Integrated testing strategies have been proposed to facilitate the process of chemicals risk assessment to fulfil the requirements of the proposed EU REACH system. Here, we present individual, decision-tree style, strategies for the eleven major toxicity endpoints of the REACH system, including human health effects and ecotoxicity. These strategies make maximum use of non-animal approaches to hazard identification, before resorting to traditional animal test methods. Each scheme: a) comprises a mixture of validated and non-validated assays (distinguished in the schemes); and b) decision points at key stages to allow the cessation of further testing, should it be possible to use the available information to classify and label and/or undertake risk assessment. The rationale and scientific justification for each of the schemes, with respect to the validation status of the tests involved and their individual advantages and limitations, will be discussed in detail in a series of future publications.
Anon. (2003). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/ec and Regulation (EC) {on Persistent Organic Pollutants}.1321 pp. COM(2003) 644 final. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.
2.
GrindonC., BhogalN., CombesR., & BallsM. (2005). The scientific, animal welfare and regulatory implications of the EU REACH system for chemical safety. Regulatory Rapporteur2, 16–22.
3.
GrindonC., & CombesR. (2006). Introduction to the EU REACH Legislation. ATLA34, Suppl. 1, 5–10.
4.
PedersenF., de BruijnJ., MunnS., & van LeeuwenK. (2003). Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH. Effects of (Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. European Commission Report.33 pp. Ispra, Italy: EC Joint Research Centre.
5.
van der JagtK., MunnS., TørsløvJ., & de BruijnJ. (2004). Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH. European Commission Report.26 pp. Ispra, Italy: EC Joint Research Centre.
6.
DandreaJ., & CombesR.D. (2003). A survey of stakeholder organisations on the proposed new European chemicals policy. ATLA31, 501–528.
GrindonC., CombesR., CroninM.T.D., RobertsD.W., & GarrodJ.F. (2006). A review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing and the development of integrated testing strategies for assessing the toxicity of chemicals under REACH — A summary of a DEFRA-funded project conducted by Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME. ATLA34, Suppl. 1, 149–158.
9.
FielderR., AtterwillC.K., AndersonD., BoobisA.R., BothamP., ChamberlainM., CombesR., DuffeyP.A., LewisR.W., LumleyC.E., KimberI., & NewallD.R. (1997). British Toxicology Society (BTS) working party report on in vitro toxicology. Human and Experimental Toxicology16, S1–S40.
10.
CombesR.D., DandreaJ., & BallsM. (2003). FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: common recommendations for assessing risks posed by chemicals under the EU REACH system. ATLA31, 529–535.
11.
Anon. (2005). REACH and the Need for Intelligent Testing Strategies. EUR 21554 EN.32 pp. Ispra, Italy: Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, EC Joint Research Centre.
CombesR.D., BarrattM.D., & BallsM. (2003). An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH System. ATLA31, 7–19.
14.
WorthA.P., & BallsM. eds (2002). Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: current status and future prospects. A report prepared by ECVAM and the ECVAM Working Group on Chemicals. ATLA30, Suppl. 1, 1–125.
15.
LangleyG. (2001). The Way Forward – Action to End Animal Toxicity Testing, 36 pp. London, UK: BUAV.
16.
CombesR.D., GauntI., & BallsM. (2004). A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system. ATLA32, 163–208.
17.
JeramS., Reigo SintesJ.M., HalderM., Baraibar FentanesJ., Sokull-KlluttgenB., & HutchinsonT.H. (2005). A strategy to reduce the number of fish in acute ecotoxicity testing of new chemical substances notified in the European Union. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology42, 218–224.
18.
KnightD.J., & BrehenyD. (2002). Alternatives to animal testing in the safety evaluation of products. ATLA30, 7–22.
19.
BhogalN., GrindonC., CombesR., & BallsM. (2005). Toxicity testing: creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends in Biotechnology23, 299–307.
20.
EskesC., & ZuangV., eds. (2005). Alternative (Non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects. A Report Prepared in the Context of the 7th Amendment of the Cosmetics Directive for Establishing the Timetable for Phasing Out Animal Testing. ATLA33, Suppl. 1, 1–228.
CombesR., BallsM., BansilL., BarrattM., BellD., BothamP., BroadheadC., ClothierR., GeorgeE., FentemJ., JacksonM., IndansI., LaozouG., NavaratnamV., PentreathV., PhillipsB., StemplewskiH., & StewartJ. (2002). An assessment of progress in the use of alternatives in toxicity testing since the publication of the report of the Second FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991). ATLA30, 365–406.
23.
PersooneG., MarsalekB., BlinovaI., TörökneA., ZarinaD., ManusadzianasL., Nalecz-JaweckiG., TofanL., StepanovaN., TothovaL., & KolarB. (2003). A practical and user-friendly toxicity classification system with microbiotests for natural waters and wastewaters. Environmental Toxicology18, 395–402.
24.
HöferT., GernerI., Gundert-RemyU., LiebschM., SchulteA., SpielmannH., VogelR., & WettigK. (2004). Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation. Archives of Toxicology78, 549–564.
25.
GernerI., GraetschelG., KahlJ., & SchledeE. (1999). Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritancy/corrosivity testing strategies. Development of a relational database. ATLA28, 11–28.
26.
CombesR., & BallsM. (2005). Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing — A case of more haste, less speed?ATLA33, 289–297.
27.
CroninM.T.D., JaworskaJ.S., WalkerJ.D., ComberM.H.I., WattsC.D., & WorthA.P. (2003). Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environmental Health Perspectives111, 1391–1401.
28.
TongW.D., FangH., HongH., XieQ., PerkinsR., & SheehanD.M. (2004). Receptor-mediated toxicity: QSARS for estrogen receptor binding and priority setting of potential estrogenic endocrine disruptors. In Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate (ed. CroninM.T.D., & LivingstoneD.A.), pp. 285–314. Basingstoke, UK: Taylor and Francis.
29.
MarchantC.A., & CombesR.D. (1996). Artificial intelligence: the use of computer methods in the prediction of metabolism and toxicity. In Bioactive Compound Design – Possibilities for Industrial Use (ed. FordM.G., GreenwoodR., BrooksG.T., & FrankeR.), pp. 153–162. Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific Publishers.
30.
NetzevaT.I., WorthA.P., AldenbergT., BenigniR., CroninM.T.D., GramaticaP., JaworskaJ.S., KlopmanG., MarchantC.A., MyattG., Nikolova-JeliazkovaN., PatlewiczG.Y., PerkinsR., RobertsD.W., SchultzT.W., StantonD.T., van de SandtJ.J.M., TongW., VeithG., & YangC. (2005). Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (Quantitative) Structure–Activity Relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52. ATLA33, 155–173.
31.
Anon. (2006). Presidency Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC.270 pp. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. Website http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/05/st15/st15921.en05.pdf (Accessed 20.05.06).
32.
CombesR.D. (2005). Assessing risk to humans from chemical exposure by using non-animal test data. Toxicology in Vitro19, 921–924.
33.
CoeckeS., AhrH., BlaauboerB.J., BremerS., CasatiS., CastellJ., CombesR., CorviR., CrespiC.L., CunninghamM.L., ElautG., ElettiB., FreidigA., GennariA., Ghersi-EgeaJ-F., GuillouzoA., HartungT., HoetP., Ingelman-SundbergM., MunnS., JassensW., LadstetterB., LeahyD., LongA., MeneguzA., MonshouwerM., MorathS., NagelkerkeF., PelkonenO., PontiJ., PrietoP., RichertL., SabbioniE., SchaackB., SteiliingW., TestaiE., VericatJ-A., & WorthA. (2006). Metabolism: a bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 54. ATLA34, 49–84.
34.
Gubbels-van HalW.M.L.G., BlaauboerB.J., BarentsenH.M., HoitinkM.A., MeertsI.A.T.M., & van der HoevenJ.C.M. (2005). An alternative approach for the safety evaluation of new and existing chemicals, an exercise in integrated testing. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology42, 284–295.
35.
PrietoP., BairdA.W., BlaauboerB.J., Castell RipollJ.V., CorviR., DekantW., DietlP., GennariA., GribaldoL., GriffinJ.L., HartungT., HeindelJ.J., HoetP., JenningsP., MarocchioL., NorabergJ., PazosP., WestmorelandC., WolfA., WrightJ., & PfallerW. (2006). The assessment of repeated dose toxicity in vitro: a proposed approach. The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 56. ATLA34, 315–341.
36.
DashwoodR.H., CombesR.D., & AshbyJ. (1987). On the lack of specificity of the Salmonella mutagenicity assay. Mutagenesis2, 301.
37.
DashwoodR.H., CombesR.D., & AshbyJ. (1987). Comparison of the activation of a carcinogen/non-carcinogen pair of monoazo dyes using in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays: The use of an in vivo equivalent dose concept. Mutation Research181, 335.
38.
KnightA.J., BaileyJ., & BalcombeJ. (2006). Animal carcinogenicity studies: 3. Alternatives to the bioassay. ATLA34, 39–48.
39.
BallsM., & CombesR. (2005). Validation via weight-of-evidence approaches. ALTEX22, Special Issue 2, 288–291.
40.
Anon. (1995). Draft report — A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks Prepared by Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Workgroup.38 pp. Website www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/weightev.pdf (Accessed 20.05.06).
41.
BurgerJ. (2003). Differing perspectives on the use of scientific evidence and the precautionary principle. Pure Applied Chemistry75, 2543–2545.
42.
KnightD.J., & PoncipeC. (2002). Use of literature and surrogate safety data for notifications, HPV chemicals & biocides. Speciality Chemicals22, 28–30.
43.
KochL., & AshfordN.A. (2003). Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: implications for TSCA and REACH. Journal of Cleaner Production14, 31–46.
44.
GreimH., ArandM., AutrupH., BoltH., BridgesJ., DybingE., GlomotR., FoaV., & Schulte-HermannR. (2006). Toxicological comments to the discussion about REACH. Archives of Toxicology13, 1–4.
45.
Anon. (2006). TAPIR — FINAL report Appendix 10 RIP 3.3 — Endpoint Working Group “Aquatic Toxicity”.74 pp. Website http://ecb.jrc.it/REACH (Accessed 31.05.06).
