Ecotoxicology

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 305–314 | Cite as

Making Sense of Ecotoxicological Test Results: Towards Application of Process-based Models

  • Tjalling Jager
  • Evelyn H. W. Heugens
  • Sebastiaan A. L. M. Kooijman
Article

Abstract

The environmental risk of chemicals is routinely assessed by comparing predicted exposure levels to predicted no-effect levels for ecosystems. Although process-based models are commonly used in exposure assessment, the assessment of effects usually comprises purely descriptive models and rules-of-thumb. The problems with this approach start with the analysis of laboratory ecotoxicity tests, because only a limited amount of information is extracted. Standard summary statistics (NOEC, ECx, LC50) are of limited use in part because they change with exposure duration in a manner that varies with the tested species and the toxicant. As an alternative, process-based models are available. These models allow for toxicity measures that are independent of exposure time, make efficient use of the available data from routine toxicity tests, and are better suited for educated extrapolations (e.g., from individual to population, and from continuous to pulse exposure). These capabilities can be used to improve regulatory decisions and allow for a more efficient assessment of effects, which ultimately will reduce the need for animal testing. Process-based modeling also can help to achieve the goals laid out in REACH, the new strategy of the European Commission in dealing with chemicals. This discussion is illustrated with effects data for Daphnia magna, analyzed by the DEBtox model.

Keywords

Effects assessment Toxicity testing Dose-response modeling DEBtox REACH 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Netherlands Technology Foundation STW, applied science division of NWO and the technology programme of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (WEB. 5509). We thank Kees van Leeuwen (EC-JRC, Ispra) and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Alda Álvarez O, Jager T, Kooijman SALM, Kammenga JE (2005) Responses to stress of Caenorhabditis elegans populations with different reproductive strategies. Funct Ecol 19:656–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartell SM, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1992) Ecological Risk Estimation. Lewis Publishers Chelsea, MI, USGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedaux JJM, Kooijman SALM (1994) Statistical analysis of bioassays based on hazard modeling. Environ Ecol Stat 1:303–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradbury SP, Feijtel TCJ, Van Leeuwen CJ (2004) Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environ Sci Technol 38:463A–70ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D (1998) A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen FM, De Bruijn JHM, Hansen BG, Munn SJ, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Pedersen F (2003) Assessment tools under the new European Union chemicals policy. GMI 41:5–19Google Scholar
  7. Crane M, Newman MC (2000) What level of effect is a no observed effect? Environ. Toxicol Chem 19:516–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crommentuijn T, Doodeman CJAM, Doornekamp A, Van Gestel CAM (1997) Life-table study with the springtail Folsomia candida (Willem) exposed to cadmium, chlorpyrifos and triphenyltin hydroxide. In Van Straalen NM, Løkke H (eds) Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminants in Soil. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp 275–91Google Scholar
  9. EC (2003) Technical Guidance Documents on Risk Assessment, Part II. EUR 20418 EN/2 (http://ecb.jrc.it/tgdoc). Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  10. Forbes TL, Forbes VE (1993) A critique of the use of distribution-based extrapolation models in ecotoxicology. Funct Ecol 7:249–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forbes VE, Calow P (1999) Is the per capita rate of increase a good measure of population-level effects in ecotoxicology? Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1544–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heugens, EHW (2003) Predicting Effects of Multiple Stressors on Aquatic Biota. Ph.D. Thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Heugens EHW, Jager T, Creyghton R, Kraak MHS, Hendriks AJ, Van Straalen NM, Admiraal W (2003) Temperature-dependent effects of cadmium on Daphnia magna: accumulation versus sensitivity. Environ Sci Technol 37:2145–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jager T, Alda Álvarez O, Kammenga JE, Kooijman SALM (2005) Modelling nematode life cycles using dynamic energy budgets. Funct Ecol 19:136–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jager T, Crommentuijn T, Van Gestel CAM, Kooijman SALM (2004) Simultaneous modeling of multiple endpoints in life-cycle toxicity tests. Environ Sci Technol 38:2894–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jager T, Kooijman SALM (2005) Modeling receptor kinetics in the analysis of survival data for organophosphorus pesticides. Environ Sci Technol 39:8307–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kooijman SALM (1981) Parametric analyses of mortality rates in bioassays. Water Res 15:107–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kooijman SALM (1996) An alternative for NOEC exists, but the standard model has to be abandoned first. Oikos 75:310–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kooijman SALM (2000) Dynamic Energy and Mass Budgets in Biological Systems. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Kooijman SALM (2001) Quantitative aspects of metabolic organization: a discussion of concepts. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 356:331–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kooijman SALM, Bedaux JJM (1996a) Analysis of toxicity tests on Daphnia survival and reproduction. Water Res 30:1711–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kooijman SALM, Bedaux JJM (1996b) Analysis of toxicity tests on fish growth. Water Res 30:1633–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kooijman SALM, Bedaux JJM, Gerritsen AAM, Oldersma H, Hanstveit AO (1998) Dynamic measures for ecotoxicity. In Newman MC, Strojan C (eds) Risk Assessment: Logic and Measurement. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, US, pp 187–224Google Scholar
  24. Kooijman SALM, Hanstveit AO, Nyholm N (1996) No-effect concentrations in algal growth inhibition tests. Water Res 30:1625–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kooijman SALM, Jager T, Kooi BW (2004) The relationship between elimination rates and partition coefficients. Chemosphere 57:745–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kooijman SALM, Metz JAJ (1984) On the dynamics of chemically stressed populations: the deduction of population consequences from effects on individuals. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 8:254–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kszos LA, Stewart AJ (1991) Effort-allocation analysis of the seven-day fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity tests. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laskowski R (1995) Some good reasons to ban the use of NOEC, LOEC and related concepts in ecotoxicology. Oikos 73:140–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCarty LS, Mackay D (1993) Enhancing ecotoxicological modeling and assessment. Body residues and modes of toxic action. Environ Sci Technol 27:1719–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman MC, McCloskey JT (2000) The individual tolerance concept is not the sole explanation for the probit dose-effect model. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:520–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nisbet RM, Muller EB, Lika K, Kooijman SALM (2000) From molecules to ecosystems through dynamic energy budget models. J Anim Ecol 69:913–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (1998) Report of the OECD Workshop on Statistical Analysis of Aquatic Toxicity Data. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD (2003) Draft Guidance Document on the Statistical Analysis of Ecotoxicity Data. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), (for ISO as working draft ISO TC 147/SC 5 N 18, ISO/WD 1)Google Scholar
  34. Péry ARR, Bedaux JJM, Zonneveld C, Kooijman SALM (2001) Analysis of bioassays with time-varying concentrations. Water Res 35:3825–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Posthuma L, Suter GW, Traas TP (2002) Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinert KH, Giddings JM, Judd L (2002) Effects analysis of time-varying or repeated exposures in aquatic ecological risk assessment of agrochemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1977–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith EP, Cairns J (1993) Extrapolation methods for setting ecological standards for water quality: statistical and ecological concerns. Ecotoxicology 2:203–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snell TW, Serra M (2000) Using probability of extinction to evaluate the ecological significance of toxicant effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2357–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sprague JB (1969) Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish. I. Bioassay methods for acute toxicity. Water Res 3:793–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van der Hoeven N (1997) How to measure no effect. Part III: statistical aspects of NOEC, ECx and NEC estimates. Environmetrics 8:255–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tjalling Jager
    • 1
  • Evelyn H. W. Heugens
    • 2
  • Sebastiaan A. L. M. Kooijman
    • 1
  1. 1.FALW/Department of Theoretical BiologyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations