A comparison of three weight-of-evidence approaches for integrating sediment contamination data within and across lines of evidence

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 8, Issue 7, 2002, Pages 1613-1624

  Reynoldson, Trefor B ^a   Smith, Eric P ^b   Bailer, A John ^c  

^a ACADIA UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian statistics; Meta analysis; Multivariate statistics; Risk; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

EID: 26844539690     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/20028091057510     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Bailer J, Hughes MR, See K, et al. 2002. A pooled response strategy for analyzing multiple responses to develop relative site rankings in a weight of evidence evaluation of sediment contamination. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1597-1612
2. Burton GA Jr, Chapman PM, and Smith EA. 2002a. Weight of evidence approaches for assessing ecosystem impairment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1657-1674
3. Burton GA Jr, Batley GE, Chapman PM, et al. 2002b. A weight-of-evidence framework for assessing sediment (or other) contamination: Improving certainty in the decision-making process. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1675-1696
4. Grapentine L, Anderson J, Boyd D, et al. 2002a. A decision-making framework for sediment assessment developed for the Great Lakes. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1641-1656
5. Grapentine L, Marvin C, and Painter S. 2002b. Development and evaluation of a sediment quality index for the Great Lakes and associated Areas of Concern. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1549-1568
6. Gurevitch J and Hedges LV. 1993. Meta-analysis: Combining the results of independent experiments. In: Scheiner SM and Gurevitch J (eds), Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, pp 378-401. Chapman and Hall, NY, NY, USA
7. Manly BFJ. 2001. Statistics for Environmental Science and Management. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA
8. Piegorsch WW. 1998. Statistical aspects for combining information and meta-analysis in environmental toxicology. Environ Carcino Ecotox Revs C16:83-99
9. Reynoldson TB and Day KE. 1998. Biological Guidelines for the Assessment of Sediment Quality in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Report No. 98-232. National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON, Canada
10. Reynoldson TB, Day KE, and Pascoe T. 2000. The development of the BEAST: a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the North American Great Lakes. In: Wright JF, Sutcliffe DW, and Furse MT (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters. RIVPACS and Other Techniques, pp 165-80. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, UK
11. Reynoldson TB, Thompson SP, Milani D, et al. 2002. Integrating multiple toxicological endpoints in a decision-making framework for contaminated sediments. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1569-1584
12. Smith E, Lipkovich PI, and Ye K. 2002. Weight of evidence: Quantitative estimation of probability of impairment for individual and multiple lines of evidence. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1585-1596