4.7 Article

Aquatic concentrations of chemical analytes compared to ecotoxicity estimates

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 579, Issue -, Pages 1649-1657

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.234

Keywords

Contaminant; Hazard; Aquatic

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [DW14922330]
  2. USEPA's Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and Region 8

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We describe screening level estimates of potential aquatic toxicity posed by 227 chemical analytes that were measured in 25 ambient water samples collected as part of a joint USGS/USEPA drinking water plant study. Measured concentrations were compared to biological effect concentration (EC) estimates, including USEPA aquatic life criteria, effective plasma concentrations of pharmaceuticals, published toxicity data summarized in the USEPA ECOTOX database, and chemical structure-based predictions. Potential dietary exposures were estimated using a generic 3-tiered food web accumulation scenario. For many analytes, few or no measured effect data were found, and for some analytes, reporting limits exceeded EC estimates, limiting the scope of conclusions. Results suggest occasional occurrence above ECs for copper, aluminum, strontium, lead, uranium, and nitrate. Sparse effect data for manganese, antimony, and vanadium suggest that these analytes may occur above ECs, but additional effect data would be desirable to corroborate EC estimates. These conclusions were not affected by bioaccumulation estimates. No organic analyte concentrations were found to exceed EC estimates, but ten analytes had concentrations in excess of 1/10th of their respective EC: triclocarban, norverapamil, progesterone, atrazine, metolachlor, triclosan, para-nonylphenol, ibuprofen, venlafaxine, and amitriptyline, suggesting more detailed characterization of these analytes. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available