Preliminary Remediation Goals for Terrestrial Wildlife

Ryti, Randall T.; Markwiese, James T.; Mirenda, Richard J.; Soholt, Lars F.

doi:10.1080/10807030490438490

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This database contains ecological screening levels for a variety of chemicals, with ecological screening levels being available for terrestrial and aquatic organisms (e.g., avian, mammalian, invertebrate, and plant species) and several environmental compartments (soil, water, sediment, and air). This database has been used to assess potential ecological risks from chemical exposures [1,7]. Larger and more complex databases include, for example, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects database (CAFE), a tool that supports assessments of chemical spills in aquatic environments

Bejarano¹,

Farr

Jenne

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects (CAFE) database is a centralized repository that allows for rapid and unrestricted access to data. Information in CAFE is integrated into a user-friendly tool with modules containing fate and effects data for 32 377 and 4498 chemicals, respectively. Toxicity data are summarized in the form of species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) with associated 1st and 5th percentile hazard concentrations (HCs). An assessment of data availability relative to reported chemical incidents showed that CAFE had fate and toxicity data for 32 and 20 chemicals, respectively, of 55 chemicals reported in the US National Response Center database (2000-2014), and fate and toxicity data for 86 and 103, respectively, of 205 chemicals reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2003-2014). Modeled environmental concentrations of 2 hypothetical spills (acrylonitrile, 625 barrels; and denatured ethanol, 857 barrels) were used to demonstrate CAFE's practical application. Most species in the 24-h SSD could be potentially impacted by acrylonitrile and denatured ethanol during the first 35 min and 15 h post spill, respectively, with concentrations falling below their HC5s (17 mg/L and 2676 mg/L) at 45 min and 60 h post spill, respectively. Comparisons of CAFE-based versus published HC5 values for 100 chemicals showed that nearly half of values were within a 2-fold difference, with a relatively small number of comparisons exceeding a 10-fold difference. The development of CAFE facilitates access to relevant environmental information, with potential uses likely expanding beyond those related to assessment of spills in aquatic environments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:1576-1586. © 2015 SETAC.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects database (CAFE), a tool that supports assessments of chemical spills in aquatic environments

Bejarano¹,

Farr

Jenne

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Carlsen et al () recommend integrating the spatial extent of contamination with receptor‐specific home range or critical patch size. Similarly, Ryti et al () proposed the use of a population area use factor (PAUF), which is the proportion of the area required for the assessment population of the selected receptor (defined using statistical relationships between receptor‐specific dispersal and home range size) that is represented by the contaminated site.…”

Section: Modeling Considerations To Improve Exposure Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations to improve wildlife exposure estimation for development of soil screening and cleanup values

Sample¹,

Schlekat

Spurgeon

et al. 2013

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An integral component in the development of media‐specific values for the ecological risk assessment of chemicals is the derivation of safe levels of exposure for wildlife. Although the derivation and subsequent application of these values can be used for screening purposes, there is a need to identify the threshold for effects when making remedial decisions during site‐specific assessments. Methods for evaluation of wildlife exposure are included in the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ecological soil screening levels (Eco‐SSLs), registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals (REACH), and other risk‐based soil assessment approaches. The goal of these approaches is to ensure that soil‐associated contaminants do not pose a risk to wildlife that directly ingest soil, or to species that may be exposed to contaminants that persist in the food chain. These approaches incorporate broad assumptions in the exposure and effects assessments and in the risk characterization process. Consequently, thresholds for concluding risk are frequently very low with conclusions of risk possible when soil metal concentrations fall in the range of natural background. A workshop held in September, 2012 evaluated existing methods and explored recent science about factors to consider when establishing appropriate remedial goals for concentrations of metals in soils. A Foodweb Exposure Workgroup was organized to evaluate methods for quantifying exposure of wildlife to soil‐associated metals through soil and food consumption and to provide recommendations for the development of ecological soil cleanup values (Eco‐SCVs) that are both practical and scientifically defensible. The specific goals of this article are to review the current practices for quantifying exposure of wildlife to soil‐associated contaminants via bioaccumulation and trophic transfer, to identify potential opportunities for refining and improving these exposure estimates, and finally, to make recommendations for application of these improved models to the development of site‐specific remedial goals protective of wildlife. Although the focus is on metals contamination, many of the methods and tools discussed are also applicable to organic contaminants. The conclusion of this workgroup was that existing exposure estimation models are generally appropriate when fully expanded and that methods are generally available to develop more robust site‐specific exposure estimates. Improved realism in site‐specific wildlife Eco‐SCVs could be achieved by obtaining more realistic estimates for diet composition, bioaccumulation, bioavailability and/or bioaccessibility, soil ingestion, spatial aspects of exposure, and target organ exposure. These components of wildlife exposure estimation should be developed on a site‐, species‐, and analyte‐specific basis to the extent that the expense for their derivation is justified by the value they add to Eco‐SCV development. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2014;10:372–387. © 2013 The Authors. Integrated Environmen...

show abstract

“…The site-representative riparian animal is the southwestern willow flycatcher, which has a minimum individual home range of 0.4 ha and a minimum population area of 40*0.4 = 16 ha (Ryti 2004, Gonzales 2006.) The area of the highly contaminated riparian habitat of Effluent Canyon is 0.05 ha (LANL 2006) so the population area factor is 0.05/16 = 0.003.…”

Section: Cesium-137 Aquaticmentioning

confidence: 99%