A closed formula for calculating pesticide residue levels in the feed items of terrestrial species.

Calculating pesticide residue levels in feed items for terrestrial species requires accounting for the application rate of the pesticide, the frequency and interval of application, the half-life of the pesticide on the food item, and the residue unit dose. Microsoft Excel™-based applications such as the US Environmental Protection Agency's Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) and Terrestrial Herpetofaunal Exposure Residue Program (T-HERPS) calculate the residue levels in feed items using a recursive sequence. A recursive sequence is an unwieldy calculation method that presents a barrier to creating a software-based tool capable of conducting flexible assessments. Therefore, we determined the closed form of the recursive mathematical equation used by both T-REX and T-HERPS. With this formula, we can both duplicate screening-level assessments (T-REX, T-HERPS) as well as incrementally refine the assessment with data-driven inputs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:703-709. © 2018 SETAC.

Uterine adenocarcinoma in the rat induced by afidopyropen. An analysis of the lesion's induction, progression and its relevance to humans.

Afidopyropen is a novel insecticide that acts as a TRPV channel modulator in chordotonal organs of target insects. In two carcinogenicity studies with Fischer rats, an increased incidence of uterine adenocarcinomas was observed at 1000 and 3000 ppm. This finding prompted an investigation of the mechanism of the tumor formation as well as the relevance of this mechanism to humans. The mechanistic work took parallel paths: one path investigated the pharmacokinetic properties of the test substance at the doses where the tumors were found; while the second path examined the key mechanistic events that culminated in uterine adenocarcinomas. The results of the investigation indicated that the tumors only occurred at doses where excretion of test substance was saturated - indicating that homeostatic biological and/or physiological processes were overwhelmed. At the doses where these processes were overwhelmed, the test substance acted through a mechanism of dopamine agonism, triggering a cascade key events that resulted in uterine adenocarcinomas. An analysis of these mechanisms observed in rat showed that they are both quantitatively (pharmacokinetic mechanism) and qualitatively (dopamine agonism mechanism) not relevant to humans. Therefore the uterine adenocarcinomas observed in the rat associated with high doses of Afidopyropen are not expected to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

GHS additivity formula: can it predict the acute systemic toxicity of agrochemical formulations that contain acutely toxic ingredients?

In vivo acute systemic testing is a regulatory requirement for agrochemical formulations. GHS specifies an alternative computational approach (GHS additivity formula) for calculating the acute toxicity of mixtures. We collected acute systemic toxicity data from formulations that contained one of several acutely-toxic active ingredients. The resulting acute data set includes 210 formulations tested for oral toxicity, 128 formulations tested for inhalation toxicity and 31 formulations tested for dermal toxicity. The GHS additivity formula was applied to each of these formulations and compared with the experimental in vivo result. In the acute oral assay, the GHS additivity formula misclassified 110 formulations using the GHS classification criteria (48% accuracy) and 119 formulations using the USEPA classification criteria (43% accuracy). With acute inhalation, the GHS additivity formula misclassified 50 formulations using the GHS classification criteria (61% accuracy) and 34 formulations using the USEPA classification criteria (73% accuracy). For acute dermal toxicity, the GHS additivity formula misclassified 16 formulations using the GHS classification criteria (48% accuracy) and 20 formulations using the USEPA classification criteria (36% accuracy). This data indicates the acute systemic toxicity of many formulations is not the sum of the ingredients' toxicity (additivity); but rather, ingredients in a formulation can interact to result in lower or higher toxicity than predicted by the GHS additivity formula.

Lacking applicability of in vitro eye irritation methods to identify seriously eye irritating agrochemical formulations: Results of bovine cornea opacity and permeability assay, isolated chicken eye test and the EpiOcular™ ET-50 method to classify according to UN GHS.

In vitro methods have gained regulatory acceptance for the prediction of serious eye damage (UN GHS Cat 1). However, the majority of in vitro methods do not state whether they are applicable to agrochemical formulations. This manuscript presents a study of up to 27 agrochemical formulations tested in three in vitro assays (three versions of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability test (BCOP, OECD TG 437) assay, the isolated chicken eye test (ICE, OECD TG 438) and the EpiOcular™ ET-50 assay). The results were compared with already-available in vivo data. In the BCOP only one of the four, one of five in the ICE and six of eleven tested formulations in the EpiOcular™ ET-50 Neat Protocol resulted in the correct UN GHS Cat 1 prediction. Overpredictions occurred in all assays. These data indicate a lack of applicability of the three in vitro methods to reliably predict UN GHS Cat 1 of agrochemical formulations. In order to ensure animal-free identification of seriously eye damaging agrochemical formulations testing protocols and/or prediction models need to be modified or classification rules should be tailored to in vitro testing rather than using in vivo Draize data as a standard.

The EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test is the Method of Choice for the In Vitro Eye Irritation Testing of Agrochemical Formulations: Correlation Analysis of EpiOcular Eye Irritation Test and BCOP Test Data According to the UN GHS, US EPA and Brazil ANVISA Classification Schemes.

The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test is commonly used for the identification of severe ocular irritants (GHS Category 1), but it is not recommended for the identification of ocular irritants (GHS Category 2). The incorporation of human reconstructed tissue model-based tests into a tiered test strategy to identify ocular non-irritants and replace the Draize rabbit eye irritation test has been suggested (OECD TG 405). The value of the EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EIT) for the prediction of ocular non-irritants (GHS No Category) has been demonstrated, and an OECD Test Guideline (TG) was drafted in 2014. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the BCOP test, in conjunction with corneal histopathology (as suggested for the evaluation of the depth of the injury( and/or the EpiOcular-EIT, could be used to predict the eye irritation potential of agrochemical formulations according to the UN GHS, US EPA and Brazil ANVISA classification schemes. We have assessed opacity, permeability and histopathology in the BCOP assay, and relative tissue viability in the EpiOcular-EIT, for 97 agrochemical formulations with available in vivo eye irritation data. By using the OECD TG 437 protocol for liquids, the BCOP test did not result in sufficient correct predictions of severe ocular irritants for any of the three classification schemes. The lack of sensitivity could be improved somewhat by the inclusion of corneal histopathology, but the relative viability in the EpiOcular-EIT clearly outperformed the BCOP test for all three classification schemes. The predictive capacity of the EpiOcular-EIT for ocular non-irritants (UN GHS No Category) for the 97 agrochemical formulations tested (91% sensitivity, 72% specificity and 82% accuracy for UN GHS classification) was comparable to that obtained in the formal validation exercise underlying the OECD draft TG. We therefore conclude that the EpiOcular-EIT is currently the best in vitro method for the prediction of the eye irritation potential of liquid agrochemical formulations.