Comparison of Two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Species Sensitivity Distribution Methods for Calculating Ecological Risk Criteria

ABSTRACTEcological risk of chemicals to aquatic-phase amphibians has historically been evaluated by comparing estimated environmental concentrations in surface water to surrogate toxicity data from standard fish species. Despite their obvious similarities, there are biological disparities among fish and amphibians that could affect their exposure and response to chemicals. Given the alarming decline in amphibians in which anthropogenic pollutants play at least some role, evaluating the potential risk of chemicals to amphibians is becoming increasingly important. Here, we evaluate relative sensitivity of fish and larval aquatic-phase amphibians to 45 different pesticides using existing data for three standardized toxicity tests: (1) amphibian metamorphosis assay (AMA) with the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis); (2) fish short-term reproductive assay (FSTRA) with freshwater fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas); (3) fish early life stage test with P. promelas or rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The advantage of this dataset over previous work is that these studies show high consistency in exposure method and exposure concentration validation, study duration, test species, endpoints measured, and number of concentrations tested. We found very strong positive relationships between fish and tadpole lowest adverse effect concentrations (LOAEC) for survival (r2=0.85, slope=0.97), body weight (r2=0.77, slope=0.98), and length (r2=0.77, slope=0.92) with only one out of 45 chemicals exhibiting 100-folder greater sensitivity in frogs relative to fish. While these results suggest comparable toxicity for pesticides between these two groups of vertebrates, testing with a greater diversity of amphibians will help determine the generalizability of these results across all amphibians.DISCLAIMERThe views expressed in this manuscript are solely those of the authors and do not represent the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names of commercial products should not be interpreted as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Download Full-text

Indicators for Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Perspective

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment An International Journal ◽

10.1080/20018091094781 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 7 (5) ◽

pp. 961-970 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

William S. Fisher ◽

Laura E. Jackson ◽

Glenn W. Suter, ◽

Paul Bertram

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Environmental Protection ◽

Ecological Risk ◽

Ecological Risk Assessment ◽

Environmental Protection Agency ◽

Protection Agency

Download Full-text

Studies on ecological risk assessment of pesticide using species sensitivity distribution

Japanese Journal of Pesticide Science ◽

10.1584/jpestics.w17-59 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 42 (2) ◽

pp. 291-299

Author(s):

Takashi Nagai

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Ecological Risk ◽

Ecological Risk Assessment ◽

Species Sensitivity Distribution ◽

Species Sensitivity ◽

Sensitivity Distribution

Download Full-text

Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Water Bodies around Typical Copper Mines in China

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17124315 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (12) ◽

pp. 4315

Author(s):

Jingchao Liu ◽

Jin Wu ◽

Weiying Feng ◽

Xia Li

Keyword(s):

Heavy Metals ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Ecological Risk ◽

Ecological Risk Assessment ◽

Aquatic Environment ◽

Species Sensitivity Distribution ◽

Species Sensitivity ◽

Distribution Method ◽

Sensitivity Distribution ◽

Copper Mines

In order to understand the heavy metal pollution status and ecological effect in aquatic environment around copper mine areas, seven heavy metals (Cd, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Zn, the Ni, and Pb) in aquatic environments in seven representative copper mine regions were selected from the literature in 2005–2013 for ecological risk assessment by using potential ecological risk index, geoaccumulation index, nemerow index and species sensitivity distribution method (Potential Affected Fraction (PAF) and Multi-Substance PAF (MSPAF)). The results of sediment ecological risk analysis showed that Cd, Cu and Pb were the main pollutants in sediments. The results of species sensitivity distribution analysis showed that the HC5 values (Hazardous Concentration for 5% of species) of seven heavy metals were different with order Zn > Cr > Cd > Pb > Cu > Ni > Hg. The MSPAF of seven copper mines in the following order with species sensitivity distribution method was as follows: Dabaoshan (99%) = Dahongshan (99%) = Baiyin (99%) > Dexing (97%) > Jinchuan (92%) > Tongling (39%) > Daye (24%). This study analyzes the impact of copper mining on the aquatic environment, and the results of this study will be great value for the comprehensive pollution governance of mining.

Download Full-text