Get access

Field evaluation of an avian risk assessment model

Authors

  • Nimish B. Vyas,

    Corresponding author
    1. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville Lab, c/o BARC-East Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
    Current affiliation:
    1. This study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Interagency Agreement DW14937610-01-2, but it has not been subjected to Agency review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. EPA. The use of product names in this article does not imply endorsement
    • U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville Lab, c/o BARC-East Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
    Search for more papers by this author
  • James W. Spann,

    1. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville Lab, c/o BARC-East Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Craig S. Hulse,

    1. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville Lab, c/o BARC-East Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Shannon L. Borges,

    1. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville Lab, c/o BARC-East Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Richard S. Bennett,

    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Continent Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, Minnesota 55804-2595
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Martin Torrez,

    1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Unit 130, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, Maryland 20737
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Bruce I. Williams,

    1. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville Lab, c/o BARC-East Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Robert Leffel

    1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge, 5003 Hallett Circle, Cape Charles, Virginia 23310
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

We conducted two laboratory subacute dietary toxicity tests and one outdoor subacute dietary toxicity test to determine the effectiveness of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's deterministic risk assessment model for evaluating the potential of adverse effects to birds in the field. We tested technical-grade diazinon and its D·Z·N® 50W (50% diazinon active ingredient wettable powder) formulation on Canada goose (Branta canadensis) goslings. Brain acetylcholinesterase activity was measured, and the feathers and skin, feet, and gastrointestinal contents were analyzed for diazinon residues. The dose–response curves showed that diazinon was significantly more toxic to goslings in the outdoor test than in the laboratory tests. The deterministic risk assessment method identified the potential for risk to birds in general, but the factors associated with extrapolating from the laboratory to the field, and from the laboratory test species to other species, resulted in the underestimation of risk to the goslings. The present study indicates that laboratory-based risk quotients should be interpreted with caution.

Ancillary