基于ArcView-WOE的下辽河平原地下水生态系统健康评价

地下水生态系统是生态系统的重要类型,随着社会经济的发展,地下水资源与环境压力日益增大,地下水生态系统健康问题已经成为人类重点关注的环境问题之一。以ArcView为平台,以下辽河平原硝酸盐氮浓度为响应因子,并从地下水系统结构特征、区域自然条件、外界压力、资源与保护和生态环境5个方面建立证据因子的图层数据库,利用证据权重法(WOE)对下辽河平原地下水生态系统健康进行评价,得到硝酸盐氮后验概率分布图。结果表明:下辽河平原的西北、东北部、东南部及抚顺和辽阳地区地下水生态系统健康处于相对高和较高概率区,东部山前冲洪积平原及下辽河平原的周边地区处于中等概率区,下辽河平原的中部平原、南部滨海平原地区处于相对低和较低概率区。将地下水水质监测点硝酸盐氮含量与后验概率分布图进行对比分析,发现二者对应性较好,这说明WOE可以用于地下水生态系统健康评价,其概率表现形式能够有效的弥补传统生态系统健康评价结果是一个具体值(或等级)而无法反映生态系统健康不确定性的不足。     

污染场地土壤生态风险评估研究进展

随着我国快速城市化以及产业结构的调整,遗留下了大量的污染场地,发展和实施污染场地土壤生态风险评估是进行大规模污染场地修复行动的必要条件。本文围绕污染场地土壤生态风险评估的科学原理、框架构建及技术方法等方面的关键问题: 1)评估框架的场地实际针对性;2)概念模型的不确定性;3)土壤复合污染毒性机制;4)评估终点筛选;5)评估方法和框架构建等展开讨论,指出土壤复合污染的制毒机制,即污染物生物有效性和联合效应是污染场地土壤生态风险评估的关键科学问题。耦合美国环保局四步法和欧盟层级法的“证据-权重法”评估框架适用于野外复杂环境条件下的土壤污染生态风险评估。建议今后重点开展以下5个方面的工作: 1)污染场地土壤生态风险评估技术框架与风险管控技术框架之间的联合;2)概念模型研究;3)基于过程的场地土壤污染物反应运移模型研究;4)场地土壤复合污染生态毒理学机制研究;5)生态系统高水平生态风险评估终点研究。旨在为形成我国本土污染场地土壤生态风险评估技术指南提供理论基础和构架。     

生态风险评价研究进展

20多年来,生态风险评价研究经历了从环境风险到生态风险到区域生态风险评价的发展历程,风险源由单一风险源扩展到多风险源,风险受体由单一受体发展到多受体,评价范围由局地扩展到区域景观水平.区域生态风险评价就是大尺度上研究复杂环境背景下包含多风险源、多风险受体的综合风险研究.目前,区域生态风险评价的理论框架已经搭建起来,统计方法多采用相对评价法.区域生态风险评价未来的发展方向为继续加强实验和野外调查,进一步减小不确定性,逐步解决尺度推移问题.区域生态风险评价必须与经济、社会、文化相结合,才能充分发挥它在管理决策中的作用.     

Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance and Procedural Documents: An Annotated Compilation and Evaluation of Reference Materials

The scientific approach toward ecological risk assessment (ERA) has advanced greatly during the 1990s. This growth has been accompanied by the development of ERA guidance by USEPA Headquarters, individual USEPA Regions, state environmental agencies, as well as international agencies. This compilation of ERA guidance and procedural documents identifies many of the existing ERA reference materials from the regulatory and/or governmental agency arena. In addition, this compilation provides annotations pertaining to the focus of each reviewed document, and compares/contrasts the approaches presented in the documents. As such, the evaluation provides insight into some of the qualities and levels of detail provided by each document. Examples of documents which are highlighted include recently published USEPA's “Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment;” USEPA's “Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund;” the U.S. Army's “Procedural Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessments;” and Environment Canada's “Ecological Risk Assessments Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.”     

Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment of Inorganic Metals and Metalloids

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is a process that evaluates the potential for adverse ecological effects occurring as a result of exposure to contaminants or other stressors. ERA begins with hazard identification/problem formulation, progresses to effects and exposure assessment, and finishes with risk characterization (an estimate of the incidence and severity of any adverse effects likely to occur). Risk management initially sets the boundaries of the ERA and then uses its results for decision-making. Key information required for an ERA includes: the emissions, pathways and rates of movement of contaminants in the environment; and, information on the relationship between contaminant concentrations and the incidence and (or) severity of adverse effects. Because of specific properties and characteristics of metals in general and of certain metals in particular, a generalized ERA process applicable to organic substances is inappropriate for metals. First, metals are naturally occurring and can arise, sometimes in very high concentrations, from non-anthropogenic sources; organisms can and do adapt to a wide range of metal concentrations. Second, certain metals (e.g., copper, zinc) are essential for biotic health, which means there is an effect threshold for both deficiency and excess, and that standard body burden indices such as bioaccumulation factors (BCFs) can be misleading. Third, metals can occur in the environment in a variety of forms that are more or less available to biota but adverse biological effects can only occur if metals are or may become bioavailable. Fourth, whereas the bioavailability and hence the possibility of toxicity of persistent organic substances are mainly dependent on their intrinsic properties (i.e., lipophilicity), those of metals are generally controlled by external environmental conditions. Examples include pH and ligands, which affect the metal speciation and coexisting cations (e.g., H⁺, Ca²⁺) which compete with the metal ions. ERAs involving metals must include the above four major considerations; other considerations vary depending on whether the ERA is for a site, a region, or is global in scope.     

Annotated reference compilation: Conducting qualitative and quantitative ecological risk assessments at hazardous waste sites

As the field of ecological risk assessment (ERA) broadens, scientists from various disciplines are called upon to become assessors at hazardous waste sites. Although a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Framework for ERAs exists, the guidance is unlike the detailed USEPA guidance available for human risk assessments. Currently, the quality of an ERA is dependent upon the assessor's scientific acumen, professional experience, and recognized reference documents. This annotated reference compilation encompasses published documents which have provided useful and important information for qualitative and quantitative ERAs.     

证据权重法及其在近海沉积物环境质量评价中的应用研究进展

目前,我国近海沉积物的评价主要采用化学方法,但随着结合化学、毒理及生态等权重水平的证据权重法在科学性及可操作性上日趋完善,证据权重法在我国近海沉积物环境质量评价中的业务化应用的时机已趋成熟.证据权重法是一种基于多重权重水平,通过衡量各沉积物数据信息的质量、权重以及一致性,来评估沉积物中包括致污物在内的环境胁迫可能引起的生物有害效应的方法,是现存唯一的可为沉积物环境质量状况提供确定性结论的方法.本文回顾了沉积物环境质量评价发展历程,分析了近年来国内外关于证据权重法的研究进展,总结了该方法的不同定义和主要的证据权重评价的信息解译手段,探讨了不同评价方法的可靠性,并就将该方法用于我国近海沉积物环境质量评价提出相关建议.     

Pharmaceuticals in the environment: scientific evidence of risks and its regulation

During the past two decades scientists, regulatory agencies and the European Commission have acknowledged pharmaceuticals to be an emerging environmental problem. In parallel, a regulatory framework for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pharmaceutical products has been developed. Since the regulatory guidelines came into force the German Federal Agency (UBA) has been evaluating ERAs for human and veterinary pharmaceutical products before they are marketed. The results show that approximately 10% of pharmaceutical products are of note regarding their potential environmental risk. For human medicinal products, hormones, antibiotics, analgesics, antidepressants and antineoplastics indicated an environmental risk. For veterinary products, hormones, antibiotics and parasiticides were most often discussed as being environmentally relevant. These results are in good correlation with the results within the open scientific literature of prioritization approaches for pharmaceuticals in the environment. UBA results revealed that prospective approaches, such as ERA of pharmaceuticals, play an important role in minimizing problems caused by pharmaceuticals in the environment. However, the regulatory ERA framework could be improved by (i) inclusion of the environment in the risk–benefit analysis for human pharmaceuticals, (ii) improvement of risk management options, (iii) generation of data on existing pharmaceuticals, and (iv) improving the availability of ERA data. In addition, more general and integrative steps of regulation, legislation and research have been developed and are presented in this article. In order to minimize the quantity of pharmaceuticals in the environment these should aim to (i) improve the existing legislation for pharmaceuticals, (ii) prioritize pharmaceuticals in the environment and (iii) improve the availability and collection of pharmaceutical data.     

Integration of Ecosystem Services into Ecological Risk Assessment for Implementation in Ecosystem-Based River Management: A Case Study of the Yellow River,China

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is a scientific tool used to support ecosystem-based management (EBM), but most current ERA methods consider only a few indices of particular species or components. Such limitations restrict the scope of results so that they are insufficient to reflect the integrated risk characterization of an ecosystem, thereby inhibiting the application of ERA in EBM. We incorporate the concept of ecosystem services into ERA and develop an improved ERA framework to create a comprehensive risk map of an ecosystem, accounting for multiple human activities and ecosystem services. Using the Yellow River as a case study, we show how this framework enables the implementation of integrated risk characterization and prioritization of the most important ecological risk issues in the ecosystem-based river management of the Yellow River. This framework can help practitioners facilitate better implementation of ERA within EBM in rivers or any target ecosystem.     

生态风险评价及研究进展

生态风险是当前环境管理研究领域中的一个热点问题,其研究着重关注化学、物理和生物的胁迫因子可能对生态系统或其组分的有害影响.生态风险评价对科学制定环境管理决策有着重要的意义.要对生态系统进行有效地管理,必须预测不利生态影响发生的可能性及后果,减小其对于生态系统或某些组分的损害程度.本文对生态风险评价的研究方法、工具以及研究趋势进行了综述,指出了目前生态风险评价中还需要进一步加强的研究领域,认为在当前城市化水平不断提高的情况下要关注城市生态风险,并针对存在的一些问题提出了今后的研究展望.     

生态风险研究述评

生态风险(ＥｃｏｌｏｇｉｃａｌＲｉｓｋ,ＥＲ),指一个种群、生态系统或整个景观的正常功能受外界胁迫,从而在目前和将来减小该系统健康、生产力、遗传结构、经济价值和美学价值的一种状况[20]。生态风险评估(ＥｃｏｌｏｇｉｃａｌＲｉｓｋＡｓｓｅｓｓｍｅｎｔ,ＥＲＡ)指受一个或多个胁迫因素影响后,对不利的生态后果出现的可能性进行的评估。美国环保局(ＥＰＡ)把这种尚不为人们所重视的领域叫做生态风险评估[20,48]。随着新技术和新方法的应用,ＥＲＡ的研究领域迅速扩展。早期的生态风险评估主要是针对人类健康而言的,也就是人类健康风险…     

基于生态系统服务的生态风险评价研究进展

生态风险评价对科学管理与保护生态系统具有重要的意义,为弥补传统生态风险评价方法的不足和提高风险管理的效率,将生态系统服务引入生态风险评价中进行发展和完善,成为了当前生态风险评价研究的前沿和热点。系统分析了生态系统服务在生态风险评价中的应用,指出生态系统服务在问题形成阶段中可明确保护对象和属性,在风险分析阶段可联系生态系统结构过程作用,在风险表征阶段及后续阶段能可提供清晰明确的评价结果,加强风险交流和管理,能有效地改进生态系统传统生态风险评价。在实践上,基于生态系统服务的生态风险评价可从3个不同层面开展:一是针对外界压力对某类特定功能或者系统中某些服务功能的影响,构建基于某种特定服务的实体属性评价方法;二是针对外界压力作用下生态系统结构与过程变化下对功能影响,构建基于复杂生态系统作用的评价方法,实现对生态风险的模拟评价;三是评价社会生态系统下外界驱动对人类福祉的影响时,可将DPSIR(Drive-Pressure-State-Impact-Response)理论模型运用到生态风险管理中,也可基于景观生态系统服务与压力源的空间作用关系,实现社会生态系统风险评价与管理。作为生态风险表征手段,可基于生态系统服务损失与不利服务进行表征,也可选取热力学等指标作为评估量纲。从理论、评价方法、风险管理等方面对基于生态系统服务生态风险评价给予展望。     

Transportability of confined field trial data for environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered plants: a conceptual framework

It is commonly held that confined field trials (CFTs) used to evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts of a genetically engineered (GE) plant should be conducted in each country where cultivation is intended, even when relevant and potentially sufficient data are already available from studies conducted elsewhere. The acceptance of data generated in CFTs “out of country” can only be realized in practice if the agro-climatic zone where a CFT is conducted is demonstrably representative of the agro-climatic zones in those geographies to which the data will be transported. In an attempt to elaborate this idea, a multi-disciplinary Working Group of scientists collaborated to develop a conceptual framework and associated process that can be used by the regulated and regulatory communities to support transportability of CFT data for environmental risk assessment (ERA). As proposed here, application of the conceptual framework provides a scientifically defensible process for evaluating if existing CFT data from remote sites are relevant and/or sufficient for local ERAs. Additionally, it promotes a strategic approach to identifying CFT site locations so that field data will be transportable from one regulatory jurisdiction to another. Application of the framework and process should be particularly beneficial to public sector product developers and small enterprises that develop innovative GE events but cannot afford to replicate redundant CFTs, and to regulatory authorities seeking to improve the deployment of limited institutional resources.     

Ecological Risk Assessment in Water Resource Management

The US EPA published guidelines for the application of ecological risk assessment (ERA) in the USA in 1998 (US EPA 1998). The process diagram derived by Murray and Claassen (1999) in an evaluation of the US EPA framework is discussed in the context of the South African National Water Act. The evaluation discusses the various steps involved in an ERA and how it can be applied in the implementation of the National Water Act. It is concluded that the application of ERA can make a significant contribution towards sustainable water resource management. Two requirements for this are the need for more demonstration projects and that capacity be developed in risk assessment and risk-based decision making.     

区域生态风险评价的关键问题与展望

区域生态风险评价具有多风险因子、多风险受体、多评价终点、强调不确定性因素以及空间异质性的特点,它与传统的生态风险评价在风险源、胁迫因子和评价尺度上具有明显区别。尝试建立了一个基于陆地生态系统的区域生态风险评价框架,同时针对目前区域生态风险评价的研究现状,指出不确定性分析、尺度外推难、评价指标不统一、评价标准不统一、风险因子筛选及优先排序、区域内污染物复合、水生过渡到陆生生态系统风险评价、特殊的人为因素等是目前区域生态风险评价存在的关键问题及难点所在,并提出解决这些问题可能所需的工具、手段和理论方法突破。最后指出区域生态风险观测与数据采集加工、区域生态风险指标体系的统一与整合、区域生态风险评价方法论、区域生态风险的空间分布特征与表达以及区域生态风险评价反馈与管理机制5个方面是区域生态风险评价未来的研究重点。     

A Procedure for Ecological Tiered Assessment of Risks (PETAR)

Several procedures for Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) have been suggested. The use of these existing procedures often relies on availability of existing data and/or on large resources for acquisition of new ones. This paper presents a three-tiered procedure for retrospective evaluation of risks adapted to limited resources and scarce background information of relevance for risk assessments, such as in developing countries. The tiers require successively more detailed investigations. The approach assures that resources available for site-specific investigations are directed towards well-formulated questions raised during previous stages of the assessment. The first tier, the preliminary assessment, is a qualitative evaluation of existing information on anthropogenic stressors, sources of stressors and expected ecological effects. The second tier is a regional risk assessment; a semi-quantitative evaluation of ecological risks, over large geographical areas, which results in a ranking of sources and stressors having the greatest potential for ecological impact and ranking of subareas inside the study area more likely to be impacted. The final tier is a site-specific and quantitative risk assessment, at a smaller scale and requiring more resources, that incorporates methodologies for establishing causality between exposure to multiple stressors and effects on specific endpoints of ecological and societal relevance.     

生态风险评价方法述评

生态风险是由环境的自然变化或人类活动引起的生态系统组成、结构的改变而导致系统功能损失的可能性。生态风险评价是定量预测各种风险源对生态系统产生风险的或然性以及评估该风险可接受程度的方法体系,因而是生态环境风险管理与决策的定量依据。在介绍了生态风险概念的基础上,按照风险源性质的分类标准将生态风险划分为化学污染类风险源、生态事件类风险源、复合类风险源3类,并分别论述了3类生态风险对应评价方法的特点与发展的方向。另外,针对生态风险评价研究的现状,讨论了我国生态风险研究的优先领域,包括建立急性、慢性毒理数据库,构建外来生物入侵风险评价标准等,同时,建议将综合概率统计学、复杂系统理论与遥感技术等手段引入生态风险评价方法中,以进一步提高风险评价结果在生态风险管理中的有效性。     

Adding Value to Ecological Risk Assessment with Population Modeling

Current measures used to estimate the risks of toxic chemicals are not relevant to the goals of the environmental protection process, and thus ecological risk assessment (ERA) is not used as extensively as it should be as a basis for cost-effective management of environmental resources. Appropriate population models can provide a powerful basis for expressing ecological risks that better inform the environmental management process and thus that are more likely to be used by managers. Here we provide at least five reasons why population modeling should play an important role in bridging the gap between what we measure and what we want to protect. We then describe six actions needed for its implementation into management-relevant ERA.     

The 3MRA Risk Assessment Framework—A Flexible Approach for Performing Multimedia,Multipathway, and Multireceptor Risk Assessments Under Uncertainty

A flexible framework for conducting nationwide multimedia, multipathway and multireceptor risk assessments (3MRA) under uncertainty was developed to estimate protective chemical concentration limits in a source area. The framework consists of two components: risk assessment and uncertainty analysis. The risk component utilizes linked source, fate/transport, exposure and risk assessment models to estimate the risk exposures for the receptors of concern. Both human and ecological receptors are included in the risk assessment framework. The flexibility of the framework is based on its ability to address problems varying in spatial scales from site-specific to regional and even national levels; and its ability to accommodate varying types of source, fate/transport, exposure and risk assessment models. The uncertainty component of the 3MRA framework is based on a two-stage Monte Carlo methodology. It allows the calculation of uncertainty in risk estimates, and the incorporation of the effects of uncertainty on the determination of regulatory concentration limits as a function of variability and uncertainty in input data, as well as potential errors in fate and transport and risk and exposure models. The framework can be adapted to handle a wide range of multimedia risk assessment problems. Two examples are presented to illustrate its use, and to demonstrate how regulatory decisions can be structured to incorporate the uncertainty in risk estimates.     

A Weight-of-Evidence Framework for Assessing Sediment (Or Other) Contamination: Improving Certainty in the Decision-Making Process

A basic framework is presented for the ecological weight-of-evidence (WOE) process for sediment assessment that clearly defines its essential elements and will improve the certainty of conclusions about whether or not impairment exists due to sediment contamination, and, if so, which stressors and biological species (or ecological responses) are of greatest concern. The essential “Certainty Elements” are addressed in a transparent best professional judgment (BPJ) process with multiple lines-of-evidence (LOE) ultimately quantitatively integrated (but not necessarily combined into a single value). The WOE Certainty Elements include: (1) Development of a conceptual model (showing linkages of critical receptors and ecosystem quality characteristics); (2) Explanation of linkages between measurement endpoint responses (direct and indirect with associated spatial/temporal dynamics) and conceptual model components; (3) Identification of possible natural and anthropogenic stressors with associated exposure dynamics; (4) Evaluation of appropriate and quantitatively based reference (background) comparison methods; (5) Consideration of advantages and limitations of quantification methods used to integrate LOE; (6) Consideration of advantages and limitations of each LOE used; (7) Evaluation of causality criteria used for each LOE during output verification and how they were implemented; and (8) Combining the LOE into a WOE matrix for interpretation, showing causality linkages in the conceptual model. The framework identifies several statistical approaches for integrating within LOE, the suitability of which depends on physical characteristics of the system and the scale/nature of impairment. The quantification approaches include: (1) Gradient (regression methods); (2) Paired reference/test (before/after control impact and ANOVA methods); (3) Multiple reference (ANOVA and multivariate methods); and 4) Gradient with reference (regression, ANOVA and multivariate methods). This WOE framework can be used for any environmental assessment and is most effective when incorporated into the initial and final study design stages (e.g., the Problem Formulation and Risk Characterization stages of a risk assessment) with reassessment throughout the project and decision-making process, rather than in a retrospective data analysis approach where key certainty elements cannot be adequately addressed.