Site-Specific Ecological Risk Assessment - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 717

So called 'omic-'techniques, like genomics based on analysis of DNA-patterns,
were advocated for a wider application in ERA, but progress is limited yet. The
promise is that these techniques generate much and valuable information with a lim-
ited effort. However, the methods are generally immature and still quite expensive
compared to traditional bioassays and community analysis. Furthermore, the issue
of interpretation of community shifts for ERA is not fully resolved, i.e. scaling is
still an issue. Nevertheless there is still hope for breakthroughs in this area thanks to
expected technical spin-offs from medical research and agriculture business.
Further stimulating influences can be expected from international harmonization
of models and frameworks for ERA by e.g. the HERACLES network (acronym:
human and ecological Risk Assessment for contaminated land in European mem-
ber states; Swartjes et al. ( 2008 )). The conclusion from the network was that quite
a number of Member States had readily available tools for implementing ERA. In
the nearest future the Habitat and the Water Framework Directives are most likely
the dominant drivers in introducing ERA in some form to a wider number of coun-
tries. In addition, also the EU soil thematic strategy and further elaborations into
the future Soil Framework Directive will further stimulate attention to ERA at con-
taminated sites. The Triad approach will be part of these developments, triggering
further improvements to previously addressed issues and new developments.

References

Amorim MJB, Römbke J, Soares AMVM (2005) Avoidance behaviour of Enchytraeus albidus :
effects of benomyl, carbendazim, phenmedipham and different soil types. Chemosphere

59:501-510
Baird DJ, Rubach MN, Van den Brink PJ (2008) Trait-based ecological risk assessment (TERA):
the new frontier? Integrated Environ Assess Manage 4:2-3
Barnthouse L (2008) The strengths of the ecological risk assessment process: linking science to
decision making. Integrated Environ Assess Manage 4:299-305
Beer T (2006) Ecological risk assessment and quantitative consequence analysis. Human Ecol Risk
Assess 12:51-65
Bennett JR, Kaufman CA, Koch I, Sova J, Reimer KJ (2007) Ecological risk assessment of lead
contamination at rifle and pistol ranges using techniques to account for site characteristics. Sci
Total Environ 374:91-101
Boivin MEY, Greve GD, Kools SAE, Van der Wurff AWG, Leeflang P, Smit E, Breure AM, Rutgers
M, Van Straalen NM (2006) Discriminating between effects of metals and natural variables in
terrestrial bacterial communities. Appl Soil Ecol 34:102-113
Brand E, Peijnenburg W, Groenenberg B, Vink J, Lijzen J, Ten Hulscher D, Jonker C, Römkens P,
Roex E (2009) Towards implementation of bioavailability measurements in the Dutch soil
regulatory framework. Report 711701084, RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Burton GA, Batley GE, Chapman PM, Forbes VE, Smith EP, Reynoldson T, Schlekat CE, Den
Besten PJ, Bailer AJ, Green AS, Dwyer RL (2002a) Aweight of evidence framework for assess-
ing sediment (or other) contamination: improving certainty in the decision-making process.
Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1675-1696
Burton GA, Chapman P, Smith EP (2002b) Weight-of-evidence approaches for assessing ecosys-
tem impairment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1657-1673
Carey JM, Burgman MA (2008) Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to
minimize it. Ann NY Acad Sci 1128:13-17