Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Ecotoxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alda Álvarez O, Jager T, Kooijman SALM, Kammenga JE (2005) Responses to stress of Caenorhabditis elegans populations with different reproductive strategies. Funct Ecol 19:656–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartell SM, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1992) Ecological Risk Estimation. Lewis Publishers Chelsea, MI, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedaux JJM, Kooijman SALM (1994) Statistical analysis of bioassays based on hazard modeling. Environ Ecol Stat 1:303–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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–70A

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D (1998) A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:99–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 41:5–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane M, Newman MC (2000) What level of effect is a no observed effect? Environ. Toxicol Chem 19:516–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 275–91

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Centre

  • Forbes TL, Forbes VE (1993) A critique of the use of distribution-based extrapolation models in ecotoxicology. Funct Ecol 7:249–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes VE, Calow P (1999) Is the per capita rate of increase a good measure of population-level effects in ecotoxicology? Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1544–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, EHW (2003) Predicting Effects of Multiple Stressors on Aquatic Biota. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam

  • 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 37:2145–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jager T, Alda Álvarez O, Kammenga JE, Kooijman SALM (2005) Modelling nematode life cycles using dynamic energy budgets. Funct Ecol 19:136–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jager T, Crommentuijn T, Van Gestel CAM, Kooijman SALM (2004) Simultaneous modeling of multiple endpoints in life-cycle toxicity tests. Environ Sci Technol 38:2894–900

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jager T, Kooijman SALM (2005) Modeling receptor kinetics in the analysis of survival data for organophosphorus pesticides. Environ Sci Technol 39:8307–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM (1981) Parametric analyses of mortality rates in bioassays. Water Res 15:107–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM (1996) An alternative for NOEC exists, but the standard model has to be abandoned first. Oikos 75:310–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM (2000) Dynamic Energy and Mass Budgets in Biological Systems. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM (2001) Quantitative aspects of metabolic organization: a discussion of concepts. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 356:331–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM, Bedaux JJM (1996a) Analysis of toxicity tests on Daphnia survival and reproduction. Water Res 30:1711–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM, Bedaux JJM (1996b) Analysis of toxicity tests on fish growth. Water Res 30:1633–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 187–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM, Hanstveit AO, Nyholm N (1996) No-effect concentrations in algal growth inhibition tests. Water Res 30:1625–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM, Jager T, Kooi BW (2004) The relationship between elimination rates and partition coefficients. Chemosphere 57:745–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM, Metz JAJ (1984) On the dynamics of chemically stressed populations: the deduction of population consequences from effects on individuals. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 8:254–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kszos LA, Stewart AJ (1991) Effort-allocation analysis of the seven-day fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity tests. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:67–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laskowski R (1995) Some good reasons to ban the use of NOEC, LOEC and related concepts in ecotoxicology. Oikos 73:140–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty LS, Mackay D (1993) Enhancing ecotoxicological modeling and assessment. Body residues and modes of toxic action. Environ Sci Technol 27:1719–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MC, McCloskey JT (2000) The individual tolerance concept is not the sole explanation for the probit dose-effect model. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:520–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet RM, Muller EB, Lika K, Kooijman SALM (2000) From molecules to ecosystems through dynamic energy budget models. J Anim Ecol 69:913–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1998) Report of the OECD Workshop on Statistical Analysis of Aquatic Toxicity Data. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Péry ARR, Bedaux JJM, Zonneveld C, Kooijman SALM (2001) Analysis of bioassays with time-varying concentrations. Water Res 35:3825–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posthuma L, Suter GW, Traas TP (2002) Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:1977–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith EP, Cairns J (1993) Extrapolation methods for setting ecological standards for water quality: statistical and ecological concerns. Ecotoxicology 2:203–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell TW, Serra M (2000) Using probability of extinction to evaluate the ecological significance of toxicant effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2357–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sprague JB (1969) Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish. I. Bioassay methods for acute toxicity. Water Res 3:793–821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hoeven N (1997) How to measure no effect. Part III: statistical aspects of NOEC, ECx and NEC estimates. Environmetrics 8:255–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FALW/Department of Theoretical Biology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, NL-1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Tjalling Jager & Sebastiaan A. L. M. Kooijman

  2. Department of Aquatic Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94084, NL-1090 GB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Evelyn H. W. Heugens

Authors
  1. Tjalling Jager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evelyn H. W. Heugens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastiaan A. L. M. Kooijman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tjalling Jager.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jager, T., Heugens, E.H.W. & Kooijman, S.A.L.M. Making Sense of Ecotoxicological Test Results: Towards Application of Process-based Models. Ecotoxicology 15, 305–314 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-006-0060-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-006-0060-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation