我国水质基准制定中生态毒性数据质量评估方法研究

黄轶; 闫振广; 张天旭; 郑欣

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200026

我国水质基准制定中生态毒性数据质量评估方法研究

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200026

黄轶^1,2,,
闫振广^1,*, ,,
张天旭¹,
郑欣¹

1.
环境基准与风险评估国家重点实验室,中国环境科学研究院
2.
海洋环境与生态教育部重点实验室,中国海洋大学环境科学与工程学院

详细信息

作者简介:
黄轶(1994—),女,硕士研究生,研究方向为水生毒理学,huangyi_ouc@163.com

通讯作者:
闫振广 E-mail: zgyan@craes.org.cn

中图分类号: X824,X52
计量
- 文章访问数: 333
- HTML全文浏览量: 110
- PDF下载量: 80
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-02-26
- 刊出日期: 2021-01-20

Evaluation method of ecotoxicity data quality for deriving water quality criteriain China

HUANG Yi^{1,2
,},
YAN Zhenguang^{1,*
, ,},
ZHANG Tianxu¹,
ZHENG Xin¹

1.
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
2.
Key Laboratory of Marine Environment and Ecology, Ministry of Education, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China

More Information

Corresponding author: YAN Zhenguang E-mail: zgyan@craes.org.cn

摘要

摘要: 水质基准是制定水质标准的科学依据,而生态毒理学数据是制定水质基准的基础,在推导水生态基准之前,必须对毒性数据的质量进行评估。借鉴美国、欧盟、澳大利亚和新西兰的数据质量评估方法,提出了我国水质基准制定中生态毒性数据质量评估方法,评估要素包括数据来源、化学物质、受试生物、试验过程和试验结果5个方面,共25个打分项,总体赋分为100分。对于每个生态毒性数据,根据其总体赋分进行质量分级:得分≥80分,为高质量数据;得分60~80分,建议为可用数据;得分<60分,建议为不可用数据。评估过程中当数据的单项评估结果为无效时,评估直接终止。
- 水质基准 /
- 生态毒性 /
- 数据质量评估 /
- 技术指南
Abstract: Water quality criteria (WQC) is the scientific basis for formulating water quality standards (WQS), and the ecotoxicological data is the basis of WQC. Therefore, the quality of ecotoxicological data must be evaluated before deriving WQC. Using the data quality evaluation methods of the United States, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand for reference, the method of ecotoxicological data quality assessment for WQC establishment in China was proposed. The method was established from the following 5 aspects, 25 items with a total score of 100, including data sources, chemical substances, test organisms, experimental process and experimental results. For each kind of ecotoxicological data, the quality was graded according to its final score. The principles of quality assessment were as follows: score≥80, high quality data; 60≤score<80, acceptable data;score<60, unacceptable data. In the process of evaluation, when the individual evaluation result was invalid, the evaluation process must be terminated directly. The evaluation method of ecotoxicological data developed in this study would further enriched the technical method of WQC establishment in China.
- water quality criteria /
- ecotoxicology /
- data quality evaluation /
- guidelines

HTML全文

参考文献(46)

[1]	环境保护部. 淡水水生生物水质基准制定技术指南:HJ 831—2017[S/OL]. (2017-05-11)[2020-01-20]. http://www.huanjing100.com/p-3713.html.
[2]	US EPA. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses[S/OL]. Washington DC:US EPA,1985. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/guidelines.
[3]	YAN Z, PAN J, GAO F, et al. Seawater quality criteria derivation and ecological risk assessment for oil pollution in China[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2019,142:25-30. pmid: 31232301
[4]	LU C, YANG S, YAN Z, et al. Deriving aquatic life criteria for PBDEs in China and comparison of species sensitivity distribution with TBBPA and HBCD[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 640/641:1279-1285.
[5]	KLIMISCH H J, ANDREAE M, TILLMANN U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data[J]. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 1997,25(1):1-5. pmid: 9056496
[6]	OECD. OECD principles of good laboratory practice[S]. Pairs:Environment Directorate Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1998.
[7]	ÅGERSTRAND M, BREITHOLTZ M, RUDEN C. Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data:a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances[J]. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2011,23(1):17.
[8]	ÅGERSTRAND M, EDVARDSSON L, RUDÉN C. Bad reporting or bad science: systematic data evaluation as a means to improve the use of peer-reviewed studies in risk assessments of chemicals[J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2014,20(6):1427-1445.
[9]	DURDA J L, PREZIOSI D V. Data quality evaluation of toxicological studies used to derive ecotoxicological benchmarks[J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2000,6(5):747-765.
[10]	MACDONALD D A, MATTA M B, FIELD L J, et al. The coastal resource coordinator’s bioassessment manual:report No. HAZMAT,93-1:the coastal resource coordinator’s bioassessment manual[R]. Seattle:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003.
[11]	BUSCHMANN J. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals[J]. Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton N J), 2013,947:37-56.
[12]	American Society of Testing Materials(ASTM). Standard guide for conducting static toxicity tests with Lemna gibba G3[S]. West Conshohocken:ASTM, 1992: 1171-1180.
[13]	US EPA. Water quality standards handbook[A].2nd ed. Washington DC:US EPA, 1993.
[14]	US EPA. Methods of assessing the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with estuarine and marine amphipods[A]. Washington DC:US EPA, 1994.
[15]	REISS R, CRYER S A, CRAMER S P. Pesticide assessment guidelines subdivision E-hazard evaluation:wildlife and aquatic organisms:guideline number 70-1SS:special studies[S]. Washingtong DC:US EPA, 1982.
[16]	MARKICH S J, WARNE M S, WESTBURY A M, et al. A compilation of data on the toxicity of chemicals to species in Australasia:part 3.metals[J]. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2002,8:1-72.
[17]	US EPA. Aquatic toxicity information retrieval (AQUIRE) database:standard operating procedures[S]. Washington DC:US EPA, 1994.
[18]	SCHNEIDER K, SCHWARZ M, BURKHOLDER I, et al. “ToxRTool”,a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data[J]. Toxicology Letters, 2009,189(2):138-144. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.05.013 pmid: 19477248
[19]	TWEEDALE T, LYSIMACHOU A, MUILERMAN H. Missed & dismissed-pesticide regulators ignore the legal obligation to use independent science for deriving safe exposure levels[R]. Brussels:PAN Europe, 2014.
[20]	US EPA. Evaluation guidelines for ecological toxicity data in the open literature[S]. Washington DC:US EPA, 2011.
[21]	MOERMOND C T A, KASE R, KORKARIC M, et al. CRED:criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2016,35(5):1297-309. doi: 10.1002/etc.3259 pmid: 26399705
[22]	HOBBS D A, WARNE M S J, MARKICH S J. Evaluation of criteria used to assess the quality of aquatic toxicity data[J]. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2005,1(3):174-180. pmid: 16639883
[23]	KLAUS S, MARKUS S, IRIS B, et al. “ToxRTool”,a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data[J]. Toxicology Letters, 2009,189(2):138-144. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.05.013 pmid: 19477248
[24]	MENSINK B J W, SMITH C E, MONTFOTS M H M. Manual for summarizing and evaluating aspects of plant protection products[R]. Bilthoven,Netherlands:Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu Rivm, 2008.
[25]	European Chemicals Agency. REACH guidance documents[S]. Helsinki,Finland:European Chemicals Agency, 2008.
[26]	European Chemicals Agency. How to report robust study summaries:practical guide 3,version 2.0[S]. Helsinki, Finland:European Chemicals Agency, 2012.
[27]	KASE R, KORKARIC M, WERNER I, et al. Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data (CRED):comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies[J]. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2016,28(1):7. pmid: 27752442
[28]	WARNE M S J, BATLEY G E, VAN DAM R A, et al. Revised method for deriving Australian and New Zealand water quality guideline values for toxicants[M]. Queensland:Department of Science,Information Technology and Innovation, 2018: 174-180.
[29]	MARKICH,SCOTT J, WARNE, et al. A compilation of data on the toxicity of chemicals to species in Australasia:part 1.pesticides[J]. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 1998,3:93-144.
[30]	WARNE M S J, BATLEY G E, VAN D A M, et al. Revised method for deriving Australian and New Zealand water quality guideline values for toxicants[S/OL]. (2015-06-10)[2020-02-03]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287533532_Revised_Method_for_Deriving_Australian_and_New_Zealand_Water_Quality_Guideline_Values_for_Toxicants.
[31]	LI X, WANG P, FENG C, et al. Acute toxicity and hazardous concentrations of zinc to native freshwater organisms under different pH values in China[J]. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2019,103(1):120-126. pmid: 30250971
[32]	WANG Y, FENG C, LIU Y, et al. Comparative study of species sensitivity distributions based on non-parametric kernel density estimation for some transition metals[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2017,221:343-350. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.084 pmid: 27939636
[33]	JIN X, WANG Z, WANG Y, et al. Do water quality criteria based on nonnative species provide appropriate protection for native species[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2015,34(8):1793-1798. pmid: 25761401
[34]	MU Y S, WANG Z, WU F C, et al. Model for predicting toxicities of metals and metalloids in coastal marine environments worldwide[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018,52(7):4199-4206. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06654 pmid: 29537832
[35]	苏海磊, 吴丰昌, 李会仙, 等. 太湖生物区系研究及与北美五大湖的比较[J]. 环境科学研究, 2011,24(12):1346-1354. SU H L, WU F C, LI H X, et al. Aquatic biota of Taihu Lake and comparison with those of the north american great lakes[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 2011,24(12):1346-1354.
[36]	STEPHAN C E, MOUNT D I, HANSEN D J, et al. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses[S/OL]. (1985-05-10)[2020-02-03]. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/guidelines-water-quality-criteria.pdf.
[37]	US EPA. Guidelines for deriving numerical aquatic sitespecific water quality criteria by modifying national criteria:EPA-600/3-84-099[R]. Washington DC:US EPA, 1984.
[38]	CCME. A protocol for the derwation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life:Canadian environmental quality guidelines[R]. Ottawa:Canadiin Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2007.
[39]	Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council(ANZECC),Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand(ARMCANZ). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality:Ⅰ.the guidelines[S]. Canberra:ANZECC,ARMCANZ, 2000: 1-103.
[40]	ASTM International. Standard guide for conducting Daphina magna life-cycle toxicity tests:ASTM E1193-97[S]. West Conshohocken,Pennsylvania:ASTM International, 2012.
[41]	ASTM International. Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes,macroinvertebrates,and amphibians:ASTM E729-96[S]. West Conshohocken,Pennsylvani:ASTM International, 2014.
[42]	OECD. No27:guidance document on the use of the harmonised system for the classification of chemicals which are hazardous for the aquatic environment[J]. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, 2002,1(5):1-115.
[43]	OECD. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals,standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes,macroinvertebrates,and amphibians:E729-96[S]. Paris:OECD, 2007.
[44]	国家环境保护局. 水质物质对蚤类(大型蚤)急性毒性测定方法:GB/T 13266—91[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1991.
[45]	国家环境保护局. 水质物质对淡水鱼(斑马鱼)急性毒性测定方法:GB/T 13267—91[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1991.
[46]	OECD. Guidance document for aquatic effect assessment[S]. Paris:OECD, 1995.