Species non‐exchangeability in probabilistic ecotoxicological risk assessment

Summary.  Current ecotoxicological risk assessment for chemical substances is based on the assumption that tolerances of all species in a specified ecological community are a priori exchangeable for each new substance. We demonstrate non-exchangeability by using a large database of tolerances to pesticides for fish species and extend the standard statistical model for species tolerances to allow for the presence of a single species which is considered non-exchangeable with others. We show how to estimate parameters and adjust decision rules that are used in ecotoxicological risk management. Effects of parameter uncertainty are explored and our model is compared with a previously published less tractable alternative. We conclude that the model and decision rules that we propose are pragmatic compromises between conflicting needs for more realistic modelling and for straightforwardly applicable decision rules.

[1]  P. Craig,et al.  On the application of loss functions in determining assessment factors for ecological risk. , 2009, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[2]  Kevin N. Baer,et al.  Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Effects, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment , 1996 .

[3]  Graeme L. Hickey,et al.  Species non-exchangeability for ecotoxicological risk assessment , 2009 .

[4]  Risto Lehtonen,et al.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2005 .

[5]  T. Aldenberg,et al.  Extrapolation Factors for Tiny Toxicity Data Setsfrom Species Sensitivity Distributions with Known Standard Deviation , 2001 .

[6]  W Slob,et al.  Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. , 1993, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[7]  Valery E. Forbes,et al.  Applying Weight-of-Evidence in Retrospective Ecological Risk Assessment When Quantitative Data Are Limited , 2002 .

[8]  Valery E. Forbes,et al.  Species Sensitivity Distributions Revisited: A Critical Appraisal , 2002 .

[9]  Tom Aldenberg,et al.  Normal Species Sensitivity Distributions and Probabilistic Ecological Risk Assessment , 2001 .

[10]  F. J. Dwyer,et al.  Assessing Contaminant Sensitivity of Endangered and Threatened Aquatic Species: Part I. Acute Toxicity of Five Chemicals , 2005, Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[11]  Jim Albert,et al.  Bayesian Computation with R , 2008 .

[12]  Connie Wagner,et al.  Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC toxicity data , 1991 .

[13]  P. Ciffroy,et al.  Effects of data manipulation and statistical methods on species sensitivity distributions , 2004, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[14]  P. Calow,et al.  Extrapolation in Ecological Risk Assessment: Balancing Pragmatism and Precaution in Chemical Controls Legislation , 2002 .

[15]  T Aldenberg,et al.  Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. , 2000, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[16]  Deborah N. Vivian,et al.  Protectiveness of species sensitivity distribution hazard concentrations for acute toxicity used in endangered species risk assessment , 2008, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[17]  Leo Posthuma,et al.  Species Sensitivity Distributions , 2018, Statistical Analysis of Ecotoxicity Studies.

[18]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian and time-independent species sensitivity distributions for risk assessment of chemicals. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  M. C. Newman,et al.  Applying species‐sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: Assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species , 2000 .

[20]  P. Craig,et al.  Making species salinity sensitivity distributions reflective of naturally occurring communities: Using rapid testing and Bayesian statistics , 2008, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.