No abstract

No abstract

It is virtually impossible to reliably assess water quality with target chemical analyses only. Therefore, a complementary effect-based risk assessment by bioanalyses on mixtures of bioavailable micropollutants is proposed: the Smart Integrated Monitoring (SIMONI) strategy. The goal of this strategy is to obtain more reliable information on the water quality to select optimum measures for improvement. The SIMONI strategy is 2-tiered. Tier 1 is a bioanalytical hazard identification of sites. A tier 2 ecological risk assessment is carried out only at a limited number of sites where increased hazards are detected in tier 1. Tier 2 will be customized, based on tier 1 evaluation and additional knowledge of the aquatic system. The present study focuses on the tier 1 bioanalytical hazard identification to distinguish "hot spots" of chemical pollution. First, a selection was made of relevant and cost-effective bioanalytical endpoints to cover a wide spectrum of micropollutant modes of action. Specific endpoints may indicate which classes of chemicals might cause adverse effects. Second, effect-based trigger values (EBT) were derived for these bioassays to indicate potential ecological risks. Comparison of EBT with bioassay responses should discriminate sites exhibiting different chemical hazards. Third, a model was designed to estimate the overall risks for aquatic ecosystems. The associated follow-up for risk management is a "toxicity traffic light" system: green, low hazard (no action required); orange, potential risk (further research needed); and red, high risk (mitigation measures). Thanks to cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and relevance, the SIMONI strategy has the potential to become the first bioanalytical tool to be applied in regular water quality monitoring programs. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:2385-2399. © 2017 SETAC.

The numbers of potential neurotoxicants in the environment are raising and pose a great risk for humans and the environment. Currently neurotoxicity assessment is mostly performed to predict and prevent harm to human populations. Despite all the efforts invested in the last years in developing novel in vitro or in silico test systems, in vivo tests with rodents are still the only accepted test for neurotoxicity risk assessment in Europe. Despite an increasing number of reports of species showing altered behaviour, neurotoxicity assessment for species in the environment is not required and therefore mostly not performed. Considering the increasing numbers of environmental contaminants with potential neurotoxic potential, eco-neurotoxicity should be also considered in risk assessment. In order to do so novel test systems are needed that can cope with species differences within ecosystems. In the field, online-biomonitoring systems using behavioural information could be used to detect neurotoxic effects and effect-directed analyses could be applied to identify the neurotoxicants causing the effect. Additionally, toxic pressure calculations in combination with mixture modelling could use environmental chemical monitoring data to predict adverse effects and prioritize pollutants for laboratory testing. Cheminformatics based on computational toxicological data from in vitro and in vivo studies could help to identify potential neurotoxicants. An array of in vitro assays covering different modes of action could be applied to screen compounds for neurotoxicity. The selection of in vitro assays could be guided by AOPs relevant for eco-neurotoxicity. In order to be able to perform risk assessment for eco-neurotoxicity, methods need to focus on the most sensitive species in an ecosystem. A test battery using species from different trophic levels might be the best approach. To implement eco-neurotoxicity assessment into European risk assessment, cheminformatics and in vitro screening tests could be used as first approach to identify eco-neurotoxic pollutants. In a second step, a small species test battery could be applied to assess the risks of ecosystems.

No abstract