Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40957951›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2025

The use of diagnostic tools to assess the risks of chemicals to freshwater ecosystems: towards a unified evaluation framework.

Andreu Rico, Udo Hommen, Beate I Escher, Alina Koch, Anne Bado-Nilles, Belén González-Gaya, Enya Cody, Francisco Sylvester, Gabriele Treu, Gastón Alurralde and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2025. 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. Review
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

28 authors.

Andreu RicoCavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. andreu.rico@uv.es.ORCID 0000-0002-1820-4218
Udo HommenFraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (IME), Schmallenberg, Germany.
Beate I EscherHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Alina KochSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden.
Anne Bado-NillesIneris, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Belén González-GayaPlentzia Marine Station (PiE-UPV/EHU), University of the Basque Country, Plentzia, Spain.
Enya CodyTechnological University Dublin, Radiation and Environmental Science Centre, Dublin, Ireland.
Francisco SylvesterGoethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Gabriele TreuGerman Environment Agency (UBA), Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.
Gastón AlurraldeDepartment of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Henner HollertFraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (IME), Schmallenberg, Germany.
Iker Alvarez-MoraHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
S Jannicke MoeNorwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway.
Joanne de JongeRIWA-Rijn, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Kelsey NgEnvironmental Institute, Koš, Slovak Republic.
Manu SotoPlentzia Marine Station (PiE-UPV/EHU), University of the Basque Country, Plentzia, Spain.
Matthias LiessHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Melis MuzHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Mirco BundschuhiES Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, University Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Landau, Germany.
Naroa Lopez-HerguedasHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Nicolas PucheuxIneris, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Nikiforos AlygizakisEnvironmental Institute, Koš, Slovak Republic.
Peter C von der OheGerman Environment Agency (UBA), Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.
Rémy BeaudouinIneris, Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Saskia FinckhHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Tobias SchulzeHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Yves VerhaegenConcawe, Brussels, Belgium.
Paul J van den BrinkWageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Conselleria de Cultura, Educación y Ciencia, Generalitat Valenciana CIDEGENT/2020/043Norges Forskningsråd 342628
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risk assessment of chemicals relies on multiple tools to quantify the ecological responses of ecosystems to existing chemical pollution. These tools are broadly categorized into three major groups: toxic pressure assessments, bioassays, and ecological monitoring. Here, we examine the strengths and limitations of these approaches, their current level of implementation for freshwater ecosystems across Europe, and their ability to evaluate the impacts of chemicals under field conditions. Additionally, we analyze the correspondence between results obtained from these tools when applied to a monitoring dataset from German streams. Our evaluation showed that no single tool can perfectly characterize the environmental impacts of chemical mixtures. However, each provides distinct lines of evidence, enabling the identification of chemicals driving ecological risks and the biological endpoints most likely to be affected, with ecological monitoring tools having the potential to show long-term ecosystem impairment. Finally, we propose recommendations to better understand the discrepancies between the outcomes of different methods and explore their potential integration into a unified water quality evaluation framework.

Indexed as

EcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringFresh WaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalEuropeGermanyRisk AssessmentWater QualityWater Pollutants, ChemicalBioassaysChemical mixturesDiagnostic risk assessmentEnvironmental monitoringToxic pressure

Identifiers

PMID40957951
PMCPMC12575600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.