Elena Adams, Sarah Hartmann, Daniel Faber, Yvonne Wolf, Markus Ebeling, Eric Bruns
{"title":"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?","authors":"Elena Adams, Sarah Hartmann, Daniel Faber, Yvonne Wolf, Markus Ebeling, 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":"{\"title\":\"Acute fish toxicity testing in pesticide risk assessment: still a necessary requirement for the future?\",\"authors\":\"Elena Adams, Sarah Hartmann, Daniel Faber, Yvonne Wolf, Markus Ebeling, 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}","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}
Acute fish toxicity testing in pesticide risk assessment: still a necessary requirement for the future?
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.
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.