Ecotoxicology

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 716–724 | Cite as

Development of species sensitivity distributions and estimation of HC5 of organochlorine pesticides with five statistical approaches

Article

Abstract

Eighteen organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were studied to develop species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) and calculate hazardous concentration thresholds for 5% of species (HC5), using both parametric (log-normal and log-logistic) and nonparametric bootstrap methods. In order to avoid picking repetitive values in each resample when performing bootstrap, and to determine the influence of fluctuation of toxicity data of single species on the SSDs and HC5, a modified bootstrap method was introduced, which can generate unrepetitive sampling data other than original elements in datasets. This method can enlarge a dataset without any assumption of a special distribution. Combined with parametric methods, modified bootstrap was also used to develop SSDs and determine HC5. The HC5 estimated by five approaches coincide well with each other with good positive correlation. Even if there is intra-species variation in a certain range of toxicity data; SSDs and HC5 are not very sensitive to the local fluctuation of toxicity of single species. The studied OCPs were classified according to their estimated HC5. A lower HC5 indicates higher ecological toxicity potentials. Endrin, DDTs and Endosulfan are OCPs with very high ecological toxicity potential. α-HCH has the lowest ecological toxicity potential in the studied OCPs. For OCPs with high ecological potential, more attention should be paid to their ecological risk.

Keywords

Species sensitivity distribution HC5 Organochlorine pesticide Parametric method Modified bootstrap 

References

  1. Chen CS (2005) Ecological risk assessment for aquatic species exposed to contaminants in Keelung River, Taiwan. Chemosphere 61:1142–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duboudin C, Ciffroy P, Magaud H (2004) Acute-to-chronic species sensitivity distribution extrapolation. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(7):1774–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. González-Doncel M, Ortiz J, Izquierdo JJ, Martín B, Sánchez P, Tarazona JV (2006) Statistical evaluation of chronic toxicity data on aquatic organisms for the hazard identification: the chemicals toxicity distribution approach. Chemosphere 63:835–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grist EPM, Leung KMY, Wheeler JR, Crane M (2002) Better bootstrap estimation of hazardous concentration thresholds for aquatic assemblages. Environ Toxicol Chem 21(7):1515–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grist EPM, O’Hagan A, Crane M, Sorokin N, Sims I, Whitehouse P (2006) Bayesian and time-independent species sensitivity distributions for risk assessment of chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 40(1):395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoeven NVD (2001) Estimating the 5-percentile of the species sensitivity distributions without any assumptions about the distribution. Ecotoxicology 10:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jagoe RH, Newman MC (1997) Bootstrap estimation of community NOEC values. Ecotoxicology 6:293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones KC, Voogt PD (1999) Persistent organic pollutants (POPs): state of the science. Environ Pollut 100:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kenaga EE (1982) Predictability of chronic toxicity of chemicals in fish and aquatic invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 1:347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li YF, Cai DJ, Singh A (1999) Historical DDT use trend in China and usage data gridding with 1/4° by 1/6° longitude/latitude resolution. Adv Environ Res 2:497–506Google Scholar
  11. Li YF, Cai DJ, Shan ZJ, Zhu ZL (2001) Gridded usage inventories of technical hexachlorocyclohexane and lindane for China with 1/6° latitude by 1/4° longitude resolution. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Newman MC, Ownby DR, Mézin LCA, Powell DC, Christensen TRL, Lerberg SB, Anderson BA (2000) Applying species sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: assumptions of distribution type and sufficient number of species. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:508–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. OSPAR (2005) Cut-off values for the selection criteria of the OSPAR dynamic selection and prioritisation mechanism for hazardous substances. OSPAR 05/21/1-E, Annex 7Google Scholar
  14. Pennington DW (2003) Extrapolating ecotoxicological measures from small data sets. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 56:238–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Qiu XH, Zhu T, Yao B, Hu JX, Hu SW (2005) Contribution of dicofol to the current DDT pollution in China. Environ Sci Technol 39:4385–4390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roex EWM, van Gestel CAM, van Wezel AP, van Straalen NM (2000) Ratios between acute aquatic toxicity and effects on population growth rates in relation to toxicant mode of action. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(3):685–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shao QX (2000) Estimation for hazardous concentrations based on NOEC toxicity data: an alternative approach. Environmetrics 11(5):583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sijm D, Hulzebos E, Peijnenburg W (1999) Estimating the PTB-profile. RIVM report 601503 016Google Scholar
  19. UNEP-Chemicals (2004) Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, United Nation Environment Programme. Available from: http://www.pops.int/. Accessed on 15/10/2007
  20. USEPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002FGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang XL, Tao S, Dawson RW, Xu FL (2002) Characterizing and comparing risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a Tianjin wastewater irrigated area. Environ Res 90:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang B, Yu G, Yu YJ, Zhamg ZL, Hu HY, Wang LS (2006) Aquatic ecological risk assessment of OCPs in Huaihe River, Jiangsu section. Chin J Geochem 25(suppl.):157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wheeler JR, Grist EPM, Leung KMY, Morritt D, Crane M (2002) Species sensitivity distributions: data and model choice. Mar Pollut Bull 45:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiandt S, Poremski HJ (2002) Selection and prioritisation procedure of hazardous substances for the marine environment within OSPAR/DYNAMEC. Ecotoxicology 11:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yu G, Niu JF, Huang J (2005) Persistent organic pollutants—new global environmental problem (in Chinese). Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  26. Zolezzi M, Cattaneo C, Tarazona JV (2005) Probabilistic ecological risk assessment of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene at a former industrial contaminated site. Environ Sci Technol 39:2920–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, POPs Research CentreTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations