4.5 Article

Resampling the bioconcentration factors data from Japan's chemical substances control law database to simulate and evaluate the bioconcentration factors derived from minimized aqueous exposure tests

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 406-409

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2069

Keywords

Bioconcentration; Bioaccumulation; Minimized aqueous exposure test; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development test guideline 305; Common carp

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Existing standard bioconcentration tests (e.g., the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] test guideline 305) require large numbers of test animals and resources. The minimized aqueous exposure test is a new approach based on the standard bioconcentration test but allows estimation of bioconcentration factor (BCF) by minimized sampling of the test fish. The authors collected BCF data (298 curves from 155 chemicals, using common carp as test species) from Japan's Chemical Substances Control Law database and resampled the data to simulate the calculation of BCF that would be obtained if studies had been designed to obtain kinetic BCF derived from minimized aqueous exposure tests (BCFkm). The correlation was high (r2?=?0.967) between BCF derived from standard bioconcentration tests (BCFfull) and BCFkm. The average value of the BCFfull to BCFkm ratio (BCFfull:BCFkm) was 1.04 and ranged from 0.54 to 1.93, the 5th and 95th percentiles being 0.74 and 1.45, respectively. The results based on the 5th and 95th percentiles of the BCFfull:BCFkm ratio suggest that BCFfull 2,000 corresponds to BCFkm 1,400 to 2,700, whereas BCFfull 5,000 corresponds to BCFkm 3,400 to 6,800. The authors also emphasize that the standard bioconcentration test should be performed when the resulting BCFkm is in the region of regulatory concern. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:406409. (C) 2012 SETAC

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available