Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Application of Computer Simulation Tools for Ecological Risk Assessment

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on a review of available models for ecological risk estimation, most are site-specific and their applications are limited. However, general models, which can be easily adapted to other sites, remain few, in addition, they are simple and associated with significant uncertainties. In this paper, an approach is introduced for an ecological risk assessment (ERA) model that can be modified for site-specific conditions. Using computer simulation as a screening tool for ecological risk assessment can assist environmental managers and policy decision-makers in the planning and implementation of potentially highly focused assessments and remediation, should the ERA dictate the need. The model was integrated with a Windows-based interface and interactive database management system (DBMS) as a user-friendly software package. In addition, based on trophic sources, a food web has been integrated into the framework of the DBMS. In an effort to evaluate the model, a case study was implemented to characterize the effects on an ecosystem of replacing electroplated chromium coatings with sputtered tantalum at U.S. Army Yuma and Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Potential exposure pathways included ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption for terrestrial animals; root and foliar uptake for plants; and direct absorption for aquatic species. Overall, results showed that the most significant exposure resulted from molybdenum and hexavalent chromium, which posed higher risks to select aquatic and terrestrial species at both sites. On the other hand, tantalum (with vanadium as the surrogate) resulted in the least risk to all receptors within the studied areas. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated that soil-water distribution coefficients have a significant impact on the results. Based on the results, neither molybdenum nor chromium are recommended as a coating in gun barrels, and further study would be essential to address any affected firing range area. Tantalum is recommended for use, although for those species receiving a slight adverse risk, field investigations that include receptor sampling maybe necessary once soil/sediment and water sampling validates projected concentrations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Framework for ecological risk assessment, EPA/630/R-92/001, Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  2. E.J. Weiss, Preliminary ecological risk assessment to assess the implication of replacing chromium plating with tantalum coatings in artillery gun barrels, Master Thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology, NJ (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Guidelines for ecological risk assessment, EPA/630/R-95/002F, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.L. Regens, K.R. Obenshain, J.T. Gunter and V. Miller, Modeling radiological risks to human health from contaminated soils: compare H. Lu et al. / Computer simulation tools for ecological risk assessment 321 ing MEPAS, MMSOILS, and RESRAD, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6(5) (2000) 777-788.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S.M. Bartell and G.R. Biddinger, Critical Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Vol. 3 (ASTM STP, 1995).

  6. M.B. Swanson, G.A. Davis, L.E. Kincaid, T.W. Schultz, J.E. Bartmess, S.L. Jones and E.L. George, A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts. SETAC, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6(2) (1997) 372-383.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jing-Jy Cheng, RESRAD-ECORISK: A Computer Code For Ecological Risk Assessment Beta Version 1.01 (Argonne National Laboratory Environmental Assessment Division, Control No. 1452, Argonne, IL, 1998).

  8. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and CRCIA MTR, Screening assessment and requirements for a comprehensive assessment, DOE/RL-96-16 draft, Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment, U.S. Department of Energy (1998).

  9. G. Carbonell, C. Ramos, M.V. Pablos, J.A. Ortiz and J.V. Tarazona, A system dynamic model for the assessment of different exposure routes in aquatic ecosystems, The Science of the Total Environment 247 (2000) 107-118.

    Google Scholar 

  10. N. Greene, Computer software for risk assessment, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37 (1997) 148-150.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Sharpe and D. Mackay, A framework for evaluating bioacumulation in food webs, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34(12) (2000) 2373-2379.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.S. Meyer et al., Binding of nickel and copper to fish gills predicts toxicity when water hardness varies, but free-ion activity dose not, Environ. Sci. Technol. 33 (1999) 913-916.

    Google Scholar 

  13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  14. D.R.J. Moore, B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter, B.R. Parkhurst and R.S. Teed, A probabilistic risk assessment of the effects of methylmercury and PCBs on mink and kingfishers along East Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18(12) (1999) 2941-2953.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A.M. Ritter, J.L. Shaw, W.M. Williams and K.Z. Travis, Characterizing aquatic ecological risk from pesticides using a diquat dibromide case study. I. Probabilistic exposure estimates, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19(3) (2000) 749-759.

    Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Soil screening guidance: technical background document, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/540/R-95/128, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Hazardous waste identification rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 66344, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  18. B.K. Hope, A review of models for estimating terrestrial ecological receptor exposure to chemical contaminants, Chemosphere 30(12) (1995) 2267-2287.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R.V. Thomann, J.P. Connollly and T.F. Parkerton, An equilibrium model of organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction, Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (1992) 615-629.

    Google Scholar 

  20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Vols II and I, EPA/600/R-93/187 (Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications, EPA/600/8-91/011B, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  22. E.M. Farago, Plants and the Chemical Elements: Biochemistry, Uptake, Tolerance and Toxicity (VCH, New York, NY, USA, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  23. J.T. Maughan, Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  24. M.S. Ross, Toxic Metals in Soil-Plant Systems (John Willey & Sons, USA, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Hung and D. Mackay, A novel and simple model of the uptake of organic chemicals by vegetation from air and soil, Chemosphere 35(5) (1997) 959-977.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C.T. Chiou, G. Sheng and M. Manes, A partition-limited model for the plant uptake of organic contaminants from soil and water, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35(7) (2001) 1437-1444.

    Google Scholar 

  27. W.J. Lyman, W.F. Reehl and D.H. Rosenblatt, Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods, Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  28. D.L. Strenge and S.R. Peterson, Chemical Database for the Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS): Version 1. PNL-7145, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory under contract to U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Audit, Washington, DC (1989).

  29. B.A. Owen, Literature-derived absorption coefficient for 39 chemicals via oral and inhalation routes of exposure, Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol. 11 (1990) 237-252.

    Google Scholar 

  30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), ECOTOX: ecological toxicity database, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division (2001).

  31. B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II, Toxicological benchmarks for wildlife: 1996 revision, ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  32. L.G. Cockerham and B.S. Shane, Basic Environmental Toxicology (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  33. J.D. Bascietto, J.P. Hinckley and M. Slimak, Ecotoxicity and ecological risk assessment: regulatory application at EPA, Environ. Sci. Technol. 241 (1990) 10-15.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. Crane and M.C. Newman, What level of effect is a no observed effect, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19(2) (2000) 516-519.

    Google Scholar 

  35. T.J. Kubiak and D.A. Best, Wildlife risks associated with passage of contaminated anadromous fish at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensed dams in Michigan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Contaminated Program, Division of Ecological Services, East Lansing, MI (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Risk assessment and modeling overview document, EPA/905/R-93/0077, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  37. B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter II, R.A. Efroymson and D.S. Jones, A guide to the ORNL Ecotoxicological screening benchmarks background, development, and application, Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract to U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN (1998).

  38. U.S. Army Garrison Aberdeen Proving Ground, The Aberdeen Proving Ground Installation Restoration Program, U.S. Army Garrison Aberdeen Proving Ground, Environmental Conservation & Restoration Division (1998).

  39. U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Field Investigation Report, Munition Test Range Environmental Management Project, Firing Range Study, No. 32-EE-5813-99, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Environmental Division (1999).

  40. Entech Engineers, Inc., Geohydrologic Study of the Yuma Proving Ground with Particular Reference to the Open Burning/Open Detonation Facility, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (1988).

  41. C.O. Martin and R.A. Fischer, Regional strategies for managing threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on DOD sites, U.S. ongoing project by waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (2000).

  42. B.E. Sample and C.A. Arenal, Allometric models for interspecies extrapolation of wildlife toxicity data, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 62 (1999) 653-663.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R.G. Clements, J.V. Nabholz, D.W. Johnson and M. Zeeman, The use and application of QSARs in the Office of Toxic Substances for Ecological Hazard Assessment of New Chemicals, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1993) pp. 56-64.

    Google Scholar 

  44. C. Yu, C. Loureiro, J.J. Cheng, L.G. Jones, Y.Y. Wang, Y.P. Chia and E. Faillace, Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling the 322 H. Lu et al. / Computer simulation tools for ecological risk assessment Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil, ANL/EAIS-8 (Environmental Assessment and Information Sciences Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  45. C.M. Bethke and P.V. Brady, How the Kd approach undermines groundwater cleanup, Ground Water 38(3) (2000) 435-443.

    Google Scholar 

  46. P. Trivedi and L. Axe, Modeling Cd and Zn sorption to hydrous metal oxides, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 2215-2223.

    Google Scholar 

  47. P.M. Chapman and F. Wang, Issues in ecological risk assessment of inorganic metals and metalloids, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6(6) (2000) 965-988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Haiyi Lu & Lisa Axe

  2. Department of Physics, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Trevor A. Tyson

Authors
  1. Haiyi Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Axe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Trevor A. Tyson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Axe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lu, H., Axe, L. & Tyson, T.A. Development and Application of Computer Simulation Tools for Ecological Risk Assessment. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 8, 311–322 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENMO.0000004585.85305.3d

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENMO.0000004585.85305.3d

Search

Navigation