, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 680–696 | Cite as

Aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in surface waters in and adjacent to the Everglades and Biscayne National Parks: II. Probabilistic analyses

  • John F. Carriger
  • Gary M. Rand


A screening-level aquatic probabilistic risk assessment was completed to determine the potential risks of organic pesticides found in surface waters of the C-111 freshwater basin (11 sites at the east boundary of the Everglades National Park) and adjacent estuarine tidal zones (two sites in northeast Florida Bay, one site in south Biscayne Bay) in south Florida. It followed the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ecological risk framework and focused only on the acute and chronic risks of endosulfan and chlorpyrifos individually and jointly with atrazine, metolachlor, and malathion by comparing distributions of surface water exposure concentrations with the distributions of species toxicity data. The highest risk of acute effects was associated with endosulfan exposure to freshwater arthropods at S-178/site C on the C-111 system, followed by endosulfan effects to estuarine arthropods at Joe Bay in northeast Florida Bay. The highest risk of acute effects from joint toxicity of pesticides was to estuarine arthropods in Joe Bay followed by freshwater arthropods in S-178/site C. For fish, the highest acute risk was for endosulfan at S-178/site C. There was low potential for acute risk of endosulfan to fish at estuarine sites. Joint probability curves indicated that the majority of potential risks to arthropods and fish were due to endosulfan concentrations and not to chlorpyrifos, at S-178/site C. In addition, the highest risk of acute effects for saltwater organisms was in Joe Bay, which receives water from the C-111. The potential risk of chronic effects from pesticide exposures was minimal at fresh- and saltwater sites except at S-178/site C, where endosulfan concentrations showed the highest exceedence of species toxicity values. In general, potential risks were higher in February than June.


Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Atrazine Malathion Metolachlor Ecological risk assessment Everglades National Park Biscayne National Park C-111 canal Florida Bay Biscayne Bay Everglades restoration 



This studied was funded by the Critical Ecosystems Studies Initiative, Everglades National Park, U.S. Department of the Interior, Cooperative Agreement No. H5284-02-0094. This is Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC) contribution no. 389.


  1. Aldenberg T, Slob W (1993) Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotox Environ Saf 25:48–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altenburger R, Backhaus T, Boedeker W, Faust M, Scholze M, Grimme LH (2000) Predictability of the toxicity of multiple chemical mixtures to Vibrio fischeri: mixtures composed of similarly acting chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2341–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhaus T, Altenburger R, Boedeker W, Faust M, Scholze M, Grimme LH (2000) Predictability of the toxicity of multiple mixtures of dissimilarly acting chemicals to Vibrio fischeri. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2348–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carriger JF, Rand GM Aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in surface waters in and adjacent to Everglades and Biscayne National Parks: I. Hazard assessment and problem formulation. Ecotoxicology (this issue)Google Scholar
  5. Carriger JF, Rand GM, Gardinali PR, Perry WB, Tompkins MS, Fernandez AM (2006) Pesticides of potential ecological concern in sediment from south Florida canals: an ecological risk prioritization for aquatic arthropods. Soil Sediment Contam 15:21–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crommentuijn T, Kalf DF, Polder MD, Posthumus R, van de Plassche EJ (1997) Maximum permissible concentrations and negligible concentrations for pesticides. Report No. 601501 002, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. De March BGE (1987) Simple similar action and independent joint action: two similar models for the joint effects of toxicants applied as mixtures. Aquat Toxicol 9:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deneer JW, Sinnige TL, Seinen W, Hermens JLM (1988) The joint acute toxicity to Daphnia magna of industrial organic chemicals at low concentrations. Aquat Toxicol 12:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Wolf W, Canton JH, Deneer JW, Wegman RCC, Hermens JLM (1988) Quantitative structure–activity relationships and mixture-toxicity studies of alcohols and chlorohydrocarbons: reproducibility of effects on growth and reproduction of Daphnia magna. Aquat Toxicol 12:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Zwart D (2002) Observed regularities in species sensitivity distributions for aquatic species. In: Posthuma L, Suter GWII, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 133–154Google Scholar
  11. ECOFRAM (1999) Ecological committee on FIFRA risk assessment methods: report of the aquatic workgroup. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Faust M, Altenburger R, Backhaus T, Bödeker W, Scholze M, Grimme LH (2000) Predictive assessment of the aquatic toxicity of multiple chemical mixtures. J Environ Qual 29:1063–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giddings JM, Hall LW Jr, Solomon KR (2000a) Ecological risks of diazinon from agricultural use in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins, California. Risk Anal 20:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddings JM, Anderson TA, Hall LW, Kendall RJ, Richards RP, Solomon KR, Williams WM (2000b) Aquatic ecological risk assessment of atrazine: a tiered probabilistic approach. A Report of an Expert Panel. Report nr 709-00. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. GreensboroGoogle Scholar
  15. Giesy JP, Solomon KR, Coats JR, Dixon KR, Giddings JM, Kenaga EE (1999) Chlorpyrifos: ecological risk assessment in North American aquatic environments. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 160:1–129Google Scholar
  16. Hall LW Jr, Anderson RD (2003) Parametric and probabilistic analysis of historical chlorpyrifos surface water monitoring data from the San Joaquin river watershed: 1991–2001. Water Air Soil Pollut 150:275–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall LW Jr, Gardinali PR (2004) Ecological risk assessment for Irgarol 1051 and its major metabolite in United States waters. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10:525–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall LW Jr, Scott MC, Killen WD, Unger MA (2000) A probabilistic ecological risk assessment of tributyltin in surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 6:141–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klepper O, van de Meent D (1997) Mapping the potentially affected fraction (PAF) of species as an indicator of generic toxic stress. RIVM report 607504 001. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  20. Könemann H (1981) Fish toxicity tests with mixtures of more than two chemicals: a proposal for a quantitative approach and experimental results. Toxicology 19:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles CJ, Pfeuffer RJ (1997) Pesticides in canals of south Florida. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 32:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montague B (2002) EPA one-liners. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Pape-Lindstrom PA, Lydy MJ (1997) Synergistic toxicity of atrazine and organophosphate insecticides contravenes the response addition mixture model. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:2415–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pfeuffer RJ, Rand GM (2004) South Florida ambient pesticide monitoring program. Ecotoxicology 13:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plackett RL, Hewlett PS (1952) Quantal responses to mixtures of poisons. J Roy Stat Soc B 14:141–163Google Scholar
  26. Schuler LJ, Rand GM (2008) Aquatic risk assessment of herbicides in freshwater ecosystems of south Florida. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 54:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scott GI et al (1990) Agricultural insecticide runoff effects on estuarine organisms: correlating laboratory and field toxicity testing with ecotoxicological biomonitoring. CR-813138-02-1. Southeast Fisheries Center. U.S. National Fisheries Service, Charleston, SCGoogle Scholar
  28. SETAC (1994) Pesticide Risk and Mitigation: Final Report of the Aquatic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Dialogue Group. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Foundation for Environmental Education, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  29. Solomon KR, Baker DB, Richards RP, Dixon KR, Klaine SJ, La Point TW, Kendall RJ, Weisskopf CP, Giddings JM, Giesy JP, Hall LW Jr, Williams WM (1996) Ecological risk assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:31–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Solomon KR, Giddings JM, Maund SJ (2001) Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional analyses of laboratory aquatic toxicity data. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:652–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. S-Plus (1999) S-Plus 2000 professional release 2. MathSoft Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Suter GWII, Traas TP, Posthuma L (2002) Issues and practices in the derivation and use of species sensitivity distributions. In: Posthuma L, Suter GWII, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 437–474Google Scholar
  33. Traas TP, van de Meent D, Posthuma L, Hamers T, Kater BJ, de Zwart D, Aldenberg T (2002) The potentially affected fraction as a measure of ecological risk. In: Posthuma L, Suter GWII, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 315–344Google Scholar
  34. U.S.EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Wan MT, Kuo J, Buday C, Schroeder G, Van Aggelen G, Pasternak J (2005) Toxicity of α-, β-, (α + β)-endosulfan and their formulated and degradation products to Daphnia magna, Hyalella azteca, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Oncorhynchus kisutch and biological implications in streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:1146–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warren-Hicks WJ, Parkhurst BR, Butcher JB (2002) Methodology for aquatic ecological risk assessment. In: Posthuma L, Suter GWII, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 345–382Google Scholar
  37. WHO (1984) Environmental health criteria 40: endosulfan. World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, Switzerland.
  38. You J, Schuler LJ, Lydy MJ (2004) Acute toxicity of sediment-sorbed endrin, methoxychlor, and endosulfan to Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 73:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Studies, Ecotoxicology & Risk Assessment Laboratory, Southeast Environmental Research CenterFlorida International UniversityNorth Miami USA

Personalised recommendations