It's about time: moving away from statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data.

IF 3 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Tjalling Jager
{"title":"It's about time: moving away from statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data.","authors":"Tjalling Jager","doi":"10.1093/inteam/vjaf009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Environmental risk assessment of chemicals (ERA) relies on single-species laboratory testing to establish the toxic properties of a compound. However, ERA is not concerned with toxicity under laboratory conditions: it needs to assess the impacts of the compound in the real world. Data-driven statistical analyses (e.g., hypothesis testing and interpolation) are the common approaches for analysing toxicity data, but such approaches are the wrong tool for the job at hand. ERA does not need a statistical description of the effects in the toxicity test (at the end of the standardised test duration), it needs to extrapolate from the laboratory test to longer and time-varying exposure. Such extrapolation requires mechanistic process models, providing a simplified representation of the mechanisms underlying toxicity. Any useful model for the toxicity process should explicitly consider both dose (e.g., exposure concentration) and time. In the history of effects analysis for ERA, the factor of time does not get as much attention as the dose, hence common use of the term 'dose-response analysis'. However, this is a historical oversight: time is a crucial factor for understanding toxicity and thereby essential for meaningful extrapolation from laboratory to field. Mechanistic models for ecotoxicity, considering both dose and time, have been around for quite some time and are classified as toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models. TKTD models are starting to find their way into pesticide ERA in Europe, next to the classical statistical approaches. In this opinion paper, I argue that it is about time to leave statistical analysis of toxicity data behind us. Statistics remains important for ERA's effects assessment, but its role lies in the definition of appropriate 'error models', explaining the deviations between model output and observations, which is essential for parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and error propagation. The 'process model', essential for extrapolation, firmly belongs to TKTD modelling.</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Environmental risk assessment of chemicals (ERA) relies on single-species laboratory testing to establish the toxic properties of a compound. However, ERA is not concerned with toxicity under laboratory conditions: it needs to assess the impacts of the compound in the real world. Data-driven statistical analyses (e.g., hypothesis testing and interpolation) are the common approaches for analysing toxicity data, but such approaches are the wrong tool for the job at hand. ERA does not need a statistical description of the effects in the toxicity test (at the end of the standardised test duration), it needs to extrapolate from the laboratory test to longer and time-varying exposure. Such extrapolation requires mechanistic process models, providing a simplified representation of the mechanisms underlying toxicity. Any useful model for the toxicity process should explicitly consider both dose (e.g., exposure concentration) and time. In the history of effects analysis for ERA, the factor of time does not get as much attention as the dose, hence common use of the term 'dose-response analysis'. However, this is a historical oversight: time is a crucial factor for understanding toxicity and thereby essential for meaningful extrapolation from laboratory to field. Mechanistic models for ecotoxicity, considering both dose and time, have been around for quite some time and are classified as toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models. TKTD models are starting to find their way into pesticide ERA in Europe, next to the classical statistical approaches. In this opinion paper, I argue that it is about time to leave statistical analysis of toxicity data behind us. Statistics remains important for ERA's effects assessment, but its role lies in the definition of appropriate 'error models', explaining the deviations between model output and observations, which is essential for parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and error propagation. The 'process model', essential for extrapolation, firmly belongs to TKTD modelling.

是时候抛弃对生态毒性数据的统计分析了。
化学品的环境风险评估(ERA)依赖于单一物种的实验室测试来确定化合物的毒性。然而,ERA并不关心实验室条件下的毒性:它需要评估化合物在现实世界中的影响。数据驱动的统计分析(例如,假设检验和插值)是分析毒性数据的常用方法,但这种方法对于手头的工作来说是错误的工具。ERA不需要毒性试验(在标准化试验持续时间结束时)中效应的统计描述,它需要从实验室试验推断出更长时间和时变的暴露。这种外推需要机制过程模型,提供潜在毒性机制的简化表示。任何有用的毒性过程模型都应明确考虑剂量(例如,暴露浓度)和时间。在ERA效应分析的历史中,时间因素不像剂量因素那样受到重视,因此通常使用“剂量-反应分析”一词。然而,这是历史上的疏忽:时间是理解毒性的关键因素,因此对于从实验室到现场的有意义的推断至关重要。考虑剂量和时间的生态毒性机制模型已经存在了相当长的一段时间,并被归类为毒性动力学-毒性动力学模型。在欧洲,TKTD模型正开始进入农药评估领域,仅次于经典的统计方法。在这篇观点文章中,我认为是时候把毒性数据的统计分析抛在脑后了。统计对于ERA的影响评估仍然很重要,但其作用在于定义适当的“误差模型”,解释模型输出与观测值之间的偏差,这对于参数估计、不确定性量化和误差传播至关重要。对于外推至关重要的“过程模型”绝对属于TKTD建模。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESTOXICOLOGY&nbs-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas: Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making Health and ecological risk and impact assessment Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems Sustaining ecosystems Managing large-scale environmental change Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society: Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信