116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22050459)
1. Competing statistical methods for the fitting of normal species sensitivity distributions: recommendations for practitioners.
Hickey GL; Craig PS
Risk Anal; 2012 Jul; 32(7):1232-43. PubMed ID: 22050459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. On the application of loss functions in determining assessment factors for ecological risk.
Hickey GL; Craig PS; Hart A
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2009 Feb; 72(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 18691758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Bayesian approach for determining the no effect concentration and hazardous concentration in ecotoxicology.
Fox DR
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2010 Feb; 73(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 19836077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Better bootstrap estimation of hazardous concentration thresholds for aquatic assemblages.
Grist EP; Leung KM; Wheeler JR; Crane M
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2002 Jul; 21(7):1515-24. PubMed ID: 12109754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A probabilistic method for species sensitivity distributions taking into account the inherent uncertainty and variability of effects to estimate environmental risk.
Gottschalk F; Nowack B
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2013 Jan; 9(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 22745057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Estimation of wildlife hazard levels using interspecies correlation models and standard laboratory rodent toxicity data.
Awkerman JA; Raimondo S; Barron MG
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2009; 72(24):1604-9. PubMed ID: 20077235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions.
Aldenberg T; Jaworska JS
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2000 May; 46(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 10805987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. More noise does not mean more precision: A review of Aldenberg and Rorije (2013).
Fox DR
Altern Lab Anim; 2015 Sep; 43(4):241-9. PubMed ID: 26375888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Which distribution to choose for deriving a species sensitivity distribution? Implications from analysis of acute and chronic ecotoxicity data.
Yanagihara M; Hiki K; Iwasaki Y
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2024 Jun; 278():116379. PubMed ID: 38714082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Future needs and recommendations in the development of species sensitivity distributions: Estimating toxicity thresholds for aquatic ecological communities and assessing impacts of chemical exposures.
Belanger S; Barron M; Craig P; Dyer S; Galay-Burgos M; Hamer M; Marshall S; Posthuma L; Raimondo S; Whitehouse P
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2017 Jul; 13(4):664-674. PubMed ID: 27531323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Statistical cautions when estimating DEBtox parameters.
Billoir E; Delignette-Muller ML; Péry AR; Geffard O; Charles S
J Theor Biol; 2008 Sep; 254(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 18571678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Framework for traits-based assessment in ecotoxicology.
Rubach MN; Ashauer R; Buchwalter DB; De Lange H; Hamer M; Preuss TG; Töpke K; Maund SJ
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2011 Apr; 7(2):172-86. PubMed ID: 20981835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Risk assessment using the species sensitivity distribution method: data quality versus data quantity.
Dowse R; Tang D; Palmer CG; Kefford BJ
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Jun; 32(6):1360-9. PubMed ID: 23440771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Forecasting risk along a river basin using a probabilistic and deterministic model for environmental risk assessment of effluents through ecotoxicological evaluation and GIS.
Gutiérrez S; Fernandez C; Barata C; Tarazona JV
Sci Total Environ; 2009 Dec; 408(2):294-303. PubMed ID: 19875154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of methods to handle skew distributed cost variables in the analysis of the resource consumption in schizophrenia treatment.
Kilian R; Matschinger H; Löeffler W; Roick C; Angermeyer MC
J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2002 Mar; 5(1):21-31. PubMed ID: 12529567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Ecological risk of anthropogenic pollutants to reptiles: Evaluating assumptions of sensitivity and exposure.
Weir SM; Suski JG; Salice CJ
Environ Pollut; 2010 Dec; 158(12):3596-606. PubMed ID: 20855139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of specific versus literature species sensitivity distributions for herbicides risk assessment.
Larras F; Gregorio V; Bouchez A; Montuelle B; Chèvre N
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2016 Feb; 23(4):3042-52. PubMed ID: 26396014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Development and application of the SSD approach in scientific case studies for ecological risk assessment.
Del Signore A; Hendriks AJ; Lenders HJ; Leuven RS; Breure AM
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2016 Sep; 35(9):2149-61. PubMed ID: 27144499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A probabilistic effect assessment model for hazardous substances at the workplace.
Schneider K; Schuhmacher-Wolz U; Hassauer M; Darschnik S; Elmshäuser E; Mosbach-Schulz O
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):172-81. PubMed ID: 16356615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. MOSAIC_SSD: a new web tool for species sensitivity distribution to include censored data by maximum likelihood.
Kon Kam King G; Veber P; Charles S; Delignette-Muller ML
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2014 Sep; 33(9):2133-9. PubMed ID: 24863265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
