25
Toward common references for risk assessment of contaminated sites in Europe Approaches and tools for ecological risk assessment at different levels of contamination
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
3Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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?
4Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
5Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Gradual contamination problem
Contamination
EQC, e.g. Target Value(single compound)
Visible damage(mixture)
EQCIntervention Value(single compound)
6Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Choice of tools
Contamination
Environmental QualityCriterione.g. Target Value(single compound)
Visible damage(mixture)
EQCIntervention Value(single compound)
Contamination
Environmental QualityCriterione.g. Target Value(single compound)
Visible damage(mixture)
EQCIntervention Value(single compound)
7Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Problem 1
8Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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)
9Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Theory of SSDs, PAF and msPAF
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
PAF
(pot
entia
lly a
ffect
ed fr
actio
n)
1 10 100 1000
Concentration in soil (mg/kg)
HC 50
Multi-substance PAF = 1 - ((1 - PAF1)(1 - PAF2)…..(1 - PAFn))
Cd
1 site = 1 result !!!!!
10Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
11Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
ETX (2005)
• Exposure data– From site– Per compound
• Sensitivity data– From e-toxBase– Per compound
• Result– PAF– msPAF– JPC per site
12Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
ETX-out 1: SSD
• Goodness of fit tests
• SSD-parameters
13Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
ETX out 2: Joint Probability Curve per site
Ideal siteNone of sampling spots shows exceedance HC5
Moderate site
Extreme site
14Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
National-scale evaluation: 6000 sites• Sediment deposition on land• Evaluation of local risk on
land– > 6000 sites– Sediment pollution– Soil quality
1
8
10
11
21
21
33
57
101
129
327
1507
2716
3925
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
msPAF
1
8
10
11
21
21
33
57
101
129
327
1507
2716
3925
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
msPAF
Number of sitesWith exceedance problem
Cause of problem
15Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
16Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Problem 2
17Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
risk
toxicity ecology
18Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
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
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
19Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
Integrated risk 0.00 0.45 0.72deviation 0.00 0.61 0.09
integration
integration
Overall integration1
23
20Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
integration 0.00 0.42 0.76
chemical risk: 0.00 0.54 0.71toxicity risk: 0.01 0.65 0.75ecology risk: 0.00 0.42 0.76
Integrated risk 0.00 0.55 0.74deviation 0.01 0.20 0.04
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
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
integration 0.00 0.42 0.76
chemical risk: 0.00 0.54 0.71toxicity risk: 0.01 0.65 0.75ecology risk: 0.00 0.42 0.76
Integrated risk 0.00 0.55 0.74deviation 0.01 0.20 0.04
21Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
22Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
23Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Problem 3
24Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
Highest contamination level
Just visual inspection
25Approaches and Tools for site ERA | Leo Posthuma / Ispra, february 2005
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
