era-mania dss: a decision support system for site-specific...
TRANSCRIPT
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”
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
[email protected]@unive.it, , [email protected]@unive.it