The need for increased acceptance and use of spatially explicit wildlife exposure models

Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation

Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism-level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population- and systems-level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state-of-the-science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population- and system-level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658-673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Advancing exposure assessment approaches to improve wildlife risk assessment

The exposure assessment component of a Wildlife Ecological Risk Assessment aims to estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure to a chemical or environmental contaminant, along with characteristics of the exposed population. This can be challenging in wildlife as there is often high uncertainty and error caused by broad-based, interspecific extrapolation and assumptions often because of a lack of data. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have broadly directed exposure assessments to include estimates of the quantity (dose or concentration), frequency, and duration of exposure to a contaminant of interest while considering "all relevant factors." This ambiguity in the inclusion or exclusion of specific factors (e.g., individual and species-specific biology, diet, or proportion time in treated or contaminated area) can significantly influence the overall risk characterization. In this review, we identify four discrete categories of complexity that should be considered in an exposure assessment-chemical, environmental, organismal, and ecological. These may require more data, but a degree of inclusion at all stages of the risk assessment is critical to moving beyond screening-level methods that have a high degree of uncertainty and suffer from conservatism and a lack of realism. We demonstrate that there are many existing and emerging scientific tools and cross-cutting solutions for tackling exposure complexity. To foster greater application of these methods in wildlife exposure assessments, we present a new framework for risk assessors to construct an "exposure matrix." Using three case studies, we illustrate how the matrix can better inform, integrate, and more transparently communicate the important elements of complexity and realism in exposure assessments for wildlife. Modernizing wildlife exposure assessments is long overdue and will require improved collaboration, data sharing, application of standardized exposure scenarios, better communication of assumptions and uncertainty, and postregulatory tracking. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:674-698. © 2023 SETAC.

Furthering the derivation of predictive wildlife toxicity reference values for use in soil cleanup decisions

The development of media-specific ecological values for risk assessment includes the derivation of acceptable levels of exposure for terrestrial wildlife (e.g., birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians). Although the derivation and subsequent application of these values can be used for screening purposes, there is a need to identify toxicological effects thresholds specifically for making remedial decisions at individual contaminated sites. A workshop was held in the fall of 2012 to evaluate existing methods and recent scientific developments for refining ecological soil screening levels (Eco-SSLs) and improving the derivation of site-specific ecological soil clean-up values for metals (Eco-SCVs). This included a focused session on the development and derivation of toxicity reference values (TRVs) for terrestrial wildlife. Topics that were examined included: methods for toxicological endpoint selection, techniques for dose-response assessment, approaches for cross-species extrapolation, and tools to incorporate environmental factors (e.g., metal bioavailability and chemistry) into a reference value. The workgroup also made recommendations to risk assessors and regulators on how to incorporate site-specific wildlife life history and toxicity information into the derivation of TRVs to be used in the further development of soil cleanup levels.

Chemical footprint: a methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution

The development and use of footprint methodologies for environmental assessment are increasingly important for both the scientific and political communities. Starting from the ecological footprint, developed at the beginning of the 1990s, several other footprints were defined, e.g., carbon and water footprint. These footprints-even though based on a different meaning of "footprint"-integrate life cycle thinking, and focus on some challenging environmental impacts including resource consumption, CO2 emission leading to climate change, and water consumption. However, they usually neglect relevant sources of impacts, as those related to the production and use of chemicals. This article presents and discusses the need and relevance of developing a methodology for assessing the chemical footprint, coupling a life cycle-based approach with methodologies developed in other contexts, such as ERA and sustainability science. Furthermore, different concepts underpin existing footprint and this could be the case also of chemical footprint. At least 2 different approaches and steps to chemical footprint could be envisaged, applicable at the micro- as well as at the meso- and macroscale. The first step (step 1) is related to the account of chemicals use and emissions along the life cycle of a product, sector, or entire economy, to assess potential impacts on ecosystems and human health. The second step (step 2) aims at assessing to which extent actual emission of chemicals harm the ecosystems above their capability to recover (carrying capacity of the system). The latter step might contribute to the wide discussion on planetary boundaries for chemical pollution: the thresholds that should not be surpassed to guarantee a sustainable use of chemicals from an environmental safety perspective. The definition of what the planetary boundaries for chemical pollution are and how the boundaries should be identified is an on-going scientific challenge for ecotoxicology and ecology. In this article, we present a case study at the macroscale for the European Union, in which the chemical footprint according to step 1 is calculated for the year 2005. A proposal for extending this approach toward step 2 is presented and discussed, complemented by a discussion on the challenges and the use of appropriate methodologies for assessing chemical footprints to stimulate further research and discussion on the topic.