Abstract
Variability among individuals in their responses to toxic chemicals arises from several sources, the most important of which are genetic differences, environmental influences (including maternal effects and historical factors) and measurement error. Effective risk assessment requires that estimates of toxicant response (e.g., LD50, EC50, LOEC, NOEC) are precise — that is, have narrow confidence limits -, repeatable — that is, different laboratories must obtain the same or very similar result -, and accurate — that is, they must provide a reasonable approximation of the effects of toxicants on real ecological systems. Determining which of the above-mentioned sources of variability has the greatest influence on toxicant response has implications for both the design and interpretation of ecotoxicological tests. If, for example, genetic influences are of overriding importance, controlling genotype (by using clones or inbred strains) can lead to greater precision but at the expense of accuracy when the objective is to estimate toxicant response for the species as a whole. Likewise, if environmental influences are of primary importance in controlling the response to toxicants, performing experiments under a standard temperature, light, and food regime may provide highly repeatable test results that have little relevance to the responses of populations in nature. Although there is little doubt that the development of standard ecotoxicological test guidelines (e.g., by the OECD), that control genetic and environmental sources of variability, has led to improvements in the practice of risk assessment, further advances will require a more sophisticated approach for dealing with these sources of uncertainty. There is a need for more systematic approaches for quantifying the sources of variability in toxicant response and for formally combining the error associated with each source in key risk assessment endpoints.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aldenberg T, Slob W (1991) Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), report no. 719192992, The Netherlands
Baird DJ, Barber I, Calow P (1990) Clonal variation in general responses of Daphnia magna Straus to toxic stress. I. Chronic life-history effects. Functional Ecology 4: 399407
Baird DJ, Barber I, Bradley M, Soares AMVM, Calow P (1991) A comparative study of genotype sensitivity to acute toxic stress using clones of Daphnia magna Straus. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 21: 257–265
Calow, P (1992) The three Rs of ecotoxicology. Functional Ecology 6: 617–619
Finney DJ (1978) Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 3rd edn, Charles Griffen and Co, London
Forbes TL, Forbes VE (1993) A critique of the use of distribution-based extrapolation models in ecotoxicology. Functional Ecology 7: 249–254
Forbes VE, Depledge MH (1996) Environmental stress and the distribution of traits within populations. In: Baird DJ, Maltby L, Greig-Smith PW, Douben PET (eds) ECOtoxicology: Ecological Dimensions. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 71–86
Forbes VE, Forbes TL (1994) Ecotoxicology in Theory and Practice. Chapman and Hall, London
Forbes VE, Moller V, Depledge MH (1995) Intrapopulation variability in sublethal response to heavy metal stress in sexual and asexual gastropod populations. Functional Ecology 9: 477–484
Gaddum JH (1933) Reports on biological standards. III. Methods of biological assay depending on a quantal response. Medical Research Council, Special Report Series, no. 183, London
Holloway GJ, Crocker HJ, Callaghan A (1997) The effects of novel and stressful environments on trait distribution. Functional Ecology, in press
Koehn, RK, Bayne BL (1989) Towards a physiological and genetical understanding of the energetics of the stress response. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 37: 157171
Lam P (1996) Interpopulation differences in acute response of Brotia hainanensis (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia) to cadmium: genetic or environmental variance? Environmental Pollution 94: 1–7
Moller V, Forbes VE, Depledge MH (1994) Influence of acclimation and exposure temperature on the acute toxicity of cadmium to the freshwater snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum ( Hydroblidae ). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13: 1519–1524
Moller V, Forbes VE, Depledge MH (1996) Population responses to acute and chronic cadmium exposure in sexual and asexual estuarine gastropods. Ecotoxicology 5: 313–326
Slob W (1994) Uncertainty analysis in multiplicative models. Risk Analysis 14: 571–576
Soares AMVM, Baird DJ, Calow P (1992) Interclonal variation in the performance of Daphnia magna Straus in chronic bioassays. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11: 1477–1483
Van Leeuwen C, Van der Zandt PTJ, Aldenberg T, Verhaar HJM, Hermens JLM (1992) Application to QSARs, extrapolation and equilibrium partitioning in aquatic effects assessment. I. Narcotic industrial pollutants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11: 267–282
Van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JLM (1995) Risk Assessment of Chemicals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Kordrecht, The Netherlands
Wagner C, Lokke H (1991) Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC toxicity data. Water Research 25: 1237–1242
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Forbes, V.E. (1998). Sources and Implications of Variability in Sensitivity to Chemicals for Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment. In: Seiler, J.P., Autrup, J.L., Autrup, H. (eds) Diversification in Toxicology — Man and Environment. Archives of Toxicology, vol 20. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46856-8_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46856-8_36
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-46858-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-46856-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive