Ecotoxicology

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 293–306 | Cite as

Bootstrap estimation of community NOEC values

  • Rosemary H. Jagoe
  • Michael C. Newman
Article

Abstract

Recent estimations of NOEC (no observed effect concentration) values for communities use single species effect data to predict the concentration at which not more than some particular acceptable percentage of the species in a community will be affected. This method has a number of difficulties, not the least of which is obtaining effects data for enough of the right species to accurately represent the whole community. Typically one has to make do with existing data sets in which the choice of species tested has been made for convenience rather than representativeness. Usually the raw data alone are not sufficient to make reasonable estimates. Statistical methods have been proposed which deal with this problem by assigning a specific distribution to the data. But assumption of a specific distribution may not be valid. We present an alternative method and an associated computer program which use resampling (bootstrap) methods to estimate the NOEC without assuming a specific distribution. This method has the advantage that no underlying distribution is assumed. Simulated and published data sets were used to compare this approach with published methods. The use of this technique to assess representativeness was also demonstrated

toxicity NOEC prediction extrapolation bootstrapping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldenburg, T. and Slob, W. (1991) Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 18, 21–251.Google Scholar
  2. Emans, H.J.B., van der Plassche, E.J., Canton, J.H., Okkerman, P.C. and Sparenburg, P.M. (1993) Validation of some extrapolation methods used for effect assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12, 2139–54.Google Scholar
  3. Kooijman, S.A.L.M. (1987) A safety factor for LC50 values allowing for differences in sensitivities among species. Water Res. 21, 269–76.Google Scholar
  4. Manly, B.F.J. (1991) Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  5. OECD (1991) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Workshop on the Extrapolation of Laboratory Toxicity Data to the Real Environment. Environmental Monograph 59. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  6. Okkerman, P.C., van der Plassche, E.J., Slooff, W., Van Leeuwen, C.J. and Canton, J.H. (1991) Ecotoxicological effects assessment: A comparison of several extrapolation procedures. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 21, 182–93.Google Scholar
  7. Rand, G.M. and Petrocelli, S.R. (1985) Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, Methods and Applications. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Slooff, W. and Canton, J.H. (1983) Comparison of the susceptibility of 11 freshwater species to 8 chemical compounds. II. (Semi)chronic toxicity tests. Aquat. Toxicol. 4, 272–82.Google Scholar
  9. Slooff, W., Canton, J.H. and Hermens, J.L.M. (1983) Comparisons of the susceptibility of 22 freshwater species to 15 chemical compounds. I. (Sub)acute toxicity tests. Aquat. Toxicol. 4, 113–28.Google Scholar
  10. Slooff, W., van Oers, J.A.M. and de Zwart, D. (1986) Margins of uncertainty in ecotoxicological hazard assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5, 841–52.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, E.P. and Cairns, J., Jr (1993) Extrapolation methods for setting ecological standards for water quality: Statistical and ecological concerns. Ecotoxicology 2, 203–19.Google Scholar
  12. Stephan, C.E., Mount, D.I., Hansen, D.J., Gentile, J.H., Chapman, G.A. and Brungs, W.A. (1985) Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. Duluth: US Environmental Research Laboratories.Google Scholar
  13. Suter, G.W. (1993) Ecological Risk Assessment pp. 40–44. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. USEPA (1984) Estimating ‘Concern Levels’ for Concentrations of Chemical Substances in the Environment. Washington, DC: Environmental Effects Branch Health and Environmental Review.Google Scholar
  15. USEPA (1985) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper-1984, EPA 440/5-84-031. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  16. USEPA (1987) Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria Document for Zinc, 1987, EPA 440/5-87-003. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  17. Van Straalen, N.M. and Denneman, C.A.J. (1989) Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil quality criteria. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 18, 241–51.Google Scholar
  18. Wagner, C. and Løkke, H. (1991) Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC toxicity data. Water Res. 25, 1237–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary H. Jagoe
    • 1
  • Michael C. Newman
    • 1
  1. 1.Savannah River Ecology LaboratoryUniversity of GeorgiaAikenUSA

Personalised recommendations