Toxicological effects assessment for wildlife in the 21st century: Review of current methods and recommendations for a path forward.

Autor:	Bean, Thomas G.¹ (AUTHOR) Thomas.Bean@fmc.com, Beasley, Val R.² (AUTHOR), Berny, Philippe³ (AUTHOR), Eisenreich, Karen M.⁴ (AUTHOR), Elliott, John E.⁵ (AUTHOR), Eng, Margaret L.⁶ (AUTHOR), Fuchsman, Phyllis C.⁷ (AUTHOR), Johnson, Mark S.⁸ (AUTHOR), King, Mason D.⁹ (AUTHOR), Mateo, Rafael¹⁰ (AUTHOR), Meyer, Carolyn B.¹¹ (AUTHOR), Salice, Christopher J.¹² (AUTHOR), Rattner, Barnett A.¹³ (AUTHOR)
Předmět:	Ecological risk assessment Amphibians *Animal experimentation Field research Life history theory Twenty-first century
Zdroj:	Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management. May2024, Vol. 20 Issue 3, p699-724. 26p.
Abstrakt:	Model species (e.g., granivorous gamebirds, waterfowl, passerines, domesticated rodents) have been used for decades in guideline laboratory tests to generate survival, growth, and reproductive data for prospective ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for birds and mammals, while officially adopted risk assessment schemes for amphibians and reptiles do not exist. There are recognized shortcomings of current in vivo methods as well as uncertainty around the extent to which species with different life histories (e.g., terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, bats) than these commonly used models are protected by existing ERA frameworks. Approaches other than validating additional animal models for testing are being developed, but the incorporation of such new approach methodologies (NAMs) into risk assessment frameworks will require robust validations against in vivo responses. This takes time, and the ability to extrapolate findings from nonanimal studies to organism‐ and population‐level effects in terrestrial wildlife remains weak. Failure to adequately anticipate and predict hazards could have economic and potentially even legal consequences for regulators and product registrants. In order to be able to use fewer animals or replace them altogether in the long term, vertebrate use and whole organism data will be needed to provide data for NAM validation in the short term. Therefore, it is worth investing resources for potential updates to existing standard test guidelines used in the laboratory as well as addressing the need for clear guidance on the conduct of field studies. Herein, we review the potential for improving standard in vivo test methods and for advancing the use of field studies in wildlife risk assessment, as these tools will be needed in the foreseeable future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:699–724. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points: Improving current approaches for laboratory animal and field effects assessment methods and simultaneously evaluating how to efficiently reduce the numbers of test subjects for the long term are worthy investments of resources.As in vivo animal testing will be required in some form in the near future, it is worth revisiting updates to standard test guidelines to address shortcomings.Clear regulatory guidance is required for field study design and conduct.It is important to fill critical knowledge gaps on the sensitivity of terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, and bats to environmental contaminants compared to current animal models and if necessary validate alternative methods for toxicological effects assesment pertaining to these taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze:	GreenFILE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text