# SSD library — catalog (finalized 2026-06-11)

*20 papers, every one **title-verified** against its intended citation (the `doc_retrieve` service validates
"is a PDF" but not "matches the DOI" — six of the first fetches returned the wrong paper and were
re-fetched/wishlisted; see `_WISHLIST.md`). One scanned paper (Aldenberg & Slob 1993) was made searchable with
`ocrmypdf`. Affiliation per paper is noted because it answers the "corporate or EPA?" question — see
`../SSD_ORIGINS_AND_AFFILIATIONS.md`.*

**Legend:** ✓ verified · aff. = author affiliation type · [G]overnment · [A]cademic · [C]orporate/industry.

## A. Origins — the application factor and the first SSDs
- **✓ Mount & Stephan (1967)** — application factor / MATC. *Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
  U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Cincinnati* (the agency that became the **EPA** in 1970). **[G]**
- **✓ Kooijman (1987)** — the statistical SSD ("a safety factor for LC50 values…"). *TNO, Delft* (Dutch public
  research); funded by the Dutch Ministry of the Environment. **[G/A]**
- **✓ Slooff, Canton & Hermens (1983)** — foundational 22-species sensitivity data. *Dutch Nat. Inst. for
  Water Supply + Nat. Inst. of Public Health (→ RIVM) + Univ. Utrecht.* **[G]**
- **✓ Van Straalen & Denneman (1989)** — 95% protection / policy formulation. *Free University (VU) Amsterdam*;
  written to implement the Dutch **Soil Protection Act 1986**. **[A/G]**
- **✓ Wagner & Løkke (1991)** — protection levels from NOEC data. *Technical Univ. of Denmark + Danish
  Ministry of the Environment (NERI).* **[A/G]**

## B. Statistical machinery & uncertainty
- **✓ Aldenberg & Slob (1993)** — HC5 confidence limits. *RIVM.* **[G]** *(scanned → OCR'd, searchable.)*
- **✓ Aldenberg & Jaworska (2000)** — HC5 uncertainty & fraction affected. *RIVM **+ Procter & Gamble**
  (Eurocor, Belgium).* **[G + C]** — industry co-authoring the statistics by 2000.
- **✓ Fox (2010)** — Bayesian NEC/HC. *Australian Centre for Environmetrics, Univ. of Melbourne.* **[A]**
- **✓ Hickey & Craig (2012)** — competing distribution-fitting methods. *Durham Univ., Math. Sciences.* **[A]**

## C. Critical / conceptual appraisals
- **✓ Forbes & Forbes (1993)** — critique of distribution-based extrapolation models. *Danish Nat.
  Environmental Research Institute.* **[A/G]** — *the critics are academic/government.*
- **✓ Fox et al. (2021)** — modern SSD-modeling review. *Environmetrics Australia + Univ. Melbourne + AIMS +
  BC Ministry of Environment.* **[A/G]**
- **✓ Belanger et al. (2017)** — SETAC "future needs" consensus. ***Procter & Gamble* (lead) + U.S. EPA +
  Durham Univ. + *ECETOC* + *Unilever*.** **[C-led tripartite]** — industry is the plurality of authors.
- **✓ Forbes & Calow (2002)** — "Species Sensitivity Distributions Revisited: A Critical Appraisal"
  (*Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.* 8(3):473–492). *Roskilde Univ. (DK) + Univ. Sheffield (UK).* **[A]** — *the
  flagship critique (haphazard species endpoints; unpredictable threshold shifts; "uses all data" claim is
  false).* **HELD (operator Taildrop 2026-06-14; title-verified).** `Forbes-Calow_2002_SSDs_revisited_critical_appraisal.pdf`
- **✓ Forbes & Calow (2003)** — "Does Ecotoxicology Inform Ecological Risk Assessment?" (*Environ. Sci. Technol.*
  37:1544 — ES&T Viewpoint). *Roskilde + Sheffield.* **[A]** — the broader critique of the lab-to-field inference.
  **HELD (Taildrop 2026-06-14).** `Forbes-Calow_2003_does_ecotoxicology_inform_ERA.pdf`
- **✓ Newman et al. (2000)** — "Applying SSDs in ERA: assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers
  of species" (*Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* 19(2):508–515). *VIMS / College of William & Mary.* **[A]** —
  *lognormal rejected for half of 30 datasets; bootstrap alternative; HC5 needs 15–55 species.* **HELD (Taildrop
  2026-06-14; title-verified).** `Newman_etal_2000_SSD_assumptions_distribution_sample_size.pdf`
- **✓ Maltby et al. (2005)** — "Insecticide SSDs: importance of test species selection and relevance to aquatic
  ecosystems" (*Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* 24(2):379–388). *Univ. Sheffield + Alterra/Wageningen.* **[A]** —
  *taxonomic composition of the test set drives the hazard estimate.* **HELD (Taildrop 2026-06-14;
  title-verified).** `Maltby_etal_2005_insecticide_SSD_test_species_selection.pdf`
- **✓ Van Leeuwen (1990)** — "Ecotoxicological Effects Assessment in the Netherlands: Recent Developments"
  (*Environ. Management* 14:779–792). *Dutch DG Environmental Protection.* **[G]** — the Dutch *rationale* that
  Forbes & Forbes quoted; critically reviews Van Straalen & Denneman. **HELD (Taildrop 2026-06-14).**
  `VanLeeuwen_1990_NL_effects_assessment_recent_developments.pdf`
- **✓ Emans et al. (1993)** — "Validation of Some Extrapolation Methods Used for Effect Assessment" (*Environ.
  Toxicol. Chem.* 12:2139–2154). *RIVM.* **[G]** — RIVM's own validation (the Dutch counterpart to Versteeg).
  **HELD (Taildrop 2026-06-14).** `Emans_etal_1993_validation_extrapolation_methods.pdf`
- **✓ Posthuma, Suter & Traas (eds.) (2002)** — *Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology* (SETAC/Lewis;
  617 pp, 22 chapters) — the canonical reference; includes Suter's "North American history of SSDs" and the
  "European history" chapters. **HELD (Taildrop 2026-06-14; title-verified).** `Posthuma-Suter-Traas_2002_SSD_in_ecotoxicology_BOOK.pdf`

## D. Database, application & field validation
- **✓ Posthuma et al. (2019)** — SSDs for 12,386 chemicals. *RIVM + U.S. EPA.* **[G]**
- **✓ Hose & Van den Brink (2004)** — "Confirming the SSD concept for endosulfan using laboratory, mesocosm,
  and field data" (*Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.* 47:511–520) — the does-the-HC5-match-reality test.
  *Australian + Wageningen (NL).* **[A/G]**
- **✓ Versteeg, Belanger & Carr (1999)** — "Understanding single-species and model ecosystem sensitivity"
  (*Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* 18(6):1329) — **the foundational validation** (lab SSD vs model ecosystem).
  ***Procter & Gamble.*** **[C]** *(see `../SSD_VALIDATION.md`)*
- **✓ Maltby et al. (2006)** — "Predictive Value of Species Sensitivity Distributions for Effects of Herbicides
  in Freshwater Ecosystems" (*Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.*) — herbicide validation. *Univ. Sheffield.* **[A]**
- **✓ Solomon et al. (1996)** — "Ecological Risk Assessment of Atrazine in North American Surface Waters"
  (*Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* 15(1):31–76, 46 pp) — the first big **regulatory** use of SSDs. *(Retrieved via
  the Wiley DOI 10.1002/etc.5620150105 after the SETAC DOI served a wrong PDF.)* **[A/industry-consortium]**

## E. TTC cross-branch (the human-side relatives)
- **✓ Cramer, Ford & Hall (1978)** — the decision tree / Cramer classes. ***McCormick & Co.* (spices) +
  *Research Institute for Fragrance Materials*.** **[C]** — corporate from the root.
- **✓ Munro et al. (1996)** — the TTC (5th-percentile-of-NOELs). ***CanTox Inc.* (tox consultancy) + *RIFM*
  (fragrance industry).** **[C]**
- **✓ Kroes et al. (2004)** — structure-based TTC. *Utrecht + Southampton + Fraunhofer + RIVM + Swiss FOPH* —
  but convened under **ILSI Europe** (industry-funded). **[A/G under industry umbrella]**

## F. Reference texts
- **✓ van Leeuwen & Vermeire (eds.) (2007)** — *Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction* (2nd ed., Springer;
  extract) — the standard EU reference on risk assessment (PNEC/SSD + TTC). *EC JRC Ispra / TNO + RIVM.* **[G/A]**
  (operator Taildrop 2026-06-14). `VanLeeuwen-Vermeire_2007_Risk-Assessment-of-Chemicals-2e_extract.pdf`

---
*Wishlist (couldn't retrieve, or mirror served the wrong PDF): `_WISHLIST.md`. Affiliation analysis:
`../SSD_ORIGINS_AND_AFFILIATIONS.md`.*