ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2023
Evaluation of Complex Mixture Toxicity in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA) Using Whole-Mixture and Component-Based Evaluation Methods.
Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exposure to marine contaminant mixtures with different toxicity drivers reduces microzooplankton diversity.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2025Article
- Article
- Combined Exposures and Mixtures Research: An Enduring NIEHS Priority.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- An assessment and characterization of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) within the Great Lakes Basin: Mussel Watch Program (2013-2018).Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anthropogenic activities introduce complex mixtures into aquatic environments, necessitating mixture toxicity evaluation during risk assessment. There are many alternative approaches that can be used to complement traditional techniques for mixture assessment. Our study aimed to demonstrate how these approaches could be employed for mixture evaluation in a target watershed. Evaluations were carried out over 2 years (2017-2018) across 8-11 study sites in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA). Whole mixtures were evaluated on a site-specific basis by deploying caged fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) alongside composite samplers for 96 h and characterizing chemical composition, in vitro bioactivity of collected water samples, and in vivo effects in whole organisms. Chemicals were grouped based on structure/mode of action, bioactivity, and pharmacological activity. Priority chemicals and mixtures were identified based on their relative contributions to estimated mixture pressure (based on cumulative toxic units) and via predictive assessments (random forest regression). Whole mixture assessments identified target sites for further evaluation including two sites targeted for industrial/urban chemical mixture effects assessment; three target sites for pharmaceutical mixture effects assessment; three target sites for further mixture characterization; and three low-priority sites. Analyses identified 14 mixtures and 16 chemicals that significantly contributed to cumulative effects, representing high or medium priority targets for further ecotoxicological evaluation, monitoring, or regulatory assessment. Overall, our study represents an important complement to single-chemical prioritizations, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative effects of mixtures detected in a target watershed. Furthermore, it demonstrates how different tools and techniques can be used to identify diverse facets of mixture risk and highlights strategies that can be considered in future complex mixture assessments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:1229-1256. © 2023 SETAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.