Human Health & Aquatic Life Criteria

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Revisiting the Formula CTL Workgroup Contaminated Media Forum 1.
Advertisements

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
Risk Assessment.
1 Risk assessment: overview and principles –Risk principles –Steps in risk assessment –Risk calculation –Toxicology.
Use of pesticides and residues in wine Patrizia Restani SCRAISIN - March 2009 Patrizia Restani SCRAISIN - March 2009.
CONFERENCE ON “ FOOD ADDITIVES : SAFETY IN USE AND CONSUMER CONCERNS“ JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY NAIROBI, 24 JUNE 2014.
Emissions Transport and Fate Concentrations Exposure Dose Dose-response Relationship Health Risk Schematic overview of a Health Risk Assessment.
Environmental risk assessment of chemicals Paul Howe Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, UK.
Results of Technical Review of USEPA 2001 Cadmium Criteria Document Basic Standards Workgroup September 10, 2004 September 2004.
Lynne Haber Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment Presentation to the CPSC April 8,
Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Plant Effects into Community Level Benchmarks EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.
Sandy Raimondo Mace G. Barron Office of Research and Development/NHEERL Gulf Ecology Division 2 November 2005 Development and Improvement of ICE/ACE for.
It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Roberta L. Grant, Ph.D. Toxicology Section - Chief Engineer’s Office Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
Toxic New Source Review Lance Ericksen Engineering Division Manager MBUAPCD.
Sources of Uncertainty and Current Practice for Addressing Them: Toxicological Perspective David A. Bussard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The views.
Ecological Risk Assessment Definition -Evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one.
Risk Assessment II Dec 9, Is there a “safe” dose ? For effects other than cancer:
Toxicity Evaluation of Chemicals with Limited Toxicity Data Roberta L. Grant, Ph.D. Toxicology Division - Chief Engineer’s Office Texas Commission on Environmental.
1 Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessments Larry Tannenbaum, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM)
Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards rule-makings: human health-based criteria and implementation tools Cheryl Niemi Washington Department of Ecology.
(IAQ). What is Risk Assessment? Risk assessment: provides information on the health risk Characterizes the potential adverse health effects of human exposures.
 Drinking-Water Standards  History  Key Definitions  How Standards are Developed  Current Issues Confronting Developers of Standards.
Approaches for Evaluating the Relevance of Multiroute Exposures in Establishing Guideline Values for Drinking Water Contaminants Kannan Krishnan, Université.
“The Dose makes the Poison”
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Production of Nitric Acid Environmental Impact Assessment Erik TolonenNick Poulin Environmental Engineering Environmental Planning and Decision Making.
Charge Question 4-1: Please comment on the ecotoxicity studies selected to represent the most sensitive species in each of the risk scenarios (acute aquatic,
Risk Assessment Nov 7, 2008 Timbrell 3 rd Edn pp Casarett & Doull 7 th Edn Chapter 7 (pp )
RISK ASSESSMENT. Major Issues to be considered in designing the Study 1.- Emission Inventory What is the relative significance of the various sources.
June 8, 2004Seafood: Assessing the Benefits and Risks1 of 17 Assessing and Managing the Risks Associated With Eating Seafood Don Schaffner, Ph.D. Professor.
Tier 1 Environmental Performance Tools Economic Criteria.
3. Method of inspection Requirements for the Method of Inspection We assume that k a is much larger than k el. That is, k a is at least five times greater.
MAIN TOXICITY TESTING. TESTING STRATEGIES A number of different types of data are used in order to establish the safety of chemical substances for use.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology University of Würzburg Germany Risk, Hazard, and Innovation.
Determining Risks to Background Arsenic Using a Margin – of – Exposure Approach Presentation at Society of Risk Analysis, New England Chapter Barbara D.
WP4. Assessment of environmental impacts and resulting externalities from multi-media (air/water/soil) impact pathways A. Rabl, T. Bachmann, R. Torfs -
Water Quality Criteria: Implications for Testing Russell Erickson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN, USA.
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
Management of threats to fish and wildlife from PBTs Scott Redman, Puget Sound Action Team Puget Sound Plankton - The Ultimate Seafood Experience, Jan.
Setting Standards: The Science of Water Quality Criteria EA Engineering, Science, and Technology ® Presented by: James B. Whitaker Review of Annex 1 of.
Air Toxics Risk Assessment: Traditional versus New Approaches Mark Saperstein BP Product Stewardship Group.
George M. Woodall, PhD NCEA Toxicologist Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center October 18, 2005 EPA Reference Values: Regulatory Context.
Criteria for Inherently toxic (iT) in CEPA, UNEP Proposed iT criteria for non-human organisms –aquatic acute effects levels of < 1 mg/L –above 1 mg/L.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
Health risk assessment – systemic effects (1) REMINDER OF INHALED DOSE PO intake is 7.2 mg/day 0.12 mg/kg bw/day for a 60-kg adult 2.
Selenium Aquatic Life Criteria and Implementation ORSANCO Technical Committee Meeting October 21, 2009 Holly Green, USEPA Office of Science and Technology.
WQBELs Karen Holligan September 23, WQBELs – A Four-Piece Puzzle Numerical criteria (toxic pollutants) Water body quality Effluent fraction Bioavailable.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
1 Risk Assessment for Air Toxics: The 4 Basic Steps NESCAUM Health Effects Workshop Bordentown, NJ July 30, 2008.
MEASUREMENT OF TOXICITY By, Dr. M. David Department of Zoology, Karnatak University Dharwad.
Benchmark Dose Modeling
DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
Use of Borates in Swimming Pools: Consideration of Health Effects
Lecture 4: Risk Analysis
Module 17: MIXING ZONES A limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place and where numeric water quality criteria.
Risk Assessment Dec 4 -6, 2006.
Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science (3rd ed.)
Cara Cowan Watts Graduate Student Biosystems Engineering
Use Attainability Analyses & Criteria Development
Use Attainability Analyses & Criteria Development
Pesticides and the Wirtzs, Part III: Communication and Dosing
Environmental Toxicology
Risk Assessment Dec 7, 2009 Timbrell 3rd Edn pp 16-21
Jimmy Orth Executive Director.
Marine Biotechnology Lab
Apes Ch 11 Risk, Toxicology, and Human Healthy
VICH GL 54, Studies to evaluate the safety of residues of veterinary drugs in human food: General approach to establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)
Presentation transcript:

Human Health & Aquatic Life Criteria Cara Cowan Watts Graduate Student Biosystems Engineering

Source of Class Materials Presentations and Handouts adapted from The U.S. EPA’s Water Quality Standards Academy November 27-December 1, 2006 Washington, DC

Human Health Criteria Expressed as a Pollutant Concentration Based on: Toxicological Assessment Exposure Scenario Calculated for Ingestion of Aquatic Organisms Only and for Ingestion of Water and Organisms http://www.ca.uky.edu/enri/clipart/waterdrop.jpg

Data Needed for HHC Toxicity Exposure Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) Toxic effects and dose-response properties Risk Specific Doses for linear carcinogens Point of Departure (POD) & Uncertainty Factor (UF) for nonlinear carcinogens Reference dose (RfD) for noncarcinogens Exposure Site-specific BAFs or National BAFs Trophic level data on accumulation of chemical in fish or shellfish Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) Relative Source Contribution (RSC) Exposure parameters: body weight (BW) drinking water intake (DI) and Fish Intake (FI)

Non-threshold Effects All Levels of exposure pose some probability of an adverse response Incremental risk levels can be calculated EPA targets a risk level of one in one million (10-6)

Threshold Effects Exposures to some finite value are expected to be without adverse effect on human health

Non-Cancer Dose Response Values Reference Dose (RfD) Estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to humans (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) www.epa.gov/iris

Non-Cancer Effects RfD Derivation Point of Departure Point of Departure divided by Uncertainty Factor (UF) Point of Departure No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) Benchmark Dose (BMD)

Benchmark Dose Model

Uncertainty Factors Five areas of consideration Intraspecies variation (UFH) Interspecies variation (UFA) Uncertainty due to the duration of study (UFS) Uncertainty due to use of LOAEL (UFL) Uncertainty due an inadequate database (UFD) Invoked as integers of 1, 3, 10 3 is a half log10 Value selected determined by the data available Usually ≤ 3,000

Non-Cancerous Effects AWQC = RfD x RSC x [ ] BW DI + (FI x BAF) AWQC = Ambient Water Quality Criterion (mg/L) RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg-day) RSC = Relative Source Contribution (%, to account for other sources of exposure) BW = Human Body Weight (kg, 70 for average adult) DI = Drinking Water Intake (L/day, 2 for average adult) FI = Fish Intake (kg/day) BAF = Bioaccumulation Factor (L/kg)

Carcinogen Dose-Response Values Risk Specific Dose (RSD) for linear carcinogens RSD is the acceptable risk Level divided by the Cancer Slope Factor EPA recommends 10-6 (one in a million chance of cancer) but accepts the 10-5 risk level as long as highly exposed populations do not exceed 10-4 risk level POD/UF approach for nonlinear carcinogens

Carcinogens Dose-Response

Linear Cancerous Effects AWQC = RSD x [ ] BW DI + (FI x BAF) AWQC = Ambient Water Quality Criterion (mg/L) RSD = Risk Specific Dose (mg/kg-day) BW = Human Body Weight (kg, 70 for average adult) DI = Drinking Water Intake (L/day, 2 for average adult) FI = Fish Intake (kg/day) BAF = Bioaccumulation Factor (L/kg)

Dose Response for Nonlinear Carcinogens

Nonlinear Cancer Effects AWQC = POD/UF x RSC x [ ] BW DI + (FI x BAF) AWQC = Ambient Water Quality Criterion (mg/L) POD/UF = Point of Departure/Uncertainty Factor (mg/kg-day) RSC = Relative Source Contribution (to account for other sources of exposure) BW = Human Body Weight (kg, 70 for average adult) DI = Drinking Water Intake (L/day, 2 for average adult) FI = Fish Intake (kg/day) = Bioaccumulation Factor (L/kg) BAF = Bioaccumulation factor (L/kg)

Exposure Parameters Assumes daily exposure over the course of a lifetime Assigns mix of average values and high end values (e.g., 90th percentile) for exposure parameters such as ingestion rates and body weight Derived to protect the majority of the general population

Default Exposure Parameters Average adult body weight BW = 70 kg 90th percentile estimate DI = 2 L/day FI = 17.5 g/day Used by EPA for the national recommended water quality criteria when chronic health effects are of concern http://www.alsa.org/images/cms/atsdr_logo(2).gif

Developmental Exposure Parameters Women of childbearing age (ages 15-44), when fetal developmental effects are the most sensitive health endpoint BW = 67 Kg DI = 2 L/day Children BW = 30 Kg; ages 1-14 = 13 Kg; toddlers (ages 1-3) = 7 Kg; infants DI = 1 L/day for all sub-categories http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/images/netc_links/go3.jpg

Fish Intake Values For chronic health effects when targeting: Recreational fishers = 17.5 g/day Estimate of average consumption of freshwater/estuarine fish/shellfish; Subsistence fishers = 142.4 g/day Estimate of average consumption of freshwater/estuarine fish/shellfish. For developmental health effects when targeting: Women of childbearing age (re: fetal effects) = 165.5 g/day Estimate of 90th percentile meal size of freshwater/estuarine fish/shellfish; Children (ages 1-14) = 156.3 g/day Estimate of 90th percentile meal size of freshwater/estuarine fish/shellfish. www.juliangibson.com/images/cartoon/fish01.jpg

Relative Source Contribution Accounts for exposures from sources other than water and freshwater/estuarine fish and shellfish ingestion Inhalation for airborne sources Consumption of food Consumption of marine aquatic organisms Not applied to linear carcinogens (i.e., those associated with a risk level) Expressed as a percentage or subtracted, depending on the circumstances, from the RfD or nonlinear carcinogen

Bioaccumulation Concentration in Tissue Concentration in Water BAF =

Aquatic Life Criteria Concentration of Exposure Magnitude Time Period of Exposure Duration Frequency of Exposure How often (http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/)

Aquatic Life Criteria Types

CMC and CCC CMC Highest instream concentration of a toxicant to which organisms can be exposed for a brief period of time without causing an unacceptable adverse acute effect CCC Highest instream concentration of a toxicant to which organisms can be exposed for longer time periods without causing an unacceptable adverse effect Final Chronic Value Final Plant Value Final Residue Value

Acute Toxicity Test 96-hour LC50 Concentration: 0.0 μg/L 13 μg/L 25 μg/L 50 μg/L 100 μg/L 200 μg/L Control 1 2 3 4 5 96-hr LC50 = 50 μg/L

Fathead Minnow Early Life Stage Test Growth Measured as Length Chronic Toxicity Test Fathead Minnow Early Life Stage Test Growth Measured as Length Concentration: Control 0.0 μg/L 3.8 μg/L 7.5 μg/L 15 μg/L 30 μg/L 60 μg/L Length: 40 mm 41 mm 38 mm 37 mm 25 mm 5 mm

Minimum Data Set: Freshwater Criteria Development SALMONID SECOND FISH FAMILY CHORDATA PLANKTONIC CRUSTACEAN BENTHIC INSECT ROTIFERA, ANNELIDA, MOLLUSCA OTHER INSECT OR

Sensitive Life Stages Most Sensitive Egg Larva Adult

Aquatic WQC Determination Rank Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAV) and Calculate the Percentile of Each Rank (100 R/(N+1)) GMAV Chronic Endpoints Using the 4 Most Sensitive Genera, Perform a Least Squares Regression of the GMAV2 (log values) on the Percentile Ranks (square roots)

Final Chronic Value Perform Acute and Chronic testing using same species in same dilution water 2. Use Results to Calculate Acute-Chronic Ratios (ACR) Acute Value Chronic Value ACR = 3. Develop final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR) by taking Geometric Mean of the appropriate Acute-Chronic Ratios 4. Calculate the Final Chronic Value (FCV) using the final Acute-Chronic Ratio Final Acute Value FACR FCV =

Final Chronic Value Process Are Data Available from 8 Families? Is Toxicity Related to a WQ Characteristic? Calculate Final Chronic Equation Yes Yes No No Use Calculation of FAV Procedures To Calculate Final Chronic Value Calculate Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios Yes Do Ratios Fit Any of the 4 Specified Cases in Guidelines? Calculate Final Chronic Value: Final Acute Value Final Acute-Chronic Ratio No A Final Chronic Value Cannot Be Calculated

Final Residue Value FRV = CCC CMC 4-Day Average 1-Hour Average Maximum Permissable Tissue Concentration BCF or BAF FRV = Default Averaging Period for Freshwater and Saltwater CCC CMC 4-Day Average 1-Hour Average

Site Specific Criteria Sensitivities of the site-species differ from the National Data Base and/or Physical/Chemical characteristics of the site alter the bioavailability or toxicity of the pollutant

Site Specific Criteria Procedures Use Recalculation Procedure in Conjunction with Water- Effect Ratio Procedure or Use Resident Species Procedure If Physical or Chemical Properties at Site Affect Bioavailability If Species at Site Are More or Less Sensitive If Both of These Conditions Exist Use Water-Effect Ratio Procedure or a Streamlined WER Use Recalculation Procedure

Water Effect Ratios Site Water Toxicity Concentration WER = Lab Water Toxicity Concentration WER = Site-Specific Criteria = WER x National Criteria

Questions?