Inhalation threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) - Structural alerts discriminate high from low repeated-dose inhalation toxicity.

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of a compound represents an exposure value below which the associated human health risk is considered negligible. As such, this approach offers assessing the risk of potential toxicants when little or no toxicological information is available. For the inhalation repeated-dose TTC, the goal was to derive structural alerts that discriminate between high- and low-toxic compounds. A further aim was to identify physicochemical parameters related to the inhalation-specific bioavailability of the compounds, and to explore their use as predictors of high vs low toxicity. 296 compounds with subacute, subchronic and chronic inhalation toxicity NOEC (no-observed effect concentration) values were subdivided into three almost equal-sized high-, medium- and low-toxic (HTox, MTox, LTox) potency classes. Whereas the derived 14 HTox and 7 LTox structural alerts yield an only moderate discrimination between these three groups, the high-toxic vs low-toxic mis-classification is very low: LTox-predicted compounds are not HTox to 97.5%, and HTox-predicted compounds not LTox to 88.6%. The probability of a compound being HTox vs LTox is triggered further by physicochemical properties encoding the tendency to evaporate from blood. The new structural alerts may aid in the predictive inhalation toxicity assessment of compounds as well as in designing low-toxicity chemicals, and provide a rationale for the chemistry underlying the toxicological outcome that can also be used for scoping targeted experimental studies.

The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS for the endpoints repeated-dose toxicity (RepDose ITS).

In the FP6 European project OSIRIS, Integrated Testing Strategies (ITSs) for relevant toxicological endpoints were developed to avoid new animal testing and thus to reduce time and costs. The present paper describes the development of an ITS for repeated-dose toxicity called RepDose ITS which evaluates the conditions under which in vivo non-guideline studies are reliable. In a tiered approach three aspects of these "non-guideline" studies are assessed: the documentation of the study (reliability), the quality of the study design (adequacy) and the scope of examination (validity). The reliability is addressed by the method "Knock-out criteria", which consists of four essential criteria for repeated-dose toxicity studies. A second tool, termed QUANTOS (Quality Assessment of Non-guideline Toxicity Studies), evaluates and weights the adequacy of the study by using intra-criterion and inter-criteria weighting. Finally, the Coverage approach calculates a probability that the detected Lowest-Observed-Effect-Level (LOEL) is similar to the LOEL of a guideline study dependent on the examined targets and organs of the non-guideline study. If the validity and adequacy of the non-guideline study are insufficient for risk assessment, the ITS proposes to apply category approach or the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) concept, and only as a last resort new animal-testing.

Emission of biocides from hospitals: comparing current survey results with European Union default values.

Under the European Union (EU) Biocidal Products Directive 98/8/EC, comprehensive evaluations on substances of the Third Priority List were conducted until 31 July 2007. This list includes, among other categories, disinfectants for human hygiene (e.g., skin and surface disinfection). For environmental exposure assessment of biocides, the EU emission scenarios apply. Currently available default values for disinfectants are based on consumption data from not more than 8 hospitals and were originally assembled for other purposes. To revalidate these default values, a survey on annual consumption data was performed in 27 German hospitals. These data were analyzed to provide consumption data per bed and day and per nurse and day for particular categories of active ingredients and were compared with default values from the EU emission scenario documents. Although several deviations were detected, an overall acceptable correspondence between Emission Scenario Documents default values and the current survey data was found.