高级搜索

水环境样品体外生物测试效应触发值的研究进展

,  ,  , 

downloadPDF

上一篇

下一篇

张硕, 韩颖楠, 李娜, 马梅. 水环境样品体外生物测试效应触发值的研究进展[J]. 生态毒理学报, 2024, 19(1): 17-30. doi: 10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20231007001
引用本文: 张硕, 韩颖楠, 李娜, 马梅. 水环境样品体外生物测试效应触发值的研究进展[J]. 生态毒理学报, 2024, 19(1): 17-30. doi: 10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20231007001
shu
Zhang Shuo, Han Yingnan, Li Na, Ma Mei. Research Progress on Effect-Based Trigger Values for in vitro Bioassays of Environmental Water Samples[J]. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2024, 19(1): 17-30. doi: 10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20231007001
Citation: Zhang Shuo, Han Yingnan, Li Na, Ma Mei. Research Progress on Effect-Based Trigger Values for in vitro Bioassays of Environmental Water Samples[J]. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2024, 19(1): 17-30. doi: 10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20231007001
shu

水环境样品体外生物测试效应触发值的研究进展

  • 1. 中国科学院生态环境研究中心中国科学院饮用水科学与技术重点实验室, 北京 100085;

  • 2. 中国科学院生态环境研究中心环境水质学国家重点实验室, 北京 100085;

  • 3. 中国科学院大学, 北京 100049

    • 作者简介: 张硕(1997-),男,博士研究生,研究方向为水生态毒理学,E-mail:shozhang_st@rcees.ac.cn
    通讯作者: 马梅,E-mail: mamei@rcees.ac.cn
  • 基金项目:

    国家自然科学基金重点项目(52030003)；国家自然科学基金青年基金(42007227)；国家自然科学基金面上项目(41977208)

  • 中图分类号: X171.5

Research Progress on Effect-Based Trigger Values for in vitro Bioassays of Environmental Water Samples

  • 1. Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Science and Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China;

  • 2. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China;

  • 3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

    • Corresponding author: Ma Mei, mamei@rcees.ac.cn
  • Fund Project:

  • 摘要: 水环境样品综合毒性的体外生物测试可以直接获得水环境中众多污染物共存状态下的生物毒害信息，已成为水环境污染评估和诊断的重要手段之一。但由于目前没有用于判定水质优劣的毒性效应限值标准，导致其很难被用于水质管理。为此，越来越多的研究聚焦于推导体外生物测试的效应触发值(effect-based trigger value, EBT)。本文综述了EBT建立的背景和推导原则，并总结了以健康保护为目标和以生态保护为目标的多种EBT推导方法，其中针对饮用水水质的EBT以保护人体健康为前提，主要基于每日容许摄入量(allowable daily intake, ADI)、体内安全浓度、癌症发病率增加10%的每日剂量(TD10)和环境质量标准(environmental quality standard, EQS)中的水质指导值(guideline value, GV)推导，针对地表水的EBT以生态保护为目标，依据地表水EQS中的GV值和物种敏感度分布(SSD)曲线中的第5个百分位数的危险浓度(hazardous concentration, HC5)推导。本文系统比较了不同方法推导出的体外生物测试EBT值和特征，总结了EBT在水环境中的应用，以期为高通量体外生物测试用于水质评估提供理论依据和技术支撑。
    Abstract: In vitro bioassays can directly obtain the toxicity information of numerous coexisting pollutants in water environment, and has become one of the important means for toxic effect evaluations and diagnosis. However, due to the lack of toxicity effect limit standards for determining the water quality, it is difficult to use bioassays for water quality management. Therefore, more and more research is focusing on deriving the effect-based trigger values (EBTs) of in vitro bioassays. This paper reviews the establishment background and derivation principles of EBTs, and summarizes a variety of derivation methods of EBTs. At present, the methods of derivation of EBTs are divided into two categories according to the protection objectives, one is the health protection objective and the other is the ecological protection objective. EBTs for drinking water are based on the premise of protecting human health and are based on allowable daily intake (ADI), in vivo safe concentration, daily dose of 10% increase in cancer incidence (TD10) and guideline values (GV) in environmental quality standard (EQS). While, EBTs for surface water, aiming at ecological protection, were derived based on GVs values in the EQS and hazardous concentrations at the 5th percentile (HC5) of the species sensitivity distribution (SSD). Derivation of EBTs from GV and HC5 are two widely used frameworks. The former is dedicated to reading EBT values from GV of EQS and trying to establish derivation methods that can be widely applied to various toxicity endpoints. The latter is to obtain HC5 values of positive compounds from the species sensitivity curve. At the same time, combined with the background parameters of the water body to be measured, the EBT value of the protection ecosystem was derived. This paper compares the EBT values and characteristics derived from different methods for in vitro bioassays and summarizes the application of EBTs in water environments in order to provide theoretical basis and technical support for high-throughput in vitro bioassays for water quality assessment.
  • 加载中
  • Schwarzenbach R P, Escher B I, Fenner K, et al. The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems[J]. Science, 2006, 313(5790): 1072-1077
    Ghisari M, Bonefeld-Jorgensen E C. Effects of plasticizers and their mixtures on estrogen receptor and thyroid hormone functions[J]. Toxicology Letters, 2009, 189(1): 67-77
    Parveen M, Inoue A, Ise R, et al. Evaluation of estrogenic activity of phthalate esters by gene expression profiling using a focused microarray (EstrArray©)[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2008, 27(6): 1416-1425
    Zhang Q, Lu M Y, Wang C, et al. Characterization of estrogen receptor α activities in polychlorinated biphenyls by in vitro dual-luciferase reporter gene assay[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2014, 189: 169-175
    Ahmed S, Valen E, Sandelin A, et al. Dioxin increases the interaction between aryl hydrocarbon receptor and estrogen receptor alpha at human promoters[J]. Toxicological Sciences, 2009, 111(2): 254-266
    Hercog K, Maisanaba S, Filipič M, et al. Genotoxic potential of the binary mixture of cyanotoxins microcystin-LR and cylindrospermopsin[J]. Chemosphere, 2017, 189: 319-329
    Schriks M, Heringa M B, van der Kooi M M, et al. Toxicological relevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality[J]. Water Research, 2010, 44(2): 461-476
    Carvalho R N, Arukwe A, Ait-Aissa S, et al. Mixtures of chemical pollutants at European legislation safety concentrations: How safe are they?[J]. Toxicological Sciences: An Official Journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2014, 141(1): 218-233
    Brack W, Ait-Aissa S, Burgess R M, et al. Effect-directed analysis supporting monitoring of aquatic environments: An in-depth overview[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 544: 1073-1118
    Silva E, Rajapakse N, Kortenkamp A. Something from “nothing”: Eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2002, 36(8): 1751-1756
    Brack W, Escher B I, Müller E, et al. Towards a holistic and solution-oriented monitoring of chemical status of European water bodies: How to support the EU strategy for a non-toxic environment?[J]. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2018, 30(1): 33
    Altenburger R, Walter H, Grote M. What contributes to the combined effect of a complex mixture?[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2004, 38(23): 6353-6362
    Altenburger R, Ait-Aissa S, Antczak P, et al. Future water quality monitoring: Adapting tools to deal with mixtures of pollutants in water resource management[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2015, 512-513: 540-551
    Altenburger R, Scholz S, Schmitt-Jansen M, et al. Mixture toxicity revisited from a toxicogenomic perspective[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(5): 2508-2522
    Brack W, Aissa S A, Backhaus T, et al. Effect-based methods are key. The European Collaborative Project SOLUTIONS recommends integrating effect-based methods for diagnosis and monitoring of water quality[J]. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2019, 31: 10
    Schiffelers M J, Blaauboer B J, Hendriksen C F, et al. Regulatory acceptance and use of 3R models: A multilevel perspective[J]. ALTEX, 2012, 29(3): 287-300
    Busch W, Schmidt S, Kühne R, et al. Micropollutants in European Rivers: A mode of action survey to support the development of effect-based tools for water monitoring[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2016, 35(8): 1887-1899
    Hebert A, Feliers C, Lecarpentier C, et al. Bioanalytical assessment of adaptive stress responses in drinking water: A predictive tool to differentiate between micropollutants and disinfection by-products[J]. Water Research, 2018, 132: 340-349
    Escher B I, Allinson M, Altenburger R, et al. Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water and drinking water with in vitro bioassays[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2014, 48(3): 1940-1956
    Escher B, Leusch F, Chapman H, et al. Introduction to Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment[M]. London: Iwa Publishing, 2012: 1-22
    Escher B I, van Daele C, Dutt M, et al. Most oxidative stress response in water samples comes from unknown chemicals: The need for effect-based water quality trigger values[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(13): 7002-7011
    Robitaille J, Denslow N D, Escher B I, et al. Towards regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in water resources using bioassays: A guide to developing a testing strategy[J]. Environmental Research, 2022, 205: 112483
    Escher B I, Neale P A, Leusch F D L. Effect-based trigger values for in vitro bioassays: Reading across from existing water quality guideline values[J]. Water Research, 2015, 81: 137-148
    Escher B I, Aït-Aïssa S, Behnisch P A, et al. Effect-based trigger values for in vitro and in vivo bioassays performed on surface water extracts supporting the environmental quality standards (EQS) of the European Water Framework Directive[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 628-629: 748-765
    Escher B I, Lamoree M, Antignac J P, et al. Mixture risk assessment of complex real-life mixtures-the PANORAMIX project[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19(20): 12990
    Brack W, Dulio V, Ågerstrand M, et al. Towards the review of the European Union Water Framework Directive: Recommendations for more efficient assessment and management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 576: 720-737
    van der Oost R, Sileno G, Suárez-Muñoz M, et al. SIMONI (smart integrated monitoring) as a novel bioanalytical strategy for water quality assessment: Part Ⅰ-model design and effect-based trigger values[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2017, 36(9): 2385-2399
    Ma X Y, Wang Y K, Dong K, et al. The treatability of trace organic pollutants in WWTP effluent and associated biotoxicity reduction by advanced treatment processes for effluent quality improvement[J]. Water Research, 2019, 159: 423-433
    Jia A, Escher B I, Leusch F D, et al. In vitro bioassays to evaluate complex chemical mixtures in recycled water[J]. Water Research, 2015, 80: 1-11
    Neale P A, Altenburger R, Aït-Aïssa S, et al. Development of a bioanalytical test battery for water quality monitoring: Fingerprinting identified micropollutants and their contribution to effects in surface water[J]. Water Research, 2017, 123: 734-750
    Besselink H, Brouwer B, van der Burg B. Validation and regulatory acceptance of bio-based approaches to assure feedstock, water & product quality in a bio-based economy[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2017, 106: 138-145
    Brion F, De Gussem V, Buchinger S, et al. Monitoring estrogenic activities of waste and surface waters using a novel in vivo zebrafish embryonic (EASZY) assay: Comparison with in vitro cell-based assays and determination of effect-based trigger values[J]. Environment International, 2019, 130: 104896
    König M, Escher B I, Neale P A, et al. Impact of untreated wastewater on a major European River evaluated with a combination of in vitro bioassays and chemical analysis[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2017, 220(Pt B): 1220-1230
    Muschket M, di Paolo C, Tindall A J, et al. Identification of unknown antiandrogenic compounds in surface waters by effect-directed analysis (EDA) using a parallel fractionation approach[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018, 52(1): 288-297
    Hashmi M A K, Escher B I, Krauss M, et al. Effect-directed analysis (EDA) of Danube River water sample receiving untreated municipal wastewater from Novi Sad, Serbia[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 624: 1072-1081
    Kunz P Y, Kienle C, Carere M, et al. In vitro bioassays to screen for endocrine active pharmaceuticals in surface and waste waters[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 2015, 106: 107-115
    Neale P A, Munz N A, Aït-Aïssa S, et al. Integrating chemical analysis and bioanalysis to evaluate the contribution of wastewater effluent on the micropollutant burden in small streams[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 576: 785-795
    Cunningham V L, Binks S P, Olson M J. Human health risk assessment from the presence of human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment[J]. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2009, 53(1): 39-45
    Houtman C J, Kroesbergen J, Lekkerkerker-Teunissen K, et al. Human health risk assessment of the mixture of pharmaceuticals in Dutch drinking water and its sources based on frequent monitoring data[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2014, 496: 54-62
    Baken K A, Sjerps R M A, Schriks M, et al. Toxicological risk assessment and prioritization of drinking water relevant contaminants of emerging concern[J]. Environment International, 2018, 118: 293-303
    Been F, Pronk T, Louisse J, et al. Development of a framework to derive effect-based trigger values to interpret CALUX data for drinking water quality[J]. Water Research, 2021, 193: 116859
    Brand W, de Jongh C M, van der Linden S C, et al. Trigger values for investigation of hormonal activity in drinking water and its sources using CALUX bioassays[J]. Environment International, 2013, 55: 109-118
    World Health Organization. Water quality: Guidelines, standards, and health: Assessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious disease[R]. London: IWA Publishing, 2001
    Jarošová B, Javůrek J, Adamovský O, et al. Phytoestrogens and mycoestrogens in surface waters: Their sources, occurrence, and potential contribution to estrogenic activity[J]. Environment International, 2015, 81: 26-44
    Matsuoka S, Kikuchi M, Kimura S, et al. Determination of estrogenic substances in the water of Muko River using in vitro assays, and the degradation of natural estrogens by aquatic bacteria[J]. Journal of Health Science, 2005, 51(2): 178-184
    Leusch F D, Neale P A, Hebert A, et al. Analysis of the sensitivity of in vitro bioassays for androgenic, progestagenic, glucocorticoid, thyroid and estrogenic activity: Suitability for drinking and environmental waters[J]. Environment International, 2017, 99: 120-130
    Jarošová B, Bláha L, Giesy J P, et al. What level of estrogenic activity determined by in vitro assays in municipal waste waters can be considered as safe?[J]. Environment International, 2014, 64: 98-109
    Dingemans M M, Baken K A, van der Oost R, et al. Risk-based approach in the revised European Union drinking water legislation: Opportunities for bioanalytical tools[J]. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2019, 15(1): 126-134
    Kase R, Javurkova B, Simon E, et al. Screening and risk management solutions for steroidal estrogens in surface and wastewater[J]. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2018, 102: 343-358
    Neale P A, Braun G, Brack W, et al. Assessing the mixture effects in in vitro bioassays of chemicals occurring in small agricultural streams during rain events[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2020, 54(13): 8280-8290
    Neale P A, Leusch F D L. Assessing the role of different dissolved organic carbon and bromide concentrations for disinfection by-product formation using chemical analysis and bioanalysis[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26(17): 17100-17109
    Escher B I, Neale P A. Effect-based trigger values for mixtures of chemicals in surface water detected with in vitro bioassays[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2021, 40(2): 487-499
    Zwart D, Sterkenburg A. Toxicity-based assessment of water quality[J]. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, 2002, 1: 383-402
    Raimondo S, Montague B J, Barron M G. Determinants of variability in acute to chronic toxicity ratios for aquatic invertebrates and fish[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2007, 26(9): 2019-2023
    Li H Z, Cheng F, Wei Y L, et al. Global occurrence of pyrethroid insecticides in sediment and the associated toxicological effects on benthic invertebrates: An overview[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2017, 324(Pt B): 258-271
    Zeng S Y, Huang Y Q, Sun F, et al. Probabilistic ecological risk assessment of effluent toxicity of a wastewater reclamation plant based on process modeling[J]. Water Research, 2016, 100: 367-376
    Xu J Y, Zhao C T, Wei D B, et al. A toxicity-based method for evaluating safety of reclaimed water for environmental reuses[J]. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2014, 26(10): 1961-1969
    Bittner M, Saul N, Steinberg C E W. Antiandrogenic activity of humic substances[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2012, 432: 93-96
    Saebelfeld M, Minguez L, Griebel J, et al. Humic dissolved organic carbon drives oxidative stress and severe fitness impairments in Daphnia[J]. Aquatic Toxicology, 2017, 182: 31-38
    Dehkordi S K, Paknejad H, Blaha L, et al. Instrumental and bioanalytical assessment of pharmaceuticals and hormone-like compounds in a major drinking water source: Wastewater receiving Zayandeh Rood River, Iran[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29(6): 9023-9037
    Leusch F D L, Neale P A, Arnal C, et al. Analysis of endocrine activity in drinking water, surface water and treated wastewater from six countries[J]. Water Research, 2018, 139: 10-18
    Alygizakis N A, Besselink H, Paulus G K, et al. Characterization of wastewater effluents in the Danube River Basin with chemical screening, in vitro bioassays and antibiotic resistant genes analysis[J]. Environment International, 2019, 127: 420-429
    Tousova Z, Oswald P, Slobodnik J, et al. European demonstration program on the effect-based and chemical identification and monitoring of organic pollutants in European surface waters[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 601-602: 1849-1868
    Ekman Drew R, Ankley Gerald T, Blazer Vicki S, et al. Environmental reviews and case studies: Biological effects–based tools for monitoring impacted surface waters in the great lakes: A multiagency program in support of the great lakes restoration initiative[J]. Environmental Practice, 2013, 15(4): 409-426
    Müller M E, Werneburg M, Glaser C, et al. Influence of emission sources and tributaries on the spatial and temporal patterns of micropollutant mixtures and associated effects in a small river[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2020, 39(7): 1382-1391
    Houtman C J, Brewster K, Ten Broek R, et al. Characterisation of (anti-) progestogenic and (anti-) androgenic activities in surface and wastewater using high resolution effectdirected analysis[J]. Environment International, 2021, 153: 106536
    Johann S, Esser M, Nüßer L, et al. Receptor-mediated estrogenicity of native and chemically dispersed crude oil determined using adapted microscale reporter gene assays[J]. Environment International, 2020, 134: 105320
    He X W, Qi Z D, Gao J, et al. Nonylphenol ethoxylates biodegradation increases estrogenicity of textile wastewater in biological treatment systems[J]. Water Research, 2020, 184: 116137
    Simon E, Riegraf C, Schifferli A, et al. Evaluation of three ISO estrogen receptor transactivation assays applied to 52 domestic effluent samples[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2022, 41(10): 2512-2526
    Neale P A, Feliers C, Glauch L, et al. Application of in vitro bioassays for water quality monitoring in three drinking water treatment plants using different treatment processes including biological treatment, nanofiltration and ozonation coupled with disinfection[J]. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 2020, 6(9): 2444-2453
    Escher B I, Dutt M, Maylin E, et al. Water quality assessment using the AREc32 reporter gene assay indicative of the oxidative stress response pathway[J]. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 2012, 14(11): 2877-2885
    Phan L T, Schaar H, Reif D, et al. Long-term toxicological monitoring of a multibarrier advanced wastewater treatment plant comprising ozonation and granular activated carbon with in vitro bioassays[J]. Water, 2021, 13(22): 3245
    Völker J, Stapf M, Miehe U, et al. Systematic review of toxicity removal by advanced wastewater treatment technologies via ozonation and activated carbon[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 53(13): 7215-7233
    Escher B I, Glauch L, König M, et al. Baseline toxicity and volatility cutoff in reporter gene assays used for high-throughput screening[J]. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2019, 32(8): 1646-1655
    Escher B I, Henneberger L, König M, et al. Cytotoxicity burst? Differentiating specific from nonspecific effects in Tox21in vitro reporter gene assays[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2020, 128(7): 77007
    Wang Y K, Wang X C, Ma X Y. Micropollutants and biological effects as control indexes for the operation and design of shallow open-water unit ponds to Polish domestic effluent[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021, 418: 126306
    van Ede K I, van Duursen M B M, van den Berg M. Evaluation of relative effect potencies (REPs) for dioxin-like compounds to derive systemic or human-specific TEFs to improve human risk assessment[J]. Archives of Toxicology, 2016, 90(6): 1293-1305
    Serra H, Brion F, Chardon C, et al. Estrogenic activity of surface waters using zebrafish- and human-based in vitro assays: The Danube as a case-study[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2020, 78: 103401
    Daniels K D, VanDervort D, Wu S M, et al. Downstream trends of in vitro bioassay responses in a wastewater effluent-dominated river[J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 212: 182-192
    Conley J M, Evans N, Cardon M C, et al. Occurrence and in vitro bioactivity of estrogen, androgen, and glucocorticoid compounds in a nationwide screen of United States stream waters[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51(9): 4781-4791
    Harrill J, Shah I, Setzer R W, et al. Considerations for strategic use of high-throughput transcriptomics chemical screening data in regulatory decisions[J]. Current Opinion in Toxicology, 2019, 15: 64-75
    Bourdon-Lacombe J A, Moffat I D, Deveau M, et al. Technical guide for applications of gene expression profiling in human health risk assessment of environmental chemicals[J]. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2015, 72(2): 292-309
    Krewski D, Acosta D Jr, Andersen M, et al. Toxicity testing in the 21st Century: A vision and a strategy[J]. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B, Critical Reviews, 2010, 13(2-4): 51-138
    Schuijt L M, Peng F J, van den Berg S J P, et al. (Eco)toxicological tests for assessing impacts of chemical stress to aquatic ecosystems: Facts, challenges, and future[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 795: 148776
  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • 文章访问数:  264
  • HTML全文浏览数:  264
  • PDF下载数:  137
  • 施引文献:  0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2023-10-07

水环境样品体外生物测试效应触发值的研究进展

    通讯作者: 马梅,E-mail: mamei@rcees.ac.cn
    作者简介: 张硕(1997-),男,博士研究生,研究方向为水生态毒理学,E-mail:shozhang_st@rcees.ac.cn
  • 1. 中国科学院生态环境研究中心中国科学院饮用水科学与技术重点实验室, 北京 100085;
  • 2. 中国科学院生态环境研究中心环境水质学国家重点实验室, 北京 100085;
  • 3. 中国科学院大学, 北京 100049
  • 收稿日期:  2023-10-07
基金项目:

国家自然科学基金重点项目(52030003)；国家自然科学基金青年基金(42007227)；国家自然科学基金面上项目(41977208)

摘要: 水环境样品综合毒性的体外生物测试可以直接获得水环境中众多污染物共存状态下的生物毒害信息，已成为水环境污染评估和诊断的重要手段之一。但由于目前没有用于判定水质优劣的毒性效应限值标准，导致其很难被用于水质管理。为此，越来越多的研究聚焦于推导体外生物测试的效应触发值(effect-based trigger value, EBT)。本文综述了EBT建立的背景和推导原则，并总结了以健康保护为目标和以生态保护为目标的多种EBT推导方法，其中针对饮用水水质的EBT以保护人体健康为前提，主要基于每日容许摄入量(allowable daily intake, ADI)、体内安全浓度、癌症发病率增加10%的每日剂量(TD10)和环境质量标准(environmental quality standard, EQS)中的水质指导值(guideline value, GV)推导，针对地表水的EBT以生态保护为目标，依据地表水EQS中的GV值和物种敏感度分布(SSD)曲线中的第5个百分位数的危险浓度(hazardous concentration, HC5)推导。本文系统比较了不同方法推导出的体外生物测试EBT值和特征，总结了EBT在水环境中的应用，以期为高通量体外生物测试用于水质评估提供理论依据和技术支撑。

English Abstract

    全文HTML

参考文献 (84)

目录

/

返回文章
返回

Copyright © 2019 中国科学院生态环境研究中心

京ICP备05002858号-9