Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016;33(2):149-66.
doi: 10.14573/altex.1601251. Epub 2016 Feb 11.

Toward Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) guidance

Affiliations

Toward Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) guidance

Nicholas Ball et al. ALTEX. 2016.

Abstract

Grouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislations such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document aims to summarize the state-of-the-art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions as far as the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH and compile the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHA's published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.

Keywords: chemical similarity; computational toxicology; hazard assessment; read-across; uncertainty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: Current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol. 2011;85:367–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Api AM, Belsito D, Bruze M, et al. Criteria for the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol. 2015;82(1):S1–S19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arts JH, Hadi M, Irfan MA, et al. A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;71:S1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ball N, Bartels M, Budinsky R, et al. The challenge of using read-across within the EU REACH regulatory framework; how much uncertainty is too much? Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, an exemplary case study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;68:212–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.03.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berggren E, Amcoff P, Benigni R, et al. Chemical safety assessment using read-across: Assessing the use of novel testing methods to strengthen the evidence base for decision making. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:1232–1240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409342. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources