Toxicological risk assessment and prioritization of drinking water relevant contaminants of emerging concern.

Toxicological risk assessment of contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) in (sources of) drinking water is required to identify potential health risks and prioritize chemicals for abatement or monitoring. In such assessments, concentrations of chemicals in drinking water or sources are compared to either (i) health-based (statutory) drinking water guideline values, (ii) provisional guideline values based on recent toxicity data in absence of drinking water guidelines, or (iii) generic drinking water target values in absence of toxicity data. Here, we performed a toxicological risk assessment for 163 CEC that were selected as relevant for drinking water. This relevance was based on their presence in drinking water and/or groundwater and surface water sources in downstream parts of the Rhine and Meuse, in combination with concentration levels and physicochemical properties. Statutory and provisional drinking water guideline values could be derived from publically available toxicological information for 142 of the CEC. Based on measured concentrations it was concluded that the majority of substances do not occur in concentrations which individually pose an appreciable human health risk. A health concern could however not be excluded for vinylchloride, trichloroethene, bromodichloromethane, aniline, phenol, 2-chlorobenzenamine, mevinphos, 1,4-dioxane, and nitrolotriacetic acid. For part of the selected substances, toxicological risk assessment for drinking water could not be performed since either toxicity data (hazard) or drinking water concentrations (exposure) were lacking. In absence of toxicity data, the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach can be applied for screening level risk assessment. The toxicological information on the selected substances was used to evaluate whether drinking water target values based on existing TTC levels are sufficiently protective for drinking water relevant CEC. Generic drinking water target levels of 37 μg/L for Cramer class I substances and 4 μg/L for Cramer class III substances in drinking water were derived based on these CEC. These levels are in line with previously reported generic drinking water target levels based on original TTC values and are shown to be protective for health effects of the majority of contaminants of emerging concern evaluated in the present study. Since the human health impact of many chemicals appearing in the water cycle has been studied insufficiently, generic drinking water target levels are useful for early warning and prioritization of CEC with unknown toxicity in drinking water and its sources for future monitoring.

Baken KA ，Sjerps RMA ，Schriks M ，van Wezel AP ... -  《-》

Toxicological relevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality.

The detection of many new compounds in surface water, groundwater and drinking water raises considerable public concern, especially when human health based guideline values are not available it is questioned if detected concentrations affect human health. In an attempt to address this question, we derived provisional drinking water guideline values for a selection of 50 emerging contaminants relevant for drinking water and the water cycle. For only 10 contaminants, statutory guideline values were available. Provisional drinking water guideline values were based upon toxicological literature data. The maximum concentration levels reported in surface waters, groundwater and/or drinking water were compared to the (provisional) guideline values of the contaminants thus obtained, and expressed as Benchmark Quotient (BQ) values. We focused on occurrence data in the downstream parts of the Rhine and Meuse river basins. The results show that for the majority of compounds a substantial margin of safety exists between the maximum concentration in surface water, groundwater and/or drinking water and the (provisional) guideline value. The present assessment therefore supports the conclusion that the majority of the compounds evaluated pose individually no appreciable concern to human health.

Schriks M ，Heringa MB ，van der Kooi MM ，de Voogt P ，van Wezel AP ... -  《-》

Health related guide values for drinking-water since 1993 as guidance to assess presence of new analytes in drinking-water.

Regulatory toxicologists, when going into assessment of a new analyte in drinking-water, very often miss the occasion to revert to scientifically consensual virtually safe lifetime exposure reference doses and corresponding health-related guide values (HRGV) for drinking-water, be those derived either to avoid concern over "threshold effects" or concern over exceedance of an unacceptable non-threshold cancer risk level. They then need a more restrictive precautionary yet science-compatible approach to directly avoid concern over the presence (measured concentration) of a new analyte in drinking-water. Therefore, the German Environment Agency (UBA, Umweltbundesamt) decided in 2003 to extrapolate international toxicological expertise collected since 1993 from assessing "old" analytes in drinking-water on new ones in form of five HRIV=health related indication values. They indicate the reasonable lowest maximal concentration from which on tiered or stepwise human toxicological evaluation of a new analyte might be necessary and meaningful. Their regulatory-toxicological function is that of placeholders as long as a possibly higher scientific HRGV or a surrogate value based on a threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) was not broadly agreed by science. The five-step HRIV scale between 0.01 and 3.0 μg/l combines international toxicological experience gained from "old" analytes since 1993 with the concepts of safety factors (SF(D)) to assess database deficiency and science-related extrapolation factors (EF) to extrapolate experimental data on humans. Each HRIV is valid and safe for a 2 l/day drinking-water exposure scenario either counting for 10% relative source contribution (compounds with threshold effects) or for a lifetime non-threshold cancer risk of up to 10(-6) and is the higher the more positive information exists regarding possible effects at critical toxic endpoints and for length of possible exposure. Past (historical) and present evaluations of "old" analytes were available in form of hundreds of HRGVs to count in 2 liters per day and person for 10% RSC or a 10(-6) non-threshold risk. These HRGVs were calculated by the present author either from ADI-, TDI- or RfD-values derived since 1993 by six large health authorities or they were identified directly at their websites or in the literature, always looking for confirmed or assumed worldwide relevance for drinking-water (resources). 36 of these up to 200 "old" analytes were ascribed since 1993 at least once an HRGV at or below 1 μg/l for (confirmed or provisionally assumed) "high" or "very high" threshold chronic toxicity. None but one of the corresponding 113 scientific HRGVs fell distinctly short of 0.3 μg/l. Only 14 carcinogens turned out as being relevant for drinking-water due to confirmed occurrence and coincident toxicological significance there. 13 of these exhibited a structural alert for genotoxicity. Ten of these 13 were "high-potency" genotoxic carcinogens with presently calculated non-threshold 10(-6) risk minimal HRGVs between 0.06 μg/l and 0.005 μg/l (9 compounds) or possibly down to 0.0007 μg/l (1 compound). This motivated UBA to propose a precautionary range between a minimal HRIV0=0.01 and a HRIV1=0.1 μg/l to assess new analytes bearing a structural alert for genotoxicity. The HRGVs for the remaining three (from 13) carcinogens with alerts for genotoxicity were at best similar for both genotoxic and non-genotoxic effects and higher or equal to 0.3 μg/l. Therefore, a minimal HRIV of 0.01 μg/l (HRIV0) or even 0.1 μg/l (HRIV1) would have appeared too low for assessing the presence in drinking-water of new analytes with no other human toxicity data than proven absence of both genotoxicity and of structural alerts for such. Instead, UBA proposes to provisionally assess such compounds by its next higher precautionary of HRIV3=0.3 μg/l. Any value once set is open for falsification upwards to either 1.0 μg/l (HRIV4) or 3.0 μg/l (HRIV5) or even for being replaced by an HRGV>3.0 μg/l if pertinent high toxicity effect potentials different from genotoxicity are similarly ruled out by either mechanistic and TTC-based arguments or a tiered experimental (in vitro and/or in vivo) approach. Regulatory-toxicological expertise gained since 1993 with "old" analytes in drinking-water (resources) and its extrapolation by analogy on new analytes with patchy human toxicological database allows for provisional assessment of their presence in drinking-water in form of five precautionary HRIVs. Selecting a HRIV, instead referring to a TTC or a virtually safe reference dose, just asks an expert judgment on the degree of formal completeness and informational potential of a new analyte's human toxicity database. Exceedance of a HRIV indicates need for supplementary toxicological data to improve assessment, their nature and comprehensiveness depending on degree and expected length of exceedance. The regulatory function of a HRIV is that of a placeholder for a possibly higher TTC-based surrogate HRGVTTC or a highest possible science-based HRGV.

Dieter HH 《-》

Use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach for deriving target values for drinking water contaminants.

Ongoing pollution and improving analytical techniques reveal more and more anthropogenic substances in drinking water sources, and incidentally in treated water as well. In fact, complete absence of any trace pollutant in treated drinking water is an illusion as current analytical techniques are capable of detecting very low concentrations. Most of the substances detected lack toxicity data to derive safe levels and have not yet been regulated. Although the concentrations in treated water usually do not have adverse health effects, their presence is still undesired because of customer perception. This leads to the question how sensitive analytical methods need to become for water quality screening, at what levels water suppliers need to take action and how effective treatment methods need to be designed to remove contaminants sufficiently. Therefore, in the Netherlands a clear and consistent approach called 'Drinking Water Quality for the 21st century (Q21)' has been developed within the joint research program of the drinking water companies. Target values for anthropogenic drinking water contaminants were derived by using the recently introduced Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach. The target values for individual genotoxic and steroid endocrine chemicals were set at 0.01 μg/L. For all other organic chemicals the target values were set at 0.1 μg/L. The target value for the total sum of genotoxic chemicals, the total sum of steroid hormones and the total sum of all other organic compounds were set at 0.01, 0.01 and 1.0 μg/L, respectively. The Dutch Q21 approach is further supplemented by the standstill-principle and effect-directed testing. The approach is helpful in defining the goals and limits of future treatment process designs and of analytical methods to further improve and ensure the quality of drinking water, without going to unnecessary extents.

Mons MN ，Heringa MB ，van Genderen J ，Puijker LM ，Brand W ，van Leeuwen CJ ，Stoks P ，van der Hoek JP ，van der Kooij D ... -  《-》

Toxicity assessment strategies, data requirements, and risk assessment approaches to derive health based guidance values for non-relevant metabolites of plant protection products.

In Europe, limits for tolerable concentrations of "non-relevant metabolites" for active ingredients (AI) of plant protection products in drinking water between 0.1 and 10 microg/L are discussed depending on the toxicological information available. "Non-relevant metabolites" are degradation products of AIs, which do not or only partially retain the targeted toxicities of AIs. For "non-relevant metabolites" without genotoxicity (to be confirmed by testing in vitro), the application of the concept of "thresholds of toxicological concern" results in a health-based drinking water limit of 4.5 microg/L even for Cramer class III compounds, using the TTC threshold of 90 microg/person/day (divided by 10 and 2). Taking into account the thresholds derived from two reproduction toxicity data bases a drinking water limit of 3.0 microg/L is proposed. Therefore, for "non-relevant metabolites" whose drinking water concentration is below 3.0 microg/L, no toxicity testing is necessary. This work develops a toxicity assessment strategy as a basis to delineate health-based limits for "non-relevant metabolites" in ground and drinking water. Toxicological testing is recommended to investigate, whether the metabolites are relevant or not, based on the hazard properties of the parent AIs, as outlined in the SANCO Guidance document. Also, genotoxicity testing of the water metabolites is clearly recommended. In this publication, tiered testing strategies are proposed for non-relevant metabolites, when drinking water concentrations >3.0 microg/L will occur. Conclusions based on structure-activity relationships and the detailed toxicity database on the parent AI should be included. When testing in animals is required for risk assessment, key aspects are studies along OECD-testing guidelines with "enhanced" study designs addressing additional endpoints such as reproductive toxicity and a developmental screening test to derive health-based tolerable drinking water limits with a limited number of animals. The testing strategies are similar to those used in the initial hazard assessment of high production volume (HPV) chemicals. For "non-relevant metabolites" which are also formed as products of the biotransformation of the parent AI in mammals, the proposed toxicity testing strategies uses the repeat-dose oral toxicity study combined with a reproductive/developmental screening as outlined in OECD test guidelines 407 and 422 with integration of determination of hormonal activities. For "non-relevant metabolites" not formed during biotransformation of the AI in mammals, the strategy relies on an "enhanced" 90-day oral study covering additional endpoints regarding hormonal effects and male and female fertility in combination with a prenatal developmental toxicity study (OECD test guideline 414). The integration of the results of these studies into the risk assessment process applies large minimal margins of exposure (MOEs) to compensate for the shorter duration of the studies. The results of the targeted toxicity testing will provide a science basis for setting tolerable drinking water limits for "non-relevant metabolites" based on their toxicology. Based on the recommendations given in the SANCO guidance document and the work described in this and the accompanying paper, a concise re-evaluation of the Guidance document is proposed.

Dekant W ，Melching-Kollmuss S ，Kalberlah F 《-》