Report 601714013/2010
C.T.A. Moermond / E.M.J. Verbruggen | C.E. Smit

Environmental risk limits for PFOS
A proposal for water quality standards in accordance with
the Water Framework Directive

RIVM Report 601714013/2010

Environmental risk limits for PFOS
A proposal for water quality standards in accordance with the Water
Framework Directive

C.T.A. Moermond
E.M.J. Verbruggen
C.E. Smit

Contact:
Caroline MoermondExpertise Centre for Substancescaroline.moermond@rivm.nl

This investigation has been performed by order and for the account of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and Environmental Protection, Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, Sustainable
Production Directorate, within the framework of the project ’Standard settings for other relevant
substances within the WFD’.

RIVM, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands Tel +31 30 274 91 11 www.rivm.nl

© RIVM 2010
Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided acknowledgement is given to the 'National Institute for Public Health and theEnvironment', along with the title and year of publication.

2

RIVM Report 601714013

Rapport in het kort
Milieurisicogrenzen voor PFOS
Het RIVM heeft wetenschappelijke milieurisicogrenzen afgeleid voor perfluoroctaansulfonaat (PFOS)
in zoet en zout oppervlaktewater. Gemeten concentraties in Nederland en andere Europese landen
overschrijden de in dit rapport berekende waarden voor alledrie de beschermingsdoelen: de mens
(rekening houdend met visconsumptie), waterorganismen en visetende vogels en zoogdieren. De
overschrijding wijst op een potentieel risico voor het waterecosysteem. Het risico voor de gemiddeldeconsument van vis is vanwege de veiligheidsmarges gering.
Bij de in dit rapport afgeleide waarden is uitgegaan van de methodiek behorend bij de Kaderrichtlijn
Water. Bij verdere besluitvorming over PFOS op nationaal en Europees niveau worden deze waarden
als uitgangspunt gebruikt, maar zijn ook andere aspecten en overwegingen van belang. In Nederland
stelt de Stuurgroep Stoffen de uiteindelijke milieukwaliteitsnormen voor stoffen vast op basis van dit
advies en andere overwegingen. De overheid gebruikt de milieukwaliteitsnormen voor de uitvoering
van het nationaal stoffenbeleid.
Als standaard worden het ‘maximaal toelaatbaar risiconiveau’ (MTR) en het daar rekenkundig mee
samenhangend ‘verwaarloosbaar risiconiveau’ (VR) bepaald. Het MTR is het niveau waarbij geen
schadelijke effecten te verwachten zijn, gebaseerd op jaargemiddelde concentraties. Het MTR wordt
bepaald op basis van de drie bovengenoemde beschermingsdoelen; de laagste waarde, in dit geval deconsumptie van vis door de mens, bepaalt het uiteindelijke MTR voor zoetwater (0,65 nanogram perliter). Deze waarde is gebaseerd op een consumptie van 115 gram zoetwatervis per persoon per dag. Dit
is ruim hoger dan de gemiddelde visconsumptie van mensen in Nederland.
PFOS wordt gebruikt in producten zoals blusschuim, schoonmaakmiddelen, lijmen en papier. De stof
breekt slecht af in het milieu. PFOS hoopt zich op in organismen en is zelfs in afgelegen gebieden inzoogdieren aangetroffen. De productie en het gebruik van PFOS is recent door een aantal internationale
regelingen sterk aan banden gelegd. PFOS mag alleen nog onder bepaalde voorwaarden worden
toegepast in een beperkt aantal producten waarin het onmisbaar wordt geacht. Uiteindelijk wordt naar
een algeheel verbod gestreefd.
Trefwoorden:
milieurisicogrenzen, PFOS, maximaal toelaatbaar risiconiveau, verwaarloosbaar risiconiveau,maximaal aanvaardbare concentratie

RIVM Report 601714013

3

4

RIVM Report 601714013

Abstract
Environmental risk limits for PFOSThe National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has derived scientific
Environmental Risk Limits (ERLs) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fresh and marine surface
waters. Measured concentrations in the Netherlands and other European countries exceed the ERLs forhumans through fish consumption, as well as for water organisms and fish-eating birds and mammals.
This indicates a potential risk for the water ecosystem. The risks for the average fish consumer are low
because sufficient safety margins have been applied in the derivation.
RIVM used the methodology as required by the European Water Framework Directive for thederivation of the ERLs in this report. ERLs are scientifically derived advisory values. They serve as ascientific background for the decisions to be taken at the national and European level, where otheraspects will be taken into account as well. In the Netherlands, environmental quality standards are set
by the Dutch Steering Committee for Substances, based on this advice and other considerations. The
Dutch government uses environmental quality standards when implementing the national policy on
substances.
The MPC (maximum permissible concentration) is the level at which no harmful effects are expected,
based on annual average concentrations. This MPC is based on three routes: direct ecotoxicity,
secondary poisoning, and consumption of fish by humans. The lowest of these three routes determines
the overall MPC. For PFOS, the consumption of fish by humans is the most critical route, which results
in an MPC of 0.65 ng/L for freshwater. This route is based on a consumption of 115 grams of fish perday, which is seen as a conservative estimate.
PFOS is a surfactant and is used in a variety of products such as fire-fighting foams, cleaners,
adhesives and paper. Due to the physicochemical properties of PFOS, it does not degrade well and has
been found to accumulate in biota, also in mammals even in remote areas. Production and use of PFOS
are strongly restrained as a result of international regulations, with a complete ban as the ultimate goal.
Restricted use of PFOS is allowed in a limited number of products for which it is deemed indispensible.
Its use in these products will also eventually be phased out.
Key words:
environmental risk limits, PFOS, maximum permissible concentration, maximum acceptableconcentration

RIVM Report 601714013

5

6

RIVM Report 601714013

Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Ir. J.M.C. Appelman, who is the contact person at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment (VROM-DP) and to Dr. M.P.M. Janssen who is programme coordinator
for the derivation of ERLs within the RIVM.
The results of the present report have been discussed in the scientific advisory group INS (WK-INS).
The members of this group are acknowledged for their contribution.
Thanks are also due to Lonneke van Leeuwen for contributions to the report and to Leon de Poorter for
starting this project and carrying out literature searches.

RIVM Report 601714013

7

8

RIVM Report 601714013

Contents
List of abbreviations

11

Summary

13

1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3

Introduction
Project Framework
Background information on PFOS
Substance information
International regulatory context
Need for environmental risk limits

15
15
16
16
17
17

2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2

Methods for derivation of ERLs
General method used
Data collection, evaluation and selection
Derivation of ERLs – deviations from guidance
Drinking water
MACeco, marine

19
19
19
20
20
20

3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.7
3.8
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.9

Derivation of environmental risk limits
Identification, physico-chemical properties, fate and distribution
Identity
Physico-chemical properties
Behaviour in the environment
Bioconcentration and biomagnification
Bioconcentration – laboratory data
Bioaccumulation – field data
Biomagnification – trophic magnification from field studies
Selection of BCF and BMF values
Human toxicological threshold limits and carcinogenicity
Trigger values
Aquatic toxicity data
Laboratory toxicity data
Treatment of fresh- and marine toxicity data
Model ecosystem toxicity data
Derivation of the MPCwater and MPCmarine
MPCeco, water and MPCeco, marine
MPCsp, water and MPCsp, marine
MPChh food, water and MPChh food, marine
Selection of the MPCwater and MPCmarine
Derivation of the MPCdw, water
Derivation of the MACeco
MACeco, water
MACeco, marine
Derivation of the NCwater and NCmarine

21
21
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
27
29
29
29
30
31
31
32
32
33
34
34
34
34
34
35
35

RIVM Report 601714013

9

10

3.10
3.11
3.12
3.12.1
3.12.23.13
3.13.1
3.13.2Derivation of SRCeco, water
Overview of derived ERLs
Comparison of derived ERLs with standards from other countries
Drinking water
Surface water
Comparison of derived ERLs with monitoring data
Fish
Water

35
35
36
36
37
38
38
39

4

Conclusions

41

References

43

Appendix 1. Information on bioconcentration and biomagnification

49

Appendix 2. Detailed aquatic toxicity data

53

Appendix 3. Mammal and bird toxicity data

61

Appendix 4. Description of microcosm studies

63

RIVM Report 601714013

List of abbreviations
BAF
BCF
BMF
ECx
ERL
EU
INS

Bioaccumulation Factor
Bioconcentration Factor
Biomagnification Factor
Concentration at which x% effect is observed
Environmental Risk Limit
European Union
International and National Environmental Quality Standards for Substances in the
Netherlands
LOEC
Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
MACecoMaximum Acceptable Concentration for ecosystems
MACeco, water
Maximum Acceptable Concentration for ecosystems in freshwater
MACeco, marine Maximum Acceptable Concentration for ecosystems in the marine compartment
MATC
Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration, geometric mean of NOEC and LOEC
MPC
Maximum Permissible Concentration
MPCwater
Maximum Permissible Concentration in freshwater
MPCmarine
Maximum Permissible Concentration in the marine compartment
MPCeco, water
Maximum Permissible Concentration in freshwater based on ecotoxicological data
MPCeco, marine
Maximum Permissible Concentration in the marine compartment based on
ecotoxicological data
MPCsp, water
Maximum Permissible Concentration in freshwater based on secondary poisoning
MPCsp, marine
Maximum Permissible Concentration in the marine compartment based on secondary
poisoning
MPChhfood, water Maximum Permissible Concentration in freshwater based on consumption of fish andshellfish by humans
MPChhfood, marine Maximum Permissible Concentration in the marine compartment based on
consumption of fish and shellfish by humans
MPCdw, water
Maximum Permissible Concentration in freshwater based on abstraction of drinking
water
NC
Negligible Concentration
NCwater
Negligible Concentration in freshwater
NCmarine
Negligible Concentration in the marine compartment
NOEC
No Observed Effect Concentration
PBT
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic
POP
Persistent Organic Pollutant
SRCecoSerious Risk Concentration for ecosystems
SRCeco, water
Serious risk concentration for freshwater and marine ecosystems
TDI
Tolerable Daily Intake
TGD
Technical Guidance Document
TMF
Trophic Magnification Factor
WFD
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

RIVM Report 601714013

11

12

RIVM Report 601714013

Summary
Environmental risk limits for PFOS
In 2008, a large spill of PFOS occurred during an incident at Schiphol airport. Because of this, theMinistry of VROM commissioned RIVM to derive ERLs for water. The National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM) has derived Environmental Risk Limits (ERLs) for
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fresh and marine surface waters. Measured concentrations exceed
these ERLs for humans through fish consumption, as well as for water organisms and fish-eating birds
and mammals.
The ERLs in this report are scientifically derived advisory values. They can be used for further decision
making on PFOS at the national and European level. In the Netherlands, environmental quality
standards are set by the Dutch Steering Committee for Substances, based on this advice and otherconsiderations. The Dutch government uses environmental quality standards when implementing thenational policy on substances. RIVM used the methodology as required by the European Water
Framework Directive for the derivation of the ERLs in this report. Using this methodology, potential
risks for humans as well as effects on the aquatic ecosystem are taken into account.
PFOS is a surfactant, and is used in a variety of products such as fire-fighting foams, cleaners,
adhesives and paper. Due to the physicochemical properties of PFOS, it does not degrade well and has
been found to accumulate in biota, also in remote areas. PFOS has recently been assigned to be a
persistent organic pollutant (POP) and has been added to Annex B of the Stockholm convention.
Within the European Union, PFOS is a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT-) compound.
Because of these international regulations, production and use are strongly restrained, with a complete
ban as the ultimate goal. Under certain circumstances, PFOS can be applied in a limited number of
products for which it is deemed indispensible. Its use in these products will also eventually be phasedout.
An overview of the derived ERLs is given in Table 1. The MPC (maximum permissible concentration)is the level at which no harmful effects are expected, based on annual average concentrations. This
MPC is based on three routes: direct ecotoxicity, secondary poisoning, and consumption of fish byhumans. The lowest of these three routes determines the overall MPC. For PFOS, the consumption offish by humans is the most critical route, which results in an MPC of 0.65 ng/L for freshwater.
Calculations are based on a consumption of 115 grams of fish per day, which is seen as a conservative
estimate. Other environmental risk limits include the negligible concentration (NC), maximum
acceptable concentration for ecosystems (MACeco), and serious risk concentration for water ecosystems(SRCeco). The relevance of these latter two is limited, since the MACeco and SRCeco do not take foodchain transfer to predators and humans into account. In addition, the MACeco is based on acute data,
whereas a single peak will automatically lead to long-term exposure. Since effects of PFOS will
become mainly apparent in the long-term, short-term toxicity tests are not a good basis for risk
evaluation. No risk limits were derived for the sediment compartment because this was outside thescope of this project.
Measurements show that in the Netherlands and other European countries, PFOS is detected in fresh
surface waters in concentrations above the MPC. This is not only the case for the overall MPC, which
is based on consumption of fish by humans, but also for the MPC based on secondary poisoning. In anumber of cases, the MPC for direct ecotoxicity is also exceeded. The fact that MPCs are exceeded for
all three exposure routes points at a potential risk for exposure via surface water.

RIVM Report 601714013

13

The currently derived ERLs clearly underpin the ongoing efforts to eventually phase out the use of
PFOS. Regular monitoring of PFOS is needed to investigate the potential risks for the aquatic
ecosystem and to evaluate the (inter) national regulatory measures.
Table 1 Derived MPC, MACeco, NC, and SRCeco values for PFOS

ERL

MPC
µg/L
ng/L
-4
6.5 x 10
0.65
0.53
530

Freshwater
Surface water
intended for
drinking water
abstraction
Marine water
5.3 x 10-4
n.a. = not applicable

14

0.53

MACeco
µg/L
36
n.a.

µg/L
6.5 x 10-6
n.a.

NC
ng/L
0.0065n.a.

SRCeco
µg/L
930
n.a.

7.2

5.3 x 10-6

0.0053930

RIVM Report 601714013

1

Introduction

1.1

Project Framework
In this report, environmental risk limits (ERLs) for surface water (freshwater and marine) are derived
for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in the context of the project ‘Standard setting for other relevant
substances within the WFD’. This project is closely related to the INS-project (‘International andnational environmental quality standards for substances in the Netherlands’).
The following ERLs are considered (VROM, 2004):
negligible concentration (NC) – concentration at which effects to ecosystems are expected tobe negligible and functional properties of ecosystems must be safeguarded fully. It defines asafety margin that should exclude combination toxicity. The NC is derived by dividing the
MPC (see next bullet) by a factor of 100.
maximum permissible concentration (MPC) – concentration in an environmental compartment
at which:
1. no effect to be rated as negative is to be expected for ecosystems;
2a no effect to be rated as negative is to be expected for humans (for non-carcinogenic
substances);-

2b for humans no more than a probability for cancer incidence of 10-6 per year can becalculated (for carcinogenic substances). Within the scope of the Water Framework
Directive, a probability of 10-6 on a lifetime basis is used.
Within the scope of the Water Framework Directive the MPC is specifically referring to longterm exposure.
maximum acceptable concentration (MACeco, water) – concentration protecting aquatic
ecosystems for effects due to short-term exposure or concentration peaks;
serious risk concentration (SRCeco) – concentration at which possibly serious ecotoxicologicaleffects are to be expected.

The results presented in this report have been discussed by the members of the scientific advisorygroup for the INS-project (WK-INS). It should be noted that the Environmental Risk Limits (ERLs) inthis report are scientifically derived values, based on (eco)toxicological, fate and physicochemical data.
They serve as advisory values for the Dutch Steering Committee for Substances, which is appointed to
set the Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs). ERLs should thus be considered as preliminary
values that do not have an official status. It should be noted that there are several internationalframeworks in which PFOS is considered (see section 1.2.2 below). The ERLs as derived in thisreport also serve as a scientific background for the decisions to be taken within the context of,e.g., the selection of priority substances under the Water Framework Directive. The outcome ofthese processes is not clear as yet and may influence the decisions to be taken on the final choiceof the EQS.

RIVM Report 601714013

15

1.2

Background information on PFOS

1.2.1

Substance information
PFOS is a fluorinated anion that belongs to a large group of perfluorinated substances. The PFOS anion
does not have a specific CAS number but is available as a sulfonic acid and as various salts(Table 2).
Table 2 PFOS and its salts

CAS
Number
N/A

1763-23-1

2795-39-3

Common nameChemical namePFOS anion
Perfluorooctane
sulfonate
PFOS acid
Perfluorooctane
sulfonic acidPFOSH
PFOS potassium(K+) salt

1-Octanesulfonate,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-

29081-56-9

PFOS ammonium(NH4+) salt

29457-72-5

PFOS lithium (Li+)
salt

70225-14-8

PFOS diethanolamine (DEA) salt

56773-42-3

PFOS tetraethylammonium salt

251099-16-8

PFOS
didecyldimethylammonium salt

1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-, potassium salt
1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-, ammonium salt
1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-, lithium salt
1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-, compd. with
2,2-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1)
1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-,
tetraethylammonium salt
1-Octanesulfonic acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8heptadecafluoro-,
didecyldimethylammonium salt

Molecular
formulaC8F17SO3-

Mol.
weight499.1

C8F17SO3H

500.1

C8F17SO3K

538.2

C8F17SO3NH4

517.1

C8F17SO3Li

506

C8F17SO3NH(CH2CH2OH)2

604.1

C8F17SO3C8H20
N

629.1

C8F17SO3C22H48N

825.1

PFOS is a surfactant and is used in a variety of products which can be divided into three maincategories of use (OECD, 2002):• Surface treatmentso PFOS-related chemicals produced for surface treatment applications provide soil, oil,
and water resistance to personal apparel and home furnishings. Specific applicationsin this use category include protection of apparel and leather, fabric/upholstery andcarpets.

16

RIVM Report 601714013

• Paper protectiono PFOS-related chemicals produced for paper protection applications provide grease, oiland water resistance to paper and paperboard as part of a sizing agent formulation.
Specific applications in this use category include food contact applications (plates,
food containers, bags, and wraps), as well as non-food contact applications (folding
cartons, containers, carbonless forms and masking papers).
• Performance chemicals
o PFOS-related chemicals in the performance chemical category are used in a variety of
specialised industrial, commercial, and consumer applications. This category includes
various salts of PFOS that are commercialised as finished products. Specificapplications in this category include fire fighting foams, mining and oil wellsurfactants, acid mist suppressants for metal plating and electronic etching baths,
photolithography, electronic chemicals, hydraulic fluid additives, alkaline cleaners,
floor polishes, photographic film, denture cleaners, shampoos, chemical intermediates,
coating additives, carpet spot cleaners and as an insecticide in bait stations.

1.2.2

International regulatory context
Due to its physicochemical properties, PFOS does not degrade well and has been found to accumulate
in biota, also in remote areas (OSPAR, 2006). Within the context of the Stockholm Convention, it was
decided in 2009 by the Conference of Parties to classify PFOS as a POP substance and add PFOS toAnnex B of the Convention, which includes a restriction on production and use with the ultimate aim tophase out PFOS (http://chm.pops.int). As a result of the international negotiations a relatively large
number of specific uses are, however, still allowed. The decision becomes effective in August 2010.
In the European Union, PFOS is considered as Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT). Its use is
severely restricted by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council. Based on this regulation PFOS has been added to Annex XVII of the Regulation on theRegistration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) on 22 June 2009 (EC,2009). The restrictions under REACH Annex XVII have been taken forward in the implementation of
the Stockholm treaty into the EU POP regulation 850/2004/EC by August 24, 2010.
In the EU, the use of PFOS as mist suppressants/wetting agents in industrial chromium plating isderogated from the restriction until technically and economically feasible alternatives are available. The
use of PFOS in fire-fighting foams is no longer allowed as from June 27, 2011. Recently, Bruinen deBruin et al. (2009) made an estimation of the total stocks of PFOS in the Netherlands available for use
for these purposes. Based on sales data, market shares and an inventory among users, it was estimatedthat 390 kg PFOS/year is used for non-decorative hard chromium plating, while the total stored volumeof PFOS-containing fire-fighting foams on airports and industrial locations is about 18540 m3. In viewof the coming ban on the use in fire-fighting foams, owners have been informed to consider alternatives
in due time. The exact way of an environmentally sound removal of stockpiles is under discussion. In
conclusion, elimination of point sources is expected for the future, but this may take considerable time.
In addition, PFOS-treated (consumer) articles will remain a potential emission route.
Within the context of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), PFOS is a candidate for the newpriority substances list. A final advice for the European Commission is expected by September 2010.

1.2.3

Need for environmental risk limits
In the Netherlands, there are no officially authorised environmental risk limits for PFOS. In 2008, alarge spill of PFOS occurred during an incident at Schiphol airport. In an evaluation report of theTransport and Water Management Inspectorate in the Netherlands on this incident (IVW, 2008),
reference is made to standards of 10 and 25 µg/L. These values were supplied by RIVM andWaterdienst, based on a quick data screening. The Dutch Food and Consumer Products Safety

RIVM Report 601714013

17

Authority, refers to the value of 25 µg/L as an indicative MPC in an advice concerning fishconsumption from the affected area (VWA, 2008). Although referred to as “standard” and “indicative
MPC”, these values were supplied to facilitate acute incident management and should not be regarded
as official environmental risk limits.
As stated above, long-term presence of PFOS in the environment can be expected even when phasingout will have been completed. PFOS is also present on the Dutch priority substances list and as such,environmental risk limits are still needed by local authorities. In view of the hazardous properties of
PFOS, the Ministry of VROM requested the derivation of ERLs for PFOS.
Compounds that are used as replacements for PFOS (e.g., perfluorobutane sulfonate, PFBS, andperfluorobutanoate, PFBA) are also suspected of posing a potential risk to the environment and ERLs
for these compounds may have to be derived in the future.

18

RIVM Report 601714013

2

Methods for derivation of ERLs

2.1

General method used
The methodology for the data selection and derivation of ERLs is described in detail in Van
Vlaardingen and Verbruggen (2007), further referred to as the ‘INS Guidance’. This guidance is inaccordance with the guidance of the Fraunhofer Institute (FHI; Lepper, 2005) and prepared within thecontext of the WFD.
The process of ERL-derivation contains the following steps: data collection, data evaluation andselection, and derivation of the ERLs on the basis of the selected data. Specific items will be discussed
below.

2.2

Data collection, evaluation and selection
In accordance with the WFD, data of existing evaluations were used as a starting point. The OECD
(2002) evaluation was used, together with the environmental risk evaluation reports from the British
Environment Agency (Brooke et al., 2004) and OSPAR (2006).
Because of the known bioaccumulative properties of PFOS, it was anticipated that secondary poisoning
and exposure of humans via consumption of fish are the determining routes for the derivation of ERLs.
Therefore, physicochemical data were taken from the above-mentioned reports and only a quick
literature scan on additional ecotoxicity data was performed. Emphasis was put on performing athorough literature search on bioconcentration and biomagnification studies.
Ecotoxicity studies were screened for relevant endpoints (i.e., those endpoints that have consequencesat the population level of the test species). Toxicity data that were deemed ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’ in theOECD report were used without any further validity evaluation, and other ecotoxicity studies fromscientific literature were only quickly evaluated. All bioaccumulation studies were thoroughly
evaluated with respect to their validity (scientific reliability), using the criteria of Klimisch et al.
(1997).
After data collection and validation, toxicity data were combined into an aggregated data table with one
effect value per species according to section 2.2.6 of the INS-Guidance. When for a species several
effect data were available, the geometric mean of multiple values for the same endpoint was calculated
where possible. Subsequently, when several endpoints were available for one species, the most relevant
or if this cannot be determined, the lowest of these endpoints (per species) is reported in the aggregateddata table.
To facilitate the comparison of toxicity data, all results are recalculated to concentrations of the anion.
Hence, also the ERLs are expressed as anion concentrations.

RIVM Report 601714013

19

2.3

Derivation of ERLs – deviations from guidance
Two ERLs are derived not completely in line with the present guidance: the ERL for drinking water(and the way it is compared to the other ERLs for surface water) and the maximum acceptableconcentration (MAC) for marine waters. The deviations from the guidance are discussed below.

2.3.1

Surface water intended for drinking water abstraction
The INS-Guidance includes the MPC for surface waters intended for the abstraction of drinking water(MPCdw, water) as one of the MPCs from which the lowest value should be selected as the general
MPCwater (see INS-Guidance, section 3.1.6 and 3.1.7). According to the proposal for the daughter
directive Priority Substances, however, the derivation of the AA-EQS (= MPC) should be based on
direct exposure, secondary poisoning, and human exposure due to the consumption of fish. Drinking
water was not included in the proposal and is thus not guiding for the general MPCwater value. The
MPCwater is thus derived considering the individual MPCs based on direct exposure (MPCeco, water),secondary poisoning (MPCsp, water) or human consumption of fishery products (MPChh food, water). The
MPCdw, water is reported separately. For derivation of the MPCdw, water, it is assumed that the compound is
not removed upon treatment.

2.3.2

MACeco, marine
In this report, the MACeco, marine value is based on the MACeco,water value• with no additional assessment factor when acute toxicity data for at least two specific marine taxa
are available,• using an additional assessment factor of 5 when acute toxicity data for only one specific marine
taxon are available,• using an additional assessment factor of 10 when no acute toxicity data are available for specificmarine taxa (analogous to the derivation of the MPC according to Van Vlaardingen andVerbruggen, 2007).
It has to be noted that this procedure is currently not agreed upon. Therefore, the MACeco, marine value
needs to be re-evaluated once an agreed procedure is available.

20

RIVM Report 601714013

3

Derivation of environmental risk limits

3.1

Identification, physico-chemical properties, fate and distribution

3.1.1

Identity
Table 3 Identification of PFOS acid and its most important salt

3.1.2

Common name
CAS number
EC number
Annex I Index number
Structural formula

PFOS
N.A.
N.A.
607-624-00-8
Acid:

PFOS K+ salt
2795-39-3
220-527-1
607-624-00-8
Salt:

Molecular formula

C8F17SO3H

C8F17SO3K

Physico-chemical properties
Physico-chemical properties of PFOS are summarised in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Physico-chemical properties of PFOS

Parameter
Molecular weight

Unit[g/mol]Water solubility[mg/L]

pKa[-]

log KOW
log KOC[-][-]

Vapour pressure
Melting point
Boiling point
Henry’s law
constant

[Pa]
[ºC]
[ºC]
[atm.m3/mol]

RIVM Report 601714013

Value
499
500
538
570
370
12.4
25
-3.27

RemarkPFOS ion
PFOS acid
PFOS K+ salt
Pure water
Freshwater
Unfiltered seawater
Filtered seawaterCalculated value; PFOS isa strong acid and in theenvironment only present
in the ionised form
Not possible to measure/calculate
5.0
Overall geometric mean ofreported values
3.31 × 10-4
20 ºC
> 400
Not calculable
4.34 × 10-7

Reference
OECD, 2002

OECD, 2002

Brooke et al.,
2004

OECD, 2002
OECD, 2002
Möller, 2009
OECD, 2002
OECD, 2002
OECD, 2002
OECD, 2002

21

3.1.3Behaviour in the environment
PFOS is an acid and in the environment, it is only present in the ionised form. Hydrolysis andphotolysis of PFOS are insignificant, with a hydrolysis half-life of ≥ 41 years and a photolysis half-lifeof > 3.7 years (OECD, 2002). Because virtually no aerobic nor anaerobic biodegradation of PFOS
occurs, PFOS is highly persistent in the environment.

3.2

Bioconcentration and biomagnification
In this section, an overview is given of the bioconcentration, bioaccumulation and biomagnification
data. For derivation of the risk limits for secondary poisoning and human fish consumption, theaccumulation of substances by aquatic organisms from the aqueous phase (bioconcentration) andaccumulation in the food chain (biomagnification) has to be taken into account. These are represented
by a laboratory bioconcentration factor (BCF) and biomagnification factors (BMF). A bioaccumulation
factor (BAF) represents the total accumulation in the field relative to the exposure concentration inwater, including bioconcentration and biomagnification. A BAF is thus equal to the product of BCF
and BMF. In general, biomagnification, and thus total bioaccumulation, increases with increasing
bioconcentration potential. The TGD (EC, 2003) recommends relying on experimental data for
selection of the BMF. In case such data are not available, defaults are suggested that are related to theBCF (i.e., BMF 2 kg/kg for compounds with BCF 2000-5000 L/kg, 10 kg/kg for BCF > 5000 L/kg). It
should be noted, however, that these defaults apply to lipophilic organic compounds, whereas PFOS
primarily binds to proteins (see also 3.2.3).
In the following, the bioconcentration factors from laboratory experiments are discussed first in section
3.2.1. These values serve as basis for selection of the BCF. Second, bioaccumulation factors (BAF)from field data are discussed in section 3.2.2. In the field, exposure is not only via the water phase, as
in laboratory BCF studies but via the food as well. The BAF values thus represent a combination of
bioconcentration and biomagnification. Because biomagnification (uptake through food) depends on
trophic level, BAF values are dependent on trophic level as well, if biomagnification occurs. Third, an
overview of biomagnification studies is presented in section 3.2.3. An emphasis is put on trophic
magnification studies in which a regression between the logarithm of the concentrations in organisms
and the corresponding trophic level of these organisms is established. These so-called trophic
magnification factors (TMF) are considered to be the most reliable representation of thebiomagnification factors (BMF), because they are normalised to trophic level and cancel out
fluctuations in biomagnification between individual species by regression over several trophic levels.
For the purpose of deriving risk limits for secondary poisoning and human fish consumption, abiomagnifaction factor for the pelagic food chain has to be derived (see section 3.2.3.1). This factor,
which is referred to as the first biomagnification factor BMF1, describes the biomagnification fromsmall fish to larger fish, which in turn is eaten by predators (including humans). Next to that, forderiving a risk limit for secondary poisoning in the marine environment, an additional biomagnification
factor has to be derived to account for accumulation in birds and mammals (e.g., seals, dolphins,seabirds) that serve as food for top predators (e.g., polar bears and killer whales). This factor, called
BMF2,is derived see section 3.2.3.2. Last, based on the BCF, BAF and BMF (TMF) data, a value for
BCF, BMF1, and BMF2 will be selected in section 3.2.4, based on a weight of evidence approach.
The BCF and BMF values are used to calculate a safe concentration in surface water starting from asafe concentration for humans or predatory birds and mammals according to the methods described in
Van Vlaardingen and Verbruggen (2007). In short, the MPC for humans, expressed as a concentrationin fish (MPChh food in mg/kgbiota ww), is calculated from the human-toxicological threshold (TDI in

22

RIVM Report 601714013

mg/kgbw/d), assuming a body weight of 70 kg, a daily intake of 115 g fish, and a maximum contributionof 10% to the TDI. The equation used is: MPChh food = 0.1 × TDI × 70/0.115. The accompanying
MPChh food water (in mg/L) is calculated by dividing the MPChh food by the product of BCF (in L/kg) andBMF1 (in kg/kg) as MPChh food, water = MPChh food/(BCF × BMF1).
The MPC in water that accounts for secondary poisoning of predatory birds or mammals (MPCsp, water),is derived by dividing the lowest MPC from bird or mammal toxicity studies (MPCoral, min, in
mg/kgbiota ww) by the product of BCF and BMF1. In formula: MPCsp, water = MPCoral, min / (BCF × BMF1).
The additional BMF2 is applied to calculate the MPC for the marine environment: MPCsp, marine =MPCoral, min / (BCF × BMF1 × BMF2).

3.2.1

Bioconcentration – laboratory data
The BCF value in a laboratory study is determined by exposing aquatic organisms to the substancedissolved in water. The BCF is calculated as the ratio between the concentration in the organisms andin the water determined at equilibrium. The standard guideline to perform bioconcentration tests withfish is the OECD 305 guideline.
The reported BCF values vary widely (for detailed data see Appendix 1, Table A1.1). Whole bodyBCF-values are much lower than values based on liver concentrations (e.g., Martin et al., 2003). The
final value of 2796 L/kg selected in the 3M report (3M, 2003) is the whole body (wet weight) BCF for
bluegill sunfish exposed to 86 µg/L PFOS. This is different from the value mentioned in the OECD
assessment, which refers to the same study (OECD, 2002). According to the OSPAR assessment(OSPAR, 2006) this is because an inappropriate kinetic method was used in the OECD report, which
was amended later in the 3M report. The only other BCF-value based on whole body concentrations is
the study with carp (Cyprinus carpio) performed by the Japanese Kurumi laboratory, also mentioned in
the OECD assessment (OECD, 2002). These values are, however, concentration ratios after 58 days, atwhich time point a steady state was apparently not reached. If the reported concentration ratios at
different time intervals are extrapolated to steady state, the BCF-values are 818 L/kg at 20 µg/L and
2180 L/kg at 2 µg/L. The latter value is comparable to the (rounded off) value of 2800 L/kg for bluegill
sunfish.

3.2.2

Bioaccumulation – field data
Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are presented in many of the reported field studies or can be deduced
from these studies. In general, BAFs appear to be significantly higher than the BCF-values obtained inlaboratory studies, which is a clear indication of contribution of uptake via the food and of
biomagnification. The BAFs in fish that were obtained from the literature are tabulated in Appendix 1(Table A1.2). BAF-values range from about 2500 to 95000 L/kg for freshwater fish, and from 1600 to
10000 L/kg for marine fish. The highest BAF of 95000 L/kg refers to sculpin, which is a small bottom
feeder. For lake trout, which is considered more representative for human consumption, the BAF is16000 L/kg. From a recent study (Houde et al., 2008) it must be noted that the bioaccumulation factor
for linear PFOS is about 2.5 times as high as for the sum of the isomers.
Additional studies are available in which BAFs are presented based on serum and liver concentrations.
In a study from Japan, 94 freshwater turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans and Chinemys reevesii) werecaught (and killed). The concentration of PFOS in blood serum was determined, together with thewater concentration in a simultaneously sampled 2-L volume of water. The geometric mean of thebioaccumulation factor based on serum concentrations was 11000 L/kg (Morikowa et al., 2006).
From another study in Japan, in which fish and water were sampled simultaneously at three locations(Tokyo Bay, Osaka Bay, and Lake Biwa), BAFs based on liver concentrations were derived that range
from 274 to 41600 L/kg, with an average of 8540 L/kg (Taniyasu et al., 2003). From the presented data

RIVM Report 601714013

23

it can be concluded that the BAF based on blood concentrations is on average about twice as high. The
BAF-values for liver and blood from this Japanese field study are thus about 1 to 4 times as high as the
BCF-values for liver and blood based on laboratory experiments with aqueous exposure only (Martin etal., 2003; see Appendix 1, Table A1.1).
Much higher bioaccumulation factors of 6300 to 125000 L/kg based on liver concentrations werereported as well (Moody et al., 2002). However, these concentrations were based on measurements
7 months after a spill of PFOS. Given the very slow depuration kinetics of PFOS from fish, theconcentrations in fish may have stayed relatively constant while the water concentrations might have
dropped significantly by dilution as a result of current. These BAF-values should therefore beconsidered unreliable.
Based on the data presented in a study on the food chain of bottlenose dolphins, the bioaccumulation
factors based on serum concentrations of bottlenose dolphins are 76000 and 380000 L/kg for theCharleston Harbor area and the Sarasota Bay, respectively. Based on estimated whole bodyconcentrations, the values are 12000 and 60000 L/kg (Houde et al., 2006).

3.2.3

Biomagnification – trophic magnification from field studies
In general, the most reliable data on biomagnification originate from trophic magnification studies. In
such studies the levels of contaminants in several species in an ecosystem are measured and expressed
as a function of the trophic level. The trophic level is mostly derived from stable nitrogen isotope ratios
and a regression is made between contaminant concentration and trophic level. The contaminant values
should preferably be normalised to the fraction in the organisms that contains the substance e.g. lipids
in the case for lipophilic organic chemicals. However, PFOS partitions to proteins and a normalisation
to protein content seem not possible at this moment (Haukås et al., 2007).
Several trophic magnification studies are available, in which the accumulation of PFOS through thefood web is followed (Tomy et al., 2004; Martin et al., 2004; Houde et al., 2006). Detailed data can befound in Appendix 1 (Table A1.3 and A1.4). To calculate the final concentration in food for the
predator or top predator, the biomagnification process has to be based on whole body concentrations.
For many higher organisms (e.g., mammals) only plasma or liver concentrations are reported. This canlead to substantially different biomagnification factors (Houde et al., 2006). If no correction could bemade and only liver samples were available, studies have not been taken into account.

3.2.3.1

BMF1
In aquatic food webs excluding mammals and birds, the samples are almost solely whole body
homogenates. Therefore, the TMF can be considered as a good representative of the biomagnificationin the aquatic environment (e.g., between fish and larger fish), which is representative of the firstbiomagnification factor BMF1 (e.g., biomagnification in the food of humans and predators such as
herons and otters in the freshwater environment and seals, dolphins and seabirds in the marine
environment).
A trophic magnification study in the aquatic food chain of Lake Ontario was performed in 2001-2002(Martin et al., 2004). The study showed a good correlation between the logarithm of the PFOS
concentrations and trophic level for the pelagic species. For the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), whichfeeds partly on the benthic macroinvertebrate Diporei hoyi, higher concentrations were found. This
could be explained by the high concentrations in Diporeia, which suggests that sediment is a major
source of PFOS in this food web. For the pelagic species a TMF of 5.88 kg/kg was determined. It
should be mentioned that the results were based on earlier measurements of stable nitrogen isotope,
which makes the reliability of the trophic magnification uncertain, because trophic positions may bedifferent for individual organisms and trophic position was determined on other samples.

24

RIVM Report 601714013

In a follow-up study, the biomagnification of individual PFOS congeners was studied in Lake Ontario(Houde et al., 2008). For this purpose, additional samples were taken for Diporeia in September 2003,
and zooplankton was collected in July 2004 and in July 2006. Further, the lake trout samples seem tobe different as well, with the ones in the current study dating from September 2002. The first samples
of Mysis were already taken in September 2001, while the remaining samples were collected in October
2002. Further, the exact sampling location is not similar for all species. Therefore, the results of thestudy can only be considered as indicative. In this study, the trophic levels for the species considereddiffer from those reported in the former study (Martin et al., 2004). From the data in the supporting
information, it can be concluded that the stable nitrogen isotopes were measured for this follow-up
study, which could mean that the measured PFOS concentrations and the reported trophic positions
refer to the same individuals. A major conclusion from the study is that especially the linear PFOS
isomer biomagnifies to the largest extent, about a factor of 2.5 more than the methyl isomers. The
dimethyl isomers do not biomagnify at all.
In a study in a lake in Beijing, China, which receives water from a wastewater treatment plant,
zooplankton (mainly Moina species) and five species of fish were sampled from December 2005 toApril 2007 (Li et al., 2008). For fish, blood or serum were analysed and concentrations were expressed
as serum concentrations, while for zooplankton whole body concentrations were measured. A positive
relationship between PFOS concentration and trophic level was observed when tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus) was excluded from the regression analysis. Tilapia is a rather benthic species and should forthat reason not be included in the regression analysis for pelagic species. The data for fish are
expressed as serum concentrations, which were calculated as twice the blood concentrations. From thestudy by Martin et al. (2003), it appears that the BCF in blood is almost four times higher than theconcentration in the carcass and as such, the reported BAF-values for fish are not representative forwhole body homogenates. Based on the serum data for the four remaining fish, the TMFs would be
6.0 kg/kg, but it is not clear to what extent the differences in serum concentrations between the fish
species are representative of the differences in whole body concentrations.
For the aquatic part of the food chain in the Canadian arctic, data are reported for several species
sampled in 2000-2002 in David Strait and Frobisher Bay. No biomagnification between zooplankton(mainly Calanus species) and arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) was observed. However, concentrations inclams and shrimps were much lower than in zooplankton. Since these species are associated to thesediment to a larger extent, this suggests that in this marine environment exposure occurs through thewater column (Tomy et al., 2004).
Data are reported for the aquatic part of the food chains in the Sarasota Bay (Florida, USA) sampled in
2004 and Charleston Harbor (South Carolina, USA) sampled in 2002-2004 (Houde et al., 2006). For
the Sarasota Bay, zooplankton was sampled as well next to several fish species. TMFs could be
calculated from the presented data. Considering the fish species only, the values are 1.3 kg/kg for theSarasota Bay and 1.4 kg/kg for the Charleston Harbor area. Thus, no significant biomagnification
occurs among the fish species, but the span in trophic level was only 1.3 and 0.9 for these areas
respectively. If zooplankton is included, the TMF in the Sarasota Bay is 5.1 kg/kg.
In a study from the Western Scheldt estuary, biomagnification with trophic level was measured andcompared with modelling results (De Vos et al., 2008). Biomagnification factors were based on wholebody wet weight concentrations. Organisms were classified in four trophic levels, which are herbivores(level 2, suspended solids being level 1), primary carnivores (level 3), primary-secondary carnivores(level 3.5), and secondary carnivores (level 4). The assignment in trophic levels is less accurate than on

RIVM Report 601714013

25

basis of stable nitrogen isotopes. However, an overall TMF for the food chain in the aquatic
environment of 2.6 kg/kg could be derived from the presented data.
There are several uncertainties related to the studies presented above, mainly related to the time spanover which sampling was performed, the use of liver or serum levels instead of whole bodyconcentrations, and the assignment of trophic levels. However, with estimated TMFs ranging from
1.3 to 6.0 kg/kg, it can be concluded that biomagnification of PFOS in fish is relevant.

3.2.3.2

BMF2
A second biomagnification factor BMF2, that is representative for the accumulation of larger fish to
mammals and birds, is used as an additional biomagnification step in the derivation of risk limits forthe marine environment (where, e.g., seals serve as food for top predators such as polar bears and killer
whales).
Some trophic magnification studies are performed for the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) fromCharleston Harbor area, South Carolina, USA and Sarasota Bay, Florida, USA. (Houde et al., 2006)
and for beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhal (Monodon monoceros) from the arctic (Tomy etal., 2004). Because the latter data were based on liver concentrations, whole body concentrations forthe beluga and narwhal were estimated and the trophic magnification factor were recalculated based onwhole body estimates (Houde et al., 2006). The arctic biomagnification study (Tomy et al., 2004) can
however not be considered as a reliable study, because of the spread in both the sampling times (19962002) and the sampling location (vast area in the eastern Canadian arctic). Still, the recalculated BMFvalue for the arctic food web based on whole body concentrations of 1.7 kg/kg is well in line with thevalues for the bottlenose dolphin of 1.4-1.8 (see Table A1.4).
To exclude the influence of biomagnification in the aquatic environment the chosen values for thebiomagnification factors (BMFs) were also expressed on the basis of single fish species and dolphinsseparately. The BMFs based on whole body concentrations of bottlenose dolphins for the Sarasota Bay
area were 9.6, 18, 16, 11, and 6.2 kg/kg for striped mullet, pigfish, sheepshead, pinfish, and seatrout,respectively. It is also stated that pinfish makes up 70% of the diet for the bottlenose dolphins in thisarea. Normalised to the measured trophic levels, these BMF values become 5.6, 18, 18, 14, and
16 kg/kg. For the Charleston Harbor area the reported BMF values were 2.6, 4, 1.2, 2.2, 0.8, and0.9 kg/kg for striped mullet, pinfish, red drum, Atlantic croaker, spotfish, and seatrout, respectively.
However, the data as tabulated in Houde et al. (2006) do not match with the data as presented in the
figure from this paper. Moreover, the ratio between the whole body concentrations and the plasma
concentrations in dolphins for the Charleston Harbor area is different from that for the Sarasota Bay.
The data from the figure do present the same ratio between these concentrations for both areas. The
presented BMF values for the Charleston Harbor area are probably underestimated by a factor of 2.
Another uncertainty in these data is that the trophic position of pinfish, which makes up 70% of the dietin dolphins in the Sarasota Bay area, only differs by 0.1 from the trophic positions of dolphins in theCharleston Harbor area, whereas this difference is 0.8 in the Sarasota Bay area. A further complicationin the study is that the calculation of whole body concentrations in dolphins from plasma
concentrations cannot be reproduced from the presented data. This makes the validity of thebiomagnification data for birds and mammals for the whole study more or less unassignable.
In the study from the Western Scheldt estuary (De Vos et al., 2008), the biomagnification from aquatic
species to eggs of the common tern (secondary carnivore) was also determined. For primary carnivores
to secondary carnivores the biomagnification factor was 2.4 kg/kg. For primary-secondary carnivores
to secondary carnivore the biomagnification factor was 2.1 kg/kg, with a difference in trophic level of
0.5. The BMF normalised for trophic level is then 4.4 kg/kg. In view of the low difference in trophic

26

RIVM Report 601714013

level this value is less reliable. In addition, the sampled tissue of the common tern is not the bird itself,
but its eggs. Therefore, the relevance for quantification of the biomagnification factor to birds andmammals is unclear.
In stranded marine mammals at the Dutch, Belgian, and French part of the North Sea both PFOS andtrophic position were measured (Van de Vijver et al., 2003). If the natural logarithm of the hepatic
PFOS concentration in these stranded mammals is plotted against the nitrogen stable isotope ratio, a
TMF of 2.3 kg/kg can be calculated. The value of this factor is limited, because the only trophic leveltaken into account is that of the predator, the time span of the samples is between 1995 and 2000, alldata are from liver homogenates, and the samples are from a relatively large area. However, theobtained value is of the same magnitude as the values from the dolphins from Florida and South
Carolina.
In an Arctic study, the biomagnification in the food chain sea ice amphipod (Gammarus wilkitzkii),
polar cod (Boreogadus saida), black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus)
was determined. Results were based on liver concentrations for fish and birds, but on whole organism
concentrations for the amphipods (Haukås et al., 2007). The BMFs, normalised to trophic level, were0.32 from amphipod to cod (which in fact is a BMF1), 1.54 from amphipod to black guillemot, 10.1
from cod to black guillemot, 38.7 from cod to glaucous gull, and 27.0 from black guillemot to glaucous
gull (all kg/kg). Further, for the black guillemot and the glaucous gull, composition of the diets wasestimated. For the black guillemot this consisted of 80% polar cod and 20% amphipods. For theglaucous gull this diet was 20% black guillemot, 30% polar cod and 20% amphipods. The BMFs basedon these diets, were 5.66 and 11.3 for the black guillemot and the glaucous gull, respectively.
Apparently no biomagnification from amphipods to polar cod was observed, but as the amphipods are
not having the same habitats, the difference in trophic position might rather reflect a difference innitrogen sources. When considering cod and the two bird species, the TMF based on liverconcentrations that can be read from the figure presented in the study, is about 13 kg/kg.
Upon finalisation of this report, two new articles were published on trophodynamics of PFOS. Kelly etal. (2009) reported a protein-normalised TMF value of 11.0 kg/kg over the entire marine food web
from the Hudson Bay area (Canada) including microalgae, capelin, cod, salmon, eider duck, white
winged scoter and beluga whale. The species were collected between 1999 and 2003. On wet weightbasis this value was 17.4 kg/kg, but the concentrations in birds and partly in whales were from liver
samples. The TMF value normalised to protein content for the piscivorous food web only was
2.2 kg/kg.
Tomy et al. (2009) reported a liver-based TMF for PFOS of 6.3 kg/kg in a food web from the western
Canadian Arctic containing the copepod Calanus hyperboreus, the amphipod Themisto libellula, cisco(a herring-like fish), pacific herring, arctic cod, beluga and ringed seal. Species were collected over theperiod 2004-2007.
As for the studies presented in section 3.2.3.1 for BMF1, there are several uncertainties related to the
BMF2-data because of the sampling schemes, choice of trophic levels and the use of liver or serum
concentrations. Although the individual studies are thus less reliable, in combination the range of
BMFs of 1.4 to 17 kg/kg shows that biomagnification in predatory birds and mammals is relevant.

3.2.4

Selection of BCF and BMF values
For lipophilic organic chemicals, data on bioaccumulation can be normalised to the percentage lipids ofthe organisms. This strongly reduces variability for these substances. As PFOS does not bind to lipids,
but to proteins, normalisation is not possible at this moment (Haukås et al., 2007). This causes a high

RIVM Report 601714013

27

residual uncertainty especially in estimating the biomagnification potential of PFOS, which is reflectedin the high variability of the data.
Several field bioaccumulation studies are available from the literature (see Appendix 1, Table A1.2).
Houde et al. (2006) report BAF-values between 1600 and 10000 for marine fish (geometric mean
4500 L/kg; Houde et al., 2006), while for freshwater fish BAF between 2500 and 95000 L/kg are
observed with a geometric mean of about 17000 L/kg (Kannan et al., 2005; Houde et al., 2008). BAFvalues for the linear PFOS isomer may even be 2.5 times as high (Houde et al., 2008). It appears that
BAF-values for predators such as dolphins can reach values as high as 60000 L/kg (Houde et al., 2006).
Additional studies do not allow for a reliable quantification of whole body BAFs, because liver orserum concentrations were used instead of whole body values. Nevertheless, they show thatconsiderable accumulation occurs.
Because biomagnification depends on trophic level, the reported experimental BAF-values depend on
trophic level as well. This partly explains the variation in the observed data. Since not all trophic levels
are relevant for human consumption, it is not justified to take the geometric mean, but picking out asingle value does not cover the range of fish potentially consumed by humans. Therefore, it isconsidered most appropriate to rely on the reliable laboratory BCF-value of 2800 L/kg for bluegill
sunfish and apply a fixed value for BMF1 and BMF2, instead of using an experimental BAF.
If the BCF-value of 2800 L/kg is selected as the most reliable value for further calculations, the values
for the first and second biomagnification step should not be less than 5 kg/kg. The resulting product of
BCF and BMF1 of 14000 L/kg adequately covers the BAF-values obtained for relevant fish species infield studies (e.g., 16000 L/kg for lake trout, 19000 L/kg for alewife). Moreover, the additional factor
of for BMF2 leads to a BAF of 70000 L/kg that is similar to the value of 60000 L/kg obtained for thebottlenose dolphin. The choice of the BMF of 5 is also supported by many of the above reported BMF
and TMF-studies, although they are individually less reliable and is comparable to the maximum BMF
of 5.88 mentioned in the ecological screening assessment of PFOS and related compounds by
Environment Canada (2006).
A stated above, the TGD (EC, 2003) proposes a default BMF of 2 kg/kg in case the BCF is between
2000 and 5000 L/kg. It should be realised, however, that the bioaccumulation potential of PFOS is notadequately predicted from the laboratory BCF and associated default BMF. As stated above in section
3.2, the defaults apply to lipophilic organic compounds, while PFOS primarily binds to proteins. In
other words, the BAF will be underestimated when using the product of laboratory BCF and default
BMF. This was also recognised in the preliminary risk profile that was prepared by the Swedish KemI
and EPA for the nomination of PFOS as a POP under the Stockholm Convention (KemI/Swedish EPA,
2004). In that document, a calculated hypothetical BMF of 22–160 kg/kg is mentioned, based on partof the literature references that were evaluated for the present report. These BMF-values, however, aremost likely too high, since they cover more trophic levels than should be included for the derivation ofstandards according to the WFD.
In conclusion, the data presented above and the special characteristics of PFOS biomagnification in thefood chain support to deviate from the default value of 2 kg/kg proposed in the TGD (EC, 2003). Basedon a weight of evidence (WoE) approach the chosen BCF value is 2800 L/kg, the value for BMF1 is
5 kg/kg and the BMF2 is 5 kg/kg (Table 5).
Table 5 Selected bioaccumulation and biomagnification values for PFOS

Parameter
BCF (fish)
BMF1
BMF2

28

Unit
L/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg

Value
2800
5
5

Remarkexperimental, whole body value

Reference
3M, 2003

RIVM Report 601714013

3.3

Human toxicological threshold limits and carcinogenicity
PFOS has the following risk-phrases: Carc. Cat. 3; R40 - Repr. Cat. 2; R61 - T; R48/25 - X; R20/22 R64 - N; R51-53. From a subchronic study in Cynomolgus monkeys, the EFSA identified 0.03 mg/kgbw
per day as the lowest no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and considered this a suitable basis
for deriving a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of 150 ng/kgbw per day by applying an overall uncertainty
factor (UF) of 200 to the NOAEL (EFSA, 2008).

3.4

Trigger values
This section reports on the trigger values for ERLwater derivation (as demanded in WFD framework).
Table 6 Collected properties for comparison to MPC triggers for PFOS

Parameter
Log Kp, susp-water

Unit
[-]

BCF
BMF

[L/kg][kg/kg]Value
4.0

Method/Derived at section
KOC × fOC,susp1; log KOC = 5.0;
(see section 3.1.2)
3.2
3.2

2800
5 (BMF1)
5 (BMF2)[-]
Not available
3.1.2
Log KOW
R-phrases[-]
R40; R61; R48/25;
3.3
R20/22; R64; R51-53
A1 value[mg/L]
Not available
DW standard[mg/L]
Not available
1
fOC,susp = 0.1 kgOC/kgsolid (European Commission (Joint Research Centre), 2003).
o
o
o
o

o

3.5

PFOS has a log Kp, susp-water > 3; derivation of MPCsediment is triggered. However, this is beyond thescope of this report.
PFOS has a log Kp, susp-water > 3; expression of the MPCwater as MPCsusp, water is required. However,this is beyond the scope of this report.
PFOS has a BCF > 100 L/kg; assessment of secondary poisoning is triggered.
PFOS has a BCF > 100 L/kg is classified as a carcinogenic cat. 3 and has the R-phrases R40, R61,
R48/25, R20/22, R64, R51-53. Therefore, an MPCwater for human health via food (fish)consumption (MPChh food, water) has to be derived.
For PFOS, no compound-specific A1 value or Drinking Water value standard is available fromCouncil Directives 75/440, EEC and 98/83/EC, respectively.

Aquatic toxicity data
To facilitate comparison of results, all toxicity data that are based on nominal concentrations have beenrecalculated into the concentration of the anion. Measured data are used as such, assuming that theanion is measured.

RIVM Report 601714013

29

3.5.1

Laboratory toxicity data
An overview of the selected freshwater toxicity data for PFOS is given in Table 7. Marine toxicity
data1 are given in Table 8. Detailed toxicity data for PFOS are tabulated in Appendix 2. In a number ofstudies, effects were observed at the lowest test concentrations. NOECs could thus not be derived fromthese studies but in view of the very low level of the LOECs, these are included in Table 7 and further
discussed below.
Table 7 Selected toxicity data for PFOS for freshwater species

Chronica
Taxonomic group

NOEC/EC10[mg/L]

AcuteaTaxonomic group[µg/L]

Algae
Chlorella vulgaris
Navicula pelliculosa
Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata
Cyanobacteria
Anabaena flos-aqua
Macrophytes
Lemna gibba
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Crustaceans
Daphnia magna
Moina macrocopa
Insects
Chironomus tentans
Enallagma cyathigerum
Fish
Oryzias latipes
Pimephales promelas
Amphibians
Xenopus laevis

L(E)C50[mg/L]

Algae
8.2b
8200
Chlorella vulgaris
82b
191
191000 Navicula pelliculosa
283
53000
Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata
53c
120c
Cyanobacteria
94
94000
Anabaena flos-aqua
176
Macrophyta
6600
Lemna gibba
31d
6.6d
0.56
560
Crustaceans
3.2
3200
Daphnia magna
48i
Daphnia pulicaria
124
7000
Moina macrocopa
18
7.0e
f,m
0.40
400
Neocaridina denticulate
9.3
Platyhelmintes< 2.3 × 10-3m < 2.3
Dugesia japonica
18j-2m< 1.0 × 10
< 10
Mollusca
Physa acuta
165
-2m
< 10
Unio complamatus59< 1.0 × 10
2.8 × 10-2g
27
Fish
Lepomis macrochirus
6.4
5.0h
5000
Pimephales promelas
6.6k
Oncorhynchus mykiss
13la
For detailed information see Appendix 2. For a description of LOEC values see main text.
b
Most sensitive endpoint (cell density).
cPreferred endpoint (growth rate), preferred exposure time (72 h).
dMost sensitive endpoint (wet weight).
eMost sensitive endpoint (reproduction); geometric mean of 12, 25, 6.5 and 1.25 mg/L.
fPreferred endpoint (population growth rate)g
Most sensitive endpoint (spawning).
h
Most sensitive endpoint (growth); geomean of 4.82 and 5.25 mg/L).
iGeometric mean of 61.0; 25.0; 53.8; 67.2; 37.4 and 58.4 mg/Lj
Geometric mean of 15.8 and 21.3 mg/Lk
Geometric mean of 9.5 and 4.6 mg/LlGeometric mean of 7.2 and 22 mg/Lm
See comment in text below
130[µg/L]
82000
283000120000176000
31000
48000
124000
18000
9300
18000
165000
59000
6400
6600
13000

Species living and tested in water with salinity > 0.5‰.

RIVM Report 601714013

In Ji et al. (2008) a NOEC of 0.1 mg/L is reported for reproduction and a LOEC of 0.01 mg/L for larval
survival of Oryzias latipes. At the level of the LOEC the effect percentage is 80%. Based on a roughestimation, the EC10 for larval survival would be in the order of 20 ng/L.
Ji et al. (2008) also report a LOEC value of 0.3125 mg/L for number of young per adult of thecrustacean Moina macrocopa. This value is lower than the reported NOEC for adult survival of
1.25 mg/L and the NOEC for number of young per brood and broods of young per adult of
0.3125 mg/L. No significant effect was observed for the days to first brood. However, the population
growth rate, which incorporates all of these parameters is also reported. An EC10 of 0.40 mg/L can becalculated from the presented data. Therefore, the LOEC value for number of young per adult is
considered less relevant and the value of 0.40 mg/L is taken over.
MacDonald et al. (2004) report a NOEC of < 0.0023 mg/L (= LOEC 0.0023 mg/L) for total emergenceof the insect Chironomus tentans. At this level, total emergence was decreased by 32% as compared tothe control. The authors also report an EC10 of 0.089 mg/L for total emergence. When taking a closer
look at the data, however, this EC10 seems to be rather uncertain and preference is given to the NOEC.
In Bots et al. (2010), a LOEC of 0.01 mg/L is reported for metamorphosis of the insect Enallagma
cyathigerum, with an effect percentage of 18%. The NOEC for foraging success and larval survival. is
0.01 mg/L.
Table 8 Selected toxicity data for PFOS for marine species

Chronica
Taxonomic group
Crustaceans
Americamysis bahiaabNOEC/EC10[mg/L]
0.25

AcuteaTaxonomic group[µg/L]
250

Crustaceans
Americamysis bahia
Artemia sp.
Fish
Oncorhynchus mykissb

L(E)C50[mg/L][µg/L]

3.6
8.3

3600
8300

13

13000

For detailed information see Appendix 2.
Acclimated to 30‰ salinity

There are a number of valid marine toxicity data with ‘higher-than values’ due to the low solubility of
PFOS in seawater. These include acute and chronic toxicity data for algae (Skeletonema costatum) andacute data for mollusca (Crassostrea virginica) and fish (Cyprinodon variegatus). For detailed
information see Appendix 2.

3.5.2

Treatment of fresh- and marine toxicity data
According to Lepper (2005), data obtained for freshwater and marine species should be pooled unlessthere are indications that sensitivity of species differs between the two compartments. There are notenough data to make a sound comparison and the data are combined.

3.5.3

Model ecosystem toxicity data
Two microcosm studies are available, both focusing on effects on the zooplankton community. An
extensive summary of both studies is presented in Appendix 4.

RIVM Report 601714013

31

Sanderson et al. (2002) exposed 30 L indoor microcosms to 1, 10 or 30 mg/L PFOS in a 35-day
experiment. Measured concentrations in water were consistent with nominal and remained constantthroughout the study. Clear effects on zooplankton were apparent at 10 and 30 mg/L, with eliminationof the copepods Cyclops diaptomus and C. canthocampus staphylinus and the cladoceran Daphnia
magna and reductions in total abundance and species diversity. Rotifers showed a variable response,with some species decreasing and others increasing. Due to variability between replicates, it was notpossible to determine with statistical confidence whether or not treatment related effects were present at
1 mg/L. The NOEC for zooplankton from this study is considered to be < 10 mg/L.
Boudreau et al. (2003) performed an outdoors experiment in which 12000 L-systems were exposed to
0.3, 3, 10 or 30 mg/L PFOS for 35 days. Actual concentrations in the water phase were in line withnominal and remained constant during the study. A total of 92 species was collected during the study,of these 68 species belonging to the Rotifera, Copepoda and Cladocera were used to determine effects
on the zooplankton community using multivariate analysis (Principal Response Curve). The PRCanalysis indicated significant community effects at 10 and 30 mg/L. The PRC was dominated by two
rotifer species that showed an increase in abundance. In contrast, 21 species displayed an opposite
response. Among these were the cladoceran Simocephalus vetulus, copepod nauplii, the rotifers
Trichocerca sp., Cephalodella sp., Lecane monostyla and Lepadella sp., and the copepod
Macrocyclops albidus. The total number of species was significantly reduced by 74% at 30 mg/L andby 45% at 10 mg/L. Based on these results, the NOEC for the zooplankton community is considered tobe 3.0 mg/L.
Sanderson et al. (2004) further elaborated on the results of the two above-mentioned studies andperformed a power analysis in order to determine the LOECs. They concluded that the tentative LOEC
in the indoor microcosm experiment was most likely closer to 1 than to 10 mg/L. Given theexperimental set-up of the outdoor experiment, the deviations from the control should be 83% forabundance and 43% for species richness to be regarded as a true effect. The tentative LOEC based on
the outdoor experiment would be between 10 and 30 mg/L.

3.6

Derivation of the MPCwater and MPCmarine

3.6.1

MPCeco, water and MPCeco, marine

3.6.1.1

Assessment factor method
The acute base set is complete (algae, Daphnia and fish present). Eleven NOEC/EC10 values areavailable for the combined freshwater and marine datasets, the lowest of which is 27 µg/L for
Pimephales promelas. According to the guidance, an assessment factor of 10 will normally be applied
to the lowest NOEC when long-term NOECs are available from at least three species across threetrophic levels. This is only sufficient, however, if the species tested can be considered to represent oneof the more sensitive species groups. As can be seen from Table 7, there are several LOECs that are far
below the lowest NOEC, and substantial effects are observed at the level of these LOECs. Applying anassessment factor of 10 on the lowest NOEC of 27 µg/L would lead to an MPCeco, water of 2.7 µg/L.
This value is highly underprotective, since considerable effects on emergence of Chironomus tentans
were present at 2.3 µg/L. Moreover, 18% effect on metamorphosis of the insect Enallagma
cyathigerum and 80% effect on larval survival of Oryzias latipes were observed at 10 µg/L (Ji et al.,2008; Bots et al., 2010). Therefore, an assessment factor of 100 is put on the lowest available endpoint

32

RIVM Report 601714013

(the LOEC of 2.3 µg/L) and the MPCeco, water using the assessment factor method becomes 2.3 / 100 =0.023 μg/L = 23 ng/L. This MPCeco, water is not conservative, considering the estimated EC10 of around20 ng/L for larval survival of O. latipes.
No true longer-term studies for species representing additional marine taxa are available. However,there is a 96-hour study with the pacific oyster Crassostrea virginica (EC50 > 3.0 mg/L). Shell
deposition is a very sensitive parameter, which can be considered as representative of chronic effects.
With one additional marine taxon, an additional assessment factor of 5 can be applied to the LOEC of
2.3 µg/L (total assessment factor 500). Thus, the MPCeco, marine becomes 2.3 / 500 = 0.0046 μg/L = 4.6
ng/L

3.6.1.2

Species sensitivity distribution method
The dataset does in principle fulfil the requirements for performing a species sensitivity distribution
with respect to number and type of species tested, however all LOECs are for species that appear to besensitive to PFOS and for which no NOECs are available in the dataset. For this reason, the lower endof the species sensitivity distribution cannot be estimated. It is therefore not considered justified toderive an MPCeco, water by statistical extrapolation.

3.6.1.3

Microcosm studies
Since constant chronic exposure was maintained in the experiments, the results of the experiments arein principle useful for derivation of the MPCeco, water. Both studies are consistent in that clear effects on
zooplankton are present at 10 and 30 mg/L, but the NOEC of 3.0 mg/L established in the outdoor
experiment is probably not protective in view of the results of the first experiment. In addition, bothstudies were restricted to rotifers, copepods and cladocerans and did not take those species groups into
account that on the basis of the laboratory data are potentially most sensitive (e.g., insects, fish). It istherefore not considered justified to adapt an MPCeco, water on the basis of the NOEC from themicrocosm experiments.

3.6.1.4

Final choice for MPCeco, water and MPCeco, marine
The MPCeco, water is 0.023 µg/L (23 ng/L) and the MPCeco, marine is 0.0046 μg/L (4.6 ng/L), and bothderived using the assessment factor method.

3.6.2

MPCsp, water and MPCsp, marine
Detailed bird and mammal toxicity data and corresponding MPCoral are reported in Appendix 3.
The lowest MPCoral, min is 0.037 mg/kgbiota ww for rabbits. This value is based on a NOAEL of
0.1 mg/kgbw/d for maternal weight gain from a teratogenicity study where exposure lasted fromgestation day 6 to 20. The applied assessment factor was 90. Normally, the factor of 90 is applied tosubchronic toxicity studies with an exposure duration of 90 days. From similar studies with rats
exposed during the gestation period compared with full chronic studies, it can be concluded that theassessment factor of 90 can also be applied to teratogenicity studies. The extra assessment factor incomparison with a full chronic toxicity is 3.
Subsequently, the MPCsp, water can be calculated using the BCF of 2800 L/kg and the BMF1 of 5 kg/kg(section 3.2) and becomes 0.037 / (2800 × 5) = 2.6 × 10-6 mg/L = 0.0026 µg/L = 2.6 ng/L.
For the marine environment, an extra biomagnification factor (BMF2) should be used, which is also 5(see section 3.2). Thus, the MPCsp, marine becomes 3.7 × 10-2 / (2800 × 5 × 5) = 5.3 × 10-7 mg/L =0.00053 µg/L = 0.53 ng/L.

RIVM Report 601714013

33

3.6.3

MPChh food, water and MPChh food, marine
The MPChh food, water and MPChh food, marine represent the concentrations in water that will be protective forhumans upon consumption of fishery products. First, the maximum permissible concentration in fish
(MPChh food) is calculated based on the TDI of 1.5 × 10-4 mg/kgbw/d (see section 3.3), assuming a bodyweight of 70 kg, a daily intake of 115 g fish, and a maximum contribution to the TDI of 10%. The
MPChh food is then (0.1 × 1.5 × 10-4 × 70) / 0.115 = 9.1 × 10-3 mg/kg = 9.1 µg/kgbiota ww.
Subsequently, the MPChh food is converted to equivalent concentrations in water using the BCF and
BMF as derived in section 3.2.4. The resulting MPChh food, water and MPChh food, marine are calculated as
9.1 × 10-3 / (2800 × 5) = 6.5 × 10-7 mg/L = 0.00065 µg/L = 0.65 ng/L.

3.6.4

Selection of the MPCwater and MPCmarine
The MPCwater and MPCmarine are set to the lowest value derived for either direct exposure (MPCeco, water),secondary poisoning (MPCsp, water), or human exposure (MPChh food, water).
The MPCeco, water is 0.023 µg/L, the MPCsp, water is 0.0026 µg/L and the MPChh food, water is 0.00065 µg/L.
The final MPCwater is set equal to the MPChh food, water and becomes 0.00065 µg/L = 0.65 ng/L.
The MPCeco, marine is 0.0046 µg/L, the MPCsp, marine is 0.00053 µg/L and the MPChh food, marine is
0.00065 µg/L. The final MPCmarine is set equal to the MPCsp, marine and becomes 0.00053 µg/L =0.53 ng/L.

3.7

Derivation of the MPCdw, water
A provisional drinking water standard can be calculated using the TDI assuming 10% of the TDI may
be taken up through drinking 2 litres of water and a bodyweight of 70 kg. The provisional drinking
water standard then becomes (0.1 × 1.5 × 10-4 × 70) / 2 = 0.00053 mg/L = 0.53 µg/L. This value is usedas the MPC for surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water.

3.8

Derivation of the MACeco

3.8.1

MACeco, water
The base set of acute toxicity data is complete. LC50s are available for a number of taxa. However,
because no acute insect toxicity data are available, the requirements to perform an SSD are not met.
Besides that, chronic toxicity data show that insects are among the most sensitive species.
The lowest LC50 is 3.6 mg/L for the marine crustacean Americamysis bahia. Given the following
arguments:- the bioconcentration factor is higher than 100 and fish are amongst the most sensitive species;- the mode of action is unknown (although PFOS is suspected to have endocrine disrupting
effects);- the variation is not too high in view of the large number of data;an assessment factor of 100 is used and the MACeco, water becomes 3.6 / 100 = 0.036 mg/L = 36 µg/L.

34

RIVM Report 601714013

Please note that the derivation of a MAC value for PFOS is mainly theoretical. Because of the physicochemical properties of the compound (almost no degradation), a high peak will automatically lead tohigh long-term concentrations and consequently a high chronic exposure. Short-term toxicity tests arethus not a good basis for risk evaluation, which is also shown in the large acute to chronic ratios
obtained from the toxicity test results for a number of species (see Table 7). PFOS is a typicalcompound for which effects will become mainly apparent in the long-term. Moreover, the MACeco, water
does not take food chain transfer into account.

3.8.2

MACeco, marine
For the marine compartment, an additional assessment factor of 5 should be used since one typicallymarine taxon is present in the acute dataset (the mollusc Crassostrea virginica). Thus, the MACeco, marine
becomes 3.6 / 500 = 0.0072 mg/L = 7.2 µg/L.

3.9

Derivation of the NCwater and NCmarine
The NCwater and NCmarine are set to 1/100 of the respective MPCs, and are 6.5 × 10-6 and 5.3 × 10-6 µg/L
(6.5 and 5.3 pg/L).

3.10

Derivation of SRCeco, water
The geometric mean of all chronic data without the LOECs is 3.3 mg/L. However, with the LOECs
included for the three species for which no NOECs could be established, the geometric mean isconsiderably lower and is 0.93 mg/L. It could be argued that the geometric mean would even be lower
if for these three species NOECs would have been established. Therefore, the lower value of 0.93 mg/L
is used as basis for the SRCeco. Because more than three NOECs are available, no comparison has to bemade with the geometric mean of the acute data. Thus, the SRCeco, water and the SRCeco, marine are set at
0.93 mg/L = 930 µg/L. It should be noted that since food chain transfer is not taken into account, therelevance of the SRCeco, water to express potential risks for the aquatic ecosystem is limited. In may beconsidered to adapt the methodology to be able to include secondary poisoning in future SRCderivations when the compound characteristics give rise to concern for predators.

3.11

Overview of derived ERLs
An overview of the derived MPCs for surface water is given in Table 9, based on the three routes direct
ecotoxicity, secondary poisoning, and consumption of fish by humans. The lowest of these determines
the final MPC. The final MPC for freshwater is based on the MPC for human consumption of fisheryproducts, while the MPC for marine waters is based on the MPC for secondary poisoning.

RIVM Report 601714013

35

Table 9 Derived MPC values for PFOS (in µg/L) in surface water

Freshwaterµg/L
MPCeco, water
0.023
MPCsp, water
0.0026
MPChh food, water 0.00065

ng/L
23
2.6
0.65

Marine waterµg/L
MPCeco, marine
0.0046MPCsp, marine
0.00053
MPChh food, marine 0.00065

ng/L
4.6
0.53
0.65

Table 10 summarises the final ERLs. The relevance of the MACeco and SRCeco for fresh and marine
waters is limited, since these risk limits do not take food chain transfer to predators and humans into
account. In addition, the MACeco is based on acute data, whereas a single peak will automatically leadto chronic exposure and long-term effects.
Table 10 Derived MPC, NC, MACeco and SRCeco values for PFOS

ERL

MPC
µg/L
ng/L
0.00065
0.65
0.53
530

Freshwater
Surface water
intended for
drinking water
abstraction
Marine water
0.00053
n.a. = not applicable

0.53

MACeco
µg/L
36
n.a.

µg/L
6.5 x 10-6
n.a.

NC
ng/L
0.0065n.a.

SRCeco
µg/L
930
n.a.

7.2

5.3 x 10-6

0.0053930

At first sight, it may seem strange that the MPC for surface water intended for the abstraction ofdrinking water is much higher than those for fresh and marine water. Both values refer to exposure ofhumans, taking the TDI as a starting point. Intuitively one might expect that direct intake of drinking
water leads to higher exposure as compared to indirect exposure via fish. For a compound such as
PFOS, however, this is not the case. PFOS accumulates in aquatic organisms and because of this,concentrations increase along the food chain. At similar concentrations in water, consumption of fish
therefore leads to a much higher uptake than consumption of drinking water. Starting from the
maximum permissible concentrations in fish based on the TDI, equivalent concentrations in water
should thus be lower.

3.12

Comparison of derived ERLs with standards from other countries

3.12.1

Drinking water
The US EPA derived a provisional drinking water limit of 0.2 µg/L (US EPA, 2009). The German
Federal Environmental Agency recommends for drinking water a precautionary value of 0.10 µg/L anda long-term toxicological threshold value of 0.30 µg/L (Drinking Water Commission, 2006; Roos et al.,2008). The Health Protection Agency of the United Kingdom advises that the maximum acceptableconcentration of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in drinking water is 0.3 μg/L (UK HPA, 2007).
Recently, Schriks et al. (2010) proposed a drinking water limit of 0.5 µg/L. These values are all well inline with the proposed MPCdw, water of 0.53 µg/L.

36

RIVM Report 601714013

3.12.2

Surface water
In 2004, the United Kingdom Environment Agency published a risk evaluation report on PFOS
(Brooke et al., 2004). The Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC) for the aquatic ecosystem is set
to 25 µg/L, by putting an assessment factor of 10 on the NOEC of 0.25 mg/L for the mysid shrimp
Americamysis bahia (formerly known as Mysidopsis bahia). This endpoint is also included in thepresent evaluation (see Table 8), but much lower endpoints were retrieved from the recent literature. As
argued in section 3.6.1.1, an assessment factor of 10 on the lowest NOEC is highly underprotective.
With respect to secondary poisoning of birds and mammals, the UK evaluation is based on the same
BCF as reported here (2796 L/kg, here rounded off to 2800 L/kg) and a biomagnification factor of
2 kg/kg (TGD default for BCF 2000 – 5000 L/kg), leading to an estimated bioaccumulation factor of
5600 L/kg. As already discussed in section 3.2.4, this value is considered too low. The PNEC for
vertebrates is set to 0.0167 mg/kgfood, an alternative PNEC of 0.067 mg/kgfood is also used. The MPCoralof 0.037 mg/kgbiota ww that is used in the present report (see 3.6.2) is in this range. A risk for secondary
poisoning is identified for several use patterns of PFOS, but a standard expressed as concentration inwater is not derived. Human risks are not evaluated.
In 2006, Environment Canada published an ecological screening assessment report on PFOS andrelated compounds (Environment Canada, 2006). The critical toxicity value selected for standard
derivation is the 10-days NOEC of 0.0491 mg/L for Chironomus tentans from a study by MacDonald
et al. (2004). With an assessment factor of 100, the estimated no effect value is 0.491 µg/L (491 ng/L).
The study of MacDonald et al. (2004) was also evaluated for the present report (see Appendix 2, tableA2.3), and it appears that lower endpoints are reported in this study, i.e., a 20-day NOEC for growth of
0.022 mg/L (22 µg/L) and a 36-days NOEC for emergence of < 0.0023 mg/L (< 2.3 µg/L), associatedwith 32% effect. The study of Ji et al. (2008), published after finalisation of the Canadian assessment
report, shows 80% effect on larval survival of Oryzias latipes, with an estimated EC10 of 20 ng/L. In
view of this, the value of 491 ng/L is not considered sufficiently protective. Risk evaluations for birds
and mammals are based on liver concentrations, which cannot be compared directly with our values.
In the USA, Stevens and Coryell (2007) derived surface water quality criteria for PFOS for the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. They calculate an LC50 of 170 µg/L for 10-days survival of
Chironomus tentans using a study that is most likely the aforementioned study of MacDonald et al.
(2004). This value is divided by an acute/chronic ratio (ACR) of 9.12, resulting in a chronic quality
standard of 19 µg/L. No further assessment factor has been applied in this derivation. It should be notedthat the ACR is calculated as the ratio of L/EC50 and MATC (Maximum Acceptable Toxicant
Concentration), the latter being the geometric mean of NOEC and LOEC. The ACR based on acomparison of L/EC50 and NOEC is thus higher. Furthermore, only two individual ACRs are used,22.2 for fish and 1.9 for Daphnia magna to calculate the geometric mean and it is unknown whether
this value is applicable to Chironomus tentans or other sensitive taxa. The authors point at the fact that
it is unknown whether this value is protective for frogs, since a LOEC of 30 µg/L for foot development
was determined in one study. They do not mention, however, that the endpoint for emergence ofC. tentans is even lower, although the NOEC of < 2.3 µg/L is included as valid in their dataset. Recent
data on fish and insects, with severe effects at 10 µg/L, also show that the chronic quality standard of
19 µg/L is not protective.
Stevens and Coryell (2007) also include human health-based water quality standards, based on fishconsumption, of 12 and 6 ng/L for rivers and lakes, respectively. The methodology is similar to the
WFD-method used in the present report (see section 3.6.3), but the input values differ. Starting point isa reference dose of 75 ng/kgbw/d, which is a factor of 2 lower than the TDI of 150 ng/kgbw/d derived by
EFSA (2008) that is used in our calculations (see section 3.3). The same bodyweight of 70 kg is used,however, fish consumption is set to 30 g/d instead of the WFD-default of 115 g/d. Furthermore, theRIVM Report 601714013

37

contribution to the human risk limit is 20% instead of the WFD-default of 10%. BAFs of 2800 and
5737 L/kg are used for rivers and lakes, respectively, based on samples from Lake Cahon and River
Mississippi. A BAF of 2800 L/kg is considered very low, taking into account that the laboratory BCF is
also 2800 L/kg, without taking bioaccumulation into account. Starting from the laboratory BCF of 2800
L/kg, a BAF of 5737 L/kg would be reached using a BMF of 2 kg/kg. As argued above in section 3.2.4,
this value is considered too low and does not cover the field BAFs obtained from the literature.
However, the differences in the human risk limit (factor of 2) and bioaccumulation estimates (factor of2.5) more or less outweigh each other. The 9-fold difference in the resulting water quality standard(6 ng/L vs. 0.65 ng/L) can thus merely be attributed to the differences in defaults for fish consumption(30 g/d vs. 115 g/d, factor of 3.8) and contribution to the TDI (20% vs. 10%, factor of 2).
From the above it can be concluded that the risk limits for water that are derived in this report are lower
than those obtained by others. This is mainly due to inclusion of recent literature data in which
considerable effects are observed at concentrations below the lowest NOEC reported so far.
Accordingly, we apply a higher assessment factor to account for uncertainty with respect to protectionof sensitive species. However, the critical MPC-value, which is derived based on the consumption offish by humans is supported by the standard derived for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by
Stevens and Coryell (2007). The difference in the resulting values is caused by the choices that are
made within the context of the WFD with respect to (fixed) input values for fish consumption andcontribution to the TDI.

3.13

Comparison of derived ERLs with monitoring data
In this section, some monitoring data are presented on PFOS concentrations in fish and surface water. It
should be noted that a full inventory on monitoring data is beyond the scope of this report. The data
presented here are thus merely the result of a quick screening of readily available data, but are still
considered useful as a first indication whether the newly derived ERLs will be exceeded.

3.13.1Fish
After the fire fighting foam incident at Schiphol airport in 2008, the Dutch Food and Consumer
Products Safety Authority (“Voedsel en Warenautoriteit”, VWA), concluded that PFOS-concentrations
in fish from the Ringvaart were too high (400 – 1500 µg/kg as compared to 30 µg/kg in fish caught
upstream from the incident location) and consumption was advised against (VWA, 2008). This‘background’ concentration of 30 µg/kg in fish is in agreement with data from Van Leeuwen and De
Boer (2006; cited in Bakker and Te Biesebeek, 2009), who measured levels of PFOS in fish caught in
the Netherlands. Reported concentrations are 93 and 230 µg/kgww for flounder (Western Scheldt andWaddensea), 40 and 150 µg/kgww for perch (Hollands Diep and IJsselmeer) and 6 to 57 µg/kgww for eel(six locations, including Rivers Rhine and Meuse, IJsselmeer and Ketelmeer).
These data show that concentrations in wild fish may be well above the MPChh food of 9.1 µg/kg fish. It
should be noted, however, that this MPChh food cannot be considered as a product safety standard, but
relates to the WFD-definition of good water quality. This is based on a lifetime daily humanconsumption of fishery products of 115 g per day. In addition, fish consumption is allowed tocontribute to the TDI for at most 10%. Using consumption patterns for the average Dutch population(10 g fish per day) and measured concentrations in various food items, including fish, Bakker and Te
Biesebeek (2009) conclude that the overall intake of PFOS will be below the TDI of 150 ng/kgbw perday. A similar conclusion was reached by EFSA, although it was noted that individuals with a highexposure due to specific food consumption patterns, may exceed the TDI (EFSA, 2008).

38

RIVM Report 601714013

3.13.2

Water
A measured water concentration of 3 µg/L is reported after a large fire where fire-fighting foams
containing PFOS were used (Schrap et al., 2004).
In 2006 and 2007, PFOS was monitored monthly in the Lekkanaal at Nieuwegein (RIWA, 2007 and2008), with measured concentrations varying from 5.0 to 26 ng/L, and an annual average concentrationof 13 ng/L in 2006 and 8.6 ng/L in 2007. In 2006, PFOS was also monitored monthly in the
Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal at Nieuwersluis (RIWA, 2007), with measured concentrations varying frombelow the detection limit (once) to 26 ng/L. The annual average at that location was 14 ng/L.
In a recently published EU-wide survey, polar organic persistent pollutants were analysed in unfilteredwater samples collected in 2007 at 122 sampling stations in streams and rivers in 27 European
countries (Loos et al., 2009). PFOS was detected in 93% of the samples (reporting limit 1 ng/L). The
maximum level was 1371 ng/L, found in the river Krka in Slovenia. The average and median were 39
and 6 ng/L, respectively, the 90th percentile was 73 ng/L. Relatively high concentrations were found in
the River Scheldt in Belgium (154 ng/L) and the Netherlands (110 ng/L), which is higher than the dataof Möller (2009) presented below. This may be due to differences in the time of sampling and the exact
sampling locations. Fluorochemical industry has been active upstream (Hoff et al., 2004; Dauwe et al.,2007), which probably influences the measured concentrations. Other rivers with a relatively high
PFOS concentrations were the rivers Seine in France (97 ng/L), Severn in the UK (238 ng/L), Rhine inGermany (32 ng/L at Wesel) and some smaller streams in Spain.
Möller (2009) measured the concentrations of a range of poly- and perfluoroalkyl compounds insamples taken in September and October 2008 along the River Rhine from the Lake Constance to theNorth Sea including important tributaries (e.g., River Ruhr, River Main) and delta rivers (e.g. River
Scheldt, River Meuse). For the Dutch part of the Rhine-Meuse delta (excluding the River Scheldt),
dissolved concentrations of PFOS were between 1.1 and 25 ng/L (minimum detection limit 0.23 ng/L).
Relatively high concentrations are reported for the River Scheldt and the Canal Ghent-Terneuzen(14-25 ng/L) and the Noordzeekanaal (12 ng/L) and River Waal (7.2 ng/L). Concentrations between
1.1 and 4.3 ng/L were found at the other sampling stations, including the rivers Rhine, Meuse, IJssel
and associated rivers and lakes, and the Western Scheldt. For the latter, concentrations of 4.6 to
8.4 ng/L were measured in 2007 (Martine van den Heuvel-Greve, personal communication).
For several sampling points in the North Sea, Möller (2009) reports concentrations between 0.13 and0.70 ng/L, concentrations tend to decline with increasing distance from the shore.
From September till December 2008, samples from several locations in the Noordzeekanaal wereanalysed for PFOS. Concentrations over that time period were between 19 and 52 ng/L. In samples
taken from spring to autumn 2008 at Kampen, Lobith and Maassluis, PFOS was present at the level ofthe detection limit for that method (9-10 ng/L), in a few cases concentrations of 20 ng/L were found(data obtained via Helpdesk Water, http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/, 30 September 2009).
The monitoring data confirm the widespread occurrence of PFOS in surface water. Althoughconcentrations may vary over time, the reported data indicate that it is likely that annual average
concentrations in the Netherlands will exceed the newly derived MPCwater of 0.65 ng/L for freshwater.
As stated above in section 3.13.1 for concentrations in fish, it should be noted that the MPCwater isbased on the MPChh food, water. According to the definitions of the WFD, the MPChh food, water represents
good water quality which allows humans to consume 115 g fish per day without exceeding 10% of the
TDI. In this way, the WFD aims to protect all situations including those locations where local
fishermen consume self-caught fish on a daily basis. The current average fish consumption in the

RIVM Report 601714013

39

Netherlands is lower. Bakker and Te Biesebeek (2009) used 10 g fish per day based on a foodconsumption inventory. In the advise on the Schiphol incident, the Dutch Food and Consumer Products
Safety Authority used 25 g per week for the average consumer and 400 g per week (57 g per day) for
people that specifically like fish (VWA, 2008). In that sense, the MPCwater based on humanconsumption of fish can be considered as a conservative risk limit. However, the MPCsp, water of
2.6 ng/L and probably the MPCeco, water of 23 ng/L may be exceeded as well, and the few available
measurements for the North Sea are at the level of the MPCmarine. As a whole, this points at a potential
risk for the aquatic ecosystem and higher organisms that depend on freshwater fish as a food source.

40

RIVM Report 601714013

4

Conclusions
In this report, the risk limits negligible concentration (NC), maximum permissible concentration(MPC), maximum acceptable concentration for ecosystems (MACeco), and serious risk concentrationfor ecosystems (SRCeco) are derived for PFOS in water. No risk limits were derived for the sedimentcompartment because this was outside the scope of this project. The ERLs that were obtained aresummarised in the table below.
Recent freshwater monitoring data indicate that annual average concentrations in freshwater will likely
exceed the MPCwater of 0.65 ng/L, which is based on human consumption of fish. According to thedefinitions of the WFD, this value represents good water quality which allows humans to consume 115
g fish per day without exceeding 10% of the TDI. The current average fish consumption in the
Netherlands is lower, and the MPCwater based on human consumption of fish can be considered as aconservative risk limit. However, the MPCsp, water of 2.6 ng/L and probably the MPCeco, water of 23 ng/Land MPCmarine of 0.53 ng/L may be exceeded as well, which points at a potential risk for the aquatic
ecosystem and higher organisms that depend on freshwater fish as a food source.
The relevance of the MACeco and SRCeco is limited, since these risk limits do not take food chaintransfer into account. In addition, the MACeco is based on acute data, whereas a single peak willautomatically lead to long-term exposure. Since effects of PFOS will become mainly apparent in thelong-term, short-term toxicity tests are not a good basis for risk evaluation.
The currently derived ERLs clearly underpin the ongoing efforts to eventually phase out the use of
PFOS. They can be used for further decision making on PFOS at the European level and for setting
environmental quality standards by the Dutch Steering Committee for Substances. Regular monitoringof PFOS, using sufficiently sensitive analysis methods, is needed to investigate the potential risks forthe aquatic ecosystem and to evaluate the (inter)national regulatory measures.
Table 11 Derived MPC, NC, MACeco, and SRCeco values for PFOS

ERL

MPC
µg/L
ng/L
-4
6.5 x 10
0.65
0.53
530

Freshwater
Surface water
intended for
drinking water
abstraction
Marine water
5.3 x 10-4
n.a. = not applicable

RIVM Report 601714013

0.53

MACeco
µg/L
36
n.a.

µg/L
6.5 x 10-6
n.a.

NC
ng/L
0.0065n.a.

SRCeco
µg/L
930
n.a.

7.2

5.3 x 10-6

0.0053

930

41

42

RIVM Report 601714013

References
3M. 2003. Evnironmental and health assessment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salts.
Ankley GT, Kuehl DW, Kahl MD, Jensen KM, Linnum A , Leino RL, Villeneuve DA. 2005.
Reproductive and developmental toxicity and bioconcentration of perfluorooctancesulfonate in apartial life-cycle test with the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Environ Toxicol Chem
24: 2316-2324.
Bakker M, Te Biesebeek JD. 2009. Inname van perfluorverbindingen via voiding – voorstel voor
monsternamestrategie. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM, Centre for Substances and Integrated
Risk assessment. Letter report 11658 (in Dutch).
Bots J, De Bruyn L, Snijkers T, Van den Branden B, Van Gossum H. 2010. Exposure toperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) adversely affects the life cycle of the damselfly Enallagma
cyathigerum. Environ Pollut 158: 901-905.
Boudreau TM, Sibley PK, Mabury SA, Muir DGC, Solomon KR. 2003b. Laboratory evaluation of the
toxicity of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on Selenastrum capricornutum, Chlorella vulgaris,
Lemna gibba, Daphnia magna, and Daphnia pulicaria. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44: 307313.
Boudreau TM, Wilson CJ, Cheong WJ, Sibley PK, Mabury SA, Muir DCG, Solomon KR. 2003a.
Response of the zooplankton community and environmental fate of perfluorooctane sulfonic acidin aquatic microcosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 22: 2739-2745.
Brooke D, Footitt A, Nwaogu TA. 2004. Environmental risk evaluation report:
Perfluorooctanesulphonate (PFOS). United Kingdom: Environment Agency.
Bruinen de Bruin Y, Zweers P, Bakker J, Beekman M. 2009. Estimation of emissions and exposures to
PFOS used in industry - An inventory of PFOS used in metal plating and fire fighting. Bilthoven,
The Netherlands: RIVM. Report no. 601780002/2009.
Case MT, York RG, Christian MS. 2001. Rat and rabbit oral developmental toxicology studies withtwo perfluorinated compounds. Int J Toxicol 20: 101-109. In EFSA, 2008.
Christian MS, Hoberman AM, York RG. 1999. Oral (gavage) cross-fostering study of PFOS in rats.
Argus Research Laboratories, Inc. Report no. 418-014: T-6295.13. In EFSA, 2008.
COT. 2006. COT Statement on the tolerable daily intake for perfluorooctane sulfonate. Committee on
Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Dauwe T, Van de Vijver K, De Coen W, Eens M. 2007. PFOS levels in the blood and liver of a small
insectivorous songbird near a fluorochemical plant. Environ Int 33: 357–361.
De Vos MG, Huijbregts MAJ, Van den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Vethaak AD, Van de Vijver KI, Leonards
PEG, Van Leeuwen SPJ, De Voogt P, Hendriks AJ. 2008. Accumulation of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) in the food chain of the Western Scheldt estuary: Comparing fieldmeasurements with kinetic modeling. Chemosphere 70: 1766-1773.
Drinking Water Commission. 2006. Assessment of PFOA in the drinking water of the German
Hochsauerlandkreis Statement by the Drinking Water commission (Trinkwasserkommission) of
the German Ministry of Health at the Federal Environment Agency June 21, 2006/revised July13, 2006. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/hintergrund/pft-in-drinkingwater.pdf
EFSA. 2008. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and their salts.
Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food chain. The EFSA
Journal 653: 1-131.

RIVM Report 601714013

43EC. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of
the European Union L 327:1-72. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/index_en.html
EC. 2003. Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk
Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk
Assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/9/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part II. Ispra, Italy: European
Chemicals Bureau, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection. Report no. EUR 20418 EN/2.
EC. 2009. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards
Annex XVII of 22 June 2009.
Environment Canada. 2006. Ecological screening assessment report on perfluorooctane sulfonate, its
salts and its precursors that contain the C8F17SO2, C8F17SO3 or C8F17SO2N moiety. Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) June 2006.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/documents/subs_list/PFOS_SAR/PFOS_TOC.cfm
Furdui VI, Stock NL, Ellis DA, Butt CM, Whittle DM , Crozier PW, Reiner EJ, Muir DCG, Mabury
SA. 20074. Spatial distribution of perfluoroalkyl contaminants in lake trout from the Great
Lakes. Environ Sci Technol 41: 1554-1559.
Goldenthal EI, Jessup DC, Geil RG, Mehring JS. 1978a. Ninety-day subacute rat toxicity study.
International Research and Development Corporation. Report no. 137-085. In EFSA, 2008.
Goldenthal EI, Jessup DC, Geil RG, Mehring JS. 1978b. Ninety-day subacute rhesus monkey toxicity
study. International Research and Development Corporation. Report no. 137-092. In EFSA,
2008.
Gortner EG. 1980. Oral teratology study of FC-95 in rats. Safety Evaluation Laboratory and Riker
Laboratories, Inc. Report no. 0680TR0008. In EFSA, 2008.
Hanson ML, Sibley PK, Brain RA, Mabury SA, Solomon KR. 2005. Microcosm evaluation of the
toxicity and risk to aquatic macrophytes from perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 48: 329-337.
Haukås M, Berger U, Hop H, Gulliksen B, Gabrielsen GW. 2007. Bioaccumulation of per- andpolyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in selected species from the Barents Sea food web.
Environ Pollut 148: 360-371.
Hoff PT, Scheirs J, Van de Vijver K, Van Dongen W, Esmans EL, Blust R, De Coen W. 2004.
Biochemical Effect Evaluation of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid–Contaminated Wood Mice
(Apodemus sylvaticus). Environ Health Persp 112: 681-686.
Houde M, Bujas TAD, Small J, Wells RS, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Solomon KR, Muir DCG. 2006.
Biomagnification of perfluoroalkyl compounds in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
food web. Environ Sci Technol 40: 4138-4144.
Houde M, Czub G, Small JM, Backus S, Wang X, Alaee M, Muir DCG. 2008. Fractionation andbioaccumulation of perfluorooctance sulfonate (PFOS) isomers in a Lake Ontario Food Web.
Environ Sci Technol 42: 9397-9403.
IVW. 2008. Incident blusschuim Schiphol. Dieptecontrole. Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat, rapport
TeW/2008/21, 12 November 2008. Available via
http://www.ivw.nl/Images/Rapport.definitief_tcm247-233568.pdf. (in Dutch).
Ji K, Kim Y, Oh S, Anh B, Jo H, Choi K. 2008. Toxicity of perfluorooctace sulfonic acid andperfluorooctanoic acid on freshwater macroinvertebrates (Daphnia magna and Moina
macrocopa) and fish (Oryzias latipes). Environ Toxicol Chem 27: 2159-2168.
Kannan K, Tao L, Sinclair E, Pastva SD, Jude DJ, Giesy JP. 2005. Pefluorinated compounds in aquaticorganisms at various trophic levels in a Great Lakes food chain. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
48: 559-566.

44

RIVM Report 601714013

KemI/Swedish EPA. 2004. PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONATE (PFOS). Dossier prepared insupport for a nomination of PFOS to the UN-ECE LRTAP Protocol and the Stockholm
Convention prepared by the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate (KemI) and the Swedish EPA,
Sweden. August 2004. http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/chemlisting/sweden/
PFOS_dossier_August_2004.pdf
Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Blair JD, Surridge B, Hoover D, Grace R, Gobas FAPC. 2009.
Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in an Arctic marine food web: Trophic magnification and wildlife
exposure. Environ Sci Technol 43: 4037-4043.
Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, Tillmann U. 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality ofexperimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 25: 1-5.
Lau C, Thibodeaux JR, Hanson RG, Rogers JM, Grey BE, Stanton ME, Butenhoff JL, Stevenson LA.
2003. Exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate during pregnancy in rat and mouse. II. Postnatal
evaluation. Toxicol Sci 74: 382-392.
Lepper P. 2005. Manual on the methodological framework to derive environmental quality standards
for priority substances in accordance with Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive(2000/60/EC). Schmallenberg, Germany: Fraunhofer-Institute Molecular Biology and Applied
Ecology.
Li X, Yeung LWY, Xu M, Taniyasu S, Lam PKS, Yamashita N, Dai J. 2008. Perfluorooctane sulfonate(PFOS) and other fluorochemicals in fish blood collected near the outfall of wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) in Beijing. Environ Pollut 156: 1298-1303.
Li M-H. 2008. Effects of nonionic and ionic surfactants on survival, oxidative stress, and cholinesterase
activity of planarian. Chemosphere 70: 1796-1803.
Li M-H. 2009. Toxicity of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid to plants and aquatic
invertebrates. Environ Toxicol 24: 95-101.
Loos R, Gawlik BM, Locoro G, Rimaviciute E, Contini S, Bidoglio G. 2009. EU-wide survey of polarorganic persistent pollutants in European river waters. Env Pollut 157: 561-568.
Luebker DJ, York RG, Hansen KJ, Moored JA, Butenhoff JL. 2005. Neonatal mortality from in utero
exposure to perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) in Sprague–Dawley rats: Dose–response, andbiochemical and pharamacokinetic parameters. Toxicology 215: 149-169.
MacDonald MM, Warne AL, Stock NL, Mabury SA, Solomon KR, Sibley PK. 2004. Toxicity ofperfluorooctane sulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid to Chironomus tentans. Environ
Toxicol Chem 23: 2116-2123.
Martin JW, Mabury SA, Solomon KR, Muir DCG. 2003. Bioconcentration and tissue distribution of
perfluorinated acids in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Toxicol Chem 22:
196-204.
Martin JW, Whittle DM, Muir DCB, Ma, bury SA. 2004. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in a food web
from Lake Ontario. Environ Sci Technol 38: 5379-5385.
Möller A. 2009. Analysis of poly- and perfluoroalkyl compounds (PFCs) in surface water of the River
Rhine using HPLC-MS/MS. Diplomarbeit Fachhochschule Lübeck, Fachbereich Angewandte
Naturwissenschaften Studiengang Chemieingenieurwesen. Hamburg, 2009.
Moody CA, Martin JW, Kwan WC, Muir DCG, Mabury SA . 2002. Monitoring perfluorinatedsurfactants in biota and surface water samples following an accidental release of fire-fighting
foam into Etobicoke Creek. Environ Sci Technol 36: 545-551.
Morikawa A, Kamei N, Harada K, Inoue K, Yoshinaga T, Saito N, Koizumi A. 2006. The
bioconcentration factor of perfluorooctane sulfonate is significantly larger than that ofperfluorooctanoate in wild turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans and Chinemys reevisii): an Ai river
ecological study in Japan. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 65: 14-21.

RIVM Report 601714013

45

Newsted JL, Coadya KK, Beach SA, Butenhoff JL, Gallagher S, Giesy JP. 2007. Effects ofperfluorooctane sulfonate on mallard and northern bobwhite quail exposed chronically via thediet. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 23: 1-9.
Oakes KD, Sibley PK, Martin JW, MacLean DD, Solomon KR, Mabury SA, Van der Kraak GJ. 2005.
Short-term exposures of fish to perfluorooctane sulfonate: acute effects on fatty acyl-coa oxidase
activity, oxidative stress, and circulating sex steroids . Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 1172-1181.
OECD. 2002. Hazard assessment of perfluorooctane (PFOS) and its slats. Environment Directorate.
Joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals, pesticides andbiotechnology.
OSPAR. 2006. Hazardous Substance Series. Perfluorooctane Sulphonate (PFOS). OSPAR
Commission. Report no. 269/2006.
RIWA. 2007. Jaarrapport 2006. De Rijn. Nieuwegein, The Netherlands: RIWA-Rijn.
RIWA. 2008. Jaarrapport 2007. De Rijn. Nieuwegein, The Netherlands: RIWA-Rijn.
Roos PH, Angerer J, Dieter H, Wilhelm M, Wölfle D, Hengstler JG. 2008. Perfluorinated compounds(PFC) hit the headlines. Meeting report on a satellite symposium of the annual meeting of theGerman Society of Toxicology. Arch Toxicol 82:57–59.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/55v566125h23630v/fulltext.pdf
Sanderson H, Boudreau TM, Mabury SA, Cheong W-J, Solomon KR. 2002. Ecological impact andenvironmental fate of perfluoroocatane sulfonate on the zooplankton community in indoor
micocosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 21: 1490-1496.
Sanderson H, Boudreau TM, Mabury SA, Solomon KR. 2004. Effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate andperfluorooctanoic acid on the zooplanktonic community. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 58: 68-76.
Schrap SM, Pijnenburg JAMCM, Geerding RB. 2004. Geperfluoreerde verbindingen in Nederlands
oppervlaktewater. Lelystad, the Netherlands: RIZA/RIKZ. Report no. RIZA-rapport 2004.025.
Schriks M, Hering MB, Van der Kooi MME, De Voogt P, Van Wezel AP. 2010. Toxicologicalrelevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality. Wat Res 44: 461-476.
Seacat AM, Thomford PJ, Hansen KJ, Clemen LA, Eldridge SR, Elcombe CR, Butenhoff JL. 2003.
Sub-chronic dietary toxicity of potassium perfluorroctanesulfonate in rats. Toxicology 183: 117131.
Seacat AM, Thomford PJ, Hansen KJ, Olsen GW, Case MT, Butenhoff JL. 2002. Subchronic toxicity
studies on perfluorooctanesulfonate potassium salt in cynomolgus monkeys. Toxicol Sci 68: 249264.
Taniyasu S, Kannan K, Horii Y, Hanari N, Yamashita N. 2003. A survey of perfluorooctane sulfonate
and related perfluorinated organic compounds in water, fish, birds, and humans from Japan.
Environ Sci Technol 37 : 2634-2639.
Thibodeaux JR, Hanson RG, Rogers JM, Grey BE, Barbee BD, Richards JH, Butenhoff JL, Stevenson
LA, Lau C. 2003. Exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate during pregnancy in rat and mouse. I.
Maternal and prenatal evaluations. Toxicol Sci 74: 369-381.
Thomford P. 2002. 104-Week dietary chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid potassium salt (PFOS; T-6295) in rats. Covance Laboratories, Inc. Report no. 6329183. In EFSA, 2008.
Tomy GT, Budakowski W, Halldorson T, Helm PA, Stern GA, Friesen K, Pepper K, Tittlemier SA,
Fisk AT. 2004. Fluorinated organic compounds in an eastern arctic marine food web. Environ
Sci Technol 38: 6475-6481.
Tomy GT, Pleskach K, Ferguson SH, Hare J, Stern G, MacInnis G, Marvin CH, Loseto L. 2009.
Trophodynamics of some PFCs and BFRs in a Western Canadian Arctic marine food web.
Environ Sci Technol 43: 4076-4081.
UK HPA. 2007. Maximum acceptable concentrations of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947397222

46

RIVM Report 601714013

US EPA. 2009. Provisional Health Advisories for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate (PFOS). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC, 8
January 2009. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/pha-PFOA_PFOS.pdf
Van de Vijver KI, Hoff PT, Das K, Van Dongen W, Esmans EL, Jauniaux T, Bouquegneau M-M, Blust
R, De Coen W. 2003. Perfluorinated chemicals infiltrate ocean waters: link between exposurelevels and stable isotope ratios in marine mammals. Environ Sci Technol 37: 5545-5550.
Van Gossum H, Bots J, Snijkers T, Meyer J, Van Wasenbergh S, De Coen W, De Bruyn L. 2009.
Behaviour of damselfly larvae (Enallagma cyathigerum) (Insecta, Odonata) after long-term
exposure to PFOS. Environ Pollut 157: 1332-1336.
Van Leeuwen SPJ, De Boer J. 2006. Survey on PFOS and other perfluorinated compounds in Dutch
fish and shellfish. Wageningen, the Netherlands: IMARES. Report no. C034/06.
Van Vlaardingen PLA, Verbruggen EMJ. 2007. Guidance for the derivation of environmental risk
limits within the framework 'International and national environmental quality standards for
substances in the Netherlands' (INS). Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM. Report no.
601782001/2007.
VWA. 2008. Advies inzake PFOS in vis afkomstig uit Rijnland. Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit – Buro
Risicobeoordeling. Reference VWA/BuR/2008/40127, 12 November 2008. Available via
http://www.vwa.nl/portal/page?_pageid=119,1639824&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_ne
ws_item_id=23847. (in Dutch).
VROM. 2004. (Inter)nationale Normen Stoffen. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Ministerie vanVolkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (in Dutch).
Wetzel LT. 1983. Rat teratology study, T-3351, Final Report. Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc.
Report no. 154-160. In EFSA, 2008.

RIVM Report 601714013

47

Appendix 1. Information on bioconcentration and biomagnification
Table A1.1 Aquatic bioconcentration data for PFOS
SpeciesSpecies
properties

Test
substance

Oncorhynchus
mykissOncorhynchus
mykissOncorhynchus
mykiss
Lepomismacrochirus

juvenile, 5-10 g, 8.4 g atstart of depuration
juvenile, 5-10 g, 8.4 g atstart of depuration
juvenile, 5-10 g, 8.4 g atstart of depuration
7 m, 62 (56-66) mm and2.70 (2.03-3.32) g at end oftest
7 m, 62 (56-66) mm and2.70 (2.03-3.32) g at end oftest
7 m, 62 (56-66) mm and2.70 (2.03-3.32) g at end of
test
7m

KPFOS tested
in mixture
KPFOS tested
in mixture
KPFOS tested
in mixture
KPFOS (noctane isomer)

Lepomismacrochirus
Lepomismacrochirus
Lepomismacrochirus

Substance Analysed Test Test pH
puritytype water[%]
86.4
LC-MS CF am
86.4

LC-MS

CF

am

86.4

LC-MS

CF

am

86.9

LC-MS

CF

nw

KPFOS (noctane isomer)

86.9

LC-MS

CF

nw

KPFOS (noctane isomer)

86.9

LC-MS

CF

nw

KPFOS (noctane isomer)

86.9

LC-MS

CF

nw

8.1
(7.98.2)
8.1(7.98.2)
8.1(7.98.2)
8.1(7.98.2)

Hardness/
Salinity[g/l]

130 (128132)

Exp.
time
[d]
12 d +
33 d
12 d +
33 d
12 d +
33 d
62 d +
56 d

Temperature Exp.
BCF
BCF
conc.
type
[°C]
[µg/L][L/kgww]12
0.35±26% 1100±150 Carcass

21.7-22.0

86

1124

Edible130 (128132)

62 d + 21.7-22.0
56 d

86

4013

Non-edible

2

2,3

3M, 2003

130 (128132)

62 d + 21.7-22.0
56 d

86

2796

Whole fish2

2,3

3M, 2003

130 (128132)

35 d

870

3

3,4

3M, 2003

120.35±26% 4300±570 Blood120.35±26% 5400±860 Liver

21.7-22.0

MethodRI

Notes Reference

k1 implied by fitted k2, 2
growth corrected
k1 implied by fitted k2, 2
growth corrected
k1 implied by fitted k2, 2
growth corrected2

2,3Martin et al.,2003b
Martin et al.,2003b
Martin et al.,2003b
3M, 2003

Plasmaratio, non-equilibrium

3

Plasmaratio, non-equilibrium

3

Liver

ratio, non-equilibrium

3

21 d

900-1333 Liverratio, non-equilibrium

3

males

21 d

167-367

Gonadsratio, non-equilibrium

3

females

21 d

800-1000 Gonads

ratio, non-equilibrium

3

1
1
1

Pimephales
promelasPimephales
promelasPimephales
promelasPimephales
promelasPimephales
promelasPimephales
promelasCyprinus carpio

males

21 d

females

21 d

males

21 d

11671300
16001750
250-400

females

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d + 25.0-25.8
37 d

20

720

Whole fish

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d + 25.0-25.8
37 d

20

10001400

Tegument

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d + 25.0-25.8
37 d

20

11001400

Head

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d + 25.0-25.8
37 d

20

22002700

Viscera3

5,6

RIVM Report 601714013

Ankley et al.,
2005
Ankley et al.,
2005
Ankley et al.,
2005
Ankley et al.,
2005
Ankley et al.,
2005
Ankley et al.,2005
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)

49

Species

Species
properties

Test
substance

Exp.
Temperature Exp.
time
conc.
[d]
[°C]
[µg/L]
58 d + 25.0-25.8
20
37 d

BCF

KPFOS

Substance Analysed Test Test pH
Hardness/puritytype water
Salinity
[%]
[g/l]
100
LC-MS CF gw
7.6-7.8 111

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

Cyprinus carpio

RI

Notes Reference

Liver

3

5,6

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d + 25.0-25.8
37 d

20

320-380

Remainder
parts

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d + 25.0-25.8
37 d

20

818

Whole fish2

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

2

200-1500 Whole fish

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

224002800

Tegument

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

224002900

Head

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

238005100

Viscera3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

239004700

Liver

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

2

720-930

Remainder
parts

3

5,6

Cyprinus carpio

6.4-9.6

KPFOS

100

LC-MS

CF

gw

7.6-7.8 111

58 d +
37 d

2

2180

Whole fish2

5,6

[L/kgww]19002300

BCF
type

Methodkinetic ratio frompresented data

kinetic ratio frompresented data

KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)
KurumeLaboratory(2001)

Notes
1
initial loading 8 g/L, 2.5 in control
2
initial loading ≤3 g/L
3The robust summary in the OECD hazard assessment has different values to those used in the main OECD text (which are those cited here). The 3M (2003) report explains that the original study used an inappropriate method
to estimate the kinetic BCF values, and that those were revised in a later amended study report. This is assumed to explain the different values in the OECD robust summary, as the BCF values in the main report and the 3M
report agree.
4
100% mortality after 35 d
5initial loading less than 4 g/L
6Chemicals Evaluation and Research Institute, Japan. Test number: 51520.

50

RIVM Report 601714013

Table A1.2 Aquatic field bioaccumulation data for PFOS
Species common name

Latin nameLocationYear

Property/trophic level

striped mullet
pigfishsheepshead
pinfishspotted seatrout
striped mullet
pinfishred drum
Atlantic croakerspotfishspotted seatrout
lake trout
lake trout
lake trout
lake trout
lake trout
round gobyround goby
alewife
sculpinlake trout

Mugil cephalus
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Archosargus probatocephalus
Lagodon rhomboides
Cynoscion nebulosus
Mugil cephalus
Lagodon rhomboides
Sciaenops ocellatus
Micropogonias undulatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Salvelinus namaycush
Salvelinus namaycush
Salvelinus namaycush
Salvelinus namaycush
Salvelinus namaycush
Neogobius melanostomus
Neogobius melanostomus
Alosa pseudoharengus
Cottus cognatus
Salvelinus namaycush

Sarasota Bay
Sarasota Bay
Sarasota Bay
Sarasota Bay
Sarasota Bay
Charleston Harbor area
Charleston Harbor area
Charleston Harbor area
Charleston Harbor area
Charleston Harbor area
Charleston Harbor area
Lake Superior
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
Lake Michigan
Raisin River, MI, USA
St. Clair River
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario

2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002-2004
2002-2004
2002-2004
2002-2004
2002-2004
2002-2004
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
1998-2001
1998-2001
2001-2002
2001-2002
2001-2002

2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.7
3.4
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.3
4 y, (4.9; Martin et al. 2004)
4 y, (4.9; Martin et al. 2004)
4 y, (4.9; Martin et al. 2004)
4 y, (4.9; Martin et al. 2004)
4 y, (4.9; Martin et al. 2004)

RIVM Report 601714013

BAF[L/kg]
6333
3444
3778
5333
9778
2500
1583
5583
2833
7667
7500
19953
15849
25119
7943
6310
2456
4354
19000
95000
16000

Compartment

Reference

MarineMarineMarineMarineMarineMarineMarineMarineMarineMarineMarine
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh

Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Houde et al., 2006
Furdui et al., 2007
Furdui et al., 2007
Furdui et al., 2007
Furdui et al., 2007
Furdui et al., 2007
Kannan et al., 2005
Kannan et al., 2005
Houde et al., 2008
Houde et al., 2008
Houde et al., 200851

Table A1.3 Trophic magnification factors from field studies –BMF1
Sampling
periodSampling area

Species included

2001–2002

Mysis relicta, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

2001–2006

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Lake
Ontario, ON, Canada
Lake Ontario, ON, Canada

2001–2006

Lake Ontario, ON, Canada

zooplankton, Diporeia hoyi, Mysis relicta, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), slimy
sculpin (Cottus cognatus), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

2005–2007

Lake in Beijing

May–August
2005

Western Scheldt, Terneuzen,
Netherlands

common carp (Cyprinus carpio), crucian carp (Carassius auratus), leather catfish (Clarias lazera), white semiknife carp
(Hemiculter leucisculus)
herbivores: lugworm (Arenicola marina)
primary carnivores: brown shrimp (Crangon crangon), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), sandeel (Ammodytes sp.)
primary-secondary carnivores: green crab (Carcinus maenas), sole (Solea solea), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), bib(Trisopterus lucus), eel (Anguilla anguilla), sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax)zooplankton, Mysis relicta, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush)

Trophic Magnification
Factor (TMF)[kg/kg]
5.88

Ri

Reference

4

Martin et al.,2004
Houde et al.,
2008

4.2
L-PFOS: 3.9
MM-PFOS: 2.8
DM-PFOS: 0.77
3.8
L-PFOS: 3.7
MM-PFOS: 3.0
DM-PFOS: 0.87
6.0

3

3

Houde et al.,2008

3

Li et al., 2008

2.6

4

De Vos et al.,
2008

Table A1.4 Trophic magnification factors from field studies – BMF2

52

Sampling
periodSampling area

Species included

2002–2004
2004

Charleston Harbor andsurrounding waters, SC, USA
Sarasota Bay, FL, USA

1996–2002

Eastern Canadian arctic

May–August
2005
May–August
2005

Western Scheldt, Terneuzen

striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus), spotfish (Leiostomus xanthurus), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus), spotfish (Leiostomus xanthurus), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
zooplankton, clams (Mya truncata; Serripes groenlandica), shrimp (Pandalus borealis; Hymenodora glacialis), Arctic cod(Boreogadus saida), redfish (Sebastes mentella), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), narwhal (Monodon monoceros), beluga(Delphinapterus leucas)
primary carnivores: brown shrimp (Crangon crangon), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), sandeel (Ammodytes sp.)Secondary carnivores: common tern eggs (Sterna hirundo)
primary-secondary carnivores: green crab (Carcinus maenas), sole (Solea solea), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), bib (Trisopterus
lucus), eel (Anguilla anguilla), sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax)Secondary carnivores: common tern eggs (Sterna hirundo)

Western Scheldt, Terneuzen

trophic magnification
factor (TMF)[kg/kg]
1.8

Ri

Reference

4

1.4

4

1.7

3

Houde et al.,2006
Houde et al.,
2006
Tomy et al.,
2004

2.4

4

4.6

4

De Vos et al.,2008
De Vos et al.,2008

RIVM Report 601714013

Appendix 2. Detailed aquatic toxicity data
Table A2.1 Acute toxicity data for freshwater species
Scientific Name

Substance

Purity A

Test
Type

Temp

pH

Conc.
ion
[mg/L] [mg/L]

Ria

Notes Reference

IC50
IC50
EC50
IC50
IC50
EC50

81.6
88.1
305
48.2
59.2
70

81.6
88.1
283
48.2
59.2
70

2
2
1 (OECD)
22
1 (OECD)

1,2
1,2
3
1,2
1,2
4

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

96 h
96 h
96 h
96 h
96 h
72 h

Cell density
Chlorophyll agrowth rate
Cell density
Chlorophyll a
Cell density

[%]

y/n

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt

95
95

n
n

95
95
90.49

n
n
y

s

23+/- 123+/- 1
23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 h

Cell density

EC50

71

71

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

72 h

area under curve

EbC50

74

74

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 harea under curve

EbC50

71

71

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

72 h

Growth rate

ErC50

120

120

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 h

Growth rate

ErC50

126

126

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Cyanobacteria
Anabaena flos-aqua
Macrophyta
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Crustaceans
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna

K+ salt

n

s

96 h

cell density

EC50

82

76

2 (OECD)

4

Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b
3M (2001), ref 38 in OECD, 2002
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
3M (1981), ref 13 in OECD, 2002

K+ salt

y

s

96 h

growth rate

EC50

176

176

1 (OECD)3

3M (2001), ref 36 in OECD, 2002

K+ salt
K+ salt

n
n

-

7d
7d

frond number
wet weight

EC50
EC50

59.1
31.1

59.1
31.1

2
2

1,2
1,2

Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
95
Mixture of35
didecyldimethyl
ammonium
PFOS salt (~35%) and waterwith 5% residual
perfluorochems
PFOS acidK+ salt>98
K+ salt
95
PFOS acid

y

s
s
s
s

48 h
48 h
48 h
48 h
48 h
48 h

Immobility/mortality
Immobility/mortality
Immobility/mortality
Immobility/mortality
Immobility/mortality
Immobility/mortality

EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50

61
27
<210
58
67.2
4

61
25
<195
54
67.2
2.4

1 (OECD)
2 (OECD)
2 (OECD)
2 (OECD)
22 (OECD)

5
6
7
8
1,2,9
10

3M (2000), ref 3 in OECD, 2002
3M (1984), ref 15 in OECD, 2002
3M (2000), ref 17 in OECD, 2002
3m (2001), ref 33 in OECD, 2002
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Asci (1996), ref 29 in OECD,
2002

48 h
48 h
48 h
48 h

Immobility/mortality
Mortality
Immobility/mortality
Immobility/mortality

EC50
LC50
EC50
EC50

37.4
63
134
18

37.4
58
124
18

2
2
2
2

11
5
1,2,9
11

Ji et al., 2008
Li, 2009
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Ji et al., 2008

Algae
Chlorella vulgaris
Chlorella vulgaris
Navicula pelliculosa
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulicaria
Moina macrocopa

RIVM Report 601714013

n
n

[ºC]

DO

s

s

s
s
n
s

[mg/L]

23+/- 123+/- 125+/- 125+/- 121+/- 1
20.9-21.0 8.048.11

21+/- 125+/- 121+/- 125+/- 1

8.0-9.1

7.8-7.953

Scientific Name

Substance

Purity A

Neocaridina denticulate
Platyhelmintes
Dugesia japonica
Dugesia japonica
Mollusca
Physa acuta
Unio complamatus

K+ salt[%]>98

K+ salt
K+ salt>98>98

K+ salt
K+ salt>98

Fish
Lepomis macrochirus
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas

Oncorhynchus mykiss

diethanolamine n(DEA) salt
K+ saltlithium salt
Mixture ofndidecyldimethya
mmonium
PFOS salt (~35%) and waterwith 5% residual
perfluorochems
K+ salt

K+ salt
86.7
Oncorhynchus mykissa:Reliability Index according to Klimisch et al., 1997.

Test
Type

y/n

Temp

pH

DO

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

Ria

Notes Reference

96 hMortality

LC50

Conc.
ion
[mg/L] [mg/L]
10
9.3

2

12

s

[ºC]
25+/- 1ss25+/- 125+/- 196 h
96 h

mortality
Mortality

LC50
LC50

17
23

15.8
21.3

2
2

Li, 2008
Li, 2009ysr25+/- 1
21.4-23.7 8.0-8.5 5.8-8.6

96 h
96 h

Mortality
Mortality

LC50
LC50

178
59

165
59

2
1 (OECD)Li, 2009
Wildlife Int. (2000h), ref 5 inOECD, 2002s

22

8.2-8.3

5.8-8.4

96 hMortality

LC50

7.8

6.4

2 (OECD)ys20.4-22.1 8.3-8.6 7.8-9.0

96 hMortality

LC50

9.5

9.5

1 (OECD)

n
s

s

96 h
96 h

Mortality
Mortality

LC50
LC50

4.7
200

4.6
121

2 (OECD)
2 (OECD)

13,14 AB Laboratories (1979), ref 20 inOECD, 2002
14,15 Wildlife Int. (2000a), ref 1 inOECD, 200215
3M (1994), ref 16 in OECD, 2002
10,14 3M (2001), ref 28 in OECD, 2002

96 h

Mortality

LC50

7.8

7.2

2 (OECD)16

96 h

Mortality

LC50

22

22

2 (OECD)

14

n
y

15
s

[mg/L]

7.4-8.7 8.0-10.4

Li, 2009

Beak (1985a), ref 31 in OECD,2002
3M (2002), ref 42 in OECD, 2002

Notes:
1
According to ASTM protocols
2
Reported concentration based on the anion
3
According to OPPTS 850.5400 protocol
4
According to OECD 201 protocol
5
According to OECD 202 protocol
6
According to ASTM 1981 and OECD 1981 protocol
7
Stock solution was prepared at a concentration that exceeded water solubility, therefore exposure concentrations are likely to be lower than nominal.
8
According to ISO 1982 protocol
9
Hardness 200-225 mg/L of CaCO3
10 Endpoint calculated assuming 35% of substance in mixture.
11 According to US EPA 2002 protocol
12 According to Taiwan EPA standard protocol (2005)
13 Nominal exposure concentrations expressed relative to concentration of test substance (~25% PFOS DEA salt and 75% water). Results divided by 4 to PFOS DEA salt concentration based on reported 96 hour LC50 31 mg/L
and NOEC of 18 mg/L.
14 According to OECD 203 protocol
15 Nominal exposure concentration expressed relative to concentration of test substance (24.5% PFOS Li salt and 74.5% water). Test result divided by 4 to express 96 h LC50 in terms of PFOS Li salt concentration.
16 According to Standard Procedures of Environment Canada

54

RIVM Report 601714013

Table A2.2 Acute toxicity data for marine species
Scientific Name

Substance

Purity A
[%]

a:

Test
Type

y/n

Temp

pH

[ºC]

DO

Conc.
ion
[mg/L] [mg/L]

Ria

Notes Reference

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

[mg/L]

Algae
Skeletonema costatum

K+ saltys

20.2-21.4 8.0-8.4

96 h

Growth rate

EC50

>3.2

>3.2

1 (OECD)1

Wildlife Int. (2001b), ref 39 inOECD, 2002

Crustaceans
Americamysis bahia

K+ saltys24.2-25.4 8.1-8.2 6.8-7.4

96 h

Mortality

LC50

3.6

3.6

1 (OECD)

2

Artemia sp.

K+ salt

n

s

21

48 h

Mortality

LC50

8.9

8.3

2 (OECD)

3

Wildlife Int. (2000e), ref 7 inOECD, 2002
Beak (1985b), ref 32 in OECD,
2002

Molluscs
Crassostrea virginica

K+ saltys

21.8-22.7 7.6-8.1 6.1-7.7

96 hShell Growth

EC50

>3.0

>3.0

1 (OECD)

4

Wildlife Int. (2000f), ref 4 inOECD, 2002

Fish
Oncorhynchus mykiss

K+ saltnr

15

7.2-8.0 8.0-10.3

96 hMortality

LC50

13.7

12.7

2 (OECD)

5

Cyprinodon variegatus

K+ saltyr

22.1-23.1 7.9-8.3 1.7-7.6

96 hMortality

LC50

>15

>15

2 (OECD)

6

Beak (1985c), ref 30 in OECD,2002
Wildlife Int. (2002), ref 43 inOECD, 2002

86.7

8.0-8.2 >6.0

Reliability Index according to Klimisch et al., 1997.

Notes:
1
According to OPPTS 850.5400 protocol
2
According to OPPTS 850.1035 protocol
3
Sample purity not characterised; according to draft ISO 1981 protocol
4
According to OPPTS 850.1025 protocol
5
According to Standard Procedures of Environment Canada; acclimated to 30‰ salinity
6
Results reported as a.i; according to OECD 203 protocol

RIVM Report 601714013

55

Table A2.3 Chronic toxicity data for freshwater species
Scientific Name

Algae
Chlorella vulgaris
Chlorella vulgaris
Navicula pelliculosa
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

Purity A
[%]

y/n

95
95

n
n

Test
Type

Temp

pH

[ºC]

DO

Conc.
ion
[mg/L] [mg/L]

Ria

Notes Reference

EC10
EC10
NOEC
EC10
EC10
EC10
EC10
EC10

8.2
9.6
206
10
16
16.6
5.3
53

8.2
9.6
191
9.3
15
17
5.3
53

2
2
1 (OECD)
2 (OECD)
2 (OECD)
22
1 (OECD)

1
1
2
3
3
1
1
4

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

Cell density
Chlorophyll agrowth rate
Cell density
Cell density
Chlorophyll a
Cell density
Growth rate

[mg/L]

95
95
90.49

n
n
n
n
y

s
s
s
s

23+/- 123+/- 1
23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 h
96 h
96 h
96 h
14 d
96 d
96 h
72 h

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

72 h

Cell density

EC10

37

37

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

72 hArea under the curve

EC10

46

46

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 h

Growth rate

EC10

59

59

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 h

Cell density

EC10

49

49

1 (OECD)

4

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

K+ salt

90.49

y

s

23.6-25.8 7.5-8.1

96 hArea under the curve

EC10

49

49

1 (OECD)

4

K+ salt

y

s

96 h

growth rate

NOEC

94

94

1 (OECD)2

3M (2001), ref 36 in OECD, 2002

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt

n
n
y

s

7d
7d
7d

EC10
EC10
NOEC

29.2
6.6
15.1

29.2
6.6
15.1

2
2
1 (OECD)

1
1
5

42 d
42 d

frond number
wet weight
Inhibition of frond
production
biomass
biomass

EC10
EC10

0.6
3.5

0.56
3.2

2
2

6
6

Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Wildlife Int. (2001a), ref 37 inOECD, 2002
Hanson et al., 2005
Hanson et al., 2005

21 dSurvival

NOEC

12

12

1 (OECD)

7

Cyanobacteria
Anabaena flos-aqua
Macrophytes
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba G3

56

Substance

23+/- 123+/- 125+/- 125+/- 1
7.9-8.9

Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b
3M (2001), ref 38 in OECD, 2002
3M (1981), ref 13 in OECD, 2002
3M (1981), ref 13 in OECD, 2002
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000b), ref 2 inOECD, 2002

Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Crustaceans
Daphnia magna

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ saltyrDaphnia magna

K+ salt

y

r

21 d

Reproduction

NOEC

12

12

1 (OECD)

7

Daphnia magna

K+ salt

y

r

21 d

Growth

NOEC

12

12

1 (OECD)

7

Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt

95
95
95

n
n
n

-

21+/- 121+/- 121+/- 1

21 d
21 d
21 d

25
25
25

25
25
25

2
2
2

1
1
1

Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna

K+ salt
K+ salt
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid

95

n
n

r
s
s
s

21+/- 1

21 d
28 d
21 d
21 d
21 d

adult survival
NOEC
days to first brood
NOEC
number of young/adult or NOEC
brood
adult survival
EC10
Reproduction
NOEC
adult survival
NOEC
days to first brood
NOEC
number of young/adult
NOEC

Wildlife Int. (2000g), ref 9 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000g), ref 9 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000g), ref 9 inOECD, 2002
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b
Boudreau et al., 2003b

5.3
7
≥ 5
1.25
1.25

5.3
6.5
≥ 5
1.25
1.25

2
2 (OECD)
2
2
2

1
8
7
7
7

Boudreau et al., 2003b3M (1984), ref 15 in OECD, 2002
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008

19.4-20.1 8.1-8.5 8.3-8.9

21+/- 121+/- 121+/- 1

RIVM Report 601714013

Scientific Name

Substance

Purity A

Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Moina macrocopa
Insects
Chironomus tentans

PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acid
PFOS acidK+ salt

95

Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus tentans
Enallagma cyathigerum

K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt
tetraethylammo
nium salttetraethylammo
nium salttetraethylammo
nium salttetraethylammo
nium salttetraethylammo
nium salt[%]

Enallagma cyathigerum
Enallagma cyathigerum
Enallagma cyathigerum
Enallagma cyathigerum
Fish
Lepomis macrochirus

K+ salt

Oryzias latipes
Oryzias latipes
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas

PFOS acid
PFOS acidK+ salt
K+ salt
K+ salt

RIVM Report 601714013

Test
Type

y/n

Temp

pH

DO

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

21 d
21 d
21 d
21 d
21 d
21 d
21 d
7d
7d
7d
7d
7d
7d
7d
7d
7d
7d

number of young/broodnumber of broods/adult
adult survival
number of young/adult
number of young/broodnumber of broods/adult
population growth rate
adult survival
days to first broodnumber of young/adult
number of young/broodnumber of brood/adult
adult survival
number of young/adult
number of young/broodnumber of broods/adult
population growth rate

NOEC
NOEC
EC10
EC10
EC10
EC10
EC10
NOEC
NOEC
LOEC
NOEC
NOEC
EC10
EC10
EC10
EC10
EC10

[ºC]
21+/- 121+/- 121+/- 121+/- 121+/- 121+/- 121+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 1

[mg/L]

s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
y

r

21-23

>5.0

36 d

Total Emergence

NOEC

95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
98

y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
n

r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r

21-23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
21

>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0

36 d
20 d
20 d
20 d
20 d
10 d
10 d
10 d
10 d
120 d

Total Emergence
GrowthGrowthSurvival
Survival
GrowthGrowthSurvival
Survival
foraging success

98

n

r

21

15 d

98

n

r

21

98

n

r

98

n

r

>98
>98
>98

y
y
y

Ria

Notes Reference

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008

<0.0023 2

10,17 MacDonald et al., 2004

EC10
NOEC
EC10
NOEC
EC10
NOEC
EC10
NOEC
EC10
NOEC

<0.002
3
0.089
0.022
0.088
0.095
0.086
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.108
0.01

0.089
0.022
0.088
0.095
0.086
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.108
0.01

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11

hatching

NOEC

1

1

2

Bots et al., 201020 dlarval survival

NOEC

0.1

0.1

2

Bots et al., 2010

21

120 d

larval survival

NOEC

0.01

0.01

2

Bots et al., 2010

21

120 d

metamorphosis

NOEC< 0.01< 0.01

2

18

Bots et al., 2010

62 dSurvival

NOEC

12

3M (2001), ref 41 in OECD, 2002

reproduction
survival of larvae
Spawning
Hatching success
Survival

NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC

0.0860.87
0.1<0.01
0.0276>0.281>0.281

1 (OECD)

14 d
14 d
21 d
21 d
24 d

0.0860.87
0.1<0.01
0.0276>0.281>0.28113
13
13

Ji et al., 2008
Ji et al., 2008
Ankley et al., 2005
Ankley et al., 2005
Ankley et al., 2005

y
r
r
f
f
f

[mg/L]
1.25
≥ 5
1.1
1.1
1.7
3.7
1.0
1.25
≥ 5
0.31250.31250.3125
1.1
0.079
0.17
0.29
0.40

Conc.
ion
[mg/L]
1.25
≥ 5
1.1
1.1
1.7
3.7
1.0
1.25
≥ 5
0.31250.31250.3125
1.1
0.079
0.17
0.29
0.40

25+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 125+/- 1

7.3
7.3
7.3

6.2
6.2
6.2

2
2
2
2
2

MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
MacDonald et al., 2004
Van Gossum et al., 2009

57

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

Ria

Notes Reference[ºC][mg/L]
24.4-24.7 8.0-8.4 7.6-8.2

42 d

Post-hatch survival

NOEC

Conc.
ion
[mg/L] [mg/L]
0.3
0.3

1 (OECD)

1424.4-24.7

7.6-8.4

42 dPost-hatch growth

NOEC

0.3

0.3

1 (OECD)

14

16.6-29.2 8.910.9

6.3-12.4

30 d
28 d

ELS
Mortality

NOEC
LC10

1
3.5

1
3.5

2 (OECD)215y7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 h

Growth

NOEC

4.82

4.82

2 (OECD)

16

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 h

Growth

NOEC

5.25

5.25

2 (OECD)

16

Xenopus laevis

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 h

Malformation

EC10

3.91

3.91

2 (OECD)

16

Xenopus laevis

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 h

Malformation

EC10

4.98

4.98

2 (OECD)

16

Xenopus laevis

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 h

Malformation

EC10

7.02

7.02

2 (OECD)

16

Xenopus laevis

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 hMortality

EC10

12.05

12.05

2 (OECD)

16

Xenopus laevis

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 hMortality

EC10

7.67

7.67

2 (OECD)

16

Xenopus laevis

K+ salty7.0-7.7 7.0-8.5

96 hMortality

EC10

7.49

7.49

2 (OECD)

16

Scientific Name

Substance

Purity A

Pimephales promelas

K+ salty/nyf

Pimephales promelas

K+ saltyf

Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas

K+ salt
K+ saltyyfsAmphibians
Xenopus laevis

K+ salt

Xenopus laevis

[%]

a:

86

Test
Type

Temp

pH

DO

Wildlife Int. (2000c), ref 8 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000c), ref 8 inOECD, 2002
3M (2000), ref 14 in OECD, 2002
Oakes et al., 2005
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002
UM-WREC (2001), ref 40 inOECD, 2002

Reliability Index according to Klimisch et al., 1997.

Notes:
1
Reported concentrations based on the anion; according to ASTM protocols
2
According to OPPTS 850.5400 protocol
3
Result not expressed relative to growth rate. According to OECD 201; US EPA 600/9-78-018 and ASTM -E-35.23 protocol.
4
According to OECD 201 protocol
5
According to OPPS 850.4400 protocol
6
Microcosm study with sediment (13.9% OC). Results based on average measured concentrations; a number of endpoints are reported, biomass was selected as most relevant parameter
7
According to OECD 211 protocol; EC10 values derived by evaluator from presented data with log-logistic dose-response relationship
8
According to ASTM 1981/OECD 1981 protocol
9
According to Oh (2007) protocol, cited in ref; EC10 values derived by evaluator from presented data with log-logistic dose-response relationship10 According to US EPA and ASTM protocols; test organisms exposed in clean sand
11 Larvae were used
12 Bioconcentration study (OECD 305)
13 Hardness 46 mg/L as CaCO3; alkalinity 40 mg/L as CaCO3; 16:8 hour light : dark
14 According to OECD 210 protocol
15 Microcosm experiment with sediment. Concentrations based on anion. Alkalinity 89.9-148.8 mg CaCO3/L.
16 FETAX test. In-life phases were not subject to GLP
17 total emergence read from figure 50% as compared to 73% in the control (32% decrease)18 successful metamorphosis 75.5% at 10 µg/L as compared to 92.5% in control (18% decrease)

58

RIVM Report 601714013

Table A2.4 Chronic toxicity data for marine species
Scientific Name

Substance

Purity A
[%]

Test
Type

y/n

Temp

pH

[ºC]

DO

Conc.
ion
[mg/L] [mg/L]

Ria

Notes Reference

Exp.
Time

Endpoint

Criterion Conc.

[mg/L]

Algae
Skeletonema costatum

K+ saltys

20.2-21.4 8.0-8.4

96 h

Growth rate

NOEC

>3.2

>3.2

1 (OECD)1

Wildlife Int. (2001b), ref 39 inOECD, 2002

Crustaceans
Americamysis bahia

K+ saltyf24.5-25.2 8.2-8.4 5.9-6.4

35 dReproduction

NOEC

0.25

0.25

1 (OECD)

2

Americamysis bahia

K+ saltyf24.5-25.2 8.2-8.4 5.9-6.4

35 dGrowth

NOEC

0.25

0.25

1 (OECD)

2

Americamysis bahia

K+ saltyf24.5-25.2 8.2-8.4 5.9-6.4

35 dSurvival

NOEC

0.55

0.55

1 (OECD)2

Wildlife Int. (2000d), ref 10 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000d), ref 10 inOECD, 2002
Wildlife Int. (2000d), ref 10 inOECD, 2002a:

Reliability Index according to Klimisch et al., 1997.

Notes:
1
According to OPPTS 850.5400 protocol
2
According to OPPTS 850.1350 protocol

RIVM Report 601714013

59

60

RIVM Report 601714013

Appendix 3. Mammal and bird toxicity data
Table A3.1 Mammal and bird toxicity data
Species

Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats
Rats

Species
properties

Sprague-Dawley
Sprague-Dawley
Sprague-Dawley
Sprague-Dawley
Sprague-Dawley
Sprague-Dawley
Crl:CD®(SD)IGS
VAF/Plus®
CD
Sprague Dawley,
Crl:CD† (SD) IGS BR
Crl:CD(SD)IGS BR

Rats

Substance

KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS

Durationb

Route

Criterion

Endpoint

Resultmg/kgbw/d

BW/DFIc

GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD2-21
GD2-21
GD2-21
GD2-21
GD2-21
GD2-216 w priormating - PD4
90 d
14 w

gavagegavagegavagegavagegavagegavagegavagegavagegavage

NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL

maternal toxicity, developmental toxicity
maternal toxicity, developmental toxicity
maternal weight gain
foetal weight
foetal malformations
foetal malformations
foetal malformations
survival, growth, development
gestation length, pup viability

5
1
1
5
3-5
1
5
1
0.37

20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
20.0

Resultdiet
mg/kgdiet
100
20
10
50
30-50
10
50
10
7.4

AF

MPCoralmg/kgbiota ww

Ria

Original reference

90
90
90
90

1.11
0.22
0.11
0.56

90
90
90
90

0.11
0.56
0.11
0.08

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Gortner, 1980
Wetzel, 1983
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Lau et al,. 2003
Luebker et al. 2005

diet
diet

NOEC
NOEC

body weight, mortality food consumption
body weight

2
>1.5

(15)
(13.3)

30
>20

90

0.33

2
2

Goldenthal et al. 1978a
Seacat et al., 2003

chronic
two
generation
two
generation

dietgavageNOEC
NOAEL

carcinogenicity study
survival, body weight F1

0.14
0.4

(14.3)
20

2
8

30
30

0.07
0.27

2
2

Thomford, 2002
Christian et al. 1999

gavageNOAELbirth weight F2

0.1

20

2

30

0.07

2

Christian et al. 1999
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003
Thibodeaux et al., 2003

Mice
Mice
Mice
Mice
Mice

CD-1
CD-1
CD-1
CD-1
CD-1

KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS
KPFOS

GD1-18
GD1-18
GD1-18
GD1-18
GD1-18

gavagegavagegavagegavagegavage

NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL

maternal weight gain
foetal weight
foetal malformations
sternal defects
cleft palate

15
5
1-15
1
10

8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3

124.5
41.5
8.3-124.5
8.3
83

90
90

1.38
0.46

90
90

0.09
0.92

2
2
2
2
2

RabbitRabbitNew Zealand white
New Zealand white

KPFOS
KPFOS

GD6-20
GD6-20

gavagegavage

NOAEL
NOAEL

birth weight, ossificationmaternal weight gain

1
0.1

33.3
33.3

33.3
3.33

90
90

0.37
0.037

2
2

Case et al. 2001
Case et al. 2001

KPFOS

90 d

gavageNOAEL

survival

1.5

20

30

90

0.33

2

Goldenthal et al., 1978b

KPFOS

90 d

gavage

NOAEL

0.5

20

10

90

0.11

2

Goldenthal et al., 1978b

KPFOS

183 d

intubation

NOAEL

severe gastrointestinal effects,
trembling; monkeys were euthanized toprevent further sufferingbody weight, mortality

0.15

20

3

30

0.10

2

Seacat et al., 2002

1.49
0.77

6.7
13

10
10

30
30

0.33
0.33

2
2

Newsted et al., 2007
Newsted et al., 2007

RhesusmonkeysRhesusmonkeys
Cynomolgus
monkeys

2.4-4.4 kg

mallard ducks
KPFOS
21 w
diet
NOEC
body weight, reproduction
northern
KPFOS
21 w
diet
NOEC
body weight, reproduction
bobwhite quaila:Reliability Index according to Klimisch et al., 1997.
b:
GD = Gestation dayc:Conversion factor body weight/daily food intake (see Van Vlaardingen and Verbruggen, 2007)

RIVM Report 601714013

61

62

RIVM Report 601714013

Appendix 4. Description of microcosm studies
Study 1
ReferenceSpecies;Population;
Community
Test Method
System properties
Test substanceExposure regime
Analysed
Temperature [°C]
pH range
Hardness [mg
CaCO3/L]
Exposure time
Criterion
Test endpoint
Value [mg/L]
GLP
Guideline
Ri

Sanderson H, Boudreau TM, Mabury SA, Cheong W-J, Solomon KR. 2002.
Ecological impact and environmental fate of perfluorooctane sulfonate on
the zooplankton community in indoor microcosms. Ecotoxicol Environ
Chem 21: 1490-1496
zooplankton, gastropods, macoinvertebrates, macrophytes, insects

indoor microcosm
30 L; natural water and sediment
K salt of PFOS
1, 10 and 30 mg/L (expressed as anion); single application, mixing
Yes, on days 1, 8 and 35
18 °C
8.28-8.37 (mean 8.3)
not specified
35 daysNOEC
zooplankton< 10 mg/L (expressed as anion)
not specified
not specified
2

DESCRIPTION
Test system. Indoor microcosms of PVC, 46 x 26 x 26 cm, 30 L, natural pond water (pH 8.3) andsediment. Temperature 18 °C, 12:12 h L:D (2852 lumen). Constant aeration, DO 6 mg/L.
The zooplankton community consisted of Cyclops diaptomus, C. strenuous, Canthocamptus
staphylinus, Daphnia magna, Keratella quadrata, Phyllopoda sp., Echinorhynchus sp., Ostracodasp., and Rotifera sp. In addition, pond snails and occasional macrophytes (Elodea canadensis andMyriophyllum spicatum) and larger invertebrates (Ephemeroptera sp., Asellus aquaticus) werealso present. Phytoplankton (Scenedesmus acutus) were added each week to prevent fooddeficiency.
Test concentrations 1, 10 and 30 mg/L (as anion) and control, five replicates per treatment. Test
solutions were added to the systems and water was hand-mixed.
Water sampling. Water samples were taken after 1, 8 and 35 days. Analysis of PFOS by HPLCion chromatography with conductivity detector. Range of calibration curve 0.6-70 mg/L.
Monitoring of pH, P and total N on days 1, 14 and 35.
Biological sampling. Sampling of zooplankton 24 hours before and after treatment, and after 2, 4,
7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 days using funnel traps. Traps were installed for 24 hours, a volume of 30 mL
was analysed and counted. Chlorophyll a was sampled at study termination.
Statistical analysis
ANOVA on dominant zooplankton species, total zooplankton abundance, number of species andend stock of chlorophyll a.
RESULTS
Chemical analysis. Initial measured concentrations were between 113 and 133% of nominal.
Concentrations remained constant with 12% decline on average. Geometric means of the reported
measured concentrations were 1.2, 12.0 and 31.7 mg/L.

RIVM Report 601714013

63

Water quality. Overall mean nitrate was 5.3 mg/L (2.2-13.5), total P < 2 µg/L. No difference
between treatments and control. pH 8.3 (8.28-8.37). Chlorophyll a was not
Biological observations.
− Copepods. Cyclops diaptomus and C. canthocamptus were absent at 30 mg/L after one week
and at 10 mg/L after two weeks, control abundance remained constant. At 1 mg/L, numbers of
C. diaptomus were lower than in the control. Numbers declined towards very low levels after
35 days, but differences were already present pre-treatment and differences were notsignificant. An increase of C. canthocampus was observed after one week at 1 mg/L,
abundance was constant thereafter.
− Daphnia magna. D. magna was almost entirely reduced at 10 and 30 mg/L, but differenceswere only significant at days 7, 14 and 21 because of low statistical power due to control
variability.
− Rotifers. Abundance of total rotifers at 1 mg/L was always higher than in the control (notsignificant). Abundance of smaller and tolerant rotifer species increased, abundance in thecontrol was temporarily significantly lower than in the treatments. Larger rotifers decreased.
− Ephemeroptera. Mayflies were absent at 10 and 30 mg/L. At 1 mg/L, three mayflies emerged
after three weeks, otherwise there were none. Mayfly abundance in the control was higher(n=5, 4 and 3 after three, four and five weeks, respectively).
− Species diversity. The total number of species was significantly reduced at 10 and 30 mg/L.
At 1 mg/L, the number of species was lower than in the control as from 14 days after
treatment, differences were not significant.
− Total abundance. Total abundance of zooplankton at 10 and 30 mg/L was significantly
different from the control after one and two weeks. Numbers started to decline after 1 to 4
days and remained constant at a low level from 7 days onwards. Abundance at 1 mg/L wasalso lower, but levels remained constant and the difference with the control was alreadypresent before treatment.
− Chlorophyll a. There was a significant increase in chlorophyll a with increasing PFOS
concentrations, indicative of an indirect effect resulting from decreased grazing activity.
There were no significant differences at 1 mg/L as compared to the control, but the authors
conclude that it is not possible to define this treatment as the NOEC because statistical power was
too low. For instance, an effect of 25% on number of species was not detected as significant.
Evaluation of the scientific reliability of the field study and the suitability for ERLderivation
The reliability and usefulness of the study for derivation of ERLs is evaluated according to thefollowing criteria:
1. Does the test system represent a realistic freshwater community?
Yes/No. The zooplankton community consisted of several representative species groups.
Sampling was restricted to zooplankton. For the other groups mentioned (snails, macrophytes,
larger invertebrates), it is not clear whether distribution was comparable between replicates
and treatments (presence of macrophytes is described as “occasional”). Potential effects onthese groups were not included in the study, mayflies are mentioned in the discussion. Fishwere not present.
2. Is the description of the experimental set-up adequate and unambiguous?
Yes.
3. Is the exposure regime adequately described?
Yes. Measured concentrations at start were close to nominal and remained more or lessconstant throughout the study.
4. Are the investigated endpoints sensitive and in accordance with the working mechanism of thecompound?
No. From the available laboratory data it appears that insects, fish and macrophytes are the64

RIVM Report 601714013

potentially most sensitive species groups on a chronic scale. Except for mayflies, these were
not included in the present study.
5. Is it possible to evaluate the observed effects statistically?
No. Results are presented for selected zooplankton species only, results for rotifers are only
given for the phylum as a whole. From the graphs it appears that there was considerable pretreatment variation, especially considering abundance of total zooplankton, Cyclops
diaptomus and Daphnia magna. For total abundance and C. diaptomus, pre-treatment
deviation from the control was highest for the 1 mg/L-treatment. It is not clear if and how thiswas accounted for in the statistical analysis. The authors use the term “NOECcommunity” in their
discussion of endpoints, but since the evaluation is not based on a PRC, the NOECs refer toselected zooplankton groups.
Based on the criteria listed above, the study is considered to be less reliable mainly due to therestriction to specific zooplankton species and the uncertainty with respect to statistical methods.
It is clear, however, that the NOEC for zooplankton is < 10 mg/L (Ri 2). In view of the constant
exposure conditions, the endpoint should in principle be considered for derivation of the
MPCeco, water. However, information from laboratory studies indicates that zooplankton may not
represent the most sensitive species groups, which limits the usefulness of the endpoint for ERLderivation.

Study 2
ReferenceSpecies;Population;
Community
Test Method
System properties
Test substanceExposure regime
Analysed
Temperature [°C]
pH range
Hardness [mg
CaCO3/L]
Exposure time
Criterion
Test endpoint
Value [mg/L]
GLP
Guideline
Ri
Notes

RIVM Report 601714013

Boudreau TM, Wilson CJ, Cheong W-J, Sibley PK, Mabury SA, Muir
DCG, Solomon KR. 2003. Response of the zooplankton community andenvironmental fate of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in aquatic microocsms.
Ecotoxicol Environ Chem 22: 2739-2745
zooplankton, periphyton, phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, algae, small
plants, macrophytes; caged fish
outdoor microcosm
12000 L; natural water and sediment
K salt of PFOS
0.3, 3, 10 and 30 mg/L (expressed as anion); single application, subsurface
injection and mixing
Yes, regularly over 285 days
16-20 °C
8.3-8.8
292–300 mg/L
35 days (zooplankton community; start on August 21, 2000)
42 days (bioassay Lemna gibba, start on May 21, 2001)
NOEC
zooplankton community
3
not specified
not specified
2
Results of the fish bioassays are reported separately in Oakes et al. (2005)
Results of the Myriophyllum bioassays are reported in Hanson et al. (2005)
These references are included in the single-species data tables in Appendix
2

65

DESCRIPTION
Test system. Outdoor microcosms, 11.95 m2, 1.05 m depth, 12000 L. Natural pond water (pH 8.38.8) and sediment (1:1:1 mixture of sand, loam and manure as OM, 13.9% OC; data from Hanson
et al., 2005). Average temperature 16-20 °C, DO 7.2-8.8 mg/L.
Natural water from a spring-fed irrigation pond was circulated among the microcosms for 10 days
prior to application (22 August, 2000). The community consisted of zooplankton, periphyton,
phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, algae, small plants. Additional macrophytes Myriophyllum
spicatum and M. sibiricum were planted in holding trays, caged fathead minnows (Pimephales
promelas) were introduced.
A separate 42-days study with Lemna gibba was started in May 2001. Laboratory cultured L.
gibba were exposed in enclosures starting 1 hour after PFOS-application. Three compartments per
microcosm, each compartment contained four plants with three fronds each. Plants were observed
on days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42. Endpoints mean plant number, mean frond number and physicalappearance.
Application. Test concentrations 0.3, 3, 10 and 30 mg/L (as anion) and control, three replicates pertreatment, application on August 22, 2000. Test solutions were added to the systems by subsurface injection followed by 15 min. circulation.
Water sampling. Water samples were taken at regular intervals for 42 days (PFOS data reported
for 285 days). Analysis of PFOS by HPLC-ion chromatography with conductivity detector. The
0.3 mg/L-treatment was < LOD and not included. Water quality parameters (temperature, DO, pH,
alkalinity and hardness) were monitored.
Biological sampling. Sampling of zooplankton one day before treatment, 1 h after treatments, andafter 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 days using funnel traps. Traps (2 per cosms) were installed for 24hours. Zooplankton was identified to species level where possible. Chlorophyll a was determined
as surrogate for total phytoplankton.
Statistical analysis
Data were ln- or square root transformed when assumptions of homogeneity of variances andnormality were not met. Scaling was applied to deal with zero values. ANOVA to test treatments
versus control. Analysis of community effects by PRC using CANOCO, followed by Monte Carlo
permutation tests. The NOECcommunity from the PRC was derived using William’s test. Mean total
zooplankton abundance analysed using multivariate Dunnett’s test. IC10 and IC50 for growth
inhibition of L. gibba determined by linear interpolation.
RESULTS
Chemical analysis. Average initial concentrations (1 h post-treatment) differed by 1.8 ± 8.7% fromnominal. Measured concentrations during toxicological evaluations deviated by 2.2 ± 2.7% fromnominal. Time weighted average concentrations were between 75 and 104% of initial measured.
All endpoints were expressed on the basis of nominal concentrations.
Water quality. No differences were observed between treatments and control.
Biological observations. There were no significant differences in species abundance between
replicates before treatment. A total of 92 zooplankton species was collected (Rotifera, Cladocera,
Copepoda, macroinvertebrates and Ostracoda), the statistical analysis was performed on 68
species belonging to the first three groups.
− PRC. A significant change in the zooplankton community was present at 10 and 30 mg/L,
where an increase in abundance occurred as compared to the control. The NOECcommunity was
3 mg/L on days 4, 7, 21 and 28, and 0.3 mg/L on day 35. A NOECcommunity could not beestablished for day 14, due to low power. The major part (43%) of the total variance could be
explained by treatment, 23% by sampling day. From the species weight diagram it appearedthat the positive trend was caused by two out of a total of 68 species: the rotifers Bdelloidea
sp. and Polyartha vulgaris which had a positive weight of +0.6. In contrast, 21 organisms
showed an opposite response (i.e. a decline), indicated by species weights < -0.6. The
remaining 45 species either had insignificant roles or changed little over the duration of thestudy. The most prominent opposite response was displayed by the cladoceran Simocephalus

66

RIVM Report 601714013

vetulus and copepod nauplii (larvae) with species weights of -3.5 and -3.0. Other species with
an opposite response were the rotifers Trichocerca sp., Cephalodella sp., Lecane monostyla
and Lepadella sp., and the copepod Macrocyclops albidus.
− Rotifers. At 30 mg/L, total abundance of rotifers was decreased by ≥ 89% between days 1 and21, but differences were only significant on days 4, 21 and 35. A 100-fold increase inabundance was observed at 10 mg/L from day 14 to 28.
− Copepods. Total copepods at 30 mg/L were significantly reduced after day 2 until day 35. At
10 mg/L, a maximum decrease was seen after 14 days (significant), but numbers increased
thereafter to control levels by day 28.
− Cladocerans. Response of total cladocerans at 30 mg/L was similar to that of copepods with asignificant decrease after two days and no signs of an increase thereafter.
− Number of species. A significant reduction in species number was observed at 30 mg/L fromday 1 onwards, mean reduction was 74.3% as compared to the control. The 10 mg/L-treatment
showed a significant reduction in species number between 14 and 35 days, mean reduction
was 45%. No significant differences were seen at 0.3 and 1 mg/L.
− Chlorophyll a. There was a high temporal variation in chlorophyll a concentrations in the
PFOS-treated microcosms as compared to the control. A significant increase was present at 10
mg/l at day 4 and 14. Otherwise, no significant differences were observed, statistical power
was generally low.
− Lemna gibba. Acute toxicity was evident at 30 mg/L. Frond number at 0.3 and 3 mg/L wasdecreased as compared to the control. Frond number at 10 mg/L was not significantly
different at 10 mg/L, but visual signs of toxicity were present. The 42-days IC50 was reported
to be 19.1 mg/L for frond number and 20.9 mg/L for plant number. The NOEC (IC10) forfrond number was reported as 0.2 mg/L. Visual signs of toxicity were present as from day 4.
The authors conclude that the NOECcommunity for zooplankton is 3.0 mg/L.
Evaluation of the scientific reliability of the field study and the suitability for ERLderivation
The reliability and usefulness of the study for derivation of ERLs is evaluated according to thefollowing criteria:
1. Does the test system represent a realistic freshwater community?
Yes/No. Microcosms contained a representative zooplankton community, but analysis was
performed on rotifers, cladocerans and copepods only. The results on macrophytes and fish
are reported separately in Hanson et al. (2005) and Oakes et al. (2005) and are included in thedata tables in Appendix 2.
2. Is the description of the experimental set-up adequate and unambiguous?
Yes/No. The description is adequate with respect to the August 2000 study on zooplankton,
but not with respect to the Lemna test. The bioassay was started on 21 May, 2001, 1 h after
treatment. It is not clear whether a second PFOS application was made to the microcosms that
already had been treated in August 2000, or that other microcosms were used.
3. Is the exposure regime adequately described?
Yes. Measured concentrations at start were close to nominal and remained more or lessconstant throughout the study.
4. Are the investigated endpoints sensitive and in accordance with the working mechanism of thecompound?
No. From the available laboratory data it appears that insects, fish and macrophytes are thepotentially most sensitive species groups on a chronic scale. Results for these groups are notreported.
5. Is it possible to evaluate the observed effects statistically?
Yes/No. The statistical analysis includes a PRC and the major zooplankton groups are
discussed separately. Although the William’s test resulted in a lowest NOECcommunity of 0.3
mg/L after 35 days, it is considered justified to set the overall NOECcommunity for zooplankton

RIVM Report 601714013

67

to 3.0 mg/L in view of the PRC-diagram and analyses of separate taxa. The validity of thereported NOEC and EC50 for frond number of Lemna gibba is not clear, since frond number
at 10 mg/L was comparable to the control.
Based on the criteria listed above, the results for Lemna gibba are not considered reliable. The
study is considered to be reliable with respect to the NOEC for the zooplankton community, whichis considered to be 3.0 mg/L (Ri 2). In view of the constant exposure conditions, the endpointshould in principle be considered for derivation of the MPCeco, water. However, information fromlaboratory studies indicates that zooplankton may not represent the most sensitive species groups,
which limits the usefulness of the endpoint for ERL-derivation.

68

RIVM Report 601714013

RIVM

RIVM

National Institutefor Public HealthNational Instituteand the Environmentfor Public Health

P.O. Box 1
3720
andBA
theBilthoven
Environment
The Netherlands
www.rivm.nl
P.O. Box 1

3720 BA Bilthoven
The Netherlands
www.rivm.com