Comparative PBT screening using (Q)SAR tools within REACH legislation

Small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU are facing challenges due to the introduction of new legislation designed to protect consumers and the environment, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of CHemicals). There can be high costs associated with implementing REACH because data on mammalian toxicity, environmental toxicity and environmental fate properties is required and if this data is obtained experimentally the cost is significant. These costs can be reduced if reliable quantitative structure–activity relationships ((Q)SAR) models are instead used to obtain the required information. In this paper we investigate how easily freely available (Q)SAR models can be applied for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) screening of 17 chemicals of interest to SMEs. In this study the PBT predictions obtained from the more user-friendly PBT Profiler and the Danish(Q)SAR database for the chemicals were compared with the results taken directly from the EPI Suite software. It was found that these widely used (Q)SAR databases might have some errors and examples are provided. It was concluded that extra care must be taken when considering the use of these databases for PBT screening. In addition, to increase the likelihood of a correct prediction, data estimates from various (Q)SAR models relevant to the PBT endpoints must be compared.

[1]  Manuela Pavan,et al.  Review of QSAR Models for Ready Biodegradation , 2006 .

[2]  John D. Walker,et al.  QSARs for identifying and prioritizing substances with persistence and bioconcentration potential , 2002, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[3]  John D. Walker,et al.  Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[4]  Ursula Gundert-Remy,et al.  The Use of (Q)SAR Methods in the Context of REACH , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[5]  Yuki Sakuratani,et al.  Workgroup Report: Review of Fish Bioaccumulation Databases Used to Identify Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic Substances , 2006, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  Antonio Di Guardo,et al.  Evaluating the environmental fate of a variety of types of chemicals using the EQC model , 1996 .

[7]  Robert S Boethling,et al.  Using Biowin™, Bayes, and batteries to predict ready biodegradability , 2004, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[8]  D. D. de Roode,et al.  QSARs in ecotoxicological risk assessment. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[9]  David Weininger,et al.  SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules , 1988, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[10]  R. Kookana,et al.  Biological degradation of triclocarban and triclosan in a soil under aerobic and anaerobic conditions and comparison with environmental fate modelling. , 2007, Environmental pollution.

[11]  Stephen Dunn.  Smiles , 1932 .

[12]  J Devillers,et al.  Nonlinear dependence of fish bioconcentration on n-octanol/water partition coefficient. , 1993, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[13]  Robert S. Boethling,et al.  Group contribution method for predicting probability and rate of aerobic biodegradation. , 1994, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  U. Epa,et al.  Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics , 2000 .