The new REACH legislation requires assessment of a large number of chemicals in the European market for several endpoints. Developmental toxicity is one of the most difficult endpoints to assess, on account of the complexity, length and costs of experiments. Following the encouragement of QSAR (in silico) methods provided in the REACH itself, the CAESAR project has developed several models.

This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended.

Nanotechnology has rapidly entered into human society, revolutionized many areas, including technology, medicine and cosmetics. This progress is due to the many valuable and unique properties that nanomaterials possess. In turn, these properties might become an issue of concern when considering potentially uncontrolled release to the environment. The rapid development of new nanomaterials thus raises questions about their impact on the environment and human health. This review focuses on the potential of nanomaterials to cause genotoxicity and summarizes recent genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials. Though the number of genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials is still limited, this endpoint has recently received more attention for nanomaterials, and the number of related publications has increased. An analysis of these peer reviewed publications over nearly two decades shows that the test most employed to evaluate the genotoxicity of these nanomaterials is the comet assay, followed by micronucleus, Ames and chromosome aberration tests. Based on the data studied, we concluded that in the majority of the publications analysed in this review, the metal oxide (or silica) nanoparticles of the same core chemical composition did not show different genotoxicity study calls (i.e. positive or negative) in the same test, although some results are inconsistent and need to be confirmed by additional experiments. Where the results are conflicting, it may be due to the following reasons: (1) variation in size of the nanoparticles; (2) variations in size distribution; (3) various purities of nanomaterials; (4) variation in surface areas for nanomaterials with the same average size; (5) differences in coatings; (6) differences in crystal structures of the same types of nanomaterials; (7) differences in size of aggregates in solution/media; (8) differences in assays; (9) different concentrations of nanomaterials in assay tests. Indeed, due to the observed inconsistencies in the recent literature and the lack of adherence to appropriate, standardized test methods, reliable genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials is still challenging.

The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) M7 guideline allows the use of in silico approaches for predicting Ames mutagenicity for the initial assessment of impurities in pharmaceuticals. This is the first international guideline that addresses the use of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models in lieu of actual toxicological studies for human health assessment. Therefore, QSAR models for Ames mutagenicity now require higher predictive power for identifying mutagenic chemicals. To increase the predictive power of QSAR models, larger experimental datasets from reliable sources are required. The Division of Genetics and Mutagenesis, National Institute of Health Sciences (DGM/NIHS) of Japan recently established a unique proprietary Ames mutagenicity database containing 12140 new chemicals that have not been previously used for developing QSAR models. The DGM/NIHS provided this Ames database to QSAR vendors to validate and improve their QSAR tools. The Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project was initiated in 2014 with 12 QSAR vendors testing 17 QSAR tools against these compounds in three phases. We now present the final results. All tools were considerably improved by participation in this project. Most tools achieved >50% sensitivity (positive prediction among all Ames positives) and predictive power (accuracy) was as high as 80%, almost equivalent to the inter-laboratory reproducibility of Ames tests. To further increase the predictive power of QSAR tools, accumulation of additional Ames test data is required as well as re-evaluation of some previous Ames test results. Indeed, some Ames-positive or Ames-negative chemicals may have previously been incorrectly classified because of methodological weakness, resulting in false-positive or false-negative predictions by QSAR tools. These incorrect data hamper prediction and are a source of noise in the development of QSAR models. It is thus essential to establish a large benchmark database consisting only of well-validated Ames test results to build more accurate QSAR models.

The use of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and personal care products (PCPs) is growing day by day all over the world. Thus, these materials have appeared as contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) responsible for hazards and toxicity towards aquatic and terrestrial living systems as well as to humans. Regulatory agencies from all over the world have formulated multiple rules, guidelines and regulations for the risk assessment of pharmaceuticals and PCPs (PPCPs) to the ecosystem. As the generation of a huge amount of experimental data is time consuming and costly, and also requires sacrifice of a large number of animals, computational modeling or in silico approaches are proving to be an efficient technique for not only risk assessment, but also for risk management and data gap filling. The present review deals with the critical assessment of the hazardous potential of PPCPs in the environment. The importance of in silico modeling approaches for the environmental toxicity endpoints to diverse organisms covering all compartments of taxonomy, details of the most commonly employed endpoints, ecotoxicity databases and expert systems as rapid screening tools are discussed meticulously with complete mechanistic interpretations of in silico models reported over the years.