02.09.2014 Views

Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human ... - CCME

Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human ... - CCME

Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human ... - CCME

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Part B, Section 2<br />

2.3 Endpoint Definition<br />

Suter (1993) describes two basic types <strong>of</strong> endpoints used in ecological risk assessment: assessment <strong>and</strong><br />

measurement endpoints. Assessment endpoints are <strong>for</strong>mal expressions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> environmental values to<br />

be protected (Suter, 1989) (e.g., decline in soil arthropod abundance). Two steps are required to<br />

properly define <strong>the</strong>se endpoints in a research project:<br />

• identifying <strong>the</strong> valued attributes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment considered to be at risk, <strong>and</strong><br />

• defining <strong>the</strong>se attributes in operational terms (Suter, 1993).<br />

Suter (1993) indicated that <strong>the</strong>re is no universal set <strong>of</strong> assessment endpoints, but that <strong>the</strong>re are five<br />

criteria that any endpoint should satisfy:<br />

• societal relevance,<br />

• biological relevance,<br />

• unambiguous operational definition,<br />

• accessability to prediction <strong>and</strong> measurement, <strong>and</strong><br />

• susceptibility to <strong>the</strong> hazardous agent.<br />

Examples <strong>of</strong> assessment endpoints are given in Suter (1993), who recommends that <strong>the</strong> a<strong>for</strong>ementioned<br />

criteria be seriously considered when operationally defining assessment endpoints so that ecological<br />

effects assessment is effective <strong>and</strong> understood at <strong>the</strong> societal level.<br />

Measurement endpoints are measurable, quantifiable responses (e.g., LC 50 ) to a chemical stressor that<br />

is related to a valued attribute <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ecological component (Suter, 1990). These measurable responses<br />

are usually estimated in monitoring studies <strong>of</strong> laboratory toxicity tests <strong>and</strong> are generally referred to as<br />

indicators (Suter, 1993). Since it is <strong>of</strong>ten difficult to measure assessment endpoints most data are used<br />

quantitatively or qualitatively. Assessment <strong>and</strong> measurement endpoints are seldom <strong>the</strong> same since<br />

assessment endpoints are usually defined on a large scale (e.g., populations, ecosystems) <strong>and</strong><br />

measurement endpoints on an individual level. Never<strong>the</strong>less, measurement endpoints should be<br />

consistent with assessment endpoints (e.g., predictions on population decline based on mortality<br />

estimates). Examples <strong>of</strong> measurement endpoints related to assessment endpoints are given in Suter<br />

(1993).<br />

In terrestrial toxicity testing, most data focused on mortality (LC 50 ) as a short-term endpoint <strong>and</strong><br />

reproduction, growth, development, behaviour, activity, lesions, physiological changes, respiration,<br />

nutrient cycling, contribution to decomposition, genetical adaption, <strong>and</strong> physiological acclimatization as<br />

24

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!