139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30994956)
1. SSDs revisited: part II-practical considerations in the development and use of application factors applied to species sensitivity distributions.
Belanger SE; Carr GJ
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Jul; 38(7):1526-1541. PubMed ID: 30994956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Augmenting aquatic species sensitivity distributions with interspecies toxicity estimation models.
Awkerman JA; Raimondo S; Jackson CR; Barron MG
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2014 Mar; 33(3):688-95. PubMed ID: 24214839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Setting water quality criteria in China: approaches for developing species sensitivity distributions for metals and metalloids.
Liu Y; Wu F; Mu Y; Feng C; Fang Y; Chen L; Giesy JP
Rev Environ Contam Toxicol; 2014; 230():35-57. PubMed ID: 24609517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Chronic Aquatic Hazard Assessment for the Perfume Raw Material Octahydro-tetramethyl-naphthalenyl-ethanone.
Lapczynski A; Belanger SE; Connors K; Bozich J
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2024 Jun; 43(6):1378-1389. PubMed ID: 38661477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sensitivity of a Large and Representative Sample of Antarctic Marine Invertebrates to Metals.
Kefford BJ; King CK; Wasley J; Riddle MJ; Nugegoda D
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Jul; 38(7):1560-1568. PubMed ID: 30900771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Can We Reasonably Predict Chronic Species Sensitivity Distributions from Acute Species Sensitivity Distributions?
Hiki K; Iwasaki Y
Environ Sci Technol; 2020 Oct; 54(20):13131-13136. PubMed ID: 32924457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Development of short, acute exposure hazard estimates: a tool for assessing the effects of chemical spills in aquatic environments.
Bejarano AC; Farr JK
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2013 Aug; 32(8):1918-27. PubMed ID: 23625642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Correcting for Phylogenetic Autocorrelation in Species Sensitivity Distributions.
Moore DR; Priest CD; Galic N; Brain RA; Rodney SI
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2020 Jan; 16(1):53-65. PubMed ID: 31433110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Environmental properties and aquatic hazard assessment of anionic surfactants: physico-chemical, environmental fate and ecotoxicity properties.
Könnecker G; Regelmann J; Belanger S; Gamon K; Sedlak R
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2011 Sep; 74(6):1445-60. PubMed ID: 21550112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of species sensitivity distributions derived from interspecies correlation models to distributions used to derive water quality criteria.
Dyer SD; Versteeg DJ; Belanger SE; Chaney JG; Raimondo S; Barron MG
Environ Sci Technol; 2008 Apr; 42(8):3076-83. PubMed ID: 18497169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Derivation of freshwater quality criteria for zinc using interspecies correlation estimation models to protect aquatic life in China.
Feng CL; Wu FC; Dyer SD; Chang H; Zhao XL
Chemosphere; 2013 Jan; 90(3):1177-83. PubMed ID: 23058200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mean Species Abundance as a Measure of Ecotoxicological Risk.
Hoeks S; Huijbregts MAJ; Douziech M; Hendriks AJ; Oldenkamp R
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2020 Nov; 39(11):2304-2313. PubMed ID: 32786097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. SSDs Revisited: Part I-A Framework for Sample Size Guidance on Species Sensitivity Distribution Analysis.
Carr GJ; Belanger SE
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2019 Jul; 38(7):1514-1525. PubMed ID: 30994946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Framework for Optimizing Selection of Interspecies Correlation Estimation Models to Address Species Diversity and Toxicity Gaps in an Aquatic Database.
Bejarano AC; Raimondo S; Barron MG
Environ Sci Technol; 2017 Jul; 51(14):8158-8165. PubMed ID: 28636817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
