How to Evaluate the Quality of Toxicokinetic—Toxicodynamic Models in the Context of Environmental Risk Assessment

Environmental risk assessment (ERA) of chemicals relies on the combination of exposure and effects assessment. Exposure concentrations are commonly estimated using mechanistic fate models, but the effects side is restricted to descriptive statistical treatment of toxicity data. Mechanistic effect models are gaining interest in a regulatory context, which has also sparked discussions on model quality and good modeling practice. Proposals for good modeling practice of effect models currently focus very much on population and community models, whereas effects models also exist at the individual level, falling into the category of toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models. In contrast to the higher-level models, TKTD models are usually completely parameterized by fitting them to experimental data. In fact, one of their explicit aims is to replace descriptive methods for data analysis. Furthermore, the construction of these models does not fit into an orderly modeling cycle, given that most TKTD models have been under continuous development for decades and are being applied by many different research groups, for many different purposes. These aspects have considerable consequences for the application of frameworks for model evaluation. For example, classical sensitivity analysis becomes rather meaningless when all model parameters are fitted to a data set. We illustrate these issues with the General Unified Threshold model for Survival (GUTS), relate them to the quality issues for currently used models in ERA, and provide recommendations for the evaluation of TKTD models and their analyses. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:604-614. ©2018 SETAC.

[1]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Ecological models supporting environmental decision making: a strategy for the future. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  CREAM: a European project on mechanistic effect models for ecological risk assessment of chemicals , 2009, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[3]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  A METHOD TO PREDICT AND UNDERSTAND FISH SURVIVAL UNDER DYNAMIC CHEMICAL STRESS USING STANDARD ECOTOXICITY DATA , 2013, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[4]  P. J. Van den Brink,et al.  Potential application of ecological models in the European environmental risk assessment of chemicals I: Review of protection goals in EU directives and regulations , 2010, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[5]  Ryszard Laskowski,et al.  Some good reasons to ban the use of NOEC, LOEC and related concepts in ecotoxicology , 1995 .

[6]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[7]  Volker Grimm,et al.  How to use mechanistic effect models in environmental risk assessment of pesticides: Case studies and recommendations from the SETAC workshop MODELINK , 2016, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[8]  Andreas Focks,et al.  Towards better modelling and decision support: Documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE , 2014 .

[9]  Dmitriy Minond,et al.  Discovery of an enzyme and substrate selective inhibitor of ADAM10 using an exosite-binding glycosylated substrate , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[10]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  General unified threshold model of survival--a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic framework for ecotoxicology. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Hans R. Künsch,et al.  Bayesian experimental design for a toxicokinetic–toxicodynamic model , 2012 .

[12]  André Gergs,et al.  Modelling survival: exposure pattern, species sensitivity and uncertainty , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[13]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  Toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic modelling of survival of Gammarus pulex in multiple pulse exposures to propiconazole: model assumptions, calibration data requirements and predictive power , 2012, Ecotoxicology.

[14]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  Mechanistic effect models for ecological risk assessment of chemicals (MEMoRisk)—a new SETAC-Europe Advisory Group , 2009, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[15]  Tânia Sousa,et al.  From empirical patterns to theory: a formal metabolic theory of life , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Tjalling Jager,et al.  Some good reasons to ban ECx and related concepts in ecotoxicology. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  Elke I. Zimmer,et al.  Simplified dynamic energy budget model for analysing ecotoxicity data. , 2012 .

[18]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  Advantages of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic modelling in aquatic ecotoxicology and risk assessment. , 2010, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[19]  Paul J van den Brink,et al.  Population‐level effects and recovery of aquatic invertebrates after multiple applications of an insecticide , 2016, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[20]  U. Hommen,et al.  Development and validation of an individual based Daphnia magna population model: The influence of crowding on population dynamics , 2009 .

[21]  Sebastiaan A L M Kooijman,et al.  Making Sense of Ecotoxicological Test Results: Towards Application of Process-based Models , 2006, Ecotoxicology.