Hierarchical Bayesian Approach to Reduce Uncertainty in the Aquatic Effect Assessment of Realistic Chemical Mixtures

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 49, Issue 17, 2015, Pages 10457-10465

  Oldenkamp, Rik ^a   Hendriks, Harrie W M ^a   Van De Meent, Dik ^a,b   Ragas, Ad M J ^a,c  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^c OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CHEMICALS; INDICATORS (CHEMICAL); INFORMATION USE; MIXTURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURFACE WATERS;

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS; AQUATIC RISK ASSESSMENT; EFFECT ASSESSMENTS; HIERARCHICAL APPROACH; HIERARCHICAL BAYESIAN; INTERSPECIES VARIATION; SPECIES SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS; WATER CONCENTRATIONS;

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION;

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CEFUROXIME; CHLORTETRACYCLINE; CIPROFLOXACIN; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; ERYTHROMYCIN; FLUOROURACIL; LEVOFLOXACIN; METHOTREXATE; OFLOXACIN; OXYTETRACYCLINE; SURFACE WATER; TAMOXIFEN; TETRACYCLINE; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; WATER POLLUTANT;

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); DRUG; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TOXICITY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ACUTE TOXICITY; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; AQUATIC SPECIES; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CALCULATION; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONCENTRATION PROCESS; CYTOTOXIC CONCENTRATION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; NONHUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; ANALYSIS; GEOGRAPHY; GERMANY; TOXICITY; UNCERTAINTY; WATER POLLUTANT;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; GEOGRAPHY; GERMANY; UNCERTAINTY; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 84940887986     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02651     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Posthuma, L.; Suter, G. W. I.; Traas, T. P. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology; Lewis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002.
2. Traas, T. P.; Van de Meent, D.; Posthuma, L.; Hamers, T. H. M.; Kater, B. J.; De Zwart, D.; Aldenberg, T. The potentially affected fraction as a measure of ecological risk. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology; Posthuma, L., Suter, G. W. I., Traas, T. P., Eds.; Lewis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp 315-344.
3. Klepper, O.; Bakker, J.; Traas, T. P.; van de Meent, D. Mapping the potentially affected fraction (PAF) of species as a basis for comparison of ecotoxicological risks between substances and regions J. Hazard. Mater. 1998, 61 (1-3) 337-344 10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00141-1
4. de Zwart, D.; Posthuma, L. Complex mixture toxicity for single and multiple species: Proposed methodologies Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24 (10) 2665-2676 10.1897/04-639R.1
5. Bliss, C. I. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly Ann. Appl. Biol. 1939, 26 (3) 585-615 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1939.tb06990.x
6. Loewe, S.; Muischnek, H. Über Kombinationswirkungen Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch. Pharmacol. 1926, 114 (5-6) 313-326 10.1007/BF01952257
7. van de Meent, D.; Huijbregts, M. A. J. Calculating life-cycle assessment effect factors from potentially affected fraction-based ecotoxicological response functions Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24 (6) 1573-1578 10.1897/04-496R.1
8. van Zelm, R.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Harbers, J. V.; Wintersen, A.; Struijs, J.; Posthuma, L.; van de Meent, D. Uncertainty in msPAF-based ecotoxicological effect factors for freshwater ecosystems in life cycle impact assessment Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2007, 3 (2) 203-210 10.1897/IEAM-2006-013.1
9. Hamers, T.; Aldenberg, T.; Van de Meent, D. Definition report-Indicator effects toxic substances (Itox); National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM: Bilthoven, the Netherlands, 1996.
10. van Straalen, N. Theory of ecological risk assessment based on species sensitivity distributions. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology; Posthuma, L.; Suter, G. W. I.; Traas, T. P., Eds.; Lewis: Boca Raton, USA, 2002; pp 37-48.
11. 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 (1-12) 192-202 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00327-7
12. Harbers, J. V.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Posthuma, L.; van de Meent, D. Estimating the Impact of High-Production-Volume Chemicals on Remote Ecosystems by Toxic Pressure Calculation Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (5) 1573-1580 10.1021/es051633m
13. Oldenkamp, R.; Ragas, A. M. J.; Posthuma, L.; De Zwart, D.; Van de Meent, D. Devils in (de)tails-Assessing mixture toxic pressure (msPAF) and chemical footprinting for emerging chemicals. In SETAC 24th Annual Meeting; Basel, Switzerland, 2014.
14. Aldenberg, T.; Jaworska, J. S. Uncertainty of the Hazardous Concentration and Fraction Affected for Normal Species Sensitivity Distributions Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2000, 46 (1) 1-18 10.1006/eesa.1999.1869
15. Hayashi, T. I.; Kashiwagi, N. A Bayesian method for deriving species-sensitivity distributions: Selecting the best-fit tolerance distributions of taxonomic groups Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2010, 16 (2) 251-263 10.1080/10807031003670279
16. Grist, E. P. M.; O'Hagan, A.; Crane, M.; Sorokin, N.; Sims, I.; Whitehouse, P. Bayesian and time-independent species sensitivity distributions for risk assessment of chemicals Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (1) 395-401 10.1021/es050871e
17. Craig, P. Exploring Novel Ways of Using Species Sensitivity Distributions to Establish PNECs for Industrial Chemicals. Final Report to Steering Group 3 April 2013.; 2013; http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13383/1/13383.pdf?DDD21+dma0psc+d700tmt.
18. Craig, P. S.; Hickey, G. L.; Luttik, R.; Hart, A. Species non-exchangeability in probabilistic ecotoxicological risk assessment J. R Stat Soc. Ser. A Stat Soc. 2012, 175, 243-262 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.00716.x
19. EFSA Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the assessment of the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms with regard to the possibility of lowering the uncertainty factor if additional species were tested EFSA Journal 2006, 2006 (1) 1-45 10.2903/j.efsa.2006.301
20. Roelofs, W.; Huikbregts, M. A. J.; Jager, T.; Ragsas, A. M. J. Prediction of ecological no-effect concentrations for initial risk assessment: Combining substance-specific data and database information Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22 (6) 1387-1393 10.1002/etc.5620220627
21. Wagner, C.; Lokke, H. Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC toxicity data Water Res. 1991, 25 (10) 1237-1242 10.1016/0043-1354(91)90062-U
22. Smith, E. P.; Cairns, J., Jr. Extrapolation methods for setting ecological standards for water quality: statistical and ecological concerns Ecotoxicology 1993, 2 (3) 203-219 10.1007/BF00116425
23. Aldenberg, T.; Slob, W. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1993, 25 (1) 48-63 10.1006/eesa.1993.1006
24. Kooijman, S. A. L. M. A safety factor for LC50 values allowing for differences in sensitivity among species Water Res. 1987, 21 (3) 269-276 10.1016/0043-1354(87)90205-3
25. van Straalen, N. M.; Denneman, C. A. J. Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil quality criteria Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1989, 18 (3) 241-251 10.1016/0147-6513(89)90018-3
26. Shao, Q. Estimation for hazardous concentrations based on NOEC toxicity data: an alternative approach Environmetrics 2000, 11 (5) 583-595 10.1002/1099-095X(200009/10)11:5<583::AID-ENV456>3.0.CO;2-X
27. Cullen, A. C.; Frey, H. C. Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
28. Jager, T.; Heugens, E. W.; Kooijman, S. L. M. Making sense of ecotoxicological test results: Towards application of process-based models Ecotoxicology 2006, 15 (3) 305-314 10.1007/s10646-006-0060-x
29. Jager, T. Some good reasons to ban ECx and related concepts in ecotoxicology Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (19) 8180-8181 10.1021/es2030559
30. Van Der Hoeven, N. How to measure no effect. Part III: Statistical aspects of NOEC, ECx and NEC estimates Environmetrics 1997, 8 (3) 255-261 10.1002/(SICI)1099-095X(199705)8:3<255::AID-ENV246>3.0.CO;2-P
31. de Bruijn, J. H. M.; Hof, M. How to measure no effect. Part IV: How acceptable is the ECx from an environmental policy point of view? Environmetrics 1997, 8 (3) 263-267 10.1002/(SICI)1099-095X(199705)8:3<263::AID-ENV247>3.0.CO;2-R
32. van Leeuwen, C. J.; Vermeire, T. Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007.
33. Molander, L.; Ågerstrand, M.; Rudén, C. WikiPharma-A freely available, easily accessible, interactive and comprehensive database for environmental effect data for pharmaceuticals Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 55 (3) 367-371 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.08.009
34. US EPA. ECOTOX database; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2014; Available from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/.
35. FASS. Läkemedelsportalen FASS.se (in Swedish); LIF: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014;, Available from: http://www.fass.se/LIF/home/index.jsp.
36. NCCOS. Pharmaceuticals in the Environment; NCCOS: Silver Spring, MD, 2014; Available at http://products.coastalscience.noaa.gov/peiar/search.aspx.
37. AstraZeneca. Environmental risk assessment data; AstraZeneca: Wilmington, DE, 2014; Available at http://www.astrazeneca.com/Sustainability/environmental-sustainability.
38. ECHA. Characterisation of dose-response for environment. In Guidance for the Implementation of REACH: Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment; European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, Finland, 2008.
39. Oldenkamp, R.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Hollander, A.; Versporten, A.; Goossens, H.; Ragas, A. M. J. Spatially explicit prioritization of human antibiotics and antineoplastics in Europe Environ. Int. 2013, 51 (0) 13-26 10.1016/j.envint.2012.09.010
40. Gilks, W. R.; Thomas, A.; Spiegelhalter, D. J. A language and program for complex Bayesian modeling Statistician 1994, 43 (1) 169-177 10.2307/2348941
41. Lunn, D.; Spiegelhalter, D.; Thomas, A.; Best, N. The BUGS project: Evolution, critique and future directions Stat. Med. 2009, 28 (25) 3049-3067 10.1002/sim.3680
42. Lunn, D.; Thomas, A.; Best, N.; Spiegelhalter, D. WinBUGS-A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility Stat Comput 2000, 10 (4) 325-337 10.1023/A:1008929526011
43. Gelman, A.; Shirley, K. Inference from simulations and monitoring convergence. In Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo; Brooks, S.; Gelman, A.; Jones, G. L.; Meng, X. L., Eds.; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp 163-174.
44. Gelman, A.; Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences Stat Sci. 1992, 7 (4) 457-472 10.1214/ss/1177011136
45. Brooks, S. P.; Gelman, A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations J. Comput. Graphical Stat. 1998, 7 (4) 434-455 10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787
46. RIVM. e-toxBase; National Institute of Public Health and the Environment RIVM: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2014; Available from: http://www.e-toxbase.eu/.
47. van Zelm, R.; Huijbregts, M. J.; Posthuma, L.; Wintersen, A.; van de Meent, D. Pesticide ecotoxicological effect factors and their uncertainties for freshwater ecosystems Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14 (1) 43-51 10.1007/s11367-008-0037-5
48. GlaxoSmithKline. Material Safety Data Sheets & Environmental Risk Assessments; GSK: Philadelphia, PA, 2014; Available at http://www.msds-gsk.com/ERAList.aspx.
49. ECHA. ECHA chemicals registry; ECHA: Helsinki, 2014; Available at http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances.
50. Hickey, G. L.; Craig, P. S.; Luttik, R.; de Zwart, D. On the quantification of intertest variability in ecotoxicity data with application to species sensitivity distributions Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31 (8) 1903-1910 10.1002/etc.1891
51. Walker, W. E.; Harremoës, P.; Rotmans, J.; van der Sluijs, J. P.; van Asselt, M. B. A.; Janssen, P.; Krayer von Krauss, M. P. Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support Integr. Assess. 2003, 4 (1) 5-17 10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466
52. Forbes, T. L.; Forbes, V. E. A critique of the use of distribution-based extrapolation models in ecotoxicology Funct. Ecol. 1993, 7 (3) 249-254 10.2307/2390202
53. Gelman, A. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper) Bayesian Anal 2006, 1 (3) 515-534 10.1214/06-BA117A