Predictive models in ecotoxicology: Bridging the gap between scientific progress and regulatory applicability—Remarks and research needs

Abstract

This paper concludes a special series of 7 articles (4 on toxicokinetic–toxicodynamic [TK–TD] models and 3 on quantitative structure‐activity relationship [QSAR] models) published in previous issues of Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM). The present paper summarizes the special series articles and highlights their contribution to the topic of increasing the regulatory applicability of effect models. For both TK–TD and QSAR approaches, we then describe the main research needs. The use of TK–TD models for describing sublethal effects must be better developed, particularly through the improvement of the dynamic energy budget (DEBtox) approach. The potential of TK–TD models for moving from lower (molecular) to higher (population) hierarchical levels is highlighted as a promising research line. Some relevant issues to improve the acceptance of QSAR models at the regulatory level are also described, such as increased transparency of the performance assessment and of the modeling algorithms, model documentation, relevance of the chosen target for regulatory needs, and improved mechanistic interpretability. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000–000. © 2019 SETAC

Development and Validation of a Mixture Toxicity Implementation in the Dynamic Energy Budget–Individual‐Based Model: Effects of Copper and Zinc on Daphnia magna Populations

“…Jager et al (2010) have conceptualized the mixture toxicity approach for DEBtox models, and Jager and Ashauer (2018) have explored the possibility of using GUTS models for mixtures. However, GUTS and DEBtox applications described in the literature are mostly based on a single‐substance approach for a specific species of interest (European Food Safety Authority 2018; Vighi et al 2019). There is an opportunity to extend these models to account for mixture toxicity effects, in addition to extrapolating these effects to the population level (Murphy et al 2018; Vighi et al 2019).…”

Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study

“…Additionally, different activity values due to differences among experimental protocols have been already reported on this set of chemicals. 24 In such cases, models and experimental data can be regarded as belonging to the same level of assessment 44 and QSAR models might provide an indication of the potential inactivity of these consistently misclassified compounds. Differences between Charged and Neutralized Forms .…”

Multi‐ and Trans‐Generational Effects on Daphnia Magna of Chlorpyrifos Exposures

“…Model estimates of daily pesticide surface water concentrations evaluated with surface water monitoring can provide field estimates of the magnitude and frequency of acute exposures and allow estimates of TWA chronic exposures for comparison with bioassay results. When the outcome of the screening‐level assessment suggests the need for higher level analysis, population models (Vighi et al, 2019) can be employed to significantly reduce uncertainty in our understanding of pesticide impacts on aquatic receptors. For example, prediction of pesticide risks to aquatic receptors could include integration of model estimates of pesticide stream loading with population models, calibrated against many years of climate data.…”