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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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 49–102
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)
Duboudin C, Ciffroy P, Magaud H (2004) Effects of data manipulation and statistical methods on species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:489–499
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, Italy
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, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–472
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis. CRC, Boca Raton
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)
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 16:251–263
Imaizumi Y, Suzuki N, Shiraishi H (2006) Bootstrap methods for confidence intervals of percentiles from dataset containing nondetected observations using lognormal distribution. J Chemom 20:68–75
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)
Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spigelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337
Nakanishi J, Ono K (2008) Series of detailed risk assessment 21: chromium hexavalent. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese
Nakanishi K, Miyamoto K, Kawasaki H (2005) Series of detailed risk assessment 6: bisphenol-A. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese
Nakanishi J, Kobayashi N, Naito K (2006) Series of detailed risk assessment 9: lead. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese
Nakanishi J, Ishikawa Y, Kawasaki H (2008a) Series of detailed risk assessment 15: chloroform. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese
Nakanishi J, Naito K, Kamo M (2008b) Series of detailed risk assessment 20: zinc. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese
OECD (1995) Guidance document for aquatic effects assessment. OECD Environment Monographs No. 92, Paris
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 Japanese
Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL
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 38:1176–1182
R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
Sinha P, Lambert MB, Trumbull VL (2006) Evaluation of statistical methods for left-censored environmental data with nonuniform detection limits. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:2533–2540
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 285–313
Spigelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Stat Soc B 64:583–639
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
Suter GW II (2006) Ecological risk assessment. CRC, New York, NY
US EPA (1998) update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. US EPA, Washington, DC
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
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 12:645–674
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 23:2993–3002
Vose D (2007) Risk analysis: quantitative guide. Wiley, West Sussex
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)
This study was carried out under the ISM Cooperative Research Program (2009-ISMCRP-2039) and supported by Global COE Program E03 (Eco-risk Asia) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. This work was also supported by the Steel Industry Foundation for the Advancement of Environmental Protection Technology. We thank two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank K.D. Schamphelaere, M. Kamo, and T. Nagai for providing helpful information about ecotoxicity data correction by biotic ligand models. We thank Y. Sugaya for providing general information about risk assessment of nickel.
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(PDF 3.09 MB)
About this article
Cite this article
Hayashi, T.I., Kashiwagi, N. A Bayesian approach to probabilistic ecological risk assessment: risk comparison of nine toxic substances in Tokyo surface waters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18, 365–375 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0380-5
- Ecological risk assessment
- Probabilistic risk analysis
- Quantitative risk comparison
- Bayesian statistics
- Uncertainty analysis
- Species sensitivity distribution