Suppr超能文献

在替代物质的 REACH 分析中使用定量构效关系来预测替代化学物质对人类健康和环境的毒性。

QSAR Use in REACH Analyses of Alternatives to Predict Human Health and Environmental Toxicity of Alternative Chemical Substances.

机构信息

Institute of the Environment, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.

School of Law, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.

出版信息

Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2020 Sep;16(5):745-760. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4264. Epub 2020 Jul 3.

Abstract

In 2006, the European Union (EU) enacted the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) to address growing concerns of hazardous chemicals in the EU market. Under REACH, companies seeking authorization to use priority substances identified as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) and included in the authorization list must apply and submit health and environmental effects data in analyses of alternatives (AoAs) to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). To assess safer alternatives, especially in AoA hazard assessment cases where vital information could be missing or insufficient, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) nontesting methods have gained increasing acceptance and importance. This article assesses AoA applicants' use of QSAR sources and documentation while looking for meaningful trends. In this assessment, usage and frequency of QSAR sources were evaluated in 189 analyses of alternatives for 15 physicochemical properties and 19 human health and environmental endpoints to determine the scope of purpose of QSAR use in AoAs. We found that only 24 out of 189 applications cited QSAR sources to rank or evaluate the safety of their alternative substances relative to the REACH Annex XIV chemical. For human health and environmental hazard endpoints, applicants cited the Danish (Q)SAR Database (n = 63) and unidentified QSARs (n = 36) most frequently. While QSARs were not used to eliminate an alternative, 7.9% and 1.4% per maximum opportunity (MOP) of hazard endpoint and physicochemical QSAR predictions reported background information on alternatives using weight of evidence (WoE). In addition, 3.0% per MOP of hazard endpoint QSAR predictions supported the safety of the alternative while 0.7% per MOP of physicochemical QSAR predictions gave mixed support for their alternative's safety. Documentation regarding QSARs was absent in all 24 AoAs that used QSARs. Limited QSAR use and missing documentation may be the result of several factors, including inconsistent regulatory guidance. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:745-760. © 2020 SETAC.

摘要

2006 年,欧盟(EU)颁布了《化学品注册、评估、授权和限制法规》(REACH),以应对欧盟市场中危险化学品日益增长的关注。根据 REACH,寻求授权使用被确定为高度关注物质(SVHC)且列入授权清单的优先物质的公司,必须向欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)申请并提交替代方法分析(AoA)中的健康和环境影响数据。为了评估更安全的替代品,特别是在 AoA 危害评估案例中,当重要信息可能缺失或不足时,定量构效关系(QSAR)非测试方法得到了越来越多的认可和重视。本文评估了 AoA 申请人在寻找有意义的趋势时使用 QSAR 源和文件的情况。在这项评估中,对 189 种替代物分析中 QSAR 源的使用和频率进行了评估,涉及 15 种物理化学性质和 19 个人类健康和环境终点,以确定 QSAR 在 AoA 中的使用目的和范围。我们发现,在 189 份申请中,只有 24 份申请引用了 QSAR 源,以对替代物质相对于 REACH 附件 XIV 化学品的安全性进行排序或评估。对于人类健康和环境危害终点,申请人最常引用丹麦(Q)SAR 数据库(n=63)和未识别的 QSAR(n=36)。虽然 QSAR 并未用于淘汰替代物,但在最大机会(MOP)的 7.9%和 1.4%的人类健康和环境危害终点 QSAR 预测中,报告了基于证据权重(WoE)的替代物背景信息。此外,在最大机会(MOP)的 3.0%的人类健康危害终点 QSAR 预测中支持替代物的安全性,而在最大机会(MOP)的 0.7%的物理化学 QSAR 预测中为替代物的安全性提供了混合支持。在使用 QSAR 的 24 个 AoA 中,都没有关于 QSAR 的文件。QSAR 的使用有限且文件缺失可能是多种因素的结果,包括监管指导不一致。综合环境评估与管理 2020;16:745-760。© 2020 SETAC。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验