Creation of a Curated Aquatic Toxicology Database: EnviroTox

Abstract

Flexible, rapid, and predictive approaches that do not require the use of large numbers of vertebrate test animals are needed because the chemical universe remains largely untested for potential hazards. Development of robust new approach methodologies and nontesting approaches requires the use of existing information via curated, integrated data sets. The ecological threshold of toxicological concern (ecoTTC) represents one such new approach methodology that can predict a conservative de minimis toxicity value for chemicals with little or no information available. For the creation of an ecoTTC tool, a large, diverse environmental data set was developed from multiple sources, with harmonization, characterization, and information quality assessment steps to ensure that the information could be effectively organized and mined. The resulting EnviroTox database contains 91 217 aquatic toxicity records representing 1563 species and 4016 unique Chemical Abstracts Service numbers and is a robust, curated database containing high‐quality aquatic toxicity studies that are traceable to the original information source. Chemical‐specific information is also linked to each record and includes physico‐chemical information, chemical descriptors, and mode of action classifications. Toxicity data are associated with the physico‐chemical data, mode of action classifications, and curated taxonomic information for the organisms tested. The EnviroTox platform also includes 3 analysis tools: a predicted‐no‐effect concentration calculator, an ecoTTC distribution tool, and a chemical toxicity distribution tool. Although the EnviroTox database and tools were originally developed to support ecoTTC analysis and development, they have broader applicability to the field of ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;9999:1–12. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Fish embryo tests and acute fish toxicity tests are interchangeable in the application of the threshold approach

“…In regard to the criticism that specifically acting compounds are under-represented in comparisons of sensitivity (thereby making it likely that fish would be put at risk if FET data were used instead), a larger evaluation of ecotoxicological data has begun using a recently curated database in the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (2018) ecological Threshold of Toxicologic Concern project (including some 60 000þ studies). The results suggest that the trends observed in the present study hold for specifically acting compounds when acute toxicity is the focus (Belanger et al 2015;Connors et al 2019;K.A. Connors et al, personal communication).…”

“… a All compounds are found in the EnviroTox database from which a consensus mode of action is identified. Complete descriptions of classification categories can be found in Mayo‐Bean et al (; for EcoSAR), Carriger et al (; for TEST); Russom et al (; for ASTER); Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development Toolbox (2018; for OASIS); Verhaar et al (1992; for Verhaar); and Connors et al ; Kienzler et al ; Health and Environmental Sciences Institute ; for Consensus.…”

“…Several mode of action assignment algorithms were used to provide perspective on the distributions of modes of action for compounds in the database. These included: SAR categories assigned by 1) EcoSAR (Mayo‐Bean et al ); 2) TEST and MOATox (Carriger et al ; US Environmental Protection Agency 2018; termed “TEST”); 3) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ASsessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk (ASTER) assignments (Russom et al ; Computer Sciences Corporation ); 4) assignments by OASIS using the OECD Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship (QSAR) Toolbox (Kienzler et al ; Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development ); 5) Verhaar classifications (Verhaar et al ; termed “Verhaar”); and Connors et al () (Health and Environmental Sciences Institute 2018 [for the EnviroTox database]; Kienzler et al ; termed “Consensus”). The intent of the mode of action exercise was to gain additional insight into the diversity of chemicals present in the database beyond the physical chemical descriptors of molecular weight, log K OW , and solubility.…”

Development of a hybrid Bayesian network model for predicting acute fish toxicity using multiple lines of evidence

“…This way, our dataset could be reserved for model validation. A candidate dataset for model parametrisation is the aquatic toxicology database EnviroTox (Connors et al, 2019). However, the EnviroTox database has not yet received the same level of curation as our dataset and may introduce additional noise into our model.…”

Modeling Regulatory Threshold Levels for Pesticides in Surface Waters from Effect Databases

“…To exclude studies that are unlikely to be used in ERA due to low reliability, filter criteria were formulated based on the provided information on test characteristics (see Tables A1 and A2) and in accordance with official validity criteria [10][11][12][13][14]33]. One rather theoretical approach to systematically filter large aquatic toxicity databases was, for instance, published by Beasley et al (i.e., SIFT method) [34], and was recently applied to a large set of collected aquatic toxicity data with a focus on industrial chemical risk assessment [35]. In the present study, we developed a similar approach focusing on pesticide risk assessment by translating official validity criteria from standardized test protocols [10][11][12][13]33] and the US EPA guideline for the review of open literature studies [14] into an SQL code.…”