MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114191440 · doi:10.1002/ieam.116

Application of the tissue residue approach in ecological risk assessment

2010· review· en· W2114191440 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Sappington, Todd S. Bridges, Steven P. Bradbury, Russell J. Erickson, A. Jan Hendriks, Roman P. Lanno, James P. Meador, David R. Mount, Mike H Salazar, Doug Spry

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidue (chemistry)BioaccumulationOrganismRisk assessmentStressorEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringExposure assessmentBiotic Ligand ModelComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EcologyBiologyEcotoxicologyMathematicsBusinessEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work is to present a critical review of the application of the tissue residue approach (TRA) in ecological risk and/or impact assessment (ERA) of chemical stressors and environmental criteria development. A secondary goal is to develop a framework for integrating the TRA into ecological assessments along with traditional, exposure concentration-based assessment approaches. Although widely recognized for its toxicological appeal, the utility of the TRA in specific applications will depend on numerous factors, such as chemical properties, exposure characteristics, assessment type, availability of tissue residue-response data, and ability to quantify chemical exposure. Therefore, the decision to use the TRA should include an evaluation of the relative strengths, limitations, and uncertainties among exposure and residue-based methods for characterizing toxicological effects. Furthermore, rather than supplanting exposure concentration-based toxicity assessments, the TRA can be highly effective for evaluating and reducing uncertainty when used in a complementary manner (e.g., when evaluating multiple lines of evidence in field studies). To address limitations with the available tissue residue-response data, approaches for extrapolating residue-based toxicity data across species, tissues, and exposure durations are discussed. Some of these approaches rely on predicted residue-response relationships or toxicological models that have an implicit residue-response basis (e.g., biotic ligand model). Because risk to an organism is a function of both its exposure potential and inherent sensitivity (i.e., on a residue basis), bioaccumulation models will be required not only for translating tissue residue criteria into corresponding water and sediment criteria, but also for defining the most vulnerable species in an assemblage (i.e., highly exposed and highly sensitive species). Application of the TRA in ecological assessments and criteria development are summarized for bioaccumulative organic chemicals, TBT, and in situ bioassays using bivalve molluscs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207