WEBFRAM 5: A risk assessment

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
Soil invertebrates pesticide risk assessment
( 91 / 414 / EEC )
Standard higher-tier test ?
Testing
Earthworms
routine
yes
Collembola
optional
no
Enchytraeidae
optional
no
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
Soil invertebrates pesticide risk assessment
DETERMINISTIC
Point estimates of toxicity, exposure and risk
Application factors represent uncertainty
5
Species sensitivity distributions
100
NOECs from various species and experiments
Potentially affected fraction of species
0
Log (LC50)

6
WEBFRAM seven inter-related projects
1
COORDINATION AND WEB - ENABLING
6
Acceptability perception
www.webfram.com
2
3 7
5
4
Non - target arthropods
Aquatic invertebrates
Terrestrial vertebrates
Soil invertebrates
7
WEBFRAM seven inter-related projects
1
COORDINATION AND WEB - ENABLING
6
Acceptability perception
www.webfram.com
2
3 7
5
4
Non - target arthropods
Aquatic invertebrates
Terrestrial vertebrates
Soil invertebrates
8
WEBFRAM seven inter-related projects
1
COORDINATION AND WEB - ENABLING
6
Internet risk assessment tools
Acceptability perception
www.webfram.com
2
3 7
5
4
Non - target arthropods
Aquatic invertebrates
Terrestrial vertebrates
Soil invertebrates
9
Central Science Laboratory (CSL) (York)

Internet risk assessment tools
Cadmus Group (Seattle)
www.webfram.com
10
WEBFRAM 5 Objectives
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
11
WEBFRAM 5 Key findings
12
Soil invertebrate effects data pesticides with
gt 20 data sets
Carbendazim Copper Benomyl Dimethoate Pentachlorop
henol Parathion Carbofuran Diazinon Lindane Atrazi
ne Chloroacetamide Lambda-cyhalothrin Imidacloprid
Chlorpyrifos Carbaryl Halofenozide DNOC Bendiocar
b Malathion Thiophanate-methyl Phorate
Lower tier
Higher tier
Number of data sets
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
13
Distribution of pesticide effects data among
soil invertebrate groups
Lumbricidae Collembola Enchytraeidae Acari Coleopt
era Nematoda Isopoda Formicidae Diptera Araneae
Lower tier
Higher tier
Number of data sets
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
14
Lumbricidae species data lower tier
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
Number of data sets
0
100
200
300
400
500
15
Collembola species data lower tier
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
Number of data sets
16
Enchytraeidae species data lower tier
Enchytraeus albidus
Cognettia sphagnetorum
Enchytraeus crypticus
Enchytraeus sp. indet.
Enchytraeus coronatus
Friderica ratzeli
Enchytraeus buchholzi
Number of data sets
17
Relative sensitivities of standard test species
Herbicides
Insecticides
Fungicides
2.5
2.0
Eisenia
1.5
Standardised log (LC50)
1.0
0.5
Folsomia
0
-
0.5
PCP
Lindane
Parathion
Atrazine
Propoxur
Benomyl
Diazinon
Chlorpyrifos
Dimethoate
Carbendazim
Chloracetamide
Lambda-cyhalothrin
18
Species sensitivity distributions (SSD)

19
www.webfram.com
Pentachlorophenol species sensitivity distribution
(LC50 data)
20
www.webfram.com
Dimethoate species sensitivity distribution (LC50
data)
21
Laboratory HC5 (mg / kg)
LAB
FIELD
N Median HC5 Upper HC5 N NOEC LOEC
Atrazine 8 4.40 12.00 37 0.13 0.53
Carbendazim 7 0.91 5.02 241 0.20 0.24
Chlorpyrifos 7 0.88 10.88 21 - 0.64
Dimethoate 12 0.19 0.74 1 - (0.53)
Lindane 6 0.37 2.99 7 - 1.30
PCP 9 3.80 12.30 44 - 6.60
22
Laboratory HC5 compared with field effects concs
(mg / kg)
LAB
FIELD
N Median HC5 Upper HC5 N NOEC LOEC
Atrazine 8 4.40 12.00 37 0.13 0.53
Carbendazim 7 0.91 5.02 241 0.20 0.24
Chlorpyrifos 7 0.88 10.88 21 - 0.64
Dimethoate 12 0.19 0.74 1 - (0.53)
Lindane 6 0.37 2.99 7 - 1.30
PCP 9 3.80 12.30 44 - 6.60
23
Laboratory HC5 compared with field effects concs
(mg / kg)
Red HC5 exceed field NOEC or LOEC
LAB
FIELD
N Median HC5 Upper HC5 N NOEC LOEC
Atrazine 8 4.40 12.00 37 0.13 0.53
Carbendazim 7 0.91 5.02 241 0.20 0.24
Chlorpyrifos 7 0.88 10.88 21 - 0.64
Dimethoate 12 0.19 0.74 1 - (0.53)
Lindane 6 0.37 2.99 7 - 1.30
PCP 9 3.80 12.30 44 - 6.60
24
Ratio of Eisenia fetida LC50 to soil invertebrate
HC5
LC50
HC5
Ratio 95 CL
(Application factor for Eisenia acute
mortality test 10)
Atrazine 14 5 100
Carbendazim 113 21 3433
Chlorpyrifos 6 3 24
Dimethoate 774 199 7350
Lindane 437 55 54333
PCP 8 2 68
25
Tiered risk assessment approach carbendazim
OECD earthworm reproduction test
Deterministic
NOEC from one species
Toxicity
Application factor 5
Exposure
PEC chronic
TER lt 5 indicates risk
TER
NOEC / PEC
26
Conclusions
Availability of empirical data for soil
invertebrates is limited
Earthworms the least sensitive soil invertebrates
to most pesticides
Pesticide concentrations tested in field studies
not low enough to derive field NOECs for
validation
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