Quantitative Weight Of Evidence Research Articles

Environmental hazard assessment of a marine mine tailings deposit site and potential implications for deep-sea mining

Portmán Bay is a heavily contaminated area resulting from decades of metal mine tailings disposal, and is considered a suitable shallow-water analogue to investigate the potential ecotoxicological impact of deep-sea mining. Resuspension plumes were artificially created by removing the top layer of the mine tailings deposit by bottom trawling. Mussels were deployed at three sites: i) off the mine tailings deposit area; ii) on the mine tailings deposit beyond the influence from the resuspension plumes; iii) under the influence of the artificially generated resuspension plumes. Surface sediment samples were collected at the same sites for metal analysis and ecotoxicity assessment. Metal concentrations and a battery of biomarkers (oxidative stress, metal exposure, biotransformation and oxidative damage) were measured in different mussel tissues. The environmental hazard posed by the resuspension plumes was investigated by a quantitative weight of evidence (WOE) model that integrated all the data. The resuspension of sediments loaded with metal mine tails demonstrated that chemical contaminants were released by trawling subsequently inducing ecotoxicological impact in mussels’ health. Considering as sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) those indicated in Spanish action level B for the disposal of dredged material at sea, the WOE model indicates that the hazard is slight off the mine tailings deposit, moderate on the mine tailings deposit without the influence from the resuspension plumes, and major under the influence of the resuspension plumes. Portmán Bay mine tailings deposit is a by-product of sulphide mining, and despite differences in environmental setting, it can reflect the potential ecotoxic effects to marine fauna from the impact of resuspension of plumes created by deep-sea mining of polymetallic sulphides. A similar approach as in this study could be applied in other areas affected by sediment resuspension and for testing future deep-sea mining sites in order to assess the associated environmental hazards.

Assessment of reproductive and developmental effects of DINP, DnHP and DCHP using quantitative weight of evidence

Quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology utilizes detailed scoring sheets to assess the quality/reliability of each publication on toxicity of a chemical and gives numerical scores for quality and observed toxicity. This QWoE-methodology was applied to the reproductive toxicity data on diisononylphthalate (DINP), di-n-hexylphthalate (DnHP), and dicyclohexylphthalate (DCHP) to determine if the scientific evidence for adverse effects meets the requirements for classification as reproductive toxicants. The scores for DINP were compared to those when applying the methodology DCHP and DnHP that have harmonized classifications. Based on the quality/reliability scores, application of the QWoE shows that the three databases are of similar quality; but effect scores differ widely. Application of QWoE to DINP studies resulted in an overall score well below the benchmark required to trigger classification. For DCHP, the QWoE also results in low scores. The high scores from the application of the QWoE methodology to the toxicological data for DnHP represent clear evidence for adverse effects and justify a classification of DnHP as category 1B for both development and fertility. The conclusions on classification based on the QWoE are well supported using a narrative assessment of consistency and biological plausibility.

A quantitative weight of evidence methodology for the assessment of reproductive and developmental toxicity and its application for classification and labeling of chemicals

Hazard assessment of chemicals usually applies narrative assessments with a number of weaknesses. Therefore, application of weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are often mandated but guidance to perform a WoE assessment is lacking. This manuscript describes a quantitative WoE (QWoE) assessment for reproductive toxicity data and its application for classification and labeling (C&L). Because C&L criteria are based on animal studies, the scope is restricted to animal toxicity data. The QWoE methodology utilizes numerical scoring sheets to assess reliability of a publication and the toxicological relevance of reported effects. Scores are given for fourteen quality aspects, best practice receives the highest score. The relevance/effects scores (0 to four) are adjusted to the key elements of the toxic response for the endpoint and include weighting factors for effects on different levels of the biological organization. The relevance/effects scores are then assessed against the criteria dose-response, magnitude and persistence of effects, consistency of observations with the hypothesis, and relation of effects to human disease. The quality/reliability scores and the relevance/effect scores are then multiplied to give a numerical strength of evidence for adverse effects. This total score is then used to assign the chemical to the different classes employed in classification.

Increasing Scientific Confidence in Adverse Outcome Pathways: Application of Tailored Bradford-Hill Considerations for Evaluating Weight of Evidence

Systematic consideration of scientific support is a critical element in developing and, ultimately, using adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for various regulatory applications. Though weight of evidence (WoE) analysis has been proposed as a basis for assessment of the maturity and level of confidence in an AOP, methodologies and tools are still being formalized. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Users’ Handbook Supplement to the Guidance Document for Developing and Assessing AOPs (OECD 2014a; hereafter referred to as the OECD AOP Handbook) provides tailored Bradford-Hill (BH) considerations for systematic assessment of confidence in a given AOP. These considerations include (1) biological plausibility and (2) empirical support (dose-response, temporality, and incidence) for Key Event Relationships (KERs), and (3) essentiality of key events (KEs). Here, we test the application of these tailored BH considerations and the guidance outlined in the OECD AOP Handbook using a number of case examples to increase experience in more transparently documenting rationales for assigned levels of confidence to KEs and KERs, and to promote consistency in evaluation within and across AOPs. The major lessons learned from experience are documented, and taken together with the case examples, should contribute to better common understanding of the nature and form of documentation required to increase confidence in the application of AOPs for specific uses. Based on the tailored BH considerations and defining questions, a prototype quantitative model for assessing the WoE of an AOP using tools of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is described. The applicability of the approach is also demonstrated using the case example aromatase inhibition leading to reproductive dysfunction in fish. Following the acquisition of additional experience in the development and assessment of AOPs, further refinement of parameterization of the model through expert elicitation is recommended. Overall, the application of quantitative WoE approaches hold promise to enhance the rigor, transparency and reproducibility for AOP WoE determinations and may play an important role in delineating areas where research would have the greatest impact on improving the overall confidence in the AOP.

Environmental hazards from natural hydrocarbons seepage: Integrated classification of risk from sediment chemistry, bioavailability and biomarkers responses in sentinel species

Potential effects of natural emissions of hydrocarbons in the marine environment have been poorly investigated. In this study, a multidisciplinary weight of evidence (WOE) study was carried out on a shallow seepage, integrating sediment chemistry with bioavailability and onset of subcellular responses (biomarkers) in caged eels and mussels. Results from different lines of evidence (LOEs) were elaborated within a quantitative WOE model which, based on logical flowcharts, provide synthetic indices of hazard for each LOE, before their integration in a quantitative risk assessment.Evaluations of different LOEs were not always in accordance and their overall elaboration summarized as Moderate the risk in the seepage area. This study provided first evidence of biological effects in organisms exposed to natural hydrocarbon emissions, confirming the limit of chemical characterization as stand-alone criteria for environmental quality assessment and the utility of multidisciplinary investigations to determine the good environmental status as required by Environmental Directives.

A multidisciplinary weight of evidence approach for environmental risk assessment at the Costa Concordia wreck: Integrative indices from Mussel Watch

A complex framework of chemical, biological and oceanographic activities was immediately activated after the Costa Concordia shipwreck, to assess possible contamination events and the environmental impact during both emergency and wreck removal operations. In the present paper, we describe the results obtained with caged mussels, Mytilus galloprovincialis, chosen as bioindicator organisms to detect variations of bioavailability and the early onset of molecular and cellular effects (biomarkers). Seven translocation experiments were carried out during the first year from the incident, with organisms deployed at 2 depths in 3 different sites. After 4–6 weeks, tissue concentrations were measured for the main classes of potentially released chemicals (trace metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile and aliphatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, halogenated pesticides, organotin compounds, brominated flame retardants, anionic surfactants); a wide battery of biomarkers covered responses indicative of exposure, detoxification, oxidative stress, cell damage and genotoxic effects. Results excluded serious contamination events or a consistent increase of environmental pollution although some episodic spills with reversible effects were detected. Data were elaborated within a quantitative weight of evidence (WOE) model which provided synthetic hazard indices for each typology of data, before their overall integration in an environmental risk index, which generally ranged from slight to moderate. The proposed WOE model was confirmed a useful tool to summarize large datasets of complex data in integrative indices, and to simplify the interpretation for stakeholders and decision makers, thus supporting a more comprehensive process of “site-oriented” management decisions.

Application of a quantitative weight of evidence approach for ranking and prioritising occupational exposure scenarios for titanium dioxide and carbon nanomaterials

Substantial limitations and uncertainties hinder the exposure assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). The present deficit of reliable measurements and models will inevitably lead in the near term to qualitative and uncertain exposure estimations, which may fail to support adequate risk assessment and management. Therefore it is necessary to complement the current toolset with user-friendly methods for near-term nanosafety evaluation. This paper proposes an approach for relative exposure screening of ENMs. For the first time, an exposure model explicitly implements quantitative weight of evidence (WoE) methods and utilises expert judgement for filling data gaps in the available evidence-base. Application of the framework is illustrated for screening of exposure scenarios for nanoscale titanium dioxide, carbon nanotubes and fullerenes, but it is applicable to other nanomaterials as well. The results show that the WoE-based model overestimates exposure for scenarios where expert judgement was substantially used to fill data gaps, which suggests its conservative nature. In order to test how variations in input data influence the obtained results, probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was applied to demonstrate that the model performs in stable manner.

A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials

Hazard identification is an important step in assessing nanomaterial risk and is required under multiple regulatory frameworks in the US, Europe and worldwide. Given the emerging nature of the field and complexity of nanomaterials, multiple studies on even basic material properties often result in varying data pointing in different directions when data interpretation is attempted. Weight of evidence (WOE) evaluation has been recommended for nanomaterial risk assessment, but the majority of WOE frameworks are qualitative in nature and do not satisfy the growing needs for objectivity and transparency that are necessary for regulatory decision making. This paper implements a quantitative WOE framework that utilizes multi-criteria decision analysis methodology for integrating individual studies on nanomaterial hazard resulting from physico-chemical and toxicological properties of nanomaterials. For the first time, a WOE approach explicitly integrates expert evaluation of data quality of available information. Application of the framework is illustrated for titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nano-TiO2), but the approach is designed to compare the relative hazard of several nanomaterials as well as emerging stressors in general.

Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Weight of Evidence Evaluation

Weight of evidence (WOE) methods are key components of ecological and human health risk assessments. Most WOE applications rely on the qualitative integration of diverse lines of evidence (LOE) representing impact on ecological receptors and humans. Recent calls for transparency in assessments and justifiability of management decisions are pushing the community to consider quantitative methods for integrated risk assessment and management. This article compares and contrasts the type of information required for application of individual WOE techniques and the outcomes that they provide in ecological risk assessment and proposes a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for integrating individual LOE in support of management decisions. The use of quantitative WOE techniques is illustrated for a hypothetical but realistic case study of selecting remedial alternatives at a contaminated aquatic site. Use of formal MCDA does not necessarily eliminate biases and judgment calls necessary for selecting remedial alternatives, but allows for transparent evaluation and fusion of individual LOE. It also provides justifiable methods for selecting remedial alternatives consistent with stakeholder and decision-maker values.

Ethyl myristate

A quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology was developed to assess confidence in postulated mode(s) of action for adverse effects in animal toxicity studies. The QWoE is appropriate for assessing adverse effects as relevant endpoints for classification and labeling purposes. The methodology involves definition of mode of actions and scoring supporting data for all key steps using predefined criteria for quality and relevance/strength of effects. Scores for all key steps are summarized, and the summary score is compared to the maximal achievable score for the mode of action. The ratio of the summary score to the maximal achievable scores gives an indication of confidence in a specific mode of action in animals. The mode of action in animals with highest confidence is then taken forward to assess appropriateness to humans. If one of the key steps cannot occur in humans, the mode of action is not relevant to humans. The methodology developed is applied to four case studies.