1 / 4

Peer Review Lead Discussant: Peter M Chapman

taipa
Download Presentation

Peer Review Lead Discussant: Peter M Chapman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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, chronic aquatic, chronic sediment, chronic terrestrial invertebrate, and chronic terrestrial plant). Please comment on the use of the marine copepod chronic value for chronic toxicity to aquatic species. Please provide discussion, suggestions, and references to support any recommendations for the hazard characterization. Peer Review Lead Discussant: Peter M Chapman

  2. 4-1 Key Issues • USEPA has not justified/explained how data used were evaluated for inclusion; acceptability criteria for the toxicity studies were not provided • USEPA has too small a data set for definitive conclusions • USEPA has sufficient data for screening and determining hazard (not risk) for freshwater ecosystems, not marine or estuarine ecosystems; marine and freshwater toxicity data should not be used interchangeably • The use of the marine copepod chronic value for chronic toxicity to freshwater aquatic species is inappropriate (and these data were derived using a draft, not final OECD protocol) • The mud snail data were not derived using standardized, accepted protocols; it may be more appropriate to use the Hyallelaaztecadata for the sediment assessment

  3. 4-1 Key Issues (cont’d) • There is no clear rationale for the use of uncertainty factors. It is not clear why uncertainty factors were used, where the different uncertainty factors (5 or 10) came from, nor why other alternatives were not considered • SSDs or Interspecies Correlation Estimates (ICEs) should have been considered instead of uncertainty factors • NOECs and LOECs are not preferred endpoints; ECx values are preferred endpoints. Consideration should have been provided to calculating ECx values where possible from the studies cited and to preferentially using 10 or 20% effect endpoints (e.g., EC10, EC20) • In Table 3-3, acute aquatic toxicity, all data should be LC as in lethal concentration – some data are in EC as in effects concentration (the term EC is typically applied to chronic, not acute data); also, all test durations are not provided

  4. 4-1 Key Issues (cont’d) • Exposure and toxicity modifying factors were not mentioned or considered; they should have been • Measured responses for the chronic toxicity data are not adequately described in Table 3-4 (e.g., growth?, reproduction?). This is important as, given the Adverse Outcome Pathway, reproduction and development should be the most sensitive endpoints and embryonic tests would have the greatest weight of evidence. No data on fish reproduction are provided. • It is not clear why the section on “Additional Studies” (p38) is provided since it is not used, even though at least one of those studies had a very low effect concentration

More Related