Acute fish toxicity testing in pesticide risk assessment: still a necessary requirement for the future?

IF 6 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Elena Adams, Sarah Hartmann, Daniel Faber, Yvonne Wolf, Markus Ebeling, Eric Bruns
{"title":"Acute fish toxicity testing in pesticide risk assessment: still a necessary requirement for the future?","authors":"Elena Adams,&nbsp;Sarah Hartmann,&nbsp;Daniel Faber,&nbsp;Yvonne Wolf,&nbsp;Markus Ebeling,&nbsp;Eric Bruns","doi":"10.1186/s12302-025-01170-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The reliance on traditional acute fish toxicity testing in the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products (PPPs) raises ethical and scientific concerns, particularly considering the EU’s commitment to the 3Rs principle (replacement, reduction, refinement) and animal welfare legislation. This study assesses the contribution of acute fish toxicity tests to ERAs for 224 pesticidal active substances (a.s.) approved for use in PPPs in the EU. We analyzed regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) across various aquatic organisms, including fish, invertebrates, sediment-dwelling organisms, algae, and macrophytes using data from publicly available European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conclusions.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Our tiered assessment revealed that only 22 a.s. (approximately 9.8% of the total) were driven by acute fish toxicity in a first-tier assessment. The risk for 20 out of these 22 a.s. was covered considering higher tiers such as geomean RAC calculations, EFSA adaptations of the assessment factor and similar RACs within a factor of 3. For only 2 out of 224 a.s. (0.89%), acute fish toxicity remained the driver in ERA. However, for one substance no chronic fish toxicity test was available. Furthermore, both substances degrade rapidly in water under environmental conditions. As the acute fish toxicity tests were performed under constant exposure, the real acute hazard to fish is substantially lower than indicated by the available data.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The findings advocate for a paradigm shift in regulatory ecotoxicology towards the integration of new approach methodologies, thereby reducing the reliance on vertebrate testing while maintaining environmental protection with regard to acute fish toxicity. This research underscores the potential for regulatory frameworks to minimize animal testing without compromising safety and calls for further investigation into alternative testing methods for specific modes of action.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":546,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12302-025-01170-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-025-01170-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The reliance on traditional acute fish toxicity testing in the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products (PPPs) raises ethical and scientific concerns, particularly considering the EU’s commitment to the 3Rs principle (replacement, reduction, refinement) and animal welfare legislation. This study assesses the contribution of acute fish toxicity tests to ERAs for 224 pesticidal active substances (a.s.) approved for use in PPPs in the EU. We analyzed regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) across various aquatic organisms, including fish, invertebrates, sediment-dwelling organisms, algae, and macrophytes using data from publicly available European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conclusions.

Results

Our tiered assessment revealed that only 22 a.s. (approximately 9.8% of the total) were driven by acute fish toxicity in a first-tier assessment. The risk for 20 out of these 22 a.s. was covered considering higher tiers such as geomean RAC calculations, EFSA adaptations of the assessment factor and similar RACs within a factor of 3. For only 2 out of 224 a.s. (0.89%), acute fish toxicity remained the driver in ERA. However, for one substance no chronic fish toxicity test was available. Furthermore, both substances degrade rapidly in water under environmental conditions. As the acute fish toxicity tests were performed under constant exposure, the real acute hazard to fish is substantially lower than indicated by the available data.

Conclusions

The findings advocate for a paradigm shift in regulatory ecotoxicology towards the integration of new approach methodologies, thereby reducing the reliance on vertebrate testing while maintaining environmental protection with regard to acute fish toxicity. This research underscores the potential for regulatory frameworks to minimize animal testing without compromising safety and calls for further investigation into alternative testing methods for specific modes of action.

农药风险评估中的鱼类急性毒性测试:仍是未来的必要要求吗?
在植物保护产品(PPPs)的环境风险评估(ERA)中依赖传统的急性鱼类毒性测试引起了伦理和科学方面的关注,特别是考虑到欧盟对3Rs原则(替代、减少、改进)和动物福利立法的承诺。本研究评估了急性鱼类毒性试验对欧盟批准用于公私合作伙伴关系的224种农药活性物质(a.s)的ERAs的贡献。我们分析了各种水生生物的监管可接受浓度(RACs),包括鱼类、无脊椎动物、沉积物生物、藻类和大型植物,使用的数据来自欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)的公开结论。结果我们的分级评估显示,在一级评估中,只有22例(约占总数的9.8%)是由鱼类急性毒性引起的。考虑到更高的层次,如几何RAC计算、EFSA对评估因子的调整以及因子3以内的类似RAC,这22个as中有20个的风险被涵盖。224株中只有2株(0.89%)的急性鱼类毒性仍然是ERA的驱动因素。然而,有一种物质没有进行鱼类慢性毒性试验。此外,在环境条件下,这两种物质在水中都能迅速降解。由于急性鱼类毒性试验是在持续暴露的情况下进行的,因此对鱼类的真正急性危害大大低于现有数据所显示的危害。结论:该研究结果倡导监管生态毒理学的范式转变,以整合新的方法方法,从而减少对脊椎动物测试的依赖,同时保持对鱼类急性毒性的环境保护。这项研究强调了监管框架在不影响安全性的情况下最大限度地减少动物试验的潜力,并呼吁进一步研究针对特定作用模式的替代测试方法。
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
Environmental Sciences Europe
Environmental Sciences Europe Environmental Science-Pollution
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation. ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation. ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation. Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues. Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.
×
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