WEBFRAM 5: A risk assessment
module for soil invertebrates
Geoff Frampton
University of Southampton (UK)
Joerg Roembke
ECT Oekotoxikologie (DE)
Paul van den Brink
Alterra (NL)
Janeck Scott-Fordsmand
NERI (DK)
Funded by
1
Soil invertebrates pesticide risk assessment
( 91 / 414 / EEC )
Testing
Standard
higher-tier
test ?
Earthworms
routine
yes
Collembola
optional
no
Enchytraeidae
optional
no
2
WEBFRAM-5 : Principal aim
Investigate whether the pesticide risk assessment
for soil invertebrates could be improved
by explicitly incorporating uncertainty
into estimates of risk
3
Soil invertebrates pesticide risk assessment
DETERMINISTIC:
Point estimates of toxicity, exposure and risk
Application factors represent uncertainty
LIMITATIONS:
ADVANTAGES:
Arbitrary
Risk estimation
application
simple
factors
Margin
Easily harmonised
of protection
approach
uncertain
Lacks
Requires
transparency
a small amount
in risk
ofcalculation
information
4
Species sensitivity distributions
100%
NOECs from
various species
and experiments
Potentially
affected
fraction
of species
5%
0
HC5
Log (LC50)
5
WEBFRAM: seven inter-related projects:
1
COORDINATION AND
WEB - ENABLING
6
Acceptability
perception
2
Aquatic
invertebrates
www.webfram.com
3&7
Terrestrial
vertebrates
4
5
Non - target
arthropods
Soil
invertebrates
6
WEBFRAM: seven inter-related projects:
1
COORDINATION AND
WEB - ENABLING
6
Acceptability
perception
2
Aquatic
invertebrates
www.webfram.com
3&7
Terrestrial
vertebrates
4
5
Non - target
arthropods
Soil
invertebrates
7
WEBFRAM: seven inter-related projects:
1
COORDINATION AND
WEB - ENABLING
6
Acceptability
perception
2
Aquatic
invertebrates
www.webfram.com
3&7
Terrestrial
vertebrates
4
Internet
risk assessment
tools
5
Non - target
arthropods
Soil
invertebrates
8
Central Science
Laboratory (CSL)
(York)
&
Cadmus Group
(Seattle)
Internet
risk assessment
tools
www.webfram.com
Deterministic risk
assessment with
supporting data and
worked examples
Risk assessment version(s)
that include uncertainty
where appropriate
9
WEBFRAM 5 : Objectives
1. Acquire data (key step!)
2. Identify variables with adequately-supported distributions
3. Use data distributions to describe uncertainty
4. Incorporate descriptions of uncertainty in alternative
version(s) of the risk assessment
10
Soil invertebrates:
WEBFRAM 5 public
: Key findings
domain data
Lower tier
(laboratory)
Higher tier
(TME & field)
Active substances (a. s.)
250
80
Species / groups
67
62
Effects data sets
1341
934
a. s. with data for both tiers
45 (16%)
a. s. with only one data set
108 (38%)
11
Soil invertebrate effects data : pesticides with > 20 data sets
Carbendazim
Copper
Benomyl
Dimethoate
Pentachlorophenol
Parathion
Carbofuran
Diazinon
Lindane
Atrazine
Chloroacetamide
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Imidacloprid
Chlorpyrifos
Carbaryl
Halofenozide
DNOC
Bendiocarb
Malathion
Thiophanate-methyl
Phorate
Lower tier
Higher tier
Number of data sets
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
12
Distribution of pesticide effects data among
soil invertebrate groups
Lumbricidae
Collembola
Enchytraeidae
Acari
Coleoptera
Nematoda
Lower tier
Isopoda
Higher tier
Formicidae
Diptera
Number of data sets
Araneae
0
200
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400
13
Lumbricidae species data : lower tier
Eisenia fetida
Earthworms grouped
Eisenia andrei
Lumbricus terrestris
Aporrectodea caliginosa
Lumbricus rubellus
Aporrectodea tuberculata
Allobophora chlorotica
Dendrobaena rubida
Apporectodea longa
Aporrectodea rosea
Octolasium lacteum
Eisenia veneta
Number of data sets
0
100
200
300
400
500
14
Collembola species data : lower tier
Folsomia candida
Folsomia fimetaria
Onychiurus folsomi
Isotoma viridis
Onychiurus armatus
Proisotoma minuta
Orchesella cincta
Sinella communis
Collembolans grouped
Isotomidae
Lepidocyrtus sp.
Onychiurus apuanicus
Sinella caeca
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number of data sets
15
Enchytraeidae species data : lower tier
Enchytraeus albidus
Cognettia sphagnetorum
Enchytraeus crypticus
Enchytraeus sp. indet.
Enchytraeus coronatus
Friderica ratzeli
Enchytraeus buchholzi
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Number of data sets
16
Relative sensitivities of standard test species
Insecticides
Herbicides
Fungicides
2.5
2.0
Eisenia
1.5
Standardised
log (LC50)
1.0
0.5
0
Folsomia
-0.5
17
Species sensitivity distributions (SSD)
Assuming minimum
six species data, SSD
could be calculated for
only seven pesticides
All SSD based on
acute LC50
18
www.webfram.com
Pentachlorophenol
species
sensitivity
distribution
(LC50 data)
Worms &
nematodes
Collembola
19
www.webfram.com
Worms
Dimethoate
species
sensitivity
distribution
(LC50 data)
Hard - bodied
arthropods
Soft - bodied
arthropods
20
Laboratory HC5 (mg / kg)
LAB
FIELD
N
Median
HC5
Upper
HC5
N
NOEC
LOEC
Atrazine
8
4.40
12.00
37
0.13
0.53
Carbendazim
7
0.91
5.02
241
0.20
0.24
Chlorpyrifos
7
0.88
10.88
21
-
0.64
Dimethoate
12
0.19
0.74
1
-
(0.53)
Lindane
6
0.37
2.99
7
-
1.30
PCP
9
3.80
12.30
44
-
6.60
21
Laboratory HC5 compared with field effects concs (mg / kg)
LAB
FIELD
N
Median
HC5
Upper
HC5
N
NOEC
LOEC
Atrazine
8
4.40
12.00
37
0.13
0.53
Carbendazim
7
0.91
5.02
241
0.20
0.24
Chlorpyrifos
7
0.88
10.88
21
-
0.64
Dimethoate
12
0.19
0.74
1
-
(0.53)
Lindane
6
0.37
2.99
7
-
1.30
PCP
9
3.80
12.30
44
-
6.60
22
Laboratory HC5 compared with field effects concs (mg / kg)
Red HC5
exceed
field NOEC
or LOEC
LAB
FIELD
N
Median
HC5
Upper
HC5
N
NOEC
LOEC
Atrazine
8
4.40
12.00
37
0.13
0.53
Carbendazim
7
0.91
5.02
241
0.20
0.24
Chlorpyrifos
7
0.88
10.88
21
-
0.64
Dimethoate
12
0.19
0.74
1
-
(0.53)
Lindane
6
0.37
2.99
7
-
1.30
PCP
9
3.80
12.30
44
-
6.60
23
Ratio of Eisenia fetida LC50 to soil invertebrate HC5
LC50
HC5
Ratio
95% CL
Atrazine
14
5 – 100
Carbendazim
113
21 – 3433
Chlorpyrifos
6
3 – 24
Dimethoate
774
199 – 7350
Lindane
437
55 – 54333
8
2 – 68
PCP
(Application
factor for Eisenia
acute mortality
test = 10)
24
Tiered risk assessment approach : carbendazim
OECD earthworm
reproduction
(concentrations
in mg / test
kg)
Deterministic
Probabilistic
Toxicity
One species
NOEC from
one
species
NOEC
= 0.6
Five species
Median
HC5 based
median
HC5from
= 0.53
on NOECs
95%
CL
0.06 – 1.30
more
species
Exposure
PEC
PECchronic
= 0.4
PEC
PECchronic
=factor:
0.4
Application
5
TER
NOEC
1.5/ PEC
TER1.3
<HC5
5(0.15
indicates
– 3.25)risk
/ PEC
25
Conclusions
Availability of empirical data for soil invertebrates is limited
Earthworms the least sensitive soil invertebrates to most pesticides
Pesticide concentrations tested in field studies not low enough
to derive field NOECs for validation
If SSD are used in soil risk assessment, need to ensure
appropriate taxonomic composition of data sets
WEBFRAM internet tools will provide an opportunity to explore
these issues further
26