Comment on "Bioaccumulation of Methyl Siloxanes in Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and in an Estuarine Food Web in Northeastern China".

We have reviewed a paper titled "Bioaccumulation of Methyl Siloxanes in Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and in an Estuarine Food Web in Northeastern China" by Xue et al., which was published in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology in 2019. In the paper, the authors presented and discussed the measured bioconcentration factors (BCFs), biomagnification factors (BMFs), and trophic magnification factors (TMFs) of selected volatile methylsiloxanes in Shuangtaizi estuary in China. Although we appreciate their efforts for sample collection and data analysis, we have identified significant errors in calculations of BCFs, TMFs, and BMFs, as well as animal welfare issues and food web trophic level assumptions. Based on the data, we have attempted to correct some of the analysis and offered a more complete and robust interpretation of the related data, when possible. Collectively, these errors would likely lead to very different conclusions than yours in the paper.

When Are Adverse Outcome Pathways and Associated Assays "Fit for Purpose" for Regulatory Decision-Making and Management of Chemicals?

There have been increasing demands for chemical hazard and risk assessments in recent years. Chemical companies have expanded internal product stewardship initiatives, and jurisdictions have increased the regulatory requirements for the manufacture and sale of chemicals. There has also been a shift in chemical toxicity evaluations within the same time frame, with new methodologies being developed to improve chemical safety assessments for both human health and the environment. With increased needs for chemical assessments coupled with more diverse data streams from new technologies, regulators and others tasked with chemical management activities are faced with increasing workloads and more diverse types of data to consider. The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework can be applied in different scenarios to integrate data and guide chemical assessment and management activities. In this paper, scenarios of how AOPs can be used to guide chemical management decisions during research and development, chemical registration, and subsequent regulatory activities such as prioritization and risk assessment are considered. Furthermore, specific criteria (e.g., the type and level of AOP complexity, confidence in the AOP, as well as external review and assay validation) are proposed to examine whether AOPs and associated tools are fit for purpose when applied in different contexts. Certain toxicity pathways are recommended as priority areas for AOP research and development, and the continued use of AOPs and defined approaches in regulatory activities are recommended. Furthermore, a call for increased outreach, education, and enhanced use of AOP databases is proposed to increase their utility in chemicals management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:633-647. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

High-throughput screening and environmental risk assessment: State of the science and emerging applications.

In 2007 the United States National Research Council (NRC) published a vision for toxicity testing in the 21st century that emphasized the use of in vitro high-throughput screening (HTS) methods and predictive models as an alternative to in vivo animal testing. In the present study we examine the state of the science of HTS and the progress that has been made in implementing and expanding on the NRC vision, as well as challenges to implementation that remain. Overall, significant progress has been made with regard to the availability of HTS data, aggregation of chemical property and toxicity information into online databases, and the development of various models and frameworks to support extrapolation of HTS data. However, HTS data and associated predictive models have not yet been widely applied in risk assessment. Major barriers include the disconnect between the endpoints measured in HTS assays and the assessment endpoints considered in risk assessments as well as the rapid pace at which new tools and models are evolving in contrast with the slow pace at which regulatory structures change. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for environmental scientists and policymakers alike to take an impactful role in the ongoing development and implementation of the NRC vision. Six specific areas for scientific coordination and/or policy engagement are identified. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:12-26. Published 2018 Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of SETAC. This article is a US government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.

Distinguishing between endocrine disruption and non-specific effects on endocrine systems.

The endocrine system is responsible for growth, development, maintaining homeostasis and for the control of many physiological processes. Due to the integral nature of its signaling pathways, it can be difficult to distinguish endocrine-mediated adverse effects from transient fluctuations, adaptive/compensatory responses, or adverse effects on the endocrine system that are caused by mechanisms outside the endocrine system. This is particularly true in toxicological studies that require generation of effects through the use of Maximum Tolerated Doses (or Concentrations). Endocrine-mediated adverse effects are those that occur as a consequence of the interaction of a chemical with a specific molecular component of the endocrine system, for example, a hormone receptor. Non-endocrine-mediated adverse effects on the endocrine system are those that occur by other mechanisms. For example, systemic toxicity, which perturbs homeostasis and affects the general well-being of an organism, can affect endocrine signaling. Some organs/tissues can be affected by both endocrine and non-endocrine signals, which must be distinguished. This paper examines in vitro and in vivo endocrine endpoints that can be altered by non-endocrine processes. It recommends an evaluation of these issues in the assessment of effects for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals. This underscores the importance of using a formal weight of evidence (WoE) process to evaluate potential endocrine activity.

It is time to develop ecological thresholds of toxicological concern to assist environmental hazard assessment.

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept is well established for assessing human safety of food-contact substances and has been reapplied for a variety of endpoints, including carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and reproductive toxicity. The TTC establishes an exposure level for chemicals below which no appreciable risk to human health or the environment is expected, based on a de minimis value for toxicity identified for many chemicals. Threshold of toxicological concern approaches have benefits for screening-level risk assessments, including the potential for rapid decision-making, fully utilizing existing knowledge, reasonable conservativeness for chemicals used in lower volumes (low production volume chemicals (e.g., < 1 t/yr), and reduction or elimination of unnecessary animal tests. Higher production volume chemicals (>1 t/yr) would in principle always require specific information because of the presumed higher exposure potential. The TTC approach has found particular favor in the assessment of chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products, as well as other chemicals traditionally used in low volumes. Use of the TTC in environmental safety is just beginning, and initial attempts are being published. Key questions focus on hazard extrapolation of diverse taxa across trophic levels, importance of mode of action, and whether safe concentrations for ecosystems estimated from acute or chronic toxicity data are equally useful and in what contexts. The present study provides an overview of the theoretical basis for developing an ecological (eco)-TTC, with an initial exploration of chemical assessment and boundary conditions for use. An international collaboration under the International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute has been established to address challenges related to developing and applying useful eco-TTC concepts.

Key learnings from performance of the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Tier 1 in vitro assays.

Tier 1 of the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program comprises 11 studies: five in vitro assays, four in vivo mammalian assays, and two in vivo nonmammalian assays. The battery is designed to detect compounds with the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid signaling pathways. This article examines the procedures, results, and data interpretation for the five Tier 1 in vitro assays: estrogen receptor (ER) and androgen receptor binding assays, an ER transactivation assay, an aromatase assay, and a steroidogenesis assay. Data are presented from two laboratories that have evaluated approximately 11 compounds in the Tier 1 in vitro assays. Generally, the ER and androgen receptor binding assays and the aromatase assay showed good specificity and reproducibility. As described in the guideline for the ER transactivation assay, a result is considered positive when the test compound induces a reporter gene signal that reaches 10% of the response seen with 1 nM 17ß-estradiol (positive control). In the experience of these laboratories, this cutoff criterion may result in false-positive responses. For the steroidogenesis assay, there is variability in the basal and stimulated production of testosterone and estradiol by the H295R cells. This variability in responsiveness, coupled with potential cell stress at high concentrations of test compound, may make it difficult to discern whether hormone alterations are specific steroidogenesis alterations (i.e., endocrine active). Lastly, both laboratories had difficulty meeting some recommended performance criteria for each Tier 1 in vitro assay. Data with only minor deviations were deemed valid.

Relevance weighting of tier 1 endocrine screening endpoints by rank order.

Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (WREL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.

Chlorpyrifos: weight of evidence evaluation of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways.

Chlorpyrifos was selected for EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) based on widespread use and potential for human and environmental exposures. The purpose of the program is to screen chemicals for their potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways. A battery of 11 assays was completed for chlorpyrifos in accordance with test guidelines developed for EDSP Tier 1 screening. To determine potential endocrine activity, a weight-of-evidence (WoE) evaluation was completed for chlorpyrifos, which included the integration of EDSP assay results with data from regulatory guideline studies and the published literature. This WoE approach was based on the OECD conceptual framework for testing and assessment of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals and consisted of a systematic evaluation of data, progressing from simple to complex across multiple levels of biological organization. The conclusion of the WoE evaluation is that chlorpyrifos demonstrates no potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways at doses below the dose levels that inhibit cholinesterase. Therefore, regulatory exposure limits for chlorpyrifos, which are based on cholinesterase inhibition, are sufficient to protect against potential endocrine alterations. Based on the results of this WoE evaluation, there is no scientific justification for pursuing additional endocrine testing for chlorpyrifos.

Ecotoxicological evaluation of perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS).

Based on available toxicity data, protective screening-level concentrations of PFOS were calculated for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Using the Great Lakes Initiative, water concentrations of PFOS were calculated to protect aquatic plants and animals. The screening plant value (SPV) protective of aquatic algae and macrophytes was calculated as 2.3 mg PFOS/L. The secondary chronic value protective of aquatic organisms was 1.2 microg PFOS/L. The screening-value water concentrations less than or equal to 1.2 microg PFOS/L would not pose a potential risk to aquatic organisms. Because the aquatic benchmark is based on the most sensitive species, this benchmark should also be protective of other aquatic organisms, including amphibians. The tissue-based TRV for fish was determined to be 87 mg PFOS/kg ww. For terrestrial plants, a screening benchmark was determined to be 1.3 mg PFOS/kg soil ww or 1.5 mg PFOS/kg soil dw, whereas for soil invertebrates such as earthworms the benchmark value was 39 mg PFOS/kg dw soil or 33 mg PFOS/kgww soil. For avian species, dietary, ADI, and egg yolk-based benchmarks were determined as 0.28mg PFOS/kg diet, 0.021mg PFOS/kg bw/d, and 1.7 microg PFOS/mL yolk, respectively. Benchmarks for serum and liver for the protection of avian species were 1.0 microg PFOS/mL and 0.6 microg PFOS/gww, respectively. However, no-effect levels in laboratory studies suggest actual population-level effects would not be expected to occur until a concentration of 6.0mg PFOS/kg in the diet, 5.0 microg PFOS/gww in the liver, or 9.0 microg PFOS/mL in the serum was exceeded, thus indicating the conservative nature of the benchmarks.

Avian toxicity reference values for perfluorooctane sulfonate.

Toxicity reference values (TRVs) and predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) were derived for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) based on the characteristics of a top avian predator. On the basis of the protective assumptions used in this assessment, the benchmarks are protective of avian populations and were based on acute and chronic dietary exposures of northern bobwhite quail and mallard. Toxicological endpoints included mortality, growth, feed consumption, and histopathology. Reproductive endpoints included egg production, fertility, hatchability and survival, and growth of offspring. On the basis of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Initiative methodology, and a lowest observable adverse effect concentration (LOAEC) of 10 mg PFOS kg(-1) feed, an uncertainty factor of 36 was derived. The TRV based on PFOS dietary intake was 0.021 mg PFOS kg(-1) body weight day(-1), while for serum, liver, and egg, TRVs were 1.7 microg PFOS mL(-1), 0.6 microg PFOS g(-1) wet weight, and 1.7 microg PFOS mL(-1), respectively. On the basis of the European Commission methodology, a correction factor of 2 (for lowest observed effect level to no observable effect level) and an assessment factor of 30, for a total adjustment of 60, were used to derive PNECs. PNECs based on dietary, mean serum, liver, and egg PFOS concentrations were 0.013 mg PFOS kg(-1) body weight day(-1), 1.0 microg PFOS mL(-1), 0.35 microg PFOS g(-1) wet weight, and 1.0 microg PFOS mL(-1), respectively.