Towards regulation of Endocrine Disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in water resources using bioassays – A guide to developing a testing strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are found in every environmental medium and are chemically diverse. Their presence in water resources can negatively impact the health of both human and wildlife. Currently, there are no mandatory screening mandates or regulations for EDC levels in complex water samples globally. Bioassays, which allow quantifying in vivo or in vitro biological effects of chemicals are used commonly to assess acute toxicity in water. The existing OECD framework to identify single-compound EDCs offers a set of bioassays that are validated for the Estrogen-, Androgen-, and Thyroid hormones, and for Steroidogenesis pathways (EATS). In this review, we discussed bioassays that could be potentially used to screen EDCs in water resources, including in vivo and in vitro bioassays using invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and/or mammalians species. Strengths and weaknesses of samples preparation for complex water samples are discussed. We also review how to calculate the Effect-Based Trigger values, which could serve as thresholds to determine if a given water sample poses a risk based on existing quality standards. This work aims to assist governments and regulatory agencies in developing a testing strategy towards regulation of EDCs in water resources worldwide. The main recommendations include 1) opting for internationally validated cell reporter in vitro bioassays to reduce animal use & cost; 2) testing for cell viability (a critical parameter) when using in vitro bioassays; and 3) evaluating the recovery of the water sample preparation method selected. This review also highlights future research avenues for the EDC screening revolution (e.g., 3D tissue culture, transgenic animals, OMICs, and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs)).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".