Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70179195

Workshop 3.5: Closing the gap between exposure and effects in monitoring studies

Abstract

A major challenge to contaminant monitoring programs is the selection of an appropriate suite of measurements for assessing exposure and effects. Early monitoring programs relied solely on residue analysis to detect the organochlorine compounds that were in use at that time. A shift to the use of more transient, less persistent chemicals required that a new set of tools be developed to determine if an organism had been exposed. This led to the development of cellular and biochemical assays that could indicate the presence of these types of chemicals in biota and the environment. However, it was recognized that measures of contaminant presence alone were insufficient to assess the health of biota. As a result, considerable research began to be directed toward development of diagnostic tools for measuring chemical effects in fish and wildlife. Today, contaminant monitoring programs follow a paradigm for study design that emphasizes not only the use of measures of exposure, but also measures of effect. Using data from our monitoring and research studies for hormonally active substances, we discuss a variety of metrics of exposure and effects and their application to specific chemicals, and the current information gaps. We conclude that although several bioindicators of exposure and effect have been promoted and used, to date there continues to be a poor association between cause and effect for endocrine active substances. In part, this is due to the limited number of diagnostic tools that are available and to a lack of basic toxicological information concerning toxicokinetics and mechanisms of action of hormonally active chemicals in fish and wildlife species. In the foreseeable future, both tissue and environmental residue data, despite the many limitations, will continue to be an important component of monitoring programs for hormonally active chemicals as we continue to develop and validate more specific bioindicators of exposure and effects.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Donald E. Tillitt, Diana M. Papoulias. 2003. Workshop 3.5: Closing the gap between exposure and effects in monitoring studies. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200375112467

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Reference materials for phase equilibrium studies. 2. Solid–liquid equilibria (IUPAC Technical Report)

This article is the second of three projected IUPAC Technical Reports on reference materials for phase equilibrium studies. The goal of this project was to select reference systems with critically evaluated property values for the verification of instruments and techniques used in phase equilibrium studies of mixtures. This report proposes seven systems for solid–liquid equilibrium studies, covering the four most common categories of binary mixtures: aqueous systems with organic solutes, aqueous systems with inorganic solutes, non-aqueous systems, and systems with low solubility. For each system, the available literature sources, accepted data, smoothing equations, and estimated uncertainties are given.

Pure and Applied Chemistry

Minimum requirements for publishing hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur stable-isotope delta results (IUPAC Technical Report)

Stable hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur (HCNOS) isotope compositions expressed as isotope-delta values are typically reported relative to international standards such as Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW), Vienna Peedee belemnite (VPDB) or Vienna Cañon Diablo Troilite (VCDT). These international standards are chosen by convention and the calibration methods used to realise them in practice undergo occasional changes. To ensure longevity and reusability of published data, a comprehensive description of (1) analytical procedure, (2) traceability, (3) data processing, and (4) uncertainty evaluation is required. Following earlier International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry documents on terminology and notations, this paper proposes minimum requirements for publishing HCNOS stable-isotope delta results. Each of the requirements are presented with illustrative examples.

Pure and Applied Chemistry

Standard atomic weights of the elements 2021 (IUPAC Technical Report)

Following the reviews of atomic-weight determinations and other cognate data in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW) reports changes of standard atomic weights. The symbol A r °(E) was selected for standard atomic weight of an element to distinguish it from the atomic weight of an element E in a specific substance P, designated A r (E, P). The CIAAW has changed the values of the standard atomic weights of five elements based on recent determinations of terrestrial isotopic abundances: Ar (argon): from 39.948 ± 0.001 to [39.792, 39.963] Hf (hafnium): from 178.49 ± 0.02 to 178.486 ± 0.006 Ir (iridium): from 192.217 ± 0.003 to 192.217 ± 0.002 Pb (lead): from 207.2 ± 0.1 to [206.14, 207.94] Yb (ytterbium): from 173.054 ± 0.005 to 173.045 ± 0.010 The standard atomic weight of argon and lead have changed to an interval to reflect that the natural variation in isotopic composition exceeds the measurement uncertainty of A r (Ar) and A r (Pb) in a specific substance. The standard atomic weights and/or the uncertainties of fourteen elements have been changed based on the Atomic Mass Evaluations 2016 and 2020 accomplished under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP). A r ° of Ho, Tb, Tm and Y were changed in 2017 and again updated in 2021: Al (aluminium), 2017: from 26.981 5385 ± 0.000 0007 to 26.981 5384 ± 0.000 0003 Au (gold), 2017: from 196.966 569 ± 0.000 005 to 196.966 570 ± 0.000 004 Co (cobalt), 2017: from 58.933 194 ± 0.000 004 to 58.933 194 ± 0.000 003 F (fluorine), 2021: from 18.998 403 163 ± 0.000 000 006 to 18.998 403 162 ± 0.000 000 005 (Ho (holmium), 2017: from 164.930 33 ± 0.000 02 to 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007) Ho (holmium), 2021: from 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007 to 164.930 329 ± 0.000 005 Mn (manganese), 2017: from 54.938 044 ± 0.000 003 to 54.938 043 ± 0.000 002 Nb (niobium), 2017: from 92.906 37 ± 0.000 02 to 92.906 37 ± 0.000 01 Pa (protactinium), 2017: from 231.035 88 ± 0.000 02 to 231.035 88 ± 0.000 01 Pr (praseodymium), 2017: from 140.907 66 ± 0.000 02 to 140.907 66 ± 0.000 01 Rh (rhodium), 2017: from 102.905 50 ± 0.000 02 to 102.905 49 ± 0.000 02 Sc (scandium), 2021: from 44.955 908 ± 0.000 005 to 44.955 907 ± 0.000 004 (Tb (terbium), 2017: from 158.925 35 ± 0.000 02 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008) Tb (terbium), 2021: from 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 007 (Tm (thulium), 2017: from 168.934 22 ± 0.000 02 to 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006) Tm (thulium), 2021: from 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006 to 168.934 219 ± 0.000 005 (Y (yttrium), 2017: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 02 to 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01) Y (yttrium), 2021: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01 to 88.905 838 ± 0.000 002

Pure and Applied Chemistry