Ecotoxicity application

Oxime carbamates are generally applied either directly to the tilled soil or sprayed on crops. One of the advantages of oxime carbamates is their short persistence on plants. They are readily degraded into their metabolites shortly after application. However, some of these metabolites have insecticidal properties even more potent than those of the parent compound. For example, the oxidative product of aldicarb is aldicarb sulfoxide, which is observed to be 10-20 times more active as a cholinesterase inhibitor than aldicarb. Other oxime carbamates (e.g., methomyl) have degradates which show no insecticidal activity, have low to negligible ecotoxicity and mammalian toxicity relative to the parent, and are normally nondetectable in crops. Therefore, the residue definition may include the parent oxime carbamate (e.g., methomyl) or parent and metabolites (e.g., aldicarb and its sulfoxide and sulfone metabolites). The tolerance or maximum residue limit (MRL) of pesticides on any food commodity is based on the highest residue concentration detected on mature crops at harvest or the LOQ of the method submitted for enforcement purposes if no detectable residues are found. For example, the tolerances of methomyl in US food commodities range from 0.1 to 6 mg kg for food items and up to 40 mg kg for feed items. ... 

In a study by Andersson et al. [30], the possibilities to use quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict physical chemical and ecotoxico-logical properties of approximately 200 different plastic additives have been assessed. Physical chemical properties were predicted with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite, Version 3.20. Aquatic ecotoxicity data were calculated by QSAR models in the Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), version 3.3, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as described by Rahmberg et al. [31]. To evaluate the applicability of the QSAR-based characterization factors, they were compared to experiment-based characterization factors for the same substances taken from the USEtox organics database [32], This was done for 39 plastic additives for which experiment-based characterization factors were already available. 

The evaluation for aquatic toxicity on daphnids and fish is reported in Tables 12 and 13. Bold values indicate that compounds are out of the model applicability domain (ECOSAR) or that the prediction is not reliable. ECOSAR and ToxSuite are able to predict all the selected compounds while T.E.S.T. fails in prediction for the daphnia toxicity of perfluorinated compounds (PFOS and PFOA). Tables 12 and 13 include also a limited number of experimental results provided by the model training dataset (some data are extracted from USEPA Ecotox database). Predicted results are in agreement for five compounds only (2, 3, 5, 13 and 14) for both endpoints while the predictions for the other compounds are highly variable. 

One of the most simple in application and an accessible test-object for biotesting are Infusorians. Incentive motives for the infusorians use in ecotoxic testing are the following [1, 2] ... 

Kapanen, A. Itavaara, M. Ecotoxicity tests for compost applications. Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 2001, 49, 1-16. 

The proposed hazard assessment scheme (HAS) used in Colombia is a ranking system where toxicity data obtained from the application of a test battery enables one to determine the degree of toxicity of liquid samples on a relative basis. Test battery results are then integrated into the Potential Ecotoxic Effects Probe (PEEP) index formula developed by Environment Canada for the comparison of wastewaters (Costan et al., 1993). This index can be applied to evaluate the potential toxicity of industrial and municipal wastewaters, and to assess the effectiveness of toxicity abatement measures for effluents. This procedure is easy to apply and can be used with different batteries of tests (see Chapter 1 of this volume). 

WASTOXHAS was developed for assessing leaching hazardous impact of wastes in laboratory and field situations. It is a part of a tiered approach (Fig. 1). It assumes that classical batch leaching tests (see for example Sahuquillo et al., 2003), followed by application of relevant bioassays, have been initially undertaken for i) deciding to continue ecotoxic hazard assessment and ii) selecting adequate and sensitive bioassays. It can be eventually followed by a more complex and elaborate hazard assessment scheme based on microcosms or mesocosms. ... 

The ecotoxicity of wastes has to be evaluated after application of bioassays to raw wastes and to their leachates (French Ministry of Environment, 1998). As emphasized several times in this book, bioassays give a direct and comprehensive estimate of environmental toxicity. When confronted with complex mixtures of chemicals, responses of biological tests integrate different factors such as antagonism, synergism, and bioavailability of pollutants. 

Table 2. Application of bioassays to assess ecotoxicity of (solid) waste leachates test batteries are listed in chronological order.

Acheta domestlcus. toxicity of aminocarb, 218-20 Additives for spray dispersion performance, 100-15 ecotoxicity, 351-61 Adsorption of pesticides in aquatic sediment, 267 in soil, 195-96 Aerial applicators, exposure monitoring, 323-29... 

Ratte, H.T., M. Hammers-Writz, and M. Cleuvers. 2003. Ecotoxicity testing. In B.A. Markert, A.M. Breure, and H.G. Zechmeister (eds), Biomarkers and Biomonitors. Principles, Concepts and Applications, pp. 221-250. Oxford Elsevier. 

Besides meeting its assumptions, other problems in the application of SSD in risk assessment to extrapolate from the population level to the community level also exist. First, when use is made of databases (such as ECOTOX USEPA 2001) from which it is difficult to check the validity of the data, one does not know what is modeled. In practice, a combination of differences between laboratories, between endpoints, between test durations, between test conditions, between genotypes, between phenotypes, and eventually between species is modeled. Another issue is the ambiguous integration of SSD with exposure distribution to calculate risk (Verdonck et al. 2003). They showed that, in order to be able to set threshold levels using probabilistic risk assessment and interpret the risk associated with a given exposure concentration distribution and SSD, the spatial and temporal interpretations of the exposure concentration distribution must be known. 

A very specific way of applying estimates of the ecotoxicity of mixtures at the community level is the application of the msPAF approach in life-cycle assessments (Huijbregts et al. 2002). In this application, the target is to assess ecological impacts of mixtures in a single value, and to compare this value to the predicted impacts of other stressors (e.g., ozone depletion and energy expenditure). 

Mesman M, Posthuma L. 2003. Ecotoxicity of toxicant mixtures in soils recommendations for application in the Dutch regulatory context, as derived from a scientific review on approaches, models and data. No. 711701035. Bilthoven (The Netherlands) National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 70 p. 

Again, this approach can be applied to substances that are either rich or poor in ecotoxicity data. The prerequisites are knowledge of the soil parameter values influencing bioavailability of the substance in the individual ecotoxicity tests and applicability of the model for the species that is tested. This approach further reduces uncertainty and increases the ecological relevance of the SQS. 

With whole-herd applications of antimicrobial and antiparasitic substances and live vaccines in mind, ecotoxicity assessments have been included in the registration reqirements for veterinary products in the EEC and the USA. A defined procedure exists in the USA where a "Finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) certificate by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is a necessary prerequisite for the registration. 

---