Next Article in Journal
Optimization of a 100% Product Utilization Process for LPG Separation Based on Distillation-Membrane Technology
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Lipopolysaccharides from Hafnia alvei PCM1200, Proteus penneri 12, and Proteus vulgaris 9/57 on Liposomal Membranes Composed of Natural Egg Yolk Lecithin (EYL) and Synthetic DPPC: An EPR Study and Computer Simulations
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antiparasitic Veterinary Drugs—In Silico Studies of Membrane Permeability, Distribution in the Environment, Human Oral Absorption and Transport Across the Blood–Brain Barrier

by
Anna W. Sobańska
1,*,
Andrzej M. Sobański
2 and
Elżbieta Brzezińska
1
1
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Medical University of Lodz, Muszyńskiego 1, 90-151 Łódź, Poland
2
Faculty of Chemistry, University of Lodz, Tamka 12, 91-403 Łódź, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Membranes 2026, 16(1), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes16010039
Submission received: 31 October 2025 / Revised: 19 December 2025 / Accepted: 7 January 2026 / Published: 10 January 2026

Abstract

The present study examined the safety of 86 veterinary antiparasitic drugs in mammals based on their mobility in the soil–water compartment, bioconcentration factor in fish, and blood–brain barrier permeability. An in silico analysis was performed based on biomembrane permeability descriptors, using novel multiple linear regression, boosted tree, and artificial neural network models. Additionally, intestinal absorption in humans was predicted quantitatively using pkCSM software and qualitatively using SwissADME. It was established that the majority of studied drugs are at least slightly mobile in soil, are unlikely to bioaccumulate in fish, and may be absorbed from the human gastro-intestinal tract; in addition, some of them have high potential to enter the mammalian brain.

1. Introduction

Veterinary drugs enter the environment by several routes [1], including emissions related to drug manufacture, their use in aquaculture [2,3,4], livestock production (especially industrial-scale farms [5]), natural fertilizers [6,7,8], internal or external application to pet animals [9,10], and the disposal of unused medications. Veterinary drugs are widely regarded as environmental pollutants [4,11,12]; among them, antimicrobial agents arouse particular concern [13,14,15], with the main focus being on the development of antimicrobial resistance [14,16,17,18,19,20,21]. The presence of veterinary drugs in the environment is also associated with potential toxicity to off-target organisms [15,22] or changes in the population of nitrogen-fixing rhizobacteria occupying nodules of plants from the Fabaceae family [23].
Antiparasitic veterinary drugs constitute the second largest segment of the global animal health market, representing almost 25% of the total market share [24], yet the risks associated with their release to the environment from livestock and domestic animals have only recently become widely understood. Since then, studies have examined the transfer of antiparasitics, and other veterinary drugs, from manure to soil and their subsequent uptake by plants [6,8,25], edible insects [26], and earthworms, in the case of ivermectin [27].
Many of the studies performed on the environmental aspects of endoparasitic veterinary drugs, such as their bioaccumulation and ecotoxicity, have focused on avermectins [28,29,30,31]. However, there are also reports that milbemycins may have undesired environmental activity [31], as may albendazole [32,33], thiabendazole [34], fenbendazole, pyrantel and praziquantel [35], amprolium, bithionol, levamisole, and pyrimethamine [36]. Many of the drugs used against ectoparasites, such as fleas, ticks, or lice, are also potent, broad-spectrum, organophosphate, phenylpyrazole, neonicotinoid, or pyrethroid insecticides, or benzoylurea derivatives, used to protect crops [37,38,39,40]. They are toxic to several species, including off-target ones (as summarized in Table 1).
Antiparasitics have also been identified in milk from ruminants, and their stability during milk processing is a matter of rising concern [56,57,58,59].
Humans are exposed to veterinary drugs through direct contact and the consumption of contaminated food (meat, dairy products, eggs, bee products), but the scale of this exposure in still unknown in many countries [60]. While the health risks to humans presented by residual veterinary antiparasitics in foods are considered to be relatively low, assuming their correct administration, this data comes mainly from prolonged observations of their widespread use and records of compliance with the food residue standards [61]. In addition, the interactions of veterinary antiparasitic drugs with biological targets in humans are not fully understood, and new aspects of their toxicity and therapeutic applications are constantly being discovered [62,63].
An important fact influencing the bioactivity of a drug is its permeability across biomembranes [64,65]. Drugs are able to cross biomembranes, e.g., from the intestinal tract into the blood, or pass through the blood–brain barrier, through several mechanisms. These include transcellular uptake by passive diffusion (mainly small, moderately lipophilic/lipophilic molecules, e.g., aspirin), paracellular uptake (hydrophilic molecules such as desmopressin), transporter-mediated uptake (e.g., cefixime, valacyclovir), and by transcytosis (e.g., insulin) [64,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. In some situations, transport is facilitated by both passive and carrier-mediated processes [73,74]. Cellular uptake of compounds is limited by their transporter-mediated efflux from cells, with one example being transport by P-glycoprotein (P-gp) [75].
Membrane permeability can be assessed in vitro using (i) cell-based models involving human colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) [69,73,76] or Madin–Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells [77] and (ii) non-cell Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeability Assays (PAMPA) [78]. Caco-2 human colon epithelial cancer cells provide a relatively full mechanistic picture of passage across the intestinal barrier, including the associated permeability, efflux liability, and metabolic transformations; when cultured as a monolayer, they develop transporter proteins, efflux proteins, and Phase II conjugation enzymes, and hence are popular models of human intestinal absorption [70,76,79]. However, Caco-2 experiments are more time-consuming than other cell-based methods (e.g., MDCK assay) [77].
MDCK cells, similarly to Caco-2 cells, differentiate into columnar epithelium and form tight junctions when cultured on semipermeable membranes; as such, they are useful in studies of intestinal epithelial drug transport [77]. Cell-based methodologies are used to measure apparent permeability (Papp), defined below [80]:
P a p p =   d Q d t C 0 · A
where dQ/dt—the rate of permeation across the cells; C0—donor concentration at time zero; A—the area of the cell monolayer.
In PAMPA, donor compartments, i.e., those containing the studied compounds, are separated from acceptor compartments, i.e., those without the studied compounds, by filter plates pre-coated with synthetic phospholipid solutions in organic solvents. The permeation of compounds across the artificial phospholipid membrane is measured after incubation. This data is used to determine the effective permeabilities Pe [81]:
P e = C · l n 1 d r u g a c c e p t o r d r u g e q u i l i b r i u m
C = V D · V A V D + V A · A r e a · T i m e
where VD—volume of the donor compartment; VA—volume of the acceptor compartment.
While PAMPAs exclusively mimic passive absorption and do not account for cellular factors like transporters or enzymes [78], they are very rapid and have lot of potential for modifications [82,83,84]. Different PAMPA tests can be used to determine the passage of compounds across different biological barriers, such as the skin, blood–brain barrier, or cornea [84,85,86,87,88,89,90].
The present study evaluates the impact of 86 veterinary antiparasitic drugs from different chemical families on the environment and human safety. It determines their membrane permeability, mobility in soil, potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms (fish), oral absorption by humans, and mammalian blood–brain barrier permeability. The study uses novel QSAR models based on experimental reference data: blood–brain barrier permeability, bioconcentration factors in fish, and soil–water partition coefficients normalized to organic carbon. Its models employ easily calculated physico-chemical parameters of compounds and their theoretically predicted PAMPA and MDCK membrane permeabilities as independent variables. The results are intended to serve as the first stage in a systematic assessment of the potential risks to humans and the environment resulting from the widespread presence of veterinary antiparasitic drugs in the environment and the food chain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Data

Experimental bioconcentration factors (log BCF) for non-ionic compounds were compiled by Arnot and Gobas [91] into a database available via the EpiSuite software (BCFBAF v. 3.01) [92]. Experimental soil–water partition coefficients normalized to organic carbon (log Koc) were taken from [93,94]. Both log BCF and log Koc reference datasets were revised, and compounds of dubious structures (mixtures of isomers, undefined isomers) and duplicates were removed; hence, 556 compounds with known log BCF and 632 compounds with known log Koc values remained. Unbound brain-to-plasma partition coefficients (Kp,uu) for 74 compounds, obtained using a rat model, were reported by Lawrenz [95]. This rat reference data is considered to be in sufficient agreement with human data for use in pre-clinical screening of drugs [96,97]. Experimental log BCF, log Koc, and log Kp,uu values are presented in the Supplementary Materials.

2.2. Calculated Molecular Descriptors and Membrane Permeability Data

Physico-chemical and ADMET properties were calculated using ADMETLab3.0 software (https://admetlab3.scbdd.com/, accessed on 30 September 2025) using SMILES strings extracted from PubChem as input data. The following physico-chemical descriptors were considered relevant to the studied biological properties: molecular weight (MW); van der Waals volume (Vol); Density = MW/Vol (Dense); count of hydrogen bond acceptors (nHA); count of hydrogen bond donors (nHD); number of rotatable bonds (nRot); number of rings (nRing); number of atoms in the biggest ring (MaxRing); number of non-carbon atoms (hydrogens included) (nHet); number of rigid bonds (nRig); flexibility = nRot/nRig (Flex); the logarithm of aqueous solubility value (log S); the logarithm of the n-octanol/water partition coefficient (log P); the logarithm of the n-octanol/water distribution coefficients at pH = 7.4 (log D); number of sp3 hybridized carbons/total carbon count (Fsp3).
The following ADMET properties were considered in the study: theoretically predicted membrane permeabilities: log Papp values (caco2; MDCK) and the probability of a compound to be highly PAMPA-permeable (PAMPA); steady-state volume of distribution (log VDss); plasma protein binding, % (PPB); the fraction unbound in plasma, % (Fu). The ability of compounds to be absorbed in the gastro-intestinal tract was qualitatively evaluated using the SwissADME software (https://www.swissadme.ch/, accessed on 30 September 2025) [98] and quantitatively evaluated (HIA, %) using pkCSM software (https://biosig.lab.uq.edu.au/pkcsm/prediction, accessed on 30 September 2025) [99]. The values of the descriptors used in the study are listed in the Supplementary Materials.

2.3. Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) Models of log Koc, log BCF and Kp,uu,br

Multiple linear regression models of log Koc, log BCF and log Kp,uu,br were generated using Statistica v. 13.3 (StatSoft Kraków, Poland) in forward stepwise mode, using descriptors calculated by ADMETLab3.0 (Supplementary Materials). The descriptors were manually examined for collinearity using tolerance values. Tolerances were calculated as (1 − R2) and it was assumed that two descriptors were colinear if the tolerance value between them was <0.1 [100]. For every studied property, the models were validated using test sets of compounds, which were not used when generating the models. Compounds taken from previous studies [91,93,95] were randomly assigned to the training or test sets as follows (details given in Supplementary Materials):
  • Log Koc: training set—500; test set—132;
  • Log BCF: training set—400; test set—156;
  • Log Kp,uu: training set—60; test set—14.
Multiple linear regression models were validated using R2, R2adj., and Q2 metrics for the training sets and RMSEpred (Root Mean Square Error of Prediction) for the test sets [101].

2.4. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Models of log Koc, log BCF, and Kp,uu,br

Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) artificial neural networks (ANNs) were generated using Statistica v. 13.3 (regression, Automated Network Search—ANS module, with 1000 networks to train and 5 networks to retain). The neuron activation functions were selected from the following: identity, logistic, hyperbolic tangent, and exponential. The BFGS (Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno) algorithm was used to train the network together with the sum of squares (SOS) or entropy error function. The quality of the ANN models was evaluated using correlation coefficients for the training, test, and validation sets to which the compounds taken from [91,93,95] were randomly assigned. The same independent variables used in the MLR models were also used in the ANN models. The significance of the independent variables in the ANN models was evaluated using global sensitivity analysis (GSA). This procedure rates the importance of an input variable in an ANN model by comparing the sums of the squared residuals for the model without the particular variable with those of the full model: when an input variable scores 1 or less than 1 in the GSA, this network is assumed to perform better without it. Detailed data on five retained networks for each studied parameter are given in the Supplementary Materials.

2.5. Boosted Tree (BT) Models of log Koc, log BCF, and Kp,uu,br

Boosted Tree regression models were generated using Statistica v. 13.3 based on the same training and test datasets as those used to generate MLR models. The sets of independent variables used in the BT models were the same ones as used in MLR and ANN models, with the exception of log Kp,uu: in this case, log VDss was added after the manual examination of “predicted vs. observed” plots obtained for the modified sets of independent variables. The BT regression models were validated using R2 metrics for the training sets and RMSEpred (Root Mean Square Error of Prediction) for the test sets.

3. Results

3.1. Prediction of Mobility in Soil

When studying pharmaceuticals, their mobility in soil is an important property, since their behavior in the soil–water compartment has a strong effect on both terrestrial and aquatic organisms [102,103]. Such mobility can be expressed by a soil–water partition coefficient. Since soils are complex and heterogeneous mixtures of minerals and organic matter, including humic substances, lipids and carbohydrates, the soil–water partition coefficient is usually normalized to organic carbon (Koc) to allow for comparison between different soils. These Koc values are used to assign compounds to soil mobility classes based on McCall’s or EPA criteria (Table 2) [104].
In the present study, the soil mobility of the tested antiparasitic drugs was determined using log Koc values; these were calculated using novel QSAR models based on a combination of simple physico-chemical properties and theoretically predicted membrane permeability descriptors. The models were obtained using MLR, BT, and ANN methods (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4; results for all 86 antiparasitic drugs in the Supplementary Materials).
Our data indicates that log Koc is inversely correlated with the PAMPA descriptor, solubility in water (log S), and flexibility expressed as the count of rotatable bonds (nRot). In contrast, it is also positively correlated with lipophilicity (log P) and heteroatom count (nHet), as shown in Equation (1):
log Koc = 0.921 (±0.067) − 0.0441 (±0.0091) nRot + 0.0309 (±0.0109) nHet + 0.152 (±0.029) nRing − 0.272 (±0.074) PAMPA − 0.201 (±0.033) log S + 0.356 (±0.034) log P

3.2. Prediction of Bioconcentration in Aquatic Organisms

The intensive use of veterinary drugs in farming and in the treatment of pet animals may lead to the contamination of aquatic environments and the accumulation of drug residues in aquatic organisms, including fish, which may be consumed by humans. The fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) is the ratio of chemical concentration in the body of the fish to that in the surrounding water, to account for absorption via the respiratory tract and skin. The BCF is used in lieu of the bioaccumulation factor (BAF), which accounts for dietary, dermal, and respiratory absorption. The bioaccumulation criteria differ between regulatory bodies; however, it is assumed that compounds with log BCF > 3.7 or log BCF > 3.3 are capable of bioaccumulation [91]. The bioconcentration ability of the antiparasitic veterinary drugs was determined using the novel MLR, BT, and ANN models presented below: Equation (2), Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 (results in the Supplementary Materials).
log BCF = 0.668 (±0.133) − 0.130 (±0.011) nRot − 0.0901 (±0.0138) MaxRing − 0.543 (±0.128) PAMPA − 0.251 (±0.040) log S + 0.493 (±0.075) log D
The log BCF values are inversely correlated with aqueous solubility (log S), rotatable bond count (nRot), the largest ring size (MaxRing), and PAMPA. They are also positively correlated with lipophilicity, expressed as log D at pH = 7.4

3.3. Prediction of Absorption from the Gastro-Intestinal Tract in Humans

Absorption of studied drugs from the human gastro-intestinal tract into the blood circulation was predicted using SwissADME and pkCSM software. According to the SwissADME predictions, 11 out of 86 antiparasitics are expected to be poorly absorbed from the GI tract (Supplementary Materials); however, the quantitative HIA absorption for all the studied drugs (including the externally used insecticides) is over the cut-off value of 30%, i.e., they are capable of being absorbed once ingested.

3.4. Prediction of the Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability

It is widely accepted now that excessive binding to plasma proteins can prevent compounds from interacting with biological targets in the brain. The ability of compounds to enter the central nervous system (CNS) may be expressed by the unbound brain-to-plasma concentration ratio (Kp,uu,brain) or the unbound cerebrospinal fluid-to-plasma concentration ratio (Kp,uu,CSF) [95,105,106]. Despite being less available, Kp,uu descriptors are considered to be more clinically relevant than the ratio of the total drug concentration in the brain to that in the blood plasma in a state of equilibrium (Kp or BB). The models of log Kp,uu,br (denoted further as log Kp,uu) developed in this study (Equation (3) and Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12) involve topological polar surface area (TPSA): according to Equation (3), this parameter is inversely correlated with log Kp,uu. Polar surface area is known to be an important predictor in several models of the total brain-to-blood concentration ratio (log BB) [107]. According to Equation (3), TPSA seems, similarly, to influence the blood plasma-brain partition of unbound compounds. The log Kp,uu value is also (positively) correlated with MDCK permeability, as indicated by Equation (3); other descriptors, including nHet and Fsp3, are less relevant.
log Kp,uu = 6.81 (±1.37) − 0.0118 (±0.0034) TPSA − 0.0971 (±0.0373) nHet + 0.670 (±0.329) Fsp3 + 1.31 (±0.30) MDCK

4. Discussion

4.1. Model Applicability

The models developed in this study are based on compounds with known experimental log Koc, log BCF, and log Kp,uu values. The key molecular/membrane permeability descriptors for the reference compounds were compared with those calculated for the antiparasitic drugs, with particular focus on the parameters used in the log Koc, log BCF, and log Kp,uu models developed herein:
  • Log Koc: nRot, nHet, nRing, PAMPA, log S and log P;
  • Log BCF: log D, log S, nRot, PAMPA, MaxRing;
  • Log Kp,uu: TPSA, MDCK, nHet, Fsp3, logVDss.
The values obtained for the studied antiparasitics largely overlap with those obtained for the reference compounds (Supplementary Materials).
The majority of reported log BCF models based on lipophilicity are applicable to compounds with log P between ca. 1 and 6–7. This applicability can be extended by using different equations for different log P ranges, or by using non-linear models [108]. The log BCF models used in the present study were developed based on a large set of non-ionic compounds whose lipophilicity (log P) ranged between −2.2 and +9.9 (Figure 13).

4.2. Analysis of the Predicted Properties in Different Chemical Families of Antiparasitics

Our predicted log Koc, log BCF, log Kp,uu, and HIA values were briefly compared for the main groups of antiparasitics (viz. benzimidazoles, organophosphates, pyrethroids, salicylanilides, and sulfonamides) using violin plots (Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17). Based on the mean log Koc, log BCF, and log Kp,uu values, the salicylanilides and pyrethroids are typically much less mobile in soil and demonstrate much higher bioconcentration in fish than sulfonamides. All tested compounds exhibited a similar potential to cross the blood–brain barrier. Organophosphates, pyrethroids, and salicylanilides are absorbed from the GI tract more readily than the other groups.

4.3. Comparison of Different Predictive Models

The log Koc, log BCF, and log Kp,uu values calculated for the studied drugs were compared with the predictions obtained by the EpiSuite software [92] (for log Koc and log BCF) and Equation (4), reported earlier [109] (for log Kp,uu), Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.
log Kp,uu,br = 0.866 − 0.211 #Heavy atoms − 0.250 #H-bond donors + 0.0272 MR + 0.483 iLOGP
A high degree of similarity was observed between the log Koc or log BCF models developed in the present study; larger differences were noted between these models and the results produced by the EpiSuite software. The differences between the log Kp,uu models proposed in this study are more pronounced.

4.4. Calculated vs. Experimental Values

Experimental log Koc or log BCF values are available only for small subsets of studied drugs: n = 15 for log Koc and n = 11 for log BCF [92]. The predicted log Koc and log BCF values for those subsets are in close agreement with the experimental data. Some of the log BCF and log Koc models (Table 6, underlined correlation coefficients) fit the experimental data slightly more closely than the data from the EpiSuite software, i.e., based on the Meylan methodology [110,111].

4.5. Drugs of Particular Concern

It was established that the majority of studied drugs are at least slightly mobile in soil. Three drugs, viz. closantel, rafoxanide, and flumethrin, were formally classified as “immobile”. No “highly mobile” drugs (log BCF < 1) were noted, but 19 appear “mobile” and 25 are “moderately mobile”. A detailed list of drugs whose mobility in soil suggests an elevated risk of groundwater pollution is given in the Supplementary Materials. “Mobile” and “moderately mobile” drugs were identified in all investigated groups, except for salicylanilides and pyrethroids.
Virtually all tested drugs were found to have a low risk of bioaccumulating in fish, with BCF values below the cut-offs quoted by Arnot and Gobas [91]. However, flumethrin demonstrated a mean predicted log BCF = 3.7 and is hence significantly more likely to bioaccumulate in fish.
Almost all tested drugs are drug-like with regard to Lipinski’s Ro5 (zero or maximum one violation). However, lufenuron slightly exceeds the crude limits for drug-like, orally available compounds (MLOGP = 4.89 and MW = 511 vs. the cut-off values MLOGP = 4.15 and MW = 500 [112]).
For 18 of the studied drugs, the theoretically predicted Caco-2 permeabilities were found to be low, i.e., caco2 below the cut-off value (–5.15 log units); detailed data in the Supplementary Materials and Figure 18. However, six of these compounds have predicted caco2 values just below the threshold (i.e., –5.15 to –5.2). Five drugs from different chemical families (halofuginone, diminazen, pentamidine, amicarbalide, and chlorsulone) have caco2 values below –5.5, suggesting impaired Caco-2 permeability.
Due to the considerable variation in the literature values, it is difficult to conclusively establish a cut-off value that could be used to identify compounds that are able to cross the blood–brain barrier. Nevertheless, it is generally assumed that a compound with Kp,uu,brain > 0.3 to 0.5 (log Kp,uu > −0.52 to −0.3) penetrates the brain easily [105]. Our findings indicate that 25 of the 86 drugs have relatively high log Kp,uu (>−0.3) and 10 more have log Kp,uu values between −0.3 and −0.52 (details in the Supplementary Materials). Five of the studied drugs (fipronil, amicarbalide, chlorsulone, febantel, and netobimin) demonstrated very low log Kp,uu values (below −2); hence, their ability to enter the brain may be poor.

5. Conclusions

Our findings indicate that membrane permeability descriptors may be used in models aimed at predicting the environmental and pharmacokinetic properties of veterinary antiparasitic drugs, as well as other compounds. PAMPA does not play a major role as an independent variable in the soil–water partition (log Koc) and fish bioconcentration (log BCF) models; however, it was selected by stepwise regression in the MLR equations and it was found to have score higher than 1 in the ANN global sensitivity analysis, while in the BT models, it had a relative importance of 0.65 for log BCF and 0.57 for log Koc.
In our blood–brain barrier permeability models, the membrane permeability descriptor MDCK was found to play an important role, selected at the second step of the stepwise MLR analysis, right after TPSA; its relative importance in the BT regression is 0.88. It also demonstrated high scores in the ANN GSA, inferior only to those for nHet (with TPSA playing a less important role in the ANN models).
It was found that the majority of studied compounds are at least slightly mobile in soil. The studied drugs are absorbed by aquatic animals (e.g., fish) from the surrounding water, but are unlikely to bioaccumulate. Once ingested, they are likely to be absorbed from the gastro-intestinal tract; this is also possible for organophosphates and pyrethroids, which are primarily insecticides not intended for internal use. Finally, many of the studied drugs are capable of entering the mammalian (e.g., human) brain.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/membranes16010039/s1. Table S1: Reference compounds for log Koc models; Table S2: Correlations between the properties of reference compounds; Table S3: Predicted membrane permeabilities (caco2, MDCK, PAMPA), HIA absorption (%), log Koc, log BCF and log Kp,uu for 86 antiparasitic drugs; Table S4: mobility in soil classification according to EPA and binary gastro-intestinal (GI) absorption classification; Table S5: Reference compounds for log Kp,uu models; Table S6: ANN validation; Table S7: Reference compounds for log BCF models; Table S8: Properties of 86 drugs; Figure S1: Log Kp,uu-Comparison of key properties of the reference set (n = 74) and studied compounds (n = 86); Figure S2: Log Koc-Comparison of key properties of the reference set (n = 632) and studied compounds (n = 86); Figure S3: Log BCF—Comparison of key properties of the reference set (n = 556) and studied compounds (n = 86).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.S. and A.M.S.; methodology, A.W.S. and E.B.; validation, A.W.S. and E.B.; investigation, A.W.S. and A.M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W.S. and A.M.S.; funding acquisition, A.W.S. and E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research study was supported by an internal grant of the Medical University of Lodz, no. 503/3-016-03/503-31-001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Boxall, A.B.A.; Fogg, L.A.; Blackwell, P.A.; Kay, P. Fate of Veterinary Medicines Applied to Soils. In Pharmaceuticals in the Environment, Sources, Fate, Effects and Risks; Kummerer, K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 165–180. ISBN 978-3-662-09259-0. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rico, A.; Vighi, M.; Van den Brink, P.J.; ter Horst, M.; Macken, A.; Lillicrap, A.; Falconer, L.; Telfer, T.C. Use of Models for the Environmental Risk Assessment of Veterinary Medicines in European Aquaculture: Current Situation and Future Perspectives. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 11, 969–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, S.-S.; Li, Y.-F.; Ning, J.-J.; Xu, L.; Wang, L.-G.; Huang, D.-L.; Wang, X.-H.; Tang, Q.-H.; Du, F.-Y. Occurrence, Bioaccumulation, and Potential Risks of Steroid Hormones in Freshwater Aquaculture Ponds in South China. Water 2024, 16, 2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de la Casa-Resino, I.; Empl, M.T.; Villa, S.; Kolar, B.; Fabrega, J.; Lillicrap, A.D.; Karamanlis, X.N.; Carapeto-García, R. Environmental Risk Assessment of Veterinary Medicinal Products Intended for Use in Aquaculture in Europe: The Need for Developing a Harmonised Approach. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2021, 33, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wychodnik, K.; Gałęzowska, G.; Rogowska, J.; Potrykus, M.; Plenis, A.; Wolska, L. Poultry Farms as a Potential Source of Environmental Pollution by Pharmaceuticals. Molecules 2020, 25, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wei, R.; Ge, F.; Zhang, L.; Hou, X.; Cao, Y.; Gong, L.; Chen, M.; Wang, R.; Bao, E. Occurrence of 13 Veterinary Drugs in Animal Manure-Amended Soils in Eastern China. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 2377–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wohde, M.; Berkner, S.; Junker, T.; Konradi, S.; Schwarz, L.; Düring, R.A. Occurrence and Transformation of Veterinary Pharmaceuticals and Biocides in Manure: A Literature Review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2016, 28, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kwon, J.W. Mobility of Veterinary Drugs in Soil with Application of Manure Compost. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 87, 40–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Toxic Pet Flea and Tick Treatments Are Polluting UK Freshwaters. Imperial News. Imperial College London. Available online: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/243875/toxic-flea-%20tick-treatments-polluting-uk/ (accessed on 5 October 2025).
  10. Joachim, A.; Robertson, L.J.; Ferroglio, E.; Bäumer, W.; Leschnik, M. Antiparasitics against Ectoparasites in Small Animals-Important Pharmaceutical Substances or Underestimated Environmental Hazards? Vet. Parasitol. 2025, 339, 110557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bártíková, H.; Podlipná, R.; Skálová, L. Veterinary Drugs in the Environment and Their Toxicity to Plants. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 2290–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kaczala, F.; Blum, S.E. The Occurrence of Veterinary Pharmaceuticals in the Environment: A Review. Curr. Anal. Chem. 2016, 12, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Albarano, L.; Padilla Suarez, E.G.; Maggio, C.; Marca, A.L.; Iovine, R.; Lofrano, G.; Guida, M.; Vaiano, V.; Carotenuto, M.; Libralato, G. Assessment of Ecological Risks Posed by Veterinary Antibiotics in European Aquatic Environments: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 954, 176280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hamscher, G.; Mohring, S.A.I. Tierarzneimittel in Böden Und in Der Aquatischen Umwelt. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2012, 84, 1052–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baffoni, L.; Alberoni, D.; Gaggìa, F.; Braglia, C.; Stanton, C.; Ross, P.R.; Di Gioia, D. Honeybee Exposure to Veterinary Drugs: How Is the Gut Microbiota Affected? Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e0017621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Economou, V.; Gousia, P. Agriculture and Food Animals as a Source of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria. Infect. Drug Resist. 2015, 8, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marshall, B.M.; Levy, S.B. Food Animals and Antimicrobials: Impacts on Human Health. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 718–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Toutain, P.L.; Ferran, A.A.; Bousquet-Melou, A.; Pelligand, L.; Lees, P. Veterinary Medicine Needs New Green Antimicrobial Drugs. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pomba, C.; Rantala, M.; Greko, C.; Baptiste, K.E.; Catry, B.; van Duijkeren, E.; Mateus, A.; Moreno, M.A.; Pyörälä, S.; Ružauskas, M.; et al. Public Health Risk of Antimicrobial Resistance Transfer from Companion Animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Caneschi, A.; Bardhi, A.; Barbarossa, A.; Zaghini, A. The Use of Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance in Veterinary Medicine, a Complex Phenomenon: A Narrative Review. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vincze, S.; Stamm, I.; Kopp, P.A.; Hermes, J.; Adlhoch, C.; Semmler, T.; Wieler, L.H.; Lübke-Becker, A.; Walther, B. Alarming Proportions of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) in Wound Samples from Companion Animals, Germany 2010–2012. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhou, H.; Jiao, X.; Li, Y. Exploring the Toxicity of Oxytetracycline in Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) Based on the Integrated Biomarker Response Method. Toxics 2024, 12, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Revellin, C.; Hartmann, A.; Solanas, S.; Topp, E. Long-Term Exposure of Agricultural Soil to Veterinary Antibiotics Changes the Population Structure of Symbiotic Nitrogen-Fixing Rhizobacteria Occupying Nodules of Soybeans (Glycine max). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e00109-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Selzer, P.M.; Epe, C. Antiparasitics in Animal Health: Quo Vadis? Trends Parasitol. 2021, 37, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Stando, K.; Korzeniewska, E.; Felis, E.; Harnisz, M.; Bajkacz, S. Uptake of Pharmaceutical Pollutants and Their Metabolites from Soil Fertilized with Manure to Parsley Tissues. Molecules 2022, 27, 4378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. van Dongen, K.C.W.; de Lange, E.; van Asseldonk, L.L.M.; Zoet, L.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Safety and Transfer of Veterinary Drugs from Substrate to Black Soldier Fly Larvae. Animal 2024, 18, 101214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Iglesias, L.E.; Saumell, C.A.; Junco, M.; Sallovitz, J.M.; Lifschitz, A.L. Bioaccumulation and Elimination of Ivermectin by Eisenia Foetida (Savigny 1826) Earthworms. Am. J. Environ. Stud. 2023, 6, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Souza, R.B.; Guimarães, J.R. Effects of Avermectins on the Environment Based on Its Toxicity to Plants and Soil Invertebrates—A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tinkov, O.V.; Grigorev, V.Y.; Grigoreva, L.D. QSAR Analysis of the Acute Toxicity of Avermectins towards Tetrahymena Pyriformis. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2021, 32, 541–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bianchinotti, V.; Gonzalez-Vainer, P.; Suarez, G. Model Breeding and Ecotoxicity Study of Eprinomectin on the Reproductive Performance of Onthophagus hircus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Chemoecology 2025, 35, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jörg, R.; Duis, K.; Egeler, P.; Gilberg, D.; Schuh, C.; Herrchen, M.; Hennecke, D.; Hölzle, L.E.; Heilmann-Thudium, B.; Wohde, M.; et al. Comparison of the Environmental Properties of Parasiticides and Harmonisation of the Basis for Environmental Assessment at the EU Level; European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, Finland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gao, Y.; Li, X.; Guo, J.; Sun, X.; Sun, Z. Reproductive Responses of the Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) to Antiparasitic Albendazole Exposure. Chemosphere 2015, 120, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gkimprixi, E.; Lagos, S.; Nikolaou, C.N.; Karpouzas, D.G.; Tsikou, D. Veterinary Drug Albendazole Inhibits Root Colonization and Symbiotic Function of the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Rhizophagus irregularis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2023, 99, fiad048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. He, J.; Zhu, X.; Xu, K.; Li, Y.; Zhou, J. Network Toxicological and Molecular Docking to Investigate the Mechanisms of Toxicity of Agricultural Chemical Thiabendazole. Chemosphere 2024, 363, 142711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Haseler, C.J.; Shrubb, J.L.; Davies, H.G.D.; Rendle, D.I.; Rathbone, P.C.; Mair, T.S. Environmental Impacts of Equine Parasiticide Treatment: The UK Perspective. Equine Vet. Educ. 2024, 36, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yoshimura, H.; Endoh, Y.S. Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Organisms of Antiparasitic Drugs for Veterinary Use. Environ. Toxicol. 2005, 20, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Jonsson, C.M.; de Queiroz, S.C.d.N. Concepts on Accumulation of Pesticides and Veterinary Drugs in Fish: A Review with Emphasis in Tilapia. Animals 2023, 13, 2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, H.; Shen, X.; Lv, W.; Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Guo, X. Bioaccumulation, Transformation and Toxicity of Imidacloprid and Dinotefuran in Eisenia fetida under Single and Binary Exposure Scenarios. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2024, 111, 104570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alves, P.R.L.; Cardoso, E.J.B.N.; Martines, A.M.; Sousa, J.P.; Pasini, A. Earthworm Ecotoxicological Assessments of Pesticides Used to Treat Seeds under Tropical Conditions. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 2674–2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wells, C.; Collins, C.M.T. A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Potential Risk to the Environment Presented by Active Ingredients in the UK’s Most Commonly Sold Companion Animal Parasiticides. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 45070–45088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ma, Z.; Zhu, W.; Kang, J.; Ma, X.; Jiang, G. A Comprehensive Study on the Ecotoxicity of Ivermectin to Earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 268, 115709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jensen, J.; Diao, X.; Scott-fordsmand, J.J. Sub-Lethal Toxicity of the Antiparasitic Abamectin on Earthworms and the Application of Neutral Red Retention Time as a Biomarker. Chemosphere 2007, 68, 744–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mahefarisoa, K.L.; Simon Delso, N.; Zaninotto, V.; Colin, M.E.; Bonmatin, J.M. The Threat of Veterinary Medicinal Products and Biocides on Pollinators: A One Health Perspective. One Health 2021, 12, 100237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wilmart, O.; Legrève, A.; Scippo, M.-L.; Reybroeck, W.; Urbain, B.; De Graaf, D.C.; Spanoghe, P.; Delahaut, P.; Saegerman, C. Honey Bee Exposure Scenarios to Selected Residues through Contaminated Beeswax. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Obregon, D.; Guerrero, O.; Sossa, D.; Stashenko, E.; Prada, F.; Ramirez, B.; Duplais, C.; Poveda, K. Route of Exposure to Veterinary Products in Bees: Unraveling Pasture’s Impact on Avermectin Exposure and Tolerance in Stingless Bees. PNAS Nexus 2024, 3, pgae068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gregorc, A.; Alburaki, M.; Sampson, B.; Knight, P.R.; Adamczyk, J. Toxicity of Selected Acaricides to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) and Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) and Their Use in Controlling Varroa within Honey Bee Colonies. Insects 2018, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hawthorne, D.J.; Dively, G.P. Killing Them with Kindness? In-Hive Medications May Inhibit Xenobiotic Efflux Transporters and Endanger Honey Bees. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e26796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bahreini, R.; Nasr, M.; Docherty, C.; de Herdt, O.; Muirhead, S.; Feindel, D. Evaluation of Potential Miticide Toxicity to Varroa Destructor and Honey Bees, Apis Mellifera, under Laboratory Conditions. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bundschuh, M.; Hahn, T.; Ehrlich, B.; Höltge, S.; Kreuzig, R.; Schulz, R. Acute Toxicity and Environmental Risks of Five Veterinary Pharmaceuticals for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2016, 96, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Blomberg, M. Veterinary Antiparasitic Pharmaceuticals-Effects on Behaviour in Fish Larvae. Master’s Thesis, Swedish Univerity of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gameiro, B.G.; Brito, R.S.; Valle, A.D.A.; Tominaga, F.K.; Kummrow, F.; Giannocco, G.; Dimitrius, A.; Pitol, L.; Dsouki, N.A.; De, R.M.; et al. Acute Toxicity and Histopathological Effects of Pyriproxyfen in Adult Male and Female Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Sci. Adv. 2025, 4, 1117–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tominaga, F.K.; Brito, R.S.; Oliveira do Nascimento, J.; Giannocco, G.; Monteiro de Barros Maciel, R.; Kummrow, F.; Pereira, B.F. Pyriproxyfen Toxicity to Fish and Crustaceans: A Literature Review. Environ. Res. 2025, 274, 121295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Al-Najmawi, T.K.; Al-Zubaidy, M.H. Acute Toxicity Events of Ivermectin in Chicks’ Model. Iraqi J. Vet. Sci. 2022, 36, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tassin De Montaigu, C.; Glauser, G.; Guinchard, S.; Goulson, D. High Prevalence of Veterinary Drugs in Bird’s Nests. Sci. Total Environ. 2025, 964, 178439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Herrero-Villar, M.; Taggart, M.A.; Mateo, R. Pharmaceuticals in Avian Scavengers and Other Birds of Prey: A Toxicological Perspective to Improve Risk Assessments. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 948, 174425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Imperiale, F.; Lanusse, C. The Pattern of Blood–Milk Exchange for Antiparasitic Drugs in Dairy Ruminants. Animals 2021, 11, 2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Paucar-Quishpe, V.; Cepeda-Bastidas, D.; Rodríguez-Hidalgo, R.; Pérez-Otáñez, X.; Perez, C.; Enríquez, S.; Guzman, E.; Ulcuango, F.; Grijalva, J.; Vanwambeke, S.O.; et al. Evaluating the Human Risks of Consumption of Foods of Bovine Origin with Ivermectin Residues in Ecuador. Foods 2024, 13, 3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Utemuratova, D.; Konuspayeva, G.; Kabdullina, Z.; Akhmetsadykov, N.; Amutova, F. Assessment of Milk Biosafety for the Content of Antiparasitic Drugs Used for Human Consumption in Different Countries: Review. BIO Web Conf. 2024, 100, 02034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zakaria, A.; Mohamed, R.; H, R.; Ombarak, R. Occurrence of Ivermectin Residues in Egyptian Retail Market Milk and the Effect of Some Processing Treatments on Reduction of Its Concentration. Alex. J. Vet. Sci. 2019, 63, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Abdallah, M.; Bethäuser, J.; Tettenborn, F.; Hein, A.; Hamann, M. Pharmaceutical Consumption in Human and Veterinary Medicine in Germany: Potential Environmental Challenges. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1443935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. O’Flaherty, J.; De Waal, T.; Beechinor, G.; Garvan, C.; Keane, O.; Moody, A.; O’Shaughnessy, J. Report of the Task Force on the Method of Supply of Antiparasitic Veterinary Medicinal Products That Are Intended for Food-Producing Species; Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Dublin, Ireland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  62. Crump, A. Ivermectin: Enigmatic Multifaceted “wonder” Drug Continues to Surprise and Exceed Expectations. J. Antibiot. 2017, 70, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sjakste, N.; Dinter, D.; Gajski, G. A Review of the Genotoxic Effects of Antiparasitic Drugs on Parasites and Their Hosts. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2025, 158, 105797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shinoda, W. Permeability across Lipid Membranes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2016, 1858, 2254–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, S.; Thompson, J.P.; Xia, J.; Bogetti, A.T.; York, F.; Skillman, A.G.; Chong, L.T.; LeBard, D.N. Mechanistic Insights into Passive Membrane Permeability of Drug-like Molecules from a Weighted Ensemble of Trajectories. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2022, 62, 1891–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Li, A. In Vitro Approaches to Evaluate ADMET Drug Properties. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2005, 4, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Menichetti, R.; Kanekal, K.H.; Bereau, T. Drug-Membrane Permeability across Chemical Space. ACS Cent. Sci. 2019, 5, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Yang, N.J.; Hinner, M.J. Getting Across the Cell Membrane: An Overview for Small Molecules, Peptides, and Proteins. Methods Mol. Biol. 2015, 1266, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Artursson, P.; Palm, K.; Luthman, K. Caco-2 Monolayers in Experimental and Theoretical Predictions of Drug Transport. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1996, 22, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Press, B. Optimization of the Caco-2 Permeability Assay to Screen Drug Compounds for Intestinal Absorption and Efflux. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 763, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Duffy, K.R.; Pardridge, W.M. Blood-Brain Barrier Transcytosis of Insulin in Developing Rabbits. Brain Res. 1987, 420, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pantzar, N.; Lundins, S.; Westromt, B.R. Different Properties of the Paracellular Pathway Account for the Regional Small Intestinal Permeability to the Peptide Desmopressin. J. Pharm. Sci. 1995, 84, 1245–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hubatsch, I.; Ragnarsson, E.G.E.; Artursson, P. Determination of Drug Permeability and Prediction of Drug Absorption in Caco-2 Monolayers. Nat. Protoc. 2007, 2, 2111–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sugano, K.; Kansy, M.; Artursson, P.; Avdeef, A.; Bendels, S.; Di, L.; Ecker, G.F.; Faller, B.; Fischer, H.; Gerebtzoff, G.; et al. Coexistence of Passive and Carrier-Mediated Processes in Drug Transport. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9, 597–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lin, J.H.; Yamazaki, M. Role of P-Glycoprotein in Pharmacokinetics Clinical Implications. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2003, 42, 59–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. van Breemen, R.B.; Li, Y. Caco-2 Cell Permeability Assays to Measure Drug Absorption. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2005, 1, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Irvine, J.D.; Takahashi, L.; Lockhar, K.; Cheong, J.; Tolan, J.W.; SelickK, H.E.; Grove, J.R. MDCK (Madin-Darby Canine Kidney) Cells: A Tool for Membrane Permeability Screening. J. Pharm. Sci. 1999, 88, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kansy, M.; Senner, F.; Gubernator, K. Physicochemical High Throughput Screening: Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeation Assay in the Description of Passive Absorption Processes. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 47, 1007–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Press, B.; Di Grandi, D. Permeability for Intestinal Absorption: Caco-2 Assay and Related Issues. Curr. Drug Metab. 2008, 9, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Caco-2 Permeability. Evotec. Available online: https://www.evotec.com/solutions/drug-discovery-preclinical-development/cyprotex-adme-tox-solutions/adme-pk/drug-permeability-and-transporters/caco-2-permeability (accessed on 28 November 2025).
  81. PAMPA. Evotec. Available online: https://www.evotec.com/solutions/drug-discovery-preclinical-development/cyprotex-adme-tox-solutions/adme-pk/drug-permeability-and-transporters/pampa (accessed on 28 November 2025).
  82. Teksin, Z.S.; Seo, P.R.; Polli, J.E. Comparison of Drug Permeabilities and BCS Classification: Three Lipid-Component PAMPA System Method versus Caco-2 Monolayers. AAPS J. 2010, 12, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Chen, X.; Murawski, A.; Patel, K.; Crespi, C.L.; Balimane, P.V. A Novel Design of Artificial Membrane for Improving the PAMPA Model. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25, 1511–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ottaviani, G.; Martel, S.; Carrupt, P.-A. Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeability Assay: A New Membrane for the Fast Prediction of Passive Human Skin Permeability. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 3948–3954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Grumetto, L.; Russo, G.; Barbato, F. Immobilized Artificial Membrane HPLC Derived Parameters vs PAMPA-BBB Data in Estimating in Situ Measured Blood-Brain Barrier Permeation of Drugs. Mol. Pharm. 2016, 13, 2808–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dargó, G.; Vincze, A.; Müller, J.; Kiss, H.J.; Nagy, Z.Z.; Balogh, G.T. Corneal-PAMPA: A Novel, Non-Cell-Based Assay for Prediction of Corneal Drug Permeability. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2019, 128, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vincze, A.; Dargó, G.; Rácz, A.; Balogh, G.T. A Corneal-PAMPA-Based in Silico Model for Predicting Corneal Permeability. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2021, 203, 114218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Soriano-Meseguer, S.; Fuguet, E.; Port, A.; Rosés, M. Evaluation of the Ability of PAMPA Membranes to Emulate Biological Processes through the Abraham Solvation Parameter Model. Membranes 2023, 13, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Williams, J.; Siramshetty, V.; Nguyễn, Ð.-T.; Carvalho Padilha, E.; Yu, K.-R.; Wang, A.Q.; Zhao, T.; Itkin, M.; Shinn, P.; Mathé, E.A.; et al. Using in Vitro ADME Data for Lead Compound Selection: An Emphasis on PAMPA PH 5 Permeability and Oral Bioavailability. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2022, 56, 116588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Diukendjieva, A.; Tsakovska, I.; Alov, P.; Pencheva, T.; Pajeva, I.; Worth, A.P.; Madden, J.C.; Cronin, M.T.D. Advances in the Prediction of Gastrointestinal Absorption: Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Modelling of PAMPA Permeability. Comput. Toxicol. 2019, 10, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Arnot, J.A.; Gobas, F.A.P.C. A Review of Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) and Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF) Assessments for Organic Chemicals in Aquatic Organisms. Environ. Rev. 2006, 14, 257–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. US EPA. EPI SuiteTM-Estimation Program Interface; EPIWEB 4.1; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
  93. Aranda, J.F.; Garro Martinez, J.C.; Castro, E.A.; Duchowicz, P.R. Conformation-Independent QSPR Approach for the Soil Sorption Coefficient of Heterogeneous Compounds. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gramatica, P.; Giani, E.; Papa, E. Statistical External Validation and Consensus Modeling: A QSPR Case Study for K Oc Prediction. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2007, 25, 755–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lawrenz, M.; Svensson, M.; Kato, M.; Dingley, K.H.; Chief Elk, J.; Nie, Z.; Zou, Y.; Kaplan, Z.; Lagiakos, H.R.; Igawa, H.; et al. A Computational Physics-Based Approach to Predict Unbound Brain-to-Plasma Partition Coefficient, Kp,uu. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2023, 63, 3786–3798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Langthaler, K.; Jones, C.R.; Brodin, B.; Bundgaard, C. Assessing Extent of Brain Penetration in Vivo (Kp,uu,Brain) in Göttingen Minipig Using a Diverse Set of Reference Drugs. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2023, 190, 106554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ma, Y.; Jiang, M.; Javeria, H.; Tian, D.; Du, Z. Accurate Prediction of Kp,uu,Brain Based on Experimental Measurement of Kp,Brain and Computed Physicochemical Properties of Candidate Compounds in CNS Drug Discovery. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Daina, A.; Michielin, O.; Zoete, V. SwissADME: A Free Web Tool to Evaluate Pharmacokinetics, Drug-Likeness and Medicinal Chemistry Friendliness of Small Molecules. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 42717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pires, D.E.V.; Blundell, T.L.; Ascher, D.B. PkCSM: Predicting Small-Molecule Pharmacokinetic and Toxicity Properties Using Graph-Based Signatures. J. Med. Chem. 2015, 58, 4066–4072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Daoud, J.I. Multicollinearity and Regression Analysis. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 949, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gramatica, P. On the Development and Validation of QSAR Models. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 930, 499–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Gworek, B.; Kijeńska, M.; Wrzosek, J.; Graniewska, M. Pharmaceuticals in the Soil and Plant Environment: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Alhalabi, A.M.; Meetani, M.A.; Shabib, A.; Maraqa, M.A. Sorption of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds to Soils: A Review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2024, 36, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mobility Classification of Chemicals in Soil. Available online: https://www.chemsafetypro.com/Topics/CRA/Mobility_Classification_of_Chemicals_in_Soil.html (accessed on 26 October 2025).
  105. Loryan, I.; Reichel, A.; Feng, B.; Bundgaard, C.; Shaffer, C.; Kalvass, C.; Bednarczyk, D.; Morrison, D.; Lesuisse, D.; Hoppe, E.; et al. Unbound Brain-to-Plasma Partition Coefficient, Kp,uu,Brain—A Game Changing Parameter for CNS Drug Discovery and Development. Pharm. Res. 2022, 39, 1321–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Dolgikh, E.; Watson, I.A.; Desai, P.V.; Sawada, G.A.; Morton, S.; Jones, T.M.; Raub, T.J. QSAR Model of Unbound Brain-to-Plasma Partition Coefficient, Kp,uu,Brain: Incorporating P-Glycoprotein Efflux as a Variable. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2016, 56, 2225–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Clark, D.E. Rapid Calculation of Polar Molecular Surface Area and Its Application to the Prediction of Transport Phenomena. 2. Prediction of Blood-Brain Barrier Penetration. J. Pharm. Sci. 1999, 88, 815–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sobańska, A.W. Affinity of Compounds for Phosphatydylcholine-Based Immobilized Artificial Membrane—A Measure of Their Bioconcentration in Aquatic Organisms. Membranes 2022, 12, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sobańska, A.W.; Orlikowska, A.; Famulska, K.; Bošnjak, L.; Bosiljevac, D.; Rasztawicka, A.; Sobański, A.M. Systematic Study of Steroid Drugs’ Ability to Cross Biomembranes—The Possible Environmental Impact and Health Risks Associated with Exposure During Pregnancy. Membranes 2025, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Meylan, W.M.; Howard, P.H.; Boethling, R.S.; Aronson, D.; Printup, H.; Gouchie, S. Improved Method for Estimating Bioconcentration/Bioaccumulation Factor from Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1999, 18, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Meylan, W.; Howard, P.H.; Boethling, R.S. Molecular Topology/Fragment Contribution Method for Predicting Soil Sorption Coefficients. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1992, 26, 1560–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lipinski, C.A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B.W.; Feeney, P.J. Experimental and Computational Approaches to Estimate Solubility and Permeability in Drug Discovery and Development Settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2001, 46, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. MLR model of log Koc (Equation (1))—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 1. MLR model of log Koc (Equation (1))—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g001
Figure 2. BT model of log Koc—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 2. BT model of log Koc—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g002
Figure 3. BT model of log Koc—relative importance rating of descriptors.
Figure 3. BT model of log Koc—relative importance rating of descriptors.
Membranes 16 00039 g003
Figure 4. Sample ANN model of log Koc—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 4. Sample ANN model of log Koc—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g004
Figure 5. MLR model of log BCF, Equation (2)—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 5. MLR model of log BCF, Equation (2)—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g005
Figure 6. BT model of log BCF—predicted vs. experimental values.
Figure 6. BT model of log BCF—predicted vs. experimental values.
Membranes 16 00039 g006
Figure 7. BT model of log BCF—relative importance rating of descriptors.
Figure 7. BT model of log BCF—relative importance rating of descriptors.
Membranes 16 00039 g007
Figure 8. Sample ANN model of log BCF—predicted vs. experimental values.
Figure 8. Sample ANN model of log BCF—predicted vs. experimental values.
Membranes 16 00039 g008
Figure 9. MLR model of log Kp,uu (Equation (3))– predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 9. MLR model of log Kp,uu (Equation (3))– predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g009
Figure 10. BT model of log Kp,uu—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 10. BT model of log Kp,uu—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g010
Figure 11. BT model of log Kp,uu—relative importance rating of descriptors.
Figure 11. BT model of log Kp,uu—relative importance rating of descriptors.
Membranes 16 00039 g011
Figure 12. Sample ANN model of log Kp,uu—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Figure 12. Sample ANN model of log Kp,uu—predicted vs. observed (experimental) values.
Membranes 16 00039 g012
Figure 13. Histogram of log P values for reference compounds in log BCF models.
Figure 13. Histogram of log P values for reference compounds in log BCF models.
Membranes 16 00039 g013
Figure 14. Violin plot of mean log Koc values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Figure 14. Violin plot of mean log Koc values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Membranes 16 00039 g014
Figure 15. Violin plot of HIA values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Figure 15. Violin plot of HIA values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Membranes 16 00039 g015
Figure 16. Violin plot of mean log BCF values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Figure 16. Violin plot of mean log BCF values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Membranes 16 00039 g016
Figure 17. Violin plot of mean log Kp,uu values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Figure 17. Violin plot of mean log Kp,uu values for veterinary antiparasitic drugs.
Membranes 16 00039 g017
Figure 18. Distribution of calculated caco2 values for 86 studied drugs.
Figure 18. Distribution of calculated caco2 values for 86 studied drugs.
Membranes 16 00039 g018
Table 1. Studies on the toxicity of veterinary antiparasitics against off-target species.
Table 1. Studies on the toxicity of veterinary antiparasitics against off-target species.
SpeciesDrugRefs.
EarthwormsImidacloprid and dinotefuran[38]
Avermectins[41,42]
Bees/pollinatorsPyrethroids[43,44]
Avermectins[45]
Selected acaricides used against Varroa[46,47,48]
Aquatic invertebrates, e.g., Daphnia magna, Brachionus calyciflorusAmprolium, bithionol, levamisole, and pyrimethamine[36]
Aquatic macroinvertebratesFlubendazole, fenbendazole, and ivermectin[49]
FishAmprolium, bithionol, levamisole, and pyrimethamine[36]
Doramectin and flumethrin[50]
Pyriproxyfen[51,52]
BirdsIvermectin[53]
Fipronil, imidacloprid, and permethrin[54]
Toxicity to avian scavengers[55]
CrustaceansPyriproxyfen[52]
Table 2. Mobility in soil: EPA classification.
Table 2. Mobility in soil: EPA classification.
Range of log KocMobility Class
<1Very mobile
1–2Mobile
2–3Moderately mobile
3–4Slightly mobile
4–5Hardly mobile
>5Immobile
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between log Koc values calculated using different models for the 86 studied antiparasitic drugs.
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between log Koc values calculated using different models for the 86 studied antiparasitic drugs.
n = 86MLRBTANN1ANN2ANN3ANN4ANN5log KocEPI
MLR1.0000.9840.9870.9810.9810.9760.9660.891
BT0.9841.0000.9700.9660.9630.9560.9520.870
ANN10.9870.9701.0000.9930.9910.9930.9820.887
ANN20.9810.9660.9931.0000.9890.9930.9750.877
ANN30.9810.9630.9910.9891.0000.9920.9870.872
ANN40.9760.9560.9930.9930.9921.0000.9810.880
ANN50.9660.9520.9820.9750.9870.9811.0000.854
log KocEPI0.8910.8700.8870.8770.8720.8800.8541.000
Table 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between log BCF values calculated using different models for 86 antiparasitics.
Table 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between log BCF values calculated using different models for 86 antiparasitics.
n = 86MLRBTANN1ANN2ANN3ANN4ANN5log BCFEPI
MLR1.0000.9530.9780.9620.9760.9730.9740.822
BT0.9531.0000.9660.9620.9560.9630.9650.814
ANN10.9780.9661.0000.9900.9950.9950.9960.837
ANN20.9620.9620.9901.0000.9870.9940.9900.836
ANN30.9760.9560.9950.9871.0000.9970.9960.828
ANN40.9730.9630.9950.9940.9971.0000.9970.838
ANN50.9740.9650.9960.9900.9960.9971.0000.833
log BCFEPI0.8220.8140.8370.8360.8280.8380.8331.000
Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between log Kp,uu values calculated using different models for the 86 studied antiparasitic drugs.
Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between log Kp,uu values calculated using different models for the 86 studied antiparasitic drugs.
n = 86MLRBTANN1ANN2ANN3ANN4ANN5log Kp,uu(4)
MLR1.0000.8560.9130.9550.9480.8410.9100.870
BT0.8561.0000.8300.8640.8630.7720.8140.825
ANN10.9130.8301.0000.9810.9830.9780.9610.777
ANN20.9550.8640.9811.0000.9980.9310.9550.809
ANN30.9480.8630.9830.9981.0000.9320.9430.807
ANN40.8410.7720.9780.9310.9321.0000.9500.713
ANN50.9100.8140.9610.9550.9430.9501.0000.768
log Kp,uu(4)0.8700.8250.7770.8090.8070.7130.7681.000
Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for log BCF and log Koc.
Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for log BCF and log Koc.
n = 11MLRBTANN1log BCFEPIlog BCFexpn = 15MLRBTANN1log KocEPIlog Kocexp
MLR1.0000.9740.9660.8430.912MLR1.0000.9900.9950.9540.956
BT0.9741.0000.9430.8920.905BT0.9901.0000.9750.9240.932
ANN10.9660.9431.0000.8550.882ANN10.9950.9751.0000.9560.970
log BCFEPI0.8430.8920.8551.0000.845log KocEPI0.9540.9240.9561.0000.944
log BCFexp0.9120.9050.8820.8451.000log Kocexp0.9560.9320.9700.9441.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sobańska, A.W.; Sobański, A.M.; Brzezińska, E. Antiparasitic Veterinary Drugs—In Silico Studies of Membrane Permeability, Distribution in the Environment, Human Oral Absorption and Transport Across the Blood–Brain Barrier. Membranes 2026, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes16010039

AMA Style

Sobańska AW, Sobański AM, Brzezińska E. Antiparasitic Veterinary Drugs—In Silico Studies of Membrane Permeability, Distribution in the Environment, Human Oral Absorption and Transport Across the Blood–Brain Barrier. Membranes. 2026; 16(1):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes16010039

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sobańska, Anna W., Andrzej M. Sobański, and Elżbieta Brzezińska. 2026. "Antiparasitic Veterinary Drugs—In Silico Studies of Membrane Permeability, Distribution in the Environment, Human Oral Absorption and Transport Across the Blood–Brain Barrier" Membranes 16, no. 1: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes16010039

APA Style

Sobańska, A. W., Sobański, A. M., & Brzezińska, E. (2026). Antiparasitic Veterinary Drugs—In Silico Studies of Membrane Permeability, Distribution in the Environment, Human Oral Absorption and Transport Across the Blood–Brain Barrier. Membranes, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes16010039

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop