Grouping approaches based on structure alone are insufficient to conclude about toxicological properties-the example of monoamine-based chelates.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY Critical Reviews in Toxicology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1080/10408444.2024.2303487
Josje H E Arts, Sina Bader, Steffen Bade
{"title":"Grouping approaches based on structure alone are insufficient to conclude about toxicological properties-the example of monoamine-based chelates.","authors":"Josje H E Arts, Sina Bader, Steffen Bade","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2303487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aminocarboxylic acid (monoamine-based) chelating agents such as GLDA, MGDA, NTA, and EDG are widely used in a variety of products and processes. In the European Union, based on the Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), there is an increasing tendency to speed up chemical hazard evaluation and to regulate chemicals by grouping substances based on molecular structure similarity. Recently, it was proposed to group <i>polycarboxylic acid monoamines, hydroxy derivatives and their salts with monovalent cations</i>, and to consider all group members as potential carcinogens based on the official CLP classification of one group member, viz. NTA, which is classified as suspected carcinogen Cat. 2. In this review, we show that a grouping approach for harmonized classification and labeling based on molecular structure alone, disregarding existing animal test data as well as current scientific and regulatory knowledge, would result in incorrect classification. Using such a simplistic, although considered pragmatic approach, classification of all group members upfront would not improve protection of human health. Instead, it could not only lead to unnecessary additional vertebrate animal testing but also to onerous and disproportionate restrictions being placed on the use of these valuable substances; some of these even being considered as green chemicals.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"55-67"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2303487","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aminocarboxylic acid (monoamine-based) chelating agents such as GLDA, MGDA, NTA, and EDG are widely used in a variety of products and processes. In the European Union, based on the Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), there is an increasing tendency to speed up chemical hazard evaluation and to regulate chemicals by grouping substances based on molecular structure similarity. Recently, it was proposed to group polycarboxylic acid monoamines, hydroxy derivatives and their salts with monovalent cations, and to consider all group members as potential carcinogens based on the official CLP classification of one group member, viz. NTA, which is classified as suspected carcinogen Cat. 2. In this review, we show that a grouping approach for harmonized classification and labeling based on molecular structure alone, disregarding existing animal test data as well as current scientific and regulatory knowledge, would result in incorrect classification. Using such a simplistic, although considered pragmatic approach, classification of all group members upfront would not improve protection of human health. Instead, it could not only lead to unnecessary additional vertebrate animal testing but also to onerous and disproportionate restrictions being placed on the use of these valuable substances; some of these even being considered as green chemicals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
仅根据结构进行分组不足以得出毒理学特性的结论--以单胺螯合物为例。
氨基羧酸(单胺基)螯合剂(如 GLDA、MGDA、NTA 和 EDG)被广泛应用于各种产品和工艺中。在欧盟,基于 "绿色交易 "和 "可持续发展化学品战略(CSS)",越来越倾向于加快化学品危害评估,并根据分子结构的相似性对物质进行分组,从而对化学品进行监管。最近,有人建议将聚羧酸一元胺、羟基衍生物及其盐与单价阳离子进行分组,并根据 CLP 的官方分类,将所有分组成员视为潜在致癌物,其中一个分组成员,即 NTA,被归类为疑似致癌物 Cat.2.在本综述中,我们表明,仅根据分子结构进行统一分类和标签的分组方法,无视现有的动物试验数据以及当前的科学和监管知识,会导致错误的分类。采用这种简单化的、尽管被认为是实用的方法,对所有组别成员进行预先分类不会改善对人类健康的保护。相反,它不仅会导致不必要的额外脊椎动物试验,还会对这些宝贵物质的使用施加繁琐和不相称的限制;其中一些甚至会被视为绿色化学品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Toxicology provides up-to-date, objective analyses of topics related to the mechanisms of action, responses, and assessment of health risks due to toxicant exposure. The journal publishes critical, comprehensive reviews of research findings in toxicology and the application of toxicological information in assessing human health hazards and risks. Toxicants of concern include commodity and specialty chemicals such as formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and pesticides; pharmaceutical agents of all types; consumer products such as macronutrients and food additives; environmental agents such as ambient ozone; and occupational exposures such as asbestos and benzene.
期刊最新文献
Xylene: weight of evidence approach case study to determine the need for an extended one generation reproductive study with a developmental neurotoxicity animal cohort. A critical review to identify data gaps and improve risk assessment of bisphenol A alternatives for human health. Review of epidemiological and toxicological studies on health effects from ingestion of asbestos in drinking water. Objective causal predictions from observational data. Mode of action of dieldrin-induced liver tumors: application to human risk assessment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1