Abstract
In the European Union, more than 100,000 man-made chemical substances are awaiting an environmental risk assessment (ERA). Simultaneously, ERA of these chemicals has now entered a new era requiring determination of risks for physiologically diverse species exposed to several chemicals, often in mixtures. Additionally, recent recommendations from regulatory bodies underline a crucial need for the use of mechanistic effect models, allowing assessments that are not only ecologically relevant, but also more integrative, consistent and efficient. At the individual level, toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models are particularly encouraged for the regulatory assessment of pesticide-related risks on aquatic organisms. In this paper, we first briefly present a classical dose-response model to showcase the on-line MOSAIC tool, which offers all necessary services in a turnkey web platform, whatever the type of data analyzed. Secondly, we focus on the necessity to account for the time-dimension of the exposure by illustrating how MOSAIC can support a robust calculation of bioaccumulation metrics. Finally, we show how MOSAIC can be of valuable help to fully complete the EFSA workflow regarding the use of TKTD models, especially with GUTS models, providing a user-friendly interface for calibrating, validating and predicting survival over time under any time-variable exposure scenario of interest. Our conclusion proposes a few lines of thought for an easier use of modelling in ERA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.Availability of data
All data used in this paper is downloadable from the MOSAIC web platform.
References
Ankley G, Bennett R, Erickson R, Hoff D, Hornung M, Johnson R, Mount D, Nichols J, Russom C, Schmieder P (2010) Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):730–741
Ashauer R, Jager T (2018) Physiological modes of action across species and toxicants: the key to predictive ecotoxicology. Environ Sci Process Impacts 00:1–10
Baudrot V, Charles S (2019) Recommendations to address uncertainties in environmental risk assessment using toxicokinetics-toxicodynamics models. Sci Rep Nat Res 9:11432
Baudrot V, Preux S, Ducrot V, Pave A, Charles S (2018a) New insights to compare and choose tktd models for survival based on an interlaboratory study for lymnaea stagnalis exposed to cd. Environ Sci Tech 52(3):1582–1590
Baudrot V, Veber P, Gence G, Charles S (2018b) Fit reduced GUTS models online: from theory to practice. Integr Environ Assess Manag 14(5):625–630
Baudrot V, Charles S, Delignette-Muller ML, Duchemin W, Goussen B, Kehrein N, Kon-Kam-King G, Lopes C, Ruiz P, Singer A, Veber P (2021) morse: modelling tools for reproduction and survival data in ecotoxicology. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=morse, r package version 3.3.0
Brock T, Arena M, Cedergreen N, Charles S, Duquesne S, Ippolito A, Klein M, Reed M, Teodorovic I, Van den Brink P J, Focks A (2020) Application of GUTS models for regulatory aquatic pesticide risk assessment illustrated with an example for the insecticide chlorpyrifos. Integr Environ Assess Manag 17:243–258
Chang W, Cheng J, Allaire J, Sievert C, Schloerke B, Xie Y, Allen J, McPherson J, Dipert A, Borges B (2021) shiny: Web Application Framework for R. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny, r package version 1.6.0
Charles S, Veber P, Delignette-Muller ML (2018) MOSAIC: a web-interface for statistical analyses in ecotoxicology. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:11295–11302
Charles S, Wu D, Ducrot V (2021) How to account for the uncertainty from standard toxicity tests in species sensitivity distributions: an example in non-target plants. PLOS ONE 16(1):e0245071
Clements W (2000) Integrating effects of contaminants across levels of biological organization: an overview. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recover Formerly J Aquat Ecosyst Health 7(2):113–116
EFSA Scientific Committee (2018) Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments. EFSA J 16(1):1–39
European Commission (2013) European Commission (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection produc
European Food Safety Authority (2017) EFSA Guidance Document for predicting environmental concentrations of active substances of plant protection products and transformation products of these active substances in soil. EFSA J 15(178):1–50
Forbes V E, Calow P (2002) Species sensitivity distributions revisited: a critical appraisal. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(3):473–492
Forbes V E, Galic N (2016) Next-generation ecological risk assessment: predicting risk from molecular initiation to ecosystem service delivery. Environ Int 91:215–219
Forfait-Dubuc C, Charles S, Billoir E, Delignette-Muller M (2012) Survival data analyses in ecotoxicology: critical effect concentrations, methods and models. What should we use? Ecotoxicology 12(4):1072–1083
Grech A, Brochot C, Dorne J L, Quignot N, Bois F Y, Beaudouin R (2017) Toxicokinetic models and related tools in environmental risk assessment of chemicals. Sci Total Environ 578:1–15
Jager T (2020) Robust likelihood-based approach for automated optimization and uncertainty analysis of toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic models. Integr Environ Assess Manag 17(2):388–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4333
Jager T, Ashauer R (2018) Modelling survival under chemical stress. A comprehensive guide to the GUTS framework, leanpub edn. Leanpub. https://leanpub.com/guts_book
Kon Kam King G, Veber P, Charles S, Delignette-Muller ML (2014) MOSAIC_SSD: a new web tool for species sensitivity distribution to include censored data by maximum likelihood. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(9):2133–9
MOSAIC (2013). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICbioacc (2020). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/bioacc/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICgrowth (2020). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/growth/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICguts-fit (2018). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/guts/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICguts-predict (2018). http://lbbe-shiny.univ-lyon1.fr/guts-predict/http://lbbe-shiny.univ-lyon1.fr/guts-predict/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICrepro (2014). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/repro/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICssd (2013). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/ssd/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
MOSAICsurv (2014). https://mosaic.univ-lyon1.fr/surv/. Accessed 03 Mar 2021
Ockleford C, Adriaanse P, Berny P, Brock T, Duquesne S, Grilli S, Hernandez-Jerez AF, Bennekou SH, Klein M, Kuhl T, Laskowski R, Machera K, Pelkonen O, Pieper S, Smith RH, Stemmer M, Sundh I, Tiktak A, Topping CJ, Wolterink G, Cedergreen N, Charles S, Focks A, Reed M, Arena M, Ippolito A, Byers H, Teodorovic I (2018) Scientific opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) effect models for regulatory risk assessment of pesticides for aquatic organisms. EFSA J 16(8):5377
OECD (2012) Test No. 305: Bioaccumulation in fish: aqueous and dietary exposure vol section 3. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264185296-en
Park R, Clough J, Wellman M (2008) AQUATOX: modeling environmental fate and ecological effects in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Model 213(1):1–15
Preuss T, Hommen U, Alix A, Ashauer R, van den Brink P, Chapman P, Ducrot V, Forbes V, Grimm V, Schäfer D (2009) Mechanistic effect models for ecological risk assessment of chemicals (MEMoRisk)—a new SETAC-Europe Advisory Group. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16(3):250–252
R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and environment for statistical computing r foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Ratier A, Charles S (2021) Accumulation-depuration data collection in support of toxicokinetic modelling. Sci Data Nat submitted. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.15.439942
Ratier A, Lopes C, Labadie P, Budzinski Hèlène Delorme N, Quéau H, Peluhet L, Geffard O, Babut M (2019) A unified Bayesian framework for estimating model parameters for the bioaccumulation of organic chemicals by benthic invertebrates: proof of concept with PCB153 and two freshwater species. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 180:33–42
Ratier A, Lopes C, Multari G, Mazerolles V, Carpentier P, Charles S (2021) New perspectives on the calculation of bioaccumulation metrics for active substances in living organisms. Integrated environmental assessment and management accepted. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.07.185835
Ritz C (2010) Toward a unified approach to dose–response modeling in ecotoxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(1):220–229
Rubach MN, Baird DJ, Boerwinkel MC, Maund SJ, Roessink I, Van den Brink PJ (2012) Species traits as predictors for intrinsic sensitivity of aquatic invertebrates to the insecticide chlorpyrifos. Ecotoxicology 21(7):2088–101
Schmolke A, Thorbek P, Chapman P, Grimm V (2010) Ecological models and pesticide risk assessment: current modeling practice. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(4):1006–1012
Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Society Ser B Stat Methodol 64(4):583–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353
Watanabe S (2010) Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. J Mach Learn Res 11:3571–3594. arXiv:1004.2316
Wollenberger L, Halling-Sorensen B, Kusk KO (2000) Acute and chronic toxicity of veterinary antibiotics to Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 40(7):723–730
Acknowledgements
A lot of thanks to M. Richard Marchant and Mrs. Miléna Kaag for proof-reading the entire text of the revised manuscript. The work presented in this paper was performed using the computing facilities of the CC LBBE/PRABI. A large part of the work benefited from the French GDR ”Aquatic Ecotoxicology” framework which aims at fostering stimulating scientific discussions and collaborations for more integrative approaches. The development of MOSAICbioacc is part of the ANR project APPROve (ANR-18-CE34-0013) for an integrated approach to propose proteomics for biomonitoring: accumulation, fate and multi-markers (https://anr.fr/Projet-ANR-18-CE34-0013).
Funding
The authors are thankful to ANSES for providing the financial support for the development of the MOSAICbioacc web tool (CNRS contract number 208483). This work was also made with the financial support of the Graduate School H2O’Lyon (ANR-17-EURE-0018) and “Université de Lyon” (UdL), as part of the program “Investissements d’Avenir” run by “Agence Nationale de la Recherche” (ANR)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SC: coordinated part of the research work underlying the presented results as well as the writing of the manuscript with all contributors; she structured the final version of the manuscript, contributed to Figs. 2, 4 and 5, and conceived the graphical-art figure. AR: drafted the first version of the manuscript, conceived Figs. 1 and 3, reviewed the manuscript and helped in finalizing the submitted version of the manuscript. VB: is the main developer of the morse package that supports the MOSAIC web interface; he is actively contributing to MOSAICGUTS−predict, and reviewed the manuscript. GM: developed the first version of MOSAICbioacc and made significant improvements in MOSAICgrowth, then reviewed the manuscript. AS: is the main developer of MOSAICGUTS−predict; she reviewed the manuscript and revised figure 4. DW: fully conceived MOSAICgrowth in its first version and revised the final manuscript. CL: coordinated part of the research work underlying the presented results and revised the entire manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Consent to participate
All authors participated in the research work underlying the content of the manuscript.
Consent to publish
All authors read and approved the final manuscript for submission.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sandrine Charles and Aude Ratier contributed equally to the work.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Charles, S., Ratier, A., Baudrot, V. et al. Taking full advantage of modelling to better assess environmental risk due to xenobiotics—the all-in-one facility MOSAIC. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 29244–29257 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15042-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15042-7