FMC Corporation, Newark, Delaware, USA.
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2024 May;20(3):699-724. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4795. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
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.
模式物种(例如,食谷性猎禽、水禽、雀形目鸟类、驯化啮齿动物)已被用于指导实验室测试数十年,以生成鸟类和哺乳动物预期生态风险评估(ERA)的生存、生长和繁殖数据,而用于两栖类和爬行类的正式采用的风险评估方案尚不存在。当前的体内方法存在公认的缺点,并且对于不同生活史的物种(例如,陆生两栖类、爬行类、蝙蝠)与这些常用模型相比在何种程度上受到现有 ERA 框架的保护存在不确定性。正在开发除了验证用于测试的其他动物模型之外的方法,但将这些新方法纳入风险评估框架需要针对体内反应进行稳健验证。这需要时间,并且将非动物研究的发现外推到陆生野生动物的个体和种群水平的能力仍然很薄弱。未能充分预测和预测危害可能会对监管机构和产品注册人造成经济上的、甚至是法律上的后果。为了能够长期减少或完全替代脊椎动物的使用,需要使用脊椎动物和整体生物数据来为短期 NAM 验证提供数据。因此,值得投资资源以更新实验室中现有的标准测试指南,并解决进行现场研究的明确指导的需求。在此,我们审查了改进标准体内测试方法和推进在野生动物风险评估中使用现场研究的潜力,因为这些工具在可预见的未来将是必要的。《综合环境评估与管理》2024 年;20:699-724。©2023 加拿大国王陛下及其作者。综合环境评估与管理由 Wiley 期刊公司代表环境毒理与化学学会(SETAC)出版。经加拿大环境与气候变化部部长许可转载。本文已由美国政府雇员贡献,其工作在美国属于公有领域。