Abstract
The personal care products (PCPs) constitute various nonmedical products intended only for the application on the body surface and are not used to treat internal body problems like infections, etc. With a continuous change in culture and lifestyle in the society, the consumption of PCPs has increased several fold. In contrast, biocides are any chemical substances administered individually or in mixture with the intention of “destroying, deterring, rendering harmless, preventing the action of, or otherwise exerting a controlling effect on, any harmful organism by any means other than mere physical or mechanical action.” The exponential rises in domestic application of PCPs and biocides have rendered them to be potential causes of environmental pollution. Their continuous detection in river bodies mainly due to improper treatment and uncontrolled release via sewage treatment plants has proven to be a leading cause of harm to ecological species. Some of them have been proved to have potential to become contaminants of emerging concern (CEC). Insufficient ecotoxicological data of PCPs for their environmental behavior and ecotoxicity have rendered Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) administered by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission to release guidelines pertaining to safer use and risk associated with it. On the other hand, Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) EU 528/2012 was enacted to improve functioning of the biocide market and to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment. In silico tools such as quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) and read-across can be employed using existing information to rapidly identify the potentially most toxic and hazardous toxic PCPs/biocides and prioritize the most environmentally hazardous ones. QSAR is widely used to obtain predictions of known/untested or not yet synthesized chemicals in order to prioritize them as various toxic classes of potential hazard causing ingredients. The present chapter enlists the information related to impact and occurrence of PCPs/biocides along with their persistence, environmental fate, risk assessment, and risk management. Additionally, a special emphasis is given on in silico tools such as QSAR which can be employed in prediction of environmental fate of personal care products and biocides mainly related to the ecotoxicity to aquatic species. Finally, a detailed report is prepared on endpoints, ecotoxicity databases, and expert systems frequently used for ecotoxicity predictions of personal care products and biocides with the aim to justify the development and implementation of in silico tools in early risk assessment and reduction of animal experimentation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
De P, Roy K (2018) Greener chemicals for the future: QSAR modelling of the PBT index using ETA descriptors. SAR QSAR Environ Res 29:319–337
Kar S, SepÃlveda MS, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2017) Endocrine-disrupting activity of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances: exploring combined approaches of ligand and structure based modeling. Chemosphere 184:514–523
E. Union (2012) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. Off J Eur Union L 167:1–116
Devillers J, Mombelli E, Samsera R (2011) Structural alerts for estimating the carcinogenicity of pesticides and biocides. SAR QSAR Environ Res 22:89–106
Dich J, Zahm SH, Hanberg A, Adami H-O (1997) Pesticides and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 8:420–443
Available at https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/cosmetics-market (2019)
Available at https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/biocides-market (2019)
Khan K, Roy K, Benfenati E (2019) Ecotoxicological QSAR modeling of endocrine disruptor chemicals. J Hazard Mater 369:707–718
Khan PM, Roy K, Benfenati E (2019) Chemometric modeling of Daphnia magna toxicity of agrochemicals. Chemosphere 224:470–479
Khan K, Benfenati E, Roy K (2019) Consensus QSAR modeling of toxicity of pharmaceuticals to different aquatic organisms: ranking and prioritization of the DrugBank database compounds. Ecotox Environ Safe 168:287–297
Hossain KA, Roy K (2018) Chemometric modeling of aquatic toxicity of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in Dugesia japonica and its interspecies correlation with daphnia and fish: QSTR and QSTTR approaches. Ecotox Environ Safe 166:92–101
Khan K, Kar S, Sanderson H, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2019) Ecotoxicological modeling, ranking and prioritization of pharmaceuticals using QSTR and QSTTR approaches: application of 2D and fragment based descriptors. Mol Inform, 38, article 1800078, https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201800078
Gramatica P, Cassani S, Sangion A (2016) Aquatic ecotoxicity of personal care products: QSAR models and ranking for prioritization and safer alternatives’ design. Green Chem 18:4393–4406
Khan K, Roy K (2017) Ecotoxicological modelling of cosmetics for aquatic organisms: a QSTR approach. SAR QSAR Environ Res 28:567–594
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 DC
Khan K, Baderna D, Cappelli C, Toma C, Lombardo A, Roy K, Benfenati E (2019) Ecotoxicological QSAR modeling of organic compounds against fish: application of fragment based descriptors in feature analysis. Aquat Toxicol 212:162
ECHA (2019) https://echa.europa.eu/-/poison-centres-guidance
European commission Cosmetic ingredient database (2019) Available at https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/cosing_en. Access on March-May 2019
Di Nica V, Gallet J, Villa S, Mezzanotte V (2017) Toxicity of quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) as single compounds and mixtures to aquatic non-target microorganisms: experimental data and predictive models. Ecotox Environ Safe 142:567–577
Yamagishi T, Miyazaki T, Horii S, Akiyama K (1983) Synthetic musk residues in biota and water from Tama River and Tokyo Bay (Japan). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 12:83–89
ICID, ICID International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook (2008) 12th Edition and 2014 18th edition, published by The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, Washington, DC
Cui Y, Teo S, Leong W, Chai C (2014) Searching for “environmentally-benign” antifouling biocides. Int J Mol Sci 15:9255–9284
Ellis JB (2006) Pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) in urban receiving waters. Environ Pollut 144:184–189
Vimalkumar K, Arun E, Krishna-Kumar S, Poopal RK, Nikhil NP, Subramanian A, Babu-Rajendran R (2018) Occurrence of triclocarban and benzotriazole ultraviolet stabilizers in water, sediment, and fish from Indian rivers. Sci Total Environ 625:1351–1360
Govindarajalu K (2003) Industrial effluent and health status: a case study of Noyyal river basin. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on environment and health. Citeseer, Chennai, pp 15–17
Holah J, Taylor J, Dawson D, Hall K (2002) Biocide use in the food industry and the disinfectant resistance of persistent strains of listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli. J Appl Microbiol 92:111S–120S
McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Tarone RE (2003) Suicide among women with cosmetic breast implants: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. J Long-Term Eff Med Implants 13:6
Miller LG, Quan C, Shay A, Mostafaie K, Bharadwa K, Tan N, Matayoshi K, Cronin J, Tan J, Tagudar G (2007) A prospective investigation of outcomes after hospital discharge for endemic, community-acquired methicillin-resistant and-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus skin infection. Clin Infect Dis 44:483–492
sccs (2019) https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/opinions_en
ECSID, European commission Cosmetic ingredient database 2019 (2019) Available at https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/cosing_en. Access on March-May 2019
Roy K, Kar S (2016) In Silico models for ecotoxicity of pharmaceuticals, in. Springer, In Silico methods for predicting drug toxicity, pp 237–304
Krewski D, Westphal M, Andersen ME, Paoli GM, Chiu WA, Al-Zoughool M, Croteau MC, Burgoon LD, Cote I (2014) A framework for the next generation of risk science. Environ Health Perspect 122:796–805
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment Risk Management (1997) Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision-making. Final Report. Vol. 2.Washington, DC:PCRARM. Available: http://www.riskworld.com. Accessed 4 Mar 2019
Kar S, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2018) Impact of pharmaceuticals on the environment: risk assessment using QSAR modeling approach. In: Computational toxicology. Springer, NY, pp 395–443
EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2015) Website accessed in 2015. https://www.efsa.europa.eu
Kummerer K (2007) Sustainable from the very beginning: rational design of molecules by life cycle engineering as an important approach for green pharmacy and green chemistry. Green Chem 9:899–907
SCOPUS (2019) Available at https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Papa E, Sangion A, Arnot JA, Gramatica P (2018) Development of human biotransformation QSARs and application for PBT assessment refinement. Food Chem Toxicol 112:535–543
Roy K, Mitra I (2011) On various metrics used for validation of predictive QSAR models with applications in virtual screening and focused library design. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 14:450–474
Gramatica P, Papa E, Sangion A (2018) QSAR modeling of cumulative environmental end-points for the prioritization of hazardous chemicals. Environ Sci Process Impacts 20:38–47
Önlü S, Saçan MT (2017) An in silico approach to cytotoxicity of pharmaceuticals and personal care products on the rainbow trout liver cell line RTL-W1. Environ Toxicol Chem 36:1162–1169
Agarwal M, Frank MI (2019) Spartan: a software tool for parallelization bottleneck analysis, in: 2009 ICSE workshop on multicore software engineering. IEEE 2009:56–63
Mauri A, Consonni V, Pavan M, Todeschini R, software D (2006) An easy approach to molecular descriptor calculations. Match 56:237–248
Gramatica P, Chirico N, Papa E, Cassani S, Kovarich S (2013) QSARINS: a new software for the development, analysis, and validation of QSAR MLR models. J Comput Chem 34:2121–2132
Cassani S, Gramatica P (2015) Identification of potential PBT behavior of personal care products by structural approaches. Sustainable Chem Pharm 1:19–27
De García SAO, Pinto GP, García-Encina PA, Irusta-Mata R (2014) Ecotoxicity and environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in aquatic environments and wastewater treatment plants. Ecotoxicology 23:1517–1533
Toropova AP, Toropov AA (2018) Use of the index of ideality of correlation to improve models of eco-toxicity. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:31771–31775
Matthews EJ (2019) In silico scaling and prioritization of chemical disposition and chemical toxicity of 15,145 organic chemicals. Comput Toxicol 9:100–132
Percepta, from Advanced Chemistry Development (ACD) Labs (2018) http://www.acdlabs.com/products/percepta/
Center Watch, website accessed in 2015. www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approvals/
Drugs@FDA, website accessed in 2015. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/
The Good Scents Company (2018) http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com
CFSAN Thesaurus, accessed February 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/ToolsMaterials/ucm181420.htm
EAFUS List. Everything added to food in the United States. www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnnavigation.cfm?rpt=eafuslisting
Health Canada, website accessed in 2015. http://hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/list/11-preserv-conserv-eng.php
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), website accessed in 2015. https://www.efsa.europa.eu
FDA GRAS. GRAS notice inventory (2018) https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeInventory/default.htm
Fragrance Products Information Network. http://pw1.netcom.com/~bcb56/fpin.htm, http://www.fpinva.org/text/1a5d908-130.html (web link no longer available)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) list of fragrance chemicals in household products (15/49 FPIN HOME PAGE OVERVIEW HEALTH FRAGRANCEMATERIALS. Accessed 23 Apr 2013
FPIN_LP: Common fragrance Chemicals in Laundry Products & cleaners, the FPINVA fragrances were compiled by Betty Bridges (RN, 08/2006, http://www.fpinva.org/text/1a5d908-120.html) from Aldrich’s Flavors and Fragrances Catalog
GIVAUDAN & IFF fragrance manufactures. https://www.givaudan.com/, http://www.iff.com/
ICID International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook, 2008 12thEdition and 2014 18th Edition, published by The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, Washington, DC
Hair dyes. www.accord.asn.au
Arvidson KB, Chanderbhan R, Muldoon-Jacobs K, Mayer J, Ogungbesan A (2010) Regulatory use of computational toxicology tools and databases at the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Food Additive Safety. Expert Opin Drug MetabToxicol 6:793–796
Color of art database, the color of art pigment database, an artist reference. Accessed in 2013. http://www.artoscreation.com/colorindes.index.html
Ink Dystuffs. Accessed in 2012. http://www.trader-ina.com/Chemicals/Dyestuffs/Ink-Dyestuffs_3.html
Stainsfile Dye Index. Accessed in 2013. http://stainsfile.info/StainsFile/dyes/dyes.htm
Batke M, Gütlein M, Partosch F, Gundert-Remy U, Helma C, Kramer S, Maunz A, Seeland M, Bitsch A (2016) Innovative strategies to develop chemical categories using a combination of structural and toxicological properties. Front Pharmacol 7:321
Bitsch A, Jacobi S, Melber C, Wahnschaffe U, Simetska N, Mangelsdorf I (2006) REPDOSE: a database on repeated dose toxicity studies of commercial chemicals—a multifunctional tool. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 46:202–210
Barabair F, Olsson H, Sokull-Klütgen B (2009) European List of notified chemical substances-ELINCS. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Brussels
A free web service tool. Accessible at http://mlc-reach.informatik.uni-mainz.de
Verma RP, Matthews EJ (2015) Estimation of the chemical-induced eye injury using a weight-of-evidence (WoE) battery of 21 artificial neural network (ANN) c-QSAR models (QSAR-21): part I: irritation potential. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71:318–330
Khan K, Kar S, Sanderson H, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2017) 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, p 1
Hisaki T, née Kaneko MA, Yamaguchi M, Sasa H, Kouzuki H (2015) Development of QSAR models using artificial neural network analysis for risk assessment of repeated-dose, reproductive, and developmental toxicities of cosmetic ingredients. J Toxicol Sci 40:163–180
Enslein K, Gombar VK (1997) TOPKAT 5.0 and modulation of toxicity. Mutat Res-fund Mol M 379:S14–S14
Plošnik A, Zupan J, Vračko M (2015) Evaluation of toxic endpoints for a set of cosmetic ingredients with CAESAR models. Chemosphere 120:492–499
Roy K, Das RN, Ambure P, Aher RB (2016) Be aware of error measures. Further studies on validation of predictive QSAR models. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 152:18–33
Development Core Team R (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. Available online at 〈http://www.R-project.org/〉
Ritz C, Streibig JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Softw 12:1–22
Jentzsch F, Olsson O, Westphal J, Reich M, Leder C, Kümmerer K (2016) Photodegradation of the UV filter ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate under ultraviolet light: identification and in silico assessment of photo-transformation products in the context of grey water reuse. Sci Total Environ 572:1092–1100
Chakravarti SK, Saiakhov RD, Klopman G (2012) Optimizing predictive performance of CASE ultra expert system models using the applicability domains of individual toxicity alerts. J Chem Inf Model 52:2609–2618
Liu H, Sun P, Liu H, Yang S, Wang L, Wang Z (2015) Acute toxicity of benzophenone-type UV filters for Photobacterium phosphoreum and Daphnia magna: QSAR analysis, interspecies relationship and integrated assessment. Chemosphere 135:182–188
Kar S, Das RN, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2016) Can toxicity for different species be correlated?: the concept and emerging applications of interspecies quantitative structure-toxicity relationship (i-QSTR) modeling. IJQSPR 1:23–51
Papa E, Luini M, Gramatica P (2009) Quantitative structure–activity relationship modelling of oral acute toxicity and cytotoxic activity of fragrance materials in rodents. SAR QSAR Environ Res 20:767–779
De Vaugelade S, Nicol E, Vujovic S, Bourcier S, Pirnay S, Bouchonnet S (2018) Ultraviolet–visible phototransformation of dehydroacetic acid–structural characterization of photoproducts and global ecotoxicity. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 32:862–870
Campbell JL, Yoon M, Clewell HJ (2015) A case study on quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation for environmental esters: methyl-, propyl- and butylparaben. Toxicology 332:67–76
De Vaugelade S, Nicol E, Vujovic S, Bourcier S, Pirnay S, Bouchonnet S (2017) UV-vis degradation of α--tocopherol in a model system and in a cosmetic emulsion-structural elucidation of photoproducts and toxicological consequences. J Chromatogr A 1517:126–133
Canipa SJ, Chilton ML, Hemingway R, Macmillan DS, Myden A, Plante JP, Tennant RE, Vessey JD, Steger-Hartmann T, Gould J (2017) A quantitative in silico model for predicting skin sensitization using a nearest neighbours approach within expert-derived structure-activity alert spaces. J Appl Toxicol 37:985–995
Khan K, Khan PM, Lavado G, Valsecchi C, Pasqualini J, Baderna D, Marzo M, Lombardo A, Roy K, Benfenati E (2019) QSAR modeling of Daphnia magna and fish toxicities of biocides using 2D descriptors. Chemosphere 229:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.204
Rauert C, Friesen A, Hermann G, Johncke U, Kehrer A, Neumann M, Prutz I, Schonfeld J, Wiemann A, Willhaus K (2014) Proposal for a harmonised PBT identification across different regulatory frameworks. Environ Sci Eur 26:9
Scholz S, Sela E, Blaha L, Braunbeck T, Galay-Burgos M, Garcia-Franco M, Guinea J, Kluver N, Schirmer K, Tanneberger K (2013) A European perspective on alternatives to animal testing for environmental hazard identification and risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67:506–530
Hernandez-Altamirano R, Mena-Cervantes VY, Perez-Miranda S, Fernandez FJ, Flores-Sandoval CA, Barba V, Beltran HI, Zamudio-Rivera LS (2010) Molecular design and QSAR study of low acute toxicity biocides with 4, 4â€2-dimorpholyl-methane core obtained by microwave-assisted synthesis. Green Chem 12:1036–1048
Neuwoehner J, Junghans M, Koller M, Escher BI (2008) QSAR analysis and specific endpoints for classifying the physiological modes of action of biocides in synchronous green algae. Aquat Toxicol 90:8–18
Van Leeuwen CJ, Maas-Diepeveen JL, Niebeek G, Vergouw WHA, Griffioen PS, Luijken MW (1985) Aquatic toxicological aspects of dithiocarbamates and related compounds. I. Short-term toxicity tests. Aquat Toxicol 7:145–164
Meylan WM (2000) SRC KOWWIN Software SRC-LOGKOW Version 1.66, Syracuse Research Corporation, USA
Yuval A, Eran F, Janin W, Oliver O, Yael D (2017) Photodegradation of micropollutants using V-UV/UV-C processes; Triclosan as a model compound. Sci Total Environ 601:397–404
Roy K, Ambure P, Kar S (2018) How precise are our quantitative structure-activity relationship derived predictions for new query chemicals? ACS Omega 3:11392–11406
Acknowledgments
KK thanks Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi for financial support in the form of a senior research fellowship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Khan, K., Sanderson, H., Roy, K. (2020). Ecotoxicological QSARs of Personal Care Products and Biocides. In: Roy, K. (eds) Ecotoxicological QSARs. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0150-1_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0150-1_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-0149-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-0150-1
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols