Techniques for Creating Group Level Benchmarks For Sea-going Creatures.

Uploaded on:
Techniques for Creating Group Level Benchmarks For Amphibian Creatures EPA Improvement Group Provincial Partner Gatherings January 11-22, 2010 Framework Reason and Degree Potential uses OW and OPP Impacts Evaluation Approaches Conceivable methodologies for assessing group level benchmarks
Slide 1

Strategies for Developing Community Level Benchmarks For Aquatic Animals EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010

Slide 2

Outline Purpose and Scope Potential uses OW and OPP Effects Assessment Approaches Possible methodologies for evaluating group level benchmarks White paper advancement Key exploration inquiries/issues Evaluation of deduction routines

Slide 3

White Paper Purpose and Scope Describe the best coordinated utilization of existing apparatuses for determining sea-going group level benchmarks for the assurance of amphibian creatures. Advancement of group level benchmarks with littler information sets than those presently used to determine AWQC. Consider existing methodologies utilized by OW and OPP for describing sea-going biological impacts Characterize the instability of benchmarks created for a given methodology.

Slide 4

Potential Uses of Community-Level Benchmarks Evaluating water quality checking information Prioritizing the advancement of encompassing water quality criteria for pesticides Informing 305b or 303d appraisal and posting choices Developing State/Tribal water quality norms as well as NPDES license points of confinement Providing extra portrayal of OPP taxa-particular toxicological benchmarks Improve the consistency and straightforwardness of biological impacts evaluations led under FIFRA and the CWA Improving the coordination of pesticide danger relief measures in the middle of OPP and OW Sensitivity

Slide 5

Developing Aquatic Life Criteria (OW) Criteria are created in view of national need Addresses intense and incessant impacts endpoints: survival, development, generation, advancement Requires a base number of information for distinctive creature taxa 8 families (freshwater intense rule) 3 families (freshwater endless model) Specifies poisonous quality test agreeableness and quality criteria Designed to be defensive of dominant part of amphibian creature species (i.e., 5 th percentile of tried oceanic creatures ).

Slide 6

OW Data Requirements for Aquatic Life Quality Criteria (Freshwater Acute) 2 ND FISH FAMILY SALMONID 3 rd CHORDATE FAMILY (Fish or Amphibian) PLANKTONIC CRUSTACEAN BENTHIC CRUSTACEAN 4 th PHYLUM OR ANOTHER AQUATIC INSECT ORDER 3 rd PHYLUM (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca) AQUATIC INSECT

Slide 7

Developing OW Aquatic Life Criteria SMAV Spp 1 GMAV SPECIES - LEVEL GENUS-LEVEL GMAV FAV

Slide 8

OW Acute Species Sensitivity Distribution: Acrolein (USEPA 2009) Final Acute Value (FAV)= 5.92 ug/L Acute Criterion (CMC) = 3.0 ug/L (i.e., FAV/2) FAV CMC 0.05

Slide 9

Additional Considerations for Aquatic Life Criteria Development Similar saltwater-particular family level taxonomic prerequisites for inference of intense saltwater criteria . Inference of perpetual criteria (CCC)– depends generally on estimation through intense to incessant proportions (ACR) Minimum of three families – must have fish ACR, invertebrate ACR, and one ACR from intensely touchy FW taxa For FW unending deduction 2/3 ACRs can be SW, and the other way around Aquatic plants: no less than one satisfactory test with green growth/vascular plant; if plants are most delicate, then extra tests on another phylum/division ought to be accessible

Slide 10

Developing an Ecological Effects Assessment for Pesticide Registration Developed for every enlistment choice (new pesticide, new utilize [national or local], re-assessment of existing utilization). Addresses intense and interminable impacts endpoints: survival, development, generation, advancement Requires information for distinctive taxonomic gatherings of oceanic creatures (fish, spineless creatures) contingent upon utilization 3 families (freshwater intense creatures, outside utilization) 2 families (freshwater constant creatures, open air utilization) Specifies danger test adequacy and quality criteria Designed to be defensive of lion\'s share of sea-going creature species (i.e., most touchy tried amphibian creature).

Slide 11

FIFRA Data Requirements For Outdoor Use (Freshwater creatures) Acute Toxicity: Cold-water fish Warm-water fish Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity: Conditionally Required: Sediment poisonous quality, Bioaccumulation, Field studies Fish (warm-or frosty water) Invertebrate

Slide 12

FIFRA Ecological Effects Assessment: Additional Considerations Estuarine/Marine Acute Toxicity: Acute: 1 fish and 2 spineless creatures are obliged Chronic: 1 fish and 1 invertebrate restrictively obliged Aquatic Plants: Specific nonvascular and vascular plant necessities green growth; blue-green/cyanobacteria; freshwater and marine diatoms; duckweed Acute-Chronic Ratios: ordinarily used to address absence of incessant information for the most intensely touchy species Other Data: Specific information can be asked for to address potential impacts of worry, for instance: UV light-subordinate herbicide lethality to right on time life-stage fish Dietary bioavailability/danger to angle

Slide 13

FIFRA Aquatic Life Benchmarks (Freshwater) Nonvascular plants Vascular plants Based on the most delicate harmfulness test result inside of each taxonomic gathering Fish Invertebrates Toxicity information from open writing are viewed as FIFRA Aquatic Life Benchmark Derivation : Acute Freshwater Vertebrate and Invertebrate : = most touchy poisonous quality worth x Level of Concern (e.g., 96-hr LC 50 x 0.5) Chronic Freshwater Vertebrate and Invertebrate : = most touchy harmfulness esteem x Level of Concern (e.g., NOAEC x 1.0) Aquatic Plants (vascular, nonvascular): = most delicate danger quality x level of concern (e.g., EC 50 x 1.0)

Slide 14

OPP Aquatic Animal Sensitivity Distribution For Acrolein (USEPA 2008) Acute Freshwater Invertebrate Benchmark = <15.5 ug/L (i.e. <31 x 0.5) Acute Freshwater Vertebrate Benchmark = 3.5 ug/L (i.e., 7 x 0.5)

Slide 15

Top 5 likenesses in OW and OPP Effects Assessment Methods Use all accessible solid amphibian harmfulness information, including information from open writing Peer audit information, with straightforward information quality measures Use same evaluation endpoints (survival, development, generation, advancement) Use ACRs to gauge incessant worth Effects appraisal spotlights on delicate oceanic species OW: Using 5 th percentile of an animal types affectability conveyance OPP: Using most touchy species in a taxonomic gathering

Slide 16

Top 5 contrasts in OW and OPP Effects Assessment Methods (*) for outside physical utilization

Slide 17

Some Potential Approaches for Developing Community-Level Benchmarks Extrapolation Factors Dependence on information set size (Host et al, 1995 [GLI Tier II]) With and without thought of Mode of Action (MOA) (e.g., DeZwart et al 2002; Pennington et al 2003) Predictive Methods for Expanding Data Set Sizes Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSAR) Interspecies Correlation Estimations (ICE) Read Across/Data Bridging/Chemical Category & Analog Approaches Acute to Chronic Ratios (Chronic Only) Integrative Application of the Above Methods TenBrook et al. 2009; Intrinsik 2008

Slide 18

General Approach for White Paper Development Scoping, writing audit, characterizing key examination inquiries/issues Selection and screening of toxicological databases Review and use of accessible strategies Evaluation of technique execution Development and testing of system for coordinated utilization of routines

Slide 19

Some Key Research Questions How do affectability circulations and related extrapolation variables change? Crosswise over diverse methods of activity For distinctive information set sizes With vicinity/nonattendance of certain taxa (e.g., Daphnia ) By kind of factual dissemination (e.g. log triangular, lognormal, log-logistic) How do extrapolation variables shift with the decision of percentile (e.g., 1 st , 5 th , 10 th ) and fancied precision? How do the benchmarks and their related instability shift among diverse deduction systems? Under what circumstances does utilization of anticipated qualities have a tendency to lessen instability in benchmark induction?

Slide 20

Additional Considerations for Evaluating Community-Level Benchmark Methods Selection of toxicological databases for system improvement and assessment will be guided by existing practice inside of the Agency Input from Predictive Tools workgroup for creating anticipated qualities will be significant Scientific premise Domain Performance (vulnerability) Expect qualities and impediments of routines for benchmark inference to change contingent upon accessible information Envision an integrative methodology for applying accessible devices Can qualities of varying devices be joined and utilized to deliver deductively faultless results?

Slide 21

Summary Through this White Paper, the Agency (OW, OPP, ORD) is investigating a mixture of techniques for improving (and more predictable) utilization of poisonous quality information from littler information sets in the setting of impacts evaluation with sea-going creatures. It gives the idea that nobody technique will be most appropriate to address all circumstances, and that a coordinated structure of routines may be required. Strategies created through this White Paper are required to supplement existing impacts evaluation techniques for oceanic creatures inside OW and OPP.

Slide 22

References De Zwart, D. 2002. Watched regularities in SSDs for amphibian species. In: Posthuma, L. what\'s more, G.W. Suter (Eds.), The Use of Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL. Host GE , Regal RR , Stephan CE (1995). Examinations of intense and incessant information for oceanic life . US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Intrinsik. 2008. Ways to deal with creating benchmarks for information restricted substances for the security of amphibian life. Last Report arranged for Environment Canada, Science and Technology Programs Coordination, Gatineau, Quebec Pennington, D. 2003. Extrapolating ecotoxicological measures from little information sets. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 56: 238-250. TenBrook, PL, Tjeerdema, RS, Hann, P, Karkoski, J. 2009. Strategi

View more...