TY - JOUR
T1 - Sublethal effect modelling for environmental risk assessment of chemicals
T2 - Problem definition, model variants, application and challenges
AU - Sherborne, Neil
AU - Galic, Nika
AU - Ashauer, Roman
PY - 2020/11/25
Y1 - 2020/11/25
N2 - Bioenergetic models, and specifically dynamic energy budget (DEB) theory, are gathering a great deal of interest as a tool to predict the effects of realistically variable exposure to toxicants over time on an individual animal. Here we use aquatic ecological risk assessment (ERA) as the context for a review of the different model variants within DEB and the closely related DEBkiss theory (incl. reserves, ageing, size & maturity, starvation). We propose a coherent and unifying naming scheme for all current major DEB variants, explore the implications of each model's underlying assumptions in terms of its capability and complexity and analyse differences between the models (endpoints, mathematical differences, physiological modes of action). The results imply a hierarchy of model complexity which could be used to guide the implementation of simplified model variants. We provide a decision tree to support matching the simplest suitable model to a given research or regulatory question. We detail which new insights can be gained by using DEB in toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic modelling, both generally and for the specific example of ERA, and highlight open questions. Specifically, we outline a moving time window approach to assess time-variable exposure concentrations and discuss how to account for cross-generational exposure. Where possible, we suggest valuable topics for experimental and theoretical research.
AB - Bioenergetic models, and specifically dynamic energy budget (DEB) theory, are gathering a great deal of interest as a tool to predict the effects of realistically variable exposure to toxicants over time on an individual animal. Here we use aquatic ecological risk assessment (ERA) as the context for a review of the different model variants within DEB and the closely related DEBkiss theory (incl. reserves, ageing, size & maturity, starvation). We propose a coherent and unifying naming scheme for all current major DEB variants, explore the implications of each model's underlying assumptions in terms of its capability and complexity and analyse differences between the models (endpoints, mathematical differences, physiological modes of action). The results imply a hierarchy of model complexity which could be used to guide the implementation of simplified model variants. We provide a decision tree to support matching the simplest suitable model to a given research or regulatory question. We detail which new insights can be gained by using DEB in toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic modelling, both generally and for the specific example of ERA, and highlight open questions. Specifically, we outline a moving time window approach to assess time-variable exposure concentrations and discuss how to account for cross-generational exposure. Where possible, we suggest valuable topics for experimental and theoretical research.
KW - Dynamic energy budget
KW - Environmental risk assessment
KW - Model analysis
KW - Time dependency
KW - Toxicokinetics-Toxicodynamics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088828898&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141027
DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141027
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85088828898
SN - 0048-9697
VL - 745
JO - Science of the Total Environment
JF - Science of the Total Environment
M1 - 141027
ER -