1. 1 WEBFRAM 5: A risk assessment module for soil invertebrates Geoff Frampton University of Southampton (UK) Joerg Roembke ECT Oekotoxikologie (DE) Paul van den Brink Alterra (NL) Janeck Scott-Fordsmand NERI (DK) Funded by

2. 2 Testing Standard higher-tier test ? Earthworms Collembola Enchytraeidae routine optional yes no Soil invertebrates pesticide risk assessment ( 91 / 414 / EEC )

3. 3 WEBFRAM-5 : Principal aim Investigate whether the pesticide risk assessment for soil invertebrates could be improved by explicitly incorporating uncertainty into estimates of risk

4. 4 Soil invertebrates pesticide risk assessment Point estimates of toxicity, exposure and risk ADVANTAGES: Risk estimation simple Easily harmonised approach Requires a small amount of information Application factors represent uncertainty DETERMINISTIC: LIMITATIONS: Arbitrary application factors Margin of protection uncertain Lacks transparency in risk calculation

5. 5 Species sensitivity distributions 100% 0 Potentially affected fraction of species NOECs from various species and experiments Log (LC50) HC 5 5%

6. 6 WEBFRAM: seven inter-related projects: Non - target arthropods Aquatic invertebrates COORDINATION AND WEB - ENABLING www.webfram.com Acceptability perception Terrestrial vertebrates Soil invertebrates 6 23 & 754 1

7. 7 WEBFRAM: seven inter-related projects: Non - target arthropods Aquatic invertebrates COORDINATION AND WEB - ENABLING www.webfram.com Acceptability perception Terrestrial vertebrates Soil invertebrates 6 23 & 754 1

8. 8 WEBFRAM: seven inter-related projects: Non - target arthropods Aquatic invertebrates COORDINATION AND WEB - ENABLING www.webfram.com Acceptability perception Terrestrial vertebrates Soil invertebrates 6 23 & 754 1 Internet risk assessment tools

9. 9 Risk assessment version(s) that include uncertainty where appropriate Deterministic risk assessment with supporting data and worked examples Internet risk assessment tools www.webfram.com Central Science Laboratory (CSL) (York) & Cadmus Group (Seattle)

10. 10 1. Acquire data (key step!) 2. Identify variables with adequately-supported distributions 3. Use data distributions to describe uncertainty 4. Incorporate descriptions of uncertainty in alternative version(s) of the risk assessment WEBFRAM 5 : Objectives

11. 11 WEBFRAM 5 : Key findings Soil invertebrates: public domain data Active substances (a. s.) Species / groups Effects data sets Lower tier (laboratory) Higher tier (TME & field) 250 67 1341 80 62 934 a. s. with data for both tiers a. s. with only one data set 45 (16%) 108 (38%)

12. 12 Carbendazim Copper Benomyl Dimethoate Pentachlorophenol Parathion Carbofuran Diazinon Lindane Atrazine Chloroacetamide Lambda-cyhalothrin Imidacloprid Chlorpyrifos Carbaryl Halofenozide DNOC Bendiocarb Malathion Thiophanate-methyl Phorate Number of data sets 050100150200250300350 Lower tier Higher tier Soil invertebrate effects data : pesticides with > 20 data sets

13. 13 Lumbricidae Collembola Enchytraeidae Acari Coleoptera Nematoda Isopoda Formicidae Diptera Araneae 0200400600800100012001400 Distribution of pesticide effects data among soil invertebrate groups Number of data sets Lower tier Higher tier

14. 14 Lumbricidae species data : lower tier Number of data sets Eisenia fetida Earthworms grouped Eisenia andrei Lumbricus terrestris Aporrectodea caliginosa Lumbricus rubellus Aporrectodea tuberculata Allobophora chlorotica Dendrobaena rubida Apporectodea longa Aporrectodea rosea Octolasium lacteum Eisenia veneta 0100200300400500

15. 15 Collembola species data : lower tier Number of data sets Folsomia candida Folsomia fimetaria Onychiurus folsomi Isotoma viridis Onychiurus armatus Proisotoma minuta Orchesella cincta Sinella communis Collembolans grouped Isotomidae Lepidocyrtus sp. Onychiurus apuanicus Sinella caeca

16. 16 Enchytraeidae species data : lower tier Number of data sets Enchytraeus sp. indet. Enchytraeus coronatus Enchytraeus albidus Cognettia sphagnetorum Friderica ratzeli Enchytraeus crypticus Enchytraeus buchholzi

17. 17 Standardised log (LC 50 ) Chlorpyrifos - 0.5 0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Folsomia HerbicidesInsecticides Eisenia Dimethoate Lindane Parathion Propoxur Diazinon Lambda-cyhalothrin Chloracetamide Atrazine Carbendazim Benomyl PCP Fungicides Relative sensitivities of standard test species

18. 18 Species sensitivity distributions (SSD) Assuming minimum six species data, SSD could be calculated for only seven pesticides All SSD based on acute LC50

19. 19 Pentachlorophenol species sensitivity distribution (LC 50 data) Worms & nematodes Collembola www.webfram.com

20. 20 Dimethoate species sensitivity distribution (LC 50 data) Hard - bodied arthropods Worms Soft - bodied arthropods www.webfram.com

21. 21 N Median HC5 Upper HC5NNOECLOEC Atrazine84.4012.00370.130.53 Carbendazim70.915.022410.200.24 Chlorpyrifos70.8810.8821-0.64 Dimethoate120.190.741-(0.53) Lindane60.372.997-1.30 PCP93.8012.3044-6.60 Laboratory HC5 (mg / kg) LABFIELD

22. 22 N Median HC5 Upper HC5NNOECLOEC Atrazine84.4012.00370.130.53 Carbendazim70.915.022410.200.24 Chlorpyrifos70.8810.8821-0.64 Dimethoate120.190.741-(0.53) Lindane60.372.997-1.30 PCP93.8012.3044-6.60 Laboratory HC5 compared with field effects concs (mg / kg) LABFIELD

23. 23 N Median HC5 Upper HC5NNOECLOEC Atrazine84.4012.00370.130.53 Carbendazim70.915.022410.200.24 Chlorpyrifos70.8810.8821-0.64 Dimethoate120.190.741-(0.53) Lindane60.372.997-1.30 PCP93.8012.3044-6.60 Laboratory HC5 compared with field effects concs (mg / kg) LABFIELD Red HC5 exceed field NOEC or LOEC

24. 24 Atrazine145 – 100 Carbendazim11321 – 3433 Chlorpyrifos63 – 24 Dimethoate774199 – 7350 Lindane43755 – 54333 PCP82 – 68 Ratio of Eisenia fetida LC50 to soil invertebrate HC5 Ratio 95% CL (Application factor for Eisenia acute mortality test = 10) LC50 HC5

25. 25 Application factor: 5 TER < 5 indicates risk Deterministic Toxicity Tiered risk assessment approach : carbendazim NOEC from one species Exposure TER PEC chronic NOEC / PEC OECD earthworm reproduction test Probabilistic Median HC5 based on NOECs from more species PEC chronic HC5 / PEC One species Five species NOEC = 0.6 median HC5 = 0.53 95% CL 0.06 – 1.30 PEC = 0.4 1.51.3 (0.15 – 3.25) (concentrations in mg / kg)

26. 26 Conclusions Availability of empirical data for soil invertebrates is limited Pesticide concentrations tested in field studies not low enough to derive field NOECs for validation Earthworms the least sensitive soil invertebrates to most pesticides If SSD are used in soil risk assessment, need to ensure appropriate taxonomic composition of data sets WEBFRAM internet tools will provide an opportunity to explore these issues further