Search for: All records

ABSTRACT In 2012, a regional risk assessment was published that applied Bayesian networks (BN) to the structure of the relative risk model. The original structure of the relative risk model (RRM) was published in the late 1990s and developed during the next decade. The RRM coupled with a Monte Carlo analysis was applied to calculating risk to a number of sites and a variety of questions. The sites included watersheds, terrestrial systems, and marine environments and included stressors such as nonindigenous species, effluents, pesticides, nutrients, and management options. However, it became apparent that there were limits to the original approach. In 2009, the relative risk model was transitioned into the structure of a BN. Bayesian networks had several clear advantages. First, BNs innately incorporated categories and, as in the case of the relative risk model, ranks to describe systems. Second, interactions between multiple stressors can be combined using several pathways and the conditional probability tables (CPT) to calculate outcomes. Entropy analysis was the method used to document model sensitivity. As with the RRM, the method has now been applied to a wide series of sites and questions, from forestry management, to invasive species, to disease, the interaction of ecological and human health endpoints, the flows of large rivers, and now the efficacy and risks of synthetic biology. The application of both methods have pointed to the incompleteness of the fields of environmental chemistry, toxicology, and risk assessment. The low frequency of exposure‐response experiments and proper analysis have limited the available outputs for building appropriate CPTs. Interactions between multiple chemicals, landscape characteristics, population dynamics and community structure have been poorly characterized even for critical environments. A better strategy might have been to first look at the requirements of modern risk assessment approaches and then set research priorities.Integr Environ Assess Manag2021;17:79–94. © 2020 SETAC 

Reports of plastics, at higher levels than previously thought, in the water that we drink and the air that we breathe, are generating considerable interest and concern. Plastics have been recorded in almost every environment in the world with estimates on the order of trillions of microplastic pieces. Yet, this may very well be an underestimate of plastic pollution as a whole. Once microplastics (<5 mm) break down in the environment, they nominally enter the nanoscale (<1,000 nm), where they cannot be seen by the naked eye or even with the use of a typical laboratory microscope. Thus far, research has focused on plastics in the macro- (>25 mm) and micro-size ranges, which are easier to detect and identify, leaving large knowledge gaps in our understanding of nanoplastic debris. Our ability to ask and answer questions relating to the transport, fate, and potential toxicity of these particles is disadvantaged by the detection and identification limits of current technology. Furthermore, laboratory exposures have been substantially constrained to the study of commercially available nanoplastics; i.e., polystyrene spheres, which do not adequately reflect the composition of environmental plastic debris. While a great deal of plastic-focused research has been published in recent years, the pattern of the work does not answer a number of key factors vital to calculating risk that takes into account the smallest plastic particles; namely, sources, fate and transport, exposure measures, toxicity and effects. These data are critical to inform regulatory decision making and to implement adaptive management strategies that mitigate risk to human health and the environment. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-science on nanoplastic research, highlighting areas where data are needed to establish robust risk assessments that take into account plastics pollution. Where nanoplastic-specific data are not available, suggested substitutions are indicated.