Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 6263–6267 | Cite as

The ChimERA project: coupling mechanistic exposure and effect models into an integrated platform for ecological risk assessment

  • F. De Laender
  • Paul J. van den Brink
  • Colin R. Janssen
  • Antonio Di Guardo
Research and Education Highlights


Current techniques for the ecological risk assessment of chemical substances are often criticised for their lack of environmental realism, ecological relevance and methodological accuracy. ChimERA is a 3-year project (2013–2016), funded by Cefic’s Long Range Initiative (LRI) that aims to address some of these concerns by developing and testing mechanistic fate and effect models, and coupling of these models into one integrated platform for risk assessment. This paper discusses the backdrop against which this project was initiated and lists its objectives and planned methodology.



The Chimera project is financed by the Long Range Initiative of CEFIC ( (project code: LRI-ECO19)


  1. Ashauer R, Agatz A, Albert C et al (2011) Toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic modeling of quantal and graded sublethal endpoints: a brief discussion of concepts. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:2519–2524. doi: 10.1002/etc.639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augusiak J, Van den Brink PJ, Grimm V (2014) Merging validation and evaluation of ecological models to “evaludation”: a review of terminology and a practical approach. Ecol Model.  doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.11.009
  3. Cairns J (1988) Putting the eco in ecotoxicology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 8:226–238. doi: 10.1016/0273-2300(88)90031-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caquet T, Hanson ML, Roucaute M et al (2007) Influence of isolation on the recovery of pond mesocosms from the application of an insecticide. II. Benthic macroinvertebrate responses. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1280–1290. doi: 10.1897/06-250r.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Laender F, De Schamphelaere KAC, Vanrolleghem PA, Janssen CR (2008a) Do we have to incorporate ecological interactions in the sensitivity assessment of ecosystems? An examination of a theoretical assumption underlying species sensitivity distribution models. Environ Int 34:390–396. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Laender F, De Schamphelaere KAC, Vanrolleghem PA, Janssen CR (2008b) Validation of an ecosystem modelling approach as a tool for ecological effect assessments. Chemosphere 71:529–545. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.09.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Laender F, Soetaert K, Middelburg JJ (2010) Inferring chemical effects on carbon flows in aquatic food webs: methodology and case study. Environ Pollut 158:1775–1782. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Laender F, Van den Brink P, Janssen C (2011) Functional redundancy and food web functioning in linuron-exposed ecosystems. Environ Pollut 159:3009–3017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Laender F, Melian CJ, Bindler R et al (2013) The contribution of intra- and interspecific tolerance variability to biodiversity changes along toxicity gradients. Ecol Lett. doi: 10.1111/ele.12210 Google Scholar
  10. Di Guardo A, Hermens JLM (2013) Challenges for exposure prediction in ecological risk assessment, integrated environmental assessment and management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:4–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (2013) Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA J 11:3290Google Scholar
  12. European Chemicals Agency (2011). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Part A: Introduction to the guidance documentGoogle Scholar
  13. European Chemicals Agency (2013). Guidance on regulation (EU) no 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (BPR)Google Scholar
  14. European Medicines Agency (2004). Environmental impact assessment for veterinary medicinal products: phase II guidanceGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleeger JW, Carman KR, Nisbet RM (2003) Indirect effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 317:207–233. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(03)00141-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forbes VE, Calow P (2002) Species sensitivity distributions revisited: a critical appraisal. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8:473–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forbes VE, Hommen U, Thorbek P et al (2009) Ecological models in support of regulatory risk assessments of pesticides: developing a strategy for the future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galic N, Baveco H, Hengeveld GM et al (2012) Simulating population recovery of an aquatic isopod: effects of timing of stress and landscape structure. Environ Pollut 163:91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gasic B, Moeckel C, MacLeod M et al (2009) Measuring and modeling short-term variability of PCBs in air and characterization of urban source strength in Zurich, Switzerland. Environ Sci Technol 43:769–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U et al (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 80(310):987–991. doi: 10.1126/science.1116681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grimm V, Ashauer R, Forbes V et al (2009) CREAM: a European project on mechanistic effect models for ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 16:614–617. doi: 10.1007/s11356-009-0228-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heugens EHW, Hendriks AJ, Dekker T et al (2001) A review of the effects of multiple stressors on aquatic organisms and analysis of uncertainty factors for use in risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 31:247–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hommen U, Baveco JM, Galic N, van den Brink PJ (2010) Potential application of ecological models in the European environmental risk assessment of chemicals I: review of protection goals in EU directives and regulations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jager T, Albert C, Preuss TG, Ashauer R (2011) General unified threshold model of survival—a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic framework for ecotoxicology. Environ Sci Technol 45:2529–2540. doi: 10.1021/es103092a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin BT, Jager T, Nisbet RM et al (2013) Extrapolating ecotoxicological effects from individuals to populations: a generic approach based on Dynamic Energy Budget theory and individual-based modeling. Ecotoxicology 22:574–583. doi: 10.1007/s10646-013-1049-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morselli M, Ghirardello D, Semplice M, Di Guardo A (2011) Modeling short-term variability of semivolatile organic chemicals in air at a local scale: an integrated modeling approach. Environ Pollut 159:1406–1412. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.12.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SCHER, SCENIHR, SCCS (2013). Report on addressing the new challenges for risk assessmentGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmolke A, Thorbek P, DeAngelis DL, Grimm V (2010) Ecological models supporting environmental decision making: a strategy for the future. Trends Ecol Evol 25:479–486. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Traas TP, Janse JH, Van den Brink PJ et al (2004) A freshwater food web model for the combined effects of nutrients and insecticide stress and subsequent recovery. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van den Brink PJ (2008) Ecological risk assessment: from book-keeping to chemical stress ecology. Environ Sci Technol 42:8999–9004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van den Brink PJ, Crum SJH, Gylstra R et al (2009) Effects of a herbicide-insecticide mixture in freshwater microcosms: risk assessment and ecological effect chain. Environ Pollut 157:237–249. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van den Brink PJ, Baird DJ, Baveco JMH, Focks A (2013) The use of traits-based approaches and eco(toxico)logical models to advance the ecological risk assessment framework for chemicals. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Straalen N (2003) Ecotoxicology becomes stress ecology. Environ Sci Technol 37:324A–330ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verbruggen EMJ, van den Brink PJ (2010). Review of recent literature concerning mixture toxicity of pesticides to aquatic organisms—report nr 601400001/2010. Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. De Laender
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul J. van den Brink
    • 3
    • 4
  • Colin R. Janssen
    • 1
  • Antonio Di Guardo
    • 5
  1. 1.GhenToxLabGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Research Unit in Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium
  3. 3.Alterra, Wageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality ManagementWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Science and High TechnologyUniversity of InsubriaComoItaly

Personalised recommendations