Ecological risk assessment for mink and short‐tailed shrew exposed to PCBs, dioxins, and furans in the Housatonic River area

Moore, Dwayne R.J.; Breton, Roger L.; DeLong, T.; Ferson, Scott; Lortie, John P.; MacDonald, D.; McGrath, Richard; Pawlisz, Andrzej; Svirsky, Susan; Teed, R. Scott; Thompson, Ryan P; Åslund, Melissa Whitfield

doi:10.1002/ieam.1661

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These risk categories are intended to be summary descriptors of the risks to aquatic invertebrates exposed to imidacloprid near treated areas. Similar risk categorization schemes have previously been applied to ecological risk assessments for other pesticides and contaminated sites . Overall, these risk boundaries are designed to be protective of the aquatic invertebrate community and therefore do not focus on effects to single species (or taxa).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological risk assessment for aquatic invertebrate communities exposed to imidacloprid as a result of labeled agricultural and nonagricultural uses in the United States

Åslund

Winchell²,

Bowers

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A probabilistic ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted to determine the potential effects of acute and chronic exposure of aquatic invertebrate communities to imidacloprid arising from labeled agricultural and nonagricultural uses in the United States. Aquatic exposure estimates were derived using a higher-tier refined modeling approach that accounts for realistic variability in environmental and agronomic factors. Toxicity was assessed using refined acute and chronic community-level effect metrics for aquatic invertebrates (i.e., species or taxon sensitivity distributions) developed using the best available data. Acute and chronic probabilistic risk estimates were derived by integrating the exposure distributions for different use patterns with the applicable species or taxon sensitivity distributions to generate risk curves, which plot cumulative probability of exceedance versus the magnitude of effect. Overall, the results of this assessment indicated that the aquatic invertebrate community is unlikely to be adversely affected by acute or chronic exposure to imidacloprid resulting from currently registered uses of imidacloprid in the United States. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1375-1388. © 2016 SETAC.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological risk assessment for aquatic invertebrate communities exposed to imidacloprid as a result of labeled agricultural and nonagricultural uses in the United States

Åslund

Winchell²,

Bowers

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In data‐rich situations, first‐order Monte Carlo analysis is typically the method of choice (e.g., Luo et al, 2011; Moore et al, 2016; B. Wang et al, 2009). Where incertitude is prevalent because of limited data, second‐order methods that separate variability and incertitude (e.g., second‐order Monte Carlo analysis, probability bounds analysis) can be used to determine the potential influence that the incertitude may have on estimated risks (Ferson et al, 2004; Moore et al, 2010, 2016). Bayesian methods may be used for a wide variety of data‐rich and data‐poor situations.…”

Section: Cross‐cutting Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many approaches to quantitative uncertainty analysis, and the choice of which method to use depends on a variety of factors including data availability, intended use, and preferences of the analyst, risk manager, and stakeholders. In data-rich situations, first-order Monte Carlo analysis is typically the method of choice (e.g., Luo et al, 2011;Moore et al, 2016;B. Wang et al, 2009).…”

Section: Uncertainty Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing exposure assessment approaches to improve wildlife risk assessment

Morrissey

Fritsch

Fremlin

et al. 2023

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exposure assessment component of a Wildlife Ecological Risk Assessment aims to estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure to a chemical or environmental contaminant, along with characteristics of the exposed population. This can be challenging in wildlife as there is often high uncertainty and error caused by broad‐based, interspecific extrapolation and assumptions often because of a lack of data. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have broadly directed exposure assessments to include estimates of the quantity (dose or concentration), frequency, and duration of exposure to a contaminant of interest while considering “all relevant factors.” This ambiguity in the inclusion or exclusion of specific factors (e.g., individual and species‐specific biology, diet, or proportion time in treated or contaminated area) can significantly influence the overall risk characterization. In this review, we identify four discrete categories of complexity that should be considered in an exposure assessment—chemical, environmental, organismal, and ecological. These may require more data, but a degree of inclusion at all stages of the risk assessment is critical to moving beyond screening‐level methods that have a high degree of uncertainty and suffer from conservatism and a lack of realism. We demonstrate that there are many existing and emerging scientific tools and cross‐cutting solutions for tackling exposure complexity. To foster greater application of these methods in wildlife exposure assessments, we present a new framework for risk assessors to construct an “exposure matrix.” Using three case studies, we illustrate how the matrix can better inform, integrate, and more transparently communicate the important elements of complexity and realism in exposure assessments for wildlife. Modernizing wildlife exposure assessments is long overdue and will require improved collaboration, data sharing, application of standardized exposure scenarios, better communication of assumptions and uncertainty, and postregulatory tracking. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;00:1–25. © 2023 SETAC

show abstract

“…Considerable documentation is available on conducting qualitative and quantitative weight‐of‐evidence assessments for regulatory decision making (e.g., Hall et al, 2017; Linkov et al, 2009; Lutter et al, 2015; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry [SETAC], 2018). Risk assessments concerning listed species have also been conducted with a weight‐of‐evidence component and illustrate how lines of evidence, including the modeling line of evidence, are incorporated into the risk characterization to inform effect determinations (Clemow et al, 2018; Moore et al, 2016; Whitfield‐Aslund et al, 2017). The application of higher‐tier data in higher‐tier risk assessments provides important, relevant, consequential, and contextual information to ensure that realistic and reasonable effect determination calls are rendered.…”

Section: Proposed Solutions For Future Assessments: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges with the current methodology for conducting Endangered Species Act risk assessments for pesticides in the United States

Teed

Moore²,

Vukov

et al. 2022

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA or the Agency) is responsible for administering the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Agency is also required to assess the potential risks of pesticides undergoing registration or re‐registration to threatened and endangered (i.e., listed) species to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. To assess potential risks to listed species, a screening‐level risk assessment in the form of a biological evaluation (BE) is undertaken by the Agency for each pesticide. Given the large number of registration actions handled by the USEPA annually, efficient tools for conducting BEs are desirable. However, the “Revised Method” that is the basis for the USEPA's BE process has been ineffective at filtering out listed species and critical habitats that are at de minimis risk to pesticides. In the USEPA's BEs, the Magnitude of Effect Tool (MAGtool) has been used to determine potential risks to listed species that potentially co‐occur with pesticide footprints. The MAGtool is a highly prescriptive, high‐throughput compilation of existing FIFRA screening‐level models with a geospatial interface. The tool has been a significant contributor to risk inflation and ultimately process inefficiency. The ineffectiveness of the tool stems from compounding conservatism, unrealistic and unreasonable assumptions regarding usage, limited application of species‐specific data, lack of consideration of multiple lines of evidence, and inability to integrate higher‐tier data. Here, we briefly describe the MAGtool and the critical deficiencies that impair its effectiveness, thus undermining its intention. Case studies are presented to highlight the deficiencies and solutions are recommended for improving listed species assessments in the future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:817–829. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

show abstract

Ecological risk assessment for mink and short‐tailed shrew exposed to PCBs, dioxins, and furans in the Housatonic River area

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Ecological risk assessment for aquatic invertebrate communities exposed to imidacloprid as a result of labeled agricultural and nonagricultural uses in the United States

Ecological risk assessment for aquatic invertebrate communities exposed to imidacloprid as a result of labeled agricultural and nonagricultural uses in the United States

Advancing exposure assessment approaches to improve wildlife risk assessment

Challenges with the current methodology for conducting Endangered Species Act risk assessments for pesticides in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About