The setting of concentrations for testing substances in ecotoxicological studies is often based on fractions of the concentrations that cause 50% mortality (LC50 or LD50) rather than environmentally relevant levels. This practice can result in exposures to animals at test concentrations that are magnitudes of order greater than those experienced in the environment. Often, such unrealistically high concentrations may cause non-specific biochemical or morphologic changes that primarily reflect the near-lethal health condition of the animal subjects, as opposed to effects characteristic of the particular test compound. Meanwhile, it is recognized that for many chemicals, the toxicologic mode of action (MOA) responsible for lethality may differ entirely from the MOAs that cause various sublethal effects. One argument for employing excessively high exposure concentrations in sublethal studies is to ensure the generation of positive toxicological effects, which can then be used to establish safety thresholds; however, it is possible that the pressure to produce exposure-related effects may also contribute to false positive outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore issues involving some current usages of acute LC50 data in ecotoxicology testing, and to propose an alternative strategy for performing this type of research moving forward. Toward those ends, a brief literature survey was conducted to gain an appreciation of methods that are currently being used to set test concentrations for sublethal definitive studies.
Keywords: LC50; experimental design; hazard identification; histopathology; risk assessment.