oru.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 6 of 6
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Di Paolo, Carolina
    et al.
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Seiler, Thomas B.
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Keiter, Steffen
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology. Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Hu, Meng
    Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
    Muz, Melis
    Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
    Brack, Werner
    Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
    Hollert, Henner
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; College of Resources and Environmental Science, Chongqing University Beibei, Chongqing, China; College of Environmental Science and Engineering and State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
    The value of zebrafish as an integrative model in effect-directed analysis: a review2015In: Environmental Sciences Europe, ISSN 2190-4707, E-ISSN 2190-4715, Vol. 27, no 8, p. 1-11Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Bioassays play a central role in effect-directed analysis (EDA), and their selection and application have to consider rather specific aspects of this approach. Meanwhile, bioassays with zebrafish, an established model organism in different research areas, are increasingly being utilized in EDA. Aiming to contribute for the optimal application of zebrafish bioassays in EDA, this review provides a critical overview of previous EDA investigations that applied zebrafish bioassays, discusses the potential contribution of such methods for EDA and proposes strategies to improve future studies. Over the last 10 years, zebrafish bioassays have guided EDA of natural products and environmental samples. The great majority of studies performed bioassays with embryos and early larvae, which allowed small-scale and low-volume experimental setups, minimized sample use and reduced workload. Biotesting strategies applied zebrafish bioassays as either the only method guiding EDA or instead integrated into multiple bioassay approaches. Furthermore, tiered biotesting applied zebrafish methods in both screening phase as well as for further investigations. For dosing, most of the studies performed solvent exchange of extracts and fractions to dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as carrier. However, high DMSO concentrations were required for the testing of complex matrix extracts, indicating that future studies might benefit from the evaluation of alternative carrier solvents or passive dosing. Surprisingly, only a few studies reported the evaluation of process blanks, indicating a need to improve and standardize methods for blank preparation and biotesting. Regarding evaluated endpoints, while acute toxicity brought limited information, the assessment of specific endpoints was of strong value for bioactivity identification. Therefore, the bioassay specificity and sensitivity to identify the investigated bioactivity are important criteria in EDA. Additionally, it might be necessary to characterize the most adequate exposure windows and assessment setups for bioactivity identification. Finally, a great advantage of zebrafish bioassays in EDA of environmental samples is the availability of mechanism- and endpoint-specific methods for the identification of important classes of contaminants. The evaluation of mechanism-specific endpoints in EDA is considered to be a promising strategy to facilitate the integration of EDA into weight-of-evidence approaches, ultimately contributing for the identification of environmental contaminants causing bioassay and ecological effects.

  • 2.
    Gustavsson, Lillemor
    et al.
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology. Karlskoga Environment and Energy Company, Karlskoga, Sweden.
    Heger, Sebastian
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental, Research, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Ejlertsson, Jörgen
    Scandinavian Biogas Fuels AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Ribé, Veronica
    School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden.
    Hollert, Henner
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental, Research, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Keiter, Steffen
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental, Research, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Industrial sludge containing pharmaceutical residues and explosives alters inherent toxic properties when co-digested with oat and post-treated in reed beds2014In: Environmental Sciences Europe, ISSN 2190-4707, E-ISSN 2190-4715, Vol. 26, no 8, p. 1-11Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: Methane production as biofuels is a fast and strong growing technique for renewable energy. Substrateslike waste (e.g. food, sludge from waste water treatment plants (WWTP), industrial wastes) can be used as a suitable resource for methane gas production, but in some cases, with elevated toxicity in the digestion residue. Former investigations have shown that co-digesting of contaminated waste such as sludge together with other substrates canproduce a less toxic residue. In addition, wetlands and reed beds demonstrated good results in dewatering and detoxifying of sludge. The aim of the present study was to investigate if the toxicity may alter in industrial sludgeco-digested with oat and post-treatment in reed beds. In this study, digestion of sludge from Bjorkborn industrial area in Karlskoga (reactor D6) and co-digestion of the same sludge mixed with oat (reactor D5) and post-treatment in reed beds were investigated in parallel. Methane production as well as changes in cytotoxicity (Microtox(R); ISO 11348–3), genotoxicity (Umu-C assay; ISO/13829) and AhR-mediated toxicity (7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) assay using RTW cells) were measured.

    Results: The result showed good methane production of industrial sludge (D6) although the digested residue was more toxic than the ingoing material measured using microtox30min and Umu-C. Co-digestion of toxic industrial sludge and oat(D5) showed higher methane production and significantly less toxic sludge residue than reactor D6. Furthermore, dewatering and treatment in reed beds showed low and non-detectable toxicity in reed bed material and outgoingwater as well as reduced nutrients.

    Conclusions: Co-digestion of sludge and oat followed by dewatering and treatment of sludge residue in reed beds canbe a sustainable waste management and energy production. We recommend that future studies should involve co-digestion of decontaminated waste mixed with different non-toxic material to find a substrate mixture that producethe highest biogas yield and lowest toxicity within the sludge residue.

  • 3.
    Legradi, J. B.
    et al.
    Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Environment and Health, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
    Di Paolo, C.
    Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Kraak, M. H. S.
    FAME-Freshwater and Marine Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
    van der Geest, H. G.
    FAME-Freshwater and Marine Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
    Schymanski, E. L.
    Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine (LCSB), University of Luxembourg, Belvaux, Luxembourg.
    Williams, A. J.
    National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC, United States.
    Dingemans, M. M. L.
    KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.
    Massei, R.
    Department Effect-Directed Analysis, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Brack, W.
    Department Effect-Directed Analysis, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Cousin, X.
    Ifremer, UMR MARBEC, Laboratoire Adaptation et Adaptabilités des Animaux et des Systèmes, Palavas-les-Flots, France; INRA, UMR GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Domaine de Vilvert, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
    Begout, M. -L
    Ifremer, Laboratoire Ressources Halieutiques, L’Houmeau, France.
    van der Oost, R.
    Department of Technology, Research and Engineering, Waternet Institute for the Urban Water Cycle, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
    Carion, A.
    Laboratory of Evolutionary and Adaptive Physiology, Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.
    Suarez-Ulloa, V.
    Laboratory of Evolutionary and Adaptive Physiology, Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.
    Silvestre, F.
    Laboratory of Evolutionary and Adaptive Physiology, Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.
    Escher, B. I.
    Department of Cell Toxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany; Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Environmental Toxicology, Center for Applied Geosciences, Tübingen, Germany.
    Engwall, Magnus
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology.
    Nilén, Greta
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology.
    Keiter, Steffen
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology.
    Pollet, D.
    Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
    Waldmann, P.
    Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
    Kienle, C.
    Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology Eawag-EPFL, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
    Werner, I.
    Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology Eawag-EPFL, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
    Haigis, A. -C
    Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Knapen, D.
    Zebrafishlab, Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
    Vergauwen, L.
    Zebrafishlab, Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
    Spehr, M.
    Institute for Biology II, Department of Chemosensation, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    Schulz, W.
    Zweckverband Landeswasserversorgung, Langenau, Germany.
    Busch, W.
    Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
    Leuthold, D.
    Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
    Scholz, S.
    Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
    vom Berg, C. M.
    Department of Environmental Toxicology, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
    Basu, N.
    Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
    Murphy, C. A.
    Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, United States.
    Lampert, A.
    Institute of Physiology (Neurophysiology), Aachen, Germany.
    Kuckelkorn, J.
    Section Toxicology of Drinking Water and Swimming Pool Water, Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Bad Elster, Germany.
    Grummt, T.
    Section Toxicology of Drinking Water and Swimming Pool Water, Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Bad Elster, Germany.
    Hollert, H.
    Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    An ecotoxicological view on neurotoxicity assessment2018In: Environmental Sciences Europe, ISSN 2190-4707, E-ISSN 2190-4715, Vol. 30, article id 46Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The numbers of potential neurotoxicants in the environment are raising and pose a great risk for humans and the environment. Currently neurotoxicity assessment is mostly performed to predict and prevent harm to human populations. Despite all the efforts invested in the last years in developing novel in vitro or in silico test systems, in vivo tests with rodents are still the only accepted test for neurotoxicity risk assessment in Europe. Despite an increasing number of reports of species showing altered behaviour, neurotoxicity assessment for species in the environment is not required and therefore mostly not performed. Considering the increasing numbers of environmental contaminants with potential neurotoxic potential, eco-neurotoxicity should be also considered in risk assessment. In order to do so novel test systems are needed that can cope with species differences within ecosystems. In the field, online-biomonitoring systems using behavioural information could be used to detect neurotoxic effects and effect-directed analyses could be applied to identify the neurotoxicants causing the effect. Additionally, toxic pressure calculations in combination with mixture modelling could use environmental chemical monitoring data to predict adverse effects and prioritize pollutants for laboratory testing. Cheminformatics based on computational toxicological data from in vitro and in vivo studies could help to identify potential neurotoxicants. An array of in vitro assays covering different modes of action could be applied to screen compounds for neurotoxicity. The selection of in vitro assays could be guided by AOPs relevant for eco-neurotoxicity. In order to be able to perform risk assessment for eco-neurotoxicity, methods need to focus on the most sensitive species in an ecosystem. A test battery using species from different trophic levels might be the best approach. To implement eco-neurotoxicity assessment into European risk assessment, cheminformatics and in vitro screening tests could be used as first approach to identify eco-neurotoxic pollutants. In a second step, a small species test battery could be applied to assess the risks of ecosystems.

  • 4.
    Niu, Dong
    et al.
    Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China.
    Qiu, Yanling
    Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China.
    Du, Xinyu
    Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
    Li, Li
    Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China.
    Zhou, Yihui
    Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
    Yin, Daqiang
    Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China.
    Lin, Zhifen
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Chemical Assessment and Sustainability, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
    Chen, Ling
    Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
    Zhu, Zhiliang
    Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China.
    Zhao, Jianfu
    Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
    Bergman, Åke
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology. Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, China; Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry (ACES), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden .
    Novel brominated flame retardants in house dust from Shanghai, China: levels, temporal variation, and human exposure2019In: Environmental Sciences Europe, ISSN 2190-4707, E-ISSN 2190-4715, Vol. 31, no 1, article id 6Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: Novel brominated flame retardants (NBFRs) have been increasingly used as alternatives to legacy BFRs (e.g., PBDEs and HBCDs) in consumer products, but are liable to emigrate and contaminate indoor dust. In this study, a total of 154 house dust samples including floor dust (FD) and elevated surface dust (ESD) were collected in the biggest metropolitan area (Shanghai) of East China in 2016. Limited information about temporal variation of NBFRs indoors is available, while the period of sampling is influential in human exposure estimates. Levels, temporal variation, and human exposure of seven target NBFRs such as decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), 1,2-bis(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy) ethane (BTBPE), 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (EHTBB), and bis(2-ethylhexyl) tetrabromophthalate (BEHTEBP) were investigated in indoor house dust.

    Results: Concentrations of Sigma(7)NBFRs ranged from 19.11 to 3099ng/g with a geomean of 295.1ng/g in FD, and from 34.74 to 404.6ng/g with a geomean of 117.9ng/g in ESD. The geomeans of DBDPE were 219.6ng/g in FD and 76.89ng/g in ESD, accounting for 90.5% and 80.5% of Sigma(7)NBFRs. Levels of EHTBB, BTBPE, and DBDPE in FD exceeded significantly those in ESD. The temporal variation in Sigma(7)NBFRs in FD was ranked as summer>winter>autumn>spring. The daily exposure doses (DEDs) of Sigma(7)NBFRs via dust ingestion decreased as: infants>toddlers>children>teenagers>adults. Infants showed the highest DED in FD, 9.1ng/kg bw/day.

    Conclusions: DBDPE clearly dominated the NBFRs in both FD and ESD, but the concentrations of DBDPE in this study were generally moderate compared with the other international studies. Dust ingestion was the major pathway of human exposure to NBFRs indoors. About eightfold difference in exposure estimates between infants and adults showed that infants faced elevated exposure risks in FD. This study highlighted the necessity to estimate human exposure of NBFRs for different age groups using FD and ESD, respectively.

  • 5.
    Seiler, Thomas-Benyamine
    et al.
    RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
    Hollert, Henner
    RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
    Engwall, Magnus
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology.
    Lost in translation?: Ways for environmental sciences to communicate about risk and research2013In: Environmental Sciences Europe, ISSN 2190-4707, E-ISSN 2190-4715, Vol. 25, article id 8Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This editorial is an introduction to a paper series on the communication of environmental sciences and risk,developed as an idea from a session at the 6th SETAC World Congress 2012.Environmental sciences are at the heart of what people affect in their daily lives: environmental quality, safe food,clean air, fresh water - and hence crucial for sound public health. Why aren't we in their daily minds? How shouldwe communicate to get there? Communication means to convey meaningful information to create sharedunderstanding. But only a minority of scientists have knowledge about the principles of science communicationand even less than these are certainly up-to-date with modern communication concepts. The paper series “Lost intranslation? Ways for environmental sciences to communicate about risk and research” collates views andperspectives on science and risk communication from different angles to initiate a broader discussion on thecommunication about research findings in environmental sciences.

  • 6.
    Wagner, Martin
    et al.
    Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
    Engwall, Magnus
    Örebro University, School of Science and Technology.
    Hollert, Henner
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology & Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
    (Micro) Plastics and the environment2014In: Environmental Sciences Europe, ISSN 2190-4707, E-ISSN 2190-4715, Vol. 26, no 16Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    (Micro) Plastics in the aquatic environment are an issue of emerging concern. However, to date, there is considerable lack of knowledge on the abundance and toxicity of plastic debris in aquatic ecosystems, especially with regard to the freshwater situation. In this editorial, we briefly discuss important aspects of the research on environmental (micro) plastics to stimulate research and call for papers.

1 - 6 of 6
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf