Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology - Section 1 ppsx

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC
Species Sensitivity
Distributions
in
Ecotoxicology

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC
Series Editor
Michael C. Newman
College of William and Mary
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Environmental and Ecological
Risk Assessment
Published Titles
Coastal and Estuarine Risk Assessment
Edited by
Michael C. Newman, Morris H. Roberts, Jr., and Robert C. Hale
Risk Assessment with Time to Event Models
Edited by
Mark Crane, Michael C. Newman, Peter F. Chapman, and John Fenlon
Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology
Edited by
Leo Posthuma, Glenn W. Suter II, and Theo P. Traas
LEWIS PUBLISHERS
A CRC Press Company
Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
Edited by
Leo Posthuma
Glenn W. Suter II

Theo P. Traas
Species Sensitivity
Distributions
in
Ecotoxicology

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material
is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for
creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC
for such copying.
Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

Trademark Notice:

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.

Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC
St. Lucie Press is an imprint of CRC Press LLC
No claim to original U.S. Government works
International Standard Book Number 1-56670-578-9
Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Printed on acid-free paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Catalog record is available from the Library of Congress

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Foreword

Different species have different sensitivities to a chemical. This variation can be
described with a statistical or empirical distribution function, and this yields a species
sensitivity distribution (SSD). The idea to use SSDs in risk assessment originated
almost simultaneously in Europe and in the United States. Scientists began to use
these distributions for the derivation of environmental quality criteria, challenged
by policy makers to make optimal use of single-species toxicity test data for chem-
icals. This development coincided with the notion that risks cannot be completely
eliminated but should be reduced to an acceptable low level.
In 1990, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Hazard Assessment Advisory Body organized a workshop in Arlington, Virginia, to
discuss these and other approaches for extrapolation of laboratory aquatic toxicity
data to the real environment. The extrapolation workshop, together with other work-
shops on the application of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) to
estimate ecotoxicity data (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and effects assessment of chem-
icals in sediment (Copenhagen, Denmark), formed the backbone of the

OECD Guid-
ance Document for Aquatic Effects Assessment

, which was published in 1995. This

guidance document is applied, for example, in the OECD existing chemicals program.
As head of the OECD Environment, Health and Safety Division, which supported
the transatlantic discussions on the use of SSDs in 1990, it is a great pleasure to see
that this specific approach in ecotoxicology has been taken up by scientists and is
still developing. The fact that it has become so well used in environmental manage-
ment should not keep us from being critical and demanding about the scientific
rationale and validity of the methods used. It is my firm belief that this book
contributes to this goal and that it serves as an excellent stimulus to pursue the
continued development of SSD-based risk assessment in ecotoxicology.

Rob Visser

Head, Environment, Health and Safety Division
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Preface

AIMS OF THE BOOK

The aims of this book are many, but the most important ones are the following:
• First, the concept that is the subject of the book,

species sensitivity dis-
tributions

, is a practical method in ecological risk assessment and in
decision-making processes. It is used in the derivation of environmental
quality criteria and in ecological risk assessment of contaminated ecosys-

tems. The question is, whether the past adoption of the concept has been
a good decision, especially in view of the large investments in preventive
and curative actions resulting from decisions based, fully or in part, on
application of the concept. The editors, all working in governmental
institutes, felt a sense of urgency in the air to summarize the state of the
art of the concept, its scientific underpinning, its current uses, and its
predictive accuracy, after approximately two decades of convergent evo-
lution on two continents. Eventually, a review of the state of the art should
promote better understanding of all issues relevant to the SSD concept
and its applications. Therefore, the major aim is a better understanding
of the science of ecological risk assessment concerning the use of a
practically adopted method.
• Second, the many relevant publications by academic, regulatory, and
industrial scientists in North America and Europe have been scattered
throughout the literature. Few papers have been published in the easily
accessible scientific journals; many are in the “gray literature.” Further-
more, most texts explain the issues in various, context-dependent lan-
guages, with local jargon added. The secondary aim, necessary to
understand the science, is to bring together open and gray literature, and
to make the sources available in clear language in this book.
• Third, by compilation and study of the available material and by review
of past criticisms of the SSD concept and the solutions offered so far, a
final aim becomes apparent. This aim is to suggest paths forward, to
suggest solutions for the most relevant criticisms voiced in the past, and
to break inertia in the evolution of the SSD concept itself. This should
eventually lead to clear views regarding the advantages and limitations of
the method for different applications.

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

THE EVOLUTION OF EDITORIAL RISK

The pursuit of these three aims began in 1998. At a conference in Bordeaux,
organized by the European branch of the Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC), various Europeans working with the SSD concept were inspired
by the local atmosphere to draft the raw outlines of a plan. After approximately
15 years of evolution on two continents, the need was felt to evaluate the SSD
concept. The thought simmered for some time. It was brought to the Laboratory for
Ecotoxicology at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
(RIVM). At RIVM, Herman Eijsackers sowed the seed, and he and Hans Canton
cared most for the undisturbed survival and growth of the young plant. In the next
year, it grew into a formal RIVM project. RIVM employees were assigned to compile
and evaluate the current state of the art, and to formulate ways forward. This was
deemed a necessary task for RIVM, since many sites in the Netherlands are exposed
at concentrations exceeding the Dutch Environmental Quality Criteria, and the
project was expected to help answer the question: “What are the quantitative eco-
logical risks of mixtures of chemical compound concentrations in the environment
that exceed the Environmental Quality Criteria?” The efforts were supported by
scientific advisory bodies of the RIVM. Soon, the RIVM project became an inter-
national project, and the review plan reshaped into a book plan, with international
editorship and contributions.
The addition of a North American editor to this effort continued a connection
that began at a 1990 OECD workshop on ecotoxicological extrapolation models
(OECD, 1992). The most significant result of that workshop was the realization that
a common approach was being used in the United States, the Netherlands, and
Denmark to extrapolate from single species toxicity test results to biotic communi-
ties. Because there was no name for that class of models, the Working Group B
rapporteur coined the term

species sensitivity distributions

. That workshop contrib-
uted to the subsequent expansion of the use of SSDs from the setting of regulatory
criteria into the emerging field of ecological risk assessment. More to the point, it
established the contacts and common interests among users of SSDs in North
America and Europe that made this volume possible.

ECOLOGICAL AND AUTHORSHIP RISKS

The contributors to this book are specialists on risks, especially risks from chemical
compounds in ecosystems. Especially

they

could have been reluctant to contribute
to this book in view of various realistic risks associated with it. Nonetheless, they
contributed of their own free will.
What risks did authors and editors face?
• First, they faced the risk that they would create a Gordian knot of risk
concepts, definitions, and research results, when their goal was to unravel
a knotty problem. If you try to imagine how to describe a Gordian knot,
or a research plan to unravel it, you can guess how difficult that can be,
especially when you want to do it in a scientific way. Where are the rope

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

ends, and how do they causally connect? Those who contribute to a book
on such a knotty problem might never be understood by readers or even
by the other authors.
• Second, there is the risk that the interpretation of the chosen risk definition

(if any) would be strongly context dependent, yielding a hidden knot
within a knot. In a scientific context, one can communicate about risks
in a purely numerical context, without value judgments. In the societal
context of risk-based decision making, however, risk has an aspect of
value judgment. The contributors were aware of this extra complication,
as they were recruited from those different contexts, so it was courageous
to join. Thinkers and practitioners could have easily split, and two volumes
rather than one volume could have resulted.
• Third, there is the risk of interminable debate aroused by the published
text, as a consequence of the preceding risks. The authors and editors
could have chosen to keep the results of their debates among themselves,
since the above risks were effectuated in their internal discussions. There
might not have been a book at all.
• Fourth, risks are associated with working on the border between science
and policy. Scientists may develop methods that have policy implications,
which may not be acceptable to policy makers or advocates for industry
or the environment. Clearly, the assumption that SSDs are adequate mod-
els of the environment is such a case, and work on the book could have
been stopped by the employers of the authors or editors.
• Fifth, publicizing controversial technical and conceptual issues may be
unwelcome, because SSDs are firmly embedded in the regulatory practices
of the United States, the Netherlands, and other nations. Regulators may
not want to be told that the scientific foundations of their actions are still
questionable or subject to change.
• Sixth, confusion and conflict could have been almost invited by the editors
by their wish to bring together two historical lines of SSD evolution (the
North American and the European) in a single volume, each with its own
context of adopted principles, terminology, and legislation.

AUTHORSHIP RISKS IN PRACTICE

The editors have seen some of these risks in practice. At the first public introduction
of the SSD concept in Europe, it was the initiator of the plan for this book who,
metaphorically, suggested killing the first messenger. In 1983, Bas Kooijman, from
the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), was asked by
the Dutch Ministry of the Environment to help resolve the ethical question: “How
much toxicity test data for how many species are needed to underpin adequate risk
assessment based decisions?” As a result, an initial Dutch TNO report from 1985
and a well-known paper, in

Water Research

in 1987, were published on the risky
subject of the derivation of hazardous concentrations for sensitive species. This
evolved further when Nico van Straalen from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam was
invited to give a thought-provoking introductory plenary lecture at a 1995 meeting

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

of the Dutch Provisional Soil Protection Technical Committee (V-TCB). He began
this lecture on SSD basics

avant la lettre

by stating that he felt as if he were putting
his head on the guillotine, while the audience members were handed a rope to release
the blade. The lecture was completed in full health, although the pertinent audience
member said in a whisper that he would have liked to pull the rope. This illustrates
the risks of the science policy debate on the SSD concept in a nutshell.

POST-WRITING RISKS

Despite these risks, the contributors have not been reluctant. They produced 22
chapters, and no authors left because of inability to describe their strand of the knot.
The contributors also have been willing to project themselves into the role and
context of their colleagues. The 22 chapters are thus in one book, not two. Although
debates have been many, we hope scientific growth has resulted.
On publication of this book, only the post-writing risks remain. There is a need
of risk management here. The management of that risk is your task as reader, acting
in your own professional environment after reading the book. To help you with this,
we have done our best to present the science and applications to you in manageable
portions, despite the double Gordian knot. We identified four sections:
I. General Introduction and History of SSDs
II. Scientific Principles and Characteristics of SSDs
III. Applications of SSDs
A. Derivation of Environmental Quality Criteria
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
IV. Evaluation and Outlook
By arranging the chapters within these sections, the different focuses of the chapters
are presented.
We can help in managing the remaining risks only a bit further, by stating that
our discussions profited first from clearly defining the word

risk

when it was used,
second from clearly defining or recognizing the context of those involved in the
debate, and third from clearly distinguishing the values obtained in risk calculations
from value judgments.
All scientific fields can be seen as Gordian knots. For the field of ecological risk

assessment, we hope to have cut through some surface layers, and we hope to have
freed thereby some useful lengths of rope. This book is the result of the risky effort
of many people, who all hope that the field of ecological risk assessment benefits
from their efforts.

Leo Posthuma, Glenn W. Suter II, and Theo P. Traas

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Acknowledgments

The editors wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions to this book by:
• Olivier Klepper, for starting the process that evolved into this book;
• The

authors

, who volunteered to contribute to this book with a chapter,
and who adapted their chapters based on comments of anonymous peer
reviewers, section editors, and editors, so as to optimize scientific quality
within the chapters, and line of reasoning among chapters in the four
sections and throughout the book;
• The

section editors

, who helped to identify highly qualified potential peer
reviewers, so that all chapters were read by reviewers representing two
types, namely, those expected to be familiar with the environmental policy
setting in the continent of the author and those almost completely unfa-

miliar with that context; the latter helped remove unnecessary jargon;
• The

reviewers

, who performed their peer-reviewing work with enthusi-
asm, resulting in main-line comments and detailed suggestions on all
chapters, which greatly improved the contents of the book.
The reviewers are:

Prof. Dr. Wim Admiraal

Department of Aquatic Ecology
and Ecotoxicology
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Dr. Rolf Altenburger

Centre for Environmental Research
(UFZ-Umweltforschungszentrum)
Leipzig, Germany

Dr. Steve Bartell

The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

Dr. Jacques J.M. Bedaux

Institute of Ecological Science
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Prof. Dr. Hans Blanck

Botanical Institute
Göteborg University
Göteborg, Sweden

Dr. Kym Rouse Campbell

The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

Dr. Rick D. Cardwell

Parametrix, Inc.
Kirkland, Washington, USA

Dr. Gary A. Chapman

Paladin Water Quality Consulting
Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Dr. Peter Chapman

Jealott’s Hill Research Station
Zeneca Agrochemicals
Bracknell, United Kingdom

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Dr. Mark Crane

Royal Holloway College
University of London
Egham, United Kingdom

Dr. Michael Dobbs

Bayer Corporation
Agriculture Division
Stilwell, Kansas, USA

Dr. Rebecca A. Efroymson

Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

Dr. Valery E. Forbes

Department of Life Sciences
and Chemistry
Roskilde University
Roskilde, Denmark

Dr. Florence Fulk

Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Dr. John H. Gentile

Center for Marine
and Environmental Analysis
University of Miami
Miami, Florida, USA

Dr. Jeff Giddings

The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Marion, Massachusetts, USA

Dr. Lenwood Hall, Jr.

University of Maryland
Queenstown, Maryland, USA

Dr. Patrick Hofstetter

Harvard School of Public Health
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Dr. Udo Hommen

Private Consultant for Ecological
Modelling and Statistics

Alsdorf, Germany

Dr. Steve Hopkin

School of Animal and Microbial
Sciences
University of Reading
Reading, United Kingdom

Prof. Dr. Olivier Jolliet

Laboratory of Ecosystem Management
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale
de Lausanne
Lausanne, Switzerland

Dr. Lorraine Maltby

Department of Animal
and Plant Sciences
University of Sheffield
Sheffield, United Kingdom

Dr. Dwayne Moore

The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Prof. Dr. David F. Parkhurst

School of Public
and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana, USA

Dr. David W. Pennington

National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Dr. Ad Ragas

Department of Environmental Sciences
Nijmegen University
Nijmegen, the Netherlands

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Dr. Hans Toni Ratte

Department of Biology
Aachen University of Technology
Aachen, Germany

Prof. Dr. Sten Rundgren

Department of Ecology
University of Lund

Lund, Sweden

Dr. Bradley E. Sample

CH2M Hill
Sacramento, California, USA

Dr. Wilbert Slooff

Centre for Substances
and Risk Assessment
National Institute of Public Health and
the Environment (RIVM)
Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Dr. Eric P. Smith

Department of Statistics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Dr. Timothy A. Springer

Wildlife International, Ltd.
Easton, Maryland, USA

Mr. Charles E. Stephan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Duluth, Minnesota, USA

Dr. Helen M. Thompson

Environmental Research Team
Central Science Laboratory
York, United Kingdom

Dr. Nelly Van der Hoeven

ECOSTAT
Statistical Consultancy in Ecology,
Ecotoxicology and Agricultural
Research
Leiden, the Netherlands

Dr. William H. Van der Schalie

National Center for Environmental
Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C., USA

Dr. Bert Van Hattum

Institute of Ecological Science
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Prof. Dr. Nico M. van Straalen

Institute of Ecological Science
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Dr. Donald J. Versteeg

The Procter & Gamble Company
Miami Valley Laboratories
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Dr. Jason M. Weeks

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Monks Wood
Huntingdon, United Kingdom
In addition, we acknowledge:
•

Marga van der Zwet

(at RIVM), editorial secretary and “Mother Supe-
rior” at the Laboratory of Ecotoxicology, who perfectly kept track of all
paperwork, and who triggered taking timely action when necessary; with-
out her, the process might have gone out of control;
•

Dick de Zwart

(at RIVM), the electronics polyglot of the book team,

who shaped all electronic formats into one, thereby removing the non-
scientific transatlantic heterogeneity in file formats, and who shaped

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

and optimized the appearances of tables and figures and the single
reference list;
•

Miranda Mesman

and

Dick de Zwart

for assistance in proofreading of
technically edited chapters;
•

Martin Middelburg

at the Studio of RIVM for formatting of various
chapter figures;
•

The directors of the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and
the Environment (RIVM), especially of the Division of Risks, Envi-
ronment and Health

, who provided the atmosphere in which scientific

ideas on risks of various agents for humans and environment can flourish
with both open scientific discussions and an eye on practical use, and who
provided funding and all technical means to achieve the goals of this book
project;
• The former and current acting Head of the Laboratory for Ecotoxicology,

Herman Eijsackers

and

Hans Canton

, and the Head and Deputy Head
of the Centre for Substances and Risk,

Hans Könemann

and

Cornelis
van Leeuwen

, who stimulated and gave ample room for planning and
executing the work for the book project;
•

Colleagues

who participated in the discussion at the Interactive Poster
Session on SSDs, held at the 20th North American Annual Meeting of

the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in
Philadelphia, PA, USA, in 1999;
• The

Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

and SETAC office personnel, who provided the opportunity to organize
an Interactive Poster Session on SSDs at the 20th North American Annual
Meeting of SETAC in Philadelphia, PA, USA, in 1999;
• The editors gratefully acknowledge the support of their life partners,

Connie Posthuma

,

Linda Suter

, and

Evelyn Heugens

.
Development of this book was supported in part by the Dutch National Institute
of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (www.rivm.nl), within the framework
of the strategic RIVM project “Ecological Risk Assessment,” RIVM project number
S/607501.

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

About the Editors

Leo Posthuma

is currently Research Staff Member
in the Laboratory for Ecotoxicology at the Dutch
National Institute of Public Health and the Environ-
ment (RIVM), where he is involved in the develop-
ment, testing, and validation of methods for eco-
logical risk assessment. He studied Biology and
received a Ph.D. in Ecology and Ecotoxicology
from the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Neth-
erlands. He has authored and co-authored more than
75 open literature publications, reports, and book
chapters, and has acted as book co-editor. His
research experience has included phytopathological
studies and studies on the evolutionary ecology and
population genetics of contaminant adaptation of
exposed soil arthropod populations, on community tolerance evolution, on the bio-
availability of toxic compounds for terrestrial organisms, on joint effects of com-
pound mixtures, and on stability and resilience of soil ecosystems.

Glenn W. Suter II

is currently Science Advisor in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Center for Environmental Assess-
ment–Cincinnati, and was formerly a Senior
Research Staff Member in the Environmental Sci-
ences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S.A. He holds a Ph.D. in Ecology from the Uni-

versity of California, Davis, and has 26 years of
professional experience including 20 years of expe-
rience in ecological risk assessment. He is the editor
and principal author of two texts in the field of
ecological risk assessment, and has edited two other
books and authored more than a hundred open lit-
erature publications. He is Associate Editor for Eco-
logical Risk of

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

, and Reviews Editor for the
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). He has served on
the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis Task Force on Risk and
Policy Analysis, the Board of Directors of the SETAC, an Expert Panel for the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the editorial boards of

Environmental Tox-
icology and Chemistry

,

Environmental Health Perspectives

, and

Ecological Indica-
tors.

His research experience includes development and application of methods for

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

ecological risk assessment, development of soil microcosm and fish toxicity tests,
and environmental monitoring. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Theo P. Traas

is currently Research Staff Mem-
ber in the Centre for Substances and Risk Assess-
ment at the Dutch National Institute of Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM). He studied
Biology at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. His main task is the derivation of
environmental risk limits, using species sensitiv-
ity distributions and probabilistic food chain mod-
els. He is involved in the development, testing,
and validation of models for ecological risk
assessment. He has authored and co-authored
more than 35 open literature publications, reports,
and book chapters.

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Editors and Principal Authors

Leo Posthuma

RIVM (Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment)

Laboratory for Ecotoxicology
Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Glenn W. Suter II

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Theo P. Traas

RIVM (Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment)
Centre for Substances and Risk Assessment
Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Section Editors

Section I

Theo P. Traas (RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
Herman J. P. Eijsackers (Alterra Green World Research, Wageningen,
the Netherlands)

Section II

Tom Aldenberg (RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
Dik van de Meent (RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
Glenn W. Suter II (U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA)

Section III

Robert Luttik (RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
Dick de Zwart (RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands)

Section IV

Leo Posthuma (RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
Glenn W. Suter II (U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA)

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Contributing Authors

Belgium

The Procter & Gamble Company, Eurocor, Temselaan 100, 1853 Stroombeek-Bever,
Belgium
Joanna S. Jaworska

Canada

Environment Canada, National Guidelines and Standards Office, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
Kathie Adare
Connie L. Gaudet
Kelly Potter
Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Doug Bright
University of Guelph, Centre for Toxicology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Keith R. Solomon

Peter Takacs

Denmark

National Environmental Research Institute, Department of Terrestrial Ecology,
Silkeborg, Denmark
John Jensen
Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

The Netherlands

Alterra Green World Research, Department of Water and the Environment,
Wageningen, the Netherlands
Theo C. M. Brock
Paul J. van den Brink
RIKZ (National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management), Middelburg,
the Netherlands
Belinda J. Kater
Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, the Netherlands
Mark Goedkoop
Renilde Spriensma
RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment), Centre for Sub-
stances and Risk Assessment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Trudie Crommentuijn*
Cornelis J. van Leeuwen
Robert Luttik

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Hans Mensink

Dick T.H.M. Sijm
Theo P. Traas
Annemarie P. van Wezel
RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment), Laboratory for
Ecotoxicology, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Dik van de Meent
Leo Posthuma
Aart Sterkenburg
Dick de Zwart
RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment), Laboratory for
Water and Drinking Water Research, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Tom Aldenberg
University of Amsterdam, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Mark A. J. Huijbregts*
Vrije Universiteit, Institute of Ecological Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Nico M. van Straalen
Wageningen University, Toxicology Group, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Timo Hamers

United States

The Cadmus Group, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, USA
William J. Warren-Hicks
The Cadmus Group, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, USA
Benjamin R. Parkhurst
Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Jonathan B. Butcher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Glenn W. Suter II

* Current affiliation: Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, The Hague, the
Netherlands
* Current affiliation: University of Nijmegen, Faculty of Science, Mathematics and Informatics, Depart-
ment of Environmental Studies, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Midcontinent Ecology Division,
Duluth, Minnesota, USA
Charles E. Stephan
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
Britt-Anne Anderson
Tyler R. L. Christensen
Scott B. Lerberg
Laurent C. A. Mézin
Michael C. Newman
David R. Ownby
Tiruponithura V. Padma
David C. Powell

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Contents

SECTION I

General Introduction and History
of SSDs

Chapter 1

General Introduction to Species Sensitivity Distributions

Leo Posthuma, Theo P. Traas, and Glenn W. Suter II

Chapter 2

North American History of Species Sensitivity Distributions

Glenn W. Suter II

Chapter 3

European History of Species Sensitivity Distributions

Nico M. van Straalen and Cornelis J. van Leeuwen

SECTION II

Scientific Principles and
Characteristics of SSDs

Chapter 4

Theory of Ecological Risk Assessment Based on Species Sensitivity
Distributions

Nico M. van Straalen

Chapter 5

Normal Species Sensitivity Distributions and Probabilistic Ecological Risk
Assessment

Tom Aldenberg, Joanna S. Jaworska, and Theo P. Traas

Chapter 6

Extrapolation Factors for Tiny Toxicity Data Sets from Species Sensitivity
Distributions with Known Standard Deviation

Tom Aldenberg and Robert Luttik

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Chapter 7

Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecological Risk Assessment:
Distributional Assumptions, Alternate Bootstrap Techniques, and Estimation
of Adequate Number of Species

Michael C. Newman, David R. Ownby, Laurent C. A. Mézin,
David C. Powell, Tyler R. L. Christensen, Scott B. Lerberg,
Britt-Anne Anderson, and Tiruponithura V. Padma

Chapter 8

Observed Regularities in Species Sensitivity Distributions

for Aquatic Species

Dick de Zwart

Chapter 9
The Value of the Species Sensitivity Distribution Concept for Predicting Field
Effects: (Non-)confirmation of the Concept Using Semifield Experiments
Paul J. van den Brink, Theo C. M. Brock, and Leo Posthuma
SECTION III Applications of SSDs
A. Derivation of Environmental Quality Criteria
Chapter 10
Effects Assessment of Fabric Softeners: The DHTDMAC Case
Cornelis J. van Leeuwen and Joanna S. Jaworska
Chapter 11
Use of Species Sensitivity Distributions in the Derivation of Water Quality
Criteria for Aquatic Life by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Charles E. Stephan
Chapter 12
Environmental Risk Limits in the Netherlands
Dick T. H. M. Sijm, Annemarie P. van Wezel, and Trudie Crommentuijn
Chapter 13
A Rank-Based Approach to Deriving Canadian Soil and Sediment
Quality Guidelines
Connie L. Gaudet, Doug Bright, Kathie Adare, and Kelly Potter
Chapter 14
Ecotoxicological Soil Quality Criteria in Denmark
Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand and John Jensen
© 2002 by CRC Press LLC
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
Chapter 15

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Using Species Sensitivity Distributions
Keith R. Solomon and Peter Takacs
Chapter 16
The Potentially Affected Fraction as a Measure of Ecological Risk
Theo P. Traas, Dik van de Meent, Leo Posthuma, Timo Hamers,
Belinda J. Kater, Dick de Zwart, and Tom Aldenberg
Chapter 17
Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment
William J. Warren-Hicks, Benjamin R. Parkhurst, and Jonathan B. Butcher
Chapter 18
Toxicity-Based Assessment of Water Quality
Dick de Zwart and Aart Sterkenburg
Chapter 19
Mapping Risks of Heavy Metals to Birds and Mammals Using Species
Sensitivity Distributions
Theo P. Traas, Robert Luttik, and Hans Mensink
Chapter 20
Ecotoxicological Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment
Mark A. J. Huijbregts, Dik van de Meent, Mark Goedkoop,
and Renilde Spriensma
SECTION IV Evaluation and Outlook
Chapter 21
Issues and Practices in the Derivation and Use of Species Sensitivity
Distributions
Glenn W. Suter II, Theo P. Traas, and Leo Posthuma
Chapter 22
Conceptual and Technical Outlook on Species Sensitivity Distributions
Leo Posthuma, Theo P. Traas, Dick de Zwart, and Glenn W. Suter II
© 2002 by CRC Press LLC
Appendices

Appendix A
The Interactive Poster Session “Use of Species Sensitivity Distributions
in Ecotoxicology”
Timo Hamers, Theo P. Traas, and Leo Posthuma
Appendix B
List of Computer Software Programs
References
Glossary
Acronyms

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Section I

General Introduction
and History of SSDs

This section describes the context and history of the development of species sensi-
tivity distributions (SSDs) for use in ecotoxicology. The general introduction shows
that SSDs are used for two purposes: the derivation of environmental quality criteria
and ecological risk assessment for contaminated ecosystems. It is followed by
historical overviews of the partly independent and convergent evolution of the SSD
concept on two continents (North America and Europe). The section illustrates the
events that have occurred at the interface of science and regulation, homologies and
divergence in SSD-based methods, and the need to unite the existing theories and
applications.

© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

General Introduction

to Species Sensitivity
Distributions

Leo Posthuma, Theo P. Traas, and Glenn W. Suter II

CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Variability and Species Sensitivity
1.3 SSD Basics
1.4 SSD-Related Questions
1.4.1 Ecotoxicological Issues Regarding the Input Data
1.4.2 Statistical Issues
1.4.3 Issues Related to Ecological Interpretation of SSD Output
1.4.3.1 Environmental Quality Criteria
1.4.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
1.5 Aims of the Book

Abstract

— The species sensitivity distribution (SSD) concept was proposed two
decades ago as an ecotoxicological tool that is useful for the derivation of environmental
quality criteria and ecological risk assessment. Methodologies have evolved and are
applied in various risk management frameworks. Both support and criticisms have been
voiced, spread over diverse sources in reports and scientific literature. This chapter
introduces the issues and their interrelationships treated in this book. The aims of the
book on SSDs are to present (1) the historical context, (2) the basic scientific principles,
characteristics, and assumptions, (3) the current practical applications, and (4) an
evaluation and outlook regarding the SSD concept and its uses.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The possible threat of toxic compounds to ecosystems has elicited a request by
society to science, to derive “safe” ambient concentrations for protection of ecosys-
tems and methods to assess ecological risks. Although this societal request is difficult
to answer for many reasons, one major difficulty is the estimation of effects on
diverse species and ecosystems. This book focuses on the variation in species
sensitivities to toxicant exposure, and on a specific method to address this variation.
1