Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Mar 14.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Sci Technol. 2015 May 21;49(23):13749–13759. doi: 10.1021/es506358x

Table 4.

Comparison of Calculated Khydration Values, Cytotoxicity Index (CTI) Values, and Genotoxicity Index (GTI) Values of HALs

SPARCa
Khydration
CTI (±SE)b GTI (±SE)c
Mono-HALs CAL 17.8 279.0 ± 7.0 7.20 ± 0.42
and di-HALs BAL 11.0 64.6 ± 3.5 2.68 ± 0.11
IAL 4.37 170.4 ± 7.3 0.96 ± 0.03
DCAL 1.95 × 103 35.7 ± 0.8 1.26 ± 0.03
DBAL 1.58 × 103 207.5 ± 2.1 9.11 ± 0.60
BCAL 1.70 × 103 207.4 ± 11.0 1.61 ± 0.21
tri-HALs TCAL 3.24 × 104 0.94 ± 0.03 NSd
TBAL 1.15 × 104 279.8 ± 4.8 3.00 ± 0.03
BDCAL 4.37 × 104 51.1 ± 4.3 2.24 ± 0.05
DBCAL 2.00 × 104 200.2 ± 1.4 6.99 ± 0.28
a

SPARC (SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry) models are mechanistic perturbation models developed by the U.S. EPA to calculate chemical reactivity and physical processes for compounds from molecular structure.100,101

b

The Cytotoxicity index (CTI) value was calculated from the individual LC50 values generated from the bootstrap analyses. The mean CTI was calculated as the (LC50)−1(103).

c

The Genotoxicity index (GTI) value was calculated from the individual 50%TDNA values generated from the bootstrap analyses. The mean GTI was calculated as the (50%TDNA)−1(103). A Pearson correlation analysis demonstrated that no significant correlation exists among the hydration constants and the CTI or the GTI.

d

NS = not significantly different from the negative control.