Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 365–375 | Cite as

A Bayesian approach to probabilistic ecological risk assessment: risk comparison of nine toxic substances in Tokyo surface waters

Research Article


Background, aim, and scope

Quantitative risk comparison of toxic substances is necessary to decide which substances should be prioritized to achieve effective risk management. This study compared the ecological risk among nine major toxic substances (ammonia, bisphenol-A, chloroform, copper, hexavalent chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc) in Tokyo surface waters by adopting an integrated risk analysis procedure using Bayesian statistics.


Species sensitivity distributions of these substances were derived by using four Bayesian models. Environmental concentration distributions were derived by a hierarchical Bayesian model that explicitly considered the differences between within-site and between-site variations in environmental concentrations. Medians and confidence intervals of the expected potentially affected fraction (EPAF) of species were then computed by the Monte Carlo method.


The estimated EPAF values suggested that risk from nickel was highest and risk from zinc and ammonia were also high relative to other substances. The risk from copper was highest if bioavailability was not considered, although toxicity correction by a biotic ligand model greatly reduced the estimated risk. The risk from manganese was highest if a conservative risk index estimate (90% upper EPAF confidence limit) was selected.


It is suggested that zinc is not a predominant risk factor in Tokyo surface waters and strategic efforts are required to reduce the total ecological risk from multiple substances. The presented risk analysis procedure using EPAF and Bayesian statistics is expected to advance methodologies and practices in quantitative ecological risk comparison.


Ecological risk assessment Probabilistic risk analysis Quantitative risk comparison Bayesian statistics Uncertainty analysis Species sensitivity distribution 

Supplementary material

11356_2010_380_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.1 mb)
ESM 1(PDF 3.09 MB)


  1. Aldenberg T, Jaworska JS, Traas TP (2002) Normal species sensitivity distributions and probabilistic ecological risk assessment. In: Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Trass TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 49–102Google Scholar
  2. CERI and NITE (2008) Screening-level assessment of chemicals. Ver. 1.0. No. 116. Manganese and its compounds. Available at http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/risk/files/ (in Japanese)
  3. Duboudin C, Ciffroy P, Magaud H (2004) Effects of data manipulation and statistical methods on species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EUFRAM (2006) Concerted action to develop a European framework for probabilistic risk assessment of the environmental impacts of pesticides. Available at http://www.eufram.com
  5. European Commission (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment. European Commission, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. European Union (2008) European Union risk assessment report. Voluntary risk assessment of copper, copper II sulphate pentahydrate, copper(I)oxide, copper(II)oxide, dicopper chloride trihydroxide. Available at http://www.echa.europa.eu/chem_data/transit_measures/vrar_en.asp
  7. European Union (2009) European Union risk assessment report. Nickel and nickel compounds. Available at http://www.mst.dk/English/Chemicals/Substances_and_materials/Nickel/
  8. Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayashi TI, Kashiwagi N (2009) Analyzing spatial and temporal variability and uncertainty: a hierarchical Bayesian approach to environmental monitoring data set containing non-detected observations. Japanese J Risk Anal 19:47–54 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. Hayashi TI, Kashiwagi N (2010) A Bayesian method for deriving species-sensitivity distributions: selecting the best fit tolerance distributions of taxonomic groups. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:251–263Google Scholar
  12. Imaizumi Y, Suzuki N, Shiraishi H (2006) Bootstrap methods for confidence intervals of percentiles from dataset containing nondetected observations using lognormal distribution. J Chemom 20:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kikuchi M, Wakabayashi M (1997) Environmental risk assessment of ammonia pollution of river waters. Annual report of Tokyo Metropolitan Research Institute for Environmental Protection, pp 143–148 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  14. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spigelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakanishi J, Ono K (2008) Series of detailed risk assessment 21: chromium hexavalent. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakanishi K, Miyamoto K, Kawasaki H (2005) Series of detailed risk assessment 6: bisphenol-A. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  17. Nakanishi J, Kobayashi N, Naito K (2006) Series of detailed risk assessment 9: lead. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakanishi J, Ishikawa Y, Kawasaki H (2008a) Series of detailed risk assessment 15: chloroform. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakanishi J, Naito K, Kamo M (2008b) Series of detailed risk assessment 20: zinc. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (1995) Guidance document for aquatic effects assessment. OECD Environment Monographs No. 92, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Ouyang T, Torigai M, Okita S, Baba K, Yun S-J, Iwakawa K (1998) Concentration, speciation and source estimation of Cr, Mo and Sb in Tamagawa river water. Japanese J Environ Chem 8:33–45, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  22. Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  23. Qian SS, Schulman A, Koplos J, Kotros A, Kellar P (2004) A hierarchical modeling approach for estimating national distributions of chemicals in public drinking water systems. Environ Sci Technol 38:1176–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  25. Sinha P, Lambert MB, Trumbull VL (2006) Evaluation of statistical methods for left-censored environmental data with nonuniform detection limits. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:2533–2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Solomon KR, Takacs P (2002) Probabilistic risk assessment using species sensitivity distributions. In: Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Trass TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 285–313Google Scholar
  27. Spigelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Stat Soc B 64:583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spigelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS user manual. Version 1.4. Available at http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs
  29. Suter GW II (2006) Ecological risk assessment. CRC, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. US EPA (1998) update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. US EPA (2003) Occurrence estimation methodology and occurrence findings report for the six-year review of existing national primary drinking water regulations; EPA-815-R-03-006. Office of Water: June 2003, 874 p. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard
  32. Van den Brink PJ, Blake N, Brock TCM, Maltby L (2006) Predictive value of species sensitivity distributions for effects of herbicides in freshwater ecosystem. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:645–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Sprang SV, Verdonck FAM, Vanrolleghem PA, Vanrolleghem PA, Vangheluwe ML, Janssen CR (2004) Probabilistic environmental risk assessment of zinc in Dutch surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:2993–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vose D (2007) Risk analysis: quantitative guide. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamazaki M, Ando H (1997) Analysis of dissolved trace elements in river water by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry and instrumental neutron activation analysis. Annual report of Tokyo Metropolitan Research Institute for Environmental Protection, pp 113–120 (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Environmental RiskNational Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.The Institute of Statistical MathematicsTachikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations