Technical Support Document for the Hazardous
  Waste Identification Rule: Risk Assessment
     for Human and Ecological Receptors
                  Volume I
                 Appendix B
                  Part 1 of 2
                    AtoH
                  Prepared tor

        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Office of Solid Waste
        Contract No. 68-02-0005,68-W3-0026
                  August 1995

-------
                                                      •:*H
                                                      •<;to
                 Appendix B
Toxicological Profiles for Ecological Receptors

-------
 APPENDIX B
                                      APPENDIX B

                          ECOTOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
       This appendix presents the ecotoxicological profiles for the 47 constituents of
ecological concern.  Each profile is intended to present a complete chemical-stressor profile
for the ecological receptors and endpoints evaluated  in this analysis.  The profiles are
organized by chemical and, because they contain all  references and data relevant to that
chemical, may be reviewed as "stand-alone" sections.  In addition to the profiles,  an expanded
discussion of the screening process used to identify the list of 47 priority constituents (see
Section 4.3.1.2) is presented below.
Identification of Constituents of Ecological Concern

B.I  Conceptual Approach

       Although any constituent may cause adverse effects to ecological receptors, some
constituents are  likely to present significant risks to wildlife at environmental concentrations
that  are considered acceptable for  human exposure. For example, constituents that are highly
persistent and bioaccumulate in the food chain may pose higher risks to piscivorous wildlife
because the piscivores ingest a higher proportion of contaminated fish in the diet than do
humans.  Similarly, modes of toxic action that are unique to wildlife (e.g., eggshell thinning;
stomatal closure) or exposure pathways that are  unique to wildlife (e.g.. exposure via. gill
exchange) present risks to ecological receptors that have  no human analog. Therefore, a
subset was selected from the 192 constituents evaluated for human health risk that represented
those chemicals most likely to be  of ecological concern.  It is crucial to recognize that this
priority list of constituents is not all-inclusive; chemicals lacking the requisite data to be
included in the priority  list may adversely impact wildlife through a variety of exposure
pathways and scenarios. The decision to prioritize constituents for ecological risk assessment
was, in a real sense, a resource management decision.  Given the time  frame  for the  analysis.
it was not possible to research all  (or most) of the 192 chemicals for the suite of ecological
receptors representing the generic  terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.  Unlike human health
risk  assessment, an Agency-approved data base (i.e., IRIS) is not yet available for
ecotoxicological benchmarks. Therefore, data collection  activities were concentrated on  a
•smaller group of constituents judged to present more significant threats to  ecological receptors
than to humans.  .      .
 August 1995.                                                                          B-l

-------
APPENDIX B
       This "short list" of priority constituents shown in Table B-l  was based largely on the
five stressor characteristics relevant to ecological receptors and the endpoints chosen for this
analysis.  These characteristics were selected after an extensive review of the literature (e!g..
U.S. EPA, 1994; Colborn et al.,.1993) and are similar to the characteristics described in the
problem formulation stage of the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA,
1992a).  Although other stressor characteristics were considered, the characteristics described
in Table B-1  were chosen based on their usefulness in identifying chemicals that may be of
ecological concern at concentrations considered protective of human health.  For each stressor
characteristic, available information on toxicity and.physicochemical properties was examined
to determine  how the data could be used to identify chemicals of potential ecological concern.
Each characteristic was assigned an operational definition, and constituents  failing under three
or more definitions were given the highest priority for developing ecological exit criteria.  For
example, the  frequency characteristic was defined in terms, of the adverse effects levels to
aquatic organisms with respect to human exposure to contaminated drinking water.  Since
aquatic organisms live in constant contact with contaminated water, constituents with a
National Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC)  below the human health-based level
(HBL) for drinking water ingestion were flagged under frequency.  Similarly, constituents
demonstrated to adversely affect reproductive success or disrupt the endocrine system

Table B-l. Stressor Characteristics Used to Identify Constituents of Ecological Concern
Stressor
characteristic
Intensity
Frequency
Timing
Scale
Mode of action
Description
Chemicals that bioaccumulate (and possibly biomagnify) in the
food chain present elevated exposures to certain predators
Chemicals may pose considerably higher risks to ecological
receptors that are exposed continuously
Reproductive and developmental chemicals elicit adverse
effects at sensitive life stages (e.g., gestation)
The spatial and, especially, the temporal scale for exposure is
likely to be increased for persistent chemicals
Chemicals may cause adverse effects to ecological receptors
with no analogous mechanism for humans (e.g., hatchability) j
August 1995
B-2

-------
APPENDIX B
(the so-called estrogen mimics) were flagged under timing (Colborn et al., 1993).  The
operational definitions for each stressor characteristic and the selection rationale for the
priority "short list" are described in detail below.

B.2    Operational Definitions for Stressor Characteristics

B.2.1  Intensity

       The intensity of exposure to upper trophic level predators may be significantly
increased for chemicals .that accumulate in the food chain. Chemicals that bioconcentrate
(i.e., uptake from contaminated medium)  and/or bioaccumulate (i.e., uptake from
contaminated medium and food chain)  may be present in contaminated prey items at
concentrations that are orders of magnitude above the concentration in surface water,
sediment, or soil. In  addition, contaminants such as mercury and DDT that bioaccumulate
have been shown to biomagnify up the food chain (i.e., increasing concencentration with
trophic level).  Although biological uptake of chemicals is a  function of physiology (e.g.,
chemical assimilation efficiency, lipid fraction) and environmental chemistry (e.g., pH, FeOx,
foe), the exposure routes are largely determined by the  physicochemical properties of
constituents such as log K,w and solubility.   Because bioaccumulation results  from all routes
of exposure that occur in nature (i.e., direct contact, direct ingestion, ingestion of
contaminated prey), and biomagnification has been demonstrated for so few constituents, the
potential exposure intensity was operationally defined as the  bioaccumulation potential of
each contaminant. However, it should  be noted that dietary exposure to upper trophic level
consumers may be significant even though a contaminant bioconcentrates wealdy in prey
items; exposure from  consumption of prey items often exceeds exposure from the ingestion of
a contaminated medium.

         Two chemical-specific attributes were used to  represent bioaccumulation potential:
(1) data on bioaccumulation (or biomagnification) for terrestrial or aquatic  organisms and (2}
log KgW values as a surrogate parameter for bioaccumulation  in freshwater ecosystems.  For
chemicals with a log  K^ > 4.0, the potential to bioaccumulate was considered significant for
freshwater ecosystems (Thomann,  1989; Connell, 1988; 58 FR 20861; U.S. EPA, 1991g).
Although the "cutoff of log K^ > 4.0 is not a bright line under which bioaccumulation
cannot occur, scientific consensus on the  relationship between log K^ and bioaccumulation
indicates that, for chemicals below a log  K^w value of 4.0, uptake across the gills is the  major
route of exposure in fish.
August 1995                                                                          B-3

-------
APPENDIX B
B.2.2  Frequency

       Organisms that live in direct contact with contaminated media may be more highly
exposed by virtue of constant contact with biological membranes.  Aquatic organisms such as
fish and daphnids may receive continuous exposure through gill exchange and, possibly, via
the food chain.  Similarly, organisms that live in the soil or sediment may receive continuous
exposure through direct contact (e.g., earthworms, tubifex worms, plants) or through ingestion
of contaminated soil and other soil fauna. Since many species that make up "typical" soil
communities have somewhat limited ranges, exposure  may be significant despite biological
barriers (e.g., exoskeletons of insects).  As a result'of increased exposure frequency,
organisms living  in close contact with a contaminated  medium may be at substantially greater
risk to chemical stressors than organisms that spend a  small fraction of the life-cycle in  direct
contact with water, sediment, or soil.

       As suggested above,  the characteristic of frequency was operationally defined (for
aquatic species only) by comparing effects levels for aquatic organisms to effects levels  in
drinking water for humans (i.e., health based levels). Two types of aquatic effects levels
were used: the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)  for the protection of
aquatic life  and chronic values for fish or daphnids identified in the open liteiature. The
AWQC are  standards developed by the U.S. EPA to protect 95 percent of the species in an
aquatic community with approximately 50% confidence and are widely used in a variety of
regulatory programs and ecological screening analyses. For human health effects, the human
health-based levels, or  HBLs, were used to represent acceptable concentrations in surface
water as a source of drinking water.  The HBLs for drinking water (in mg/L) are screening
concentrations developed by RTI and used by the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste in a
number of applications. For drinking water, they are based maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) when available, or on benchmarks for cancer (slope factors) and noncancer (reference
doses)  effects, assuming that a 70 kg adult consumes 2 L of water per day.  For carcinogenic
chemicals, it is also assumed that the averaging  time, and exposure duration and frequency
are 70  years, 70 years, and 365 days/yr, respectively.  Constituents were flagged under the
characteristic of frequency if the AWQC or other chronic aquatic effects level was below the
corresponding HBL for drinking water.  For chemical  flagged under this characteristic,
adverse ecological effects are clearly possible at concentrations considered protective of
humans.

B.2.3  Timing of Exposure

       Recent findings in the scientific community strongly suggest  that long-term exposures
to chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system of animals may  have  dire consequences on the
August 1995                                                                         B-4

-------
APPENDIX B
reproductive success of wildlife populations '(Thomas and Colborn, 1992; Colborn et aJ..
1993).  Impacts include thyroid dysfunction in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish.
shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish, and turtles; behavioral
abnormalities in birds; demasculinizatidn and feminization of male fish; and compromised
immune systems in birds and mammals.  The importance of endocrine disrupters has also
been acknowledged by the U.S. EPA.  An EPA-sponsored workshop on endocrine disrupters
has been scheduled for April, 1995, to provide a forum for  information exchange among a
diverse  assembly of scientific specialties  and organizations and to develop a national strategy
for research needed to understand the magnitude and nature of effects (60 FR 13271).

       While acknowledging that the patterns of effects vary among species and constituents.
Thomas and Colborn  (1992) present  four important observations:

       •      constituents may have entirely different effects on the embryo, fetus, or
              perinatal  organisms than on the adult;
       •      the effects are most often manifested in offspring, not in the exposed  parent;
       •      the timing of exposure in the developing organism is crucial in determining its
              character and future potential; and
       •      although  critical exposure occurs during embryonic development, obvious
              manifestations may not occur until maturity.

       Colbom et al., (1993) presented a list of 45 chemicals, including pesticides, metals,
and industrial chemicals, that have widespread distribution in the environment and are
reported to have reproductive and endocrine-disrupting effects.   In conjunction  with  a
database on developmental and reproductive toxicants compiled by RTI, the list of 45 was
used to  operationally  define the timing characteristic. Constituents were flagged under this
stressor characteristic  if: (1) they were shown to elicit reproductive and developmental effects
in more than one species, or (2) they were  included on the list  of endocrine disrupters.
Constituents that were common to the HWIR and the list of reproductive and endocrine-
disrupting chemicals were flagged under  "timing of exposure."   Although the absence of data
on reproductive/developmental effects does not  indicate that these endpoints are unimportant
for a given chemical,  the presence of such data confirms toxicological significance on
reproducing populations..

B.2.4   Scale

       The spatial and temporal scale of exposure for ecological receptors is greatly increased
for constiuents that are  persistent in  the environment.  For example, persistence maintains the
exposure concentration  and  increases the exposure duration (i.e., temporal scale); only dilution
August 1995                                                                          B-5

-------
APPENDIX B
via environmental transport acts to decrease the concentration of persistent chemicals.  Even
if bioavailability  is diminished through binding to sediment and soil components (e.g., f^),
these contaminants can exert their toxic effects on local populations (e.g., benthic dwellers,
earthworms) and, at times, be reintroduced into the ecosystem due to physical disturbances
(e.g., storms, dredging).  In contrast, dilution and degradation act to decrease  the exposure
concentrations of nonpersistent constituents.

       Persistence may also extend the potential for exposure at sensitive life  stages.  For
example, exposure in birds and mammals during gestation is  extended by the persistence of
PCDDs so that, even at localized,  low-level exposures, the  critical dose may be exceeded due
to short-term contact in a contaminated area. As a result, wildlife that utilize contaminated
areas for nesting, spawning, egg laying, etc. may be exposed  in the short term to persistent,
relatively  immobile chemicals. Thus, migratory species may  suffer adverse reproductive
effects if contaminated areas are important part of their life-cycle.

       In  addition to increasing the temporal window for exposure, persistence may also
increase the likelihood of exposure to a larger number of populations by  increasing the spatial
extent of contamination.  Because  persistent chemicals resist degradation, the potential for
transport is greatly increased.  Detectable concentrations of mercury, PCDDs and other highly
persistent  constituents have been documented in pristine waters far from any anthropogenic
source of  contamination.  Moreover, there is evidence that DDT, PCBs, and other chemicals
are being  transported long distances over the globe via the atmosphere (Rapaport et al.,  1985,
as cited in Colborn et al., 1993).  Wildlife populations that  are not in the immediate proximity
of a contaminant  source may be exposed to low levels of contaminants.   As Colborn  et al.,
(1993) point out,  low levels of exposure to persistent endocrine disrupters may cause severe
reproductive effects.
 •r
       Based on the relationship between persistence and exposure described above, the
characteristic of scale was operationally defined using two chemical-specific attributes: (1)
half-life in excess of 1 year or (2) log K^, value above 4.5.  Constituents possessing either of
these attributes were considered to be highly persistent.  The half-life "cutoff of 1 year was a
convention based on the Handbook of Enviromental Degradation Rates (Howard et al., 1991)
and was applied to  surface water  and soil.  The log K^w "cutoff of 4.5 was taken from the
the U.S. EPA Hazardous Ranking System (55  FR 51532), the principal mechanism for placing
sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) under the broad authority of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of  1986.  The ranking system uses  a default
scale for log K^  and assigns the  highest persistence value to chemicals with log K^ above
4.5.
August 1995                                                                          B-6

-------
APPENDIX B
B.2.5  Mode of Action

       One of the best known examples of a "nonhuman" mode of action is the thinning of
eggshells associated with exposure to DDT.  Long after the organochlorine  pesticide was
banned in  1972, DDT-thinned eggshells continued to put many embryonic birds - including
bald eagles - at risk of being crushed to death (Raloff, 1994).

       As with the characteristic of timing, the mode of action was operationally defined
based on the reproductive and developmental toxicity database compiled by RTI.  Since
animals that are oviparous (e.g., egg-laying birds, amphibians) are more likely to experience a
unique mode of toxic action with respect to humans, particular attention was focused on the
avian toxicity data.  Recognizing that other animal species  and plants may experience unique
toxic effects (e.g., stomatal closure in plants by sulfur dioxide; imposition of male sex in
snails by tributyl tin), specific studies presenting unique modes of toxic action were also used
to flag constituents under this characteristic.  However, there were relatively few chemicals
for which this information was available and  most chemicals were flagged under mode of
action based on reproductive  effects to birds (and- sometimes aquatic organisms).

B.3    Priority Constituents of Ecological .Concern

       Physicochemical and lexicological  screening data were reviewed for each of the 192
consituents of potential concern with respect to stressor characteristics.  Thirty constituents
were flagged under three or more stressor  characteristics' and  identified as having the highest
priority for ecological concern. However, in  evaluating  the entire  data set oo the remaining
162  constituents (see Table B-3), it became clear that the thirty priority chemicals were, in
part, an artifact of the  available data.  For example, a number  of persistent constituents had
AWQC well below the HBLs for drinking water. In addition, several constituents flagged as
endocrine disrupters were also flagged under  other characteristics such as frequency or mode
of action.  Recognizing that:  (1) including constituents flagged under three stressor
characteristics on the priority list was, in part, a function of data bias, and (2) excluding
constituents flagged under two characteristics overlooked some constituents  of high ecological
significance (e.g., endocrine disrupters), the priority list  was expanded.
    1 Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was also flagged under three stressor characteristics. However, DES was not included
in the priority list of constituents of ecological concern because: (1) screening analyses indicated that humans are
significantly more sensitive to DES than test species and (2) DES has not been manufactured in the U.S. for over
20 years. Nevertheless. DES will be included in the next group of constituents for which ecological exit criteria will
be developed.
August 1995                                                                           B-7

-------
APPENDIX B
       In general, the expansion included chemicals flagged under two characteristics,
although the frequency, timing, and scale were the three characteristics considered most
important in the second cut at priority constituents.  The relationship between these
characteristics is particularly important since persistent chemicals are more likely to impact
ecological receptors through constant exposure or exposure during sensitive life stages.  Thus,
the seventeen constituents added to the priority list included chemicals that were flagged
under frequency or timing and one other characteristic.  Below, Table B-2.presents the 47
constituents that were considered the  highest priority for ecological risk assessment and
includes  the rationale for their inclusion in the ecological priority list.
August 1995                                                                          B-8

-------
APPENDIX B
            Table B-2.  Priority List for Constituents of Ecological Concern
constituent name
Acenaphthene
Aldrin
Antimony
Arsenic V .
3arium
3enz(a)anthracene
3enzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium VI
Chrysene
Copper ,
DDT (and metabolites)
Di-n-octyl .phthalate
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
rationale
AWQC well below HBL; sediment criterion proposed
flagged under three stressor characteristics
rep/dev effect in multiple species; highly persistent
flagged under three stressor characteristics
AWQC below HBL; highly persistent
AWQC well below HBL; persistent
flagged under four, stressor characteristics
AWQC below HBL; highly persistent
Flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under three stressor characteristics
flagged under five stressor characteristics
Flagged under four stressor characteristics
Flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under three stressor characteristics
AWQC well below HBL; highly persistent
flagged under five stressor characteristics
flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under five stressor characteristics
AWQC well below HBL; endocrine disrupter
chronic value for fish well below HBL; endocrine disrupter
AWQC well below HBL; endocrine disrupter
flagged under five stressor characteristics
AWQC well below HBL; persistent; sediment quality criteria
proposed
August 1995
B-9

-------
APPENDIX B
         Table B-2.  Priority List of Constituents of Ecological Concern (conf)
constituent name
ieptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
iexachlbrobenzene
Hexachlorcyclopentadiene
Jndane
iexachlorophene
Cepone
^ead
Mercury
rtethoxychior
/lethyl parathion
Molybdenum
Nickel
'arathion
'entachlorobenzene
'entachlorophenol
Fotychlorinated biphenyls
Selenium
Silver
FCDD. 2.3,7,8-
foxaphene
rrichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
2.4.5- (2,4.5-T)
Vanacfium
Zinc
rationale
flagged under five stressor characteristics
flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under three stressor characteristics
flagged under three stressor characteristics
flagged under three stressor characteristics
Flagged under three stressor characteristics
flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under five stressor characteristics
lagged under three stressor characteristics
rep/dev toxicant in multiple species; avian reproductive effects
AWQC below HBL; highly persistent
chronic value for daphnids below HBL: highly persistent .
endocrine disrupter; avian reproductive effects
lagged under three stessor characteristics
lagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under five stressor characteristics
chronic value for fish well below HBL; highly persistent
flagged under four stressor characteristics
flagged under five stressor'characteristics
endocrine disrupter; avian reproductive effects
AWQC well below HBL; highly persistent
flagged under three stressor characteristics
August 1995
B-10

-------
Table B-3. Stressor Characteristics Evaluate!* n> Prioritize Constituents of Ecological Concern
atreasor characteristics

CAS Number
83329
67641
75058
98862
107028
79061
107131
309002
107051
62533
7440360
7440382
7440393
56553
71432
92875
50328
205992
100516
100447
7440417
39638329
111444
117817
75274
75252.
71363
Htiti'.,/
Constituent name
Acenaphthene
Acetone
Acetonltrile '
Acetophenone
Acroleln
Acrylamlde
Actylonilnle
Aldrtn
Allyl chloride
Aniline
Antimony
Arsenic V
Barium
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzldlne*
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bls(2-chlorethyl)ethec
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodlchloromethane
Bromolorm (Trlbromomethane)
Bulanol
Butyl-4,6-dintlrophenol. 2-sec (DinoseD)'
Intensity frequency timing scale mode ot action
operational definitions tor stres'sor characteristics
bioaccumulation potential,
reported or log Kow > 5


,




•















•




AWQC. chronic toxicity
values below HBLs
•
•









•
•
•
• .

•

•

«


•




endocrine disruptor;
rep/dev effects in multiple
species







•


•
•




•





'
•



•
persistent as a function ol
1/2 lite or log Kow







•


•
•
•
•


•
•


•


•




avian reproductive effects
(e.g., eggshell thinning)
















•











                                                                                               B I I

-------
Table B-3. Stressor Characteristics Evaluated to Prioritize Constituents of Ecological Concern
stressor characteristics

CAS Number
85687
7440439
75150
56235
57749
126998
106478
108907
510156
124481
67663
95578
7440473
218019
7440508
108394
95487
106445
98828
72548
72559
50293
84742
117840
2303164
53703
96128
95501
Constituent name
Butylbenzylphlhalale
Cadmium
Carbon dlsultide
Carbon telrachlohde
Chlordane
Chlofo-1,3-butadiene, 2- (Chloroprene)
ChlOfoanlllne. p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlocobenzllale
Chlorodlbromomethane
Chlorolorm
Chlorophenol. 2-
Chromium VI
Chrysene
Copper
C re sol, m-
Cresol. o-
Cresol, p-
Cumene
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dl-n-butyl phthalale
Dl-n-oclyl phthalale
Dlallale
Dibenz(a,h)anlhracene
Dibromo-3-chloiopropane, 1 .2-
Dlchlorobenzerie, 1.2-
Intenslty frequency timing scale mode ot action
operational definitions lor stressor characteristics
bioaccumulation potential.
reported or log Kow > 5
•
•


•



• •




•.





•
•
•
•
•
•



A WQC. chronic toxicity
values below HBLs
•
'• '
•

•


•




•

•




•

•
•





endocrine disrupter;
rep/dev effects in multiple
species
•
•


•







•






. •
•
•

• •


.' •

persistent as a function ot
1/2 lite or log Kow

•


•







•
• .
•




•
•
•

•
•
•


avian reproductive ertects
(e.g.. eggshell thinning)

, •









v
•
•





•
•
•

•




                                                                                                li-IJ

-------
Table B-3. Stressor Characteristics Evaluates .o Prioritize Constituents of Ecological Concern
atreasor characteristics

CAS Number
106467
91941
75718
75343
107062
75354
156592
156605
120632
94757
78875
542756
10061015
10061026
60571
84662
56531
60515
131113
57976
119937
105679
119904
99650
51285
121142
606202
12:1911
Constituent name
Dtchlorobenzene. 1,4-
Olchlorobenzldine. 3,3'-
Dichtorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethane. 1,1-
Dlchloroettiane, 1,2-
Dichloroflthylene, 1,1-
Dichloroelhylene. cis-1,2-
Dlchtoroethyiene. trans- 1.2-
Dlchlorophenol, 2,4-
Dlchlorophenoxyacetlc acid, 2,4- (2,4-0)'
Dichloropropane, 1,2- •
Dlchloropropene, 1.3-
Dtchloropropene, els- 1.3-
Dlchloropropene, trans- 1,3-
DlekJrtn
Dlelhyl ptithalate
Diethylstilbestrol
CNmethoale
Dlmalhyl phlhalale
Dlmelhylbeaz(a)anthracene, 7,12-
DtmeUiylbenzldine, 3,3'- '
Dimelhylphenol, 2.4- '
Dlmethyoxybenzldine, 3.3'- '
Dinllrobenzene, 1.3-
Dlnllrophenol. 2,4-
Oinitiotoluene. 2,4-
Diriilrotoluene. 2,6
Dioxana. 1,4- "
Intensity frequency timing scale mode of action
operational definitions for stressor characteristics
bioaocumulation potential.
reported or log Kow > 5














•

• '











AWOC. chronic toxicity
values below HBLs







t






•
•


•


-






endocrine disrupter,
rep/dev effects in multiple
species









•




•
•
•

•



/





persistent as a function ol
1/2 Hie or log Kow











-


•

•


•








a wan reproductive effects
(e.g.. eggshell thinning)














•













                                                                                              U

-------
Table B-3. Stressor Characteristics Evaluated to Prioritize Constituents of Ecological Concern
stressor characteristics

CAS Number
122394
298044
115297
72208
106698
110805
141786
60297
97632
62500
100414
106934
96457
206440
86737
50000
64186
110009
76448
1024573
87683
118741
319846
319857
58899
77474
67721
70304
Constituent name
Dlphenylamine* .
Disullolon
Endosullan
Endrin
EpicMorohydrin .
Ethoxyethanol, 2- "
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesultonale
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene Dlbromide
Ethylene Ihiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid*
Furan
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-butadlene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- (alpha BHC)
Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta- (beta BHC)
Hexachlorocyclohexane. gamma- (Llndane)
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene"
Intensity frequency timing .. scale mode of action
operational definitions tor stressor characteristics
bioaocumulation potential,
reported or log Kow > 5

•

•










•



•
•
•
•



•

•
AWQC, chronic toxicity
values below HBLs


•
•






•


•




'•
•




•



endocrine disrupter,
rep/dev effects in multiple
species


•
•














• •
•

•

•
•
•

•
persistent as a function ol
1/2 life or log Kow



•









• .




•
•
•
•



• •

•
avian reproductive effects
(eg, eggshell thinning)



•














•


•


•



                                                                                               H-I4

-------
Table B-3. Stressor Characteristics Evaluates .j Prioritize Constituents of Ecological Concern
stressor characteristics
-
CAS Number
193395
78831
78591
143500
7439921
7439976
126987
67561
72435
74839
74873
78933
108101
80626
298000
56495
74953
75092
7439987
621647
86306
100754
930552
91203
91598
7440020
9B953
79469-
Constituent name
Indenofl ,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isobutyt alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Mercury
Methacrytonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Isobutyt kelone
Methyl methacrylale
Methyl parathlon
Melhylcholanthrene, 3-
Methylene bromide
Methyleoe chloride
Molybdenum
N-Nltfosodl-n propylamlne
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nilrosopipertdine
N-Nltrosopyrrolldlne
Naphthalene
Naphthylamlne*
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitiopiopane. 2- •
Intensity frequency timing scale mode of action
operational definitions for stressor characteristics
bioaccumulation potential,
reported or log Kow > 5



•

•


•

s




•












AWQC, chronic toxteity
values below HBLs




•
•












•

•


•

•


endocrine disruptor-
rep/dev effects in multiple
species



•
•
•


•





•













persistent as a function ol
1/2 lite or log Kow
•



•
• .


•






•


•






•


avian reproductive effects
(e.g., eggshell thinning)



•
•
•




*



•



'









                                                                                               U-15

-------
Table B-3. Stressor Characteristics Evaluated to Prioritize Constil uents of Ecological Concern
stressor characteristics

CAS Number
924163
55165
62759
10595956
152169
56382
608935
82688
87865
108952
62384
108452
298022
1336363
23950585
129000
110861
94597
7782492
7440224
57249
100425
1746016
. 95943
630206
79345
I2/1H4
1)8902
Constituent name
Nllrosodi-n-butylamlne
Nltrosodlethylamine
Nitrosodimethylamine
Nitrosomethylethylamine
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide
Parathion
Pentachlorobenzene
PenlachtoronJIrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenor
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetale
Plienylenedlamlne. m- '
Phorale
Polychlorinated blphenyls
Pionamlde
Pyrene
Pyrtdlne"
Satrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine'
Slryene
TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorobenzene. 1.2,4,5-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1.2-
Telrachloroelhane. 1.1.2,2-
TeUacliloioethylene
1 elrachlorophenol. 2.3,4.6-
Intenslty frequency timing scale . mode of action
operational definitions for stressor characteristics
bioaccumulation potential,
reported or tog Kow > 5






•
•
•



•

•


•



•
•


•
AWQC. chronic toxlcity
values below HBLs









- •







- •
•







endocrine disruptor,
rap/dev effects i,i multiple
species





•
•

•



•




•


•
•




persistent as a lunction ot
1/2 lite or log Kow






•

•



• •

•


•
•


•
•



avian reproductive ettects
(e.g., eggshell thinning)





•
-

•
,


•




•



•




                                                                                               IM6

-------
Table B-3. Strcssor Characteristics Evaluated *o Prioritize Constituents of Ecological Concern
atressor characteristics

CAS Number .
3689245
7440280
108883
95807
95534
106490
8001352
76131
120821
71556
79005
79016
75694
95954
88062
93765
93721
96184
99354
126727
7440622
75014
1330207
7440666
Constituent name
Telraethyldllhlopyrophosphate
Thallium (I)
Toluene
Toluenediamine, 2.4-
Toluidine, o- '
Toluldlne, p- '
Toxaphene
Trtchloro-1 ,2,2-lrifluoroethane, 1 ,1 ,2-
Trtchloroberuene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroelhane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane. 1.1,2-
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorophenol, 2.4;5-
Trtchtorophenol, 2,4.6-
Trtchlorophenoxyacetic acid. 2.4,5- (245-T)'
Trtchloropherioxypropkmlc acid, 2.4,5- (Sltvex
Tflchloropropane, 1,2,3-
Trinitrobenzene. sym-
Tris (2.3-dlbromopropyl) phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
Intensity frequency timing scale ' mode of action
operational definitions lor stressor characteristics
bioaccumulation potential,
reported or log Kow > 5






•















-

AWQC. chronic toxicity
values below HBLs


•



•













•
•
.»'
•
endocrine disruptor.
rep/dev effects in multiple
species






•








•








persistent as a function ol
1/2 lite or log Kow

•




•













•


•
avian reproductive effects
(e.g.. eggshell thinning)




^

•








•







•
                                                                                               1J-I7

-------
APPENDIX B
Ac«naphthen« • 7
                                                                                                               ••a
                              •Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
pecsptor
fi&fi
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF. or
B8AF
BCF
.
BAF
BCF
BcF
BCF
ftpM baeed or
•MJXila !><»<
-------
 APPENDIX B                                                          Acenaphthene - 8


 References

 Academy of Natural Sciences. 1981.  Early Life Stage Studies Using the Fathead Minnow
    (Pimephalas promelas) to  Assess the Effects of Isophorone and Acenaphthene. Final
    report to U.S. EPA, Cinn., OH. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA., 26 pp.
    As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993i.  Sediment Quality Criteria for
    the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research
    and Development, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
    Division, Washington, D.C., EPA-822-R-93-013.

 AQUIRE (AOJJatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database). Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MM, 'June 1995.

 Barrows, M.E., S.R. Petrocelli, KJ. Macek and J.J. Carroll. 1980.  Bioconcentration and
    Elimination of Selected Water Pollutants by  the Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)
    In: Dyn., Exposure Hazard Assess. Toxic Chem., (Pap. Symp.  1978).  As cited in
    AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database). 1994. Environmental
    Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency,. Duluth, MN.

Cairns, Michael A. and Alan V. Nebeker. 1982.  Toxicity of Acenaphthene and Isophorone to
    Early Life Stages of Fathead Minnows.  Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 11:703-707.

EG&G Bionomics.  1982.  Acute toxicity of selected chemicals to fathead minnow, water flea
    and mysid shrimp under static and flow-through test conditions.  Final report to U.S. EPA.
    EG&G, Bionomics, 790 Main SL, Wareham, MA.  13pp. As cited in U.S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency, 1993i.  Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic
    Organisms:  Acenaphthene. Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Office
    of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC,
    EPA-822-R-93-013.                                ,    '      '
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                          Acenaphthene - 9


ERCO.  1981.  Toxicity Testing Inter-Laboratory Comparison Early-Life Stage Test with
    Fathead  Minnow.  Final Report to U.S. EPA, Cinn., OH and U.S. EPA, Duluth MN.
    ERCO/Energy Resources Co., Inc., 185 Alewife Biook Parkway, Cambridge, MA.  47 pp.
    As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993L  Sediment Quality Criteria for
    the Protection of Benthic Organisms:  Acenaphthene. Office of Water, Office of Research
    and  Development,  Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
    Division, Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-93-013.                •

Geiger,  D.L., C.E. Northcott, D.J. Call, and L.T. Brooke.  1985.  Acute Toxicities  of Organic.
    Chemicals to Fathead Minnows (Pimephalas promelas), Vol. 2, Center for Lake Superior
    Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI, 326  p.   As cited in
    AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database), 1994. Environmental
    Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency,  Duluth, MN.

Holcombe, Gary W., Gary L. Phillips, and James T. Fiandt.  1983.  Toxicity of Selected
    Priority Pollutant to Various Aquatic Organisms. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
    Safety, 7:400-409.                         .

LeBlanc, G.  A.  1980.  Acute Toxicity to Priority Pollutants to Water Flea  (Daphnia magna).
    Bull. Environm. Contain. Toxicoi, 24:684-691.

Mackay, D., S. Paterson, and W. Y. Shiu.  1992. The effect of metals on the growth and
    reproduction of Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta^ Lumbricidae).  Pedobiologia  24:129- 137.

Marine  Bioassay Laboratories.  1981.  Flow-through early-life stage toxicity tests with fathead
    minnows (Pimephales promelas).  Final report to U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.  Marine
    Bioassay Laboratories,  1234 Highway One, Watsonville, CA.  71 pp.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database. October 1994.

Randalll, T.L. and P.V. Knopp. 1980.  Detoxification of specific organic substances by wet
    oxidation. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.  52:2117 - 2130. As  cited  in U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, 1993L  Sedimefc Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic
    Organisms:  Acenaphthene. Office of  Water, Office of Research and Development, Office
    of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC,
    EPA-822-R-93-013.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                         Acenaphthene - 10


 Stephan, C.E.  1993,  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672. Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.  PB93-154672.

 Suter, G.W. El and J.B.  Mabrey, 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
    85OR21400  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D.C

 Thomann, R. V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(6):699-707.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. In-depth Studies on Health and Environmental
    Impacts of Selected Water Pollutants. Contract No. 68-01-4646.. As cited in U.S.
    Environmental  Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
    Acenaphthene.  Criteria and Standards Div.,  EPA-440/5-80-015, 49 p.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Mouse Oral Subchronic Study with
    Acenaphthene.  Study conducted by Hazelton Laboratories, Inc., for the Office of Solid
    Waste, Washington, DC.  As cited in IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 1994.
    U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental
    Assessment

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
    Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.  Office of
    Health and Environmental Assessment  Washington, D.C. January.

U.S. Environments Protection Agency. 1993i.  Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
    of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research and
    Development, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
    Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-93-013.

Will, M. E. and G. W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effe&s on  Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Freshwater Toxic... - Acenaphthene
        Cos No.: 83-32-9
Chemical Name
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
aacenaphthene
Species
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow £
fathead
minnow '
fathead
minnow
blueglll
rainbow
trout
brown trout
channel
catfish
aquatic
oraanlsms
Type of
Effect
acute
acute
acute
early
lifestoge
early
lifestooe
chronic
acute-
acute
acute
acute
chron.
Description
LC50
LC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
CV
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC60
FCV
Value
1.600
1.730
413
50
64
169
1.700
670
580
1.720
23
Units
ug/l
UQ/I
UQ/I
ug/l
ua/l
UQ/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ua/l
ug/l
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
flow-through
NS
flow-through
NS
NS
NS
static
flow-through
flow-through
flow-through
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Tbnlna
96-hour
96-hour
96-hour
NS
NS
NS
96-hour
96-hour
96-hour
96-hour
NS
Reference
Holcombe et al..
1983
Gelger et al..
1985 as cited In
AQUIRE. 1994
Cairns &
Nebeker. 1982
Academy of
Natural Sciences.
198 las cited in
U.S.EPA. 19931
ERCO, 198 las
cited In U.SiEPA.
19931
U.S.EPA. 19931
U.S.EPA. 1978 as
cited U.S.EPA.
1980
Holcombe et al..
1983
Holcombe et al..
1983
Holcombe et al..
1983
U.S.EPA, 19931
Comments
temperature of water = 22.9 C
; ,
early-life-stage test
.
S
Reported value is the
geometric mean of six values

temperature of water = 1 2 C
temperature of water = 1 2 C
temperature of water = 22 9 C
freshwater FCV of 22.96 ug/l is
based on FAV=80.01 ug/l. final
ACR=3 484

-------
                               Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Acenaphthene
                                                Cos No.: 8J-32-9
Chemical Name
acenaphthene
acenaohthene
Species
btuegitt
aauatic oraanisms
B-factor(BCF,
BAF. BUR
BCF
BCF
Value
387
37.9
Measured or
Predicted
(m,p)
m
p
Units
NS
NS
. ' Reference
Barrows et al., I960 as
cited In AQUIRE, 1994
U.S. EPA. 1993b
Comments
Normalized to 4.8% lipid. 28-day. How-
through test
Normalized to 1% lipid
NS = not specified

-------
Freshwater Toxlclfy - Acenaphthene
        Cos No.:  83-32-9
Chemical Name
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
acenapi ithene
acenaphthene
acenaphthene
flc^pachihune
Species
Daphnla
mogna
Daphnio
magna
Daphnia
magna
Daphnla
manna
Oaphnla
magna
Daphnla
magna
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow
Type of
Effect
acute
acute
acute
r
acute
acute •
acute
acute
acute
qcute
Description
LC50/EC50
LC50/EC60
LC60/EC50
.LC60/ICSO
LC50
EC60
LC60/EC60
LC60/EC60
LC5D/EC5Q
Value
320
1.300
120
3,450
41,000
41.200
1.500
3,100
1?QQ
Units
UQ/I
ua/i
ua/l
•Jfl/1
up/I
UQ/I
up/I
uayl
uy/I
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
static
static
flow-thrpupr
static
static
static
static
static
renewal
Exposure
Duration/
Tlmlna
NS
NS
NS
NS
48-hour
49-hour
NS
NS
NS
Reference
EG&G.
Btonomlcs. 1982
as cited In
U.S.EPA. 19931
EG&G.
Bionomics. 1982
as cited In
U.S.EPA. 19931
EG&G.
Bionomics. 1982
as cited In
U.S.EPA; 19931
Randall and
Knopp. 1980 as
cttedln U.S.EPA.
19931
LeBlonc, 1980
U.S.EPA. 1978 as
cited U.S.EPA.
I960
EG&G.
Bionomics. 1982
01 cttedln
U.S.EPA. 19931
Marine BkXKtay
Laboratories.
198 las cited In
U.S.EPA. 19931
Academy of
Natural Science.
1981 as cited In
U.S-EPA. 19931
Comments

:








-------
                                                   Terrestrial Toxlcli,   Acenaphthene
                                                           Cos No.: 83-32-9
Chemical Nam*
acenaphthene
acenaptiihene
Species
rat
mousg
Endpolnt
acute
subchronlQ
Daacrlpllon
L050
1
NOAEL
Value
600
175
Units
mg/kg
mo-ko/dav
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., (.p.,
Injection)
I.P.
oral
Exposure
Duration /
Timing
NS
90-4
Reference
RTECS. 1994
U.S.EPA. 1989 as
cited In IRIS. 1994
Comments

Mica were gavaged dally with 0.175.350. or 700 mg/kg-d.
The reauila Indicated no treatment-related effects on survival.
cHnlcal slgna. and body weight changes. The LOAcL Is 390
mo/ka-d based on hepatotoxlcltv.
NS • Nbt 8pe«(!«d

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptak. .Measures - Acenaphthene
                 Cos No.: 83-32-9



Cht>f t flcoi Worn§


qcenophthene



Soecles


plant

B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
DMn


BCF



Value


0,2
Measured
or
Predicted
(n\.o)


p



Units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)



Reference


U.S. EPA. 1990e



Comments

Plant uptake from soil pertains to
foraaed plants

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               Aldrin • 1
                  lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                         Aldrin
                                   Cas No.: 309-00-2
 Summary:   This profile on aldrin summarizes the lexicological  benchmarks and biological
 uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for birds,
 mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the generic
 freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic terrestrial
 ecosystem,  lexicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for developmental,
 reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks
 for daphnids, benthic  organisms, and fish  were generally adopted from  existing regulatory
 benchmarks  (i.e..  Ambient  Water  Quality  Criteria).    Bioconcentration  factors  (BCFs),
 bioaccumulation  factors (BAFs) and, if available,  biomagnification factors (BMFs) -are also
 summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were
 calculated for organic constituents with log K^ between 4 and 6.5. For the terrestrial ecosystem,
 these biological uptake measures also  include terrestrial  vertebrates  and  invertebrates  (e.g.,
 earthworms).  The entire lexicological data base compiled during this effort is presented at the
 end of this profile. This profile represents the most current information and may differ from the
 data presented in the technical support document for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
 (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.
I.    Toxicological  Benchmarks  for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale  behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^,) for ihe generic freshwater ec -(system. Table 1 contains benchmarks
fu/ mammals and  birds  associated  wiih  the  freshwater ecosystem and Table  2 contains
benchmarks for  aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including aquatic
plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic  organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife in
which  dose-response data  were reported.  However, several chronic and subchronic toxicity
studies involving aldrin have been  conducted using laboratory rats and mice.  F'r.zhugh et al.
(1964-as cited in ATSDR,  1992) observed increased mortality in a chronic study in which  rats
were orally administered aldrin at doses of 0.5 mg/kg-day and 2.5 mg/kg-day-  Another chronic
study was identified  in which rats were fed a diet c-ntaining aldrin for a period  of 25 months
(Deichmann et al., 1967 as cited in ATSDR, 1992); Deichmann et al. reported a NOAEL of 0.25
mg/kg-day  for survival. A chronic reproductive study was identified in which groups of male
and female Swiss white mice (120 days)  were fed a diet that contained 3, 5, 10, or 25 ppm for
a period covering six generations (Keplinger et al., 1970).  Keplinger et al. (1970) observed a  low
August 1995

-------
Freshwater    .city - Aldrin
     Cas No. 309-00-2
Chemical
Name
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
Species
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Simocephalus
serrulatus
bluegill
striped bass
rainbow trout
fathead minnow
Endpolnt
immob.
mort
immob.
mort
mort
mort
mort
Description
EC50
LC50
EC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Value
28
30
23 - 32
(27.2)
4.6 - 13.0
(7.37)
7.2-10
(8.96)
2.2 - 17.7
(4.51)
32
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Test type
(static/ flow
through)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
48 hours
1 .08 days
48 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
Reference
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
Comments







NA = Not applicable
NS = Not specified

-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Aldr.n
              Cas No. 309-00-2

Chemical
Name



aldrin

aldrin
aldrin
aldrin


Species



fish

fish
fish
mosquitofish
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)



BAF

BAF
BCF
BCF


Value



10712

3162
2879
3140
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)



m

m
P
NS


Units


L/kg whole-
body
L/kg whole-
body
NS
NS


Reference



Garten and Trabalka, 1983

Garten and Trabalka, 1 983
Slephan, 1993
Metcalf et al., 1973


Comments
Flowing water; All estimates were calculated
based on published data, th« type of studies
from which the data were taken were not.
specified.

Microcosm.
Normalized to 1.0 % lipid.
Whole body value.
NS = Not specified

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Aldrin. 2
pre-weaning pup survival and reported a LOAEL of 10 ppm for reproductive effects. Based on
the reference body weight (kg) and the recommended value for food consumption (kg/day) for
mice reported in Recommendations for and Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1988), a LOAEL of 2 mg/kg-day was calculated!

The LOAEL in the  Keplinger et  al.  (1970)  study  was chosen to derive the lexicological
benchmark because (1) chronic exposures were  administered via oral ingestion, (2) it focused on
reproductive toxicity  as a critical endpoint,  and  (3) the  study  contained  dose-response
information. The study by Fitzhugh et al. (1964 as cited ATSDR, 1992)  was not selected for the
derivation of a  benchmark because of the lack of dose-response data and because it does not
evaluate reproductive  or developmental endpoints.  Similarly,  the study  by Deichmann  et al.
(1967 as cited in ATSDR, 1992) was not selected because the  study lacked dose-response data
and because it did not evaluate reproductive or developmental  endpoints.

The study value from Keplinger et al.  (1970) was  divided by 10  to  provide a  LOAEL-to-
NOAEL safety  factor.  This value  was then scaled  for species representative of a freshwater
ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994):
                                                      w<
                          Benchmark^  = NOAEL, x  - L
                                                   \bww)

where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight of
the wildlife species, and BW, is the body  weight of the test species. This is the same default
methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity documents
for adjusting animal data to an equivalent  human dose (57  FR 24152).  Since the Keplinger et
al. (1970) study documented reproductive effects from aldrin exposure to male and female mice,
the mean body weight of both genders of representative species was used in the scaling algorithm
to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.

Data were available on  the reproductive and developmental effects of aldrin,  as well as growth
or chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted over
chronic  and subchronic durations, and during sensitive life stages.  There were several study
values in the data set corresponding to renal and hepatic endpoints, which were equal to or lower
than the benchmark value.  Most of the studies identified were conducted using laboratory rats
or mice and, as such, inter-species differences among wildlife species were not identifiable and,
therefore an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied. Based on the data set for toxaphene
and because the benchmark is based on  a LOAEL/10, the benchmarks developed from  the
Keplinger et al. (1970)  study were categorized as provisional with a "*"  to indicate that some
adverse effects may occur at the benchmark level.

Birds:  No subchronic or chronic studies were found for representative avian species in which
dose-response data were reported.  However, chronic toxicity studies conducted using chickens,
quail, and pheasants were identified.   In  the study on quail, DeWitt  (1956) also reported a
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               Aldrin-3
 NOAEL of 1 mg/kg-day for reproductive effects.  DeWitt (1956) reported a LOAEL of 0.06
 mg/kg-day for reproductive effects on pheasants.  A subchronic study was identified in which
 chicken eggs were injected with 0 to 2 rng/egg of aldrin on day 7 of incubation (Smith et al.,
. 1970).  Smith et al.,  (1970) reported a NOAEL of 36.36 mg/kg (2 mg/egg) for egg hatchability
 and morphological changes. In a chronic reproductive study (Brown et al., 1965), chickens were
 fed a diet containing aldrin for a period of two years.  No effects on fertililty and hatchability
 were observed at 1  ppm  (NOAEL).   Based on  the  reference body weight (kg) and  the
 recommended value  for food consumption (kg/day) for chickens reported in Recommendations
for and Documentation of Biological Values for  Use in Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1988), a
 NOAEL of 0.07 mg/kg-day was  calculated.

 The LOAEL reported by DeWitt (1956) in his  experiments on pheasants was used to calculate
 the lexicological benchmark for  birds because  it  focused on reproductive toxicity  as a critical
 endpoint and aldrin was administered via oral ingestion.  The study by Smith et al.  (1970) on
 chicken eggs was not  selected for benchmark  derivation because data were not identified on
 either:  (1) direct absorption of dieldrin from direct contact with the eggs or (2) maternal transfer
 from mother to egg. Without these absorption data, it is not possible to estimate the internal dose
 from the injected dose.  The study by Brown et al.  (1965) was not selected because  it was not
 the lowest value in the data set for appropriate  endpoints.

 The principles for allometric scaling were assumed to apply to birds, although specific studies
 supporting allometric scaling for aviari species were not identified.  Thus, for the avian species
 representative of a freshwater ecosystem, the LOAEL of 0.06 mg/kg-day from the DeWitt (1956)
 study was divided by 10 to  provide for a LOAEL  to NOAEL safety factor, and scaled using the
 cross-species scaling method of Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the Dewitt
 U956) study documented reproductive effects  from aldrin on female pheasants, female body
 weights  for each  representative species were used  in  the  scaling algorithm  to  obtain the
 lexicological benchmarks.

 Data were available on reproductive and developmental effects as well as on growth or survival.
 In addition, the data set contained studies that were conducted over chronic durations.  No studies
 conducted during sensitive life stages were located.  There were no other values  in the data set
 which were lower than the benchmark value.  Laboratory experiments of similar types were not
 conducted on  a range  of avian species and, as such, inter-species differences among wildlife
 species were not identifiable.  Based on the avian data set for aldrin, the benchmarks developed
 from the DeWitt (1956) study were categorized as provisional.

 Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  No  AWQC or Final Chronic Value (FCV) was available for
 aldrin. Therefore, a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 1.8 E-5 mg/1 was calculated using the
 Tier H methods described in Section 4.2.5. Because the benchmark was derived  using the Tier
 II method, it was categorized as interim.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Aldrin - 4
Aquatic Plants:  The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no observed
effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular
aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective  concentration  (ECW)  for  a  species of
freshwater algae, frequendy a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrwn capricornutwn). Aquatic
plant data was not identified for aldrin and, therefore, no benchmark was developed.

Bent hie community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined using
the Equilibrium  Partition (EQP)  method. The EQP method uses a Final Chronic Value (FCV) or
other chronic water quality measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and the octanol-
carbon partition coefficient (K^)  to determine a protective sediment concentration (Stephan,
1993).  The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present in sediment while still
protecting the benthic community from harmful effects  from chemical exposure.  Because no
FCV was available, a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) was calculated as described in Section
4.3.5. The SCV reported for aldrin was used to calculate an EQp number of 43.9 mg aldrin per
kg organic carbon.  Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the sediment (f^ of 0.05,
the benchmark for the benthic community is  2.19 mg aldrin per kg of sediment.  Because the
E(X  number was  set using a SCV derived using the Tier II method,  it was categorized as
interim.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Aldrin  . 5
        Table I.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
R»pr*Mnl*tiv+
SfHttfe*
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron .
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark
Vajg*' togfat
*«y
0.052 (p')
0.031 (p')
0.004 (p)
0.005 (p)
0.005 (p)
0.006 (p)
0.006 (p)
0.013 (p)
0.06 (p)
0.09 (p)
Study
Sp*»J6*
mouse
mouse
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
£lf*cl
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
Study Vaiu*
ma/fca-day
1.2
1.2
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Description
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
SF
' 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Qrig(tt*t8«Ufl*
Keplingar et a)., 1970
Keplinger et al., 1970
DeWitt, 1956
DeWitt. 1956
Do Witt, 1956
DeWitt, 1956
DeWitt. 1956
OeWiS, 1956
OeWitt, 1956
OeWitt, 1956
      •Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.


               Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
ftepfwrnttativ*
Sp*d»*
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
Benchmark
Value*
»B/U
1 .8 E-05 (i)
10
2.19 (i) mg/kg
sediment
Study
Specie*
AWQC
organisms

AWQC
organisms
Description
scv
•
SCV x K^.
Original Sourc*
GLI, 1992 .

GLI, 1992
        'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i - interim; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
        of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
        10 = Insufficient Data.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Aldrin . 6
II.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the  Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Gpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation  of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic  or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure  to aldrin.  Because
of the lack  of additional mammalian  toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species study
(Keplinger  et al., 1970) was used to derive the aldrin lexicological benchmark for mammalian
species representing the terrestrial ecosystem.  The study value from the Keplinger et al.
(1970) study was divided by 10 to provide for a LOAEL-to-NOAEL safety factor. This value
was then scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm
adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the Keplinger et al. (1970) study documented
reproductive effects from  aldrin exposure to male and female mice, the mean of the body
weights for the gender of each  representative species was used in the scaling algorithm to
obtain the lexicological benchmarks.

Based on the data set for toxaphene and because the benchmark is based on a LOAEL/10, the
benchmarks developed from the Keplinger et al. (1970) study were categorized as
provisional*, as in the aquatic  ecosystem.

Birds: Two suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found for representative avian species
in which dose-response data were reported.  As in the freshwaier ecosystem the pheasant
study by DeWitt (1956) was used to  calculate ihe benchmarks for birds in the generic
terrestrial ecosystem. The study value of 0.06 mg/kg from the DeWitt (1956) study was
divided  by  10 to provide a LOAEL-to-NOAEL safety factor.  The LOAEL/10 was then
scaled for the representative species using the cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from
Opresko et  al. (1994).   Since the Dewitt (1956) study  documented reproductive effects  from
aldrin on female pheasants, female body weights for each represeniative species were used in
the scaling  algorithm to obtain  the lexicological benchmarks. Because the behnchmarks was
derived  from a LOAEL/10, they were categorized  as provisional.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent  yield to root length.  As presented in Will and  Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the
10th percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a  chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.
If there  were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied
to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Aldrin - 7
the ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for aldrin and, as a result, a benchmark
could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.                     .
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX  B
Aldrin - 8
           Table 3.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                             Associated with  Terrestrial Ecosystem
R«prM*ntaitv*
Sp*C>**
dear mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vote
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white- tailed deer
red- tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
' bobowhite
American robin
American
woodcock
. plants
soil community
Benchmark
Vato«*
jngftg-d*?
0.140 (p*)
0.144 (p')
0.122 (p')
0.049 (p*)
0.036 (p')
0.034 (p')
0.01 7 (p*)
0.006 (p)
0.010 (p)
0.009 (p)
0.011 (p)
0.009 (p)
10
ID
Study
Spdcto
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
pheasant
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
}
rep
rep
•

Study
• Value
mo/kg*
d«y5
1.2 '
1.2
1.2
1.2
1 1.2
•1.2
1.2
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06


Description
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
'. LOAEL
LOAEL
-

9f
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-
-
orT0in*i Sww*
Keplinger el al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al..
1970
Kepingeretal.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
DeWJtt, 1956
DeWitt, 1956
DeWitt 1956
DeWitt, 1956
DeWitt, 1956

•
'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID= Insufficient Data
in.   Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                Aldrin. 9
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
anoVor bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations. For organic
chemicals with log Kow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log  Kow values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to refer to total water concentrations unless the BCFs were calculated using
models based on the relationship between dissolved water concentrations and concentrations
in fish.  The brief discussion below describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides  the context for interpreting the biological uptake values.

As stated in section 5.3.2,  the BAF/s for consituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thorhann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and  Thomann et al. (1992)  for the  littoral
ecosystem; these models were considered appropriate to estimate BAF/s for aldrin.  The
bioconcentration factor for fish was also estimated from the Thomann models (i.e.,  log Kow -
dissolved BCF/) and multiplied by  the dissolved fraction (/j) as defined in Equation 6-21 to
determine the total bioconcentration factor (BCF/).  The  dissolved bioconcentration factor
(BCF/1) was converted to the BCF/ in order to estimate the acceptable lipid tissue
concentration (TC/) in fish consumed by piscivorous fish (see Equation 5-115).  The BCF/
was required in Equation 5-115 because the surface water benchmark (i.e., FCV or  SCV)
represents a total water concentration (C1). Mathematically, conversion from BCF/1 to BCF/
was accomplished using the relationship delineated in the Interim Report on Data and
Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Wildlife (U.S.
EPA, 1993i):

                                  BCF/1 x fd = BCF/


Converting the predicted BCF;d of 3,133,284 L/kg LP to the BCF/ of 313,328 17kg  LP was
not in close agreement with the single measured BCF/ of 41,300.  It is difficult to determine
why  the predicted value is larger than  the measured value by almost a factor of 8.  Although
the difference may be partly attributed to the limited data set on measured bioconcentration
factors, it is more likely the result of the rapid metabolism of aldrin to dieldrin in fish tissue.
Since dieldrin is both toxic and persistent, Stephan (1993) points out that a predicted  BAF for
"aldrin plus toxic persistent metabolites" will likely be  higher than a measured BAF for just
aldrin if the measured value does not account for toxic metabolites.  Because measured
biological uptake factors probably do not account for toxic  metabolites, a predicted  value for
aldrin was preferred over the single measured value because the predicted value. Similarly,
the lower measured values cited in  Garten and Trabalka (1983) for bioaccumulation in fish
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Aldrin - 10
were considered to be low estimates of the bioaccumulation potential of aldrin and its toxic
metabolites.

The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates was the geometric mean of several
values, with sources in Table 4 (see master table).  For earthworms and terrestrial
invertebrates, the bioconcentration factors  were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.
Briefly,  the extrapolation method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that
the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lip ids. Further, the method assumes that the BAFs
and BCFs for terrestrial wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of
Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993)
are of sufficient quality to serve as the standard.  The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a
chemical lacking measured data  (in this case aldrin) is compared to the BBF for TCDD and
that ratio (i.e., aldrin BBF/TCDD BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial
vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms, respectively. For hydrophobic organic
constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1
for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf
translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and  uptake into the plant through air   -
diffusion. For metals, empirical data were used to derive the BCF for aboveground forage
grasses and leafy vegetables.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Aldrin - 11
                            Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
•co logical
r»c*ptor
limnetic trophic
leva! 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
Ifpid-baMd or
whole-body •
lipid
• lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole- body
whole- body
whole-plant
value
28,894,111 (d)
14,769,414 (d)
43,866 (t)
4 1.938. 806 (d)
48,382.161 (d)
52,309,538 (d)
3.2
0.037
0.3
0.0068
•ource
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1 989. food chain
model
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1989, food chain
model
predicted value hasfftj on
Thomann, 1989 and adjusted to
estimate total BCF
predicted value based on
Thomann et a!., 1992, food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann et at.. 1992. food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann et al., 1992. food web
model
geometric mean of values in
Garten and Trabalka. 1983;
Clabom et al., 1956, 1960 as
cited in Kenaga. 1980
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDO
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDO
U.S. EPA, 1992e
       d   =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Aldrin. 12
References
Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
   TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge.  Prepared for Ossi Meyn, U!S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

AQUIRE (AOt/atic Toxicity_/nformation /?Etrieval Database). 1995. Environmental Research
   Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

Al-Hachim, G.M. 1971. .Effect of aldrin on the condition avoidance response and
   electroshock seizure threshold of offspring from aldrin-treated mother.
   Psychopharmacologia 21:370-373.

Brown, V.K.H., A. Richardson, J. Robinson, and D.E. Stevenson.  1965. The effects of aldrin
   and dieldrin on birds. Food Cosmet. Toxicol.  3:675-679.

Claborn, H.V.   1956. Insecticide Residues in Meat and Milk.  ARS-33-25. U.S. Department
   of Agriculture.  As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980, Correlation of bioconcentration factors of
   chemicals in aquatic  and terrestrial organisms with their physical and chemical properties,
   Environmental Sci. Technol. 14(5):553-556.

Clabom, H.V., R.D. Radeleff, and R. C. Bushland. 1960. Pesticide Residues in Meat and
   Milk.  ARS-33-63. U.S. Department of Agriculture.  As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980,
   Correlation of- bioconcentration factors of chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms
   with their physical and chemical properties, Environmental Sci. Technol. 14(5):553-556.

Deichmann, W.B., M. Keplinger, and F. Sala et al. 1967.  Synergism among oral
   carcinogens: IV. The simultaneous feeding of four tumorigens to rats. Toxicol. Appl.
   Pharmacol.  11:88-103.

Deichmann, W.B., W.E.  MacDonald, and E. Blum et al. 1970.  Tumorigenicity of aldrin,
   dieldrin, and endrin in the albino rat  Ind. Med. Surg. 39:426-434.

DeWitt, J.B. 1956. Chronic Toxicity to Quail and Pheasants of Some Chlorinated
   Insecticides.  Pesticide Toxicity, Vol. 4, No. 10, pp.  863-866.

Epstein, S.S., E. Arnold, and J. Andrea et al.  1972.  Detection of chemical mutagens by the
   dominant lethal assay in the mouse.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.  23:288-325.

Fitzhugh, O.G., A.A. Nelson, and M.L. Quaife.  1964.  Chronic oral toxicity of aldrin  and
   dieldrin in rats and dogs. Food Cosmet. Toxicol.  2:551-562.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Aldrin . 13
57 FR 24152. June5, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7). Draft
    Report:  A Cross-species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment  Based on
    Equivalence of mg/kg%/day.

Garten, C. T., Jr., and J. R. Trabalka.  1983.  Evaluation of models for predicting terrestrial
    food chain behavior of xenobiotics.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  26(10):590-595.

Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI), 1992.  Tier II  Water Quality Values for
    Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water - Support Documents.  11/23/92.

Keplinger, M.L., W.B.  Deichmann, and F. Sala.  1970. Effects  of combinations of pesticides
    on reproduction in mice. In: Pesticides Symposia, 6th and 7th Inter-American Conf.
    Toxicol. Occup. Med., Halos and Associates, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida, pp. 125-138.

Mehrotra, B.D., K.S.  Moorthy, and S.R. Reddy et al.  1989.  Effects of cyclodiene
   compounds on calcium pump, acitivity in rat brain and  heart. Toxicology  54:17-29.

Metcalf, R.L., I.P. Kapoor, P.Y. Lu, O.K. Schuth, and P. Sherman.  1973.  Model ecosystem
   studies of the environmental fate of six organochlorine  pesticides. Environ. Health
   Perspect. 4:35-44.

NCI (National Cancer Institute).  1978.  Bioassay of alar in and dieldrin for possible
   carcinogenicity, DHEW 78-821.  Carcinogenesis Program, National Cancer Institute, U.S.
   Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD.

Nosek, J.A., S.R. Craven, J.R. Sullivan, S.S. Hurley, and R.E. Peterson 1992. Toxicity and
   Repductive Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in Ring-Necked Pheasant Hens.
   J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 35:187-198.

Opresko, D.M., B.E.  Sample, G.W. Suter II.  1994. lexicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
   Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Ottolenghi,  A.D., J.K. Haseman, and F. Suggs.  1974.  Teratogenic effects of aldrin, dieldrin,
   and endrin in hamsters and mice.  Teratology  9:11-16.

Reuber, M.D.  1980.  Significance of acute and chronic renal disease in Osborne-Mendel rats
   ingesting dieldrin  or aldrin.  Clin.  Toxicol.  17:159-170.
RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances).  1994. National Institute for
   Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Aldrin-14
Smith, S.I., C.W. Weber, and B.L. Reid.  1970. The effect of injection of chlorinated
   hydrocarbon pesticides on hatchability of eggs.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.  16:179-185.

Stephan, C.E.  1993. Derivations of proposed human health and wildlife bioac cumulation
   factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672. Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Suter H, G.W., M.A. Futrell, and G.A. Kerchner.  1992.  lexicological Benchmarks for
   Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the Oak
   Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge,  Tennessee.  DE93-000719.  Office of Environmental
   Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.  Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Suter n, G.W., J.B. Mabrey.  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/RI.
   U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,  Oak Ridge, TN

Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms.  1988.  Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and
   vegetation. Environ. Sci. Technol.  22(3):271-274.

Treon, J.F., and P.P. Cleveland.  1955. Toxicity of certain chlorinated hydrocarbon
   insecticides for laboratory animals, with special reference to aldrin and dieldrin. Agric.
   Food Chem. 3(5):402-408.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   for AldrinlDieldrin. PB81-117301. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office
   of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988.  Recommendations for and
   Documentation of Biological Values for Use in  Risk Assessment. P338-179874.
   Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1989. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   Document Addendum for AldrinlDieldrin.  PB91-161521.  Environmental Criteria and
   Assessment Office, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing
   Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.
   Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. January.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993a. Derivations of Proposed Human Health
   and Wildlife Bioaccwnulation Factors for the  Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.
   Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                Aldrin - IS
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993b.  Wildlife Criteria Portions of the
    Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.  EPA-822-R-93-006.  Office of
    Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993i.  Interim Report on Data and Methods for
    Assessment of2j,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife.
    EPA/600/R-93/055. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter, 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of
    Concern for Effets on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-85/R1. Prepared for U.S.
    Department of Energy.

World Health Organization (WHO), 1989. Environmental Health Criteria 91 - Aldrin and Dieldrin.
August 1995

-------
rerrestria! Toxicity - Aldrin
    Cas No. 309-00-2


Chemical
Name
aldrin
aldrin

aldrin
aldrin


aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin

aldrin


aldrin




aldrin


aldrin



Species
rat
rat

mouse
mice
-

mice
mouse
mouse
mouse

hamsters


quail




pheasants


chickens



Endpolnt
mort.
mort.

syst
terr. '


rep
rep
mort.
mort.

dev


rep




rep


rep



Description
NOAEL
LOAEL

LOAEL
AEL


LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL

AEL


NOAEL




LOAEL .


NOAEL



Value
4
8

2
25
-

1.2
0.5
1.3
26

50


1




0.06


1



Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day


mo/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day


mg/kg-diet
J



mg/kg-day


mg/kg-diet
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., l.v., l.p.,
Injection)
oral
oral

oil (gavage)
oil (gavage)


oral
oil (gavage)
oral
oral

oil (gavage)


oral




oral


oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing
6 weeks ad lib
6 weeks ad lib

5-7 days
once on gestation day 9

6 generations with 2
litters/generation
5 days, once/day
6 weeks ad lib
6 weeks ad lib
once on gestation day 7,
8, or 9


127 days




162 days +


2 years
•


Reference
NCI, 1978
NCI, 1978

AI-Hachim, 1971
Ottolenghi et al , 1974


Keplinger et at.. 1970
Epstein etal., 1972
NCI, 1978
NCI, 1978

Ottolenghi etal.. 1974


DeWitl, 1956




DeWitt, 1956


Brown etal., 1965



Comments

Effect = 2 of 10 died.
Effect = 'increased seizure
threshold in offspring'.
Effect = 'webbed feet.'
High litter mortality occurred at 25
mg/kg. At 10 mg/kg. low pre-
weaning pup survival.
Effect = 'decreased male fertility"
•
2 of 10 died. -

Increased fetal mortality.
No effects on egg production,
percentage fertility, or percentage
hatchability.
Egg production had virtually
ceased by the end of the tenth
week; however, it remained at
normal levels during the first six
weeks.
Fertility and hatchability were
normal at this dose level, (single
dose)

-------
Terrestrit   /xicity - Aldrin
     Cas No. 309-00-2
Chemical
Name
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
Species
at
at
rat
ral
rat
rat
rat
ral
rat
rats
rat
rat
Endpolnt
mort.
mo rt
mort.
kidney
mbrt.
mort.
hepatic
sysl.
syst.
rep
neuro
neuro '
Description
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Value
1.5
2.5
0.25
0.5
2.5
5
7.5
0.5
2.5
12.5
5
10
Units '
mg/kg-day
mg/Kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mo/kg-day
mg/kg-day,
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/Kg-day
mg/kg-diet
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., l.p.,
njectlon)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oil (aavage)
oil (gavage)
Exposure
Duration/Timing
31 months, 7 days/week
31 months, 7 days/week
25 months ad lib
2 year
2 year ad lib
2 year ad lib
2 year ad lib
2 year ad lib
2 year ad lib
Three consecutive
generations
3 days, once/day
3 days, once/day '
Reference
Deichmann et al.,1970
Deichmann et al., 1970
Deichmann et al., 1967
Reuber, 1980
Fitzhughetal., 1964
Fitzhughetal.. 1964
Fitzhughetal., 1964
Fitzhughetal., 1964
Fitzhughetal., 1964
Treon and Cleveland.
1955
Mehrotra et al., 1989
Mahroira et al., 1989
Comments
-
An effect of 'decreased lifespan
in females' was observed.
-
An effect of Nephritis was noted.

An effect of 'increased mortality'
was observed.
Hepatic effects.
Renal.
Renal; effect = 'bladder
hemorrhages'.
At 12.5 mg/kg = 'marked
increase in mortality in pre-
weaning pups'; 'no effect on
reproductive capacity* at any
dose.

Effects = convulsions

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Aldrin
     Cas No. 309-00-2
Chemical .
Name
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
Species
mammal
wild bird
tulvous whistling
duck
mallard
bobwhite
pheasant
mule deer
Endpolnt
mort.
morl.
mod.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
Description
LD50
L050
LD50
LO50
LD50
LD50
LD50
Velue
39
7200
29.2
520
6.59
16.8
18.8-37.5
Units
mg/kg-
body wt.
ug/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wl.
mg/kg-
bodywl.
Exposure
Route (oral,
SC.. I.V.. I.D
Injection)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
Exposure
Ouratlon/Tlmlnq
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Rt ,rence
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
U.S. EPA, 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
Comments
Peripheral nerve and sensation;
behavioral effects.




-

NS = Not specified

-------
Terrestrial   xicity - Aldrin
     Cas No. 309-00-2
Chemical
Name
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
Species
egg (chicken)
rat
mouse
dog
rabbit
guinea pig
hamster .
pigeon
chicken
quail
duck
Endpolnt
dvp
mart.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort
Description
NOAEL
L050
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
L050
LD50
LD50
LD50
Value
2
39
44
65
50
33
100
56200
10
42100
520
Units
mg/egg
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
mg/kg-
bodywt
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
ug/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-
bodywl
ug/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-
body w|.
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V.. l.p.,
Inlectlon)
inject
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oial
Exposure
Duration/Timing
njected either prior to
incubation or after a 7-
day incubation period
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Smith etal., 1970
RTECS. 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RT£CS, 1994
Comments
Injection ot 5 mg of aldrin/egg by
(Dunachie and Fletcher. 1966)
resulted in only 50% hatchability.






- '
Behavioral effects.
.


-------
Terrestrial Biological.   .ake Measures - Aldrin
              Cas No. 309-00-2
Chemical
Name
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
aldrin
Species
cattle
cattle
swine
swine
swine
cattle (beef)
cattle (milk)
sheep
poultry
cow
swine
plants
B-factor
(BCF, BAF.
BMR
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BTF
BTF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
Value
2
3.5
2.4
3.8
1.4
0.085
0.02398
4.17
12.3
3.24
2.34
0.01
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
P
P
P
P
P
Units
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)
Reference
Claborn, et.al., 1960 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Claborn, et.al., 1960 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Claborn, et.al., 1956 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Claborn, et.al., 1956 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Clabom, et.al., 1956 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Travis and Arms, 1988
Travis and Arms, 1988
Garten and Trabalka, 1 983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1 983
Garten and Trabalka, 1 983
U.S. EPA, 1990e
Comments





BTF = Biotransfer factors.
BTF = Biotransfer factors.





NA = Not applicable

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                             Antimony-1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                      Antimony
                                  CasNo.:  7440-36-0
Summary:   This profile on antimony summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals,  daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population susiainabilily. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs  for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5. For the terrestrial ecosystem,  these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the data presented in the
technical support document for the Hazardous  Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human  and Ecological Receptors.
I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C ro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 coniains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated wilh the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic planis, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:   Several toxicily studies were identified which focused on Ihe effects of antimony
on laboratory mammals. Schroeder et al. (1969) exposed Long-Evans rats to 5 ppm of
poiassium antimony tartrate in their drinking water from weaning  until natural death.  A
decrease in ihe median lifespan was observed as well as abnormal serum glucose levels.  The
ppm value  was convened lo a daily dose ihrough the use of ihe geomean  of ihe reported body
weights, 0.167 kg and daily water consumption given by ihe equation:

      Water Consumption = 0.10W0'7377  (Nagy, 1987), where W is ihe body weighi in  kg.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Antimony - 2
The daily dose was calculated in this way as being equal to 0.8 mg/kg-day.  In a separate
study by Schroeder et al. (1968), the effects of 5 ppm of antimony potassium tartrate in
drinking water was observed in randombred Charles River CD mice.  A decrease in the
median  lifespan of females and growth suppression in animals at 18  months of age was
observed at this dose.  The ppm value was converted to a daily dose by using the geomean of
the reported body weights which was equal to 42.2 g and the daily water consumption
through the use of the equation presented above (Nagy,  1987).  The daily dose was calculated
in this way to be 1.14 mg/kg-day.  Rossi et al. (1987) observed reduced pup body weight
from the 10th to the 60th day of age in pups whose mothers had been exposed to 1 mg/dl
antimony trichloride.   In this study, pregnant rats  were exposed to 0.1 and 1 mg/dl antimony
trichloride in their drinking water from the first day of pregnancy until weaning (22nd day
after delivery) and a NOAEL of 0. 1 mg/dl was reported. Based on the geomean of the
reported body weights, 255 g, and daily water consumption estimated through the use of the
equation presented above (Nagy, 1987), a  NOAEL of  0.162 mg/kg-day was calculated.

The studies by Schroeder et al.  (1968) and (1969)  were  not selected for the derivation of a
benchmark because the studies did not evaluate reproductive or developmental endpoints. The
NOAEL in the Rossi et al.  (1987) study was  selected to derive the toxicological benchmark
because 1) it focused on developmental toxicity as a critical endpoint, 2) the study contained
adequate dose-response  information and 3) chronic exposures were administered via oral
ingestion.

The study  value from Rossi et al. (1987) was then scaled for species representative of a
freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994):
                          Benchmark^ = NOAEL. x


where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species.  This is the same
default methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the
Rossi et al (1987) study documented developmental effects in pups of exposed female rats,
female body weights for each representative species were used in the scaling algorithm to
obtain the toxicological benchmarks.  Based on the dataset for antimony, the benchmarks
developed from the Rossi et al. (1987) study were categorized as adequate.

Birds:  No subchronic or chronic studies were identified which studied the toxicity effects of
orally ingested antimony in avian species.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  The proposed Final  Chronic Value (FCV) 3.0 E-02 mg/1
reported in the AWQC document for antimony (U.S  EPA, 1980) was selected as the
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                             Antimony - 3
 benchmark value protective of fish and aquatic invertebrates.  Because the benchmark is
 based on an FCV developed for a AWQC, it was categorized as adequate.

 Aquatic Plants: The benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no observed effects
 concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular aquatic
 plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2)  an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species of freshwater
 algae, frequently a species of green  algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum). The aquatic
 plant benchmark for antimony is 0.61  mg/1 based on a 4-day EC50 for chlorophyll A
 inhibition in Selenastrum capricornutum (Suter and Mabrey, 1994). As described in Section
 4.3.6, all benchmarks for aquatic plants were designated as interim.

 Benthic community:  The antimony benchmark protective of benthic organisms is pending a
 U.S. EPA review of the acid volatile sulfide (AVS) methodology proposed for metals.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measun  . - Antimony
              Cas No. 7440-36-0


Chemical
Name

antimony

antimony



Species

plant

plants

B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)

BCF

BCF



Value

0.2

2.0 E-01
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.P)

P

m



units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)
(ug / kg dw)/ (ug
/kg soil)



Reference

U.S. EPA, 1990e

Baesetal., 1984



Comments





-------
Freshwater Biological U^  .^e Measures - Antimony
              Cas No. 7440-36-0


Chemical
Name
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony


-
Species
fish
bluegill
fish

B-factor
(BCF, BAF.
BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF



Value
1
0
0
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)
m
m
m



Units
L/Kg
NS
L/Kg



Reference
U. S. EPA. 1992
Barrows et al., 1980 as cited in U.
S. EPA, 1993D
Stephan, 1993



Comments
Normalized to 3% lipid.
No increase above controls was detected
in whole body measurements.


-------
Freshwater Toxiclty - Anflrnony
      C is No. 7440-36-0
Chemical
Name
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony
Species
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
Fish
daphnid
minnow
Type of
Effect
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
acute
Description
SCV
CV
CV
EC20
EC20
NOEC
Value
104
1600
5400
2310
1900
6200
Units .
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing •
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
4 days
Reference
Suler and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey. 1994
Suter and. Mabrey. 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Heitmuller et at. 1981 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Comments


-------
Terrestrial To.  ..cy - Antimony
     Cas No. 7440-36-0
rf>
	 1 	 	 — r
I


Chemical





<*•»_
48fpi«^
^l»£g£!
4
Antimony



Species






i
>,
1

rat




Endpoint








,
dev




Description









NOAEL
-^—^— • •



Value









0.162




Units









mg/kg-d

Exposure
Route (oral.
s.c., i.v.. i.p..
injection)









oral
. r~
»

Exposure Duration
/Timing



.





60 d




Reference









Rossi el al., 1987




Comments
doses were 0, 1 , 10 mg/l
0 162, 1 62 mg/kg-d) in
drinking water ad libitum.
For dose conversion used
body wl =255 g (in study).
and water consumption rate
(Nagy, 1987) Effect was
sig. reduced pup body
weight during suckling
period (0-22d)

-------
APPENDIX B
Antimony - 4
       Table  1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with a Freshwater Ecosystem
Rpj>r*»an|iHfv»
Specie* '
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring guU
kingfisher
BanchmwRVatua
rag/kg-d.
0.1 3 (a)
0.07 (a)
ID
ID
ID
.ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
W#H
Specie*
rat
rat
•
-
'
-
-

-
-
Cffeot
dev
dev
•
•
-
•
. . .


-
Study V«Jue
mg)fcg-d
0.162
0.162
-
-
-

-
-
-
•
Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
-


•
-
-
-
-
Sf

.
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
Ortalh»l«o*K»
Rossi etal., 1987
Rossi el al.. 1987
-
-
-


-

•
•Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (•) indicates that the benchmark value was an
order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other advene effecti.


               Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative :
Specie*
Fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic
plants
benthic community
Benchmark -i
V*to«*
1 <"";«tft-"" -\
3.0 E-02 (a)
0.61 (i)
under review
Study ..
5p4cl«*
••^ > f
aquatic
organisms
Setonastnim
capricomutum
•
Orfgtoa*
Vah*
- rtgrV * ;
3.0 E-02
0.61

Sttoitrttai
FCV
ECM
-
"* ss \ ^ % "" \ :
Ortfcfrii* Sou** ;
AWQC Table
Suter & Mabrey.
1994
-
      'BenchmanX Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim: ID = insufficient data,  a (') indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                              Antimony-5
IL   Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: As mentioned previously  in the freshwater ecosystem discussion,  several toxicity
studies were identified that focused on the effects of antimony on mammals.
Since no additional studies were identified which  focused on reproductive or developmental,
toxicity in terrestrial wildlife, the same surrogate study (Rossi et al., 1987) was used to
calculate benchmark values for mammalian species representing the general terrestrial
ecosystem. The  NOAEL from the Rossi et al. (1987) study was scaled for species in the
terrestrial ecosystem using the cross-species scaling  algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994).  Since the Rossi et al. (1987)  study documented developmental effects from antimony
exposure to female rats, female body  weights for each representative species were used in the
scaling algorithm to obtain the  lexicological benchmarks.  Based on the dataset for antimony,
the benchmarks developed from the Rossi et al. (1987) study were categorized as adequate.
Birds:  No subchronic or chronic studies were identified which studied the toxicity effects of
orally ingested antimony in avian species.

Plants: Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the Lowest Observable Effects Concentration
(LOEC) values and then approximating the 10th percentile.  If there were 10 values, the 10th
percentile LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied to reductions in plant growth.yield
reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the ability of a plant population to
sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.  The benchmark for terrestrial plants was
5 mg/kg based on unspecified toxic effects on plants grown in a surface soil with the addition
of 5 ppm antimony (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias,  1984 as cited in Will and Suter, 1994).
This value was the lowest LOEC presented by Will and Suter (1994). The terrestrial plant
benchmark was categorized as interim, since less than 10 studies were presented by Will and
Suter (1994).

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark  protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
    APPENDIX B
Antimony - 6
           Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                               Associated with  Terrestrial Ecosystem
RtprMwtativ*
3p»ct«*
dear mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red (ox
raccoon
white-tailed
deer
red- tailed
hawk
American
kestrel
Northern •
bobwhite
American
robin
American
woodcock
plant '
soil community
Benchmark
VaJu*ai#k«M
0.31 (a)
0.32 (a)
0.26 (a)
0.11 (a)
0.08 (a)
0.08 (a)
0.04 (a)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
5 mg/kg (i)
ID
SUMly
Sp«3««
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
'


-
-
terrestrial
plants

Sitet
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
-


•
•
unspecified

Study
V«a* ,
W0/KJHI
0.162
0.162
0.162
0.162
0.162
0.162
0.162
•
•

•
• •
s.o

Dwcriptlott
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
• -
-
' •
•'
-
LOEC

*?
-
-

•
•
-
-
•
•
•

-


Origin*! Souro* \
RoMietal., 1987
Rossi et al., 1987
ROM «t d., 1987
Rossi etal., 1987
Rossi etal., 1987
Rossi etal., 1987
Rossi et al., 1987
•

-
•
1
Kabata-Pwxtias and
Penotes, 1984 as
cited in Will and
Sutor. 1994
-
Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID= insufficient data; a (*) indicates that the benchmark value was an
order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
    August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Antimony - 7
in. Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations  for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for  ecological receptor categories: fish in the
limnetic or littoral ecosystems, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  For metals, BCFs are whole-body bioconcentration factors
and refer to total surface water concentrations (versus freely dissolved concentrations).
Consequently, all calculations of acceptable tissue  concentrations (TC) represent whole-body
concentrations.  The following brief discussion describes the rationale for selecting the
biological uptake factors and provides the context  for interpreting the biological uptake
values.                                                                        .

The whole-body BCF for antimony was the measured value from Stephan (1993).  BCF
values for muscle were not included because ecological receptors are likely to eat the whole
fish or, in the  least, will not necessarily distinguish between the fillet and other parts of the
fish. The measured whole-body BCF for antimony in aquatic invertebrates was derived from
Stephan (1993). Insufficient data were identified to determine BCF values for terrestrial
vertebrates,  terrestrial invertebrates and earthworms.  A whole plant BCF value of 2.0 E-01
was derived from Baes et al. (1984).  For metals, empirical data were used  to derive the  BCF
for above ground forage grasses and leafy vegetables.  In particular, the uptake response slope
for forage grasses was used as the BCF for plants  in the terrestrial ecosystem since most of
the representative plant-eating species feed on wild grasses.

                         Table 4. Biological  Uptake Properties
•cotoflleal
rvcwptor
fish
littoral
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
ecF,sAi*+«r
BSAF
BCF
BCF
10
10
10
BCF
Kptd-battd of
whoto-body
whole
whole
-

-
whole-plant
vain*
0
0



2.0 E-01
court*
Stephan, 1993
Stephan, 1993

• '

Baes eta), 1984
       d   =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
       ID  =   refers to insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Antimony-8
References
AQUIRE (AQUatic toxicity information REtrieval Database), 1995.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor.  1984.  Review and Analysis of
   Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides
   Through Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Barrows, M.E., S.R. Petrocelli, K.J. Macek,  and J. Carroll. Bioconcentration and elimination
   of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Toxic Chemicals
   379-392.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b. Soil
   Screening Fact Sheet (Second Draft August 12, 1993) Interim Guidance. Office of
   Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. August.

Dieter, M.P., C.W. Jameson, M.R Elwell, J.W Lodge, M. Hejmancik, S.L Grumbein,
   M. Ryan, A.C. Peters. 1991. Comparative toxicity and tissue distribution of antimony
   potassium tartrate in rats and mice dosed by drinking water or intraperitoneal injection.
   J. of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 34:51-82.

Fleming, A.J. 1982. The toxicity of antimony trioxide.  Sponsored by E.I. Du Pont de
   Nemours and Co., Wilmington DE.  OTS215027.  As cited in  Syracuse Research
   Corporation. 1990. Draft: Toxicological Profile for Antimony and Compounds. Prepared
   for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  U.S. Public Health
   Service.

57FR 24152.  June 5, 1992. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency  (FRL-4139). Draft
   Report: A Cross-species Scaling Factor  for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on
   Equivalence of mg/kg 3/4/day.

Heitmuller, P.T., T.A. Hollister, and P.R. Parrish.  1981.  Acute Toxicity of 54  Industrial
   Chemicals to Sheepshead Minnows  (Cyprinodon variegatus). Bull. Environ. Contam.
   Toxicol. 27(5):596-604. As  cited in AQUIRE (AQUatic toxicity Information REtrieval
   Database), 1995.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
   Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System),  1994.  U.S. EPA,  Office of Research and
   Development, Office of Health and  Environmental Assessment.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                       •   ,                  Antimony-9
 Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC Press, Inc.
    Boca Raton, Florida.  As cited in Will, M.E and G.W. Suter H  1994.  Toxicological
    Benchmarks for Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial
    Plants: 1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and
    Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

 Luckey, T.D. and B. Venugopal. 1979. Metal toxicity in mammals (1): Physiologic and
    chemical basis for metal toxicity.  Plenum Press, N.Y.

 M*rmo, E., M.H. Matera, R. Acampora, C.  Vacca, D.De Santis, S. Maione, V. Susanna, S.
    Chieppa, V. Guarino, R. Servodio, B. Cuparencu, and F.  Rossi.  1987. Prenatal and
    Postnatal metal exposure: Effect on vasomotor reactivity development of pups.  Curr.
    Ther. Res. 42:823-838.

 Nagy, K.A. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
    Ecol. Mono. 57:111-128.
         D.M., B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Ridgway, L.P. and D.A Kamofsky.  1952. The effects of metals on the chick embryo:
    toxicity and production of abnormalities in development Ann. N.Y. Acad.

Rossi, F, R. Acampora, C. Vacca, S. Maione, M.G. Matera, R. Servodio, and E. Marmo.
    1987.  Prenatal and postnatal antimony  exposure in rats: Effect on vasomotor reactivity
    development of pups. Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis 7:491-496.

Schroeder, H.A., M. Mitchener, J.J. Balassa, M. Kanisawa  and A.P. Nason.  1968. Zirconium,
    niobium, antimony and fluorine in mice: Effects on growth, survival and tissue levels-/.
   Nutrition, 95:95-101.

Schroeder, H.A., M. Mitchener, A.P.  Nason.  1970. Zirconium,  niobium, antimony,
    vanadium, and lead in rats: Life term studies. J. Nutrition,  100:59-68.

Stephan, C.E. 1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human  Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  Office of Research andDevelopment, U.S.
    Environmental Research Laboratory. PB93- 154672. Springfield, VA.

Sunagawa, S. 1981. Experimental studies on antimony poisoning. Igaku kenkyu 51:129-142.
    As cited in Syracuse Research Corporation. 1990. Draft: Toxicological Profile for
   Antimony and Compounds. Prepared for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (ATSDR). U.S. Public Health Service,
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                           Antimony-10
Suter n, G.W. and J.B Mabrcy. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
   84OR21400. Office of Environmental Restoration  and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Syracuse Research Corporation. 1990. Draft: Toxicological Profile for Antimony and
   Compounds. Prepared for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
   (ATSDR). U.S. Public Health Service.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Antimony.
   Criteria and Standards  Division.Washington, D.C.

U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1989). Ambient Water  Quality Criteria
   Document: Addendum for Antimony (Draft Report  (Final)).  Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA (Environmental  Protection Agency). 1992. TSC1292  Criteria Chart. Region IV.
   Water Management Division, 304 (a) Criteria and  Related Information for Toxic
   Pollutants.  December.

U.S. EPA (Environmental  Protection Agency).  1992e. Technical Support Document for Land
   Application of Sewage  Sludge,  Volume I and II. EPA 822/R-93-001a.  Office of Water,
   Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental  Protection Agency). 1993b.   Soil Screening Fact Sheet (Second
   Draft August 12, 1993) Interim Guidance. Office  of Emergency and Remedial
   Response, Washington, DC. August.

U.S. EPA (Environmental  Protection Agency). 1993.   Integrated Risk Information System.
   June 1992.

Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey.  1978.  Metal toxicity in mammals (2): Chemical toxicity of
   metals and metalloids.  Plenum Press, N.Y.

Will, M.E and G.W. Suter II.  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision.
   DE-AC05-84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management,
   U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Antimony
     Cas No. 7440-36-0
Chemical
Name


Antimony

Antimony


Antimony


Antimony

Antimony

Antimony

Antimony

Antimony




Antimony



Antimony


Antimony
Species


rat

rat


rat


rat

rat

dog
*
dog

dog




mouse



rat


rat
Endpoinl


longevity

cardio


cardio


lepatic

dev

gastro

neuro

gastro




chronic



chronic


neuro
Description


PEL

NOAEL


LOAEL


LOAEL

LOAEL

LOAEL

LOAEL

LOAEL




PEL



PEL .


LOAEL
Value


0.35

0.0748


0.748


418

0.0748

84

6,644

84




1.14



0.8


0.162
Units


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day




mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day


mg/kg-d
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., i.v., i.p.,
injection)


oral

oral


oral


oral

oral

gavage

gayage _

gavage




oral



oral


oral
Exposure Duration
/Timing


> 100 days

30 days


30 days


24 weeks
21 days + gestation
days 0-21

32 days

32 days

32 days



Weaning until natural
death^


Weaning until natural
death.


60 d
Reference

Schroeder et al., 1970 as
cited in IRIS, 1992
Marmo et al., 1987 as cited
n ATSDR, 1992

Marmo et al., 1987 as cited
n ATSDR, 1 992

Sunagawa, 1981 as cited in
ATSDR, 1992
Rossi et al., 1987 as cited
in ATSDR. 1992
Fleming, 1982 as cited in
ATSDR, 1992
Fleming, 1982 as cited in
ATSDR, J992
Fleming, 1 982 as cited in
ATSDR. 1992




Schroeder et at ,1968



Schroeder et al, 1969


Rossi etal, 1987
Comments
Decreased longevity and
}lood glucose; altered
cholesterol levels.

t
Decreased hypertensive
response in newborns. No
clear dose response
Decreased RBC count and
cloudy swelling in hepatic
cords.
Decreased maternal weight
gain.

Severe diarrhea.

Muscle weakness.

Severe diarrhea.
Decreased median
litespans of females and
growth suppression in
animals at 18 months of
age.
Single dose given;
decreased longevity and
lifespan; abnormal serum
cholesterol.
decreased .hypotensi ve
resonse. doses were 0,
0.162, and 1 .62 mg/kg-d

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Arsenic - 1
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                        Arsenic
          ]      .      '            Cas No.: 744-03-82

Summary:  Arsenic exists as a trivalent species (arsenic III) and as a pentavalent species (arsenic
V).  The speciation of arsenic is dependent on numerous environmental factors, such as pH,
Eh.and temperature (Eisler, 1988).  Under reducing conditions, arsenic (V) is reduced to the
arsenic (HI)  form and methylated. Although trivalent arsenic has been shown to be more toxic
to mammals, the pentavalent species is the dominant species of arsenic in aerobic soils and
aquatic environments (Eisler, 1988).  As 80 %  of arsenic released to the environment is released
to the soil (EPA 1982c as cited in ATSDR, 1993), this profile will focus primarily on the more
dominant  arsenic (V) species  with  reference  to  arsenic (in)  where necessary.   This profile
summarizes  the lexicological benchmarks and biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration,
bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic
plants and benthic organisms representing the generic freshwater ecpsystem and birds, mammals,
plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic  terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for
birds and  mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably
assumed to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks  for daphnids, benthic organisms, and
fish were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFsj are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although some
BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log Kow between
4 and 6.5. For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also include terrestrial
vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire lexicological data base compiled
during this effort is presented at the end of  this profile. This profile represents the most current
information  and may differ from the data presented in the  support document for the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.
I.     Toxicological Benchmarks  for  Representative Species in  the Generic  Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale  behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the  generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contain benchmarks
for mammals  and  birds associated  with the freshwater  ecosystem and Table 2   contain
benchmarks for  aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including aquatic
plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks for Arsenic

Mammals:   Only two studies were  identified which  investigated the effects  of  chronic oral
exposure to arsenic (V) in. mammals.  In a two-year study, rats were fed arsenic as sodium
arsenate at doses ranging from 31.25 to 400 ppm (Byron et  al., 1967).  Rats in  the group
receiving 62.5 ppm did  not differ from the controls, however rats fed 125 ppm exhibited
increased weight loss.  Based on these results, a NOAEL of 62.5 ppm and a LOAEL of 125 ppm
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Arsenic-2
were inferred for growth effects.  Since no information was provided on daily food consumption
or body  weight,  conversion  from ppm (mg/kg-diet) to mg/kg-day required the use of  an
allometric equation:

      Food Consumption = 0.056(W°-6611) where W is body weight in kg (Nagy, 1987).

Using the geomean of the reported body weight of the male rats, 0.489 kg, the NOAEL of 62.5
ppm was converted to 4.73 mg/kg-day and the LOAEL of 125 ppm was calculated to  be
equivalent to 9.46 mg/kg-day.  In the same study (Byron et al., 1967), dogs were also fed arsenic
as sodium arsenate for two years at doses of 5, 25, 50 and 125 ppm.  Dogs fed doses of 50  ppm
or less showed no signs  of clinical or pathological toxicity, however, reduced survival and
increased weight loss were observed in those given 125 ppm. These results suggest a NOAEL
of 50 ppm and a  LOAEL  of 125 ppm for pathological effects.  Using the  same procedure  as
above and an average body weight of 9 kg, the NOAEL of 50 ppm was converted  to 1.3 mg/kg-
day and the LOAEL of 125 ppm was calculated. to  be 3.3 mg/kg-day.

Although both studies provide evidence for the toxicity of chronic exposure to arsenic (V), the
rat study  focused on growth during a critical life stage, an endpoint likely to more directly impact
the fecundity of a population than pathological  effects.  Therefore, the study NOAEL of  4.73
mg/kg-day was chosen for calculation of the mammalian  benchmark value. This value  was
scaled for species that were representative of a freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling
algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994):
                          Benchmark   = NOAEL, x


where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight of
the wildlife species, and BWt is the body  weight of the test species. This is the same default
methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity documents
for adjusting animal data to an equivalent  human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the Byron et al.
(1967) study documented growth effects in both male and female rats, the mean body weight of
both genders of representative species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain lexicological
benchmarks. Data were available on the reproductive and developmental effects of arsenic (V)
as well as growth or chronic survival.  In addition,  the data  set  contained studies which were
conducted over chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages.  Based on the
data set   for arsenic (V), benchmarks developed  from the  Byron et al. (1967) study were
categorized as adequate, with a "*" to indicate that some adverse effects have been observed at
the benchmark level.  It should also be .noted that arsenic (HI) has been observed as being more
toxic to mammalian species (Eisler, 1988).  Toxicological benchmarks were based on studies
focusing  on arsenic  (V)   since  it  is likely to  be  the most  prevalent species in aquatic
environments.

Birds: Two studies were identified which investigated arsenic (V) toxicity in avian wildlife.  In
a two-part study, Stanley et al. (1994)  examined  arsenic's effect  on the  reproduction and

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Arsenic-3
development of mallard ducks by feeding adult mallards 25,  100 and 400 ug As/g for 4 weeks
prior to mating.  While no signs of toxicity were observed in the two lower dose groups, ducks
treated with 400 ug/g exhibited delayed egg laying and lowered duckJing production.  In addition,
the eggs of the 400 ug/g group weighed less than the eggs of the control group and showed signs
of eggshell thinning. Based on these results, a NOAEL of 100 ug/g and a LOAEL of 400 ug/g
can be inferred for reproductive effects.   Since no information on body weight or  food intake
was provided, converting the dietary doses from ug/g-diet to mg/kg-day required the use of the
allometric equation:
                                                                          i
        Food consumption = 0.301(W°'751) where W is weight in kg (Nagy, 1987)

Assuming an average weight of 1.162 kg (EPA, 1988), the NOAEL of 100 ug/g was calculated
to be 5.51 mg/kg-day  and  the LOAEL  of 400 ug/g was  calculated as 22 mg/kg-day.  The
ducklings  which  hatched from the eggs of the treated parents were also fed 25,  100  and 400 ug
As/g food for 14 days after hatching.  Although no effects were seen at dose levels of 25 and
100, those in the 400 ug/g dose group had decreased growth rates and body and liver weights
suggesting a NOAEL of 100 ug/g and  a LOAEL of 400 ug/g for developmental effects.  Neither
body weight nor  food consumption data were provided for conversion from ug/g-diet to mg/kg-
day. Therefore,  assuming an average body weight of 0.24 kg (Lokemoen et al., 1990) and using
the allometric equation  from above, a  NOAEL of 8.3 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL of 33.3 mg/kg-
day were  calculated for  developmental effects in the ducklings.  In another study,  mallard
ducklings  were given arsenic in doses of 30, 100 or 300 ppm beginning the day after hatching
until 10 weeks of age (Camardese  et al.,  1990).  Although reduced growth was seen in female
ducklings  given  30  ppm, only male ducklings in the 300 ppm exhibited decreases in growth
compared  to controls, suggesting  a LOAEL  of 30 ppm for pathological effects.  Using the
allometric  equation presented above and a body weight of 0.78 kg (Lokemoen et al., 1990), the
LOAEL of 30 ppm was calculated to be 9.6 mg/kg-day.

The Camardese et al. (1990) study was not considered suitable for the derivation of a benchmark
value since pathological effects do not clearly indicate that the fecundity of a wildlife population
could be impaired. The NOAEL value of 5.51 mg/kg-day inferred from the Stanley et al. (1994)
study on adult mallard ducks was selected over the NOAEL of 8.3 mg/kg-day derived from the
Stanley et  al. .(1994)  duckling study since it was more conservative. The NOAEL of 5.51 mg/kg-
day was then scaled using  the cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).
Although the procedure in the Stanley et al. (1994) study dictated the exposure of both male and
female adult mallards, the reproductive effects were primarily documented in female mallards.
Therefore, female body weights for each representative species were used in the scaling algorithm
to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.

Data were available on the reproductive  and developmental effects of arsenic (V)/as well as
chronic  survival.   In  addition the data set  contained  studies  conducted over chronic  and
subchronic durations. Based on the avian data set for arsenic (V), the benchmarks developed from
Stanley  et al. (1994) were categorized as adequate with a  "*" to indicate that some  adverse
effects have been observed at the benchmark level-
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Arsenic - 4
Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  The Final Chronic Value (FCV) of  1.9E-01 reported in the
AWQC document for arsenic (III) was used since it is a nationally accepted standard and none
\vas available for arsenic (V).  A Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 8.11E-3 mg/1 was reported
by Suter and Mabrey, (1994) for arsenic (V).  Since the benchmark value selected is based on
an FCV for Arsenic (in) developed for a AWQC, it was categorized as adequate.

Aquatic plants:    The benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no observed effects
concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular  aquatic
plants (e.g., duckweed) or 2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species of freshwater algae,
frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutwri). Suter and Mabrey (1994)
reported a benchmark of 4.8 E-02 based on EC50 tests conducted on Scenedesmus obliquus. As
described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarks for aquatic plants were designated as interim. Arsenic
(ID) has been observed as being less toxic to aquatic plants than the more prevalent, pentavalent
species.

Benthic community: The arsenic (V) benchmark protective of  benthic organisms is pending a
U.S. EPA  review of the acid volatile sulfide (AVS)  methodology proposed for metals.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Arsenic • 5
        Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks  for Representative Mammals and Birds
                   Associated with a Freshwater Ecosystem - Arsenic (V)
R«pr*s«at*Uv*
SpMit*
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
B*nchm«rK
V*lue* «o*ff-
d,y
3.94 (a*)
2.35 (a')
3.93 (a*)
4.96 (a*)
4.70 (a')
5.51 (a')
6. 15 (a')
12.29(a')
5,76 (a')
9.24 (a*)
&U*f
Sptofe*
rat
rat
duck
duck
duck
duck
duck
duck
duck
duck
Eltoot
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
Study Y*Iu»
rag/Jcg-day
4.73
4.73
5.51
5.51
5.51
5.51
5.51 .
5.51
5.51
5.51
Otwfptfon
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
8?
' -
-


-

•
•

-
WjNtfSoww*
Byron et al., 1967
Byron etal., 1967
Stanley etal., 1994
Stanley etal., 1994
Stanley etal., 1994
Stanley et al.,1994
Stanley etal., 1994
Stanley etal., 1994
Stanley etal., 1994
Stanley etal., 1994
      'Benchmark Category, a » adequate, p » provisional, i = interim, ID = insufficient data; a (*) indicates (hat the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
                  Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                      Associated with a Freshwater Ecosystem - Arsenic (V)
RapojjwitatiVB (
Sped**
Fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
BwiehrafcrK
Value*
mflA,
1.9E-01 (a)
4.8 E-02
under review
stooyspoctes
aquatic
organisms •
Sconedesmus
obliquus

Otigimi
Value
mgft.
1.9E-01
4.8 E-02
-
DescripSon.
FCV
ECM

OriojndSowo*
AWQC Table
Suter & Mabrey,
1994
'
      •Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p = provisional, i = interim, ID = insufficient data; a (') indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                      Arsenic-6
II.   lexicological Benchmarks  for Representative  Species  in  the  Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the  rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used  to derive protective media
concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains benchmarks for mammals,
birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks for Arsenic (V)

Mammals:  As discussed in the rationale for the freshwater ecosystem, there were two possible studies
from which to estimate a benchmark value. Since no additional studies  were identified, the Byron et al.
(1967) study used to calculate  a freshwater mammalian benchmark was also used for the  terrestrial
ecosystem. The NOAEL from the Byron et al. (1967) study was scaled  for species representative of the
terrestrial  ecosystem using the cross-species scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.
Based oh  the data set for arsenic, the  benchmarks developed from the  Byron et al. (1967) study were
categorized as adequate with a  "*" to indicate that some adverse effects have been observed at the
benchmark level.   It should also be noted that arsenic (III) has been observed as being more toxic to
mammalian species (Eisler, 1988). Toxicological benchmarks were based on studies focusing on arsenic
(V) since it is likely to be the most prevalent species in the  aerobic terrestrial ecosystem.

Birds:  Additional avian toxicity data were not identified for birds representing the  terrestrial ecosystem
therefore, the Stanley et al.  (1994) study used in the freshwater ecosystem discussion above, was also used
to calculate terrestrial, avian benchmark values. The Stanley et al. (1994) focused  on the  reproductive
effects of arsenic (V) in adult mallard ducks. The NOAEL from the Stanley et al. (1994) study was scaled
for avian species representative of the  terrestrial ecosystem using the cross-species scaling algorithm to
obtain the lexicological benchmarks. Based on the data set for arsenic, the benchmarks developed from
the Stanley et  al.  (1966) study were categorized as adequate with  a "*" to  indicate that some adverse
effects have been observed at the benchmark level.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for  endpoints ranging from  percent
yield to  root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), -phytotoxicity benchmarks were selected by
rank ordering the LOEC values  and then approximating the  10th percentile. If there were 10 or fewer
values, the 10th percentile  LOEC was  used.  Such LOECs applied  to reductions in plant growth, yield
reductions, or other effects  reasonably assumed to impair the ability of a plant population to sustain itself,
such as  a  reduction in seed elongation.  The terrestrial benchmark of 10 mg/kg was based on studies
focusing on the effects of arsenic (HI) and (V) (Will and Suter, 1994).   The terrestrial plant benchmark
of 10 mg/kg is categorized as interim, since the value is based on less than  10 values.

Soil Community:  Adequate  data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil community were
not available.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Arsenic - 7
           Table 3.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                       Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem • Arsenic (V)
R«pT»*«ntattv»
Specie*
dear mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobwhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
Benchmark ][ Study
V«iu«« ] 3p*ti«*
ntg/kgHJay ||
10.65 (a')
10.95 (a')
9.28 (a*)
3.76 (a*)
2.71 (a4)
2.57 (a')
1.30 (a*)
5.46 (a*)
, 9.58 (a*)
8.92 (a')
10.69 (a*)
8.50 (a*)
10.0 mg/kg
(').
ID
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
mallard
mallard
mallard
mallard
mallard
terrestrial
plants
-
Eftot :
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
rep
rep
rap
rep
rep
growth/
yield
-
Study
Value
'• mgfcg*
d.y
4.73
4.73
4.73
4:73
4.73
4.73
4.73
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.64
5.64
10 mg/kg

Description
•»
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOEC
-
SF

-
-
-

-
- •
-
•
-
-
-
-
-. •
, QdefcutSmire*
^ ;
•• •" *
Byron et «!., 1967
Byron et al., 1967
Byron et al., 1967
Byron etal. 1967
Byron etal.. 1967
Byron et al., 1967
Byron et al.. 1967
Stanley et al., 1994
Stanley el al., 1994
Stanley et at., 1994
Stanley et al., 1994
Stanley et at., 1994
Will&Suter, 1994

      'Benchmark Category, a • adequate, p « provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient.data; a (*) indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  Arsenic - 8
in.   Biological Uptake Measures
This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive protective
surface water and  soil concentrations  for  constituents  considered to  bioconcentrate  and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake values and
sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: fish in the limnetic or littoral
ecosystem, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and
plants. For metals, BCFs are whole-body bioconcentration factors and refer to total surface water
concentrations  (versus  freely dissolved concentrations).   Consequently,  all calculations of
acceptable tissue concentrations  (TC) represent  whole-body  concentrations.   The following
discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological  uptake factors and provides  the
context for interpreting the biological  uptake values.

The whole-body BCF for  arsenic in fish is derived from  the geometric mean of two measured
values, 3 and 4 (Stephan,  1993).  BCF values for muscle were not included because ecological
receptors are likely to eat the whole fish  or, in the least, will not necessarily distinguish between
the fillet and other parts of the fish.  Insufficient data were identified to  determine BCF values
for aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates and earthworms. A whole  plant BCF value of 6.0
E-02 was  derived from U.S. EPA. (1992e).  For metals, empirical data were used to derive  the
BCF for aboveground forage grasses  and  leafy vegetables.  In particular, the uptake response
slope for forage grasses was used as the BCF for plants in the terrestrial ecosystem since most
of the representative plant-eating species feed on wild grasses.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Arsenic • 9
                        Table 4. Biological Uptake Properties
•ootogiea!
receptor
fish
littoral
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF,«r
BSAF
BCF
BCF
•
•

BCF
iipki-I»M«i of
whole-body
whole
whole
-
-
. .
whole-plant
vaiu*
3.5
3.5
10
10
10
6.0 E-02
•pure*
Stephan. 1993
Stephan, 1993
•

.
U.S.EPA, 1992e
d = refers to dissolved surface water concentration'
t = refers to total surface water concentration
10 » refers to insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Arsenic - 10
References
AQUDRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database). 1995.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

Barrows, M. E., S. R.  Petrocelli, and K. J. Macek.  1980.  Bioconcentration and elimination
   of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). I:  Dynamics,
   Exposure and Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals.  R. Haque, Ed. Ann Arbor Science
   Pub. Inc.,  Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 379-392.

Baxley, M. N., R. D.  Hood, G. C. Vedel, W. P. Harrison, and G. M. Szczech.  1981.
   Prenatal toxicity of orally administered sodium arsenite in mice.  Bull. Environm. Contam.
   Toxicol. 26:749-756.                   '                   .    .

Belton, J.C, N.C. Benson. 1985. Growth inhibitory and cytotoxic effetcs of three arsenic
   compounds on cultured Chinese Hamster Ovary  Cells. J.Environ. Health. A20 (1), 37-
   72.'     '

Biesinger, K.  E., and G. M. Christensen.  1972. Effects of various metals on survival,
   growth, reproduction, and metabolism of Daphnia magna. J. Fish. Res. Bd. of Canada
   29:1691-1700.

Birge, W. J.  1979. Aquatic toxicology of trace elements in coal and fly ash.  In:  Energy
   and Environmental Stress in Aquatic Systems.  Thomas Hunt Morgan School of Biological
   Sciences, Lexington, KY.  Sel. Water Res. Abs. 12, W79-09-248. As cited in U.S. EPA.
   1980.  Ambient Water .Quality Criteria for Arsenic. U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency; Washington, DC. Publication No.  EPA-440/5-80-021.

Byron, W. R., G. W. Bierbower, J. B. Brouwer, and W. H.  Hansen.  1967. Pathologic
   changes in rats and dogs from two-year feeding of sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate.
   Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology  10:132-147.

Camardese, M. B., D.  J. Hoffman, L. J. LeCaptain, and G. W. Pendleton. 1990.  Effects of
   arsenate on growth and physiology  in mallard ducklings.  Environmental Toxicology and
   Chemistry 9:785-795.

Cardwell et al. 1976.  Acute toxicity of selected toxicants to six species of fish.  Ecol. Res.
   Series.  EPA 600 600/3-76-008.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  125 pp. As
   cited in U.S. EPA. 1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic.
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Publication No. EPA-440/5-80-
   021.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Arsenic - 11
Cockell, K. A., and J." W. Hilton.  Abstract: Chronic Toxicity of Dietary Inorganic and
    Organic Arsenicals to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri R.).  Sponsor:  S. J. Slinger.
    Nutrition Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, NIG 2W1.  Nutritional
    Pharmacology and Toxicology.

DeFoe, D. L.  1982. Memorandum to R. L. Spehar.  July 9. As cited in U.S.  EPA
    (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Derivations of Proposed Human Health and
    Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672.
    Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research Development, Duluth, MN.

Deknudt, Gh.,  A. Leonard, J. •Arany, G. Jenar-Du Buisson,  and E. Delavignette. 1986.  In
    vivo studies in male mice on the  mutagenic effects of inorganic arsenic. Mutagenesis
    l(l):33-34.

Dyer, S. D., G. L. Brooks, K. L. Dickson, B.  M. Sanders, and E. G. Zimmerman.  1993.
    Synthesis and accumulation of stress proteins in tissues  of arsenite-exposed fathead
    minnows (Pimephales promelas).  Environ. Toxicol. Chem  12:913-924. As cited in
    AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN.

Edmonds, J.S.  and K.A.  Francesconi. 1993. Arsenic in Seafoods: Human Health Aspects and
    vRegulations. Marine Pollution Bulletin,V26,  12:665-674.

Eisler, R.  A Review of Arsenic Hazards to Plants and Animals with Emphasis on Fishery and
    Wildlife Resources. Arsenic in the Environment, Part II: Health and Ecosystem Effects.
    Edited by Jerome O. Nriagu.  ISBN (M71-30436-0.

57 FR 24152. June 5,  1992. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7). Draft
    Report: A Cross-Species Scaling  Factor for Carcinogen  Risk  Assessment Based on
    Equivalence of mg/kg3/4/day.

Perm, V. H., and S. J. Carpenter.   1968. Malformations induced by sodium arsenate. /.
   Reprod.Fert.  17:199-201.

Perm, V. H., A. Saxon, and B. M. Smith.  1971.  The teratogenic profile of sodium arsenate
    in the golden hamster.  Arch Environ Health  22:557-560.

Ferm,V.H. 1972; The teratogenic effects of metals on mammalian embryos. Adv. Teratol.
    VS. (1972).

Perm, V.H. 1974. Effects of metal pollutants upon embryonic development Reviews on
    Environmental Health, Vol 1,  (3), 1974.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Arsenic - 12
Perm, V.H. and D.P. "Hanlon.  1985.  Constant rate exposure of pregnant hamsters to
   afsenate during early gestation. Environmental Research 37, 425-432.

Francesconi, K.A. and J.S. Edmonds. Accumulation of arsenic in Yelloweye Mullet
   (Aldrichetta forsterf) following oral administration of organoarsenic compounds and
   arsenate. The Science of the Total Environment,  (79) 59-67.

Frost, D. V., B. T. Main, J. Cole, P. G. Sanders, and H. S. Purdue. 1964.  Reproduction
   studies in rats with arsinilic acid.  Federation Proceedings,  Federation of the American
   Society of Experimental Biology  23:291.  As cited in Environmental Health Criteria
   1981. Arsenic — Environmental Aspects, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1989.

Garrett, N.E and J. Lewtas. 1983. Cellular Toxicity  in Chinese  Hamsters Ovary Cell
   Cultures.I.: Analysis  of Cytotoxic Endpoints for  twenty-Nine Priority Pollutants.
   Environmental Research 32, 455-465.

Gilderhus, P.A. 1966. Some effects of sublethal concentrations  of sodium arsenite on
   bluegills and the aquatic environment. Trans. AmJFish.  Soc. V95.

Hale, J.G. 1977.  Toxicity of metal mining wastes. Bull.Environ. Contam. and Tox. 17(1):66-
   73.

Hanlon, D.P. and V.H. Perm.  1986. Concentrtion and chemical status  of arsenic in the
   blood of pregnant hamsters during critical embryogenesis. Environmental Research
   40,380-390.

Hering, J.G. 1994. Effects  of chemical speciation of arsenic on adsorption: Implications for
   arsenic mobility in the  environment and removal from drinking water. Presented before
   the Division of Environmental Chemistry, American Chemical Society. San Diego, CA.
   March 13-18, 1994.

Hey wood, R., and R. J. Sortwell.   1979.  Arsenic  intoxication in the rhesus monkey.  Toxicol
   Lett 3:137-144. As  cited  in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
   (ATSDR).  1993. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic.  Public Health Service, U.S.
   Department of Health and  Human Services, Atlanta, GA.

Hood, R. D.  1972.  Effects of sodium arsenite on fetal development.  1972. Bulletin of
   Environmental Contamination &  Toxicology  7(4):216-222.

Hood, R. D.  1985.  Cacodylic acid:  agricultural uses, biologic effects, and environmental
   fate.  VA Monograph.  171 pp.  Available from  Supplemental Documents,  U.S.
   Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.  As cited in  U.S. Department of the
   Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988.  Arsenic Hazards  to Fish, Wildlife, and
   Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review, Biological Report 85(1.12).
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               Arsenic-13
Hood, R. D., and S. L. Bishop.  1972. Teratogenic effects of sodium arsenate in mice.  Arch
    Environ Health  24:62-65.

Hodd, R.D., G.C. Vedel-Macrander, M.J. Zaworotko, P.M. Tatum, and R.G. Meeks. 1987.
    Distribution, Metabolism, and Fetal Uptake of Pentavalent Arsenic in Pregnant Mice
    Following Oral or Intraperitoneal Administration. Teratology 35:19-25.

Hudson, R.H., R.K.Tucker, and  M.A. Haegele. 1984. Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides to
    Wildlife.'U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Serv. Resourfubl. 153,  1-90. As cited in Eisler, R. A
    Review of Arsenic Hazards to Plants and Animals with Emphasis on Fishery and Wildlife
    Resources.  Arsenic in the Environment, Part II:  Health and Ecosystem Effects.  Edited
    by Jerome O. Nriagu.  ISBN 0-471-30436-0

Isensee, A. R., P. C. Kearney, E. A. Woolson, G. E. Jones, and V. P. Williams.  1973.
    Distribution of alkyl arsenicals in model ecosystems.  Environmental Science and
    Technology  7(9):841-845.

Jauge, P., and L. M. Del-Razo.  1985.  Uric acid levels in plasma and urine in rats
    chronically exposed to inorganic As (III) and As (V).  1985. Toxicology Letters  26:31-
    35.                              •                            -

Leonard, A. and R.R.  Lauwerys. 1980. Carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and mutagenicity of
    arsenic. Mutation Research, 75:49-62.

Life Systems, Inc. 1989. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. ATSDR/TP-88/02.  Agency for
    Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Public Health Service in
    collaboration with  the U.S. EPA.(Environmental Protection Agency).

Lokemoen, J.T., D. H. Johnson,  D.E. Sharp. 1990. Weights of wild mallard Anas
   platyrhyncos, Gadwall A. strepera, and blue-winged teal A. discors during the breeding
    season.  Wildfowl V;40.

Luckey, T.D. and B. Venugopal. 1979. Metal toxicity in mammals (1): Physiologic and
    chemical basis for  metal toxicity.  Plenum Press, N.Y.

Mason, R.P., H.M. Spliethoff, A.C. Aurilio, H.F. Hemond. 1994. The influence of redox
    conditions on the speciation,  distribution and mobility  of mercury and arsenic in
    freshwater lakes. Presented before the Division of Environmental Chemistry,  American
    Chemical Society,  San Diego, CA. March 13-18, 1994.

Mauderly, J. L., J. E. Tesarek, L. J. Sifford, and L. J. Sifford.  1979.  Respiratory
    measurements of unsedated small laboratory mammals using nonrebreathing valves.
   Laboratory Animal Science  29(3):323-329.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Arsenic - 14
Mount, D. I., and T. J. Norberg.  1984.  A seven-day life-cycle cladoceran toxicity test
   Environ. Toxicol. Chem,  3(3):425-434.  As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity   .
 .  Information REtrieval Database). Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research
   and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Nagy, K.A 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
   Ecol. Mono. 57:111-128.

National  Academy of Sciences (NAS) 1977. Arsenic. NAS, Washington, DC. As cited in
   Eisler, R. A Review of Arsenic Hazards to Plants and Animals with Emphasis on Fishery
   and Wildlife Resources.  Arsenic in the Environment, Part II:  Health and Ecosystem
   Effects.  Edited by Jerome O. Nriagu. ISBN 0-471-30436-0.

National  Research Council of Canada (NRCC) (1978).  Effects of arsenic in the Canadian
   Environment. Natl. Res. Counc.  Can. Publ. NRCC  15391,1-349.  As cited in Eisler, R.  A
   Review of Arsenic Hazards to Plants and Animals with Emphasis  on Fishery and Wildlife
   Resources. Arsenic in the Environment, Part II:  Health and Ecosystem Effects.  Edited
   by Jerome O. Nriagu.  ISBN 0-471-30436-0

Nelson, A. L., and A. C. Martin.  1953. Gamebird weights. Journal of Wildlife Management
   17(l):36-42.

Opresko, D.M;, B.E. Sample, G.W.  Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
   1994  Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S  Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
   Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Passino, D. R. M., and A. J. Novak. 1984.  Toxicity of arsenate and  DDT to the cladoceran
   Bosmina longirosiris.  Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.  33:325-329.

Pershagen, G., and M. Vahter.  1979. Arsenic—a lexicological and epidemiological appraisal.
   Naturvardsverket Rapp.  SNV PM 1128, Liber Tryck, Stockholm.  265 pp.  As cited in
   U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988.  Arsenic Hazards to
   Fish,  Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review, Biological Report 85(1.12).

Ramelow, G.J., C.L. Webre, C.S, Mueller, J.N: Beck, J.C Young, and M.P.Langley. 1989.
   Variations of heavy metals and arsenic in fish and other organisms from the Calcasieu
   River and Lake, Louisiana. Arch. Environ. Contam.  Toxicol. 18, 804-818.

Ridgway, L.P. and D.A Kamofsky.  . 1952. The effects of metals on the chick embryo:
   Toxicity and production of abnormalities in development. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 55:203.

Schroeder, H. A., and J. J. Balassa.   1967. Arsenic, germanium, tin and vanadium in mice:
   effects on growth, survival and tissue  levels. /. Nutrition 92:245-252.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Arsenic. 15
Schroeder, H. A., M.'Kanisawa, D. V. Frost, and M. Mitchener.  1968.  Germanium, tin and
    arsenic in rats: Effects on growth, survival, pathological .lesions and life span.  /.
    Nutrition 96:37-45.

Schroeder, H. A., and M. Mitchener.  1971. Toxic effects of trace elements on the
    reproduction of mice and rats.  Arch Environ Health 23:102-106.  .

Spehar, R. L., J. T. Fiandt, R. L. Anderson, and D. L.  DeFoe.   1980.  Comparative toxicity of
    arsenic compounds and their accumulation in invertebrates and fish.  Arch. Environm.
    Contain. Toxicol.  9:53-63.

Stanley, Jr., T. R., J. W. Spann, G. J.  Smith, and R. Rosscoe.  1994.  Main and interactive
    effects of arsenic and selenium on mallard reproduction and duckling growth and survival.
    Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.  26:444-451.
                      /
Stephan, C.E. '1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.   Office of Research  and Development, U.S
    Environmental Research Laboratory. PB93-154672.  Springfield, V.A.

Suter n, G. W., M. A. Futrell, and G. A. Kerchner.  1992. Toxicological Benchmarks for
    Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota on the Oak
    Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DE93-000719.  Office of Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy,  Washington, DC.

Suter n, G.W. and J.B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological  Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R1.
    Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management,  U.S. Department of Energy,
    Washington,  DC.

Thapar, N. T., E. Guenthner, C. W. Carlson, and O. E. Olson.   1969.  Dietary selenium  and
    arsenic additions to diets for chickens over a life cycle. Poultry Science  48:1988-1993.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1978.  In-depth Studies on Health and
    Environmental Impacts of Selected Water Pollutants. U.S.  Environmental Protection
    Agency. Contract No. 68-01-4646.  As cited in U.S. EPA.  1980.  Ambient Water Quality
    Criteria for Arsenic.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
    Publication No. EPA-440/5-80-021.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
    Arsenic.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  Publication  No.  EPA-
    440/5-80-021.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1982c. Arsenic. In: Intermedia priority
    pollutant guidance documents. Office of Pesticides  and Toxic Substances, Washington,
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Arsenic - 16
   DC. As cited in Life Systems, Inc. 1989. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. ATSDR/TP-
   88/02. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Public Health
   Service in collaboration with the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1988.  Recommendations for and
   Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment.  PB88-179874.
   Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Research Development,
   Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a) Criteria and Related
   Information for Toxic Pollutants.  Water Management Division, Region FV.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992e.  Technical Support Document for Land
   Application of Sewage Sludge. Volume I and II.  EPA 822/R-93-001a. Office  of Water,
   Washington, DC.

Will, M.E and G.W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994  Revision.  DE-AC05-
   84OR21400.  Office of .Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Woolson, E.A., J.H.Axley, and P.C. Kearney. 1971. Correlation between available soil
   arsenic, estimated by six methods and response of com (Zea mays L.) Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
   Proc. 35:101-105. As cited inWill, M.E and G.W. Suter II.  1994. Toxicological
   Benchmarks for Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial,
   Plants: 1994 Revision. DE-AC05-84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and
   Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

World Health Organization, 1981. Environmental Health Criteria- Arsenic — Environmental
   Aspects,  Geneva, 1989.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Arsenic
    Cas No. 7440-38-2
Chemical
Name


arsenic (III)

arsenic (III)






arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)



arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)

arsenic

arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)
Species


mouse

mouse






mouse


dog


cat



mouse
-

mouse


mouse

rat

rat


rat
Endpoint


hislo

let






let


no effect


chronic



terat


!?P .


feyerat

lerat

growth


growth
Description


LOAEL

NOAEL
''





LOAEL


NOEL


AEL



AEL 	


AEL


LOAEL

NOAEL

NOAEL


LOAEL
Value


0.5

20






40


30


1.5 __



400


5


10

17.5 	

62.5


125
Units


mg/kg

mg/kg-day






mg/kg-day


n^g .

mg/kg-body
weight


mg/kg-body
weight


mg/kg-diet


mg/kg

mg/kg-diet

ppm


ppm
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., i.v.,
i.p..
injection)


'•P-
oral
(gavage)





oral
(gavage)


oral


oral



oral


oral


'•P-

oral

oral


oral
Exposure
Duration
/Timing
made 30 hr
after
treatment
gestation
days 8^1 5




Gestation
days 10 or
12


90 days

/
NS •


Days 7 to 16
of gestation

3
generations
One of days
7 to 12 of
gestation.
7
generations

2 years


2 years -
Reference '


Deknudt et al., 1986
-
Baxley et al., 19B1






Baxleyetal., 1981

Hood. 1985 as cited in
Eisler, 1988
Pershagen and
Vahter. 1979 as cited
in Eisler, 1988


Hood, 1985 as cited in
Eisler. 1988
Pershagen and
Vahter, 1979 as cited
in Eisler, 1988


Hood. 1972
Frost etal., 1964 as
cited in WHO, 1981

Byron et al., 1967


Byron el al., 1967
Comments

Increase of micronucleated
erythrocytes.


Treatment was given on
gestation days 8- 15,
however, significant
increases in fetal mortality
were seen only in the
groups treated on gestation
days 10 or 12.
Arsenic III as cacodylic
acid and methanearsonic
acid; no ill effects.



Produced cleft palate,
delayed skeletal
ossification and fetal weight
reduction.


Reduced liner size.
Increased resorptions,
malformations and
decreased fetal weights.

Arsenic as arsinilic acid.
Doses were 250, 125, 62.5,
31.25, 15.63 ppm
Enlargement of the
common bile duct and
increased weight loss.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Arsenic
    Cas No. 7440-38-2
Chemical
Name

arsenic (V)



arsenic (V)

arsenic (V)


arsenic (V) '


arsenic (V)


arsenic (V)

arsenic (V)





arsenic (V)


arsenic (V)




arsenic (V)
Species

rat



rat

hamster


cat


hamster


hamster

hamster





mouse


monkey




chicken
Endpoint
mortality,
growth


mortality,
growth

terat


chronic


let


let

let





terat, rep


mortality




embryonic
Description

NOAEL



LOAEL

AEL


AEL


NOAEL
•

LOAEL

LOAEL





AEL


LOAEL




NOAEL
Value

4.73
-


9.46

20


1.5


2


8

15




~
25


2.8




6,3-3
Units

mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day

mg/kg

mg/kg-body
weight

mg/kg-body
weight

mg/kg-body
weight
mg/kg-body
weight




mg/kg-body
weight


mg/kg-day




ug/embryo
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., i.v.,
i.p,
injection)

oral



oral

i.v.


oral


i.v.


i.v.

i.v.





i.p.


oral




NS
Exposure
Duration
./Timing

2 years



2 years
Day 8 of
gestation


NS

Day 8 of
gestation

Day 8 of
gestation
Day 8 of
gestation.'



One of days
6 to 12 of
gestation


1 year




NS
Reference

Byron et_aj., 1967



Byron e\a\.. 1967
Perm and Carpenter,
1968
Pershagen and
Vahter, 1979 as cited
in Eisler. 1988
Pershagen and
Vahter, 1979 as cited
in Eisler, 1988
Pershagen and
Vahter, 1979 as cited
in Eisler. 1988

Fermetal., 1971 '




Hood and Bishop,
1972
Heywood and Sortwell,
1979 as cited in
ATSDR. 1993
'


NRCC, 1978 as cited
in Eisler, 1988
Comments
Doses were 400, 250. 125,
62.5, and 3 1.25 ppm
Reduced survival,
enlargement of the
common bile duct and
increased weight loss.
High incidence of
exencephaly.






Increased incidence of
malformation and
resorption.
Increased malformation
and resorption rates.
Increased fetal resorptions
Decreased fetal weights
and an increase in fetal
malformations seen in mice
treated on gestation days 6
•Plli ._.



Threshold for embryo
malformations at specified
dose range. Dosing route
and duration was not
specified in Eisler.

-------
Terrestrial 7.   ,ity -  Arsenic
    Cas No. 7440-38-2

Chemical
Name


arsenic (III)








arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)



arsenic (III)

arsenic (III)

arsenic (III)
-
arsenic (III)







arsenic (V)

Species


mouse








rat


mouse



mallard

mallard
Calitornia
quail
Ring-necked
pheasant







rat

Endpoint


rep







see
comments


mortality



acute

acute

acute

acute







kidney

Description


AEL








AEL


AEL



LC50

LC50

LC50

LC50







AEL

Value


5








0.38


0.4



323

500

47.6

3B6







1200

Units


ppm








mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day



mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg







ug/kg-day
Exposure
Route (oral,
s:c.. i.v.,
i.p.,
injection)


oral








oral


oral



oral

oral

oral

oral .







oral
Exposure
Duration
/Timing

3
generations






Weaning
until natural
death.
Weaning
until natural
death.



NS

32 d 	

NS

NS







6 weeks

Reference

Schroeder and
Mitchener, 1971








Schroeder et al., 1968

Schroeder and
Balassa, 1967
NAS, 1977 as cited in
Eisler, 1988;NRCC.
1978 as cited in Eisler,
1988
NAS, 1977 as cited in
Eisler. 1988
Hudson et al., 1984 as
cited in Eisler, 1988
Hudson etal., 1984 as
cited in Eisler, 1988






Jauge and Del-Razo,
1985

Comments
Increase in the ratio, of
males to females and a
reduction in litter size.
No effects on growth rates,
longevity or survival;
increased serum
cholesterol levels,
increased incidence of
abnormal liver cells and
significantly different
fasting serum glucose
levels.
Increased mortality, and
decreased life-span and
longevity.





-..




Reduction in renal
excretion of uric acid was
significant at 6 weeks of
treatment for As V,
however, for As III renal
excretion of uric acid was
significantly reduced in the
first 3 weeks.

-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Arsenic
    Cos No. 7440-38-2
Chemical
Name

arsenic (V)

arsenic (V)



arsenic

arsenic (V)






arsenic (V)

arsenic (V)

arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)


arsenic (III)

arsenic (III)

arsenic (V)
Species

cladoceran

daphnid



rainbow trout

rainbow trout






rainbow trout

daphnid

rainbow trout


brook trout


goldfish

goldfish

daphnid
Type of
Effect

acute

acute



subchronic

chronic






subchronic

chronic

acute


acute


acute

acute

acute
Description

EC50

EC50



NOEL

NOEL






PEL

LOEC

LC50


LC50


LC50

LC50

LC50
Value

0.85+/-0.12

49.6 +/• 9.0



1600

'°






120

520

540 -


10,440


18,618

490

7,400
Units

mg/L

mg/L



PP.m

PPm






PPm

"9/L

ug/L


ug/L


ug/L

ug/L

ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

static

static



NS

NS






NS

NS

NS


NS


NS

NS

NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing

96 hours

48 hours .



8 weeks

16 weeks






8 weeks

3 weeks _

28 days


262 hours


336 hours

7 days

48 hours
Reference
Passino and Novak,
1984
Passino and Novak,
1984


Cockell and Hilton,
1985
Cockell and Hilton,
1985^





Cockell and Hilton,
1985
Biesinger and
Christensen, 1972
Birge, 1979 as cited
in U. S. EPA. 1980
Cardwell et al.. 1976
as cited in U. S.
EPA. 1980
Cardwell et al.. 1976
as cited in U. S.
EPA. 1980
Birge, 1979 as cited
in U.S. EPA, 1980
Biesinger and
Christensen, 1972
Comments




Arsenic as
dimethylarsinic acid and
p-aminobenzenearspnic
acid.
Arsenic as disodium
arsenate.
Arsenic as disodium
arsenate and arsenic
trioxide; toxicity
responses included feed
refusal, growth
depression and impaired
feed efficiency..
16% reproductive
impairment.

Embryo-larval stage.





Juvenile stage.

Embryo-larval stage.

Without food.

-------
Terrestrial TV   ,,ty -  Arsenic
    Gas No. 7440-38-2
Chemical
Name




arsenic (V)


arsenic (V)

arsenic (V)

arsenic (V)




arsenic (V)
arsenic (III),
(V)
arsenic (III),
(V)
Species




mallard duck


mallard duck
mallard
duckling
mallard
duckling



mallard
duckling

d99

dog
Endpoint




rep


rep

dev

dev




dev

path

path
Description




LOAEL


NOAEL

NOAEL

LOAEL




LOAEL

NOAEL

LOAEL
Value




22


5.51

8.3

33.3




9.6

1.3

3.3
Units




mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

m9/k9:.(?ay




mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., i.V.,
i.p..
injection)




oral


oral

oral

oral




oral

oral

oral
Exposure
Duration
/Timing


4 weeks
prior to
mating
4 weeks
prior to
mating
14 days after
hatching .
14 days after
hatching




1 0 weeks

2 years

2 years
Reference




Stanley el al., 1994


Stanley el al, 1994

Stanley el al., 1994

Stanley et al., 1994



Camardese et al.,
1990

Byron et^al., 1967

Byron et al., 1967
Comments
belayed egg laying,
reduced egg weight ,
caused eggshell thinning
and lowered duckling
production.





Decreased duckling growth
and body and liver weights.
Reduced growth in female
ducklings. Male ducklings
only showed reduced
growth after treatment with
300 ppm As.





-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Arsenic
             Cos No. 7440-38-2
Chemical
Name

arsenic (III)

arsenic (III)

arsenic

arsenic

arsenic

arsenic

arsenic

arsenic

arsenic (III)

arsenic (III)

arsenic (V)

arsenic
arsenic
arsenic
Species

daphnid

daphnid

daphnid

daphnid

daphnid

mosquito fish

mosquito fish

mosquito fish

rainbow trout

bluegill

rainbow trout
fathead
minnow
bluegill
fish
B-factor
(8CF, BAF,
BMP)

BCF

BCF

BAF

BAF

BAF 	

BAF

BAF

BAF

BCF

BCF

BCF

BCF
BCF
BCF
Value

50

219

1658+/-463

2175+/-290

736 W: 104

21 W- 6

19 W- 7

49 +/- 24

0

4

0

3
4
44
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

NS

NS

NS

NS:
NS
m
Units

L/g .

L/g

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS
NS
L/Kfl
Reference

Spehar et al., 1980

Spehar etal., 1980

Isensee et aL, J973 	

Isensee et al., 1973

jsenseeetal.,^1973

Isensee etal., 1973_

Isensee etal, 1973

Isensee et al., J973

Spehar et al., 1980
U.S. EPA, 1978 as cited in
U. S. EPA, 1980

Spehar et §1.^1980
Defoe et al.. 1982 as cited
inJJ. S. EPA. 1993 _
Barrows et al.. 1980
U. S7EPA. 1992
Comments
Exposure period was 21 days to 970 ug
As/L.
Exposure period was 21 days to 96 ug
As/L.
Arsenic as cacodylic acid; 2-day exposure
period.
Arsenic as dimethylarsine (oxygen); 2-day
exposure period.
Arsenic as dimethylarsine (nitrogen); 2-
day exposure period.
Arsenic as cacodylic acid; 2-day exposure
period.
Arsenic as dimethylarsine (oxygen); 2-day
exposure period.
Arsenic as dimethylarsine (nitrogen); 2-
day exposure period.
Exposure period was 28 days; whole body
BCF.
Exposure period was 28 days; whole body
BCF.
Exposure period was 28 days; whole body
BCF.

Whole body BCF.
Whole body BCF.
Normalized to 3% lipid.

-------
Freshwater K  Jty - Arsenic
    Cas No. 7440-38-2
Chemical
Name


arsenic (V)


arsenic


arsenic

arsenic (Ml)

arsenic (V)
arsenic (V)
arsenic (V)
arsenic (V)
arsenic (V)
arsenic (III)
arsenic (III)
Species


daphnid


daphnid

fathead
minnow
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
fish
daphnid
fish
daphnid
Type of
Effect


acute


acute


acute

chronic

chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
Description


LC50


LC50


LC50 .

NAWQC

NAWQC
cv
CV
EC20
EC20
CV
CV
Value


3800


1900


9900

190

0.77
891.6
450
1500
>932
2962
914.1
Units


ug/L


ug/L


ug/L

ug/L

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)


NS


NS


NS

NS

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS.
NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing


48 hours


48 hours


96 hours

NS

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Mount and Norberg,
1 984 as cited in
AQUIRE
Mount and Norberg,
1 984 as cited in
AQUIRE
Dyeretal., 1993 as
cited in AQUIRE,
1994

U.S. EPA, 1980

Suteretal., 1992
Suteretal.. 1992
Suteretal., 1992
Suteretal., 1992
Suteretal.. 1992
Suteretal., 1992
Suteretal , 1992
Comments




















-------
Terrestrial Biological U,   xe Measures - Arsenic
              Cos no. 7440-38-2


Chemical
Name

arsenic
I


Species

plant
B-faclor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)

BCF



Value

0.65
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.p)

P



units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)



Reference

U.S. EPA, 1990e



Comments



-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               Barium - 1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                        Barium
                                  Cas No.: 7440-39-3
Summary:  This profile on barium summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for
birds, mammals and fish representing the generic freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.
Toxicological benchmarks were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects
reasonably assumed to impair population growth and survival.  Bioconcentration factors
(BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification factors (BMFs)
are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem
were calculated for organic constituents with log Kow between 5 and 6.5. For the terrestrial
ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also include terrestrial invertebrates (i.e. insects
and earthworms). In addition, the entire toxicological data base compiled during this effort is
presented  at the end of this profile and includes additional studies and existing regulatory
benchmarks (e.g., National Ambient Water Quality Criteria or NAWQC).  The entire
toxicological data base compiled during this effort is  presented at the end of this profile.  This
profile represents the most current information and may differ from the technical support
document for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human
and Ecological Receptors.
I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammais and birds associated with the fresh water ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:   No studies were identified which investigated the effects of barium toxicity on
mammalian species. Therefore, benchmarks for mammalian species could not be derived.

Birds:   Few toxicity studies were identified that focused on the effects of vanadium toxicity
in avian species. Rigway and Karnofsky (1952)  injected eight-day old White Leghorn chick
embryos with a single 20 mg dose of barium chloride and observed an inhibition of toe
growth in 50% of the treated embryos surviving to 18 days of age. In another study, Johnson
et al. (1960) fed female chicks with 0, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 ppm barium
hydroxide or barium  acetate from the first day of age to 4 weeks.  At dosages above 1000
ppm barium, a depression in growth was observed with higher dosages resulting in  increased
mortality.  As the weight and  species of the female chicks were not included in the .study, the
August 1995


-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Barium - 2
reported male body weight at 7 weeks was compared to reference body weight values at 7
weeks (U.S. EPA, 1988)  so as to determine which species of chicken was likely to have
utilized in the study.  Through this method of deduction, New Hampshire chickens were
assumed to be similar in weight to the species tested, if not the actual species.  Based on the
geomean of the  reference body weight of female New Hampshire chicks (U.S.EPA, 1988) and
daily food consumption given by the equation:

     Food Consumption = 0.075W0'8449 , where W is the body weight in kg  (Nagy,  1987).

The NOAEL of 1000 ppm was converted to 102.5 mg/kg-day in ihis way.

The Rigway and Karnofsky (1952) study was not selected for the derivation of a lexicological
benchmark for birds because ihe dose was administered via injection and extrapolation from
the injection lo ihe oral rouie of exposure would increase the uncertainty associated with the
value.  The Johnson et al (1960) study was selected, as it  1) contained .clear dose-response
data, 2)  focused on  growih during a critical life stage,  and  3) chronic exposures were
administered via oral ingestion.

     The study value from ihe Johnson el al. (1960) study was scaled for species
representative of a freshwater ecosystem  using a cross-species scaling algoriihm adapted from
Opresko el al. (1994):


                                                  (bw.
                          Benchmark   = NOAEL. x 	1
                                                  IK,

where NOAEL,  is ihe NOAEL (or LOAEL/10)  for ihe tesi species, BWW is ihe body weighi
of ihe wildlife species, and BW, is ihe body weighi of ihe tesi species. This is ihe same
defauli meihodology EPA provided for carcinogeniciiy  assessments and repoitable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152). Since the
Johnson et al (1960) study documented effecis from barium exposure lo female chicks, mean
female body weighi of ihe represeniative species were used in ihe scaling algoriihm to  obtain
lexicological benchmarks.  Based  on the  daia sei for barium, the benchmarks developed from
Johnson et al (1960) were categorized as adequate.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  No AWQC or Final Chronic Value (FCV) was available for
barium.  Therefore, a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV)  of 1.0 E+00 mg /I (AQUIRE) was
utilized.  Because an  SCV was  utilized, ihe benchmark was categorized as interim.

Aquatic plants:  The benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no observed effects
concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effecis conceniration (LOEC) for vascular  aquatic
planis (e.g., duckweed) or 2) an effective conceniration (ECXX) for a species of freshwater
algae, frequently a species of green algae, (e.g.,  Selenastrum capricornutwn). Data were not
identified in Suter and Mabrey (1994) or AQUIRE.  As described in  Section 4.3.6, all
benchmarks for  aquatic plants were designated as interim.

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Barium - 3
Benthic community: The barium benchmark protective of benthic organisms is pending a
U.S.EPA review of acid volatile sulfide (AVS) methodology proposed for metals.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Barium - 4
       Table 1. Toxicoiogical Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with  Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
Spocfot
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
. mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
• herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark
Value* »g/kg*
day
ID
ID
40.89 (a)
51.60 (a)
48.88 (a)
58.08 (a)
64.00 (a)
127.92 (a)
59.94 (a)
96. 19 (a)
Study
Specie*


Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Chjcken
Chicken
Chicken
Effect
•
• -
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
Study Value
mfl/kfl-day


1.03E+02
1 .03E+02
1 .03E+02
1.03E+02
1.03E+02
1.03E+02
1.03E+02
1.03E+02
Description
-
•
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
SF


-


-
•

••

Ofigfn*l$ouro«


Johnson et al., 1960
Johnson et al., 1960
Johnson et al.. 1960
Johnson et al., 1960
Johnson et al., 1960
Johnson et al., 1960
Johnson et al., 1960
Johnson et al., 1960
      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (*) indicates (hat the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.


               Table 2. Toxicoiogical Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with  Freshwater Ecosystem
fleprB«mt««v«
Spade*
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
Benchmark
VWu*»
mg/L
1.0 E+00(i)
ID
under review
Study
Specie*
aquatic
organisms
-

Origin**
V»lw
mg/L
1 .0 E+00 .
-
-'
Description
SCV
-

Original Sourc*
AOUIRE
' -

      "Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (*) indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Barium - 5
II.   Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable sub-
chronic or chronic studies were identified which focused on the reproductive or
developmental toxicity of barium on mammalian species.

Birds: As in the freshwater ecosystem, the Johnson et al. (I960) study was used to calculate
the benchmarks for birds in the generic terrestrial  ecosystem.  The NOAEL of 1.03E+02
mg/kg-day from the Johnson et al. (1960) study was scaled for the representative species
using the cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the
Johnson et al. (1960) study documented effects on female chicks, mean female body weights
for each of the representative  species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the
lexicological benchmarks.  Based on the data set for barium, the benchmarks developed from
Johnson et al. (1960) were categorized as adequate.

Plants:  Adverse effects  levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.   As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values  and then approximating the
10th percentile. If there were 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs
applied to reductions in plant  growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to
impair the ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed
elongation. The benchmark for terrestrial plants was 500  mg/kg, based on a Lowest
Observable Effects Concentration (LOEC) of 500  mg/kg which resulted in a reduction in the
shoot weight of barley and the growth of bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) after 14 days
(Chaudhry et al, 1977 as cited in Will and Suter, 1994).   Since less than 10 values were
presented  by Will and Suter (1994), with the benchmark being the lowest LOEC value
identified, the terrestrial plant benchmark of 500 mg/kg-day was categorized as interim.

Soil community:  Adequate data  with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Barium - 6
       Table 3.  Toxicologicai Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
Representative
Specie*
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bob white
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
Benchmark
Value*
jn0/k0-
-------
APPENDIX B
Barium • 7
in.   Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: fish in the
limnetic or littoral ecosystems, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  For metals, BCFs are whole-body bioconcentratiori factors
and refer to total surface water concentrations (versus freely dissolved concentrations).
Consequently, all calculations of acceptable tissue concentrations (TC) represent whole-body
concentrations.  The following brief discussion describes the rationale for selecting the
biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake
values.

Insufficient data were identified to determine BCF values for fish, littoral invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates and earthworms.  A whole plant BCF value of
1.5E-01 was derived from U.S. EPA (1992e).  For metals, empirical data were used to derive
the BCF for aboveground forage grasses and leafy vegetables. In particular, the uptake
response slope for forage grasses was  used as the  BCF  for plants in the terrestrial ecosystem
since most of the representative plant-eating species feed on wild grasses.
                          Table 4. Biological Uptake Properties
«cQtogic«i
nceptor
fish
littoral
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF,BAF,«f
BSAF
-
•
.. • - •
-

BCF
irphttwMd of
whofe-body

'•

•
•
whole-plant
valu*
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
1.SE-01
•ourc*
'
-
•

-
U.S. EPA, 1992e
       d  =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
       ID  =   refers to insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Barium-8
References

AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database). 1995.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
,   Duluth, MN.       '                   •

ASTER Ecotoxicity Profile. 1992. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),
   Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, MN.

Biesinger,K.E. and Glenn  M. Christensen. 1972. Effects of various metals on survival,
   growth, reprbduction, and metabolism of Daphnia magna. J. Fisheries Res. Bd. of
   Canada, V29(12).

Chaudhry, P.M., A. Wallace and R.T.  Mueller.  1977. Barium toxicity in plants. Commun Soil
Sci. Plant Anal. .8(9):795-97. As cited  inWill, M.E and  G.W. Suter II.  1994.
Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects
   on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision. DE-AC05-84OR21400. Office of Environmental
   Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

57 FR 24152. June 5,  1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (FRL-4139-7).  Draft
   Report:  A Cross-Species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on
   Equivalence of mg/kg  3/4/day.

ICAIR, Life systems, Inc.  1987. Final Draft for the Drinking Water Criteria Document on
   Barium. Prepared  for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Drinking
   Water, Criteria and Standards Division,  Washington, DC.

Leblanc, G.A. 1980. Acute toxicity of priority pollutants to water flea (Daphnia magna).  Bull
   Environ. Contam.  Toxicol. 10(5):291-294.

Luckey, T.D. and B. Venugopal. Metal toxicity in mammals  (1): Physiologic and chemical
   basis for metal toxicity.  Plenum Press, N.Y.

Nagy, K.A. 1987.  Field metabolic rate and  food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
   Ecol.Mono. 57:111-128.

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter II.  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
   1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
   Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Ridgway.L.P and D.A. Karnofsky.  1952. The effects  of metals on the chick embryo: Toxicity
   and production of abnormalities in development. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 55:203.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Barium - 9
Suter n, G.W., M.A.'Futrell, and G.A. Kerchner.  1992. Toxicological Benchmarks for
    Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the  Oak
.    Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  DE93-OQ0719.  Office of Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Tarasenko, N. Y., O.A Pronin, A.A. Silayev. 1977. Barium Compounds as industrial Poisons
    (an Experimental study). J. Of Hygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology and Immunology
    21(4)361-373.

Tardiff, R.G, M Robinson, N.S. Ulmer. 1980. Subchronic oral toxicity of BaCl2 in rats. /. of.
       Environmental Path and Tox. 4:267-275.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1988.  Recommendations for and
    Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment. P338-179874.
    Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992e.  Technical Support Document for Land
    Application of Sewage Sludge, Volume I and II.  EPA 822/R-93-001a. Office of Water,
    Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993c.  Integrated Risk Information System.
    June, 1995.

Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal toxicity in mammals (2): Chemical toxicity of metals.
    and metalloids. Plenum Press, N.Y., 1978.

Will, M.E  and G.W. Suter II.   1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
    84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1990. Environmental Health Criteria 107: Barium.
    Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the
    International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organisation.
August 1995

-------
                                                      Terrestrial "i   Jty - Barium
                                                          Cas No. 7440-39-3
Chemical
Name
Barium
hydroxide or
barium
acetate
Barium
hydroxide
and barium
acetate




Barium








Barium
carbonate







Barium
carbonate
Species



chick



chick




rat









rat








male rat
Type of
Effect



growth



growth




path









growth








rep
Description



LOAEL



NOAEL




NOAEL "









LOAEL








LOAEL
Value



210



102.5




250









5.2








5.2
Units



mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day




PPm









mg/m3








mg/m3
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c.. i.v., i.p.,
injection)



oral



oral




oral









inhalation








inhalation
Exposure Duration
/Timing



4 weeks



4 weeks




4, 8 and 13 weeks








4 month, 6x a week for
4 hrs/day








4 months-
. ' Reference



Johnson etal., 1960



Johnson etal., 1960




Tardjff el :al., 1980









Tarasenko et al ,1977








Tarasenko et al., 1977
Comments



Depression in growth. '




No adverse effects
observed in food
consumption, clinical signs,
bodyweight, or
hematological parameters.
Considerable drop in weight
increase, higher arterial
pressure, drop in
hemoglobin, leukocystosis
and thrombopenia,
decreased blood sugar
level, increased phosphorus
in blood and increased
concentration of calcium in
urine.
A decrease in total number
of spermatozoids. in the %
of motile forms and the
duration of their motility;
reduced osmotic resistance
of the spermatozoids; an
increased number of ducts
with desquamated
epithelium.
Barium - Page 7

-------
                                                       Terrestrial Toxicity - Barium
                                                          Cas No. 7440-39-3


Chemical
Name







Barium
carbonate
Barium
chloride



Species








female rat

chick embryo


Type of
Effect








rep

dev



Description








LOAEL

PEL



Value








13.4

20



Units








mg/m3

mg
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c.. i.v., i.p..
injection)








inhalation
single
injection


Exposure Duration
/Timing








4 months





Reference








Tarasenko et al., 1977
Ridgway and Kamofsky,
1952



Comments
Shortening of mean
duration of estrous cycle,
disturbances in
morphological structure of,
ovaries, gave birth to
underdeveloped offspring
with considerable mortality
and slow increase in weight
within first 2 months.

inhibition in toe growth
Bariur  "'age 8

-------
igica! Uptake Measures - Barium
Cos No. 7440-39-3


Chemical
Name



Species

B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)



Value
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)



Units



Reference



Comments

-------
Freshwater i   .city - Barium
    Cos No. 7440-39-3
Chemical
Name

barium
barium

barium

barium

barium

barium
Species
aquatic
organisms
daphnid

daphnid .

daphnid

daphnid

daphnid
s
Type of
Effect

chronic
chronic

acute

acute

acute

chronic
Description

NAWQC
CV

LC50

LC50

Lp50

LOEC
• Value

109
20336

>530000

410000

14,500

5,800
Units

ug/L
ug/L

ug/L

"9A

"g/L-

ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

NS
NS

NS

NS.

NS

NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing

NS
NS

24 hours

48 hours

48 hours

3 weeks
Reference

Suterejjd.. 1992
Suteretal.. 1992
LeBlanc, 1980 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1994 :
LeBlanc, 1980 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1994
Biesinger & Christensen,
1972
Biesinger & Christensen,
1972
. Comments






"

Without food.

16% reproductive impairment.

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                        Benz(a)anthracene -1


                  lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                   Benz(a)anthracene
                                    CasNo.: 56-55-3
Summary: This profile on benz(a)anthracene summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and.
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e.. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria). Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized  for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e:g., earthworms). The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the  information presented in die
technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste  Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."

I.      Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used lo derive protective
media concentrations (C^) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals  and  birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic  organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic  plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic toxicity  studies regarding wildlife mammalian
exposure to benz(a)anthracene  were identified. Since no laboratory studies focusing on
reproductive or other critical endpoints  were available,  a mammalian benchmark  for
freshwater ecosytems was  not derived
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Biological bh  ...Ke Measures - Barium
             Cos No. 7440-39-3


Chemical
Name

barium



Species

plant

B-lactor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)

BCF .



Value

0.15
Measured
or
Predicted
. (m_.P) ._.

P



units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)



Reference

U.S. EPAL1990e



Comments



-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Benz(a)anthracene - 2


Birds:  No toxicity studies documenting terrestrial avain exposure to benz(a)anthracene were
identified.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates: A review of the literature revealed that an AWQC is
available for benz(a)anthracene. Therefore the Tier II method described in Section 4.3.5 was
used to calculate an SCV of 0.025 mg/L.  Tier II values or Secondary Chronic Values (SCV)
were developed  so that aquatic benchmarks could be established for chemicals with data sets
that did not fulfill all the requirements of the National AWQC.  Because the benchmark was
based on an SCV, this benchmark was categorized as interim.

Aquatic Plants: The lexicological  benchmarks for aquatic plants were either (1)  a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECU) for species of
freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae  (e.g., Selenastrum capricomutum).
Adequate data sufficient for the development of benchmark values were not identified in
Suter and Mabrey (1994) or in AQUIRE.

Benthic community: Benchmarks  for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method. The EQp method uses  a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or Secondary Chronic Value (SCV), along with the fraction of organic carbon and the
octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^.) to determine protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993).  The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present in the
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from harmful effects from chemical
exposure.  The SCV, for benz(a)anthracene was  used to calculate an EQp value of 9.73 mg
benz(a)anthracene/kg organic carbon. Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the
sediment (f,,,.) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is 0.49 mg/kg sediment.
Since the EQp number was based on an SCV, the sediment benchmark was categorized as
interim.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Benz(a)anthracene - 3
        Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Spvctea
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher


myncg-wy
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
' ID
Study
Spcda*
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
Effect
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Study Valw
ing/kg-day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DMcHptton
-
-
-
-.
-
-
'
-

-
SF
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
• -
-
Original Soum
-
-
-
-
-
9
•
•
-
' •
 Benchmark category, a 3 adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a  indicates trial the benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data

                      Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                          Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
B^M1^^^MM«M^M
nvptwvnBwv
fish and
aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic
community
Bwicnmrti
V«hM
ngfl
0.025 (i)
ID
0.049 0)
Sh*y«p*dM
aquatic
organisms
•
aquatic
organisms
f^BMwfa«lfcw*
t^WBr^BDn
scv
.
SCVxK.
OrtgM
Some*
AQUIRE,
1995
'
AOUIRE,
1995


'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = mtenm; a "' indicates .that the benchmark value
was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                        Benz(a)anthracene • 4


 II.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

 This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
 media concentrations (Cpn,) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains
 benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants, and soil invertebrates representing the generic
 terrestrial ecosystem.

 Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

 Mammals: As discussed previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion,  no suitable
 subchronic or chronic studies documenting mammalian exposure to benz(a)anthracene were
 identified.  Since no additional laboratory mammal studies focusing on reproductive or other
 critical endpoints were identified, a mammalian benchmark for terrestrial ecosystems was not
 calculated.                                          ...

 Birds: No toxicity  studies documenting terrestrial avain exposure to benz(a)anthracene were
 identified.

 Plants:  Adverse effects levels for  terrestrial  plants were identified for endpoints- ranging from
 percent yield to root lengths.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
 benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
 percentile.  If there  were 10 or fewer values  for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
 there were more than 10 values,  the 10* percentile  LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied to
 reductions in plant growth, yield reductions,  or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
 ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in  seed elongation.
 However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for benz(a)anthracene and, as a result, a
 benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community.  Adequate data with which  to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Benz(a)anthracene - 5
           Table 3.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                             Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
R«prM«nt>dv« 3p»elM
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed dear
red-tailed hawk
kestrel
American robin
A-nerican woodcock
plants
soil community

mgAm^tay
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
>P
Study Spa*.
-
-
• - .
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
fflKt
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
Study Vita*
m0*04qr
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
DMulpaon
-
-
-
-
-
- • '
•
-
-
•
-
-
-
*P
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
-
Ortghwiaeam













'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a ~ indicates that the bechmark value was an order of magnitude
or mots above the NEL or LEI for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data         .
171.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are  presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-boy or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                          Benz(a)anthracene - 6


 concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
 chemicals with log K,,w  values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
 assumed  to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
 total water concentration).  The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the
 biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values
 presented in Table 4.

 As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAP/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
 using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the littoral
 ecosystem.  However, these models were considered inappropriate to estimate BAF/s for
 benz(a)anthracene because they fail to consider metabolism in fish.  A number of studies have
 demonstrated that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are readily metabolized in the
 tissue of  fish  (see Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and
 Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol.  Rep. 85(1.11). •

 The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates  and
 earthworms were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation
 method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemical  assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
 dominated by lipids. For hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor for
 plants was estimated as  described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and
 forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves
 and grasses, and uptake  into the plant through air diffusion.  As with the  aquatic ecosystem,
 these biological uptake values should be interpreted with caution since they do not address
 metabolism of benz(a)anthracene in animal tissue.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX 8
Benz(a)anthracene - 7
                                Table 4. Biological Uptake Properties
•ftotopteal
fvc0pli)r
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF.BAF, or
BSAF
BAP
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
-
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
ffabkiM^Ad ar
whow body
liptd
fipid
lipki
liptd
Rpid
-
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
WhM
800 (t)
800 (t)
800 (t)
BOO(t)
800 ( t)
ID
5.9E - 03
5.6 E -03
4.5 E -02
2.0 E -02
•oure*
measured; Stephen 1993
measured; Stephan 1993
measured; Stephan 1993
measured; Stephan 1993
measured; Stephan 1993
• -
cate
cate
calc
. U.S. EPA, 1990e
        d = refers to dissolved surface water concentration
        t = refers to total surface water concentration •
        ID = insufficient data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Benz(a)anthracene - 8
 References

 Brunstrom, B., D.  Broman, and C.  Naf.  1991. Toxicity and EROD-inducing potency of 24
    polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in chick embryos.  Arch Toxicoi, 65:485-489.

 Newsted,  J.  L. and J. P. Giesy.  1987. Predictive models for photoinduced acute toxicity of
    polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Daphnia Magna, Strauss (Cladocera, Crustacea).
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol.  6, pp. 445-461.

 Sbuthworth, G. R., J. J. Beauchamp and P. K. Schmieder.   1978.  Water Res., 12:973-7.  As
    cited in Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB), National Library of Medicine,  1994.

 Stephan, C. E. 1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Biodccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672. Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MM. PB93-154762.  .'

 Suter II, G. W. and J. B.  Mabrey.  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
    84OR21400. Office of Environmental  Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.    "

 Thomann, R. V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chmeical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. ScL Technol. 23(6): 699-707.

 Thomann, R. V., J. P. Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical  accumulationin  aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 11:615 - 629.

Trucco, R.G., F.R. Engelhardt, and B. Stacy.  1983. Toxicity, accumulation and clearance of
    aromatic hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A Ecol. BioL 31(3):191-
    202. As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).
    Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research ,and Development, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health  Risks
    Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim  Final. Office,of
    Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. January.
August 1995

-------
                                                                                        ..; -fri
 APPENDIX B                                                       Benz(a)anthracene - 9


 Will, M. E. and  G. W. Suter n. 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake,   xmires - Benr(a)anthracene
                   Cas No.: 56-55-3


Chumlcal Name
Benz(a)anthracene


Soocles
plant

B-ractor
(BCF, BAF,
BMF)
BCF


VahM
002
Measured
' or
Predicted
(m.o)
P


Unlti
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)


Referanc«
1 U.S. EPA, I990e


Commant*
Plant uptake from soil pertains to
forocjed plants

-------
                                          Freshwater Toxicity - Benz(a)anthracene
                                                    CasNo.: 56-55-3
Chemical Name
benz(a)anthracehe
benz(a)anthracene
Speclei
aquatic
organisms
daphnia
maana
Type of
Effect
chron
acute
Description
scv
LC50
Value
0.027
JO
Unlit
ug/i
ua/i
TwtType
(italic/ flow
through)
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
NS
4-davs
Reference
Suter and
Mabrey. 1994
Truccoetal..
1983 as cited In
AQUIRE, 1995
Comments

1
NS » Not Specified

-------
APPENDIX B                                                          Benzo(a)pyrene - 2
late (16-18d) gestation with  100 or 150 ug BaP per gram of body weight.  Urso and
Gengozian observed reduction in the immune capacity of F, generation mice, which
corresponded to increased tumor incidence in later life. In another study involving laboratory
mice exposure to BaP, Mattison (1980) reported primordial oocyte destruction after a single
ip injection of 80 mg/kg.  MacKenzie and Angevine (1981) investigated the  effect of daily
oral doses of 0,  10, 40, and  160 mg BaP/kg on days 7-16 of gestation on maternal body
weight, pregnancy maintenance, fetal development, and survival of CD-I mice.  For .the F,
generation  mice exposed in utero to 10 mg BaP/kg, there was a marked reduction of gonadal
weight and reduced reproductive capacity.

The studies by Urso and Gengozian (1980) and Mattison (1980) were considered unacceptable
for the derivation of a wildlife benchmark value because the intraperitoneal exposure route is
not consistent with probable wildlife exposure routes and the studies lacked sufficient dose-
response data. These  two studies were presented to provide a relative perspective for doses at
which lexicological impacts  occur.  The study by MacKenzie and Angevine  (1981) was used
to extrapolate a benchmark value for mammals associated with the aquatic ecosystem.   In the
data set on mammalian toxicity, the MacKenzie and Angevine (1981) study was the only
identified study to examine oral exposure to BaP, contain sufficient information to establish a
dose-response curve, and evaluate reproductive and developmental endpoints.

The study value from  the MacKenzie and Angevine (1981) study  was divided by 10 to
provide a LOAEL-to-NOAEL safety factor.  This value was then scaled for representative
species  in the freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from
Opresko et al. (1994)
                                                    bw
                             Benchmark,, = NOAEL x
where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species.  This is the default
methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose.  Since the MacKenzie  and
Angevine (1981) study documented reproductive effects from benz(a)pyrene exposure to
female and male mating rats, the mean body weight of both genders of representative species
was used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                           Benzo(a)pyrene - 3
 Data were available on the reproductive and developmental effects of benzo(a)pyrene, as well
 as chronic survival.  There were several acute study values in the data set which were lower
 than or approximately equal to, the benchmark value.  All of the studies identified were
 conducted using laboratory mammals, and since, inter-species differences among wildlife
 species were not identifiable, an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied.  Based on
 the data set for benzo(a)pyrene and because the benchmark is based on a LOAEL/10, the
 benchmarks developed from the MacKenzie and Angevine (1981) study were categorized as
 provisional, with a "*" to indicate that adverse effects may occur at the benchmark level.

 Birds:  Since the minimum data set of at least three avian species was not fulfilled,
 toxicological benchmarks for benzo(a)pyrene exposure to representative avian species could
 not be calculated.

 Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  A review of the literature revealed that an AWQC is not
 available for benzo(a)pyrene. Therefore, the Tier II method described in Section 4.3.5 was
 used to calculate an SCV of 1.3E-5 mg/L. Tier n values or Secondary Chronic Values (SCV)
 were  developed so that aquatic benchmarks, could be established for chemicals with data sets
 that did not fulfill all the requirements of the National AWQC. Because the benchmark is
 based on an SCV, this benchmark was categorized.as interim, with an "*" to indicate that
 sensitive species of fish may exhibit adverse effects at the benchmark level.

Aquatic Plants:  The toxicological benchmarks  for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no
 observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
 vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed)  or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g.,  Selenastrum  capricornutwri).
Aquatic plant data was not identified  for aldrin and,  therefore, no benchmark was developed.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQP) method.  The EQP method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic water quality  measure, along with  the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^) to determine a protective sediment concentration
(Stephan,  1993). The EQP number is the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from the harmful effects of chemical
exposure.  The SCV for benzo(a)pyrene  was'used to calculate an EQP number  of 13.5 mg
benzo(a)pyrene /kg organic carbon. Assuming  a mass fraction of organic carbon for the
sedimetot (f^.) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is 0.67 mg/kg.  Since the
EQp number was based on an SCV, the sediment benchmark is categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Benzo(a)pyrene • 4
       Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
Specie*
mink
river otter
bald, eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herrring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark Value'
mg/kg-d
0.44 (p-)
0.26 (p«)
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Spedee
mouse
mouse

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
Study Value
mg/kg-d
10
10
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-


LOAEL
LOAEL
-
-
-
-
-
-
- •
-
SF
10
10
-
-
-
. -
-
-
.
-
Original Source
MacKenzie & Angevine, 1981
MacKenzie & Angevine, 1981
-
t
-
-
-

-
-
       'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data
               Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
ROprtftMllBIIW
Species
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
Benchmark Value
mo/l
1.3E-05(i*)
ID
0.67 (i) mg/kg
sediment
Study Spedee
Daphnia pulex
-
Daphnia pulex
Description
scv

SCVxK,,.
Original
Source
AQUIRE, 1995
-
AQUIRE, 1995
               •Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was
               an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
               ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                           Benzo(a)pyrene - 5
II.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains  .
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to benzo(a)pyrene.
Because  of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species
study (MacKenzie & Angevine, 1981) was used to derive the benzo(a)pyrene toxicological
benchmark for mammalian species representing the .terrestrial ecosystem. The study value
from the MacKenzie & Angevine (1981) study was divided by 10 to provide a LOAEL-to-
NOAEL  safety factor.  This value was then scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem
using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the
MacKenzie and Angevine (1981) study documented reproductive effects from benzo(a)pyrene
to female and male mating rats, the mean body weight of both genders of representative
species was used  in the scaling algorithm to obtain the toxicological benchmarks.  Based on
the  data set for benzo(a)pyrene and because the benchmark is based on a LOAEL/10, the
benchmarks developed from the MacKenzie and Angevine (1981) study were categorized as
provisional, with a "*" to indicate that adverse effects may occur at the benchmark level.

Birds:  Since the  minimum data set of at least three avian species was not fulfilled, a
toxicological  benchmark for benzo(a)pyrene exposure to representative avian species could
not  be calculated.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield  to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
percentile.  If there were  10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there were more than  10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied to
reductions in  plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a plant  population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in  seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for benzo(a)pyrene and, as a result, a
benchmark could  not be developed.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Benzo(a)pyrene - 6
Soil Community:  Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were  not identified.
           Table 3.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                             Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem


deer mouse
short-tailed shrew •
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American woodcock
plant
soil community
BmtaiMi* VWu»«
IDQFK^v
1.2(p')
1.2(p')
' 1.0 (p')
0.42 (p-)
0.30 (p-)
0.29 (p--)
0.15(p')
ID
ID
ID
ID .
ID
ID
ID
Study 8p*dM
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
-
-
-
-
-
• -
'
Study VMut
mgftfrd
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

-
.
-

.
-
»— 	 1— Jin —
wcnpoon
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
.

-
-
-
-
•
Sf
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-
-
.
-'

-
•
Origin*! Soura
MacKenzie &
Angevine, 1981.
MacKenzie &
Angevine, 1981.
MacKenzie & .
Angevine, 1981.
MacKenzie &
Angevine, 1981.
MacKenzie &
Angevine, 1981.
Mackenzie &
Angevine, 1981.
MacKenzie &
Angevine, 1981.
-
-
-
•

-

•Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of magnitude or
more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data                       '
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                           Benzo(a)pyrene - 7
III.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the  limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body  or lipid-based and,  for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors .are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a  "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemical* with log K^ values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish  were  always
assumed to refer  to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log  Kow values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to  refer to total water concentrations unless the BCFs were calculated using
models based on  the relationship between dissolved water concentrations and  concentrations
in fish. The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in
Table 4.

As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for consituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992)  for the  littoral
ecosystem. However, these models were considered  inappropriate to estimate BAF/s  for
benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) because they fail to consider metabolism in fish.  A number of studies
have demonstrated that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)  such as BaP are readily
metabolized in the tissue of fish (see Polycyclic Aromatic -Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish,
Wildlife,  and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review.  U. S. Fish Wildlife Service Biol. Rep.
85[1.11].  Stephan (1993) noted that unpublished field data by Burkard resulted in predicted
BAPs of 17 to 228 for four PAHs with three and four rings for fish with 5%  lipids, and
suggested that it seems unlikely that PAHs with five  rings would have BAPs  greater  than
1,000.  Converting the BAPs to BAF/s  (i.e., dividing by lipid fraction of 0.05)  results in a
BAF,d range of 340 to 4,560.  The geometric  mean of these values (1,245) was  rounded to a
BAF/ of 1,000 to represent a default value for BaP and other five or four ring PAHs.
Considering that  PAH levels in fish are usually low and that the higher molecular weight
PAHs do not seem to accumulate in fish, a BAF/ of  1,000  appears to be a reasonable,
although not overly conservative,  value  for bioaccumulation.  The bioconcentration factor for
BaP in fish was assumed to be equivalent to the BAF/ of 1,000, however, because  it  is not
known whether fish metabolize BaP more rapidly via the gut or gills, it  is difficult to
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                           Benzo(a)pyrene • 8
determine .whether it over- or underestimates the actual bioconcentration of BaP.  In short,
selecting one biological uptake of 1,000 for BaP and similar PAHs represents a best estimate
(i.e., central tendency) of the bioaccumulation and bioconcentration of this class of
compounds.  However, steady-state  measured data on biological uptake of BaP (and most
PAHs) are very limited at this time  and these default values for BAF/ and BCF/ should be
interpreted with caution.

The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial  vertebrates, invertebrates, and
earthworms were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation
method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
dominated by lipids.  Further, the method assumes that the BAFs and BCFs for terrestrial
wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of Risks to Terrestrial
Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993) are of sufficient
quality to serve as the standard. The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a chemical  lacking
measured data is compared to the BBF for TCDD and that ratio (i.e., BaP BBF/TCDD BBF)
is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial, vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms,
respectively. For hydrophobic organic constituents,  the bioconcentration factor for plants was
estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.
The BCF is based on roufe-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses,  and
uptake into the plant through air diffusion.  As with the aquatic  ecosystem, these biological
uptake values should be interpreted with caution since they  do not address metabolism of BaP
in animal tissue.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Benzo(a)pyrene - 9
                            Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
ecological receptor
limnetic trophic level 4 fish
limnetic trophic level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic level 4 fish
littoral trophic level 3 fish
trophic level 2 invertebrates
terrestrial vertebrates
terrestrial invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF,
orBSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
HpkMwsedor
wholt oooy
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole- body
whole-body
whole- body
whole-plant
value
1,000.(t)
1,000(1)
1,000(t)
1,000 (t)
1,000(t)
-
0,017
0.016
0.13
0.011
source
conservative default value for PAHs based on field
BAFs in Stephan, .1993
conservative default value for PAHs based on field
BAFs in Stephan, 1993
conservative default value for PAHs based on field
BAFs in Stephan, 1993
same as value as in the limnetic ecosystem
same value as in the limnetic ecosystem
possible values under review
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio with
2,3,7,8-TCDD
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio with
2,3,7,8-TCDD
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio with
2,3.7,8-TCDD
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       d   =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Benzo(a)pyrene -10
References

Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
   TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge.  Prepared for Ossi Meyn, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

AQUIRE (AQItalic Toxicity_/nformation  /?£trieval Database). 1995. Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of.Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),  1988.  Toxicological Profile
   for Benzp(a)pyrene.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Barbieri, O., E. Ognio, O. Rossi, S. Astigiano, and L. Rossi.  1986.  Embryotoxicity of
 •  Benzo(a)pyrene and Some of its Synthetic Derivatives in Swiss Mice. Cancer Research,
   46:94-98.

Bulay, O.M. and L.W. Wattenberg. 1970.  Carcinogenic Effects of Subcutaneous
   Administration of Benzo(a)pyrene During Pregnancy on the Progeny (34993). Proc. of
   the Soc. ofExp. Biol. and Med., Vol.  135, pp.  84-86..

Connell, D.W. and G. Schuurmanri. 1988.  Evaluation of Various Molecular Parameters as
   Predictors of Bioconcentration in Fish. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 15;
   324-335.

Connolly, J.P.  1991. Application  of a Food Chain Model to Polychlorinated Biphenyl
   Contamination of the Lobster and Winter Flounder Food Chains  in New Bedford Harbor.
   Environ. Sci.  Technol., 25:  760-770.

Frank, Allan P., Peter F. Landrum, and Brian J.  Eadie.  1986. Polycyclic Aromatic
   Hydrocarbon  Rates of Uptake, Depuration, and Biotransformation by Lake Michigan
   Stylodrilus Heringianus.  Chemosphere 15(3):317-330.

Freitag, D., L. Ballhom, H. Geyer, and F. Korte.  1985.  Environmental Hazard Profile of
   Organic Chemicals.   Chemosphere 14(10): 1589-1616.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Benzo(a)pyrene -11
Hoffman, David J., and Martha L. Gay.  1981.  Embryotoxic Effects of Benzo(a)pyrene,
    Chrysene, and 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene in Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures in
    Mallard Ducks.  Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 7:775-787.

Hose, Jo Ellen, James B.  Hannah, Harold W. Puffer, and Marsha L. Landolt.  1984.
    Histologic and Skeletal Abnormalities in Benzo(a)pyrene-treated Rainbow Trout Alevins.
    Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 13:675-684.

Hose, J. E., J. B. Hannah, D. DiJulio, M. L. Landolt, B. S. Miller, W. T. Iwaoka, and S. P.
    Felton. 1982. Effects of benzo(a)pyrene on early development of flatfish.  Arch. Environ.
    Contam.  Toxicol. 11:167-171.

Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB).   1992.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).   1983. I ARC Monographs on the
    Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans - Polynuclear Aromatic
    Compounds, Part 1, Chemical, Environmental, and Experimental Data. Volume 32.

Jimenez, B. D., C. P. Cirmo, and J. F. McCarthy.  1987.  Effects of feeding and temperature
    on uptake, elimination and metabolism of benzo(a)pyrene in the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis
    macrochirus).  Aquat.  Toxicol.  10(l):41-57.  As cited in AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity
    Information REtrieval Database).  1995.  Environmental Research Laboratory,  Office of
    Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Johnsen, S., J.  Kukkonen, and M. Grande.  1988.  Influence of natural aquatic humic
    substances on the bioavailability of benzo(a)pyrene to Atlantic salmon. Sci.  Total
    Environ.  81/82:691-702.  As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval
    Database).   1995.  Environmental  Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
    Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Duluth, MN.

Johnsen, S., J.  Kukkonen, and M. Grande.  1989.  Influence of natural aquatic humic
    substances on the bioavailability of benzo(a)pyrene to Atlantic salmon. Sci.  Total
    Environ.  81/82:691-702.  As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval
    Database).   1995.  Environmental  Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
    Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                          Benzo(a)pyrene -12
Kenaga, E.E.  1982.  Predictability of Chronic Tbxicity from Acute Tox'icity of Chemicals in
   Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. , pp. 347-
   358.   •                                             .

Kuhnhold, W.W., and F. Busch.  1978.  On the uptake of three different types of hydrocarbons
   by salmon eggs (Salmo salar L.).  Meeresforsch. 26:50-59. As cited in Eisler, R.  1987.
   Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A
   Synoptic Review.  U. S. Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.11). 81 pp.

Landrum, Peter  F., Brian J. Eadie, and Warren R. Faust.  1991.  Toxicokinetics and toxicity
   of a mixture of sediment-associated  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to the Amphipod
   Diporeia Sp.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1.0:35-46.

Leversee, G.J., J.P. Geisy, P.P. Landrum, S. Bartell, S. Gerould, M. Briino, A. Spacie, J.
   Bowling, J. Haddock, and T. Fannin.  198.1. Disposition of Benzo(a)pyrene in Aquatic
   Systems Components:  Periphyton, chironomids, daphnia, fish.  Pages 357-366 ]n M.
   Cooke and A.J. Dennis (eds.).  Chemical Analysis and Biological Fate:  Pplynuclear
   Aromatic  Hydrocarbons.  Fifth International Symposium. Battelle Press,  Columbus, Ohio.
   As cited  in Eisler, R.  1987. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife,
   and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review.  U.  S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.11).  81
   PP-

Lu, Po-Yung, Robert L. Metcalf, Nancy Plummer, and Douglas Mandel.  1977. The
   environmental fate of three carcinogens: Benzo(a)pyrene, benzidine, and vinyl chloride
   evaluated in laboratory model ecosystems.  Arch. Environ. Contain.  Toxicol. 6:129-142.

Mackenzie, Karen M., and D. Murray Angevine:  1981. Infertility in mice exposed in utero
   to benzo(a)pyrene.  Biology of Reproduction 24:183-191.

Mattison, Donald R.  1980. Morphology of oocyte and follicle destruction by polycyclic
   aromatic hydrocarbons in mice. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology  53:249-259.

McCarthy, John F.  1983.  Role of paniculate  organic matter in decreasing accumulation of
   polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons by Daphnia magna. Arch. Environ.  Contam. Toxicol.
    12:559-568.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                         Benzo(a)pyrene -13
 McCarthy, John F., and Braulio D. Jimenez. 1985.  Reduction in bioavailability to bluegills
    of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons bound to dissolved humic material.  Environmental
    Toxicology and Chemistry 4:511-521.

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substance) Database.  March 1994.

 Neff, J.M. 1979.  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the aquatic environment.  Applied
    Science Publ. Ltd., London. 262pp.  As cited in Eisler, R.  1987.  Polycyclic Aromatic
    Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife,  and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U. S.
    Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.11). 81 pp.

 Newsted,  John L., and John P. Giesy.  1987. Predictive models for photoinduced acute
    toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Daphnia Magna, Strauss (Cladocera,
    Crustacea). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6:445-461.

 Sabourin,  T.D. and R.E. Tullis.  1981.  Effect of Three Aromatic Hydrocarbons oh
    Respiration and Heart Rates of the Mussel,  Mytilus californianus.  Bull. Environm.
    Contam. Toxicol., 26:729-736.

 Spacie, Anne, Peter F.  Landrum, and Gordon J. Leversee.  1983.  Uptake, depuration, and
    biotransformation of anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene in bluegill sunfish, 1982.
    Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 7:330-341.

 Stephan, C.E.  1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. PB93-154672.

Suter II, G.W., M.A. Futrell, and G.A. Kerchner. 1992. Toxicological Benchmarks for
    Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the Oak
    Ridge  Reservation,  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.   DE93-000719.  Office of Environmental
    Restoration and Waste. Management,  U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Thomann, R.V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(6):699-707.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxlclty - Benzo(a)pyrene
         Cos No.:  50-32-8

Chemical Nam*
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene

Species
rat
mouse
dog
monkey
rabbit
guinea pig
hamster
mammal

Endpolnt
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute

Description
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50

Value
20
114
1
2
115
500
1157
200

Unite
ug/kg-body wt.
ug/kg-body wt.
ug/kg-body wt.
ug/kg-body wt.
ug/kg-body wt.
ng/kg-body wt.
ug/kg-body wt.
ng/kg-body wt.
Exposure
Rout* (oral,
B.C., I.V., l.p.,
Inlectlon)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
Exposure
Duration /
Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

Reference
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994
RTECS. 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994

Comments

•

N



0

-------
APPENDIX B                    ,                                     8enzo(a)pyrene -14
Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of organic
   chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.  Environmental
   Toxicology and Chemistry  11:615-629.

Trucco, R.G., F.R. Engerhardt, and B. Stacey.  1983. Toxicity, Accumulation and Clearance
   of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia pulex.  Environ. Pollut. Ser. A Ecol. Biol. 31(3):
   191-202.  As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).
   1995.   Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
   Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
   202pp.                                                .

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
   Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final. Office of
   Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. January.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1992. 304(a) Criteria and Related Information for
   Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division - Region IV.

Urso, Paul, and Nazareth Gengozian.  1980.  Depressed humoral immunity and increased
   tumor incidence in mice following in utero exposure to benzo[a] pyrene. Journal of
   Toxicology and Environmental Health 6:569-576.

Will, ME', and G.W.  Suter, 1994.  lexicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effets on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
   85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
                                           Freshwater Toxlciry - Benzo(a)pyrene
                                                     Cos No.:  50-32-8


Chemical Name




benzo[a]pyrene

benzo[a]pyrene


benzo(a)pyrene


benzolalpyrene


Species



rainbow trout
(alevins)
rainbow trout
(alevins)

Daphnla
pulex

Sand sole
eqqs

Type of
Effect




dvp

dvp


mortality


emb •
.

Description




NOEC

LOEC


LC50


AEL


Value




0.00000008

0.00000021


5


0.1


Uunits




ng/ml

ng/ml


ua/1


PPb
Test Type
(static/ now
through)




static

static


NS


static
Exposure
Duration /
Timina




36-day

36-day


4-day


48-hour


Reference




Hose et al., 1984

Hose et al.. 1984
Trucco et al., 1983
as cited in
AQUIRE, 1995


Hoseetal.. 1982


Comments
Effects - pycnosis and abnormal
erylhrocytes were observed.
Could not determine if these
effects would have an adverse
effect on population.
Effects - pycnosis, necrosis of
skeletal muscle and spinal cord.



Exposure to 0.10 ppb BAP
resulted in decreased hatching
success in sand sole eqqs.
NS = not specified

-------
                                                     Terrestrial Toxlclty  .  nzo(a)pyrene
                                                              Cos No.: 50-32-8



Chemical Nam*


benzo(a]pyrene


benzo(a]pyrene



benzol a]pyrene


benzofalpyrene



Species


CD-1 mice

C3H/AnF
mice



mallard duck


mice



EndDoInt


rep, fertility


immun.



embryotoxic


rep



Description


LOAEL


LOAEL



LOAEL


AEL



Value


10


100



0.036


80



Units


mg/kg-day


ug/q-bodywt.



mg/kg-egg wt.


mg/ka-bodv wt.
Exposure
Routs (oral,

Infection)


oral


l.p.

applied to
eggshell
surface


i.p.

Exposure
Duration /
Timing

days 7- 16 of
gestation
1M3dor 16-
18dof
gestation


1 - 18 days of
incubation

single i.p.
injection



Rsfsrsncs

MacKenzie and
Angevine, 1980

Urso and
Gengozian, 1980


Hoffman and Gay.
1981
1

Mattison. 1980



Comment*
Doses were 0.10.40, 160 mg/kg. At 1 0 mg/kg reduction of
gonadal weight, reduced fertility and reproductive capacity
were observed among offspring.
•
Reduction in immune capacity in F1 generation mice -
resulting In increased tumor incidence in later life.
Study doses were 0.002. 0.01 and 0.05 mg/egg (equivalent to
0.036. 0.18. 0.9 mg/kg fresh weight), significant reduction of
embryonic growth and an increased incidence of abnormal
survivors.

Chemical was dissolved in com oil. Mice were sacraficed 6
days after Injection. Effect - primordial oocvte destruction.
NS = not specified

-------
Freshwater B!o!og!ca! Uptake Measures - B«nzo(a)pyrene
                  Cos No.: 50-32-8
Chemical Name
benzo|a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo(a]pyrene
benzo(a]pyrene
benzofajpyrene
benzo(a]pyrene
b6nzo|a)pyrene
Soecles
mosquito fish
attantic salmon; egg
bluegill
bluegill
bluegill
bluegill
bluegill
blueqill
B-factor (BCF,
BAF. BMR
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
Valuo
930
71
12
2,657
4,900
490
3.208
608
Measured or
Predicted
(m.o)
m
m
m
m
P
P
m
m'
Unit*
NS
NS
NS
ml/g
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Luetal, 1977
Kuhnhold and Busch,
1978 as cited in Eisler.
1987
Leversee et al., 1981 as
cited in Eisler, 1987
McCarthy and Jimenez,
1985
Spacie et al., 1983
Spacieetal , 1983 •
Jimenez et al., 1987 .as
cited in AQUIRE, 1994
Jimenez et at.. 1987 as
cited in AQUIRE. 1994
Comments
Exposure period = 3 days
Exposure period = 168 hours
Exposure period = 4 hours
Test water absent of dissolved humic
material. Flow-through water system.
Estimated BCF value from measured
uptake and depuration rates lor 4-hour
exposure (Ku/Kd). Vaue includes parent
compound plus metabolites.
Estimated BCF value from measured
uptake and depuration rates (or 4-hour
exposure (Ku/Kd). Vaue includes parent
compound only.
2-day exposure study. Flow-through
test. Life stage of fish = 10-15 G.
2-day exposure study. Flow-through
test. Life staqe of fish = 10-15 G.

-------
Freshwater Biological Uptakt    asures - Benzo(a)pyrene
                  Cos No.: 50-32-8
Chemical Name
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo(a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzol alpvene
Species
bluegill
bluegill
atlantic salmon
atlantic salmon
golden ide
ns
lish
clam (Rangia
cuneata)
B-factor (BCF.
BAF.BMF)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
Value
377
367
2,310
2,310
4BO
2,985
30
9 to 236
Measured or
Predicted
(m,p)
m
m
m
m
m
P
m
m
Units
NS
NS
NS
NS
ug/g/
ua/g
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Jimenez et al.. 1987 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1994
Jimenez et al.. 1987 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1994
Johnsen et al., 1988 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1994
Johnsen et al., 1988 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1994
Freitagetal., 1985
U.S.EPA, 1993a
U.S.EPA, 1992
Nett, 1979 as cited in
Eisler. 1987; U.S. EPA.
1980
Comments
2-day exposure study. Flow-through
test. Life stage of fish = 10-15 G
2-day exposure study. Flow-through
test. Life stage of fish = 10-15 G.
2-day exposure study. Static test. Life
stage of fish = 2 G
2-day exposure study. Static test. Life
stage of fish = 2 G.
This fish species represents an
intermediate position between a trout
and a carp.
BCF normalized to 1% lipid
Normalized to 3% lipids:
Exposure period = 24 hours

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Benzo(a)pyrene
                  Cos No.: 50-32-8



Chemical Name


benzo[a)pyrene



Species


plant

B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMR


BCF



Value


0.01 1
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.o)


P



Units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)



Reference


U.S. EPA, IWOe



Comments

Plant uptake from soil pertains to
leafy veatabtes

-------
                                Freshwater Biological Uptak    >asures - Benzo(a)pyrene
                                                  Cos No.: 50-32-8
Chemical Name
benzo|a]pyrene
benzofajpyrene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzofajpyrene
benzolalpyrene
Species
Oaphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Pontoporeia hoyi
(amphipod)
Stylodrilus
herinqianus
B-factor (BCF,
BAF. BMP)
\
BCF
BCF
BCF
BAF (soil)
BAF
Value
2,837
12,761
8,000
2.3 - 7.2
676
Measured or
Calculated
(m,c)
m
m
m
m
m
Units
NS
NS
mUg
nmol/g/
nmol/g
NS
Reference
Leversee el al., 1981 as
cited in Eisler, 1987
Newsted and Giesy,
1987
McCarthy, 1983
Landrum el al, 1991
Frank et al, 1986
Comments
Exposure period = 6 hours
24-hour exposure
24-hour exposure, no paniculate
organics (yeast) present in water.
Sediments dosed with a mixture ot
PAH's at four concentrations. Calculation
ot BAF equals the concentration in the
organism divided by the concentration in
the sediment .
BAF was calculated from an equation of
measured values, equation considered
both water and sediment uptake.
NS = not specified

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                              Beryllium-1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                       Beryllium
                                  Cas No.:  7440-41-7

 Summary:  This profile on beryllium summarizes the toxicological benchmarks and biological
 uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagmfication factors) for birds,
 mammals, daphnids and fish,  aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the generic
 freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic terrestrial
 ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for developmental,
 reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks
 for daphnids,  benthic organisms, and fish  were generally adopted  from existing regulatory
 benchmarks  (i.e.,  Ambient  Water  Quality  Criteria).    Bioconcentration  factors (BCFs),
 bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and,  if available, biomagmfication  factors  (BMFsj are  also'
 summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were
 calculated for organic constituents with log Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem,
 these biological uptake  measures also include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g.,
 earthworms). The entire toxicological data base compiled during this effort is presented at the
 end of this profile.  This  profile represents the most current information and may differ from the
 technical support  document  for the  Hazardous Waste Identification Rule  (HWIR): Risk
 Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.
I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative  Species  in  the  Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains benchmarks
for mammals  and  birds  associated  with  the freshwater  ecosystem and  Table 2  contains
benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic  and littoral ecosystems, including aquatic
plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic  organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic 'or chronic  studies were identified which  studied the effects
of beryllium toxicity on reproductive  or developmental  endpoints in mammalian species.

Birds,  No suitable  subchronic or chronic studies were identified which studied the effects of
beryllium toxicity in avian species.

Fish and aquatic  invertebrates: No AWQC or Final Chronic  Value  (FCV) was  available for
beryllium.  Therefore, a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 5.1 E-03 mg/1 as reported  by Suter
and  Mabrey (1994) was utilized.  Because the benchmark selected is based on a SCV, rather
than an FCV,  it was categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Beryllium - 2
Aquatic Plants:   The benchmarks for  aquatic plants  were either:  (1) a no  observed effects
concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular aquatic
plants (e.g., duckweed) or 2) an effective concentration  (ECXX) for a species of freshwater algae,
frequently a  species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum cdpricornutwn).   The  aquatic plant
benchmark for beryllium  is 100  mg/1  based on a reduction in autotrophic growth  rates of
Chlorella vannieli (Suter and Mabrey, 1994). As described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarks for
aquatic plants were designated as interim.

Benthic community:  The beryllium benchmark protective of benthic organisms is pending a U.S.
EPA review of the acid volatile sulfide  (AVS) methodology proposed for metals.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Beryllium • 3
       Table  1.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
Specfee
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
. herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark
Value* »B*a>
««y
ID
ID .
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
• ID
ID
Study
Sp«d«*
-



-

-

•
-
eiuct
- •

-

-

-

•
•
Study Vatu*
me/kfl-day



-


-
-
-

DMerlpflon
-

-

•
-

'
-
•
se -
.
•

•
•
• •


•
'
Oriflto** Source
.-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
. -
-
      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (*) indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEI for other adverse effects.

                Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with Freshwater  Ecosystem
Rapre tentative
Sp»«*»
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
Benchmark
Va»«e*
mg/t
5.1 E-03(i)
100 (i)
under review
Study
Species
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
plants

Original
Value
mg/l
5.1 E-03
100

Description
scv
LOEC
-
Original Soon*
Suter & Mabrey,
1994
Suter & Mabrey,
1994
-
      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (') indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL tor other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Beryllium-4
II.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing  the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:    As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic  or chronic studies were identified which studied the effects of orally administered
beryllium on reproductive or developmental endpoints in mammalian species.

Birds:  As noted in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable subchronic or chronic
studies were identified which studied the effects of beryllium.toxicity in avian species.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were  identified  for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.   As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the Lowest Observable Effects Concentration
(LOEC) values and then approximating the 10th percentile.  If  there were 10 values, the 10th
percentile LOEC was  used.  Such LOECs applied  to reductions in plant growth.yield
reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to  impair the ability of a plant population to
sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation. The benchmark for terrestrial plants was
10 mg/kg, based on a Lowest Observable Effects Concentration (LOEC) of 10 ppm, which
resulted in unspecified toxic effects (Kabata-Peridias and Pendias, 1984 as  cited in Will and
Suter, 1994). Since only one value was presented  by Will and Suter (1994), with the
benchmark being a LOEC value, the terrestrial plant benchmark of 10 mg/kg-day was
categorized as interim.

Soil Community:  Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Beryllium - S
       Table 3. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
ft*j*94*ftt*tfv*
.. Sped**
doer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobwhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
Bwtcfontrk
Vife»«
«l«fl«8Hbjf
10
. ID
ID
10
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
10mg/kg (i)
ID
Study
3p»oi*»
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
•
-
-
-
•
terrestrial
plants
-
Effect


•
-
•
-
-
• •
•
-

- •
unspecified

Study
V«lu»
'mgfa>
*** .
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•

10
•
BmcfipBoit
.
•

-
-
-
•
-


-
-
LOEC
-
«F
-
-

•
•
-
-
•
•
•
-
-'
.
-
Or^hwJ Sourw
.
-

'
.
-
'
.

-
-
-
Kabata-Pendias
and Pendias, 1984
as cited in Will &
Suter, 1994

       •Benchmark Category, a » adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Beryllium • 6
in.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: fish in the
limnetic or littoral ecosystem,  aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  For metals, BCFs are whole-body bioconceritration factors
and refer to total surface water concentrations (versus freely dissolved concentrations).
Consequently, all calculations of acceptable tissue concentrations (TC) represent whole-body
concentrations.  The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the  biological
uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values.

The whole-body BCF value for beryllium was the geomean of measured values (Stephan,
1993). Insufficient data were identified to determine the BCF value in aquatic invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates and earthworms. A  whole plant BCF value of  .
1.0 E-02 was derived from U.S. EPA (1992e).  For metals, empirical data were used to derive
the BCF for aboveground forage grasses and leafy vegetables. In particular, the uptake
response slope for forage  grasses was used as the BCF for plants in the terrestrial ecosystem
since,most of the representative plant-eating species feed on  wild grasses.
                          Table 4. Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
nceptor
fish
littoral
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF.BAIvor
BSAF
BCF
BCF
-
•
•
BCF
ItpfaMMMd of
whoto-boxly
whole
•-
-

•
whole-plant
value
19
ID
ID
ID
ID
1.0 E-02
tourc*
Stephan. 1993

-
•
-
U.S. EPA. 19929
       d  =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
       ID  =   refers to insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Beryllium-7
References
AQUERE (AQUatic Toxicity_Information REtrieval Database), 1995.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

ASTER Ecotoxicity Profile. 1992. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),
   Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, MN.

Barrows, M.E., S.R. Petrocelli, K.J. Macek, and J. Carroll.  Bioconcentration and elimination
   of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Toxic Chemicals
   379-392.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b.  Soil
   Screening Level Fact Sheet (Second draft August 12, 1993) Interim Guidance.  Office of
   Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.August.

HSDB (Hazardous Substances database).  1992.

Kabata-Pendias,A., and H. Pendias.  1984. Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC Press, Inc.
   Boca Raton, Florida.  As cited in Will, M.E and G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological
   Benchmarks for Screening  of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial
   Plants:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-840R21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and
   Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Leonard, A. and R. Lauwerys. 1987. Mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and teratogenicity of
   beryllium. Mutation Res. 186:35-42.

Luckey, T.D.  and B. Venugopal. Metal toxicity in mammals (1): Physiologic and chemical
   basis for metal toxicity.  Plenum Press, N.Y.

Mathur, R., S.Sharma, S. Mathur and A.O. Prakash. 1987. Effect of beryllium nitrate on early
   and late pregnancy in rats. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 38:73-77.

Ridgway, L.P and D.A. Kamofsky.  1952. The effects of metals on the chick embryo: Toxicity
   and production of abnormalities  in development. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 55:203.

Stephan, C.E. 1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health  and Wildlife
   Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes  Initiative.  Office of Research and
   Development, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory. PB93-154672. Springfield, VA.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Beryllium - 8
Suter 13, G.W., M.A. Futrell, and G.A. Kerchner.  1992.  lexicological Benchmarks for
   Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the Oak
   Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  DE93-000719.  Office of Environmental
   Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Suter, G.W., and  J.B. Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential
   contaminants  of concern for effects on aquatic biota: 1994 revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R1
   Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S Department of Energy,
   Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1984. Review Draft: Health Assessment
   Document for Beryllium. EPA 600/8-84-026A. Office of Health  and Environmental
   Assessment, Washington, DC. December.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. TSC1292. Criteria Chart. Region IV.
   Water Management Division,  304(a) Criteria and Related Information for Toxic Pollutants.
   December.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992e. Technical Support Document for Land
   Application of Sewage Sludge, Volume I and II. EPA 822/R-93-001a.  Office of Water,
   Washington, DC.

U.S.EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b.  Soil Screening Level Fact Sheet
   (Second draft August 12, 1993)  Interim Guidance. Office of Emergency and Remedial
   Response, Washington, DC. August.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993.  Integrated Risk Information System.
   April.               .

Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal toxicity in mammals (2): Chemical toxicity of metals
   and metalloids.  Plenum Press, N.Y., 1978.

Will, M.E and G.W. Suter II.   1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for  Effects on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
   84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

World Health Organization, 1990. Environmental Health  Criteria 106: Beryllium. Published
   under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the
   International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization.

Wren, C.D., H.R. Maccrimmon and B.R. Loescher. 1983. Examination of bioaccumulation
   and biomagnification of metals in a precambrian shield lake. Water, Air, Soil Pollution
    19:277-291.

August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Beryllium
     Cas No. 7440-41-7


Chemical
Name

beryllium

beryllium .



Species

rat

rat


Type of
Effect

lei

fet



Description

PEL

PEL



Value

0.316

0.316



Units

Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., i.v., i.p..
injection)

mg/kg-day |i.v.

mg/kg-day

i.v.


Exposure Duration
/Timing

Day 1 jrt j}estation
Day 1 1 following
mating.



Reference
Mathur et al., 1987 as cited
in WHO, 1990
Mathur et al.. 1987 as cited
in WHO, 1990



Comments
Offspring died 2-3 days
after delivery.

All fetuses were resorbed.

-------
Freshwater T>_   ity - Beryllium
     Cos No. 7440-41-7
Chemical
Name
Beryllium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Species
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
fish
daphnid
Type of
Effect
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
Description
NAWQC
CV
CV
EC20
EC20
Value
0.61
57
5.3
148
3.8
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Test Type
JStatic/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Suteretal., 1992
Suteretal., 1992
Suterelal., 1992
Suterelal.. 1992
Suteretal.. 1992
Comments



-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Beryllium
              Cos No. 7440-41-7


Chemical
Name
Beryllium

Beryllium



Species
fish

bluegill

B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF

BCF



Value
19

19
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p) '
m

m



Units
IJKg

NS



Reference
U. S. EPA, 1992
Barrows et al., 1980 as
cited in U.S. EPA, 1993b



Comments
Normalized to 3% lipid.

Whole body BCF.

-------
Terrestrial Biological Up  ..e Measures - Beryllium
              Cas No. 7440-41-7
Chemical
Name
beryllium
Species
plant
B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)
BCF
Value
0.01
Measured
or
Predicted
. (m-P)
P
units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1990e
Comments


-------
 APPENDIX B                                                   Butylbenzyl phthalate - 1
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                 Butylbenzyl phthalate
                                   Cas No.: 85-68-7
 Summary:  This profile on butylbenzyl phthalate summarizes the lexicological benchmarks
 and biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
 factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
 representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
 invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
 mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
 to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
 were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
 Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
 biomagnification factors (BMFs)  are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
 some BAFs  for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
 Kow between 4 and 6.5. For the  terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
 include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire toxicological
 data base compiled during this effort is presented  at the end of this profile.  This profile
 represents the  most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
 technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
 Assessment for Human  and Ecological Receptors."
I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  Several studies were identified which investigated the effects of butylbenzyl
phthalate exposure to mammals.  Rats were exposed to dietary butylbenzyl phthalate at 17,
51, 159, 470 and 1417 mg/kg-day (NTP, 1985). After 26 weeks, increased liver-to-body
weight and liver-to-brain weight ratios were seen in the 470 mg/kg-day treatment group.  A
NOAEL of 159 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL of 470 mg/kg-day were reported for these
pathological effects.  Another study exposed male rats to doses of butylbenzyl phthalate
ranging from 0-25,000 mg/kg-diet for 90 days (NTP,  1981).  Rats in the 25,000 mg/kg-diet
treatment group exhibited depressed weight gain and testicular degeneration from which, a
LOAEL of 25,000 mg/kg-diet can be inferred for pathological and reproductive effects.  Since
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                  Butylbenzyl phthaJate - 2
no information was provided on daily food consumption or body weight, conversion from
mg/kg-diet to mg/kg-day required the use of an allometric equation:

      Food consumption = 0.056(W°-6611) where W is body weight in kg (Nagy, 1987).

Assuming a body weight of 0.4 kg, the LOAEL of 25,000 mg/kg-diet was converted to
1909.81 mg/kg-day.  Agarwal et al. (1985) fed male rats 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, and 5% butylbenzyl
phthalate for 2 weeks.  Rats exposed to levels of 2.5% butylbenzyl phthalate and higher
exhibited reductions in  total body, thymus,  testis, epididymis, prostate and seminal vesicle
weight Based on these results, a LOAEL of 2.5% and a NOAEL of 1.25% butylbenzyl
phthalate could be inferred.  Daily food consumption  and body weight information were not
provided.  Therefore, using the allometric equation presented above and assuming a body
weight of 0.3 kg, a LOAEL of 2000 mg/kg-day and a NOAEL of 1000 mg/kg-day were
calculated.                                                   .

 The NTP (1981) study measures chronic reproductive effects that may impair the fecundity
of a wildlife population. Therefore, the study LOAEL of 1909.81 mg/kg-day was chosen for
derivation of a benchmark value.  The NTP (1985) study was not considered suitable for
derivation of a benchmark value because of the uncertainty surrounding the critical endpoim.
While increases in liver-to-body weight and liver-to-brain weight ratios may cause inimical
effects, the results of the study do not clearly indicate such effects could impair the
sustainability of a population. The Agarwal et al. (1985) study also was not selected  because
the exposure duration was too short to be appropriate for a chronic toxicity study.

The LOAEL value from the NTP (1981) study was divided by 10 to provide a  LOAEL-to-
NOAEL safety factor. This value was then scaled for species representative of a freshwater
ecosystem using  a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994):
                          Benchmark  = NOAEL, x


where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the, body weight
of the wildlife species, and BWt is the body weight of the test species.  This is the same
default methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152). Since the
NTP (1981) documented reproductive effects from butylbenzyl phthalate exposure to male
rats, male body weights of the representative species were used in the scaling algorithm to
obtain lexicological benchmarks.

Data were available on reproductive,  developmental, growth and  survival endpoints for
butylbenzyl phthalate exposure.  In addition, the data set contained acute and chronic toxicity
studies that were conducted during sensitive life stages. The data set contained a study values
for pathological and developmental endpoints (NTP, 1985 and Lake et al., 1978) that were
approximately an order of magnitude lower than the benchmark value.  Based  on the data set

August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                   Butylbenzyl phthalate • 3
 for butylbenzyl phthalate, the benchmarks developed from the NTP (1981) study were
 categorized as  provisional,  with a "*" to indicate that some adverse effects have been
 observed at the benchmark level.

 Birds: No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found for butylbenzyl phthalate
 toxicity in  avion species. Thus, benchmarks for avian species could not be derived.

 One acute  study was identified which found that 0.05 ml of butylbenzyl phthalate injected
 into fertilized eggs produced no embryonic malformations (Bower, 1970 as cited in I ARC,
 1982). However, this study was not considered suitable for calculation of a benchmark value
 because data were not identified on  (1) the direct absorption of butylbenzyl phthalate from
 direct contact with the eggs or (2) on the maternal transfer of butylbenzyl from mother to
 egg. Without sufficient absorption data, it is not possible to distinguish maternal transfer of
 butylbenzyl from the applied dose.

 Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  A review of the literature revealed that an AWQC  is not
 available for butylbenzyl phthalate. Therefore, the Tier II methodology described in Section
 4.3.5 was used to calculate a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV)  of  16 mg/L for butylbenzyl
 phthalate.  Teir n values or SCV were developed so that aquatic benchmarks could be derived
 for chemicals with data sets that did not fulfill all the requirements of the National AWQC.
 Because it  is based on an SCV, the benchmark was categorized as interim.

 Aquatic plants:  The lexicological  benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
 observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
 vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for species of
 freshwater  algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutwn).
 Adequate data sufficient for the development of benchmark values  were not identified in
 Suter and Mabrey (1994) or in AQUIRE.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the  protection of benthic organisms were determined
 using the Equilibrium Partition (EQJ method.  The EQ method uses a Final Chronic Value
 (FCV)  or Secondary Chronic Value (SCV), along with the fraction of organic carbon and the
 octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^  to determine the protective sediment concentration
 (Stephan, 1993). The EQ  number is the chemical concentration that may be present in the
 sediment while still protecting the benthic community from harmful effects from chemical
exposure.  The SCV for butylbenzyl phthalate was used to calculate an EQp value of 349 mg
 butylbenzyl phthalate/kg organic carbon.  Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the
 sediment (f^.) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic  community is 17.4 mg/kg sediment.
 Since the EQp number was based on an SCV, the sediment benchmark was  categorized as
 interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Butylbenzyl phthalate - 4
           Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
n*»ieeenuttv«
' QpesteC s
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lessor scaup
kingfisher
spotted sandpiper
herring gul
V**»*«0fte*
*y
1 65.87 (p')
92.35 (p')
10
ID
10
10
10
10
10
10
toutf
.. 30eol0e
rat
rat
-







8*«
rep. dvp
rep. dvp
•
•
-
-



-
Study ¥e*»
wo*9>4*
1909.81
1909.81
' '•
•
i

•
•

•
QM^faltttl
, ^"^^^ifflJMWW*
LOAEL
LOAEL
-
.
-


-

•
* \
r-
10
10
•
-
•

-
•
-
-
s % >
ffitrtmrf ^ffwoif :
IARC, 1982
as cited in
HSDB, 1994
IARC, 1982
as cited in
HSDB, 1994
'
• -
• •
-

-
•
•
      'Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p = provisional, i - interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
                                                               Butylbenzyl phthaiate - 5
               Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
xsr
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
8*ncfim«fc
Vt&Mf
16 (i)
No data
17 "'
«
aquatic
organisms

aquatic
organisms
*****
SCV

scv
-
'
AQUIRE. 1995
-
AQUIRE, 1995
IL
  •Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i - interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value   was an
order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.

Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^ for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains benchmarks
for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial
ecosystem. .

Mammals:  Becasue of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species
study (NTP, 1981) was used to derive the butylbenzyl lexicological benchmark for mammalian species
representing the general terrestrial ecosystem. The study value was scaled for species in the terrestrial
ecosystem using the cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.  (1994).  Since the
NTP (1981) documented reproductive effects from butylbenzyl phthaiate exposure to male rats, male
body weights of the representative species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain lexicological
benchmarks.  Based on the data set for butylbenzyl phthaiate, the benchmarks developed for the
terrestrial ecosystem were categorized as provisional.

Birds:  Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the avian community were not
identified.

Plants: Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from percent
yield to root lengths. As presented in Will and  Suter (1994), phytotoxicity benchmarks were selected
by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the  10th percentile.  If there were 10 or
fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If there were more than 10 values, the 10th
percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs  applied to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or
other Effects reasonably assumed to impair the ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a
reduction in seed elongation. However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for butylbenzyl
phthaiate and, as a result, a  benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Butylbenzyl phthalate • 6
           Table 3.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
SpMfMI
do«r mouM
short-tailed
shrew
. meadow vote
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed daor
red- tailad hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobowhita
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil fauna
8*80}WMKfC :
tthM*
: paa*"**
409.09 (p*)
420.62 (p*)
341. 77 (p')
1 44.40 (p*)
. 107.16 (p«)
103.13 (p*)
51.44 (p«)
ID
ID
ID
ID s
ID
No data
No data
aujov
fiCMSfi^MI
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat



•
•
-

BfMi
rap
rep
rap
rap
rep
rep
rep
-

-
-

-
' -
•Nrtik
*»
1909.81
1909.81
1909.81
1909.81
1909.81
1909.81
1909.81



•
-
-
•
!- v * v ..
Pt-inifrittiii
-'•-X "st\\* -"-'
s v--- , »
LOAEL .
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
-
•
• •
•
•
-

"'*»
'\
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-

-

-
-
•
- CMBfeftiSaiffM
••'v ** ,,"••* *"
IARC, 1982
(ARC, 1982
IARC. 1982
(ARC. 1982
IARC, 1982
IARC, 1982
IARC. 1982
-
•

-
-
-
-
      'Benchmark Category, a » adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse affects.
      ID - Insufficient Data
m.  Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAJFs) used to derive protective
surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake values and sources
are presented in Table 4  for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3  and 4 fish in the limnetic
and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil
invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants.  Each value is identified  as whole-boy or lipid-based
and,  for the generic  aquatic ecosystems, the biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                      Butylbenzyl phthalate - 7
 value reflects dissolved'water concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water
 concentrations.  For organic chemicals with log Kow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs)
 in fish were always assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water
 concentration equals total water concentration). The following discussion describes the rationale for
 selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake
 values presented in Table 4.

 As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern  were generally estimated using
 Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the littoral
 ecosystem; these models were considered appropriate to estimate BAF/s for butyl benzyl
 phthalate.  The bioconcentration factor for fish was also estimated from the Thomann models
 (i.e., log Kow - dissolved BCF/) and multiplied by the dissolved fraction (/"d) as defined in
 Equation 6-21  to determine the total bioconcentration factor (BCF/).  The dissolved
 bioconcentration  factor (BCF/1 ) was converted to the BCF/ in order to estimate the
 acceptable lipid.tissue concentration (TC/) in fish consumed by piscivorous fish (see Equation
 5-115).  The BCF/ was required in Equation 5-115 because the surface water benchmark (i.e.,
 FCV or SCV) represents a total water concentration (C1).   Mathematically, conversion from
 BCF/1 to BCF/ is accomplished using the relationship delineated  in the Interim Report on
August 1995

-------
.APPENDIX B                                                   Butyibenzyl phthaJate - g
Data and Methods for Assessment of2J,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic
Wildlife (U.S.  EPA, 19931):

                                  BCF,d x fd = BCF/
The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates was the geometric mean of several
values with sources in Table 4 (see master table).  For earthworms and terrestrial
invertebrates, the bioconcentration factors were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.
Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to hydrophobia organic chemicals assuming that
the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids.  Further, the method assumes that the BAFs
and BCFs for terrestrial wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of
Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993)
are of sufficient quality to serve as the standard. The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a
chemical lacking measured data (in this case  chlordane)  is compared to the BBF for TCDD
and that ratio (i.e., chlordane BBF/TCDD BBF) is  multiplied by the TCDD  standard for
terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms, respectively.  For hydrophobia organic
constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1
for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses. The BCF is based on route-to-leaf
translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air
diffusion.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Butylbenzyl phthalate - 9
                            Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
•ootooiofi
i receptor
limnetic trophic
leveUfish
limnetic fropnic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
leveUfish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms .
plants
BCF.BAF.or
BSAF
BAF
\
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
lipkMMwad or
wnoMMMoy
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whola-body
whole- body
whoia-body
whote- plant
witw .
28.432 ( d)
28.346 (d)
23.774 (t)
26.782 (d)
28,191 (d)
55,622(d)
3.2 E-04
3.0E-O4
2.4 E -03
1.1 E-01
•pure*
pradiclad valua basad on
Tnomann, 1989, food chain
model
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1989, tood chain
model
predicted valua based on
Thomann, 1989 and adjusted to
estimate total BCF
predicted value based on
Thomann at al., 1992. food web
model
predicted value based on
Tnomann at al.. 1992. food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann at al., 1992, food web
model
cafe
caic
caic
U.S. EPA. 1990*
       d = refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t - refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                 Butylbenzyl phthalate - 10
References
Agarwal, D.K., R.R. Maronpot, J.C. Lamb IV, and W.M. Kluwe. 1985.  Adverse effects of
   butyl benzyl phthalate on the reproductive and hematopoietic systems of male rats.
   Toxicology.  35:  189 -206.

Bower, R.K., Haberman, S. and Minton, P.D.  (1970)  Teratogenic effects in the chick
   embryo caused by ester of phthalic acid.  Pharmacol. exp. Ther., 171, 314-324.   As cited
   in I ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans
   • Some Industrial Chemicals and Dyestuffs.  1972-Prcsent V29 280 (1982).

Buccafusco, R. .!., S.J. Ells, and G. A. LeBlanc. 1981.  Acute toxicity of priority pollutants
   to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus ).  Bull  Environ.  Contam. Toxicol.  26(4):446-452.  As
   cited in AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database). 1995.
   Environmental Research  Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Gledhill, W. E., R. G. Kaley, W. J. Adams, O. Hicks,  P. R. Michael, V.W. Saeger, and G.
   A.LeBlanc.  1980.  An environmental  safety assessment of butyl benzyl phthalate.
   Environ. Sci. Technol.  14 (3):301-305.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. I ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the
   Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans - Some  Industrial Chemicals and Dyestuffs.
   1972-Present V29 280 (1982).

Lake, B.C., R.A. Harris, P.  Grasso and S.D.  Gangolia.  1978.  Studies on the metabolism
   of biological effects of n-butyl benzyl  phthalate in  the rat.  Prepared by British Industrial
   Biological Research Association for Monsanto, Report No. 232/78,  June.  As cited in
   U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System).
   March 1994.   ^

Nagy, K. A. 1987.  Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
   Ecol.Mono. 57:11-128.

National Institute for Occupational Safety  and Health.  RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
   Chemical Substances)  Database.  March 1994.

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1981.  Carcinogenesis Bioassay of Di(2-
   ethylhexyl)Adipate (CAS No. 103-23-1) (Technical Report Series No. 212) (DHHS
   Publication No. (NIH) 81-1768), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
   Health Service, National  Institute of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC.  As cited in
   I ARC Monographs on  the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans •
   Some Industrial Chemicals  and Dyestuffs.  1972-Present V29  280 (1982).
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                 Butyibenzyl phthaJate - 11
NTP (National Toxicology Program).  1985. Twenty-six week subchronic study and modified
    mating trial in F344 rats. Butyl benzyl phthalate.  Final Report  Project No. 12307-02, -
    03.  Hazelton Laboratories America, Inc. Unpublished study.  As cited in U.S. EPA
    (Environmental Protection Agency).  IRIS (Integrated Risk Information  System). March
    1994.

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratoy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Stephan, C. E.  1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. .

Suter n, G. W. and J.  B. Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
    84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Thomann, R. V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P.  Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food  webs  with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 11:615-629.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e. Methodology for Assessing Health
    Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final. Office
    of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.  January.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a) Criteria and Related
   Information for Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division, Region  IV.

Will, M. E. and G. W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxiciiy - Benzyibui,. ^hihaiate     Cas No.: 85-88-7
Chemical
Name
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalale '
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
Species
rat
rat
rats
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
guinea pig
chicken
Endpolnt
liver
liver
re£
rep
rep
dev
dev
acute
behv. dvp
emb
Description
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
LD50
LD50
NOEL
Value
159
470
25000
0.001
0.002
160
480
2330
13,750
0.05
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
ppjn
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/k£-day
mg/kg-body
wl.
mg/kg-body
wl.
ml
Exposure
Route (oral,
8.C., I.V., l.p.,
Injection)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
gastric
intubation
gastric
intubation
oral
oral
injection
Exposure
Duration
/Timing
26 weeks
26 weeks
90 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
NS
NS
single dose
Reference
NTP, 1985 as cited in
IRIS. 1994
NTP, 1985 as cited in
IRIS, 1994
NTP, 1981
Agarwal et al., 1985
Agarwal etal., 1985
Lake etal., 1978 as
cited in IRIS, 1994
Lake etal., 1978 as
cited in IRIS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994
Bower, 1 970 as cited in
IARC, 1 982
Comments
(300gBWand 17g/day
consumption)
Increased liver/body wl. and
liver/brain wt.
Depressed body wt. gain and
testicular degeneration.

Reduction in total body, thymus,
testis, epididymis, prostate and
seminal vesicle weight.
No liver or testicular effects were
observed at this dose level.
Testicular atrophy was observad


No malformations when injected
into 32 fertilized hens' eggs.

-------
Freshwater Toxicity • Benzylbutyl phthalates Cas No.: 85-68-7
Chemical
Name
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
Species'
Daphnia
magna
Bluegill
fathead
minnow
NS = Not Specified
Type of
Effect
immob.
mort.
mort.

Description
EC50
LC50
LC50

Value
3700
43,000
2320

Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS

• Exposure
Duration
/Timing
48-hour
96-hour
96-hour

Reference
Gledhill et al.. 1980
Buccafusco et al., 1981 as cited
in AQUIRE, 1995
Gledhill et al., 1980

Comments





-------
Freshwater Bioiogicai uptake Measures,  -tenzyibutyi phthaiates Cas No.: 85-68-7
Chemical Name
butylbenzyl
phthalate
butylbenzyl
phjhalate
butylbenzyl
phthalate
NS = Not specified
Species
fish
fish
fish

B-factor
(BCF. BAF,
BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF

Value
270.50
138.1*
414'

* = BCF values may have come from a single source.
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.p)
P
m
m


Units
NS
NS
L/kg


Reference
Stephan, 1993
Stephan, 1993
U.S. EPA, 1992


Comments
Normalized to 1.0% lipids.
Normalized to 1 .0% lipids.
Normalized to 3% lipid.



-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Benzylbutyl phthalate Cas No.: 85-68-7


Chemical
Name
butylbenzyl
phthalate


Species
plant

B -factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)
BCF


Value
0.11
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.p)
P


units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)


Reference
U.S. EPA, 1990e


Comments


-------
APPENDIX B                                                                DEHP - 1
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                          Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
                                  Cas No.: 117-81-7
Summary:  This profile on bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP summarizes the
toxicological benchmarks and biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration,
bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic
plants and benthic organisms representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds,
mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological
benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other
effects reasonably assumed to impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids,
benthic organisms,  and  fish were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e.,
Ambient Water Quality Criteria). Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors
(BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the
ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for
organic constituents with log K,,w between 4 and 6.5. For the terrestrial ecosystem, these
biological uptake measures also include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g.,
earthworms). The entire toxicological data base compiled during this effort is presented at
the end of this profile.  This profile represents the most current information and may differ
from the information presented in the technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."

I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
     Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (CL,,) for the generic freshwater ecosystem. Table 1  contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic  organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems,  including
aquatic plants,  fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  Several studies investigating DEHP toxicity in" mammals were  identified.  Shiota
&  Nishimura (1982) fed pregnant mice DEHP at concentrations of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and
1.0% throughout gestation. Fetal mortality increased in a dose-related manner, and was
significantly higher in mice with diets of  1.0, 0.4 and 0.2% DEHP. The average daily  dose of
DEHP administered was calculated from food intake and body weight  At all doses except
0.05%, the percentage of  resorptions and dead fetuses differed significantly from the control
group.  Consequently, a NOAEL of 70 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL of 190 mg/kg-day (0.05%
and 0.1% DEHP respectively) was inferred for fetotoxic effects.

In  a similar investigation, adult rats were  injected with DEHP at  concentrations of 0.1% and
0.2 % the acute LD50 value on the fifth, tenth and fifteenth day of gestation (Singh, 1972).

August 1995

-------
                               Terrestrial Biologica    fake Measures - DDT
                                             Gas No. 50-29-3
Chemical Name
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
Species
earthworm
earthworm
cattle
swine
cattle (beef)
cattle (milk)
sheep
poultry
small birds
rodents
cow
swine
plants
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMF)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BTF
BTF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
Value
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.4
0.0281
0.00239
0.59
12.3
0.04
2.45
1.12
0.74
0.01
Measured or
predicted
(m,D)
P
m
m
m
m
m
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Units
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg .
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)
Reference
Beyer and Gish, 1980
Beyer and Gish, 1980
Clabom, el.al , 1960 as cited
in Kenaga, 1 980
Clabom, et.al., 1956 as cited
in Kenaga, 1980
Travis and Anns, 1988
Travis and Anns, 198B
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1 983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
U.S. EPA. 1990e
Comments




BTF = Biotransfer factors. .
BTF = Biotransfer factors.
Percent lipid not specified.
Percent lipid not specified.
Percent lipid not specified.
Percent lipid not specified.
Percent lipid not specified.
Percent lipid not specified.

NS = Not specified

-------
APPENDIX B                                           .         '            DEHP - 2
With increasing concentrations of DEHP, the number of resorptions increased and average
fetal weight decreased as compared to the control group. Another mammalian study conducted
by Carpenter et al. (1953) found guinea pigs maintained on a diet of 19 mg DEHP/kg-day for
1 year exhibited increases in liver weight. Carpenter et al. (1953) also investigated the effects
of chronic DEHP  exposure to rats.  In a 2 year study, rats fed a diet with DEHP at a dose of
200 mg/kg-day had increases in liver and kidney weights. No effects were seen in rats
maintained on a 60 mg/kg-day diet.

Both studies by Carpenter et al. (1953) were not considered suitable for calculation of a
benchmark value because increases  in liver and kidney weights may not impair the fecundity
of an entire population.  The Singh  (1972) and Shiota & Nishimura (1982) studies both
present fetotoxic effects exhibited by mammals when exposed to DEHP at a critical lifestage.
In each case, DEHP exposure resulted in effects which could impair the fecundity of a
wildlife population. However, the NOAEL value in Shiota &  Nishimura (1982) was chosen to
derive the toxicological benchmark  because (1) chronic  exposures were administered via oral
ingestion, (2) the study contained a  NOAEL  with sufficient dose-response information, and
(3) studies providing a NOAEL are  generally preferred to studies to providing a LOAEL.
While Singh's study (1972)  reports  reproductive toxicity as a critcal benchmark, it was not
selected because the extrapolation from the injection route of exposure to  typical wildlife
exposure is unfounded. Furthermore, based on the number of doses, the Shiota & Nishimura
study (1982) provides clearer dose response data than the Singh (1972) study.

The study value from the Shiota &  Nishimura  (1982) study was then scaled for species
representative of a freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from
Opresko et al. (1994):


                                                   ( bw  >/4
                          Benchmark  =  NOAEL, x  	L
                                                   VKJ  ,

where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BWt is the body  weight of the test species. This  is the same
default methodology EPA provided  for carcinogenicity assessments and importable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose  (57 FR  24152).  Since the
Shiota & Nishimura study (1982) documented reproductive effects from DEHP exposure to
female mice, the representative body weights of the females species were  used in  the scaling
algorithm to obtain toxicological benchmarks.

Data were available on reproductive, developmental, growth and survival endpoints for DEHP
exposure.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted over acute and
chronic durations and during sensitive life stages. Therefore,  based oh the data set for DEHP,
the benchmarks developed from the  Shiota & Nishimura (1982) were categorized  as
adequate.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               DEHP-3
Birds: Toxicity data were not identified involving DEHP toxic ity in avian species.  Thus,
benchmarks for avian species could not be derived.   .

Fish and aquatic invertebrates: A review of the literature revealed that an AWQG is not
available for DEHP.  Therefore, the Tier II method described in Section 4.3.5 was used to
calculate a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 5.5 mg/L. Tier n values or SCV were
developed so that aquatic benchmarks could be established for chemicals with data sets that
did not fulfill all the requirements of the National AWQC.  Because the benchmark is based
on an SCV, this benchmark was categorized as interim.

Aquatic plants:  The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC)  for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for species of
freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrwn capricornutum).
Adequate data Sufficient for the development of benchmark values were not identified in
Suter and Mabrey (1994) or in AQUIRE.

Benthic community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (ECO method. The EQ  method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic  water quality measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^ to determine a protective sediment  concentration
(Stephan, 1993). The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from  the harmful effects of chemical
exposure.  Because no FCV was available, a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) was calculated
as described in Section 4.3.5. The SCV reported for DEHP was used to calculate an EQp
number of 116,000 mg DEHP/kg organic carbon. Assuming a mass fration of organic carbon
for the sediment (f^) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is 5,810 mg DEHP/
kg of sediment  Because the EQp number was set using a SCV derived using the Tier II
method, it was categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
DEHP- 4
           Table 1. lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
R«y«nrUrtv»
mink
riv»r otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring guM
kingfisher
w^WvwWtWFH
v«iM»*ffl9*a-

-------
 APPENDIX B
                                                   DEHP- 5
               Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
               fish and aquatic
                invertebrates
                aquatic plants
              benlhic community
                               Benchmark
 5.5 (i)
No data
5,800 (i)
 aquatic
organisms
 aquatic
organisms
  scv
SCVXKoc
AQUIRE. 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
        'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p - provisional, i = interim; a "' indicate* that the benchmark value
        was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
n.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^ for the general terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains benchmarks
for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial
ecosystem.

Mammals:  Because of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species
study (Shiota & Nishimura, 1982) was used to derived the DEHP lexicological benchmark for
mammalian species representing the terrestrial ecosystem.  The study value was scaled for species in
the terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).
Since the Shiota & Nishimura study (1982) documented reproductive effects from DEHP exposure to
female mice, the representative body weights of the female species were used in the scaling  algorithm
to obtain lexicological benchmarks. Based on the data set for DEHP from Shiota & Nishimura
(1982), the benchmarks developed for the terrestrial ecosystem were categorized as adequate.

Birds:  Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective  of the avian community  were not
identified.                                  ,

Plants: Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from percent
yield to root lengths.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity benchmarks were selected
by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the  10th  percentile. If there were 10 or
fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used. If there were more than 10 values, the 10th
percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or
other effects reasonably assumed to impair the ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a
reduction in seed elongation.  However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for DEHP and, as a
result, a benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
DEHP- 6
           Table 3. lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                             Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
Bsy»«ntrtv»
Specie*
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red- tailed hawk
American Kestrel
Northern
bobowhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
8*eehraaift
VahM*
«9ft8-*y
79.74 (a)
8 1.99 (a)
66.62(a)
28.15 (a)
20.89 (a)
20.10 (a)
10.03 (a)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID i
ID
ID
Study
mice
mice
mice
mice
mice
mice
mice
-
•


•

-
Etftt*
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
-
-

'-
•

•
*«*
«*tt
«8*r
4y
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
•
-

•
•
-

ttaMdptfeft
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
'
-
-
-
• .
.
-
ar


•
•

•
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
•


Shiota &
Nishimura, 1982
Shiota&
Nishimura, 1982
Shiotai
Nishimura. 1982
Shiotai
Nishimura. 1982
Shiota &
Nishimura. 1982
Shiota and
Nishimura. 1982
Shiota &
Nishimura, 1982

-


'

•
      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID - Insufficient Data
m.  Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake
values and sources are  presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                        DEHP- 7
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic chemicals
with log K,,w values below 4, bioconcnetration facctors (BCFs) in fish were always assumed to refer to
dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals total water concentration).
The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and
provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in Table 4.

Because the log Kow for DEHP is above 6.5 (i.e., 7.5), the Thomann (1989) and Thomann etal.,
(1992) models were not used to estimate bioaccumulation factors. For extremely hydrophobic
constituents, the Agency has stated that reliable measurements of ambient water concentrations
(especially dissolved concentrations) are not available and that accumulation of these constituents in
fish or other aquatic organisms cannot be referenced to a water concentration as  required for a BCF or
BAF (U.S. EPA,  1993i). Since no measured BAF was available, a  measured BCF identified in
Stephan (1993) was used as a BAF since DEHP, like other phthalates, is capable of being metabolized
by aquatic organisms

The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates and earthworms
were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.   Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to
hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids.  For  .
hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described  in
Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.   The BCF is based on route-to-leaf
translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant though air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
DEHP- 8
                             Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
r*»pt>r
limnetic trophic
level 4 fiih
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral, tropiuc
level 4 fiih
lioonl trophk
level 3 fiih
lioonl trophic
level 2
invertebrate*
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
inveitehnles
earthworms
plants
8CFrRAr,«r
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
-
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
tfptebMtfw
wfcgtebady
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid.
lipid
•
whole-body
whole -body
whole -body
whole -plant
, •*•*»
2.400 ( 1)
2.400 (t)
2.400 (1)
2.400 (t)
2.400 (t)
10
3JE-01
3.3 E-01
2.7
1.9 E -03
"""• '
no meuured BAF; bued on
measured BCF (Stephan.1993)
no meuured BAF: bued on
meuured BCF (Slephin.1993)
no measured BAP, based on
measured BCF (Stephan.1993)
no measured BAF; based on
measured BCF (Stephan.1993)
no measured BAP, based on
measured BCF (S(ephan.l993)
.
calc
calc
calc
U.S. EPA. 1990e
        d = refers to dissolved surface water concentration
        t =refen to total surface water concentration
        ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               DEHP - 9
References
Adams, W. J.  and B. B.  Heidolph.  1985.  "Short-cut chronic toxicity estimates using
    Daphnia magna." IN R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R.  C  Bahner (eds.), Aquatic
    Toxicity and Hazard Assessment, Seventh Symposium.  ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.  As
    cited in Suter, G.W. n and J.B. Mabrey, 1994. Toxicological benchmarks for screening
    potential contaminants of concern for effects on aquatic biota: 1$94 revision.  DE/AC05-
    84OR21400 Office of Environmental Restroation and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

 Agarwal, D. K., W. H. Lawrence, and J. Autian.  1985.  Antifertilityand mutagenic effects in
    mice from parenteral administration of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEPH).  Journal of
    Toxicology and Environmental Health. 16:71-84.

AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieyal Database).  Environmental Research
    Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN. June  1995.

Birge, W. J.,  J. A. Black,  and A. G. Westerman.  1978.  Effects of polychlorinated
    biphenyl compounds and proposed PCB - replacement products on embryo-larval stages of
    fish  and amphibians. Res. Rep. No 118.  University of Kentucky, Water Resour. Res.
    Inst., Lexington, KY.  33pp.  (U.S. NTIS PB - 290711).

Carpenter, G. P., C. S. Well, and H. F. Smyth, Jr.  1953.  Chronic oral toxicity of di (2-
    ethylhexyl) phthalate for rats, guinea pigs and dogs. /. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med.  219-
    226. pp

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans -
    Some Industrial Chemicals and Dyestuffs.  1972-Present V29 280 (1982).  As cited in
    National Library of Medicine.  HSDB (Hazardous Substance Database).  1994.

Nakamura, Y., Y. Yagi, I. Tomita, and K. Tsuchikawa. 1979.  Teratogenicity of di-(2-
    ethylhexyl) phthalate in mice.  Toxicology Letters. 4:113 -117.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database.   1994.

Opresko, D. M., B.E.  Sample, G.W. Suter EL  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-84OR21400. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                DEHP - 10
Passino, D. R. M. and S. B. Smith. 1987.  Acute bioassays and hazard evaluation of
    representative contaminants detected in Great Lakes fish.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
    6(11):901-907.   As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity  Information REtrieval
    Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
    U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Duluth, MN. June 1995.

Peters, J.W. and  R.M. Cook.  1973. Effect of phthalate esters on reproduction in rats.
    Environmental Health Perspectives  3(91):91-94.

Seth, P.K., and S.P. Srivastava, D.K. Agarwal, and  S.V. Chandra.   1975.  Effect of di-2-
    ethylhexyl on rat gonads.  Environmental Research.  12:131-138.

Shiota, K., MJ. Chou and H. Nishimura. 1980.  Embryotoxic effects of di-2-ethylhexyl
    phthalate (DEPH) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) in mice.  Environmental Perspectives.
    22:245-253.

Shiota, K., and H. Nishimura.  1982. Teratogenicity of  di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and
    di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) in mice.  Environ. Health Perspectives  45:65- 72.

Singh,  A.  R.,  W. H. Lawrence, and J. Autian. 1972. Teratogenicity of phthalate esters in
    rats. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences  61(l):51-55.

Suter, G.W. II and  J.B. Mabrey, 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on  Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
    84OR21400. Office of Environmental Restroation and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Stephan, C.E.  1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research  and  Development, Duluth,  MN.  PB93-154672.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health
   Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor  Emissions.  Interim Final.  Office
    of Health  and Environmental Assessment.  Washington, D.C.  Janauary.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a)  Criteria and Related
   Information for Toxic Pollutants.  Water Management Division  - Region IV.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1994.  Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality
    Criteria for Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate.   Health and  Ecological Criteria Division, Office
    of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington,  D.C.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              DEHP - 11
Will, M. E. and  G. W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxlcity - DEHP Cos No.: 117-81-7
bis(2-ethylhexy1)
phttialate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phttialate
di (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalat0
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
di (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
i
mouse
i
i
mouse
guinea pigs
rat
rat
rat
mouse
fet
fet
iver
liver
liver
rep
(eto
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
PEL
NOAEL .
• !
t
70
190
19
195
60
5
17.86
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
ml/kg
mg/kg-day
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
L?
oral
hroughout
gestation
hroughout
gestation
1 year
2 years
2 years
3 injections on
days 1,5. and 10
Day 7 of gestation
Shiota & Nlshimura,
1982
Shiota & Nishimura,
1982
Carpenter et al.. 1953
Carpenter et al., 1953
Carpenter et al., 1953
Sethetal., 1976
Nakamura et al., 1979
No embryotoxic effects of
DEHP were observed at this
dose level.
Fetal resorptions and fetal
malformations including
intrauterine growth retardation
and delayed ossification.
Increased relative liver weights.
Increased liver apd kidney
weights and retarded growth
were observed at this dose
level.
/
No effects were observed at
this dose level.
Activity of succinic
dehydrogenase and adenosine
triphosphatase were
significantly reduced, which
could account for degeneration
of sperm-producing structures.
No significant differences were
observed between this dose
level and untreated controls.

-------
Terrestrial Toxlcity - L..HP Cas No.:l 17-81-7
Chemical Name
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalale ' •
bis(2-ethylhexy))
phthalale
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalale
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalale
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Species
rat
mouse
rabbit
rats
mouse
rat
rat
rat
Endpolnt
acute
acute
acute
rep
rep
rep. let
systemic
systemic
Description
LD50
LD50
LD50
LOAEL
LOAEL
PEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Value
30,600
30 .
34
2
1
5
7500
15,000
Units
mg/kg-body wt.
g/kg-body wt.
g/kg-body wt.
ml/kg BW
ml/kg
g/kg-body wt.
PEP! ..
ppm
Exposure
Rout* (oral,
S.C., I.V.. l.p.,
Injection)
oral
oral
oral
i.p.
s.c. injection
i.p. injection
oral
oral
Exposure
Duration /Timing
NS
NS
NS
3,6, and 9 days of
gestation
days 1, 5, 10 prior
to mating
gestation days 5,
10&15
90 days
90 days
Reference
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994
RTECS, 1994
Peters and Cook, 1 973
Agarwal et al., 1985
I ARC , 1982 as cited in
HSDB. 1994.
Shaffer et al., 1945 as
cited in IARC, 1982
Shaffer etal, 1945 as
cited in IARC, 1982
Comments

.

Implantation and parturition are
affected at this dose level.
Preimplantation losses and
early fetal deaths were
significantly increased at all
dose levels (1, 2, 5, and 10
ml/kg)
Resorptions, gross
abnormalities, fetal death or
decrease in fetal size.
No effects were observed at
this dose level.
Body weight gain was
observed at this dose level.

-------
Freshwater Toxicity - DEHP
CasNo.: 117-81-7
Chemical
Name
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethythexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
NS = Not Sf
Species .
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
lish
daphnid
Daphnia
magna
large mouth
bass
rainbow trout
jecified
Type of
Effect
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
immob.
acuia
acute

Description
scv 	
cv
cv
EC20"
EC20
EC50
LC50
LC50
Value
32.2 	
8.4
<3
>54
<3
133
32900
139.500-
149,200
(142,889)

Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

Exposure
Duration
/Timing
.NA-
NS
NS
NS
NS
48-hour
NS
NS

Reference
Adams and Heidolph,
1 985 as cited in Suter
and Mabrey , 1 994
Suter and Mabrey,
1994
Suter and Mabrey,
1994
Suter and Mabrey,
1994
Suter and Mabrey,
1994
Passino and Smith,
1987 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1995
Birgeetal.. 1978
Birgeetal., 1978

Comments
.








-------
Terrestrial Toxicity -. .HP Cas No.: 117-81-7




bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate


bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate





mouse



rats
NS = Not Specified





feto



ter






LOAEL



LOAEL






35.71



10 j




-


n^a^ay



ml/kg




oral



i.p.






Day 7 of gestation


Day 5. 10, 15 of
gestation






Nakamura el al.. 1979



Singh etal., 1972

1 1 .2% fetal mortality was
observed at this dose level.
However, gross and skeletal
abnormalities including
elongated and fused ribs, etc.,
occurred only at 1 .0 ml/kg^
Resorptions and malformed
fetuses were observed at this
dose level, the highest of two
dose levels.


-------
Terrestrial Bioiogicai Uptake Measures - DEKP
Cos No.: 117-8!-7


Chemical
Name
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate


Species
plant

B-factor
(BCF. BAF,
BMP)
BCF


Value
0.0051
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)
P


Units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)


Reference
U.S. EPA,
1990e


Comments


-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake K._ jsures - DEHP Cas No.:l 17-81 -7


Chemical
Name
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate



Species


fish

B -(actor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)


BCF



Value


130.00
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)


m



Units


Ukg



Reference

U.S. EPA,
1992



Comments

Normalized
to 3% lipid.

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                             Cadmium - 1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                      Cadmium
                                 Cas No.:  7440-43-9
Summary:  This profile on cadmium summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for
birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the
generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic
terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for
developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population
sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish were generally adopted
from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality Criteria). Bioconcentration
factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification factors
(BMFs) are also  summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the
freshwater ecosystem were calculated  for organic constituents with log Kow between 4 and
6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem,  these biological uptake measures also include terrestrial
vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g.,  earthworms).  The entire toxicological data base compiled
during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile represents the most
current information and may differ from the data presented in the technical support document
for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HW1R): Risk Assessment for Human and
Ecological Receptors.

I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem
                                                                    i
This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1  contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks
                     i
Mammals:  Numerous studies were identified on the effects of cadmium toxicity to
mammalian species.   In a study by Loeser and Lorke (1977), dogs given food containing
cadmium at doses of 0.02, 0.06, 0.2, and 0.6 mg/kg-day for a 3  month period exhibited no
behavioral or developmental effects. From this study, a NOEL of 0.6 mg/kg-day was inferred
for dog exposure to cadmium.  Sorell  and Graziano (1990) exposed female rats to cadmium
via drinking water at doses of 5, 50, and 100 ppm on gestation days 6 through 20. Growth
retardation, as  expressed in decreased  fetal and  maternal weights, was noted at the two higher
doses.  Based on the recommended body weight of 0.35 kg and  water consumption of 0.046
I/day for Sprague-Dawley rats (U.S EPA,  1988),  a NOAEL of 0.66 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL
of 6.6 mg/kg-day were calculated for developmental  effects.  Sutou et al. (1980) assessed
cadmium toxicity in rats exposed to 0.1, 1.0 and 10 mg/kg-day over a period  of six weeks,
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Cadmium - 2
including a three-week mating period and up to day 20 of gestation. No effects were seen in
the groups exposed to 0.1 and 1.0 mg/kg-day, however, at 10 mg/kg-day, the number of
embryonic implantations and live fetuses decreased significantly.  In addition, surviving
fetuses from the 10 mg/kg-day treatment group exhibited  decreases in body weight, body
length and tail length as well  as delayed ossification of the vertebrae. These results suggest a
NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL of 10 mg/kg-day for developmental effects.

Although Sutou et al (1980) and Sorell and Graziano (1990) reported similar NOAELs, the
NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg-d from the Sutou et al. (1980) study was chosen to derive the
mammalian toxicological benchmarks because it contained sufficient dose-response
information and focused on developmental endpoints at a  critical lifestage.  In terms of
population sustainability, the decreased fetal body weight  observed by Sorcll and Graziano et
al. (1990) was not as significant as the decreased embryonic implantations and live fetuses
reported by Sutou et al. (1980).  Although dogs are members of the same taxonomic Order
(Camivora) as the representative species, the Loeser and Lorke  (1977) study does not provide
clear dose-response information.  While the studies by Sorell and Graziano et al. (1990) and
Loeser and Lorke (1977) were not chosen for the development of a toxicological benchmark,
they do illustrate the dose range at which cadmium toxicity occurs.

The study value from the Sutou et al.. (1980) was scaled for species representative of a
freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm  adapted from Oprcsko et al.
(1994)
                          Benchmark   = NOAEL. x
                                                    bw >/4
                                                       w,
where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species.  This is the default
methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the
Sotou et al. (1980) study documented  developmental effects from cadmium  exposure to
mating male and female rats, the mean body weight  for both genders for each representative
species was used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the toxicological benchmarks.

Data were available on the reproductive, developmental, and growth effects of cadmium. In
addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted over chronic and subchronic
durations and during sensitive life stages.  The data set does not support an  uncertainty factor
to account for inter-species differences in toxicological sensitivity. The study value selected
from the Sotou et al. (1980) was a NOAEL based on a developmental endpoint that was
within an order of magnitude of the lowest identified NEL or LEL.  Based on the  data set for
cadmium,  the benchmarks developed from the Sotou et al. (1980) study were categorized as
adequate.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                              Cadmium - 3
Birds:  Three studies were identified that investigated cadmium toxicity in avian species. The
effects on avoidance response to fright stimuli were assessed in one-week-old black ducks fed
4 or 40 ppm cadmium  (Heinz et al., 1983). "No information on daily food consumption rates
were provided therefore, the use of an allometric equation was required to convert the doses
from dietary ppm to mg/kg-day:

      Food  consumption = 0.0582(W°'651) where W is body weight in kg (Nagy,  1987).

Assuming a body weight of 0.053 kg, doses for this study were calculated as 0.1  and 1
mg/kg-day.  Ducklings fed 0.1 mg/kg-day ran longer distances away from a fright stimulus
than the control group or the 1 mg/kg-day ppm group. The authors could not explain why
effects were seen at the lower dose level and not at 1  mg/kg-day.

Richardson et al. (1974) investigated the effects of cadmium on Japanese quail given an oral
dose of approximately 75 mg/kg-diet from hatching until 4 or 6 weeks of age.  Since daily
food consumption was  not provided the allometric  equation presented above was used to
convert the cadmium dose to mg/kg-day.  Using a  body weight of 0.08 kg, the dietary dose
was estimated at 10.5 mg/kg-day. After 4 weeks of exposure,  quail exhibited signs of
testicular hypoplasia, growth retardation and severe anemia and after 6 weeks of exposure,
both heart ventricles were hypertrophied.  In another study, dietary cadmium was  given  to
mallard duck hens at 0.19, 1.9, and 19 mg/kg-day for  up to 90 days (White & Finley, 1978).
No effects in egg laying were seen at the lower dose levels, however, egg production was
suppressed in the group given 19 mg/kg-day. Based on these results a LOAEL of 19 mg/kg-
day and a NOAEL of 1.9 mg/kg-day can be inferred for reproductive effects.

All of these investigations indicate effects that could impair the survival of a wildlife
population.  However, the study by Richardson et al. (1974) was not considered suitable for
derivation of a benchmark value because of insufficient dose response information.  Since
behavioral effects were observed at the lower dose and not at the higher dose, the Heinz et  al.
.(1983) study also did not establish a clear dose response relationship.  Therefore,  the White
and Finley  (1978) NOAEL of 1.9 mg/kg-day was chosen for estimation of an avian
benchmark value.                               '

The principles for allometric scaling were, assumed to  apply to  birds, although specific studies
supporting allometric scaling for avian species were not identified.  Thus, for the avian
species  representative of a freshwater ecosystem, the NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg-day from the
White and Finley (1978) study was scaled using the cross-species scaling  method  of Opresko
et al. (1994).

Data were available on the reproductive and developmental effects  of cadmium, as well  as on
behavioral effects potentially effecting survival.  Laboratory experiments of similar types were
not conducted on a range of avian species and as such, inter-species differences among
wildlife species were not identifiable. There were  no  other values in the data set  which were
lower than  the benchmark value.  Based on the avian  data set for cadmium, the benchmarks
developed from the  White and Finley (1978) study were categorized as adequate.

August  1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Cadmium - 4
Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates:  The Final Chronic Value (FCV) for cadmium of 1.1 E-3
mg/1 was selected as the benchmark protective of fish and aquatic invertebrates (U.S. EPA,
1986).  The FCV for cadmium is a function of water hardness and is calculated using the
equation e(i-28[Nhardnessj].3.828) (U s  EpA> 1986)i j^^ng a water hardness of 100 mg/i.
Since the  benchmark is based on the FCV developed for the AWQC and was within an order
of magnitude of the lowest adverse effect levels for daphnids, this benchmark was categorized
as adequate.
                                                                            \

Aquatic Plants:  The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEQ or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (EC,^) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green  algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).
The aquatic plant benchmark for copper is 2E-03  mg/1 based on reduced population growth
rate of Asterionella formosa  (Conway, 1977 as cited in  Suter &  Mabrey, 1994).  As
described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarks for aquatic plants were designated as interim.

Benthic community: The cadmium benchmark protective of benthic organisms is pending a
U.S. EPA review of the acid volatile sulfide (AVS) methodology proposed for metals.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Cadmium -5
       Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                         Associated with a Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
vK:f8pecte« >:'•::
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
"Benchmark
Value mg/*g-d
0.82 (a)
0.49 (a)
1.4 (a)
1.7 (a)
1.6 (a)
1.9 (a)
2.1 (a)
4.3 (a)
1.9 (a)
3.2 (a)
'';•$• Study :!ipi;
I ."i-SpecietK-.
rat
rat
mallard duck
matardduck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
Study Value
mg/kg>d
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.9 '
1.9
1.9
1.9
, 1.9
1.9
1.9
Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
SF
•
-
•
•
-
•
-
• '


Origin*! Soon*
Sutou et a)., 1980
Sutouetal., 1980
While et a!.. 1978
White etal., 1978
Whitoatal., 1978
White et a!.. 1978
While et a!., 1978
Whin et al.. 1978
White et al., 1978
Whttaetal.. 1978
   •Benchmark Category, a > adequate, p « provisional, i « interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
   magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL (or other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                      Cadmium -
              Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                        Associated with a Freshwater Ecosystem

RBpr**anlattv«
Specie* .
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants


benihic
community
Benchmark
Vafu«
tngfL
1.lE-03(a)

2.0E-03 (i)


under review


Study
Specie*
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
plants

.


Description

FCV

CV





Origin*
Sourc*
U.S. EPA. 1986

Conway, 1977 as
cited in Suter &
. Mabrey, 1994
.

IL
  'Benchmark Category, a * adequate, p > provisional, i - interim: a "" indicates that the benchmark.value we* an order
  of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.          -


Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic TerrestriaJ
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C—,) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Mammals:   As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to cadmium.
Because  of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species
study (Sutou et al., 1980) was used to derive the cadmium toxicological benchmark for
mammalian  species representing the terrestrial ecosystem.  The  study value from the Sutou et
al. (1980) study was scaled for species representative of a terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-
species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since  the Sutou et al. (1980)
study documented reproductive effects from cadmium exposure to mating male and female
rats, the mean body weight for both genders for each representative species was used in the
scaling algorithm to obtain the toxicological benchmarks.  Based on the data set for cadmium,
the benchmarks developed from the Sutou et al. (1980) study were categorized as adequate.

Birds:   Additional avian toxicity data  were not identified for birds representing the terrestrial
ecosystem therefore, the White and Finley (1978) study on reproductive effects in mallards
used in the freshwater ecosystem was also used to calculate a benchmark value.  The NOAEL
of 1.9 mg/kg-day from White and Finley (1978) was scaled for species representative of a
terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994).  Based on the avian data set for  toxaphene, the benchmarks developed from the White
and Finley (1978) study were categorized as adequate.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Cadmium.?
Plants;  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the
10th percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.
If there were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied
to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair
the  ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.  The
selected benchmark for phytotoxic effects of cadmium in soils is 3 mg/kg (Will & Suter,
1994). Since the study value selected is the 10th percentile of more than  10 LOEC values,
the  terrestrial plant benchmark for cadmium is categorized as provisional.

Soil Community:  For the soil community, the toxicological benchmarks were established
based on methods developed by the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and
Environmental Protection (RIVM).  In brief, the RIVM approach estimates a concentration at
which the no observed  effect concentration (NOEC) for 5 percent of the species within the
community is not exceeded.  A minimum data set was established in which key structural and
functional components of the soil community (e.g., decomposer guilds, grazing guilds)
encompassing different sizes of organisms (e.g., microfauna, mesofauna, and macrofauna)
were represented.  Measurement endpoints included reproductive effects as well as measures
of mortality, growth, and survival. The derived cadmium benchmark deemed protective of the
soil community is 0.685 mg/kg. Since the cadmium data set contains NOECs and/or LOECs
for  at least five of the representative species outlined in the  minimum soil data set, the soil
community benchmark  is categorized as provisional.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                        Cadmium • 8
       Table 3.  ToxicologicaJ Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
Representative
Specie*
doer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed
deer
red- tailed hawk
American
kestrel
Northern
bob white
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
'Benchmark
Value maftfl-d
2.2 (a)
2.3 (a)
1.9 (a)
0.78 (a)
0.56 (a)
0.53 (a)
. 0.27 (a)
1.9 (a)
3.4 (a)
3.1 (a)
3.7 (a)
3.1. (a)
3 (p) mg/kg
0.685 (p) mg/kg
Study
Sp«oiM
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
mallard duck
mallard duck
malard duck
mallard duck
maflard duck
terrestrial
plant
soil
invertebrates
Effect
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
growth/yeild
chronic
Study
Value
mfl/kfl-d
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
. 1.0
1.0
1.0
• 1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
3 mg/kg
0.685
mg/kg
Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
10th percentile
LOEC
NOEC
SF
-
-
-
-



-
•
-
-
•
,-
-
OrfeJn* Souro.
Sutou et al.. 1980
Sutou at al.. 1980
Sutou etal.. 1980
Sutou el al.. 1980
Sutou etal.. 1980
Sutou el al.. 1980
Sutou et al., 1980
While etal.. 1978
Whteetal.. 1978
Write etal.. 1978
White et al.. 1978
White etal.. 1978
WMIandSuter,
1994
Aldenberg and
Slob. 1993
     •Benchmark Category, a >
     magnitude or more above
i adequate, p « provisional, i » interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Cadmium. 9
in.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (i.e. BCFs, BAFs) used to derive protective
surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconccntrate and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake values and
sources are presented in Table 4 for. selected ecological receptor categories: fish in the
limnetic or littoral ecosystem, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants. For metals,  BCFs are whole-body bioconcentration factors
and refer to total surface water concentrations  (versus freely dissolved concentrations).
Consequently, all calculations of acceptable tissue concentrations (TC) represent whole-body
concentrations.  The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological
uptake factors and provides  the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented
in Table 4.

The whole-body BCF for cadmium was the geometric mean of 15  measured values, with most
values supplied from two studies by Kumada et al. (1973, 1980). The values ranged from 20
to 12,000 and  the mosquito  fish  appeared to be somewhat of an  outlier species relative to the
other  measured values.  BCF values for muscle were not included  because ecological
receptors are likely to eat the whole fish  or, in the least, will not necessarily distinguish
between the fillet and other  parts of the fish. Data on bioconcentration in aquatic
invertebrates are under review.  Studies on bioaccumulation/bioconcentration in terrestrial
vertebrates and invertebrates have been identified and are currently being reviewed.. For
metals, empirical data were  used to derive the  BCF for aboveground forage grasses and leafy
vegetables.  In particular, the uptake-response slope for forage grasses was used as the  BCF
for plants in the terrestrial ecosystem since most of the representative plant-eating species
feed on wild grasses.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Cadmium - 10
                           Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
•co logical
receptor
fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
8CF.BAF.or
BSAF :
BCF
BCF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
lipid-tated or
whole-body
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
value
187(1)

-

3.5
0.14
. •• ' eourc* ;• /. ..^^- >;•
geometric mean of 15 measured
values lor whole-body BCFs as
cited in master table (e.g.;
Kumada et al.. 1973)
data under review
data under review
data under review
geometric mean of measured
values from Da vies, 1983;
Helmke. 1979
U.S. EPA, 1992e
       d   «  refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   >  refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Cadmium - 11
References

Aldenburg, T. and W. Slob.  1993.  Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on
    logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data.  Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
    25:48-63. .

AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity  Information REtrieval Database).  1995.  Environmental
    Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Duluth, MN.

Block, M. and A.W, Glynn.  1992.  Influence of Xanthates on the Uptake of 109Cd by
    Eurasian Dace (Phoxinus  phoxihus) and Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 11, pp. 873-879.

Calamari, D., Marchetti, R., and G. Vailati.  Influence of Water Hardness on Cadmium
    Toxicity to.Salmo Gairdneri Rich.  1980.  Water Research, Vol. 14, pp.  1421-1426.

CearleyJ.E. and R.L. Coleman.  1974. Cadmium Toxicity and Bioconcentration'in
    Largemouth Bass  and Bluegill.  Bulletin of Environmental Contamination &. Toxicology,
    Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 146-151.

Conway, H.L.  1977.  Sorption of arsenic and caclmium and their effects on growth,
    micronutrient utilization, and  photosynthetic pigment composition of Asterionella formosa.
    J.  Fish. Res. Board Can. 35:26-294.  As cited in Suter II, G.W. and J.B. Mabrcy. 1994.
    Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects
    on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-84OR21400. Office of Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management,  U.S. Department  of Energy, Washington, DC.

Davies, B. E., 1983.  Heavy Metal Contamination from Base Metal Mining and Smelting:
    Implications for Man and  His Environment.  Applied Environmental Geochemistry,  ISBN
    0-12-690640-8.

Davies, P.H., W.C. Gorman, C.A. Carlson, and S.F. Brinkman.  1993.  Effect of Hardness on
    Bioavailability and Toxicity of Cadmium to  Rainbow Trout.  Chem. Spec. Bioavaii,
    5(2):67-77. As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).
    1995. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
    Environmental Protection  Agency, Duluth, MN.

Di Toro, D.M., J.D. Mahoney, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, A.R. Carlson, and G.T. Ankley.  1992.
    Acid Volatile Sulfide Predicts the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium and Nickel in Sediments.
    Environ. Sci. TechnoL, 26:96-101.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Cadmium - 12
Dixon, R. L., I. P. Lee, and R. J. Sherins.  1976.  Methods to assess reproductive effects of
    environmental chemical:  studies of cadmium and boron administered orally.
    Environmental Health Perspectives, 13:59-67.

Eisler, R.  1985.  Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife; and invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review.
    U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Biology Report-85(1.2):46pp.

57 FR 24152. June 5, 1992.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7).  Draft
    Report:  A Cross-species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on
    Equivalence of mg/kg3/4/day.

Ferard, J. F., J. M. Jouany, R. Truhaut, and P. Vasseur.  1983.  Accumulation of cadmium  in
    a freshwater food chain experimental  model.  Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
    7:43-52.

Friberg, L., C. Elinder, T. Kjellstrom, and G.  Nordberg.  1986. Cadmium and Health: A
    Toxicological  and Epidemiological Appraisal, Vol. II - Effects and Response, CRC Press,
    Boca Raton, Florida, 307 pp.

Giesy, J. P.,  Jr., G. J. Leversee, and D. R. Williams.  1977.  Effects of naturally occurring
    aquatic organic fractions on cadmium toxicity to Simocephalus serrulatus (Daphnidae) and
    Gambusia affinis  (Poeciliidae). Water Res.  11:1013-1020.

Green, A.S., G.T.  Chandler, and E.R.  Blood.  1993. Aqueous-, Pore-water, and Sediment-
    Phase Cadmium:  Toxicity Relationships for a Meiobenthic Copepod. Environmental
    Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol.  12, pp. 1497-1506.

Helmke, P. A., W. P. Robarge, R. L. Kroter, and P. J. Schomberg.  1979.  Effects of soil-
    applied sewage sludge on concentrations of elements in earthworm.  Journal of
    Environmental Quality  8(3):322-327.

Heinz, G. H., S. D. Haseltine, and L. Sileo.  1983.  Altered avoidance behavior of young
    black ducks  fed cadmium. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2:419-421.

Jensen, A. and F.  Bro-Rasmussen. 1992.  Environmental Cadmium in Europe.  Reviews of
    Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol.  125., Springer-Verlag  New York, Inc.

Kluttgen, B.  and H.T. Ratte.  1994.  Effects of Different Food Doses on Cadmium Toxicity to
    Daphnia  Magna.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 1619-
    1627.

Kumada, H., S.  Kimura, M. Yokote, and  Y. Matida.  1973.  Acute and chronic toxicity,
    uptake and retention of cadmium in freshwater organisms. Bull. Freshwater Fish. Res.
    Lab. (Tokyo)  22(2):157-165.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Cadmium - 13
Kumada, H., S. Kimura, and M. Yokote.  1980. Accumulation and biological effects of
    cadmium in rainbow trout.  Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish 46:97-103.

Loeser, E., and D. Lorke.  1977.  Semichronic oral toxicity of cadmium 2.Studies on dogs.
    Toxicology  7:225-232.

Mennear, J.H.  (ed.).  1979.  Cadmium Toxicity. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 80-101.

Nagy, K. A.  1987.  Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
    Ecol.Mono.  57:111-128.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database.  March 1994.       .

Nagvi, S.M., R.D. Howell, and M. Sholas.  1993.  Cadmium and Lead Residues in Field
    Collected Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and. Uptake by Alligator Weed,
    Altemanthera philoxiroides. Journal of Environmental Science & Health, B28(4), 473-
    485.'

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Peterson, R. H., J. L. Metcalfe, and S. Ray. 1983. Effects of cadmium on yolk utilization,
    growth, and survival of Atlantic salmon alevins and newly feeding fry. Arch. Environ.
    Contam. Toxicol.  12:37-44.

Ramseier, S., M. Martin, W. Haerdi, P. Honsberger, G. Cuendet, and J. Tarradellas.  1989.
    Bioaccumulation of Cadmium by Lumbricus Terrestris.  Toxicological and Environmental
.    Chemistry,  Vol. 22, pp. 189-196.

RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances).   1994. National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, DC.

Rehwoldt, R., L.W. Menapace, B. Nerrie, and D. Allessandrello.  1972.  The Effect of
    Increased Temperature upon the Acute Toxicity of some Heavy Metal Ions Toward
    Bnethic Organisms. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 10(5):291-294.  As cited in
    AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).  1995. Environmental
    Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Duluth, MN.

Richardson, M. E.,  M. R. Spivey Fox, and B. E. Fry, Jr. 1974.  Pathological changes
    produced in Japanese quail by ingestion of cadmium. Journal of Nutrition 104(3):323-"
    338.
                                             w^
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Cadmium-14
Schroeder, H. A., and M. Mitchener.  1971.  Toxic effects of trace elements on the
   reproduction of mice and rats.  Archives of Environmental Health  23:102-106.

Siemering, G.S.,  S.M. Serkiz, S.B. Clark, and R.M. Kriegel.  1994.  Modeling the Factors
   Affecting Cadmium Binding to Dissolved Organic Matter.  "Preprint Extended Abstract",
   Presented Before the Division of Environmental Chemistry, American  Chemical  Society,
   pp. 450-464.

Sorell, T. L., and J. H. Graziano. 1990. Effect of oral cadmium during pregnancy on
  . maternal and  fetal zinc metabolism in the rat.  Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
   102:537-545.
                                                                    ,*
Strickland, R.C.,  W.R. Chancy, and R.J. Lamoreaux.  1979.  Organic matter influences
   phytotoxicity  of cadmium to soybeans. Plant Soil, 53(3):393-402.  As cited in Will, M.E.
   and G.W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
   84OR21400.  Office of Environmental  Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Stuhlbacher, A., M.C. Bradley, C. Naylor, and P. Calow.  1993.  Variation in the
   Development of Cadmium Resistance in Daphnia magna Straus; Effect of Temperature,
   Nutrition, Age,  and Genotype.  Environ. Pollut., 80:153-158.  As cited in AQUIRE
   (AQUatic Toxicity information REtrieval Database).  1995. Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

Suter n, G.W. and  J.B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
   84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Sutou, S.,  K.  Yamamoto, H. Sendota, K. Tomomatsu, Y. Shimizu, and M. Sugiyama.  1980.
   Toxicity, fertility,  teratogenicity, and dominant lethal tests in rats administered cadmium
   subchronically:  I.  Toxicity Studies. Toxicology and Environmental Safety 4:39-50.

Sutou, S.,  K.  Yamamoto, H. Sendota, and M. Sugiyama.  1980. Toxicity, fertility,
   teratogenicity, and dominant lethal tests in rats administered cadmium subchronically:  n.
   Fertility, teratogenicity, and dominant lethal tests. Toxicology and Environmental Safety
   4:51-56.

Taylor, D.  1983.  The significance of the accumulation of cadmium by aquatic organisms.
   Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety  7:33-42.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Cadmium - 15
Thomann, R.V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
   food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of organic
   chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction. Environmental
   Toxicology and Chemistry 11:615-629.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1986.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
   Cadmium.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  Publication No.
   EPA-440/5-86-001.

U.S.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988.  Recommendations for and
   .Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment.  EP A/600/6- 87/008.
   Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental
   Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990.  Methodology for Assessing Health
   Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim  Final. Office
   of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. January.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a) Criteria and Related
   Information for Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division, Region IV.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992e.  Technical Support Document for Land
   Application of Sewage Sludge, Volume I and II.  EPA 822/R-93-001a. Office of Water,
   Washington, D.C.

Webb (ed.).  1979. The Chemistry,  Biochemistry, and Biology of Cadmium.  Elsevier/North-
   Holland Biomedical Press, pp. 340-413.

White, D. H., and  M. T. Finley.  1978.  Uptake and retention of dietary cadmium in mallard
   ducks. Environmental Research  17:53-59.

Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
   84OR21400. Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Williams, D. R., and J. P. Gisey, Jr,  1978.  Relative importance of food and water resources
   to cadmium uptake by Gambusia afflnis (Poeciliidae). Environmental Research  16:326-
   332.
August 1995

-------
Freshwater R   ry - Cadmium
     Cas No. 7440-43-9
Chemical
Name
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium

• Species
Daphnia
magna
rainbow
trout
rainbow
trout
rainbow
trout
striped bass
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
fish
daphnid
atlantic -
salmon
atlantic
salmon

NS = Not specified
Endpolnt
immob.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
dvp
dvp
,

Description
EC50
LC50
LOEC
NOEC
LC50
AWQC
CV
CV
EC20
EC20
LOEC
NOEC .


Value
24 4 - .
355.3
(129.6)
2.10-7.71
(4.56) 	
1.74-5.16
(3.56)
1.25-2.57
1100
1.1
i.7
0.15
1.8
0.75
2
0.2


Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L 	
ug/L


Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS


Exposure
Duration
/Timing
48-hour
96 hour
100 days
100 days
96-hour
NS
NS
NS
NS 	
NS
NS
NS

Reference
Stuhlbacher etal., 1993
as cited in AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE. 1995
Daviesetal., 1993 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Daviesetal.. 1993 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Rehwoldt et al., 1972 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
U.S. EPA, 1986
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Peterson etal., 1983
Peterson etal., 1983

Comments



-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Cadmium
              Cas No. 7440-43-9
Chemical
Name
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium

Species
daphnids
fish
fish
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
mosquito fish
mosquito fish

NS = Not specified
B-factor
(BCF. BAF,
BMF)
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF


Value
0.45
<20
64
49,16, 19,
19
12,000, 500,
380, 245,
200
4,100.00
7,440.00


Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m


Units
NS
LAg
L/kg
L/kg whole- .
body (wet
weight)
L/kg whole-
body (wet
weight)
NS
NS
.
Reference
Ferard et al., 1983
Taylor, 1 983
U:S. EPA, 1992
Kumada et al., 1980
Kumada et al., 1973
Williams & Giesy, 1978
Giesy et al., 1977 as cited
in Eisler, 1985


Comments
BAF is for uptake from food only.
Not clear how BCF was derived.
Whole body BCF; 20 weeks of
exposure to 1 ppb or 4 ppb Cd stearate,
or 4 ppb of Cd acetate or Cd chloride.
Whole body BCF; 30 weeks of
exposure to 0.00001 , 0.0001 , 0.001 ,
0.0022, 0.0048 ppm "cadmium solution'
Whole body BCF; 8 weeks of exposure
to 0.02 ppb Cd.
Whole body BCF; 26 weeks of
exposure to 5.0 ppb Cd.
•


-------
APPENDIX B                                                          Cadmium - 16
Zhuang, Y. and H.E.-Allen.  1994.  Cadmium Mobilization Resulting from Sediment
   Aeration.  "Preprint Extended Abstract", Presented Before the Division of Environmental
   Chemistry, American Chemical Society, pp. 110-112.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Cadmium
     Cas No. 7440-43-9
Chemical
Name
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
NS = Not spe
Species
mouse
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
mouse
dog
mallard hen
mallard hen
Japanese
quail
American
black ducks
cilied
Endpolnt
NS
rep
rep, dev '
rep, dev
let
fet
rep
dvp, behv
rep
rep
dvp
dvp

Description
LD50
NOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
AEL
NOEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
AEL
AEL


Value
890
0.014
1
10
0.4
4
QJ —
0.6
19
1.9
75
4
....
Units
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
PPm
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
ppm
ppm


Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V.,
Injection)
oral
oral (water[
oral
oral
oraljwater)_
oral (water)
oral (water)
oral (diet)
oral
oral
oral
oral


Exposure Duration
/Timing
NS
90 days
6-9 weeks
6-9 weeks
gestational days 6-20
gestational days 6-20
3 generations
3 months
90 days
90 days
Birth to 6 weeks
parents - 4 mo. < egg
laying; ducklings - up
to 6 weeks


Reference
RTECS, 1994
Dixonetal., 1976
Sutouetal., 1980
Sutouetal., 1980
Sorell and Graziano, 1990
Sorell and Graziano, 1 990
Schroeder and Mitchener,
197J
Loeser and Lorke, 1977
White and Finley, 1978
White and Finley, 1978
Richardson et al, 1974
Heinz etal., 1983


Comments
No adverse effects on male
reproduction
decreased fetal weight
reproductive failure
egg production suppressed
testicular hypoplasia,
anemia, hypertrophy of
heart ventricles
altered avoidance behavior-
hyperresponsiveness
•

-------
Terrestrial Biological Up   i Measures - Cadmium
              Cas No. 7440-43-9


Chemical
Name


cadmium


cadmium
cadmium




Species


plant


earthworms
earthworms

NS = Not specified

B-lactor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)


BCF


BCF
BCF





Value


0.18


1-7.5
4-5


Measured
or
Predicted
im-Pl_ .


£_


m
NS





units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)


NS
NS





• Reference


U.S. EPA 1990e


Davies, 1983
Helmke, 1979





Comments



Data obtained from varying
distances to points of soil
contamination.




-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Chlordane-1


                  Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                       Chlordane
                                    Cas No.: 57-74-9
Summary:  This profile on chlordane summarizes the toxicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (B.AFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs  for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
KOW between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire toxicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile. This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the data presented in the
technical support document for the Hazardous Waste  Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.
I.      Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals  and birds  associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:   No suitable subchronic  or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife in
which dose-response data  were reported. However, several chronic and subchronic toxicity
studies involving  chlordane have been conducted using rats, mice and other laboratory
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Chlordane - 2


animals.  Keplinger et al. (1970) conducted a six generational study to assess the reproductive
impacts of dietary chlordane exposure to mice at levels of 25, 50, and  100 ppm. At 50 ppm,
viability was significantly lower in the 4th and 5th generations and the fertility index was
significantly lower in the second and fifth generations.  The 25 ppm level appeared to have
little or no significant effect on the generations of mice.  The NOEL of 25 ppm was
converted to a daily dose of 4.37 mg/kg-d using the  mean body weight and daily food
consumption equations for mice reported in Recommendations for and Documentation of
Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1988a). An additional chronic
study was.identified in which male and female rats were fed a 9 month diet containing 2.5 or
25 ppm of chlordane (Ortega et al.,  1957).   Liver cell abnormality was noted  in males at the
lower dose. Using a recommended body weight for  mature, male rates of 0.505 kg
(U.S.EPA, 1988) and the daily food consumption equation of  FrrO.OSeW066"  (Nagy,  1987),
the 2.5 ppm level was converted to a daily dose of 0.176 mg/kg-d. In  a 2-year study by Ingle
(1952),  male and female Osborne-Mendel rats were fed oral dietary doses of 5,  10, 30, 150,
300 ppm of chlordane. These rats were mated and all the resulting litters were  normal as to
the individuals and the litter size.  However, the pups from rats dosed at  150  ppm and 300
ppm that remained with their lactating mothers showed definite symptoms of  chlordane
toxicity, resulting in some instances of death. Therefore, a NOAEL of 30 ppm  for
reproductive effects from maternal transfer was derived from the Ingle  study (1952).  Using
the proper body weight and food intake assumptions for Osborne-Mendel strain rats (U.S.
EPA, 1988), the 30 ppm was converted to 2.29 mg/kg-d. Also, the International Research
and Development Corporation (1967 as cited in WHO, 1984) conducted a two-year feeding
study in which beagle dogs were fed chlordane at levels of 0, 0.3, 3.0,  15 or 30 mg/kg diet.
The IRDC reported a NOAEL of 3 mg/kg in the diet (equivalent to 0.075 mg/kg body
weight) for hepatic endpoints in dogs.

The studies by Keplinger et al. (1970) and  Ingle (1952) documented reproductive toxicity to
laboratory mammals at similiar levels of chlordane exposure (4.37 mg/kg-d and 2.29 mg/kg-d,
respectively). For both of these studies, there were (1) chronic exposures administered via
oral ingestion, (2) sufficient dose-response information, and (3) critical reproductive endpoints
examined.  However, the Kiplinger et al. (1970) study was chosen as the benchmark study on
the basis of its multi-generational dosing regime, which provides a useful indicator of a
chemical's effects on succeeding populations. Also,  regarding the study by Ingle (1952),
there is additional uncertainly concerning the rate of maternal transfer  of chlordane via
lactating female rats from a laboratory diet versus maternal transfer in mammalian wildlife.
The IRDC (1967 as cited in WHO, 1964) and Ortega et al. (1957) studies did not examine
reproductive or developmental endpoints.  While the studies by IRDC (1967  as  cited in
WHO, 1964) and Ortega et al. (1957) were  not chosen for the development of a toxicological
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                Chlordane-3


 benchmark, they do illustrate the dose range at which chlordane toxicity occurs.

 The study value from Keplinger et al. (1910) was scaled for species representative of a
 freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
 (1994)
                              Benchmarkw = NOAEL, x    L
                                                  '
 where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
 of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species. This is the default
 methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
 documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57FR 24152).  Since the
 Keplinger et al. (1970) study documented reproductive effects from toxaphene exposure to
 male and female mice, the mean male and female body weight of each representative species
 was used in  the scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.

 Data were available on the reproductive and developmental effects of chlordane, as well as on
 growth and chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained  studies which were mostly
 chronic in nature. The majority of the studies identified were conducted using laboratory rats
 or mice and  as such, inter-species differences among wildlife species were not identifiable.
 Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied. There were several study
 values in the data set which  were at  least an order of magnitude  lower than the benchmark
 value. These values corresponded to effects on hepatic and growth endpoints.  Based on the
 data set for chlordane, the benchmarks developed from Keplinger et al. (1970) were
 categorized as adequate, with a "*"  to indicate that adverse effects may occur at the
. benchmark level.

 Birds:  No subchronic or chronic studies focusing on reproductive or developmental effects
 from chlordane exposure to avain species were identified.  Sources reviewed for avian toxicity
 information included:  Chlordane Hazards  to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic
 Review (FWS, 1990);  Chlordane (WHO, 1984); an on-line search of  the TOXLIT and DART
 databases; and an extensive library search at National  Institute for Environmental Health
 Sciences (NEEHS) library.

 Fish  and aquatic invertebrates: The  chronic AWQC of 4.3 E-6 mg/L is  based on Final
 Residue Value (U.S. EPA, 1989).  The FRY was not considered to be appropriate for the
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Chlordane - 4

                                                                     r
development of a benchmark for daphnids because it is intended to protect fish and other .
wildlife,  which consume aquatic organisms, from the adverse effects  of chemicals that may
bioconcentrate. Also, the FRY was not an appropriate benchmark value because residues and
bioaccumulation are already taken into account by the Thomann efal. (1992) model.  The
Final Chronic  Value (FCV) of  1.7E-4, as presented in the AWQC document (U.S. EPA,
1980) was selected as the benchmark  protective of fish and aquatic invertebrate  in the generic
freshwater ecosystem. Because the benchmark was based on a FCV  derived for the AWQC,
this benchmark is categorized as adequate.

Aquatic Plants: The  lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX)  for a  species
of freshwater algae, frequently  a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).
Aquatic plant data was not identified for chlordane and, therefore, no benchmark was
developed.                                                             .

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection  of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition  (EQP)  method.  The EQP method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic water quality measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^) to determine a protective sediment concentration
(Stephan,  1993).  The EQP number is  the chemical  concentration that may be present  in
sediment while still protecting the  benthic community from the harmful effects of chemical
exposure.  The FCV reported in the AWQC document (U.S. EPA, 1980) was used to
calculate a EQP number of 10.34 mg chlordane /kg organic carbon.  Assuming a mass fraction
of organic carbon for the sediment (f^) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is
0.517 mg/kg.   Since the EQP number was based on a FCV established for the AWQC, the
sediment benchmark is categorized as  adequate.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Chlordane - 5
       Table 1. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem    .        /
D«MVAMAPlt«lllM
HopfUMIWIW
SpteiM
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard .
lesser scaup
herring gull
spotted sandpiper
kingfisher

Bvkchmvk
Value*
mgfte-fey
1.9 (a')
1.1 (a')
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Spacha
" mouse
mouse
-
'
-
-
-
'
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
-
-.
-
•
-
-
-
-
Study VsiiM
mgflcg-day
4.4
4.4
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
Ooscr Iption
NOEL
NOEL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. SF
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
Original Source
Keplinger et al., 1970
Keplinger et al.. 1970

-
-
-
•
-
-
-
       'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data                    •                                    '       •
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                     Chlordane - 6
               Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                         Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
R — «••••• nfra^hia
oproonuRivv
SpocJM
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic
community
Benchmark
V«tu»'
fAQrl*
1 .7E-04 (a)
ID
0.517(a) mg/kg
sediment
StudySpactM
AWQC
organisms
-
AWQC
organisms
uMCflption
FCV
-
FCV x Kj
Original Source
U.S. EPA, 1980
•
U.S. EPA, 1980
II.
       •Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was
       an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEI for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data  .


Toxicological  Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic .
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: No additional chronic or subchronic studies were found for mammalian  wildlife in
which dose-response data were reported for reproductive or developmental endpoints.
Because of the lack of additional  mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species
study (Keplinger et al.,  1970)  was used to derive  the toxicological benchmark for mammalian
species  representing the terrestrial ecosystem.  The study value from Keplinger et al.  (1970)
was scaled for species representative of a terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-species scaling
algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994). Since the Keplinger et al. (1970) study
documented reproductive effects from toxaphene exposure to female and male mice, the mean
body weight of both genders was used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the toxicological
benchmarks.   Based on  the data set for chlordane, the terrestrial benchmarks developed from
Keplinger et al. (1970) were categorized  as adequate, with a "*"  to indicate that adverse
effects may occur at the benchmark level.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Chlordane-7


Birds: Although numerous sources were reviewed for toxicity information, no subchronic or
chronic studies were identified for representative or surrogate avian exposure to chlordane..

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
percentile. If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there  were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of  a plant population  to sustain itself, 'such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for chlordane and, as a result, a
benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Chlordane - 8
       Table 3. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
napieaentaHve
SpaofeM
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
. Benchmark
Value* mg/kg-
day
5.1 (a')
5.2 (a-)
4.4 (a')
1.8 (a')
1.3 (a')
1.2 (a')
0.62 (a')
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Steely
Spades
mouse
•> mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
-
-
.
•
-
-
• -
Original
Value mgftg-
day
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deeorlptton
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
-
-
-
•

•
•
SF
-
•
-
•
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

Original Source
Keplinger et at.,
1970
Keplinger et al..
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
Keplinger et al.,
1970
•
-

•
-

-
       'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Chlordane - 9


III.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the  limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body  or lipid-based and,  for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemicals with log K^w values belowr4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were  always
assumed to refer  to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log  K,,w values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to  refer to total water concentrations unless  the BCFs were calculated using
models based on  the relationship between dissolved water concentrations and  concentrations
in fish.  The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in
Table 4.

As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992)  for the  littoral
ecosystem; these  models were considered appropriate to estimate BAF/s for chlordane.  The
predicted BAF,d for trophic level 4 fish in both the limnetic and littoral ecosystems is
approximately twice the geometric mean (4,387,500)  of the three measured values presented
in Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great
Lakes Initiative (Stephan, 1993).  The geometric  mean of the measured values includes both
the alpha and gamma isomers and was based on data from Oliver and Niimi (1985 and 1988)
for rainbow trout and salmon. The  bioconcentration factor  for fish was also estimated from
the Thomann models (i.e., log K^ - dissolved BCF/) and multiplied by the dissolved fraction
(/d) as defined in  Equation 6-21 to determine the total bioconcentration factor  (BCF/). The
dissolved bioconcentration factor (BCF/1 ) was  converted to the BCF/ in order to estimate the
acceptable lipid tissue concentration (TCI) in fish consumed by piscivorous fish  (see Equation
5-115).  The BCF/ was required in Equation 5-115 because the surface water  benchmark (i.e.,
FCV or SCV) represents a total water concentration (C).   Mathematically, conversion from
BCF,d to BCF/ is accomplished using  the relationship delineated in the Interim Report on
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Chlordane - 10
Data and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic
Wildlife (U.S. EPA, 1993i):

                                   BCF," x rd = BCF;
Converting the predicted BCF,d of 870,963 LAg LP to the BCF/ of 242,777 L/kg LP was in
reasonable agreement (i.e., within a factor of 4) of the geometric mean of five measured BCF/
values presented in the master table on chlordane (geometric mean = 311,800).

The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates was the geometric mean of several
values with sources in Table 4 (see  master table).  For earthworms and terrestrial
invertebrates, the bioconcentration factors were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.
Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals  assuming that
the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids. Further, the method assumes  that the BAFs
and BCFs for  terrestrial wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of
Risks to .Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt,  1993)
are of sufficient  quality to serve as the standard.  The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs)  for a
chemical lacking measured data (in  this case chlordane) is compared to the BBF for TCDD
and that ratio (i.e., chlordane BBF/TCDD BBF) is multiplied by the TCpD standard  for
terrestrial  vertebrates, invertebrates,  and earthworms, respectively.  For hydrophobic organic
constituents, the  bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1
for above  ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses: The BCF is based on route-to-leaf
translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air
diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Chlordane - 11
                            Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
Itpld-bttad or
whole Dooy
lipid
lipid
lipid'
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
value
9,255,382 (d)
4,893,454 (d)
242,777 (t)
9,580,446 (d)
8,889,256 (d)
10,200,120 (d)
0.49
0.01
0.85
0.014
•ource
predicted value based on Thomann, 1989,
food chain model
predicted value based on Thomann, 1989,
food chain model
. predicted value based on Thomann, 1989
and adjusted to estimate total BCF
predicted value based on Thomann et al.,
1992, food web model
predicted value based on Thomann et al.,
1 992, food web model
predicted value based on Thomann et al.,
1992, food web model
geometric mean of values in Garten and
Trabalka, 1983; Clabom et al., 1956, 1960
as cited in Kenaga, 1980
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio
with 2,3,7,8-TCOD
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio
with 2,3,7,8-TCDD
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       d   =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Chlordane • 12
References

Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
    TCDD  and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge. Prepared for Ossi Meyn, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Ambrose, A.M.,  H.E. Christensen, D.J. Robbins, and LJ. Rather.  1953. Toxicology and
    pharmacological studies on chlordane. Arch. Ind. Hyg.  Occup. Med. 1:197-210.

AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity /riformation /?Etrieval Database), 1995. Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN.

Arruda, J.A., M.S. Cringan, D. Gilliland, S.G. Haslouer, J.E. Fry, R. Broxterman, and K.L.
    Brunson.   1987.  Correspondence between urban areas and the concentrations of chlordane
    in fish from the Kansas River. Bull. Environ. Contam.  Toxicol. 39:563-570.

Beyer, W.N., and C.D. Gish.  1980.   Persistence in earthworms and  potential hazards to birds
    of soil applied DDT, dieldrin and heptachlor.  J. AppL Ecol. 17:295-307.

Buck, W.B., G.D. Osweiler, and G.A. Van Gelder. .1973.   Clinical and Diagnostic Veterinary
    Toxicology.  Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.

Cardwell, R.D. et al.   1977.  Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Chlordane  to Fish  and
    Invertebrates.  EPA/600/3-77/019.  Chemico Process Plants Co.,  El Monte,  California

Claborn, H.V., R.D. Radeleff, and R.C. Bushland.  1960. Pesticide Residues in Meat and
    Milk. ARS-33-63.  U.S. Department of Agriculture. As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980,
    Correlation of bibconcentration factors of chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms
    with their physical and chemical  properties, Environmental Sci. Technol. 14(5):553-556.

Claborn, H.V. 1956.  Insecticide Residues in Meat and Milk. ARS-33-25. U.S.  Department
    of Agriculture. As  cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980, Correlation of bioconcentration factors of
    chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms with their physical and chemical properties,
    Environmental Sci.  Technol. 14(5):553-556.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Chlordane-13


Colombo, J.C., M.F. Khalil, M.Arnac, and A.C. Horth.  1990.  Distribution of Chlorinated
    Pesticides and Individual Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Biotic and Abiotic Compartments
    of the Rio de La Plata, Argentina,  Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 24, No.
    4, pp. 498-505.                                 •   •       .

Deichmann, W.B. and M.L. Keplinger.  1966. Effect of Pesticides on Reproduction of Mice.
    Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Abstracts: Fifth Annual  Meeting, Vol. 8, No. 2,
    pp. 337-338.

Eisler,  R. (ed.), 1990. Chlordane Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic
    Review. Biological Report 85(1.21), Contaminant Hazard Reviews, Report 21, U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

57 FR  24152.  June 5, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7). Draft
    Report: A Cross-species  Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on
    Equivalence of mg/kg3/4/day.

FAOAVHO (Food Agriculture Organization/ World Health Organization). 1968. Evaluations
    of Some Pesticides Residues in Food.  Food and Agriculture Organization in the United
    Nations, Rome.

Gaines, T.B.  1969.   Acute toxicity of pesticides.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.  14:525-534.  As
    cited  in WHO (World Health Organization).  1984. Chlordane, Environmental  Health
    Criteria 34, Geneva, Switzerland.

Garten, C.T.,  and J.R. Trabalka. 1983.  Evaluation of models for predicting terrestrial food
    chain behavior of xenobiotics.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 26(10):590-595.

Goodman, L.R., D.J. Hansen, J.A. Couch, and J.  Forester.  1978. Effects of heptachlor and
       toxaphene on laboratory-reared embryos and fry of the sheepshead minnow.  In:
       Proceedings of the Thirtieth  Annual Conference.  1976. Southeastern Association of
       Fish and Wildlife Agencies,  (pp. 192-202) As cited in Stephan, C.E.   1993.
       Derivations of proposed human health and wildlife bioaccumulation factors for the
       Great  Lakes  Initiative. PB93-154672.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
       Research and Development,  Duluth, MN.

Ingle, L.  1952. Chronic Toxicity of Chlordan to Rats. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occ.  Med. 6: 357-367
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Chlordane -14


Ingle, L.  1965a.  Effects of 1-hydroxychlordene when incorporated into the diets of rats for
    224 days.  Prepared for Velsicol Chemical Corporation. Department of Zoology,
    University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.  As cited in WHO (World Health Organization).
    1984.  Chlordane, Environmental Health Criteria 34, Geneva, Switzerland.

Ingle, L. .1965b.  Monograph on Chlordane-Tqxicological and Pharmacological Properties.
    Library of Congress, Card Number 65-28686A.  Food and Drug Library, University of
    Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

IRDC (International Research and Development Corporation).  1967.  Chlordane, Two-Year
    Chronic Feeding Study in the Beagle Dog. Prepared for Velsicol Chemical Corporation,
    Report 163-001.  International Research and Development Corporation, Mattawan,
    Michigan.  As cited in WHO (World Health Organization).  1984.  Chlordane,
    Environmental Health Criteria 34, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kawano, M., T. Inoue, T. Wada, H. Hidaka, and R. Tatsukawa.  1988.  Bioconcentration and
    Residue Patterns of Chlordane Compounds in Marine Animals:  Invertebrates, Fish,
    Mammals, and Seabirds. Environmental Science and Technology, 22:792-797.

Keplinger, M.L., W.B. Deichmann,  and F. Sala.  1970.  Effects of combinations of pesticides
    on reproduction in mice. In:  Pesticides Symposia,  6th and 7th Inter-American Conf.
    Toxicol.  Occup. Med., Halos  and Associates, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida, pp.  125-138.

Lundholm, C.E.  1988. The Effects of DDE, PCB, and Chlordane on the Binding of
    Progesterone to its Cytoplasmic  Receptor in the Eggshell Gland Mucosa of Birds and the
    Endometrium of Mammalian  Uterus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Vol.
    89C, No. 2, pp. 361-368.

NCI (National Cancer Institute).  1977.  Bioassay of Chlordane for Possible Carcinogenicity.
    NCI Carcinogenesis Technical Report Series, Number 8.

Oliver, B.G., and A.J. Niimi.  1985. Bioconcentration factors of some halogenated organics
    for rainbow trout:  Limitations in their use for predictions of environmental residues.
    Environ.  Sci. Technol. 22:388-397.   As  cited in Stephan, C.E.  1993.  Derivations of
    proposed human health and wildlife bioaccumulation factors for the Great Lakes
    Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office  of Research and
    Development, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                             Chlordane - 15
Oliver, E.G., and A.J. Niimi.  1988.  Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl
    congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario ecosystem.  Environ.
    Sci.  Technol. 22:388-397.

Ortega,  P., W.J. Hayes,  and W.F. Durham.  1957.  Pathologic changes in the liver of rats
    after feeding low levels of various insecticides. Am. Med. Assoc. Arch. Pathol. 64:614-
    622.

RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances). 1994. National Institute for
    Occupational Safety  and  Health, Washington, DC.

Smith, V.E., J.M. Spurr, J.C. Filkins,  and J.J. Jones.  1985.  Organochlorine contaminants of
    wintering ducks  foraging on Detroit River sediments.  J. Great Lakes Res.  11:231-246.

Stephan, C.E.   1993. Derivations of proposed human health and wildlife bioaccumulation
   factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Stohlman, E.F., W.T.S, Thorp, and M.I. Smith.  1950.  Toxic action of chlordane.  J. Ind.
    Hyg.  Occup. Med. 1:13-19.  As cited in WHO (World Health Organization).  1984.
    Chlordane, Environmental Health Criteria 34, Geneva, Switzerland.

Suter II,  G.W.,  J.B.  Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R1.
    U.S.  Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

Talamantes, F. and H. Jang.  1977.  Effects of Chlordane Isomers Administered to Female
    Mice During the Neonatal Period.   Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
    3:713-720,

Thomann, R.V.   1989.. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci.  Technol. 23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of organic
    chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.  Environmental
    Toxicology and Chemistry 11:615-629.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Chlordane -16


Travis, C.C.,  and A.D. Arms.  1988.  Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and
    vegetation.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 22(3):271-274.

Truhaut,  R., J.C. Gak, and C. Graillot. 1974.  Study of the modalities and action mechanisms
    of organochlorine insecticides. I.  Comparative study of the acute toxicity in hamster and
    rat. J. Eur. Toxicol. 7:159-166. As cited in WHO (World Health Organization).  1984.
    Chlordane, Environmental Health Criteria 34, Geneva, Switzerland.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   for Chlordane.   ECAO-C-625.  Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of
    Water Regulations and Standards,  Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1986a.  Health Effects Assessment for
    Chlordane.  EPA540/1-86-023. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
    Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1986b.  Carcinogenicity Assessment of
    Chlordane and Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide.  EPA/600/6-87/004.  Office of Health and
    Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1987.  Drinking Water Criteria
    Document for Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, and Chlordane (Final).  PB89-192157.
    Environmental Criteria and  Assessment  Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, 303 p.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988a.  Recommendations for  and
    Documentation of Biological Values for use in Risk Assessment.  P338-179874.
    Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency).  1988b.  United States Environmental
    Protection Agency Office of Drinking Water Health  Advisories.  Chlordane.  Rev.
    Environ. Contam. Toxicol.  104:47-62.   As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990,
    Chlordane Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review,  Contaminant
    Hazard Reviews  Report 21, Biological Report 85 (1.21), U.S. Department of the Interior.
    Washington, D.C.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      ,        Chlordane-17


U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing
 .   Health Risks Associated with Indirect. Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.
    Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,  Washington, DC. January.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  19935.  Wildlife Criteria Portions of the
    Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.  EPA-822-R-93-006.
    Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Age.ncy).  1993c. Technical Basis for Deriving Sediment
    Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of Benthic
    Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning. EPA/822-R-93/011.  Office of Water,
    Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993i. Interim Report on Data and
    Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks  to Aquatic Life and
    Associated Wildlife.  EPA/600/R-93/055. Office of Research and Development,
    Washington, DC.

Veith, G.D., D.L. DeFoe, and B.V. Bergstedt.  1979.  Measuring and estimating the
    bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish.  J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:1040-1048.

Veith, G.D., D.L. DeFoe, and B.V. Bergstedt.  1979.  Measuring and estimating the
    bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish.  /. Fish. Fes. Board Can. 36:1040-1048.

Ware, G.W. (ed.).  1988.  Reviews of Environmental  Contamination and  Toxicology.
    Continuation  of Residue Reviews, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office
    of Drinking Water Health Advisories, Springer-Verlag, New York, Vol. 104.

Welch, R.M.  1948. Tests of the toxicity to sheep and cattle of certain of the newer
    insecticides.  J. Econ. Entomol. 41:36-39.

Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter, 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effets on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
                                                   Terrestrial To     y - Chlordane
                                                          Cas No. 57-74-9


Chemical
Name

chlordane


chlordane

chlordane


chlordane

chlordane

chlordane





chlordane


chlordane




chlordane



chlordane



Species

mice


rat

rat (m)


rat (f)

mouse (m)

mouse (f)





mice


dog




rat



rat



Endoolnt

rep


hepatic

body wt.


body wl.

mort.

mort.





fet, ter


hepatic


hepatic.
renal, repro.,
cardiac



growth



Description

NOEL


LOAEL

LOAEL


LOAEL

LOAEL

NOAEL





NOAEL


NOAEL




NOAEL



NOAEL



Value

4.37


0.176

20.3


12.1

29.9

63.8





2.3


0.075




0.25



0.73



Units

mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day





mg/kg-day


mg/kg-dav




mg/kg-day



mg/kg-d
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., l.p..
Inlectlon)

oral


oral

oral


oral

oral

oral





oral


oral




oral



oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing

6 generations


9 months

80 weeks


80 weeks

80 weeks

80 weeks





2 years


2-year study




2 years



407 days



Reference

Keplinger et al., 1970


Ortega etal., 1957

NCI, 1977


NCJ. 1977

NCI, 1977

NCI, 1977





Ingle, 1952

IRDC, 1967 as cited in
WHO, 1984




Ingle, 1952



Ambrose et al., 1953



Comments
No significant effects were seen
on fetus viability and fertility.
Doses were 25 and 2.5 ppm. >
Liver cell abnormality noted in
males at the lower dose.
Decreased body weight gain was
noted in high-dose males.
Decreased body weight gain was
noted at both dose levels of
females.
Increased mortality incidence was
noted for male mice.
No mortality differences were
noted for female mice.
Doses were 5, 10, 30. 150, and 300
ppm. Reproductive effects from
maternal transfer (lactation) to
offspring were noted' at 150 and
300 ppm. 30 ppm equivalent to
2.3 mg/kg-d
No liver effects were observed at
this dose level. Sufficient dose-
response.
No symptoms of toxicity, gross or
histopathologic changes in the
liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas,
testes, ovaries, heart, or spleen
were noted at 5 ppm. (this dose)
Sufficient dose-response.
Suggestion of retardation in
growth of males fed equivalent
dose of 1 .45 mq/kq-d.
Chlordane - Page 9

-------
                                            Terrestrial Toxicity - Chlordane
                                                   Cas No. 57-74-9
Chemical
Name
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Species
rat
mouse
rabbit
hamster
chicken
duck
mammal
mallard
California
quail
pheasant
female rat
male rat
rabbit
rabbit
male rat
female rat
Endpolnt
mort.
moil.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
Description
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
Value
200
145
100
1720
220
1200
180
1200
14.1
24.0 - 72.0
530
205
<780
1100-1200
335
430 .
Units
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
Exposure
Route (oral.
B.C., I.V., l.p.,
Injection)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
dermal
dermal
dermal
dermal
oral
oral
Exposure
Duration/Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
U.S. EPA, 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
Gaines, 1969 as cited in
WHO, 1984
Gaines, 1969 as cited in
WHO, 1984
Ingle, 1965a as cited in
WHO, 1984
Ingle, 1965a as cited in
WHO, 1984
Gaines, 1969 as cited in
WHQJ984
Gaines, 1969 as cited in
WHO, 1984
Comments •

-








'





p - Pane 10

-------
                                                     Terrestrial Tc    .y - Chlordane
                                                             Cas No. 57-74-9


Chemical
Name •


chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane



Species


rat

rat

rat

rabbit

hamster

goat

sheep

chicken.

mallard

cow



Endpolnt


mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.

mort.



Description


LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50



Value


200-590

263

350

100-300

1720

180

500-1000

220-230

1200.

25-90



Units

mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
B.C., I.V., l.p..
Inlectlon)


oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing


NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS



Reference
Ambrose et al., 1953
and Ingle, 1965aas
cited in WHO 1984

Bucketal., 1973
Truhaut et al., 1974 as
cited in WHO. 1984
Stohlman et al., 1950 as
cited in WHO, 1984
Truhaut etal.,. 1974 as
cited in WHO, 1984

Welch, 1948

Welch, 1948

FAO/WHO, 1968

Bucketal., 1973

Bucketal., 1973



Comments



'

















      NS=Nol specified
Chlordane - Page 11

-------
                                           Freshwater Toxicity - Chlordane
                                                   Cas No. 57-74-9
Chemical
Name
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Species
fish
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnids
fish
daphnids
fathead
minnow
Endpolnt
chron
chron
chron
chron
chron
chron
chron
mort
Description
NOAEL
AWQC
FCV
CV
CV
EC20
EC20
LC50
Value
<0.1
0.0043
0.17
1.6
16
<0.25
12.1
69 - 180
(112.2)
Units
mg/ kg fresh
weight tissue
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uo/L
uo/L
Test type
(static/ flow
through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
Exposure
Duration/
Tlmlnq
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
4 days
Reference
Arrudaetal , 1987
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
AQUIRE. 1995
Comments








NS = Not specified

-------
                               Freshwater Biological I  .  ie Measures - Chlordane
                                                Cas No. 57-74-9

Chemical
Name

chlordane


chlordane
chlordane

chlordane

chlordane
chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane
chlordane
chlordane

Species
lathead
minnow


fish
fish

fish

fish
fish

fish

fish

rainbow trout

rainbow trout

salmon
carp
salmon ids
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)

BCF


BAF
BCF

BCF

BCF
BCF

BCF

BCF

BAF

BAF

BAF
BSAF
BSAF

Value

37,800


8318
1894

2218

4357
4974

2577

2379

175000

9500

50802
46
2
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)

m


m
P

m

m
m

m

m

m

m

m
P
P

Units

NS


L/kg
NS

NS

NS
NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS
ug/g
UQ/Q

Reference

Veithetal., 1979


Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Stephan, 1993
Goodman et al., 1978 as
cited in Stephan, 1993
U.S. EPA, 1978 as cited in
Stephan, 1993
Veithetal., 1979
Oliver and Niimi, 1985 as
cited in Stephan, 1993
Oliver and Niimi, 1985 as
cited in Stephan, 1 993
Oliver and Niimi, 1985 as
cited in Stephan, 1993
Oliver and Niimi, 1985 as
cited in Stephan, 1993
Oliver and Niimi, 1985 as
cited in Stephan, 1993
Smith et. al., 1985
Oliver and Niimi, 1988

Comments


Microcosm; All estimates were calculated
based on published data; the type of studies
from which the data were taken were not
specified.
Normalized to 1% lipid.

Normalized to 1% lipid.

Normalized to 1% lipid.
Normalized to 1% lipid.

Normalized to 1 % lipid.

Normalized to 1% lipid.

Normalized to 1% lipid.

Normalized to 1% lipid.

Normalized to 1% lipid.


NS = Not specified

-------
                               Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Chlordane
                                               Cas No. 57-74-9
Chemical Name
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Species
earthworm
earthworm
cattle
cattle
swine
swine
cattle (beef)
cattle (milk)
sheep
poultry
rodents
cow
swine
plants
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BTF
BTF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
Value
3
0.24
0.5
0.1
0.32
0.9
0.0074
0.00037
0.89
3.3
0.35
0.32
0.54
260
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)
P
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
P
P
P
P
P
P
Units
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
tat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(mg/kg of
fat)/(mg/kg of
diet)
(ug/gWW
piant)/(ug/mL
soil water)
Reference
Beyer and Gish, 1980
Beyer and Gish, 1980
Claborn et.al., 1960 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Claborn et.al., 1960 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Claborn et.al., 1956 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Claborn et.al., 1956 as cited in
Kenaga, 1980
Travis and Arms, 1988
Travis and Arms, 1988
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
Garten and Trabalka, 1983
U.S. EPA, 1990e
Comments






BTF = Biotransfer factors.
BTF = Biotransfer factors.






NS = Not specified

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                        Chromium (VI) .
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                    Chromium (VI)
                                  Cas No.: 7440-47-3
 Summary:  This profile on chromium (VI) summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
 biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
 factors) for birds, mammals,  daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
 representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
 invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
 mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
 to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic  organisms, and fish
 were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
 Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
 biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized.for the ecological receptors, although
 some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
 Kow between 4 and 6.5: For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological  uptake measures also
 include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire lexicological
 data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
 represents the most current information and may differ from ihe technical support document
 for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and
 Ecological Receptors.
I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated wilh the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  Several studies were identified which investigated the effects of chromium (VI)
exposure in mammals.  Mice given oral doses of 250, 500 and 1000 ppm Cr (VI) as
potassium dichromate in drinking water during gestation days 1 through  19 had increased pre-
implantation and post-implantation losses as well as decreased liiter size (Trivedi et al., 1989).
These ppm values were converted to daily doses by using the reported body of weighi .03 kg
'and daily water consumption given by the equation:

      C = 0.10W°'7377 (Nagy, 1987)
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Chromium (VI) - 2
where C is the water consumption rate and W is the body weight of the test species, which
was reported as being 0.03 kg..  The equivalent daily doses were calculated as being equal to
58, 117, and 233 mg/kg-day.  A LOAEL of 58 mg/kg-day was reported for reproductive
effects. Decreases in motor activity and balance were seen in rats given oral doses of
chromium (VI) at 700  mg/1 as sodium chromate for 28 days.  However, no adverse effects on
motor activity were exhibited by the  treatment group receiving 70 mg/1 (Diaz-Mayans et'al.,
1986).  These mg/1 values were converted to daily doses through the use of the allometric
equation (Nagy, 1987) presented above.  Based on the reported body weight of 0.26 kg, the
water consumption rate was estimated as  being 0.035 I/day.  A NOAEL of 70 mg/1, estimated
as being equivalent to  10.2 mg/kg/day, and a LOAEL of 700 mg/1, equivalent to 102 mg/kg-
day, were  reported for these neurological deficits.  Zahid et al. (1990) fed mice potassium
dichromate at doses of 100, 200 and  400  ppm.  After 7 weeks of treatment, the treatment
group receiving 100 ppm sodium dichromate exhibited reduced sperm counts and
degeneration of the outer cellular layer of seminiferous tubules.  Morphologically altered
sperm were seen in the rats receiving 200 ppm sodium dichromate. The 100 ppm
concentration was converted to a daily dosage value  by multiplying the food consumption per
animal (0.0075 kg/day as was  measured in the study) by the ppm value (100) and dividing by
the geomean of the reported body weights of the mice. Based on these conversions, a
LOAEL of 32.6 mg/kg-day was reported  for alterations in  reproduction.

The Trivedi et al. (1989) study was not chosen for the development of a mammalian
benchmark because the derived LOAEL was not the  lowest value in the data set and- would
therefore not be appropriate as the benchmark value. The  Diaz-Mayans et al. (1986) study
was not selected because it focused on neurological impairment as the primary endpoint rather
than reproductive or developmental endpoints.  As the Zahid et al (1990) study  considered
reproductive effects, illustrated a clear dose-response relationship and represents the lowest
LOAEL identified for reproductive effects, it was chosen for the derivation of a benchmark
value.  The selected study LOAEL, 32.6 mg/kg-day was divided by 10 to  provide a LOAEL-
to-NOAEL safety factor. The  LOAEL-to-NOAEL safety factor of 10 was applied to provide
a conservative estimate of the  NOAEL. The LOAEL/10 from Zahid et al. (1990) was then
scaled for  species that  were representative of the generic freshwater ecosystem using a cross-
species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994):
                         Benchmark  = NOAEL. x
where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species. This is the same
default methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the
Zahid et al. (1990) study documented reproductive effects on male mice, male body weights
for each representative species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain lexicological
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Chromium (VI). 3
benchmarks.  Based on the data set for chromium, and since study value was a LOAEL rather
than a NOAEL, the benchmarks developed from the Zahid et al. (1990) study were
categorized as provisional.

Birds: No sub-chronic or chronic studies demonstrating adequate dose-response relationships
were identified which studied the effects of chromium (VI) toxicity in avian species.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  The Final Chronic Value (FCV) 1.1 E-02 mg/1 reported in
the AWQC document for chromium (U.S.  EPA, 1980) was selected as the benchmark value
protective of fish and aquatic invertebrates. Because the benchmark is based on an FCV
developed for a AWQC, it was categorized as adequate with a "*" to indicate that adverse
effects may occur at the benchmark level.

Aquatic Plants: The benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no observed effects
concentration (NOEC) or a lowest pbserved effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular aquatic
plants (e,g., duckweed) or (2) an effective  concentration (ECXX) for a species of freshwater
algae, frequently a species of green  algae (e.g., Selenastrwn capricornutum).  The  aquatic
plant benchmark for chromium (VI) is 0.002 mg/1  based on the incipient inhibition of
Microcystis aeruginosa.  As described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarks for aquatic plants
were designated as interim.

Benthic community: The chromium (VI) benchmark protective of benthic organisms is
pending a U.S. EPA review  of the acid volatile sulfide (AVS) methodology proposed for
metals.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Chromium (VI) - 4
       Table 1. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with  Freshwater Ecosystem
Raprm«nUttv«
8p*of«»
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark
Value* ro8/fco>
day
1.18(p)
0.75{p)
ID
ID
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Sp«ci«*
<
mouse
mouse

-
•
-

•
-

Elteot
rep
rep
-


-
-
-
-

Study Value
nig/fcg-day
32.6
32.6
- .

-
-

-
•'
-
Dttcriptton
LOAEL
LOAEL

•
•
•




9F
10
10
-
•
• •
• '- .

•
•

Oria^wtSoWC* :
Zahid et al. 1990
Zahid et al. 1990
-
-

•
-

•
•
      'Benchmark Category, a « adequate, p « provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (*) indicates that the benchmark
      value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.


               Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with  Freshwater Ecosystem
RaptMvnittiv*
SP«C!M
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
Beoctonarfc
Vote**
,witfl.
1.1 E-02(a)'
0.002 (i)
under review
- -fcudy
Sp«da*
aquatic
organisms
Microcystis
aaniginosa

Original
Valu»
mg/t
1.1E-02
0.002

Oaacfiptton
FCV
. CV

OrtgfnaJ Soorca
AWQC Table
Suter & Mabrey,
1994
-
      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; ID = insufficient data; a (*) indicates that the
      benchmark value was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Chromium (VI) - 5
II.    Toxicological Benchmarks  for  Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants  and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As discussed in the rationale for the freshwater ecosystem, there were three
possible studies from which to estimate  a benchmark value. Since no additional studies of
terrestrial mammals were  identified, the  same surrogate study (Zahid et al., 1990) was used to
calculate benchmark values for mammalian species representing the general terrestrial
ecosystem.  A LOAEL-to NOAEL  safety factor of 10 was needed to estimate a NOAEL.  The
calculated NOAEL was then scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem using the cross-
species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.  (1994).  Since the Zahid et al.  (1990)
study documented reproductive effects in male mice, male body weights for each
representative  species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological
benchmarks.  Based on the data set for chromium (VI), the benchmarks developed from the
Zahid et al (1990) study were categorized as provisional.

Birds: No  sub-chronic or chronic studies demonstrating adequate dose-response relationships
were identified which studied ihe effects of chromium (VI) toxicity  in avian species.

Plants:   Adverse effects levels for terreslrial planis were identified  for endpoinls ranging
from perceni yield to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank  ordering the Lowest Observable Effecis Conceniration
(LOEC) values and then approximating  the 10th percentile. If  there were 10 values, Ihe  lOih
percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to reductions in plant growth, yield
reductions,  or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the ability of a plant, population  to
sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.  The benchmark for terreslrial planis
was 1.8 mg/kg based on EC50 values of lettuce in loam soil.  This  was the lowest LOEC
presented by Will and Suter (Adema and Henzen, 1989 as cited in Will and Suter, 1994).
The phytotoxicity benchmark was categorized as interim as there were less than 10 values
presented by Will and Suter (1994).

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive  a benchmark  protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Chromium (VI) - 6
        Table 3. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
RepniMnurtv*
. SpftCi** -
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobwhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
ftancbnvwt
Vtiur
rngfttfr*
3.38(p)
3.52(p)
2.79(p)
1.23(p)
0.85(p)
O.B1(p)
0.39
-------
APPENDIX B
Chromium (VI). 7
in.   Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface  water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: fish in the
limnetic or littoral ecosystem, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  For metals, BCFs are whole-body bioconcentration factors
and refer to total surface water concentrations (versus freely dissolved concentrations).
Consequently, all calculations of acceptable tissue concentrations (TC) represent whole-body
concentrations. The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological
uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values.

The whole-body, fish BCF value for chromium VI was the geometric mean of the measured
values,  0.13 and 2.8 (Stephan, 1993).  BCF values for muscle were not included because
ecological receptors  are likely to eat the whole fish or, in the least, will not necessarily
distinguish between  the fillet and other parts of the fish.  Insufficient data were identified to
determine the BCF value in aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, terrestrial
invertebrates and earthworms. A whole plant BCF value of 7.5 E-03 was derived from Baes
et al. (1984). For  metals, empirical data  were used to derive the BCF for aboveground forage
grasses  and leafy vegetables.   In particular, the uptake response slope for forage grasses was
used as the BCF for plants in  the terrestrial ecosystem since most of the representative plant-
eating species feed on wild grasses.

                         Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
«ca logical
r*o*pter
fish
littoral
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
6CF,SA?,ar
BSAF
BCF
•
-
-
-
BCF
Itpid-baMd «w
wfw>4*-bo
-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Chromium (VI) - 8
References
Adema, D.M.M. and L. Henzen.  1989. A comparison of plant toxicities of some industrial
   chemicals in soil culture and soilless culture.  Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 18:219-29.  As cited
   in Will, M.E and G.W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicolpgical Benchmarks for Screening of
   Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision. DE-
   AC05-84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  1993.  Toxicological Profile
   for Chromium.  Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
   Atlanta, GA.

AQUIRE (AOJJatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database). 1995. Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN.

ASTER Ecotoxicity Profile. 1992. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),
   Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, MN.

Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor.  1984. Review and Analysis of
   Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through
   Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,  TN.

Buhler, D. R., et al.  1977.  Tissue accumulation and enzymatic effects of hexavalent
   chromium in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
   Canada 34:9.

Calamari, D.,  et al. 1982.  Toxicokinetics of low levels of Cd, Cr, Ni and their mixture in
   long-term  treatment  on Salmo gairdneri  rich.  Chemosphere  11:59.

Custer, T.  W., J. C. Franson, J.  F. Moore, and J. E. Myers.  1986.  Reproductive success and
   heavy metal contamination in Rhode  Island common terns. Environmental Pollution
   A41:33-52.

Davies, R.D.  1983. Crop uptake of metals (cadminum, lead, mercury, copper, nickel, zinc,
   and chromium) from sludge-treated soil and its implications for soil fertility and for the
   human did. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium,  Brighton, Sept 27-30.
Diaz-Mayans, J., R. Laborda, and A. Nunez. 1986.  Hexavalent chromium effects on motor
   activity and some metabolic aspects of Wistar albino rats. Comparative Biochemistry and
   Physiology 83C191-195.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Chromium (VI) - 9
Eisler, R. 1986. Chromium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
    U.S.-Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. rep. 85(1.6). 60pp.

57  FR 24152. June 5, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7).  Draft
    Report: A Cross-Species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on
    Equivalence of mg/kg3/4/day.

Hale, J.G. 1977. Toxicity of metal mining wastes. Bull.Environ. Contain. andTox. 17(1):66-
    73.

HSDB (Hazardous Substances database). 1992.

Heinz, G. H., and S.  D. Haseltine.  1981. Avoidance behavior of young black ducks treated
    with chromium. Toxicology Letters  8:307-310.

Ivankovic, S., and  R. Preussmann.  1975. Absence of toxic and carcinogenic effects after
    administrations of high doses of chronic oxide pigment in subacute and long term  feeding
    experiments in  rats. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology   13:347-351.

Jouany, J. M, P. Vasseur, and J. F. Ferard.  1982.  Ecotoxicite directe et integree du chrome
    hexavalent sur deux niveaux trophiques associes:  Chlorella vulgaris et Daphnia magna.
    Environmental Pollution 27A:207-221. As cited in U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
    and Wildlife Service,  1986, Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A
    Synoptic Review,  Biological  Report  85(1.6).

Luckey, T.D. and B.  Venugopal. Metal toxicity in mammals (1): Physiologic and chemical
    basis for metal  toxicity.  Plenum Press, N.Y.

Nagy, K.A 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
.    Eco/. Mono. 57:111-128.

Opresko, D.M., B.E.  Sample, G.W. Suter II. 1994.  lexicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Pickering, Q. H. 1980. Chronic toxicity of hexavalent chromium to the fathead minnow.
   Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 9:405-413. As cited in Eisler,
    R. 1986. Chromium hazards  to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.   U.S.
    Fish and Wildl. Serv.  Biol. rep. 85(1.6). 60pp.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Chromium (VI) - 10
Preston, A. M., R. P.-Dowdy, M. A. Preston, and J. N. Freeman.  1976. Effect of dietary
   chromium on glucose tolerance and serum cholesterol in guinea pigs. Journal of Nutrition
   106:1391-1397.  As cited in U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
   1986, Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review,
   Biological Report 85(1.6).  As cited in Outridge, P,. M., and A. M. Scheuhammer.  1993.
   Bioaccumulation and toxicology of chromium: Implications for wildlife, Reviews of
   Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Springer-Verlag New York,  Inc., Vol. 30.

Rehwoldt, R., L. Lasko, C. Shaw, and E. Wirhowski. 1973. The acute toxicity of some heavy
   metal ions toward benthic organisms.  Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10(5):291-294. As
   cited in AQUIRE .(AOUatic Toxicity  Information REtrieval Database).  1995.
   Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Ridgway, L.P.  and D.A Karnofsky. 1952. The effects of metals on the chick embryo:
   Toxicity and production of abnormalities in development. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 55:203.

Romoser, G. L., W. A. Dudley, L. J. Machlin, and  L. Loveless.  1961.  Toxicity of vanadium
   and chromium for the growing chick.  Poultry Science 40:1171-1173.

Ruesink, R.G. and L.L Smith, Jr. 1975. The relationship of the 96-hr LC50 to the Lethal
   Threshold concentration of hexavalent chromium, phenol, and sodium pentachlorophenate
   for	Trans Am. Fish. Soc. 104 (3):567-570.

Satyakala, G. and K. Jamil. 1992. Chromium-induced biochemical changes in Eichhornia
   crassipes (Mart) Solms and Plstia stratiotes L.

Sauter, S., K. S. Buxton, K. J. Macek, and S. R. Petrocelli.  1976.  Effects  of Exposure to
   Heavy Metals  on Selected Freshwater Fish.  Toxicity of Copper, Cadmium,  Chromium and
   Lead to Eggs and Fry of Seven Fish Species.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rep.
   600/3-76-105.  75pp. As cited in U.S.  Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
   Service,  1986, Chromium Hazards to  Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates:   A Synoptic
   Review, Biological Report 85(1.6).

Stephan, C.E. 1993. Derivations of proposed human health and wildlife bioaccumulation
   factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672. Environmental Research
   Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, Duluth,MN.

Stevens, D. G.,  and G. A. Chapman. 1984.  Toxicity of trivalent chromium to early life
   stages of steelhead trout.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry  3:125-133.   As cited
   in U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,. 1986, Chromium Hazards to
   Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.  Biological Report 85(1.6).
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Chromium (VI) . 11
Suter n, G.W., M.A Futrell, and G.A. Kerchner. 1992. lexicological Benchmarks for
   Screening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the Oak
   Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DE93-000719. Office of Environmental
   Restoration and Waste Management, U.S  Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Suter n, G.W. and J.B. Mabrey. 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R1.
   Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy,
   Washington, DC.

Trivedi, B., D. K.  Saxema, and R. C. Murthy. 1989. Embryo toxicity and fetotoxicity of
   orally administered hexavalent chromium  in mice. Reproductive Toxicology  3:275-278.
   As.cited  in Agency for Toxic Substances  and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  1993.
   Toxicological Profile for Chromium. Public Health Service, U.S.. Department of Health
   and Human Services,  Atlanta, GA.

U.S.  EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for
   chromium. 440/5-80-035. As cited in Eisler, R.  1986. Chromium hazards to  fish, wildlife,
   and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. rep. 85(1.6).  60pp.

U.S.  EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1983.  Health Assessment Document for
   Chromium. Office of  Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental
   Assessment,  Environmental  Criteria  and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC
   27711.

U.S.  EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1984.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
   Chromium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rep. 440/5-84-029.  Washington, DC.

U.S.  EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1984.  Health Effects Assessment for Trivalent
   Chromium. EPA/540/1-86-035. Office of Research and Development, Office  of Health and
   Environmental  Assessment,  Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH
   45268.

U.S.  EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1984.  Health Effects Assessment for
   Hexavalent Chromium. EPA/540/1-86-019. Office of Research and Development,  Office
   of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
   Cincinnati, OH 45268.

U.S.  EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1986. Quality Criteria for Water.  EPA
   440/5-86-001.  Washington, DC.
                                      «>»$^
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Chromium (VI) - 12
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
    Chromium.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rep. 440/5-80-035.  As cited in  U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986, Chromium Hazards to Fish,
    Wildlife, and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review, Biological Report 85(1.6).

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1988.  Recommendations for and
    Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment.  PB88-179874.
    Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Research Development,
    Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990. Noncarcinogenic effects of
    Chromium:Update to the health assessment document. EPA/600/8-87/048F. Office of
    Research and Development, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a)  Criteria and Related
    Information for Toxic Pollutants.  Water Management Division, Region IV.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992e.  Technical Support Document for Land
    Application of Sewage Sludge, Volume I and II.  EPA 822/R-93-001a.  Office of Water,
    Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human
    Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-
    154672.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research Development, Duluth,
    MN.-

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Integrated Risk Information System.
    September, 1993.

Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal toxicity in mammals (2): Chemical toxicity of metals
    and metalloids. Plenum Press, N.Y., 1978.

Wittbrodt P.R. and C.D. Palmer. 1994.  Reduction of Cr (VI) by soil fulvic acid.  Presented
    before the Division of Environmental Chemistry, American. Chemical Society, San Diego,
    CA.

Will, M.E and G.W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological  Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects  on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
    840R21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste  Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Chromium (VI) - 13
Zahid, Z. R., Z. S. Al-Hakkak, and A. H. H. Kadhim.  1990. Comparative effects of trivalent
   and hexavalent chromium on spermatogenesis of the mouse.  Toxicology and
   Environmental Chemistry 25:B 1-136.  As cited in  Agency for Toxic Substances and
   Disease Registry (ATSDR).  1993.  Toxicological Profile for Chromium.  Public Health
   Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Tox.   / - Chromium
     Cas No. 7440-47-3
Chemical
Name




chromium



chromium III

chromium III




chromium VI


chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI
Species




common tern



black duck

rat




rat


chicken

mouse

rat
Type of
Effect




dev, rep



behv

dev




path


dev
"
rep

neuro
Description




NOAEL



NOAEL

NOAEL




NOAEL


NOAEL

LOAEL

NOAEL
Value




<8



200

50000




2.4


8

58.3

10.21
Units




ug/g-DW



ppm

"9/9




mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C.. I.V.. i.p.,
injection)




oral



oral

oral




oral


oral

oral

oral
Exposure
Duration
/Timing




NS



5 months

NS




1 year


21 days
gestation
days 1-19

28 days
Reference




Cysteretal.. 1986


Heinz and Haseltine,
1981
Ivankovic and
Preussmann, 1975



MacKenzie et al., 1958
as cited in IRIS. 1992


Rornoser etjil., 1961

Trivedi etal., 1989
Diaz-Mayans et al.,
1986
Comments
Common Tern clutch size,
reproductive success and
growth of young were equal to
or greater than the control, a
less contaminated area. .
No significant difference in the
avoidance response of
ducklings to a fright stimulus
was detected.

50,000 FW
No significant effects were seen
on appearance, weight gain, or
food consumption, and there
were no pathological changes
in the blood or other tissues.
No adverse effects in survival,
growth or food utilization
efficiency.
Increase in fetal resorption and
post-implantation loss.

No effect on motor activity.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Chromium
     Cas No. 7440-47-3
Chemical
Name
chromium VI
chromium VI
NS = Not
specified
Species
rat
mouse

Type of
Effect
neuro
rep

Description
LOAEL
LOAEL

Value
102.1
32.6

Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day

Exposure
Route (oral.
s.c., l.v., i.p.,
injection)
oral
oral

Exposure
Duration
/Timing
28 days
35 days

Reference
Diaz-Mayans et at.,
1986
Zahidetal., 1990

Comments
Decreased motor activity.
Reduced sperm count;
degeneration of outer cellular
layer of seminiferous tubules.


-------
Freshwater Toxicily - Chromium
      Cas No. 7440-47-3
Chemical
Name

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI


chromium VI
Species

brook trout
fathead
minnow

lake trout
channel
catfish

bluegill

white sucker

northern pike


walleye
Type of
Effect

dev.rep

dev.rep

dev.rep

dev.rep

dev.rep

dev.rep

dev.rep


Description

CV

CV

CV

CV

CV

CV

CV


dev.rep |CV
Value

200-350

1000-3950

105-194

150-305

522-1122

290-538

538-963


>2161
Units

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

UQ/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

•-
ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS .

NS


NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing
- •
NS

NS

NS

NS

NS .

NS

NS


NS
Reference
EPA. 1980 as cited in
Eisler. 1986.
Pickering, 1980 as cited in
Eisler. 1986.
Sauter et al., 1976 as cited
in EislerL1986.
Sauter et al., 1976 as cited
in Eisler, 1986.
Sauter et al., 1976 as cited
injEisler, 1986.
Sauter et al., 1976 as cited
in Eisler, 1986.
Sauter et al., 1976 as cited
in Eisler, 1986.
_
Sauter et al.. 1976 as cited
in Eisler, 1986.
Comments















•


-------
Freshwater To	iy-Chromium
     Cas No. 7440-47-3
Chemical
Name

chromium VI
chromium VI
chromium VI
chromium VI
chromium VI


chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI

chromium VI
Species
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
fish
daphnid

fathead
minnow

striped bass

bluegill

daphnid

rainbow trout

rainbow trout
Type of
Effect

chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic


acute

acute

acute

acute

dev, rep

dev.rep
Description

AWQC
CV
CV
EC20
EC20


LC50

LC50

LC50

LC50

CV

CV
Value

11
73.18
6.132
51
0.5
37,000 -
52,000
(44,157)

17,700

113,000

435

51-105

200-350
Units

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L


ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

"9/L

ug/L

ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS


NS
•
NS

NS

NS

NS

NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing

NS
NS
NS
NS_
NS


96-hour

96-hour

96 hours

24 hours
,
NS

NS
Reference

U.S. EPA, 1986
Suteretal., 1992
Suter et al.. 1992
Suteretal . 1992
Suteretal., 1992

Reusink et al., 1975 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Rehwoldtetal.. 1973 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
U.S. EPA, 1980 as cited in
Eisler.J986
Jouany et al., 1982 as cited
inEisler, 1986
Sauter et al., 1976 as cited
inEisler, 1986
EPA, 1980 as cited in
Eisler, 1986.
Comments











Water hardness=44 mg
CaCO3/L.



For 34 mg CaCO3/L

For 45 mg CaCO3/L

-------
l-reshwater To.  ,y - Chromium
      Cos No. 7440-47-3
Chemical
Name

chromium III

chromium III
chromium III
chromium III
chromium III
chromium III
chromium III
- Species

Cladoceran
Fathead
minnow
Rainbow
trout
aquatic
organisms
fish
daphnid
fish
NS = Not specified
Type of
Effect

dev.rep

dev.rep
dev.rep
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic

Description

cy

CV
CV
NAWQC
CV
CV
EC20

Value

47-93

750-1400
30-157
210
68.B3
<44
89

Units

ug/L

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

NS

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

Exposure
Duration
/Timing

NS

NS .
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS 	

Reference
EPA. 1980 as cited in
Eisler, 1986.
EPA, 1980 as cited in
Eisler, 1986.
Stevens & Chapman, 1985
as cited in Eisler, 1986.
U.S. EPA, 1986
Suleretal.,1992
SuteretaJ., 1992
SuteretaJ.. 1992

Comments











-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Chromium
              Cas No. 7440-47-3
Chemical
Name
chromium
chromium
chromium VI
Species
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
fish
NS = Not specified
B-faclor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF

Value
0.13
2.80
16

Measured
or
Predicted
(m.p)
NS
NS
NS

Units
NS
NS
LAg

Reference
Buhleretal., 1977
Calamari, 1982
U.S. EPA. 1992

Comments
Muscle BCF.
Muscle BCF.
Normalized to 3% lipid.


-------
Terrestrial Biological Up.   .a Measures - Chromium
              Cas No. 7440-47-3


.
Chemical Name

chromium VI



Species

plant

B-Iaclor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)

BCF



Value

1.1
Measured
or
Predicted
(ro.P)

P



units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)



Reference

U.S. EPA, 1990e



Comments
..»'-.'

                                                                                             I

-------
Terrestrial Biological Up.  .e Measures - Chromium .
              Cos No. 7440-47-3


.
Chemical Name

chromium VI



Species

plant

B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)

BCF



Value

1.1
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)

P



units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)



Reference

U.S. EPA, 1990e



Comments



-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Chrysene-1


                  Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                        Chrysene
                                  CasNo.: 218-01-9
Summary: This profile on chrysene summarizes the toxicological benchmarks and biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for
birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants  and benthic organisms representing the
generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for
developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population
sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids,  benthic organisms, and fish were generally adopted
from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality Criteria).  Bioconcentration
factors (BCFs), .bioaccumulation  factors (BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification
factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the
freshwaterecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log K,,w between 4 and 6.5.
For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also include terrestrial
vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire toxicological data base compiled
during this effort is presented at  the end of this profile.  This profile represents the most
current information and may differ from the information presented in the technical support
document for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human
and Ecological Receptors."
I.      Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals  and birds  associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  Adequate toxicity data focusing on critical endpoints pertinent to population
sustainability were not  identified.  Therefore, benchmarks protective of the mammalian
community in a freshwater ecosystem were not derived.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Chrysene-2


Birds: The only identified avian study documented a NOAEL for chrysene exposure to
mallard ducks. Hoffman and Gay  (1981) observed embryotoxic effects from  a one-time
application of chrysene to the shell surface of mallard eggs at 72 hours of development
(observation period through day 18 of incubation).  Eggshell  surfaces were coated with a 10
ul of a synthetic petroleum hydrocarbon mixture containing  0.05%, 0.15% and 0.5%
chrysene. Although the application of a "mixed" solution may seem to confound any results,
a control group receiving 10 ul per egg of the petroleum hydrocarbon mixture minus any
chrysene concentration was maintained.  Hoffman and Gay (1981) documented a significant
reduction of embryonic growth and an increased incidence of abnormal survivors for
eggshells exposed to 0.15% chrysene. The 0.05% dose was inferred as the NOAEL, since
this dose did not result in a further reduction of mallard embryo survival.

There are particular concerns associated with using the Hoffman and Gay (1981) study to
extrapolate an avian benchmark, particularly with respect to. the application method and one-
time dosing regime. The laboratory application of pipetting the chrysene mixture, directly onto
the eggshell surface corresponds to a worst-case wildlife exposure scenario involving the
same absorption rate, exposure during the same critical life stage, and direct contact between
the egg and chrysene-contaminated soil. Thus, the  study provides a very conservative
estimate of the effects of chrysene  exposure on mallard  eggs  in the environment. Derivation
of a  benchmark value is geared to  the modeling of  a chronic  or multiple-day critical life stage
dose, not a single, one-time dose to an egg.  Consequently, avian benchmark values for the
freshwater ecosystem were  not derived.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates'. A  review of the litereature revealed that AWQC and
adequate toxicity data focusing on  critical endpoints pertinent to fish and  aquatic invertebrate
population sustainability were not identified for chrysene.  There is insufficient data and, thus
no benchmark was derived.

Aquatic Plants:   The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
observed effects concentration  (NOEC) or a lowest observed  effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g.,  Selenastrum capricornutum).
Adequate data for the development of benchmarks for chrysene were not  identified in Suter
and Mabrey (1994)  or in AQUIRE,

Benthic community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method.  The EQp method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or Secondary Chronic Value (SCV), along with the fraction of organic carbon and the
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Chrysene - 3
octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^.) to determine protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993).  The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present in the
sediment while  still protecting the benthic community from harmful effects from chemical
exposure.  No FCV or SGV was reported for chrysene and, therefore, no benchmark was
developed.
          Table 1. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Repraeentatiw
Specie*
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark Value*
mg/kg-day
. ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID _
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Spedee
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
. -
Effect

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Study Value
rng/kg-day
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
Description
-
-
-
•
_
.
-
. •-
-
'
SF
-
•-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Original Source
.
• -
-
••
-
.
-

-
-
'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = intermim; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
                                                                       Chrysene - 4
               Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                          Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Rtprwtntdiw
SpiOlM
fish and
aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
bentfiic
community
BwicfvMrii
VtflM
mgfl
ID

No data
10

StudySpcdM
.

-
.

Description
.

-
.

Origin!
Soum
.

-


•II.
               'Benchmark .Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = intermim; a "*" indicates that the benchmark value was an
               order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other advene effects.
               ID = Insufficient Data
Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
 This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
 media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains benchmarks
 for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial
 ecosystem.                                             .                  -     .

 Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

 Mammals: As discussed previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
 subchronic or chronic toxicity studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to
 chrysene.  Since no  additional  laboratory mammal studies focusing on reproductive or other
 critical endpoints were identified, a mammalian benchmark for terrestrial ecosystems was not
 derived.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Chrysene-5


Birds: For reasons previously mentioned in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, the
Hoffman and Gay (1981) studywas not used to calculate a benchmark value for avian species.
No additional toxicity studies documenting  avian exposure to chrysene were identified and,
therefore avian benchmarks for the terrestrial ecosystem were not developed.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were  identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root lengths.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical,  the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there  were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However,  terrestrial plant studies were not identified for chrysene and,  as a result, a
benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community:  Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Chrysene - 6
                     Table 3. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals
                     and Birds Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem


deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American woodcock
plants
soil community
BwieimMfk Valur
m0kg4ay
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
No data
No data
Study SpodM •
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•-
-
-
- '
cflMt
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
' -
-
'
-
-
Study V«ta»
utgflig-dtr
-
-
• -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
. -
Description
-
-
-
-
•
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8F

-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Origin*) Sourca

•
.
-
-
-

-

. -

-
-
-
       'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = intermim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value  was an
       order of magnitude or more above Hie NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data
III.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents the biological uptake measures (i.e., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcnetrate
and/or bioaccumulate in  the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake
values and sources are  presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: tropic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and  littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertbrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is  identified as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the  generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are deignated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 Chrysene - 7


concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemicals with log K^ values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log K^, values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to refer to total water concentrations and concentrations in fish.  The following
discussion  describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the
context for  interpreting the biological uptake values presented  in Table 4.

As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thomann  (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the littoral
ecosystem.  However, these models were considered inappropriate to estimate BAF/s for
chrysene because they fail to consider  metabolism in fish.  A number of studies have
demonstrated that polycyclic aromatic  hydrocarbons (PAHs) such  as chrysene are readily
metabolized in the tissue of fish (see Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish,
Wildlife, and Invertebrates:  A Synoptic Review.  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol.  Rep.
85[1.11].  The BAF/s selected for fish  in the limnetic and littoral  ecosystems for chrysene are
from Stephan (1993). This document contains unpublished field data by Burkard with
predicted BAPs of 17 to 228 for four PAHs for fish with 5% lipids.  Steady-state measured
data on biological uptake of chrysene (and most PAHs) are very limited at this time and
should be interpreted  with caution.  Since no measured fish BCf values were identified,  the
fish BAF reported by Stephan (1993) was used for bioconcentration factor for fish.

The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, earthworms and
terrestrial invertebrates were estimated  as described in Section  5.3.5.2.3. Briefly, the
extrapolation method  is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that, the
partitioning  to tissue is dominated by lipids.  For hydrophobic  organic constituents, the
bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above
ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.  The  BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation,
direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and  uptake into the plant  through air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
                                                                                                                  1
APPENDIX B
Chrysene - 8
                                    Table 4.  Biological Uptake
ecological
receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
. invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
•
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
UpkMMMdor
wboksbody
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
-
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
value
800 (t)
800 (t)
800 (t)
800 (t)
800(0
ID
6.7 E-03
6.5E-03
5.2E-02
1.9E-02
source
measured; Stephan. 1993
measured; Stephan, 1993
Based on a geometric mean of
field BAF for 2 ring PAHs
(Stephan. 1993)
measured; Stephan. 1993
measured; Stephan. -1993
-
calc
calc
calc
U.S. EPA. I990e
        d = refers to dissolved surface water concentration
        t = refers to total surface water concnetration
        ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               Chrysene-9


 References

 AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN.                     '

 Eastmond, D. A., G. M. Booth, and M. L.Lee, 1984.  Toxicity, accumulation, and elimination
    of polycyclic aromatic sulfur heterocycles in Daphnia magna. Arch. Environ.  Contam.
    Toxicoi, 13(1): 105-111.

 Hoffman, D. J. and M. L. Gay, 1981.  Embryotoxic effects of benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,  and
    7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene in petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures in Mallard ducks.
    Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 7:775-787.

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database.  October 1994.
                                      /                       '
 National Library of Medicine. HSDB (Hazardous Substance Database). 1994.

 Newsted, J.  L. and J. P. Giesy, 1987.  Predictive models for photoinduced acute toxicity of
    polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Daphnia Magna, Strauss (Cladocera, Crustacea).
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 6, pp. 445-461.

 Stephan, C. E.  1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672. Environmental Research Laboratory,
    Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. PB93-154672.

Suter,  G. W. Et, and J. B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of
    Potential Contaminants of Concenr for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-
    AC05-84OR21400;  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Thomann, R. V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation model  of organic chmeical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6): 699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P. Connolly, .and T. F. Parkerton.   1992. An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulationin aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  11:61.5 - 629,
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Chrysene-10


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
   Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final. Office of
   Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D. C. January.

Will, M. E. and  G. W.  Suter II. 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ERfTM-
   85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
                                                         Terrestrial Toxicity - Chrysene
                                                              Cos No.:  218-01-9



Chemical Name
chrysene



chrysene



Species
mouse



mallard duck



Endpolnt
acute



embryotoxic



Description
LD50



NOAEL



Value
>320



0.09



Units
mg/kg



mg/kg-egg wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., l.p.,
Injection)
i.p.

applied to
eggshell
surface

Exposure
Duration /
Tlmlna
NS


1 -18 days of
incubation



Reference
RTECS. 1994


Hoffman and Gay,
1981



Comments
-
Study doses were 0.005. 0.015 and 0.05 ug/egg (equivalent
to 0.09, 0.27, 0.9 ug/kg fresh weight), significant reduction of
embryonic growth and an increased incidence of abnormal
survivors.
NS = Not Specified

-------
                                   Freshwater Biological Up.-ste Measures - Chrysene
                                                 Cos No.: 218-01-9
Chemical Name
chrysene
chrysehe
chrysene
Species
aquatic organisms
Daphnia magna
Daphnia maqna
B-factor (BCF,
BAF. BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF
Value
1,762
6,088.40
5,500
Measured 01
Predicted
(m,p)
P
P
p
Units
NS
NS
NS
Reference
U.S.EPA, 1993b
Newsled & Geisy, 1987
Eastmond et al., 1984
Comments
BCF normalized to 1 % lipid
.
Maximum predicted BCF is reported.
NS = Not Specified

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Chrysene
              Cos No.: 218-01-9



Chemical Name
-

chrysene



Species


plant

B-f actor
(BCF. BAF.
BMR


BCF



Value


0.019
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.o)


p



Untts
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)



• Reference


U.S. EPA, 1990e



Comments

Plant uptake from soil pertains to
foraaed plants

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Copper - 1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                       Copper
                                 Cas No.:  7440-50-8
Summary:  This profile  on copper summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for birds,
mammals, daphnids and  fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the generic
freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic terrestrial
ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for developmental,
reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks
for daphnids, benthic organisms,  and fish were  generally  adopted  from existing regulatory
benchmarks  (i.e.,  Ambient Water  Quality  Criteria).    Bioconcentration  factors (BCFs),
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification  factors (BMFs) are  also
summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were
calculated for organic constituents with log Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For .the terrestrial ecosystem,
these  biological uptake measures  also  include terrestrial vertebrates and  invertebrates (e.g.,
earthworms). The entire lexicological data base compiled during this effort is presented at the
end of this profile.  This profile represents the most current information and may differ from the
data presented in the technical  support document for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule.
(HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.
I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic  Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for Ihe generic freshwater ecosystem. Table 1 contains benchmarks
for mammals  and birds associated  wilh  ihe  freshwater ecosystem  and  Table 2  contains
benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems,  including aquatic
plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  One suitable chronic study, documenting mammalian wildlife exposure to copper, was
identified. Developmenlal endpoinis were investigated in mink mating pairs fed a diel of 25, 50,
100 or 200 ppm copper for 357 days (Aulerich el al., 1982). Allhough no adverse effecis were
see.i at the lowesl dose, increased mortality of offspring from birth to 4 weeks occurred in the
group given 50 ppm. Therefore, a NOAEL of 25 ppm and a LOAEL of 50 ppm were inferred
based on these developmental effects in young mink.  Since the mink's food consumption was
not provided, an allometric equation was required lo estimate daily food intake:

      Food consumption = 0.235(W°'822)  where  W is body weight in grams (Nagy, 1987).
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  DDT - 1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                         DDT
                                   Cas No.: 50-29-3
 Summary:  This profile on DDT summarizes the lexicological  benchmarks and  biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for birds,
mammals,  daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the generic
freshwater  ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic terrestrial
ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for developmental,
reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks
for daphnids,  benthic organisms, and fish  were generally adopted  from existing regulatory
benchmarks  (i.e.,  Ambient Water  Quality  Criteria).    Bioconcentration  factors (BCFs),
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs)  and, if available,  biomagnification  factors  (BMFs) are  also
summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were
calculated for organic constituents with log Kow between 4 and 6.5. For the terrestrial ecosystem,
these biological uptake measures also  include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g.,
earthworms).  The entire lexicological data base compiled during this effort is presented at the
end of this  profile.  This profile represents the most current information and may differ from the
data presented in the technical support document for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.
I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative  Species  in  the  Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological  benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains benchmarks
for mammals  and  birds  associated  with  the freshwater  ecosystem and  Table 2  contains
benchmarks for  aquatic organisms in the limnetic  and  littoral ecosystems, including aquatic
plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic  organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife in
which dose-response data were reported.  However, several chronic and  subchronic  toxicity
studies involving DDT and its metabolites (i.e., DDE and/or DDD) have been conducted using
laboratory rats.  Oral acute toxicity values presented in the Great Lakes Initiative (EPA, 1993b)
demonstrate that the rat is among the most  sensitive of the mammalian species tested for the
acute effects of DDT.  Liver toxicity was observed in a subchronic study (Mitjavila et al., 1981)
in  which male rats were administered DDT at 14.5 mg/kg-day by gavage for a period of 52 days.
Liver toxicity was also observed in rats fed DDT at concentrations of 0,  1, 5, 10, or 50 ppm for
1-27 weeks, and a NOAEL of 0.05 mg/kg-day (1 ppm)  was estimated (Laug et al., 1950). A
chronic reproductive study was identified in  which rats were fed a diet that contained 0, 10, 50,
100, and 160 ppm DDT for a period of two  years (Fitzhugh, 1948).  Fitzhugh (1948) observed
                      sw^^
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Biological bt  ..*e Measures - Copper
             Cas No. 7440-5O8
Chemical
Name
copper
Species
plant
B-factor
(BCF, BAF.
BMP)
BCF
Value
0.9
Measured
or
Predicted
.-JGIPL.
P
units
(ug/gDW
plant)/(ug/g soil)
Reference
U.S. EPA, I990e
Comments


-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  DDT-2
the number of litters,-number of live young at birth, average weight at birth, and the number of
young surviving the weaning period and reported a NOAEL of 10 ppm for reproductive effects.
The 10 ppm level was convened a daily dose of 0.815 mg/kg, assuming an average female body
weight of 0.33 kg  (U.S. EPA, 1988) and a food consumption  rate based on the following
equation:

      Food intake = 0.056W0'6611, where W is body weight in kg (U.S. EPA, 1988).

The NOAEL in Fitzhugh's study was chosen to derive the toxicological benchmark because (1)
it  focused  on  reproductive  toxicity as a critical  endpoint  and  (2)  chronic exposures were
administered via oral ingestion.  The study by Mitjavila et al., (1981) was not selected because
of  insufficient  dose-response data  and  it did  not  evaluate reproductive or developmental
endpoints.  Similarly,  the study  by Laug et al., (1950) was not  selected for the derivation of a
benchmark because  the study was subchronic (27 weeks) and did not evaluate reproductive or
developmental endpoints.  Nevertheless, these studies illustrate  the dose ranges at which DDT
toxicity occurs.

Based on the NOAEL of 0.815 mg/kg-day in the  Fitzhugh (1948) study, the benchmarks for
representative  freshwater mammals  were estimated  using a cross-species scaling algorithm
adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).

                                                   ( b\v V4
                           Benchmark  = NOAEL. x  	L
                                                   VKJ

This is the  same methodology  the  EPA uses in carcinogenicity  assessments and reportable
quantity documents  for adjusting animal data to an  equivalent human dose.  Since the Fitzhugh
(1948) study documented reproductive effects to weanling rats from DDT exposure via maternal
transfer, female body weights for each representative species were used in the scaling algorithm
to  obtain the toxicological benchmarks.

Data were available  on the reproductive and developmental, effects of DDT, as well as chronic
survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies  which were conducted over chronic and
subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages. There were several study values in the data
set which were lower than  or approximately equal  to  the benchmark value.  These values
corresponded to effects on  behavioral and hepatic endpoints.  All of the studies identified were
conducted using laboratory rats  or mice and as such, inter-species differences among wildlife
species were not identifiable.  Therefore, an inter-species  uncertainty factor  was not applied.
Based on  the  data set for toxaphene  and  because the  NOAEL  for  reproductive and
developmental effects was at  least an order of  magnitude above the lowest NOAEL  for
nonreproductive  or  nondevelopmental  effects, the  benchmarks for DDT were categorized  as
adequate*.

Birds: Several studies were identified on mallards, kestrels, and pelicans  which focused on the
reproductive effects  of DDT  and/or DDE and DDD.  Studies  on both  DDT and its  metabolites .
were considered for deriving toxicological benchmarks for birds in freshwater ecosystems.  Heath

August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                  DDT - 3
et al. (1969) demonstrated significant reduction in eggshell thickness for mallards ingesting DDT
and/or DDE (10 to 40 ppm in  feed) for a period ranging  from 5 weeks prior to egg laying
through two years.   Heath et al., (1969) observed the following  reproductive  endpoints in a
dietary study in female mallards: percent cracked eggs, embryo mortality, hatchling survivability,
and number of ducklings per hen.   A LOAEL of 0.58 mg/kg-day (10 ppm) was  recorded for
DDE; a LOAEL of 1.45 mg/kg-day (25 ppm) and a NOAEL of 0.58 mg/kg-day  (10 ppm) were
recorded for DDT.  The differences in potency observed  by Heath et al., (1969) were DDE >
DDD > DDT.  Similar eggshell thinning was observed at 20 ppm (1.16 mg/kg-day) and no effect
was observed at 2 ppm (0.116 mg/kg-day) after dietary administration of DDT to female mallards
(Davison and  Sell,  1974).  In  American kestrels, Peakall et al. (1973)  measured eggshell
thickness, breaking strength, and permeability after dietary administration of 3, 6,  and 10 ppm
of DDE.  Significant effects on each of these endpoints  were observed at the  lowest dietary
concentration.  Using a default female kestral body weight of 127 g (U.S. EPA, 1993a)  and a
daily food intake rate of 0.037 kg/d, the  LOAEL determined for this study  is 0.87 mg/kg-d (3
ppm). Anderson et al. (1975) studued the reproductive success of brown pelicans off the coast
of California in the early 1970's.  During the period of observation, combined concentrations of
DDT, DDD, and DDE in the food source steadily declined from 4.27 ppm (wet weight) to 0.15
ppm.  At 0.15 ppm, Anderson et al. (1975) determined that the fledgling rate was 30 percent
below the rate  necessary to maintain a stable population. Based on these findings, a LOAEL of
0.15 ppm (0.028 mg/kg-day) for total DDT for reproductive  success  (U.S. EPA, 1993b).

The study by Peakall et  al. (1973) was judged to be the most appropriate for the derivation of
a benchmark value for avian species representing the freshwater ecosystem.  Although the pelican
study  was conducted in the field, Anderson  et al., (1975)  noted  that the pelicans  were also
exposed to PCBs, lead and mercury at consistent levels throughout the life  of the  study.  This
is a significant factor since recent findings suggest that low-levels of chemicals that impact  the
endocrine system (e.g., PCBs, lead, and mercury) may impair reproductive success and, possibly,
act in an additive or synergistic manner (Colbom et al., 1993; Thomas and Colbom, 1992). The
Peakall et al. (1973) study  on kestrels was selected to derive the DDT lexicological benchmark
for birds because: (1) confounding exposures to other endocrine disrupters (besides DDT) were
not addressed in the pelican study, (2) the kestrel is a representative species and is taxonomically
similar to the eagle,  osprey and hawk, and (3) the pelican typically dwells in coastal areas and
is more representative  of  marine or .estuarine birds than  birds associated with  the generic
freshwater or terrestrial ecosystems.

The LOAEL of 0.87 mg/kg-day (3 ppm) from the Peakall et  al. (1973) was selected, as detailed
above, for benchmark derivation.   A LOAEL-to-NOAEL safety factor of  10 was applied to
account the uncertainty between the study LOAEL and the desired NOAEL.  The principles  for
allometric scaling were assumed to apply to birds, although  specific studies supporting allometric
scaling for avian species were not identified.  Thus,  for the avian species representative of a
freshwater ecosystem, the LEL/10 of 0.087 mg/kg-day from  the Peakall et al. (1973) study was
scaled using the cross-species scaling method of Opresko et  al.  (1994).

Data were available on the reproductive and developmental,  effects of DDT, as well  as growth
or chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained  studies which were conducted over

August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                  DDT - 4
 chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages.  There were no study values
 in the data set which  were more than an order of magnitude lower than the benchmark value.
 Due to the limited range of species which were tested , inter-species differences among wildlife
 species could not be identified.  Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied.
 Based on the data set for DDT and because the  benchmarks are based on a  LEL/10, the
 benchmarks were categorized as provisional.

 Fish and aquatic invertebrates: Based on the Final Residue Value (FRY), the AWQC for DDT
 is 1.0 E-6 mg/1  (57 FR  60911).  The FRY was  not considered to be appropriate for the
 development of a benchmark for daphnids because it is intended to protect fish and other wildlife,
 which consume aquatic organisms, from the adverse effects of chemicals that may bioconcentrate.
 Also, the FRY was not an appropriate benchmark value because residues and bioaccumulation
 are already taken into account by the Thomann et al. (1992) model.  Instead of the FRY, the
 Secondary  Chronic Value (SCV) was selected as the benchmark protective  of daphnids.  The
 SCV, as calculated by GLI (1992), is 1.3 E-5 mg/1. Because the benchmark is based on an SCV
 developed for the Great Lakes Initiative, the benchmark  is categorized as interim.

 Aquatic Plants: The toxicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no observed
-effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed  effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular
 aquatic plants  (e.g., duckweed)  or  (2)  an effective  concentration (ECXX) for  a species  of
 freshwater  algae, frequently  a species of green  algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum). The
 benchmanrk for aquatic plants was reported as 3.0 E-4 mg/1 for growth and morphology effects
 (Suter and Mabrey,.1994). As described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarks  for aquatic plants were
 designated  as interim.

 Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms  were determined using
 the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method.  The EQP method uses a Final Chronic Value (FCV) or
 other chronic water quality measure,  along with the fraction of organic carbon and the octanol-
 carbbn partition coefficient (K,,,.)  to determine a chemical concentration  that  may be present in
 the sediment while still protecting the benthic community (Stephan, 1993). The EQp number is
 the best recommendation of a chemical concentration that may be present in the sediment while
 still protecting the benthic community from  harmful effects resulting from  possible  chemical
 exposure.  The Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 1.3 E-5 mg/1 for fish and aquatic invertebrates
 FCV  developed for the AWQC.  This value was used to calculate  an  EQp number of 81.9 mg
 DDT /kg organic carbon.  Assuming  a mass fraction of organic  carbon for the sediment (f^ of
 0.05,  the benchmark for the benthic community is 4.1 mg/kg. Since the EQp number was based
 on a SCV and not an FCV, the sediment  benchmark is categorized as  interim.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
DDT-5
       Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                          Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
ffoprMentaiiv*
9p*oi+»
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
groat blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
•herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark
V«!U** mg/kB"
<>«y
0.67 (a')
0.38 (a*)
0.04 (p)
, 0.05 (p)
0.04 (p)
0.05 (p)
0.06 (p)
0.1 1(p)
0.05 (p)
0.08 (p)
Study
Sptcif*
rat
rat
kestrel
kestrel
kestrel
kestrel
kestrel
kestrel
kestrel
kestrel
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
Study Value
me'ks-d*?
0.815
0.815
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
Dwcrtptiofl
NOAEL
NOAEL
. LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
*
\-.
-
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
OrtgNHSovw*
Pitzhugh, 1948
Fitzhugh, 1948
Peakall et al.,
1973
Peakall etal.,
1973
Peakall etal.,
1973
Peakall etal.,
1973
Peakall et al..
1973
Peakall et al.,
1973
Peakall etal.,
1973
Peakall etal..
1973
      •Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p * provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                          DDT-6
              Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                         Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
{topr«*entatlv«
SfMQlO*
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic
community
Benchmark
V«Ju»*
IBflfl
1.3E-05(i)
3.0E-04 (i)
4.1 (i) mg/kg
sediment
Study Sp«cfe*
AWQC species
aquatic plants
AWQC species
D«»cflpUon
SCV
cv
SCV
OfiQtavf Seure*
GLI, 1992
Suter and Mabrey,
1994
GLI. 1992
IL
  •Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p « provisional, i = interim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
  of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.


Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to DDT and its
metabolites. Because of the lack of additional  mammalian toxicity studies, the same
surrogate-species study (Fitzhugh, 1948) was used to derive the DDT toxicological benchmark
for mammalian species representing the terrestrial ecosystem.

Based on the NOAEL of 0.815 mg/kg-day in the Fitzhugh  (1948) study, the benchmarks for
representative terrestrial ecosystem mammals were estimated using a cross-species scaling
algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the Fitzhugh (1948) study documented
reproductive effects to weanling rats from DDT exposure via maternal  transfer, female body
weights for each representative species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the
toxicological benchmarks.

Data were  available on the reproductive and developmental, effects of DDT, as well as
chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted over
chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages. There were several study
values in the data set  which  were lower than or approximately equal to the benchmark value.
These values corresponded to effects on behavioral and hepatic endpoints.  All of the  studies
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 DDT - 7
identified were conducted using laboratory rats or mice and as such, inter-species differences
among wildlife species were not identifiable.  Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor
was not applied.  Based on  the data set for DDT and because the NOAEL for reproductive
and developmental effects was at least an order of magnitude above the lowest NOAEL for
nonreproductive or nondevelopmental effects, the  benchmarks for DDT were categorized as
adequate*.

Birds: No additional avian  toxicity studies were identified for species representing the
generic terrestrial  ecosystem.  Therefore, the LOAEL of 0.87 mg/kg-day (3 ppm) from the
Peakall et al. (1973) was selected for benchmark derivation. A LOAEL-to-NOAEL safety
factor of 10 was applied to  account the uncertainty between the study LOAEL and  the desired
NOAEL.  As was the case for birds in the freshwater ecosystem, allometric scaling of the
LOAEL/10 was performed using the method of Opresko et al.  (1994).

Data were available on the reproductive and developmental, effects of DDT, as well as
growth or chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted
over chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages.  These values
corresponded to effects on behavioral and developmental endpoints.  Due to the limited range
of species which were tested , inter-species differences among  wildlife species could not be
identified.  Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied. Based on the data
set for DDT and because the benchmarks are based on a LOAEL/10, the benchmarks  were
categorized as provisional.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then  approximating the
10th percentile.  If there were  10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.
If there were more than 10 values, the  10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such  LOECs  applied
to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair
the ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were  not identified for DDT and, as a result, a benchmark
could not be developed.

Soil Community:  Adequate  data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
DDT-8
       Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
ft*pf«*«ntaiiv*
Sp«clM
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red- tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American woodcock
plants
soil community
Benchmark
VaKM* mgftfi*

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                   DDT - 9
in.   Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems,  the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemicals with log Kow  values below 4, ,bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log  Kow  values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to refer to total water concentrations unless the BCFs were calculated using
models based on the relationship between dissolved water concentrations and concentrations
in fish.  The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in
Table 4.

Because the log Kow for TCDD is above 6.5 (i.e., 6.91), the Thomann (1989)  and Thomann et
al., (1992) models were  not used to estimate bioaccumulation factors.  For extremely
hydrophobic constituents, the Agency has stated that reliable measurements of ambient water
concentrations (especially dissolved concentrations) are not  available and that  accumulation of
these constituents in fish or other aquatic organisms cannot be referenced to a water
concentration as required for a BCF or BAF (U.S. EPA, 1993i).  However, extremely
hydrophobic constituents can be measured in sediments and aquatic life and, because these
chemicals tend to partition to lipids and organic carbon, a biological uptake factor that reflects
the relationship between sediment concentrations and organism concentrations may be more
appropropriate. Consequently, the biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) is the preferred
metric for accumulation  in the littoral aquatic ecosystem for extremely hydrophobic chemicals
(e.g., chemicals with > log  Kow of ~ 6.5).  Unfortunately, a BSAF for DDT was not identified
in the literature.  Therefore, the lipid-based bioaccumulation factors for fish and invertebrates
in the limnetic ecosystem were taken from the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical
Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors - July 1994 (U.S.
EPA,  1994b).  The document indicated that the basis for the DDT BAF;d s was  unpublished
work by Burkhard (1994) in which log BAFs were calculated from measured values for
sculpin, alewives, and small smelt for trophic level 3.  For trophic level 4, Burkhard
calculated a log BAF (a BAF/1) from measured values corresponding to a log  Kow of about
6.59.  Although the BAF,d calculated by Burkard did not correspond to the log Kow used for
DDT in this analysis, the "measured" BAF,ds were considered to be the most appropriate
values for bioaccumuation of DDT.  In addition, subsequent analyses of log K,,w data on DDT
suggest that 6.91 may be too high and that a more reasonable estimate is probably 6.5, the
geometric mean of values estimated  using the slow-stir technique (Karickhoff  and Truesdale,
unpublished data).  As with toxaphene, the same BAF^s that were used for trophic levels 3

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  DDT - 10
and 4 in the limnetic-ecosystem were considered appropriate for the littoral ecosystem,
although some differences in food chain transfer are likely.

The biocohcentration factor (BCF/) for fish was estimated as the geometric mean of two
measured values presented in Stephan  (1993).  The geometric mean BCF/ of 433,900 is
approximately a factor of 3 higher than the BCF/ estimated from the BCF* = log Kow
relationship and adjusted for the dissolved fraction (/j) as defined in Equation 6-21 (assuming
log K^ ~ 6.6).  Nevertheless, the difference between the two values was considered
relatively insignificant given the inherent uncertainties in BCF measurement and modeling
techniques.

The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates was the geometric mean of a number of
measured values with sources shown in Table 4 (see master table).  For terrestrial
invertebrates, the bioconcentration factor was estimated as described in Section  5.3.5.2.3.
Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to  hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that
the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids.  Further, the method assumes that the BAFs
and BCFs for terrestrial  wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of
Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993)
are of sufficient quality to serve as the standard.. The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a
chemical lacking measured data is compared to the BBF for TCDD and that ratio (i.e.,
pentachlorobenzene BBF/TCDD BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial
vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms, respectively.  For earthworms, a measured BCF
value from Beyer and Gish (1980) was selected. For hydrophobic organic constituents, the
bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above
ground leafy vegetables  and forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation,
direct deposition on  leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air  diffusion.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
DDT - 11
                            Table 4. Biological  Uptake Properties
ecological!
- receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
lipid-bas«d or
whole-body
lipid .
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
value
100,000,000 (d)
53,700,000 (d)
433,900 (t)
100,000,000 (d)
53,700,000 (d)
-
0.82
0.097
0.26
0.0039
»ourc«
measured value from Cook,
1994 as cited in U.S. EPA.
1994b
measured value from Cook.
1994 as cited in U.S. EPA,
1994b
geometric mean of measured
values in Stephan, 1993
same value as in the limnetic
ecosystem
same value as in the limnetic
ecosystem
insufficient data
geometric mean of measured
values (e.g., Garten and
Trabalka. 1983; Clabom et.al.,
1956, 1960 u chad in
Kenaga, 1980)
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD
measured value from Beyer
and Gish, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       d   =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   3   refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 DDT-12
References

Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
   TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge. Prepared for Qssi Meyn, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Anderson, D.W., J.R. Jehl, R.W, Risebough, L.A. Woods, L.R.D. Deweese, and W.G.
   Edgecomb. 1975. Brown Pelicans: Improved Reproduction of Southern California Coast
   Science 190:  806-808.

Anderson, D.W., R.M. Jurek, and J.O. Keith.  1977.  The status of brown pelicans at Anacapa
   Island in 1975. Calif. Fish and Game. 1:4-10.

AQUIRE (AQUztic Toxicity/nfprmation /?£trieval Database). 1995. Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.

Beyer, W.N., and C.D. Gish. 1980.  Persistence in earthworms and potential hazards to  birds
   of soil applied DDT, dieldrin and heptachlor. /. Appl. Ecol. 17:295-307.

Claborn, H.V., R.D. Radeleff, and R.C. Bushland.  1960. Pesticide Residues in Meat and
   Milk.  ARS-33-63. U.S. Department of Agriculture.  As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980,
   Correlation of bioconcentration factors  of chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms
   with their physical and chemical properties, Environmental Sci.  Technol. 14(5):553-556.

Claborn, H.V.  1956. Insecticide Residues in Meat and Milk. ARS-33-25. U.S. Department
   of Agriculture.' As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980, Correlation of bioconcentration factors of
   chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms with their physical and chemical properties,
   Environmental Sci. Technol. 14(5):553-556.

Clement International Corp.  1992. Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD.
   Prepared for Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Public Health
   Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Colborn, T., F.S. vom Saal, and A.M. Soto.  1993.  Developmental Effects of Endocrine-
   Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife  and Humans. Environmental Health Perspectives.
   101(5): 378-384.

Colombo, J.C., M.F. Khalil, M. Amac, A.C. Horth, and J.A.  Catoggio.  1990. Distribution of
   Chlorinated Pesticides arid Individual Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Biotic and  Abiotic
   Compartments of the Rio de La Plata, Argentina. Environmental Science and Technology,
 .  24: 498-505.
                                  ^
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                DDT - 13
Davison, K.L., and J.L. Sell.  1972.  Dieldrin and p'p'-DDT effects on egg production and
    eggshell thickness of chickens.  Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 7:9-18.

Davison, K. L., and J. L.  Sell,  1974. DDT thins shells of eggs from mallard ducks
    maintained on ad libitum or controlled-feeding regimens.  Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
    2:222-232.

W.B. Deichmann, W.E. MacDonald, A.G.,Beasley, and D. Cubit.   1971.  Subnormal
    Reproduction in Beagle Dogs Induced by DDT and Aldrin.  Industrial Medicine, 40(2): 10-
    20.

Fitzhugh, O.  1948. Use  of DDT insecticides on food products. Industrial and Engineering
    Chemistry, 40(4):704-705.

Garten, C.T., Jr., and J.R. Trabalka.  1983.  Evaluation of models for predicting terrestrial
    food chain behavior of xenobiotics.  Environmental Science and Technology. 26(10):590-
    595.

Gellert, R.J., W.L.  Heinrichs, and R.S. Swerdloff.  1972.  DDT Homologues:  Estrogen-Like
    Effects  on the Vagina, Uterus and Pituitary of the Rat.  Endocrinology, Vol. 91, No. 4,
    pp. 1095-1100.

Gossett, R.W., D.A. Brown, and D.R. Young.  1983.  Predicting the bioaccumulation of
    organic compounds in marine organisms using octanol/water partition  coefficients.
    Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 14, No.  10, pp 387-392.

GLI (Great Lakes Initiative).  1992.  Tier II  Water Quality Values  for Protection of Aquatic
    Life in Ambient Water: Support Documents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Hayes, W.J., Jr.  1976. Dosage relationships with DDT in milk.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
    38:19-28.

Heath, R.G., J.W. Spann,  and J.F. Kreitzer.   1969.  Marked DDE  impairment of mallard
    reproduction in  controlled studies. Nature (Loud.) 224:47-48.  As cited in WHO (World
    Health Organization),  1989, DDT and Its Derivatives — Environmental Aspects,
    Environmental Health  Criteria 83, Geneva, Switzerland.

Heinricks, W.J., R.J. Gellert, J.L.  Bakke, and N.L. Lawrence.  1971.  DDT administered to
    neonatal rats induces persistent estrus syndrome. Science, 173:642-643. As cited in:
    WHO (World Health Organization).  1979. DDT and Its Derivatives, Environmental Health
    Criteria 9. Geneva, Switzerland.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 DDT - 14
Jarvinen, A.W., M.J. Hoffman, and T.W. Thorslund.  1977.  Long-term toxic effects of DDT
   food and water exposure on fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). J. Fish. Res. Bd.
   Can. 34:2089-2103.

Keplinger, M.L., W.B. Deichmann, and F. Sala.  1970.  Effect of combinations of pesticides
   on reproduction in mice.  In Deichmann, W. B., ed.  Pesticides Symposia, 6th and 7th
   Inter-American Conf. Toxicol. Occup. Med., Halos & Associates, Coral Gables,  Florida,
   pp. 125-138.

Kolaja, G.J.  1977.  The effect on DDT, DDE and their sulfonated derivatives on eggshell
   formation in the mallard duck.  Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 17(6):697-701.

Laug, E.P., A.  Nelson, G. Gitzhugh, and F. Kunze.  1950. Liver cell alteration and  DDT
   storage in fat of the rat induced by dietary levels of  1 to  50 pp. DDT. Pharmacol. Exp.
   Therap. 98:268-273.

Maki, A.M. and H.E. Johnson. 1975. Effects of PCS (Aroclor 1254) and p,p'-DDT  on
   Production  and Survival of Daphnia magna Strauss. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.  13(4):
   412-416. As cited in AQUIRE (AOU&uc Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database). 1995.
   Environmental Research Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Marking L.L. 1966. Evaluation of p,p'-DDT as a Reference Toxiciant in Bioassays.  Invest.
   Fish Control No. 10, Resource Publ.  No. 14, U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
   Sport Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.  As cited in
   AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database).  1995  Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental  Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.

McCain, B.B.,  S.L. Chan, M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, M.S. Myers, J.T.  Landahl, S.  Pierce,
   R.C. Clark, Jr., and U. Varanasi.  1992. Chemical contamination  and associated fish
   disease in San Diego Bay. Environ.  Sci. Technol. 26:725-733.

MitjavUa, S., G. Carrera, R.-A. Boigegrain, and R. Derache.   1981. Evaluation of the toxic
   risk of DDT in the rat: during accumulation. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10:459-
   469.

Mitral, P.K., H.C. Agarwal, and M.K. Pillai. 1980. Tolerance, Uptake, and Metabolism of
   DDT by the Freshwater Flea Simocephalus  sp. (Cladocera). Indian J. Exp. Biol.  18(11):
   1326-1329.  As cited in AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity /nformation  fl£trieval  Database).
   1995. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office  of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                DDT - IS
N1OSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health).  1992. General Toxicity File
    for DDT in Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS database).
    Cincinnati, OH.  As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993b.  Great Lakes
    Water Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for the Protection of Wildlife (Proposed)
    DDT; Mercury; 2.3,7,8-TCDD; PCBs, EPA-822-R-93-007, Office of Science and
    Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Oliver, E.G., and A.J. Niimi.  1988.  Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl
    congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario ecosystem.  Environ.
    Sci. Technol. 22:388-397.

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W. Suter II.  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for
    Wildlife: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R1. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Ottoboni, A.  1969.  Effect of DDT on reproduction in the rat. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
    14:74-81.

Ottoboni, A., G.D. Bissell, and A.C. Hexter.  1977.  Effects  of DDT on reproduction in
    multiple generations of beagle dogs. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:83-101.

Peakall, D.B., J.L. Lincer, R.W. Risebrough, J.G. Pritchard, and W.B. Kinter. 1973. DDE-
    induced egg-shell thinning:  structural and physiological effects in three species.  Comp.
    Gen. Pharmacol. 4:305-313.

RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances). 1994. National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, DC.

Sanders, H.O. and O.B. Cope. 1968. Toxicities of Several Pesticides to Two.  Species of
    Cladocerans. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95(2): 165-169.  As cited in  AQUIRE (AOUztic
    Toxicity/nformation flEtrieval Database).  1995. Environmental Research  Laboratory,
    Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth,
    MN.

Santharam, K.R., B. Thayumanavan and S. Krishnaswamy. 1976. Toxicity of Some
    Insecticides to Daphnia carinata King, and Important Link in the Food Chain in the
    Freshwater Ecosystems. Indian. J. Ecol. 3(1): 70-73.  As cited in AQUIRE (AOUmc
    Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database).  1995. Environmental  Research Laboratory,
    Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth,
    MN.

Smith, S.J., C.W. Weber,  and B.L. Reid. 1969.  The effect of high levels of dietary DDT on
    egg production, mortality, fertility, hatchability and pesticide content of yolks in Japanese
    quail.  Poult. Sci. 48:1000-1004.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 DDT - 16
Smith, V.E., J.M. Spurr, J.C. Filkins, and J.J. Jones.  1985. Organochlorine contaminants of
    wintering ducks foraging on Detroit River sediments.  /. Great Lakes Res.  11:231-246.

Stephan, C.E.  1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccwnulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental  Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Springfield, VA.

Suter n, G.W. and J.B. Mabery.  1994. lexicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R1.
    U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Swartz, W.J.  1984.  Effects of 1,1-Bis (p-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethane (DDT) on
    Gonadal  Development in  the  Chick Embryo: A Histological and Histochemical Study.
    Environmental Research,  35:333-345.

Thomas, K., and T. Colborn.  1992. Organochlorine endocrine disruptive  in human tissue.
    In:  Chemically Induced Alterations in Sexual and Functional Development: The
    Wildlife/Human Connections.

Travis, C.C.  and A.D.  Arms.  1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and
    vegetation. Environ. Sci.Technol.  22(3):271-274.
                                                                               i
U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990.  Methodology for Assessing Health
    Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final. Office
    of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.  January.  As cited in Pierson,
    T.K., A.E. Crook, S.M. Beaulieu, P.N. Graham, N.B. Jones, A.M. Reynolds, and G.P.
    Ve'gh,  1994,  Development of Human Health Based Exit Criteria for the Hazardous Waste
    Identification Project, Phase III Analysis.                           ,

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993a. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook:
    Volumes  I and II.   EPA/600/R-93/187a,b. Office of Research and Development,
    Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA  (Environment Protection Agency). 1993b. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
    Criteria Documents for the Protection of Wildlife (Proposed): DDT, Mercury, 2,3,7,8-
    TCDD, PCBs. EPA-822-R-93-007 Office of Water,  Office of Science and Technology,
    Washington, DC. NTIS No. PB93-154722

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993c.  Wildlife Criteria Portions of the
    Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.  EPA-822-R-93-006.
    Office  of Science  and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 DDT - 17
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993d. Technical Basis for Deriving
    Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of
    Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning. EPA/822-R-93/011. Office of
    Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993i.  Interim Report on Data and
    Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and
    Associated Wildlife.  EPA/600/R-93/055. Office of Research and Development,
    Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1994b.  Great Lakes Water Quality
    Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation
    Factors - July 1994.  EPA-822-R-94-002.

Vieth, G.D., D.L. DeFoe, and  B.V. Bergstedt.  1979.  Measuring and.estimating the
    bioconcentration factor  of chemicals in fish.  J. Fish. Res. Bd. of Canada, 36:1040-1048.

Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter, 1994.  lexicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effets on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for  U.S. Department of Energy.

WHO (World Health Organization), 1979.  DDT and,Its Derivatives, Environmental Health
    Criteria 9, Geneva, Switzerland.

Wrenn, T.R., J.R. Weyant,  G.F. Fries, and J.  Bitman.   1971.- Effects of several dietary levels
    of o,p'-DDT on reproduction and lactation in the rat. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
    6:471-479.
August 1995

-------
                                            Freshwatci    /icity - DDT
                                                 Cas No. 50-29-3

Chemical
Name

DDT


Species
fathead
minnow


Endpolnt

mort.
'-

Description

MATC


Value

0.36-1.5


Units

ug/L
Test type
(static/ flow
through)
complete life
cycle test
Exposure
Duration/
Timing

NS


Reference

Jarvinen at al.. 1977


Comments
early juvenile; mortality
and hatchability
NS = Not specifed

-------
                                Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - DDT
                                             Cas No. 50-29-3


Chemical Name
DDT
DDT
DDT



DDT

DDT


Species
carp
salmon ids
white croaker



fish

fish
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BSAF
BSAF
BSAF



BAF

BAF


Value
0.84
1.21
14.90



30,903

1,913.862
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)
P
P
P



P

p


Units
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g



Ukg

NS


Reference
Smith etal., 1985
Oliver and Niimi, 1988
McCain etal., 1992



Garten and Trabalka, 1 983

Stephan. 1993


Comments



Microcosm; All estimates were
calculated based on published data.
the type of studies from which the
data were taken were not specified.
Normalized to 5.0% lipid. Trophic level
4 fish
NS = Not specified

-------
                                                Terrestrial    .Jclty - DDT
                                                     Cas No. 50-29-3
Chemical
Name
DDT
DDT
DDT
/
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT

Species
bullfrog
mallard
California
quail
Japanese
quail
pheasant
Sandhill
crane
rock dove
Iroq

Endpolnt
mod
mort
mort
mort
mort
mort
mort
mort

Description
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50

Value
72000
72240
595
841
1334
71200
74000
7600

Units
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodv wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., l.v., l.p.,
Injection)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

Reference
U.S. EPA, 1993c
U.S. EPA, 1993C
U.S. EPA, 1993c
U.S. EPA, 1993c
U.S. EPA, 1993C
U.S. EPA, 1993C
U.S. EPA, 1993c
RTECS. 1994

Comments








NS = Not specified

-------
Freshwater Toxicity • DDT
    Cas No. 50-29-3
Chemical
Name
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT ,
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
Species
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
organisms
ish
daphnids
fish
Daphnia
carinata
Daphnia
maqna
Daphnia
magna
Daphnia
maqna
Daphnia pulex
Simocephalus
serrulatus
Simocephalus
sp.
Brook trout
Northern pike
channel
catfish
bluegill
striped bass
rainbow trout
fathead
minnow
Endpolnt
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
immob.
immob.
immob.
rep
immob.
immob.
immob.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
mort.
Description
AWQC
SCV
CV
CV
EC20
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Value
0.001
0.04
0.73
0.016
0.35
12
0.68 - 4.0
(141)
0.67
0.50 - 0.75
(0.58)
0.36 - 2.67
(1.04)
2.5-2.8
(2.65)
5.8
1 .8 - 20.0
(8.55)
1.7
3.3-17.5
(11.85)
1.2-16.0
(4.95)
0.53
1.5-18.0
(7.16)
8.5 - 45
(19.42)
Units
ug/L
ug/l
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Test type
(static/ flow
through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
48 hour
48 hour
14 day
14 day
48 hour
48 hour
48 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
4 days
Reference
57 FR 60848
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Suter and Mabrey, 1 994
Santharam et al., 1976 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
Maki et al., 1975 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1995
Maki etal., 1975 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
Sanders et al., 1966 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Mittal et al., 1980 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
Marking, 1966 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE. 1995
Comments




















-------
Terrestrial   .icily - DDT
     Cas No. 50-29-3


Chemical
Name


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT



Species


dog


monkey


cat


rabbit


guinea pig


hamster


rat


rabbit


guinea pig


rat


mouse



Endpolnt


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort



Description


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50



Value


150


200


250


250


150


>5


1931


300


1000


0.91


32



Units

mg/kg-
bodywt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wl.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
8.C., I.W., l.p.,
Infection)


oral


oral


oral


oral


oral


oral


dermal


dermal


dermal


i-P.


i.p.

Exposure
Duration/
Timing


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS



Reference
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
19936
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993b
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b



Comments


































-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - DDT
    Cas No. 50-29-3


Chemical
Name


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT


DDT



Species


rat


rabbit


guinea pig


rat


mouse


dog


monkey


cat


rabbit


rat


mammal



Endpolnt


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort


mort



Description


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50


LD50



Value


1500


250


900


68


6.85


150


50


40


50


300


200



Units

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wl.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.

mg/kg-
body wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., l.p.,
Inlectlon)


s.c.


s.c.


s.c.


i.v.


i.v.


i.v.


i.v.


i.v.


i.y.


NS


NS

Exposure
Duration/
Timing


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS



Reference
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
19935
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993b
NIOSH, 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1993b



Comments'


































-------
Terresiriat   .icity - DDT
     Cas No. 50-29-3
Chemical
Name
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
Species
rat
ral
rat
rats
rats
rat
rats
rats
mice
mice
dogs
rats
Endpolnt
hepatic
hepatic
hepatic
rep
rep
rep
rep
dev
rep
rep
rep
rep
Description
LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
AEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Value
14.5
0.25
0.05
4.07
0.615
14.2
200
1
25
100
10
9.04
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-diet
mg
ppm
ppm.
mg/kg-day
mq/kq-dav
Exposure
Route (oral,
8.C., I.V., l.p.,
Inlectlon)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
s.c.
oral
oral
oral '
oral
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
52 days
1 -27 weeks
1 -27 weeks
0.01 kg/day
0.01 kg/day
2 generations
NS
Days 2, 3, 4 of
post-natal life
6-generations
6-generations
3-generations
2-9 months
Reference
Mitjavila et al., 1981
Laugetal., 1950
Laugetal., 1950
Fitzhugh, 1948
Fitzhugh, 1948
Ottoboni, 1969
Hayes, 1976
Henrichs et al., 1971
as cited in WHO.
1979
Keplingeretal., 1970
Keplinger et at., 1970
Ottoboni et al.. 1977
Wrennetal.. 1971
Comments
Liver toxicity was observed at this
level.
Liver toxicity was observed at this
level.
Liver toxicity was not observed at
this level.
Reproductive effects were reported.
No reproductive effects were
reported.
Rats reproduced normally at this
level.
Rats reproduced normally at this
level.
Abnormal effects were observed at
this level.
No effect on fertility, gestation,
viability, lactation, and survival at this
level.
At this dose, there was a slight
reduction in lactation and survival in
some generations, but the effect was
not progressive.
No effect on gestation, fertility,
success of pregnancy, litter size,
lactation ability of the dams, viability
at birth, survival to weaning, sex
distribution, growth of pups,
morbidity, mortality, or organ/body
weight ratios.
No effect on reproduction.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - DDT
    Cas No. 50-29-3
Chemical
Name
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT.
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT

Species
female
mallards
Female
mallards
mallards
mallards
mallards
American
kestrels
brown
pelicans
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
white
leghorn
hens
rat
rat
mouse

Endpolnt
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep, mort.
rep
mort
mort
mort

Description
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LD50
LD50
LD50

Value
1.16
0.116
2.91
1.45
0.58
0.87
0.028
200
400
200
87
152.3
135

Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-diet
mg/kg-diet
mg/kg-diet
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
B.C., I.V., l.p.,
nlectlon)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
0.0582 kg/day
0.0582 kg/day
0,0582 kg/day
2 years
2 years
NS
.66 kg/day; 5
yr. study
NS
NS
12 weeks
NS
NS
NS

Reference
Davison and Sell,
1974
Davison and Sell,
1974
Kolajaetal., 1977
Heath et. al., 1969
Heath et. al., 1969
Peakall et al., 1973
Anderson et al., 1975
Smith el al., 1969
Smith el al., 1969
Davison and Sell.
1972
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993b
Mijavila et al , 1981
NIOSH. 1992 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993b

Comments
There was a significant reduction in
eggshell thickness at this level.
There was no reduction in eggshell
thickness at this level.
Eggshell thickness and weight were
significantly reduced at this level.
Reproductive success was impaired
at this level.
No effect on reproduction at this
level.
Effects were observed on eggshell
thickness, breaking strength, and
permeability.
Reproductive success was impaired
at this level.
There was no effect on hatchability
or fertility of eggs.
50% mortality among dosed birds;
survivors showed a decline in
hatchability and fertility after 30 days.
No effect on average egg production
per bird,- egg weight, dry shell weight,
shell thckness, and shell calcium.




-------
APPENDIX B                                                     Di-n-octyl phthalate - 1
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                  Di-n-octyl phthalate
                                  Cas No.: 117-84-0
Summary:  This profile on  di-n-octyl phthalate summarizes the lexicological benchmarks
and biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms  ,
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms,  and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water  Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs)  are also  summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs  for the freshwater ecosystem  were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5. For the  terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures  also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This  profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human  and Ecological Receptors."

I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind  toxicological benchmarks used to derive  protective
media concentrations (C_) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks  for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains  benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems,  including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates  and benthic organisms.
Di-n-octyl Phthalate

Mammals: Two studies were identified which investigated the effects of di-n-octyl phthalate
exposure to laboratory mammals.  Mann et al. (1985) fed male rats di-n-octyl phthalate at a
daily dose of 20000 g/kg-dieL  After 3 weeks, the  rats exhibited increases in liver  size, but no
other signs of toxicity were observed. Another study observed the effects on mice fed 1.25%,
2.50% and 5% dietary di-n-octyl  phthalate 7 days prior to mating and throughout a 98-day
mating period (Heindel et al., 1989).  No effects on reproductive function were seen at any
administered doses of di-n-octyl phthalate..

Neither of the studies above were considered suitable for derivation of a benchmark value
because of the uncertainty surrounding the critical  endpoint.  Liver enlargement may affect
the lifespan of an individual organism, but it  is unclear as to whether these effects  would
impair the fecundity of an entire population. Since adequate toxicity data focusing  on  critical

August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                      Di-n-octyl phthalate - 2
endpoints pertinent to population sustainability were not identified, benchmarks protective of
the mammalian community in a freshwater ecosystem were not derived.

Birds:  No subchronic or chronic toxicity studies were identified for di-n-octyl phthalate
exposure to avian species, and therefore, no benchmark was developed.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates: A review of the literature revealed that adequate data with
which to derive a benchmark protective of the fish and aquatic invertebrate community were
not identified.

Aquatic plants:   The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).
Adequate  data for the development of benchmarks for di-n-octyl phthalate  were not identified
in Suter and Mabrey (1994) or in AQUIRE.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined using the
Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method. The EQp method uses a Final Chronic Value (FCV) or other
chronic water quality measures, along with the fraction of organic carbon and the octanol-carbon
partition coefficient (K^.) to determine a protective sediment concentration that may be present  in the
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from harmful effects from chemical exposure
(Stephan, 1993). No FCV or other chronic water quality measures were identified and therefore, no
benchmark was developed.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                               Di-n-octyl phthalate • 3
           Table 1.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
$MK^MI
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great MM heron
malard
lesser scaup
•potted sandpiper
herring gul
kingfisher
v«ta*'»«*o-
«**
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Sttrfy
At^^JL^*
^ni^^*^^^»
.

•



-

•

ItfMt



-
-
-


-
.
SMoyVfthM
m&*4*t
'•
-
•
^
•
•

• •
•

.-*-
•

•
-

.-




«F
+
•
• .
•

•
• •
•
•
•
-
0ri0to*ft*tt«* "










      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
      of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL tor other adverse effects.
      ID = Insufficient Data

              . Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks  for Representative Fish
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
          fish and aquatic
           invertebrates
           aquatic plants
         benthic community
  ID
No data
  ID
                                           Study
                                          Specie
      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '" Indicates that the benchmark value was an order
      of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID = insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                         Di-n-octyl phthalate - 4
n.   Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^ for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains benchmarks
for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial
ecosystem.

Mammals: As discussed in the freshwater ecosystem section, no suitable subchronic or chronic toxicity
studies focusing on reproductive or other critical endpoints were identified for di-n-octyl phthalate.
Thus, mammalian benchmarks protective of the terrestrial ecosystem were not derived.

Birds: No avian toxicity studies were identified and therefore, benchmark values were not derived.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were  identified  for endpoints ranging from percent
yield to root lengths. As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytoioxicity benchmarks were selected
by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the  10th percentile.  If there were 10 or
fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If there were more than 10 values, the 10th
percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or
other effects reasonably assumed to impair the ability of  a plant population to sustain itself, such as a
reduction in seed elongation.  However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for di-n-ocyl
phthalate and,'as a result, a  benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August  1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Di-n-octyl phthaJate • 5
           Table 3. Toxicologjcal Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
4MpfWMMMHf9>
flpicjjf
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vote •
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
.. _, 	

red- tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bODOWrMte
American robin
American
plants
toil community
ft • — nil •!•*%•
BeaCnRiaiK
¥**«•*
£^*JftMi|_4t||M-
^^F^T^^r
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ft»*
3pap»ai

-
•
•
• '
• -
-
•
•
•
-
'
•
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
•

-
-
-
-
-
.-
«tt*
J|M|flBMb>
^rwr^*
'. *» r
-
-
-
-
•
.
-
-
•

-
-
-
-
' ,,X5V-Y, "
•••. ^ IW--/-' \AS
l^^^^l^^^^*
.
•
-
-
-
"
V •
•
-
-
•
• '
-
-
^ 1^'s
j.5<-;s-'r •?-
Six /fe-'^-
.
•
-
-
-
.
-
•
-

•

-
-
,;v"-- % N r %"\ ?" "
' 0*feto»i8<«iro»' "
^ ^'™, "<•- >
^;~f ' *
.
•
•
•

.
•
•
•

•
•
•

      •Benchmark Category. • « adequate, p » provisional, i « intanm; • "' indicalec tat the benchmark value was an order o(
      magnifejdB or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      10 . Insufficient Data

m.  Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents the biological uptat&-measures (i.e., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive protective
surface  water and soil concnetrations for constituents considered to bioconcnetrate and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic  and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake values and sources
are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: tropic level 3 and 4 fish in the limnetic and
littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertbrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each value is idenfieid as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the
generic aquatic ecosystems, the biological uptake factors are deignated with a "d" if the value reflects
dissolved water concentrations, and a  "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For
organic chemicals with log K,,w values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer  dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals total water
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                          Di-n-odyi phthalate - 6
concentration). For organic chemicals with log Kow values above 4, the BCFs were assumed to refer
to total water concentrations and concentrations in fish.  The following discussion describes the
rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpretting the
biological uptake values presented in Table 4.

Because the log Kow for di-n-octyl phthalate is above 6.5 (i.e., 7.5), the Thomann (1989) and
Thomann etal., (1992) models were not used to estimate bioaccumulation factors. For extremely
hydrophobic constituents, the Agency has stated that reliable measurements of ambient water
concentrations (especially dissolved concentrations) are not available and that accumulation of these
constituents in fish or other aquatic organisms cannot be referenced to a water concentration as
required for a  BCF or BAF (U.S. EPA, 1993Q. Since no measured BAF was available, a measured
BCF identified in Stephan (1993) was used as a BAF since di-n-octyl phthalate, like other phthalates,
is capable of being metabolized by aquatic organisms
The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, earthworms and terrestrial
invertebrates were estimated as described in Section 5.3J.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation method is
applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is dominated by
lipids.  For hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as
described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses. The BCF is based on
route-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant through
air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Di-n-octyl phthalate - 7
                                                                                                           1
                              Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
ecotogicH
reoeptor

level 4 fish

level 3 fish
fish
.
littonl toprac
leveUfwh
littoral trophic
level 3 fish

Mural trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
ffiWt0bfetiaM

(MfthWOfTllt
pfents
BCF,BAP,<»
BSAf
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BAF
•
BAF
BAF
BAF
.BAF
ItpfcMMMd or
wlifllftAAdhf
lipid
Upid .
lipid
lipid
lipid
•
whole-body
wtMto-booy
whoto-body '
wtMto-plant
IMAM
2.400 (t)
2,400 (t)
2. 400 (t)
2, 400 (t)
2, 400 (t)
10
3.9 E - 01
3.7 E • 01
3.0
4.4
** -AAttA^to
^^^W^MP
no nwMtnd BAF; buad on
iWMured BCF (Staphan. 1993)
no nwitturad BAF; bated on
nwwurad BCF (Suphm. 1993)
no nw«ur*d BAF; buad on
measured BCF (Stephen, 1993)
no measured BAF; based on
measured BCF (Stephen, 1993)
no.maasured BAF; based on
measured BCF (Stephen, 1993)
•
ceJc
ceJc
catc
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       d • refers to dfesofeed surface water concentration
       t «refers to total surface, water ooocerrtreeon
       ID = buafiickat D«u
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                    Di-n-octyl phthalate - 8
References
Heindel, J.J., O.K. Gulati, R.C Mounce, S.R. Russell and J.C. Lamb IV.  1989.
    Reproductive toxicity of three phthalic acid esters in a continuous breeding protocol.
    Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. 12: 508 -518.
                                                    .4
Korhonen, A., K.  Hemminki and H. Vainio.  1983.  Embryotoxic effects of phthalic acid
    derivatives, phosphates and aromatic oils used in the manufacturing of rubber on three day
    chicken embryos. Drug and Chemical Toxicology. 6(2): 191 -207.

Mann, A.H., S. C. Price, F.E. Mitchell, P. Grasso, R. H. Hinton, and J.W.  Bridges.  1985.
    Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.  77:116-132.

National Institute  for Occupational Safety and Health.  RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database. March 1994.

National Library of Medicine. HSDB (Hazardous Substance Database).  1994.

Stephan, C. E. 1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93 - 154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth,  MN.

Suter H, G. W. and J. B. Mabrey  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of
    Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-
    ACOS-84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Thomann, R.  V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chmeical distribution in aquatic
    food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(6): 699-707.

Thomann, R.  V., J. P. Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  11:615 - 629.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health
    Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final. Office
    of'Health  and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.  C.  January.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental  Protection Agency).  1994.  Integrated Risk Information System.
    March.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                    Di-n-octyl phthalate • 9
Will, M. E. and  G. W. Suter n.  1994.  lexicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Di-n-octyl phthalate  Cas No.:  117-84-0
Chemical
Nam*
di-n-octyl
phthalale .
di-n-octyl
phthalate
di-n-octyl
phthalate
di-n-octyl
phthalate
NS = Not Spe










Species
fish
daphnid
fish .
daphnid
dfied










Type of
Effect
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic

J









Description
cv
cv
EC20
EC20











Value
3822
708
<100
310











Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L


• ,}








Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS
NS








.


Exposure
Duration
/Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS











Reference
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994


. '








Comments


...












-------
Freshwater Toxieiiy - Dl-n-oc ,. phthaiate Gas No.: 117-84-0
Chemical
Nam*
di-n-octyl -
phthaiate
di-n-octyl
phthaiate
di-n-octyl
phthaiate
di-n-octyl
phthaiate
Species
fish
daphnid
fish
daphnid
NS = Not Specified




















Type of
Effect
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic

.1









Description
CV
CV
EC20
EC20











Value
3822
708
<100
310











Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L











Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS
NS
NS
NS







-



Exposure
Duration
/Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS











Reference
Suter and Mabrey. 1994
Suter and Mabrey. 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994
Suter and Mabrey, 1994

•








•
Comments

,












-------
Terrestrial Toxiclty - Di-n-octyl phthalate Cas No.: 117-84-0


Chemical
Name
di-n-octyl
phthalate
di-n-octyl
phthalate


di-n-octyl
phthalate
di-n-octyl
phthalate
di-n-octyl
phthalate



Species

chicken

rat



mouse
J
rat

mouse
NS = Not Specified



Endpolnt

emb

liver



rep

acute

acute




Description

NOEL

FEL



NOAEL

LD50

LD50




Vslus

20

2.400



0.03

47

6.513




Units

ugmol/egg

mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day

g/kg-body wt.

g/kg-body wt.

Exposure
Routs (oral,
S.C.. I.V., l.p..
Injection)

NS

oral



oral

oral

oral


Exposure
Duration
/Timing

NS

3 weeks

7 days prior to
and throughout
mating period.

NS

NS




Reference
Korhonen et a!..
1983

Mannetal.. 1985



Heindel et al.. 1989

RTECS. 1994

RTECS. 1994




Comments
No embryotoxic
effects observed.

Liver enlargement
effects on
reproductive
function at any
dose.






-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measure.  Ji-n-octy! phthalate Gas No.: 117-84-0


Chemical
Name
di-n-octyl
phthalate


Species
plant

B-lactor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)
BCF


Value
460,000
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)
P


units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(uo/g soil)


Reference
U.S. EPA, 1990e


Comments


-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  Dieldrin-1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                        Dieldrin
                                   CasNo.:  60-57-1
Summary:  This profile on dieldrin summarizes the toxicological benchmarks and biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for
birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the
generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks  for birds and mammals were derived for
developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population
sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish were generally adopted
from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality Criteria).  Bioconcentration
factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation  factors (BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification factors
(BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs for the
freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log  K^ between 4 and
6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also include terrestrial
vertebrates  and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire toxicological data base compiled
during this  effort is presented at  the end of this profile. This profile represents the most
current information and may differ from the data presented in the technical support document
for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR):  Risk Assessment for Human and
Ecological  Receptors.

I.      Toxicological  Benchmarks for Representative Species in the  Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the  rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media  concentrations  (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains  benchmarks for aquatic  organisms  in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found  for mammalian  wildlife in
which  dose-response data were reported. However, several chronic and subchronic toxicity
studies involving dieldrin  have been conducted using laboratory rats and mice. Fetotoxicity
was observed in a subchronic study where pregnant mice were administered 1.5,  3.0, and 6.0
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B         .                                                         Dieldrin - 2
 mg dieldrin/kg-day by gastric intubation on days 7-16 of gestation (Chernoff et al., 1974).
 From this research, Chemoff reported a NOAEL of 1.5 mg/kg-day based on fetal skeletal
 abmormalities resulting from the two higher doses.  A chronic reproductive study was
 identified in which female rats were fed a diet containing 2.5,  12.5, and 25.0 ppm dieldrin  for
 three generations (Treon and Cleveland, 1955). Treon and Cleveland (1955) reported reduced
 number of pregnancies and a moderate increase in mortality  among the offspring of the rats
 exposed to 2.5 ppm (0.189 mg/kg-d) dieldrin.  The mg/kg-day value for Treon and Cleveland
 (1955) was calculated from the reported ppm-dose using  the reference body weight (kg) and
 the recommended value for food consumption (kg/day) for rats reported in Recommendations
 for and Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1988).
 Reproductive toxicity was also observed in 220 female rats (Harr et al., 1970) fed  dieldrin  in
 10 two-fold concentrations (ranging from 0.08 to 40 ppm).  In this lifetime observational
 study, Harr et al., (1970)  reported a NOAEL of 0.014 mg dieldrin/kg-day (equivalent dietary
 dose of 0.24 ppm), based on dam survival, conception rate, pup survival, and weaned litter
 size.

 The value of 0.014 mg/kg-day (Harr et  al., 1970) was selected to derive the mammalian
 lexicological  benchmark because: (1) chronic exposures  were  administered via oral ingestion,
 (2) it focused on reproductive toxicity as a critical endpoint,  (3) the study contained sufficient
 dose-response information and (4) the study represented the lowest reproductive  endpoint in
 the dataset.  The study by Treon and Cleveland (1955) was not selected because the LOAEL
 of 0.189 mg/kg-day was not as protective of the representative species as the Harr et al.
 (1970) study.  Similarly, the study by Chernoff et al., (1974) was not selected because the
 NOAEL for fetotoxicity in mice (1.5 mg/kg-day) was two orders of magnitude greater than
 the NOAEL for reproductive effects in rats (0.014 mg/kg-day)  as reported  by Harr et al.,
 (1970).

 The selected NOAEL value was then scaled for species representative of a freshwater
 ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994)


                              Benchmark^ = NOAEL. x —L
                                                    (bww

 where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
 of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species. This is the default
 methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments  and reportable quantity
• documents for adjusting animal data to  an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).   Since the
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                   Dieldrin - 3
Harr et al. (1970) study documented reproductive effects from dieldrin exposure to male and
female  rats, male and female body weights for each representative species were used in the
scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.
Data were available on the reproductive and developmental, effects of dieldrin, as well as
growth or chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted
over chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages. All of the studies
identified were conducted using laboratory rats and mice and as such, inter-species differences
among wildlife species were not identifiable.  Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor
was not applied.  Based on the data set for dieldrin, the benchmarks developed were
categorized as adequate.

Birds:  Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies involving dieldrin have been conducted using
chickens and mallard ducks.  Reduced hatchability and morphological changes were observed
in chicken eggs (Smith et al.,  1970) injected with 0, 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10  mg/egg of dieldrin
either prior to incubation, or after a 7-day incubation period and a NOAEL of 45.45 mg/kg
(2.5 mg/egg) was estimated.  Nebeker et al. (1992), conducted research to determine the
developmental effects of dieldrin administered to 1-day old mallard ducklings^ through dietary
exposure.  Nebeker et al., (1992) recorded a NOAEL of 0.08 mg/kg-day  for growth
impairment after dietary administration of dieldrin for a 24-day period. In addition, Nebeker
et al., (1992) also  recorded significant concentrations of dieldrin in the tissues of  mallard
ducklings that were fed dieldrin-spiked food.

The NOAEL reported by Nebeker et al., (1992) was used to calculate the lexicological
benchmark for birds because it focused on developmental growth as  a critical endpoint and
dietary concentrations were administered via oral ingestion during  a critical life-stage period.
The study by Smith et al.., (1970) on chicken eggs was not selected for benchmark derivation
because data were not identified on either (1) direct absorption of dieldrin from direct contact
with the eggs or (2) maternal transfer from mother to egg.  Without  these absorption data, it
is difficult to estimate the internal dose to the hatchling from the egg-injected dose.

The principles for allometric scaling were assumed  to apply to birds,' although specific studies
supporting allometric scaling for aviaa species were not identified.  Thus, the NOAEL from
the Nebeker et  al.  (1992) study was scaled for differences between the body size  of the test
species and the body size of the species of interest. This cross-species scaling was completed
using the  method described by Opresko et al. (1994).
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 Dieldrin - 4
Data were available on the reproductive and developmental, effects of dieldrin, as well as
growth or chronic survival. In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted
over chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages. Laboratory
experiments of similar types were not conducted on a range of avian species and as such,
inter-species differences among wildlife species were not identifiable. Based on the avian
data set for  dieldrin, the benchmarks developed from Nebeker et al. (1992) were categorized
as adequate.

Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates: The  Final Chronic Value (FCV) of 6.25 E-05 mg/L (U.S.
EPA, 1993c) was selected as the benchmark protective of fish and aquatic invertebrates in the
generic freshwater ecosystem.  It should be noted that a  Final Residue Value (FRV) of 1.9E-7
mg/1 was reported (57 FR 60911)  however, it was not considered appropriate for a benchmark
value because  residues and bioaccumulation are already  taken into account by the Thomann et
al., (1992) model.  Because the benchmark was based on a FCV derived for the Sediment
Quality Critieria Document, this benchmark is categorized as adequate.

Aquatic Plants: The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECM) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently  a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).
Aquatic plant data was not identified  for dieldrin and, therefore, no benchmark was
developed.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQP)  method. The EQP method uses  a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic water quality  measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K,,,.) to determine a protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993). The EQP number is  the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from the harmful  effects of chemical
exposure.   The FCV reported in the Sediment Quality Criterion (SQC) document for dieldrin
(U.S. EPA,  1993c) was used to calculate an EQP number of 12.7 mg dieldrin /kg organic
carbon. Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the  sediment (f^) of 0.05, the
benchmark for the benthic community is 0.637 mg/kg. Since the EQP number was based on a
FCV established for the  SQC, the  sediment benchmark is categorized  as adequate.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                       Dieldrin - 5
       Table 1. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
RoptMtnUrtlw
SfMCteS
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted
sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher

BwtottfTMfk
ValiM*
mgfflcg-d
0.010 (a)
0.006 (a)
0.04 (a)
0.04 (a)
0.04 (a)
0.08 (a)
0.05 (a)
0.11 (a)
0.05 (a)
o:08 (a)
Study
rat
rat
mallard •
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
duckling
mallard
duckling
mallard
ducklings
'. EfnMI
rep
rep
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
Study
VahM
n^pHQ^fli
0.014
0.014
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0^*,
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
SF
-
-

-
-
•
-
•
-
-
Original Bourc*
Harret al., 1970
Harretal., .1970
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker etal., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker et al.. 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker et al.. 1992
'Benchmark categories, a=adequate, p=provisional, i=interim
above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of magnitude or more
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                        Dieldrin - 6
               Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                         Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
ftapfMMIttthNI
Spaolw
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benttiic
community
•MflCJUIIWIT
Vilu»» mgfl.
6.25E-05 (a)
ID
0.072(a)
mg/Vg
sediment
Study SfwciM
aquatic
organisms
•
aquatic
organisms
Mwcnptfofi
FCV
-
FCVxK^
OriQlnti Sowcc
U.S. EPA, 1993C
-
U.S. EPA, 1993c
II.
              •Benchmark categories, a=adequate, p=provisional, i=intenm; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an
              order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEI for other adverse effects. •
              ID = Insufficient Data                             .
Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation  of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: An additional chronic study was found for mammalian wildlife in which dose-
response data were reported.  In this chronic reproductive study, raccoons  fed 0.73 or 2.2 ppm
of dieldrin experienced adverse effects on the estrous cycle, decreased incidence of
pregnancy, reduction in litter size, resorption of embryos, and increased fetal death
(Frederickson,  1973 as cited in NIOSH, 1978).  Using  a  mean raccoon body weight of 5.8 kg
(U.S. EPA, 1993e) and an estimated food consumption, a LOEL of 0.036  mg/kg-day was
calculated from the original 0.73  ppm. However, the timing or exposure duration in
Fredrickson's research was not revealed.

The NOAEL in Harr et al.'s (1970) .study was chosen for the derivation of a benchmark for
mammals in  the generic terrestrial ecosystem because:  (1) it was performed on a surrogate
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                   Dieldrin - 7
 species, (2) it focused on reproductive toxicity as a critical endpoint, and (3) chronic
 exposures were administered via oral ingestion.  Unspecified exposure duration and limited
 dose-response information, prevented the Frederickson (1973 as cited in NIOSH, 1978) study
 from being  used to derive a benchmark.  Since Hair et al. (1970) documented  reproductive
 effects from dieldrin exposure to male and female rats, male and female body  weights for
 each representative species were used in the cross-species scaling algorithm to obtain
 terrestrial benchmarks.  Based on the data set for dieldrin the  benchmarks developed were
 categorized as adequate, as in the aquatic ecosystem..
                                                                                   /
 Birds: No additional avian toxicity studies were identified for species representing the
 terrestrial ecosystem.  Thus, the  benchmarks calculated for the avian members  of the generic
 terrestrial ecosystem were based on the same study value used for the generic  freshwater
 ecosystem (Nebeker et al., 1992).  The cross-species scaling method of Opresko et al. (1994)
 was used to adjust the study value for differences in animal body size.  Based  on the avian
 data set for  dieldrin, the  benchmarks developed from the Nebeker et al. (1992) study were
 categorized  as adequate.

Plants:  Adverse effects  levels for  terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
 percent yield to root length. As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
 benchmarks, were  selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was  used.  If
there were more than 10 values,  the  10th percentile LOEC was  used.  Such LOECs applied to
 reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
 ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
 However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for dieldrin and, as a result, a benchmark
could not be developed.

Soil community: A dataset from which a soil community benchmark could be calculated was
not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Dieldrin - 8
       Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
RtpfMWIttthtt
SfMCiM
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
• bobwhite
. American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community

tMnCIUTMrK
Vibw'mgAc*
*y
0.028 (a)
0.029 (a)
0.025 (a)
0.010 (a)
0.007 (a)
0.007 (a)
0.003 (a)
0.05 (a)
0.08 (a)
0.08 (a)
0.09 (a)
0.08 (a)
ID
ID
Study
SfwdM
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat .
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
-
-
EfftCt ,
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
dev
dev
dev
dev
dev
-
-
Study
Vaiin
rngft*
.- day
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
•
-
Doci'lpUon
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
-
-
8F
• -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-


Harret al., 1970
Harretal., 1970
Harret al., 1970
Harr et al:, 1970
Harretal., 1970
Harretal., 1970
Harretal., 1970
Nebeker et al..
1992
Nebeker et al.,
1992
Nebeker et al.,
1992
Nebeker et al.,
1992
Nebeker et al.,
1992


'Benchmark categories, a=adequate, p=provisional, i=interim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value was an order of magnitude or more
above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  Dieldrin - 9
III.    Biological Uptake Measures                ,

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the  limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body or lipid-based and,  for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemicals with log K^w values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were  always
assumed to refer  to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log  K^ values above 4, the  BCFs
were assumed to  refer to total water concentrations unless  the BCFs were calculated using
models based on  the relationship between dissolved water concentrations and concentrations
in fish. The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in
Table 4.

As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the  littoral
ecosystem; these  models were considered appropriate to estimate BAF/s for dieldrin.  The
bioconcentration factor for fish, was also  estimated from the Thomann models (i.e.,  log Kow -
dissolved BCF/) and multiplied by the dissolved fraction (/„) as defined in Equation 6-21 to
determine the total bioconcentration factor (BCF/). The dissolved bioconcentration factor
(BCF,d )  was .converted to the BCF,1 in order to estimate the acceptable  lipid tissue
concentration (TC/) in fish consumed by piscivorous  fish (see Equation 5-115).  The  BCF/
was required in Equation 5-115 because the surface water, benchmark (i.e., FCV or SCV)
represents a total  water concentration (C). Mathematically, conversion from BCF/1 to BCF/
was accomplished using the relationship  delineated in the Interim Report on  Data and
Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Wildlife (U.S.
EPA, 19931):

                                   BCF,d x fd = BCF,'
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 Dieldrin-10
Converting the predicted BCF,d of 251,768 L/kg LP to the BCF/ of 143,867 L/kg LP was in
reasonable agreement (i.e., within a factor of 4) of the geometric mean of two measured BCF,'
values presented in the master table on dieldrin (geometric mean = 216,700).

The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates  was the geometric mean of several
values with sources in Table 4 (see  master table).  For earthworms and terrestrial
invertebrates, the bioconcentration factor was estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.
Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to  hydrophobic  organic chemicals assuming that
the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids. Further, the method assumes that the BAFs
and BCFs for terrestrial wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of
Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993)
are of sufficient quality to serve as the standard. The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for "a
chemical lacking measured data  (in  this case dieldrin) is compared to the BBF for TCDD and
that ratio (i.e., dieldrin BBF/TCDD  BBF) is  multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial
vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms, respectively.  For hydrophobic organic
constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1
for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses. The  BCF is based on route-to-leaf
trans location, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air
diffusion. For metals, empirical data were used to derive the BCF for aboveground forage
grasses and leafy vegetables.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Dieldrin- 11
                            Table 4.  Biological  Uptake Properties
ecological
receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic ,
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
llpld-fcesed or
... w—.i— W-..A-
wnoie>>ovciy
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
value
763,219 (d)
618,762 (d)
.1 42,668 (t)
71 3,460 (d).
742,334 (d)
1,322,661 (d)
23
0.0033
0.024
0.029
source
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1989, food chain
model
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1989, food chain
model
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1989 and adjusted to
estimate total BCF
predicted value based on
Thomann et al., 1992, food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann et al., 1992, food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann et al., 1992, food web
model
geometric mean of values (e.g.,
Mendenhall et al., 1983 and
Aulerich et al., 1972 as cited in
WHO, 1989)
Cooke, 1972 as cited in WHO,
1989
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       d   =   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =   refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Dieldrin-12
References

Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
   TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge. Prepared for Ossi Meyn, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database), 1995.   Environmental
   Research Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.

Aulerich, R.J., R.K. Ringer,  and D. Polin.  1972. Rate of accumulation of chlorinated
   hydrocarbon pesticide residues in adipose tissue of mink.  Can. J. Zool. 50(9): 1167-1173.

Blus,  L.J.  1978.  Short-tailed shrews: toxicity and residue relationships of DDT, dieldrin,
   and endrin. Arch. Environ. Contam.  Toxicol. 7:83-98.

Brown, V.K.H., A. Richardson, J. Robinson, and D.E. Stevenson.  1965,  The Effects of
   Aldrin and Dieldrin on Birds.  Fd. Cosmet.  Toxicol., Vol. 3, pp 675-679.

Chernoff, N., R.J. Kavlock, J.R. Kathrein, J.M, Dunn, and J.K. Haseman.  1975.  Prenatal
   effects of dieldrin and photodieldrin in mice and rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 31:302-
   308.

Claborn,  H.V.  1956.  Insecticide Residues in Meat and Milk.  ARS-33-25. U.S. Department
   of Agriculture. As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980, Correlation of bioconcentration factors of
   chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms with their physical and chemical properties,
   Environ. Sci.  Technol. .14(5):553-556.

Claborn,  H.V., R.D. Radeleff, and R. C.  Bushland.  1960. Pesticide Residues in Meat and
   Milk.  ARS-33-63.  U.S.  Department of Agriculture.  As cited in Kenaga, E.E, 1980,
   Correlation of bioconcentration factors of chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms
   with their physical and chemical properties, Environ.  Sci.  Technol. 14(5):553-556.

Cooke, A.S.  1972. The effects of DDT, dieldrin and 2,4-D on amphibian spawn and
   tadpoles.  Environ. Pollut. 3:51-68.

DeWitt, J.B. 1955. Effects of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides upon Quail and Pheasants.
   Agricult. Food Chem. 3:672-676
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Dieldrin-13
DeWitt, J.B.  1956. Chronic Toxicity to Quail and Pheasants of Some Chlorinated Insecticides.
   Agricult. Food Chem. 4(10):663-866

57 FR 24152. June 5, 1992.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7).  Draft
   Report:  A Cross-species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on
   Equivalence of mg/kg3/4/day.

Frederickson, L.G.  1973.  Statement of Testimony at Public Hearings on Suspension of
   Registrations of Aldrin/Dieldrin. EPA Exhibit 34.  U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Washington, DC.  As cited in National Institute for Occupational Safety and
   Health (NIOSH), 1978, Special Occupational Hazard Review for Aldrin/Dieldrin, Division
   of Criteria Documentation and Standards Development,  Rockville, Maryland.

Good,  E.E., and G.W. Ware.  1969. Effects of insecticides on reproduction in the laboratory
   mouse.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.  14:201-203.

Harr, J.R., R.R. Claeys, J.F. Bone, and T.W. McCorcle.  1970.  Dieldrin toxicosis:  rat
   reproduction.  Amer. J. Vet. Res. 31:181-189.

Henderson, C., Q.H. Pickering, and C.M. Tarzwell. 1959a. Relative toxicity of ten
   chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides to four species of fish.  Trans. Am.  Fish. Soc.
   88(l):23-32.  As cited in AQUIRE  (AOUalic Toxicity /nformation fl£trieval  Database),
   Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Keplinger, M.L., W.B. Deichmann, and F. Sala.  1970. Effects of combinations  of pesticides
   on  reproduction in mice.  In:  Pesticides Symposia, 6th and  7th Inter-American Conf.
   Toxicol. Occup. Med., Halos and Associates, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida, pp. 125-138.

Mendenhall, V.M., E.E. Klaas, E.E. McLane, and M.A.R. McLane.  1983.  Breeding success
   of barn  owls (Tyto alba) fed low levels of DDE and dieldrin. Arch. Environ. Contam.
   Toxicol. 12:235-250.

Nagy,  K.A., 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
   Ecological Monographs, 57(2), pp. 111-128.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Dieldrin - 14
Nebeker, A.V., W.L. Griffis, T.W. Stutzman, G.S. Schuytema, L.A. Carey, and S.M. Schefer.
    1992.  Effects of aqueous and dietary exposure of dieldrin on survival, growth, and
    bioconcentration in mallard ducklings. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:687-699.

Ottolenghi, A.D., J.K. Haseman, and F. Suggs.  1973. Teratogenic effects of aldrin, dieldrin,
    and endrin in hamsters and mice.  Teratology  9:11-16.

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W.. Suter. 1994. lexicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL ES/ER/TM-86/R1

Parrish, P.R., J.A. Couch, J. Forrester,  J.M. Patrick, Jr., and G.H. Cook.  1974.  Dieldrin:
    Effects on Several Estuarine Organisms.  In:  Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
    Commissioners, Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference,  pp. 427-434.  As cited in Stephan,
    1993, Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for
    the. Great Lakes Initiative, PB93-154672, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
    Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) Database.  March 1994. National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Sanders, H.O. and O.B. Cope. 1966. Toxicities of Several Pesticides to Two Species of
    Cladocerans. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.  95(2): 165-169. As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic
    Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
    Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Santharam, K.R., B. Thayumanavan, and S. Krishnaswamy.  1976.  Toxicity of Some
    Insecticides to Daphnia carinata King, an Important Link in the Food Chain in the
    Freshwater Ecosystems. Indian J. Ecol. As cited in AQUIRE (AOt/atic Toxicity
    /nformation /?£trieval Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research
    and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Duluth, MN.

Shubat, P.J., and L.R. Curtis.  1986. Ration and toxicant preexposure influence dieldrin
    accumulation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri).  Environ.  Toxicol.  Chem. 5:69-77.  As
    cited in Stephan,  1993. Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife
    Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative,  PB93-154672, Environmental
  .  Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Dieldrin-15
Smith, S.I., C.W. Weber, and B.L. Reid.  1970.  The effect of injection of chlorinated
    hydrocarbon pesticides on hatchability of eggs.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 16:179-185.

Stephan, C.E.   1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Suter II, G.W. and J.B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
    84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Thomann, R.V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution  in aquatic
    food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of organic
    chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction. Environmental
    Toxicology and Chemistry 11:615-629.

Thorpe, E., and A.I.T. Walker.  1973.  The toxicology of dieldrin (HEOD).  II Comparative
    long-term oral ioxicity studies in mice with dieldrin, DDT, phenobarbitone, 3-BHC and
    y-BHC.  Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 11:433-442.

Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms.  1988.  Bjoconcentration of organics in beef, milk,  and
    vegetation.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 22(3):271-274.
                                                                                    i
Treon, J.F., and P.P. Cleveland.  1955. Toxicity of certain chlorinated hydrocarbon
    insecticides for laboratory animals, with special reference to aldrin and dieldrin. Agric.
    Food Chem.  3(5):402-408.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  1978. Special Occupational Hazard
    Review for Aldrin/Dieldrin.  Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National
    Institute for Occupational Safety  and Health, Division of Criteria Documentation and
    Standards Development, Rockville, Maryland.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   for Aldrin/Dieldrin.  PB81-117301. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office
    of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Oieldrin - 16
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988. Recommendations for and
    Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment.  P338-179874.
    Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e. Methodology for Assessing
    Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final.
    Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.  Washington, DC.  January.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993b. Wildlife Criteria Portions of the
    Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. EPA-822-R-93-006.
    Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993c. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
    Protection of benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. EPA-822-R-93-015.  Office of Science and
    Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993d. Technical Basis for Deriving
    Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of
    Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning. EPA/822-R-93/011. Office of
    Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993e. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.
    EPA/600/R-93/187a.  Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1993i. Interim Report on Data and
    Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and
    Associated Wildlife.   EPA/600/R-93/055.  Office of. Research and Development,
    Washington, DC.

Virgo, B.B., and G.D. Bellward.  1975. Effects of dietary dieldrin on reproduction in the
    Swiss-Vancouver (SWV) mouse. Environ. Physiol. Biochem. 5:440-450.

Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter, 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks  for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effets on Terrestrial Plants:   1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Dieldrin
      Cas No. 60-57-1


Chemical
Name

dieldrin


dieldrin

dieldrin



dieldrin


dieldrin


dieldrin

dieldrin


dieldrin


dieldrin



dieldrin



Species

mouse


mouse

mice


SWV mice
(females)


mice


Swiss mice

rats


female rats


hamsters



mice



Endpolnt

et


fet

rep



fet.rep


iver


rep

rep


rep


ter



ter



Description

NOAEL


LOAEL

NOAEL



LOAEL


AEL


NOAEL

NOAEL


NOAEL


AEL



AEL



Value

1.5


3

5



t.02


10


3

0.189


0.014


30



15



Units
mg/kg-
day

mg/kg-
day

ppm


mg/kg-
diet


ppm

mg/kg-
diet
mg/kg-
day

mg/kg-
day

mg/kg-
dlet


mg/kg-
diet

Exposure Route
(oral, B.C., l.v.,
l.p., Inlectlon)

gastric intubation


gastric intubation

oral



oral


oral


oral
/
oral

oral (10 two-fold
cone.)


oral



oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing
days 7- 16 of
gestation

days 7- 16 of
gestation

120 days

4 wks prior to their
2nd mating, cont. to
day 28 postpartum


2-year study
6-generation study
(2 liners/
generation)

2 years

lifetime
observations
Given a single dose
on day 7, 8 , or 9 of
gestation.


Given a single dose
on day 9
j •


Reference

Chemoff et al., 1975


Chemotf etal., 1975

Good and Ware, 1969



Virgo and Bellward, 1975


Thorpe and Walker, 1973


Keplinger et al., 1970
Treon and Cleveland,
1955


Harr etal., 1970


Ottolenghi etal., 1973



Ottolenqhi et al.. 1973



Comments
No teratogenic or fetotoxic effects
were observed at this dose level.
An increased percentage of '
supernumerary ribs was observed
in mice.
No effect on maternal mortality.
fertility, or fecundity. (Single dose)
'No effect on the incidence of
breeding in parous females, fetal
survival, the duration of gestation,
or parturition.'
Liver enlargement by week 50;
first liver tumours after a 12-
month exposure period.
'no effects on fertility, viability, or
gestation were observed in 6
generations of mice*
The number of pregnancies were
not affected at this dose level.
0.24 ppm is 'the highest dietary
dieldrin level consistent with
normal reproductive values'
Embryocidal and teratogenic
effects were observed in pregnant
hamsters.
Teratogenic effects, but the
frequency and gravity of the
defects produced were less
pronounced.

-------
                                            Freshwater .    ^ity - D!e!dr!n
                                                  Cas No. 60-57-1
Chemical
Name
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin
Species
Daphnia
carinata
Daphnia pulex
Simocephalus
serrulatus

bluegill

striped bass
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
organisms

rainbow trout
fathead
minnow
Type of
Effect
immob.
immob.
immob.

mort. -

mort.
mort.
mort.

mort.

mort.
Description
EC50
EC50
EC50

LC50

LC50
FCV
FCV

LC50

LC50
Value
130
251
190-240
(213.8)
7.9-17
(10.72)
1-500
(98.86)
0.29
0.0625
1.1 - 10000
(159.59)

18
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

ug/L

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

ug/L

ufl/L
Test type
(static/ flow
through)
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA

NA

NA
Exposure
Duration/
Tlmlna
48 hour
48 hour
48 hour

96 hour

96 hour
NA
NA

96 hour

96 hour
Reference
Santharam et al., 1976 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
Sanders etal, 1966 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995

AQUIRE, 1995

AQUIRE, 1995
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1993c

AQUIRE. 1995
Henderson et al., 1959 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Comments













NA = Not applicable

-------
                           Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Dieldrin
                                           Cas No. 60-57-1


Chemical
Name
dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin


Species
fish

fish

fish

B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF

BCF

BCF


Value
467

2091

2245
Measured
or
predicted
(m,p)
P

m

m


Units
NS

NS

NS


Reference
Stephan, ,1993
Shubat andCurtis, 1986 as cited
Stephan, 1993
Parrish et al., 1974 as cited in.
Stephan, 1993


Comments
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid.

Normalized to 1 .0% lipid.

Normalized to 1 .0% lipid.
NS = Not specified

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Diethyl phthalate - 1
                  Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Recptors
                                   Diethyl  phthaJate
                                    Cas No.:84-66-2
Summary:  This profile on diethyl phthalate summarizes the toxicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals,  daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks  (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire toxicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.   This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document for the "Hazardous  Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."

I.    Toxicological Benchmarks  for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
     Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale  behind toxicological benchmarks used to  derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Mammals: Only one subchronic study investigating the  effects of oral diethyl phthalate
exposure in mammalian species was identified.  Brown  et al.  (1978) fed female rats diethyl
phthalate at doses of 150, 750 and 3710 mg/kg-day for  16 weeks.  Male rats were maintained
on diets containing 150, 770  and 3160 mg/kg-day for the same period of time. No changes in
behavior or other clinical  signs of  toxicity were observed in either sex. However, at the
highest dose levels, decreases in food consumption and  weight gain were observed in both
sexes as well as increases in  relative weights of the brain, liver, kidney, stomach, small
intestines and full caecum. Based on these results, a  NOAEL of 750 mg/kg-day and a
LOAEL of 3160 mg/kg-day were reported.

The dose levels used in this study  were sufficient to establish a dose-response relationship for
pathological effects.  However, benchmark values were  not derived because the study does
not evaluate reproductive  or developmental endpoints.

August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Biological,    .ke Measures • Dieldrin
                Cas No. 60-57-1


Chemical
Name
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin


Species
plants
cattle (beef)
cattle (milk)

B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF
BTF
BTF


Value
0.123
0.0079
0.0107
Measured
or
predicted
(m.p)
P
m
m


Units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug
/g soil)
NS
NS


Reference
U.S. EPA, 1990e
Travis and Arms, 198B
Travis and Arms, 1988


Comments

BTF = Biotransfer factors
BTF = Biotransfer factors
NS = Not specified

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Dieldrin
                Cas No. 60-57-1
Chemical
Name
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
Species
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
cattle
cattle
swine
swine
swine
swine
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
Value
1
2.8
6.5
18
8.7
10.6
3
1.6
1.76
0.8
2.68
1.8
Measured
or
predicted
(m.p)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Unto
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS .
NS
Reference
Nebeker et at., 1992
Nebekeretal., 1992
Nebekeretal, 1992
Nebekeretal., 1992
Nebekeretal., 1992
Nebekeretal., 1992
Clabom, et.al., 1960 as cited
inKenaga, 1980
Clabom, et.al., I960 as cited
in Kenaga, 1 980
Clabom, et.al., 1960 as cited
in Kenaga, 1 980
Clabom, et.al , 1960 as cited
in Kenaga, 1 980
Clabom, et.al., 1960 as cited
inKenaga, 1980
Clabom. et.al., 1956 as cited
in Kenaga, 1 980
Comments
Steady state BCF at mean food
dieldrin concentration of 606 =(-) 16
ug/g.
Steady state BCF at mean food
dieldrin concentration of 272 +(-) 17
ug/g
Steady state BCF at mean food
dieldrin concentration of 155 +(-) 15
ug/g. .
Steady state BCF at mean food
dieldrin concentration of 48 +(-) 5 -
ug/g
Steady state BCF at mean food
dieldrin concentration of 16.4 +(-) .3
ug/g.
Steady state BCF at mean food
dieldrin concentration of .3 +(•) .03
ug/g.




,


-------
Terrestrial Biological i   .ke Measures - Oieldrin
                Cas No. 60-57-1
Chemical
Name
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
Species
common frog
common
load
barn owl
short-tailed
shrew
mink
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
mallard
ducklings
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMF)
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
Value
387.5
280
18.8
-\
1.6
8.4
1,124
706
1,085
1,427
1,325
1,995
1,753
Measured
or
predicted
(m,p)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Units
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Cooke, 1972
Cooke, 1972
Mendenhall et al., 1983
Blus, 1978
Aulerich et al , 1972
Nebeker el al., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker et at., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker etal., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Nebeker et al., 1992
Comments
Exposure duration = 2 days; whole
body.
Exposure duration = 2 days; whole
body.
Exposure duration = 2 years;
carcass.
Exposure duration = 17 days;
carcass.
Exposure duration = 4-10 weeks; •
fat.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations in water of .193 +(-)
8mg/L.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations in water of .177 +(-)
11 mg/L.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations in water of . 1 1 8 +(-)
11mg/L.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations In water of .075 +(-)
1-mg/L.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations in water of .052 +(-)
4 mg/L.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations in water of .019 +(-)
2 mg/L.
Steady state BCF at mean dieldrin
concentrations in water of .014 +(-)
1 mg/L.

-------
Terrestrial 1    Aty - Dieldrin
      Cas No. 60-57-1

Chemical
Name




dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin


dieldrin



dieldrin



dieldrin



dieldrin




dieldrin


Species




raccoons
mallard
duckling
mallard
duckling

bam owls


quail



quail



pheasants
embryos and
young
growing
chicks

embryos and
young
growing
chicks


Endpolnt




rep

dev

dev

rep


rep



rep



rep



dvp, rep




dvp, rep


Description




LOEL

NOAEL

LOAEL

NOAEL


LOAEL



NOAEL



LOAEL



NOAEL




LOAEL


Value




0.036

0.08

4.27

0.5


O.B



1



10



2.5




5


Units




mg/kg-d
mg/kg-
day
mg/kg-
day

ppm

mg/kg-
day



ppm



ppm



mg/egg




mg/egg
Exposure Route
(oral, s.c., l.v.,
l.p.. Inlectlon)




oral

oral

oral

oral


oral



oral



oral



injection




injection

Exposure
Duration/Timing




NS

24 days

24 days

2 years


1 54 days



61 days



61 days
injected either prior
to incubation or
after a 7-day
incubation period

injected either prior
to incubation or
after a 7-day
incubation period


Reference



Frederickson, 1973 as
cited in NIOSH. 1978

Nebeker et al., 1992

Nebeker et al., 1992

Mendenhalletal., 1983


DeWitt, 1955



DeWitt, 1956



DeWitt, 1956



Smith etal., 1970




Smith etal.. 1970


Comments
'statistically significant adverse
effects on the estrous cycle and
on the incidence of pregnancy.
fetal death, resorption of embryos
and reduced litter size.
No developmental effects were
observed at this dose level.
Growth and survival were effected
at this dose level.
No reduction in breeding success;
a single dose.
Significant decreases in
hatchability of eggs and viability o
chicks were observed.
No effects on egg production,
percentage fertility, or percentage
hatchability were observed at this
dose level.
Hatchability was decreased and
unusually high mortality of chicks
during the first 2 weeks were
observed at this dose level.


No reproductive effects were
observed.
This result is in conflict with '
(Dunachie and Fletcher, 1966),
which indicated that 10 mg could
be injected with no apparent
deleterious effects.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Oieldrin
      Cas No. 60-57-1
Chemical
Name
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
dieldrin
Species
chickens
rat
mouse
dog
monkey
rabbit
pig
guinea pig
hamster
pigeon
chicken
quail
duck
wild bird
canada
goose
fulvous
whistling
duck
Endpolnt
rep
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute *"
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
Description
NOAEL
LD50
LD50
LD50
L050
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
Value
1
38300
38
65
3
45
38
49
60
23700
20
10780
381
13300
<141
100-
200
Units
ppm
ug/kg-
Dody wl
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
ug/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
ug/kg-.
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
ug/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
Exposure Route
(oral, s.c., l.v.,
l.p., Inlectlon)
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
Exposure
Ouratlon/Tlmlnq
2 years
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
/
Reference
Brown et at., 1965
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
U.S. EPA. 1993b
U.S. EPA, 1993b
Comments
Fertility and hatchability were not
affected at this dose level.
.









Behavioral effects. .





-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Diethyl phthalate - 2
Birds: No toxicity studies documenting avain exposure to diethyl phthalate in the fresh water
ecosystem were identified and, therefore benchmarks were not derived.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  A review of the literature revealed that an AWQC is not
available for diethyl phthalate.  Therefore, the Tier n method described in Section 4.3.5 was
used to calculate a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 0.22 mg/L.  Tier n values or SCVs
were developed so that aquatic benchmarks could be established for chemicals with data sets
that did not fulfill all the requirements of the National AWQC. Because the benchmark is
based on an SCV, it was categorized as interim.

Aquatic Plants: The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration  (ECXX) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).  A
value of 86 mg/L as reported in the SQC document for diethyl phthalate was selected as the
benchmark value. As described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarks for aquatic  plants were
designated as  interim.

Benthic community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method.  The EQp  method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic water quality measures, along with the fraction  of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^ to determine a protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993).  The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still protecting the benthic community the harmful effects of  chemcial
exposure.  Because no FCV was available, a Secondary Chronic Value  (SCV) was calculated
as described in Section 4.3.5.  The SCV reported for diethyl phthalate was used to calculate
an EQ., number of 44.2 mg diethyl phthalate/kg organic carbon.  Assuming a mass fraction of
organic carbon for the sediment (f^ of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is 2.2
mg diethyl phthalate/kg of sediment Because the EQp number was set using a SCV derived
using the Tier n method, it was categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B
Diethyl phthalate • 3
           Table 1.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem

£tt^*||M
^fjF^^F^^^
mink
riwr otler
bald eagle
osprey
great bkw heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gul
kingfisher
Benchmark
V*tu#ma/*fr
«•*
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
«
ID
ID
SJwfr
*»4**
- ' •

'
-

-.
•
•


«««<*


•
-
-


-
-
-
Study Wh*
*Bft»4*
-
:
-
•
-
-
•
-
•

li^^^^PT^p^^W
-
•
-
-
•
-
- .
-
•
•
8f
. •
•
•
•
. •
•
•
•

•
Origipatdeurc*
•* .
•
-
-
•
'
-
•
•


      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
      of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID - Insufficient Data
                Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                            Associated with Freshwater  Ecosystem
^•pWNWiiluwwi
Sp*d**
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benlhic community
dtnehmarit
Vatae*
B»0ft.
0.22 (i)
86 (i)'
2.2 (i)
Study
gpicttw
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
plants
aquatic
organisms
Deecrtpfion
scv
scv
SCV x «„,.
Oriafeal&Mjrea
AQUIRE. 1995
Sutar and Mabrey,
1994
AQUIRE. 1995
         'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value
         was an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL (or other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Diethyl phthalate • 4
IL    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (€_) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds,  plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation  of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As mentioned in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable subchronic or
chronic toxicity studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to diethyl phthalate.
Since no additional  laboratory mammal studies focusing on reproductive or other critical
endpoints were identified, a mammalian benchmark for terrestrial ecosystems was not derived.

Birds:  Adequate toxicity data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the terrestrial
avain community were not available.

Plants: Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root lengths. As  presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there were more  than 10 values, the 10th  percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a plant population to  sustain itself, such as a reduction in  seed elongation.
However, terrestrial  plant studies  were not identified for diethyl phthalate and, as a result, a
benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the  soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                     Diethyl phthalate • 5
          Table 3. lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with .Terrestrial Ecosystem
ftapnstenwfae
$P4Q|e0
dew mouse
short-tajtod
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox .
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red- tailed hawk
American Kestrel
Northern
bobowhite




DeoflhmMlt
VtJue*
4rt0W(Mtoy
ID
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID




ID
Study
, Sp*U~
-
-
-

•
-
:
-
.-




. -
Etf-ct
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-




-
Study
V«A»
»*ft«-
*v

•
-
•
•
-

-
•




•
V^ataWtfttslkfts^Mh.
»F™^W^P^MW%
-
-
-

-
•
-
-
-'




-
SF
'
•
-
•
•
•
-
-
-

•


•
OrfefelBl $ewe*
.
• •
-
-


.
-
-





 American robin


   American


    plants

 soil community
ID


ID


ID

ID
   woodcock

-------
APPENDIX B
Diethyl phthalate - 5
           Table 3.  Toxkological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
flapfaaantinvt
$p4ci*#
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastarn
cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white- tailed dear
red- tailed hawk
American kaetnel
Northern
bobowhrte
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
toil community
Banclunafic
V«hW
waftHM**
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID '
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
&wtf
Spade*
-

•
.-
-
-
. -

-


-
-
-
BfrCt
-
•
-
-
-
-
.
-
•


-

-
Study
Vafee
mtfUB-
day

-
-
-


•
•
-
-

•
-
-
|i^^^vY*f*€j*iB'9%
.
•
-
-
-
-
-
-


-

•
-
l$f
.


•
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-

•
•
<<*&(* $CHWX*
.
-
-
-

-
•
.
-
• -
•
-
-
-
      'Benchmark Category, a a adequate, p = provisional, i * interim; a "*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID - Insufficient Data
HI.  Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents the biological uptake measures (i.e., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive protective
surface water and soil concnetrations for constituents considered to bioconcnetrate and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake values and sources
are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: tropic level 3 and 4 fish in the limnetic and
littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertbrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each value is idenfieid as whole-body or lipid-based and,  for the
generic aquatic ecosystems, the biological uptake factors are deignated with a "d" if the value reflects
dissolved water concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For
organic chemicals with log Kow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Diethyl phthalate - 6
assumed to refer dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals total water
concentration).  For organic chemicals with log Kow values above 4, the BCFs were assumed to refer
to total water concentrations and concentrations in fish. The brief discussion proceeding Table 4
describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the context for
interpretting the biological uptake values.

The bioconcentration factor for fish was estimated from the Veith (1980) equation for phthalates.  The
measured BCF from Stephan (1993) was not used because the value may  be artifically high
since it is based on uptake of radioactivity with no verification of the parent chemical.

The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and
earthworms were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3. Briefly, the extrapolation
method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
dominated by lipids.  Further, the method assumes that the BAFs and BCFs for terrestrial
wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of Risks to Terrestrial
Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt,  1993) are of  sufficient
quality to serve as the standard. The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a  chemical lacking
measured data  is  compared to the BBF for TCDD and that ratio (i.e.; parathion BBF/TCDD
BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and
earthworms, respectively. For hydrophobic organic constituents, the  bioconcentration factor
for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and
forage grasses. The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves
and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Diethyl phthalate - 7
                            Table 4.  Biological  Uptake Properties
9QOtOQl00l
receptor
fish
littoral trophic
10*42
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF.BAF.or
8SAF
BCF
-
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
JipfcMMMdor
Mftirtt* fcirt Ar
WfKHPnKWy
lipid
-
whoto-body
whote-body
whole-body
whole-plant
»*hie
500 (d)
ID
2.7 E -06
2.6 E - 06
2.1 E-05
1.7
•QUKW
predicted; Veith et a).. 1980

calc
calc
calc
U.S. EPA, I990e
       d = retere to dissolved surface water concentration
       t » retort to total surface water concentration
       ID = loiufficieiH D»u
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Diethyl phthalate - 8
References
Barrows, M. E., S. R. Petrocelli, and K. J. Macek.  1980.  Bioconcentration and elimination
    of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In:  Dynamics,
    Exposure and Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals.  R. Haque, Ed. Ann Arbor Science
    Pub. Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 379-392.  As cited in Stephan, C.E.  1993. Derivations of
    Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes
    Initiative. PB93-154672. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
    Development, Duluth, MN.

Brown, D., K. R. Butterworth, I. F. Gaunt, P. Grasso, and S. D. Gangolli. 1978.  Short-term
    oral toxicity study of diethyl phthalate in the rat. Food Cosmet. Toxicol.  16:415-422.

Food Research Laboratories, Inc. 1955.  Toxicological studies of diethyl phthalate. Laboratory
    No. 67567, Celanese Corporation of America, Summit Research Laboratories,  Summit,
    NJ.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), IRIS (Integrated Risk
    Information System).  March 1994.

Geiger, D.L., C.E. Northcott, D.J. Call, and L.T. Brooke.  1985.  Acute toxicities  of organic
    chemicals to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), Vol. 2.  Center for Lake Superior
    Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI:326 p. As cited in
    AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information ^Etrieval Database). Environmental  Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database.  March 1994.

National Library of Medicine. HSDB (Hazardous Substance Database). 1994.

NTP (National Toxicology Program).  1984.  Diethyl Phthalate: Reproduction and fertility
    assessment in CD-1 mice when administered in the feed. Final report.  NTP, Research
    Triangle Park, NC.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). IRIS
    (Integrated Risk Information System). March 1994.

Singh, A. R., W. H.  Lawrence, and J. Autian. 1972. Teratogenicity of phthalate esters in
    rats.  Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 61(l):51-55.

Stephan, C.E. 1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672. Environmental  Research
    Laboratory, Office of  Research and Development, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                       Diethyl phthalate - 9
Suter n, G. W. and J.- B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of
    Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-
    AC05-84OR21400. Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Thomann, R. V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P.  Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.   '
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  11:615-629.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health
    Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.  Office
    of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D. C. January.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a) Criteria and Related
    Information for Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division, Region IV.

Veith, G. D. and K. J.  Macek, S. R. Petrocelli and J. Carroll. 1980. An evaluation of using
    partition coefficients and water solubility to estimate bioconcentration factors for organic
    chemicals in fish.  /. Fish. Res.  Board Can. ( Prepublication copy) As cited in Lyman,
    W. J., W. F. Reehl and D. H. Rosenblatt.  1990.  Handbook of Chemical Proper?
    Estimation  Methods. American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C. p. 5-4.

Will, M. E. and  G. W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1. Prepared for U.S. Department  of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Diethyl phthalate Cas No.: 84-66-2
'

Chemical
Name


diethyl
phthalate


diethyl
phthalate


diethyl
phthalate
^

diethyl
phthalate
diethyl
phthalate
diethyl
phthalate



Species



rat



rat



mice



rats

rat

guinea pig
NS - Not Specified



Endpoint



growth



growth



rep



fet

behv. dev _j

behv, dve




Description



LOAEL



Value



3160



LOAEL



NOAEL



LOAEL

LD50

LD50 -


5



2.5



0.506

8600

8600




Units



mg/kg-day



%



%



ml/kg

mg/kg-body wt.

mg/kg-body wt.

Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., l.p.,
injection)



oral


Exposure
Duration
/Timing



1 6 weeks



oral



oral



i.p. injection

oral

oral


2 years



1 8 weeks

days 5,10
and 15 of
gestation

NS

NS





;
Reference



Brown etal., 1978

Food Research
Lab.. 1955 as cited
in IRIS, 1994


NTP, 1984 as cited
in IRIS, 1994



Singh etal., 1972

RTECS. 1994

RTECS, 1994

Comments
Decreased growth rate, food
consumption and organ
weights were observed at
this dose level.
Growth of the animals was
retarded throughout the study
at this dose level. (0.5%,
2.5%, and 5.0%)
Reproductive pertomance
was not altered at this dose
level, the highest dose of
three.
Skeletal abnormalities were
noted at this dose level, the
lowest dose level of three
dose levels.






-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Diet. .  phthaiate Cas No.:84-66-2
Chemical
Name
diethyl
phthaiate
. Specie?
aquatic
organisms

diethyl
phthaiate
fathead
minnow
NS = Not Specified
Type of
Effect

chronic


mort.

Description

scv


LC50
Value

Units

220 ug/L


31.800



ug/L

Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

NS


NS

Exposure
Duration
/Timing

Reference
Suter and Mabrey,
NS J1994


96-hour
•
Comments


Geiger etal., 1985
as cited in AQUIRE,
1995


•

-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Diethyl phthalate Cas No.: 84-66-2
Chemical
Name
diethyl
phthalate
diethyl
phthalate
diethyl
phthalate
• = BCF value
NS = Not Spe
Species
fish
fish
fish
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF
s may have come from sing
cified |
Value
73-
B.54
24.38'
e source

Measured
or
Predicted
(m.P)
m
P 	
m


Units
L/kg
NS
NS


Reference
U.S. EPA, 1992
Slephan, 1993
Barrows et al., 1980 as
cited in Stephan, 1993


Comments
Normalized to 3%
lipjd.
Normalized to 1 .0%
lipids.
Normalized to 1 .0%
lipids.


24.33



-------
Terrestrial Bioiogicai Uptake Measu.   • Diethy! prtirtaiate Gas No.: B4=66-2
•

Chemical
Name

diethyl
phthalate



Species


plant

B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)


BCF



Value


1.7
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.P)


P



units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)



Reference



Comments
.

U.S. EPA, 1990e


-------
APPENDIX B                                                     Dimethyl phthalate - 1
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                  Dimethyl phthalate
                                  CasNo.:  131-11-3
Summary: This profile on dimethyl phthalate summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks  for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration  factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors,  although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document  for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR):  Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."

I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
     Ecosystem
                                                                     /•
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive  protective
media concentrations (C—J  for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and  birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table  2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems,  including
aquatic plants,  fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Mammals: Plasterer et al. (1985) investigated the  effects of oral dimethyl phthalate exposure
in laboratory mammals.  Pregnant mice were given 3500 mg/kg-day in corn oil by  gavage on
gestation days 7 through 14. In a similar study by Hardin et al. (1987) pregnant mice were
given 3500 mg/kd-day in distilled water or corn oil by gavage on gestation days 6  through 13.
No toxic effects were observed in treated mothers or in their offspring in either study. Since
no adverse effects on reproductive endpoints were identified, benchmark values protective of
the mammalian community were not derived.

Birds:  Toxicity data were not identified involving dimethyl phthalate toxicity in avian species
and, therefore benchmarks were not derived.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates: A review of the literature revealed that an  AWQC is not available for
dimethyl phthalate.  Therefore, the Tier II method described in Section 4.3.5 was used to calculate and


August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                          Dimethyl phthalate - 2
Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 140 mg/L. Tier II values or Secondary Chronic Values  were
developed so that the aquatic benchmarks could be established for chemcials with data sets that did not
fulfill all the requirements of the National AWQC. Because the benchmark is based on an SCV, it
was categorized as interim.

Aquatic plants:  The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either  (1) a no observed
effects concentration (NOEQ or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for vascular aquatic
plants (e.g.,  duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (EC^) for a species of freshwater algae,
frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).  Adequate data  for the
development of benchmarks for dimethyl phthalate were not identified in Suter and Mabrey (1994) or
in AQUIRE.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined using the
Equilibrium  Partition (EQp) method.  The EQp method uses a Final Chronic Value (FCV) or SCV,
along with the fraction of organic carbon and  the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^ to
determine protective sediment concentration (Stephan, 1993). The EQp number is the  chemical
concentration that may be present in the sediment while still protecting the  benthic community from
the harmful effects of chemical exposure. The SCV  for dimethyl phthalate, as calculated  from the
AQUIRE database was used to calculate and EQp value of 5.78 mg dimethyl phthalate/kg organic
carbon.  Assuming a mass fraction of organic  carbon for the sediment (f^)  of 0.05, the benchmark for
the benthic community is 0.29 mg/kg sediment.  Since the EQp number  was based  on  an SCV, the
sediment benchmark was categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                         Dimethyl phthalate • 3
           Table 1.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
ftofvwwtaiw
Slt*0i*0
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser tcaup
spottad sandpiper
herring guH
kingfisher
BwwhBMrft
V«iu* maty*.
**y
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
*u*
,ap«ofa«


-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
itt*ci

- .
-
•

-•
•
-
•
-
Study V*faNi
*aftHNr
•
-
•
-
•




-
. ffcuM*|M|tlttft
•r^^l^^*^^^*
•
-
•
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
° W '
•
•
-
-

•
-



-. J.
' -
'
•
-
•
-
• . ' •



      'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value-was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID = Insufficient Data
                Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem

                fish and aquatic
                 invertebrates
                aquatic plants
               benthic community
 140 (i)
No data
0.29 (i)
                                                Stody
  scv
AQUIRE. 1995
SCVxK^     AQUIRE. 1995
        •Benchmark Category, a - w*wn*to. p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value    was an
      order of magnitude or more above (he NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                          Dimethyl phthalate - 4
 n.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

 This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
 media concentrations (Cp^ for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains benchmarks
 for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial
 ecosystem.

 Mammals: As mentioned in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable subchronic or chronic
 lexicological studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to dimethyl phthalate. Therefore, a
 mammalian benchmark for terrestrial ecosystems was not derived.

 Birds: No avian toxicity studies were identified for dimethyl phthalate and therefore, benchmark
 values protective of avian species were not derived.

 Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were  identified for endpoints ranging from percent
 yield to root lengths. As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity benchmarks were selected
 by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th percentile.  If there were 10 or
 fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If there were more than 10 values, the
 percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or
 other effects reasonably assumed to impair the ability of  a plant population to sustain itself, such as a
 reduction in  seed elongation. However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for dimethyl
 phthalate and, as a result, a  benchmark could not be developed.

 Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
 community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Dimethyl phthalate - 5
           Table 3.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                              Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
R»pr«eenlati»i
%»*de*
dear mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vote
Eastern
cottontail
rod fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red- tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobowhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
toil community
Banchm**
Vain**
Wgflt9**t
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID .
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
No data
No data
Study
Specie*'


-
- ,
-
-



-

••
-
•
Effect
-

-
•
•
-


•
-
-

-
•
Study -
Vrt»
% *«**
4*Y
-

/
-
•
'


-
• •


-
•
\ .
Description
.
•
- .
.

•
. -
• -



•
.
-
' 8F

•
-
-
-
-

-

•
-
-'
•
•
CMf0nai Soura*
•*

••
•
-
-

-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
•
•Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p - provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates (hat the benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data


m.  Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents the biological uptake measures (i.e., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive protective
surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcnetrate and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake values and sources
are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: tropic level 3 and 4 fish in the limnetic and
littoral ecosystems, general fish  (BCF only), aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertbrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each value is idenfieid as whole-body or lipid-based  and, for the
generic aquatic ecosystems, the  biological uptake factors are deignated with a "d" if the value reflects
dissolved water concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations. For
organic chemicals with log Kow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                        Dimethyl phthalate - 6
 assumed to refer dissolved w^r concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals total water
 concentration).  For organic chemicals with log K,,w values above 4, the BCFs were assumed to refer
 to total water concentrations and concentrations in fish. The brief discussion proceeding Table 4
 describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the context for
 interpreting the biological uptake values.

 The bioconcentration factor for fish was estimated from the Veith (1980) equation for phthalates.  The
 measured BCF from Stephan (1993) was not used because the value may be artifically high
 since it is based on uptake of radioactivity with no verification of the parent chemical.

 The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates,  invertebrates, and
 earthworms were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3. Briefly, the extrapolation
 method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
 dominated by lipids.  Further, the method assumes that the BAFs and BCFs for terrestrial
 wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of Risks to  Terrestrial
 Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt,  1993)  are of sufficient
 quality to serve as the standard.  The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a chemical lacking
 measured data is compared to the BBF for TCDD and that ratio (i.e., parathion BBF/TCDD
 BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and
 earthworms, respectively.  For hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor
 for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and
 forage grasses. The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves
 and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Dimethyl phthalate - 7
                            Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
OTPJOfjhnfll
: tetiepiof
fish
trophic lavol 2
invertebrates
tarrettriai
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
8C£,«AF»ar
BSAF
BCF
•
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
lipkUNMtd or
Mifcii>iat tut iiii
wmwoooy
lipid
•
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
vatoe
100 (d)
ID
5.4E-07
5.2E-07 '
4.1E-06
4.4
•»•
tkounw
predtcted; Veith et a)., 1980
•
calc
caic .
cak
U.S. EPA. 1990e
       d » reiers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t = retort to total surface water concentration
       ID a Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                     Dimethyl phthalate - 8
References
Barrows, M. E., S. R, Petrocelli, and K. J. Macek.  1980.  Bioconcentration and elimination
    of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In: Dynamics,
    Exposure and Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals.  R. Haque, Ed. Ann Arbor Science
    Pub. Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 379-392.  As cited in Stephan, C.E.  1993. Derivations of
    Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes
    Initiative. PB93-154672. Environmental Research  Laboratory, Office of Research and
    Development, Duluth, MN.

Geiger, D.L., C.E. Northcott, D.J. Call, and L.T. Brooke. 1985.  Acute toxicities of organic
    chemicals to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), Vol. 2.  Center for Lake Superior
    Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI:326 p. As cited in
    AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity information REtrieval Database). Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN.

Hardin, B.D., R.L. Schuler, J.R. Burg, G,M. Booth, K.P. Hazelden, K.M. MacKenzie,  V.J.
    Piccirillo, and K. N. Smith. 1987.  Evaluation of 60 chemicals in a preliminary
    developmental toxicity test. Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis. 7:29-48.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances)  Database. March 1994.

National Library of Medicine. HSDB (Hazardous  Substance Database). 1994.

Plasterer, M.R., W.S. Bradshaw, G.M. Booth, and  M.W. Carter.  1985.  Developmental
    toxicity of nine selelcted compounds following prenatal exposure in  the mouse:
    naphthalene, p-nitrophenol, sodium selenite, dimethyl phthalate, ethylenethiourea, and four
    glycol ehter derivatives. Journal of Toxicology and  Environmental Health, 15:  25-38.

Singh, A. R., W.  H. Lawrence, and J. Autian. 1972. Teratogenicity of phthalate esters in
    rats.  Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 61(l):51-55.

Stephan, C.E.  1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672. Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of  Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Suter n, G. W. and J. B. Mabrey  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of
    Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-
    AC05-.84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management,  U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                            ,                         Dimethyl phthalate • 9
Thomann, R. V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P. Connolly, and T.  F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical  accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  11:615-629.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).   1990e. Methodology for Assessing Health
    Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to  Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.  Office
    of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D. C.  January.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).   1992.  304(a) Criteria and Related
    Information for Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division, Region IV.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Integrated Risk Information System.
    March.

Veith, G. D. and K. J. Macek, S. R. Petrocelli  and J. Carroll. 1980.  An evaluation of using
    partition coefficients and water solubility to estimate bioconcentration factors for organic
    chemicals in fish.  /. Fish. Res. Board Can. ( Prepublication copy) As cited in Lyman,
    W.  J., W. F. Reehl and D. H. Rosenblatt.  1990.  Handbook of Chemical Property
    Estimation Methods. American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C. p. 5-4.

Will, M.  E. and  G. W.  Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial toxicity - Diemthyl phthalate Cas No.: 131-11-3


Chemical
Name

dimethyl
phthalate

dimethyl
phthalate


dimethyl
phthalate
dimethyl
phthalate
dimethyl
phthalate



Species


rats


rats



mouse

rat

mouse
NS = Not Specified



Endpolnt


ter


fet



rep

behv, dev

behv, dev




Description


LOAEL


NOAEL



NOAEL

LD50

LD50




Value


0.338


5000



3500

6800

6800




Units


ml/kg


mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day

mg/kg-body wt.

mg/kg-body wt.

Exposure
Route (oral,
B.C., I.V., I. p.,
Injection)


i.p. injection


oral (gavage)



oral (gavage)

oral

oral



Exposure
Duration /Timing

days 5, 10 and 15
of gestation

gestation days 6-
13

day 7 through
day 14 of
gestation

NS

NS




Reference


Singh etal.. 1972


Hardin et. al., 1987



Plasterer etal., 1985

RTECS, 1994

RTECS, 1994




i Comments
Teratogenic effects were
observed at this dose level, the
lowest of three dose levels.
No toxic effects in the treated
mothers or in their offspring. (2
dose levels)
No effect on maternal weight
gain, litter size, or average pup
weight was observed at this
single dose level.






-------
Freshwater Toxiclty-Dirneth;  ^hthalates  Gas No.: 131-11-3
Chemical
Name
dimethyl
phthalate
Species
fathead
minnow
NS = Not Specified
Type of
Effect
mort.

Description
LC50

Value
.121,000

Units
ug/L 	
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)
NS

Exposure
Duration
/Timing
96-hour

Reference
Geiger et al., 1990 as cited in
AQUIRE. 1995

Comments



-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Dimethyl phthalate Cas No.: 131-11-3
Chemical
Name
dimethyl
phthalate
dimethyl
phthalate
dimethyl
phthalate
Species
fish
fish
fish
NS = Not Specified
B-factor
(BCF, BAF.
BMF)
BCF
BCF
BCF

Value
36"
1.38
11.9*

* = BCF values may have come from a single source
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,p)
m

m


Units
L/kjL
NS
NS


Reference
U.S. EPA, 1992
Stephan, 1993
Barrows et al., 1980 as cited
in Stephan, 1993


Comments
Normalized to 3%
lipjd.
Normalized to 1 .0%
lipids.
Normalized to 1 .0%
lipids.
	 - -

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measure.   Jimethyl phthalate cas No.: 131-11-3


Chemical Name
dimethyl phthalate


Species
plant

B-factor
(BCF. BAF,
BMP)
BCF


Value
4.4
Measured
or
Predicted
(m,P)
P


units
(ug/g DW plant)/(ug/g
soil)


Reference
U.S. EPA, 1990e


Comments


-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Endosulfan .
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                      Endosulfan
                                   CasNo.: 115-29-7
 Summary: This profile on endosulfan summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulatio'n, and biorriagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
KOW between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological  uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort  is presented at the end of this profile.

I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^) for the generic freshwater ecosystem. Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains  benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.
Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:   No subchronic or chronic studies on mammalian wildlife were found in which
dose-response data were reported. However, several chronic and subchronic toxicity studies
involving endosulfan have been conducted using laboratory rats, mice and dogs. Hoechst
(1984) conducted a reproductive sludy in which rals were fed a diet of endosulfan for a
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                             Endosulfan - 2
 period of 84 days or two generations.  At the highest dose administered, Hoechst (1984)
 reported a NOAEL of 3.8 mg/kg-day for reproductive effects.  In another reproductive study,
 (Hoechst, 1988; NCI, 1978), mice fed dietary concentrations of endosulfan for 2 years
 exhibited no reproductive effects at a dose of 2.51 mg/kg-day.  As in the earlier mentioned
 Hoechst (1984) study, these two studies observed no adverse reproductive effects at the
 highest dose levels.  Increased mortality was observed in a two-year study in which 25 male
 and 25  female rats were fed dietary concentrations of  10, 30, and 100 ppm of endosulfan
 (FAO/WHO, 1968).  Abnormalities in weight gain and hematological parameters, and effects
 on kidney size and function were also observed, but only in the highest dose group. A
 NOAEL of  1.5 mg/kg-day (30 ppm) was reported for this study (FAO/WHO, 1968).  In a
 subchronic developmental study with rabbits, FMC (1981)  reported that there were no  signs
 of developmental toxicity at doses equal to or less than 1.8 mg/kg-day, the highest
 administered dose. Gupta and Chandra (1977) reported an NOAEL of 5 mg/kg-day for
 changes in testicular  weight after their treatment of male albino rats.  This study administered
 oral doses of 0.0, 5.0 and  10.0 mg/kg-day for a period of 15 days.

 The NOAEL in the Gupta and Chandra (1977) study was chosen to derive the lexicological
 benchmark because: (1) the study contained sufficient  dose-response  information, and reported
 significant effects on a reproductive endpoint.  The studies  by Hoechst (1984),  Hoechst
 (1988),  and  NCI (1978) were  not selected for the derivation of  a benchmark because they
 lacked dose-response data. In each of these sf.dies, the NOAEL was based on the  lack of
 effects seen  at the highest dose group. The FAO/WHO (1968)  study was not selected as the
 basis for benchmark derivation because it did not assess developmental or reproductive
 endpoints.
The NOAEL from the Gupta and Chandra (1977) study was scaled for species representative
of a freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994)


                                                  ( bw N1/4
                             Benchmark. = NOAEL, x __L
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Endosulfan-3
where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species.  This  is the default
methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the
Gupta and Chandra  (1977) study documented reproductive effects from endosulfan exposure
to male rats, male body weights for each representative species were used in  the scaling
algorithm to obtain the lexicological benchmarks.

Data were available on reproductive and developmental effects as well as on  growth or
chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted over
chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages.  All of the  studies identified
were conducted using laboratory animals and as such, inter-species differences among wildlife
species were not identifiable.  Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied.
There were several study values in the data set which were lower than the benchmark value
by at least an order of magnitude.  These values corresponded to effects on behavioral and
reproductive endpoints and effects on chronic survival.  Based on the data set for endosulfan
and the terrestrial benchmarks developed from Gupta and Chandra (1977) were categorized as
adequate, with a "*" to indicate that adverse effects may occur at the benchmark level.

Birds:   No subchronic or chronic studies on representative or surrogate avian species were
located.  Sources reviewed for avian toxicity ^formation included:  Endosulfan (WHO,
1984);  an on-line search of the TOXLIT, RTECS, and DART databases; and  an extensive
library search at National Institute for Environmental Health Statistics (NIEHS) library.  As a
result, no avian toxicity benchmark was developed.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  The Final Chronic Value (FCV) of 5.6E-5 mg/1 reported in
the AWQC document for endosulfan was (U.S. EPA, 1980) selected as  the benchmark value
protective of fish and  aquatic invertebrates.  Because the benchmark is based  on an FCV
developed for a AWQC, it was categorized as adequate.

Aquatic Plants:  The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were  either: (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC)  for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECU) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a spec'rSs of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricprnutum).
Aquatic plant data was not identified for endosulfan and, therefore, no benchmark was
developed.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                           Endosulfan - 4
Benthic Community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQP) method.  The EQP method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic  water quality measure, along  with the fraction of organic carbon and
the pctanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^.) to determine a protective chemical concentration
(U.S. EPA,  1993c).  The EQP number is the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still"protecting the benthic community from the harmful effects of chemical
exposure.  The Final Chronic Value (FCV) reported in the document  for endosulfan was used
to calculate  a EQP number of 0.148 mg endosulfan /kg organic carbon.  Assuming a mass
fraction of organic carbon for the sediment (f^) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic
community is 7.38E-3 mg/kg.  Since the EQP  number was based on a FCV established  for the
AWQC, the sediment benchmark is categorized as adequate.
       Table 1. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                         Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
       mink
2.9 (a')
                             rat
                                      rep
NOAEL
Gupta and Chandra.
     1977
     river otter
1.8 (a*)
                             rat
                                     rep
NOAEL
Gupta and Chandra,
     1977
     bald eagle
  10
      osprey
                   ID
   great blue heron
  ID
      mallard
  ID
    lesser scaup
  ID
  spotted sandpiper
  ID
     herring gull
 •ID
     kingfisher
  ID
       •Benchmark Category, a a adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
      'of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                     Endosulfan • 5
               Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                          Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
             fish and aquatic
               invertebrates
              aquatic plants
            benthic community
                      5.6E-05 (a)
                         ID
                      7.38E-03 (a)
                     mg/Vg sediment
                                        *"%;*• j::  ^
AWQC species
A WQC species
  FCV
FCVxK.
U.S EPA. 1980
U.SEPA, 1980
II.
              'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i a interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was
              an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
              ID 3 insufficient Data
Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants, and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to endosulfan.
Because of the lack of additional mammalian  toxicity studies, the same surrogate-species
study (Gupta and Chandra, 1977) was used to derive the endosulfan lexicological benchmark
for mammalian species representing the terrestrial ecosystem. The selected study NOAEL
was scaled to species representative of the terrestrial ecosystem using the inter-species scaling
method of Opresko et al. (1994).     ^

Based.on the data set for endosulfan and because the selected study value is not the lowest
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Ehdosulfan - 6
NOAEL in the data set,"the mammalian benchmarks were categorized as adequate, with a "*"
to indicate that adverse effects may occur at the benchmark level.

Birds:  Although numerous sources were reviewed for toxicity information, no subchronic or
chronic studies were identified for representative or surrogate avian species. Therefore, no
benchmarks were developed for birds in the terrestrial ecosystem.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.  Phytotoxicity benchmarks were selected as the lowest
concentration identified for plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably
assumed to impair the ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in
seed elongation.  However, adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the
plant community were not identified.                               '

Soil community:  Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Endosulfan • 7
 Table 3. lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds Associated
                                 with Terrestrial Ecosystem
g>-^j— ^-^^^^A^aA.j»
noptOTwrauiw
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail '
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American
plants
soil community
GlMMilllt^Ck*
VriH-mgn*.
,; **•,-. .
8.4 (a')
8.7 (a')
6.9 (a«)
3.1 (a')
2.1 (a')
2.0 (a')
1.0 (a')
ID
ID
ID
ID
10
10
ID
i'£3£:-
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
-
'
-
-
-
•
•
"Hhielv'
g. ;:. ; .«,
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
:'OHgtmt,
V^o»
•;."*B(Nfe*»'
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-
-
-
•
-
- •
-
E-~""
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
-
-
-
- •
-


^ tr
-


-
-
-
.-
-
•
•
-

-

fkMnaf firunw

Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
Gupta and
Chandra, 1977
-
-
-
•
- .
'

       •Benchmark Category, a 3 adequate, p * provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or tSt. for other adverse effects.
       .ID = Insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                .    .    '  N                                     Endosulfan - 8
III.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (i.e. BCFs, BAFs) used to derive protective
surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate and/or
bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake values and
sources are presented in Table 4 for selected ecological receptor categories: fish in the
limnetic or littoral ecosystem, aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial  vertebrates, and plants. For the generic aquatic ecosystems, the BCF value is
identified  as whole-body or  lipid-based and designated with a "d"  if the value reflects
dissolved  water concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water
concentrations. For organic chemicals with log K^ values  below  4, bioconcentration factors
(BCFs) in fish were always  assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e.,  dissolved
water concentration equals total water concentration).  The  following discussion describes the
rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting
the biological uptake values presented in Table 4.

The bioconcentration factor  for fish was estimated from the Thomann (1989) model  (i.e., log
K^ - dissolved BCF/) because: (1) no appropriate measured values were identified,  (2) the
BCF was  in close agreement with predicted.BCFs based on other  methods (i.e., regression
equations), and (3) there  were no data (e.g.,  metabolism) to suggest that the log K,,w  =  BCF,d
relationship deviates for endosulfan (log Kow  --3.48).  As stated in section  5.3.2, the dissolved
bioconcentration factor (BCF,d ) for organic chemicals with  log  K^w below 4 was considered
to be equivalent to the  total  bioconcentration factor (BCF/)  and, therefore, adjusting  the BCF,d
by the dissolved fraction (fd) was not necessary.

The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial  vertebrates, invertebrates, and
earthworms were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation
method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
dominated by lipids. Further, the method assumes that the  BAFs  and BCFs for terrestrial
wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in  the Revision of Assessment of Risks to Terrestrial
Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993) are of sufficient
quality to  serve as the standard.  The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a chemical lacking
measured  data is compared to the BBF for TCDD and that  ratio (i.e., endosulfan BBF/TCDD
BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and
earthworms, respectively. For hydrophobic organic  constituents, the bioconcentration factor
for plants  was estimated  as described in Section 6.6.1  for above ground leafy  vegetables and
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Endosuffan - 9
forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves
and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion.
                           Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
roccpior
fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAP, or
BSAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
. BCF
wffiotewooy
liptd
lipid
whole-body
whole- body
whole-body
whole-plant
VtiM
2,990 (d or t)
-
3.7E-05
3.6E-05
2.9E-04
0.38
—
predicted value based on
Thomann. 1989
date under review
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2.3.7,8-
TCDO
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3.7,8-
TCOO
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD
U.S. EPA. 1990e
       d   =  refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   =  refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Endosulfan - 10
References

Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
   TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge. Prepared for Ossi Meyn, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity /nformation  /tetrieval Database), 1995.  Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.

Chandler, G.T. and G.I. Scott.  1991.  Effects of Sediment-Bound Endosulfan on Survival,
   Reproduction, and Larval Settlement of Meiobenthic Polychaetes and Copepods.
   Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,  Vol. 10, pp. 375-382.

CEC (Commission of European Communities).  1981.  Criteria (Dose/Effect Relationships)
   for Organochlorine Pesticides. Pergamon  Press.  Oxford. As cited in WHO (World
   Health Organization), 1984, Endosulfan, Environmental Health Criteria 91, Geneva,
   Switzerland.

Ernst, W.  1977. Determination of the bioconcentration potential of marine organisms: a
   steady state approach. Chemosphere.  6:""" 1-740.

FAO/WHO (Food Agriculture Organization/ World Health Organization).  1968. Evaluations
   of Some Pesticides Residues in Food. Food and Agriculture Organization in the United
   Nations, Rome.

FMC (Food Machinery and Chemical, Corp.).   1959.  Thiodan technical:  Repeated oral
   administration - dogs.  Final report. Conducted for Food Machinery and Chemical
   Corporation, Niagara Chemical Division.  Hazleton Laboratories, Inc.,  Falls Church, VA.
   As  cited in Agency for Toxic  Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1993,
   Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health
   and Human Services, Atlanta,  GA.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Endosulfan -11
FMC (Food Machinery and Chemical, Corp.)-  1965.  Three-generation reproduction study in
    albino rats on thiodan: Results through weaning of Fib litters. Conducted for Food
    Machinery and Chemical Corporation, Niagara Chemical Division.  Industrial Bio-Test
    Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL. As cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (ATSDR), 1993, Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan, Public Health Service,
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.

FMC (Food Machinery and Chemical, Corp.).  1967.  Two-year chronic oral toxicity of
    thiodan technical - beagle dogs.  Conducted for Food Machinery  and Chemical
    Corporation.  Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, DL. As cited in Agency
    for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1993, Toxicological Profile for
    Endosulfan, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
    Atlanta, GA.

FMC (Food Machinery and Chemical, Corp.).  1980. Final Report: Teratology Study with
    FMC 5462 in Rats. Conducted for Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation.  Raltech
    Scientific Services, Madison, WI. Raltech  study no. 79041. As cited in Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1993, Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan,
    Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.

FMC (Food Machinery and Chemical, Corp.)  1981. Teratology study with FMC 5462 in
    rabbits.  Conducted for Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation.  Raltech Scientific
    Services, Madison, WI.  Raltech study no. 80070.  As cited in: IRIS (Integrated Risk
    Information System). 1994.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
    and Development, Washington, DC

Gupta, P.K., and S.V. Chandra.  1977. Toxicity of endosulfan after repreated oral
    administration to rats. Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol.  18:378-384.

Gupta, P.K.  and  R.C. Gupta..1977;  Effect of Endosulfan Pretreatment on Organ Weights and
    on Phenobarbital Hypnosis in Rats. Toxicol. 7:283-288.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Endosulfan -12
Hoechst.  1984.  Effect of Endosulfan-Techriical (Code HOE 02671 O I AT209) on
    Reproductive Function of Multiple Generations in the Rat.  Conducted for Hoechst
    Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt, Germany.  Huntington Research Centre, Cambridgeshire,
    England.  HST 204/83768.  As cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (ATSDR), 1993, Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan, Public Health Service,
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.
                                     *
Hoechst.  1988.  Beta-Endosulfan (Code Hoe 052619 Oi Zc99 0001):  Testing for Acute Oral
    Toxicity in the Male and Female Wistar Rat. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt,
    Germany.  TOXN No. 83.0113.  As cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (ATSDR), 1993, Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan, Public Health Service,
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.

Hoechst.  1989.  Endosulfan - Substance Technical (Code HOE 02671 OI ZD96 0002):
    Testing for Toxicity by repeated oral administration (1-Year Feeding Study  to Beagle
    Dogs.  Conducted for Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt, Germany. Project no.
    87.0643.  As cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry  (ATSDR),  1993,
    Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health
    and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.

Macek, K.J., M.A.  Lindberg, S. Sauter, K.S. jsuxton, and P.A. Costa.  1976.  Toxicity of Four
    Pesticides to  Water Fleas and Fathead Minnows.  Acute and Chronic Toxicity to Acrolein,
    Heptachlor, Endosulfan, and Trifluralin to the Water Flea (Daphnia Magna) and the
    Fathead Minnow (Pimephales Promelas).

NCI (National Cancer Institute).   1978.  Bioassay of endosulfan for possible carcinogencity.
    DHEW Publication No. NIH 78-1312.  NCI Technical Report Series No.  62,
    Carcinogenesis  Jesting Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W.  Suter El. 1994. Toxicological Benchamrks for
    Wildlife: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
    Environmental Sciences  Division: Oak Ridge, TN.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Endosulfan -13
Pickering, Q.H., and C. Henderson.  1966.  The acute toxicity of some pesticides to fish.
    Ohio J. Sci. 66(5):508-513.  As cited in AQUIRE (AQt/atic Toxicityjnformation
    ftEtrieval Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
    Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MM.

Roberts, D.  1972. The assimilation and chronic effects of sub-lethal concentrations of
    endosulfan on condition and spawning in the common mussel (Mytilus Edulis).  Marine
    Biology \6:l\%-\25.

RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances). 1994. National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, DC.

Schimmel, S.C., A.M. Patrick, and A.J. Wilson.  1977. Acute ioxicity to and
    bioconcentration of endosulfan by estuarine animals. In:  F.L. Mayer and J.L. Hamelink
    (eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation, 1st Symposium, ASTM STP 634,
    Philadelphia, PA. As cited in AQUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity /nformation fl£trieval
    Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Schoettger, R.A.  1970=  Toxicology ofThiodan in Several Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates.
    Invest. Fish Control No. 35, U.S.D.I.  As cited in AQUIRE (AQC/atic Toxicity
    /nformation REtrieval Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research
    and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Schoettger, R.A.  1970.  Toxicology of Thiodon in Several Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates.
    U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport, Fish and Wildlife, Investigations in Fish
    Control.  35:1-31.  As cited in WHO  (World Health Organization), 1984, Endosulfan,
    Environmental Health Criteria 91, Geneva, Switzerland.

Stephan, C.E.  1993. Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Endosulfan -14
Suter II, G.W. and J.B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
    84OR21400. Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Thomann, R.V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton.   1992. An equilibrium model, of organic
    chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction. Environmental
    Toxicology and Chemistry 11:615-629.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   for Endosulfan. 440/5-80/046.  Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of
    Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing
    Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure  to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.
    Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993 - Technical Basis for Deriving Sediment Quality
    Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of Benthic Organisms by
    Using Equilibrium Partitioning.  EPA/822-R-93/011. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

WHO (World Health  Organization).  1984.  Endosulfan.  International Programme on
    Chemical Safety.  Environmental Health Criteria 40. Geneva, Switzerland.

Yoshioka, Y. and Y. Ose.  1993.  A quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Study arid
    Ecotoxicological Risk  Quotient for the Protection from Chemical Pollution.
    Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality, Vol. 8, 87-101.
                                  •=*».
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial To    y - Endosulfan
       Cas No. 115-29-7


Chemical
Name


endosulfan



endosulfan


endosulfan

endosulfan


endosulfan

endosulfan

endosulfan




endosulfan

endosulfan



Specie*


rat



rat


rat

rat


rat

rats

(togs




rat

rat



Endpolnt


dev



rep

j
rep

systemic


kidney

chronic

chronic




rep

rep



Description


NOAEL



NOAEL


LOAEL

NOAEL


LOAEL

NOAEL

NOAEL




NOAEL

NOAEL



Value


5



5


10

5


10

1.5

0.75




5.4

2.5



Unit*


mg/Kg-day



mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day

mo/kg-day




mg/kg-day

mo/ko-dav
Exposure
Route (oral,
».c., l.v.. l:p.,
Injection)


oral

•

oral


oral

oral


oral

oral
oral (by
capsule)




ore) •

oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing

gestation days 6-
14(1x/day)



15 days, once/day


15 days, once/day

15 days, once/day


15 days, once/day

104 weeks
6 days/week for 10
months




2-generabon study

170 da vs. ad lib



Reference


Gupta and Gupta, 1977


Gupta and Chandra,
1977

Gupta and Chandra,
1977
Gupta and Chandra,
1977

Gupta and Chandra,
1977
FAO/WHO, 1968 as
cited In WHO, 1984
CEC, 1981 as cited in
WHO. 1984



Hoechst, 1984 as died
InATSDR, 1993
FMC. 1965 as cited In
ATSDR. 1993



Comments
No change in ovarian weight
was observed at this dose
level.
No significant change in
body weight and absolute
and relative weights of testes
was observed.
Increased lestes weight and
tubule degeneration were
observed in male rats.
No systemic effects were
observed at (his dose level.
Histopathological alterations
were observed in the
kidneys.
No lexicological effects were
observed.
No lexicological effects were
observed.
No evidence of reproductive
toxiclty was found at any of
the dose levels tested.
(NOAEL = 6.6 mg/kg-day for
emales)



-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Endosulfan
       Cas No. 115-20-7


Chemical
Name


endosulfan


endosulfan


endosulfan


endosulfan


endosulfan

endosulfan

endosulfan

endosultan

endosulfan

endosultan


v
Species


rat


rabbit


mica


male dogs


female dogs

rat

mouse

dog

cat

rabbit



Endoolnt


rep


dev


reP,l
J

rep


rep

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute



Description


NOAEL


NOAEL


NOAEL


NOAEL


NOAEL

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50



Value


3.8


1.8


2.51


2


18

18

7360

76700

2
-
26



Units


mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day


Exposure
Route (orar.
8.C., I.V., l.p.,
Inlectton)


oral


oral


oral


mg/kg-day. oral


mg/kg-day
mg/kg-body
wt.
ug/kg-body
wt.
ug/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.


oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing

84 days (two-
generation study)

gestation days 6-
28


2 years


1 - 2 years


1 - 2 years

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS



Reference

Hoechst. 1984 as cited
inATSDR. 1993

FMC. 1981 as cited in
IRIS, 1994
Hoechst, 1988 as cited
in ATSDR. 1993; NCI,
1978.
FMC. 1959, 1967 and
Hoechst, 1989 as died
in ATSDR, 1993
FMC. 1959, 1967 and
Hoechst, 1989 as died
inATSDR. 1993

RTECS, 1994

RTECS, 1994

RTECS, 1994

RTECS, 1994

RTECS. 1994



Comments
No effect on the size.
mortality, or sex ratio of the
litters. ;
No developmental effects
were observed. (NOAEL is
the highest dose level).

No toxic effects on the
reproductive organs.

No toxic effects on the
reproductive organs.

No toxic effects on the
reproductive organs.








•


-------
                                             Terrestrial Tc    -y - Endosulfan
                                                     Cas No. 115-29-7


Chemical
Name

endosultan

endosultan

endosulfan

endosultan



Species

hamster

duck
domestic
animal

wild bird



Endpolnt

acute

acute

acute
A •
acute



Description

LD50

LD50

LD50

LO50



Value

118

33

26

35 '



Units
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
mg/kg-body
wt.
Exposure
Route (oral.
S.C.. I.V.. l.p.,
Inlection)

oral

oral

oral

oral


Exposure
Duration/Timing

NS

NS

NS

NS



Reference.

RTECS, 1994

RTECS, 1994

RTECS, 1994

RTECS. 1994



Comments


' *





NS = Not specified

-------
                                            Freshwater Toxicity - Endosulfan
                                                    Cas No. 115-29-7

Chemical
Name
.
endosulfan

endosulfan

endosulfan

endosullan

endosullan


endosultan

endosullan

endosullan

endosultan


endosultan


Species
aquatic
organisms
Daphnia
carinata
Daphnia
longispina
Daphnia
magna
Daphnia
magna


blu'egill

striped. bass

rainbow trout
fathead
minnow

tathead
minnow


Endpolnt

chronic-

immob.

mort

immob.

mow


mort.

mort.

mort.

acute


chron


Description

AWQC

EC50

LC50

EC50

LC50


LC50

LC50

LC50

LC50


CV


Value

0.056

180

0.3
158-720
(345.14)
62.0 - 740
(279.33)

3.3 - 4.4
(3.81)

0.1
0.17-2.43
(0.69)
0.29 - 3.45
(1.29)


0.20-0.40


Units

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L


ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L


ug/L
Test type
(static/ »ow
through)

NA

NA

NA '

NA

NA


NA

NA

NA

NA

partial life
cycle test
Exposure
Duration/
Timing

NS

48 hour

48 hour

48 hour

48 hour


4 days

96 hour

96 hour

96 hour


NS


Reference

U.S. EPA, 1980
Santharam et al.. 1976 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995
Magadza et al., 1983 as
cited in AQUIRE, 1995

AQUIRE. 1995

AQUIRE. 1995
Pickering and Henderson.
1966 as cited in AQUIRE.
1995
Korn et al.. 1974 as cited in
AQUIRE. 1995

AQUIRE, 1995

AQUIRE. 1995


Maceketal, 1976


Comments



]













«

Critical life stage end points
embryo, larval, and early
juvenile; hatchattlity.
NS = Not specified

-------
                             Freshwater Biological Ut   .8 Measures - Endosuifsn
                                             Cas No. 115-29-7
Chemical
Nam*
endosultan
endosullan
endosulfan
endosullan
endosullan
endosultan
endosullan
endosultan
endosultan
endosultan
endosultan
endosullan
Species
ish
mussel
whole
body)
mussel
whole
body)
mussel
whole
body)
mussel
(whole
body)
goldtish
(liver)
goldtish
(muscle)
white
sucker
(muscle)
white
sucker
(muscle)
white
sucker
(liver)
whHe
sucker
(liver)
striped
mullet
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMF)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
J
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
Value
55.6
t7
It
8.1
600
781
314
65
55
550
695
2755
Measured
or
predicted
(m,p)
P
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Units
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Slephan.1993
Roberts, 1972
Roberts. 1972
Roberts. 1972
Ernst, 1977
! ftoettger. 1970 as cited in WHO.
1984
Schoettger. 1970 as cited in WHO.
1984
Schoetlger . 1970 as cited in WHO.
1984
Schoetlger. 1970 as cited in WHO.
1984
Schoettger. 1970 as cited in WHO,
1984
Schoettger, 1970 as cited in WHO.
1984
Schimmel el al. , 1 977 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1994
Comments
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid; value derived tor
alpha and beta isomers ol endosullan
Exposure time =112 days; dose (ug/L) = 100.
Exposure time =112 days; dose (ug/L) = 500
Exposure time =112 days; dose (ug/L) =
1000.
Exposure time =112 days; dose (ug/L) =
0.14.
Exposure time = 1 1-20 days; dose (ug/L) = 7.
Exposure time = 5-20 days; dose (uq/L) - 7.
Exposure time =12 hours; dose (ug/L) = 20;
temperature at 19 C.
Exposure time = 9 hours; dose (ug/L) = 20;
temperature at 19 C.
Exposure time = 12 hours; dose (ug/L) = 20;
temperature at 19C.
Exposure time = 9 hours; dose (ug/L) = 20;
temperature at 19 C.
Lite stage = 25.6 MM; 28 day lest
NS - Not speeded

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Endosulfan
                Cas No. 115-29-7

Cnamlcal
Nam*
endosullan

Spaclaa
plants
B-factor
(BCF, BAF.
BMF)
BCF

Value
15
Maaaurad 01
pradlctad
(m.p)
P

UnlU
(ug/gWW
plant)/(ug/g soil
water)

Rafaranca
U.S. EPA. 19906

Comments


-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Endrin
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                        Endrin
                                  Cas  No.: 72-20-8
Summary: This profile on endrin summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and biological
uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification factors) for
birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms representing the
generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates in the generic
terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and mammals were derived for
developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed to impact population
sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish were generally adopted
from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e.. Ambient Water Quality Criteria).  Bioconcentration
factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available, biomagnification factors
(BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although some BAFs. for the
freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log Kow between 4 and
6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem,  these biological uptake measures also include terrestrial
vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g.,  earthworms).  The entire lexicological data base compiled
during this effort is presented at the end of this profile. This profile represents the most
current information and may differ from data presented in the technical support document for
the Hazardous Waste I (identification Rule (HWIR): Risk Assessment for Human and
Ecological Receptors.
I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (CLJ for the generic freshwater ecosystem. Table 1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found which reported dose-
response data for mammalian wildlife.  However, lexicological studies involving endrin
exposure to mammals have been conducted using laboratory mice and other rodents. In a
chronic study designed to test the effects of endrin on reproduction, Good and Ware (1969)
fed CFW Swiss mice 5 mg/kg of dietary endrin for 120 days, starting 30 days prior to
mating.  The PEL (frank effecis level) of 5  mg/kg produced significant parent mortality, and
smaller litters. The reported 5 mg/kg dietary dose corresponded to a daily dose of 0.93
mg/kg-day  based on the geometric mean body weight  of 0.0297  kg  for laboratory  mice  (U.S.
EPA, 19881) and the derived food consumption rate of 0.0055 kg/day (Nagy, 1987).  It was
noted that reproductive effects observed at the  0.93 mg/kg-day dose level were directly

August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                                 Endrin - 2
 attributed to parent mortality due to exposure to endrin.  In a study by Ottolcnghi et al.
 (1973), pregnant Syrian golden hamsters and GDI mice were administered, via oral
 intubation, single doses of endrin in corn oil. Hamsters were administered 5 mg/kg-day, on
 days 7, 8, or 9 of gestation and mice were given 2.5 mg/kg-day on day 9 of gestion.
 Statistically significant increases in fetal deaths were observed in  hamsters treated on day 7 or
 8 (5 mg/kg inferred as PEL).  Teratogenic effects were observed in both hamsters (fused ribs)
 and mice (open eye and cleft palate), with the frequency and gravity of the defects being less
 pronounced in the mice.  Fetal death and weight reduction were not observed in the mice but
 the 2.5 mg/kg dose was inferred as a PEL based on teratogenic effects.  Kavlock et al. (1981)
 examined the development of fetal mice in a study in which mice were administered endrin
 via gastric intubation  in doses of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mg/kg/day.  Endrin was noted to be
 fetotoxic in the mouse, as evidenced by dose related decreases in  fetal weight and skeletal
 and visceral maturation.  A LOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg-day  and a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg-day was
 inferred based on these fetotoxic effects.

 The NOAEL for fetotoxic effects from the Kavlock et  al.  (1981) study was chosen to derive
 the lexicological benchmark because (1) chronic exposures were administered via oral
 intubation, (2) the study focused on longterm reproductive success as a critical endpoint,  (3)
 the study contained dose response information, and (4) the study contained the lowest toxicity
 value for a critical endpoint.  The Good and Ware (1969) and Ottolenghi et al. (1974) studies
 were not chosen for the derivation of the benchmark primarily because they did not contain
 sufficient dose response information. Therefore, the NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg-day from the
 Kavlock et al. (1981) study was chosen for the derivation of a mammalian benchmark value.

 The study value from Kavlock et al. (1981) was scaled for species representative of a
. freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
 (1994):

 where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the  test species, BWW is the body weight
 of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body  weight of  the test species. This is the same
 default methodology EPA provided for carcinogeniciry assessments  and reponable quantity

                                                     ( bw >/4
                        .     Benchmark   = NOAEL. x  	L
                                                     VKJ
 documents for adjusting animal data to^an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since  the
 Kavlock et al. (1981) study documented fetotoxic effects from endrin exposure to female rats,
 the mean  female body weight of representative species was used in  the scaling algorithm to
 obtain the lexicological benchmarks.

 Data were available on the reproductive and  developmental effects of endrin, as well as
 growth or chronic survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies which were conducted
 over chronic and subchronic durations and during sensitive life stages.  Based on the data set
 for endrin, the benchmarks developed from the Kavlock et al. (1981) study were categorized
 as adequate.

 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Endrin - 3
Birds: Only two chrenic studies were identified that investigated the effects of endrin toxicity
on avian species.  In a study examining the reproduction of mallard ducks conducted by
Roylance et al. (1985), duck pairs were fed diets containing 0.5 and 3.0 ppm endrin for
approximately 20 weeks.  Although egg production, fertility, and hatchability were not
affected, there was a 9.6% drop in embryo survival in the 3.0 ppm treatment group. This
endpoint resulted in an inferred NOAEL of 0.5 ppm and a LOAEL of 3.0 ppm. These dietary
doses correspond to daily doses of 0.028 and 0.17 mg/kg-day, respectively.  The ppm doses
were converted to daily doses using the male and female mean body weight of 1.162 kg and
the reference  food intake rate of 0.064 kg/day (U.S. EPA, 1993g) for mallard ducks.  In a
similar study,  Spann et al. (1986) administered doses of 1.0 and 3.0 ppm endrin to mallards
for approximatly 10 weeks. These doses corresponded to 0.057 and 0.17 mg/kg/day based on
the geometric mean of 1.126 kg for the male and female body weights taken from the study,
and the  mean food intake rate of 0.064 kg/day for male and female mallards (U.S. EPA,
1993g).   While the authors noted that the birds receiving the 3 ppm dose appeared to
reproduce more poorly than controls, any differences were not demonstrated to be statistically
significant.                                                             .

The NOAEL  of 0.028 mg/kg-day from the Roylance et al.  (1985) study was selected to derive
the avian benchmark value for  the freshwater ecosystem.  This study was chosen because (1)
chronic  exposures were administered via oral ingestion, (2) reproductive toxicity was one of
the primary endpoints examined,  and (3) the study contained sufficient dose-response
information.  The Spann et al. (1986) study was not chosen due to the lack of adequate dose-
response information.

The principles for allometric scaling were  assumed to apply to birds, although specific studies
supporting allometric scaling for avian species were not identified.  Thus, for the avian
species representative of a freshwater ecosystem, the NOAEL value of 0.028 mg/kg-day from
the Roylance  et al. (1985) study was scaled using the cross-species scaling method of
Opresko et al. (1994). Since Roylance et al. (1985) administered dietary doses of endrin to
both male and female mallards the mean of the male and female body weights for each
representative species was used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological
benchmarks.

Data were available on reproductive and developmental effects of endrin as well as on growth
and survival.  In addition, the data set contained studies that were conducted over chronic and
subchronic durations as well as durin^a sensitive life stage.  There were no other values in
the data set that were at least an order of magnitude below the benchmark value.  Based on
the avian data set for endrin, the benchmarks developed from the .NOAEL in the Roylance  et
al. (1985) study were categorized as adequate.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  The Final Chronic Value (FCV) of 6.1E-05 mg/L for endrin
was selected as the benchmark protective of fish and aquatic invertebrates (U.S. EPA,
1993m). Since the FCV was derived in the sediment quality criteria document, the
benchmark was categorized as adequate.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Endrin - 4
Aquatic plants:  The benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no observed effects
concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEQ for vascular aquatic
plants (e.g. duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species of freshwater
algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).  For endrin there
was insufficient data for the development of a benchmark value.

Benthic community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method. The EQP method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV)  or other chronic water quality measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^ to determine a protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993).  The EQp  number is the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from  harmful effects from chemical
exposure.  The FCV, taken  from the sediment quality criteria,'for endrin was used to calculate
an EQp number of 7.8  mg endrin per kg organic carbon. Assuming a mass fraction of
organic carbon for the  sediment (f^.) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is
3.9E-01 mg endrin per kg of sediment.  Because the EQ, number was set using a SCV
derived from sediment quality criteria,  it was categorized as adequate.
                                 <*•»
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Endrin • 5
       Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Reprwseelftttv*
mink
river otter
bald eagle
o spray
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benotunarit
Value" mg*^
4*t ^ ;
0.23 (a)
0.13(a)
0.021 (a)
0.025 (a)
0.023 (a)
0.028 (a)
0.031 (a)
\
0.063 (a)
0.028 (a)
0.046 (a)
Slujfr
\8ped**
mouse
mouse
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
mallard duck
fitted
feto
feto
rep
rep
reP.
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
Study Value
wo/fcfday
o.s
0.5
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
Description
- -.H
NOAEL
NQAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
\'"9f 'V
#VV^*:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
^i^^^'^^i
^Otflwiif tt&tmia; ' -
Kavtock et al., 1981
Kavtock et •).. 1981
Roytance et al., 1985
Roytance et al.. 1986
Roytance et al., 1986
Roytanee et al., 1985
Roytance et al., 1985
Roytance et al.. 1985
Roytance et «i. 1985
Roytance et al., 1985
      •Benchmark Category, a « adequate, p • provisional, i » interim; a "' indicates that the benchmark value was
       an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL tor other adverse effects.
                         Table 2. Torieotogical Benchmarks tor Representative Hah
                                  Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
•yJRepnieenlatfae
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community

Benchmark
*: * **%
wfljf?^.
6. IE-OS (a)
10
3.9E-01 (a)

Study
Specie*
aquatic
organisms

aquatic'
organisms
^
FCV
'
FCV x K^

5 \ ,•• "••
SQC
-
SQC

         •Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p » provisional, i * interim; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was
         an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
         ID - insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Endrin. 6
II.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C ^ for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic  or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to endrin.
Because  of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate species
study (Kavlock et al., 1981) was used to derive the endrin lexicological benchmark for
mammalian species representing the terrestrial ecosystem.  The study NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg-
day was  scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm
developed by Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the Kavlock et al. (1981) study documented
reproductive effects from endrin exposure to female rats, the female body weight of each
representative species was used in the scaling algorithm to obtain the lexicological
benchmarks.

Based on the data set for endrin the benchmarks developed from the Kavlock et al. (1981)
study were  categorized as adequate.

Birds: As in the freshwater ecosystem, the study by Roylance et al. (1985) was used to
calculate the benchmarks for birds in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. The study NOAEL of
0.5 ppm  (0.028 mg/kg-day) was scaled for the representative species by using the cross-
species scaling algorithm developed by Opresko et al. (1994).  Since Roylance et al. (1985)
administered dietary doses of endrin to both male  and female mallards the mean of the male
and female  body weights for each representative species was used in the scaling algorithm to
obtain the lexicological benchmarks.  Based on the avian data set for endrin,  the benchmarks
developed from the Roylance et al., (1985) study were categorized  as adequate.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length. As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity benchmarks
were selected by rank ordering the LQEC values and then approximating the  10  percentile.
If there were 10 or fewer values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a  plant population to sustain itself, such  as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, studies were not identified for benchmark development for endrin.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                             Endrin - 7
       Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
R«pTB*efltath/*
8p«ch»,
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vote
Eastern
cottorttu
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red- tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobwhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil community
Benchmark.
Value*
moftQxtt*
0.56 (a)
0.58 (a)
0.47 (a)
0.20 (a)
0.15 (a)
0.14 (a)
0.07 (a)
0.028 (a)
0.049 (a)
0.044 (a)
0.054 (a)
0.045 (a)
10
ID
atopy .
Spade*
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mouse
mallard
duck
malard
duck
mallard
duck
malard
duck
mallard
duck
-
•
Effect
(eto
teto
feto
feio
feto
feto
feto
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep

•
Study
yafcat
mtfig.
day
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
. 0.5
0.5
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028


Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL .
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
•
•
SF
• -

••


-

•
•



-

QriglMtSMnw
Kavtock et at..
. 1981
Kavtock M •!..
1981
Kavtock »t al.,
1981
Kavtock at al..
1981
Kavtock at al..
1981
Kavtock at al..
1981
Kavtock at al..
1981
Roytance at al.,
1985
Roytance at al.,
1985
Roytance at al.,
. . 1985
Roylance at al.,
1985
Roylance at al..
1985


      'Benchmark Category, a • adequaat. p • ^(gyisional, i • interim: a
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL foe other adverse affects
      10 - insufficient dad
"' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
in.   Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                 Endrin - g
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial  vertebrates, and plants. Each
value is identified as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations. For organic
chemicals with log K,,w values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration)., For organic chemicals with log Kow values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to refer to total water concentrations unless the BCFs were calculated using
models based on the relationship between'dissolved water concentrations and concentrations
in fish.  The following brief discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological
uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values.

      As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAFls for consituents of concern were generally
estimated using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992)  for
the littoral ecosystem; these models were considered appropriate to estimate BAFls for endrin.
The bioconcentration factor for fish was also estimated from  the Thomann models (i.e.,  log
Kow - dissolved BCF1) and multiplied by the dissolved fraction (fd) as defined in Equation 6-
21 to determine the  total bioconcentration factor (BCF,'). The dissolved bioconcentration
factor (BCF|d ) was  converted to the BCF,' in order to estimate the acceptable lipid tissue
concentration (TCI)  in fish consumed by piscivorous fish (see Equation 5-115).  The BCF,'
was required in Equation  5-115 because the surface water benchmark (i.e., FCV or  SCV)
represents a total water concentration (C1). Mathematically, conversion from BCF,d to BCF,'
was accomplished using the relationship delineated in the Interim Report on Data and
Methods for Assessment of23,7,8'Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Wildlife (U.S.
EPA,  1993i):

                                  BCF,d x fd = BCF,'

Converting the predicted BCF,d of 156,675 Ukg LP to the BCF,' of 105,881 L/kg LP was in
reasonable agreement (i.e., within a factor of  about 2) with the geometric mean of five
measured BCF/  values presented uv«fee master table on  endrin (geometric mean =  49,600).
The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates, and the bioconcentration factors for
earthworms and invertebrates were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the
extrapolation method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemicals assuming that the
partitioning to  tissue is dominated by lipids.  Further, the method assumes that the BAFs and
BCFs for terrestrial  wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of
Risks  to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt,  1993)
are of sufficient quality to  serve as the standard.  The beef biotransfer factor (BBFs) for a
chemical lacking measured data (in this case endrin) is compared to the BBF for TCDD and
that ratio (i.e.,  endrin BBF/TCDD BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial
vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms, respectively.  For hydrophobic organic

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  Endrin - 9
constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1
for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-co-leaf
translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake inta the plant through air
diffusion. For metals, empirical data were used to derive the BCF for aboveground forage
grasses and leafy vegetables.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Endrin • 10
                             Table 4.  Biological  Uptake Properties
•cQlOQiCBi
receptor
limnetic trophic
lovel 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrate*
earthworms
plants
BCF, SAP, o*
BSAF
BAF
BAF
8CF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
8CF
BCF
Ifptf-bM** or
who4ebooy
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
valu*
318,304 (d)
290.126 (d)
105,881 (t)
298,094 (d)
322.806 (d)
643,213 (d)
0.0019
0.0018
0.01S
0.038
•ourc*
4- '
predicted value based on
Thomann.. 1989, food chain
modal
predicted value based on
Thomann. 1989, food chain
model
predicted value based on
Thomann, 1989 and adjusted to
estimate total BCF
predicted valu* based on
Thomann et a!.. 1992. food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann et at., 1992. food web
model
predicted value based on
Thomann et at., 1992. food web
model
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCOO
estimated based on beef
biotranster ratio with 2.3,7,8-
TCDO
, estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3.7,8-
TCDD
USEPA. 1992C
       d   -   refers to dissolved surface water.concentrauon
       t   »   refers to total surface water concentration

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Endrin-H
References
Abt Associates, Inc.  1991.  Human Risk Assessment for Dioxin in Pulp and Paper Sludge:
   Technical Support Document for the Proposed Land Application Rule.  Prepared for U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency.  Contract No. 68-DO-0020.

Anderson, R.L. and D.L. Defoe.  1980.  Toxicity and bioaccurnulation of endrin and
   methoxychlor in aquatic invertebrates and fish.  Environ. Pollut. 22A(2):111-121.
   (Author Communication Used).  As cited in AQUIRE  (AQC/atic Toxicity Ynformation
   /?Etrieval Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
   Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Duluth, MN.

AQUIRE ( AQt/atic Toxicity Mormation fl£trieval Database).  1994.  Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.     .

Blus, L. J.  1978.  Short-tailed shrews: toxicity and residue relationships of DDT, dieldrin,
   and endrin.  Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.  7:83-98.

Chemoff, N., R. J.  Kavlock, R. C. Hanisch, D. A. Whitehouse, J. A. Gray, L E. Gray, Jr. and
   G. W. Sovocool.  1979.  Perinatal  toxicity of endrin in rodents.  I.  Fetotoxic effects of
   prenatal exposure  in hamsters.  Toxicology.  13:155-165.

Deichmann, W. B;, W. E.  MacDonald, E. Blum, M. Bevilacqua, J. Radomski, M. Keplinger,
   M. Balkus.  1970. Tumorigenicity of aldrin, dieldrin,and endrin in the albino rat.
   Toxicology.  39:37-45.                             .

Eisenlord, G., G. S. Loquvam, S. Leung.  1968.  Results of Reproduction Study of Rats Fed
   Diets Containig Endrin Over Three Generations.  Shell Chemical Company and Velsicol
   Chemical Corporation. The Hine Laboratories, Inc., San Francisco, CA.

57 FR 24152. June 5, 1992. U.S. Emnvironmental Protection  Agency (FRL-4139-7). Draft
   Report: A Cross-Species Scaling Factor for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Based on
   Equivalence of  mg/kg^/day.
                                •'*»
Goldenthal, E. I. 1978. Teratology Study in Hamsters.  International Research and
   Development Corporation: prepared for the Vesicol Chemical Corporation.
Good, E.E. and G.W. Ware. 1969.  Effects of insecticides on reproduction in the laboratory
   mouse: endrin and dieldrin. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 14:201-203.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Endrin - 12
Gray, L. E., R. J. Kavlock, N. Chemoff, J. A. Gray, J. McLamb.  1981.  Perinatal toxicity of
   endrin in rodents. III. Alterations of behavioral ontogeny.  Toxicology. 21:187-202.

Hermanutz,  R.  1978.  Endrin and malathiontoxicity to flagfish (Jordanella floridae).  Arch
   Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 7: 159-168. As cited in Rand, G.M. and S'.R. Petrocelli,  1985,
   Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology,  Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York.

Howard, P. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic
   Chemicals: Volume III Pesticides. Lewis Publishers.

Jarvinen, A.W., and R.M. Tyo.  1978.  Toxicity to fathead minnows of endrin in food and
   water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 7(4):  409-421.  As cited in AQUIRE (AQUztic
   Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
   Research and Development,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

Jarvinen, A.W., and R.M. Tyo.  1978.  Toxicity to fathead minnows of endrin in food and
   water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 7(4):  409-421.  As cited in Rand, G.M. and S.R.
   Petrocelli, 1985, Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, Hemisphere Publishing
   Corporation,  New York.

Kavlock, R. J., N. Chemoff, E. H. Rogers.  1 °85. The effect of acute maternal toxicity on
   fetal development in the mouse. Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis.
   5:3-13.    .

Kavlock, R. J., N. Chemoff, R. C. Hanisch, J. Gray, E. Rogers and L. E^ Gray, Jr.  1981.
   Perinatal toxicity of endrin in rodents. II. Fetotbxic effects of prenatal exposure in rats and
   mice. Toxicology.  21:141-150.

Kettering Laboratory.  1971.  The Reproductive Capacity Amoung Dogs Fed Diets Containing
   Endrin.  Department of Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of
   Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

NTIS. 1993. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Endrin.
   Office of Water & Office of Research and Development,  Office of Science and
   Technology, Washington,  D.C.

Nagy, K. A., 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
   Ecol Mono. 57:111-128.

Ottolenghi, A.D., J.K. Haselman, and F. Suggs. 1973. Teratogenic Effects of Aldrin, Dieldrin,
   and Endrin in Hamsters and  Mice. Teratology. 9:11-16.

Opresko, D. M.,  B. E. Sample, and G.  W. Suter.  1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for
   Wildlife: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                Endrin.13
Rand, G. M., and S. R. Petrocelli. 1985.  Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Methods and
   Applications.  Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York.                     :

Roylance, K. J., C J. Jorgensen, G.M.  Booth, and M. W. Carter,  1985.  Effects of dietary
   endrin on reproduction of mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos).  Archives of
 • Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.  14:705-711.              „

RTECS  (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances).  March 1994.  National  Institute
   for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC.

RTI (Research Triangle Institute).  1994.  Toxicological Profile for Endrin.  Prepared for
   Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S, Public Health Service,
   in collaboration with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Smith, S.I., C.W. Weber, and B.L. Reid.  1970.  The effect of injection of chlorinated
   hydrocarbon pesticides on hatchabiliry of eggs.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.  16:179-185.

Spann, J. W., G.  H. Hemz and C. S. Hulse.  1986.  Reproduction and health of mallards fed
   endrin.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  5:755-759.

Stephan, C. E. 1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulanon
   Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth,  MN,  PB93-154672.

Suter, G.W., M.A. Futrel, and G.A. Kerchner 1992. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening
   of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the Oak Ridge
   Reservation,.Oak  Ridge, Tennessee. U.S.  Department of Energy., Washington, D.C.
Suter n, G.W., and J.B. Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
   96/R1.

Thomann, R. V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic  chemical distribution in aquatic
   food chains. Environ. Sci. Techfts*.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P. Connely, and T: F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of organic
   chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment  interaction.  Environmental
   Toxicology  and Chemistry.  11:615-629.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                               Endrin - 14
Thurston, R.V., T.A. Gilfoil, E.L. Meyn, R.K. Zajdel, T.L. Aoki, andG.D. Veith.  1985.
   Comparative Toxicity of ten organic chemicals to ten common aquatic species.  Water
   Res.  19(9):  1145- 1155. As cited in AQUIRE (AQUuic Toxicity Mormation flftrieval
   Database), Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   Document: Endrin. EPA 440/5-80-047 pp 3-29 to 3-30.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  19881.  Recommendations for and
   Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment. EPA P338- 179874.  U.S.
   EPA, Cincinnati, OH.                                       .

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993m. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
   Protection of Benthic Organisms:  Endrin. EPA-822-R-93-016. Office of Science and
   Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
                                •s.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993g.  Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook:
   Volumes I and II. EPA/600/R-93/187a,b.  Office of Science and Technology,
   Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993h.  Wildlife Criteria Portions of the
   Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. EPA-822-R-93-006.
   Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993i.   Interim Report on Data and Methods
   for Assessment of2J,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-o-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and
   Associated Wildlife.  EPA/600/R-93/055.  Office of Research and Development,
   Washington, DC.

Verschueren K.  1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Compounds. 2nd ed
   Van Nostrand Reinhold NY pp 607-19.
Will, M. E., and G. W. Suter, II. 19$4.  Toxicological benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
   85/R1. Prepared for the U.  S. Department of Energy.

-------
Terrestrial"i   .city - Endrin
      Cas No! 72-20-8

Chemical











endun



endrin



endrin





Ullllllll
.







hamsters




mice


CFW Swiss
mice



CD mice





CD mice

Type of
Effect





teratogenic

J


teratogenic



rep



letotoxic





lelotoxic


Description





PEL




PEL



PEL



NOAEL





LOAEL


Value





5




2.5



5



0.5





1


Units





mo/kg-day




mg/kg-d? •



ppm



mg/kg-day





mg/kg-day
ExpotJre Route
(oral, B.C., l.v.. l.p..
Inlectlon)

Pesticides were
dissolved in 1 5 ml/kg
corn oil immediately
before administration
by oral Intubation.
Pesticides were
dissolved in 1 .5 ml/kg
com oil immediately
before administration
by oral intubation.



oral
dissolved in com oil
and administered via
gastric Intubation (0 1
ml/day)


dissolved in corn oil
and administered via
gastric intubation (0. 1
nil/day)
Exposure
Duration/
Timing

Given a
single dose
on day 7. 8 .
or 9 of
gestation.

Given a
single dose
on day 9 of
gestation.
120 days;
beginning 30
days before
mating

treated on
gestation
days 7- 17



treated on
gestation
days? 17


Reference





Ottolenghi, 1974




Cntolenghi, 1974


Good and Ware.
1969


Kavlock el al..
1981




Kavlock el al..
1981


Comments
Malformations weie highest after
treatment on day 8 , Embryocidal
action and lelotoxicily were more
pronounced when treatment
occurred on day 7 or 8 than 9 of
gestation.

In mice, endrin was teratogenic, but
the frequency and gravity of the
defects produced were less
pronounced than in the hamsters.

There was a direct influence of
endrin on reproduction in mice, due
to fetal mortality.




Petal weight and skeletal and
visceral maturity were adversely
affected at this dose. Teratogenic
effects and embryo lethality not
evident even al levels of maternal
lethality.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Endrin
      Cas No. 72-20-8

Name
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin

Species
rat
rat
hamster
hamster
hamster
CO rat .
TvDA Of
Effect
letotoxic
rep
letotoxic
letotoxic
behavioral
behavioral

Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL
LOAEL

Value
045
2
0.75
1.5
'1.5
0.15

Unite
mg/kg-day
b»
ppm
mg/kg-day .
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Exposure Route
(oral, B.C., l.w., l.p.,
Inlectlon)
dissolved in com oil
and administered via
gastric intubation (0.2
ml/day)
oral (through the diet)
adminstered by oral
gavage In com oil
administered by oral
gavage In com oil
administered by
gastric Intubation
administered via
gastric Intubation
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
treated on
gestation
days 7- 20
weanling rats
were
maintained
on the diet
for 79 days
treated on
days 5- Hot
gestation
treated on
days 5-14 ol
gestation
days 5-14 ol
gestation
days 7- 15 of
lactation

Reference
Kavlock et al..
1981
Eisenlord et al..
1968
Chernoff et al..
1979
Chernottetal..
1979
Gray et al., 1981
Grayetal., 1981

Comments
No dose related effects on fetal
mortality, weight, degree of skeletal
and visceral maturation and
incidences ol skeletal and visceral
anomalies.
There was no difference in
behavior, weight, the number of
litters, or the percent survival- of
pups at this dose.
Maternal toxicity and fetal toxicity
were noted at doses above 0 75
mg/kgday
Significant maternal lethality and
fetal toxicity were noted at this
dose.
This dosage produced a persistent
elevation in the locomotor activitv
This dosage produced an elevation
in locomotor activity in rat pups that
was attenuated by 3 months of aqe

-------
Terrestrial .    .city - Eneirin
      Cas No. 72-20-8


Chemical








endrin

endrin





endiin



endrin

endrin




uniiiin











hamster

mouse





dog


mallard
ducks
mallard
ducks



inallaid
ducks

_ .
lype 01








leratogenic

letotoxic
.1




rep



rep

rep




tup











NOAEL

LOAEL





NOAEL



LOAEL

NOAEL




NOAEL



Value

•





25

7





2



3

0.5




3



Units







mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day





ppm



ppm

ppm




ppm
Exposure Rout*
(oral, s.c., l.v., l.p.,

Injection)






administered via
gastric intubation
administered as
solution in com oil





oral; once per day



oral

oral




01 at
Exposure
Duration/

Timing






days 4-1 3 ol
gestation
day 8 ol
gestation





1 5 months



20 weeks

20 weeks




>2(X) days



* Reference






Goldenlhal el al..
1978
Kavlock el al..
1985




The Kettering
Laboratory, 1971


Roylance et al..
1985
Roylance et al..
-1985




Spaim el al.. 1966



Comments
Although scoliosis with or without
fused ribs was observed in
hamsters in this study, it is
attributed to heredity^in laboratory
animals. In elfect. endrin given .
orally to hamsters in this study at
doses up to 2.5 mg/kg-day is not
considered a teratogen.
Fetal weight was reduced at this
level.

Based on morphological
observations and numbers ol pups.
no effects could be attributed to
endrin in the daily die! al 2 0 ppm
(0.051 mg/kg-day), or less.
A 9.6% drop in embryo survival was
observed at this dose. However, no
effects on egg production, fertility.
and hatcnability were reported.
No effect on egg production, fertility
and hatchability were reported.
. No significant effects on
reproduction were observed at this
dose level. A later hatching date
and poorer hatching success were
reported at this dose level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Endrin
      Cas No. 72-20-8
Chemical
Name
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
oinJun

Species
fertile hen
eggs
ral
mouse
monkey
rabbit
guinea pig
hamsler
pigeon
quail
duck
wild bird
mallard
sharp tailed
grouse
California
quail
Tvoe of
Effect
dvp
acute
acute . '
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute

Description
NOAEL
LD50
L050
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
LO50
LD50
LD50
LD50

Value
0.2
3
1370
3
7
16
10
5600
4210
5330
1780
5.64
1.06
1.19

Unite
mo/egg
mo/kg
uflfcg
mg/kg
mfl/kg
mo/kg
mg/kg
Ug/kfl
u&*g
ugfcg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Route
(orsl, s.c., l.v., l.p..
Injection)
injection via com
carrier
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
oral
NS
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
injected.
either prior to
incubation or
alter a 7-day
incubation
period
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

Reference
Smith et al , 1970
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
US EPA, 1993h
US EPA, 1993h
US EPA. 1993H

Comments
Forty percent hatchabihty occurred
in comparison with 86.2% lor the
controls.





'





•


-------
Terrestrial .    city - Endrin
      Cas No. 72-20-8

Chemical
Name
endrin
endrin
endrin

endrin


Species
'pheasant
rock dove
mule deei
domestic
goat

Type ol
Effect
acute
acute
- acute

acute


Description
LD50
LD50
LD50

LD50


Value
1 78
2.0-5.0
&25-12.5

25.0-50.0


Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg

mg/kg
' Exposure Route
(oral. s.c.. l.v., l.p.,
Inlectlon)
NS
NS
NS

NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
NS
NS
NS

NS


Reference
US EPA. 1993h
U.S. EPA. 1993H
U.S. EPA, 1993h

U.S EPA, 1993h


Comments





NS = Not specified

-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Endrin
      Cas No. 72-20-8
Chemical
Nam*
endrin
endnrt
endnn
endrin
endrin
Species
lathead
minnow
llaglish
Ceriodaphnia
. reticulala
Daphnia
magna
Daphnia
magna
Type of
Effect
chron
. Chron
immob.
immob.
morl
Description
MATC
MATC
EC50
EC50
LC50
Value
<0 14
022-30
24
59
88 230
(141.25)
Units .
uo/L
ug/L
UQ/L
ug/L
UQ/L
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
complete lite
cycle lest
complete lite
cyde test
NS
NS*
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
NS ,
NS
48 hour
48 hour
48 hour
Reference
Jarvinen and Tyo,
1978 as cited in
Rand and PetroceUi.
1985
Hermanulz, 1978 as
cited in Rand and
PetroceUi, 1985
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE. 1994
AQUIRE, 1994
Comments
Critical life stage end
points: embryo, larval.
and early juvenile;
mortality
Critical lite stage end
points: embryo, larval.
and early juvenile;
growth




-------
Freshwater     icily - Erjdrirs
      Cas No. 72-20-8
Chemical
Name
endrin
endrin
endrin
endrin
endfin
endrin
Species
Simocephalus
serrulatus
cattish
channel cattish
brook trout
bluegill
largemouth
bass
Type of
Effect
immob. .
mort
mort
mort
mort
mort
Description
EC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
1
Value
26 - 45 (33 9)
2800
041 -0.8
(0.52)
0.36 • 0.59
(0.46)
0.19-061
(0.39J
027
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ua/L
ug/L
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
48 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour
48 hour
Reference
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE, 1994
AOUIRE. 1994
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE. 1994
Comments







-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Endrin
      Cas No. 72-20-8
Chemical
Name
endrin
endrin
Species
rainbow trout
fathead
minnow
Type of
Effect
mort
rfiort
Description
LC50
LC50
Value
0.33 - 2.5
(O.B2)
0.26 - 3.8
(0.84)
Units
ug/L
ug/L
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration/
Timing
96 hour
96 hour
Reference
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE, 1994
Comments


NS = Not specified.

-------
Freshwater Biological  . «ake Measures - Endrin
              Cas No. 72-20-8

Chemical
name
endiin

endrin


endrin


endrin

endrin

endrin

endrin

Species
fish

fish

black
bullhead

black
bullhead
lathead
minnow
channel
catfish
fathead
minnow
B-taclor
(BCF, BAF.
BMF)
BCF

BCF


BCF


BCF

BCF

BCF

BCF

Value
168.6

1130


3700


6200

13000

1640 - 2000

300
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)
P

m


m


m

m

m

m

Units
NS

NS


NS


NS

NS

NS

NS

. Reference
U.S. EPA. 1993h
Jarvinen and Tyo, 1978
as cited in U.S. EPA,
1993h
Anderson and Oefoe,
1 980 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1994
Anderson and Defoe,
1980 as cited in
AQUIHE, 1994
Jarvinen and Tyo, 1978
as cited in AQUIRE,
1994
U.S. EPA, 1980 as cited
in Roward, 1991
Jarvinen and Tyo, 1978
as cited in AQUIRE.
1994

Comments
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid

Normalized to 1 .0% lipid








„



NS = Not specified.

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measure - Endrin
              Cas No. 72-20-8

Chemical
name

endrin


Species

plants
= Not specified.
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)

BCF



Value

0058

Measured or
predicted
(m.p)

P



Units

NS



Reference
U.S EPA.
19906



Comments




-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Fluoranthene - 1
                  Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                   .   Fluoranthene
                                   Cas No.:  206-44-0

Summary:  This profile on fluoranthene summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals,  plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects  reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e.. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration  factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) arid, if available.
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5. For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document  for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."

I.      Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale  behind lexicological benchmarks  used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwaler ecosystem.  Table 1 coniains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table  2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and litloral ecosystems, including
aqualic planis, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: Adequate toxicity data measuring reproductive or developmental endpoints pertinent to
population sustainability  were not identified. Thus, no benchmark values protective of the mammalian
community in a freshwater ecosystem were  derived.

Birds:  'No toxicity studies documenting terrestrial avain exposure to fluoranthene were identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                                  Fluoranthene - 2
Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  A Final Chronic Value (FCV) of 0.0062 mg/L as reported in the SQC
document for fluoranthene was selected as the benchmark value protective of fish and aquatic
invertebrates.  Because the benchmark is based on FCV from SQC, it was categorized as adequate.

Aquatic Plants: The toxicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no observed effects
concnetration (NOEC) or a lowest observed concnetration (LOEC) for vascular aquatic plants (e.g.,
duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (EC,,) for a species of freshwater algae, frequently a
species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum). The  aquatic plant benchmark for
fluoranthene is 5.44 E+07 mg/L (Suter and Mabrey, 1994).  As described in  Section 4.3.6, all
benchmarks for aquatic plants were designated as interim.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined using the
Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method.  The EQp method uses a Final Chronic Value  (FCV) or Secondary
Chronic Value (SCV), along  with the fraction of organic carbon and the octanol-carbon partition
coefficient (K,,,.) to determine protective sediment concentration (Stephan, 1993). The EQpl number is
the chemical concentration that may  be present in the sediment while still protecting the benthic
community from the harmful effects  of chemical exposure.  The FCV reported in the SQC document
for fluroanthene was used to  calculate an EQp value of 720 mg fluoranthene/kg organic carbon.
Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the sediment (f,,,.) of 0.05, the benchmark for the
benthic community is 36 mg/kg. Since the EQp value was based on a FCV from the SQC, the
sediment benchmark is categorized as adequate.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Fluoranthene - 3
            Table  1.  Toxicological  Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                                Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
Specie*
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark Value*
mg/Kg-day
ID
, ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Spedea
-

-
-
-
-
. . .
• -
-
-
Effect


•
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
Study Value
mg/kg-day
-

•
-
•
• ' •
• - •
-
-

Deacrfptfofi

-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
SF
-
-
-


-

-
-
-
Original Source


•





-

'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = iniehm; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order of magnitude or
more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data
                   Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative  Fish
                               Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem


fish and
aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic
community
DeMCIVMnl
mgft
0.0062 (a)
5.44 E +07
(i)
24.8 mg/kg
sediment (a)
Study Sp«cta*

aquatic
organisms
Pimephalas
promelas and
Daphnia magna
benthic
community
o~*«»

FCV
CV .
FCV x K,* '
SMVO*

U.S.EPA,
1993k
Suter and
Mabrey, 1994
SQC
                •Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '•' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
                of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Fluoranthene - 4
II.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: As discussed previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic or  chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to fluoranthene.
Thus, no benchmark values protective of the mammalian community were derived.  -

Birds: No toxicity studies documenting avain exposure to fluoranthene were identified.

Plants: Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root lengths.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994),  phytotoxicity
benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10*
percentile.  If  there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.   Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth,  yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed  to impair the
ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were .not identified for fluoranthene  and, as  a result, a
benchmark could  not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate  data with which to derive  a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Fluoranthene - 5
          Table 3. Toricological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with  Terrestrial Ecosystem
RcprVMvitstfvv Sptcwt
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
American robin
American woodcock
plants
soil community
B«nctunark VthW
mgrt(p"d«y
ID
ID
• ID
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
No data
No data
Study Spwiv
-


-
-

' -
-
-

-

-
en«ct



•
-
• •
-
'
•



-
Study VMM
ma/kpday
-
-

-

-


-
-


-
OMcHptton

.-

•
•
-
-
•
#
-
-
-
-
UP



- .
-
-
-
-
-

-
•
-
OrigbMl Soura

-










.
'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim: a '" indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEI for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data                    •

III.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents the biological uptake measures (i.e., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcnetrate
and/or bioaccumulate in  the generic aquatic and terrestrial  ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are  presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: tropic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral  ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertbrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is idenfieid as  whole-body or llpid-based  and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological  uptake factors are deignated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value  reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemicals  with log K^ values below  4,  bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                               Fluoranthene - 6


 assumed to refer dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
 total, water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log K^, values above 4, the BCFs
 were assumed to refer to total water concentrations and concentrations in fish.  The following
 discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the
 context  for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in  Table 4.

 As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAP/s for constituents of concern  were generally estimated
, using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann  et al. (1992) for the  littoral
 ecosystem.  However, these models were considered inappropriate to estimate BAF/s  for
 fluoranthene because they fail to consider metabolism in fish. A number of studies have
 demonstrated that polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)  such as fluoranthene are  readily
 metabolized in the tissue of fish (see Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish,
 Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol.  Rep.
 85[1.11]. The BAF/s selected for fish in the limnetic and  littoral ecosystems for fluoranthene
 are from Stephan (1993).  This document contains unpublished field data by Burkard  with a
 geometric mean BAP of 96 qbtained from fish at 5% lipids.  Steady-state measured data on
 biological uptake of fluoranthene (and most PAHs) are very limited at this time and should be
 interpreted with caution.  Since no  measured fish BCf values were identified, the fish BAF
 reported by Stephan (1993) was used for bioconcentration  factor  for fish.

 The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, earthworms and
 terrestrial invertebrates  were estimated asu described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the
 extrapolation  method is applied to hydrophobia organic chemicals assuming that the
 partitioning to tissue is  dominated by lipids.  For hydrophobic organic constituents, the
 bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above
 ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation,
 direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Fluoranthene - 7
                        Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF.
-
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
llplcMMMdor
whoto body
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
- •
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
vatwi
1 ,900 (t) .
1 ,900 (t)
1 ,900 (t)
1 ,900 (t)
1,900(t)
10
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.3E-02
4.1 E -02
•ourca
measured; Stephan. 1993
measured; Stephan, 1993
measured; Stephan. 1993
measured; Stephan, 1993
measured; Stephan. 1993

calc
calc
calc
U.S. EPA, I990e
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Fluoranthene - 8
References

Brooke, L.,  1991.  Memorandum to Walter Berry.  Summary' of Results of Acute and Chronic
    Exposures of Fluoranthene Without and With Ultraviolet (UV) Light to Various
    Freshwater Organisms. December 3. 5pp.  As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, 1993k. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:
    Fluoranthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research and Development,  Office of Science
    and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D.  C, EPA-822-R-
    93-012.

Buccafusco, R. J., S. J. Elis and G.A. LeBlanc.  1981.  Acute Toxicity of Priority Pollutants to
    Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicoi, 26:446-452.  As cited in
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993k.  Sediment Quality'Criteria for the
    Protection of Benthic Organisms:  Fluoranthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research and
    Development, Office of Science and Technology,  Health and Ecological Criteria Division,.
    Washington, D. C., EPA-822-R-93-012.

Carlson  R. M. et al., 1979.  Implications to the aquatic environment of polynuclear aromatic
    hydrocarbons liberated from Northern Great Plains Coal, USEPA-600/3-79-093. As cited
    in Hazardous Substance Database  (HSDB), National Library of Medicine,  1994.

Clements, W.H., J.T. Oris, and T.E. Wissing,  1994.  Accumulation and food chain transfer of
    fluoranthene and benzo(a)pyrene in Chironomus riparius and Lepomis macrochirus.  Arch.
    Environ. Contam. Toxicoi. 26:261-266.

Gendusa, A. C.,  1990.  Toxicity of Chromium and Fluoranthene from Aqueous and Sediment
    Sources to Selected Freshwater Fish.  Ph.D. Thesis, University of North Texas. U.M.I.
    300 N. Zeeb Rd., Ann  Arbor, MI 48106. 138pp,  As  cited in U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency,  1993k.  Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic
    Organisms:  Fluoranthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Office
    of Science and  Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington,  D. C.,
    EPA-822-R-93-012.

Gerhart, E. H. and  R. M. Carslon, 1978.  Hepatic mixed-function oxidase activity in
    rainbow trout exposed to several polycyclic aromatic  compounds.  Environmental
    Research, 17:284-295.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Fluoranthene - 9


Home. J. D. and B.R. Oblad, 1983.  Aquatic Toxicity Studies of Six Priority Pollutants. Final
    Report Task II.  U.S. EPA. Contract No. 68-01-6201.  As cited in U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, 1993k.  Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic
    Organisms:  Fluoranthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Office
    of-Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D. C.
    EPA-822-R-93-012.

LeBlanc, G. A.  1980.  Acute Toxicity of Priority Pollutants to Water Flea (Daphnia
    magna).  Bull. Environm. Contam.  Toxicoi., 24:684-691.

Newsted, J.  L. and J. P. Giesy.  1987.  Predictive models for photoinduced acute toxicity of
    polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Daphnia Magna, Strauss (Cladocera, Crustacea).
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol.  6, pp. 445-461.

Oris, J.T., R.W. Winner, and M.V. Moore,  1991.  A Four-Day Survival and Reproduction
    Toxicity Test for Ceriodaphnia dubia.  Environ. Toxicoi.  Chem., 10:217-224.  As cited in
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993k.  Sediment Quality Criteria for the
    Protection of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene.  Office of Water, Office of Research and
    Development,  Office of Science and Technology, Health  and Ecological Criteria Division,
    Washington, D. C., EPA-822-R-93-012.

RTECS (Registry  of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substance), March  1994.  National Institute
    for Occupational Safety and Health.

Spehar, RL et al., 1980. J Water Pollut Control Fed 52:1703-74.  As cited in Hazardous
    Substance Database (HSDB), National Library of Medicine, 1994.

Stephan, C.E. 1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health  and  Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Suedel, B.  C.., J.  H. Rodgers, Jr. and P. A. Clifford, 1993.  Bioavailability of fluoranthene
    in freshwatersSediment toxicity tests. Environmental  Toxicology and Chemistry,  Vol. 12,
    pp. 155-165.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Fluoranthene - 10


Suter II, G.W., M.A. Futrell, and G.A. Kerchner,  1992.  Toxicological Benchmarks
   forScrening of Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on theOak
   Ridge  Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  DE93-000719. Office of Environmental
   Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Suter, G.W. II and J. B.  Mabrey.  1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for  Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
   84OR21400. Office  of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.

Thomann, R.  V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chmeical distribution in aquatic
   food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(6): 699-707.

Thomann, R.  V., J. P. Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
   organic chemical  accumulationin aquatic food  webs with sediment interaction.
   Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  11:615 - 629.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1978.  In-depth studies on health and environmental
   impacts of selected water pollutants. U.S. EPA.  Contract No. 68-01-4646.  As cited in
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
   Fluoranthene. Criteria and Standards Division, Washington,  D. C...  October 1980, 86p.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1988.   13-week Mouse Oral Subchronic Toxicity
   Study.  Prepared by Toxicity Research Laboratories, Ltd., Muskegon, Michigan for the
   Office of Solid Waste,  Washington, D, C. As  cited in IRIS Database, 1994.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
   Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final. Office of
   Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. January.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1993k.  Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
   of Benthic Organisms:  Fluoranthene.  Office  of Water, Office of Research and
   Development, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division.
   Washington, D.C., EPA-822-R-93-012.

Will, M. E. and  G. W.  Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
   85/R1.  Prepared  for  U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
                                                       Terrestrial Toxic. ,  - Fluoranthene
                                                              Cas No.: 206-44-0

Chemical
Name
lluoranthene

tluoranthene




tluoranthene


Species
mouse

iat




mouse
-

Type of Effect
acute

acute




sub-chronic


Description
LD50

LD50




NOAEL


Value
100

2,000




125


Units
mg/kg
mg/kg-
body wt.



mg/kg-
body wt.
Exposure Route
(oral, s.c., i.v.. i.p..
injection)
i.v.

oral




oral

Exposure Duration
/ Timing
NS

NS




1 3-weeks


Reference


RTECS, 1994



U.S.EPA, 1968 as cited in
IRIS, 1994


Comments



Doses of the study were 0. 125. 250 and 500
mg/kg-d. Critical effects observed at 250 and
500 mg/kg-d dose were nephropathy,
increased liver weights, hematological
alterations and clinical effects.
NS = Not Specified
   I luoi.iiithe.ne  Page 6

-------
                                               Freshwater Toxlclty - Fluoranthene
                                                      Cos No!: 206-44-0
Chemical Name
lluoranlhene
fluoranthene
Iluoranthene
ftuoranthene
fluoranthene
S
fluoranthene
fluoranthene
fluoranthene
Species
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
organisms
channel
cattish
rainbow
trout
rainbow
trout
blueglll
bluegill
fathead
minnow
Type of
Effect
chion
chron
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
Description
NAWQC
FCV
LC50/EC50
LC50/EC50
LC50/EC50
LC50
LC50/EC50
LC50/EC50
Value
1.7
6.16
36
7.7
187
3.980
4.000
7.71
Uunlts
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
UQ/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
NS
NS
static
flow-
through
static
static
static
static
Exposure
Duration /
Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
96-hour
NS
NS
Reference '.
Suter et al.. 1992
U.S. EPA. 1993k
Gendusa. 1990 as
cited In U.S EPA.
1993k
Brooke. 1991 as cited
in U.S. EPA. 1993k
Home and Oblad.
1983 as cited in
U.S.EPA. 1993k
U.S.EPA. 1980
Buccafusco et al..
198 las cited In U.S.
EPA. 1993k
Gendusa. 1990 as
ctted in U.S. EPA.
1993k
Comments

freshwater (daik) FCV is basud
on FAV=33.6 ug/l. and the tina
ACK=5.45






I luorr   
-------
                                              Freshwater Tox.  / - Fluoranthene
                                                     Cos No.: 206-44-0
Chemical Name
fluofcinlhene
(luoranthene
lluoianlhene
fluoranthene
fluoranthene
fluoranthene
fluoranlhene
lluoianthene
Species
faiheud
1 Ilil II IOW
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow
fathead
minnow
daphnla
magna
daphnla
magna
daphnla
magna
daphnia
magna .
Type ol
Ettect
acute
acute
chronic
chronic
acute
acute
acute
acute
Description
LC60/EC60
LC507EC50
/
cv
cv
'LC50/EC50
LC50/EC50
LC50/EC50
LCSO
Value
12.22
95
15.02
2.59
45
102.8
0.97
325.000
Uunlts-
ug/r
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Test Type
(slctic/ flow
through)
(low-
through
static
NS
NS
static
static
flow-
through
static
Exposure
Duration /
Timing
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
48 hour
Reference
Brooke. 1991 as cited
inUS.EPA. 1993k
Home and Oblad.
1983 as cited in
U.S.EPA. 1993k
U.S.EPA. 1993k
U.S.EPA. 1993k
Orisetal.. 1991 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1993k
Brooke; 1991 as cited
In U.S. EPA. 1993k
Brooke. 1991 as cited
In U.S. EPA. 1993k
U.S.EPA. 1978 as
cited in U.S.EPA. 1980
Comments

^
test performed in dark
environment
test performed in lighted (UV)
environment




luornf ithune - Page 8

-------
                                                 Freshwater Toxlclty - Fluoranthene
                                                        CasNo.: 206-44-0
Chemical Name
fluoranthene
(luoranthene
fluoranthene
fluoranthene
Species
daphnia
maqna
daphnia
magna
daphnia
magna
daphnia
magna
Type of
Effect
acute
acute
chronic
chronic
Description
LC50
EC50
CV
CV
Value
320.000
102.6
30.37 •
0.92
Uunlts
uq/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Test Type
(static/ flow
through)
static
static
NS
NS
Exposure
Duration /
Timing
48-hour
10-day
NS
NS
Reference
. LeBlanc. 1980
Suedeletal.. 1993
U.S.EPA. 1993k
U.S.EPA, 1993k
Comments

•
test performed in dark
environment
test performed in lighted (UV)
environment
    NS=Not Specified
I luuir   ',-ne -  Page 9

-------
                                      Freshwater Biological Upi.   > Measures - Ffuoranth.ene
                                                       Cos No.: 206-44-0
Chemical Name
lluoranlhene
lluoranthene
lluoranlhene
(luoranlhene
lluoranthene
lluoranthene
Species
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
fathead minnow
aquatic organisms
Oaphnia magna
Chironomus riparius
B-factor (BCF,
BAF, BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BAF
Value
378
380
398
570
1742
31
Measured 01
Predicted
(m,p)
m
m
m
P
P
m
Units
LAg
NS
NS
NS
NS
(chironomtds
ug/kg) / (sediments
uo/kg)
Reference
Gerhart & Carlson. 1978
Spehar el al , 1980 as
cited in HSDB. 1994
Carslon et al., 1979 as
cited in HSDB. 1994
U.S.EPA, 1993b
Newsted & Geisy, 1987
Clements et a! . 1994
Comments
. Rainbow trout were exposed to both
lluoranthene and pyrene in one experiment
The How-through exposure was lor 21-
days. BCF value was measured in.lhe livei
tissue ot Ihe rainbow Iroul.
21 -day biocoricentralion test in a How
through tank.
28-day experiment in flow-through lank log
BCF 3.60 peak after 7 days: depuration
occurs in two days
BCF normalized to 1% lipid

Reported BAF is measured from the
sediments with the highest concentration ol
fluoranthene (4 040 uq/kq)
 NS = Not Specified
IUOK inthune  Cage 10

-------
                                        Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Fluoranthene
                                                        CasNo.:  206-44-0



Chemical Name


fluoranthene



Species


plant

B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMR


BCF



Value


0045
Measured
or
Predicted
(m.o)


P



Units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g
soil)



Reference


U.S. EPA. 1990E



Comments

Plant uptake from soil pertains to
foraqed plants
I IIK ire  ' v;f>e - Page 1 I

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Heptachlor•. 1
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                      Heptachlor
                                  Cas No.:  76-44-8
Summary: This profile on heptachlor summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, arid soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e.,  Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."
I.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C  ) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table  1 coniains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in ihe limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish,  invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  Several  lexicological studies involving heptachlor exposure to mammals have
been conducted using laboratory mice and rais.  Green et al.  (1970) fed male and female
Sprague-Dawley rats diets containing 0.25 mg/kg-day heptachlor for 60 days (females
continued to receive test diet through gestation).  A LOAEL  of 0.25 mg/kg-day was
established based on decreased fertility in  females. In another study, Akay and Alp (1981, as
cited in ATSDR, 1989) fed male and female mice 7.5, 15, or 30 mg/kg-day heptachlor. Over
a 10 week period an overall failure to reproduce  at all dose levels was  observed.

In a similar investigation, rats of both sex  were exposed to concentrations of 1.5, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0
and 1.0.0 ppm heptachlor for 7  weeks (Witherup  et al., 1955). The introduction of heptachlor


August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Heptachlor-2
into the diet of rats in concentrations greater than 7.0 ppm increased the probability of
fatalities in offspring, reflecting some weakness in the reproductive function.  Since no
information was provided on daily food consumption or body weight, conversion from mg/kg-
diet to mg/kg-day required the use of an allometric equation:

      Food consumption = 0.056(W°-6611) where W is body weight in kg  (Nagy, 1987).

Assuming a body weight of 0.346 kg, a NOAEL of 5.0 ppm was converted to 0.429mg/kg-
day and a LOAEL of 7.0 ppm was converted to 0.600 mg/kg-day.

 The Witherup et al. (1955) study measures chronic reproductive effects that may impair the
fecundity of a wildlife population.  Therefore, the study  NOAEL of  0.429 mg/kg-day was
chosen for derivation of a benchmark value. The subchronic study conducted  by Green et al.
(1970) was not selected to extrapolate a benchmark value due to lack of an adequate dose-
response regime. The data from the Akay and Alp (1981) study also was not used in the
development of benchmarks due to limited details and statistical analysis.

The NOAEL value from the Witherup et al., (1955) was then  scaled for species representative
of a freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994):
                          Benchmark  = NOAEL. x
                                                    KJ

where NOAELj is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BWt is the body weight of the test species. This is the same
default methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152). Since the
Witherup et al. (1955) study documented reproductive effects  from heptachlor  expoure to both
male and female rats,  representative body weights of both genders were used  in the scaling
algorithm to obtain lexicological benchmarks.

Data were available on reproductive, developmental, growth and survival endpoints for
heptachlor exposure.  In addition, the data set contained acute and chronic toxicity studies that
were conducted during sensitive life stages.  Based on the data set for heptachlor, the
benchmarks developed from the Witherup et al. (1955) study were categorized as adequate.

Birds:  Adequate toxicity studies documenting avain exposure to heptachlor were not
identified and therefore, no benchmarks were developed.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  A review of the literature  revealed that an AWQC is not
available for heptachlor.  Therefore, the Tier n method described in Section 4.3.5 was used to
calculate a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 6.9E - 03  mg/L. Because the benchmark is

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Heptachlor-3
based on a SCV and there were no lower toxicity values in the data set, it was categorized as
interim.

Aquatic Plants: The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascualr aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECxx) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutwri).
The aquatic plant benchmark for heptachlor is 26.7 mg/L (Suter and Mabrey, 1994). As
described in Section 4.3.6, all benchmarkds  for aquatic plants were designated as interim.

Benthic community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method. The EQ  method uses  a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or Secondary Chronic Value (SCV), along with the fraction of organic carbon and the
octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^ to determine protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993).  The EQp number is the chemical concentration  that  may be present in the
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from the harmful effects. of chemical
exposure. Because no FCV was available, a SCV value of 0.584 mg  heptachlor/kg organic
carbon was used to calculate  an EC" value.  Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for
the sediment (f^ of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic community is 2.92.E-02 mg/kg
sediment.  Since the EQp number was based on a SCV, the sediment benchmark was
categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
HepUchlor - 4
       Table 1.  Toxicological  Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
W^^ppB^^fWdw^^P-
mink
river otter
baJdeagto
osprey
great biua haron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gul
kingfisher
ftttwhmartt
Vahtt* m4ko>
VWV^mgm^
**
0.33 (a)
, 0.20(8)
ID
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
»«dy
SMeiM
rat
rat.
-

-

•
-

•
Cnwl
«p
rep
•


•
• -
•


iMiittir VhfeM
»9»*+9
0.43
0.43
-
-

. • -
-
-
, .

D««ct»*»
NOAEL
NOAEL

•
1
•
-
-
-
•
^ * ^
-


•'

-
-
•
-
•
* rnhjih*n.>"i'«
, s^ < •*
WHhvup at al., 1955
Wittwrup at al., 1955

•
•
-
-•
- '

•
      *B0nchma/fc Catagory, a - adequate, p « provisional, i - interim; a "' indicates that ins banchmark valua was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for otter adverse effects.
      ID - Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Heptachlor - 5
               Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
ftepreeantrfv*
Species^
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benlhic community
Benchmark
«*.
6 9E-03 (i)
0.0267 (i)
2.9E-02 (i)
Study
aquatic
organisms
aquatic
plant*
aquatic
organisms
^
SCV
cv
SCVxK,,.

OUalwHwitw
Gil. 1992
Suter and Mabrey,
1994
GLI, 1992
        •Benchmark Category, a - adequate, p a provisional, i * interim; a "" indicate* that the benchmark value   was an
      order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverte effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                            HepUchlor - 6
 II.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

 This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
 media concentrations (C^) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
 benchmarks
 for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic terrestrial
 ecosystem.

 Mammals:  Becasue of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-
 species study (Witherup et al., 1955) was used to derive the heptachlor lexicological
 benchmark for mammalian species representing the general terrestrial ecosystem. The study
 value was scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem using the cross-species scaling
 algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.  (1994).  Since the (Witherup et al., 1955) documented
 reproductive effects from heptachlor exposure to both male and female rats, the representative
 body weights of both sexes were  used in the scaling algorithm to obtain lexicological
 benchmarks.  Based on the data set for heptachlor, the benchmarks developed for the
 terrestrial ecosystem were categorized as adequate.

Biros:  As mentioned in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, adequate data with which to
 derive a benchmark protective of the avian  community were not identified.

Plants: Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
 percent yield to root lengths. As  presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
 benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
 percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used. If
 there were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant  growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to  impair the
 ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
 However, terrestrial plant studies  were not identified for heptachlor and, as a result, a
benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Heptachlor • 7
       Table 3  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
Raprm«u*tfv»
Stoefile^:
deer mouee
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vote
Eastern
cottontail
• red fox
raccoon
white-tailed dear
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobowhile
American robin
American
• woodcock
planU
toil community
Vahi*
mgrKa-cte|r
0.89 (a)
0.91 (a)
0.77 (a)
0.31 (a)
0.23 (a)
0.21 (a)
0.11 (a)
ID
>P
ID
ID
ID
No data
No data
Study
SpedM
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
•

•
-



StfM*
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep



•
-
.-

Vtfu*
«**a~
**
0.43
0.43
0,43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
•

-
-


-
~
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
'






&
•

•

•
•


•





0»^iB^O«»»
WBhenjp et aJ..
1955
WHherup et al.,
1955
Wrtherup et al..
1955
Wrthenjp etal..
1955
Wrthwupetal..
1955
WHherup et al.. .
1955
Wrthenjp et at..
. 1955







      'Benchmark Category, a > adequate, p = provisional, i =• interim; a *" indicate* that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnibdB or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID - Insufficient Data
August  1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                             Heptachlor. 8
 in.  Biological Uptake Measures

 This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
 protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
 and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
 values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
 and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
 invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants. Each
 value is identified as whole-boy or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
 biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
 concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
 chemicals with log Kow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
 assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
 total water concentration).  The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the
 biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values
 presented in Table 4.

 As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
 using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the  littoral
 ecosystem; these models were considered appropriate to estimate BAF/s for heptachlor.  The
 bioconcentration factor for fish  was also estimated from the Thomann models (i.e., log Kow -
 dissolved BCF/) and multiplied  by the dissolved fraction (/j) as defined in Equation 6-21 to
 determine the total bioconcentration factor (BCF/).  The  dissolved bioconcentration factor
 (BCF/1) was convened to the BCF/ in order to estimate the acceptable lipid tissue
 concentration (TC/) in fish consumed by piscivorous fish (see Equation 5-115).  The BCF/
 was required in Equation 5-115 because the surface water benchmark (i.e., FCV or SCV)
 represents a total water concentration (C1).  Mathematically, conversion from BCF/1 to BCF/
 is accomplished using the relationship delineated in the Interim Report on Data and Methods
for Assessment of 2 S,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Wildlife (U.S. EPA,
 1993i):

                                  BCF/1 x fd = BCF/


 Converting the predicted BCF,d of 102,329 L/kg LP to the BCF/ of 77,781 L/kg LP was in
 reasonable agreement (i.e., within a factor of 4) of the geometric mean of three measured
 BCF/  values presented in the master table on heptachlor (geometric mean = 146,900).

 The bioaccumulation factor for  terrestrial vertebrates; invertebrates, and earthworms were
 estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to
 hydrophobic organic  chemicals  assuming that the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids.
 Further, the method assumes that the BAFs and BCFs for terrestrial wildlife developed for
 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Revision of Assessment of Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and
 TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993) are of sufficient quality to  serve as the standard.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                              Heptachlor - 9
The beef biotransfer factor CBBFs) for a chemical lacking measured data (in this case
heptachlor) is compared to the BBF for TCDD and that ratio (i.e., heptachlor BBF/TCDD
BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD standard for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and
earthworms, respectively. For hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor
for plants was estimated as described  in Section 6.6.1  for above ground leafy vegetables and
forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves
and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion:
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Heptachlor - 10
                               Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
•ootogicai
limnalic frophic
leveMNsh
limnetic trophic
Ievel3fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral tophic
level 3 fish
littoral topfrc
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, 
-------
APPENDIX B                                                            Heptachlor-11
References
Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. Toxicological Profile for
   Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide. Washington, D.C. U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS).

Akay, M.T. and U. Alp. 1981. The effects of BHC and heptachlor on mice. Hacettepe Bull
   NatSciEng 10:11-22.

AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Duluth, MN, June 1995.

Arnold, D.W., G.L. Jr. Kennedy, M.L. Keplinger, et al. 1977. Dominant lethal studies with
   technical chlordane, HCS-3260, and heptachlor: heptachlor epoxideJ. Toxicol. Environ.
   Health 2:547-555.       .

Blus, L. J., C. J. Henny, D.J. Heptachlor: Toxicolgy and safety evaluation.  Industrial
   Medicine  & Surgery, p. 840 -844.

 Lenhart, and T.E.  Kaiser.  1984.  Effects of hepachlor- and lindane-treated seed  on Canada
   geese.  J.  Wild!. Manage. 48(4): 1097 -  1111.

Eisler,  M.  1968.  Heptachlor: Toxicology and safety evaluation.  Industrial Medicine &
   Surgery,  pp. 840 -844.

Garten, C. T.  and J. R. Trabalka.  1983. Evaluation of models  for predicting terrestrial food
   chain behavior of xenobiotics.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 17(10): 5 90-595.

Gossett, R.W., D.A. Brown, and D.R. Young.  1983. Predicting the bioaccumulation of
   organic compounds in marine organisms using octanol/water partition coefficients.
Marine   Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 10 pp. 387 - 392.
               s
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative GLI, 1992.  Tier D Water Quality Values for Protection
   of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water - Support Documents.  11/23/92.

Green,  V.A. 1970.  Effects of pesticides on rat and chick embryo. In: Hemphill D. ed. Trace
   substance  environmental health 3rd. Proc.  3rd Ann Conf, University of Missouri, 183-209.

Kenaga, E. E. 1980.  Correlation of bioconcentration factors of chemicals in aquatic and
   terrestrial  organisms with their physical  and chemical properties.  American Chemical
   Society,  14(5): 553- 556.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                           Heptachlor - 12
 Lu. P., R.L. Metcalf, A. SI Hirwe, and J.W. Williams.  1975.  Evaluation of environmental
    distribution and fate of hexachlorocyclopentadiene, chlordene, heptachlor, and heptachlor
    epoxide in a laboratory model ecosystem.  /. Agric. Food Chem. 23(5): 967 - 973.

 Mestitzova, M. 1966.  On reproduction studies and the occurrence of cataracts in rats after
    Rand, G.M., and S:R. long-term feeding of the insecticide heptachlor. Experientia.
    23/1:42-43.

 Nagy, K. A. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
    Ecol.Mono.  57:11-128.

 National Institute  for Occupational Safety and Health.  RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database.  March 1994.

 Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, G.W.  Suter II,  1994. lexicological Benchmarks for Wildlife
    1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratoy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

 Rand, G.M. and S.R. Petrocelli.  1985. Fundamentals  of Aquatic Toxicology:  Methods and
   Applications.  Hemisphere Publishing Corporation,  New York.

 Stephan, C. E.  1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human  Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
   Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

 Suter n, G. W. and J. B. Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants  of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
   84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Thomann, R.  V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
   food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R.  V., J. P. Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.   1992.  An equilibrium model of
   organic  chemical accumulation in aquatic food  webs with sediment interaction.
   Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  11:615-629.

Tiara, M. C. and L. De Viale.  1980.  Porphyrinogen carboxy-lyase from chick embryo  liver
   in vivo  effect of heptachlor and lindane. Int. J. Biochem.   12: 1033 - 1038.
                            \
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1985.   Drinking water criteria document for
   heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide and chlordane (Final Draft)  .S.B. Wilbur, et al..
   Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.  Environmental Criteria and
   Assessment Office.  March 1985.  EPAy600/X-84/197-l.

-------
APPENDIX B                                                             Heptachlor -  13
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health
   Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final.  Office
   of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.  January.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  Integrated Risk Information System.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992.  304(a) Criteria and Related
   Information for Toxic Pollutants.  Water Management Division, Region TV.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human
   Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-
   154672.  Environmental  Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
   Duluth, MR

Veith, G.D., D.L. DeFoe and B.V. Befgstedt  1979.  Measuring and estimating the
   bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish; J. Fish. Res. Bd. of Canada.  36:  1040 -
   1048.

Will, M. E. and  G. W.  Suter II. 1994.   Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
   85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.

Witherup, S., F. P. Cleveland, F.E. Shaffer.  1955. The physiological effects of the
   introduction of heptachlor into the diet of experimental animals in varying levels of
   concentration: report of experiment No. 2. (unpublished  study).

Witherup, S.,  K.  Stemmer, P. Taylor.  1967. The effectts exerted upon the fertility of rats
   and  upon the viability of their offspring by the introduction of heptachlor into their daily
   diets.  Unpublished study prepared by University of Cincinnati.
August 1995

-------
terrestrial Toxicity - Heptachlor
        Cas No. 76-44-8


Chemical






Heptachlor





Heptachlor
heptachlor

heptachlor



heptachlor



heptachlor


heplachlor


hepiachlor








8 male CD-I
mice


Male 'and
female
Sprague-
Dawtey rats
mouse

rat



mouse



rat


fat


rat


Type of
Elf eel





rep





rep
rep

rep



rep



rep


path


patti



Description





NOAEL





FEL
LOAEL

LOAEL



NOAEL



PEL


NOAEL


LOAEL



Value





15





0.25
6.5

2.6



10



6


0.15


0.25



Units





mg/kg/day





mo/kg/day
mg/kg/day

mg/kg/day



mg/kg/day



mg/kgBW


mg/kg/day


mg/kg/day
Exposure
Route (oral,
8.C., I.V., l.p.,
Injection)





gavage
-




oral
orai

oral



gavage



oral


oral


oral

Exposure
Duration/
Timing





single dose





60 days
1 0 weeks

80 weeks


5 successive
weekdays



18 months


2 years


2 years



Reference





Arnold et al., 1977

•


Green, 1970 in .
Hemphill, 1970
Akay and Alp, 1981
NCI. 1977 as cited in
ASTDR, 1993
•


Epstein et al., 1972



Mestitzova. 1967
Velsicol Chemical
Corporation, 1955aas
cited in IRIS, 1994
Velsicol Chemical
Corporation. 1955a as
cited in IRIS. 1994



Comments
The dose given was a
heptachlorheplachlor epoxide
mixture (25%:75%). No
adverse effect on the •
reproductive capacity of the
male mice was noted.
The number of pregnancies.
the number of embryos, and
the mean litter size were all
reduced in (he F1 generation
and completely reduced in the
F2 generation.
100% infertility
Vaginal bleeding was reported
at this dose level.
No early fetal deaths or
preimplantation losses were
reported outside the control
limits.
A decrease in litter size and a
shortening of the life span of
the sucklings was observed at
this dose level.


-

Liver-to-body weight increases
were recorded in males only.

-------
Terrestrial To., .•ty - Heptachlor
        Cas No. 76-44-8



Name


heptachlor
heptachlor
heptachlor
heplachlor
heplachlor

•

Species


rat
rat
mouse
guinea pig
hamster


Tvoe of
Effect


rep
acute
acute
acute
acute



Description


NOEL
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50



Value


0.5
40
68
116
100



Units


mg/kg/day
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/ka
mg/kfl
Exposure
Route (oral,
s.c., l.v., l.p.,
Injection)


NS
oral
oral
oral
oral

Exposure
Duration/
Timing

3-generation
study
NS
NS
NS
NS



Reference
Velsicol Chemical,
1967 as cited in IRIS.
1993
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
RTECS. 1994



Comments

No adverse effects were
reported at (his dose.




           Page '2.

-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Heptachlor
       CasNo. 76-44-8
Chemical
name
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Species
Aquatic
organisms
Fathead
minnow
Fish
Daphnids
Fish
Oaphnia
magna
Daphnia
magna
Simocephalus
serrulatus
Striped bass
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Fathead
minnow
NS = Not Specified.
NA - Not Applicable.
Type of
effect
chronic
chron
chron
chron
chron
mort
mod
immob.
mort
mort
mort
mort

-
Description
NAWQC
MATC
CV
cv
EC20
LC50
EC50
EC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50


Value
1.00E-02
0.86-1.84
1.26
3.18
0.86
78 - 120
(105.32)
42
47-80
(60.95)
3
18.0-220
(19.65)
7.0-19.4
(9.35)
78


Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L


Test type
(static/flow
through)
NA
complete life
cycle test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


Exposure
Ouratlon/T
Imlng
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
48 hour
48 hour
48 hour
96 hour '
96 hour
96 hour
96 hour


Reference
Suter. 1992
Maceketal. 1976c
as cited in Rand
an'd Petrocelli.
1985
Suleretal, 1992
Suter el al., 1992
Suter etal. 1992
AQUIRE. 1994
AQUIRE. 1994
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE. 1994
AQUIRE. 1994
AQUIRE. 1994
Henderson et al.,.
1959 as cited in
AQUIRE. 1994


Comments

Critical life stage end
points: embryo; larval, and
early juvenile; mortality







•





-------
Freshwater Biological U^ .^.ice Measures - Heptachlor
                Cas No. 76-44-8

Chemical
name

Heptachlor


Heptachlor


Heptachlor

Heptachlor

Heptachlor




lieplachloi




heotachlor
heplachlor


Species
Fathead
minnow

Fathead
minnow
Three
species ot
marine fish
Five species
ot marine fish
Red pointer
crab




lish




fish
fish
B-lactor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)

BCF


BCF


BSAF

BSAF

BSAF




BAF




BA.F
BCF


Value.

9500
17,000-
23.814
(20,773)


6

0

0




13804




3802
484
Measured or
predicted
(m,p)

m


m


P

P

P




NS




NS
c


Units

NS


NS


ug/g

ug/g

ug/g




LAg




L/kg
NS


Reference

Veithetal. 1979

Macek et al., 1976 as cited in
AQUIRE, 1994


Columboet. al., 1990

Cosset et al.. 1983

Gossetet. at., 1983




Garten and Trabalka, 1 983




Garten and Trabaika. 1983
Stephan 1993


Comments

Adult lifestage


2 generations






»
Flowing water; All estimates were
calculated based on published
data, the type ot studies from
which the data were, taken were
not specified. '
Microcosm; All estimates were
calculated based on published
data, the type of studies trom
which the data were taken were
not specified.
Assuming 1 .0% lipid
                    Page I

-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Heptachlor
                Cas No. 76-44-8

Chemical
name

neptachlor

Heptachlor

heptachlor
•

Species

fish

fish
•f
fish
NS = Not Specified.
B-tactor
(BCF. BAF,
BMP)

BCF

BCF

BCF



Value

2726

931

1250

Measured or
predicted
(m.p)

m

m

m



Units

NS

NS

NS



Reference
Schimmel et al., 1976 as cited
in Stephan 1993
Goodman et al.. 1978 as cited
in Stephan 1993
Veilh et al., 1979b as cited in
Stephan 1993



Comments

Assuming 1 .0% lipid

Assuming 1 .0% lipid
0
Assuming 1 .0% lipid


-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Me*_ures - Heptachior Cas No.: 76-44-8
Chemical
Name
Heptachior

Heptachior

Heptachior

Heptachior

Heptachior


Heptachior


Heptachior

Heptachior

Heptachior

Heptachior

Species
Cattle

Cattle

Swine

Swine

Cattle
(beef)

Cattle (milk)


sheep

poultry

cow

swine

B-factor
(BCF. BAF.
BMP)
BCF

BCF

BCF

BCF

BTF


BTF


BAF

BAF

BAF

BAF

Value
0.4

0.6

6.55

6.4

0.0154


0.00323






-----



Measured
or
Predicted
(m.p)
M

M

M

M'

M


M


NS

NS

NS

NS

Units
NS

NS

NS

NS

NS


NS "


kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
kg fat/ kg
diet
Comments








BTF =
Biotransfer
factors
BTF =
Biotransfer
factors








Reference
(Claborn, et.al.. 1960 as
cited in Kenaga, 1980)
(Claborn, et.al., 1960 as
cited in Kenaga, 1980)
(Claborn, et.al., 1956 as
cited in Kenaga, 1980)
(Claborn, et.al.. 1956 as
cited in Kenaga, 1 980)
(Travis and Arms, 1 988)


(Travis and Arms, 1 988)


(Garten and Trabalka,
1983)
(Garten and Trabalka,
1983)
(Garten and Trabalka,
1983)
(Garten and Trabalka,
1983)
                            Page I

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Heptachlor Cas No.: 76-44-8
heptachlor



heptachlor
NS "= Not S
P'9



earthworm
•pecifjed




BAF
	






m




	 . .
NS





Pigs were
led 5
mg/kg/day,
resulting in a
fat
heptachlor
level of .37
ppm


.
Halackaelal . 1974 (as
cited in Toxicological Profile
for Heptachlor/Heptachlor
Epoxide. ASTDR, 1993)




. -
                                 -»2

-------
APPENDIX B                                                     Hepuchlor epoxide - I
                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                  Heptachlor epoxide
                                Cas No.:  (1024-57-3)
Summary: This profile on heptachlor epoxide summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwaterecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive orother effects reasonably assumed to
impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish were
generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality Criteria).
Bioconcentration factors (BCFs),  bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs)" are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this  effort is presented at the end of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for  Human and Ecological Receptors."
I.   Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
    Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C_) for the generic freshwater ecosystem.  Table  1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with,the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found for which reported
dose-response  data for mammalian wildlife. However, lexicological studies involving
heptachlor epoxide exposure to mammals have been conducted using laboratory mice. Arnold
et al. (1977) administered single oral doses of 75 percent hepaichlor epoxide (25 percent
hepatchlor) lo  eight male Charles River CD-I mice at 7.5 and 15 mg/kg-day dose levels.
These mice were bred with ihree untreated females for 6 weeks with no effecis on ihe
reproductive capacity noted in the male mice, therefore the NOAEL was  set  at 15 mg/kg-day.
In anoiher sludy by Epsiein et al. (1972), heptachlor epoxide exposure at  8 mg/kg-day in mice
did not produce early fetal deaths or preimplantation losses outside the control Limits (inferred
as a NOEL).

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Heptachlor epoxide - 2
The dose levels used In the aforementioned studies were not sufficient for establishing a
dose-response relationship. Since no adverse effects on reproductive endpoints were identified,
benchmark values protective of the mammalian community in a freshwater ecosystem were
not derived.

Birds:  No  studies were identified concerning heptachlor epoxide toxicity in avian speciesand
therefore, no  benchmarks were developed.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  A review of the literature revealed that an AWQC is
available for heptachlor epoxide.  Therefore, the Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 0.51
mg/L as reported in AQUIRE  for heptachlor epoxide was selected as the benchmark value
protective of fish and aquatic invertebrates.  Because the benchmark is based on an SCV and
there were no lower toxicity values in the data set, it was categorized as interim.

Aquatic plants: The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEQ or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for  species of
freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum).
Adequate data sufficient for the development of benchmark values were not identified in
Suter and Mabrey (1994) or in AQUIRE.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQJ method. The EQ  method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV)  or Secondary Chronic Value (SCV), along with the fraction of organic carbon and the
octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K^ to determine protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993).  The EQ_ number is the  chemical concentration that may be present in the
sediment while still  protecting the benthic community from harmful effects  from chemical
exposure.  The SCV, for heptachlor epoxide was used to calculate an EQp value of 0.5128  mg
heptachlor epoxide/kg organic carbon.  Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the
sediment (f,^) of O.OS.rthe benchmark for  the benthic community is 1.2 mg/kg sediment.
Since the EQp number was based on an SCV, the sediment  benchmark was categorized as
interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENPIX B
Hepitachlor epoxide • 3
       Table 1.  Toxicoiogical Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
fefWMMMN*
Speeiea
rnv)K
river otter
baldeagia
osprey
great blue heron
malard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gul
kingfiehar
9afvoMMii(
Yakwrna**-
• **
ID
10
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
9tMaY

-


-
•

-
-
-
ittact
-






-

-

•9****
•

•
-


-



DMOt»fci>

-
-
-

•
-


-
tt»
-
•
•

•
-


•

OrtyMtSMm
'-


.




-

      *Band>maffc Category, a » adaquata. p • provisional, i > intorim; a "" IndicatM tut th* banchrruirk valua was an ordar, of
      magnituda or mora above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
      ID > Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Heptachlor epoxide - 4
              Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                         Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
SvprMwrtrtw
Sped** -
fish and aquatic
invertebrate*
aquatic plants
bentftic community
Benchmark
Vato*
wflflL. .
5.1E-01 (i)
No data
1.25E+00(i)
8fuo¥
aquatic
organisms
-
aquatic
organisms
OMOfeto*
scv
-
SCVxK^
' OrfeinrtScHK?
. AQUIRE
-
AQUIRE
        'Benchmark Category, a » adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a "" indicate* lhat the benchmark value   was an
      order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
IL    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
      Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^ for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  As mentioned in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable subchronic or
chronic  studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to heptachlor epoxide. Since no
additional laboratory mammal studies focusing on reproductive or other critical endpoints
were  identified, a mammalian benchmark for terrestrial ecosystems was not calculated.

Birds: Toxicity studies documenting terrestrial avain exposure to  heptachlor epoxide were not
identified and thus, no  benchmarks were derived.
August 1995

-------
.APPENDIX B
Heptachlor epoxide • S
       Table 3. lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                         Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem


deer mouse
short-taitod shrew
meadow vote
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
white- tailed deer
red- tailed haw*
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American woodcock
lants
U soil community

«0*0Hfcy
10
10
ID
ID
10
10
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
10
Hudyt»»eiM
•

-



•
-
'
-

-
-
•
!.:!.•:***•:•• •


-
-




-

-
•
-
-
SktfyVUw
r««*»Hh»


-

•


-




-
•
DMCripdM


-

.
:
-



-
-
• -
•
«F
.


'

-
-


-
-
•

•
(MQlnriSNMt-




--
-
-

-




-
'Benchmark Category, a * adequate, p > provisional, i • interim; a — indcatet (hat (ho benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID > Insufficient Data

Plants:  Adverse  effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root lengths.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
percentile.  If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there were  more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in  seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for heptachlor  epoxide and, as a result,  a
benchmark could not be developed.                      .

Soil Community:  Adequate data with  which to derive a benchmark  protective of the soil
community were not identified.
in.   Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
 August  1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Heptachlor epoxide - 6
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are  presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level  3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates, and plants.  Each
value is identified' as whole-body or lipid-based and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
chemicals with log Kow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log Kow values above 4, the BCFs
were assumed to refer to total water concentrations unless the BCFs were calculated using  '
models based on the  relationship between dissolved water concentrations and concentrations
in fish.  The following  discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides  the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in
Table 4.

As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thomann (1989)  for the limnetic ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the littoral
ecosystem; these models were considered  appropriate to estimate BAF/s for heptachlor
epoxide.  The  bioconcentration factor for fish was also estimated from the Thomann models
(i.e., log  Kow - dissolved BCF/) and multiplied by the dissolved fraction (/j) as defined in
Equation 6-21 to determine the total bioconcentration factor (BCF,1). The dissolved
bioconcentration factor  (BCF/1) was converted to the BCF/ in order to estimate the
acceptable lipid tissue concentration (TCI) in fish consumed by piscivorous fish (see Equation
5-115).  The BCF/ was required in Equation 5-115  because the surface water benchmark (i.e.,
FCV or SCV) represents a total water concentration (C1).   Mathematically, conversion from
BCF;d to BCF/ is accomplished using the  relationship delineated in the Interim Report on
Data and Methods for Assessment of 2 3,7,8~Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic
Wildlife (U:S.  EPA, 1993i):

                                  BCF,d x fd = BCF/


Converting the predicted BCF/1 of 56,234 L/kg LP  to the BCF/ of 47,850 L/kg LP was
considerably lower than the single measured BCF/  value of 189,500 cited in Stephan (1993).
However, the predicted value was used because: (1) no information was identified that
suggested that heptachlor epoxide should deviate appreciably from the log KOW/BCF
relationship, and (2) given the variability in measured BCF values, a single measured value
was considered an insufficient (and possibly overconservative) basis for the bioconcentration
factor.
The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates and
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Heptachlor epoxide - 7
earthworms were estimated as described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation
method is applied to hydrophobic organic  chemicals  assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
dominated by lipids.  For hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor for
plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and
forage grasses.  The BCF is based on  route-to-leaf translocation, driect depostion on leaves
and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion.

                           Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
•ES?'
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophK
level 2
invertebrate*
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates

plants
BCF, BAF, «r
i8AF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
Itpid baa«d or
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid .
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole- plant
—
. 70, 966 ( d)
70,31 3 (d)
47.850 (t)
64,836 (d)
70,553 (d)
146,934 (d)
1.1 E-04
'l.l E-04
8.6E-04
2.0 E -01
•owe*
predicted value; Thomann,
1986 .
predicted value; Thomann,
1989
predicted valun based on
Thomann, 1989 and adjusted to
estimate tonal BCF
predicted value: Thomann «t
al.. 1992
predicted value ;Thomann at al.,
1992
predicted value: Thomann 0t
al., 1992
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2.3,7,8-
TCDO
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2.3,7.8-
TCDD
estimated baaed on beef
biotransfer ratio wft 2,3,7.8-
TCDO
U.S. EPA. 1990e
       d =• refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t » refers to total surface water concnetralion
       ID - insufficient data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                     HeptachJor epoxide - 8
 References
AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicityjnformation REtrieval Database). Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN, June 1995.

Arnold, D.W., G.L. Jr. Kennedy, M.L. Keplinger, et al. 1977. Dominant lethal studies with
    technical chlordane, HCS-3260, and heptachlor: heptachlor epoxide. /. Toxicol . Environ.
    Health 2:547-555.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. Toxicological Profile for
    Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide. Washington, D.C U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS).

Epstein, S.S., E. Arnold, J. Andrea, et al. 1972. Detection of chemical mutagens by the
    dominant lethal assay in the mouse. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 23:288-325.

Garten, C. T., Jr., and J.R. Trabalka.  1983.  Evaluation of models for predicting terrestrial
    food chain behavior of xenobiotics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17 (10): 590 -595.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of
    Chemical Substances) Database.

Stephan, C. E.  1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory,  Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. .

Suter n, G. W.  and J. B. Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
    84OR21400. Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department  of Energy, Washington, D. C.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health
    Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.  Office
    of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. January.

Thomann, R. V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains. Environ. Sci.  Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P. Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992. An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food  webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 11:615-629.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Heptachior epoxide
          Cas No. 1024-57-3


Chemical
Name





heptachlor
epoxide


heptachlor
epoxide
heptachlor
epoxide
heptachlor
epoxide
heptachlor
epoxide



Species






mice



mice

rat

mouse

rabbit
NS =-• Not Specified


Type of
Effect






rep •



rep

acute

acute

acute




Description






NOAEL



NOAEL

LD50

LD50

LD50




Value






15



8

15

39

144




Units






mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day

mg/kg

mg/kg

mo/kg

Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., I. p.,
Infection)






gavage



gavage

oral

oral

oral


Exposure
Duration/
Timing






single dose


5 successive
workdays

NS

NS

NS




Reference





Arnold el al.,
1977


Epstein et al..
1972

RTECS^1994

RTECS. 1994

RTECS. 1994




Comments
The dose given was a
heptachlorheptachlor
epoxide mixture
(25%:75%). No adverse
effect on the reproductive
capacity of the male mice
was noted.
No early fetal deaths or
preimplantation losses
were reported outside of
the control limits.








-------
APPENDIX B                                                     Heptachlor epoxide - 9
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1992. 304(a) Criteria and Related
   Information for Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division, Region IV.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993i.  Interim Report on Data and Methods
   for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin rishks to Aquatic Wildlife.
   EPA/600/R-93/055.  Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Will, M.  E. and  G. W. Suter II. 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
   85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Freshwater Bioiogica! uptake measures - Heptachtor epoxide
                   Cas No. 1024-57-3

Chemical
name'

leplachlor
epoxide




heptachlor
epoxide




leptachlor
epoxide
rteplaclilor
epoxide

heptachlor
epoxide .


Species

fathead
minnow





fish





fish

fish


fish
B-factor
(BCF. BAF,
BMP)


BCF





BAF





BAF

BCF


BCF


Value


14400





14454





4898

89.2


1895
Measured or
Predicted
(m,p)


m





NS





NS

P


m


Units


NS





M
-------
Freshwater ToxicU,  Heptachlor epoxide
          Cas No. 1024-57-3
Chemical
Name
heptachlor
epoxide
heptachlor
epoxide •
Species
Daphnia
magna
Daphnia
magna
NA = Not Applicable.
Type of
Effect
mort
mort

Description
LC50
LC50

Value
120
240

Units
ug/L
ug/L

Test type
(static/flow
through)
NA
NA

Exposure
Duration/
Timing
1.08 day
48 hour

Reference
AQUIRE, 1994
AQUIRE, 1994

Comments




-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Hexachlorobenzene • 1
                 lexicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                  Hexachlorobenzene
                                 Cas No.:  118-74-1
Summary:  This profile on hexachlorobenzene summarizes the lexicological benchmarks and
biological uptake .measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem. Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability. Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks  (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration  factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biornagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs  for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4 and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms).  The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of  this profile. This profile
represents the most current information and may  differ from the data presented in the
technical support document  for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors.


I.    Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
     Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C_)  for the generic freshwater ecosystem. Table 1 contains
benchmarks  for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: No suitable subchronic or chronic studies were found which reported dose-
response data for mammalian wildlife.  However, lexicological  studies involving
hexachlorobenzene exposure to laboratory rats have been conducted. Grant et al. (1977)
conducted a two-year, four-generation rat study involving the dietary administration of 0, 10,
20, 40, 80, 160, 320, or 640 ppm hexachlorobenzene.  For the Fl and F3 generations, the
pups from dams fed 40 ppm developed increased liver weights and increased aniline
hydroxylase activities.  Rats fed diets containing  less than 20 ppm hexachlorobenzene
displayed no reproductive effects.  To convert these levels inio daily doses, a Sprague-Dawley
reference body weight of 458 grams  and a food consumption rate of 0.033 kg/day was used
(U.S. EPA,  1988).  The resulting NOEL and LOEL based on ihe aforementioned

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       Hexachlorobenzene - 2
j>iBBBaMMPaaa«BMiiaBff^
developmental effects were calculated as 1.46 mg/kg-d and 2.92 mg/kg-d.  In another study,
Khera (1974) administered 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, or 120 mg/kg-day hexachlorobenzene to rats
via gavage on gestation days 6 to 21.  Maternal toxicity and reduced fetal weights were
observed at the 80 and 120 mg/kg-day dose levels, and, therefore, a NOEL of 60 mg/kg-day
was interpreted from this study.

The developmental NOEL of 1.46 mg/kg-d from the Grant et al. (1977) study was selected to
derive the lexicological, benchmark for aquatic mammals because:   (1)  it was a  four-
generation  study which focused on developmental toxicity as the critical endpoint, (2) the
study contained sufficient dose-response information, and (3) the study resulted in the lowest
NOEL among identified studies with sufficient dose-response information.  In the other
studies reviewed, dose-response curves were established for a single generation  and/or
reproductive effects were observed at higher dose levels.

The study value  from the Grant et al. (1977) study was scaled for  species representative of a
freshwater  ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994)
                                                        .
                           Benchmark   = NOAEL, x  _ L
                                                    I bw...
where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BWt is the body weight of the test species. This is the default
methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the
Grant et al. (1977) study documented reproductive effects from hexachlorobenzene exposure
to female  and male rats, the mean body weight of both genders of representative species were
used in  the scaling algorithm to obtain the toxicological benchmarks.

Data were available on the reproductive and developmental, effects of hexachlorobenzene, as
well as  chronic survival.  All of the  studies identified were conducted using laboratory rats
and mice and as such, inter-species differences among  wildlife species were not identifiable.
Therefore, an inter-species uncertainty factor was not applied.  There were several short-term
studies of oral exposure to laboratory mammals which  reported histopathological toxicity of
hexachlorobenzene at levels more than a magnitude lower than  the benchmark value. Based
on the data set for hexachlorobenzene, the benchmarks developed from the Grant et al. (1977)
study were categorized as adequate, with a "*" to indicate that adverse effects may occur  at
the benchmark level.

Birds:   No subchronic or chronic studies, with adequate dose-response regimes, were
identified  for hexachlorobenzene exposure to the representative  avian species.  However, two
studies were  identified which documented the reproductive effects of hexachlorobenzene on
Japanese quail.  Vos et al. (1971) administered HCB to Japanese quail for 90 days at dietary

   „-. ,-•  TiCiC

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Hexachlorobenzene - 3
concentrations of 1, 5, 20, and 80 ppm.  Increased liver weights and slight liver damage were
detected in adult quails dosed at 5 ppm.  Since it is unclear whether or not these liver effects
would exhibit an adverse impact at the population level, reproductive endppinits relevant to
population sustainability were extracted from the Vos et al. (1971) study. Reproductive
effects, in terms of reduced hatchability and significantly reduced volume of eggs, were
observed in the quails exposed to the 20 ppm dietary  dose.  Because no information on daily
food consumption rates were provided, the use of an allometric equation was required to
convert the dose from dietary mg/kg to mg/kg-d:

      Food consumption = 0.648(W°'651), where W is body weight in g (Nagy, 1987)

A calculated mean body weight of 127 g for male and female Japanese quail (Vos et al.,
1971; Schwetz et al., 1974) was used to convert the 5 ppm NOEL for reproductive effects to
a daily dose of 0.60 mg/kg-d.  Schwetz et al. (1974) reported that hexachlorobenzene
decreased the survival of Japanese quail chicks following the administration 20 mg/kg (diet)
for 90 days.  Using the same food consumption equation as above and  a mean body weight of
121 g (Schwetz et al., 1974), the Adverse Effects Level (AEL)  of 20 mg/kg diet was
converted to a daily dose of 2.4 mg/kg-d.

The NOEL reported by Vos et al. (1971) was selected as the toxicological benchmark
representative  of avian species because it was the lowest toxicity value in the data set, had
sufficient dose response data,  and focused on reproductive toxicity as a critical endpoint.  The
study by Schwetz et al. (1974) was not considered suitable for derivation of an avian
benchmark value based on the lack of dose-response information.

The principles for allometric scaling were assumed to apply to birds, although specific studies
supporting allometric scaling for avian species were not identified. Thus, for the avian
species representative of a freshwater ecosystem,  the NOAEL of 0.60 mg/kg-day from Vos et
al. (1971) was scaled using the cross-species scaling method of Opresko et al. (1994).

Data were identified on the reproductive arid mortality effects of hexachlorobenzene exposure
to avian species.  Laboratory experiments of similar types were not conducted on a range of
avian species and as such, inter-species differences among wildlife species were not
identifiable. There were no other values in  the data set which were lower than the  benchmark
value.    Since the avian data set for hexachlorobenzene contained a sufficient set of
endpoints for population sustainability, as discussed in 4.3.2, the benchmarks developed from
the Vos et al. (1971) study were categorized as adequate.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates: A Final Chronic Value (FCV)  of 6.0E-3 for
hexachlorobenzene was inferred from the Ambient Water Quality Criteria document (U.S.
EPA, 1980).  The available data in the AW.QC indicate that "hexachlorobenzene does not
cause significant adverse effects of freshwater aquatic life at or below 6 ug/1."  Therefore, a
FCV of 6E-03 mg/1 was selected as the benchmark protective of fish and aquatic
invertebrates.  This benchmark was categorized as adequate since it was inferred by the
AWQC document.

August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Hexachlorobenzene • 4
Aquatic Plants: The "toxicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either:  (1) a no
observed effects concentration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) for
vascular aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (EC^) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutwn),
Aquatic plant data was not identified for hexachlorobenzene and, therefore, no benchmark
was developed.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp)  method. The EQP method uses a Final Chronic  Value
(FCV) or other chronic water quality measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanol-carbon partition coefficient (Koc) to determine a protective sediment concentration
(Stephan, 1993). The EQp number is  the chemical concentration that may be present in the
sediment while still protecting the  benthic  community from the harmful effects of chemical
exposure.  The FCV interpreted from the AWQC document for hexachlorobenzene  (U.S.
EPA,  1980) was used to  calculate an EQp  number of 1,530 mg hexachlorobenzene/kg
organic carbon.. Assuming a mass fraction of organic carbon for the sediment (f^)  of 0.05, .
the benchmark for the benthic community  is 76.5 mg/kg.  Since the EQp number was based
on a FCV established for the AWQC, the  sediment benchmark  is categorized as adequate.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorobenzene • 5
       Table  1.  lexicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                          Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative.
Specie*.
mink
river ottar
bald eagle
ospray
great blue heron
mallard
lessor scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring guU
Kingfisher
Benchmark
Value* raoAg-d
1.2 (a')
0.71 (a')
0.26 (a)
0.32 (a)
0.29 (a)
0.34 (a)
0.38 (a)
0.79 (a) '
0.35 (a)
0.67 (a)
Study
Specie*
rat
rat
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail •
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Etfect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
: Study
Value
mg/kg-day
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6 .
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Description
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
SF



•






OriQln*! Saute*
Grant etal., 1977
Grant et aJ.. 1977
Vos et aJ.. 1971
Vos etal., 1971
Vos etal., 1971
Vos et.al... 1971
Vos etal.. 1971
Vos et ai., 1971
Vos et ai.. 1971
Vos etal., 1971
      "Benchmark Category, a » adequate, p » provisional, i » interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
      magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorobenzene • 6
               Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                          Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Repre««ntaUv*
Specie* ,/•:

fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benlhic
community
Benchmark
:.-,.; jvvaiu«»:..y.
;: •"":.V:_,_lt ••
• ": n>yi»
3.68 E-03 (a)
10 .
76.5 (a) mg/kg
sediment
Study Sp«cl**

aquatic
organisms
-
aquatic
organisms
Description

FCV (»)

FCVxK^.
Original
Sourc*

. U.S.EPA, 1980
-
U.S.EPA, 1980
              'Benchmark Category, a * adequate, p • provisional, i = interim; a "" indicates that the benchmark value was
              an order of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
              * = from AWQC 'the available data indicate that HC8 does not cause significant adverse effects of freshwater
              aquatic life at or below 6 ug/f
              10 = Insufficient Data
IL     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation  of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: As mentioned previously in the freshwater ecosystem discussion, no suitable
subchronic or chronic studies were found for mammalian wildlife exposure to
hexachlorobenzene.  Because of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same
surrogate-species study (Grant et al., 1971) was used to derive  the hexachlorobenzene
lexicological benchmark for mammalian  species representing the terrestrial ecosystem.  The
study value from the Grant et al.  (1971)  study was scaled for species representative of a
terrestrial ecosystem using a cross-species scaling  algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994).   Since the Grant et al. (1977) study documented reproductive effects  from
hexachlorobenzene exposure to female and male rats, the mean body weight  of both genders
of representative  species were used in the scaling algorithm to  obtain the lexicological
benchmarks.  Based  on  the data set for hexachlorobenzene, the benchmarks developed were
categorized as adequate,  with a "*" to indicate that  adverse effects may occur at the
benchmark level.

Birds: No additional avian toxiciiy siudies were identified for  species representing  the
terrestrial ecosystem. Thus, for the avian species representative of a terrestrial ecosystem, the
NOAEL of 0.60 mg/kg-day from ihe Vos el al. (1971) study was used as  the benchmark
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Hexachlorobenzene - 7
value.  This value was then scaled for species representative of a terrestrial ecosystem using a
cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the avian data set
for hexachlorobenzene contained a sufficient set of endpoims for population sustainability, as
discussed in 4.3.2, the benchmarks developed from the Vos et al. (1971) study were
categorized as adequate.

Plants:  Adverse effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root length.  As presented in Will and Suter (1994),  phytotoxicity
benchmarks, were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the
10th percentile. If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the  lowest LOEC was used.
If there were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied
to reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair
the ability of a plant population to sustain  itself, such as a reduction  in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for hexachlorobenzene and, as a result, a
benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community: Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorobenzene • g
       Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks  for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
Representative
Specie*
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American woodcock
plants
soil community
Benchmark Value'
mg/kg-d
3.2 (a')
3.3 (a')
2.8 (a')
1.1 (a')
0.82 (a*)
0.78 (a')
0.35 (a)
0.61 (a)
0.55 (a)
0.67 (a)
0.56 (a)
ID
ID
Study
Specie*
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail
Japanese
quail

-
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
rep
•

Study
Value
mg/kg-day
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60


Description;.
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL
NOEL


SF
-

-



•


-



Origin*) Souroe-
Grant etal., 1977
Grant etal.. 1977
Grant etal.. 1977
Grant et a!.'. 1977
Grant etal., 1977
Grant et al., 1977
Vos etal., 1971
Vos etaJ.. 1971
Vo» etal.. 1971
Vos etal., 1971
Vos etaJ.. 1971


       •Benchmark Category, a > adequate, p - provisional, i * interim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEI for other adverse effects.
       ID - Insufficient Data
in.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations  for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Biological uptake
values and sources are  presented in Table 4 for  ecological receptor categories: trophic  level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates, terrestrial vertebrates,  and plants.  Each
value is identified as whole-body  or lipid-based  and, for the generic aquatic ecosystems,  the
biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the value reflects dissolved water
concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water concentrations.  For organic
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      Hexachlorobenzene - 9
chemicals with log K-ow values below 4, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in fish were always
assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved water concentration equals
total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with log Kow values above: 4, the BCFs
were assumed to refer to total water concentrations unless the BCFs were calculated using
models based on the  relationship between dissolved water concentrations and concentrations
in fish. The following discussion describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides  the context for interpreting the biological uptake values presented in
Table 4.

As stated in section 5.3.2, the BAF/s for constituents of concern were generally estimated
using Thomann (1989) for the limnetic  ecosystem and Thomann et al. (1992) for the littoral
ecosystem; these models were considered appropriate to estimate BAF/s for
hexachlorobenzene.   The predicted BAF/1 for trophic level 4 fish in both the limnetic and
littoral ecosystems is in reasonable agreement (i.e., within a factor of 2) with the geometric
mean BAF/  (2,085,900) of the three measured values presented in  Derivation of Proposed
Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative (Stephan,
1993).   The geometric mean of the measured values was based on data  from Oliver and Nicol
(1982) and Oliver and Niimi (1983 and 1988) for trout and salmonids.  The bioconcentration .
factor for fish  was estimated as the geometric mean of 7 measured BCF/ values presented in
Stephan (1993).  Although the predicted value of 160,115 did not differ significantly from the
geometric mean of measured values (i.e., within a factor of approximately 2), the high quality
and number .of values in the data set was considered sufficient rationale for using the
geometric mean.

The bioaccumulation  factor for terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates was estimated as
described in Section  5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly,  the extrapolation method is applied no  hydrophobic
organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids. Further, the
method assumes that  the BAFs and BCFs for terrestrial  wildlife developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in the Revision of Assessment of Risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from TCDD and TCDF in Pulp
and Paper Sludge (Abt, 1993) are of sufficient quality to serve as the standard.  The beef
biotransfer  factor (BBFs) for a chemical lacking measured data is compared to  the BBF for
TCDD and that ratio  (i.e., hexachlorobenzene BBFyTCDD BBF) is multiplied by the TCDD
standard for terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and earthworms, respectively.  The BCFl for
earthworms was a measured value identified in a study by Belfroid et al. (1994) on
earthworm  exposure  to chlorobenzenes in soil.  Assuming  a lipid fraction for earthworms of
0.01  (Belfroid et al.,  1993), the measured value was converted to a whole-body BCF by
multiplying the lipid-based  BCF/ by the lipid fraction, resulting  in a whole-body BCF of 2.15.
For hydrophobic organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as
described in Section  6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.  The BCF is
based on route-tb-leaf translocation, direct deposition on leaves and grasses, and uptake into
the plant through air  diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorobenzene •  10
                            Table 4.  Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 Jish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
trophic level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BAF
BAF
BCF '
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
8pid*b«eed or
whole-body
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
lipid
whole-body
whole- body
lipid
whole-plant
value
1,201. 943 (d)
905,176 (d)
336,600 (t)
1,142,641 (d)
1, 160,307 (d)
1,918.811 (d)
0.0039
0.0037
4,100
0.026
•ourc*
predicted value based on Thomann, 1989,
food chain model
predicted value based on Thomann, 1989,
food chain model
predicted value based on Thomann, 1989
and adjusted to estimate total BCF
predicted value based on Thomann et aJ.,
1992. food web model
predicted value based on Thomann el al. .
1992. food web model .
predicted value based on Thomann et al.,
1992, food web model
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio
with 2,3,7.8- TCDD
estimated based on beef biotransfer ratio
with 2,3.7,8- TCDO
measured value in g soM/g lipid from Betfroid
et al., 1994
U.S. EPA, 1992e
       d   »   refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t   »   refers to total surface water concentration
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                     Hexachlorobenzene.il
References
Abt Associates, Inc.  1993.  Revision of Assessment of risks to Terrestrial Wildlife from
   TCDD and TCDF in Pulp and Paper Sludge. Prepared for Ossi Meyn, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).   1989. Toxicological Profile for
   Hexachlorobenzerte Epoxide. Washington, D.C. U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS).

AQUIRE (AQ£/atic Toxicity /nformation /?£trieval Database).  1995.  Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.

Bailey, J., V. Knauf, W. Mueller and W. Hobson.  1980.. Transfer of hexachlorobenzene and
   polychlorinated biphenyls to nursing infant rhesus monkeys: Enhanced toxicity. Environ.
   Res. 21(1):190-196.  As  cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984.
   Health Effects Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene. Environmental Criteria and
   Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Belfroid, A., A. Van Wezel, M. Sikkenk, W. Seinen, K. Van Gestel, and J. Hermens. 1994.   ,
   The toxicokinetic behavior of chlorbenzenes  in earthworms (Eisenia andrei): experiments
   in soil.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  13:93-99.

Belfroid, A., A. Van Wezel, M. Sikkenk, K. Van Gestel, W. Seinen, and J. Hermens.  1993.
   The toxicokinetic behavior of chlorbenzenes  in earthworms (Eisenia andrei): experiments
   in water. Ecotox. and.Environ. Safety.   25:154-165.

Boger, A., G. Koss, W.  Koransky, R. Naumann  and H. Frenzel. 1979.  Rat liver'alterations
   after chronic treatment with  hexachlorobenzene.  Virchows Arch. [Path Anat.J 832(2): 127-
   137.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984. Health Effects
   Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene.  Environmental Criteria and-Assessment Office,
   Cincinnati, OH.

Carlson, A.R. and P.A. Kosian.  1987.  Toxicity of Chlorinated Benzenes to Fathead
   Minnows (Pimephales promelas). Arch.  Environ.  Contam.  Toxicoi., 16:129-135.  As cited
   in Stephan.  1993. Derivations of Proposed  Human  Health and Wildlife-Bioaccumulation
   Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth,  MN.

den Tonkelaar, E.M., H.G. Verschuuren, J. Bankovska, et al..  1978. Hexachlorobenzene
   toxicity  in pigs. Toxicoi. Appl. Pharmacol. 43:1370.  As cited in U.S. EPA
   (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984. Health Effects  Assessment for
   Hexachlorobenzene.   Environmental Criteria  and  Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B   ,                                                  Hexachlorobenzene • 12
57 FR 24152. June 5; 1992.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (FRL-4139-7).  Draft
   Report:  A Cross-species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based oh
   Equivalence of mg/kg3/4/day.

Grant, D.L., F. Iverson, G.U. Hatina and D.C.  Villeneuve.  1974. Effects of
   hexachlorobenzene on hiver porphyrin levels and microsomal enzymes in rats. Environ.
   Physiol. Biochem.  4:159.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency.
   1984.  Health Effects Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene.  Environmental Criteria and
 .  Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Grant D.L., W.E. Phillips, and G.V. Hatina.  1977. Effect of hexachlorobenzene on
   reproduction in the rat. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 5:207-216.

Hansen, L.G., S.B. Dorn, S.M. Sundlof, and R.S. Vogel. 1978.  No'title provided. J. Agric.
   Food Chem. 26(6): 1369. As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984.
   Health Effects Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene.  Environmental Criteria and
   Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Howard,  P.H.  1990.  Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic
   Chemicals. Volume I. Large Production arid Priority Pollutants. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea,
   Michigan.

IARC (International Agency for Research of Cancer).  1979.  I ARC Monographs on the
   Evaluation  of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Some Halogenated
   Hydrocarbons - Vol. 20.

Khera, K.S.  1974. Teratogenicity and dominant lethal studies on hexachlorobenzene in rats.
   Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 12:471-477.

Kitchin,'K.T., R.E. Linder, T.M. Scotti, et al.   1982. Offspring mortality and maternal lung
   pathology in female rats fed hexachlorobenzene. Toxicology. 23:33-39.

Konemann, H., and K. van Leeuwen.  1979.  Toxicokinetics in Fish: Accumulation and
   Elimination of Six Chlorobenzenes by Guppies. In:  Quantitative Structure-Activity
   Relationships for Kinetics and Toxicitv of Aquatic Pollutants and Their Mixtures in Fish,
   H. Konemann, Ed. pp. 19-31.  As cited in Stephan,  1993.  Derivations of Proposed
   Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.
   PB93-154672.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
   Duluth, MN.       "       '                     ,
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                    Hexachlorotenzene - 13
Konemann, H. and K-. van Leeuwen.  1980. -Toxicokineti.es in Fish:  Accumulation and
   Elimination of Six Chlorobenzenes by Guppies.  Chemosphere* 9: 3-19.  As cited in  .
   Stephan,  1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
   Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
   Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

Kosian, P., A. Lemke, K. Studders, and G. Vieth.  1981.  The Precision of the ASTM
   Bioconcentration Test EPA 600/3-81-022, National Technical Information Service,
   Spirngfield VA.  As cited in  Stephan, 1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human Health and
   Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.
   Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and  Development, Duluth, MN.

Kosian, P., A. Lemke, K. Studders, and G. Vieth.  1981.  The Precision of the ASTM
   Bioconcentration Test EPA 600/3-81-022, U.S.EPA, Duluth MN: 20 p.  As cited in
   AQUIRE  (AQt/atic Toxicity Mormation /?Etrieval Database).  1995.  Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.  Environmental Protection
   Agency, Duluth, MN.

Kuiper-Goodman, T., D.L. Grant, C.A. Moodie, G.O. Korsrud and I.C. Munro.  1977.
   Subacute Toxicity of Hexachlorobenzene in the Rat.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
   40(3):529-549.  As cited in U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection  Agency.  1984.  Health
   Effects Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
   Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Mendoza, C.E., B.T. Collins, J.B. Shields and G.W. Laver.  1978. Effects of
   Hexachlorobenzene or  Hexabromobenzene  on body and organ weights of preweanling rats
   after a reciprocal transfer between the treated and control dams. J. Agric. Food Chem.
   26(4): 941-945.  As cited in U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984.  Health
   Effects Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
   Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Mendoza, C.E., J.B. Shields and  G.W. Laver.  1979.  Comparison of the porphyrinogenic
   activity of hexabromobenzene and hexachlorobenzene in primiparous Wistar rats.  Bull.
   Environ. Contam. Toxicol.  21(3):358-364.  26(4): 941-945.  As cited in U.S. EPA
   (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984.  Health Effects Assessment for
   Hexachlorobenzene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Murty., A.S. and P.D. Hansen.  1983. Influence of the Carrier Solvent on Aquatic Toxicity
   Tests In:  K. Christiansen  (ed.), Chemicals in the Environment, Proc. Int Symp., Lyngby,
   Denmark, 1982, Publ. West Germany: 334-342.  As cited in  AQUIRE (,40t/atic Toxicity >
   /nformation /?£trieval Database).  1995.   Environmental  Research Laboratory, Office of
   Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                     Hexachlorobenzene - 14
                                                 i i mil
 Nagy, K.A.  1987.  Feild metabolism rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and
    birds. Ecol. Mono. 57:111-128.

 Nebeker, A.V., W.L.  Griffis, CM. Wise, E. Hopkins, and J.A. Barbitta.  1989.  Survival,
    reproduction and bioconcentration in invertebrates and fish exposed to hexachlorobenzene.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 8:601-611.

 Oliver, B.G.  1987.  Biouptake of chlorinated hydrocarbons from laboratory-spiked and field
    sediments by oligochaete worms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:785-790.

 Oliver, B.G. and K.D. Nicol.  1982.  Chlorobenzenes in Sediments, Water, and Selected Fish
    from Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. Environmental Science and Technology,
    16:532:536.                                         -

 Oliver, B.G. and A.J. Niimi.  1983.   Bioconcentration of Chlorobenzenes from water by
    Rainbow Trout:  Correlations with partition coefficients and environmental residues.
    Environ. Sci.  Technol. 17:287-291.
                             /
 Oliver, B.G. and A.J. Niimi.  1988.  Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl
    congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario ecosystem.  Environ.
    Sci. Technol.  22:388-397.  As cited in Stephan, 1993.  Derivations of Proposed Human
    Health and Wildlife Bioaccwnulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.
    PB93-154672. Environmental Research Labpratory, Office of Research and Development,
    Duluth, MN.

 Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, G.W. Suter II.   1994. Toxicological  Benchmarks for Wildlife:
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

.Schrap, S.M. and A. Opperhuizen. 1990.  Relationship between bioavailability and
    hydrophobicity:  Reduction of the uptake of organic chemicals  by fish due to the sorption
    on panicles.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 9:715-724. As cited in  Stephan, 1993.
    Derivations of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccwnulation Factors for the
    Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
    Research and Development, Duluth, MN.

 Schwetz, B.A.y J.M. Norris, R.J. Kociba, P.A. Keeler, R.F.  Cornier, and  P.J. Gehring.   1974.
    Reproduction study in Japanese quail fed hexachlorobenzene for 90 days. Toxicol. appl.
    Pharmacol. 30:255-265.

 Stephan, C. E. 1993. Derivations of proposed human health and wildlife bioaccumulation
   factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672. Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and  Development,  Duluth, MN.
 August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                    Hexachloroberuene -  15
Suter H, G.W. and J.B.  Mabrey.  1994. lexicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:  1994 Revision.  DE-AC05-
   840R21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
   Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Thomann, R.V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
   food chains. Environ. Sci.  Technol. 23(6):699-707.
                                                                          v
Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of organic
   chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.  Environmental
   Toxicology and Chemistry  11:615-629.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
   Chlorinated Benzenes. EPA-440/5-80-028.  Criteria and Standards Division, Washington,
   DC.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency.  1984. Health Effects Assessment for
   Hexachlorobenzene.  Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1988.  Recommendations for and
   Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment.  P338-179874,
   Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990e  Methodology for Assessing
   Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final.
   Office of Health  and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.  January.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993b.  Wildlife Criteria Portions of the
   Proposed  Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. EPA-822-R-93-006.
   Office of Water,  Office of  Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1993c. Technical Basis for Deriving
   Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of
   Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning. EPA/822-R-93/011. Office of
   Water, Washington,  DC.

Vieth, G.D., D.L. Defoe, and B.V. Bergstedt, 1979. Measuring and Estimating the
   Bioconcentration Factor of Chemicals in Fish.  J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36(9): 1040-
   1048.  As cited in U.S.  EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).   1993a. Derivations of
   Proposed  Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes
   Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
   Development, Duluth, MN.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                    Hexaehlorobenzene - 16
Vos, J.G., H.L. Van Der Maas, A. Musch and E. Ram.  1971.  Toxicity of
    Hexaehlorobenzene in Japanese Quail with Special Reference to Porphyria, Liver Damage,
    Reproduction, and Tissue Residues.  Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology,  18:944-957.

Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter, 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effets on Terrestrial Plants:  1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Terrestrial Toxlcity - Kexachlorobenzene
           Cas No. 118-74-1






Hexachlorobenzene



Hexachlorobenzene


Hexachlorobenzene


Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene



Hexachlorobenzene
Hb^acl iloioUei izene



Specie*


pig



pig

rtiesus
monKey

Japanese '
quail
Japanese
quail


Japanese
quail
tat



Endpolnt


hepatic



NS


leto


rep

rep



rep
acute



Description


NOAEL



NOAEL .


AEL


NOAEL

LOAEL



AEL
LD50



Value


0.05



0.025


64


053

2.11



2.12
100



Units


mg/Kg-day



mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day


mg/kg-day

mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day
ppm
Exposure
Route (oral,
S.C., I.V., l.p.,
Infection)


oral



oral


oral


oral

oral



oral
oral

Exposure
Duratlon/TI
mlnq


90 days
gestation
and nursing
(-5-6
months)
-

60 days


90 days

90 days



90 days
96 days



Reference
den Torikelaar elal.,
1978-as cited U.S
EPA, 1984

Hansen el at.. 1978
as cited U.S. EPA,
1984
Bailey elal., 1980 as
cited in U.S. EPA,
1984


Vos et at., 1971

Voselal., 1971



Schwetz el at., 1974
Kilchin et al , 1982



Comments


No effects were observed at this level.

•

No effects were observed al this level.
s
Hypoaclivity arid lethargy, progressing to
ataxia and death as well as clinical signs ol
toxcity were observed al this dosage lovel
Egg production, percent halchability.
eggshell thickness, and volume of eggs
were not affected at this dosage level.
Egg volume and percent halchability were
significantly reduced al this dosage level.
Al this dosage level, a decreased survival
ot chicks hatched during the study and
increase in the liver weigh! of adult birds at
the end of the study was observed.


-------
Terrestrial Toxiciti   .exachlorobenzene
           Cas No. 118-74-1

Chemical Name

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene

Species

rat

rat
rat
rat
rat

rat
rat

Endoolnt

feto

toxlclty
ler
NS
NS

rep
rep

Description

NOEL

NOAEL
NOEL
NOAEL
NOAEL

AEL
NOAEL

Value

1.42

0.50
60.00
0.025
0.007

6.5
6.5

Unite

mg/kg-dav

mg/kg-day
mg/kg-dav
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-dav

mg/kg-day
mq/kg-dav
Exposure
Route (oral,
Infection)

oral

oral
gavage
oral
oral

oral
oral
Exposure
Duration/TI
mirm

1 .5 years

9-10
months
days 6-21
of gestation
15 weeks
29 weeks

135 days
149 days

Reference

'Grant et al., 1977
Grant etal.. 1974 as
cited In U.S. EPA,
1964
Khera, 1974
Kulper-Goodman et
al., 1977 as cited In
U.S. EPA, 1984
Bogeretal., 1979
U.S. EPA. 1984
Mendoza et al.. 1978
as died In U.S. EPA,
1984
Mendoza el al., 1979
as cited in U.S. EPA,
1984

Comments
There was no effect on the number of
liners, pups per liner, and total liner weight
at this dose level.

No effects were observed at this level.
There was no significant increase in the
incidence of unilateral or bilateral 14th rib in
lifters from dams exposed to this dose level
No effects were observed at this level. No
dose-response information.
No effects were observed at this level. No
dose response information

Reduced survival al weaning was observed
. at this dose level.
There were no differences in the number of
liners, average number of pups/liner,
average number of pups at birth or
qestation index.

-------
Terrestrial Biological Uptake .   asures - Hexachlorobenzene
                   CAS No. 118-41-1


Chemical Name
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene


Species
plants
oligochaete
worms
earthworm

B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMR
BCF
BCF
BCF


Value
0.026
24.000
4085
Measured
or
predicted
(m.p)
P
m
m


Units
(ug/g DW
plant)/(ug/g soil)
Ukg
ml/glipld


Reference
U.S. EPA; 19900
Oliver, 1987
Belfroid el al., 1993


Comments

worm BCF = chemical cone, (ng/lg) in
worm dry weight / pore water cone. (nq/L)
value based on total body weight

-------
                                     Freshwater Toxiclty - Hexachlorobenzene
                                                CasNo. 118-74-1,


Chemical Name




Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene


Species



aquatic
organisms
Daphnla
maqna
Fathead
minnow


Endpolnt




chronic

rep

dvp. rep


Description




FCV

EC50

NOEC


Value




6

16

5


Units




ug/l

ug/L

uoA
Teat type
(static/ flow
through)




NS

NA

flow through
Exposure
Duration/
Timing




NS

14 day

2 to 68 days


Reference




U.S. EPA, 1980

AQUIRE. 1995
Nebekeretal ,
1989


Comments
Irom AWQC 'the available data
indicate thai HCB does not cause
significant adverse effects of
freshwater aquatic life at or below 6
ug/r




NS = No) specified

-------
                                            Terrestrial Toxlcit\    .exachlorobenzene
                                                       Cas No. 118-74-1



Chemical Name
Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene
-


Species
ral

mallard

pheasant



EndooJnt
acute

acute

acute



Description
LD50

LO50

LD50



Value
140

71414

118.00



Unit*
ppm
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodv wt.
Exposure
Route (oral,
8.C.. I.V., l.p.,
Inlectlon)
oral

NS

NS

Exposure
Duration/TI
mlnfl
96 days

NS

NS



Reference
Kltchin et al , 1982

U.S. EPA. 1993b

U.S. EPA. 1993b



Comments





NS = Not Specified

-------
                     Freshwater Biological Uptake Measures - Kexachlorobertzene
                                         Cos No. 309-00-2
Chemical name
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenz ene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlofobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
Species
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
rainbow troul
salmon
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMF)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BAF
BAF
Value
5702
1833
5805
2116
5400
68987
23030
Measured or
predicted (m,p)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Units (17kg,
NS. other)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
Kosianelal . 1981 as
cited in Slephan, 1993
Oliver and Niimi, 1983
Carlson and Koslan,
1987 as cited in
Slephan, 1993
Nebekerelal , 1989
Schrap and
Opperhuizen. 1990 as
cited in Slephan, 1993
Oliver and Niiml, 1983
Oliver and Niimi, 1988
as cited in Slephan,
1993
Comments
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid
Normalized to 1.0% lipid
Normalized, to 1.0% lipid
Normalized to 1.0% lipid
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid
NS = Not specified

-------
Freshwater Biological Uptake,  jasures - Hexachlorobenzene
                   Cos No. 309-00-2
Chemical name
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
Species
fathead
minnow (whole
body)
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
talhead
minnow
fathead
minnow
fish
fish
fish
B-factor
(BCF, BAF,
BMP)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
Value
22000
7800
6202
4645
12600
39000
1668
2434
2900
Measured or
predicted (m,p)
NS
NS
m
m
m
m
P
m
m
Units (L/kg,
NS, other)


NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
Murty and Hansen,
1983 as cited in
AQUIRE. 1995
Murty and Hansen,
1983 as cited In
AQUIRE. 1995
Nebekeretal.. 1989
Koslanelal , 1981 as
cited In AQUIRE. 199S
Stephan. 1993
Veithetal., 1979 as
cited In Stephan. 1993
Konemann and van
Leeuwen. 1979, 1980
as cited in Stephan,
1993
Comments






Normalized to 1 .0% lipid
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid
Normalized to 1 .0% lipid

-------
APPENDIX B                                               Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 1


                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                               Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                                   Cas No.:  77-47-4
Summary: This profile on hexachlorocyclopentadiene summarizes the lexicological
benchmarks and biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bibaccumulation, and
biomagnification factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic
organisms representing the generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from existing regulatory benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria).  Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and,  if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic  constituents with log
K<,w between 4 and 6.5.  For  the terrestrial  ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire lexicological
data base compiled during this effort is presented at the end of this profile.
I.      Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic freshwater ecosystem. Table  1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including  .
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No subchronic or chronic studies were identified for mammalian wildlife species,
exposure to hexachlorocyclopentadiene. However, several studies have documented
subchronic  and critical-lifetime exposure of hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HEX) to laboratory
animals.  Naishlein and Lisovskaya (1965 as cited in U.S. EPA, 1984) reported a subchronic
NOEL of 0.2 mg/kg for rats exposed orally lo HEX over 216 days.  Abdo et -al. (1984) dosed
rats by gavage with 0, 10,  19, 38,  75, or  150 mg HEX/kg body weight at 5 days/week for 13
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 2


weeks.  Abdo et al. (1984) observed lesions in the forestomach at dose levels of 19 mg/kg
and dose-related depression in mean body weight was noticed in male rats at dose levels of
38  mg/kg and above. Murray et al. (1980) attempted to determine the teratogenic  potential of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in mice and New Zealand rabbits.  Mice were given 0, 5, 25, or
75  mg HEX/kg/day by gavage from days 6 to 15 of gestation; rabbits were given  the same
dose levels of HEX by gavage from days 6 to 18 of gestation.  No maternal toxicity or
teratogenic effects were observed in mice given HEX. Unlike mice, rabbits given 75 mg/kg- •
day experienced diarrhea,  weight loss, and mortality.  Teratogenic effects at this dose were
limited to only one minor skeletal variation in the offspring.  At the 75 mg/kg dose, thirteen
ribs were seen more frequently among the fetuses of the rabbits dosed (the normal number of
pairs of ribs in the rabbit is 12 or 13).  A NOAEL of 25  mg/kg-day and a LOAEL of
75mg/kg-day were inferred from the data set.

The study by Murray was selected for developing a mammalian benchmark value  because: (1)
the  dose  was orally administered, (2) it contained sufficient dose-response data and (3) it
reported  endpoints that may impair population sustainability.  The study by Naishtein and
Lisovskaya (1965 as cited in U.S. EPA, 1984) was not used to develop benchmarks because
the  dosing-range and lexicological endpoints could not be determined.  Similarly,  while Abdo
et al. (1984) reported a low NOAEL for rats, this study was not used because reproductive or
developmental endpoints that could reasonably cause adverse effects to populations in the
wild were not assessed.

The NOAEL value from Murray et al., (1980) was then scaled for species  representative of a
freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al.
(1994):


                                                    bw  4
                             Benchmark,, = NOAEL, x
                                                '
where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/ 10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species.  This is the same
default methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152). Since the
Murray et al. (1980) study documented reproductive effects from hexachlorocyclopentadiene
expoure to female rabbits,  the representative body weights of the female species were used in
the scaling algorithm to obtain lexicological benchmarks.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                               Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 3


Data were available on reproductive, developmental, growth and survival endpoints for
heptachlor exposure.  In addition, the data set contained acute and chronic  toxicity studies that
were conducted during sensitive life stages.  Given  the data set  for
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, the benchmarks  developed from Witherup et al. (1955) were
categorized as adequate.

Birds:  Adequate toxicity studies documenting avain exposure to hexachlorocyclopentadiene
were not identified and therefore, no benchmarks were developed.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:   A  review of the literature revealed that an AWQC is not
available for hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Therefore, the Tier II  method described in Section
4.3.5 was used to estimate a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) of 6.9E - 03 mg/L as reported
in AQUIRE.  Because the benchmark is based on a SCV and there were no lower toxicity
values  in the data set, it was categorized as interim.

Aquatic Plants:  The lexicological benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no
observed effects  concentration (NOEC) or a lowest  observed effects concentration (LOEC)  for
vascualr aquatic  plants (e.g., duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECxx) for a species
of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum). No
Adequate  data sufficient for the development of benchmark values were not identified and
therefore,  benchmarks were not derived.

Benthic community:  Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method.  The  EQp method uses a Final Chronic  Value
(FCV)  or Secondary Chronic Value  (SCV), along with the fraction of organic carbon  and the
octanol-carbon partition coefficient (K,,,.) to determine protective sediment concentration
(Stephan,  1993).   The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present  in  the
sediment while still protecting the benthic community from the  harmful effects of chemical
exposure.  Because no FCV was available, a  SCV value of 50.3  mg hexachlorocyclopentadiene
/kg organic carbon was used to calculate an  EQp value.  Assuming a mass  fraction of organic
carbon for the sediment (f^) of 0.05, the benchmark for the benthic  community is 2.5 mg/kg
sediment.  Since the EQp number was based on a SCV, the sediment benchmark was
categorized as interim.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 4
       Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
RapraMntthm
SpodoQ
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark
V«hw* mgfte-
day
38.9 (a)
21. 6 (a)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
SpMta
rabbit
rabbit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Eftoet
« - •
. rep
rep
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'- .
Study Vah»
mg/kg-diy
25
25
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
> '^ 	 -»mtmittntu
UMCflpWMt
NOAEL
NOAEL
•
'
'
-
-
-
-
1
• SF
-
-
-

/
-
-
-
-
-
Original Sourc*
Murray et at., 1979
Murray et al., 1979
-
• .
-
•
- '
-
-
-
       'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value was an order
       of magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
       ID = Insufficient Data
August1995

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                      Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 5
              Table 2.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                         Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
R«prM«ntattv«
Spacfes
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic community
otndiiwfK
VtilM'
Rtyl*.
7.5E-04 (i)
No data
2.5E+00 (i)
Study
SfMCiM
aquatic
organisms
•
aquatic
organisms
Qofcnptfoit
scv
'
SCVx K.
Original Sown
AQUIRE
.
AQUIRE
II.
       'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '" indicates that the benchmark value
       was an order ofmagnitude or more above the NEL or LEU for other adverse effects.

Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative  Species in the Generic Terrestrial
Ecosystem
This section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Mammals:  Becasue of the lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate-
species study (Murray et al.,  1980) was used to derive the hexachlorocyclopentadiene
toxicological benchmark for mammalian species representing the general terrestrial ecosystem.
The study value was scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem using the cross-species
scaling algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994). Since Murray et  al. (1980) documented
reproductive effects from hexachlorocyclopentadiene exposure to female rabbits,
representative body weights of the female species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain
toxicological benchmarks.  Based on the data set for hexachlorocyclopentadiene, the
benchmarks developed for the terrestrial ecosystem  were categorized as  provisional.

Birds: Adequate toxicity data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the avian
community were not identified.

Plants:  Adverse effects  levels for terrestrial plants were identified for endpoints ranging  from
percent yield to  root lengths.   As presented in Will  and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10th
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 6


percentile. If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the  lowest LOEC was used.  If
there were more than 10 values,  the 10th percentile LOEC was used. Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth, yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for hexachlorocyclopentadiene and, as a
result, a benchmark could not be developed.

Soil Community. Adequate data with which to derive a benchmark protective  of the soil
community were not available.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 7
       Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                           Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
RopreMntBtive
Sp*cto»
deer mouse
short-tailed
shrew
meadow vole
Eastern
cottontail
red fox .
raccoon
white-tailed deer
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern
bobowhite
American robin
American
woodcock
plants
soil comrhnity
Bmctimarfc
VtflM*
mg/kg
-------
APPENDIX B                                                 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 8


III.    Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs, and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcentrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: general fish
(BCF only), aquatic invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,  terrestrial
invertebrates, and plants. Each value is identified as whole-boy or lipid-based and, for the
generic aquatic ecosystems, the biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if the
value reflects dissolved water concentrations, and a "t" if the value reflects total surface water
concentrations.  For organic chemicals with log K^ values below 4r bioconcentration factors
(BCFs) in fish were always assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e., dissolved
water concentration equals total water concentration).  The following discussion describes the
rationale for selecting the biological uptake factors and provides the context for interpreting
the biological uptake values presented in Table 4,

Although the log Kow value for HEX (4.9) suggests that this chemical  will bioaccumulate
appreciably in the aquatic ecosystem, studies have demonstrated that HEX is readily
metabolized by fish.  Consequently, the  measured value reported in Stephan (1993) was
selected as the bioconcentration factor for HEX.  It should be noted that the BCF in Stephan
(1993) was converted to a lipid-based bioconcentration factor (i.e., BCF/) using the lipid
fraction reported in the  study.

The bioaccumulation/bioconcentration  factors for terrestrial vertebrates,  invertebrates and
earthworms were estimated as described in Section  5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation
method is applied to hydrophobic organic chemical assuming that the partitioning to tissue is
dominated by lipids.  For hydrophobic organic  constituents, the bioconcentration factor for
plants was estimated as described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and
forage grasses.  The BCF is based on route-to-leaf translocation, direct  deposition on leaves
and grasses, and uptake into the plant through air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Mexachlorocyclopentadiene - 9
                              Table 4. Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
recaptor
fish
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
' earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
BCF
BAF
BAF
BAF
BAF
llpld-basad or
wttoJa-body
lipid
whole-body
whole-body
whole-body
whole-plant
valua
400 (t)
3.2 E-04
3.0 E-04
- 2.4 E-03
1.1 £-01
aouroe
measured; metabolized by fish
(Stephan, 1.993)
estimated based on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD
estimated basecl on beef
biotransfer' ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD
estimated basecl on beef
biotransfer ratio with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       d = refers to dissolved surface water concentration
       t = refers to total surface water concentration
       ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                          '     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene -10


References

Abdo, K.M., C.A. Montegomery, W.M. KJuwe, D.R. Farnell, and J.D. Prejean.  1984.
    Toxicity of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene:  Subchronic (13-week) Administration by Gavage
    to F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice. Journal of Applied Toxicology, Vol. 4, No. 2.

Applegate, V.C. efal.  1957.  Toxicity of 4,346 Chemicals to Larval Lamprey and Fishes.
    U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Spec. Rep. -- Fish. No. 207. Washington, DC., U.S. Dept.  of Inter.
    As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
   for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene^  Criteria and Standards Division, EPA-440/5-80-055.

AOUIRE (AOUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).  1995 Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Duluth, MN.

Buccafusco, R.J. and G.A. LeBlanc. 1977.  Acute Toxicity of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  to
    Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Fathead Minnow
    (Pimephales promelas). and the Water Flea (Daphnia magna). Unpublished report
    prepared for Velsicol Chemical Corporation, Chicago,  IL. As cited in U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. 1988. Health and Environmental Effects Document for Chlorinated
    Cyclopentadienes. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and
    Environmental Assessment. ECAO-CIN-G029.

EG & G, Bionomics, 1977. Acute Toxicity  of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene to bluegill
    (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), fathead minnow (Pimephales
    promelas) and the water flea (Daphnia magna).  Toxicity Test Report submitted to
    Velsicol Chemical Corporation,  Chicago, Illinois. As cited in U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, 1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
    Criteria and Standards Division, EPA-440/5-80-055.

Freitag, D., L.  Ballhorn, H. Geyer, and F. Korte. 1985. Environmental Hazard Profile of
    Organic Chemicals.  Chemosphere 14(10): 1589-1616.

Henderson, D.  1956.  Bioassay investigations for International Joint Commission.  Hooker
    Electrochemical Co.,,Niagara Falls, N.Y., U.S. Dept of Health, Educ., and Welfare, Robert
    A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cinn., Ohio.  As cited in U.S. Environmental
    Projection Agency, 1980.  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
    Criteria and Standards Division, EPA-440/5-80-055.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B     ,                                         Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 11


IRDC (International Research and Development Corp.)  1978.  Pilot Teratology Study in Rats.
 •  Submitted to Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Unpublished).  As cited in U.S. Environmental
   Protection Agency, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
   Criteria and Stanards Division, lOOp.

IRDC (International Research and Development Corp.)  1978.  Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
   Teratology Study in Rats.  Unpublished report prepared for Velsicol Chemical
   Corporation, Chicago, II.  17p. As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.
   Health Assessment Document for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Office of Health and
   Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. EPA-600/8-84-001F.

Kuhn, R., M. Pattard, K. Pernak,  and A. Winter. '1989. Results of the Harmful Effects  of
   Water Pollutants to Daphnia magna in the 21 Day Reproduction Test.  Water Res., 23(4):
   501-510.  As cited in AQUIRE (AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval Database).   1995
   Environmental Research Laboratory, Office ;of Research and Development, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. Duluth, MN.

Lu, Po-Yung, Robert L. Metcalf,  Asha S. Hirwe, and  John W. Williams.  1975.  Evaluation
   of Environmental Distribution and Fate of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Chlordene,
   Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide in a Laboratory Model Ecosystem. J. Agric. Food
   Chem., Vol. 23, No. 5.

Murray, F.J., B.A. Schwetz, M.F. Balmer, and R.E. Staples.  1980. Teratogenic Potential of
   Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  in Mice and Rabbits. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology,
   53, 497-500.

Nagy, K. A. 1987.  Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
   Ecoi Mono.  57:11-128.

Naishtein, S.Y. and E.V. Lisovskaya.  1965. Maximum Permissible Concentration of
   Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  in water bodies.  Hyg. Sanit., 30: 177-182. (Trans. Rus.).  As
   cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.  Health  Assessment Document for
   Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
   Washington, DC. EPA-600/8-84-001F.

Opresko, D.M., B.E.  Sample, G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife
    1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
   Laboratoy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                               Hexachlorocyclopentadiene • 12


Root, M.S., D.E. Rodwell, and E.I. Goldenthal. Teratogenic Potential of
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene in Rats. Velsicol Chemical Corporation.  As cited in The
    Toxicologist - Abstracts of the 1983 Annual Meeting. Vol. 3, No.  1.

Spehar, R.L., G.D. Vieth, D.L. Defoe, and B.V. Bergstedt.   1979.  Toxicity and
    Bioaccumulation of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Hexachloronorbornadiene and
    Heptachloronorborene in Larval and Early Juvenile Fathead Minnows, Pimephales
    promelas. Bull. Environm.  Contam. Toxicol., 21:576-583.

SRI (Southern Research Institute).  1980a.  Acute Toxicity Report on
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C53607) in Fischer-344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice.

Unplublished Report for NTP.  44p. As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    1984.  Health Assessment Document for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Office of Health and
    Environmental Assessment. Washington/DC. EPA-600/8-84-001F..

SRI (Southern Research Institute).  1980b.  Reported-Dose Toxicity Report on
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C53607) in Fischer-344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice.
    Unplublished Report for NTP.  33p.  As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    1984.  Health Assessment Document for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Office of Health and
    Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. EPA-600/8-84-001F.

Stephan, C. E.  1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and  Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.  PB93-154672.  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. .

Suter II, G; W. and J.  B. Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. DE-AC05-
    84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C

Thomann, R.  V. 1989.  Bioaccuraulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
    food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6):699-707.

Thomann, R.  V., J. P. Connolly, and T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology  and Chemistry.  11:615-629.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                              Hexachlorocyclopentadiene • 13


Treon, J.F., P.P. Cleveland and J. Cappel.  1955. The Toxicity of
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Arch. Ind. Health, 11: 459-472.  As cited in U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.  Health Assessment Document for
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
    Washington, DC. EPA-600/8-84-001F.

Union Carbide Environmental Services, 1977.  The Acute Toxicity of
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene to the water flea, Daphnia magna Straus.  Prepared for
    Velsicol Chemical Corp., Chicago, Illinois.  As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency,  1980:  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Criteria
    and Standards Division, EPA-440/5-80-Q55.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1980.  Ambient Water Qualtiy Criteria for .
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Criteria and Standards Div.  EPA-440/5-80-055.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1982.  Symposium: Carcinogenic Polynuclear
    Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Marine Environment held at Pensacola Beach, Florida on
    14-18 August 1978. N.L. Richards, et al.  Environmental Reseach Lab., Gulf Breeze, FL.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1984.  Health Assessment Document for
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Washington,
    D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1986.  Health Effects Assessment for
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
    D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1988.  Health and Environmental Effects Document
    for Chlorinated Cyclopentadienes. Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
    Washington, D.C,                                     ,

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1989.  Ambient Water Qualtiy Criteria Document:
    Addendurn for Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  Draft  Rept. (Final). Criteria and  Assessment
    Office, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1990e. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
    Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Interim Final. Office of
    Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. January.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                               Hexachlorocyclopentadiene -14


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991'.  Health Assessment Document for
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.  304(A) Criteria and Related Information for
    Toxic Pollutants. Water Management Division  - Region IV.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and
    Wildlife Bioac cumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. PB93-154672.

Veith, G.D., D.L. Defoe, B.V. Bergstedt. (1979). Measuring and Estimating the
    Bioconcentration Factor of Chemicals in Fish. J. Fish Res.  Board Can. 26,  1040-1048.  As
    cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993b! Derivation of Proposed Human
    Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative.
    Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,  Duluth, MN.
    PB93-154672.

Vilkas, A.G.  1977. The Acute Toxiciry of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene to the Water Flea,
    Daphnia magna Straus.  Union Carbide Environmental Services.  Prepared for Velsicol
    Chemical Corp., Chicago,  IL. As cited  in U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1988.
    Health and Environmental Effects Document for Chlorinated Cyclopentadienes.
    Environmental Criteria  and Assessment  Office, Office  of Health and Environmental
    Assessment. ECAO-CIN-G029.

Will, M. E. and  G. W.  Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision.  ES/ER/TM-
    85/R1.  Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
                           Terrestrial Biological Uptake Measures - Kexachioi0cyctcpe>ntQdier»«
                                                   Cos No.: 77-47-4

Chemical Norn*
hexachlorocydopentadiene

Specie*
plant
B-tactor
(BCF.BAf,
BMF)
BCF

Value
5.60E-02
Measured
or
Ptedteled
(m,p)
P

Untts
NS


Reference
U.S. EPA. 1990

Comments
Plant uptake from soil pertains to
leafy vegetables.
NS = not specified

-------
Freshwater Biological Uptak* Me^^jres - H«xcrchlprocyclop«ntacU«n«
                      Cos No.:  77-47-4
Chemical Name
hexachlorocydopentadiene
hexochlofocvdopentadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
Specie*
fathead minnow
fathead minnow
Golden ide
fish
fish
mosquito fish
algae to snail .
B-fador
(BCF. BAF,
BMF)
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BCF
BAF
BMF
Value

-------
TerrestrksS Toxictty - Hexcechiorocyclopentadlene
              Cos. No.:  77-47-4



Chemical Name




hexachlorocyclopentadiene


hexachlorocyclopentadiene


hexachlorocyclopentadiene


hexachlorocyclopentadiene



hexachlorocyclopentadiene



Species




mouse


mouse


mouse


CM mice


New Zealand
rabbits



EEndpoint




subchronic


subchronic


subchronic

sub chronic.
terat


sub chronic,
terat



Description




NOAEL


FEL


LOEL


NOAEL



LOAEL



Value




19


SO


38


75



75



Unto




mg/kg-body wt


ma/kg


mg/kg-body wt.


mg/kg-day



mg/kg-day
Exposure
Route (oral.
B.C.. I.V., i.p.,
InjactJon)




oral


oral


gavage


gavage



gavage


Exposure
Duration Aiming



5 days/week (or
13 weeks
12 day
exposure
duration .

90-day feeding
study
days 6 15
days of .
gestation

days 6- 18
days of
gestation



Reference




Abdoetal.. 1984
SRI. 1980aas
cited in U.S. EPA.
1984


Abdo et al., 1984

Murray et al.,
1980


Murray et al..
1980



Comments
Dose levels of 0. 19, 38. 75, 150. and
300mg/kg. Dose was 94.3% - 97.4%.
HEX In com oil. Dose levels of 38 mg/k(
and above caused lesions In the
forestomach



Study doses were 10.19.38,75,150. and
300mg/kg. Lesions of forestomach In
female rats at 38 mg/kg.

No maternal toxidty. no embryotoxlc nor
teratogenic effects observed In offspring
Sub-chronic maternal toxidty Included
diarrhea, weight loss, and mortality.
Teratogenic effect - increase of minor
skeletal variation In offspring.

-------
Terrestrial Toxictty - He^uchlorocyclopentadien*
              Cos. No.: 77-47-4
Chemical Name
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachkxocydopentadiene
he xachlorocY dopentadiene
he xachtorocy dopentadiene
hexachkxocydopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachkxocydopentadiene
Species
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
Eindpoint
subchronic
subchronic
subchronic
subchronic
subchronic
subchronic
terat
Description
NOEL
NOAEL
NOEL
NOAEL
LOEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
Value
0.2
10
10
25
19
30
30
Unto
mg/kg
mg/ka-booV wt.
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg-bodywt
mg/Ka-day
mg/kg-day
Exposure
Route (oral.
S.C.. I.V., l.p ,
Hectton)
oral
oral
oral
oral
gavage
gavage
gavage
• -Expoeur*
Duration /timing
216 day
exposure
duration
5 days/Week tor
13 weeks
10 day
exposure
duration
12 day
exposure
duration
90-day feeding
study
days 6-15 of
gestation
days 6-15 days
Reference
Natshtein and
Lteovskaya, 1965
as cited in US
EPA, 1984
Abdoetal. 1984
IROC, 1978 as
cited In U.S. EPA.
1984
SRI. 1980bas
cited In US. EPA.
1984
Abdoetal.. 1984
International
Research and
Development
Corp., 1978 as
cited In U.S. EPA.
1980
RootetaL.as
cited In The
lexicologist,
March 1983.
Convnonto
i
Dose levels of 0, 10. 19. 38, 75. and 150
mg/kg Dose was 94 3% - 97.4% HEX Ir
corn oil. Dose levels of 19 mg/Kg and
above caused lesions in the
forestomach. Dose-related depression
in mean body weight was noticed In male
rats at 38 mg/Kfl


Study was used to extrapolate human
RfD. study doses were 10.19.38.75.150.
and 300 mg/kg. Lesions of forestomach
In female rats at 19 mg/kg.
Study doses were 3.10.30.100 and 300
mg/kg-d. Rats receiving 30 mg/kg-d
showed reduced body weight gains and
staining of the anogeniteJ area
Dosage levels of 0 3 10 30mg/kg d No
embryotoxicrty nor teratogenicity was
observed at highest dose.

-------
freshwater Toxteity - HexachSorocycSopentadiens
             Cos. No.: 77-47-4
hexachlofocyclopentadiene
hexachlofocydopentadiene
hexachlofocydopentadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
hexachlordcydopentadiene
"»exachlorocydopentadiene
hexachlofocydopentadiene
hexachlofocydopentadiene
hexach!GfGcydopeniadi6r.s
fathead minnow
fathead minnow
fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
channel catfish
bluegill
blucgi!!
chronic
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
acute
bshav •
CV
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
PEL
5.2
3.7
87
32
18
9
56
65
1.000
ua/l
ua/l
ua/l
ua/l
ug/l
ug/l
UQ/I
ug/l
ug/l
flow
through
flow-
through
static
static
static
MS
static
static
NS
4 day
30-day
NS
48-hour
48-hour
21 day
NS
NS
24-hour
Spehar et al..
1979
Spehar et al..
1979
Buccafusco and
LeBlanc. 1977 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1988
Vilkas. 1977 as
cited in EPA HEED
1988
Buccafusco and
LeBlanc, 1977 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1988
Kuhnetal.. 1989
as dted in
AQUIRE, 1994
Buccafusco and
LeBlanc. 1977 as
cited in U.S. EPA.
1988
Buccafusco and
LeBlanc. 1977 as
cited In U.S. EPA.
1988
Applegate et al..
1957 as dted h
U.S. EPA. 1980
CV was calculated by
geomean of NOEC and
LOEC (CV presented in
AWQC document)
water temp « 25 C. soft
water. NOEC based on
lethal toxidty and growth
data.
water temp = 22 C. soft
water
water temp = 1 7 C. soft
water
water temp = 22 C. soft
water

water temp = 22 C. soft
water
water temp •= 22 C. soft '
water
distress was obsevered in
1/2 hour

-------
Freshwater Toxtetty - H»~achlorocyclop«ntaclien«
             Cos. No.: 77-47-4


Chemical Name


lexachlorocyclopentadiene




hexachlofocydopentadiene

hexachlofocyclopentadiene

hexachlofocydopentadiene


hexachlofocydopentadiene


•vexachlococydopentadiene


hexachlofocydopentadiene


hexachlofocydopentadiene


hexacNotocydopentadiene


hexachlofocydopentadiene


spades


daphnia magna




daphnia magna

fathead minnow

fathead minnow


fathead minnow


fathead minnow


fathead minnow


fathead minnow


channel catfish


bluegill


Type of Effect


acute




acute

acute

acute


acute


acute


acute


acute


acute


acute


Description


LC50/EC60




LC50/EC60

LC60

LC50


LC50


LC60


LC60


LC50


LC50


LC50


Value


39




52

7

6.7


180


104
• -

78


69


97


130


Units


ufl/l




ua/l

ua/l

ua/l


UQ/I


ua/l


ug/l


ua/l


ua/l


ua/l
Test Type
(it otto/ flow
through)


static




static
flow-
through
flow-
thfouah


static


static


static


static


static


static
Exposure
Duration/
Timing


MS




MS

96-hour

30-day


4 day


4 day


4 day


4 day


4 day


4 day


Reference
EG&G Bionomics.
1977 as cited in
U.S.EPA. 1980
Union Carbide
Environmental
Services. 1977 as
cited in U.S.EPA.
1980
Spehar et al..
1979
Spehar et al..
1979
EG&G Bionomics.
1977 as cited In
U.S.EPA. 1980
Henderson. 1956
as dted in
U.S.EPA. 1980
Henderson. 1956
as cited in
U.S.EPA. 1980
Henderson. 1956
as cited in
U.S.EPA. 1980
EG&G Bionomics.
1977 as dted In
U.S.EPA. 1980
EG&G Bionomics.
1977 as cited in
U S.EPA. 1980


Comments

study duration was not
specified



study duration was not
specified























-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Hexachlorophene -1


                 Toxicological Profile for Selected Ecological Receptors
                                   Hexachlorophene
                                  Cas No.: 70-30-4
                        \

Summary:  This profile on hexachlorophene summarizes the toxicological benchmarks and
biological uptake measures (i.e., bioconcentration, bioaccumulatioh, and biomagnification
factors) for birds, mammals, daphnids and fish, aquatic plants and benthic organisms
representing the  generic freshwater ecosystem and birds, mammals, plants, and soil
invertebrates in the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Toxicological benchmarks for birds and
mammals were derived for developmental, reproductive  or other effects reasonably assumed
to impact population sustainability.  Benchmarks for daphnids, benthic organisms, and fish
were generally adopted from exiting regulatory  benchmarks (i.e., Ambient Water Quality
Criteria). Bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and, if available,
biomagnification factors (BMFs) are also summarized for the ecological receptors, although
some BAFs  for the freshwater ecosystem were calculated for organic constituents with log
Kow between 4  and 6.5.  For the terrestrial ecosystem, these biological uptake measures also  '
include terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g., earthworms). The entire  toxicological
data base compiled during this effort is  presented at the  end  of this profile.  This profile
represents the most current information  and may differ from the information presented in the
technical support document for the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Risk
Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors."
I.      Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Freshwater
       Ecosystem

This section presents the rational behind toxicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (C^) for the generic freshwater ecosystem. Table  1 contains
benchmarks for mammals and birds associated with the freshwater ecosystem and Table 2
contains benchmarks for aquatic organisms in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, including
aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and benthic organisms.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals:  No suitable subchronic or chronic studies reporting adequate dose-response data
for mammalian wildlife were identified. However, several toxicological studies involving
hexachlorophene exposure to mammals have been performed with laboratory rats. Gaines et
al. (1973) conducted a study on rats fed 0,  20 and 100 ppm hexachlorophene. Although no
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Hexachlorophene - 2


reproductive effects were observed at levels of 20 ppm, a reduction in pup survival rate
occurred at  dietary levels of 100 ppm.  Since no information was provided on daily food
consumption or body weight, conversion from mg/kg-diet to mg/kg-day required the use of an
allometric equation:

       Food consumption = 0.056CVV066") where W is body weight in kg  (Nagy, 1987).

Assuming a body weight of 0.330 kg, a NOAEL of 1.63 mg/kg-day and a LOAEL of 8.18
mg/kg-day could be inferred for reproductive effects.  In other studies,  Kennedy et al. (1976)
observed that hexachlorophene administered to rats at 10 mg/kg-day reduced the survival of
12 and 21 day-old offspring. Kennedy et al., 1975b demonstrated that rabbit dams had
reduced rates of body weight gain and possibly increased resorption at 6 mg/kg-day (6-18d)
gestion.  Hexachlorophene administered orally to mature male dogs and rats at >3 mg/kg-day
for 9 weeks  resulted in a rapid, but transitory reduction in spermatogenesis and degeneration
of the germinal epithelium of the testis  (Thorpe, 1967; James et al., 1980;  as cited in  U.S.
EPA, 1986). A LOAEL of 3 mg/kg-day was inferred from these  studies.

Selection of the Gaines et al. (1973) study for the derivation of protective benchmarks was
based on demonstrated reproductive effects at the lowest dose of all the studies reviewed. The
values in the Thorpe  (1967)  and James  et al. (1980) (as cited in U.S. EPA, 1986) studies were
not used in deriving benchmark values as the toxicity data were insufficient to infer
differences in sensitivity between surrogate species and representative species. Furthermore,
the values from the other studies would require the use of a NOAEL extrapolation safety
factor of 10  to account for differences between the original LOAEL reproductive endpoint
and a NOAEL reproductive endpoint.

The NOAEL value from Gaines et al. (1973) was used to extrapolate a benchmark value
representative of a freshwater ecosystem using a cross-species scaling algorithm adapted from
Opresko et al. (1994):
                                                    bw
                             Benchmark^ = NOAEL, x I	'.
                                                    bWw

where NOAEL, is the NOAEL (or LOAEL/10) for the test species, BWW is the body weight
of the wildlife species, and BW, is the body weight of the test species.  This is the same
default methodology EPA provided for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity
documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).  Since the
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Hexachlorophene - 3


Gaines et al. (1973) study documented reproductive effects from hexachlorophene exposure to
female mice, the representative body weights of female species were used in the scaling
algorithm to obtain toxicological benchmarks.

The Gaines  et  al. (1973) study was selected for derivation of benchmark values because it
provided data on reproductive, developmental, growth and survival endpoints for
hexchlorophene exposure.  The data set on hexachlorophene also contains information on
acute and chronic toxicity studies conducted during sensistive life stages.  In addition, it
contained a  study value for neurological endpoints (Robinson et al., as cited in HEPA, 1986)
that was approximately an order of magnitude lower than the benchmark value.  Based on the
data set for  hexachlorophene, the benchmarks developed from the Gaines et al. (1973) study
were categorized as adequate, with  a "*"  to indicate that some adverse effects have been
observed at  the benchmark level.  .

Birds: No studies were identified concerning hexachlorophene toxicity in avian species and
therefore, no benchmarks were developed.

Fish and aquatic invertebrates:  No AWQC, Final Chronic Value (FCV) or Secondary
Chronic Value (SCV) data were available  on hexachlorophene for the development of
protective benchmarks for the fish and aquatic community.

 Aquatic Plants:  The benchmarks for aquatic plants were either: (1) a no observed effects
concnetration (NOEC) or a lowest observed effects concnetration (LOEC) for vascular aquatic
plants (e.g.,  duckweed) or (2) an effective concentration (ECXX) for a species of freshwater
algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g.,. Selenastrum capricomutum).  Adequate data
for the development of benchmarks were not identified in Suter and Mabrey (1994) or in
AQUIRE.

Benthic community: Benchmarks for the protection of benthic organisms were determined
using the Equilibrium Partition (EQp) method. The EQp method uses a Final Chronic Value
(FCV) or other chronic water quality measure, along with the fraction of organic carbon and
the octanbl-carbon partition coefficient (K,,,.) to determine a protective sediment concnetration
(Stephan, 1993). The EQp number is the chemical concentration that may be present in
sediment while still  protecting the benthic community from harmful chemical exposure.  No
FCV or Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) data were identified for hexachlorpohene and,
therefore, no benchmark was developed.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorophene - 4
        Table 1.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                            Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
Specie*
mink
river otter
bald eagle
osprey
great blue heron
mallard
lesser scaup
spotted sandpiper
herring gull
kingfisher
Benchmark Value*
mp/kg-day
1.35 (a')
0.75 (a*)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Species
rat
rat
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
.
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
Study Value
mg/kg-day
1.53
1.53
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
-
- '
-
-
-
-


SF
-
'
-
-
-
-
-
• .
•
-
Original Source
Gaines et al, 1973
Gaineset al, 1973
-
-
-
-
- •
-
-
-
 Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data
                                                    indicates mat the benchmark value was an order of.
                   Table 2. Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Fish
                             Associated with Freshwater Ecosystem
Representative
Species
fish and aquatic
invertebrates
aquatic plants
benthic
community
Benchmark
Value
mg/L
ID
No data
ID
Study Species
-

-
p\..M ••!• tMiui
uescnpoon
-
, -
-
Original Source
-
.
-
               'Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a '*' indicates that the benchmark value was an order
               of magnitude or more above the 'NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
               ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Hexachlorophene - 5


II.     Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Species in the Generic Terrestrial
       Ecosystem

This  section presents the rationale behind lexicological benchmarks used to derive protective
media concentrations (Cpro) for the generic terrestrial ecosystem.  Table 3 contains
benchmarks for mammals, birds, plants and soil invertebrates representing the generic
terrestrial ecosystem.

Study Selection and Calculation of Toxicological Benchmarks

Mammals: Because of the  lack of additional mammalian toxicity studies, the same surrogate
species study (Gaines et ah, 1973) was used to calculate benchmark  values for mammalian
species representing the general terrestrial ecosystem.  The NOAEL  from the Gaines et al.  .
(1973) study was scaled for species in the terrestrial ecosystem using the cross-species scaling
algorithm adapted from Opresko et al. (1994).  Since the Gaines et al.  (1973) study
documented reproductive effects from hexachlorophene exposure to female rates, the
representative body weights for female species were used in the scaling algorithm to obtain
the  lexicological benchmarks.  Based on the data set for hexachlorophene, the benchmarks
developed from the Gaines  et al. (1973) study were categorized as adequate.

Birds: Adequate toxicity data on hexachlorophene with which  to derive a benchmark
protective of the avian community were not identified.

Plants:  Adverse  effects levels for terrestrial plants were identified for  endpoints ranging from
percent yield to root lengths.  As presented  in Will and Suter (1994), phytotoxicity
benchmarks were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then  approximating the 10th
percentile.  If there  were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used.  If
there were more than 10 values, the 10th percentile LOEC was used.  Such LOECs applied to
reductions in plant growth,  yield reductions, or other effects reasonably assumed to impair the
ability of a plant population to sustain itself, such as a reduction in seed elongation.
However, terrestrial plant studies were not identified for hexachlorophene and, as a result,  a
benchmark could not be developed.

Soil community:   Adequate  data with which to derive a benchmark protective of the soil
community were not identified.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorophene • 6
       Table 3.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Representative Mammals and Birds
                          Associated with Terrestrial Ecosystem
Representative
Species
deer mouse
short-tailed shrew
meadow vole
Eastern cottontail
red fox
raccoon
red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
American robin
American woodcock
plants
soil community
Benchmark Value*
mgrtcg-day
3.33 (a*)
3.42 (a*)
2.78 (a')
. 1.17 (a*)
0.87 (a')
0.84 (a*)
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Study
Species
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
Effect
rep
rep
rep
rep
. rep
rep
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
Study
Value
mg/kg-day
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Description
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL.
'
-
-
-
'
-
-
SF
-
-
-
-'

-
- •
-
-
-
-

-
Original Source
Gaines et al., 1973
Gaines et al., 1973
Gaines et al.. 1973
Gaines etal., 1973
Gaines et al., 1973
Gaines etal., 1973
'•
. -
-
'
-
-
-
•Benchmark Category, a = adequate, p = provisional, i = interim; a — indicates that the benchmark value was an order of
magnitude or more above the NEL or LEL for other adverse effects.
ID = Insufficient Data

III.  Biological Uptake Measures

This section presents biological uptake measures (e.g., BCFs and BAFs) used to derive
protective surface water and soil concentrations for constituents considered to bioconcehtrate
and/or bioaccumulate in the generic aquatic and  terrestrial ecosystems.  Biological uptake
values and sources are presented in Table 4 for ecological receptor categories: trophic level 3
and 4 fish in the limnetic and littoral ecosystems, general fish (BCF only), aquatic
invertebrates, earthworms, other soil  invertebrates, earthworms, other soil invertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, and plants. Each value is  identified as whole-body or lipid-based and,
for the generic aquatic ecosystems, the biological uptake factors are designated with a "d" if
the value  reflects dissolved water concentrations, and a "t"  if the  value reflects total surface
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                          Hexachlorophene • 7


water concentrations.  For organic chemicals with log K^, values below 4, bioconcentration
factors (BCFs) in fish were always assumed to refer to dissolved water concentrations (i.e.,
dissolved water concentration equals total water concentration).  For organic chemicals with
log K,,w values above 4, the BCFs were assumed to refer to total water concentrations.  The
brief discussion preceding Table 4 describes the rationale for selecting the biological uptake
factors and provides the context for interpreting the biological uptake values.

No data were identified oh the bioconcentration/bioaccumulation of hexachloirophene in fish.
The bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial vertebrates  and invertebrates was estimated as
described in Section 5.3.5.2.3.  Briefly, the extrapolation method is applied to hydrophobic
organic chemicals assuming that the partitioning to tissue is dominated by lipids.  For
hydrophobic  organic constituents, the bioconcentration factor for plants was estimated as
described in Section 6.6.1 for above ground leafy vegetables and forage grasses.  The BCF is
based on rout-to-leaf translocation, direct depostion on leaves and grasses, and uptake into the
plant through air diffusion.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B
Hexachlorophene - 8
                         Table 4. Biological Uptake Properties
ecological
receptor
limnetic trophic
level 4 fish
limnetic trophic
level 3 fish
fish
littoral trophic
level 4 fish
littoral trophic
level 3 fish
littoral trophic
level 2
invertebrates
terrestrial
vertebrates
terrestrial
invertebrates
earthworms
plants
BCF, BAF, or
BSAF
-
• '-
•
-
-
-
BAF
BCF
BCF
BCF
llpM-bamd or
...*-— i^. •»— -i —
WHOM OOGy
-
. .
-
-
-' . .
-
whole-body
whole-body
whole- body
whole-plant
value
No data
No data
ID
10
ID
ID
0.32
0.31
2.5
2.0E-03
source
.
-
•
-
- .
-
calc
calc
calc
U.S. EPA, 1990e
       ID = Insufficient Data
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                         Hexachlorophene - 9


References

AQUIRE  (AQUatic Toxicity information REtrieval Database).  Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
    Duluth, MN, June 1995.
                                                               \
Gaines, T.B., R. D. Kinbrough, and R.E. Linder.  1973.  Theoral and dermal toxicity of
    hexacholophene in rats.  Toxicology and applied pharmacology.  25: 332 -343.

Gellert, R. J., C. A. Wallace, E.M. Wiesmeier and R. M. Shuman.   1978.  Topical exposure
    of Neonates to hexachlorphene: longstanding effects on mating behavior and prostatic
    development in rats.  Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.  43: 339 - 349.

IRDC (International Research and Development Corporation).  1974. Unpublished study.
    IRDC# 281-013, 7/9/74.   As cited in U. S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
    1986  Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Hexachlorophene.  March 1986.

IRDC (International Research and Development Corporation).  1979. Unpublished study.
    IRDC# 380-002, 8/9/79.   As cited in U. S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
    1986  Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Hexachlorophene.  March 1986.

James, R.W.  R. Hey wood,  and D: Crook.  ;1980.  Quatnitiative aspects of spermatogenesis
    in rats and dogs after repeated hexachlorophene treatment.  Toxicol. Lett.  5(6):  405-412.

Kennedy,  G. L. Jr., S.H. Smith, M. L. Keplinger, and J.C. Calandra. 1975a. Effect of
    hexachlorophene on reproduction in rats.  J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 23, No. 5.  :
    866-868.

Kennedy,  G. L. Jr., S.H. Smith, M. L. Keplinger, and J. C. Calandra. 1975b.  Evaluation of
    the teratological potential of hexachlorophene in Rabbits and rats. Teratology, 12: 83 -88.

Kennedy,  G. L. Jr., S.H. Smith, M. L. Keplinger, and J. C. Calandra. 1976.  Reproductive
    and peri- and postnatal studies with hexachlorophene.  Fd. Cosmet.  Toxicol.  14:  421-423.

Kimmel, C.A., W. Moore, O.K.  Hysell, and J. F. Stara:  1974. Teratogenicity of
    hexachlorophene in rats.  Arch Environ Health. 28: 43-48.
August 1995

-------
 APPENDIX B                                                       Hexachlorophene-10


 Nagy, K.  A.  1987. Field metabolic rate and food requiremnt scaling in mammals and birds.
    Ecol. Mono.  57: 111 - 128.  '                                       .

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  RTECS (Registry  of Toxic Effects of
    Chemcial Substances) Database.  March 1994.

 Oakley, G. P. and T.H. Shepard.  1972.  Possible teratogenicity of hexachlophene in rats.
    Teratology.  5(2): 264. As cited in U. S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1986
    Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Hexachlorophene. March 1986.

 Opresko, D. M.,  B. E. Sample, and G. W. Suter II.  1994.  Toxicological  Benchmarks for
    Wildlife:  1994 Revisions. ES/ER/TM-86/R1.  U. S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge
    NationalLaboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

 Robinson, G. R.,.D. J.  Wagstaff, J. J. Colaianne and A.G. Ulsamer.  1975.  Experimental
    hexachlorophene intoxication in young swine.  Am. J.  Vet. Res. 36 (11):  1615 - 1618.
    As cited in U. S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1986  Health and
    Environmental Effects Profile for Hexachlorophene. March 1986.

 Stephan, C. E. 1993.  Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
    Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
    Research and Development, Duluth, MM. PB93-154672.

 Suter II, G. W. and J. B. Mabrey.  1994.   Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
    Contaminants of Concern for the Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision.  DE- AC05-
    84OR21400.  Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste  Management, U. S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.

Thorpe, E. 1967. Some pathological effects of hexachlorophene  in the rat. J,  Comp. Pathol.
    77(2):  137-142. As cited in U. S. EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency).  1986
    Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Hexachlorophene. March 1986.

Thomann, R. V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation  model of organic chmeical distribution in aquatic
    food chains.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  23(6): 699-707.

Thomann, R. V., J. P. Connolly, arid T. F. Parkerton.  1992.  An equilibrium model of
    organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction.
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 11:615 - 629.
August 1995

-------
APPENDIX B                                                        Hoxachlorophene - 11


U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1986  Health and Environmental Effects Profile for
 •  Hexachlorophene. EPA/600/22. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH..

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990e.  Methodology for Assessing Health Rishks
   Associated with Indirect Exposure to  Combustor Emissions.  Interim Final.  Office of
   Health and Environmental Assessment.  Washington, D. C.  January.

Weiss, L.  R., J. T. Williams, and S. Krop.  1973. Behavioral toxicity of hexachlorophene in
   rats. Toxicol. Appl.  Pharmocol. 25(3): 439.  As cited in U. S. EPA (Environmental
   Protection Agency).  1986 Health  and  Environmental Effects Profile for
   Hexachlorophene.  March 1986.

Will, M. E. and  G. W.  Suter II. 1994.  Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
   Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-
   85/R1.  Prepared for U.S.> Department of Energy.
August 1995

-------
Freshwater Toxicity - Hexachlorophene Cas No.: 70-30-4
Chemical Name

hexachlorophene
hexachlorophene
Species

Pimephales
promelas
Pimephales
promelas
Type of
Effect

chronic
chronic
Description

LC50
EC50
Value

21
260
Units

ygfl-
ug/L
Test Type
(Static/Flow
Through)

NS
NS
Exposure
Duration
/Timing

4
1
Reference

AQUIRE. 1995
AQUIRE, 1995
Comments




-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - HexachSorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical N«me
Hexachlorophene








Hexachlorophene



Hexachlorophene











Hexachlorophene



Hexachlorophene







Specie*
rats








rabbits



rabbits











rats



rats







Type of
rep








ter



ter











ter



ter







Description
NOAEL








NOAEL



LOAEL











NOAEL



LOAEL







Value
3.54








3



6











15



30







Unite
mg/kg/d








mg/kg/d



mg/kg/d











mg/kg/d



mg/kg/d






Exposure
Route (orel,
WedtJM)?
oral








oral



oral











gavage



gavage







-'";• Expoeunj , .•-
beginning at 21 d
of age until
sacrifice of the
parental animals
(3 generations)




d€-18 of gestation



d 6-18 of gestation











d 6-15 of gestation



d 6- 15 of gestation







•ft.*--
Kennedy et
al.. 1975a







Kennedy et
al., 1975b


Kennedy et
al., 1975b










Kennedy et
al.. 1975b


Kennedy et
al.. 1975b






Comments
Administration of
this dose 'did not
produce any <
.changes with .
respect to mating,
fertility, length of
gestation, and the
number of
deliveries.
No teratological
response to HCP
could be detected
at this level.
Small but not
statistically
significant increase
in incidence of
acrania and minor
skeletal
malformation,
fetotoxicity
(resorptions) and
. maternal toxicity
(reduced rate of
body weight gain).
No teratological
response to HCP
could be detected
at this level.
At this dose level.
there was a
reduced rate of
body weight gain in
the mothers and
reduced fetal body
weights.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Nam*
Hexachlorophene
?


Hexachlorophene








Hexachlorophene

*
Hexachlorophene






Hexachlorophene



Hexachlorophene




• •
SpodM
rats



rats








rats


rats






3-4 Wistar rats



rats





Typ»of
Eft**
rep



. rep








rep


rep






ter, rep



ter




' • .; ••
DMCriptJion
NOAEL



LOAEL








NOAEL


LOAEL






NOAEL



LOAEL





Value
1.63



7.08








10


20






1,000



25





Units
mg/kg/d



mg/kg/d








mg/kg/d


mg/kg/d






ppm



mg/kg/d




Exposure
ROIIIB (On),
fMX, I.V., Lp.,
Injection)
oral



oral








gavage


gavage






diet



oral





Exposure
DufAUonffitnlng
began at 4 to 5
wks; continued
through 2
generations
began at 4 to 5
wks; continued
through 2
generations





d 7-15 of gestation


d 7-15 of gestation






throughout
pregnancy


. d 7-20 of gestation





nGMfWIOt
Gaines et
al.. 1973


Gaines et
al.. 1973






-
Gaines et
al., 1973

Gaines et
al., 1973





Thorpe,
1967 as .
cited in
HEPA, 1986
Oakley and
Shepard,
1972 as
cited in
HEPA, 1986

Commant*
Study conducted
over F(o), F1a,
F1b, F2a ,
generations
At this dose level,
the rate of survival
of pups to weaning
was reduced in the
Flaand F1b
generations, with
the latter
generation having
the greater effect.
The dosage level
did not affect
reproduction.
This dose level
caused a reduction
in the number of
rats bom and in
the body weight of
the pups at
weaning.
No adverse effects
were reported on
the fetus or on
fertility.
Small fetuses with
cleft palate were
evident at this
dose level.


-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

«*
Chemical Nona
Hexachlorophene













Hexachlorophene












SpeclM
rats













rats












Type of
Effect
ter













rep












Description
LOAEL













NOAEL












Value
80













50












Unto
mg/kg/d













ppm











Exposure
Route (oral,
Ix;, l.v,, Ip,,
Injection)
introduced
into the
vagina of
pregant rats










oral












Exposure
Duration/Timing
d 7-10 of
gestation












3-generation
study











Rcferoncw
Kimmel et
al., 1974












Plank et
al., 1973
as cited
in HEPA,
1986








Comments
A significant
increase over
the controls
was produced at
this level. The
following
malformations
were observed:
hydrocephaly,
anophthalmia,
microphthalmia,
wavy ribs, and
urogenilal
defects.
There was no
indication of
impaired
fertility or
evidence of
increased fetal
mortality
resulting from
prenatal
exposure within
any generation
of this study.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4
Chemical Name
Hexachlorophene


Hexachlorophene

u




Hexachlorophene
Speder
rats


rats






rats
Type of
ftt* nt
CTTeCI
rep, let


rep, fet






ter
Description
NOAEL


LOAEL






NOAEL
Value
15


30






20
Unto
mg/kg/d


mg/kg/d






mg/kg/d
Exposure
Route (oral,
t,c.i l.v., tp.,
Injection)
oral


oral






introduced into
the vagina of
pregnant rats
Expoture
Dwation/riining
d 15 of gestation
and throughout
lactation


d 15 of gestation
and throughout
lactation






d 7- 10 of gestation
Reference
Kennedy et
al., 1976


Kennedy et
al., 1976






Kimmel et
al., 1974
Comments
Animals treated at
this dose level did
not display any ,
adverse reactions
during the dosing
period. Maternal
toxicity was not
observed at this
dose level.
Maternal toxicity, in
the form of weight
loss and abnormal
neurological signs,
was observed at
this dose level.
The number of
viable pups
delivered
decreased and the
number of stillborn
pups increased at
this dose level.
No teratogenic
effects were
observed at
this level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Ww
Hexachlorophene














Hexachlorophene




Hexachlorophene





Hexachlorophene





SpackM
rats














rats




rats





newborn pigs





fyp»of
Effort
rep














behv




behv





neuro





. Dotcffption
LOAEL














NOAEL




LOAEL





LOAEL





VpkM
60














10




25





0.5




.
Unto
ppm













.
mg/kg/d




mg/kg/d





mg/kg/d




Expo*ure
' Mi^ivMi,' '
Infection)
oral














oral




oral





oral




••' '" '- ' - '. '
.;'-; ExfXMur* :.,;
- . Duration/Timing ' •
3 generations








.





30 d




30 d





36 d






, ."'.:'*
IRDC, 1979
as cited
in HEPA,
1986











Weiss et
al., 1973,
1978 as
cited in
HEPA, 1986
Weiss et
al., 1973,
1978 as
cited in
HEPA, 1986

Robinson
et al..
1975 as
-cited in
HEPA, 1986

Comnwnt* ,
The following
effects were
observed: <
decreased
number of
corpora lutea
and
implantations;
decreased
number of F1a
pups surviving
until lactation
d-4; decreased
body weight of
pups.
No effects on
behavior
occurred at
tfiis dose
level.
Deterioration
of avoidance
responding
behavior
occurred at
this level.
No neurological
signs or
lesions were
evident at this
dosage level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Name
Hexachlorophene



















Hexachlorophene




Spaces
rats



















rats




Type of
Effed
rep



















rep




Description
NOAEL



















NOAEL




Value
5
















""•


20




Unto
s-; *..»
mg/kg



















ppm



Exposure
Route (oral,
•A, U, Ip.,
Injection)
oral



















oral




Expcwur*
Duration/Timing
critical life
stage


















3 generations




ReforancA

Plank et
al., 1973
as cited
in HEPA,
1986















IRDC. 1979
as cited
in HEPA,
1986

Comments
No unusual
behavioral
reactions were >
observed among
pups from any
group. There
was no evidence
of increased
fetal mortality
resulting from
prenatal
exposure in
this study.
However, pup
survival,
during the
lactation
period, was
reduced at this
level.
No effects were
observed at
this dosage
level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Name
Hexachlorophene

Hexachlorophene

Hexachlorophene




Hexachlorophene

Hexachlorophene




finnflai
"r J"r * ,
rats

rabbits

rabbits




rats

rats




Type of
rep

ter

ter




ter

ter




Description
NOAEL

NOAEL

LOAEL




NOAEL

LOAEL




Value
3.54

3

6




15

30




Unto:
mg/kg/d

mg/kg/d

mg/kg/d




mg/kg/d

mg/kg/d



Exposure
ex., I.V., Ip.,
Injection)
oral

oral

oral




gavage

gavage




• Exposure
Duration/Timing
beginning at 21 d
of age until
sacrifice of the
parental animals
(3 generations)

d 6-18 of gestation

d 6-18 of gestation




d 6-15 of gestation

d 6- 15 of gestation




Reference
Kennedy et
al., 1975a

Kennedy et
al., 1975b

Kennedy et
al., 1975b




Kennedy et
al., 1975b

Kennedy et
al.. -1975b




Comments
Administration of
this dose did not
produce any ,
changes with
respect to mating,
fertility, length of
gestation, and the
number of
deliveries.
No teratological
response to HCP
could be detected
at this level.
Small but not
statistically
significant increase
in incidence of
acrania and minor
skeletal
malformation,
fetotoxicity
(resorptions) and
maternal toxicity
(reduced rate of
body weight gain).
No teratological
response to HCP
could be detected
at this level.
At this dose level,
there was a
reduced rate of
body weight gain in
the mothers and
reduced fetal body
weights.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Nam*
Hexachlorophene








Hexachlorophene












Hexachlorophene




Specie*
rats








rats












rats




Type of
Effect
rep, fet








rep, fet












ter




DMCriutluii
NOAEL








LOAEL












NOAEL




Value
15








30












20




Unto
mg/kg/d








mg/kg/d





0






mg/kg/d



Exposure
Route (oral,
•A, P.v, tp.,
Injection)
oral








oral












introduced into
the vagina of
pregnant rats


Exposure ;
Duretion/nmlng
d 1 5 of gestation
and throughout
lactation






d 1 5 of gestation
and throughput •
lactation










d 7- 10 of gestation




• Reference
Kennedy et
al., 1976







Kennedy et
al., 1976











Kimmel et
al.. 1974



Comments
Animals treated at
this dose level did
not display any >
adverse reactions
during the dosing
period. Maternal
loxicity was not
observed at this
dose level.
Maternal loxicity, in
the form of weight
loss and abnormal
neurological signs,
was observed at
this dose level.
The number of
viable pups
delivered
decreased and the
number of stillborn
pups increased at
this dose level.
No teratogenic
effects were
observed at
this level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          GAS No. 70-30-4

ChwnteaiNanra
Hexachlorophene



Hexachlorophene








Hexachlorophene


Hexachlorophene






Hexachlorophene



Hexachlorophene





^T^!?T- .•• ••
rats



rats








rats


rats






3-4 Wistar rats



rats





Type of
•'Eftet
rep



rep








rep


rep






ter, rep



ter





Description
NOAEL



LOAEL








NOAEL


LOAEL






NOAEL



LOAEL





Value
1;63



7.08








10


20






1,000



25





>ii
Unto
mg/kg/d



mg/kg/d








mg/kg/d


mg/kg/d






ppm



mg/kg/d




Exposure
Route (oral,

-------
                                                      Terrestrial 1    .ity - Dieldrin
                                                            Cas No. 60-57-1

Chemical
Name

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin

dieldrin
-

Species

mallard
California
quail
Japanese
quail

pheasant

chukar
gray
partridge

rock dove
house
sparrow

mule deer
domestic
goat


Endpoint

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute

acute


Description

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50

LD50


Value

381

8.78

69.7

79

25.3

8.84

26.6

47.6

75 - 150
100.-
200


Units
mg/kg-
body wl.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
body wt.
mg/kg-
bodywt.
mg/kg-.
bodywl.
mg/kg-
body wt.
Exposure Route
(oral, ».c., l.v.,
l.p., Inlectlon)

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral '

oral

oral

oral

oral

oral

Exposure
Duration/Timing

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS


Reference

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA. 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA. 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b

U.S. EPA, 1993b


Comments



•
















NS = Not specified

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Name
Hexachlorophene













Hexachlorophene












Spades
rats













rats












Type of
Effect
ter













rep












Description
LOAEL













NOAEL












Value
80













50












Unto
mg/kg/d













ppm
*










exposure
Route (oral,
e.0, l.v., Ip.,
Injection)
introduced
into the
vagina ot
pregant rats










oral












Exposure
Duration/Timing
d 7-10 of
gestation












3-generadon •
study











Reference
Kimmel et
al., 1974












Plank et
al., 1973
as cited
in HEPA,
1986








Comments
A significant
increase over
the controls ,
was produced at
this level. The
following
malformations
were observed:
hydrocephaly.
anophthalmia,
microphthalmia,
wavy ribs, and
urogenital
defects.
There was no
indication of
impaired
fertility or
evidence of
increased fetal
mortality
resulting from
prenatal
exposure within
any generation
of this study.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chomleti N«m«
Hexachlorophene

















t

Hexachlorophene




8p*%-
rats



















rats




Typaof
Effect
rep



















rep




OMeripUon
NOAEL



















NOAEL




VlIlM
5



















20




Unto
mg/kg



















ppm



Exposure
Route (owl.
•.c,, l.v., Ip.,
InJMitlon)
oral



















oral




Expowjro
Punrttonfllmbifi
critical life
stage


















3 generations




fwfOT0flC9
Plank et
al., 1973
. as cited
in HERA,
1986















IRDC, 1979
as cited
in HEPA,
1986

COWMTWtlftl
No unusual .
behavioral
reactions were ,
observed among
pups from any
group. There
was no evidence
of increased
fetal mortality .
resulting from
prenatal
exposure in
this study.
However, pup
survival,
during the
lactation
period, was
.reduced at this
level.
No effects were
observed at
this dosage
level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4
CtemtealNam
Hexachlorophene

Hexachlorophene




Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorophene
SfMClM
',': -V "•-.-);
newborn pigs

dog/beagle




rat *
mouse
rabbit
guinea pig
Type of
Effect
neuro

path




acute
acute
acute
acute
Description
NOAEL

PEL




LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
Value
'-''•>. i '-'.
0.1

0.75




56
67
40690
60
Unto
mg/kg/d

mg/kg/d




mg/kg
mg/kg
M9/kg
mg/kg
Exposure
RoufMoral,
§;«, l.v, tp.,
r'}Mn|eca«!)-.
oral

oral




oral
oral
oral
oral
Evpowm
Duration/Timing
36 d

1 3 weeks




NS
NS
NS
NS
Rcfwanc*
Robinson
et al ,
1975 as
cited in
HEPA. 1986
IRDC, 1974
as cited
in HEPA,
1986



RTECS,
1994
RTECS.
1994
RTECS,
1994
RTECS.
1994
ConvMnti
• . J'41' ''•••'
Neurological
signs were
evident in half >
of the piglets
at this dosage
level.
The effects
reported at
this dose level
were swollen
salivary gland
and status
spongiosus in
brain and optic
nerves.





-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical N«M
Hexachlorophene














Hexachlorophene




Hexachlorophene





Hexachlorophene





-***••,;/' :
rats









_




rats




rats





newborn pigs





Type of
Effect
rep














behv




behv





neuro





Dfiertpiion
'• • -,'- '!. " '
.- '-t- 	 '
LOAEL














NOAEL




LOAEL





LOAEL





Value
60














10




25





0.5





Unto
ppm














mg/kg/d




mg/kg/d





mg/kg/d




Exposure
*?««•«««,
i«4 Mr, (.p.,
Injection)
oral














oral




oral





oral





/:.jxpoavr».
Durttton/Tlmlng
' :s>: f.'fy.- * ' ' ! . .
3 generations














30 d




30 d





36 d






Refenwice
IRDC, 1979
as cited
in HEPA,
1986











Weiss et
al., 1973,
1978 as
cited in
HEPA, 1986
Weiss et
al., 1973.
1978 as
cited in
HEPA, 1986

Robinson
etal.,
1975 as
cited in
HEPA. 1986

COAWMOtS
The following
effects were
observed: •
decreased
number of
corpora lutea
and
implantations;
decreased
number of F1 a
pups surviving
until lactation
d-4; decreased
body weight of
pups.
No effects on
behavior
occurred at .
this dose
level.
Deterioration
of avoidance
responding
behavior
occurred at
this level.
No neurological
signs or
lesions were
evident at this
dosage level.

-------
Terrestrial Toxicity - Hexachlorophene
          CAS No. 70-30-4

Chemical Nome
Hexachlorophene

Hexachlorophene




Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorophene

Species
newborn pigs

dog/beagle




rat
mouse
rabbit
guinea pig

Type oi
T'tt • lit
Cllvul
neuro

path




acute
acute
acute
acute

•*#!&
NOAEL

PEL




LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50

:***;
0.1

0.75




56
67
40690
60

Unto
mg/kg/d

mg/kg/d




mg/kg
mg/kg
*»
mg/kg
Exposure
5S-
oral

oral




oral
oral
oral
oral

Duration/Timing
C';; .? '' ' -" '-• :'.*'•; '•; '• ''•
36 d

13 weeks




NS
NS
NS
NS

Reference
Robinson
etal.,
1975 as
cited in
HEPA, 1986
IRDC, 1974
as cited
in HEPA,
1986



RTECS,
1994
RTECS,
1994
RTECS.
1994
RTECS.
1994

Comment*
Neurological
signs were
evident in half >
of the piglets
at this dosage
level.
The effects
reported at
this dose level
were swollen
salivary gland
and status
spongiosus in
brain and optic
nerves.





-------