Improving confidence in (Q)SAR predictions under Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan – a chemical space approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 851-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Kulkarni ◽  
E. Benfenati ◽  
T. S. Barton-Maclaren
2010 ◽  
Vol 73 (8) ◽  
pp. 1548-1551 ◽  
Author(s):  
XU-LIANG CAO ◽  
JEANNETTE CORRIVEAU ◽  
SVETLANA POPOVIC

Although migration from can coatings is likely the source of bisphenol A (BPA) for the canned soft drink products with relatively high BPA concentrations, questions have been raised concerning the exact sources of BPA for those canned soft drink products with low BPA concentrations. Information is also needed for BPA concentrations in canned beer products to conduct proper exposure assessment for BPA under the Government of Canada's Chemicals Management Plan. In this work, 22 soft drink samples and 16 beer samples in both cans and plastic and/or glass bottles were analyzed for BPA. BPA was not detected in any of the soft drink samples in either plastic or glass bottles except for one product with a BPA concentration (0.018 μg/liter) close to the limit of quantification (0.015 μg/liter). BPA was detected in all of the corresponding soft drink products in cans, indicating that migration from can coatings is the likely source for BPA in canned products. Because considerable interference with ions m/z 213 and m/z 228 from sample matrices was observed for all beer samples, BPA concentrations in beer samples were measured using the ion m/z 270 instead. BPA was detected in only one of the seven beer products in glass bottles (0.054 μg/liter) but was detected in all corresponding beer samples in cans at low concentrations ranging from 0.081 to 0.54 μg/liter, indicating that migration from can coatings is likely the source of BPA in canned beer products.


2014 ◽  
Vol 229 ◽  
pp. S221
Author(s):  
John Field ◽  
Nathalie Ritchot ◽  
Pierre Chantal ◽  
Bio Aikawa ◽  
Gordon Barrett ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vimal K. Balakrishnan ◽  
Virginia Palabrica

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999) requires the Canadian government to categorize all substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL). Under the Chemicals Management Plan, the Government of Canada addresses chemicals that had not previously undergone rigorous scientific assessment. One such compound, [[4-[[2-(4-cyclohexylphenoxy)ethyl]ethylamino]-2-methylphenyl]methylene]-, propanedinitrile, commonly known as CHPD (cyclohexylphenoxydinitrile), recently underwent a screening assessment and was declared to be “toxic” to the environment. As a result, the Government of Canada ordered the “virtual elimination” of CHPD from the environment. Thus, CHPD may not be present above the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured using sensitive, but routine, analytical methods. We present a solid-phase extraction (SPE) method to determine CHPD in water and wastewater effluent to establish the maximum environmental release limit for this toxic compound. Optimal extraction was attained using an ENVI-18 cartridge. Extracts were analyzed by HPLC–PDA and HPLC–MS/MS techniques; in both matrices, the PDA method had greater sensitivity, less susceptibility to matrix effects, lower limit of quantitation (LOQ) values, and could be successfully validated at multiple spike levels. The lowest concentration of CHPD that could accurately be measured was found to be 108 ng/L in extracts of pure water, using the HPLC–PDA system. Therefore, this value (108 ng/L) will inform regulations on the maximum environmental release limit for CHPD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document