Evaluation of the Hazard Quotient Method for Risk Assessment of Selenium

Occurrence and biomagnification of organohalogen pollutants in two terrestrial predatory food chains

“…In this study, the MECs were replaced by median contaminant concentrations in each species, and the TRVs were derived from no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) or lowest-observed-effect-level (LOEL) concentrations in previously toxicological studies. For interpretation, an HQ <0.1 indicates no hazard, 0.1-1 a low hazard, 1-10 a moderate hazard, and >10 a high hazard (Lemly, 1996).…”

Modeling the fate of p,p′-DDT in water and sediment of two typical estuarine bays in South China: Importance of fishing vessels' inputs

“…The United States Environmental Protection Agency has set the marine water screening benchmark at 6.5 ng L À1 (Water-Benchmark, 2006) and the marine sediment screening benchmark at 1.19 ng g À1 (Sediment-Benchmark, 2006) for p,p 0 -DDT. The values of HQ at 0.1, 0.1e1, 1e10, and !10 indicate no hazard, low hazard, moderate hazard, and high hazard, respectively (Lemly, 1996;Yun et al, 2015).…”

Hazard assessment of selenium to endangered razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus)

“…The final hazard characterization was determined by adding the individual scores and comparing the total to the following evaluation criteria: 5, no hazard; 6-8, minimal hazard; 9-11, low hazard; 12-15, moderate hazard; and 16-25, high hazard. Lemly (1996a) modified his protocol for use with four ecosystem components due to the difficulty in collecting residue information for all five components in an assessment. He adjusted the final ecosystem-level hazard assessment to the following four-component evaluation criteria: 4, no hazard; 5-7, minimal hazard; 8-10, low hazard; 11-14, moderate hazard; and 15-20, high hazard.…”

“…Lemly (1995) defined five categories of hazards as follows: (1) high hazard denotes an imminent, persistent toxic threat sufficient to cause complete reproductive failure in most species of fish and aquatic birds; (2) moderate hazard indicates a persistent toxic threat of sufficient magnitude to substantially impair but not eliminate reproductive success; some species will be severely affected whereas others will be relatively unaffected; (3) low hazard denotes a periodic or ephemeral toxic threat that could marginally affect the reproductive success of some sensitive species, but most species will be unaffected; (4) minimal hazard indicates that no toxic threat is identified but concentrations of selenium are slightly elevated in one or more ecosystem components (water, sediment, invertebrates, fish eggs, bird eggs) compared to uncontaminated reference sites; (5) no hazard denotes that no toxic threat is identified and selenium concentrations are not elevated in any ecosystem component. Table 1 gives the hazard terms and corresponding selenium concentration range for each of the ecosystem components in the fourcomponent model (Lemly, 1996a).…”

“…These protocols have been used to assess the selenium hazard to aquatic ecosystems at Ouray NWR, UT, the Animas, LaPlata, and Mancos rivers in the San Juan River basin, and three Wildlife Management Areas in Nevada (Lemly, 1995(Lemly, , 1996a(Lemly, , 1997. Although the original protocol was published in 1995, apparently no critiques have been published pointing out any deficiencies in the protocol (D. Lemly, USFS, personal communication).…”