Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 1 Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 1 

# Use of the OECD ENASGIPS tool in US settings

Gerco Hoogeweg, Ph.D

. Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

Shelby Zelonis Cecilia Mucha Hirata (DuPont) Nathan Snyder (Waterborne)Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 2 

# Overview

 ENASGIPS Tool

 Application of ENASGIPS in the US

 Based on two presentations that were given at ACS in Indianapolis

 ENASGIPS

– User Perspectives

 Dr. Ralph Warren (BASF), Dr. Dan Perkins (FMC), Dr. Ashok Sharma(DuPont), Dr. Natalia Peranginangin (Syngenta), Dr. Richard Allen (Valent), Dr. Raju Gangaraju (Health Canada

– PMRA)



##  Relevance of environmental fate and terrestrial field dissipation studies conducted in Europe and Canada to use environments in the United States

 Shelby Zelonis, Cecilia Mucha Hirata (DuPont), Gerco Hoogeweg (Waterborne) and Nathan J. Snyder (Waterborne)Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 3 

# Background

 Harmonization of Guidelines for Registration of Plant Protection Products

 OECD, USEPA, PMRA, JRC, and EFSA involved

 Many regulators are moving towards greater acceptance of foreign e

- fate and TFD studies in the registration review process

 ENASGIPS Tool



#  GIS Crosswalk Approach

 Use GIS to demonstrate that a foreign test soil used as part of a registrant

- submitted study is representative of the intended use area(s) within the country of interestWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 4 

# ENASGIPS: Suite of tools to help determine similarity between Europe and North America



# E N A S G

I P S ESM

Site Selection

Database

Lookup Table Crop Density Mapping



## User Sites ERXWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 5 

#  Ecoregion Similarity (ERX)

 Compares values of a polygon in an opposing ecoregion with the mean values of the root ecoregion

 Outputs a similarity score between the ecoregions (%)

 Variables considered:

 Precipitation

 Temperature

 Organic Carbon

 pH

 Texture 

# ENASGIPS

– Ecoregion Similarity Model

 X i = value of property

 X re = mean value of property in root ecoregion

 SD re = standard deviation of property in root ecoregion

 Area i = area of polygon

 Area er = area of ecoregion

 ERX i = similarity score for individual variable

 ERS = Overall ecoregion similarity scoreWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 6 

# ENASGIPS

– Ecoregion Similarity ModelWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 7 

# ENASGIPS

– ESM Results (Tabular Data)

Western European broadleaf forests Percent Match Temperature Percent Match Precipitation Percent Match Organic Carbon Percent Match pH Percent Match Texture Class Ranking Overall Match Allegheny Highlands forests 100 35 100 94 100 85.8 Eastern Great Lakes lowland forests 59 56 100 100 100 83 Northeastern coastal forests 79 46 100 77 100 80.4 Southern Great Lakes forests 100 82 100 100 100 96.4 Upper Midwest forest-savanna transition 82 100 100 100 100 96.4 Willamette Valley forests 85 28 100 100 100 82.6 Blue Mountains forests 70 56 100 100 100 85.2 Central and Southern Cascades forests 71 45 100 96 100 82.4 Eastern Cascades forests 77 64 100 100 100 88.2 Klamath-Siskiyou forests 93 60 100 70 100 84.6 North Central Rockies forests 22 94 100 100 100 83.2 Northern California coastal forests 45 60 100 96 100 80.2 Okanagan dry forests 33 88 100 100 100 84.2 Puget lowland forests 100 19 100 100 100 83.8 Central forest-grasslands transition 29 100 100 100 100 85.8 Central tall grasslands 100 100 100 100 100 100 Flint Hills tall grasslands 30 100 100 100 100 86Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 8 

# ENASGIPS

– Site Selection ToolWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 9 

# Using ENASGIPS

– Site Selection Tool & EPA Foreign Soil Guidance

World Resources Base Soil Order

USDA Soil Taxonomy Soil Order EPA Foreign Soil GuidanceWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 10 

# ENASGIPS Data

 Climate: MARS FOODSEC interim Meteodata

 Overall over 30 years of data



#  Soils: Harmonized World Soils Database (HWSD )

 1x1 km resolution



#  Crops:

 Ag Census for US

 Ag Census for Canada

 County

- level



##  CAPRI for EU

 1 km

- level with various polygon sizes

 1

– 1800+ km 2 Climate

Crops

- USWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 11 

# Case Study: Selected Herbicide

Objective: Demonstrate that the physical and chemical characteristics of soils from studies performed in Europe and Canada compare favorably to the soils found in the herbicide of interest use areas in the United States.

• Allow USEPA to consider the EU and Canadian studies acceptable for inclusion into the environmental fate data package

Methods: 

## 1. Screening Level Assessment a) ENASGIPS Ecoregion Similarity Model (climate and soil properties considered)
2. Detailed Site Selection a) ENASGIPS Site Selection Tool (soil properties considered) b) Independent site selection in ArcGIS using SSURGO data Potential Herbicide Use Site AreasWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 12 

# Screening Level Assessment

- Soil Characterization
Soil Properties

• Adequate soil chemical and physical properties should be considered


# Properties Extracted from 23 Herbicide Studies (5 TFDs, 13 lab degradation, 5 sorption):

• Topsoil (0

– 30cm) OM %

• Topsoil (0

– 30cm) pH (H 2 

## 0)

• USDA Texture Class

• USDA Sand, Silt, and Clay %

• Corresponding FAO Texture Class



# Ranges developed for soil properties in each study type, grouped by FAO texture

Guidelines: http :// www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/ team_authors/environmental_fate_tech_team/soils_foreign.htm Triangle: http ://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/agwa/manual/version15/fao.htmWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 13 

# Screening Level AssessmentWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 14 

# Screening Level Assessment

 Used overlapping ecoregions as input (grouped by study type)

 Adjusted similarity threshold value to 60%

 No guidelines; no area

- weighting



#  Results used as “mask”, in addition to herbicide use site areas Version 1.4.0Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 15 

# Screening Level Assessment

– Field DissipationWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 16 

# Detailed Site Selection

 Used soil property ranges extracted from studies (grouped by study type and FAO texture class) 1. ENASGIPS Site selection tool 2. National SSURGO soils data



#  USDA texture and particle size not available in tool (Version 1.4)

 Clipped results to herbicide use site areas and Ecoregion Crosswalk results

 Compare ENASGIPS and SSURGO resultsWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 17 

# Detailed Site Selection Results

– Field Dissipation Studies

OECD Data SSURGOWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 18 

# Detailed Site Selection Results

– Laboratory Degradation Studies

OECD Data SSURGOWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 19 

# Detailed Site Selection Results

– Sorption Studies

OECD Data SSURGOWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 20 

# Results Comparison

Study Type FAO Texture Class OECD Data Matching Area (sq. mi) SSURGO Data Component Matching Area (sq. mi)

Field Dissipation 1 10,942 29,077 2 332,094 191,753 3 3 112 Total 343,039 220,942

Lab Degradation 1 11,976 21,691 2 644,645 538,175 3 5,514 15,339 Total 662,135 575,205

Sorption 1 11,976 8,549 2 166,501 147,440 3 4,792 9,727 Total 183,259 165,716 

## OECD data yields more area, SSURGO queries more restrictiveWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 21 

# Additional Considerations: Soil Characterization Guidelines for Foreign Soils (USEPA)

• Soil Taxonomy

• World Resources Base (WRB) Soil Classification taxonomy of foreign soils should have equivalent taxonomy in the U.S. Soil Classification System

• Many submissions to EPA do not include soil classification or relevance to U.S. soils

• Equivalent soil classifications = Comparable soil forming factors and other environmental conditions

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors / environmental_fate_tech_team/soils_foreign.htmWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 22 

# Soil Characterization Guidelines for Foreign Soils (USEPA)

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors / environmental_fate_tech_team/soils_foreign.htm 

### Reference Soil Group U.S. Soil Taxonomy Comments

Albeluvisols Alfisols that have a glossic horizon Minor occurrences in North America
Arenosols Psamments (Suborder of Entisols) Occur in the widest possible range of climates.
Calcisols Calcids (Aridisols with calcic epipedon) Occurs in southwestern U.S.
Cambisols Inceptisols Occurs in North America.
Chernozems Borolls, Udools and Ustolls (Suborders of Mollisols) Occurs in the U.S.

Kastanozemsa Ustolls and Xerolls (Suborders of Mollisols) Ustolls and xerools occur in the U.S. Leptosols Lithic Subgroups of Entisols Occurs in the U.S.

Luvisols Alfisols with high-activity clays Occurs in the U.S.

Phaeozems Udolls and Albolls (Suborder of Mollisols) Occurs in the U.S.
Regosols Ortherents, Psamments (Suborder of Entisols) Occurs in the U.S.
Solonetz Alfisols Occurs in the U.S.Waterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 23 

# Site Selection Results Revisited

Study Type FAO Texture Class SSURGO Data Component Matching Area (sq. mi)

Field Dissipation 1 29,077 2 191,753 3 112 Total 220,942

Lab Degradation 1 21,691 2 538,175 3 15,339 Total 575,205

Sorption 1 8,549 2 147,440 3 9,727 Total 165,716 

## Query for test site soil ordersWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 24 

# Matching SSURGO Area in each U.S. Soil O rder

Study Type Matching SSURGO Component Area (sq. mi) per U.S. Soil Taxonomy Group % Matching Area

All Soil Orders Alfisols Aridisols Entisols Inceptisols Mollisols --

Field Dissipation 220,942 68,609 2,291 10,826 16,940 118,575 98%

Lab Degradation 575,205 172,639 8,201 26,449 61,501 266,921 93%

Sorption 165,716 43,991 1,405 6,513 11,330 94,762 95%



## Matching areas continue to exist, almost all soils accounted forWaterborne Environmental, Inc

. EPA EMPM March 24, 2014 25 

# Conclusions

 European

- North American Soil Geographic Information for Pesticide Studies (ENASGIPS) is easy to use

 ESM Tool is not needed to run (lookup table)

 Site Selection Tool provides a good indication of which areas are actually similar

 No GIS experience required



#  Case study demonstrates relevance of foreign test site soils to soils in use areas in the U.S.

a. Screening

- Level Assessment

 ENASGIPS tool revealed that ecoregions overlapping test sites have at least 60% similarity to majority of U.S. ecoregions 

## b. Detailed Site Selection

 OECD and SSURGO analyses demonstrate that similar soils to test sites exist in major use areas of the selected herbicide in the U.S.

 After applying soil taxonomy filter to SSURGO analysis; matching areas continue to exist