The exact list to be used may require further consideration, and perhaps the development of new LAL and UAL levels; a balance will be needed between the degree of extra protection and the added cost to applicants. Due to a lack of data and SQGs, this assessment did not address the effects of the consideration of a broader range of emerging contaminants such as the vast variety of human and veterinary drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, diagnostic agents, neutraceuticals, and other consumer chemicals such as fragrances and sun-screen

agents, with many modes of action and toxicity, including endocrine disruption, which are widespread, pseudo-persistent (due to continual inputs), and have the potential for both cumulative selleck chemicals and synergistic effects. Clearly, it is not reasonable, affordable, or possible to address all possible chemicals in the chemical portion of a tiered assessment scheme, but the present study indicates that the ERK inhibitor current approach has the potential to miss a range

of potential modes of toxicity that may (or may not) pose risks at disposal sites. One possible approach to addressing this, that was recommended in the 2006 workshop, is to introduce a screening bioassay in the Tier 1 assessment, as in Fig. 1 (Agius and Porebski, 2008, Apitz, 2010 and Apitz, 2011), but the choice, placement, role and implications of such a test (including its effect on the optimal choices for a chemical protocol) must be carefully reviewed. While EC could proceed with changes to its chemical protocol for metals in the short term, it appears that addressing these questions before further expanding the action list used in the DaS chemical protocol would be prudent. A fifth workshop

recommendation was that EC considers the inclusion of chemical UALs in the Tier 1 assessment. This review Nintedanib (BIBF 1120) examined the potential regulatory outcomes of a range of chemical protocols that applied both LAL and UAL SQGs. Protocols with an expanded list of analytes (as is recommended) resulted in ∼19–26% of samples failing a UAL, and 41–47% being subjected to Tier 2 assessment. EC might wish to give serious consideration to the addition of chemical UALs to its chemical protocol. The basis and derivation of these UALs is a policy decision, but less conservative (higher) UALs will reduce the risk of Type I errors; Tier 2 assessments can still result in overall UAL failures for samples posing risk. Such an approach could streamline the decision process by rejecting samples most likely to fail without first requiring the expense of a Tier 2 assessment. If desired, a decision framework can allow applicants to opt for a Tier 2 assessment even after a chemical UAL failure if the potential cost of a Type I failure is too high (Apitz et al., 2005a). A final workshop recommendation was that EC considers different decision rules (as opposed to the current one out, all out rule) for a potentially expanded list of contaminants.