Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLeusch, Fredericen_US
dc.contributor.authorJager, Chritsiaanen_US
dc.contributor.authorLevi, Yvesen_US
dc.contributor.authorLim, Richarden_US
dc.contributor.authorPuijker, Leoen_US
dc.contributor.authorSacher, Franken_US
dc.contributor.authorA. Tremblay, Louisen_US
dc.contributor.authorS. Wilson, Vickieen_US
dc.contributor.authorChapman, Heatheren_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T11:41:14Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T11:41:14Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2010-08-02T07:19:28Z
dc.identifier.issn0013936Xen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1021/es903899den_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/33159
dc.description.abstractBioassays are well established in the pharmaceutical industry and single compound analysis, but there is still uncertainty about their usefulness in environmental monitoring.Wecompared the responses of five bioassays designed to measure estrogenic activity (the yeast estrogen screen, ER-CALUX, MELN,T47D-KBluc,andE-SCREENassays)andchemical 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 wellcorrelated with predictions from chemical analysis. The T47DKBluc 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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherAmerican Chemical Societyen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom3853en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto3860en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue10en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEnvironmental Science & Technologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume44en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchAnalytical Biochemistryen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental Monitoringen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode060101en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode050206en_US
dc.titleComparison of five in vitro bioassays to measure estrogenic activity in environmental watersen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, Griffith School of Environmenten_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2010 American Chemical Society. Self-archiving of the author-manuscript version is not yet supported by this publisher. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version or contact the author[s] for more information.en_AU
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record