Weight‐of‐Evidence Approach for Assessing Removal of Metals from the Water Column for Chronic Environmental Hazard Classification

The United Nations and the European Union have developed guidelines for the assessment of long‐term (chronic) chemical environmental hazards. This approach recognizes that these hazards are often related to spillage of chemicals into freshwater environments. The goal of the present study was to examine the concept of metal ion removal from the water column in the context of hazard assessment and classification. We propose a weight‐of‐evidence approach that assesses several aspects of metals including the intrinsic properties of metals, the rate at which metals bind to particles in the water column and settle, the transformation of metals to nonavailable and nontoxic forms, and the potential for remobilization of metals from sediment. We developed a test method to quantify metal removal in aqueous systems: the extended transformation/dissolution protocol (T/DP‐E). The method is based on that of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD). The key element of the protocol extension is the addition of substrate particles (as found in nature), allowing the removal processes to occur. The present study focused on extending this test to support the assessment of metal removal from aqueous systems, equivalent to the concept of “degradability” for organic chemicals. Although the technical aspects of our proposed method are different from the OECD method for organics, its use for hazard classification is equivalent. Models were developed providing mechanistic insight into processes occurring during the T/DP‐E method. Some metals, such as copper, rapidly decreased (within 96 h) under the 70% threshold criterion, whereas others, such as strontium, did not. A variety of method variables were evaluated and optimized to allow for a reproducible, realistic hazard classification method that mimics reasonable worst‐case scenarios. We propose that this method be standardized for OECD hazard classification via round robin (ring) testing to ascertain its intra‐ and interlaboratory variability. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1839–1849. © 2019 SETAC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151334/1/etc4470_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151334/2/etc4470.pd

Scientific Integrity Issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency.

High profile reports of detrimental scientific practices leading to retractions in the scientific literature contribute to lack of trust in scientific experts. While the bulk of these have been in the literature of other disciplines, environmental toxicology and chemistry are not free from problems. While we believe that egregious misconduct such as fraud, fabrication of data, or plagiarism is rare, scientific integrity is much broader than the absence of misconduct. We are more concerned with more commonly encountered and nuanced issues such as poor reliability and bias. We review a range of topics including conflicts of interests, competing interests, some particularly challenging situations, reproducibility, bias, and other attributes of ecotoxicological studies that enhance or detract from scientific credibility. Our vision of scientific integrity encourages a self-correcting culture promoting scientific rigor, relevant reproducible research, transparency in competing interests, methods and results, and education