Literature DB >> 15462131

International trends in bioassay use for effluent management.

Elizabeth A Power1, Ruth S Boumphrey.   

Abstract

The use of effluent bioassays in various international jurisdictions is reviewed, resulting in an analysis of themes and trends in: regulatory use, different uses of bioassays in meeting protection goals, different types of bioassays, bioassay test variability, statistical design, use of effluent bioassays to predict receiving environment effects, and uptake of effluent bioassay testing by developing countries. Current effluent bioassay use by jurisdictions in North America, the European Union, and Asia/Pacific is described. The historical trend for many jurisdictions has been to start with chemical hazard-based systems, then add effluent bioassays (first lethal, then sublethal measures) and then use receiving environment evaluations to predict or measure impacts. For jurisdictions adopting effluent bioassays over the past decade, policies about the use of in vivo vertebrate tests appear to be influencing the types of bioassays that are used and there is also a trend towards micro-scale tests. In countries where regulations relating to effluent management do not require effluent bioassays, uptake of bioassays is relatively slow. Good practice for effluent bioassay applications can only be defined with regard to the regulatory regime, as differences between jurisdictions (e.g., hazard-based versus risk-based regimes, policies on in vivo vertebrate testing) will result in different choices.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15462131     DOI: 10.1023/b:ectx.0000035290.89590.03

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecotoxicology        ISSN: 0963-9292            Impact factor:   2.823


  9 in total

1.  Risk assessment approaches for ecosystem responses to transient pollution events in urban receiving waters.

Authors:  J B Ellis
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 7.086

2.  Measures for protecting water quality: current approaches and future developments.

Authors:  P Whitehouse
Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.291

Review 3.  Rapid toxicity assessment and biomonitoring of marine contaminants--exploiting the potential of rapid biomarker assays and microscale toxicity tests.

Authors:  P G Wells; M H Depledge; J N Butler; J J Manock; A H Knap
Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.553

4.  Sensitivity of different growth inhibition tests--just a question of mathematical calculation? Theory and practice for algae and duckweed.

Authors:  Matthias Eberius; Guido Mennicken; Ilka Reuter; Jörg Vandenhirtz
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.823

5.  Aquatic toxicity tests for the control of effluent discharges in the UK - the influence of test precision.

Authors:  P Whitehouse; M Crane; C John Redshaw; C Turner
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.823

6.  Ecotoxicological studies of environmental samples from Buenos Aires area using a standardized amphibian embryo toxicity test (AMPHITOX).

Authors:  Jorge Herkovits; Cristina Perez-Coll; Francisco D Herkovits
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 8.071

7.  Managing complex mixtures of chemicals--a forward look from the regulators' perspective.

Authors:  Jim Wharfe; Derek Tinsley; Mark Crane
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.823

Review 8.  Bioassay selection, experimental design and quality control/assurance for use in effluent assessment and control.

Authors:  Ian Johnson; Matt Hutchings; Rachel Benstead; John Thain; Paul Whitehouse
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.823

Review 9.  The use of direct toxicity assessment in the assessment and control of complex effluents in the UK: a demonstration programme.

Authors:  Derek Tinsley; Jim Wharfe; David Campbell; Phillip Chown; David Taylor; John Upton; Colin Taylor
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.823

  9 in total
  17 in total

Review 1.  Hazardous chemicals in complex mixtures--a role for direct toxicity assessment.

Authors:  Jim Wharfe
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Estimating spatial patterns of effluent exposure concentrations in direct toxicity assessment studies.

Authors:  Andrew E Girling; Andrew M Riddle; George M Mitchell; Philip K Chown; Derek Tinsley; Clare Buckler; Ian Johnson; Rachel Benstead
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.823

3.  Ecotoxicological assessment of effluents in the Basque country (Northern Spain) by acute and chronic toxicity tests using Daphnia magna straus.

Authors:  Pilar Rodriguez; Maite Martinez-Madrid; Adolfo Cid
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 2.823

4.  The relationship between whole effluent toxicity (WET) and chemical-based effluent quality assessment in Vojvodina (Serbia).

Authors:  Ivana Teodorović; Milena Becelić; Ivana Planojević; Ivana Ivancev-Tumbas; Bozo Dalmacija
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  The relevance of physicochemical and biological parameters for setting emission limit values for plants treating complex industrial wastewaters.

Authors:  Diane Huybrechts; Reinhilde Weltens; Griet Jacobs; Ab Borburgh; Toon Smets; Lut Hoebeke; Caroline Polders
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Comparison of false-positive rates of 2 hypothesis-test approaches in relation to laboratory toxicity test performance.

Authors:  John F Fox; Debra L Denton; Jerry Diamond; Robyn Stuber
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 3.742

7.  Treatment of a wastewater from a pesticide manufacture by combined coagulation and Fenton oxidation.

Authors:  G Pliego; J A Zazo; M I Pariente; I Rodríguez; A L Petre; P Leton; J García
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 4.223

8.  Ecotoxicity of raw and treated effluents generated by a veterinary pharmaceutical company: a comparison of the sensitivities of different standardized tests.

Authors:  Bianca de S Maselli; Luis A V Luna; Joice de O Palmeira; Karla P Tavares; Sandro Barbosa; Luiz A Beijo; Gisela A Umbuzeiro; Fábio Kummrow
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2015-02-15       Impact factor: 2.823

Review 9.  An International Perspective on the Tools and Concepts for Effluent Toxicity Assessments in the Context of Animal Alternatives: Reduction in Vertebrate Use.

Authors:  Teresa J Norberg-King; Michelle R Embry; Scott E Belanger; Thomas Braunbeck; Joshua D Butler; Phil B Dorn; Brianna Farr; Patrick D Guiney; Sarah A Hughes; Marlo Jeffries; Romain Journel; Marc Lèonard; Mark McMaster; James T Oris; Kathy Ryder; Helmut Segner; Thomas Senac; Glen Van Der Kraak; Graham Whale; Peter Wilson
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.742

10.  Is the evaluation of "traditional" physicochemical parameters sufficient to explain the potential toxicity of the treated wastewater at sewage treatment plants?

Authors:  M I Vasquez; D Fatta-Kassinos
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 4.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.