Literature DB >> 19199371

A review of potential methods of determining critical effect size for designing environmental monitoring programs.

Kelly R Munkittrick1, Collin J Arens, Richard B Lowell, Greg P Kaminski.   

Abstract

The effective design of field studies requires that sample size requirements be estimated for important endpoints before conducting assessments. This a priori calculation of sample size requires initial estimates for the variability of the endpoints of interest, decisions regarding significance levels and the power desired, and identification of an effect size to be detected. Although many programs have called for use of critical effect sizes (CES) in the design of monitoring programs, few attempts have been made to define them. This paper reviews approaches that have been or could be used to set specific CES. The ideal method for setting CES would be to define the level of protection that prevents ecologically relevant impacts and to set a warning level of change that would be more sensitive than that CES level to provide a margin of safety; however, few examples of this approach being applied exist. Program-specific CES could be developed through the use of numbers based on regulatory or detection limits, a number defined through stakeholder negotiation, estimates of the ranges of reference data, or calculation from the distribution of data using frequency plots or multivariate techniques. The CES that have been defined often are consistent with a CES of approximately 25%, or two standard deviations, for many biological or ecological monitoring endpoints, and this value appears to be reasonable for use in a wide variety of monitoring programs and with a wide variety of endpoints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19199371     DOI: 10.1897/08-376.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem        ISSN: 0730-7268            Impact factor:   3.742


  11 in total

1.  The integrated biomarker response revisited: optimization to avoid misuse.

Authors:  S Devin; T Burgeot; L Giambérini; L Minguez; S Pain-Devin
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 2.  Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency.

Authors:  Christopher A Mebane; John P Sumpter; Anne Fairbrother; Thomas P Augspurger; Timothy J Canfield; William L Goodfellow; Patrick D Guiney; Anne LeHuray; Lorraine Maltby; David B Mayfield; Michael J McLaughlin; Lisa S Ortego; Tamar Schlekat; Richard P Scroggins; Tim A Verslycke
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 2.992

3.  How consistent are we? Interlaboratory comparison study in fathead minnows using the model estrogen 17α-ethinylestradiol to develop recommendations for environmental transcriptomics.

Authors:  April Feswick; Meghan Isaacs; Adam Biales; Robert W Flick; David C Bencic; Rong-Lin Wang; Chris Vulpe; Marianna Brown-Augustine; Alex Loguinov; Francesco Falciani; Philipp Antczak; John Herbert; Lorraine Brown; Nancy D Denslow; Kevin J Kroll; Candice Lavelle; Viet Dang; Lynn Escalon; Natàlia Garcia-Reyero; Christopher J Martyniuk; Kelly R Munkittrick
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 3.742

4.  Addressing statistical and operational challenges in designing large-scale stream condition surveys.

Authors:  Melissa J Dobbie; Peter Negus
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Towards the review of the European Union Water Framework Directive: Recommendations for more efficient assessment and management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources.

Authors:  Werner Brack; Valeria Dulio; Marlene Ågerstrand; Ian Allan; Rolf Altenburger; Markus Brinkmann; Dirk Bunke; Robert M Burgess; Ian Cousins; Beate I Escher; Félix J Hernández; L Mark Hewitt; Klára Hilscherová; Juliane Hollender; Henner Hollert; Robert Kase; Bernd Klauer; Claudia Lindim; David López Herráez; Cécil Miège; John Munthe; Simon O'Toole; Leo Posthuma; Heinz Rüdel; Ralf B Schäfer; Manfred Sengl; Foppe Smedes; Dik van de Meent; Paul J van den Brink; Jos van Gils; Annemarie P van Wezel; A Dick Vethaak; Etienne Vermeirssen; Peter C von der Ohe; Branislav Vrana
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 7.963

6.  Considering Fish as Recipients of Ecosystem Services Provides a Framework to Formally Link Baseline, Development, and Post-operational Monitoring Programs and Improve Aquatic Impact Assessments for Large Scale Developments.

Authors:  Carolyn J M Brown; R Allen Curry; Michelle A Gray; Jennifer Lento; Deborah L MacLatchy; Wendy A Monk; Scott A Pavey; André St-Hilaire; Bernhard Wegscheider; Kelly R Munkittrick
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 3.644

7.  The combined influence of two agricultural contaminants on natural communities of phytoplankton and zooplankton.

Authors:  Leanne F Baker; Joseph F Mudge; Dean G Thompson; Jeff E Houlahan; Karen A Kidd
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 2.823

8.  A 30-Year Study of Impacts, Recovery, and Development of Critical Effect Sizes for Endocrine Disruption in White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) Exposed to Bleached-Kraft Pulp Mill Effluent at Jackfish Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Erin J Ussery; Mark E McMaster; Mark R Servos; David H Miller; Kelly R Munkittrick
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 5.555

9.  Setting an optimal α that minimizes errors in null hypothesis significance tests.

Authors:  Joseph F Mudge; Leanne F Baker; Christopher B Edge; Jeff E Houlahan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  An Assessment of the Spatial and Temporal Variability of Biological Responses to Municipal Wastewater Effluent in Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma caeruleum) Collected along an Urban Gradient.

Authors:  Meghan L M Fuzzen; Leslie M Bragg; Gerald R Tetreault; Paulina A Bahamonde; Rajiv N Tanna; Charles J Bennett; Mark E McMaster; Mark R Servos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.