Methods for Deriving Pesticide Aquatic Life Criteria - Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology - page 22

Table 1 (continued)

Category Component (listed alphabetically) Reference

Species sensitivity distributions (SSD) a,b,c,d

Toxicant mode of action a,d

Threatened and endangered species a,b

Wildlife a,d

Utilization of available data c,d,e

“Section” of this chapter in which the specified components are addressed
a Reiley et al. 2003
b USEPA 2002a
c Whitehouse et al. 2004
d Lepper 2002
e Personal communication (Karkoski 2005; Denton 2005)
f Not part of discussions in references a-d but are part of existing criteria derivation methodologies
in the Unites States (USEPA 1985), Australia/New Zealand (ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000),
and/or the Netherlands (RIVM 2001)

In this chapter, the components listed in Table 1 are discussed with respect to
how they are, or are not, addressed by existing criteria derivation methodologies.
Included in the discussion are methodologies from (listed alphabetically) Australia/
New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, the European Union/European Commission
(EU/EC), France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom
(UK), and the United States (US), including the Great Lakes Region, and a few
individual US states whose methodologies diverge somewhat from USEPA guid-
ance (1985). In some cases, original documents were not available in English, but
other resources containing summaries of those documents were available and were
used for this chapter. Existing methodologies are evaluated against recent research
and reports on criteria derivation techniques. In addition to pesticides, most of the
methodologies address toxicity from metals and other inorganic chemicals (e.g.,
ammonia), and nonpesticide organic chemicals. This chapter is focused on method-
ologies to derive pesticide criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Some of the
latest recommendations for water quality criteria derivation methodologies are
simply not technically feasible, at this time, because of a paucity of data or lack of
agreement among experts on techniques.
Table 2 is provided as a reference to help the reader with the many acronyms
used throughout this chapter.

2 Summary of Major Methodologies Reviewed

Many existing methodologies are discussed in this chapter, but the focus is on a few
that are widely accepted and used (USEPA 1985; RIVM 2001 - updated from
VROM - Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, the
Netherlands), represent unique approaches (CCME Council of Ministers of the
Environment - 1999), or constitute newer methodologies that incorporate and