Approaches and tools for ecological risk assessment...Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo...

transcript

Toward common references for risk assessment of contaminated sites in Europe

Approaches and tools for ecological risk assessment at different levels of contamination

2Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005

Ecological Risk Assessment

Technical / scientific support for decision-makingunder uncertainty• Implies goal of decision• Implies possible alternative outcomes• Implies uncertainty• Implies decision• Different roles

– Role of scientist: risk assessor– Role of decision-maker: risk manager

Step 1: Target formulation

• General environmental protection?– Environmental Quality Criteria

• Specific environmental protection?– e.g., ‘red list’ species?

• Site-specific evaluation?– Physico-chemical: no spread beyond current contour line?– Ecological:

• Complete clean-up possible? Recovery?• Partial clean-up? To which level?• Autonomous recovery?

– Decision type• One-site decision?• Ranking a series of sites?

Step 2: Analyse the problem, choose approach

• What is the problem– Define desired future land use

• What is limiting for that– Contour / surface area of contamination?– Single compound or mixture?– Level of contamination?– Sensitivity of particular species?

• Which approaches and tools can be used?– Modeling– Empirical– Both

Gradual contamination problem

Contamination

EQC, e.g. Target Value(single compound)

Visible damage(mixture)

EQCIntervention Value(single compound)

Choice of tools

Contamination

Environmental QualityCriterione.g. Target Value(single compound)

Contamination

Environmental QualityCriterione.g. Target Value(single compound)

Problem 1

Problem (1): problem is in lower range

• Environmental Quality Criteria: Modeling result !!!– Target Value < Problem < Intervention Value

• Example: Species Sensivity Distributions– Model theory– Tools:

•ETX (2005)•E-toxBase (2005)

Theory of SSDs, PAF and msPAF

1 10 100 1000

Concentration in soil (mg/kg)

Multi-substance PAF = 1 - ((1 - PAF1)(1 - PAF2)…..(1 - PAFn))

1 site = 1 result !!!!!

Tool: e-toxBase• >166.000 data entries• 2900 species• 5100 compounds• 910 Modes of Action• Meta-data

– Quality– Time-stamp– Data-owner– ….

• Export to MS-Excel• Transfer to ETX

ETX (2005)

• Exposure data– From site– Per compound

• Sensitivity data– From e-toxBase– Per compound

• Result– PAF– msPAF– JPC per site

ETX-out 1: SSD

• Goodness of fit tests

• SSD-parameters

ETX out 2: Joint Probability Curve per site

Ideal siteNone of sampling spots shows exceedance HC5

Moderate site

Extreme site

National-scale evaluation: 6000 sites• Sediment deposition on land• Evaluation of local risk on

land– > 6000 sites– Sediment pollution– Soil quality

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

PAF Benzo(k)fluorantheen

PAF Benzo(a)anthraceenPAF Anthraceen

PAF KwikPAF Chryseen

PAF Benzo(ghi)peryleenPAF Benzo(a)pyreen

PAF NikkelPAF Indeno(123cd)pyreen

PAF ChroomPAF Fluorantheen

PAF CadmiumPAF Koper

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

PAF Benzo(k)fluorantheen

PAF Benzo(a)anthraceenPAF Anthraceen

PAF KwikPAF Chryseen

PAF Benzo(ghi)peryleenPAF Benzo(a)pyreen

PAF NikkelPAF Indeno(123cd)pyreen

PAF ChroomPAF Fluorantheen

PAF CadmiumPAF Koper

Number of sitesWith exceedance problem

Cause of problem

Take home

• Modeling for moderately contaminated sites• Logical: just beyond EQC, from modeling• Tools available

– ETX: versatile, many types of problems• Within-site: spatial aspects• Among sites: ranking

– E-toxBase: “fuel for ETX• Additional tools: ecochem-Base / expo-Base• Theory development ongoing

– Spatial / temporal aspects– Specific Toxic Mode of Action– Validation– Et cetera

Problem 2

Problem is in higher range

Approach: Triad• Aim: use pragmatism to reduce

conceptual uncertainties• Tactics: independent

‘lines of evidence’• Chemistry – msPAF

– Toxicity - Bioassays– Ecology – Field Inventories

chemistry

toxicity ecology

Triad: Theory and Tools

• Tiered approach– Tier 1:

simple – quick– Upper tiers:

better tailored toproblem - slower

• Within a tier– All observations scaled

from 0 – 1– Calculate Coefficient of

Variation– Stop when CV < “value”

(e.g. 20%)

risk 0 - 0.2risk 0.2 - 0.5risk 0.5 - 1

Triad Aspect Parameter SampleA B C

Chemistry Sum TP metals 0.00 0.49 0.77Toxicology Microtox 0.00 0.95 0.95Ecology nematods biomass 0.00 0.00 0.68

Integrated risk 0.00 0.70 0.83deviation 0.00 0.82 0.27

risk 0 - 0.2risk 0.2 - 0.5risk 0.5 - 1

Triad: tier 2

Sample

Triad Aspect Parameter A B CSumTP metals 0.00 0.49 0.77

Microtox 0.00 0.95 0.95Lettuce germ. 0.00 0.52 0.09Lettuce growth 0.00 0.26 0.60Bait lamina 0.00 0.42 0.64

0.00 0.68 0.72

(3) Ecology nematodsbiomass 0.00 0.00 0.68nematodsMI 0.00 0.00 0.65

0.00 0.00 0.67

0.00 0.49 0.770.00 0.68 0.720.00 0.00 0.67

Integratedrisk 0.00 0.45 0.72deviation 0.00 0.61 0.09

Sample

Triad Aspect Parameter A B C(1) Chemistry SumTP metals 0.00 0.49 0.77

(2) Toxicology Microtox 0.00 0.95 0.95Lettuce germ. 0.00 0.52 0.09Lettuce growth 0.00 0.26 0.60Bait lamina 0.00 0.42 0.64

0.00 0.68 0.72

nematodsbiomass 0.00 0.00 0.68nematodsMI 0.00 0.00 0.65

0.00 0.00 0.67

0.00 0.49 0.770.00 0.68 0.720.00 0.00 0.67

integration

Overall integration1

Tier 3

Tier 3Triad Aspect Parameter A B CChemistry TP bioavailable 0.00 0.54 0.71

Toxicology Microtox 0.00 0.95 0.95Bait lamina test 0.00 0.42 0.64Worms growth 0.00 0.02 0.06Worms survival 0.07 0.15 0.67Worms reproduction 0.00 0.93 0.97Lettuce germination 0.00 0.52 0.09Lettuce growth 0.00 0.26 0.60

integration 0.01 0.65 0.75

Ecology Arthropods asex. reprod. 0.00 0.64 0.50Arthropods fungiv. grazers 0.00 0.86Arthropods predators 0.00 0.28 0.82MO thymidine incorp. 0.00 0.72 0.99MO biomass 0.00 0.81 0.78MO nitrification 0.00 0.50 0.00protozoans 0.00 0.00 0.00nematods biomass 0.00 0.00 0.68nematods MI 0.00 0.00 0.65

chemical risk: 0.00 0.54 0.71toxicity risk: 0.01 0.65 0.75ecology risk: 0.00 0.42 0.76

Triad Aspect Parameter A B CChemistry TP bioavailable 0.00 0.54 0.71

Toxicology Microtox 0.00 0.95 0.95Bait lamina test 0.00 0.42 0.64Worms growth 0.00 0.02 0.06Worms survival 0.07 0.15 0.67Worms reproduction 0.00 0.93 0.97Lettuce germination 0.00 0.52 0.09Lettuce growth 0.00 0.26 0.60

Ecology Arthropods asex. reprod. 0.00 0.64 0.50Arthropods fungiv. grazers 0.00 0.86Arthropods predators 0.00 0.28 0.82MO thymidine incorp. 0.00 0.72 0.99MO biomass 0.00 0.81 0.78MO nitrification 0.00 0.50 0.00protozoans 0.00 0.00 0.00nematods biomass 0.00 0.00 0.68nematods MI 0.00 0.00 0.65

chemical risk: 0.00 0.54 0.71toxicity risk: 0.01 0.65 0.75ecology risk: 0.00 0.42 0.76

Triad: theory and tools

• Bioassay-Base– Contains: bioassay types

• Earthworms• Plants• …

– Contains: bioassay results• Site characteristics (pH, OM, ……)• Contamination levels• Bioassay results of past assessments

– In planning phase• Support for selecting bioassays for problem

Take home

• Weight of Evidence for higher contamination level• Logical: effects to be expected• Tools available (planned)

– Triad formalized weight of evidence approach– Bioassay-Base: (planned) selection of bioassay

• Additional tools: – ecochem-Base– e-toxBase and ETX

• Other approaches: body residues….• Theory development ongoing

– Spatial / temporal aspects– Et cetera

Problem 3

Highest contamination level

Just visual inspection

Overall conclusions

• Ecological risk assessment– (Pragmatic) Theories available– Tools available and under development– Fit into envisioned framework– Helpfull enough for decision making

• Weaker on– Systematic approach : uniform framework / test / adopt– Despite uniform – approach should be tailored to problem– Spatial aspects: theory ?– Temporal aspects: theory ?

• Both in relation to ecological processes

• To be done: framework + approaches + tools

Approaches and tools for ecological risk assessment...Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo...

Documents