Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213039›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science & technology2026

Ecotoxicology in the Context of Biodiversity Loss: Lessons from Seven Decades of Chemical Impacts and Paths Forward.

John P Sumpter, Luigi Margiotta-Casaluci

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John P SumpterBrunel University of London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, United Kingdom.
Luigi Margiotta-CasaluciInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London SE1 9NH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6938-0396

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical pollution is a major anthropogenic driver of biodiversity loss, yet its relative contribution compared to other stressors remains difficult to quantify. Ecotoxicology emerged as a discipline in response to evidence that chemicals in the environment can harm wildlife, but anticipating and preventing ecological damage remains challenging. This Review examines how ecotoxicology research has informed environmental protection, drawing on case studies spanning over 70 years, including pesticides and birds, tributyltin and mollusks, diclofenac and vultures, and 6PPD-quinone and salmon. These examples highlight recurring challenges─such as unpredicted species-specific sensitivities, unanticipated exposure pathways, and modes of action overlooked by standard testing frameworks─that have typically resulted in reactive rather than preventive regulatory responses. In light of the thousands of chemicals in use and widespread environmental mixtures, the Review evaluates strengths and limitations of current ecotoxicological testing and regulatory practices. It proposes pragmatic principles for enhanced protection, emphasizing prevention, prioritization under uncertainty, improved predictive capacity, and cross-sector collaboration, while acknowledging inevitable trade-offs between environmental safeguards and essential societal uses of chemicals. The Review argues that ecotoxicology must evolve rapidly by embracing predictive non-animal and data-driven approaches to more effectively reduce the risk of severe, widespread, or irreversible ecological harm.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcotoxicologyAnimalsEnvironmental PollutantsEnvironmental Pollutantsbiodiversity losschemical mixtureschemical pollutionecotoxicologyenvironmental risk assessmentNAMsregulatory science

Identifiers

PMID42213039
PMCPMC13262040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.