Resource requirements for ecotoxicity testing: A comparison of traditional and new approach methods

Abstract

Toxicity testing is under transformation as it aims to harness the potential of New Approach Methods (NAMs) as alternative test methods that may be less resource intensive (i.e., fewer animals, cheaper costs, quicker assays) than traditional approaches while also providing more data and information. While many stakeholders are of the opinion that this unfolding transformation holds significant promise as a more efficient and ethical way forward, few studies have compared the resources required for NAMs versus those needed for traditional animal-based toxicity tests, particularly in the field of ecotoxicology. The objective was to compare resources needed for traditional animal-based ecotoxicity tests versus alternative tests using emergent NAMs. From a bibliometric review, we estimate that traditional tests for a single chemical cost $118,000 USD, require 135 animals, and take 8 weeks. In comparison, alternative tests cost $2,600, require 20 animals (or none), and take up to 4 weeks to test 16 (to potentially hundreds of) chemicals. Based on our analysis we conclude that NAMs in ecotoxicology can be more advantageous than traditional methods in terms of resources required (i.e., monetary costs, number of animals needed, and testing times). We note, however, that the evidence underpinning these conclusions is relatively sparse. Moving forward, groups developing and applying NAMs should provide more detailed accounts of the resources required. In addition, there is also a need for carefully designed case studies that demonstrate the domain of applicability of NAMs (and make comparisons to traditional tests) to ultimately build confidence among the user community.