Mark R. Viant, Rosemary E. Barnett, Bruno Campos, John K. Colbourne, Marianne Barnard, Adam D. Biales, Mark T. D. Cronin, Kellie A. Fay, Kara Koehrn, Helen F. McGarry, Magdalini Sachana, Geoff Hodges
{"title":"Utilizing Omics Data for Chemical Grouping","authors":"Mark R. Viant, Rosemary E. Barnett, Bruno Campos, John K. Colbourne, Marianne Barnard, Adam D. Biales, Mark T. D. Cronin, Kellie A. Fay, Kara Koehrn, Helen F. McGarry, Magdalini Sachana, Geoff Hodges","doi":"10.1002/etc.5959","DOIUrl":"10.1002/etc.5959","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Historically, regulatory decisions on the safety of chemicals to both humans and the environment have relied primarily on the availability of in vivo toxicity data to inform hazard and ultimately risk assessment. However, increasing recognition of the benefits of more mechanistically based scientific understanding, together with changing ethical and societal concerns, are driving the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) that can support robust safety decision-making without animal testing. Grouping and read-across (G/RAx) is one of the most commonly used alternative approaches to animal testing in chemical risk assessment for filling data gaps with existing in vivo toxicity data (European Chemicals Agency [ECHA], <span>n.d</span>.; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], <span>2017a</span>). As such, it exemplifies the efficient use of existing data and in some cases new nonanimal data. For example, under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation) Annex XI, information from one or more analogous (or “source”) chemicals can be used to predict missing endpoint data for one or more “target” chemicals (European Commission, <span>2006</span>). With approximately 100,000 chemicals listed on the European inventory (ECHA, <span>2023</span>) and approximately 85,000 chemicals listed in the US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory (<span>2024a</span>), the use of G/RAx (described as chemical “categories” under the TSCA; USEPA, <span>2010</span>) is becoming an increasingly viewed option for addressing regulatory requirements for filling data gaps in chemical safety dossiers for human health and environmental endpoints. Furthermore, grouping of chemicals can facilitate other hazard-assessment practices, for example, the harmonized classification of multiple substances within a group in accordance with the classification, labeling, and packaging regulation (Swedish Chemicals Agency, <span>2020</span>).</p><p>There are numerous approaches for defining groups of chemicals, most often based on chemical similarity (Patlewicz et al., <span>2018</span>). Notable examples in a regulatory context include the approach documented in the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF; ECHA, <span>2017</span>), supporting REACH, and within the TSCA (USEPA, <span>2010</span>). These existing schemes are traditionally and primarily based on firstly grouping “source” and “target” chemicals into categories based on structural and other physicochemical parameters and, secondly, reading across existing toxicity data (i.e., an apical endpoint) from one or more “source” chemical(s) to predict the toxicity of one or more “target” chemical(s). However, most grouping dossiers still fail to incorporate and utilize absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME)/toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic similarities, with the strong reliance on structu","PeriodicalId":11793,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry","volume":"43 10","pages":"2094-2104"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/etc.5959","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141901340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gina Lintern, Alan G. Scarlett, Marthe Monique Gagnon, John Leeder, Aydin Amhet, Damian C. Lettoof, Victor O. Leshyk, Alexandra Bujak, Jonathan Bujak, Kliti Grice
Jon A. Doering, Justin Dubiel, Eric Stock, Cameron H. Collins, Ian Frick, Hunter M. Johnson, Christopher M. Lowrey-Dufour, Justin G. P. Miller, Zhe Xia, Gregg T. Tomy, Steve Wiseman
Mark L. Hanson, Sasha Madronich, Keith Solomon, Mads P. Sulbaek Andersen, Timothy J. Wallington
{"title":"Trifluoroacetic Acid in the Environment: Consensus, Gaps, and Next Steps","authors":"Mark L. Hanson, Sasha Madronich, Keith Solomon, Mads P. Sulbaek Andersen, Timothy J. Wallington","doi":"10.1002/etc.5963","DOIUrl":"10.1002/etc.5963","url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is ongoing debate about the sources, fate, toxicity, and, ultimately, the ecological risk posed by trifluoroacetic acid (TFA; Brunn et al., <span>2023</span>; Joudan et al., <span>2021</span>; Madronich et al., <span>2023</span>; Scheringer et al., <span>2024</span>). The debate is sparked in part by TFA's persistence; ubiquity in the environment, especially aquatic ecosystems; and increasing concentrations globally. This Point of Reference provides an overview of the current science, including a distillation of which topics have significant uncertainty or ongoing debate, and suggests the next steps to move our collective understanding of the potential ecological impact of TFA forward.</p><p>There is broad scientific consensus on the following: TFA is a short-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid that contains a single −CF<sub>3</sub> moiety bound to a carboxyl functional group, is a strong acid with a negative base-10 logarithm of the acid dissociation constant (pKa) of 0.3, and is completely miscible with water. It is an atmospheric degradation product of some ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) replacements, including several hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs). These compounds produce TFA through hydrolysis of acyl halides, for example, CF<sub>3</sub>CFO (trifluoroacetyl fluoride; Wallington et al., <span>1994</span>), or via secondary photochemistry of trifluoroacetaldehyde (CF<sub>3</sub>CHO; Sulbaek Andersen et al., <span>2004</span>). Once in the environment, TFA has no obvious or significant pathway of degradation and will be deprotonated as its freely dissolved salt that will move with flowing water and accumulate in terminal (endorheic) water bodies, especially marine systems (Boutonnet et al., <span>1999</span>). The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel of the United Nations Environment Programme has routinely assessed global contributions of TFA from replacement CFC gases under the purview of the Montreal Protocol. It is estimated that between 2020 and the year 2100, 31.5 to 51.9 Tg of TFA (acid equivalent) will be produced from the atmospheric degradation of CFC replacement gases. Simplified models show that deposition to the ocean would increase the concentration of TFA from a nominal value of 200 ng L<sup>−1</sup> (acid equivalent) in 2020 to 736 to 1058 ng L<sup>−1</sup> (as Na salt) if uptake is limited to the epipelagic zone (top 200 m of the ocean) or 266 to 284 ng L<sup>−1</sup> (as Na salt) if distributed throughout the ocean (Madronich et al., <span>2023</span>). The salts of TFA are not toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms at these environmental concentrations (Berends et al., <span>1999</span>; Boutonnet et al., <span>1999</span>; Figure 1). Because of its physicochemical properties such as high water solubility and low log octanol–water partition coefficient, TFA is unlikely to accumulate in biota (Boutonnet et al., <span>1999</span>; Madronich e","PeriodicalId":11793,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry","volume":"43 10","pages":"2091-2093"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/etc.5963","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141792185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thiessa M. A. Oliveira, Adrislaine S. Mansano, Carlos A. Holanda, Tiago S. Pinto, Jonas B. Reis, Eduardo B. Azevedo, Raphael T. Verbinnen, José Lucas Viana, Teresa C. R. S. Franco, Eny M. Vieira
Paul Béziers, Elena Legrand, Emily Boulanger, Niladri Basu, Jessica D Ewald, Paula Henry, Markus Hecker, Jianguo Xia, Natalie Karouna-Renier, Doug Crump, Jessica Head