English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/169176
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:


Comparative analysis of two weight-of-evidence methodologies for integrated sediment quality assessment

AuthorsKhosrovyan, Alla; Rodríguez-Romero, Araceli CSIC ORCID; Antequera Ramos, M.; DelValls, T. A.; Riba, Inmaculada CSIC ORCID
Dredged material
Integrated assessment
Issue DateFeb-2015
CitationChemosphere 120: 138-144 (2015)
AbstractThe results of sediment quality assessment by two different weight-of-evidence methodologies were compared. Both methodologies used the same dataset but as criteria and procedures were different, the results emphasized different aspects of sediment contamination. One of the methodologies integrated the data by means of a multivariate analysis and suggested bioavailability of contaminants and their spatial distribution. The other methodology, used in the dredged material management framework recently proposed in Spain, evaluated sediment toxicity in general by assigning categories. Despite the differences in the interpretation and presentation of results, the methodologies evaluated sediment risk similarly, taking into account chemical concentrations and toxicological effects. Comparison of the results of different approaches is important to define their limitations and thereby avoid implications of potential environmental impacts from different management options, as in the case of dredged material risk assessment. Consistent results of these two methodologies emphasized validity and robustness of the integrated, weight-of-evidence, approach to sediment quality assessment. Limitations of the methodologies were discussed.
Publisher version (URL)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.06.043
Appears in Collections:(ICMAN) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record
Review this work

Related articles:

WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.