Literature DB >> 21538836

Explaining differences between bioaccumulation measurements in laboratory and field data through use of a probabilistic modeling approach.

Henriette Selck1, Ken Drouillard, Karen Eisenreich, Albert A Koelmans, Annemette Palmqvist, Anders Ruus, Daniel Salvito, Irv Schultz, Robin Stewart, Annie Weisbrod, Nico W van den Brink, Martine van den Heuvel-Greve.   

Abstract

In the regulatory context, bioaccumulation assessment is often hampered by substantial data uncertainty as well as by the poorly understood differences often observed between results from laboratory and field bioaccumulation studies. Bioaccumulation is a complex, multifaceted process, which calls for accurate error analysis. Yet, attempts to quantify and compare propagation of error in bioaccumulation metrics across species and chemicals are rare. Here, we quantitatively assessed the combined influence of physicochemical, physiological, ecological, and environmental parameters known to affect bioaccumulation for 4 species and 2 chemicals, to assess whether uncertainty in these factors can explain the observed differences among laboratory and field studies. The organisms evaluated in simulations including mayfly larvae, deposit-feeding polychaetes, yellow perch, and little owl represented a range of ecological conditions and biotransformation capacity. The chemicals, pyrene and the polychlorinated biphenyl congener PCB-153, represented medium and highly hydrophobic chemicals with different susceptibilities to biotransformation. An existing state of the art probabilistic bioaccumulation model was improved by accounting for bioavailability and absorption efficiency limitations, due to the presence of black carbon in sediment, and was used for probabilistic modeling of variability and propagation of error. Results showed that at lower trophic levels (mayfly and polychaete), variability in bioaccumulation was mainly driven by sediment exposure, sediment composition and chemical partitioning to sediment components, which was in turn dominated by the influence of black carbon. At higher trophic levels (yellow perch and the little owl), food web structure (i.e., diet composition and abundance) and chemical concentration in the diet became more important particularly for the most persistent compound, PCB-153. These results suggest that variation in bioaccumulation assessment is reduced most by improved identification of food sources as well as by accounting for the chemical bioavailability in food components. Improvements in the accuracy of aqueous exposure appear to be less relevant when applied to moderate to highly hydrophobic compounds, because this route contributes only marginally to total uptake. The determination of chemical bioavailability and the increase in understanding and qualifying the role of sediment components (black carbon, labile organic matter, and the like) on chemical absorption efficiencies has been identified as a key next steps.
Copyright © 2011 SETAC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21538836     DOI: 10.1002/ieam.217

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


  6 in total

1.  Sequestration of HCHs and DDTs in sediments in Dongting Lake of China with multiwalled carbon nanotubes: implication for in situ sequestration.

Authors:  Yanyan Guo; Cui Lai; Guangming Zeng; Jilai Gong; Chang Su; Chunping Yang; Piao Xu
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by arctic and temperate benthic species.

Authors:  Ariadna S Szczybelski; Noël J Diepens; Martine J van den Heuvel-Greve; Nico W van den Brink; Albert A Koelmans
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 3.742

3.  Interlaboratory Comparison of Three Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests.

Authors:  Guilherme R Lotufo; James M Biedenbach; J Daniel Farrar; Michael K Chanov; Brian W Hester; C Ryan Warbritton; Jeffery A Steevens; Jenifer M Netchaev; Anthony J Bednar; David W Moore
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 4.218

Review 4.  Passive sampling methods for contaminated sediments: risk assessment and management.

Authors:  Marc S Greenberg; Peter M Chapman; Ian J Allan; Kim A Anderson; Sabine E Apitz; Chris Beegan; Todd S Bridges; Steve S Brown; John G Cargill; Megan C McCulloch; Charles A Menzie; James P Shine; Thomas F Parkerton
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 2.992

Review 5.  Microplastic as a Vector for Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment: Critical Review and Model-Supported Reinterpretation of Empirical Studies.

Authors:  Albert A Koelmans; Adil Bakir; G Allen Burton; Colin R Janssen
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Exposure radius of a local coal mine in an Arctic coastal system; correlation between PAHs and mercury as a marker for a local mercury source.

Authors:  Frits Steenhuisen; Martine van den Heuvel-Greve
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 2.513

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.