CCPortal
DOI10.1002/etc.2299
Effects-directed analysis (EDA) and toxicity identification evaluation (TIE): Complementary but different approaches for diagnosing causes of environmental toxicity
Burgess, Robert M.1; Ho, Kay T.1; Brack, Werner2; Lamoree, Marja3
发表日期2013-09-01
ISSN0730-7268
卷号32期号:9页码:1935-1945
英文摘要

Currently, 2 approaches are available for performing environmental diagnostics on samples like municipal and industrial effluents, interstitial waters, and whole sediments to identify anthropogenic contaminants causing toxicological effects. One approach is toxicity identification evaluation (TIE), which was developed primarily in North America to determine active toxicants to whole-organism endpoints. The second approach is effects-directed analysis (EDA), which has origins in both Europe and North America. Unlike TIE, EDA uses primarily in vitro endpoints with an emphasis on organic contaminants as the cause of observed toxicity. The 2 approaches have fundamental differences that make them distinct techniques. In EDA, the sophisticated and elegant fractionation and chemical analyses performed to identify the causes of toxicity with a high degree of specificity often compromise contaminant bioavailability. In contrast, in TIE, toxicant bioavailability is maintained and is considered critical to accurately identifying the causes of environmental toxicity. However, maintaining contaminant bioavailability comes with the cost of limiting, at least until recently, the use of the types of sophisticated fractionation and elegant chemical analyses that have resulted in the high specificity of toxicant diagnosis performed in EDA. The present study provides an overview of each approach and highlights areas where the 2 approaches can complement one another and lead to the improvement of both. (C) 2013 SETAC


英文关键词Effects-directed analysis;Environmental diagnosis;Fractionation;Bioavailability;Bioaccessibility
语种英语
WOS记录号WOS:000322253800003
来源期刊ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
来源机构美国环保署
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/59944
作者单位1.US EPA, Atlantic Ecol Div, Natl Hlth & Environm Effects Res Lab, Off Res & Dev, Narragansett, RI USA;
2.UFZ Helmholt Ctr Environm Res, Dept Effects Directed Anal, Leipzig, Germany;
3.Free Univ Amsterdam, Inst Environm Studies, Fac Earth & Life Sci, NL-1007 MC Amsterdam, Netherlands
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Burgess, Robert M.,Ho, Kay T.,Brack, Werner,et al. Effects-directed analysis (EDA) and toxicity identification evaluation (TIE): Complementary but different approaches for diagnosing causes of environmental toxicity[J]. 美国环保署,2013,32(9):1935-1945.
APA Burgess, Robert M.,Ho, Kay T.,Brack, Werner,&Lamoree, Marja.(2013).Effects-directed analysis (EDA) and toxicity identification evaluation (TIE): Complementary but different approaches for diagnosing causes of environmental toxicity.ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY,32(9),1935-1945.
MLA Burgess, Robert M.,et al."Effects-directed analysis (EDA) and toxicity identification evaluation (TIE): Complementary but different approaches for diagnosing causes of environmental toxicity".ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 32.9(2013):1935-1945.
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Burgess, Robert M.]的文章
[Ho, Kay T.]的文章
[Brack, Werner]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Burgess, Robert M.]的文章
[Ho, Kay T.]的文章
[Brack, Werner]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Burgess, Robert M.]的文章
[Ho, Kay T.]的文章
[Brack, Werner]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。