Letter to the Editor

Bleaney, Alison

doi:10.1080/00207233.2012.668087

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns raised about continuing use of the NOEC include the influence of experimental design (e.g., choice of concentrations, spacing of concentrations across the range) and technical issues (e.g., high control mortality) on the accuracy of NOEC calculations [20][21][22]. Peer-reviewed journals in medicine, psychology, and education disciplines have discouraged the use of hypothesis testing [23][24][25], and calls for a similar prohibition in ecotoxicology persist [18,26,27]. A major challenge is reaching consensus on which endpoint is the best, most viable replacement for the NOEC (e.g., EC10 or EC20) [28,29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and comparison of the relationship between NOEC and EC10 or EC20 values in chronic Daphnia toxicity testing

Beasley

Belanger

Brill

et al. 2015

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypothesis-based no-effect-concentration (NOEC) and regression-based x% effect concentration (ECx) values are common statistical approaches used to summarize ecotoxicological effects. Controversy over the NOEC model has prompted a movement toward discontinuation of the NOEC in favor of ECx, but the best x% effect surrogate for NOEC has not yet been determined. Historically, 10% and 20% effect concentrations (EC10 and EC20) have been treated as NOEC analogs. Given these measurements' importance to ecotoxicology, further understanding of the relationships between NOEC and EC10 or EC20 is crucial. In the present study, a metadataset of daphnid chronic toxicity tests was compiled to analyze the strength and significance of NOEC:EC10 and NOEC:EC20 relationships. The impact of endpoint (e.g., mortality, reproduction) and test condition parameters (e.g., pH, temperature) on NOEC:EC10 and NOEC:EC20 was evaluated. Mortality endpoints were most sensitive 51% of the time, with growth and reproductive endpoints constituting the remainder, underscoring the value of using multiple endpoints to evaluate toxic effects rather than relying on reproduction as the a priori most sensitive endpoint. When test condition parameters were less restricted (e.g., pH, hardness), the NOEC:EC20 association was more robust, suggesting that variability introduced by test implementation increased variability in ECx calculation. The analysis revealed that, overall, EC10 was a more suitable analog than EC20 for NOEC. Recommendations include refinement and reporting of the test parameters pH and hardness to minimize variability in ECx calculation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and comparison of the relationship between NOEC and EC10 or EC20 values in chronic Daphnia toxicity testing

Beasley

Belanger

Brill

et al. 2015

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Without a clear reason to change I see little change occurring, hence the call for a ban. Bleaney (2012) concurs that a ban may be the only reasonable impetus for change. I am for an orderly transition to such a ban, but eventually the use of inappropriate hypothesis testing has to stop.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%