Ecotoxicology and environmental/ecological risk assessment ...cefic-lri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ESAP-Brussels-18-11-10-V4... · Strengths: Clearly defined goals Weaknesses:

Ecotoxicology and

environmental/ecological

risk assessment: quo vadis? a personal SWOT analysis

Colin Janssen

Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology

Ghent University, Belgium

http://www.fbw.ugent.be/general/index.php

CEFIC-LRI workshop Brussels, 18-11-2010

Opening statements

ERA is not … just an extension of HRA using other test species! 2000000 potential targets; different protection goals

A lot of data… little knowledge

Technology-driven research without clear hypotheses is not helpful

Unbalanced research efforts in exposure and effects assessment

LRI: short-term “fire fighting” vs. long-term vision?

Ecotoxicology: what?

Aim: to maintain the natural structure and function of ecosystems

Definitions: ‘ecotoxicology is concerned with the toxic effects of chemical and physical agents on living organisms, especially on populations and communities within defined ecosystems; it includes the transfer pathways and their interactions with the environment’ (Rand, 1995)

Keep the purpose in mind: different approaches may have different goals (e.g. scientific, technological or practical/regulatory)

Strengths:Clearly defined goals

Weaknesses:

Tools and measurements are

not compatible with goals


Regulatory ecotoxicology:

confused on aims...and use of data

Local GlobalValue

Tim

e t

o b

en

ifit

Other Sciences

Other Technologies

Other Laws and Regulations

Other Social Needs


Local GlobalValue

Tim

e t

o b

en

ifit

Technology

Science

Practice

Ecotoxicology needs increased efforts

from all sides…


The Threats…

Data explosion (data of low relevance)

Promise of something better… without coordinated action

Measuring wrong assessment endpoints

Over-estimation of relative importance of chemical stress vs. other threats (e.g. global warming)?

Emerging substances and technologies

Chemical mixtures

E2

NP

BP

A

EE

2


Ecotoxicology: …mind the gap

Ecological relevance

7

Human Health

Eco-Toxicology


Ecotoxicology:

…we are going in the wrong direction!

Ecological relevance

1/P

recis

ion

Strengths:Promise of in vitro/in silico data

Mechanistic understanding

Weaknesses:

Technology driven research

Not (yet) compatible with ERA goals


EU risk assessment:

mainly prescription scienceExposure

AtmosphericDeposition

Erosion& Runoff

Untreated discharges

Predicted ExposureConcentration (PEC)

Effects

Laboratory studiesEcotoxicity tests

Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC)

WWTP


1010

Mind the gap

According to European legislation:

Chemicals shall have no unacceptable effects on the environment;

Aim is to prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment;

...etc., etc.,…

What we measure in

practice:

Acute LC50s

Chronic ECx

More of the same (SSDs)

Mesocosm/semi-field effects

We need to make the protection goals operational!


More data… less uncertainty?

Strengths:More relevant data is good

Weaknesses:

Uncertainty not accounted for in most ERAs

PP creeps in the science arena


Effects assessment:

disconnect reality and goals

50

100

LC50 [concentration] in mg/L or % effluent

Threshold:

No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC)

Strengths:

Tests can be adapted to measure/calculate

relevant endpoints for ERA

Weaknesses:

Simplicity

We’re not doing this….


Ecotoxicity test data

PNEC

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1 10 100 1000

NOEC values (µg Cu/l)

cum

ula

tive d

istr

ibution

invertebrates

fish

algae + higher plant

Effects assessment: PNEC extrapolation

No scientific evidence…

Strengths:…

Weaknesses:

Little scientific evidence for factors used

Statistical models better but

lack further validation


Effects assessment

Too much bad data…

0

20

40

60

80

algae invert (F) fish (F) invert (M) fish (M)

Literature search: 156 data points

Application of QC/QA and acceptance criteria

34 data points (22 %) useful in risk assessment

# t

ox

icit

y t

est

resu

lts

Quality and relevance of the (scientific) data used

for RA, in most cases, POOR !


Release estimation

volumes

+ emission scenarios (A and B tables; Appendix I)

Characterisation of environmental compartment

generic (default)

actual

Partitioning between compartments

Biotic and abiotic degradation rates

Elimination processes prior to release to environment

Exposure assessment:

uncertain models…validation?

Strengths:Uniform system for generic environment

Weaknesses:

Little validation

Too many defaults and assumptions based

on limited scientific evidence

No uncertainty analysis

Risk characterisation:

where’s the probability of risk?

Hazard identification

Base set of data

Exposure assessment

Effects assessment

PEC PNEC

Risk characterisation

PEC/PNEC

> 1 < 1

Strengths:Clear Yes or No

Weaknesses:

Based on … all of the above

No probability? Severity? Uncertainty?


Data: Dr. F. Verdonck

Uncertainty band

or confidence

ExposureEffects

SSDECD

% risk Tilapia

Daphnia

Risk characterisation:

better ways… but…


PNEC

Risk charactersation:

ecosystem structure vs. functionEffects on density ≠ effects on related functions


10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

control

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

*** *

low treatment

time (days)

* *10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

* ** * * * *

medium treatment

time (days)

* *10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

* * * ** * *

high treatment

time (days)

* * * * *

ecosystem functions:

NPP, modelled

NPP, measured

NZP, measured

NBP, modelled

10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

00

.00

10

.10

01

0.0

00

control

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

* * ***

***

mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

*0

.00

10

.10

01

0.0

00

low treatment

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

* * * **

* * **mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

**

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

medium treatment

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

* * * *

mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

*

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

high treatment

time (days)

species densities:

phyzoo

mic

10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

control

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

*** *

low treatment

time (days)

* *10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

* ** * * * *

medium treatment

time (days)

* *10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1 d

1

-10

12

3

* * * ** * *

high treatment

time (days)

* * * * *

ecosystem functions:

NPP, modelled

NPP, measured

NZP, measured

NBP, modelled

10 20 30 40 50

mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

00

.00

10

.10

01

0.0

00

control

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

* * ***

***

mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

*

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

low treatment

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

* * * **

* * **mg

C l

1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

**

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

medium treatment

time (days)10 20 30 40 50

* * * *m

g C

l1

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

*

0.0

01

0.1

00

10

.00

0

high treatment

time (days)

species densities:

phyzoo

mic

No effects on

primary

production

100 fold

increases of

phytoplankton

density

Risk assessment vs. risk management:

… different languages.. no translation


Paradigm shift in risk assessment and

management: towards clear endpoints and criteria...


Public values

Ecosystem services

Driver & itsattributes

Exposure tochemicals

Effect ondriver

Decline inservice

Can be valued

Weigh benefit of chemicaluse with cost of impaired

services

The Opportunities:

Paradigm shift needs

Exposure:• validated models• more measurements

Ecosystem:• bioavailability• non-chemical stress

Effects:• eco-endpoints• ecosystem modelling

• ecosystem level• graded results• + uncertainty!

• clear criteria• common currency• communication


The Opportunities…

In theory… we have the right paradigm… but, we need a shift

Look up, don‟t look down too much…

LRI: connect academic science with real (long-term) needs Plant the seeds now… be prepared to

harvest later…

LRI: more Long-term vision, less „fire fighting‟


Change: Yes… we can!(Anonymous (?), 2008)


term

Documents

Ecotoxicology and environmental/ecological risk assessment ...cefic-lri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ESAP-Brussels-18-11-10-V4... · Strengths: Clearly defined goals Weaknesses: