ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Aquatic ecological risk assessment frameworks in Canada: a case study using a single framework in South Baymouth, Ontario, Canada.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is used to determine potential effect of human activities and industries on the natural environment. Numerous ERA management approaches exist and vary based on jurisdiction or ecological media. This ERA focused on contaminants within an aquatic ecosystem in sediments and surface water at South Baymouth port facility in Ontario, Canada. Contaminants were evaluated using the Canada-Ontario Decision-Making Framework for Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediments (COA). Following COA, this study (1) examined historical data from South Baymouth to determine contaminants of potential concern, (2) delineated potential contamination by comparing sediment and surface water concentration data to sediment quality guidelines and water quality guidelines from Canada and from different jurisdictions if Canadian guidelines were unavailable, (3) compared sediment concentrations to reference concentrations, and (4) developed an ERA decision matrix (used to inform management decisions at this aquatic site). Although sediments exhibited negligible potential for ecological risk and required no remedial management action, this case study highlights strengths of using COA for this ERA which included use of iterative and consistent approaches, but also highlights weaknesses which included unclear linkages between cause and effects of aquatic contaminants. Recommendations for future ERAs at contaminated aquatic sites include use of passive samplers and incorporating recent macroecology techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32681456What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.