Affiliation:
1. Department of Biology University of Minnesota‐Duluth Minnesota Duluth USA
2. Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division US Environmental Protection Agency Duluth Minnesota USA
3. Scientific Computing and Data Curation Division US Environmental Protection Agency Duluth Minnesota USA
4. Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, US Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park North Carolina USA
Abstract
AbstractAnthropogenic activities introduce complex mixtures into aquatic environments, necessitating mixture toxicity evaluation during risk assessment. There are many alternative approaches that can be used to complement traditional techniques for mixture assessment. Our study aimed to demonstrate how these approaches could be employed for mixture evaluation in a target watershed. Evaluations were carried out over 2 years (2017–2018) across 8–11 study sites in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA). Whole mixtures were evaluated on a site‐specific basis by deploying caged fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) alongside composite samplers for 96 h and characterizing chemical composition, in vitro bioactivity of collected water samples, and in vivo effects in whole organisms. Chemicals were grouped based on structure/mode of action, bioactivity, and pharmacological activity. Priority chemicals and mixtures were identified based on their relative contributions to estimated mixture pressure (based on cumulative toxic units) and via predictive assessments (random forest regression). Whole mixture assessments identified target sites for further evaluation including two sites targeted for industrial/urban chemical mixture effects assessment; three target sites for pharmaceutical mixture effects assessment; three target sites for further mixture characterization; and three low‐priority sites. Analyses identified 14 mixtures and 16 chemicals that significantly contributed to cumulative effects, representing high or medium priority targets for further ecotoxicological evaluation, monitoring, or regulatory assessment. Overall, our study represents an important complement to single‐chemical prioritizations, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative effects of mixtures detected in a target watershed. Furthermore, it demonstrates how different tools and techniques can be used to identify diverse facets of mixture risk and highlights strategies that can be considered in future complex mixture assessments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:1229–1256. © 2023 SETAC
Subject
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Environmental Chemistry
Reference118 articles.
1. A review on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Source, environmental impact, effect on human health and remediation
2. Mixture Toxicity Revisited from a Toxicogenomic Perspective
3. Angrish M. M. &Chorley B.(2021a).AOP 61: NFE2L2/FXR activation leading to hepatic steatosis.https://aopwiki.org/aops/61
4. Angrish M. M. &Chorley B.(2021b).AOP 60: NR1I2 (Pregnane X Receptor PXR) activation leading to hepatic steatosis. Retrieved December 28 2021 from:https://aopwiki.org/aops/60
5. Angrish M. M. &Chorley B.(2021c).AOP 58: NR1I3 (CAR) suppression leading to hepatic steatosis. Retrieved April 14 2022 from:https://aopwiki.org/aops/58
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献