Data ranges in aquatic toxicity of chemicals: Consequences for environmental risk analysis

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 135-143

  Koller, Guntram ^a   Hungerbühler, Konrad ^a   Fent, Karl ^b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Aquatic toxicity; Data range; Ecological risk assessment; Effect assessment; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; CHEMICAL POLLUTANT; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TEST;

EID: 1642633477     PISSN: 09441344     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1065/espr199911.013     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1993): Guidelines for Testing Chemicals. Paris, France
2. CHAPMAN, P.F.; CRANE, M.; WILES, J.; NOPPERT, F.; MCINDOE, E. (1996): Improving the quality of statistics in regulatory ecotoxicity tests. Ecotoxicology 5, 169-186
3. HANSCH, C.; LEO, A. 1995: Exploring QSAR. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA
4. Commission of the European Communities (1996): Technical guidance documents in support of the Commission Directive 93 / 67 / 1 EEC on risk assessment for new substances and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488 / 94 on risk assessment for existing substances. Brussels, Belgium
5. CHAPMAN, P.M.; FAIRBROTHER, A.; BROWN, D. (1998): A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17, 99-108
6. FAWELL, J.K.; HEDGECOTT, S. (1996): Derivation of acceptable concentrations for the protection of aquatic organisms. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2, 115-120
7. European Centre of Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC). (1993): Aquatic Toxicity Data Evaluation. Technical Report 56. Brussels, Belgium
8. FENT, K. (1998): Ökotoxikologie. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany
9. Abt. Associates (1995): Technical basis for recommended ranges of uncertainty factors used in deriving wildlife criteria for the Great Lakes water quality initiative. Final Report. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
10. CHAPMAN, P.M.; CALDWELL, R.S.; CHAPMAN, P.F. (1996): A Warning: NOECs are inappropriate for regulatory use. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15, 77-79
11. HOEKSTRA, J.A.; VAN EWIJK, P.H. (1993): The bounded effect concentration as an alternative to the NOEC. Sci. Total Environ. Supplement, 705-711
12. HOEKSTRA, J.A.; VAN EWIJK, P.H. (1993): Alternatives for the No-Observed-Effect-Level. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12, 187-194
13. LASKOWSKI, R. (1995): Some good reasons to ban the use of NOEC, LOEC and related concepts in ecotoxicology. Oikos 73, 140-144
14. POWER, M.; MCCARTY, L.S. (1997): Fallacies in ecological risk assessment practices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 370A-375A.
15. Criteria group for occupational standards (1992): Scientific basis for Swedish Occupational-Standards XIII, Consensus report for diethanolamin. Arbeite och Halsa 47, 1-4
16. HOFFMAN, D.J.; RATTNER, B.A.; BURTON, G.A.; CAIRNS, J. (1995): Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, London, United Kingdom
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997): Water quality guidance for the great lake system. 40 CFR 132. Washington, DC, USA
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1984): Estimating concern levels for concentrations of chemical substances in the environment. Environmental Effects Branch, Health Environ. Rev. Div. Washington, DC, USA
19. SWARTOUT, J.C.; PRICE, P.S.; DOURSON, M.L.; CARLSON-LYNCH, H.L.; KEENAN, R.E. (1998): A probabilistic framework for the reference dose. Risk Analysis 18, 271-282