6.1.3.2 BioaccumulationIn calculating levels <strong>of</strong> exposure, either direct toxicity to plants and wildlife orsecondary toxicity to animals feeding on contaminated plants and animals,one issue that the investigator should be aware <strong>of</strong> is bioaccumulation.Bioaccumulation is the net extent to which a substance may be accumulatedby an organism because <strong>of</strong> uptake from various media, including food. A list<strong>of</strong> contaminants considered to be bioaccumulative can be found in Table 4-2<strong>of</strong> USEPA (2000c) Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for thePurpose <strong>of</strong> Sediment Quality Assessment, Status and Needs. A similarconcept is bioavailability, which is the net extent to which the form <strong>of</strong> achemical occurring in a medium is susceptible to being taken up by anorganism. Bioavailability is (1) the cumulative expression <strong>of</strong> physical,chemical, and biological processes evident in air, water, soil, and sediment,and (2) biological factors present in the bodies, organs, tissues, or cells <strong>of</strong>exposed organisms that act to change that organism's rate <strong>of</strong> COPEC exposure(Suter et al., 2000).To be consistent with the first two steps <strong>of</strong> ERAGS, the EE must assume that100 percent <strong>of</strong> a particular COPEC that is identified in a particular media isavailable to the representative receptors being evaluated (N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12). While this is generally considered to be an overestimation <strong>of</strong> ecologicalrisk, it provides a level <strong>of</strong> certainty if the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the EE is that noecological risks are evident. However, in the ERA, the investigator shouldconsider bioaccumulation when calculating the levels <strong>of</strong> exposure to beevaluated in the risk assessments, particularly in calculations <strong>of</strong> impacts tohigher trophic level organisms through food chain transfer <strong>of</strong> a COPEC.When sediment and soil chemistry data are available, but tissue chemistry isnot, Sediment/Soil-to-Biota Bioaccumulation Factors (BSAFs) andBioaccumulation Factors (BAFs), respectively, can be estimated for selectcompounds using published accumulation factors(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/bsafnew/,andhttp://www.epa.gov/med/Prods_Pubs/bsaf.htm). Such data should be usedwith caution because it is not site specific and could overestimate orunderestimate accumulation.The BSAFs and BAFs are the ratios <strong>of</strong> tissue concentrations to the sedimentandsoil-associated concentrations <strong>of</strong> organic compounds or metals. A sitespecificBSAF or BAF can be empirically determined through collection andchemical analysis <strong>of</strong> collocated sediment or soil, respectively, and organismtissue. Because some contaminants bind to organic matter in sediment andsoil or to lipids in the tissue <strong>of</strong> exposed organisms, site-wide BSAF and BAFvalues need to be normalized for TOC and for lipid content (USEPA, 2009c).In ERAs for complex situations, studies to more accurately predictbioaccumulation and the movement <strong>of</strong> a COPEC through the environmentshould be considered. Generally, these studies will consist <strong>of</strong> field-collectedtissue samples (both plant and animal) at different trophic levels <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 41Version 1.2 8/29/12
environment. As noted in ERAGS, the purpose <strong>of</strong> a field-collected tissueresidue study usually is to measure contaminant concentrations in foodsconsumed by the species associated with the assessment endpoint.The primary purpose <strong>of</strong> tissue residue analysis for ERA is to determine wholebody contaminant concentrations in prey consumed by the receptor <strong>of</strong> interest.This analysis provides an estimate <strong>of</strong> the contaminant dose to the receptor <strong>of</strong>interest, which can be compared to literature-based tissue residue effectslevels (toxicity reference values (TRV)) for the purpose <strong>of</strong> estimating risk.Tissue residue data can play an important role at different stages in theprocess <strong>of</strong> evaluating hazardous waste sites, including ecological riskassessment, modeling conducted to evaluate different remedial alternatives,and monitoring necessary to determine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> remediation (Field,1998; Canadian Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers <strong>of</strong> the Environment, 1999; Jarvinen andAnkley, 1999). <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>of</strong> tissue residue effects relies on the identification<strong>of</strong> whole body concentrations <strong>of</strong> a chemical that has been demonstrated to beassociated with adverse effects on a target organ or system in a variety <strong>of</strong>aquatic organisms or phylogenetic groups. Tissue residue effects arecontaminant and taxon specific threshold concentrations measured inbiological tissue above which adverse effects <strong>of</strong> ecological relevance wouldbe anticipated to occur based on field or laboratory studies. Data may be usedfrom a surrogate species when studies for a particular species cannot be found.Tissue residue effects are generally based on mortality, reproductive orgrowth endpoints, which are most relevant for estimating the potential foradverse population level effects. Databases for tissue residue effect levelsinclude the ERED database (Environmental Residue Effects Database,http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ered/).Prerequisites for BioaccumulationStudiesIn the event field tissue collection is not feasible, the investigator may chooseto conduct field or laboratory bioaccumulation studies using laboratorycultured organisms. Bioaccumulation studies can be expensive and timeconsuming.Before conducting a bioaccumulation study, the toxicity <strong>of</strong> thesoil or sediment should be assessed either through historical toxicity data orthrough screening toxicity studies (exposing toxicity test organisms for one toten days to determine toxic effect). Field reference locations should also bescreened to ensure that they are appropriate for inclusion in testing. The effortand expense <strong>of</strong> a bioaccumulation study are unnecessary if site soil orsediment is determined to negatively impact organism survival, based ontoxicity tests or field evaluations. If survival is significantly reduced,bioaccumulation is not the primary concern.Bioaccumulation Study Design ConsiderationsBioaccumulation studies require careful consideration <strong>of</strong> many variablesincluding physical and chemical conditions <strong>of</strong> the matrices being tested,sample selection, sample volume (i.e., tissue mass requirements), laboratoryQA/QC (e.g., replicates, tissue preparation and processing). When<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 42Version 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: Fugacity, which is described as 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 and 128:
conservative approach from an ecolo
- Page 129:
Data PresentationTabular presentati