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

Abstract

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  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 49–102

    Google 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 23:489–499

    CAS  Article  Google 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, Italy

  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 7:457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google 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 16:251–263

    CAS  Google 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 20:68–75

    CAS  Article  Google 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)

  14. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spigelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakanishi J, Ono K (2008) Series of detailed risk assessment 21: chromium hexavalent. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nakanishi K, Miyamoto K, Kawasaki H (2005) Series of detailed risk assessment 6: bisphenol-A. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nakanishi J, Kobayashi N, Naito K (2006) Series of detailed risk assessment 9: lead. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nakanishi J, Ishikawa Y, Kawasaki H (2008a) Series of detailed risk assessment 15: chloroform. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nakanishi J, Naito K, Kamo M (2008b) Series of detailed risk assessment 20: zinc. Maruzen, Tokyo, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  20. OECD (1995) Guidance document for aquatic effects assessment. OECD Environment Monographs No. 92, Paris

  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 Japanese

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL

    Google 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 38:1176–1182

    CAS  Article  Google 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 25:2533–2540

    CAS  Article  Google 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 285–313

    Google Scholar 

  27. Spigelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Stat Soc B 64:583–639

    Article  Google 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, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. US EPA (1998) update of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. US EPA, Washington, DC

  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 12:645–674

    Article  Google 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 23:2993–3002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vose D (2007) Risk analysis: quantitative guide. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google 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)

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takehiko I. Hayashi.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 3.09 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

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