C:\Eco-SSLs\Contaminant Specific Documents\Lead\November ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.0 ECO-SSL FOR TERRESTRIAL PLANTS Of the papers identified from the literature search process, 439 were selected for acquisition for further review. Of those papers acquired, 28 met all 11 Study Acceptance Criteria (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 3-1). Each of these papers were reviewed and the studies were scored according to the Eco-SSL guidance (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 3-2). Thirty studies received an Evaluation Score greater than ten. These studies are listed in Table 3.1. The data in Table 3.1 are sorted by bioavailability score. There are eleven studies eligible for Eco-SSL derivation. There are four studies eligible for Eco-SSL derivation with a bioavailability score of 2 and all were used to derive the plant Eco-SSL for lead (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 3-2). The Eco-SSL is the geometric mean of the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) values for four test species under three different test conditions (pH and % organic matter (OM)) and is equal to 120 mg/kg dw. 4.0 ECO-SSL FOR SOIL INVERTEBRATES Of the papers identified from the literature search process, 179 were selected for acquisition for further review. Of those papers acquired, 13 met all 11 Study Acceptance Criteria (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 3-1). Each of these papers were reviewed and the studies were scored according to the Eco-SSL guidance (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 3-2). Eighteen studies received an Evaluation Score greater than ten. These studies are listed in Table 4.1. The data in Table 4.1 are sorted by bioavailability score. There are four studies eligible for Eco- SSL derivation and all were used to derive the soil invertebrate Eco-SSL for lead (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 3-2). The Eco-SSL is the geometric mean of the MATC values for one test species under three different test conditions (pH) and is equal to 1,700 mg/kg dw. 5.0 ECO-SSL FOR AVIAN WILDLIFE The derivation of the Eco-SSL for avian wildlife was completed as two parts. First, the toxicity reference values (TRV) was derived according to the Eco-SSL guidance (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 4-5). Second, the Eco-SSL (soil concentration) was back-calculated for each of three surrogate species based on the wildlife exposure model and the TRV (U.S. EPA, 2003). 5.1 Avian TRV The literature search completed according to the Eco-SSL guidance (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 4-2) identified 2,429 papers with possible toxicity data for lead for either avian or mammalian species. Of these papers, 2,157 were rejected for use as described in Section 7.5. Of the remaining papers, 54 contained data for avian test species. These papers were reviewed and the data were extracted and scored according to the Eco-SSL guidance (U.S. EPA, 2003; Attachment 4-3 and 4-4). The results of the data extraction and review are summarized in Table 5.1. The complete results are included as Appendix 5-1. Eco-SSL for Lead 4 March 2005
Table 3.1 Plant Toxicity Data - Lead Reference Study ID Test Organism Soil pH OM % Bioavailability Score ERE Tox Parameter Tox Value (Soil Conc. mg/kg dw) Total Evaluation Score Eligible for Eco-SSL Derivation? Davis and Barnes, 1973 a Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 4 2.5 2 GRO MATC 144 12 Y Y Davis and Barnes, 1973 b Red maple Acer rubrum 4 2.5 2 GRO MATC 144 12 Y Y Marques Dos Santos et al., 1993 b Berseem clover Trifolium alexandrium 6.3 0.94 2 GRO MATC 316 14 Y Y Marques Dos Santos et al., 1993 a Berseem clover Trifolium alexandrium 6.7 3.11 1 GRO MATC 141 13 Y N Singh and Jeng, 1993 Ryegrass Lolium rigidum 5.6 0.1 2 GRO MATC 22 14 Y Y Data Not Used to Derive Eco-SSL Geometric Mean 115 Chappelka et al., 1991 Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 5.5 3.4 2 GRO NOAEC 480 12 N N Dixon, 1988 Red Oak Querus rubras 6 1.5 2 GRO LOAEC 100 19 N N Gaweda, 1991 a Spinach Spinacia oleracea 6.7 0.0 2 GRO NOAEC 600 14 N N Taylor, 1974 Alfalfa Medicago sativa 6.4 1.0 2 GRO NOAEC 250 11 N N Taylor and Allinson, 1981 h Alfalfa Medicago sativa 6.9 1.7 2 GRO NOAEC 250 15 N N Taylor and Allinson, 1981 I Alfalfa Medicago sativa 6.9 1.7 2 GRO NOAEC 250 15 N N Zaman and Zereen, 1998 a Radish Raphanus sativus 6.9 1.0 2 GRO, BIO LOAEC 500 14 N N Zaman and Zereen, 1998 b Radish Raphanus sativus 6.9 1.0 2 GRO LOAEC 100 14 N N Zaman and Zereen, 1998 c Radish Raphanus sativus 6.9 1.0 2 GRO LOAEC 100 14 N N Balba et al., 1991 b Tomato Lycopersicum esculentum 7.73 1.70 1 REP MATC 71 15 Y N Balba et al., 1991 c Tomato Lycopersicum esculentum 8.20 0.86 1 REP MATC 71 15 Y N Dang et al., 1990 g Fenugreek Trigonella foenum 8.3 0.5 1 GRO MATC 283 11 Y N Gaweda, 1991 b Spinach Spinacia oleracea 6.7 3.0 1 GRO MATC 424 13 Y N Hassett et al., 1976 Corn Zea mays 6.5 2.1 1 GRO MATC 158 15 Y N Xiong, 1997 Sow thistle Sonchous oleraceus L. 7.23 1.6 1 GRO MATC 2263 14 Y N Dang et al., 1990 d Onion Allium cepa 8.3 0.5 1 GRO LOAEC 50 11 N N Gaweda and Capecka, 1995 a Radish Raphanus sativus 5.1 8.0 1 GRO NOAEC 600 13 N N Kadar and Morvai, 1998 a Carrot Daucus carota 7.0 0.6 1 GRO NOAEC 85 11 N N Kadar and Morvai, 1998 b Peas Pisum sativum 7.0 0.6 1 GRO NOAEC 85 11 N N Patel et al., 1977 Barley Hordeum vulgare 6.0 2.5 1 GRO NOAEC 1000 12 N N Taylor and Allinson, 1981 g Alfalfa Medicago sativa 6.9 4.8 1 GRO NOAEC 250 14 N N Balba et al., 1991 a Tomato Lycopersicum esculentum 7.45 2.06 0 REP MATC 35 14 N N Gaweda, 1991 c Spinach Spinacia oleracea 6.7 8.0 0 GRO NOAEC 600 12 N N Gaweda and Capecka, 1995 b Radish Raphanus sativus 6.2 8.0 0 GRO NOAEC 600 13 N N Gaweda and Capecka, 1995 BIO = Biomass c Radish Raphanus sativus 7.1 8.0 0 GRO NOAEC 600 13 N N ERE = Ecologically relevant endpoint NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration GRO = Growth OM = Organic matter content LOAEC = Lowest observed adverse effect concentration Y = Yes MATC = Maximum acceptable toxicant concentration. Geometric mean of NOAEC and LOAEC. Bioavailability Score described in Guidance for Developing Eco-SSLs (U.S. EPA, 2003) N = No REP = Reproduction Total Evaluation Score described in Guidance for Developing Eco-SSLs (U.S. EPA, 2003) Used for Eco-SSL? Eco-SSL for Lead 5 March 2005
Page 1 and 2: Ecological Soil Screening Levels fo
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Page 5 and 6: 1.0 INTRODUCTION Ecological Soil Sc
Page 7: Lead can interfere with the synthes
Page 11 and 12: Result # Table 5.1 Avian Toxicity D
Page 13 and 14: Within the reviewed papers, there a
Page 15 and 16: 6.0 ECO-SSL FOR MAMMALIAN WILDLIFE
Page 17 and 18: Result # Table 6.1 Mammalian Toxici
Page 23 and 24: Surrogate Receptor Group Mammalian
Page 25 and 26: 7.0 REFERENCES 7.1 General Lead Ref
Page 27 and 28: Folsomia candida (Collembola). Ecot
Page 29 and 30: Accumulation of Lead (Pb) by Maize
Page 31 and 32: Assessment of Heavy Metal Toxicity
Page 33 and 34: Mix Descamps, M., Fabre, M. C., Gre
Page 35 and 36: Yoram, and Huang, Jianwei. 1997. Hy
Page 37 and 38: Und Einem Aquatischen Oekosystem. (
Page 39 and 40: No Dur Hopkin, S. P. and Martin, M.
Page 41 and 42: Contaminated by Lead and Zinc. Envi
Page 43 and 44: No Toxicant Kort, H. S., Schober, G
Page 45 and 46: Media Lee, K. C., Cunningham, B. A.
Page 47 and 48: Treated with Lead Arsenate. J Econ
Page 49 and 50: Mix Nakos, G. 1979. Lead Pollution:
Page 51 and 52: metal-contaminated alluvial soil. J
Page 53 and 54: and Lead Solutions. J.Environ.Sci.H
Page 55 and 56: Activity and Nitrate Assimilation i
Page 57 and 58: Fiziol.Rast.(Sofia) 14[3], 3-8 Rev
Page 59 and 60:
Mix Weltje, L. 1998. Mixture Toxici
Page 61 and 62:
7.4 References Used in Deriving Wil
Page 63 and 64:
Clayton, LB, Kitchen, I, and Winder
Page 65 and 66:
Escribano, A., Revilla, M., Hernand
Page 67 and 68:
Hasan, F., Cookman, G. R., Keane, G
Page 69 and 70:
Kendall, RJ and Scanlon, PF. 1982.
Page 71 and 72:
Mcmurry, S. T., Lochmiller, R. L.,
Page 73 and 74:
Prasada Rao, P. V. V. , Jordan, S.
Page 75 and 76:
Sokol, R. Z. 1987. Hormonal Effects
Page 77 and 78:
Yu, S. Y., Mizinga, K. M., Nonavina
Page 79 and 80:
No Oral Letter from smelter environ
Page 81 and 82:
No Control Allcroft, R. 1950. Lead
Page 83 and 84:
Org Met Annau, Z. 1988. Organometal
Page 85 and 86:
Phys Bailey, C. and Kitchen, I. 198
Page 87 and 88:
Science. 50(4): 572-580. Fate Bebe,
Page 89 and 90:
Surv Beyer, W. N., Day, D., Morton,
Page 91 and 92:
Mix Bishop, Christine A., Boermans,
Page 93 and 94:
permanent hippocampal damage in Fis
Page 95 and 96:
FL Bukovjan, K., Hallmannova, A., K
Page 97 and 98:
Bio Acc Burger, J. , Rodgers, J. A.
Page 99 and 100:
with heavy metals on the mineral co
Page 101 and 102:
No Oral Chowdhury, A. R. and Ravell
Page 103 and 104:
Bio Acc Collins, MF, Hrdina, PD, Wh
Page 105 and 106:
Mix Cory Slechta, D. A., Pokora, M.
Page 107 and 108:
chemical Agents. J Obstet Gynaecol
Page 109 and 110:
25-39 Imm Descotes, J. R. Tedone, a
Page 111 and 112:
Bact Dolinsky, Z. S., Burright, R.
Page 113 and 114:
FL Dumas, P., Gueldry, D., Loireau,
Page 115 and 116:
Mix Elgerwi, A. Al-Fateh and Bires,
Page 117 and 118:
Stain Figueiredo, B. C., Skup, M.,
Page 119 and 120:
No Dose Fowler, B. A., Kimmel, C. A
Page 121 and 122:
Mix Fullmer, C. S. 1995. Dietary ca
Page 123 and 124:
Surv Getz, L. L., Best, L. B., and
Page 125 and 126:
Fate Govoni, S., Memo, M., Spano, P
Page 127 and 128:
Surv Guitart, R., To Figueras, J.,
Page 129 and 130:
Abstract Hanna, L., Peters, J. M.,
Page 131 and 132:
HHE Hemberg, S., Nikkanen, J, Melli
Page 133 and 134:
Surv Hillis, T. L. and Parker, G. H
Page 135 and 136:
Pb Behav Hong, J. S., Tilson, H. A.
Page 137 and 138:
FL Inouye, M. 1989. Teratology of h
Page 139 and 140:
HHE Janghorbani, M. and Young, V. R
Page 141 and 142:
Bio Acc Kaiser, T. E., Reichel, W.
Page 143 and 144:
Lead Shot Kendall, R. J. and Scanlo
Page 145 and 146:
Drug Kitchen, I. and McDowell, J. 1
Page 147 and 148:
Unrel Kopp, S. J., Glonek, T., Erla
Page 149 and 150:
Abstract Krigman, MR, Butts, SA, Ho
Page 151 and 152:
No Dose Lazareno, S and Nahorski, S
Page 153 and 154:
Prim Levin, E. D., Schneider, M. L.
Page 155 and 156:
Lead Shot Longcore, J. R., Locke, L
Page 157 and 158:
Surv Maedgen, J. L, Hacker, C. S.,
Page 159 and 160:
No Dose Massaro, E. J. and Massaro,
Page 161 and 162:
No Oral McGowan, C. 1989. Influence
Page 163 and 164:
CP Michaelson, I. A., Greenland, R.
Page 165 and 166:
Lead Shot Moore, J. L., Hohman, W.
Page 167 and 168:
No Dose Munoz, C., Garbe, K., Lilie
Page 169 and 170:
Drug Nation, J. R., Dugger, L. M.,
Page 171 and 172:
cutanee induite par le laurylsulfat
Page 173 and 174:
Surv Ohlendorf, Harry M., Hothem, R
Page 175 and 176:
Surv Pain, D. J. 1989. Hematologica
Page 177 and 178:
Surv Peles, J. D. and Barrett, G. W
Page 179 and 180:
No COC Plus, R. 1992. A review of i
Page 181 and 182:
CP Rasile, D. A., Donovick, P. J.,
Page 183 and 184:
Prim Rice, D. C. 1984. Behavioral D
Page 185 and 186:
Aquatic Roper, J. M., Cherry, D. S.
Page 187 and 188:
Lead Shot Sanderson, G. C., Anderso
Page 189 and 190:
Unrel Schoemaker, N. J., Lumeij, J.
Page 191 and 192:
Bio Acc Sharma, Rp, Street, Jc, Shu
Page 193 and 194:
Challenge, and Influence of Treatme
Page 195 and 196:
Diss Spahn, S. A. 1997. Colonial Wa
Page 197 and 198:
Surv Stendell, R. C., Smith, R. I.,
Page 199 and 200:
No Oral Sundstrom, R., Conradi, N.
Page 201 and 202:
Mix Thawley, D. G., Willoughby, R.
Page 203 and 204:
Bio Acc Tsuzuki, Toshihumi, Kotani,
Page 205 and 206:
No Dose Varma, M. M., Joshi, S. R.,
Page 207 and 208:
FL Vogt, H. and Nezel, K. 1976. The
Page 209 and 210:
Lead Shot Wayland, M. and Bollinger
Page 211 and 212:
Species Williams, Phillip L. and Du
Page 213 and 214:
CP Woolley, D. E. and Woolley-efige
Page 215 and 216:
Surv Zechalko, A. 1979. Effect of N
Page 217 and 218:
Rejection Criteria Literature Rejec
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix 5-1 Avian Toxicity Data Ex
Page 225 and 226:
Result # Ref N. Chemical Form MW% T
Page 227:
Result # Ref N. Chemical Form MW% T
Page 230 and 231:
This page intentionally left blank
Page 232 and 233:
Result # Ref N. Chemical Form MW% A
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242:
show all

C:\Eco-SSLs\Contaminant Specific Documents\Lead\November ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?