Site-specific probabilistic ecological risk assessment of a volatile chlorinated hydrocarbon-contaminated tidal estuary

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1172-1181

  Hunt, James ^a   Birch, Gavin ^a   Warne, Michael St J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

Chlorinated hydrocarbon; Probabilistic ecological risk assessment; Quantitative risk; Tidal estuary

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ESTUARIES; GROUNDWATER; GROUNDWATER POLLUTION; HAZARDS; HYDROCARBONS; MARINE BIOLOGY; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; TIDES; TOXICITY;

CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON; ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT; ECOLOGICAL RISKS; EFFECT CONCENTRATION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HIGH TIDES; JOINT PROBABILITY; MARINE ORGANISMS; NEW SOUTH WALES , AUSTRALIA; PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE RISK; SCREENING LEVEL; SITE-SPECIFIC; SOURCE AREA; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; TIDAL CYCLE; TIDAL ESTUARY; VOLATILE CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON; SURFACE WATER; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND; WATER POLLUTANT;

CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); ECOTOXICOLOGY; ESTUARINE POLLUTION; GROUNDWATER POLLUTION; INTERTIDAL ENVIRONMENT; POLLUTION EXPOSURE; POLLUTION MONITORING; RISK ASSESSMENT; SITE EFFECT; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SURFACE WATER; TIDAL CYCLE; TOXICITY TEST; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; EBB TIDE; ESTUARY; FLOOD TIDE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY; WATER CONTAMINATION; CHEMISTRY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; RIVER; SEA; TSUNAMI; WATER POLLUTANT;

AUSTRALIA; NEW SOUTH WALES; PENRHYN ESTUARY;

ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HYDROCARBONS, CHLORINATED; NEW SOUTH WALES; OCEANS AND SEAS; RIVERS; TIDAL WAVES; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 77953591485     PISSN: 07307268     EISSN: 15528618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/etc.130     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Groundwater-Volume 1: Groundwater and Contamination. EPA/625/6-90/016a. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-695/002F. Washington DC.
3. National Environment Protection Council. 1999. Schedule B(5) Guideline on Ecological Risk Assessment. National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination). Canberra, Australia.
4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, National Water Quality Management Strategy. 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Vol 1. Canberra, Australia.
5. Hunt JE, Birch G, Warne MStJ. 2007. Deriving trigger values for, and assessinghazardposedby,volatilechlorinatedhydrocarbonsinaSydney estuary. Australasian J Ecotoxicol 13:33-42.
6. Tannenbaum L. 2005. A critical assessment of the ecological risk assessment process: A review of misapplied concepts. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1:66-72.
7. Verdonck FAM, Aldenberg T, Jaworska J, Vanrolleghem PA. 2003. Limitations of current risk characterization methods in probabilistic environmental risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2209-2213.
8. Solomon KR, Takacs P. 2002. Probabilistic risk assessment using species sensitivity distributions. In Posthuma L, Suter GW, Trass TP, eds, Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 285-314.
9. Solomon KR. 1996. Overview of recent developments in ecotoxico-logical risk assessment. Risk Anal 16:627-633.
10. Poletika NN, Woodburn KB, Henry KS. 2002. An ecological risk assessment for chlorpyrifos in an agriculturally dominated tributary of the San Joaquin River. Risk Anal 22:291-308.
11. Solomon K, Giesy J, Jones P. 2000. Probabilistic risk assessment of agrochemicals in the environment. Crop Protect 19:649-655.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Technical progress report of the implementation plan for probabilistic ecological assessments- Aquatic ecosystems. Washington, DC.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Test methods for evaluating solid waste, revision 2, Vol B. Washington DC.
14. Hunt JE, Birch G, Warne M StJ, Krassoi R. 2009. Direct toxicity assessment of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminated ground-water and derivation of a site-specific guideline. Integr Environ Assess Manage 5:338-348.
15. Gilbert RO. 1987. Statistical Methods For Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.
16. Hunt JE, Birch G, Warne M StJ, Krassoi R. 2009. Evaluation of a methodology for toxicity testing of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons on marine organisms. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82:743-748.
17. van Dam RA, Chapman J. 2001. Direct toxicity assessment (DTA) for water quality guidelines in Australia and New Zealand. Australasian J Ecotoxicol 7:175-198.
18. Warne M StJ. 2008. Recommendations on whole effluent toxicity testing for the Perth Seawater Desalination plant. Report 8/08. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Land and Water Science, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, p 14.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 3rd ed. EPA-821-R-02-014. Washington, DC.
20. Stauber J. 2003. Sediment toxicity testing in Australia. In Proceedings, Workshop on Sediment Quality Assessment. Christchurch, New Zealand, September 28.
21. McGrath JA, Parkerton TF, Di Toro DM. 2004. Application of the narcosis target lipid model to algal toxicity and deriving predicted-no-effect concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:2503-2517.
22. DiToro DM, McGrath JA, Hansen DJ. 2000.Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and tissue. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1951-1970.
23. Hanson ML, Solomon KR. 2002. New technique for estimating thresholds of toxicityin ecological risk assessment. Environ Sci Technol 36:3257-3264.
24. Aldenberg T, Jaworska J, Trass TP. 2002. Normal species sensitivity distributions and probabilistic ecological risk assessment. In Posthuma L, Suter GW, Trass TP, eds, Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 49-102.
25. van Straalen N. 2002. Theory of ecological risk assessment based on species sensitivity distributions. In Posthuma L, Suter GW, Traas TP, eds, Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 37-48.
26. van Vlaardingen P, Trass TP, Aldenberg T. 2004. ETXTM 2.0 by RIVM. In van Vlaardingen P, Trass TP, Aldenberg T, eds. National Institute of Public Health and Environment. Rijksinstituut voorVolksgezondheiden Milieu. Bilthoven, The Netherlands, pp 1-68.
27. Solomon KR, Giddings JM, Maund SJ. 2001. Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I.Distributional analysis of laboratory aquatic toxicity data. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:652-659.
28. Day KE, Kaushik NK. 1987. An assessmentofthe chronic toxicityofthe synthetic pyrethroid, fenvalerate, to Daphnia galeata mendotae, using life tables. Environm Pollut 44.
29. Daniels RE, Allen JD. 1981. Life table evaluation of chronic exposure to a pesticide. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:485-494.
30. Hall LW, Giddings JM. 2000. The need for multiple linesofevidence for predicting site-specific ecological effects. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 6:679-710.
31. Chapman P, Cardwell R, Chapman P. 1996. A warning: NOECs are inappropriate for regulatory use. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:77-79.
32. Newman M. 2008. What exactly are you inferring? A closer look at hypothesis testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1013-1019.
33. Warne MSJ,Van DamR.2008. NOEC and LOECdata shouldnolonger be generated or used. Australian J Ecotoxicol 14:1-5.
34. Forbes TL, Forbes VE. 1993. A critique of the use of distribution-based extrapolation models in ecotoxicology. Funct Ecol 7:249-254.
35. WallerWT,AmmannLP,BirgeWJ,DicksonKL,DornPB,LeBlancNE, Mount DI, Parkhurst BR, Preston HR, Schimmel SC, Spacie AT. 1996. Predicting instream effects from WET tests. In Grothe DR, Dickson KL, Reed-Judkins DK, eds, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 271-286.