• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Review

You have free access to this content

Survey of methodologies for developing media screening values for ecological risk assessment

  1. Mace G. Barron1,*,
  2. Steven R. Wharton2

Article first published online: 5 NOV 2009

DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630010402

Issue

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Volume 1, Issue 4, pages 320–332, November 2005

Additional Information

How to Cite

Barron, M. G. and Wharton, S. R. (2005), Survey of methodologies for developing media screening values for ecological risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag, 1: 320–332. doi: 10.1002/ieam.5630010402

Author Information

  1. 1

    Gulf Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561

  2. 2

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80220

*Gulf Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 5 NOV 2009
  2. Article first published online: 5 NOV 2009
  3. Manuscript Received: 8 JUN 2005
  4. Manuscript Accepted: 8 JUN 2005

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (156K)

References

  • [ANZECC, ARMACANZ] Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Canberra, Australia. National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No 4.
  • Barrick R., Beller H, Becker S, Ginn T. 1989. Use of the apparent effects threshold approach (AET) in classifying contaminated sediments. In: Contaminated marine sediments: Assessment and remediation. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. 64–77.
  • Buchman MF. 1999. NOAA screening quick reference tables. Seattle (WA), USA: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Report 99–1. 12 p.
  • [CCME] Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. Canadian environmental quality guidelines. Winnipeg (MB), Canada.
  • Chapman PM, Mann GS. 1999. Sediment quality values (SQVs) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). Mar Pollut Bull 38: 339–344.
  • Crommentuijn T, Sijm D, de Bruijn J, van Leeuwen K, van de Plassche E. 2000a. Maximum permissible and negligible concentrations for some organic substances and pesticides. J Environ Manag 58: 297–912.
  • Crommentuijn T, Sijm D, de Bruijn J, van Leeuwen K, van de Plassche E. 2000b. Maximum permissible and negligible concentrations for metals and metalloids in the Netherlands, taking into account background concentrations. J Environ Manag 60: 121–143.
  • Efroymson RA, Suter GW II, Sample BE, Jones DS. 1997. Preliminary remediation goals for ecological endpoints. Oak Ridge (TN), USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-162/R2.
  • Efroymson RA, Will ME, Suter GW II. 1997. Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on soil and litter invertebrates and heterotrophic process: 1997 revision. Oak Ridge (TN), USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
  • Efroymson RA, Will ME, Suter GW II, Wooten AC. 1997. Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on terrestrial plants: 1997 revision. Oak Ridge (TN), USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.
  • Friday GP. 1998. Ecological screening values for surface water, sediment, and soil. Aiken (SC), USA: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. WSRC-TR-98-XXX.
  • Jones DS, Suter GW II, Hull RN. 1997. Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on sediment-associated biota: 1997 revision. Oak Ridge (TN), USA: Lockheed Martin Energy Systems.
  • Long ER, MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Calder FD. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. J Environ Manag 19: 81–97.
  • MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG. 1996. Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 5: 253–278.
  • MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger T. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39: 20–31.
  • [MHSPE] Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment. 1994. Intervention values and target values—Soil quality standards. Hague, The Netherlands.
  • [MOE] Ministry of the Environment. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Toronto (ON), Canada.
  • [NEPC] National Environmental Protection Council. 2003. Guideline on the investigation levels for soil and groundwater. Canberra, Australia. National Environmental Protection Measure 1999, Schedule B(1).
  • Newell AJ, Johnson DW, Allen LK., (1987) Niagara River Biota Contamination Project: Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife. Albany (NY), USA: New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Technical Report 87–3.
  • [NYSDEC] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998. Ambient water quality standards and guidance values and groundwater effluent limitations. Albany (NY), USA.
  • [NYSDEC] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Technical guidance for screening contaminated sediments. Albany (NY), USA.
  • O'Connor TP. 2004. The sediment quality guideline, ERL, is not a chemical concentration at the threshold of sediment toxicity. Mar Pollut Bull 49: 383–385.
  • [ODEQ] Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Guidance for ecological risk assessment, level ii screening level values. Portland (OR), USA.
  • Sample BE, Opresko DM, Suter GW II. 1996. Toxicological benchmarks for wildlife: 1996 revision. Oak Ridge (TN), USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
  • Suter GW II, Tsao CL. 1996. Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential contaminants of concern for effects on aquatic biota: 1996 revision. Oak Ridge (TN), USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-96/R2.
  • [TNRCC] Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. 2001. Guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments at remediation sites in Texas. Austin (TX), USA.
  • Trass TP. 2001. Guidance document for deriving environmental risk limits. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. RIVM Report 601501 012.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Washington DC.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Ecotox thresholds. In: ECO Update, Vol 3, No. 2. Washington DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Ecological risk assessment guidance for superfund: Process for designing and conducting ERAs. Edison, NJ. EPA 540-R-97–006.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Washington DC. EPA/630/R-95/002F.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Ecological screening levels for RCRA Appendix IX hazardous constituents. Washington DC: Region V. Work draft. [22 August 2003 update].
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. Supplemental guidance to RAGS: Region IV bulletins, ecological risk assessment. Originally published November 1995.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001b. The role of screening-level risk assessments and refining contaminants of concern in baseline ecological risk assessments. In: ECO Update. Washington DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-01/014.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. Washington DC. EPA 822-R-02–047.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Water quality guidance for the great lakes system. In: Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 132). 1 July 2002.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ecological soil screening level guidance. Washington DC.
  • Wenning RJ, Ingersoll CG. 2002. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Executive Summary of a SETAC Pellston Workshop. 2002, 17 August–22 August; Fairmont (MT), USA. Pensacola (FL), USA: SETAC.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (156K)