↓ Skip to main content

Recommended approaches to the scientific evaluation of ecotoxicological hazards and risks of endocrine‐active substances

Overview of attention for article published in Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recommended approaches to the scientific evaluation of ecotoxicological hazards and risks of endocrine‐active substances
Published in
Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/ieam.1885
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Matthiessen, Gerald T Ankley, Ronald C Biever, Poul Bjerregaard, Christopher Borgert, Kristin Brugger, Amy Blankinship, Janice Chambers, Katherine K Coady, Lisa Constantine, Zhichao Dang, Nancy D Denslow, David A Dreier, Steve Dungey, L Earl Gray, Melanie Gross, Patrick D Guiney, Markus Hecker, Henrik Holbech, Taisen Iguchi, Sarah Kadlec, Natalie K Karouna‐Renier, Ioanna Katsiadaki, Yukio Kawashima, Werner Kloas, Henry Krueger, Anu Kumar, Laurent Lagadic, Annegaaike Leopold, Steven L Levine, Gerd Maack, Sue Marty, James Meador, Ellen Mihaich, Jenny Odum, Lisa Ortego, Joanne Parrott, Daniel Pickford, Mike Roberts, Christoph Schaefers, Tamar Schwarz, Keith Solomon, Tim Verslycke, Lennart Weltje, James R Wheeler, Mike Williams, Jeffrey C Wolf, Kunihiko Yamazaki

Abstract

A SETAC Pellston Workshop(®) "Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment Approaches for Endocrine-Active Substances (EHRA)" was held in February 2016 in Pensacola, Florida, USA. The primary objective of the workshop was to provide advice, based on current scientific understanding, to regulators and policy makers; the aim being to make considered, informed decisions on whether to select an ecotoxicological hazard- or a risk-based approach for regulating a given endocrine-disrupting substance (EDS) under review. The workshop additionally considered recent developments in the identification of EDS. Case studies were undertaken on 6 endocrine-active substances (EAS-not necessarily proven EDS, but substances known to interact directly with the endocrine system) that are representative of a range of perturbations of the endocrine system and considered to be data rich in relevant information at multiple biological levels of organization for 1 or more ecologically relevant taxa. The substances selected were 17α-ethinylestradiol, perchlorate, propiconazole, 17β-trenbolone, tributyltin, and vinclozolin. The 6 case studies were not comprehensive safety evaluations but provided foundations for clarifying key issues and procedures that should be considered when assessing the ecotoxicological hazards and risks of EAS and EDS. The workshop also highlighted areas of scientific uncertainty, and made specific recommendations for research and methods-development to resolve some of the identified issues. The present paper provides broad guidance for scientists in regulatory authorities, industry, and academia on issues likely to arise during the ecotoxicological hazard and risk assessment of EAS and EDS. The primary conclusion of this paper, and of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on which it is based, is that if data on environmental exposure, effects on sensitive species and life-stages, delayed effects, and effects at low concentrations are robust, initiating environmental risk assessment of EDS is scientifically sound and sufficiently reliable and protective of the environment. In the absence of such data, assessment on the basis of hazard is scientifically justified until such time as relevant new information is available. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;9999:1-13. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Researcher 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Professor 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 33 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 13 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 42 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,116,833
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management
#614
of 976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,893
of 423,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.