LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
After the scientific development of Biotic Ligand Models (BLMs) in recent decades these models are now considered suitable for implementation in regulatory risk assessment of metals in freshwater bodies. The approach has been developed over several years and has been described in many peer-reviewed publications. The original complex BLMs have been applied in prospective risk assessment reports for metals and metal compounds and are also recommended as suitable concepts for the evaluation of monitoring data in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Currently, several user-friendly BLM-based bioavailability software tools are available for assessing the aquatic toxicity of a limited number of metals (mainly copper, nickel, and zinc). These tools need only a basic set of water parameters as input (e.g., pH, hardness, dissolved organic matter and dissolved metal concentration). Such tools seem appropriate to foster the implementation in routine water quality assessments. This work aims to review the existing bioavailability-based regulatory approaches and the application of available BLM-based bioavailability tools for this purpose. Advantages and possible drawbacks of these tools (e.g., feasibility, boundaries of validity) are discussed, and recommendations for further implementation are given.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Peters et al., 2011 Peters et al., 2011 Peters et al., 2011 Calculated from De Schamphelaere and Janssen 2004
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article