ERA-MANIA DSS: a decision support system for site-specific Ecological

Risk Assessment (ERA) for contaminated sites

Elena Semenzin, Andrea Critto, Claudio Carlon, Antonio Marcomini

Interdepartmental Centre IDEAS Interdepartmental Centre IDEAS -- University of VeniceUniversity of Venice

Ton AJ Schouten, Miranda Mesman, Michiel Rutgers National Institute for Public Health National Institute for Public Health

and the Environment, RIVMand the Environment, RIVM

Silvio GioveDepartment of Applied Mathematics Department of Applied Mathematics -- University of VeniceUniversity of Venice

CONSOIL – Bordeaux, 3-7 October 2005

University of VeniceIDEAS

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTDEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION TO SITES OF

NATIONAL INTEREST: THE CASE OF ACNA DI CENGIO(Funded by the Italian Government Commissary for the rehabilitation of the Bormida Valley)

Consorzio Venezia Ricerche

National Institute of Public Health and Environment (Netherlands)

PROJECT PARTNERS

APATNational Environmental Protection

Agency (Italy)

EXPECTED RESULTS

•Development and application of generic soil quality values (Soil Screening Values), related to different land uses, in the ERA screening level

•Development of an ERA site-specific procedure based on TRIAD approach and aiming at defining suitable remediation and monitoring plan

GENERAL OBJECTIVE: providing tools for the megasite management in Italy

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: ecological risk analysis application to the ACNA megasite, in order to obtain suitable remediation and monitoring programmes options.

University of VeniceIDEAS

Italian Ecological Risk Assessment procedure proposed by National Environmental Protection Agency (ANPA, 2002)

SCOPINGCheck listStarting point for the collection of appropriate biological data to be used in developing a preliminary ecosystem conceptual model PRELIMINARY ECOSYSTEM

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Selection of soil-use categories

Definition of Ecological Aspects for each soil use

SCREENING

SOIL SCREENING VALUES (SSV)based on soil use

Does soil concentration exceed SSV?

NoYes

SITE-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT(TRIAD procedure; RIVM, 2001)

Tier 1 Tier 2

Tier 3

STOP

Land use based

Development and application of a BIOACCUMULATION MODEL for

the estimation of secondary poisoning and the extrapolation of contaminant concentrations in soil

from ecotoxicological data for vertebrates

Identification of essential ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS and PROCESSES related to specific

land uses

Definition of soil-use based TROPHIC CHAINS

Acquisition of toxicological data as

input for the SSVsestimation

Definition of the ECOTOXICOLOGICAL

DATABASE for Microorganisms, Plants,

Invertebrates and Vertebrates

SCREENING RISK ASSESSMENT

SITE-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE (WOE) APPROACH

TRIAD APPROACH

- combines information from multiple lines of evidence to reach a conclusion about an

environmental system or stressor (Chapman, 2002; Burton, 2002);

- combines analysis of field data (to determine patterns) with experimental hypothesis testing (to determine mechanisms) to make prediction of the

future effects and provide appropriate management recommendations.” (Lowell, 2000)

simultaneous and integrated deployment of chemical,

toxical and ecological lines of evidence in the risk

assessment (Chapman, 1996; Rugters, 2001)

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSS)

Integrated, interactive computer system, consisting of analytical tools and information management capabilities, designed to assist experts and decision makers when assessment and management of critical, complex and unstructured environmental problems requires consensus building among different experts and stakeholders (Watkins and McKinney, 1995; Newman et al., 2000)

TRIAD hypothesisCombined effort and evaluation of results from three independent disciplines in ecotoxicology provides pragmatic reduction of conceptual uncertainties

(RIVM, 2001)ecologytoxicology

riskeffect

chemistry

Environmentalquality criteria

exceeded

Toxicitypresent

(bioassays)

Ecologicaleffects in the

fieldCONCLUSIONS

Strong indication for ecological effects of contaminationNo effects

Contaminants present, but not bioavailable

Unknown contamination, toxicity demonstrated

+

+

+

+

+--

--

---

etc.

The TRIAD approach (RIVM, 2001)

chemistry

toxicity

ecology

The toolbox of the TRIAD (RIVM, 2001)

PAF, msPAF, bioavailability, foodchain effects, ecological models

simple, chronic bioassays, in situ assay, endogene species, multispecies

(simple) vegetation surveys, soil processes and organisms, mammals, birds

risk

risk

risk

TIER 2: in this level the unacceptable risks resulted in the Tier 1 are investigated. The aim is to reduce the risk estimation uncertainty in order to achieve a more accurate risk assessment. Because of economic and time reasons it is preferable to stop the analysis at this level, after reaching an exhaustive estimation of the investigated risks.

TRIAD levels of investigation defined in ERA-MANIA DSS

TIER 1: the analysis can stop at this level only if the estimated risk is considered to be acceptable with a minimum level of uncertainty;

TIER 3: highest degree of investigation. In this level it is possible to analyse site-specific aspects of particular interest for which the risk estimation uncertainty can’t be reduced in the second level. This effort has to be justified by an adequate saving of money for the site remediation actions

SITE-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT

“ERAMANIA-DSS” MODULES FOR THE SITE-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT

• MODULE 1: Comparative Tests Tablesincluding ecotoxicological, ecological and chemical (bioavailability) tests (e.g., lines of evidence) and integrating discriminant, descriptive and comparative criteria, in order to select the most suitable set of tests for the case study

• MODULE 2: Integrated Ecological Risk Indexesaggregating the different lines of evidence results and based on Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) tools in order to:

- derive integrated ecological risk indexes which are able to characterise different risk scenarios and support the definition of suitable remediation and monitoring plan;

- provide a pragmatic reduction of conceptual uncertainties

The problemHow to choose the most suitable set of tests

to be applied at each TRIAD tier?

Useful criteria:

Critical issues: Multiple information, expert subjectivity, specific relevance in each TRIAD tier, …

MODULE 1“COMPARATIVE TESTS MATRIXES”

• Financial budget• Test duration and available time• Test characteristics (repeatability, standardization, etc.)• Ecological relevance of the test response• Site-specificity (for tested organisms, medium, etc.)• …

MODULE 1“COMPARATIVE TESTS TABLES”

The solutionA Multi Criteria Analysis-based decision support

tool that drives the experts in quantitatively handling the multiple criteria

1. Test discrimination: through discriminant attributes used to make a preliminary choice of the tests, excluding which are not applicable to the case study

2. Test description: through descriptive attributes used to present the major tests characteristics and methodologies

3. TRIAD level assignation: through comparative attributes characterizing the specific relevance of each test for each of the TRIAD tier

4. Test comparison: through comparative attributes which allow to integrate expert judgments and to compare the tests characteristics

5. Test ranking: through the calculation of three tier-specific scores for each test6. Test selection: on the basis of the calculated scores

ECOTOXICOLOGICAL TABLECHEMICAL TABLE (BIOAVAILABILITY)

ECOLOGICAL TABLE

TEST COMPOUND ECOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

pH Matrix

How much the test represents

the site-specificity

conditions?

Test matrix

Microorganisms Microtox Vibrio fischeri

Metals & metalloids /organic compounds

6,5-7,5 Elutriate, slurry Marine bacteria

Plant

PAM (Pulse Amplitude Modulation) algae Selenastrum capricornutum

Metals, organics (herbicides) Elutriate, slurry aquatic plant

Invertebrates

Earthworm Reproduction test Lumbricus rubellus

Metals, organics 5-8 soil

Metals & metalloids /organic compounds

MEDIA SITE-SPECIFICITY

Much/ Little Natural/ Artificial<5; 5-8; >8Soil/ Sediment> Porewater/ Elutriate

Low/ High

TEST COMPOUND ENDPOINT

Matrix Characteristics

Biomass fungiMetals & metalloids/ Organic compound

Soil Community structure and composition, abundance and viability

Earthworm biomassMetals & metalloids/ Organic compound

soil temperature, moisture conditions

ferquency of occurrence, abundance, biomass, cocoon production, number of juveniles

Pollution Induced Community Tolerance (PICT)

Pesticides, heavy metals, chlorinated organics

Elutriate/slurryInformation about chemical (only one chemical for biomarker)

Community restructuring, community composition, species diversity, shift in sensitivity, biomarkers: acetylcholinesterase inhibition (organophosphorous and carbamate pesticide), aminolevulinic acid dehydratase inhibition (lead) behavioral)

MEDIA

List of endpointsMetals & metalloids/ Organic compound

Soil/Sediment> Porewater/ Elutriate

List of characteristics

Type of measure Tool category Tool Methods of measurement compound

name name/description name/description name/description

Metals: cationic; anionic / Organics (Kow < 5) / Organics (Kow > 5) /

Herbicide / Fugicide / Insecticide / Bactericide / Nematocide / Acaricide /

Specific contaminants: PAH, phenantrene (ph); atrazine (az);

pentachlorophenol (PCP); cadmium (Cd); zinc (Zn); lead (Pb); copper (Cu)

Soil texture (%sand; %clay; %loam) Metals / Organics

Regression model: FeOX; %clay (Janssen et al., 1997)

experimental + computational Specific contaminants: Cu; Pb

Humic and fulvic acid content Acid and base extractions Organics (Kow > 5)

Regression model: FeOX; %clay (Janssen et al., 1997)

experimental + computational Specific contaminants: Cu; Pb

Solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) with cross-polarization and magic angle spinning

Petrography

EA

Infrared (IR) Absorbance spectrum is usually measured by Fourier transform IR instruments, FTIR

Specific structures Organics (Kow > 5)

Physico-chemical

General characteristics

Characterization of carbonaceous and other solid phases using NMR, petrography, EA, IR

The structure

MODULE 1“COMPARATIVE TESTS MATRIXES”

Software implementation

MODULE 1

The results

TEST NAME SCORE

Test 10Test 02Test 23Test 14Test 09…Test 08

0.9430.9000.8880.8870.823…0.125

TRIAD leg: ECOLOGYTIER n

COST(euro)

2040

100110120

…1100

TIME(days)

11111

…14

ECOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

9980767078…15

MODULE 1“COMPARATIVE TESTS MATRIXES”

MODULE 2“INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL RISK INDEXES”

The problemHow to integrate the test results in order to

assess the risk for the ecosystem?

What to take into account:• Response range of each test: defining the threshold of natural

variability and the levels of impairment to allow the comparison among the evidences of effect highlighted by different tests

• Different unit measurements: normalizing the results into a common scale

• Ability of the test to provide information at ecosystem level: identifying the relationships between the tested organisms and bothecosystem biodiversity and functional diversity

MODULE 2“INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL RISK INDEXES”

The solutionMulti Criteria Analysis-based decision support tools

that help the experts/decision makers in quantitatively and qualitatively evaluating the risk

posed by the contaminants

1. Impairment analysis: expert evaluation of the impairment level highlighted by each Line of Evidence (LoE) result, supported by multi-criteria analysis tools

2. Integrated Effect Index (IEI) calculation: quantitative integration of the evaluations provided by the impairment analysis

3. Ecosystem impairment evaluation: qualitative assessment of the evaluations provided by the impairment analysis, taken into account both ecosystem biodiversity and functional diversity by the means of the Ecosystem Impairment Matrix (EcoIM)

4. Bioavailability evaluation: qualitative evaluation of the LoE belonging to the “bioavailability process” within the chemical TRIAD leg through the Bioavailability Evidence Table (BET)

MODULE 2

For each Line of Evidence (LoE), the expert assigns two impairment thresholds(Th1, Th2), that allow the results normalization in a impairment scale [0,1]

Th1: negligible impairment thresholdTh2: relevant impairment threshold

Linguistic evaluations

Impairmentclasses

0 negligible0-0.30 intermediate I

0.30-0.70 intermediate II0.70-1 intermediate III

1 relevant

To visualize the impairment magnitude, 5 impairment classes have been defined:

the two extreme situation of negligibleand relevant impairment refer to the thresholds Th1 and Th2. Three sub-ranges have been defined to characterize the situation between Th1 and Th2

Th1 Th2U.M.0

1

impairment level

Impairment analysis

EcoIM example

LOERecycling

of nutrients

Organic matter decomposition

Trophicchain

complexity

Vegetation survey

Pollution induced community tollerance (PICT)

Metabolic community profile

crop

0.340.34herbaceousPLANTS

0.000.000.00

0.220.220.22BACTERIA

ECOLOGY

Seed germination in CucumisSativus

PAM (photosynthesis inhibition)

Microtox (Vibrio fisheri)

0.770.77crop

0.660.66herbaceousPLANTS

0.530.530.53BACTERIA

ECOTOXICOLOGY

PAF plants

PAF plants

PAF microorganisms

0.780.78crop

0.780.78herbaceousPLANTS

1.001.001.00BACTERIA

CHEMISTRY

MODULE 2

Results

chem eco etx chem eco etx chem eco etx chem eco etx chem eco etx chem eco etx

sample 1

sample 2

sample k

value SD value SD value SD

sample 1

sample 2

sample k

Glo

bal i

mpa

irman

t eva

luat

ion

EVA

LUA

TIO

N M

ETH

OD

TRIAD legs

SAMPLING SITES

expert judgement

etx

SAMPLING SITES

Formation of soil structure

TRIAD legs

chem eco

EVA

LUA

TIO

N

MET

HO

DEcosystem Impairment Matrix (EcoIM) evaluation

Integrated Effect Index (IEI)

Biodiversity

Functional diversity

Organic matter degradation Recycle of nutrients Soil detoxification Water cycle

MODULE 2

Information summarized by the expert judgement

• Case study: ACNA di Cengio megasite, located in Savona (Italy)

• 4 sampling stations: 1 reference site + 3 contaminated sites, characterized by an increasing contaminants concentration

• ecotoxicological tests, ecological observations and bioavailability tests have been performed by Eastern Piedmont University, Piedmont Environmental Protection Agency and CNR Institute of Ecosystem Study (Italy), and RIVM (The Netherlands)

Case study(work in progress)

Results will be anticipated at the final ERA-MANIA Project Workshop(28-29 November 2005) jointly organized with Liberation and Abacus EU Projects

all of you are kindly invited

By end 2005: ERA guidelines under Italian regulatory conditions

• Land-use based soil screening values can support a sustainable management of contaminated site requalificationprocesses

• ERA-MANIA DSS Module 1 is useful in promoting discussionsamong experts to reach a common judgment on advantages and drawbacks of existing experimental tests

• ERA-MANIA DSS Module 2 covers the gap between experimental test results and site-specific risk estimation and evaluation for terrestrial ecosystems

• ERA-MANIA DSS Module 2 provides an impairment assessment for both ecosystem functionality and biodiversityinstead of a generic risk assessment

Conclusions

Screening: need of European based ecotoxicological database to avoid reference to extra-European living targets

Site-specific: validation of ERA-MANIA DSS Module 1 at international level by comparing available tests for ERA

review of suitable tests for each tier

Site-specific, ERA-MANIA DSS Module 2: to include the bioavailability process evaluation in the impairment analysis

Further improvements

ERA-MANIA DSS: a decision support system for site-specific Ecological Risk Assessment

(ERA) for contaminated sites

CONSOIL – Bordeaux, 3-7 October 2005

Elena Semenzin, Antonio MarcominiCentre IDEAS – Ca’ Foscari University of Venice

semenzin@unive.itsemenzin@unive.it, , marcom@unive.itmarcom@unive.it