The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Five in Vitro Bioassays to Measure Estrogenic Activity in Environmental Waters
Abstract
Bioassays are well established in the pharmaceutical industry and single compound analysis, but there is still uncertainty about their usefulness in environmental monitoring. We compared the responses of five bioassays designed to measure estrogenic activity (the yeast estrogen screen, ER-CALUX, MELN, T47D-KBluc, and E-SCREEN assays) and chemical analysis on extracts from four different water sources (groundwater, raw sewage, treated sewage, and river water). All five bioassays displayed similar trends and there was good agreement with analytical chemistry results. The data from the ER-CALUX and E-SCREEN bioassays were robust and predictable, and well-correlated with predictions from chemical analysis. The T47D-KBluc appeared likewise promising, but with a more limited sample size it was less compelling. The YES assay was less sensitive than the other assays by an order of magnitude, which resulted in a larger number of nondetects. The MELN assay was less predictable, although the possibility that this was due to laboratory-specific difficulties cannot be discounted. With standardized bioassay data analysis and consistency of operating protocols, bioanalytical tools are a promising advance in the development of a tiered approach to environmental water quality monitoring.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Shanle, E. K., & Xu, W. (2011) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/tx100231n · Cited by 522
Wernersson, A.-S., Carere, M., Maggi, C., Tusil, P., Soldan, P., James, A., Sanchez, W., Dulio, V., Broeg, K., Reifferscheid, G., et al. (2015) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0039-4 · Cited by 353
Connon, R. E., Geist, J., & Werner, I. (2012) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s120912741 · Cited by 300
Escher, B. I., Aїt-Aїssa, S., Behnisch, P. A., Brack, W., Brion, F., Brouwer, A., Buchinger, S., Crawford, S. E., Du Pasquier, D., Hamers, T., et al. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.340 · Cited by 267
Why Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) Challenge Traditional Risk Assessment and How to Respond
Futran Fuhrman, V., Tal, A., & Arnon, S. (2015) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.012 · Cited by 152
Mixtures of Chemical Pollutants at European Legislation Safety Concentrations: How Safe Are They?
Carvalho, R. N., Arukwe, A., Ait-Aissa, S., Bado-Nilles, A., Balzamo, S., Baun, A., Belkin, S., Blaha, L., Brion, F., Conti, D., et al. (2014) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu118 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Leusch, F. D. L., de Jager, C., Levi, Y., Lim, R., Puijker, L., Sacher, F., Tremblay, L. A., Wilson, V. S., & Chapman, H. F.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-05-15
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3853-3860
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W1990826530
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.