...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental toxicology and chemistry >The Weight‐of‐Evidence Approach and the Need for Greater International Acceptance of Its Use in Tackling Questions of Chemical Harm to the Environment
【24h】

The Weight‐of‐Evidence Approach and the Need for Greater International Acceptance of Its Use in Tackling Questions of Chemical Harm to the Environment

机译：重量证据方法以及更加国际接受其在处理对环境的化学损害问题方面的使用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

As we attempt to manage chemicals in the environment we need to be sure that our research efforts are being directed at the substances of greatest threat. All too often we focus on a chemical of concern and then cast around for evidence of its effects in an unstructured way. Risk assessment based on laboratory ecotoxicity studies, combined with field chemical measurements, can only take us so far. Uncertainty about the range and sufficiency of evidence required to take restorative action often puts policymakers in a difficult situation. We review this conundrum and reflect on how the "Hill criteria," used widely by epidemiologists, have been applied to a weight-of-evidence approach (a term sometimes used interchangeably with ecoepidemiology) to build a case for causation. While using a set of such criteria to address sites of local environmental distress has been embraced by the US Environmental Protection Agency, we urge a wider adoption of weight-of-evidence approaches by policymakers, regulators, and scientists worldwide. A simplified series of criteria is offered. Progress will require a sustained commitment to long-term wildlife and chemical monitoring over a sufficient geographic spread. Development of a comprehensive monitoring network, coupled with assembling evidence of harm in a structured manner, should be the foundation for protecting our ecosystems and human health. This will enable us to not only judge the success or failure of our efforts but also diagnose underlying causes. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;00:1-10. (c) 2021 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.
机译：正如我们试图管理环境中的化学品，我们需要确保我们的研究工作正在指导最大威胁的物质。我们经常专注于关注的化学物质，然后以非结构化方式施放其效果的证据。基于实验室生态毒性研究的风险评估，与现场化学测量相结合，只能带我们到目前为止。关于采取恢复措施所需的证据范围和充分性的不确定性经常将政策制定者置于困境中。我们审查了这一难题，并反思了流行病学家广泛使用的“山丘标准”如何应用于权力证据方法（有时与生态病理学互换使用的术语）来构建因果关系。在美国环境保护署使用一系列此类标准，以满足当地环境困境的地点，我们敦促通过全球政策制定者，监管机构和科学家们更广泛地采用证据权重方法。提供了一种简化的一系列标准。进展将需要对长期野生动物和化学监测的持续致力于足够的地理蔓延。开发全面的监控网络，加上组装危害的危害的迹象，应该是保护我们生态系统和人类健康的基础。这将使我们不仅可以判断我们努力的成功或失败，还可以判断潜在的原因。环境毒素化学2021; 00：1-10。 （c）2021作者。 Wiley期刊LLC代表Setac出版的环境毒理学和化学。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号