Standard and higher tier risk assessments
Standard risk assessments, e.g. those applying TER calculations, are typically based on a series of worst-case assumptions. While this procedure ensures a quick and time saving estimation of the potential risk, it often provides a rather conservative estimation of the risk. A more realistic estimation of the risk is obtained by a higher tier risk assessment, based either on literature reviews, refined statistical analyses or simple modelling approaches. Such assessments are often an efficient alternative to costly laboratory or field studies. Due to our experience with national authorities and the participation in workshops and workgroups at EFSA (as hearing expert) and US EPA, we can help to develop scientifically sound risk assessments which are in agreement with the requirements of risk managers.
- Standard risk assessment
- Higher tier risk assessment based on literature data or modelling approaches
- Evaluation and re-evaluation of laboratory and field studies (see also Statistical Consulting below)
- Probabilistic risk assessments (Species Sensitivity Distributions or completely probabilistic approaches, Monte Carlo)
- Dose-response and benchmark dose (BMD) calculations
- Toxicokinetic/body burden modelling, food chain modelling (see Effect Modelling below)
- Population-level risk assessment with our validated models for mammals (Common vole, Field vole, Wood mouse, Common shrew, Brown hare, European rabbit and others) within the modelling framework POLARIS, and for birds (e.g. Wood pigeon); for details see Effect Modelling below)
- Development of new population models (experience in mammals, birds, arthropods and aquatic organisms)
- Wang M., Guckland A., Murfitt R., Ebeling M., Sprenger D., Foudoulakis M. & Koutsaftis A. 2019. Relationship between magnitude of body weight effects and exposure duration in mammalian toxicology studies and implications for ecotoxicological risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Eur. 31:38
- Ebeling M. & Wang M. 2018. Dissipation of Plant Protection Products from Foliage. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37: 1926–1932.
- Kleinmann J. & Wang M. 2017. Modeling individual movement decisions of brown hare (Lepus europaeus) as a key concept for realistic spatial behavior and exposure: A population model for landscape-level risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36: 2299-2307.
- Wang M. 2012. Population level risk assessments – Science or fiction? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 8: 383-385.
- Wang M. & Luttik R. 2012. Population level risk assessment: practical considerations for evaluation of population models from a risk assessor’s perspective. Environ. Sci. Europe 24: 3.
- Kramer V.J., Etterson M.A., Hecker M., Murphy C.A., Roesijadi G., Spade D.J., Spromberg J., Wang M. & Ankley G.T., 2011. Adverse Outcome Pathways and Ecological Risk Assessment: Bridging to Population Level Effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30: 64–76.
- Wang M. & Grimm V. 2010. Population models in pesticide risk assessment: Lessons for assessing population-level effects, recovery, and alternative exposure scenarios from modeling a small mammal. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29: 1292-1300.
- Crocker J. & Wang M. 2008. How to estimate PT – Appendix 29. In: Scientific opinion of the panel on plant protection products and their residues on a request from the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) PRAPeR Unit on risk assessment for birds and mammals. The EFSA Journal 734: 1-181.