A Layperson's Primer on Multiple Stressors

Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series book series (NAPSC)

This article introduces the concept of multiple stressors. It has been written for the layperson, in terms that do not require a strong scientific background. It has been written to facilitate scientists’ communication with the public and funding agencies about multiple stressors. This article briefly explains several major classes of contaminants whose global dispersal and long-term persistence in the environment might cause them to contribute to multiple stressors. Highlighted is our lack of understanding about the potential interactions among multiple stressors and the need for much additional research. Interactions are explained through a simple example of various plausible responses that an organism might exhibit when exposed to both cadmium and radiation. Our current approach for determining human and ecological risks from contaminants is explained such that the reader is aware of why multiple stressor research is needed. This article stresses the need for a coordinated, multinational, multidisciplinary research plan for multiple stressors.


Polar Bear Multiple Stressor Killer Whale Ecological Risk Assessment Chemical Mixture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AMAP, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 2002. Arctic Pollution. AMAP: Oslo, Norway. 111 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S., G. Cherr, S. Morgan, C. Vines, R. Higashi, W. Bennett, W. Rose, A. Brooks, and R. Nisbet. 2006. Integrating contaminant responses in indicator saltmarsh species. Marine Environ. Research 62:S317–S321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayotte, P., E. Dewailly, S. Bruneau, H. Careau, and A. Vezina. 1995. Arctic air pollution and human health: what effects should be expected? Sci. of Total Environ. 161:529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bard, S. 1999. Global transport of anthropogenic contaminants and the consequences fro the arctic marine ecosystem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38:356–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CAS. Chemical Abstracts Service, American Chemical Society. 2005. The latest CAS registry number 7 and substance count. (accessed Oct. 2006)
  6. Cassee, F., J. Groten, P. van Bladeren, and V. Feron. 1998. Toxicological evaluation and risk assessment of chemical mixtures. Crit. Rev. Toxicology. 28:73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cormier, S., S. Norton, and G. Suter, II. 2003. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s stressor identification guidance: A process for determining the probably causes of biological impairments. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 9:1431–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cory-Slechta, D. 2005. Studying toxicants as single chemicals: does this strategy adequately identify neurotoxic risk? Neurotoxicology 26:491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daughton, C. 2005. “Emerging” chemicals as pollutants in the environment: A 21st century perspective. Renewable Resour. J. 23:6–23.Google Scholar
  10. Dourson, M. and J. Patterson. 2003. A 20-year perspective on the development of non-cancer risk assessment methods. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 9:1239–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, D. 2006. The chemicals within us. National Geographic Society Magazine. October: 116–135.Google Scholar
  12. Eggen, R.I.L., R. Behra, P. Burkhardt-Holm, B.I. Escher, and N. Schweigert. 2004. Challenges in ecotoxicology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:58a–64a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, D. 2005. How we depend on chemicals. (accessed Oct. 2006).
  14. Hano, T., Y. Oshima, T. Oe, M. Kinoshita, M. Tanaka, Y. Wakamatsu, K. Ozato, and T. Honjo. 2005. Quantitative bio-imaging analysis for evaluation of sexual differentiation in germ cells of olvas-GFP/ST-II YI medaka (Oryzias latipes) nanoinjected in ovo with ethinylestradiol. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24:70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, A., H. Teraoka, W. Heideman, and R. Peterson. 2005. Zebrafish as a model vertebrate for investigating chemical toxicity. Toxicol. Sci. 86:6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hope, B.K. 2005. Performing spatially and temporally explicit ecological exposure assessments involving multiple stressors. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 11:539–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iwamatsu, T. 2004. Stages of normal development in the medaka Oryzias latipes. Mech. Dev. 121:605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kashiwada, S. 2006. Distribution of nanoparticles in the see-through medaka (Oryzias latipes). Environ. Health Perspect. 114:1697–1702.Google Scholar
  19. Kimmel, C., W. Ballard, S. Kimmel, B. Ullmann, and T. Schilling. 1995. Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev. Dyn. 203:253–310.Google Scholar
  20. McCarty, L. and C. Borgert. 2006. Review of the toxicity of chemical mixtures: theory, policy and regulatory practice. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 45:119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macdonald, R., T. Harner, and J. Fyfe. 2005. Recent climate change in the Arctic and its impact on contaminant pathways and interpretation of temporal trend data. Sci. Total Environ. 342:5–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muir, D., R. Shearer, J. Van Oostdam, S. Donaldson and C. Furgal. 2005. Contaminants in Canadian arctic biota and implications for human health: Conclusions and knowledge gaps. Sci. Total Environ. 351: 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nacci, D., M. Pelletier, J. Lake, R. Bennett, J. Nichols, R. Haebler, J. Grear, A. Kuhn, J. Copeland, M. Nicholson, S. Watlers, and W. Munn, Jr. 2005. An approach to predict risks to wildlife populations from mercury and other stressors. Ecotoxicology 14:283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Relyea, R. 2003. Predator cues and pesticides: a double dose of danger for amphibians. Ecol. Appl. 13:1515–1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sexton, K., B. Beck, E. Bingham, J. Brian, D. DeMarini, R. Hertzberg, E. O’Flaherty, and J. Pounds. 1995. Chemical mixtures from a public health perspective: the importance of research for informed decision making. Toxicology 105:429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shima, A. and H. Mitani. 2004. Medaka as a research organism: past, present and future. Mech. Dev. 121:599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silva, E., N. Rajapakse, and A. Kortenkamp. 2002. Something from “nothing”–Eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36:1751–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sonne, C., P. Leifsson, R. Dietz, E. Born, R. Letcher, L. Hyldstrup, F. Riget, M. Kirkegaard, and D. Muir. 2006. Xenoendocrine pollutants may reduce size of sexual organs in East Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Environ. Sci. Tech. 40:5668–5674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suk, W. and K. Olden. 2005. Multidisciplinary research: Strategies for assessing chemical mixtures to reduce risk of exposure and disease. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 11:141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suter II, G. 2006. Ecological risk assessment and ecological epidemiology for contaminated sites. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 12:31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suter II, G., S. Norton, and L. Barnthouse, 2003. The evolution of frameworks for ecological risk assessment from the red book ancestor. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 9:1349–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Suter II, G., D. Rodier, S. Schwenk, M. Troyer, P. Tyler, D. Urgan, M. Wellman, and S. Wharton. 2004. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s generic ecological assessment endpoints. Hum. Eco. Risk Assess. 10:967–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teplitsky, C., H. Phiha, A. Laurila, and J. Merila. 2005. Common pesticide increases costs of antipredator defenses in Rana temporaria tadpoles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:6979–6085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teushcler, L. C. Gennings, W. Hartley, H. Carter, A. Thiyagarajah, R. Schoeny, and C. Cubison. 2005. The interaction effects of binary mixtures of benzene and toluene on the developing heart of medaka (Oryzias latipes). Chemosphere 58:1283–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. US DHHS. 2004a. Guidance manual for the assessment of joint toxic action of chemical mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Washington DC.Google Scholar
  36. US DHHS. 2004b. Interaction profile for persistent chemical found in fish (chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, hexachlorobenzene, p, p-DDE, methylmercury and polychlorinated biphenyls). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Washington DC.Google Scholar
  37. US EPA 2000. Supplementary guidance for conducting health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. EPA/630/R-00/–2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. Wakamatsu, Y., S. Pristyazhnyuk, M. Kinoshita, M. Tanaka, and K. Ozato. 2001. The see-through medaka: a fish model that is transparent throughout life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 98:10046–10050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ward, J. 1995. Radiation mutagenesis − the initial DNA lesions responsible. Radiat. Res. 142:362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wormley, D., A. Ramesh, and D. Hood. 2004. Environmental contaminant-mixture effects on CNS development, plasticity and behavior. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 197:49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang, R. S. H. 2004. Toxicology of Chemical Mixtures. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Yang, R. S. H., H. El-Masri, R. Thomas, I. Dobrev, J. Dennison Jr., D-S. Bae, J. Campain, K. Liao, B. Reisfeld, M. Andersen, and M. Mumtaz. 2004. Chemical mixture toxicology: from descriptive to mechanistic, and going on to in silico toxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 18:65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhivotovsky, B. and G. Kroemer. 2004. Apoptosis and genomic instability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5:752–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Savannah River Ecology LaboratoryUniversity of GeorgiaAikenUSA

Personalised recommendations