Abstract
An increasing number of metal bioavailability models are available for use in setting regulations and conducting risk assessments in aquatic systems. Selection of the most appropriate model is dependent on the user's needs but will always benefit from an objective, comparative assessment of the performance of available models. In 2017, an expert workshop developed procedures for assessing metal bioavailability models. The present study applies these procedures to evaluate the performance of biotic ligand models (BLMs) and multiple linear regression (MLR) models for copper. We find that the procedures recommended by the expert workshop generally provide a robust series of metrics for evaluating model performance. However, we recommend some modifications to the analysis of model residuals because the current method is insensitive to relatively large differences in residual patterns when comparing models. We also provide clarification on details of the evaluation procedure which, if not applied correctly, could mischaracterize model performance. We found that acute Cu MLR and BLM performances are quite comparable, though there are differences in performance on a species-specific basis and in the resulting water quality criteria as a function of water chemistry. In contrast, the chronic Cu MLR performed distinctly better than the BLM. Observed differences in performance are due to the smaller effects of hardness and pH on chronic Cu toxicity compared to acute Cu toxicity. These differences are captured in the chronic MLR model but not the chronic BLM, which only adjusts for differences in organism sensitivity. In general, we continue to recommend concurrent development of both modeling approaches because they provide useful comparative insights into the strengths, limitations, and predictive capabilities of each model. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:1649-1661. © 2021 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.
