I have reposted this question given the larger Researchgate membership in hopes of finding an answer. Originally posted in March 2013.
A lot of studies lately are calling the exposures/concentrations/doses they test as "environmentally relevant" yet the actual test doses seem considerably higher than any human exposures could possibly be, in some cases. Are there any references or books that define criteria for concluding a dose level as being "environmentally relevant"?
The environmentally relevant concentration is that which affects the ecosystem, independently of human exposure levels.
Here is the definition from the DHHS Environmental Health & Toxicology website:
Ecotoxicologically (environmentally) relevant concentration (ERC)
Concentration of a pesticide (active ingredient, formulations, and relevant metabolites) that is likely to affect a determinable ecological characteristic of an exposed system.
http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/enviro/iupacglossary/glossarye.html
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Public Health