Search

The Daphnia 21 d reproduction test is considered as a comprehensive and decisive test in the OECD Conceptual Framework for testing and assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). However, how to interpret results of the Daphnia 21 d reproduction test for identification, risk assessment and testing strategy of EDCs remains an unsolved issue. This study analysed a total number of 135 published studies encompassing 86 known EDCs and non-EDCs with different modes of action. Our results show that the majority of effects on apical endpoints (survival, molting, growth, time to reproductive maturity, brood size, the number of broods, and the total number of offspring) do not seem to be EDC-specific. In contrast, the endpoint sex ratio is likely specific to juvenile hormones and their mimics. Variability is quantified for three most reported endpoints survival, the total number of offspring and sex ratio. Quantification of the endpoint sensitivity shows that the sensitivity of the sex ratio is lower than that of the total number of offspring. The Daphnia 21 d reproduction test gives insufficient information to conclude if a substance is an EDC or not. EDCs that are potent in assays in vitro may not be potent in the Daphnia 21 d reproduction test. We conclude that the Daphnia 21 d reproduction test is important for deriving No Observed Effect Concentrations for risk assessment but may produce false negatives in identification of EDCs when used on its own. A targeted testing strategy for selection of species, tests, and endpoints is suggested for identifying EDCs., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In a fish testing strategy, positive results of the fish short term reproduction assay (FSTR), often trigger a definitive test like the fish sexual development test (FSDT) or the fish full life cycle test (FFLC), entailing ethical and economic problems. This study analysed 137 studies encompassing 35 chemicals with different modes of actions (MOAs). Variability is quantified for MOA endpoints vitellogenin (VTG) and secondary sex characteristics (SSCs) as well as for apical endpoints. Two MOA endpoints could indicate estrogenic, anti-estrogenic, androgenic, anti-androgenic and steroidogenesis activities. Great variability, however, has been observed for chemicals with anti-androgenic and steroidogenesis activities, suggesting that TG229/230 may not be sensitive enough to detect these types of chemicals and may produce false negatives. Changes in apical endpoints like fecundity are not limited to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Non-EDCs could induce the similar effects on these apical endpoints. If elucidating MOA is needed, targeted in vitro MOA tests are suggested. Positive in vitro MOA results trigger a definitive test, which could be used for confirmation of the MOA in vivo and for deriving a no observed effect concentration (NOEC). Based on positive MOA results of TG229, a definitive test such as the FSDT or the FFLC is still needed, because the current TG229 has limitation on the derivation of a NOEC. An extended TG229 with more power to detect reproduction effects, as recently proposed in the OECD test guideline program, would improve the possibility to derive a NOEC and increase its usefulness in risk assessment., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)