Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30178491›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2018

Toward harmonizing ecotoxicity characterization in life cycle impact assessment.

Peter Fantke, Nicoló Aurisano, Jane Bare, Thomas Backhaus, Cécile Bulle, Peter M Chapman, Dick De Zwart, Robert Dwyer, Alexi Ernstoff, Laura Golsteijn and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Deciphering the Chemical Footprint of Renewables.Environmental science & technology · 2026
    Article
  2. Mechanistic Model for Simulating Pesticide Uptake into Maize Pollen.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Framework for Function-Based Pesticide Substitution.Environmental science & technology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Introducing ground cover management in pesticide emission modeling.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Building a European exposure science strategy.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Peter FantkeQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Nicoló AurisanoQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Jane BareUS Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Thomas BackhausDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Cécile BulleDepartment of Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility, International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services, School of Management, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Peter M ChapmanChapema Environmental Strategies, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Dick De ZwartDdZ Ecotox, Odijk, The Netherlands.
Robert DwyerInternational Copper Association, New York, New York, USA.
Alexi ErnstoffQuantis, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Laura GolsteijnPRé Sustainability, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Hanna HolmquistDepartment of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Olivier JollietSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Thomas E McKoneSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Mikołaj OwsianiakQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Willie PeijnenburgNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Leo PosthumaNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sandra RoosSwerea IVF, Mölndal, Sweden.
Erwan SaouterDirectorate D-Sustainable Resources, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Diederik SchowanekProcter & Gamble, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.
Nico M van StraalenDepartment of Ecological Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martina G VijverInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Michael HauschildQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems on a global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state-of-the-science in modeling chemical exposure of organisms and the resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. The outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice of exposure and effect modeling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes will reflect the current science and ensure the stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of 1) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, 2) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and 3) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and that will allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. We describe the current framework and discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach toward ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, we give metals a special focus, including consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2955-2971. © 2018 SETAC.

Indexed as

EcosystemEcotoxicologyEnvironmental PollutionMetalsModels, TheoreticalRisk AssessmentMetalsEcosystem exposureEcotoxicologyEnvironmental modelingLife cycle impact assessmentSpecies sensitivity distributions

Identifiers

PMID30178491
PMCPMC7372721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.