A Bayesian approach to probabilistic ecological risk assessment: risk comparison of nine toxic substances in Tokyo surface waters
- 426 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEcological risk assessment Probabilistic risk analysis Quantitative risk comparison Bayesian statistics Uncertainty analysis Species sensitivity distribution
- 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
- 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)
- 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
- European Commission (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment. European Commission, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- European Union (2009) European Union risk assessment report. Nickel and nickel compounds. Available at http://www.mst.dk/English/Chemicals/Substances_and_materials/Nickel/
- Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Nakanishi J, Ono K (2008) Series of detailed risk assessment 21: chromium hexavalent. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
- Nakanishi K, Miyamoto K, Kawasaki H (2005) Series of detailed risk assessment 6: bisphenol-A. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
- Nakanishi J, Kobayashi N, Naito K (2006) Series of detailed risk assessment 9: lead. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
- Nakanishi J, Ishikawa Y, Kawasaki H (2008a) Series of detailed risk assessment 15: chloroform. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
- Nakanishi J, Naito K, Kamo M (2008b) Series of detailed risk assessment 20: zinc. Maruzen, Tokyo, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
- OECD (1995) Guidance document for aquatic effects assessment. OECD Environment Monographs No. 92, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
- 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
- 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
- US EPA (1998) update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Vose D (2007) Risk analysis: quantitative guide. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
- 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