Person:
Duquesne, Sabine

Profilbild
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Logo der Organisationseinheit
Organisationseinheit
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Duquesne
Vorname
Sabine
Name

Filter

2021 - 20222
Filter zurücksetzen

Einstellungen

Dateien dazu vorhanden?: false × Thema: Risikoanalyse ×

Suchergebnisse

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 2 von 2
  • Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
    Veröffentlichung
    The role of behavioral ecotoxicology in environmental protection
    (2021) Ford, Alex; Ågerstrand, Marlene; Brooks, Bryan W.; Duquesne, Sabine; Sahm, René; Gergs, René; Jacob, Stefanie; Maack, Gerd; Mohr, Silvia
    For decades, we have known that chemicals affect human and wildlife behavior. Moreover, due to recent technological and computational advances, scientists are now increasingly aware that a wide variety of contaminants and other environmental stressors adversely affect organismal behavior and subsequent ecological outcomes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. There is also a groundswell of concern that regulatory ecotoxicology does not adequately consider behavior, primarily due to a lack of standardized toxicity methods. This has, in turn, led to the exclusion of many behavioral ecotoxicology studies from chemical risk assessments. To improve understanding of the challenges and opportunities for behavioral ecotoxicology within regulatory toxicology/risk assessment, a unique workshop with international representatives from the fields of behavioral ecology, ecotoxicology, regulatory (eco)toxicology, neurotoxicology, test standardization, and risk assessment resulted in the formation of consensus perspectives and recommendations, which promise to serve as a roadmap to advance interfaces among the basic and translational sciences, and regulatory practices. © 2021 The Authors
  • Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
    Veröffentlichung
    Close to reality? Micro-/mesocosm communities do not represent natural macroinvertebrate communities
    (2022) Duquesne, Sabine; Foit, Kaarina Pirko; Liess, Matthias; Karaoglan, Bilgin; Reiber, Lena; Wogram, Jörn
    Background: The European environmental risk assessment of plant protection products considers aquatic model ecosystem studies (microcosms/mesocosms, M/M) as suitable higher tier approach to assess treatment-related effects and to derive regulatory acceptable concentrations (RAC). However, it is under debate to what extent these artificial test systems reflect the risks of pesticidal substances with potential harmful effects on natural macroinvertebrate communities, and whether the field communities are adequately protected by the results of the M/M studies. We therefore compared the composition, sensitivity and vulnerability of benthic macroinvertebrates established in control (untreated) groups of 47 selected M/M studies with natural stream communities at 26 reference field sites. Results: Since 2013 the number of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa present in M/M studies has increased by 39% to a mean of 38 families per study. However, there is only an average of 4 families per study that comply with the recommendations provided by EFSA (EFSA J 11:3290, 2013), i.e.: (i) allowing statistical identification of treatmentrelated effects of at least 70% according to the minimum detectable difference (here criteria are slightly modified) and (ii) belonging to insects or crustaceans (potentially sensitive taxa for pesticidal substances). Applying the criterion of physiological sensitivity according to the SPEARpesticides concept, the number of families decreases from 4 to 2.3 per study. Conclusions: Most taxa established in recent M/M studies do not suitably represent natural freshwater communities. First, because their abundances are often not sufficient for statistical detection of treatment-related effects in order to determine an appropriate endpoint and subsequent RAC. Recommendations are given to improve the detectability of such effects and their reliability. Second, the taxa often do not represent especially sensitive or vulnerable taxa in natural communities in terms of their traits. The uncertainties linked to vulnerable taxa in M/M studies are especially high considering their representativity for field assemblages and the comparability of factors determining their recovery time. Thus considering recovery for deriving a RAC (i.e., ERO-RAC) is not recommended. In addition, this paper discusses further concerns regarding M/M studies in a broader regulatory context and recommends the development of alternative assessment tools and a shift towards a new paradigm. Quelle:© The Author(s) 2022