GIS-ROUT: A River Model for Watershed Planning

Wang, Xinhao; White-Hull, Charlotte; Dyer, Scott D.; Yang, Ying

doi:10.1068/b2624

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Toxicant concentrations were either measured [21] (total metal concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, and total ammonia), or modeled by river routing. The GIS‐ROUT model [22] and the dilution factors of wastewater treatment plants were used to estimate river water concentrations of cumulative effluent and the concentrations of household product constituents (triclosan, linear alkylbenzenesulfonate, alcohol ethox‐ylates, alcohol ethoxylate sulfates and boron). After toxic risk quantification (msPAF) for the two subgroups (see Quantification of predicted risk of toxicant mixtures ( msPAF ) section), the data set contained 18 abiotic variables.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicted effects of toxicant mixtures are confirmed by changes in fish species assemblages in Ohio, USA, rivers

Posthuma

Zwart

2006

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this study were to investigate whether exposure to toxicant mixtures is associated with fish assemblage characteristics in the field and to describe the relationships between predicted chronic and acute mixture risks and observed impacts. Fish abundance and abiotic monitoring data from Ohio, USA, surface waters were compiled and analyzed. Variability of biotic and abiotic parameters was large. Exposure assessment, risk assessment with species‐sensitivity distributions, and mixture toxicity rules were used to calculate a relative risk predictor: The multisubstance potentially affected fraction of species (msPAF). Predicted acute and chronic risks ranged from low values to more than 10 and 50% of species potentially affected, respectively. Pearson correlations between predicted risk and observed assemblage characteristics were nonsignificant for total abundance, number of species, Shannon‐Weaver index, and evenness. Moderately significant correlations were found between predicted risk and abundance for 23% of individual species. Both abundance increases and decreases were observed. Generalized linear model (GLM) regressions revealed significant nonlinear associations between predicted risk and the abundance for 50% (metals and ammonia) and 55% (household product ingredients) of the species. Local ecological impact was expressed as the fraction of species expected but not observed, both with and without attribution of impact to mixture exposure. The association between predicted impacted fraction and the fraction of species expected but not observed was not significant. Predicted acute and chronic impacted fractions were associated significantly with the observed fraction of species likely lost by the action of toxicant mixtures under field conditions, with wide confidence bounds. These findings confirm the view that higher mixture impacts are expected in the field at higher msPAF.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicted effects of toxicant mixtures are confirmed by changes in fish species assemblages in Ohio, USA, rivers

Posthuma

Zwart

2006

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A real need exists to develop these state indicators as the necessary linkage to pressure indicators in order to appropriately prioritize issues and manage systems. The application of geographical information systems (GIS) is especially intriguing for developing state indicators; data on hydrology, habitat, water chemistry, land use, biological measures, and so on can be com-bined to understand the health of aquatic systems Wang et al 2000). This returns to our original suggestion of using non-LCA complementary sources of information for an overall assessment, where initial scoping results from an LCA study are used to identify issues for further assessment (Owens 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Resources in Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment: Considerations in Choosing Category Indicators

Owens

2001

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Water is one of many resources, wastes, and pollutants considered in life‐cycle assessment (LCA). The widely used indicator for water resources, the total input of water used, is not adequate to assess water resources from a sustainability perspective. More detailed indicators are proposed for water resources in two areas essential to water sustainability: water quantity and water quality. The governing principles for a consideration of water quantity are that (1) the water sources or LCA inputs are renewable and sustainable and (2) the volume of water released or LCA outputs are returned to humans or ecosystems for further use downstream. The governing principle for a consideration of water quality is that the utility of the returned water is not impaired for either humans or ecosystems downstream. Water quantity indicators are defined for water use, consumption, and depletion to reveal the sustainable or nonsustainable nature of the sources. A flexible set of water quality indicators for various factors that may impair water quality are then discussed, including the LCA study choices, technical challenges, and trade‐offs involved with such indicators. Indicator selection from this set involves the underlying concern or endpoint represented by the indicator and the level and accuracy of decision‐making information that the indicator must provide. With significant differences in emissions among systems studied using LCA and different purposes of the LCA studies themselves, a single, default set of water quality indicators applicable to all systems studied with LCA is problematic. The proposed water quantity and quality indicators for LCA studies are also intended to be compatible with environmental management and reporting systems so that data needs are not duplicated and interpretation for one does not contradict or sow confusion for the other.

show abstract

“…For instance, a mailing address may correspond to a city center, which may not be directly connected to the receiving river. This issue has been found in similar modeling efforts, such as the precursor to iSTREEM, GIS-ROUT, in North America (Wang et al 2000). After we had identified all WWTPs to be used in the study, the dilution factor for each river segment located within 5 km of the plant was calculated using Equation 1.…”

Section: Dilution At Municipal Wwtp Discharge Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting risks from down‐the‐drain chemicals in a developing country: Mexico and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate as a case study

Quinn

Dyer

Fan

et al. 2018

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is recognized that the amount of natural dilution available can make a significant difference in the exposure and risk assessment of chemicals that emanate from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). However, data availability is a common limiting factor in exposure assessments for emerging markets. In the present study, we used a novel approach to derive dilution factors for the receiving waters within 5 km of wastewater discharge points in Mexico by combining locally measured river volumes, ecoregion categorization, data on WWTP capacity, and global river network models. Distributions of wastewater effluent into receiving stream dilution factors were developed for the entire country and organized by ecoregion type to explore spatial differences. The distribution of dilution factors in Mexico ranged from >1000 in tropical and temperate ecoregions to 1 in desert ecoregions. To demonstrate its utility, dilution factors were used to develop a probabilistic model to explore the potential ecological risks of the high-volume surfactant linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), commonly used in down-the-drain cleaning products. The predicted LAS river exposure values were below the predicted no-effect concentration in all regions. The methodology developed for Mexico can be used to derive refined exposure assessments in other countries with emerging markets throughout the world, resulting in more realistic risk assessments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2475-2486. © 2018 SETAC.

show abstract

GIS-ROUT: A River Model for Watershed Planning

Cited by 36 publications

References 23 publications

Predicted effects of toxicant mixtures are confirmed by changes in fish species assemblages in Ohio, USA, rivers

Predicted effects of toxicant mixtures are confirmed by changes in fish species assemblages in Ohio, USA, rivers

Water Resources in Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment: Considerations in Choosing Category Indicators

Predicting risks from down‐the‐drain chemicals in a developing country: Mexico and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate as a case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About