Interspecies scaling of toxicity reference values in human health versus ecological risk assessments: A critical review

Methylmercury Effects on Birds: A Review, Meta-Analysis, and Development of Toxicity Reference Values for Injury Assessment Based on Tissue Residues and Diet

Birds are used as bioindicators of environmental mercury (Hg) contamination, and toxicity reference values are needed for injury assessments. We conducted a comprehensive review, summarized data from 168 studies, performed a series of Bayesian hierarchical meta-analyses, and developed new toxicity reference values for the effects of methylmercury (MeHg) on birds using a benchmark dose analysis framework. Lethal and sublethal effects of MeHg on birds were categorized into nine biologically relevant endpoint categories and three age classes. Effective Hg concentrations where there was a 10% reduction (EC10) in the production of juvenile offspring (0.55 µg/g wet wt adult blood-equivalent Hg concentrations, 80% credible interval: [0.33, 0.85]), histology endpoints (0.49 [0.15, 0.96] and 0.61 [0.09, 2.48]), and biochemical markers (0.77 [<0.25, 2.12] and 0.57 [0.35, 0.92]) were substantially lower than those for survival (2.97 [2.10, 4.73] and 5.24 [3.30, 9.55]) and behavior (6.23 [1.84, >13.42] and 3.11 [2.10, 4.64]) of juveniles and adults, respectively. Within the egg age class, survival was the most sensitive endpoint (EC10 = 2.02 µg/g wet wt adult blood-equivalent Hg concentrations [1.39, 2.94] or 1.17 µg/g fresh wet wt egg-equivalent Hg concentrations [0.80, 1.70]). Body morphology was not particularly sensitive to Hg. We developed toxicity reference values using a combined survival and reproduction endpoints category for juveniles, because juveniles were more sensitive to Hg toxicity than eggs or adults. Adult blood-equivalent Hg concentrations (µg/g wet wt) and egg-equivalent Hg concentrations (µg/g fresh wet wt) caused low injury to birds (EC1) at 0.09 [0.04, 0.17] and 0.04 [0.01, 0.08], moderate injury (EC5) at 0.6 [0.37, 0.84] and 0.3 [0.17, 0.44], high injury (EC10) at 1.3 [0.94, 1.89] and 0.7 [0.49, 1.02], and severe injury (EC20) at 3.2 [2.24, 4.78] and 1.8 [1.28, 2.79], respectively. Maternal dietary Hg (µg/g dry wt) caused low injury to juveniles at 0.16 [0.05, 0.38], moderate injury at 0.6 [0.29, 1.03], high injury at 1.1 [0.63, 1.87], and severe injury at 2.4 [1.42, 4.13]. We found few substantial differences in Hg toxicity among avian taxonomic orders, including for controlled laboratory studies that injected Hg into eggs. Our results can be used to quantify injury to birds caused by Hg pollution. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:1195-1241. Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects

Despite advances in toxicity testing and the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air-breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While survival, growth, and reproductive endpoints derived from whole-animal toxicity tests are central to hazard assessment, nonstandard measures of biological effects at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organism, population, community, ecosystem) have the potential to enhance the relevance of prospective and retrospective wildlife ERAs. Other factors (e.g., indirect effects of contaminants on food supplies and infectious disease processes) are influenced by toxicants at individual, population, and community levels, and need to be factored into chemically based risk assessments to enhance the "eco" component of ERAs. Regulatory and logistical challenges often relegate such nonstandard endpoints and indirect effects to postregistration evaluations of pesticides and industrial chemicals and contaminated site evaluations. While NAMs are being developed, to date, their applications in ERAs focused on wildlife have been limited. No single magic tool or model will address all uncertainties in hazard assessment. Modernizing wildlife ERAs will likely entail combinations of laboratory- and field-derived data at multiple levels of biological organization, knowledge collection solutions (e.g., systematic review, adverse outcome pathway frameworks), and inferential methods that facilitate integrations and risk estimations focused on species, populations, interspecific extrapolations, and ecosystem services modeling, with less dependence on whole-animal data and simple hazard ratios. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:725-748. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Toxicological effects assessment for wildlife in the 21st century: Review of current methods and recommendations for a path forward

Model species (e.g., granivorous gamebirds, waterfowl, passerines, domesticated rodents) have been used for decades in guideline laboratory tests to generate survival, growth, and reproductive data for prospective ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for birds and mammals, while officially adopted risk assessment schemes for amphibians and reptiles do not exist. There are recognized shortcomings of current in vivo methods as well as uncertainty around the extent to which species with different life histories (e.g., terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, bats) than these commonly used models are protected by existing ERA frameworks. Approaches other than validating additional animal models for testing are being developed, but the incorporation of such new approach methodologies (NAMs) into risk assessment frameworks will require robust validations against in vivo responses. This takes time, and the ability to extrapolate findings from nonanimal studies to organism- and population-level effects in terrestrial wildlife remains weak. Failure to adequately anticipate and predict hazards could have economic and potentially even legal consequences for regulators and product registrants. In order to be able to use fewer animals or replace them altogether in the long term, vertebrate use and whole organism data will be needed to provide data for NAM validation in the short term. Therefore, it is worth investing resources for potential updates to existing standard test guidelines used in the laboratory as well as addressing the need for clear guidance on the conduct of field studies. Herein, we review the potential for improving standard in vivo test methods and for advancing the use of field studies in wildlife risk assessment, as these tools will be needed in the foreseeable future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:699-724. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.