On the ranking of chemicals based on their PBT characteristics: Comparison of different ranking methodologies using selected POPs as an illustrative example

Chemosphere

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 112-117

  Sailaukhanuly, Yerbolat ^a   Zhakupbekova, Arai ^a   Amutova, Farida ^a   Carlsen, Lars ^a,b  

^a AL FARABI KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Kazakhstan)

^b Awareness Center Roskilde   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Hasse diagram; MCDA; Partial order; PBT; POP; Ranking

Indexed keywords

BIOACCUMULATION; BIOCHEMISTRY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR; HASSE DIAGRAMS; MCDA; PARTIAL ORDER; PARTIAL ORDER RANKINGS; PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS; RANKING; RANKING METHODOLOGIES;

ORGANIC POLLUTANTS;

EID: 84868446852     PISSN: 00456535     EISSN: 18791298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.015     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bruggemann R., Halfon E., Welzl G., Voigt K., Steinberg C. Applying the concept of partially ordered sets on the ranking of near-shore sediments by a battery of tests. J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 2001, 41:918-925.
2. Bruggemann R., Carlsen L. Introduction to partial order theory exemplified by the evaluation of sampling sites. Partial Order in Chemistry and Environmental Sciences 2006, 61-110. Springer, Heidelberg. R. Bruggemann, L. Carlsen (Eds.).
3. Bruggemann R., Patil G.P. Multicriteria prioritization and partial order in environmental sciences. Environ. Ecol. Statist. 2010, 17:383-410.
4. Bruggemann R., Patil G.P. Ranking and Prioritization for Multi-indicator Systems - Introduction to Partial Order Applications 2011, Springer, New York, p. 317.
5. Bruggemann, R., (2011), " PyHasse" , eine Toolbox für Ranking-Probleme. <> (accessed February 2011). http://2011.de.pycon.org/2011/schedule/sessions/78/.
6. Bruggemann R., Sørensen P.B., Lerche D., Carlsen L. Estimation of average ranks by a local partial order model. J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 2004, 44:618-625.
7. Bruggemann R., Carlsen L. An improved estimation of average ranks of partially orders. Match - Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 2011, 65:383-414.
8. Bruggemann R., Carlsen L. Multicriteria decision analyses. viewing mcda in terms of both process and aggregation methods: some thoughts, motivated by the paper of Huang, Keisler and Linkov. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425:293-295.
9. Bruggemann R., Restrepo G., Voigt K., Annoni P. Weighting intervals and ranking, exemplified by leaching potential of pesticides. Match - Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 2013, 69:413-432.
10. Carlsen L. Assessment of chemicals applying partial order ranking techniques. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2008, 11:794-805.
11. De Loof K., De Meyer H., De Baets B. Exploiting the lattice of ideals representation of a poset. Fundam. Inform. 2006, 71:309-321.
12. De Loof K., De Baets B., De Meyer H., Bruggemann R. A Hitchhiker's guide to poset ranking. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2008, 11:734-744.
13. EC, 2006. Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Establishing a European Chemicals Agency, Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC; Article 57d,e. (<>; (accessed February 2012). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_396/l_39620061230en00010849.pdf.
14. EPA, 2011 Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite, ver. 4.10. <> (accessed February 2012). http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm.
15. Huang I.B., Keisler J., Linkov I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409:3578-3594.
16. Lerche D., Sørensen P.B., Larsen H.S., Carlsen L., Nielsen O.-J. Comparison of the combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority setting scheme with partial order theory and random linear extensions for ranking of chemical substances. Chemosphere 2002, 49:637-649.
17. Morton J., Pachter L., Shiu A., Sturmfels B., Wienand O. Convex Rank tests and semigraphoids. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 2009, 23:1117-1134.
18. Munda G. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy 2008, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
19. Norstad, J. 2011, An introduction to utility theory. (accessed February 2012). http://homepage.mac.com/j.norstad/finance/util.pdf.
20. Our Stolen Future, 2011, Widespread Pollutants with Endocrine-disrupting Effects. <> (accessed February 2012). http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/basics/chemlist.htm.
21. Pavan M., Worth A. Comparison of the COMMPS Priority Setting Scheme with Total and Partial Algorithms for Ranking of Chemical Substances 2007, European Chemicals Bureau.
22. Stockholm Convention, 2008. <> (accessed February 2012). http://chm.pops.int/Home/tabid/2121/language/en-GB/Default.aspx.
23. Talente srl, 2007, DART - Decision Analysis by Ranking Techniques (ver. 2.05). <> (accessed February 2012). http://www.talete.mi.it/products/dart_description.htm.
24. Voigt K., Bruggemann R., Scherb H., Shen H., Schramm K.-H. Evaluating the relationship between chemical exposure and cryptorchidism by discrete mathematical method using PyHasse software. Envir. Modell. Software 2010, 25:1801-1812.
25. Wienand, O., 2006, lcell. <> (accessed, August 2011). http://bio.math.berkeley.edu/ranktests/lcell/.