2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2016.03.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Current limitations of biodegradation screening tests and prediction of biodegradability: A focus on fragrance substances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…RBTs do not reflect environmental conditions and are not realistic, as they cannot predict mineralization rates under environmentally relevant conditions (Federle, Gasior, & Nuck, 1997), and can only identify easily biodegradable chemicals in batch culture. Furthermore, extensive research has demonstrated that RBTs (including the OECD series) suffer from several problems that lead to a high variability in the testing results and to difficulties in their interpretation (Dick, Rey, Boschung, Miffon, & Seyfried, 2016;Howard & Banerjee, 1984;Kowalczyk et al, 2015;Thouand et al, 2011;van Ginkel et al, 2008). Some of these variabilities are understood and can be attributed to differences in specific factors, such as the temperature or the oxygen concentration (Greskowiak, Hamann, Burke, & Massmann, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…RBTs do not reflect environmental conditions and are not realistic, as they cannot predict mineralization rates under environmentally relevant conditions (Federle, Gasior, & Nuck, 1997), and can only identify easily biodegradable chemicals in batch culture. Furthermore, extensive research has demonstrated that RBTs (including the OECD series) suffer from several problems that lead to a high variability in the testing results and to difficulties in their interpretation (Dick, Rey, Boschung, Miffon, & Seyfried, 2016;Howard & Banerjee, 1984;Kowalczyk et al, 2015;Thouand et al, 2011;van Ginkel et al, 2008). Some of these variabilities are understood and can be attributed to differences in specific factors, such as the temperature or the oxygen concentration (Greskowiak, Hamann, Burke, & Massmann, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the major reported factors causing variability in the RBTs is the source of the inoculum (Dick et al, 2016;Martin et al, 2017;Mezzanotte, Bertani, Innocenti, & Tosin, 2005;Thouand, Capdeville, & Block, 1996;Thouand et al, 2011;V azquez-Rodr ıguez, Garab etian, & Rols, 2007). The quality of the inoculum is affected by i) the total cell density (Blok & Booy, 1984;Martin et al, 2017;Thouand et al, 1995;V azquez-Rodr ıguez et al, 2007), ii) the diversity of the community (Forney et al, 2001), iii) the ratio between nutrients and biomass (F/M ratio) (Vazquez-Rodriguez, Palluy, Goma, & Rols, 1999), and iv) the origin and exposure history (Itrich et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2017;Mezzanotte et al, 2005;Thouand et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Purified shell materials were tested for biodegradability using an adaptation of the OECD 301F guideline [21], as described previously [24].…”
Section: Biodegradation Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…inert materials as sand). However, inert matrixes request the use of inoculum [ 5 ] which might be the greater source of variability in respirometric assays [ 24 ].…”
Section: Additional Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%