Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36524447›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2023

A framework for prioritizing contaminants in retrospective ecological assessments: Application in the Milwaukee Estuary (Milwaukee, WI).

Erin M Maloney, Daniel L Villeneuve, Brett R Blackwell, Kelsey Vitense, Steven R Corsi, Matthew A Pronschinske, Kathleen M Jensen, Gerald T Ankley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Erin M MaloneyDepartment of Biology, Swenson College of Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Daniel L VilleneuveUS Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Brett R BlackwellUS Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Kelsey VitenseUS Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Steven R CorsiUS Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Water Science Center, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA.
Matthew A PronschinskeUS Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Water Science Center, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9787-4545
Kathleen M JensenUS Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Gerald T AnkleyUS Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Watersheds are subjected to diverse anthropogenic inputs, exposing aquatic biota to a wide range of chemicals. Detection of multiple, different chemicals can challenge natural resource managers who often have to determine where to allocate potentially limited resources. Here, we describe a weight-of-evidence framework for retrospectively prioritizing aquatic contaminants. To demonstrate framework utility, we used data from 96-h caged fish studies to prioritize chemicals detected in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA; 2017-2018). Across study years, 77/178 targeted chemicals were detected. Chemicals were assigned prioritization scores based on spatial and temporal detection frequency, environmental distribution, environmental fate, ecotoxicological potential, and effect prediction. Chemicals were sorted into priority bins based on the intersection of prioritization score and data availability. Data-limited chemicals represented those that did not have sufficient data to adequately evaluate ecotoxicological potential or environmental fate. Seven compounds (fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, pyrene, atrazine, metolachlor, phenanthrene, and DEET) were identified as high or medium priority and data sufficient and flagged as candidates for further effects-based monitoring studies. Twenty-one compounds were identified as high or medium priority and data limited and flagged as candidates for further ecotoxicological research. Fifteen chemicals were flagged as the lowest priority in the watershed. One of these chemicals (2-methylnaphthalene) displayed no data limitations and was flagged as a definitively low-priority chemical. The remaining chemicals displayed some data limitations and were considered lower-priority compounds (contingent on further ecotoxicological and environmental fate assessments). The remaining 34 compounds were flagged as low or medium priority. Altogether, this prioritization provided a screening-level (non-definitive) assessment that could be used to focus further resource management and risk assessment activities in the Milwaukee Estuary. Furthermore, by providing detailed methodology and a practical example with real experimental data, we demonstrated that the proposed framework represents a transparent and adaptable approach for prioritizing contaminants in freshwater environments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1276-1296. © 2022 SETAC.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsEcotoxicologyEstuariesRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentWater Pollutants, ChemicalContaminants of emerging concernEffects-based monitoringFreshwater ecotoxicologyScreening and prioritizationWeight-of-evidence

Identifiers

PMID36524447
PMCPMC10601791

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.