A novel quantitative ecological and microbial risk assessment methodology: theory and practice

References

• Akçakaya HR, and Root WT. 2013. RAMAS GIS: Linking Spatial Data with Population Viability Analysis (Version 6). Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• Amaral FMD, Ramos CAC, Leão Z, et al. 2009. Checklist and morphometry of benthic cnidarians from the Fernando de Noronha archipelago, Pernambuco, Brazil. Cah Biol Mar 50:227–90
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amaral RS, and Porto MAS. 1994. Evolução e situação atual do controle da esquistossomose no Brasil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 27:73–90
   Google Scholar
• Araujo M, Lerithier D, SIlva MA, et al. 2005. Tidal turbulence and eddy-viscosity in coastal waters at Northeastern Brazil. J Coast Res 21:18–27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASTM. 1998. RBCA Fate and Transport Models Compendium and Selection Guidance. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
   Google Scholar
• Barbosa CS, Araújo KC, Sevilla MAA, et al. 2010. Current epidemiological status of schistosomiasis in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 105:549–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barros M, and Pires DO. 2006. Aspects of the life history of Siderastrea stellata in the tropical Western Atlantic, Brazil. Invertebr Reprod Dev 49:237–44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BRASIL. 1993. Atlas de Cartas Piloto: Oceano Atlântico—De Trinidad ao Rio da Prata, 2aedição. DHN, Rio de Janeiro
   Google Scholar
• BRASIL. 2005. Guia de Vigilância Epidemiológica, 6th ed. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde
   Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ, and Baldwin LA. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis Publisher, Boca, Raton, FL, USA
   Google Scholar
• CONCAWE. 1983. Characteristics of Petroleum and its Behavior at Sea. Report No. 8/83
   Google Scholar
• CPR18E. 2005. Guideline for Quantitative Risk Assessment (the “Purple Book”), 3rd ed. CPR Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The Hague, Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Duarte HO, Droguett EL, Moura MC, et al. 2014. An ecological model for quantitative risk assessment for schistosomiasis: The case of a patchy environment in the coastal tropical area of Northeastern Brazil. Risk Anal 34:831–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte HO, Droguett EL, Araújo M, et al. 2013. Quantitative ecological risk assessment of industrial accidents: The case of oil ship transportation in the coastal tropical area of Northeastern Brazil. Human Ecol Risk Assess 19:1457–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte HO. 2011. A Methodology for Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment of Industrial Accidents (Master's Dissertation). Programa de Pós-graduação em Engenharia de Produção (PPGEP), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
   Google Scholar
• Duarte HO. 2016. A novel quantitative ecological and microbial risk assessment methodology: theory and applications, Thesis (Doctorate), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, CTG. Programa de Pós-Graduação Engenharia de Produção, Recife
   Google Scholar
• Duarte HO, and Droguett EL. 2016. Quantitative ecological risk assessment of accidental oil spills on ship routes nearby a marine national park in Brazil. Human Ecol Risk Assess 22:350–68
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte HO, Droguett EL, and and Moura MC. 2018. Quantitative ecological risk assessment of Shortfin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus): proposed model and application example. Appl Ecol 1:1–22
   Google Scholar
• Ericson AC. 2005. Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA
   Google Scholar
• EurEco. 1997. Review of Selected Schemes Developed for Environmental Risk Assessment of Substances Hazardous for the Aquatic Environment. Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water treatment (RIZA), Luxembourg
   Google Scholar
• Ezer T. 2005. Entrainment, diapycnal mixing and transport in three-dimensional bottom gravity current simulations using the Mellor–Yamada turbulence scheme. Ocean Modell 9:151–68
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firmino PR, Filho R, and Droguett EL. 2008. An expert opinion elicitation method based on bayesian intervals estimation and computational searching algorithms: an application to oil refinery risk analysis. PSAM 9-International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 2008. Proceedings of the International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, Hong Kong
   Google Scholar
• Forbes VE, Calow P, Grimm V, et al. 2011. Adding value to ecological risk assessment with population modeling. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17:287–99
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes VE, Calow P, Grimm V, et al. 2010. Integrating population modeling into ecological risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:191–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haas CN, Rose JB, and Gerba CP. 1999. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. Wiley, New York, USA
   Google Scholar
• Harwell MA, Gentile JH, Johnson CB, et al. 2010. A quatitative ecological risk assessment of the toxicological risks from Exxon Valdez subsurface oil residues to Sea Otters at Northern Knight Island, Price William Sound, Alaska. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:727–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattemer-Frey HA, Quinlan RE, and Krieger GR. 1995. Ecological risk assessment case study: Impacts to aquatic receptors at a former metals mining superfund site. Risk Anal 15:253–65
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollnagel E. 1998. Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method. Elsevier Science, UK
   Google Scholar
• ICMBio (Instituo Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). 2013. PARNAMAR: Parque Nacional Marinho de Fernando de Noronha. Retrieved from http://www.parnanoronha.com.br/paginas/91-o-parque.aspx
   Google Scholar
• IMO (International Maritime Organisation). 2004. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments. Diplomatic Conference, International Maritime Organisation (IMO), London, UK
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2007a. Formal Safety Assessment FSA—Container Vessels. International Maritime Organization, London, UK
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2007b. Formal Safety Assessment FSA—Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Carriers. International Maritime Organization, London, UK
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2008a. Formal Safety Assessment FSA—Cruise Ships. International Maritime Organization, London, UK
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2008b. Formal Safety Assessment FSA—Crude Oil Tankers. International Maritime Organization, London, UK
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2008c. Formal Safety Assessment FSA—RoPax Ships. International Maritime Organization, London, UK
   Google Scholar
• IPOJUCA. 2013. Prefeitura de Ipojuca retoma obras de esgotamento sanitário em Porto de Galinhas. Retrieved from http://ipojuca.pe.gov.br/noticias/41/prefeitura-do-ipojuca-retoma-obras-de-esgotamento-sanitario-em-porto-de-galinhas/
   Google Scholar
• IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2001. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Comission, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK
   Google Scholar
• Kalos MH, and Whitlock PA. 2008. Monte Carlo Methods. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany
   Google Scholar
• Korb KB, and Nicholson AE. 2003. Bayesian Artificial Intelligence. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Florida, USA
   Google Scholar
• Ku H. 1966. Notes on the use of propagation of error formulas. J Res Natl Bur Stand, Sect C 70C:263–73
   Google Scholar
• MacElrevey DH, and MacElrevey DE. 2004. Shiphandling for the Mariner. Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, PA, USA
   Google Scholar
• Mackay D. 1991. Multimedia Environmental Models: The Fugacity Approach. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, USA
   Google Scholar
• Mackay D, Paterson S, and Shiu WY. 1992. Generic models for evaluating the regional fate of chemicals. Chemosphere 24:695–717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazir M, Khan F, Amyotte P, and Sadiq R. 2008. Multimedia fate of oil spills in a marine environment: An integrated modelling approach. Process Saf Environ Prot 86:141–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NOAA (US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 1994. ADIOStm (Automated Data Inquirity for Oil Spills) User’s Manual. Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, Seattle, WA, USA
   Google Scholar
• NOAA. 2000. ADIOStm (Automated Data Inquirity for Oil Spills) Version 2.0. Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, Seattle, WA, USA
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor P, and Kleyner A. 2002. Pratical Reliability Engineering, 4th ed. Wiley, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• Pastorok RA, Bartell SM, and Ferson S. 2002. Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems and Landscapes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA
   Google Scholar
• Pastorok RA, Behum ME, and Preziosi DV. 2010. Estimating Population-Level Risks for Wildlife from a Landscape Perspective: A Framework for Assessments at Wind Energy Facilities. National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC)
   Google Scholar
• Rausand M, and Hoyland A. 2004. System Reliability Theory; Models, Statistical Methods and Applications, 2nd ed. Wiley, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• Sebastiao P, and Soares CG. 1995. Modelling the fate of oil spills at sea. Spill Sci Technol 2:121–31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebastiao P, and Soares CG. 1998. Weathering of oil spills accounting for oil components. In: Garacia-Martinez R, and Brebbia CA (eds), Oil and Hydrocarbon Spills, Modelling, Analysis and Control, pp 63–72.WIT Press, Southampton, UK
   Google Scholar
• Stamatelatos M, Dezfuli H, et al. 2002. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners, Version 1. Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• SUAPE 2017. Suape-Complexo Industrial Portuário Governador Eraldo Gueiros. http://www.suape.pe.gov.br/pt/
   Google Scholar
• Suter GW. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publisher, Boca Raton, FL, USA
   Google Scholar
• Suter GW. 2017. Ecological Risk Assessment and Implications for Environmental Management. In: International Symposium on Environmental and Health Risk Assessment. Quy Nhon, Vietnam
   Google Scholar
• Swain AD, and Guttmann HE. 1983. Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• Taylor BL, Wade PR, Ramakrishnan U, et al. 2002. Incorporating uncertainty in population viability analyses for the purpose of classifying species by risk. In: Beissinger SR and McCullough DR (eds), Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA
   Google Scholar
• USEPA. 1992a. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• USEPA. 1992b. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment: Application for Water Safety Management, p 204. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, MacArthur C, Mubila L, and Baker S. 2010. Control of neglected tropical diseases needs a long-term commitment. BMC Med 8:1–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar