Toxicity Equivalence Concentration (TEC). The sum <strong>of</strong> all the TECs is referred to as thetotal, or ∑, TEQ. See Figure I-1: “Example Determination <strong>of</strong> 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents(TEQs).”Contaminant Concentration Avian TEF TEC(ppt)Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins2,3,7,8-TCDD 13.5 1 13.51,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.9 0.01 0.079PCDD TEQ = ∑ PCDD TECs = 13.5 + 0.079 = 13.58Chlorinated dibenz<strong>of</strong>urans2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 16.2 1 16.21,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.5 0.1 .05OCDF 21.7 0.0001 0.00217PCDF TEQ = ∑PCDF TECs = 16.2 + 0.05 + 0.00217 = 16.25Non-ortho-substituted PCBs3,3’4,4’,5-pentaCB (PCB 126) 682 0.1 68.23,3’4,4’,5,5’-hexaCB (PCB 169) 524 0.001 0.524PCB TEQ = ∑ PCB TECs = 68.2 + 0.524 = 68.72∑ TEQ = ∑ PCDD TEQ + ∑PCDF TEQ+ ∑ PCB TEQ = 13.58 + 16.25 + 68.73 = 98.56Figure I-1. Example Determination <strong>of</strong> 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents (TEQs)Two approaches can be used for the handling <strong>of</strong> nondetect data: assume nondetects aszero or nondetects as 1/2 the reported detection limit. For situations in which the primarycontaminant is 2,3,7,8-TCDD and good detection limits are achieved for all congeners(generally less than 10 ppt), using either procedure usually results in similar outcomes forthe calculated sample-specific TEQ. However, if elevated detection limits are reportedfor many <strong>of</strong> the congeners, it is recommended that non-detects are factored in at 1/2 thereported detection limit (adjusted based on TEF) given the uncertainty because <strong>of</strong> theelevated detection limit.TEQ <strong>Evaluation</strong>The individual 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration, each <strong>of</strong> the three class-specific TEQs, andthe ∑ (total) TEQ are compared with ecological screening criterion for 2,3,7,8-TCDD asper Section 5.4. The resultant HQs are carried through the EE process.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 127Version 1.2 8/29/12
Data PresentationTabular presentations in the EE report should include raw sample concentrations for the17 dioxins and furans and 12 dioxin-like PCB congeners, sample-specific quantitationlimits, avian TEFs, TECs, TEQs for each <strong>of</strong> the three contaminant classes (e.g., PCDDs,PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs), and the total TEQ.<strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dioxins, Furans, and Dioxin-like PCBs in the <strong>Ecological</strong> RiskAssessmentThe investigator is referred to USEPA 1993b and USEPA 2008b regarding ecologicalrisk characterization approaches and the application <strong>of</strong> the TEQ process to tissueconcentrations and food chain modeling.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 128Version 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 and 126: another sample may still have a sub
- Page 127: conservative approach from an ecolo