You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    STP1216

    Experimental Versus Empirical Approaches to Setting Water Quality Objectives

    Published: 0


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (200K) 13 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (12M) 724 $76   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
    X
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    Abstract

    There are deep-seated cultural differences between the ways that fisheries scientists and wildlife scientists undertake research on toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes. Generally, fisheries scientists are skeptical about evidence that organochlorine compounds have caused actual effects on Great Lakes fisheries resources and make statements, to protect these resources, about potential effects based on laboratory, experimentally-derived objectives and concentrations in the ambient environment. Wildlife scientists start with the field observation of effects, such as congenital abnormalities or embryo mortality, and use epidemiological criteria and forensic techniques to make statements about actual effects and the substance(s) that are causing them. Objectives based on dose-response relationships derived from laboratory experimental studies and from field-based correlations should coincide. Where they seriously conflict, as in the derivation of objectives for many organochlorine compounds, the more stringent field-based objectives should prevail, to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem.

    Keywords:

    persistent toxic substances, water quality objectives, indicators, forensic, injury, restoration


    Author Information:

    Gilbertson, M
    Secretary, Great Lakes Water Quality Board, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario


    Committee/Subcommittee: E47.10

    DOI: 10.1520/STP13170S