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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Part B, Section 2 There is consistent use and acceptance of the 7 and 14 day mortality test as a short-term test for earthworms (e.g., OECD, 1984a; Greene et al. 1989; ISO, 1991) and for the five-day seed germination/root elongation test as a short-term test for plants (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1982; Porcella, 1983; Ratsch and Johndro, 1986; Thomas and Cline, 1985; Miller et al., 1985; Wang, 1987; Wang and Williams, 1988; ASTM, 1990a; ASTM, 1990b). However, short-term toxicological tests for other soil-dependent organisms (e.g., isopods) are still under development (NISRP, 1991; ISO, 1992). Long-term standardized toxicity test methods for earthworms have recently been developed and others are currently being developed for isopods (ISO, 1992; NISRP, 1991). Usually, long-term exposure tests for soil-dwelling organisms include at least one reproduction stage (in the case of soil invertebrates), or one growth cycle (in the case of plants). Long-term tests have been proposed for earthworms (five-week reproduction-ISO, 1991) and some plants {life cycle flowering (ASTM, 1991)}, but there is some uncertainty in the selection of proper endpoints and methodologies for these tests (OECD, 1990). The acceptability of short- and long-term tests for general use in this protocol should be determined on a study-by-study basis using the information cited above as a guide. Data from long-term studies are preferred for deriving soil quality guidelines. However, given the limited availability of such data, shortterm toxicity data may be accepted for guidelines derivation. 2.4.2 Short- and Long-term Tests for Mammalian and Avian Species A considerable number of standardized toxicological tests have been carried out on traditional laboratory animals using different endpoints for various types of exposure. One of the most common toxicity tests is the LD 50 (i.e., the lethal dose which results in 50% mortality of the test population). This test is normally an acute exposure often involving a single administration of various chemical doses to laboratory animals followed by a 7 to 14 day examination of lethal effects (Klassen, 1986). Unfortunately, a standardized method for conducting toxicity tests for wildlife and livestock species are generally lacking, with the exception of the five-day dietary LC 50 test for avian species (Hill and Hoffman, 1984). Historically, in mammalian and avian subacute and chronic lethality tests, the number of dose regimes often do not provide sufficient information to calculate a dose that results in a 50% response. Thus, endpoints for chronic exposures are often reported as the no observed (adverse) effect level (NO(A)EL) and the lowest observed (adverse) effect level (LO(A)EL). Chronic adverse effects endpoints can be related to reproduction, growth, or viability resulting from a continuous exposure over a significant portion of the organism's lifespan. Subchronic exposures normally involve the same endpoint as chronic exposures, but are conducted over a shorter time period. 26
Part B, Section 3 Section 3 Status of the Toxicological Database for Soil Related Exposures 3.1 Soil-dependent Organisms Most available toxicological information for soil based exposures was generated using soil-dependent biota. A recent compilation of toxicological data for soil-dependent organisms (plants, invertebrates and microbes) by Dennemen and van Gestel (1990) indicates that well-characterized soil toxicity information is lacking for many contaminants, principally as a result of only a few standardized testing procedures. However, there is considerable research effort going into establishing standardized soil toxicity test procedures to generate new toxicity data for a broader range of soil-dependent organisms (e.g., soil isopods) (NISRP, 1991). Currently, soil toxicity data for soil-dependent organisms are better characterized for inorganic rather than organic contaminants (Dennemen and van Gestel, 1990). Long-term studies, for the most part, report the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) and the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC). Short-term studies report either a median lethal (LC 50 ), median effective (EC 50 ) concentration and a NOEC and LOEC (estimated from the highest test concentration producing no observed effects and the lowest test concentration producing an observed effect, respectively). 3.2 Mammalian and Avian Species The bulk of available mammalian toxicological data for environmental contaminants was generated using laboratory animals, particularly rodents. Significantly less information is available for terrestrial wildlife and livestock species for soil-based exposures, and most of these studies were performed using oral dosages via food. Few toxicity studies have been conducted on avian wildlife, and most were performed on poultry and gamebirds (Walker and MacDonald, 1992). Little or no information exists on dermal contact toxicity from contaminated soil exposures. Soil ingested directly or adhered to vegetation can account for the most, if not all, of the contaminant ingested by an animal (Beresford and Howard, 1991). Soil ingestion was also found to be a more significant pathway of exposure in animals than ingestion of contaminated forage (Zach and Mayoh, 1984). Unfortunately, little data exists on the effects of contaminated soil ingestion by birds and mammals, and it is expected that few generic soil quality guidelines will be derived for this route of exposure. 27
Page 1 and 2:
A Protocol for the Derivation of En
Page 3 and 4:
Readers' Comments The Canadian Coun
Page 5 and 6:
Overview In response to growing pub
Page 7 and 8:
mechanisms for migration of soil co
Page 9 and 10:
procédures d'élaboration des reco
Page 11 and 12:
• être absorbés par les plantes
Page 13 and 14:
PART B Section 1 Derivation of Envi
Page 16 and 17:
Section 2 Investigation of Contamin
Page 18 and 19: PART D Section 1 Derivation of the
Page 20 and 21: List of Figures 1 National Framewor
Page 22 and 23: Acknowledgements The CCME Subcommit
Page 24 and 25: Document Organization This document
Page 26 and 27: Bioaccumulation: The process by whi
Page 28 and 29: Denitrification: The gaseous loss o
Page 30 and 31: GGG Guidelines: Generic numerical l
Page 32 and 33: Mutagenicity: The ability of a chem
Page 34 and 35: xxxiv human exposure. Risk estimati
Page 36 and 37: Soil: Normally defined as the uncon
Page 38 and 39: VVV Volatilization: The chemical pr
Page 41 and 42: Section 1 The National Contaminated
Page 44 and 45: Part A, Section 1 6
Page 46 and 47: Part A, Section 1 1.2.2.2 Remediati
Page 48 and 49: Part A, Section 1 of, and establish
Page 50 and 51: Part A, Section 2 Section 2 Nationa
Page 53 and 54: Part A, Section 2 2.2 Limitations o
Page 55 and 56: Part A, Section 2 17
Page 57 and 58: Part A, Section 2 Industrial: where
Page 59 and 60: • the sensitivity of the test con
Page 61: Part A, Section 3 23
Page 64 and 65: Section 2 Level of Ecological Prote
Page 66 and 67: Part B, Section 2 2.3 Endpoint Defi
Page 70 and 71: Part B, Section 4 Section 4 Potenti
Page 72: Part B, Section 4 Figure 4 Simplifi
Page 75 and 76: Figure 5 Key Receptors and Exposure
Page 77 and 78: Part B, Section 5 grazing herbivore
Page 80 and 81: Part B, Section 5 5.2.2 Maintenance
Page 82 and 83: Part B, Section 5 5.4 Industrial La
Page 84 and 85: Section 6 Uncertainty in Guidelines
Page 86 and 87: Section 7 Guidelines Derivation Pro
Page 88 and 89: Part B, Section 7 (SQG SG = soil qu
Page 90 and 91: Part B, Section 7 a soil quality gu
Page 92 and 93: Where: NPER = no to Potential Effec
Page 94 and 95: Part B, Section 7 7.5.2.1 Using Mic
Page 96 and 97: Part B, Section 7 data, the Median
Page 98 and 99: Part B, Section 7 EC 50 LC 50 UF =
Page 100 and 101: Where: ERL = Effects Range Low, ECL
Page 102: Part B, Section 7 Where: EC 50 = Me
Page 105 and 106: Part B, Section 7 Where the ECL lie
Page 107 and 108: Part B, Section 7 4. Fewer than thr
Page 110 and 111: Part B, Section 7 An uncertainty fa
Page 112 and 113: Part B, Section 7 Therefore, BCF =
Page 114 and 115: Part B, Section 7 ingestion (SQG I
Page 117 and 118: Section 8 Derivation of the Final E
Page 119 and 120:
Part C, Section 1 65
Page 121 and 122:
Part C, Section 1 various sites acr
Page 123 and 124:
Part C, Section 1 Geographical unce
Page 125 and 126:
preferred for the assessment, but s
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Part C, Section 2 Environmental con
Page 131 and 132:
Part C, Section 2 extent, the steep
Page 133 and 134:
Section 3 Exposure to Contaminants
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Part C, Section 4 Section 4 Exposur
Page 139 and 140:
Part C, Section 4 within limits, th
Page 141 and 142:
Part C, Section 4 Figure 19 Concept
Page 143 and 144:
Part C, Section 4 4.2 Absorption of
Page 145 and 146:
Part C, Section 4 In the case of no
Page 148 and 149:
Residential/Parkland Land Use Sensi
Page 150 and 151:
Part C, Section 4 Commercial Land U
Page 152:
Part C, Section 4 Industrial Land U
Page 155 and 156:
Part C, Section 5 these data are av
Page 157 and 158:
Part C, Section 5 GEOCHEM (Mattigod
Page 159 and 160:
Part C, Section 5 • K oc (sorptio
Page 161 and 162:
Part C, Section 5 5.3.3 Evaluation
Page 163 and 164:
Part C, Section 5 parameters, and s
Page 165 and 166:
Section 6 Derivation of the Final H
Page 167 and 168:
Part D, Section 1 101
Page 169 and 170:
does not apply to the commercial or
Page 171:
Part D, Section 1 105
Page 174 and 175:
References Aldenberg, T., and W. Sl
Page 176 and 177:
References -dwelling Organisms", Ab
Page 178 and 179:
References 112
Page 180 and 181:
References Hill, E.F., and D.J. Hof
Page 182 and 183:
References Paustenbach, D.J., (1989
Page 184 and 185:
References Summers, J.K., H.T. Wils
Page 186 and 187:
Appendix A Appendix A Nutrient and
Page 188 and 189:
Appendix A Figure A.1 Simplified Te
Page 190 and 191:
Appendix A 4.1 Agricultural and Res
Page 192 and 193:
Appendix A References Bååth, E.,
Page 194 and 195:
The Subcommittee considers that exp
Page 196 and 197:
Appendix B P l P r BW = percent pro
Page 198 and 199:
Appendix B Substituting equation 5
Page 200 and 201:
Appendix B Where no MRL exists, the
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix B Then, the remainder (T R
Page 204 and 205:
Appendix B For carcinogens, total i
Page 206 and 207:
Appendix C Rearranging [2] and subs
Page 208 and 209:
Appendix C References Chiou, C.T.,
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix D uncontaminated organic m
Page 212 and 213:
Appendix D R = recharge, m/yr A = a
Page 214 and 215:
Appendix D 2.3.3 Hydraulic Gradient
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix D 2.3.5 Site Length The le
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix D Table D.2 Lower Quantile
Page 220 and 221:
Figure D.2 Conceptual Model of Dilu
Page 222:
Appendix D Figure D.3 Recharge Esti
Page 225 and 226:
Appendix D 159
Page 227 and 228:
Smith, A.E., P.B. Ryan, and J.S. Ev
Page 229 and 230:
Appendix E C K L V is the climate f
Page 231 and 232:
Appendix E contaminant concentratio
Page 233 and 234:
Appendix F Appendix F Multi-media E
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix F example, fish BCFs are t
Page 237 and 238:
Appendix G 2.2 Contaminant Vapour T
Page 239 and 240:
Appendix G Table G.1 Equations Used
Page 241 and 242:
Appendix G at the outset that, rath
Page 243 and 244:
Appendix G 4.4 Application of the R
Page 245 and 246:
Average outdoor summer temperature
Page 247:
Appendix G References Alberta Envir
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?