Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

expects that much variability in a short-term test with lab water and reagent salts, it iswithin reason to expect that long-term, sublethal effects from complex mixtures like sitesoil will yield substantially more variability.Toxicity Test DesignSoil toxicity studies are conducted by exposing a predetermined number of organisms(e.g., four replicates of ten organisms or seeds) to a soil sample. Organisms are placed inappropriate test chambers containing the soil sample, and in test chambers containingclean laboratory soil to serve as an experimental control. Investigators make directobservations of the exposed test setup at regular intervals for the duration of the test todetermine responses such as erratic behavior and visible mortality. However,earthworms quickly bury themselves in the test soil and are not seen again until testtermination when they are removed for final enumeration. Plants are not visible untilafter the seeds germinate and the plants begin to emerge after four to seven days.A second “reference” control should also be included in the study, using soil from outsidethe influence of the site. Use of an appropriate reference area soil is more representativeof the actual field conditions. While a site soil may show a significant effect as comparedto the laboratory control, it may not show a significant effect when compared to thereference area.The laboratory control soil should be an “artificial” soil, as described in the ASTMguidance (ASTM, 2004, Appendix A2). While both the plant and invertebrate toxicitymethods allow for use of various artificial soil mixtures, potting soils or natural soils aslaboratory controls, the objective of the study is not to compare site soils to “optimum”soil samples. Comparing the growth and reproduction of worms or plants grown in sitesoils to those grown in a laboratory control composed of a rich, organic potting soil willalmost always show a significant decrease in site sample growth compared to the control,regardless of whether the site soil is toxic or not. For this reason, potting soil or any otherrich, organic soil is not appropriate for use as a laboratory control when testing site soilsamples.To perform statistical analyses to determine whether significant differences exist betweenthe laboratory controls or reference area samples, toxicity studies should be set up withmultiple replicates. As a general rule, more replicates equates to greater statistical powerand more confidence in the final results. Soil studies are typically performed with four toeight replicates of ten organisms or seeds for each test soil, which ensures sufficientstatistical power for the more sensitive sublethal growth endpoints.Toxicity Test EndpointsFor acute soil toxicity studies with earthworms, the endpoints can include survival andgrowth. While survival is a definitive endpoint, earthworm growth measurements can bemisleading because the worms are measured as wet weight at test initiation and again attest termination. Earthworms are depurated for 24 to 48 hours prior to weighing, to allowthem to purge their digestive tracts of soil. The earthworms used in toxicity testingshould all be approximately uniform in size, but because of the range of soil grain sizeand organic content, different soils will be depurated at different rates. This means thatthe worms in one soil may have completely purged their guts, while the worms fromEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 123Version 1.2 8/29/12
another sample may still have a substantial amount of soil inside them. This source ofvariability can bias earthworm growth measurements and yield misleading results.If earthworm bioaccumulation is an endpoint of concern, investigators should ensure thata sufficient number of worms are exposed to the soil samples to yield sufficient tissuemass at test termination to meet analytical mass requirements for all of the desiredanalytical parameters. This may require larger test chambers with larger numbers ofworms exposed for each replicate to retain the ability to perform statistical analyses onthe analytical results.For plant toxicity studies, endpoints can include germination, survival and growth.Germination is assessed by the number of plants that emerge from the soil surface.Survival is assessed as the number of emergent plants that survive the entire test period.Growth can be measured as shoot height, shoot weight, root length and root weight.Shoot height and weight are measured on the aboveground portion of the plant. Rootlength and weight are measured on the belowground portion of the plant.If plant bioaccumulation is an endpoint of concern, investigators should ensure that asufficient number of seeds are exposed to the soil samples to yield sufficient tissue massat test termination to meet analytical mass requirements for all of the desired analyticalparameters. This may require a longer test period to produce larger plants, larger testchambers or larger numbers of seeds exposed for each replicate to retain the ability toperform statistical analyses on the analytical results.Data EvaluationAll statistical analyses are to be performed as specified in the USEPA and ASTMguidance documents. Data from site samples should be compared to the laboratorycontrols to determine whether observed toxic effects are statistically significant. Inaddition to the laboratory control, an appropriately selected field reference area soil mayyield results that are more representative of actual field conditions. A soil from a locationadjacent to a site may be an appropriate reference area for a site soil sample. If the offsitereference area sample shows toxic effects, it is possible that at least a portion of anytoxic effects observed from the site sample are not related to the site.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 124Version 1.2 8/29/12
Page 1 and 2:
Ecological EvaluationTechnical Guid
Page 3 and 4:
6.2.1.3 Biological Sampling of Fish
Page 5 and 6:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsADDAETAFA
Page 7 and 8:
Executive SummaryThis document prov
Page 9 and 10:
environmentally sensitive areas pur
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 3-1: Flow diagram to describ
Page 13 and 14:
assessment may also include evaluat
Page 15 and 16:
“Hazard quotient” or “HQ” m
Page 17 and 18:
“Site investigation” means the
Page 19 and 20:
parameters as specified in ERAGS (i
Page 21 and 22:
document otherwise). The investigat
Page 23 and 24:
5.3.2.1 Potential Contaminant Migra
Page 25 and 26:
71 0Sampling pointsSampling transec
Page 27 and 28:
5.3.4 Background ConsiderationsIt i
Page 29 and 30:
III. GroundwaterAnalytical data fro
Page 31 and 32:
5.5 Ecological Evaluation ReportThe
Page 33 and 34:
Step 1 - Preliminary Screening Leve
Page 35 and 36:
specific measurements of receptor h
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 6-2: Ecological Conceptual S
Page 39 and 40:
ingested, air inhaled, or material
Page 41 and 42:
Fugacity, which is described as the
Page 43 and 44:
environment. As noted in ERAGS, the
Page 45 and 46:
Sample SelectionAfter completing th
Page 47 and 48:
While there are many laboratories t
Page 49 and 50:
ioavailability, and by doing so, of
Page 51 and 52:
For the purposes of surface water,
Page 53 and 54:
higher trophic level receptors. Lip
Page 55 and 56:
Details regarding surface water tox
Page 57 and 58:
e present at intervals greater than
Page 59 and 60:
elatively sedentary organisms that
Page 61 and 62:
COPECs. The following references ar
Page 63 and 64:
tests (USEPA, 2002e). After collect
Page 65 and 66:
multiple reference area soils repre
Page 67 and 68:
In ERAs, tissue residue analyses ar
Page 69 and 70:
Objectives of the ERA: including a
Page 71 and 72:
evaluation might necessitate the co
Page 73 and 74: N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c)1. The ERA may
Page 75 and 76: sediment (i.e., that fraction that
Page 77 and 78: Twelve dioxin-like PCB congeners ha
Page 79 and 80: indicates burial of potential dioxi
Page 81 and 82: of evidence for evaluating risk unt
Page 83 and 84: 7.2.1 Apparent Effects Threshold Ap
Page 85 and 86: when site conditions are most simil
Page 87 and 88: destroying 10 acres of the mature f
Page 89 and 90: ASTM (American Society for Testing
Page 91 and 92: Establishing Sediment Quality Crite
Page 93 and 94: N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative
Page 95 and 96: USEPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guida
Page 97 and 98: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regu
Page 99 and 100: USEPA 2006a. Data Quality Assessmen
Page 101 and 102: Appendix A - Habitat Survey FormsEc
Page 103 and 104: Ecological Evaluation Technical Gui
Page 105 and 106: Appendix B - Sampling Procedures fo
Page 107 and 108: Appendix C - Surface Water Toxicity
Page 109 and 110: Short-term chronic studies, endpoin
Page 111 and 112: Appendix D - Sediment Toxicity Test
Page 113 and 114: Toxicity Test DesignSediment toxici
Page 115 and 116: Appendix E - Sediment Pore Water an
Page 117 and 118: The seven-day daphnid survival and
Page 119 and 120: esults are then evaluated using USE
Page 121 and 122: Surber or Square-foot BottomThis sa
Page 123: Appendix H - Soil Toxicity TestingS
Page 127 and 128: conservative approach from an ecolo
Page 129: Data PresentationTabular presentati
show all

Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?