2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-020-08500-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aquatic ecological risk assessment frameworks in Canada: a case study using a single framework in South Baymouth, Ontario, Canada

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both provincial and federal guidelines were used in this study as the Boat Harbour remediation project is currently undergoing a federal environmental assessment (Eichinger and Walker 2020; Government of Canada 2020) but is also subject to provincial regulatory oversight (Province of Nova Scotia 2020). This study followed common risk assessment frameworks to assess contaminants in Boat Harbour Treatment Facility wetlands (Quanz et al 2020) using a tiered approach where abiotic media is sampled initially and compared to applicable provincial and federal guidelines. Typically, if samples exceed these guidelines, further sampling is recommended, including sampling biotic media such as animal tissue.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both provincial and federal guidelines were used in this study as the Boat Harbour remediation project is currently undergoing a federal environmental assessment (Eichinger and Walker 2020; Government of Canada 2020) but is also subject to provincial regulatory oversight (Province of Nova Scotia 2020). This study followed common risk assessment frameworks to assess contaminants in Boat Harbour Treatment Facility wetlands (Quanz et al 2020) using a tiered approach where abiotic media is sampled initially and compared to applicable provincial and federal guidelines. Typically, if samples exceed these guidelines, further sampling is recommended, including sampling biotic media such as animal tissue.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, FEQGs and CCME guidelines are used widely in monitoring of aquatic environments for ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites Zhang et al 2019;Quanz et al 2020), for determining presence or absence of aquatic contaminants when establishing baseline conditions against which future monitoring can be compared against (Chaudhary et al 2020), for determining compliance during environmental impact assessments (e.g., exceedance of CCME guidelines during project construction or operation could indicate non-compliance of some project activities, requiring mitigation) (Roach and Walker 2017), or for environmental effects monitoring (Walker 2014;Hoffman et al 2015;Romo et al 2019 fluoxetine by the EU using the most recent European risk assessment guideline (EMEA 2006;Oakes et al 2010). Naproxen was also subject to an ERA based on acute ecotoxicity data for western Europe (Straub and Stewart 2007).…”
Section: Water Quality Guidelines and Erasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Quanz et al (2020) [10], they conducted an ecological risk assessment (ERA) to determine the potential effect of human activities and industries within an aquatic ecosystem on sediments using the Canada-Ontario Decision-Making Framework for Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediments (COA) method. Historical data (1996 to 2005) from South Baymouth were examined to determine contaminants of potential concern, especially bioaccumulative metals from a comparison with sediment quality standards (SQG).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%