Hormesis in ecological risk assessment: A useful concept, a confusing term, and/or a distraction?

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 20, Issue 10, 2001, Pages 521-523

  Menzie, C A ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE; ZINC;

ARTICLE; BIODEGRADATION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DOSE RESPONSE; ECOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; ECOTOXICOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HORMESIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOMENCLATURE; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING; SOIL MANAGEMENT; WATER MANAGEMENT;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERMINOLOGY; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 0035710666     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/096032701718120382     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Bartel SM. Are ecosystems hormetic? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2000; 6: 237-243.
2. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Tales of two similar hypotheses: the rise and fall of chemical and radiation hormesis. Belle Newslett 1999; 8 (2).
3. Chapman PM. The implications of hormesis to ecotoxicology and ecological risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol 2001; 20: 499-505.
4. Deisler PF. A personal perspective on hormesis. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2000; 6: 245-248.
5. Gentile JH, van der Schalie WH. Hormesis and ecological risk assessment: fact or fantasy? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2000; 6: 227-236.