000131717 001__ 131717
000131717 005__ 20240229105009.0
000131717 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.055
000131717 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:28898810
000131717 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0048-9697
000131717 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1879-1026
000131717 037__ $$aDKFZ-2018-00023
000131717 041__ $$aeng
000131717 082__ $$a333.7
000131717 1001_ $$aBettinetti, Roberta$$b0
000131717 245__ $$aThe European water-based environmental quality standard for pentachlorophenol is NOT protective of benthic organisms.
000131717 260__ $$aAmsterdam [u.a.]$$bElsevier Science$$c2018
000131717 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000131717 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000131717 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1521452000_14509
000131717 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000131717 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000131717 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000131717 520__ $$aRisk management of toxic substances is often based on Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) set for the water compartment, assuming they will also protect benthic organisms. In the absence of experimental data, EQS for sediments can be estimated by the equilibrium partitioning approach. The present study investigates whether this approach is protective of benthic organisms against pentachlorophenol (PCP), a legacy contaminant and EU priority substance still used in some parts of the world. Three freshwater species of invertebrates with different life cycles and feeding behaviors (the oligochaetes Lumbriculus variegatus, Tubifex tubifex and the dipteran insect Chironomus riparius) were exposed to PCP spiked sediments (2.10-46.03mgPCP/kg d.w. plus controls) in laboratory standard tests. Exposure duration was 28days for T. tubifex and L. variegatus and 10 and 28days for C. riparius; according to the corresponding OECD guidelines. For each investigated end-point, dose-response data were normalized to the mean control and fitted to a four-parameter log-logistic model for calculating the corresponding EC50 and EC10. The ranges for EC50 and EC10 estimates were 4.39 (Chironomus riparius-emergence)-27.50 (Tubifex tubifex-cocoon) and 0.30 (T. tubifex-young worms) -16.70 (T. tubifex-cocoon) mg/kg d.w., respectively. The EC50 and the EC10 values of L. variegatus were within these ranges. Following the EU Technical Guidance for deriving EQS, the lowest EC10 value of 0.30mg/kg (T. tubifex-young worms) resulted in a PCP quality standard (QS) for sediments of 30ng/g, about one fourth of the tentative QS of 119ng/g estimated by the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach. The response of benthic biota to PCP varied across organisms and across end-points for the same organism, so that the use of sediment PCP-QS calculated using the EqP-approach may be under-protective of the most sensitive organisms. Information on the possible effects of PCP on resident organisms must therefore be collected for appropriately managing aquatic systems.
000131717 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$a313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)$$cPOF3-313$$fPOF III$$x0
000131717 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000131717 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)bb6a7a70f976eb8df1769944bf913596$$aKopp-Schneider, Annette$$b1$$udkfz
000131717 7001_ $$aVignati, Davide A L$$b2
000131717 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1498726-0$$a10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.055$$gVol. 613-614, p. 39 - 45$$p39 - 45$$tThe science of the total environment$$v613-614$$x0048-9697$$y2018
000131717 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:131717$$pVDB
000131717 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)bb6a7a70f976eb8df1769944bf913596$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b1$$kDKFZ
000131717 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vCancer risk factors and prevention$$x0
000131717 9141_ $$y2018
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bSCI TOTAL ENVIRON : 2015
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1060$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000131717 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000131717 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x0
000131717 980__ $$ajournal
000131717 980__ $$aVDB
000131717 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000131717 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED