Development of species sensitivity distributions for wildlife using interspecies toxicity correlation models

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 42, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 3447-3452

  Awkerman, Jill A ^a   Raimondo, Sandy ^a   Barron, Mace G ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACUTE TOXICITIES; CHEMICAL TOXICITIES; CORRELATION ESTIMATIONS; CORRELATION MODELS; ICE MODELS; LOWER CONFIDENCE LIMITS; MEASURED DATUM; MULTIPLE SPECIES; ROBUST ESTIMATES; SMALL DATA SETS; SPECIES SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS; TOXICITY DATUM; TOXICITY VALUES; WILDLIFE SPECIES;

ICE; MAMMALS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; TOXICITY;

PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

BIRD; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ESTIMATION METHOD; MAMMAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; TOXICITY;

ARTICLE; BIRD; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; MAMMAL; MEASUREMENT; NONHUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPECIES COMPARISON; WILDLIFE; ANIMAL; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; POLLUTANT; PROBABILITY; RAT; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER POLLUTANT;

AVES; MAMMALIA; RATTUS NORVEGICUS;

ANIMALS; BIRDS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROBABILITY; RATS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; WATER POLLUTANTS;

EID: 52049112137     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es702861u     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. De Zwart, D. Observed regularities in species sensitivity distributions for aquatic species. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, Posthuma, L., Suter G. W., Traas T. P.; Eds.; Lewis Publishers; Boca Raton, FL, 2002; pp 133-154.
2. Raimondo, S.; Mineau, P.; Barron, M. G. Estimation of chemical toxicity to wildlife species using interspecies correlation models. Environ. Sci Technol 2007, 41, 5888-5894.
3. Dyer, S. D.; Versteeg, D. J.; Belanger, S. E.; Chaney, J. G.; Mayer, F. L. Interspecies correlation estimates predict protective environmental concentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol 2006, 40, 3102-3111.
4. Stephan, C. E. Use of species sensitivity distributions in the derivation of water quality criteria for aquatic life by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, Posthuma L., Suter, G. W., Traas, R. P., Eds.; Lewis Publishers, : Boca Raton, FL, 2002; pp 211-20.
5. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, 1985.
6. Wheeler, J. R.; Grist, E. P. M.; Leung, K. M. Y.; Morritt, D.; Crane, M. Species sensitivity distributions: Data and model choice. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 45, 192-202.
7. Newman, M. C.; Ownby, D. R.; Mezin, L. C. A.; Powell, D. C.; Christensen, T. R. L.; Lerberg, S. B.; Anderson, B.-A.; Padma, T. V. Species sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: Distributional assumptions, alternate bootstrap techniques, and estimation of adequate number of species. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, Posthuma, L., Suter G. W., Traas T. P., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 2002; ppll9-132.
8. Zar, J. H. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed.; Prentice Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
9. Fairbrother, A. Ecotoxicology: use of safety factors in ecological risk assessment. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, Jorgensen, S. E., Ed.; Elsevier Publishing: New York, in print.
10. Aldenberg, T.; laworska, J. S. Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 2000, 46, 1-18.
11. Newman, M. C.; Ownby, D. R.; Mezin, L. C. A.; Powell, D. C.; Christensen, T. R. L.; Lerberg, S. B.; Anderson, B.-A. Applying species-sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: Assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species. Environ. Toxicol Chem. 2000, 19, 508-515.
12. Van der Hoeven, N. Estimating the 5-percentile of the species sensitivity distributions without any assumptions about the distribution. Ecotoxicology 2001, 10, 25-34.
13. Chen, L. A conservative, nonparametric estimator for the 5th percentile of the species sensitivity distributions. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 2004, 123, 243-258.
14. 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.
15. Insightful. S-plus Programmer's Guide.; Insightful Corporation: Seattle, WA, 2001.
16. Aldenberg, T.; Slob, W. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol Environ. Saf. 1993, 25, 48-63.
17. Curran-Everett, D. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2000, 279, R1-R8.
18. Dyer, S. D.; Versteeg, D. J.; Belanger, S. E.; Chaney, I. G.; Raimond, S.; Barron, M. G. Comparison of Species Sensitivity Distributions derived from interspecies correlation models to distributions used to derive water quality criteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008.
19. Forbes, V. E.; Calow, P. Species sensitivity distributions revisited: a critical appraisal. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2002, 8, 473-492.