Which makes things interesting on the one hand – some genuinely interesting new thoughts. But it was also frustrating. Simply because all authors were struggling to explain things that they are quite familiar with to an outside audience – and were also often falling into the trap of trying to be complete (“I’ll explain the world on 20 manuscript pages”).

I (vaguely) remember my first attempts to put things on paper. And I also remember that at least one of my co-authors always took care of the manuscript before submission. Which obviously took him more time than writing the damn’ thing himself.

However, I can’t shake the feeling that a lot of the seniors are now trying to delegate this task to the external reviewers (or maybe I simply had bad luck with the manuscripts that ended on my desk). Anyway, the texts did very obviously did not go through any internal review prior to submission. That’s the only reason that I can come with why for example a manuscript led by a non-native speaker with no publication record to be found in Scopus, but with a (very) experienced US senior author has dozens of spelling and grammar mistakes.

Frustrating for (almost) everybody involved – and cudos to everybody who actually does invest the time to go through the manuscript with his/her PhD student before submitting it to a journal.

Thomas (slightly annoyed)

We presented the results of the Marine Paint programme at its final conference here in Gothenburg at the beginning of this week. And we also took the opportunity to discuss things with a couple of journalists. So, if you can follow Swedish, here’s the pressrelease from the University and the corresponding article in Göteborgs Posten, the local newspaper.

If you prefer German, here’s the interview that I did with Deutschlandfunk:

We’ll post an English summary of the conference on our homepage soon.

Thomas

Marine Paint will also present and discuss its finding at the final conference, which will be held 14/15th of May in Gothenburg. Please contact me if you would like to get more information.

Thanks a bunch to my colleague Åsa Arrhenius! She put in all the effort into compiling the report, finally hunting down all the “Yes, I know I’m late, but I’m so busy that I couldn’t make even the 5th deadline” contributors, and also accommodating the “Yes, I know it’s already after the 5th deadline, but could you make a last, last, last minute change, please??” requests. And, as usual, Åsa Dahlbäck, who took care of layout, graphical design and print.

The report provides an overview of the aims, approaches and achievements of the Marine Paint Programme, which was run at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. I had the honor of serving as Programme Director during the last two years of the programme (of a total of nine years). As I’ve written in the report itself:

The Marine Paint programme started more than half a decade before I got involved. Being the successor to Björn Dahlbäck and the final Director of the programme was certainly a special challenge. Not only did we need to organise the finalisation of the experimental work, lay the foundation for the final publication and dissemination activities, but the commercial activities of I-Tech reached an all-time high. All-in-all, the final years were challenging times – and I learned a lot about synergies and goal conflicts between applied and fundamental environmental research, about the involvement of academic organisations in applied research and about the proverbial difficulties of “herding cats”.

Marine Paints activities, although deeply scientific in its core, were aimed at “applied research” in the most positive sense. That is, making research results available for improving the environmental performance of antifouling paints and, consequently, for limiting the environmental footprint of current shipping activities. Did we reach that goal? You’ll be the judge.

All the activities of a programme such as Marine Paint ultimately depend on the quality and quantity of its fundamental scientific activities. For that reason, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the field assistants, master students, PhD students, Post- Docs, technicians, external contributors and senior scientists involved. They all spent countless hours in the lab, behind the computer and in the field in order to provide the high-quality data that Marine Paint so much depended on – and always went the extra mile if necessary. Special thanks are due to Marine Paint’s steering group, which was pivotal for the organisation, vision and implementation of Marine Paint. Without all of you, Marine Paint would not have been as successful as it is today. Stort tack!

Exam question: What makes Ecological Risk Assessment particularly challenging, in comparison to Human Health Risk Assessment?

Student Answer: It’s hard to know whether a Daphnia is suffering from schizophrenia or depression.

Who could argue against that?

Thomas Backhaus, Michael Faust: “Predictive environmental risk assessment of chemical mixtures: a conceptual framework” DOI:10.1021/es2034125.

Abstract: Environmental risks of chemicals are still often assessed substance-by-substance, neglecting mixture effects. This may result in risk underestimations, as the typical exposure is towards multi-component chemical “cocktails”. We use the two well established mixture toxicity concepts (Concentration Addition (CA) and Independent Action (IA)) for providing a tiered outline for environmental hazard and risk assessments of mixtures, focusing on general industrial chemicals and assuming that the “base set” of data (EC50s for algae, crustaceans, fish) is available. As mixture toxicities higher than predicted by CA are rare findings, we suggest applying CA as a precautious first tier – irrespective of the modes/mechanisms of action of the mixture components. In particular, we prove that summing up PEC/PNEC ratios might serve as a justifiable CA-approximation, in order to estimate whether there is a potential risk for an exposed ecosystem in a first tier assessment if only base-set data are available. This makes optimum use of already existing single substance assessments as more demanding mixture investigations are requested only if there are first indications of an environmental risk. Finally we suggest to call for mode-of-action driven analyses only if error estimations indicate the possibility for substantial differences between CA- and IA-based assessments.
—-

One of the central discussion points of the paper is the comparison between the sum of PEC/PNECs and the sum of Toxic Units. Especially the use of PEC/PNEC sums has been challenged, for example in the recent SCHER opinion which states that “[...] a combination of PNECs may be misleading.” The mathematical analysis of the relationship between the sum of PEC/PNECs and the sum of Toxic Unis (which is a widely accepted implementation of Concentration Addition) is published as supporting information to the paper and is freely available. ES&T doesn’t make it available (yet) on their website, so here’s a direct link.

I always feel a bit awkward doing that during the review process or even in the final manuscript. But I have to say that I was really impressed by the amount of work and critical comments that we received by some of our reviewers (as usual, there was an outlier…). “Critical” in the positive sense of the word – the feedback really helped fine-tuning the text. So, whoever you are: thanks a lot, much appreciated!

Thomas

We’ve just been awarded the resources for a “strong research environment”, funded by the Swedish Research Council (Formas). The project’s acronym is NICE, which stands for “Novel Instruments for effect-based assesment of chemical pollution in coastal ecosystems”. Formas is funding the research environment with 25 million SEK (roughly 2.8 million €) over a period of 5 years.

I’ll provide more details soon, we’ll put up a dedicated website for NICE asap. But for a starter, here’s the NICE abstract:

Mixtures of toxic chemicals regularly occur in our coastal ecosystems. NICE develops instruments for monitoring their ecological effects, as required by the Water Framework Directive and needed for identification of the relevant pollutants in the field. The NICE tools will be evaluated in field studies. We will suggest options for environmental regulation of chemical mixtures, thus providing input to the water management in Västra Götaland. Reference and contaminated sites mainly on the Swedish coast will be selected in co-operation with stakeholder authorities and subjected to deeper ecotoxicological investigations. Chemical monitoring data will initially be used for pinpointing the pollutants at each site. These will be ranked according to their expected environmental impact and then further investigated by extended chemical analysis.

Ecotoxicological effect profiles (“fingerprints”) of the priority pollutants will be recorded for microbial communities, invertebrates and fish, using classic biomarkers, population level endpoints, ecological effect indicators (PICT) and advanced fingerprints based on (gen-)OMICs. The fingerprints will be used to detect effects in the environment, providing causal links between the mere presence of pollutants and their ecological impact of a site. The effect profiles will be aggregated into models for site-specific ecological impacts, which will be amended, if needed, to take into account  the presence of unknown pollutants and interactions.

Our research team consists of participants from the University of Gothenburg, the Sahlgrenska Academy, Chalmers Institute of Technology, the Centre for Environment and Sustainability in Gothenburg, Golder, IVL (the Swedish Environmental Research Institute) and the County Adminstration in Västra Götaland. I’ll be co-ordinating. More details to follow…

Enjoy the weekend!

Thomas

Nice.

The National Academy of Sciences conducted a workshop on Mixtures and Cumulative Risk Assessment in July . And they have put many of the talks of online. Tons to of materials to listen to, read and think about. Strict human toxicology / health assessment perspective and very US-centred (obviously) – but the principles hold anyway.

Thomas

If you don’t fancy reading on the screen, please click this link – which should give you the possibility to generate a PD or print the text. You can even delete paragraphs before printing, e.g. if you do not want the complete quotes from the original opinion draft.

There was a word limit of 4000 characters per comments, which was certainly an impediment. I could have used some more space at least for the answers to question 1 (science) and question 4 (possible approaches). Oh well, there will be more possibilities for exchanging views and ideas.

Now I only hope that the Committees make all the comments that they received during the consultation period publically available. Should be an interesting read…

Thomas

Question 1:  Is there scientific evidence that when organisms are exposed to a number of different chemical substances, that these substances may act jointly in a way (addition, antagonism, potentiation, synergies, etc.) that affects the overall level of toxicity?

Yes, under certain conditions, chemicals may act jointly in a way that the overall level of toxicity is influenced.

Chemicals with common modes of action may act jointly to produce combination effects that are larger than the effects of each mixture component applied singly. These effects can be described by dose/concentration addition.

For chemicals with different modes of action (independently acting), no robust evidence is available that exposure to a mixture of such substances is of health concern if the individual chemicals are present at or below their zero-effect levels. It is important to note that these zero-effect levels are not represented by the NOELs or NOECs. NOEL(C)s or PNECs are derived from experimental studies and may be associated with effect levels of up to 20%. Chemicals with different modes of action may however also affect the same endpoint, for instance, acute toxicity or carcinogenicity (effect addition).

For ecological effects, the exposure to mixtures of dissimilarly acting substances at low but potentially relevant concentrations should be considered, even if all substances are below the individual PNECs.

In the examples in which independent action provided a more accurate prediction, dose (concentration) addition slightly overestimated the actual mixture toxicity, which suggests that the use of the dose/concentration concept for risk assessment of chemicals of unknown toxic mechanisms is sufficiently protective.

Interactions (including antagonism, potentiation, synergies) usually occur at medium or high dose levels (relative to the lowest effect levels). At low exposure levels they are either not occurring or toxicologically insignificant.

Comments

• There seems to be an emerging consensus that individual NOELs/NOECs do not safeguard against unwanted mixture effects, neither for similarly nor for dissimilarly acting substances and neither in a human health nor ecotoxicological context. I fully support this conclusion.
• In the part of the Kortenkamp et al report (2009) that concerns the low-dose issue, it is stated (as also quoted in the draft opinion, p. 12) that “In demonstrating that dissimilarly acting chemicals too have the propensity to produce significant mixture effects when combined at levels below NOECs…”. This statement is contested in the following text of the draft opinion (“The Working Group has evaluated these studies and concludes that they do not allow such interpretation:”). However, the study details that are provided in the following (page 12/13 [of the opinion]) do not seem to contradict the initial statement that NOECs, but also certain fractions of NOECs, might contribute to the toxicity of a mixture, even if composed of dissimilarly acting compounds. It should perhaps be emphasized that the Kortenkamp et al report only makes the statement that NOECs are not safe (“levels below NOECs can contribute”), which is completely in line with the draft opinion. The Kortenkamp report does not state that ALL concentrations below NOECs (e.g. DNELs, TDIs) always contribute to the mixture toxicity. In fact, the concentration range below NOECs and other PODIs was termed a “grey area” in which we have only very limited experimental evidence (Kortenkamp et al report, executive summary, pages 6/7).
• The term “no effect level” (or “zero effect level”) plays a critical role in the text of the opinion (not only with respect to this question 1, but also in the core text, e.g. page 31). However, no precise definition of this central term is given in either the core text or the accompanying glossar. On page 11 it is only stated what no effect levels are not (NOECs). Later in the document zero effect levels seem to be equated to the DNEL or TDI (page 30), which would limit the use of the term to human toxicology.
• The Michaelis-Menten Kinetics that is provided earlier as background information on receptor interactions and hence the nature of concentration-response relationships (page 13 of the draft) is actually a non-threshold model. Implying, that at least on a molecular level a “no effect level” is never reached (as long as the concentration is > 0).
• Obviously, the Michaelis-Menten equation only describes molecular events in a simple system and hence a threshold of toxicological/ecotoxicological concern might very well exist (due to e.g. compensation mechanisms of the exposed organism). This, however, implies that from a mixture perspective, joint effects cannot not be ruled out from first principle. Under the assumption that the classical model of receptor binding (pages 13/14) holds and depending on the nature of the mixture of interest (in terms of potency and number of involved compounds), toxicologically non-observable, insignificant individual events might still lead to a toxicologically relevant response to the mixture, even if independent action is assumed. Simply because each concentration could be above its molecular no effect level. Again it should be stressed the empirical evidence is almost non-existing for this situation.
• Even under the (unrealistic) assumption of a completely independent mode of action of all mixture components, a mixture can only be considered safe a priori, if it can be ensured that all components are present not above their absolute no-effect level. The question aside on how realistic such a situation might be – how would one prove the absence of an effect? As obviously the absence of empirical proof (an individual effect was undetectable in a study) is no proof of the actual absence (of an effect), which would be required from a mixture toxicity perspective.
• The term “effect addition” is used without definition or explanation (also e.g. page 9).

Question 2 – If different chemical substances to which man/environment are exposed can be expected to act jointly in a way which affects their impact/toxicity
on/for man and the environment, do the current assessment methods take proper account of these joint actions?

Risk assessment on the combined effects of chemicals in a mixture is not commonly carried out at present. However, for some purposes, toxicity testing will be applied to mixtures.

As outlined in the answer to question 1, different chemical substances may act jointly ina way which affects their toxicity for man and the environment, current assessment methods for mixtures can take account of joint actions, such as dose/concentration addition or response / effect addition generally only applied under specific circumstances. With these methods acute effects of chemical mixtures composed of either dissimilarly or similarly acting substances can be reasonably well predicted. Interactions, however, are generally more difficult to assess and require expert judgement on a case-by-case basis. Specific conditions under which synergistic actions, i.e., the most relevant of interactions with regard to the toxicological risk, might be expected are outlined in the above opinion.

The methodology for the (eco-) toxicological assessment of chemical mixtures appears, generally suitable. It is, however, often not applied in practice. Assessments of aggregated and combined exposures across different industrial and use sectors, in particular, are rarely performed.

 Comments

• The referenced report by Kortenkamp et al. (2009) provides quite a few examples of mixture studies that relate to the applicability of Concentration Addition and Independent Action on chronic endpoints. This holds true especially for ecotoxicology, where several studies are available on e.g. chronic studies with the classic test organisms such as bacteria, algae, daphnids and fish. It is therefore perhaps not sufficient to relate the applicability of Concentration Addition and Independent Action to acute effects only (as stated in the second paragraph).

Question 3 – Several approaches for the assessment of the mixture effects of chemicals already exist such as dose addition and independent action. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches and is there any particular model that could be considered as sufficiently robust to be used as a default option?

In view of the huge variety of human exposures to chemical mixtures, the default assumption in human risk assessment had been that they generally acted by dissimilar modes of action. In cases, however, where information is available to indicate a similar mode of action, a dose/concentration addition approach is appropriate. A dose/concentration addition approach, if applied to chemical mixture components with unknown modes of action, may result in an over-prediction of toxicity; using the independent action approach may however underestimate toxicity. Therefore, also in this case, the dose/concentration addition approach is preferable to ensure an adequate level of protection. Different methods exist for the dose/concentration addition approach (see above methodology section for details). When using the RfP or RV, one should be aware that NOAELs/LOAELs are based on single experimental data points and the values depend on the dose-spacing used in the experiment. In contrast, BMDLs are based on all experimental points and by that provide more reliable information on the dose response.

In ecotoxicology, any approach must be referred to specific endpoints and to defined taxonomic groups of organisms. The reference values (PNECs) are derived using different sensitive organisms for any type of chemical. Therefore, a combination of PNECs may be misleading.

A significant limitation of component-based approaches is that they are only applicable to mixtures of which the major components are known.

 

Comments

• The summation) of PEC/PNEC ratios has been repeatedly suggested in the peer-reviewed literature. This approach is known to be slightly more conservative than the summation of toxic units (which would be the scientifically more correct approach), depending on the amount and type of available data and the toxicity profiles of the mixture components. Details are provided in a separate PDF (final research report of the BEAM EU project). Hence the sum of PEC/PNECs could be used as a first (sub)-tier when applying Concentration Addition. Summing up PEC/PNECs is a particularly attractive approach as it is straight forward to integrate in current risk assessment schemes, and is applicable in situations where different amounts and data types are available for the individual compounds (see separate report for a detailed discussion).

Question 4 – Given that it is unrealistic to assess every possible combination of chemical substances what is the most effective way to target resources on those
combinations of chemicals that constitute the highest risk for man and the environment?

In view of the almost infinite number of possible combinations of chemicals to which humans and environmental species are exposed some form of initial filter to allow a focuson mixtures of potential concern is necessary. The following criteria are proposed for consideration:

• Human and/or environmental exposure at significant levels (e.g. approaching the NOEL/NOEC or PNEC for several components).
• Chemicals that are produced and/or marketed as multi-constituent substances or commercial mixtures with several components and/or active ingredients (i.e., as
• defined by EU legislation, e.g., REACH, CLP, pesticides and biocidal products legislation, food law, etc.).
• Potential serious adverse effects of one or more chemicals at the likely exposure levels.
• Likelihood of frequent or large scale exposure of the human population or the environment.
• Persistence of chemicals in the body and/or in the environment. High persistence/bioaccumulation would be a property of importance.
• Known information of potential interaction at levels of human and environmental exposure.
• Predictive information that chemicals act similarly such as (quantitative) structure activity relationships and structural alerts.
• Particular attention should be paid to mixtures for which one or more components are assumed to have no threshold for its effects such as genotoxic carcinogens; a MOE or a lifetime cancer risk approach could be applied.
• Exposure to one or more components approaching the threshold levels for adverse effects would mean that the mixture should be given priority for assessment. A TTC  like approach can be used to eliminate combinations that are of concern (for details on the applicability of a TTC approach for the assessment of chemical mixtures see Boobis et al., 2011 and Price et al., 2009).

For the environment, attention should be paid to mixtures of chemicals, individual components of which approach the PNEC.

In view of the difficulty and time needed to retrieve or generate an appropriate dataset for hazard characterisation and exposure estimates, a tiered approach, such as proposed by the WHO/IPCS (2009b) or EFSA (2008), may be considered. (For details on the tiered approach, see above text.) The identification of the data gaps after the application of the tiered approach should determine the extent of testing of chemical mixtures and study design.

Comments

• The TTC approach is certainly a strategy with substantial potential. It should be stressed, however, that to my knowledge there is no experimental evidence at hand that demonstrates that a mixture assessment approach based on the TTC concept is protective. In view of such a fundamental lack of data it might be too far fetching if the TTC concept is suggested already now in a regulatory setting. It requires validation first.
• In this context it is interesting to note that the corresponding opinion (“Use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) Approach for the Safety Assessment of Chemical Substances”, by SCHER, SCCP and SCENIHR) still does not seem to be finalized even for individual compounds – although the public consultation period ended already in January 2009. Also the opinion on “Exploring options for providing preliminary advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)” is not finalized yet.
• There seems to be a consensus that mixtures of compounds with a similar mode or mechanism of action follow the basic principle of Concentration Addition. This implies that under these circumstances even concentrations at or below the TTC add to the joint toxicity of a mixture and hence mixture effects cannot be ruled out. This situation is, however, not adequately considered in the provided decision tree (page 36 of the draft [of the opinion, that is]). According to the decision tree further action is never required if the individual compounds are present below their individual TTCs, even if all compounds are similarly acting. This does not only violate the basic principle of Concentration Addition, but is also in contradiction to e.g. the TEF/TEQ approach for dioxin mixtures.
• Even if it is assumed that the TTC is a valid approximation of a true zero effect concentration, a mixture can only be regarded a priori as causing no reason for concern, if all compounds are present below their individual TTC and if all compounds are completely dissimilarly acting. It is currently completely unknown whether such a scenario is realistic or whether it is only a very special case of more theoretical relevance.
• The decision tree on page 36 of the preliminary opinion is supposed to capture both, the toxicological as well as the ecotoxicological assessment of a mixture. However, the TTC is a concept that is so far rooted strongly only in human toxicology. Although there is a one publication by de Wolf et al (Mode of action and aquatic exposure thresholds of no concern, ET&C, 24(2), 479-485), there is currently no evidence (either conceptual or empirical) on how such an approach relates to common ecotoxicological descriptors of low effects or thresholds (e.g. PNECs, EQs). Furthermore, the publication focuses on a few well studied mechanisms of action only. Again, in view of the lack of conceptual and empirical models/data it seems somewhat premature to use the TTC criterion as a broad and general indicator for “no further action required”.
• Finally, the draft TTC-opinion lists classes of compounds and endpoints for which the TTC concept is not suited (e.g. nano-materials, the endpoints “pharmacological or microbiological effects, page 30 of the TTC draft opinion). These exceptions could be integrated in the decision tree for mixture assessment or its supporting text.

Question 5 – Where are the major knowledge gaps with regard to the assessment of the toxicity of chemical mixtures?

With regard to the assessment of chemical mixtures (as defined in the mandate), a major knowledge gap at the present time is the rather limited number of chemicals for which there is good mode of action information. Currently there is neither an agreed inventory of mode of actions, nor a defined set of criteria how to characterise a mode of action for data-poor chemicals.

Much of the work on interactions relates to enzyme inducers and inhibitors, to promoters of carcinogenic effects. The dose/concentration approach requires information on the dose response shape for the chemicals to be considered. This information is rarely available in sufficient quality. Research is needed to define criteria that predict dose additivity.

In ecotoxicology, the problem is even more complex. A knowledge of all possible modes of actions that may occur in the different types of organisms of a complex biological community is difficult (if not impossible) to be attained. On the other hand, it must be considered that ecologically relevant endpoints are generally broader and not so specific (e.g. toxicity on specific organs, etc.) as in human toxicology.

Other major knowledge gaps are:

• The general lack of robust and validated tools for the prediction of interactions.
• How exposure and/or effects may change over time

Comments

• It has been repeatedly shown that Independent Action and Concentration Addition often predict virtually indistinguishable mixture toxicities (see e.g. the Kortenkamp et al. report). Also in the recent publication by Brice et al that is actually cited in the draft opinion (“Characterizing the Noncancer Toxicity of Mixtures Using Concepts from the TTC and Quantitative Models of Uncertainty in Mixture Toxicity”, Risk Analysis, 29(11), 1534-1548, 2009), it can be clearly seen that the difference in toxicity (risk) predictions are usually negligible, far below any regulatory relevance. In view of this body of evidence the call of more mechanism / mode of action information might be misleading. The major knowledge gap hampering mixture assessment is the lack of knowledge on where, how often and to what extent humans and the environment are exposed to what types of chemical mixtures.

Question 6 – Does current knowledge constitute a sufficiently solid foundation upon which to address the toxicity of chemical mixtures in a more systematic wayin the context of EU legislations?

In many cases, knowledge is insufficient for a robust scientific analysis.

If toxicologically significant interactions can be excluded, the components of a mixture are identified and known mode of action information is available, either a dose addition
or independent action model should be applied. This set of information, in human toxicology, is however rarely available and, in most cases, very cost- and labourintensive
to generate. Often, it may not be possible to obtain the required data due, e.g., to limitations in existing study designs and analytical methods.

In ecotoxicology, the mode of action should be known for all the relevant taxonomic groups of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. So, the availability of information is even
more difficult; in addition, modes of actions considered dissimilar at the individual level may affect the same population relevant endpoint, and therefore, the dose/concentration
addition model may be more appropriate for predicting effects at the population level.

However, in most cases, when applying a dose/concentration addition approach, it is necessary to rely on assumptions such as mode of action, shape and slope of dose response curves of the individual components. These assumptions may be generated by grouping of chemicals into categories and assessment groups. However, no generally agreed criteria for the grouping of substances exist, adding to the uncertainties associated with this approach. Choosing independent action approach may however underestimate combined effects of similarly acting chemicals. Hence, if no mode of action information is available, the dose/concentration addition method should be preferred over the independent action approach.

Prediction of possible interaction requires expert judgement and hence needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In future, pathway-based toxicity evaluations (e.g. inflammation – oxidative stress – genotoxicity) based on in silico and in vitro methodology will become more feasible, enabling these methods to identify common effects. However, the report of a recent meeting of the US National Academic’s Standing Committee on Use of Emerging Science for Environmental Health Decision concluded that “many challenges remain to be addressed before the findings from high-throughput screens and in silico models may be considered sufficiently robust and informative” (Rusin and Daston, 2010). The Working Group agrees with this conclusion.
In ecotoxicology, a relevant issue may be related to combined effects capable to affect reproduction, population dynamics and ecosystem’s health. For some chemicals these effects may become evident even some time after exposure stopped.

Having reviewed the available evidence, the Committees recommend that a mixture dependent approach is used for the assessment of chemical mixtures as outlined in the following diagram:

Comments

• I fully support the conclusion that in the absence of mode of action information, the dose/concentration addition method should be preferred. This constitutes a sufficiently robust method for the first tier assessment of mixtures in a regulatory setting. Empirical evidence as well as conceptual considerations indicates that the additional consideration of Independent Action often does not add much information (see discussion in the report by Kortenkamp et al. 2009 and Brice et al 2009 (see full reference above)).  Please refer to specific comments to the diagram in from page 36 of the draft opinion in my comments to question 4.

Whatever it is, the scenario is always the same: Somebody sends around an email to a group of people, containing perhaps an invitation to a conference, a request, a question or something similar. And of course, all recipients are listed in plain sight in the “to” field. So events follow their their natural c(o)urse: a couple of minutes later, your inbox becomes flooded with a lot of “Sorry, don’t know”, “Oh yes, please!”, “Sorry, I won’t be able to attend” or “Would really LOVE to come, but my cat is sick…” or similar answers of obvious importance to all the 50+ people who were receiving the initial question…

I just came back from vacation, and a rough estimate leaves me with around 200 of such mails. And unfortunately, no spamfilter can handle them.

Please: it’s just a small difference, the “reply” and “reply all” icons really look alike. But it matters. A confirmation or decline might certainly be important to the initial sender – but often that’s it.

And if you’re sending around these types of circulars to a large group, why not considering to use the “bcc” field instead? So that people don’t get tempted.

Thomas

I had the honor of chairing one of the breakout groups on the second day (on mixture toxicity assessment), together with Prof. Alan Boobis from the Imperial College in London. The group was actually a bit big for being really productive and additionally, the participants certainly had different backgrounds and interests. So, we didn’t invent the wheel during those 3 hours, but it was certainly a highly interesting exchange of thoughts and perspectives. The workshop organizers are currently preparing a report on those two days, I’ll provide more details and perhaps some comments as soon as that text is publically available.

I came across a couple of concepts during the workshop that I really need to wrap my brain around. Food for thought – althought this beautiful summer weather certainly doesn’t help focussing… Where’s my camera?

Thomas

According to the procedures for stakeholder dialogue, comments to the opinion can be submitted until the 9th of September. As the opinion is (partly) a comment on the “state of the art report on mixture toxicity”, that we recently prepared for DG Environment, I will certainly take the opportunity and provide some comments to the opinion. Details on the opinion and on the procedure for commenting are provided here.

Thomas

Silva, E., Rajapakse, N., Scholze, M., Backhaus, T., Ermler, S., Kortenkamp A. Joint effects of heterogeneous estrogenic chemicals in the E-Screen – exploring the applicability of concentration addition. Tox Sciences, in press doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr103

Backhaus, T., Porsbring, T., Arrhenius, A., Brosche, S., Johansson, P., Blanck, H. Single substance and mixture toxicity of 5 pharmaceuticals and personal care products to marine periphyton communities, Env. Tox. Chem, in press doi:10.1002/etc.586

The first one provides details on the predictability of the joint action of various mixtures of endocrine disrupters in the well-known E-Screen. Usually, Concentration Addition works rather well, but we found some interesting patterns. To simply summarize from the paper:

[...] we identified estrogen mixtures that followed CA, but statistically significant deviations from additivity occurred with mixtures that contained both steroidal estrogens
665 and synthetic estrogenic chemicals. There are some indications that the observed weak antagonisms are related to differential expression of CYP 1B1, although it is likely that additional factors are also at play.

The second one also goes for the investigations of mixture effects (surprise, surprise…). But this time on a completely different level. Switching the scenery from a proliferation assay with an isolated breast cancer cell line to a study analysing the impact of pharmaceutical mixtures on ecological succession in microbial communties. However, a (sort of) similar result: in principle the mixtures were ”well behaved”, but on the fringes it became obvious that we are only dealing with coarse models of reality. In the case of the biofilm communities, we saw strong stimulatory effects (hormesis) – but only in the mixture, not in the single substances. To be frank, currently we can only speculate on the reasons for this pattern. Our current hypothesis revolves around indirect effects caused by one of the compounds in the mixture.

When talking about hormesis, I would like to provide another quote from the paper:

It should finally be pointed out that hormetic effects of a chemical or chemical mixture certainly cannot be considered the opposite of harmful, adverse ecological effects. Similarly to an inhibition of growth, they indicate a disturbance of the network and interactions within an ecological community. An assessment of their implications for risk assessment, however, is not possible without further detailed knowledge on the underlying causes.

This paragraph was introduced following a comment from one of the reviewers of that manuscript. So, thanks for that suggestion!

Actually, I was really impressed with the quality of both reviews that we received for this manuscript – they certainly added a lot of critical reflection to the manuscript. And provided some food for thought (and follow-up studies). Sometimes peer-review still works nicely…

And my sincere apologies to the editoral staff of ET&C who had to suffer through my not always optimum response times – and an initially missing figure in the final version of the manuscript.

Thomas

Anyway, although exhausting it was great to meet lots of old friends and acquaintances, getting to know new people, making new plans, reviewing (or being reminded of) old ideas  – and generally not getting enough sleep. Fun!

SETAC actually put a lot of the meeting slides online, at meetings.setac.org/

I had the honor of giving the final summary of the talks and topics related to the “risk assessment” theme. In 15 minutes. Summarizing 12 session “offically” dedicated to risk assessment, countless others that touched upon the subject one way or another, hundreds of related posters and some keynote lectures. Meaning, that this was simply an impossible task. I could not even highlight most issues on a general scale – and it certainly was a very biased, personal summary. My sincere apologies to everybody I didn’t mention, for every topic that I didn’t list.

Anyway, if you’re interested to see how I tried to wiggle my way through: here’s a copy of the slides. Enjoy!

See you next year in Berlin! And don’t forget to submit a session proposal until the 15th of August…

Thomas

From “Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com

Deadline is the 15th of April.

So, here’s the link and the background: The EU Commission actually put together an online game, called “the power of research”, which can be found at http://www.powerofresearch.eu/. It is supposed to “to inspire young Europeans to pursue scientific careers”, according to the press release from the Commission. To be honest, in addition to an online game, I could think of one or two things  that could be improved if we want to inspire students to pursue a career in science. But I guess, that’s just me…

Anyway, have fun and tell me how the game performs!

Thomas

Let me start with a quick summary of the recent Special Science Symposium that I organized with my colleagues Nina Cedergreen and Tom Hutchinson. You find PDF-copies of all presentations here and some photos here.

What I really enjoyed (besides the science and meeting colleagues and friends): we decided to actually give people enought time to spin their story – and the presenters took up the challenge. We hence had really engaging talks, which were also accessible for an audience who did not share the office with the presenter for the last 10 years (I I often have the impression that this is the target audience for ordinary talks at SETAC conferences ). And the scope was really broad! From amored combat vehicles to white unicorns…

Anyway, here’s the summary which will also appear in SETACs Globe in April.

3rd SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium “Prospective and Retrospective Environmental Risk Assessment of Mixtures: Moving from Research to Regulation”

Thomas Backhaus, Nina Cedergreen, Tom Hutchinson

Chemical-analytical surveys demonstrate that organisms in the environment are exposed to complex chemical mixtures. Recent eco-epidemiology studies indicate that the ‘toxic pressure’ due to chemical mixtures is correlated with reduced biodiversity in river catchments. Also chemical products, such as e.g. pesticides or surfactants are usually combination products, comprising active ingredients, preservatives, filling agents, etc. However, the environmental effects of chemicals are traditionally evaluated and regulated on the basis of single substances, chemical by chemical. This approach might not be sufficient, especially because the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals is usually higher than each of the individual substances.

In December 2009 the EU environment ministers therefore asked the European Commission to strengthen its work on managing the risks posed by chemical mixtures. In parallel, a range of reviews, guidelines and recommendations on how to assess risks of chemical mixtures have been compiled by academic working groups as well as national, European and international bodies (e.g. WHO or EFSA).

In order to provide an overview of the state of the art and to facilitate knowledge exchange between scientists from different disciplines, regulators and chemical industry, SETAC organized a 2-days Special Science Symposium on the issue, which was held in Brussels, 2-3 February 2011. Presentations were given by a range of well-known experts from environmental regulation, ecotoxicological risk assessment, human health oriented toxicology, analytical environmental chemistry. Approaches to mixture risk assessment were discussed from a retrospective as well as a prospective perspective. Retrospective studies were discussed with the aim to identify key components in a given mixture or exposure scenario, e.g. a river catchment or waste disposal site. Prospective studies on the other hand were presented with a view on predicting mixture toxicities, based on the toxicological or ecotoxicological properties of the mixture components (often termed the mode of action or MOA approach), with the aim to e.g. set environmental quality standards. All presenters kindly agreed to make copies of their presentations available from SETAC’s website at http://sesss03.setac.eu/.
Obviously, the different risk assessment areas have different protection goals. However, common ground was identified in several aspects:

1. Concentration Addition seems to be suitable for providing a scientific frame of reference and as a slightly conservative, first tier approach for mixture hazard and risk assessment in human toxicology as well as ecotoxicology. Results from such a tier might be especially useful for informing the need for additional, more in-depth study of a particular mixture.
2. Surprisingly little is known on the actual exposure to mixtures. Hence it is currently unclear by how much the current compound-per-compound assessment, incorporating assessment factors derived for these individual substances, might (or might not) underestimate actual environmental risks.
3. Chemical mixtures in the environmental are a special challenge for environmental risk assessment and regulation, particularly because of its organization in highly specialized silos. A clear need for overarching approaches was identified.

Last but certainly not least, we would like to take the opportunity to thank all the presenters for their time and their engaging talks! It was certainly rewarding to be around…

Deadline for applications is the 22 of November 2010.

Just drop me a mail if you have any questions.

Thomas

However, I finally managed to update from Office 2007 to Office 2010. Mainly for the new ability to sync Onenote Notebooks via Windows Live. The Update went quite alright, with the exception of some nice, little tools that didn’t survive the transition and some keyboard shortcuts that were completely unnecessarily changed. Grrr… – but sort of expected. I could fix most of it with some new authotkey scripts.

But what really I found it rather frustrating: that the Reference Manager (my bibliographic software that I use for keeping track of my literature and for handling the references in my manuscripts) is still not compatible with Office 2010. I really didn’t see that coming… I mean, the software is produced by Thomson Reuters, who produce Web of Science (Web of Knowledge) and label themselves “the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals”. Bla, bla, bla. And if a support guy says in the forum that “We hope to have a free update available by the end of the year.” (see here), then I’m certainly not holding my breath.

Maybe it’s time to explore Mendeley and Zotero a bit more.

On a different note: No major changes seem to have happened in Outlook. But that the option for viewing and answering emails in plain text is located in File->Options (Hm..)->Trust Center (!!)->Email Security (WTF??) was, shall we say…slightly surprising. And MS owes me another 30 minutes of my life.

Thomas

Sure, you get them with 1 TB hard drives, dolby surround audio system, 4-core processors, 8 GByte memory, and an interface to your coffee machine. No problem. But you can’t get any with a decent screen.

What I mean: all models, from all the brands now have 16:9 screens, an extremly lenghty format that is perfect for watching movies and stuff. But for working (and for me that has a lot to do with writing, either texts or source code, or digging around databases) that format is absolute crap. There is a reason why you use an ordinary piece of paper in portrait orientation (shorter side horizontal) and not in landscape (longer side horizontal). Landscape orientiation simply makes the lines of a text too long to read, and/or you don’t get enough lines on the screen (while the right half of the screen simply goes empty). So much for the professionalism of the “professional models”.

When talking to the technical support of our main IT-supplier, he could see my point – and he even had a great solution: “just buy a docking station and a big stationary screen”. Perfect – that’s why I’m trying to buy a laptop (aka “mobile computer”). I wonder what the flight crew on my next flight might say if I try to bring a docking station and a big screen on board and start looking for the power outlets…

Thomas

PS.: Not that it would help, but interestingly enough the IPad seems to have the old 4:3 format.

Thomas

And unfortunately, it looks as if the net  actually does a very good job in distracting us from the real thing, as it seems to encourage the superfical skimming of a multitude of information, while at the same time hampering a deeper engagement with what we’ve read / perceived.

Some of the thoughts are not really new, they remind me a lot on Neil Postmans texts (“Amusing ourselves to death”, still very much recommended!). However, a major difference seems to be that now, even when we try to be productive, modern information technology seems to be yet another distraction that tempts us to loose focus.

Food for thought… I have to admit, that some of the behavioral patterns described the text sound awfully familar. Maybe we should be a bit more carefully evaluating the role of electronic, web-based tools, media and information sources in science and teaching?

Thomas

1. A mixture-specific assessment factor (MAF), for which we outline the scientific justification, and its limitations
2. Scenario-specific modeling

The report contains two annexes, one providing a detailed background on the two classical mixture toxicity approaches, Concentration Addition and Independent Action (Response Addition), the other one is a compilation of all the recent approaches and summaries that have been published by the various authorities, organisations and universities.

From a perspective beyond REACH, the trans‐sectorial nature of mixtures of toxic compounds that coincidentally co‐occur in an environmental compartment, the organisms living there, food and the human body poses a substantial challenge for the current system of chemical risk assessment and management.

Thomas

Thomas

PS.: and here are the English versions: Chemicals Health Monitor, Medical News

PPS.: and  Eureka, X-Journals, (although I don’t particularly like that they ripped of my photo from the site), ScienceDaily, ChemicalProcessing, EMaxHealth, etc…

Our main conclusions are:

1. We need a European guideline for the assement of the toxic effects of chemical mixtures on human health and the environment. Current US guidelines can serve as a template, but efforts should be made to incorporate human health oriented efforts with environmental assessments.
2. Only a strong legal mandate (as it recently has been implemented in the new European pesticide regulation) would motivate a wide-spread and regular consideration of ”cocktail effects” of chemical mixtures in environmental and human health oriented regulations.
3. Especially media-oriented regulations, such as the IPPC and WFD Directives (the latter was not considered within the report), provide a suitable perspective for the consideration of mixtures in regulatory settings.
4. Concentration Addition should be used as a first, default assessment concept for chemical mixtures in general.
5. It needs to be ensure that the generation, storage and dissemination of toxicological and ecotoxicological data facilitates their use for a later modeling of mixture effects.

The work was led by Andreas Kortenkamp of the London School of Pharmacy. Michael Faust and myself teamed up with him for the work. The tasks of the report were to analyze

• the scientific literature on mixture toxicity,
• current EU risk assessment regimes relevant to mixture toxicity assessments,
• the practical experiences in assessing mixture toxicity, approaches and methodologies used for this purpose in the EU, and
• approaches to assess mixture toxicity in major competing economies of EU and international bodies

with respect to human toxicology and ecotoxicology. You find the report as a whole PDF for download here.

The reports starts with an executive summary and it is introduced by the discussion of a series of common mixture-related questions:

• Is an assessment of the effects of chemical mixtures necessary from a scientific
  viewpoint?
• Is there not sufficient protection against mixture effects if we make sure that each
  chemical is present individually at exposures unlikely to pose risks?
• Is it necessary to test every conceivable combination of chemicals or is it possible to
  predict the effects of a mixture?
• Which of the two assessment and prediction concepts, dose addition or independent
  action, should be utilized in practice?
• Which chemicals should be subjected to mixtures risk assessment?
• How should mixture effect assessment concepts be applied in practice?
• What knowledge gaps hamper the consideration of mixture toxicology and
  ecotoxicology in chemical risk assessment?

We then also provide an overview of the current European regulatory system with respect to chemical mixtures and feedback that we received from a questionaire on the practical experiences with mixture toxicity assessments in the European member states.

Thomas

And who says that the topic of chemical mixtures is not interesting for the popular press?

Thomas

The FQPA [Food Quality Protection Acti] is changing the way pesticide residues are regulated by setting ‘health-based’ standards for ALL pesticides in foods. ‘All’ in this case means combined residues from several different pesticides, or, chemical mixtures. The importance of this amendment, with respect to chemical mixtures should not be underestimated. This is one of the first attempts to regulate the permitting of individual chemicals based on their potential for combined toxicity. It will require development of innovative and reliable techniques to address combined toxicity. Although we will discuss the methodology used to determine new pesticide limits later, we should point out that this combined approach for now is limited to similarly acting pesticides. Currently, the FQPA does not address pesticide mixtures that act through different mechanisms. For example, several different organophosphate pesticides may occur in combination along with arsenic. The mixtures assessment will consider the combination of organophosphates, but nonetheless will assess arsenic separately. The rational for only extending combined toxicity to similarly acting pesticides should become clear as we discuss the toxicological tools available for such work.

Together, the FFDCA and FIFRA regulate a large share of chemicals to which humans are likely to be exposed, by setting tolerances and allowable concentrations for chemicals, one chemical at a time, up until 1997. This is almost a one hundred year history of single chemical regulation. Not only does toxicology and regulatory policy have a long history based upon the single-chemical approach, but they must now address the reality of chemical mixtures. Although clearly the single-chemical approach has provided a strong foundation for chemical control, the utility or relevance of these techniques for addressing multiple chemical exposures is currently unclear.

Unfortuantely, I couldn’t find the promised discussion on why the legislation is restricted to similarly acting chemicals. Mental note to myself: Need to check the mentioned amendments. Guess it’s the old “mixtures of dissimilarly acting chemicals do not show a combination effect if all individual substances are at or below their toxicological thresholds”. Please see the rebuttal here.

A wealth of additional information is given on the website dedicated to the report.

Unfortunately, as the report states on page 8:

Not all the chemicals in the Report are measured in the
same individuals. Therefore, it is not possible to determine
the fraction of all measured chemicals that were found at
detectable levels in a given person.

Meaning, that one cannot directly draw conclusions on an exposure to mixtures of these compounds. I need to check more closely whether it is possible to do that at least roughly.  It would be a real pity, if such a wealth of data would only be analyzable from a single-compound perspective. I mean, let’s face it: although a discussion on the possible health effects of the deteced amounts of say styrene is certainly worthwhile – what does it say about the total health risks, when at the same time several dozens or even hundreds of other chemicals are present?

As a sidenote: 90% of the people had detectable levels of Bisphenol A in their blood. Although the mere presence of the compound of course does not allow the conclusion that the current situation is risky, the widespread occurrence of the compound certainly suggests strongly that it is worthwhile to invest more resources on the investigation of the low-level effects of BPA (see here).

Thomas

Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action.

Maybe that is actually a good sign? Especially as it seems as if the EPA is finally calling for (pre)caution, while at the same time funding more research. Although it would of course be more consequent if they would restrict the use of the compound as long as there are any doubt on its safety.

Thomas

Addendum: See also here for some more infos.

The official press release is found here and a short question and answers section with Ulf Björnhom, the chair of the Council Working Party on the Environment can be seen here.

Thomas

further action in the field of chemicals policy, research and assessment
methods to address combination effects of chemicals is required, in particular taking into
account the fact that existing EU legislation in most cases builds on a chemical-by-chemical
assessment approach;

and the council invites (whatever that exactly means) the Commission to

assess how and whether relevant existing Community legislation adequately
addresses risks from exposure to multiple chemicals from different sources and
pathways, and on this basis to consider appropriate modifications, guidelines and
assessment methods, and report back to the Council by early 2012 at the latest,

NGOs have responded less-than-enthusiastically to the council conclusions, argueing that the conclusions “postpone action” and that the indicated deadline of 2012 is not early enough.

One particular concern raised in the conclusion are combination effects of endocrine disrupters on human health. The recent Danish activities on this issue certainly had a great influence on the text. Unfortunately, ecotoxicological aspects of chemcial mixtures in the environment only play a comparatively minor role.

Thomas

The ”Vega Science Trust” who is running the show(s) has been founded by Sir Harry Kroto, who is Professor for Chemistry at Florida State University and received the Nobel Prize in 1996 for his work on buckyballs. Hence the site has a bit of a bias towards chemistry issues – but some areas also have a very broad content. The only (small) downer: why the heck do they have to put all videos online in realtime format only? And do they really need to try to disable my right mouse button on the site?

Anyway, technicalities aside: the site is truly a scientific treasure chest – absolutely marvelous. This is certainly not to say that I would agree with everything that is broadcasted, for example there are quite some statements and attitudes in the reality of risks discussion that I definitely would object. The precautionary principle as the “antithesis to science” (23.30 mins and onwards)? C’mon!

But the videos certainly provide food for thought. Talk about Open Science…

Happy watching!

Thomas

Andreas Kortenkamp from the School of Pharmacy in London was organising the workshop, hence it might not be that surprising, that the main focus was on mixtures of endocrine disrupters. However, most of the conclusions also hold true for mixtures of chemicals from other areas.

To just quote the summary:

An expert workshop on effects of combined exposure to chemicals, with special emphasis on chemicals with endocrine activity was held under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of the Environment. The aim of the workshop was to examine existing scientific knowledge on combination effects of endocrine disrupters, with a focus on regulatory aspects. The workshop participants considered the state of the science of mixtures risk assessment for endocrine disrupters, and discussed the feasibility of approaches to cumulative risk assessment.

A consensus about a number of important issues could be formulated, and this included a series of recommendations:

Cumulative risk assessment (CRA) for endocrine disrupters was seen as both necessary and feasible. The predominant chemical-by-chemical approach in risk assessment was regarded as insufficiently protective against the possibility of mixture effects/ effects of combined exposure.

The application of dose (or concentration) addition as an assessment method was recommended as a default, until evidence as to the suitability of alternative assessment concepts emerges.

A pre-occupation with mechanisms or modes of action as the starting point for the grouping of endocrine disrupters into classes to be subjected to mixtures risk assessment  was seen as not practical and scientifically hard to justify. Instead, grouping criteria should focus on common health related effects and the likelihood of co-exposures.

The full potential of CRA for endocrine disrupters cannot be reached without filling a number of data gaps, most importantly in the area of mixtures exposure assessment.
An enhancement of the legal framework in Europe with a view to mandating CRA should be given serious consideration.

The final workshop report hast just been published and can be downloaded here (PDF, in English).

Thomas

• musk xylene (vPvB). A fragrance enhancer which is used for example in detergents, fabric softeners and fabric conditioners;
• 4,4`-diaminodiphenylmethane – MDA (carcinogenic). A hardener which is used for example in epoxy resins and adhesives;
• short chained chlorinated paraffins – SCCPs (PBT and vPvB). A substance mostly used as flame retardant and/or plasticiser in various applications such as highperformance rubber, sealants, paints or textile coating;
• hexabromocyclododecane – HBCDD (PBT). A flame retardant which is used for example in polystyrene, which is then further processed for the production of insulation panels/boards or packaging products, and in textile applications;
• bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate – DEHP (Toxic for reproduction). A plasticiser which is used in a wide range of PVC and other polymers applications, such as for example flooring, roofing, coated fabrics, medical devices or primary packaging of medicinal products, as well as in various preparations such as for example sealants, adhesives and inks;
• benzylbutylphthalate – BBP (Toxic for reproduction). A plasticiser which is used for example in polymer products, and in particular in PVC for flooring applications, in textile and leather coating, as well as in various other preparations such as sealants, coating and inks or adhesives;
• dibutylphthalate – DBP (Toxic for reproduction). A specialist plasticiser which is used in particular in various polymer (PVC/non-PVC) applications (such as floor covering or primary packaging of medicinal products), and as a component of various preparations such as adhesives or paints.

The background information on the methods and approaches as provided by ECHA is given here.

Just as a reminder: in December 2008 ECHA ended the pre-registration phase, in which dossiers for around 150 000 chemicals were received. That means, that at the moment roughly 0.005% of the pre-registered chemicals are subject to authorisation…

Thomas

While REACH considers the effects of single substances, the fact is that we are most commonly exposed to a cocktail of many different substances. This is an area in which important gaps remain in terms of knowledge and assessment. These gaps need to be closed in the coming years.

I couldn’ agree more.

Other challenges that were specifically mentioned included endocrine disrupters and nanotechnology. No surprises there.

The whole transcript of the talk is downloadable as a PDF here. There is also a video of the speech online.

On a slightly different subject: from where I’m sitting, the website is a good example of how not to put together a site for the dissemination of (scientific) information. Simply because it does not provide any background information whatsoever on who is behind this “Helsinki Chemicals Forum”. How is one supposed to assess the quality, reliability and possible bias in the informations presented on the site? Of course, the names of the individual presenters speak for themselves, but it would still be nice to get an idea of who organised the event, why and what the long-term goals are.

When you are lucky, you manage to find the small “Organizer” button, where it then simply states:

HCF (the Helsinki Chemicals Forum) is organised by the Chemicals Forum Association, with partners such as City of Helsinki, European Chemical Agency, Chemical Industry Federation of Finland and University of Helsinki

How much does that tell? I would like to have seen a website of this “Chemical Forum Association”, a contact email, some names… So that I can make up my mind of the agenda of the Forum. Google’ing helps a bit – but why the heck do I have to hunt down those informations, instead of having them presented to me?

Here is some more information. And what do you find?

The organising power behind Helsinki Chemicals Forum is a non-profit organisation Chemicals Forum Association. The city of Helsinki, European Chemicals Agency, the Finnish Chemical Industry Association and Helsinki University are important partners of the Forum.

Great – still no solid information. Not even a full list of the partners behind the Forum, only the “important” ones (makes one wonder what makes an “unimportant” partner). And when you click on the provided link on the bottom of the page (www.helsinkichemforum.eu) you are simply transferred back to the conference site itself (which seems to be run by the conference center).

Some room for improvement…

Thomas

Thomas