Toward harmonizing ecotoxicity characterization in life cycle impact assessment.

Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems on a global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state-of-the-science in modeling chemical exposure of organisms and the resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. The outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice of exposure and effect modeling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes will reflect the current science and ensure the stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of 1) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, 2) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and 3) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and that will allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. We describe the current framework and discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach toward ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, we give metals a special focus, including consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2955-2971. © 2018 SETAC.

Assessing and managing multiple risks in a changing world-The Roskilde recommendations.

Roskilde University (Denmark) hosted a November 2015 workshop, Environmental Risk-Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World. This Focus article presents the consensus recommendations of 30 attendees from 9 countries regarding implementation of a common currency (ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a 2-stage process; dealing with societal issues; risk-management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. The authors encourage both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to address their 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and nonchemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and communities of interest into the risk-assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk-management process; 5) consider socioeconomics and increased transparency in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and the ecosystem and consider unintended consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible underprotection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk-management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:7-16. © 2016 SETAC.

Passive sampling methods for contaminated sediments: risk assessment and management.

This paper details how activity-based passive sampling methods (PSMs), which provide information on bioavailability in terms of freely dissolved contaminant concentrations (Cfree ), can be used to better inform risk management decision making at multiple points in the process of assessing and managing contaminated sediment sites. PSMs can increase certainty in site investigation and management, because Cfree is a better predictor of bioavailability than total bulk sediment concentration (Ctotal ) for 4 key endpoints included in conceptual site models (benthic organism toxicity, bioaccumulation, sediment flux, and water column exposures). The use of passive sampling devices (PSDs) presents challenges with respect to representative sampling for estimating average concentrations and other metrics relevant for exposure and risk assessment. These challenges can be addressed by designing studies that account for sources of variation associated with PSMs and considering appropriate spatial scales to meet study objectives. Possible applications of PSMs include: quantifying spatial and temporal trends in bioavailable contaminants, identifying and evaluating contaminant source contributions, calibrating site-specific models, and, improving weight-of-evidence based decision frameworks. PSM data can be used to assist in delineating sediment management zones based on likelihood of exposure effects, monitor remedy effectiveness, and, evaluate risk reduction after sediment treatment, disposal, or beneficial reuse after management actions. Examples are provided illustrating why PSMs and freely dissolved contaminant concentrations (Cfree ) should be incorporated into contaminated sediment investigations and study designs to better focus on and understand contaminant bioavailability, more accurately estimate exposure to sediment-associated contaminants, and better inform risk management decisions. Research and communication needs for encouraging broader use are discussed.

Ecological risk assessment in the context of global climate change.

Changes to sources, stressors, habitats, and geographic ranges; toxicological effects; end points; and uncertainty estimation require significant changes in the implementation of ecological risk assessment (ERA). Because of the lack of analog systems and circumstances in historically studied sites, there is a likelihood of type III error. As a first step, the authors propose a decision key to aid managers and risk assessors in determining when and to what extent climate change should be incorporated. Next, when global climate change is an important factor, the authors recommend seven critical changes to ERA. First, develop conceptual cause-effect diagrams that consider relevant management decisions as well as appropriate spatial and temporal scales to include both direct and indirect effects of climate change and the stressor of management interest. Second, develop assessment end points that are expressed as ecosystem services. Third, evaluate multiple stressors and nonlinear responses-include the chemicals and the stressors related to climate change. Fourth, estimate how climate change will affect or modify management options as the impacts become manifest. Fifth, consider the direction and rate of change relative to management objectives, recognizing that both positive and negative outcomes can occur. Sixth, determine the major drivers of uncertainty, estimating and bounding stochastic uncertainty spatially, temporally, and progressively. Seventh, plan for adaptive management to account for changing environmental conditions and consequent changes to ecosystem services. Good communication is essential for making risk-related information understandable and useful for managers and stakeholders to implement a successful risk-assessment and decision-making process.

Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process.

The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board conducted a self-initiated study and convened a public workshop to characterize the state of the ecological risk assessment (ERA), with a view toward advancing the science and application of the process. That survey and analysis of ERA in decision making shows that such assessments have been most effective when clear management goals were included in the problem formulation; translated into information needs; and developed in collaboration with decision makers, assessors, scientists, and stakeholders. This process is best facilitated when risk managers, risk assessors, and stakeholders are engaged in an ongoing dialogue about problem formulation. Identification and acknowledgment of uncertainties that have the potential to profoundly affect the results and outcome of risk assessments also improves assessment effectiveness. Thus we suggest 1) through peer review of ERAs be conducted at the problem formulation stage and 2) the predictive power of risk-based decision making be expanded to reduce uncertainties through analytical and methodological approaches like life cycle analysis. Risk assessment and monitoring programs need better integration to reduce uncertainty and to evaluate risk management decision outcomes. Postdecision audit programs should be initiated to evaluate the environmental outcomes of risk-based decisions. In addition, a process should be developed to demonstrate how monitoring data can be used to reduce uncertainties. Ecological risk assessments should include the effects of chemical and nonchemical stressors at multiple levels of biological organization and spatial scale, and the extent and resolution of the pertinent scales and levels of organization should be explicitly considered during problem formulation. An approach to interpreting lines of evidence and weight of evidence is critically needed for complex assessments, and it would be useful to develop case studies and/or standards of practice for interpreting lines of evidence. In addition, tools for cumulative risk assessment should be developed because contaminants are often released into stressed environments.

In situ experimental assessment of lake whitefish development following a freshwater oil spill.

Wabamun Lake (Alberta, Canada) has been subject to ongoing contamination with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from multiple sources for decades and in August 2005 was exposed to ca. 149 500 L of bunker C oil following a train derailment. We compared the pattern, frequency, and severity of deformity in larvae of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) incubated in situ in areas of Wabamun Lake exposed only to "background" PAH contamination and in areas additionally exposed to PAHs from the oil. All sites in the lake (including reference areas) showed incidences of deformity higher than are typically observed in laboratory studies. A small number of oil-exposed sites showed higher incidences of some teratogenic deformities and a tendency to exhibit deformities of higher severity than sites not exposed to oil. The frequency of moderate to severe deformities in 8 of 16 classes was correlated with PAH exposure. Nonmetric multivariate ordination of deformity data revealed a general pattern of increasing incidence and severity of several skeletal (lordosis, scoliosis) and craniofacial (ocular, jaw) deformities at sites with relatively high exposure to oil-derived PAHs. A simultaneous consideration of incidence, severity, and pattern of deformity enabled us to detect a consistent (overall approximately 5% above background) response to the oil despite high variability and high background deformity rates in this historically contaminated environment.

A decision-making framework for sediment contamination.

A decision-making framework for determining whether or not contaminated sediments are polluted is described. This framework is intended to be sufficiently prescriptive to standardize the decision-making process but without using "cook book" assessments. It emphasizes 4 guidance "rules": (1) sediment chemistry data are only to be used alone for remediation decisions when the costs of further investigation outweigh the costs of remediation and there is agreement among all stakeholders to act; (2) remediation decisions are based primarily on biology; (3) lines of evidence (LOE), such as laboratory toxicity tests and models that contradict the results of properly conducted field surveys, are assumed incorrect; and (4) if the impacts of a remedial alternative will cause more environmental harm than good, then it should not be implemented. Sediments with contaminant concentrations below sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) that predict toxicity toless than 5% of sediment-dwelling infauna and that contain no quantifiable concentrations of substances capable of biomagnifying are excluded from further consideration, as are sediments that do not meet these criteria but have contaminant concentrations equal to or below reference concentrations. Biomagnification potential is initially addressed by conservative (worst case) modeling based on benthos and sediments and, subsequently, by additional food chain data and more realistic assumptions. Toxicity (acute and chronic) and alterations to resident communities are addressed by, respectively, laboratory studies and field observations. The integrative decision point for sediments is a weight of evidence (WOE) matrix combining up to 4 main LOE: chemistry, toxicity, community alteration, and biomagnification potential. Of 16 possible WOE scenarios, 6 result in definite decisions, and 10 require additional assessment. Typically, this framework will be applied to surficial sediments. The possibility that deeper sediments may be uncovered as a result of natural or other processes must also be investigated and may require similar assessment.

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) and hormesis.

Based on our current state of knowledge, the significance and importance of hormesis is likely to be greater for ecotoxicology, a component of ecological risk assessment (ERA), than for the overall process of ERA. Appropriately determining the role of hormesis in ERA will require extension of hormesis beyond chemical stressors to abiotic (e.g. habitat) and biotic stressors (e.g. species introductions, organism interactions). It will also require determining for all stressors whether at both individual and higher levels of organization, hormesis has positive, neutral or adverse effects. This determination must be made for model organisms, populations and communities. Adverse effects are the least likely, however, neutral effects cannot be ruled out. Presently, consideration of hormetic effects in ERA is most appropriate in a detailed level ecological risk assessment (DLERA), the most complex form of ERA. It is not appropriate in either problem formulation or a screening level ERA (SLERA). Further, for hormetic effects to be recognized and accepted fully into ERA may require a paradigm shift. Three on-going paradigm shifts to which hormesis could be linked are: recognition of the low utility of no-observed effects concentrations (NOECs); recognition of the need for special treatment of essential element dose/concentration-responses, which are similar to hormetic responses; and, the replacement of environmental toxicology with ecological toxicology (ecotoxicology).