Literature DB >> 16639882

A decision-making framework for sediment contamination.

Peter M Chapman1, Janette Anderson.   

Abstract

A decision-making framework for determining whether or not contaminated sediments are polluted is described. This framework is intended to be sufficiently prescriptive to standardize the decision-making process but without using "cook book" assessments. It emphasizes 4 guidance "rules": (1) sediment chemistry data are only to be used alone for remediation decisions when the costs of further investigation outweigh the costs of remediation and there is agreement among all stakeholders to act; (2) remediation decisions are based primarily on biology; (3) lines of evidence (LOE), such as laboratory toxicity tests and models that contradict the results of properly conducted field surveys, are assumed incorrect; and (4) if the impacts of a remedial alternative will cause more environmental harm than good, then it should not be implemented. Sediments with contaminant concentrations below sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) that predict toxicity toless than 5% of sediment-dwelling infauna and that contain no quantifiable concentrations of substances capable of biomagnifying are excluded from further consideration, as are sediments that do not meet these criteria but have contaminant concentrations equal to or below reference concentrations. Biomagnification potential is initially addressed by conservative (worst case) modeling based on benthos and sediments and, subsequently, by additional food chain data and more realistic assumptions. Toxicity (acute and chronic) and alterations to resident communities are addressed by, respectively, laboratory studies and field observations. The integrative decision point for sediments is a weight of evidence (WOE) matrix combining up to 4 main LOE: chemistry, toxicity, community alteration, and biomagnification potential. Of 16 possible WOE scenarios, 6 result in definite decisions, and 10 require additional assessment. Typically, this framework will be applied to surficial sediments. The possibility that deeper sediments may be uncovered as a result of natural or other processes must also be investigated and may require similar assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16639882     DOI: 10.1897/2005-013r.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag        ISSN: 1551-3777            Impact factor:   2.992


  12 in total

1.  Harmonised framework for ecological risk assessment of sediments from ports and estuarine zones of North and South Atlantic.

Authors:  R B Choueri; A Cesar; D M S Abessa; R J Torres; I Riba; C D S Pereira; M R L Nascimento; R D Morais; A A Mozeto; T A DelValls
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Experimental studies with nematodes in ecotoxicology: an overview.

Authors:  Arne Hägerbäumer; Sebastian Höss; Peter Heininger; Walter Traunspurger
Journal:  J Nematol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.402

3.  Fold-change threshold screening: a robust algorithm to unmask hidden gene expression patterns in noisy aggregated transcriptome data.

Authors:  Jonas Hausen; Jens C Otte; Uwe Strähle; Monika Hammers-Wirtz; Henner Hollert; Steffen H Keiter; Richard Ottermanns
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Two high-throughput screening assays for aberrant RNA-protein interactions in myotonic dystrophy type 1.

Authors:  Catherine Z Chen; Krzysztof Sobczak; Jason Hoskins; Noel Southall; Juan J Marugan; Wei Zheng; Charles A Thornton; Christopher P Austin
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 4.142

5.  Teleost fish (Solea solea): a novel model for ecotoxicological assay of contaminated sediments.

Authors:  C Ribecco; G Hardiman; R Sášik; S Vittori; O Carnevali
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Development of an estuarine assessment scheme for the management of a highly urbanised catchment/estuary system, Sydney estuary, Australia.

Authors:  G F Birch; T J Gunns; D Chapman; D Harrison
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 2.513

7.  Integrative sediment assessment at Atlantic Spanish harbours by means of chemical and ecotoxicological tools.

Authors:  N Montero; M J Belzunce-Segarra; I Menchaca; J M Garmendia; J Franco; O Nieto; N Etxebarria
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 2.513

8.  Environmental Safety of the Use of Major Surfactant Classes in North America.

Authors:  Christina Cowan-Ellsberry; Scott Belanger; Philip Dorn; Scott Dyer; Drew McAvoy; Hans Sanderson; Donald Versteeg; Darci Ferrer; Kathleen Stanton
Journal:  Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 12.561

9.  Evaluating toxicity risk in sediments after remediation at a Superfund megasite using a Triad approach.

Authors:  Amanda D Harwood; Grace E Sutherland; M Megan Woller-Skar; Michael J Lydy; Murray C Borrello
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 2.513

10.  Relationships between Potentially Toxic Elements in intertidal sediments and their bioaccumulation by benthic invertebrates.

Authors:  Tom Sizmur; Lily Campbell; Karina Dracott; Megan Jones; Nelson J O'Driscoll; Travis Gerwing
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.