Comparison of modeled and measured tissue concentrations for ecological receptors

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 539-557

  Alsop, William R ^a   Hawkins, Elizabeth T ^b,c   Stelljes, Mark E ^b,c   Collins, William ^d  

^a CARDNO CHEMRISK   (United States)

^b EMCON   (United States)

^c US Department of the Army ^*

^d US Department of the Army   (United States)

Author keywords

Body burden; Ecological exposure assessment; Lead; Tissue concentrations; Zinc

Indexed keywords

EID: 21444440215     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039609383631     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Baes, C.F., Sharp, R.D., Sjoreen, A.L., and Shor, R.W. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
2. Beyer, W.N., Connor, E.E., and Gerould, S. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J. Wildl. Manage., 58, 2, 375-382.
3. Burt, W.H. and Grossenheider, R.P. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals: North America North of Mexico, Third Edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Corporation.
4. Chapman, J.A. and Feldhamer, G.A. 1992. Wild Mammals of North America. Biology, Management, and Economics. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press.
5. Ettinger, S.F. 1975. Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine. Volume 1. Philadelphia, PA, W.B. Saunders.
6. Fordham, C.L. and D.P. Reagan. 1991. Pathway analysis method for estimating water and sediment criteria at hazardous waste sites. Env. Tox. Chem., 10, 949-960.
7. Fries, G.F., Marrow, G.S., and Snow, P.A. 1982. Soil Ingestion by Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 65, 611-618.
8. Hayssen, V. 1993. Personal communication. March.
9. Kabata-Pendias, A. and Pendias, H. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.
10. MacIntosh, D.L., Suter, G.W., II, and Hoffman, F.O. 1994. Uses of probabilistic exposure models in ecological risk assessments of contaminated sites. Risk Anal., 14, 405-419.
11. Norton, S.B., Rodier, D.R., Gentile, J.H., van der Schalie, W.H., Wood, W.P., and Simak, M.W. 1992. A framework for ecological risk assessment at the EPA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 11, 1663-1672.
12. Pascoe, G.A., Blanchet, R.J., and Linder, G. 1994. Bioavailability of metals and arsenic to small mammals at a mining waste-contaminated wetland. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 27, 44-50.
13. Schildt, B. and Nilsson, A. 1970. Standardized burns in mice. Eur. Surgical Res., 2, 22-23.
14. Travis, C.T. and Arms, A.D. 1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and vegetation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 22, 3, 271-274.
15. USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II - Environmental Evaluation Manual. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-89-001. March.
16. USEPA. 1991a. Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: An Overview. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1, Number 2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. December.
17. USEPA. 1991b. The Role of BTAGs in Ecological Assessment. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1, Number 1. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. September.
18. USEPA. 1992a. Briefing the BTAG: Initial Description of Setting, History, and Ecology of a Site. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1, Number 5. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. August.
19. USEPA. 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Report. EPA/600/8-91/011B. January.
20. USEPA. 1992c. Developing a Work Scope for Ecological Assessments. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1, Number 4. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. May.
21. USEPA. 1992d. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-92/001. February.
22. USEPA. 1992e. The Role of Natural Resource Trustees in the Superfund Process. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1, Number 3. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. March.
23. USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volumes 1 and II. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-93/187a, b.
24. USEPA. 1994a. Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment. Eco Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 2, Number 2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. September.
25. USEPA. 1994b. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume II: Properties, Sources, Occurrence and Background Exposures. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. June.
26. USEPA. 1994c. Field Studies for Ecological Risk Assessment. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 2, Number 3. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. September.
27. USEPA. 1994d. Selecting and Using Reference Information in Superfund Ecological Risk Assessments. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 2, Number 4. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. September.
28. USEPA. 1994e. Using Toxicity Tests in Ecological Risk Assessment. ECO Update Intermittent Bulletin Volume 2, Number 1. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. September.
29. USEPA. 1995. Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System; Final Rule. 60FR15366-15425. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 5.
30. Wipf, H.K., Homberger, E., Neuner, N., Ranalder, U.B., Vetter, W, and Vuilleumier, J.P. 1982. TCDD Levels in Soil and Plant Samples from the Seveso Area. In: Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds: Impacts on the Environment, pp. 115-126. (Hutzinger, O., et al., Eds.). New York, Pergamon Press.