Special report of the Massachusetts weight‐of‐evidence workgroup A weight‐of‐evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks

Weight‐of‐evidence is the process by which multiple measurement endpoints are related to an assessment endpoint to evaluate whether significant risk of harm is posed to the environment. In this paper, a methodology is offered for reconciling or balancing multiple lines of evidence pertaining to an assessment endpoint. Weight‐of‐evidence is reflected in three characteristics of measurement endpoints: (a) the weight assigned to each measurement endpoint; (b) the magnitude of response observed in the measurement endpoint; and (c) the concurrence among outcomes of multiple measurement endpoints. First, weights are assigned to measurement endpoints based on attributes related to: (a) strength of association between assessment and measurement endpoints; (b) data quality; and (c) study design and execution. Second, the magnitude of response in the measurement endpoint is evaluated with respect to whether the measurement endpoint indicates the presence or absence of harm; as well as the magnitude. Third, concurrence among measurement endpoints is evaluated by plotting the findings of the two preceding steps on a matrix for each measurement endpoint evaluated. The matrix allows easy visual examination of agreements or divergences among measurement endpoints, facilitating interpretation of the collection of measurement endpoints with respect to the assessment endpoint. A qualitative adaptation of the weight‐of‐evidence approach is also presented.     

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.     

Extrapolation in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments: Proceedings of a Symposium

A symposium was conducted in April 1998 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) to explore issues of extrapolation in human health and ecological risk assessments. Over the course of three and one half days, leading health and ecology experts presented and discussed research methods and approaches for extrapolating data among taxa and across levels of biological organization, through time, and across spatial scales. The intended result of this symposium was enhanced interaction among a diverse array of scientists, policymakers, and risk assessors to promote identification of approaches for reducing the uncertainties of extrapolation in risk assessment.     

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。     

区域生态风险管理研究进展

近20a来,随着生态风险评价研究的不断深化,区域生态风险评价的理论和方法日臻完善,与此紧密相关的生态风险管理日益受到了广泛关注.生态风险管理具有基于监控的反馈机制、风险受害者参与、程序灵活非线性化、关注成本效益等共同点.总结了国内外生态风险管理的研究进展,发现近年来生态风险管理的研究多是基于生态风险评价的结果,针对不同的风险类型和等级采取不同的管理措施.国内现有的研究对灾害风险管理的体系、机制建设较为成熟,但区域生态风险管理的机制研究尤其是预警和防范方面研究尚不成熟.基于此,构建了基于风险来临前、风险到来时和风险过后的区域生态风险管理的基本框架,研究结果对生态风险管理理论的构建和实践应用具有重要的意义.     

Quandaries and complexities of ecological risk assessment: Viable options to reduce humanistic arrogance

Ecological risk assessment has been used to support decisions regarding human‐generated actions which affect natural “resources”; and indigenous ecosystems. Often, the logical and scientific input serve as rationalization to legitimize the process. Though widely accepted as the realistic and sole paradigm, Ecological Risk Assessments do not address the complexities of the natural world, are humanistically arrogant, and disregard or do not consider alternatives which offer imagination and realistic attempts to reduce human impact to the land.

Ecological Alternatives Assessment practices would place the highest priority on: (a) continued temporal and spatial evolution of existing complex ecological relationships, (b) acknowledgment of the inherent rights of all species, and (c) examination of alternatives to reduce effects of anthropogenic actions. These steps, as discussed, are not impossible to accomplish and are necessary for favorable short‐term (50–500 years) anthropocentric alternatives and maintenance of long‐term (+1,000 years) biodiversity of species and ecosystems.     

城市化的生态风险及其管理

城市化体现在人口向城市聚集和城市景观扩张的同时,社会结构发生了极大变化,城市生产生活方式向更加广泛的地区扩散。然而,随着人口的过度密集和城市的日益扩张,交通拥堵、空气污染、废物堆积、流行病肆虐等"城市病"频发。城市通过大量汲取和消耗自然资源,向周围环境排放大量污染物,改变了区域生态系统的原有结构和功能,产生了严峻的生态风险,进而制约着城市生态系统的可持续发展。城市化的生态风险正逐步得到广泛关注,但对其具体的内涵和影响尚不明晰。归类描述了城市化过程中面临的各种生态风险,分析了导致生态风险的主要因素,阐述了辨识与评价生态风险的基本方法,提出了城市化生态风险的调控管理对策。     

Development and use of wild game consumption rates in human health risk assessments

Clearer guidance is recommended for evaluating site-specific chemical risks due to the consumption of wild game in human health risk assessment (HHRA), particularly in estimating consumption rate values for site-specific exposure modeling. This study reviewed site-specific HHRAs, survey data, regulatory documents, and scientific literature to evaluate the state of the practice for evaluating site-specific chemical risks via wild game consumption. Consumption rates of distinct wildlife species groups varied over three orders of magnitude (increasing from lowest to highest: waterfowl, terrestrial birds, small mammals, and cervids), and rates for all groups except cervids were lower than wild fish consumption rates. Wild game consumption rate values should be explicitly derived for site-specific HHRAs using one or more of the following approaches (in general order of lowest to highest uncertainty): (1) Empirical site-specific surveys; (2) Empirical surveys of comparable communities; (3) Modeling of local game harvest data; (4) Use of a nationally applicable default value; (5) Modeling of legally harvestable game limits; and (6) Modeling based on estimates of total meat consumption. Data are readily available such that approximate nationally applicable default values could be developed. More precise guidance and data for different wildlife species groups, regions, and consumers would improve HHRAs including this exposure pathway.     

基于生态系统服务和生态系统健康的生态风险评价——以长株潭城市群为例

基于生态系统服务和生态系统健康的生态风险评估框架为城市群生态风险管理和国土生态修复提供新的视角。以生态风险评估框架为基础,综合运用生态系统服务、生态系统健康评估模型以及相关分析法对长株潭城市群展开生态风险评价,并对风险程度进行分类。结果表明:(1)城市群的城市化水平提升,区域生态风险也随之增加。生态系统服务价值、生态系统组织、生态系统活力、生态系统弹性等生态指数呈现下降趋势。(2)人工表面比率和生态指数之间的Pearson相关系数表明,人工表面比率与生态指数之间存在负相关关系,人工表面比率是生态风险提升的关键因素。(3)城市群人工表面比率要控制在36%以下,以进行生态风险管理和国土生态修复。总的来说,评价框架可以作为区域生态风险的评价终点。     

Prospects for incorporation of epigenetic biomarkers in human health and environmental risk assessment of chemicals

Epigenetic mechanisms have gained relevance in human health and environmental studies, due to their pivotal role in disease, gene × environment interactions and adaptation to environmental change and/or contamination. Epigenetic mechanisms are highly responsive to external stimuli and a wide range of chemicals has been shown to determine specific epigenetic patterns in several organisms. Furthermore, the mitotic/meiotic inheritance of such epigenetic marks as well as the resulting changes in gene expression and cell/organismal phenotypes has now been demonstrated. Therefore, epigenetic signatures are interesting candidates for linking environmental exposures to disease as well as informing on past exposures to stressors. Accordingly, epigenetic biomarkers could be useful tools in both prospective and retrospective risk assessment but epigenetic endpoints are currently not yet incorporated into risk assessments. Achieving a better understanding on this apparent impasse, as well as identifying routes to promote the application of epigenetic biomarkers within environmental risk assessment frameworks are the objectives of this review. We first compile evidence from human health studies supporting the use of epigenetic exposure‐associated changes as reliable biomarkers of exposure. Then, specifically focusing on environmental science, we examine the potential and challenges of developing epigenetic biomarkers for environmental fields, and discuss useful organisms and appropriate sequencing techniques to foster their development in this context. Finally, we discuss the practical incorporation of epigenetic biomarkers in the environmental risk assessment of chemicals, highlighting critical data gaps and making key recommendations for future research within a regulatory context.     

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。     

云南边境山区景观生态风险时空演变及其影响因素

探究边境山区景观生态风险时空演变特征,揭示自然与人类活动对景观生态风险的影响,对维护国际生态安全和保障区域生态系统的稳定性具有重要意义。以云南25个边境县为例,采用2000、2010、2020年三期土地利用数据,基于景观格局指数构建了景观生态风险评价模型,并分析了风险的时空演变特征,利用地理探测器测度了自然、可达性和社会经济因素对景观生态风险的影响程度。结果表明：2000—2020年研究区景观类型以林地和耕地为主,林地、草地、湿地、冰川和永久积雪面积减少,耕地、灌木地、裸地、人造地表、水体面积增加。景观生态风险平均值持续上升,在空间上表现出显著的自相关性。研究区以较低生态风险、中等生态风险为主,低生态风险、较低生态风险、高生态风险区面积减少,中等生态风险、较高生态风险区面积增加。年降水量、年均气温、距城镇距离、人口地理集中度指数、人口经济地理集中度不一致指数是影响区域景观生态风险的主要因素,在交互探测中年降水量与年均气温、人口地理集中度指数与人口经济地理集中度不一致指数、年降水量与人口地理集中度指数交互作用对景观生态风险的影响较大。     

Ecological risk assessment in a tropical wetland contaminated with gasoline: Tier 1

To assess natural attenuation and the efficiency of remediation actions after more than two years a large accident with gasoline spill contaminated a wetland in a tropical region, an Ecological Risk Assessment based on the Dutch Triad was applied. In total, eight surface water-sampling points were distributed randomly in the affected area and on reference area upstream the contaminated site, with similar ecological characteristics. Risks based on chemical, ecotoxicological, and ecological lines of evidence (LoE) were calculated to integrate the environmental risk indexes. The chemical risk was derived from toxic pressure coefficients based on the total BTEX and naphthalene concentrations. Ecotoxicological LoE based on acute toxicity with Daphnia similis and Aliivibrio fischeri bioassays and chronic toxicity with Desmodesmus subspicatus bioassay contributed to raise uncertainty due to low sensitivity of acute assays. Genotoxicity and endocrine disruption biomarkers of Oreochromis niloticus were used to calculate the Biomarker Stress Index (BSI) assumed as Ecological Risk Index. The integration of the Chemical Risk Index with BSI to estimate the Biological Vulnerability Index allowed a meaningful analysis of the threats to the aquatic ecosystem, thereby supporting managers and decision-makers.     

土壤健康的内涵及生态指示与研究展望

土壤健康是农产品安全和人类健康的基础,是一个赋有21世纪新世代气息的新概念.健康土壤学的发展,预示了土壤科学进入了一个新世代.论述了土壤健康这一新概念的内涵;阐明了土壤健康与人类疾病、农产品安全之间存在着密切的相关关系;从土壤动物、微生物、植物和土壤酶生态指示的角度,指出了土壤健康指标应该具有灵敏度高、使用范围广、分析测量方法切实可行等生态特点;综述了国内外土壤健康生态指示的研究现状与发展动态;认为除了继续深入现阶段有关土壤健康的研究外,还应从土壤健康的水力学特征与水生生态过程的角度展开研究,使土壤健康评价系统更完善.     

Bias in the development of health and ecological assessments and potential solutions

The effectiveness and credibility of environmental decisions depend on the information provided by scientific assessments. However, the conflicting assessments provided by government agencies, industries, and environmental advocacy groups suggest that biases occur during assessment processes. Sources of bias include personal bias, regulatory capture, advocacy, reliance on volunteer assessors, biased stakeholder and peer review processes, literature searches, standardization of data, inappropriate standards of proof, misinterpretation, and ambiguity. Assessors can adopt practices to increase objectivity, transparency, and clarity. Decision-makers, managers of assessors, and institutions that commission assessments can adopt other practices that reduce pressures on assessors and reduce opportunities for expression of the personal biases of assessors. Environmental assessment should be recognized as a discipline with its own technical and ethical best practices.