No 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

No abstract

No abstract

Under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) analysis of alternatives (AoA) process, quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models play an important role in expanding information gathering and organizing frameworks. Increasingly recognized as an alternative to testing under registration. QSARs have become a relevant tool in bridging data gaps and supporting weight of evidence (WoE) when assessing alternative substances. Additionally, QSARs are growing in importance in integrated testing strategies (ITS).For example, the REACH ITS framework for specific endpoints directs registrants to consider non-testing results, including QSAR predictions, when deciding if further animal testing is needed. Despite the raised profile of QSARs in these frameworks, a gap exists in the evaluation of QSAR use and QSAR documentation under authorization. An assessment of the different uses (e.g., WoE and ITS) in which QSAR predictions play a role in evidence gathering and organizing remains unaddressed for AoA. This study approached the disparity in information for QSAR predictions by conducting a substantive review of 24 AoA through May 2017, which contained higher-tier endpoints under REACH. Understanding the manner in which applicants manage QSAR prediction information in AoA and assessing their potential within ITS will be valuable in promoting regulatory use of QSARs and building out future platforms in the face of rapidly evolving technology while advancing information transparency.