Serving Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

Contact Us Search: All EPA Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment

• You are here: EPA Home
• Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment
• Ecological Risk Assessment
• Ecological Risk Assessment Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks

Ecological Risk Assessment

Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks

[Back to top]

Notes and References

Literature Cited

^aRegion III BTAG Freshwater Screening Benchmarks. 2004. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/eco/btag/sbv/fw/screenbench.htm

^b Karickhoff, S.W. and J.M. Long. Environmental Research Laboratory. U.S. EPA.1995. Internal Report on Summary of Measured, Calculated and Recommended Log K _ow Values.

^c CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2003. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines: Summary Table December 2003. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Available at http://www.ccme.ca/publications/ceqg_rcqe.html

^d Van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L., Bosveld, A.T.C., Brunstrom, B., Cook, P., Feeley, M., Giesy, J.P., Hanberg, A., Hasegawa, R., Kennedy, S.W., Kubiak, T., Larsen, J.C., Rolaf van Leeuwen, F.X., Liem, A.K.D., Nolt, C., Peterson, R.E., Poellinger, L., Safe, S., Schrenk, D., Tillitt, D., Tysklind, M., Younes, M., Waern, F., and Zacharewski, T. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106 (12): 775-792. Available at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1998/106p775-792vandenberg/vandenberg-full.html

^eTalmage, S.S., D.M. Opresko, C.J. Maxwell, J.E. Welsh, M. Cretella, P.H. Reno, and F.B. Daniel. 1999. Nitroaromatic munition compounds: Environmental effects and screening values. Reviews in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 161: 1-156

^f Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter II and R.N. Hull. 1997. Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on sediment-associated biota: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Available at: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm95r4.pdf

^g Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen’s Printer of Ontario.

^h MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 20-31.

ⁱLong, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the national status and trends program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.

^jIngersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, N.E. Kemble, D.R. Mount, and R.G. Fox. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amphipod Hyallela azteca and the midge Chironomus riparius. International Association of Great Lakes Research. 22:602-623.

^k MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, D.E. Smrong, R.A. Lindskoog, G. Sloane, T. Biernacki. 2003. Development and evaluation of numerical sediment quality assessment guidelines for Florida inland waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/seds/SQAGs_for_Florida_Inland_Waters_01_03.PDF

^l U.S. EPA. 1996. Eco Update: Ecotox Thresholds. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA 540/ F95/038. A vailable at: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/eco_updt.pdf

^m Lemley, A.D. 2002. Selenium assessment in aquatic ecosystems. US Forest Service, Blacksburg, VA.

ⁿ Buchman, M.F. 1999. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA HAZMAT Report 99-1, Seattle, WA, Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Available at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/122_squirt_cards.pdf

^o U.S. EPA. 2000. Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/biotesting/bioaccum.pdf

End Notes

¹Value derived from the EqP method with Region III BTAG freshwater values (2004^a) and logKow values from Karickhoff and Long (1995^b). Only logKow values between 2 and 6 were used, as suggested by the EPA (2000^o).

²Congener- and receptor-specific dioxin equivalency.

³Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) marine value from Washington State Sediment Quality Standards as cited by Jones et al. (1997^f).

⁴Lowest Effect Level (LEL).

⁵Effect Range Lows (ERL), equivalent to the lower 10th percentile of the analyzed data in Long and Morgan (1990^j).

⁶EPA has published Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESB) for metal mixtures including this metal. Implementation of the ESB requires metal concentration data based on the simultaneously extracted metals procedure (SEM) and measurement of the acid volatile sulfide (AVS) concentration during the period from November to May. Application of ESB benefits significantly from the quantification of the organic carbon. BTAG recommends that these metals be screened against listed benchmarks in the screening level ecological risk assessment. Any exceedances should be further evaluated using ESBs following the sampling and analysis guidance in EPA-600-R-02-011 in Step 3 of the baseline ecological risk assessment.

⁷EqP value calculated using GLWQI Tier II and listed in source document (U.S. EPA 1996^l) as "Endosulfan, mixed isomers."

⁸EqP value calculated using Tier II Secondary Chronic Value from Suter and Tsao (1996). Heptachlor LogKow 6.10 from Syracuse Research Corporation.

⁹ARCs TEL (Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program Threshold Effects Level - 28d test using Hyallela azteca from U.S. EPA (1996^h).

¹⁰EPA has established an equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach for PAH mixtures in sediments (EPA-600-R-02-013), which may be used as an alternative or in comparison to this empirical screening value. Use of the EqP ΣESBTU_FCV as a screening value requires that the PAH analyses include all 34 parent and daughter parameters (i.e., generic correction factors are not applicable). Alternatively, a site-specific correction factor based on 20% of the samples having 34 parameters may be applied for datasets where n≥30.

¹¹Lowest reliable value among AET (Apparent Effects Threshold) tests: Microtox (Buchman 1999ⁿ)

[Back to top]

Hierarchy for Selection of Freshwater Sediment Benchmarks

• Preference was given to benchmarks based on chronic direct exposure, non-lethal endpoint studies designed to be protective of sensitive species
• Values derived by statistical- or consensus-based evaluation of multiple studies were given first priority
• Equilibrium partitioning values were selected for contaminants with 2.0< log Kow <6.0 if empirical values based on multiple studies were not available
• Absent consensus or equilibrium partitioning values, single study toxicity values were selected
• Marine values were used for freshwater only if a suitable freshwater value did not exist

[Back to top]

Downloadable Files

• Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks [EXCEL| PDF]
• Notes and References [MS Word]
• Table for the Computation of Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks Using Site-Specific Total Organic Carbon [EXCEL]

[Back to top]

Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment |EPA Home | EPA Risk Assessment Homepage

Local Navigation

• Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Site Cleanup
• Risk Assessment
• Ecological Risk
• Human Health Risk

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us