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

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Andreu Rico, Udo Hommen, Beate I Escher, Alina Koch, Anne Bado-Nilles, Belén González-Gaya, Enya Cody, Francisco Sylvester, Gabriele Treu, Gastón Alurralde, Henner Hollert, Iker Alvarez-Mora, S Jannicke Moe, Joanne de Jonge, Kelsey Ng, Manu Soto, Matthias Liess, Melis Muz, Mirco Bundschuh, Naroa Lopez-Herguedas, Nicolas Pucheux, Nikiforos Alygizakis, Peter C von der Ohe, Rémy Beaudouin, Saskia Finckh, Tobias Schulze, Yves Verhaegen, Paul J van den Brink
{"title":"The use of diagnostic tools to assess the risks of chemicals to freshwater ecosystems: towards a unified evaluation framework.","authors":"Andreu Rico, Udo Hommen, Beate I Escher, Alina Koch, Anne Bado-Nilles, Belén González-Gaya, Enya Cody, Francisco Sylvester, Gabriele Treu, Gastón Alurralde, Henner Hollert, Iker Alvarez-Mora, S Jannicke Moe, Joanne de Jonge, Kelsey Ng, Manu Soto, Matthias Liess, Melis Muz, Mirco Bundschuh, Naroa Lopez-Herguedas, Nicolas Pucheux, Nikiforos Alygizakis, Peter C von der Ohe, Rémy Beaudouin, Saskia Finckh, Tobias Schulze, Yves Verhaegen, Paul J van den Brink","doi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02265-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02265-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

使用诊断工具评估化学品对淡水生态系统的风险:建立统一的评估框架。
化学品的风险评估依赖于多种工具来量化生态系统对现有化学污染的生态反应。这些工具大致可分为三大类:毒性压力评估、生物测定和生态监测。在这里,我们研究了这些方法的优势和局限性,它们目前在整个欧洲淡水生态系统中的实施水平,以及它们在野外条件下评估化学品影响的能力。此外,我们分析了从这些工具获得的结果之间的对应关系,当应用于来自德国流的监控数据集时。我们的评估表明,没有一种工具可以完美地描述化学混合物对环境的影响。然而,每种方法都提供了不同的证据线,从而能够识别驱动生态风险的化学物质和最有可能受到影响的生物终点,生态监测工具有可能显示长期的生态系统损害。最后,我们提出了一些建议,以便更好地理解不同方法结果之间的差异,并探索将其整合到统一的水质评价框架中的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信