Appendix I - Using the Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) Approach to Evaluate Dioxin,Furan, and Dioxin-like PCB ResultsAnalytical MethodsLaboratories performing dioxin analysis must be certified by NJDEP for either USEPASW846 Method 8290 or USEPA Method 1613B (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(a)1) (USEPA1994b and 1994c). Laboratories performing PCB congener analysis must be certified byNJDEP for USEPA Method 1668A/B (USEPA 1999c). Full laboratory deliverables arerequired per N.J.A.C. 7:26E 2.1(a)15i.If a phased approach to sampling is used, samples from outside the source area may bestored at the laboratory until source area results are reviewed. Samples for dioxinanalysis in soil, sediment, wipe, and chip samples may be archived at the laboratory forup to one year to extraction, followed by one year to analysis. Stored nonaqueoussamples are to be kept in the dark at or below -10 o C. Stored aqueous samples are to bekept in the dark at zero to four degrees C. Sample extracts from both may be stored inthe dark, below -10 o C for one year.TEQ ApproachAs described in 6.4.7, 17 dioxin and furan congeners and 12 dioxin-like PCBs producesimilar biological effects with varying potencies and generally act together in an additivefashion. To facilitate the assessment <strong>of</strong> the most toxic components <strong>of</strong> these complexmixtures, the 29 dioxin-like congener concentrations from biotic and abiotic media aremultiplied by internationally recognized toxic equivalency factors (TEFs), which areorder <strong>of</strong> magnitude estimates <strong>of</strong> the toxicity <strong>of</strong> the individual congeners relative to2,3,7,8-TCDD that have been developed by the World Health Organization (WHO);2,3,7,8 - TCDD is assigned a TEF <strong>of</strong> 1. The resulting concentrations are summed todetermine the TEQ concentration. Each <strong>of</strong> the 29 designated dioxin-like compounds hasbeen assigned a fish, avian, and mammalian TEF (Van den Berg et al., 1998, 2006;www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_update/en/print.html). Only the 2,3,7,8-substitutedPCDDs and PCDFs are factored into the summation for the sample TEQ (i.e., those listedby the laboratory as “other dioxins,” per congener category, are not included in the TEQ).<strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dioxins, Furans, and Dioxin-like PCBs for initial screening in the<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>In the ecological evaluation (EE), the TEQ approach is used to initially characterize,screen, and present dioxin, furan, and dioxin-like PCB data by using TEFs for onereceptor class for a consistent and streamlined evaluation. The application <strong>of</strong> the avianTEFs to dioxin, furan, and dioxin-like PCB concentrations in abiotic media (soil,sediment, surface water) is recommended. The reasons for selecting the avian TEFs areas follows: Among the avian, mammalian, and fish TEFs, the avian and mammalianTEFs are generally similar and more conservative than the fish TEFs. Between the avianand mammalian TEFs, while the TEFs for PCB 126 (a highly toxic WHO PCB congener)are identical, the avian TEF for PCB 77 is higher than the mammalian, resulting in amore conservative TEC for PCB 77. It is appropriate to focus on PCB 77 in thescreening process since it is detected in media samples at greater frequency and at higherconcentrations than PCB 126. Therefore, using avian TEF scheme is the most<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 125Version 1.2 8/29/12
conservative approach from an ecological screening perspective. See Table I-1 for asummary <strong>of</strong> avian TEFs.Table I-1: Summary <strong>of</strong> WHO Avian TEF Values (Van den Berg et al., 1998)CompoundAvian TEFChlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins2,3,7,8-TCDD 11,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 11,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.051,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.011,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.11,2,34,6,7,8-HpCDD < 0.001OCDD 0.0001Chlorinated dibenz<strong>of</strong>urans2,3,7,8-TCDF 11,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.12,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 11,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.11,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.12,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.011,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01OCDF 0.0001Non-ortho-substituted PCBs3,3’,4,4’-tetraCB (PCB 77) 0.053,4,4’,5-tetraCB (PCB 81) 0.13,3’4,4’,5-pentaCB (PCB 126) 0.13,3’4,4’,5,5’-hexaCB (PCB 169) 0.001Mono-ortho-substituted PCBs2,3,3’4,4’-pentaCB (PCB105) 0.00012,3,4,4’,5-pentaCB (PCB 114) 0.00012,3’4,4’5-pentaCB (PCB118) 0.000012’,3,4,4’,5-pentaCB (PCB 123) 0.000012,3,3’,4,4’,5-hexaCB(PCB 156) 0.00012,3,3’,4,4’5’-hexaCB (PCB 157) 0.00012,3’4,4’5,5’-hexaCB (PCB 167) 0.000012,3,3’4,4’,5,5’-heptaCB (PCB 189) 0.00001TEQs for the three contaminant classes, PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs, are generated usingthe avian TEFs for each sample to afford evaluation <strong>of</strong> the relative contribution fromthese classes. The individual congener concentration multiplied by the TEF is the<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 126Version 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 and 124: Appendix H - Soil Toxicity TestingS
- Page 125: another sample may still have a sub
- Page 129: Data PresentationTabular presentati