 2020. OECD QSAR Toolbox. Version 4.4 [software]. Paris (FR): OECD; Burgas (Bulgaria): LMC.
   Google Scholar
• OSPAR Commission. 2014. OSPAR Guidelines in support of recommendation 2012/5 for a risk-based approach to the management of produced water discharges from offshore installations. London (UK): OSPAR Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Posthuma L, Suter GW, Traas TP. 2002. Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raimondo S, Montague BJ, Barron MG. 2007. Determinants of variability in acute to chronic toxicity ratios for aquatic invertebrates and fish. Environ Toxicol Chem. 26(9):2019–2023. doi:10.1897/07-069R.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs W, Huikbregts MAJ, Jager T, Ragsas AMJ. 2003. Prediction of ecological no-effect concentrations for initial risk assessment: Combining substance-specific data and database information. Environ Toxicol Chem. 22(6):1387–1393. doi:10.1002/etc.5620220627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slooff W. 1992. Ecotoxicological effect assessment: Deriving maximum tolerable concentrations (MTC) from single species toxicity data. Bilthoven (Netherlands): National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Report No. 719102018.
   Google Scholar
• Smrchek J, Clements R, Morcocck R, Rabert W. 1993. Assessing ecological hazard under TSCA: Methods and evaluation of data. In: Landis WG, Hughes JS, Lewis MA, editors. Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. Vol.1. Philadelphia (PA): America Society for Testing and Materials, p. 22–39.
   Google Scholar
• UK Environment Agency [UK EA]. 2004. Soil screening values for use in UK ecological risk assessment. Bristol (UK): Environment Agency R&D Technical Report P5-091.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Continent Ecology Division [US EPA]. 2003. [ASTER] Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk [software]. Duluth (MN): US EPA. [Restricted access].
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA]. 2016. [TEST] Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. Version 4.2 [software]. Washington (DC): US EPA.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [SRC] Syracuse Research Corporation [US EPA]. 2017. [ECOSAR] ECOlogical Structure Activity Relationships Class Program [estimation model]. Version 2.0 [software]. Washington (DC): US EPA; Syracuse (NY): SRC.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration [US FDA]. 2006. Guidance for industry 166: Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for veterinary medicinal products (VMPs): Phase II—VICH GL38, final guidance. Silver Spring (MD): US FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
   Google Scholar
• Vaal M, van der Wal JT, Hermens J, Hoekstra J. 1997. Variation in the sensitivity of aquatic species in relation to the classification of environmental pollutants. Chemosphere. 35(6):1291–1309. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00166-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaar HJM, Solbe J, Speksnijder J, van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JLM. 2000. Classifying environmental pollutants: Part 3. External validation of the classification system. Chemosphere. 40(8):875–883. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00317-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaar HJM, Van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JLM. 1992. Classifying environmental pollutants. 1: structure–activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity. Chemosphere. 25(4):471–491. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(92)90280-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler JR, Leung KMY, Morritt D, Sorokin N, Rogers H, Toy R, Holt M, Whitehouse P, Crane M. 2002. Freshwater to saltwater toxicity extrapolation using species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem. 21(11):2459–2467. doi:10.1002/etc.5620211127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeeman M. 1995. Ecotoxicity testing and estimation methods developed under section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In: Rand GM, editor. Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology: Effects, environmental fate, and risk assessment (2nd ed.). Washington (DC): Taylor & Francis. p. 703–716.
   Google Scholar