1.5.5.3 Special request, Advice May 2012 ECOREGION SUBJECT General advice Review of environmental assessment criteria or equivalents Advice summary ICES agrees that a pragmatic way forward is needed in setting environmental assessment criteria (EACs) and supports in principle the decision tree approach developed by the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Environmental Assessment Criteria (ICG EAC). To determine EACs ICES recognizes the advantages of using a method that is consistent with the approach taken under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). EAC values with high uncertainty need to be treated cautiously and expert judgement is required before they are applied. EACs and environmental quality standard (EQS) values should always be ground-truthed against actual environmental levels (including ratios between matrices), background concentrations (BCs), and the detection limit of analytical techniques. There is a need to discriminate between EACs for mussels and for fish and, if necessary, for other taxonomic groups. In Annex 1 ICES provides comments on the EAC values proposed by ICG EAC. ICES has also identified additional data that could support the further development of EACs to reduce uncertainty, resulting in lower assessment factors (AFs) that currently produce some very low values (Annex 2). ICES advises that further consideration should be given to the use of passive samplers and passive dosing 1 as a potentially promising alternative to the current approaches. Request Review of environmental assessment criteria or equivalents (OSPAR 2012/2) To review scientific robustness and update, as necessary, EACs or equivalent effects levels calculated for CEMP and pre-cemp determinants. ICES advice OSPAR has provided ICES with the report of the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Environmental Assessment Criteria (ICG EAC) (OSPAR, 2012). An EAC is the contaminant concentration in the environment (water, sediment, and biota) below which no chronic effects are expected to occur (OSPAR, 2009). ICES assumed that the request solely relates to contaminant concentrations in biota, sediment, or water measured by chemical methods and not to biological effects EACs. ICES reviewed the report of the ICG EAC and this advice relates to the EACs proposed and the methods used to derive the EACs described in that report. ICES agrees that a pragmatic way forward is needed in setting EACs and to this end supports in principle the decision tree approach developed by the ICG EAC. To determine EACs ICES recognizes the advantage of using a method that is consistent with the approach taken under the WFD (European Communities, 2011). The WFD method requires the use of assessment factors (AFs) to take into account uncertainties that are not already accounted for in the experimental toxicity data or modelling. Where uncertainty is high, larger AF values are applied. EACs for biota, based on EQSs derived for protection of predators and humans, should only be used if predators (or humans) are regarded as being more at risk, for instance for substances such as mercury, >4-ring PAHs, HCHs, PCBs and dioxins. It is possible to derive EACs by extrapolating from the EQS for water using bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for organisms at lower tropic levels, i.e. as in previous OSPAR approaches for deriving EACs. However, the larger uncertainty associated with BCF values should be taken into account through the application of higher AF values. EAC values with high uncertainty need to be treated cautiously and expert judgement is required before they are applied. For these reasons the ICG EAC decision tree should be modified accordingly. 1 Placing of passive samplers in the environment (for example sea water or marine sediments) for a period of time during which the samplers take up contaminants from their environment. Subsequently, the samplers are brought into a medium for toxicity testing, e.g. by exposing test organisms to the contaminants that are released from the samplers under controlled conditions. ICES Advice 2012, Book 1 1
The ICG EAC proposed values are derived for concentrations in mussels and ICES considers that there is a need to discriminate between EACs for mussels and for fish and, if necessary, for other taxonomic groups (e.g. crustaceans). ICES stresses the futility of values that are orders of magnitude below the current analytical limits and the questionable nature of values that far exceed those currently observed in the marine environment. Further revision of EACs that have been identified by ICES as being too low or too high (Annex 1) is needed before these EACs can be applied for assessment purposes. EACs or EQS values should always be ground-truthed by expert judgement and against actual environmental levels (including ratios between matrices), background concentrations, and the detection limit of analytical techniques. ICES has identified additional data that can support the further development of EACs and reduce AF values, see Annex 2 (ICES, 2012a). ICES advises that further consideration should be given to the use of passive samplers and passive dosing as a potentially promising alternative to the current approaches. The concept is to relate both concentrations in the different matrices and toxicity to a common reference matrix, i.e. the passive sampler. While recognising that this approach may not work for all contaminants and is not an accurate representation of what happens in organisms, particularly those of higher trophic levels, the approach has considerable benefits such as removing the need to consider influences of sediment composition and life cycle considerations. It is recognised that the way forward could be the use of passive samplers combined with in vitro assays or effect-directed assessments. Such approaches should be further investigated; however, there is a current lack of data. Background Following the publication of OSPAR QSR 2010 (OSPAR, 2010) the issue of EACs was revisited at OSPAR MIME in 2010. A number of EACs needed to be finalised (e.g. for PAHs and metals in sediments) or developed (e.g. for alkylated PAHs), and issues previously identified during the QSR process also needed to be resolved. These included issues such as the lack of ecotoxicology data and situations where proposed EACs were below detection limits for the substances concerned. MIME concluded that this would require considerable resources and the combined efforts of both ecotoxicological and chemical expertise. Time was limited if appropriate targets for Descriptor 8 were to be specified in 2012 using EAC-type criteria. The primary concern was that existing procedures for generating EACs needed to be redefined in order to avoid the excessively high safety factors that led to the development of EACs that were well below background concentrations (BCs). This task was given to an ICG EAC. The group was unsuccessful in providing a methodology for deriving a full set of EACs. ICES recognises the difficulties faced by the ICG EAC. Several effect-based assessment systems are currently available, which can deliver very different values. All these systems suffer from the scarcity of marine data (effectstudy-based) in general and from the fact that results of investigations in target matrices such as sediment or biota are rare. Many of the available publications do not include fundamental information essential to assessing their applicability as a basis for deriving an EAC. ICG EAC proposed a pragmatic way forward using a decision tree for the setting of EACs based on the EU Directive on environmental quality standards (EQS) and supporting documents. If an EQS value is available in the right matrix, OSPAR should consider using it as an EAC for its assessments. If not, a conversion may be possible. This has the advantage that the assessment approach for waters where the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) applies will be the same as that used for the Water Framework Directive (WFD). ICG EAC was not in a position to provide a method for calculating EACs where no appropriate EQS or no possibility for conversion was available. The methodology for determining EQS under the WFD (European Communities, 2011), is based on the method used to calculate the predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) from ecotoxicological data. The PNEC value is calculated from ecotoxicological data (such as the no observed effect concentration (NOEC), L(E)C50 2 ) to which an assessment factor (AF) is applied. Essentially, two main approaches are used, the deterministic and probabilistic methods. The deterministic approach takes the lowest credible toxicity datum and applies an AF (which may be as low as 1 or as high as 10 000) to extrapolate to an EQS, the AF allowing for the uncertainties in the available data. Probabilistic methods adopt species sensitivity distribution (SSD) modelling in which all reliable toxicity (usually NOEC) data are ranked and a model fitted. From this, the concentration protecting a certain proportion of species (typically 95%) can be estimated (the HC5 3 ). Where there are insufficient data for a probabilistic approach, a deterministic approach is adopted. Where there are sufficient data, both deterministic and probabilistic approaches to extrapolation will normally be performed. Species sensitivity distribution models explicitly account for differences in sensitivity between species, but a further AF 2 Lethal (Effect) concentration that affects 50% of the test organisms. 3 Concentration protecting 95% of the species. 2 ICES Advice 2012, Book 1
is applied to the HC5 arising from model extrapolation to account for residual uncertainties that are not accounted for by the SSD model. In a deterministic approach, larger AFs are typical, depending on the quantity and type of data available. Assigning EAC for substances in fish or shellfish tissues is complex and difficult to predict. For example, lipophilic substances stored in fatty deposits will not induce effects, but if and when they are released, e.g. during starvation or the mobilization of fat for other reasons, the substance may be released and interact directly with cellular processes. Similarly, metals in tissues may be in a form which is not readily available for tissues, e.g. as granules. This illustrates that it is not simply the concentration of a particular substance in the tissue of an organism that governs the effect it may have on that organism. Similarly, in naturally occurring sediments it is also difficult to predict the potential toxicity of a substance based on its concentration alone as there are many modulating factors that will influence its toxicity. Extrapolation from lab-based studies with spiked sediments may be problematic as it is likely that substances in them will be less strongly bound and therefore more bio-available, and subsequently more toxic, than the same concentration in environmental sediments. This could result in more precautionary EAC values. ICES recognises that the high uncertainty is probably the main contributing factor resulting in what is perceived as unrealistically low EQS or EAC values, i.e. below the detection limits of analytical methods and/or below the natural background values. In the WFD EQS dossiers, the EQS for organic pollutants in sediment are mainly calculated on the basis of the equilibrium principle and extrapolation from the EQS set for water. Due to the uncertainties associated with this approach, these should be regarded as tentative values. Therefore, EAC values with high uncertainty need to be treated cautiously and expert judgement is required before they should be applied. It is important not to oversimplify the calculation of EACs even if it is tempting due to scarcity of data. It is crucial to separate between different organisms for EACs, both due to different metabolism and trophic chains. At the very least, fish and mussel need to be separated. Another major organism group for which there are data available is crustaceans, which should also be treated separately to the other two. It is to be expected that other taxonomic groups in marine ecosystems, e.g. echinoderms and tunicates, may also have different sensitivities. Sources ICES. 2012a. Report of the ICES Working Group on Biological Effects of Contaminants (WGBEC). ICES CM 2012/SSGHIE:04. ICES. 2012b. Report of the ICES Working Group on Marine Sediments in Relation to Pollution (WGMS). ICES CM 2012/SSGHIE:06. ICES. 2012c. Report of the ICES Marine Chemistry Working Group (MCWG). ICES CM 2012/SSGHIE:05. OSPAR. 2009. Background Document on CEMP Assessment Criteria for QSR 2010. Monitoring and Assessment Series, 461. 25 pp. ISBN 978-1-907390-08-1. http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00461_background%20doc%20cemp_assessmt%20criteria _haz_subs.pdf. OSPAR. 2010. Quality Status Report 2010. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/index.html. OSPAR. 2012. Report of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Environmental Assessment Criteria (ICG EAC)HASEC 12/2/6-E. European Communities. 2011. Guidance Document No. 27: Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards. ISBN : 978-92-79-16228-2. Technical Report 2011 055. ICES Advice 2012, Book 1 3
Annex 1 Table 1: Overview of the EAC values resulting from the decision tree, with ICES comments. Parameter EAC Sediment Biota ICES Comments Discrimination between mussels and fish is necessary. CEMP Metals (mg kg 1 d.w.) Hg BC+0.47 0.1 Cd - 0.8 Pb 123 5.00 Organics (µg kg 1 d.w.) PAHs Naphthalene 2.8 61350 Phenanthrene 3.8 - Anthracene 4.8 12174 Fluoranthene 2000 150 Pyrene - - Chrysene - - Benz[a]anthracene - - Benzo[b]fluoranthene 70.7 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 67.5 Benzo[a]pyrene 91.5 10 Benzo[ghi]perylene 4.2 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene - 2- to 3-ring PAHs: EACs for biota are based on EQSs derived for protection of predators and humans, whereas the lower trophic levels are regarded as the most sensitive species in marine ecosystems. Considerably higher than background assessment concentrations (BACs). Considerably higher than BACs. PCBs CB 28 CB 52 CB101 CB 118 CB 138 CB 153 CB 180 PBDEs BDE 28 BDE 47 BDE 66 BDE 85 BDE 99 BDE 100 BDE 153 BDE 154 BDE 183 BDE 209 0.014 0.015 310 4.25 10-2 The proposed EQS for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) seems very low, and it seems unreasonable that they are regarded as more toxic than the dioxins and furans. Although a similar EQS value at 0.0425 µg kg 1 d.w., it should be noted here that the proposed value for dioxins and furans is converted into μg WHO98-TEQ kg 1 d.w., 4 ICES Advice 2012, Book 1
whereas the EAC for PBDEs is based solely on the nominal concentration in µg kg 1 d.w. TBT 0.01 76 EAC for biota are based on EQS derived for protection of predators and humans, whereas the lower trophic levels are regarded as the most sensitive species in marine ecosystems. Pesticides g-hch (lindane) a-hch 1.1 165 DDE (p,p' ) Hexachlorobenzene 16.9 50 Dieldrin Pre-CEMP Alkylated PAHs C1-, C2- and C3-naphthalenes, C1-, C2- and C3-phenanthrenes, C1-, C2- and C3-dibenzothiophenes Dibenzothiophene PFOs PFOs related substances 45.5 EACs for biota are based on EQSs derived for protection of predators and humans, whereas the lower trophic levels are regarded as the most sensitive species in marine ecosystems. Non-ortho and Mono-ortho PCBs PCB 77 PCB 81 PCB 105 PCB 114 PCB 118 PCB 123 4.25 10-2 * PCB 126 PCB 156 PCB 157 PCB 167 PCB 169 PCB 189 Dioxins and Furans 4.25 10-2 * * Proposed AA-EQS in biota for sum of dioxins and dioxin-like (DL) compounds [fresh and marine] [μg WHO98-TEQ kg 1 w.w. converted to d.w.] Acceptable according to the decision tree pending confirmation by MIME. Value below BAC. High value. To be calculated. ICES Advice 2012, Book 1 5
Annex 2 Table 1: Additional toxicity dataset to aid in the calculation of new EACs produced in the Laboratorio de Ecoloxia Marina (Universidade de Vigo). 6 ICES Advice 2012, Book 1
ICES Advice 2012, Book 1 7
8 ICES Advice 2012, Book 1
ICES Advice 2012, Book 1 9
10 ICES Advice 2012, Book 1
Table 2. Additional PAH toxicity data across multiple species (bioassays). NOEC: no observed effect concentration. LOEC: lowest observed effect concentration. Produced by Lucia Guilhermino, CIIMAR, University of Porto, Portugal. Substance Species Exposure Time Palaemon 96 h PYRENE serratus (medium change at each 12 h) NAPHTHALENE Dicentrarchus labrax Pomatoschistus microps Tetraselmis chuii Palaemon serratus 96 h (medium change at each 12 h) 96 h (medium change at each 12 h) Temp (ºC) Endpoint NOEC (mg/l) LOEC (mg/l) EC50 (mg/l) 20 Swimming behaviour 0.2 0.4-18 Swimming behaviour <0.07 0.07-20 Swimming behaviour <0.125 0.125-96 h 20 Population growth inhibition 96 h 20 Swimming behaviour - - 1.8 (1.5-2.1) 1.0 2.0 1.7 (1.26-2.34) Reference Luis and Guilhermino, 2012 (in press) Almeida et al., 2012 (in press) Oliveira et al., 2012 (in press) Vieira and Guilhermino, 2012 (in press) Luis and Guilhermino, 2012 (in press) References Almeida, J. R., Gravato, C., and Guilhermino, L. 2012. Challenges in assessing the toxic effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to marine organisms: a case study on the acute toxicity of pyrene to the European seabass (Dicentharchuslabrax L.). Chemosphere, 86: 926 937. Luis, L. G., and Guilhermino, L. 2012. Short-term toxic effects of naphthalene and pyrene on the common prawn (Palaemonserratus) assessed by a multi-parameter laboratorial approach: mechanisms of toxicity and impairment of individual fitness. Biomarkers. In press. Oliveira, M., Gravato, C., and Guilhermino, L. 2012. Acute toxic effects of pyrene on Pomatoschistusmicrops (Teleostei, Gobidae). Mortality, biomarkers and swimming. Ecological Indicators, In press. Epub 19 September 2011. Vieira, L. R., and Guilhermino, L. 2012. Multiple stress effects on marine planktonic organisms: Influence of temperature on the toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Tetraselmischuii. Journal of Sea Research. In press. Epub 15 February 2012. ICES Advice 2012, Book 1 11