Science, polic, and trends of metals risk assessment at EPA: How understanding metals bioavailability has changed metals risk assessment at US EPA

被引:46
|
作者
Reiley, Mary C. [1 ]
机构
[1] US EPA, Off Water, Washington, DC 20460 USA
关键词
metals; Biotic Ligand Model; water quality protection;
D O I
10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.05.014
中图分类号
Q17 [水生生物学];
学科分类号
071004 ;
摘要
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Water have made significant changes in the approaches taken to assessing metals in the aquatic environment. Over the last 20 years, the Office of Water has progressed through a variety of metals assessment tools from total recoverable metal to the biotic ligand model. These changes were initially driven by the recognition that the total metals criteria were out of date and that emerging science would make it possible to address bioavailability more thoroughly. More recent drivers are expectations that the agency ensure the criteria are protective of endangered species and that the agency can bring the best available science to conducting total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waters not meeting uses because of metal contamination. Changes have included: moving from total recoverable metals concentration to dissolved metals and the development of dissolved metal to total metal translator guidance, the development of water effect ratios (WERs) guidance, and most recently incorporation of the biotic ligand model (BLM) into criteria derivation for aquatic life protection (USEPA, 2007a. Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria-Copper 2007 Revision. EPA-822-R-07-001. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/index.htm.). On March 8, 2007, the agency published its Framework for Metals Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2007b. Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. EPA 120/R-07/001. http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework.) discussing the state of the science for the persistent bioaccumulative, and toxic nature of metals and the considerations of this science that will impact many programs. This paper provides a brief insight to these agency activities. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:292 / 298
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Scientific Issues in the US EPA Framework for Metals Risk Assessment
    Bradham, Karen
    Wentsel, Randall
    JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART A-CURRENT ISSUES, 2010, 73 (2-3): : 108 - 113
  • [2] EPA set to pursue metals assessment framework
    Bergeson, LL
    POLLUTION ENGINEERING, 2002, 34 (04) : 34 - 35
  • [3] Risk assessment of metals
    不详
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, 2003, 5 (06): : 121N - 121N
  • [4] Environmental risk assessment of metals: tools for incorporating bioavailability
    Janssen, CR
    Heijerick, DG
    De Schamphelaere, KAC
    Allen, HE
    ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2003, 28 (08) : 793 - 800
  • [5] NEPA, EPA and risk assessment: Has EPA lost its way?
    Calabrese, Edward J.
    REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2012, 64 (02) : 267 - 268
  • [6] Bioavailability of heavy metals in soils: Issues and recommendation to risk assessment
    Vitti, C.
    Steenhout, A.
    EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 18 (05) : S107 - S107
  • [7] Framework for metals risk assessment
    Fairbrother, Anne
    Wenstel, Randall
    Sappington, Keith
    Wood, William
    ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY, 2007, 68 (02) : 145 - 227
  • [8] The US EPA workshop on research and risk assessment for arsenic
    Thomas, David J.
    Hudgens, Edward E.
    Calderon, Rebecca L.
    TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY, 2007, 222 (03) : 243 - 244
  • [9] Risk Assessment Practice for Essential Metals
    Meek, M. E.
    Levy, Leonard S.
    Beck, Barbara D.
    Danzeisen, Ruth
    Donohue, Joyce M.
    Arnold, Ian M. F.
    Krewski, Daniel
    JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART A-CURRENT ISSUES, 2010, 73 (2-3): : 253 - 260
  • [10] Uncertainties in the environmental risk assessment of metals
    Janssen, CR
    De Schamphelaere, K
    Heijerick, D
    Muyssen, B
    Lock, K
    Bossuyt, B
    Vangheluwe, M
    Van Sprang, P
    HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2000, 6 (06): : 1003 - 1018