Pelagic community Quality Standards for Cyanides for EQS setting under WFD Udo Hommen

Background 2007 ECETOC publishes report on environmental risk of cyanides, risk assessment for aquatic environment based on a Fraunhofer review from 2003 2011 INERIS prepares a draft dossier on EQS for cyanides 2011 Cyanide consortiums asks Fraunhofer IME to fill some data gaps, i.e. tests with midge larvae (Chironomus riparius) and a macrophyte (Lemna spec.) In addition, preparation of a position paper on cyanide QS considering New data New guidance (GD on EQS derivation under WFD) 2012 Updated Cyanides EQS draft by INERIS

Objective of this presentation Comparison of the EQS calculation conducted by INERIS and Fraunhofer High-lighting the similarities and differences Prepare basis for final derivation of the EQS including checking critical original test reports and papers EQS [µg/L] INERIS Fraunhofer MAC-EQS FW 0.6 3.2 MAC-EQS SW AA-EQS FW 0.5 1.0 AA-EQS SW 0.05 0.2

MAC-EQS calculation by Fraunhofer Only slight effects restricted to single sampling dates were found for phytoplankton pigment concentrations at 48 and 96 µg/L (class 2). According to all endpoints related to phytoplankton community level (i.e. total abundance, diversity, similarity, PRCs) clearly no effects were observed up to 24 µg/L. At 48 µg/L and 96 µg/L effects were found, but the classification was different depending on the methods used to analyze community level effects. According to the ordination analysis, effects were restricted to a few weeks only, while similarity analysis indicates slight but more long-term effects. For a conservative assessment, phytoplankton community effects were considered as long-term (class 5) effects at both concentrations (48 µg/L and 96 µg/L), mainly based on the diagram for the Stander’s index. These effects on the community level were mainly due to effects on Cryptophyceae, i.e. Chroomonas acuta / Rhodomonas spec. Also other taxa showed pronounced effects at the two highest treatment levels, but in most cases not over several weeks or at the end of the study (class 3, short-term effects). Only for three algae species treatment effects on single sampling dates could not be excluded at 24 µg/L. Because these potential effects were not persistent over at least two consecutive samplings they were considered as class 2 effects. HC5 =15.9 μg CN/l (90 % CI = 9.0 .- 24.8 μg CN/l, n=43), AF = 5, MAC = 3.6

Differences in MAC-EQS derivation (3.6 instead 0.6 µg/L) Data selection: 43 instead of 26 species Use of WERF data (US QS derivation, independent of ECETOC) considering 3 GLP tests of C. irrogatus not included by INERIS: Geomean of 22 instead of 4.2 Use of data for sensitive molluscs but not a > 10 000 value Use o geomeans per species instead min per speciis Consideraton of uncertainty (AF 5 instead of default 10) High number of species with broad taxonomic coverage Low statistical uncertainty on SSD

AA-EQS calculation Only slight effects restricted to single sampling dates were found for phytoplankton pigment concentrations at 48 and 96 µg/L (class 2). According to all endpoints related to phytoplankton community level (i.e. total abundance, diversity, similarity, PRCs) clearly no effects were observed up to 24 µg/L. At 48 µg/L and 96 µg/L effects were found, but the classification was different depending on the methods used to analyze community level effects. According to the ordination analysis, effects were restricted to a few weeks only, while similarity analysis indicates slight but more long-term effects. For a conservative assessment, phytoplankton community effects were considered as long-term (class 5) effects at both concentrations (48 µg/L and 96 µg/L), mainly based on the diagram for the Stander’s index. These effects on the community level were mainly due to effects on Cryptophyceae, i.e. Chroomonas acuta / Rhodomonas spec. Also other taxa showed pronounced effects at the two highest treatment levels, but in most cases not over several weeks or at the end of the study (class 3, short-term effects). Only for three algae species treatment effects on single sampling dates could not be excluded at 24 µg/L. Because these potential effects were not persistent over at least two consecutive samplings they were considered as class 2 effects. HC5 = 2.0 μg CN/l, 90 % c.i, = 0.9 – 3.3 μg CN/l, n = 13, AF = 2 (FW) or 10 (SW)

Differences in AA-EQS: (1 & 0.2 instead 0.5 & 0.05) Acceptance of data: NOEC and EC10, extrapolation from EC20 possible 13 instead of 12 species Fraunhofer SSD with lower HC5 Different assessment factors (2 instead of 5, additional 5 instead 10 for SW) Taxonomic coverage (indication of low sensitivity of Cnidaria or Echinodermata from data not used in SSD) Acute data indicate that. the sensitivity of invertebrates covered by insects, crustaceans and molluscs Low uncertainty of SSD (conservatiive) Reduced uncertainty for SW due to sublethal data for sensitive life stages of marine molluscs plus indication of low sensitivity of echinodermata Only slight effects restricted to single sampling dates were found for phytoplankton pigment concentrations at 48 and 96 µg/L (class 2). According to all endpoints related to phytoplankton community level (i.e. total abundance, diversity, similarity, PRCs) clearly no effects were observed up to 24 µg/L. At 48 µg/L and 96 µg/L effects were found, but the classification was different depending on the methods used to analyze community level effects. According to the ordination analysis, effects were restricted to a few weeks only, while similarity analysis indicates slight but more long-term effects. For a conservative assessment, phytoplankton community effects were considered as long-term (class 5) effects at both concentrations (48 µg/L and 96 µg/L), mainly based on the diagram for the Stander’s index. These effects on the community level were mainly due to effects on Cryptophyceae, i.e. Chroomonas acuta / Rhodomonas spec. Also other taxa showed pronounced effects at the two highest treatment levels, but in most cases not over several weeks or at the end of the study (class 3, short-term effects). Only for three algae species treatment effects on single sampling dates could not be excluded at 24 µg/L. Because these potential effects were not persistent over at least two consecutive samplings they were considered as class 2 effects.

Outlook Suggestion to check different selection of data by WCA Focus on data differently assessed by INERIS and Fraunhofer WCA could check if WERF criteria for review fulfill WFD criteria Provision of tables and available papers / reports to WCA Open for discussion on the final selection of Assessment factors applied to SSD