EC could develop a subset of potential decision rules and test their potential using the database tool developed for this project. It is important Torin 1 in vivo to note that this work assumes that the sediments analyzed in this US-based database are representative of what might be encountered in the Canadian DaS program. Also, this

work considered potential outcomes using chemical data, but did not consider outcomes in the context of a full decision framework that would employ multiple, weighted lines of evidence before yielding a decision. As EC progresses in updating its sediment characterization processes, and considers the management, under permit, of ‘contaminated’ DM, it will have to integrate as much science as possible and make a number of policy decisions that reflect the level of uncertainty that is tolerable and the level of certainty that is affordable. To assist with these endeavors, future work to test alternative decision rules, validate the effectiveness of current toxicity test methods in a regulatory context and to examine potential roles for other biological lines of evidence will be completed. Also, efforts to integrate as much Canadian Volasertib datasheet data as possible, including provincial data,

into the dataset, will be made. As this work proceeds, specific outcomes may differ, but this review suggests that the efficiency and degree of protectiveness of the EC DM DaS framework could be significantly improved by expanding the list of chemical analytes and adding a chemical UAL. This paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Environment

Canada or any affiliations represented by the authors. References to brand names and trademarks in this document are for information purposes only and do not constitute endorsements by Environment Canada, or the authors. It is not the intention of the authors to suggest conclusions on the potential ecological risk or regulatory status of the sediments from which the database was drawn; these samples were Prostatic acid phosphatase not collected for the assessment of ocean disposal and this review represents an analysis of only a small fraction of the data available. These data are only used to provide a dataset that might realistically represent the range of sediment types that might be encountered by the Canadian DaS program, in order to evaluate the potential performance of a range of DM DaS decision rules. This work was funded by Environment Canada, Marine Protection Programs. The Coastal and Oceanographic Assessment, Status and Trends (COAST) Branch, part of NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science in the Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA) is gratefully acknowledged for making its extensive datasets available online. We thank Gunnar Lauenstein and his associates for their support in resolving questions on the datasets.