Interspecies correlation estimates predict protective environmental concentrations

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 3102-3111

  Dyer, Scott D ^a   Versteeg, Donald J ^a   Belanger, Scott E ^a   Chaney, Joel G ^a   Mayer, Foster L ^b  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b ToxGap   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGAE; BIODIVERSITY; CORRELATION METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY;

ALGAL TAXA; ALGAL-FISH CORRELATIONS; CORRELATION ESTIMATION (ICE) PROGRAMMES; CORRELATION TOXICITY;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

ATRAZINE; BENZENESULFONIC ACID DERIVATIVE; COPPER; FENVALERATE; LINEAR ALKABENZENESULFONATE; NONYLPHENOL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ALGAE; BIODIVERSITY; CORRELATION METHODS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY;

ALGA; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); CORRELATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; FISH; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; TOXICITY;

ALGA; ARTICLE; CHEMOSENSITIVITY; COLD WATER SPECIES; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DAPHNIA; ECOTOXICOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT; FISH; GAMMARUS; GAMMARUS PSEUDOLIMNAEUS; HC5 VALUE; INTERSPECIES CORRELATION ESTIMATE; MEASUREMENT; MINNOW; MODEL; NONHUMAN; PIMEPHALES PROMELAS; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE NO EFFECT CONCENTRATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RAINBOW TROUT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SALMONID; SPECIES; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; TAXONOMY; TOXICITY TESTING;

ALGAE; ANIMALS; DAPHNIA; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; FISHES; FRESH WATER; PESTICIDES; RISK; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TOXICITY TESTS; WATER POLLUTANTS; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

ALGAE; CLADOCERA; DAPHNIA; DAPHNIA MAGNA; GAMMARUS; GAMMARUS PSEUDOLIMNAEUS; INVERTEBRATA; ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS; PHOXINUS PHOXINUS; PIMEPHALES PROMELAS; SALMONIDAE;

EID: 33646359947     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es051738p     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Zeeman, M. G. Ecotoxicity testing and estimating methods development under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Effects, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment; Rand, G. M., Ed.; Taylor and Francis: Washington, DC, 1995; pp 703-716.
2. European Union. Technical guidance documents in support of the commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and the commission regulation EC 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances; Environmental Chemicals Bureau: Ispra, Italy, 2003.
3. Posthuma, L.; Suter, G. W.; Traas, T. P., Eds. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 2002, p 587.
4. Stephan, C. E.; Mount, D. I.; Hansen, D. J.; Gentile, J. H.; Chapman, G. A.; Brungs, W. A. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1985; PB85-227049.
5. Versteeg, D. J.; Belanger, S. E.; Carr, G. J. Understanding single species and model ecosystem sensitivity: a database comparison. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1999, 18, 1329-1346.
6. Scott-Fodsmand, J. J.; Jensen, J. Ecotoxicological soil criteria in Denmark. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, Posthuma, L., Suter, G. W., Traas, T. P., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 2002; pp 275-284.
7. Sijm, D. T. H. M.; van Wenzel, A. P.; Crommentuijn, T. Environmental risk limits in The Netherlands. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, Posthuma, L., Suter, G. W., Traas, T. P., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 2002; pp 221-254.
8. Forbes, V. E.; Calow, P. Species sensitivity distributions revisited: a critical appraisal. Human Ecol. Assess. 2002, 8, 473-492.
9. Duboudin, C.; Ciffroy, P.; Magaud, H. Effects of data manipulation and statistical methods on species sensitivity distributions. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 489-499.
10. Bodar, C.; de Bruijn, J.; Vermeire, T.; van der Zant, P. Trends in risk assessment of chemicals in the European Union. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 2002, 8, 1825-1843.
11. Environment Canada. Draft New Substances Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers) Canada Gazette Part 1; Canada Gazette: Ottawa, Canada, October 30, 2004; pp 3032-3082.
12. Dwyer, F. J.; Mayer, F. L.; Sappington, L. C.; Buckler, D. R.; Bridges, C. M.; Greer, I. E.; Hardensty, D. K.; Henke, C. E.; Ingersoll, C. G.; Kunz, J. L.; Whites, D. W.; Augspurger, T.; Mount, D. R.; Hattala, K.; Neuderfer, G. N. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened aquatic species: Part 1. Acute toxicity of five chemicals. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2005, 48, 143-154.
13. Asfaw, A.; Ellersieck, M. R.; Mayer, F. L. Interspecies correlation estimations (ICE) for acute toxicity to aquatic organisms and wildlife. II. User manual and software; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2003; EPA/600/R-03/106.
14. Ellersieck, M. R.; Asfaw, A.; Mayer, F. L.; Krause, G. F.; Sun, K.; Lee, G. Acute-to-chronic estimation (ACE v 2.0) with time-concentration-effect models; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2003; EPA/600/R-03/107.
15. Versteeg, D. J.; Rawlings, J. M.; Bozso, E.; Shi, J. The acute and chronic toxicity of hexadecyl and heptadecyl sulfate to aquatic organisms. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., in press.
16. Mayer, F. L. Acute toxicity handbook of chemicals to estuarine organisms; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600/8-87/017: Gulf Breeze, FL, 1987; p 274.
17. Mayer, F. L.; Ellersieck, M. R. Manual of acute toxicity: Interpretation and database for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. Resource Publication 160; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, 1986.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ECOTOX. Release 2.0; Ecotoxicology Database (www.epa.gov/ecotox): Duluth, MN, 2002.
19. ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials). Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, E729-96; American Society of Test Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.
20. Buckler, D. R.; Mayer F. L.; Ellersieck M. R., Asfaw, A. Evaluation of minimum data requirements for acute toxicity value extrapolation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2003; EPA/600/R-03/105.
21. Snedecor, G. W.; Cochran, W. G. Statistical Methods, 7th ed.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, 1980.
22. Staples, C.; Mihaich, E.; Carbone, J.; Woodburn, K.; Klecka, G. A weight of evidence analysis of the chronic ecotoxicity of nonylphenol ethoxylates, nonylphenol ether carboxylates, and nonylphenol. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 2004, 10, 999-1017.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Nonylphenol-draft; U.S. EPA Office of Water: Washington, DC, 2003; EPA 822-R-03-029.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper; U.S. EPA Office of Water: Washington, DC, 2003; EPA 822-R-03-026.
25. Aldenberg, T.; Jaworska, J. Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. Ecotoxicol Environ. Safety 2000, 46, 1-18.
26. ECETOC. Aquatic Toxicity Data Evaluation. ECETOC Technical Report Number 56; European Center for Toxicology and Ecotoxicology: Brussels, Belgium, 1993; p 66 and Appendices.
27. ECETOC. Aquatic Toxicity Data Evaluation. ECETOC Technical Report Number 91; European Center for Toxicology and Ecotoxicology: Brussels, Belgium, 2003; p 164 and CD-ROM.
28. Wagner, C.; Lokke, H. Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC toxicity data. Water Res. 1991, 25, 1237-1242.
29. Aldenberg, T.; Slob, W. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 1993, 25, 48-63.
30. Temara, A.; Carr, G.; Webb, S.; Versteeg, D.; Feijtel, T. Marine risk assessment: Linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (LAS) in the North Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2001, 42, 635-642.
31. Versteeg, D. J.; Rawlings, J. M. Bioconcentration and toxicity of dodecylbenzene sulfonate (C12LAS) to aquatic organisms exposed in experimental streams. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 44, 237-246.
32. Hose, G. C.; van den Brink, P. J. Confirming the species-sensitivity distribution concept for endosulfan using laboratory, mesocosm, and field data. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 47, 511-520.
33. Maltby, L.; Blake, N.; Brock, T. C. M.; van den Brink, P. J. Insecticide species sensitivity distributions: Importance of test species selection and relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24, 379-388.
34. Newman, M. C.; Owenby, D. R.; Mezin, L. C. A.; Powell, D. C. Applying species-sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: Assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2000, 19, 508-515.
35. Dyer, S. D.; Belanger, S. E.; Carr, G. J. An initial evaluation of the use of Euro/North American fish species for tropical effects assessments. Chemosphere 1997, 35, 2767-2781.
36. Tremolada, P.; Finizio, A.; Villa, S.; Gaggi, C.; Vighi, M. Quantitative interspecific chemical activity relationships of pesticides in the aquatic environment. Aquat. Toxicol. 2004, 67, 87-103.
37. Sappington, L. C.; Mayer, F. L.; Dwyer, F. J.; Buckler, D. R.; Jones, J. R.; Ellersieck, M. R. Contaminant sensitivity of threatened and endangered fish as compared to standard surrogate species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 2869- 2876.
38. Hansen, J. A.; Lipton, J.; Welsh, P. G. Relative sensitivity of bull trout (Salevelinus confluentus) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to acute copper toxicity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2002, 21, 633-639.
39. Van den Brink, P. J.; Brock, T. C. M.; Posthuma, L. The value of the species sensitivity distribution concept for predicting field effects: nonconfirmation of the concept using semifield experiments. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology; Posthuma, L, Suter, G. W., Traas, T. P., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 2002; p 587, Ch. 9.
40. ECETOC. The Value of Model Ecosystem Studies in Ecotoxicology. Technical Report Number 73; European Center for Toxicology and Ecotoxicology: Brussels, Belgium, 1997; p 127 and Appendices.