199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27144499)
21. Development of species sensitivity distributions for wildlife using interspecies toxicity correlation models.
Awkerman JA; Raimondo S; Barron MG
Environ Sci Technol; 2008 May; 42(9):3447-52. PubMed ID: 18522132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Species sensitivity distributions for use in environmental protection, assessment, and management of aquatic ecosystems for 12 386 chemicals.
Posthuma L; van Gils J; Zijp MC; van de Meent D; de Zwart D
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Apr; 38(4):905-917. PubMed ID: 30675920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Improving substance information in USEtox
Saouter E; Aschberger K; Fantke P; Hauschild MZ; Kienzler A; Paini A; Pant R; Radovnikovic A; Secchi M; Sala S
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2017 Dec; 36(12):3463-3470. PubMed ID: 28671290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Environmental benchmarks based on ecotoxicological assessment with planktonic species might not adequately protect benthic assemblages in lotic systems.
Vidal T; Santos JI; Queirós L; Ré A; Abrantes N; Gonçalves FJM; Pereira JL
Sci Total Environ; 2019 Jun; 668():1289-1297. PubMed ID: 31018468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Systematic Consideration of Parameter Uncertainty and Variability in Probabilistic Species Sensitivity Distributions.
Wigger H; Kawecki D; Nowack B; Adam V
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2020 Mar; 16(2):211-222. PubMed ID: 31535755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects database (CAFE), a tool that supports assessments of chemical spills in aquatic environments.
Bejarano AC; Farr JK; Jenne P; Chu V; Hielscher A
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2016 Jun; 35(6):1576-86. PubMed ID: 26497000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Relevance of risk predictions derived from a chronic species sensitivity distribution with cadmium to aquatic populations and ecosystems.
Mebane CA
Risk Anal; 2010 Feb; 30(2):203-23. PubMed ID: 19659451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Evaluation of suitable endpoints for assessing the impacts of toxicants at the community level.
Sánchez-Bayo F; Goka K
Ecotoxicology; 2012 Apr; 21(3):667-80. PubMed ID: 22120543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Critical issues in using the common mixture toxicity models concentration addition or response addition on species sensitivity distributions: a theoretical approach.
Gregorio V; Chèvre N; Junghans M
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Oct; 32(10):2387-95. PubMed ID: 23804417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Improving substance information in USEtox
Saouter E; Aschberger K; Fantke P; Hauschild MZ; Bopp SK; Kienzler A; Paini A; Pant R; Secchi M; Sala S
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2017 Dec; 36(12):3450-3462. PubMed ID: 28618056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Higher than … or lower than ….? Evidence for the validity of the extrapolation of laboratory toxicity test results to predict the effects of chemicals and ionising radiation in the field.
Spurgeon DJ
J Environ Radioact; 2020 Jan; 211():105757. PubMed ID: 29970267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Evaluation of in silico development of aquatic toxicity species sensitivity distributions.
Barron MG; Jackson CR; Awkerman JA
Aquat Toxicol; 2012 Jul; 116-117():1-7. PubMed ID: 22459408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Do we have to incorporate ecological interactions in the sensitivity assessment of ecosystems? An examination of a theoretical assumption underlying species sensitivity distribution models.
De Laender F; De Schamphelaere KA; Vanrolleghem PA; Janssen CR
Environ Int; 2008 Apr; 34(3):390-6. PubMed ID: 17977598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Development and application of the adverse outcome pathway framework for understanding and predicting chronic toxicity: I. Challenges and research needs in ecotoxicology.
Groh KJ; Carvalho RN; Chipman JK; Denslow ND; Halder M; Murphy CA; Roelofs D; Rolaki A; Schirmer K; Watanabe KH
Chemosphere; 2015 Feb; 120():764-77. PubMed ID: 25439131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Recent Developments in Species Sensitivity Distribution Modeling.
Fox DR; van Dam RA; Fisher R; Batley GE; Tillmanns AR; Thorley J; Schwarz CJ; Spry DJ; McTavish K
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2021 Feb; 40(2):293-308. PubMed ID: 33170526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. Chronic toxicity of aluminum, at a pH of 6, to freshwater organisms: Empirical data for the development of international regulatory standards/criteria.
Cardwell AS; Adams WJ; Gensemer RW; Nordheim E; Santore RC; Ryan AC; Stubblefield WA
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2018 Jan; 37(1):36-48. PubMed ID: 28667768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
