# Background **and Overview of**  **Methods for**  **Characterizing Effects**  **of Pesticides on Aquatic Organisms**  **Background and Overview**  **of Methods**  **for Characterizing**  **Effects of**  **Pesticides on Aquatic Organisms** Kris Garber, Office of Pesticide Programs Joe Beaman, Office of Water

**1** 

### Presentation to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel January 31, 2012

# Outline
• Common Effects Project Description
• Current Methods • OPP Ecological Risk Assessments • OW Method – 1985 Guidelines • Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Water Quality Guidance


## • Methods Considered

**2**

# Common Effects **Project**
• Joint Effort of OPP, OW and ORD
• Goal: Provide a common basis for OPP and OW to characterize aquatic effects of pesticides • Emphasis is on use of datasets of varying sizes ranging from those used by OPP for FIFRA registration to larger amounts of data required by OW for aquatic life criteria derivation

**3**

# Common Effects **Project**
• Focus • Evaluation of existing tools and approaches for estimating and characterizing effects to aquatic life • Evaluate tools for potential utility for estimating toxicity values for unfulfilled data requirements • Evaluate approaches for potential utility to estimate HC5 for aquatic animal and plant communities using varying amounts of data • Ensure scientific defensibility and utility of tools and approaches by both stakeholders and EPA.
**4**

# Common Effects **Project**

• Initiated as a result of concerns over detections of pesticides in surface waters (USGS Report)

• OPP evaluates ecotoxicity data and develops endpoints for pesticides according to FIFRA • Method differs from OW evaluation of effects on aquatic community according to CWA for developing criteria



## • Stakeholder concern over potential differences in aquatic effects assessments conducted by OPP and OW **5**

# Common Effects **Project**
• Work Products • Scoping document - 2009 • 3 White Papers (2010) – Predictive tools, Methods to develop benchmarks for aquatic animals • White paper for SAP


## • Outreach to stakeholders • 6 Regional Meetings – January 2010 • National Meeting in DC – December 2010 • Docket established for submission of comments


## • Currently developing guidelines for reviewing open literature toxicity studies **6**

## Ov **er view of**  **R isk Assessment Process** 

**Of fice of**  **W ater**  **Of fice of**  **Pesticide Pr og**  **ram** 

### Statutor **y Basis**  **CWA FIFRA**  

### Fr **amew or**  **k f**

**or Ecolo gical Risk**  **Assessment Effects Characterization**  **Effects Characterization Exposure**  **Char .**  **Analysis Data Requirements**  **Data Requirements Com**  **mo n**  **Effects Project** 

**7 Criteria**  **Issuance -**  **EP**

**A Risk Estimation**  **Risk Description Analysis** 
**Risk Characterization**  

### Risk Mana **gement Criteria Implementation**  **– State**  **Adoption of**  **WQS**

**(Exposure )**  **Risk -**  **Benefit Deter mination**  **La bel**  **Requirements Criteria Development** **Risk Class Risk Description**  **RQ LOC**  Acute - Anim al Potential for effects to non - listed animals

from a cute exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 0.5 Acute - Listed Anim al Federally - listed endangered and

threatened (listed) species m ay be Peak EEC/LC 50 0.05 

# Current **OPP Method:**  **Ecological Risk Assessment** 

**8** Anim al threatened (listed) species m ay be

potentially affected by acute exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 0.05 Chronic - Anim al Potential for effects to non - listed and

listed anim als from

c hronic exposures 60 - day EEC/NOEC (fish) 1

21 - day EEC/NOEC (invertebrates) Non - Listed Plant Potential for effects to non - tar get, non listed plants from

e xposures EEC/ EC 50 1 Listed Plant Potential for effects to non - tar get, listed

plant species from

e xposures EEC/ NOEC or EC05 1

# • RQs are based upon most sensitive endpoints for taxa 

# Current **OPP Method:**  **Ecological Risk Assessment** 

• Data obtained from registrant submissions and open literature

**9**

# • FIFRA Data Requirements • Aquatic Animals • Acute and chronic data required for fish 

# Current **OPP Method:**  **Ecological Risk Assessment** 

• Acute and chronic data required for fish and invertebrates 

# • Aquatic Plants (“FIFRA - 5”) • 4 species of algae • 1 vascular species (duckweed) **10**

# OPP’s typical test species:

**FW aquatic animals Rainbow**  **tr out**  **Bluegill sunfish**  **Daphnia magna** 

**11 Anabaena**  **flos -**  **aquae** 

# FIFRA **- 5**  **OPP’s typical test species: aquatic plants** 

**Navicula pelliculosa** 

**Skeletone**

**ma costatum**  **Anabaena flos**  **- aquae** 

**Lem na**  **gibba Pseudokirchneriella**  **subcapitata 12** 

# • Species sensitivity distributions sometimes used to characterize effects 

# Current **OPP Method:**  **Ecological Risk Assessment** 

• Acute - chronic ratios (ACRs) commonly used for predicting chronic effects

**13**

# • Based on OPP’s LOCs and taxa specific toxicity endpoints • May be used to interpret effects of pesticides with no existing Aquatic 

# OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks
Life Criteria • Non - regulatory values under CWA or FIFRA **14**

# “1985 **Guidelines”**  “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection Of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses” Stephan et.al.1985  Provides a structured methodology  Allows derivation of acute criteria from short duration toxicity test (lethal concentration – LC 50 

### ) survival data test (lethal concentration – LC 50 

### ) survival  Allows derivation of chronic criteria from longer duration toxicity test data – survival, growth and reproduction  Hypothesis Testing –  Point - Estimate effects concentrations Lowest Observed Effect Concentration – LOEC) and No Observed Effect Concentration – NOEC) 

###  Statistical toxic - effect endpoints –  “Effects Concentration X Percent” - e.g. EC 20 **15**

# Current OW Method: **Derivation of Aquatic Life Criteria 1.**  **SALMONID 2.**  **SECOND FISH**  **FA MIL**  **Y 3.**  **3 rd**  **CHORDA TE**  **FA MIL**  **Y 4.**  **PLANKT ONIC**  **5. BENTHIC CRUST**  **ACEAN**

**16 4.**  **PLANKT ONIC**  **CRUST ACEAN**  **5. BENTHIC CRUST**  **ACEAN**
**6. A**  **QUA**

**TIC INSECT**  **7. ANOTHER PHYLUM** 

**EX AMPLES**  **- ANNELIDA**  **, MOLLUSCA,**  **ROTIFERA 8.**  **A NOTHER**  **INSECT ORDER OR**  **A 4**  **th PHYLUM**  **EX AMPLE**  **ANNELIDA** Minimum Data Requirements  Freshwater  Acute

# Curr **ent OW**  **Method: FA**  **V CALCULA** 

**TION Step 1.**  **Calculate SMA**  **Vs Step 1**  **Vs Step 3**  **Rank Order**  **GMA Vs**  **Rank GMA**  **Vs Step 4.** 

**Calculate FA**  **V Using 4**  **Lowest GMA**  **Vs Step 2**  **Calculate GMA**  **Vs** SMA V S pp 1 

### N LEAST

**17** 

### GMA **Vs GMA** 

**Vs** SMA V S pp 1 

### GMA

V 

## FA V 1 MOST NSENSITIVITYTOLERANCERANK MOST

LEAST

# Current OW Method: **Derivation of Aquatic Life Criteria** Species Sensitivity Distribution Uses Genus - level acute toxicity data (GMA V)

**18** Regression Analysis on 4 GMA Vs closest to 5 th percentile Final Acute V

alue (F AV ) derived from the 5 th percentile (hazard concentration [HC5]) value in a species sensitivity distribution FA V/2 = Acute Criterion 

### 4 lowest GMA Vs

# Current OW Method: **Derivation of Aquatic Life Criteria** 
• Chronic criteria typically estimated using the FAV and Acute - Chronic Ratios (ACR) • The ACR is a tool to estimate the final chronic value using the relationship between the acute and chronic toxicity of a chemical • Three data requirements • One ACR must be from a fish • One ACR must be from an invertebrate • One ACR must be from an acutely sensitive species **19**

# Current OW Method Plants – Final Plant V

alue “Results of at least one acceptable test with a saltwater [freshwater] alga or vascular plant.”*
FIFRA - 5 minimum aquatic plant requirement exceeds “ requirement” in the OW 1985 Guidelines for Aquatic Life Criteria **20 Anabaena**  **flos -**  **aquae** 

### plant.”* “If plants are among the aquatic organisms most sensitive to the material, results of a test with a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.”

# Great Lakes Initiative Guidance

• Provides guidance for two sets of values • Tier I • developed according to1985 Guidelines 

### • Tier II • Data sets that don’t meet MDRs of 1985 Guidelines • Uses extrapolation factors (based on Host et al. 1995) • Values that are conservative approximations of an FAV calculated using the 1985 Guidelines

**21 #**  **of MDRs**  **met Extrapolation**  **Factor** 1 ( Daphnid ) 21.9 2 13.0 3 8.0 4 7.0 5 6.1 6 5.2 7 4.3

# Great Lakes Initiative Guidance

• Hypothetical Tier II values for 3 pesticides • Assuming only typical FIFRA species are available • Tier II values calculated by dividing endpoint for most sensitive endpoint (for a genus) by EF for 3 MDRs (8.0) to derive Secondary Acute Value • Divide SAV/2 to derive Tier II Value

**22** Parameter (ppb) Acrolein Carbaryl Diazinon SMA V – D. magna 51 7.5 1.05 SMA V - Rainbow

t rout 16 860 426 SMA V – Bluegill sunfish 27 6970 460 **Secondary Ac**  **ute Va**  **lue 2.0**  **0.94 0.13**  **Ti er II V**  **alue 1.0**  **0.47 0.065** 

# Great Lakes Initiative Guidance

• Hypothetical Tier II values for 3 pesticides • Assuming only typical FIFRA species are available • Tier II values calculated by dividing endpoint for most sensitive endpoint (for a genus) by EF for 3 MDRs (8.0)

**23** Parameter (ppb) Acrolein Carbaryl Diazinon SMA V – D. magna 51 7.5 1.05 SMA V - Rainbow

t rout 16 860 426 SMA V – Bluegill sunfish 27 6970 460 **Secondary Ac**  **ute Va**  **lue 2.0**  **0.94 0.13**  **FA V**  **(1985 Guidelines) 5.9**  **4.02 0.34**  **Wi thin**  **a factor**  **o f**  **5**

# Methods **Considered**



# WEBICE

**24** 

# QSAR **Lem na**  **gibba**

# Methods **Considered**

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1proportion

**25** 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

- 2 0 2 4 6 Log10 EC50 (ppb)proportion

# Methods **Considered**

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1proportion 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1proportion

**26** 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

- 2 0 2 4 6 Log10 EC50 (ppb)proportion

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

- 2 0 2 4 6proportion

# Methods **Considered**

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1proportion

**27** 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

- 2 0 2 4 6

Log10 EC50 (ppb)proportion

# Presentations

• Potential Use of Predictive Toxicology Tools in Characterizing Effects of Chemical Stressors to Aquatic Animals • Chris Russom

• Analysis of Species Sensitivity Distributions for Estimation of Acute Hazard Concentrations to Aquatic Animals • Matthew Etterson

• Extrapolation Factors for Derivation of Acute Aquatic Life HC5s: Emphasis on Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors • Russell Erickson **28**

# Presentations

• Analysis of Chronic Toxicity Data and Acute Chronic Ratios (ACRs) in Support of Deriving Chronic HC5s: Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors • David Mount
• Estimating Aquatic Plant Community Hazard Concentrations for Pesticide Effects • Glen Thursby

**29**