Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous chemicals that interfere with hormone action, thereby increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive impairment, cognitive deficits and obesity. A complex literature of mechanistic studies provides evidence on the hazards of EDC exposure, yet there is no widely accepted systematic method to integrate these data to help identify EDC hazards. Inspired by work to improve hazard identification of carcinogens using key characteristics (KCs), we have developed ten KCs of EDCs based on our knowledge of hormone actions and EDC effects. In this Expert Consensus Statement, we describe the logic by which these KCs are identified and the assays that could be used to assess several of these KCs. We reflect on how these ten KCs can be used to identify, organize and utilize mechanistic data when evaluating chemicals as EDCs, and we use diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A and perchlorate as examples to illustrate this approach.

In the last 10 years, good evidence has become available to show that the combined effects of endocrine disruptors (EDs) belonging to the same category (e.g., estrogenic, antiandrogenic, or thyroid-disrupting agents) can be predicted by using dose addition. This is true for a variety of end points representing a wide range of organizational levels and biological complexity. Combinations of EDs are able to produce significant effect, even when each chemical is present at low doses that individually do not induce observable effects. However, comparatively little is known about mixtures composed of chemicals from different classes of EDs. Nevertheless, I argue that the accumulated evidence seriously undermines continuation with the customary chemical-by-chemical approach to risk assessment for EDs. Instead, we should seriously consider group-wise regulation of classes of EDs. Great care should be taken to define such classes by using suitable similarity criteria. Criteria should focus on common effects, rather than common mechanisms. In this review I also highlight research needs and identify the lack of information about exposure scenarios as a knowledge gap that seriously hampers progress with ED risk assessment. Future research should focus on investigating the effects of combinations of EDs from different categories, with considerable emphasis on elucidating mechanisms. This strategy may lead to better-defined criteria for grouping EDs for regulatory purposes. Also, steps should be taken to develop dedicated mixtures exposure assessment for EDs.

Several reviews of synergisms and antagonisms in chemical mixtures have concluded that synergisms are relatively rare. However, these reviews focused on mixtures composed of specific groups of chemicals, such as pesticides or metals and on toxicity endpoints mostly relevant to ecotoxicology. Doubts remain whether these findings can be generalised. A systematic review not restricted to specific chemical mixtures and including mammalian and human toxicity endpoints is missing. We conducted a systematic review and quantitative reappraisal of 10 years' of experimental mixture studies to investigate the frequency and reliability of evaluations of mixture effects as synergistic or antagonistic. Unlike previous reviews, we did not limit our efforts to certain groups of chemicals or specific toxicity outcomes and covered mixture studies relevant to ecotoxicology and human/mammalian toxicology published between 2007 and 2017. We undertook searches for peer-reviewed articles in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, GreenFile, ScienceDirect and Toxline and included studies of controlled exposures of environmental chemical pollutants, defined as unintentional exposures leading to unintended effects. Studies with viruses, prions or therapeutic agents were excluded, as were records with missing details on chemicals' identities, toxicities, doses, or concentrations. To examine the internal validity of studies we developed a risk-of-bias tool tailored to mixture toxicology. For a subset of 388 entries that claimed synergisms or antagonisms, we conducted a quantitative reappraisal of authors' evaluations by deriving ratios of predicted and observed effective mixture doses (concentrations). Our searches produced an inventory of 1220 mixture experiments which we subjected to subgroup analyses. Approximately two thirds of studies did not incorporate more than 2 components. Most experiments relied on low-cost assays with readily quantifiable endpoints. Important toxicity outcomes of relevance for human risk assessment (e.g. carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity) were rarely addressed. The proportion of studies that declared additivity, synergism or antagonisms was approximately equal (one quarter each); the remaining quarter arrived at different evaluations. About half of the 1220 entries were rated as "definitely" or "probably" low risk of bias. Strikingly, relatively few claims of synergistic or antagonistic effects stood up to scrutiny in terms of deviations from expected additivity that exceed the boundaries of acceptable between-study variability. In most cases, the observed mixture doses were not more than two-fold higher or lower than the predicted additive doses. Twenty percent of the entries (N = 78) reported synergisms in excess of that degree of deviation. Our efforts of pinpointing specific factors that predispose to synergistic interactions confirmed previous concerns about the synergistic potential of combinations of triazine, azole and pyrethroid pesticides at environmentally relevant doses. New evidence of synergisms with endocrine disrupting chemicals and metal compounds such as chromium (VI) and nickel in combination with cadmium has emerged. These specific cases of synergisms apart, our results confirm the utility of default application of the dose (concentration) addition concept for predictive assessments of simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals. However, this strategy must be complemented by an awareness of the synergistic potential of specific classes of chemicals. Our conclusions only apply to the chemical space captured in published mixture studies which is biased towards relatively well-researched chemicals. The final protocol was published on the open-access repository Zenodo and attributed the following digital object identifier, doi: https://doi.org//10.5281/zenodo.1319759 (https://zenodo.org/record/1319759#.XXIzdy7dsqM).

Regulatory systems must better provide for risks from exposure to multiple chemicals

Humans and wildlife are exposed to an intractably large number of different combinations of chemicals via food, water, air, consumer products, and other media and sources. This raises concerns about their impact on public and environmental health. The risk assessment of chemicals for regulatory purposes mainly relies on the assessment of individual chemicals. If exposure to multiple chemicals is considered in a legislative framework, it is usually limited to chemicals falling within this framework and co-exposure to chemicals that are covered by a different regulatory framework is often neglected. Methodologies and guidance for assessing risks from combined exposure to multiple chemicals have been developed for different regulatory sectors, however, a harmonised, consistent approach for performing mixture risk assessments and management across different regulatory sectors is lacking. At the time of this publication, several EU research projects are running, funded by the current European Research and Innovation Programme Horizon 2020 or the Seventh Framework Programme. They aim at addressing knowledge gaps and developing methodologies to better assess chemical mixtures, by generating and making available internal and external exposure data, developing models for exposure assessment, developing tools for in silico and in vitro effect assessment to be applied in a tiered framework and for grouping of chemicals, as well as developing joint epidemiological-toxicological approaches for mixture risk assessment and for prioritising mixtures of concern. The projects EDC-MixRisk, EuroMix, EUToxRisk, HBM4EU and SOLUTIONS have started an exchange between the consortia, European Commission Services and EU Agencies, in order to identify where new methodologies have become available and where remaining gaps need to be further addressed. This paper maps how the different projects contribute to the data needs and assessment methodologies and identifies remaining challenges to be further addressed for the assessment of chemical mixtures.