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 interest
Waterborne 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

ERX 
Waterborne 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

 Xi= value of property

 Xre = mean value of property in root ecoregion

 SDre = standard deviation of property in root 

ecoregion

 Areai = area of polygon

 Areaer = area of ecoregion

 ERXi = similarity score for individual variable

 ERS = Overall ecoregion similarity score
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 6

ENASGIPS –Ecoregion Similarity Model
Waterborne 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 86
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 8

ENASGIPS –Site Selection Tool
Waterborne 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 Guidance 
Waterborne 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+ km2

Climate 

Crops - US 
Waterborne 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 Areas
Waterborne 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 (H20)

• 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.htm
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 13

Screening Level Assessment
Waterborne 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 1.4.0 
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 15

Screening Level Assessment – Field Dissipation 
Waterborne 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 results
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 17

Detailed Site Selection Results – Field Dissipation Studies

OECD Data SSURGO 
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 18

Detailed Site Selection Results – Laboratory Degradation 

Studies

OECD Data SSURGO 
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 19

Detailed Site Selection Results – Sorption Studies

OECD Data SSURGO 
Waterborne 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 restrictive 
Waterborne 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.htm
Waterborne 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 

orders 
Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

EPA EMPM

March 24, 2014 24

Matching SSURGO Area in each U.S. Soil Order 

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 for 
Waterborne 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