Background:Assessing chemicals for their potential to cause male reproductive toxicity involves the evaluation of evidence obtained from experimental, epidemiological, and mechanistic studies. Although mechanistic evidence plays an important role in hazard identification and evidence integration, the process of identifying, screening and analyzing mechanistic studies and outcomes is a challenging exercise due to the diversity of research models and methods and the variety of known and proposed pathways for chemical-induced toxicity. Ten key characteristics of carcinogens provide a valuable tool for organizing and assessing chemical-specific data by potential mechanisms for cancer-causing agents. However, such an approach has not yet been developed for noncancer adverse outcomes.Objectives:The objective in this study was to identify a set of key characteristics that are frequently exhibited by exogenous agents that cause male reproductive toxicity and that could be applied for identifying, organizing, and summarizing mechanistic evidence related to this outcome.Discussion:The identification of eight key characteristics of male reproductive toxicants was based on a survey of known male reproductive toxicants and established mechanisms and pathways of toxicity. The eight key characteristics can provide a basis for the systematic, transparent, and objective organization of mechanistic evidence relevant to chemical-induced effects on the male reproductive system. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5045

High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) data has revolutionized the identification of environmental contaminants through non-targeted analysis (NTA). However, chemical identification remains challenging due to the vast number of unknown molecular features typically observed in environmental samples. Advanced data processing techniques are required to improve chemical identification workflows. The ideal workflow brings together a variety of data and tools to increase the certainty of identification. One such tool is chromatographic retention time (RT) prediction, which can be used to reduce the number of possible suspect chemicals within an observed RT window. This paper compares the relative predictive ability and applicability to NTA workflows of three RT prediction models: (1) a logP (octanol-water partition coefficient)-based model using EPI Suite™ logP predictions; (2) a commercially available ACD/ChromGenius model; and, (3) a newly developed Quantitative Structure Retention Relationship model called OPERA-RT. Models were developed using the same training set of 78 compounds with experimental RT data and evaluated for external predictivity on an identical test set of 19 compounds. Both the ACD/ChromGenius and OPERA-RT models outperformed the EPI Suite™ logP-based RT model (R = 0.81-0.92, 0.86-0.83, 0.66-0.69 for training-test sets, respectively). Further, both OPERA-RT and ACD/ChromGenius predicted 95% of RTs within a ± 15% chromatographic time window of experimental RTs. Based on these results, we simulated an NTA workflow with a ten-fold larger list of candidate structures generated for formulae of the known test set chemicals using the U.S. EPA's CompTox Chemistry Dashboard (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard), RTs for all candidates were predicted using both ACD/ChromGenius and OPERA-RT, and RT screening windows were assessed for their ability to filter out unlikely candidate chemicals and enhance potential identification. Compared to ACD/ChromGenius, OPERA-RT screened out a greater percentage of candidate structures within a 3-min RT window (60% vs. 40%) but retained fewer of the known chemicals (42% vs. 83%). By several metrics, the OPERA-RT model, generated as a proof-of-concept using a limited set of open source data, performed as well as the commercial tool ACD/ChromGenius when constrained to the same small training and test sets. As the availability of RT data increases, we expect the OPERA-RT model's predictive ability will increase.

Background: Biomonitoring studies indicate a trend towards increased human exposure to diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), a replacement for dibutyl phthalate (DBP). Recent reviews have found DIBP to be a male reproductive toxicant, but have not evaluated other hazards of DIBP exposure. Objective: To inform chemical risk assessment, we performed a systematic review to identify and characterize outcomes within six broad hazard categories (male reproductive, female reproductive, developmental, liver, kidney, and cancer) following exposure of nonhuman mammalian animals to DIBP or the primary metabolite, monoisobutyl phthalate (MIBP). Methods: A literature search was conducted in four online scientific databases [PubMed, Web of Science, Toxline, and Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions 2.0 (TSCATS2)], and augmented by review of regulatory sources as well as forward and backward searches. Studies were identified for inclusion based on defined PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) criteria. Studies were evaluated using criteria defined a priori for reporting quality, risk of bias, and sensitivity using a domain-based approach. Evidence was synthesized by outcome and life stage of exposure, and strength of evidence was summarized into categories of robust , moderate , slight , indeterminate , or compelling evidence of no effect , using a structured framework. Results: Nineteen toxicological studies in rats or mice met the inclusion criteria. There was robust evidence that DIBP causes male reproductive toxicity. Male rats and mice exposed to DIBP during gestation had decreased testosterone and adverse effects on sperm or testicular histology, with additional phthalate syndrome effects observed in male rats. There was also evidence of androgen-dependent and -independent male reproductive effects in rats and mice following peripubertal or young adult exposure to DIBP or MIBP, but confidence was reduced because of concerns over risk of bias and sensitivity in the available studies. There was also robust evidence that DIBP causes developmental toxicity; specifically, increased post-implantation loss and decreased pre- and postnatal growth. For other hazards, evidence was limited by the small number of studies, experimental designs that were suboptimal for evaluating outcomes, and study evaluation concerns such as incomplete reporting of methods and results. There was slight evidence for female reproductive toxicity and effects on liver, and indeterminate evidence for effects on kidney and cancer. Conclusion: Results support DIBP as a children's health concern and indicate that male reproductive and developmental toxicities are hazards of DIBP ...