Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 51–60 | Cite as

Revisions to the derivation of the Australian and New Zealand guidelines for toxicants in fresh and marine waters

  • M. St. J. Warne
  • G. E. Batley
  • O. Braga
  • J. C. Chapman
  • D. R. Fox
  • C. W. Hickey
  • J. L. Stauber
  • R. Van Dam
Environmental Quality Benchmarks for Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems

Abstract

The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality are a key document in the Australian National Water Quality Management Strategy. These guidelines released in 2000 are currently being reviewed and updated. The revision is being co-ordinated by the Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, while technical matters are dealt with by a series of Working Groups. The revision will be evolutionary in nature reflecting the latest scientific developments and a range of stakeholder desires. Key changes will be: increasing the types and sources of data that can be used; working collaboratively with industry to permit the use of commercial-in-confidence data; increasing the minimum data requirements; including a measure of the uncertainty of the trigger value; improving the software used to calculate trigger values; increasing the rigour of site-specific trigger values; improving the method for assessing the reliability of the trigger values; and providing guidance of measures of toxicity and toxicological endpoints that may, in the near future, be appropriate for trigger value derivation. These changes will markedly improve the number and quality of the trigger values that can be derived and will increase end-users’ ability to understand and implement the guidelines in a scientifically rigorous manner.

Keywords

Environmental quality standards Toxicity Species sensitivity distribution Australia New Zealand 

References

  1. ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) (1992) National Water Quality Management Strategy. ANZECC, Canberra, Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/water/policy-programs/nwqms/. Accessed 10 Jan 2013
  2. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand) (2000a) National Water Quality Management Strategy, Document 4—Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. ANZECC/ARMCANZ, Canberra, Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/nwqms-guidelines-4-vol1.html, http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/nwqms-guidelines-4-vol2.html, and http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/nwqms-guidelines-4-vol3.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2013
  3. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand) (2000b) National Water Quality Management Strategy, Document 7—Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting. ANZECC/ARMCANZ, Canberra, Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/nwqms-monitoring-reporting.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2013
  4. Campbell E, Palmer MJ, Shao Q, Wilson D (2000) BurrliOZ: a computer program for calculating toxicant trigger values for the ANZECC and ARMCANZ water quality guidelines. Perth, Western Australia, Australia. http://www.cmis.csiro.au/envir/burrlioz/Download1.htm. Accessed 10 Jan 2013
  5. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) (2007) A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life 2007. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 37ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman PM, Cardwell RS, Chapman PF (1996) A warning: NOECs are inappropriate for regulatory use. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman PM, McDonald B, Kickham PE, McKinnon S (2006) Global geographic differences in marine metals toxicity. Mar Pollut Bull 52:1081–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crane M, Kwok KWH, Wells C, Whitehouse P, Lui GCS (2007) Use of field data to support European Water Framework Directive Quality Standards for dissolved metals. Environ Sci Technol 41:5014–5021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daam MA, Van den Brink PJ (2010) Implications of differences between temperate and tropical freshwater ecosystems for the ecological risk assessment of pesticides. Ecotoxicology 19:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies PE, Cook LSJ, Goenarso D (1994) Sublethal responses to pesticides of several species of Australian freshwater fish and crustaceans and rainbow trout. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1341–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Schamphelaere KAC, Janssen CR (2004) Development and field validation of a biotic ligand model predicting chronic copper toxicity to Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1365–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Schamphelaere K, Heijerick D, Janssen C (2002) Refinement and field validation of a biotic ligand model predicting acute copper toxicity to Daphnia magna. Comp Biochem Physiol C 133:243–258Google Scholar
  13. Dyer SD, Belanger SE, Carr GJ (1997) An initial evaluation of the use of Euro/North American fish species for tropical effects assessments. Chemosphere 35:2767–2781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EC (European Commission) (2011) Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2006/60/EC). Guidance document no. 27. Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 204ppGoogle Scholar
  15. ECHA (European Chemical Agency) (2007) Guidance for identification and naming of substances under REACH. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland. http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/. Accessed 12 Jan 2013
  16. ECHA (European Chemical Agency) (2008) The guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Guidance for the implementation of REACH. European Chemical Agency, Helsinki, May 2008Google Scholar
  17. Fox DR (2009) Opinion: NECs, NOECs and the ECx. Australas J Ecotoxicol 14:7–10Google Scholar
  18. Fox DR (2010) An integrated Bayesian approach for determining the no effect and hazardous concentrations in ecotoxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 73:123–131Google Scholar
  19. Geotechnical Services (2006) Effects of RO brine on the development of giant cuttlefish (Sepia apama) embryos. Report ENV06-128. Report prepared for BHP-Billiton. 73ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall JA, Golding LA (1998) Standard methods for whole effluent toxicity testing: development and application. Report no. MFE80205. NIWA report for the Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. pp. 53. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/whole-effluent-toxicity-nov98/index.html
  21. Heijerick DG, De Schamphelaere KAC, Janssen CR (2002a) Biotic ligand model development predicting Zn toxicity to the alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata: possibilities and limitations. Comp Biochem Physiol C 133:207–218Google Scholar
  22. Heijerick DG, De Schamphelaere KAC, Janssen CR (2002b) Predicting acute zinc toxicity for Daphnia magna as a function of key water chemistry characteristics: development and validation of a biotic ligand model. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1309–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hickey CW (2000) Ecotoxicology: laboratory and field approaches. In: Collier KC, Winterbourn M (eds) New Zealand stream invertebrates: ecology and implications for management. New Zealand Limnological Society, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp 313–343Google Scholar
  24. Hickey CW, Martin ML (1995) Relative sensitivity of five benthic invertebrate species to reference toxicants and resin acid contaminated sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1401–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoang TC, Tomasso JR, Klaine SJ (2004) Influence of water quality and age on nickel toxicity to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Environ Toxicol Chem 23:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs DA, Warne MStJ, Markich SJ (2004) Utility of northern hemisphere metal toxicity data in Australasia. SETAC Globe 5:38–39Google Scholar
  27. Hoekstra JA, Van Ewijk PH (1993) Alternatives for the no-observed effect level. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hose GC, Van den Brink PJ (2004) Confirming the species sensitivity distribution concept for endosulfan using laboratory, mesocosm and field data. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jager T (2012) Bad habits die hard: the NOEC’s persistence reflects poorly on ecotoxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:228–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnston N, Skidmore J, Thompson GB (1990) Applicability of OECD data to Australian aquatic species. A report to the Advisory Committee on Chemicals in the Environment. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  31. JSC (Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the National Water Quality Management Strategy) (2010) Frequently asked questions. http://www.scew.gov.au/archive/water/pubs/wq_fmwq_revision_of_guidelines_faq_final_230910.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2013
  32. Keithly J, Brooker JA, DeForest DK, Wu BK, Brix KV (2004) Acute and chronic toxicity of nickel to a cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and an amphipod (Hyalella azteca). Environ Toxicol Chem 23:691–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kwok KWH, Leung KMY, Chu VKH, Lam PKS, Morritt D, Maltby L, Brock TCM, Van den Brink PJ, Warne MStJ, Crane M (2007) Comparison of tropical and temperate freshwater species sensitivities to chemicals: implications for deriving safe extrapolation factors. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:49–67Google Scholar
  34. Kwok KWH, Bjorgesaeter A, Leung KMY, Lui GCS, Gray JS, Shin PKS, Lam PKS (2009) Deriving site-specific sediment quality guidelines for Hong Kong marine environments using field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landis WG, Chapman PM (2011) Well past time to stop using NOELs and LOELs. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7, vi–viiiGoogle Scholar
  36. Maltby L, Blake N, Brock TCM, Van den Brink PJ (2003) Addressing interspecific variation in sensitivity and the potential to reduce this source of uncertainty in ecotoxicological assessments. Science and Research Report PN0932. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. www.defra.gov.uk/science. Accessed 15 Jan 2013
  37. Markich SJ, Camilleri C (1997) Investigation of metal toxicity to tropical biota: Recommendations for revision of the Australian water quality guidelines. Supervising Scientist Report SSR 127, Supervising Scientist, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  38. Merrington, Youn-Joo An, Grist EPM, Jeong S-W, Rattikansukha C, Roe S, Schneider U, Sthiannopkao S, Suter GW II, Van Dam R, Van Sprang P, Wang J-Y, Warne MStJ, Yillia PT, Zhang X-W, Leung KMY (2013) Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics. Env Sci Poll Res. doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8
  39. Mulhall A (1997) Models to predict the toxicity of selected phenols and benzamines to a cladoceran and a marine bacterium. Honours thesis, University of Technology Sydney, Australia, 112 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. NEPC (National Environment Protection Council) (2011a) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. Schedule B5b—Guideline on methodology to derive Ecological Investigation Levels in contaminated soils. NEPC, Adelaide, Australia. 87 pp. http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/Schedule_B5b__Guideline_on_methodology_to_derive_EILs__SEP10.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2013
  41. NEPC (National Environment Protection Council) (2011b) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. Schedule B5c—Guideline on soil quality guidelines for arsenic, chromium III, copper, DDT, lead, naphthalene, nickel and zinc. NEPC, Adelaide, Australia. 177pp. http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/Schedule_B5c__Guideline_on_soil_quality_guidelines__SEP10.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2013
  42. Newman MC (2008) What exactly are you inferring? A closer look at hypothesis testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1013–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newman MC, Ownby DR, Mezin LCA, Powell DC, Christensen T, Lerberg SB, Anderson BA (2000) Applying species-sensitivity distribution in ecological risk assessment: assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:508–515Google Scholar
  44. Noppert F, Van der Hoeven N, Leopold A (1994) How to measure no effect? Towards a new measure of chronic toxicity in ecotoxicology. Netherlands Working Group on Statistics and Ecotoxicology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD (2006) Current approaches in the statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data: a guide to application. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publication, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 54, Environment Directorate, ENV/JM/MONO(2006)18, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  46. Paquin PR, Di Toro DM, Santore RC, Trivedi D, Wu KB (1999) A biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals: III. Application to fish and Daphnia magna exposure to silver. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1999. EPA 822-E-99-001Google Scholar
  47. Phyu YL (2004) Assessment of toxicity, bioavailability, partitioning and hazard of the herbicides, atrazine and molinate. PhD thesis. University of Technology Sydney, Australia, 281pp Google Scholar
  48. Rombke J, Waichman AV, Garcia MVB (2008) Risk assessment of pesticides for soils of the central Amazon, Brazil: comparing outcomes with temperate and tropical data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose RM, Warne MStJ, Lim RP (1998) Quantitative structure–activity relationships and volume fraction analysis for nonpolar narcotic chemicals to the Australian cladoceran Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34:248–252Google Scholar
  50. Sanchez-Bayo F, Hyne RV (2011) Comparison of environmental risks of pesticides between tropical and non-tropical regions. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Santore RC, Di Toro DM, Paquin PR, Allen HE, Meyer JS (2001) A biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. II. Application to acute copper toxicity in freshwater fish and daphnia. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2397–2402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shao Q (2000) Estimation for hazardous concentrations based on NOEC toxicity data: an alternative approach. Environmetrics 11:583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shao Q, Warne MStJ (2002) Critical assessment of current water quality guidelines and potential further development. In ‘Interact 2002—Program and Abstract Book. Sydney, 21–25 July, 2002’, p. 158Google Scholar
  54. Simpson SL, Batley GE, Chariton AA (2010) Revision of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ Sediment Quality Guidelines. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 08/07. August 2008, revised July 2010. Report prepared for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 115ppGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinclair A, Tayler K, van Dam R, Hogan A (2013) Site-specific water quality guidelines: 2. Development of a water quality regulation framework for pulse exposures of mine water discharges at a uranium mine in northern Australia. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1922-4
  56. Sunderam RIM, Cheng DMH, Thompson GB (1992) Toxicity of endosulfan to native and introduced fish in Australia. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:1469–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. USEPA (2007a) Water Quality Standards Handbook. 2nd Ed. EPA-823-B-94-0059. 2007 Update. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. USEPA (2007b) Aquatic life ambient freshwater quality criteria— copper. 2007 Revision. No. EPA-822-R-07-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  59. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) Water quality guidance for the Great Lakes system, Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 142, July 1. USEPA, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Dam RA, Chapman JC (2001) Direct toxicity assessment (DTA) for water quality guidelines in Australia and New Zealand. Australas J Ecotoxicol 7:175–198Google Scholar
  61. Van Dam RA, Harford AJ, Houston MA, Hogan AC, Negri A (2008) Tropical marine toxicity testing in Australia: a review and recommendations. Australas J Ecotoxicol 14:55–88Google Scholar
  62. Van Dam R, Harford A, Warne MStJ (2012a) Time to get off the fence: the need for definitive international guidance for statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8:242–245Google Scholar
  63. Van Dam RA, Trenfield MA, Markich SJ, Harford AJ, Humphrey AC, Stauber JL (2012b) Re-analysis of uranium toxicity data for freshwater organisms and the influence of dissolved organic carbon. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:2606–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Dam RA, Humphrey CL, Harford AJ, Frostick A, Jones DR, Davies S, Storey AW (2013) Site-specific water quality guidelines: 1. Derivation approaches based on physicochemical, ecotoxicological and ecological data. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1780-0
  65. Van der Hoeven N (1997) How to measure no effect. Part 1: towards a new measure of chronic toxicity? Environmetrics 8:241–248Google Scholar
  66. Warne MStJ (1998) Critical review of methods to derive water quality guidelines for toxicants and a proposal for a new framework. Supervising Scientist Report 135, Supervising Scientist, Canberra, ACT, Australia. ISBN 0 642 24338 7. 82ppGoogle Scholar
  67. Warne MStJ (2001) Derivation of the ANZECC and ARMCANZ water quality guidelines for toxicants. Australas J Ecotoxicol 7:123–136Google Scholar
  68. Warne MStJ (2010) A refined assessment of the selection of species and other factors that affect dilution factors for the proposed desalination plant at Point Lowly, South Australia. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 07/10. CSIRO, Adelaide, South Australia, 43pp. http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/regulatory/Documents/Olympic%20Dam%20Supplementary%20EIS/Appendices/Appendix%20H4_Ecotoxicology.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2013
  69. Warne MStJ, Van Dam R (2008) NOEC and LOEC data should no longer be generated or used. Australas J Ecotoxicol 14:1–5Google Scholar
  70. Westbury A-M, Warne MStJ, Lim RP (2004) Toxicity of substituted phenols to Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia and Vibrio fischeri and the development of predictive models. Australas J Ecotoxicol 10:33–42Google Scholar
  71. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. St. J. Warne
    • 1
  • G. E. Batley
    • 2
  • O. Braga
    • 3
  • J. C. Chapman
    • 4
  • D. R. Fox
    • 5
  • C. W. Hickey
    • 6
  • J. L. Stauber
    • 2
  • R. Van Dam
    • 7
  1. 1.Water Quality and Investigations, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Science, Science DeliveryDepartment of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the ArtsBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Contaminants ResearchCSIRO Land and WaterLucas HeightsAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and CommunitiesCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.Office of Environment & HeritageLidcombeAustralia
  5. 5.EnvironmetricsMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)HamiltonNew Zealand
  7. 7.Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising ScientistDarwinAustralia

Personalised recommendations