Assessing the relevance of ecotoxicological studies for regulatory decision making.

Regulatory policies in many parts of the world recognize either the utility of or the mandate that all available studies be considered in environmental or ecological hazard and risk assessment (ERA) of chemicals, including studies from the peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, a vast array of different studies and data types need to be considered. The first steps in the evaluation process involve determining whether the study is relevant to the ERA and sufficiently reliable. Relevance evaluation is typically performed using existing guidance but involves application of "expert judgment" by risk assessors. In the present paper, we review published guidance for relevance evaluation and, on the basis of the practical experience within the group of authors, we identify additional aspects and further develop already proposed aspects that should be considered when conducting a relevance assessment for ecotoxicological studies. From a regulatory point of view, the overarching key aspect of relevance concerns the ability to directly or indirectly use the study in ERA with the purpose of addressing specific protection goals and ultimately regulatory decision making. Because ERA schemes are based on the appropriate linking of exposure and effect estimates, important features of ecotoxicological studies relate to exposure relevance and biological relevance. Exposure relevance addresses the representativeness of the test substance, environmental exposure media, and exposure regime. Biological relevance deals with the environmental significance of the test organism and the endpoints selected, the ecological realism of the test conditions simulated in the study, as well as a mechanistic link of treatment-related effects for endpoints to the protection goal identified in the ERA. In addition, uncertainties associated with relevance should be considered in the assessment. A systematic and transparent assessment of relevance is needed for regulatory decision making. The relevance aspects also need to be considered by scientists when designing, performing, and reporting ecotoxicological studies to facilitate their use in ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:652-663. © 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Is the chronic Tier-1 effect assessment approach for insecticides protective for aquatic ecosystems?

We investigated the appropriateness of several methods, including those recommended in the Aquatic Guidance Document of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), for the derivation of chronic Tier-1 regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides and aquatic organisms. The insecticides represented different chemical classes (organophosphates, pyrethroids, benzoylureas, insect growth regulators, biopesticides, carbamates, neonicotinoids, and miscellaneous). Chronic Tier-1 RACs derived using toxicity data for the standard species Daphnia magna, Chironomus spp., and/or Americamysis bahia, were compared with Tier-3 RACs derived from micro- and mesocosm studies on basis of the ecological threshold option (ETO-RACs). ETO-RACs could be derived for 31 insecticides applied to micro- and mesocosms in single or multiple applications, yielding a total number of 36 cases for comparison. The chronic Tier-1 RACs calculated according to the EFSA approach resulted in a sufficient protection level, except for 1 neonicotinoid (slightly underprotective) and for several pyrethroids if toxicity data for A. bahia were not included. This latter observation can be explained by 1) the fact that A. bahia is the most sensitive standard test species for pyrethroids, 2) the hydrophobic properties of pyrethroids, and 3) the fact that long-term effects observed in (epi) benthic arthropods may be better explained by exposure via the sediment than via overlying water. Besides including toxicity data for A. bahia, the protection level for pyrethroids can be improved by selecting both D. magna and Chironomus spp. as standard test species for chronic Tier-1 derivation. Although protective in the majority of cases, the conservativeness of the recommended chronic Tier-1 RACs appears to be less than an order of magnitude for a relatively large proportion of insecticides when compared with their Tier-3 ETO-RACs. This may leave limited options for refinement of the chronic effect assessment using laboratory toxicity data for additional species. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:747-758. © 2015 SETAC.

How TK-TD and population models for aquatic macrophytes could support the risk assessment for plant protection products.

This case study of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) workshop MODELINK demonstrates the potential use of mechanistic effects models for macrophytes to extrapolate from effects of a plant protection product observed in laboratory tests to effects resulting from dynamic exposure on macrophyte populations in edge-of-field water bodies. A standard European Union (EU) risk assessment for an example herbicide based on macrophyte laboratory tests indicated risks for several exposure scenarios. Three of these scenarios are further analyzed using effect models for 2 aquatic macrophytes, the free-floating standard test species Lemna sp., and the sediment-rooted submerged additional standard test species Myriophyllum spicatum. Both models include a toxicokinetic (TK) part, describing uptake and elimination of the toxicant, a toxicodynamic (TD) part, describing the internal concentration-response function for growth inhibition, and a description of biomass growth as a function of environmental factors to allow simulating seasonal dynamics. The TK-TD models are calibrated and tested using laboratory tests, whereas the growth models were assumed to be fit for purpose based on comparisons of predictions with typical growth patterns observed in the field. For the risk assessment, biomass dynamics are predicted for the control situation and for several exposure levels. Based on specific protection goals for macrophytes, preliminary example decision criteria are suggested for evaluating the model outputs. The models refined the risk indicated by lower tier testing for 2 exposure scenarios, while confirming the risk associated for the third. Uncertainties related to the experimental and the modeling approaches and their application in the risk assessment are discussed. Based on this case study and the assumption that the models prove suitable for risk assessment once fully evaluated, we recommend that 1) ecological scenarios be developed that are also linked to the exposure scenarios, and 2) quantitative protection goals be set to facilitate the interpretation of model results for risk assessment.

Developing ecological scenarios for the prospective aquatic risk assessment of pesticides.

The prospective aquatic environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is generally based on the comparison of predicted environmental concentrations in edge-of-field surface waters with regulatory acceptable concentrations derived from laboratory and/or model ecosystem experiments with aquatic organisms. New improvements in mechanistic effect modeling have allowed a better characterization of the ecological risks of pesticides through the incorporation of biological trait information and landscape parameters to assess individual, population and/or community-level effects and recovery. Similarly to exposure models, ecological models require scenarios that describe the environmental context in which they are applied. In this article, we propose a conceptual framework for the development of ecological scenarios that, when merged with exposure scenarios, will constitute environmental scenarios for prospective aquatic ERA. These "unified" environmental scenarios are defined as the combination of the biotic and abiotic parameters that are required to characterize exposure, (direct and indirect) effects, and recovery of aquatic nontarget species under realistic worst-case conditions. Ideally, environmental scenarios aim to avoid a potential mismatch between the parameter values and the spatial-temporal scales currently used in aquatic exposure and effect modeling. This requires a deeper understanding of the ecological entities we intend to protect, which can be preliminarily addressed by the formulation of ecological scenarios. In this article we present a methodological approach for the development of ecological scenarios and illustrate this approach by a case-study for Dutch agricultural ditches and the example focal species Sialis lutaria. Finally, we discuss the applicability of ecological scenarios in ERA and propose research needs and recommendations for their development and integration with exposure scenarios. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:510-521. © 2015 SETAC.