Toxicity of acrylamides varies in zebrafish, suggesting that biotransformation and hydrophobicity influence hazard assessments.
Acrylamides are widely used in polymer manufacturing and adhesives, and their electrophilic nature raises toxicological concerns when released into aquatic environments. However, their physicochemical diversity complicates the prediction of environmental fate and toxicity. To elucidate the main drivers of their toxicity in aquatic organisms, we investigated ten structurally diverse monomeric acrylamides and methacrylamides in zebrafish embryos ( Danio rerio ) (ZFE). Acute toxicity varied over 2 orders of magnitude (0.16–33 mM) and showed a moderate correlation with hydrophobicity (log K lipw , R 2 = 0.87) and intrinsic electrophilic reactivity (log k GSH ). Measured bioconcentration factors of highly polar, reactive compounds (e.g., NMBA) for ZFE deviated up to 16-fold from model predictions, indicating limited uptake or significant biotransformation. This indicates an impact of toxicokinetics on their in vivo toxicity. UPLC-HRMS-based nontarget screening revealed 90 transformation products across the ten compounds. Glutathione conjugation and mercapturic acid formation were dominant pathways, with mercapturic acid-taurine conjugates observed for eight compounds, suggesting a previously undescribed detoxification mechanism for (meth)acrylamides in the ZFE. Our results highlight the need to integrate toxicokinetic data into hazard assessment of electrophilic compounds, as in vitro assays may overestimate risks. The ZFE provides a mechanistically informative in vivo model to reduce misclassifications, especially for polar and reactive chemicals. This publication is licensed under You are free to share (copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt (remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below: Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license. Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator. *Disclaimer This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials. You are free to share (copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt (remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below: Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license. Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator. *Disclaimer This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials. You are free to share (copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt (remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below: Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license. Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator. *Disclaimer This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grasse et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: