Ellen Mihaich

Evaluation of EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery and recommendations for improving the interpretation of screening results.

EPAs Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) was implemented in 2009-2010 with the issuance of test orders requiring manufacturers and registrants of 58 pesticide active ingredients and nine pesticide inert/high production volume chemicals to evaluate the potential of these chemicals to interact with the estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. The required endocrine screening will be conducted over the next 2-3years. Based on estimates of the impacted sectors, costs are at least

Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice

750,000-

Relevance Weighting of Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Endpoints by Rank Order

1,000,000 per substance if all of the Tier 1 assays must be conducted. The screening will entail evaluation of responses in EPAs Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (EDSP ESB), consisting of 11 distinct in vitro and in vivo assays. We reviewed the details of each test method and describe the critical factors integral to the design and conduct of the EDSP ESB assays as well as the limitations related to specificity and sensitivity. We discuss challenges to evaluating each assay, identify significant shortcomings, and make recommendations to enhance interpretation of results. Factors that affect the length of time necessary to complete the EDSP ESB for any particular substance are presented, and based on the overall analysis, we recommend a sequence for running the EDSP ESB assays. It is imperative that a structured, systematic weight of evidence framework is promptly developed, subjected to peer review and adopted. This will help to ensure an objective analysis of the results of the required EDSP screening, consistent integration of results across the EDSP ESB assays, and consistent decision making as to whether subsequent testing for adverse effects is needed. Based upon the limitations of the current EPA EDSP ESB, we concur with the Agencys Scientific Advisory Panels recommendation that after the initial set of substances has been screened, the EDSP ESB should pause so that the results can be fully analyzed to determine the value of the existing assays. After this analysis, assays that are unnecessarily redundant or that lack endocrine specificity should be eliminated and if necessary, replaced by new or revised screens that are more mechanistically specific, rapid, reliable, and cost effective.

Estimating potential risks to terrestrial invertebrates and plants exposed to bisphenol A in soil amended with activated sludge biosolids.

Background: There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. Objective: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. Method: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Discussion: Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. Conclusions: Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

Comparison of Four Species Sensitivity Distribution Methods to Calculate Predicted No Effect Concentrations for Bisphenol A

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. EPAs 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.

Adult fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, partial life-cycle reproductive and gonadal histopathology study with bisphenol A.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a high production volume substance primarily used to produce polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. During manufacture and use, BPA may enter wastewater treatment plants. During treatment, BPA may become adsorbed to activated sludge biosolids, which may expose soil organisms to BPA if added to soil as an amendment. To evaluate potential risks to organisms that make up the base of the terrestrial food web (i.e., invertebrates and plants) in accordance with international regulatory practice, toxicity tests were conducted with potworms (Enchytraeids) and springtails (Collembolans) in artificial soil, and six plant types using natural soil. No-observed-effect concentrations (NOEC) for potworms and springtails were equal to or greater than 100 and equal to or greater than 500 mg/kg (dry wt), respectively. The lowest organic matter-normalized NOEC among all tests (dry shoot weight of tomatoes) was 37 mg/kg-dry weight. Dividing by an assessment factor of 10, a predicted-no-effect concentration in soil (PNEC(soil)) of 3.7 mg/kg-dry weight was calculated. Following international regulatory guidance, BPA concentrations in soil hypothetically amended with biosolids were calculated using published BPA concentrations in biosolids. The upper 95th percentile BPA biosolids concentration in North America is 14.2 mg/kg-dry weight, and in Europe is 95 mg/kg-dry weight. Based on recommended biosolids application rates, predicted BPA concentrations in soil (PEC(soil)) would be 0.021 mg/kg-dry weight for North America and 0.14 mg/kg-dry weight for Europe. Hazard quotients (ratio of PEC(soil) and PNEC(soil)) for BPA were all equal to or less than 0.04. This indicates that risks to representative invertebrates and plants at the base of the terrestrial food web are low if exposed to BPA in soil amended with activated sludge biosolids.

Recommended approaches to the scientific evaluation of ecotoxicological hazards and risks of endocrine-active substances

ABSTRACT Bisphenol A (BPA, CAS RN 80-05-7) is a high production volume chemical used as an intermediate in the production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. During its manufacture and use, some emissions to surface waters are anticipated. Chronic predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) for aquatic systems are used to support the assessment of potential risks to aquatic organisms in receiving waters. PNECs for a compound are considered protective of populations, communities, and ecosystems. Traditionally, PNECs are derived by taking the lowest no-observed effect concentration (NOEC) from a set of toxicity studies and dividing by an assessment factor (e.g., 10 to 1000). This traditional approach is appropriate for substances with few data, but may not be necessary for substances with many valid studies. For well-studied substances, statistical approaches (i.e., development of Species Sensitivity Distribution or SSD methods) can be used to calculate a PNEC that makes use of the full distribution of available NOEC values. Bisphenol A has an extensive set of aquatic toxicity studies covering diverse taxa including algae, hydra, rotifers, mollusks, crustaceans (both benthic and pelagic), insects, annelids, fish, and amphibians. The full chronic data set was used to calculate PNEC values using four SSD methods: (1) the Hazard Concentration (HC5) approach developed by The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), (2) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys water quality criteria procedure, (3) SigmaPlot (Systat 2000) commercial software that calculates percentile values, and (4) a distributional method consistent with that used by Environment Canada. Using these approaches, PNEC values for BPA range from 11 to 71 μ g/L. Literature studies suggest that application of an additional assessment factor is unwarranted if an SSD-based PNEC is based on chronic data. SSD-derived PNEC values and the traditionally derived PNEC value of 1.6 μ g/L are then compared to concentrations of BPA that have been measured in North American and European surface waters. Adverse risks to aquatic organisms are not anticipated from measured concentrations of BPA in North American and European surface waters.

Challenges in assigning endocrine-specific modes of action: Recommendations for researchers and regulators

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an intermediate used to produce epoxy resins and polycarbonate plastics. Although BPA degrades rapidly in the environment with aquatic half-lives from 0.5 to 6 d, it can be found in aquatic systems because of widespread use. To evaluate potential effects from chronic exposure, fathead minnows were exposed for 164 d to nominal concentrations of 1, 16, 64, 160, and 640 µg/L BPA. Population-level endpoints of survival, growth, and reproduction were assessed with supplemental endpoints (e.g., vitellogenin, gonad histology), including gonad cell type assessment and quantification. No statistically significant changes in growth, gonad weight, gonadosomatic index, or reproduction variables (e.g., number of eggs and spawns, hatchability) were observed; however, there was a significant impact on male survival at 640 µg/L. Vitellogenin increased in both sexes at 64 µg/L or higher. Gonad cell type frequencies were significantly different from controls at 160 µg/L or higher in males with a slight decrease in spermatocytes compared with less mature cell types, and at 640 µg/L in females with a slight decrease in early vitellogenic cells compared with less mature cells. The decrease in spermatocytes did not correspond to a decrease in the most mature sex cell type (spermatozoa) and did not impair male fertility, as hatchability was not impacted. Overall, marginal shifts in gametogenic cell maturation were not associated with any statistically significant effects on population-relevant reproductive endpoints (growth, fecundity, and hatchability) at any concentration tested.

Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence analysis to determine potential endocrine activity of MTBE

A SETAC Pellston Workshop® “Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment Approaches for Endocrine-Active Substances (EHRA)” was held in February 2016 in Pensacola, Florida, USA. The primary objective of the workshop was to provide advice, based on current scientific understanding, to regulators and policy makers; the aim being to make considered, informed decisions on whether to select an ecotoxicological hazard- or a risk-based approach for regulating a given endocrinedisrupting substance (EDS) under review. The workshop additionally considered recent developments in the identification of EDS. Case studies were undertaken on 6 endocrine-active substances (EAS—not necessarily proven EDS, but substances known to interact directly with the endocrine system) that are representative of a range of perturbations of the endocrine system and considered to be data rich in relevant information at multiple biological levels of organization for 1 or more ecologically relevant taxa. The substances selected were 17α-ethinylestradiol, perchlorate, propiconazole, 17β-trenbolone, tributyltin, and vinclozolin. The 6 case studies were not comprehensive safety evaluations but provided foundations for clarifying key issues and procedures that should be considered when assessing the ecotoxicological hazards and risks of EAS and EDS. The workshop also highlighted areas of scientific uncertainty, and made specific recommendations for research and methods-development to resolve some of the identified issues. The present paper provides broad guidance for scientists in regulatory authorities, industry, and academia on issues likely to arise during the ecotoxicological hazard and risk assessment of EAS and EDS. The primary conclusion of this paper, and of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on which it is based, is that if data on environmental exposure, effects on sensitive species and life-stages, delayed effects, and effects at low concentrations are robust, initiating environmental risk assessment of EDS is scientifically sound and sufficiently reliable and protective of the environment. In the absence of such data, assessment on the basis of hazard is scientifically justified until such time as relevant new information is available.

Responses of the steroidogenic pathway from exposure to methyl-tert-butyl ether and tert-butanol

As regulatory programs evaluate substances for their endocrine-disrupting properties, careful study design and data interpretation are needed to distinguish between responses that are truly endocrine specific and those that are not. This is particularly important in regulatory environments where criteria are under development to identify endocrine-disrupting properties to enable hazard-based regulation. Irrespective of these processes, most jurisdictions use the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety definition of an endocrine disruptor, requiring that a substance is demonstrated to cause a change in endocrine function that consequently leads to an adverse effect in an intact organism. Such a definition is broad, and at its most cautious might capture many general mechanisms that would not specifically denote an endocrine disruptor. In addition, endocrine responses may be adaptive in nature, designed to maintain homeostasis rather than induce an irreversible adverse effect. The likelihood of indirect effects is increased in (eco)toxicological studies that require the use of maximum tolerated concentrations or doses, which must produce some adverse effect. The misidentification of indirect effects as truly endocrine mediated has serious consequences for prompting animal- and resource-intensive testing and regulatory consequences. To minimize the risk for misidentification, an objective and transparent weight-of-evidence procedure based on biological plausibility, essentiality, and empirical evidence of key events in an adverse outcome pathway is recommended to describe the modes of action that may be involved in toxic responses in nontarget organisms. Confounding factors such as systemic toxicity, general stress, and infection can add complexity to such an evaluation and should be considered in the weight of evidence. A recommended set of questions is proffered to help guide researchers and regulators in discerning endocrine and nonendocrine responses. Although many examples provided in this study are based on ecotoxicology, the majority of the concepts and processes are applicable to both environmental and human health assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:280-292.