Environmental Toxicity (Q)SARs for Polymers as an Emerging Class of Materials in Regulatory Frameworks, with a Focus on Challenges and Possibilities Regarding Cationic Polymers
Polymers are highly diverse and understudied materials from an environmental toxicity point of view. For the past decades, polymers have largely been out of scope regarding detailed safety assessment in most regulatory programs as they are assumed to not possess relevant toxicological properties due to their size. This regulatory exclusion is currently being reconsidered. This chapter discusses the available information about selected cationic polymers and outlines (Q)SAR ((Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship) approaches that could be used to develop new models to demonstrate potential aquatic toxicity of polymers. The amount of publicly available, high-quality environmental toxicity data on industrial polymers such as cationic polyquaterniums is extremely limited. Given the large size (dimension and molecular weight) of the materials, typical hydrophobicity-driven toxicity is not expected. Relevant descriptors for cationic polymers need to be identified. Molecular weight and charge density are well-known physical-chemical attributes that are suspected to be correlated with aquatic toxicity, but there might be other relevant descriptors as well.
We suggest models that predict polymer properties may be useful for estimating relevant properties regarding toxicity. Moreover, novel fragment-based 2D and 3D hologram (Q)SAR (H(Q)SAR) may prove relevant in determining these properties that can be used to derive hypotheses about toxic mechanisms and guide experimental test designs. In a regulatory context, (Q)SARs have to be transparent and scientifically robust which extends to fragment-based models that may be useful in categorizing polymers. The toxicity of category members can then be experimentally explored, and read-across strategies developed within the category.
The authors of this chapter are pursuing polymer (Q)SAR strategies in the coming years via generation of novel experimental and computational data on polyquaterniums. We will also evaluate the potential for fragment-based (Q)SARs for polymers in REACH.
Key wordsPolymers Chemometric tools Descriptors Environmental toxicity Cationic Polyquaterniums
This work was supported by Cefic in the LRI project ECO46: iTAP (http://cefic-lri.org/projects/eco-46-improved-aquatic-testing-and-assessment-of-cationic-polymers-itap/). KK thanks Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, for financial support in the form of a senior research fellowship.
- 1.ECHA, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Article 138(2)Google Scholar
- 2.Mayo-Bean K, Moran K, Meylan B, Ranslow P (2012) Methodology document for the ECOlogical Structure-Activity Relationship Model (ECOSAR) class program. US-EPA, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
- 3.Boethling RS, Nabholz JV (1996) Environmental assessment of polymers under the US Toxic Substances Control Act. United States Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
- 4.USEPA (2013) Polymer guidance: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/polyguid.pdf
- 5.Sanderson H, Thomsen M (2009) Comparative analysis of pharmaceuticals versus industrial chemicals acute aquatic toxicity classification according to the United Nations classification system for chemicals. Assessment of the (Q) SAR predictability of pharmaceuticals acute aquatic toxicity and their predominant acute toxic mode-of-action. Toxicol Lett 187:84–93PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Biesinger KE, Stokes GN (1986) Effects of synthetic polyelectrolytes on selected aquatic organisms. J Water Pollut Control Fed 58:207–213Google Scholar
- 9.OECD (2019) Guidance document on aqueous-phase aquatic toxicity testing of difficult test chemicals. Series on testing and assessment. No. 23 (second edition). Paris, 81pGoogle Scholar
- 10.USEPA (1996) Ecological effects test guidelines OPPTS 850.1085 fish acute toxicity mitigated by humic acid. EPA712–C–96–117. Washington D.C., p 10Google Scholar
- 17.Cumming JL (2008) Environmental fate, aquatic toxicology and risk assessment of polymeric quaternary ammonium salts from cosmetic uses. Griffith University, Mount GravattGoogle Scholar
- 23.Khan K, Kar S, Sanderson H, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2018) Ecotoxicological assessment of pharmaceuticals using computational toxicology approaches: QSTR and interspecies QTTR modeling. In: Proceedings of MOL2NET 2017, international conference on multidisciplinary sciences, 3rd edn. MDPI AG, Switzerland, Basel, p 1Google Scholar
- 24.Khan K, Kar S, Sanderson H, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2019) Ecotoxicological modeling, ranking and prioritization of pharmaceuticals using QSTR and i-QSTTR approaches: application of 2D and fragment based descriptors. Mol Inform, 38, article 1800078, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/minf.201800078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.ECHA European Chemicals Agency (2012) Guidance on registration. Version 2.0. Guidance for the implementation of REACHGoogle Scholar
- 30.Netzeva T, Pavan M, Worth A (2007) Review of data sources, (Q)SARs and integrated testing strategies for aquatic toxicity. European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 38.Roy K, Kar S, Das RN (2015) A primer on (Q)SAR/QSPR modeling: fundamental concepts. Springer, UK. https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/environmental-science-nano/
- 39.Roy K, Kar S, Das RN (2015) Statistical methods in (Q)SAR/QSPR. In: A primer on (Q)SAR/QSPR modeling. Springer, NY, USA, pp 37–59Google Scholar
- 40.Mauri A, Consonni V, Pavan M, Todeschini R, software D (2006) An easy approach to molecular descriptor calculations. Match 56:237–248Google Scholar
- 42.Alvadesc (2019) https://www.alvascience.com/alvadesc/
- 46.Zhang Q, Couloigner I (2005) A new and efficient k-medoid algorithm for spatial clustering. In: International conference on computational science and its applications. Springer, NY, USA, pp 181–189Google Scholar
- 53.J.R. Smith, D. Knight, J. Kohn, K. Rasheed, N. Weber, S. Abramson (2003) Using non-linear regression to predict bioresponse in a combinatorial library of biodegradable polymers, MRS Online Proc Libr, vol 804, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar