Validation and sensitivity of the FINE Bayesian network for forecasting aquatic exposure to nano-silver

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 473-474, Issue , 2014, Pages 685-691

  Money, Eric S ^a,b   Barton, Lauren E ^a,b   Dawson, Joseph ^c   Reckhow, Kenneth H ^a   Wiesner, Mark R ^a,b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Duke University   (United States)

^c OBERLIN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Aquatic exposure; Bayesian networks; Mesocosms; Nano silver; Sensitivity analysis; Validation

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; FORECASTING; FRACTAL DIMENSION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

AQUATIC EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; MESOCOSMS; NANO SILVER; PARTICLE CHARACTERISTICS; PREDICTION ACCURACY; SILVER NANOPARTICLES; VALIDATION;

SILVER;

NANOMATERIAL; SILVER NANOPARTICLE;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FORECASTING METHOD; MESOCOSM; MODEL VALIDATION; POLLUTION EXPOSURE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SILVER;

ACCURACY; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER PREDICTION; ECOTOXICOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; FORECASTING THE IMPACT OF NANOMATERIAL IN THE ENVIRONMENT; MESOCOSM; NANOTOXICOLOGY; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PHYSICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VALIDATION STUDY;

AQUATIC EXPOSURE; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; MESOCOSMS; NANO-SILVER; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VALIDATION;

BAYES THEOREM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; METAL NANOPARTICLES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SILVER; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL; WATER POLLUTION, CHEMICAL;

EID: 84892493370     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.100     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abbott L.C., Maynard A.D. Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nanomaterials. Risk Anal 2010, 30:1634-1644.
2. Alvarez P.J.J., Colvin V., Lead J., Stone V. Research priorities to advance eco-responsible nanotechnology. ACS Nano 2009, 3:1616-1619.
3. Aschberger K., Micheletti C., Sokull-Klüttgen B., Christensen F.M. Analysis of currently available data for characterising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environment and human health - lessons learned from four case studies. Environ Int 2011, 37:1143-1156.
4. Blaser S.A., Scheringer M., MacLeod M., Hungerbühler K. Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nano-functionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 2008, 390:396-409.
5. Brier G.W. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon Weather Rev 1950, 78:1-3.
6. Dlamini W.M. A Bayesian belief network analysis of factors influencing wildfire occurrence in Swaziland. Environ Model Softw 2010, 25:199-208.
7. Dlamini W.M. Application of a Bayesian network for land-cover classification from a Landsat 7 ETM+ image. Int J Remote Sens 2011, 32:6569-6586.
8. Foltran F., Berchialla P., Bigi R., Migliaretti G., Bestetti A., Gregori D. Understanding coronary atherosclerosis in relation to obesity: is getting the distribution of body fatness using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry worth the effort? A novel perspective using Bayesian networks. J Eval Clin Pract 2011, 17:32-39.
9. Gottschalk F., Nowack B. The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 2011, 13:1145-1155.
10. 2 particles. Environ Model Softw 2010, 25:320-332.
11. 2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43:9216-9222.
12. Grieger K.D., Linkov I., Hansen S.F., Baun A. Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 2011, 1-17.
13. Hansen S.F., Larsen B.H., Olsen S.I., Baun A. Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 2007, 1:243-250.
14. Heckerman D. A tutorial on learning with Bayesian networks innovations in Bayesian networks 2008, 156:33-82. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg. D. Holmes, L. Jain (Eds.).
15. Hendren C.O., Badireddy A.R., Casman E., Wiesner M.R. Modeling nanomaterial fate in wastewater treatment: Monte Carlo simulation of silver nanoparticles (nano-Ag). Sci Total Environ 2013, 449:418-425.
16. Hendren C.O., Lowry M., Grieger K.D., Money E.S., Johnston J.M., Wiesner M.R., et al. Modeling approaches for characterizing and evaluating environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials in support of risk-based decision making. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47:1190-1205.
17. Henriksen H., Barlebo H.C. Reflections on the use of Bayesian belief networks for adaptive management. J Environ Manag 2008, 88:1025-1036.
18. Hristozov D.R., Gottardo S., Critto A., Marcomini A. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 2012, 1-19.
19. Hristozov D.R., Zabeo A., Foran C., Isigonis P., Critto A., Marcomini A., et al. A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 2012, 1-16.
20. ICON International Council on Nanotechnology's nano environment, health and safety database 2012, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology, Houston, Texas.
21. Jensen F.V., Nielsen T.D. Bayesian networks and decision graphs 2007, Springer Verlag.
22. Kalacska M., Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A., Caelli T., Rivard B., Boerlage B. Estimating leaf area index from satellite imagery using Bayesian networks. Geosci Remote Sens IEEE Trans on 2005, 43:1866-1873.
23. Keisler J., Collier Z., Chu E., Sinatra N., Linkov I. Value of information analysis: the state of application. Environment Systems and Decisions 2013, 1-21.
24. Lauritzen S.L. The EM, algorithm for graphical association models with missing data. Comput Stat Data Anal 1995, 19:191-201.
25. Linkov I., Seager T.P. Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45:5068-5074.
26. Linkov I., Steevens J., Adlakha-Hutcheon G., Bennett E., Chappell M., Colvin V.L., et al. Emerging methods and tools for environmental risk assessment, decision-making, and policy for nanomaterials: summary of NATO Advanced Research Workshop. J Nanoparticle Res 2009, 11:513-527.
27. Linkov I., Steevens J., Chappell M., Tervonen T., Figueira J., Merad M. Classifying nanomaterial risks using multi-criteria decision analysis. Nanomaterials: risks and benefits 2009, 179-191. Springer Science, Netherlands. I. Linkov, J. Steevens (Eds.).
28. Lowry G.V., Casman E.A. Nanomaterial transport, transformation, and fate in the environment nanomaterials: risks and benefits 2009, 125-137. Springer, Netherlands. I. Linkov, J. Steevens (Eds.).
29. Lowry G.V., Espinasse B.P., Badireddy A.R., Richardson C.J., Reinsch B.C., Bryant L.D. Long-term transformation and fate of manufactured Ag nanoparticles in a simulated large scale freshwater emergent wetland. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46:7027-7036.
30. Marcot B.G. Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network models. Ecol Model 2012, 230:50-62.
31. Marcot B.G., Steventon J.D., Sutherland G.D., McCann R.K. Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can J For Res 2006, 36:3063-3074.
32. Metcalfe C., Bennett E., Chappell M.A., Steevens J.A., Depledge M., Gross G., et al. SMARTEN: strategic management and assessment of risks and toxicity of engineered nanomaterials. Nanomaterials: risks and benefits 2009, 95-109. Springer, Dordrecht. J.A. Linkov IS (Ed.).
33. Money E.S., Reckhow K.H., Wiesner M.R. The use of Bayesian networks for nanoparticle risk forecasting: model formulation and baseline evaluation. Sci Total Environ 2012, 426:436-445.
34. Mueller N.C., Nowack B. Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42:4447-4453.
35. Norsys NETICA v5.02. Norsys Software Corp 2012.
36. NRC National Research Council: A research strategy for environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials 2012, The National Academies Press.
37. Nyberg J.B., Marcot B.G., Sulyma R. Using Bayesian belief networks in adaptive management. Can J For Res 2006, 36:3104-3116.
38. O'Brien N.J., Cummins E.J. A risk assessment framework for assessing metallic nanomaterials of environmental concern: aquatic exposure and behavior. Risk Anal 2011, 31:706-726.
39. Pearl J. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference 1988, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, US.
40. Peralta-Videa J.R., Zhao L., Lopez-Moreno M.L., de la Rosa G., Hong J., Gardea-Torresdey J.L. Nanomaterials and the environment: a review for the biennium 2008-2010. J Hazard Mater 2010, 186:1-15.
41. Pollino C.A., Hart B.T. Bayesian approaches can help make better sense of ecotoxicological information in risk assessments. Aust J Ecotoxicol 2005, 11:57-58.
42. Reuters Thomson Reuters web of knowledge 2012, Thomson Reuters.
43. Uusitalo L. Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol mod 2007, 203:312-318.
44. Wiesner M.R., Bottero J.Y. A risk forecasting process for nanostructured materials, and nanomanufacturing. Proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences 2011.
45. Wiesner M.R., Lowry G.V., Jones K.L., Hochella J., M.F., Di Giulio R.T., Casman E., et al. Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk, and ecological implications of nanomaterials†‡. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43:6458-6462.
46. Wittig F., Jameson A. Exploiting qualitative knowledge in the learning of conditional probabilities of Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2000, 644-652. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Stanford, California.