ABSTRACT
The use of bioassays in ecological risk assessments often raises questions about the causative factors, and insight into the possibility that confounding factors, such as pH or increased ammonia concentrations, might be responsible for the observed toxicity is needed. It was decided to develop a practical approach for the Dutch situation, in which a first screening is carried out based on provisional criteria. In collecting the required data, dozens of experiments were performed, while the scientific literature was searched for additional information. It is concluded that the provisional criteria specified are at present useful tools in interpreting results of bioassays. Depending on the outcome and the aim of the research, it might be necessary to further reduce uncertainties in the interpretation. This might require some additional experiments, using alternative controls or test procedures or altering the composition of the original sample.
Subject(s)
Fresh Water/chemistry , Toxicity Tests/methods , Water Pollutants, Chemical/toxicity , Animals , Bacteria/growth & development , Eukaryota/growth & development , Fishes/growth & development , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Invertebrates/growth & development , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and Specificity , Temperature , Time Factors , Toxicity Tests/standardsABSTRACT
Although histologic analysis of osseous changes around hydroxylapatite (HA) implants can be highly accurate, it is of limited use in human beings. Digital subtraction radiography may provide a noninvasive alternative. Ten patients with bony lesions were operated on and nine of the iatrogenic defects were filled with granulated HA. In one patient, the defect was left unfilled for reference. Customized film holders provided standardized radiography. Follow-up images after 4 to 6 months were subtracted from immediately obtained postoperative images, and changes around the implants were noted. From ten pairs of radiographs, eight could be successfully subtracted, whereas two pairs required corrective image transformation before subtraction. Although no bone loss was observed in any of the patients, the implants did not appear to enhance physiologic bone regeneration either. Hence, subtraction radiography holds the potential of clinical utility for the follow-up of HA implants. However, technical improvements are necessary to yield quantitative data.
