&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention
(7101)
EPA712-C-007
January 2012
Ecological Effects
Test Guidelines
OCSPP 850.4450:
Aquatic Plants
Field Study
-------
NOTICE
This guideline is one of a series of test guidelines established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances to develop data for
submission to the Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601,
et seq.), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et
seq.), and section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a).
Prior to April 22, 2010, OCSPP was known as the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS). To distinguish these guidelines from guidelines issued by other
organizations, the numbering convention adopted in 1994 specifically included OPPTS as
part of the guideline's number. Any test guidelines developed after April 22, 2010 will use
the new acronym (OCSPP) in their title.
The OCSPP harmonized test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific
methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions
under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. This document provides guidance for conducting the
test, and is also used by EPA, the public, and the companies that are subject to data
submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or the FFDCA. As a guidance
document, these guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and the
EPA may depart from the guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.
At places in this guidance, the Agency uses the word "should." In this guidance, the use of
"should" with regard to an action means that the action is recommended rather than
mandatory. The procedures contained in this guideline are strongly recommended for
generating the data that are the subject of the guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures
may be appropriate in specific situations. You may propose alternatives to the
recommendations described in these guidelines, and the Agency will assess them for
appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.
For additional information about these test guidelines and to access these guidelines
electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select "Test Methods &
Guidelines" on the left side navigation menu. You may also access the guidelines in
http://www.requlations.qov grouped by Series under Docket ID #s: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-
0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0576.
-------
OCSPP 850.4450: Aquatic plants field study.
(a) Scope—
(1) Applicability. This guideline is intended to be used to help develop data to submit to
EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.), the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.), and
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a).
(2) Background. The source material used in developing this harmonized OCSPP test
guideline is the OPP 124-2 Aquatic Field Testing, Pesticide Assessment Guideline
Subdivision J.
(b) Purpose. This guideline describes factors to be considered in the design and conduct of field
studies for effects of chemical substances and mixtures on aquatic plants. Effects considered
may include mortality, and sublethal toxic effects such as decreased biomass or changes in
population or community parameters. The purpose of the field study is either to provide
quantification of the risk that may occur to aquatic plants, plant populations or plant
communities or refute the assumption that risks will occur under conditions of actual use of the
test substance (primary consideration for pesticides) or occur under the pattern of production,
use, disposal, or accidental release of industrial chemicals in the environment. This guideline
should be used in conjunction with OCSPP guideline 850.4000, which provides general
information and overall guidance for the nontarget plants test guidelines. Additional guidance on
aquatic field studies can be found in the OCSPP 850.1950 guideline.
(c) Definitions. The definitions in the OCSPP 850.4000 guideline apply to this guideline. In
addition, the following definitions apply:
Community is defined as an assemblage of populations of different species.
Population is defined as a group of individuals of the same species.
(d) General considerations—
1) General test guidance. In contrast to laboratory tests, which are generally amenable
to a high degree of standardization, field study protocols are more flexible reflecting the
case-by-case nature of issues and decisions a given field study is designed to address.
Additionally standardization of field studies is made difficult by the variability in the
factors that are considered in the design such as chemical mode of action, plant
population and community dynamics, and additionally for pesticides, differences in use
pattern and method of application. This guideline provides a general outline of factors to
consider in the conduct of field studies; specific protocols should be developed as needed
and submitted to the Agency for review. Despite the variability among field studies,
several key elements common to most field studies can be identified. This guideline was
prepared to identify and discuss these elements as they pertain to aquatic plants, and to
provide a better understanding of the purpose of field studies. There are two types of
field studies, screening and definitive. The type of field study conducted (screening or
definitive) depends on the available data on the test chemical or substance in question and
Page 1 of 15
-------
the aquatic plant population and community dynamics such as species composition,
frequency and other indices that describe the use and/or study area. The general guidance
in the OCSPP 850.4000 guideline applies to this guideline, except as specifically noted
herein. Additional guidance on aquatic field studies can be found in the OCSPP
850.1950 guideline.
(2) Summary of test. The test substance may be applied in a variety of ways; the
selected method should support the specific study objective. Application methods range
from a single application, at a single dose or at a wide range of anticipated test substance
doses (or concentrations), as may be found in the environment to multiple applications at
a single dose or over a wide range of anticipated test substance levels. The test is
performed under natural conditions and in the environment in which the test substance
would be either applied and/or disperses to under normal use practices for pesticides or
would occur under the pattern of production, use, disposal, or accidental release for
industrial chemicals. Specific objectives and associated qualitative and quantitative
decision statements establishing measurement endpoints and their accuracy and precision
should be provided as part of the study plan. Development of data quality objectives for
generating environmental effects data for decision making include: development of
decision rules, specifying limits on decision errors, and optimizing design (see OCSPP
850.4000 and paragraph (i)(20) of this guideline). Specific protocols should be
developed as needed and submitted to the Agency for review prior to conduct of the
study.
(3) Environmental chemistry methods. Procedures and validity elements for
independent laboratory validation of environmental chemistry methods used to generate
data associated with this study can be found in 850.6100. Elements of the original
addendum as referenced in 40 CFR 158.660 for this purpose are now contained in
850.6100. These procedures, if followed, would result in data that would generally be of
scientific merit for the purposes described in 40 CFR 158.660.
(4) Screening field study. If the available effects data is limited to laboratory toxicity
data on a limited number of species, a screening field study may be appropriate to
determine if hazards or risks extrapolated to populations and communities from the
laboratory data are occurring in the field and, if so, to what species before conducting a
definitive field study. The objective of the screening field study is to determine whether
impacts to plant populations are occurring and to which species. "Pass-fail" methods are
used to determine whether impacts occur. Effects considered include measurements of
survival, biomass, density, frequency or other appropriate indicators.
(5) Definitive field study. If a screening study indicates impacts are occurring, or if
other available data suggest or document that deleterious effects have occurred or are
extremely likely, the study design should be quantitative, evaluating the magnitude of the
impacts in a definitive study. A quantitative field study focuses on the species affected in
the screening phase. For some test substances or chemicals it may be appropriate to
proceed directly to a definitive study without the screening phase. Careful consideration
needs to be given to the likelihood of impacts occurring in order to determine which
approach to use. At the quantitative level (definitive study), the objectives should include
Page 2 of 15
-------
estimating the magnitude of the effects caused by the application, the existence and
extent of reproductive effects, and the influence of chemical use on the survival and
ecological function of species of concern.
(6) Endangered species. Studies should not be conducted in critical habitats or areas
where endangered or threatened species could be exposed.
(e) Test standards. Environmental and exposure conditions under which a field test is
conducted should resemble the conditions likely to be encountered under actual production, use,
disposal or fate of the test substance.
(1) Test substance. For industrial chemicals, the substance to be tested should be
technical grade unless the test is designed to test a specific formulation, mixture, or end-
use product. For pesticides the substance to be tested is usually the typical end-use
product (TEP). In addition, if an adjuvant is recommended for use on a TEP label, the
adjuvant is added with the TEP at the label rate to constitute the test substance. If the
pesticide product is applied in a tank mixture, dosages of each active ingredient (a.i.)
should be reported with identification and formulation for each product in the tank mix.
The OCSPP 850.4000 guideline lists the type information that should be known about the
test substance before testing.
(2) Test Duration. Due to the highly variable nature of objectives for field studies, no
single test duration can be established for the screening or definitive field studies.
Investigators are encouraged to consult with the Agency to reach agreement on
acceptable study duration prior to conduct of the field study. Several seasons or one or
more years may be appropriate where one of the objectives of the definitive field study
includes evaluating lowered productivity due to effects on populations or evaluating
alteration in community integrity. Seasonal and annual variation in plant species,
population and community attributes should be considered when selecting the study
duration. The field study duration should be selected to meet the stated study objectives.
(3) Study species.
(i) The number and type of species investigated should be based on the specific
objectives of the field study. The scope and scale can vary from investigation of
effects to a specific species to one or more plant communities which are
comprised of a wide-range of species. For a community the test may investigate a
selected cross-section of the non-target plant population.
(ii) Test species may include but not be limited to algae, mosses, ferns and allies,
floating, submersed and emergent aquatic vascular plants. Test plants should be
in a stage of development under which exposure to the test substance would
normally occur. Justification should be provided if surrogate species are used to
represent those of the natural habitat.
Page 3 of 15
-------
(4) Administration of test substance—
(i) Test substance application.
(A) The choice of method for test substance application is dependent upon
the properties of the test substance, expected exposure pathways for plants
in the environment from purposeful application, when the test substance is
a pesticide, or expected exposure pathways based on the pattern of
production, use, disposal, or accidental release, when the test substance is
an industrial chemical, and the anticipated range and distribution of test
substance quantities likely to be found in the environment.
(B) For pesticides, consideration should also be given to proposed or
registered application rates and application methods. Where the study
objective is to directly measure effects or "lack of effects" from labeled
use, the method of application used and the frequency of application
should be consistent with the label. Equipment used may influence
potential exposure of nontarget species. The diversity of types of
application equipment, depending on the particular use pattern involved,
could influence exposure. The various types of equipment normally used
for the particular pesticide application should be evaluated to estimate the
potential influence of equipment used on exposure. In some instances,
preliminary tests may be required to estimate which method and
equipment poses the highest exposure. The use of small site field
equipment that may mimic the application equipment may be useful.
(ii) Treatment levels.
(A) For a screening field study, where the objective is to determine
whether impacts occur or not (i.e., "pass-fail"), a single treatment level
plus a control may be appropriate. For a pesticide screening field study,
where the study objective is to directly measure effects from labeled use,
the treatment level should be applied at a minimum at the maximum use
rate and frequency specified on the label. For pesticides, the single
exposure level is equivalent to the maximum label rate (pounds a.i. per
acre (Ib a.i./A) directly applied to a one acre pool of water that is 6 inches
deep (21,280 cubic feet (ft3) or 602,581 liters). For example, a 1 Ib a.i./A
(453,592 milligrams (mg) per acre) label application rate and assuming a
water density of 1 gram per milliliter is equal to 0.75 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). Adjustments for water being less dense at warmer temperature
(i.e., 1 milliliter < 1 g) can be made (see in paragraph (i)(17)).
(B) For a definitive field study, where the objective is to evaluate the
magnitude of effects across a range of environmental concentrations,
multiple treatment levels plus a control would be appropriate. The range
of treatment levels selected should bracket the range of environmental
concentrations for which conclusions are to be drawn. The number of
Page 4 of 15
-------
treatment levels selected when fitting a response-relationship should be
sufficient to meet the level of precision desired and allow determination of
the goodness-of-fit. Consult a statistician for assistance in determining the
number of treatment levels. For a pesticide definitive field study where
the study objective is to directly measure effects from labeled use, one of
the treatment levels should at a minimum include the maximum use rate
and frequency specified on the label.
(iii) Application timing. When the test substance, particularly a herbicide, plant
regulator, desiccant, or defoliant, is applied to any desirable nontarget plants
within or adjacent to the target area, the stage of growth or development of the
plants at application should be observed and recorded. Field studies should not be
done during the period of seasonal senescence of the foliage in which the leaves
die back in the late summer. For serial applications, record the times of
application (or application interval) for each product or tank mix involved in the
serial application.
(5) Test conditions. The test conditions for conducting a field test should resemble the
conditions likely to be encountered under actual use, disposal, or accidental spill of an
industrial test substance or under actual application conditions for a pesticide. While
each field study is unique, some elements may be common among many field studies.
(i) Review of pertinent literature. A well-designed protocol should include a
restatement of the concerns to be addressed to ensure that there is an adequate
understanding of the Agency's position. Literature and other available
information that may bear upon the problem should be reviewed and pertinent
information summarized in the protocol. It is possible that the literature may
contain a valid answer to the questions raised by the Agency. At a minimum, the
literature may orient the investigator to address the concerns in a particular way.
(ii) Site characteristics. All protocols should contain a description of the
characteristics to be used, or that were used, in selecting sites within a given area.
If sites were selected a description of the study sites should also in the protocol.
(iii) Methods. All protocols should contain a description of the methods to be
used in conducting the study. The protocol should provide the reasons why
particular methods are being used, including, at least qualitatively, the meaning
that different results might have based on choice of methods.
(iv) Timing. Consideration should be given to the season(s) over which the study
is conducted. Studies should not be performed at a time or season when there is a
period of natural senescence. This dieback may contribute to the lessening of the
test substance's effect on the aquatic plant test species. For pesticides, the test
substance is to be applied over a period of time or season according to label
instructions.
Page 5 of 15
-------
(6) Sampling and experimental design.
(i) While examples of acceptable experimental designs are given, it is beyond the
purpose of this guideline to cover the fundamentals of this topic. References in
paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(4), (i)(6), (i)(7), (i)(9), (i)(16) and (i)(20) of this guideline
provide resources for guidance regarding sampling and experimental design,
especially for measuring effects on plants in natural habitats.
(ii) A well-designed protocol will contain an experimental design that will
indicate how the results are to be assessed quantitatively and a section on how
results will be interpreted.
(A) As part of the description of the experimental design for hypothesis
testing approaches, the magnitude of the difference the study is designed
to detect between treated and untreated plots and the power (ability) of the
design to detect this difference should be discussed. Coefficient of
variation estimates from screening studies, literature, or laboratory tests
that closely approximates reality can be used to design the study and
determine the number of replicates.
(B) As part of the description of the experimental design for response-
relationship field studies, the environmental range for which the
predictions are to address, the treatment spacing, and approach for
assessing fit should be discussed.
(7) Geographic area selection.
(i) Studies should be performed in representative biogeographic areas where the
test substance will occur under conditions of actual use of the test substance
(primary consideration for pesticides) or occur under the pattern of production,
use, disposal, or accidental release of industrial chemicals. To keep the number of
geographic areas at a manageable level while still accomplishing the purpose of
the field study, area selection should emphasize situations likely to present the
greatest risk taking into account the diversity and variability in ecosystems
involved.
(ii) A careful review of the species and habitats in the geographical areas involved
should be performed to aid in identifying the areas of highest concern. A sound
understanding of the biology of the species that are found in association with the
areas is essential. Identifying these areas is likely to include a literature review
and consultation with experts familiar with the areas and species of concern. The
study area selected should be appropriate for the species of concern. If exposure
and fate (e.g., degradation) parameters vary geographically, study area selection
should also focus on those areas with factors which maximize residues available
for exposure. In some circumstances preliminary monitoring of candidate areas
may be appropriate to determine which ones should be selected for detailed study.
Page 6 of 15
-------
(8) Study site selection.
(i) Within a geographic area, study sites should be selected from those considered
to be typical application sites for pesticides, or a typical exposure site which
occurs under the pattern of production, use, disposal, or accidental release of
industrial chemicals, but at the same time, study sites should contain the widest
possible diversity and density of plant species for the geographic area.
(ii) To maximize the hazard, the sites selected should have associated species that
would be at highest risk, as well as a good diversity of species to serve as
indicators for other species not present at that specific location. The choice of
study sites that are as similar as possible in terms of abundance, diversity, and
associated habitat will facilitate an analysis of the results.
(iii) Identifying potential study sites may require consultation with experts
familiar with the areas where studies are proposed, and preliminary sampling.
Field surveys of a number of sites may be used to identify which sites contain
species likely to be at highest risk. Preliminary surveys may also be used to
determine which sites have adequate numbers of the high risk species as well as a
good diversity of other species.
(9) Control sites. Controls sites should be selected to be as comparable with treated
study sites in species, diversity, biomass, and selected study variables. The control sites
should also be located as close as possible to selected treated study sites but at enough of
a distance and juxtaposition that cross-contamination from application or treatment will
not occur.
(10) Size of study sites. Study sites should be large enough to provide adequate sample.
The size is dependent on the methods used, the sensitivity required, and the density and
diversity of species. Consideration should be given to the distance between study sites.
Sites should be separated adequately to ensure independence.
(11) Number of sites.
(i) The number of sites (or replicates) to include in the study may be estimated in
many ways, but the number should be sufficient to detect the size of difference
with a given level of power identified as part of the data quality objectives or
estimate the parameter(s) of interest with the level of desired confidence
identified as part of the data quality objectives. The methodology and rationale
for selecting the number of sites should be clearly outlined and described in the
study plan. Paragraph (i)(20) provides guidance on estimating number of
replicates for a number of statistical methods. Recommend consulting a
statistician when estimating the number of replicates which should be used.
(ii) Under some circumstances, particularly if endangered species could be
exposed from the proposed use, additional replication may be desirable because
under these conditions, a high degree of confidence that effects are negligible is
Page 7 of 15
-------
likely to be desired. (Under no circumstances should field studies on chemicals
be conducted in areas where endangered species could be exposed.)
(iii) It is important to define the critical or threshold level for an effect, and to be
sure that the methods used are sensitive enough to detect an effect should one
occur. Whatever parameters are used, defining the criteria level for an effect is
extremely important, and when designing studies this issue should be considered
carefully.
(iv) Careful consideration should be given to the controls having sufficient
number of replicate sites so that a statistical analysis can provide meaningful
insight regarding the study objective.
(f) Interpretation of results. Because of the substantial diversity in the types of problems to be
assessed and the variety of available investigative methods, the key to understanding and
interpreting a field study lies in the development of a sound protocol. A sound protocol should
contain a description of the study sites, or the characteristics to be used in selecting sites within a
given area, and the methods to be used in conducting the study. However, a well designed
protocol will go beyond this descriptive approach in three ways.
(1) First, a well-designed protocol should contain a restatement of the concerns to be
addressed to ensure that there is an adequate understanding of the Agency's position. The
investigator should review the literature and other available information that may bear
upon the problem. It is possible that the literature may contain a valid answer to the
questions raised by the Agency. Far more likely, the literature may orient the investigator
to address the concerns in a particular way. By using the available literature on both the
chemical and the particular species of concern, the investigators may be able to narrow
the study while still providing sufficient information for evaluation. However, in
narrowing the focus of the study (e.g., to a single species or a single geographic area) it
may limit the adequacy of the study for evaluating effects to other species, or for other
use patterns that may result in exposure to different species or geographic areas.
(2) Second, a well designed protocol will provide the reasons why particular methods are
being used, including, at least qualitatively, the meaning that different results might have.
For example, a protocol may include collection of residues in plant tissues, but it also
should include a statement of purpose and meaning for such collection. Residues may be
used to confirm exposure to nontarget plants by spray drift or runoff, or that a particular
chemical was likely to be the cause of any observed effects. Interpretation of data is
facilitated substantially by a statement of what results were intended by using a particular
technique.
(3) Third, a well designed protocol will contain an experimental design that will indicate
how the results can be assessed quantitatively. The experimental design has been
discussed in previous sections of this guideline, but there are two facets that relate closely
to the interpretation of results: the difference that can be detected between treated and
untreated plots and the power (ability) of the design to detect this difference. An
experimental design with number of replicates based on an estimated coefficient of
Page 8 of 15
-------
variation that closely approximates reality will allow the study to detect a stated concern
level. The actual difference between treated and control units is measured during the
field study, but the design can form an initial basis for interpretation when combined with
the available information on the species of concern. As a result, the well-designed
protocol should include a section on interpretation.
(4) The Agency would like to be able to obtain a standardized result from a field study so
that the result could be applied in a very consistent manner. As discussed in previous
sections of this guideline, the different effects and species of concern will vary and
specific study protocols should be developed to address these factors. Although most of
the various techniques have some degree of standardization, the field study may combine
the individual techniques in a wide variety of ways to address specific concerns. A
standardized result might be attainable for the individual techniques, although that result
would still have to be applied differently for various species, depending on their biology
and ecological characteristics. However, determining a result for the whole field study
that would unequivocally lead to a statement of the degree of risk, while obviously
desirable, is not currently practical.
(g) Test validity elements. In the case of field studies, validity elements will vary with the
purpose and design of the study, and should be developed in cooperation with the Agency prior
to the implementation of the study. Generally, studies would be considered to be unacceptable if
one or more of the conditions in Table 1 occurred or one or more performance criteria in Table 1
were not met. This list should not be misconstrued as limiting the reason(s) that a test could be
found unacceptable.
Table 1.—Some test validity elements for the aquatic plants field study
1. The population of test plants and/or replicates was of an insufficient size to characterize the effects
with an acceptable degree of certainty.
2. The controls were contaminated with the test substance or there was insufficient sampling or study
conditions to document that controls were not contaminated.
3. Control plants were not maintained under the same test conditions as the test substance plants.
(h) Reporting—
(1) Background information. Background information to be supplied in the report
consists at a minimum of those background information items listed in paragraph (j)0) of
OCSPP 850.4000. Due to the variability among tests and test objectives, this list should
not be considered comprehensive.
(2) Test substance.
(i) Identification of the chemical or end-use product (name, state or form, source),
its purity (for pesticides, the identity (common name, IUPAC and CAS names,
CAS number) and concentration of active ingredient(s)), and known physical and
chemical properties that are pertinent to the test.
Page 9 of 15
-------
(ii) Storage conditions of the test substance.
(iii) Methods of preparation of test substance for application into a surface water
or adjacent land area and foliage, the maximum label rate, and the actual
application rate (Ib a.i./A) with the finished spray volume per acre for flowable
applications. The volume of surface water at the time the test substance was
applied.
(iv) If residue analysis is performed on plants or portions of plants, describe the
stability of the test substance under storage conditions.
(v) Data on storage of the plant material, if applicable.
(3) Site of the test.
(i) Site description of the aquatic field testing study as to the type of systems
(enclosed, controlled areas of a lake, pond, swamp, or stream, or artificial water
systems such as aquaria, or large tubs).
(ii) Location of the test sites that represent the general regional areas of potential
usage such as Northeastern temperate deciduous; Southeastern temperate
deciduous; Northern grassland (cool prairie); Southern grassland (warm prairie);
Northwestern (and Alaskan) conifer forest and high desert; Southwestern
chaparral Mediterranean and low desert; and Hawaiian and Caribbean
semitropical and tropical regions.
(iii) Physiographic conditions including:
(A) Type of aquatic site (such as swamp, bog, freshwater marsh, lake,
pond, reservoir, stream, coastal wetlands, or irrigation ditch) and flow,
turnover, flooding regime or tidal action, as appropriate.
(B) Size of each treatment site, including: area (length and width profile)
and depth profile, and volume.
(C) Water quality characteristics and profile, including pH, temperature,
hardness, alkalinity or salinity, if applicable, turbidity (visual),
conductivity (if possible), and dissolved oxygen (for submerged plants
only).
(D) Substrate characteristics of the treated and control sites:
name/designation of sediment types and its physical and chemical
properties, including texture, organic carbon content, pH, and Eh.
(E) Habitat structure of adjacent terrestrial, riparian, or wetland systems.
(1) Location and distribution of soil types and texture, with percent
organic matter in relationship to treated sites and controls.
Page 10 of 15
-------
(2) Location and distribution of vegetation including type, density,
and diversity in relationship to treated sites and controls.
(3) Canopy and ground cover.
(4) Degree and direction of slope.
(F) Map or diagram showing location of treated sites and controls and
adjacent terrestrial, riparian, and wetland systems.
(iv) Climatological data during the test: records of applicable conditions for the
type of site, i.e., temperature, thermoperiod, rainfall or watering regime, light
regime including intensity and quality, photoperiod, relative humidity, wind
speed, etc.
(4) Species at test site.
(i) For investigation of a crop species (e.g., rice) the following information should
be reported.
(A) Scientific and common name, plant family and variety including
species/variety and cultivar if appropriate.
(B) Test date of germination rating and germination percentage, if
appropriate.
(C) History of the seed: Source, name of supplier, seed year or growing
season collected, batch or lot number, seed treatment(s), and storage
conditions, if appropriate.
(D) Seed size class, if appropriate.
(E) Description of handling and processing of plants before use in test.
(F) Planting dates.
(G) Stage of development, height and condition of plants that are treated.
(H) Population density of seeds or plants.
(ii) For nontarget plant species the study design objectives and protocols will
impact the scale (i.e., all species, cross-section, selected species) of reporting of
the information on nontarget species.
(A) Number and type of species investigated and the scale of identification
(e.g., a single species of concern, all species of a community or a selected
cross-section).
(B) Scientific and common name, plant family and variety.
Page 11 of 15
-------
(C) Stage of development and condition of plants at test initiation.
(5) Study conditions and experimental design. Description of the study conditions and
experimental design used in the screening or definitive tests, and any preliminary testing.
(i) A statement of the concerns to be addressed and the type and frequency of
monitoring of vegetation measures (e.g., diversity, abundance, biomass,
emergence) addressing these concerns.
(ii) The field study design: size of field sites, number of control sites, the number
of experimental treatment levels and the number of experimental sites (replicates)
for each treatment, the lay-out and distance of field sites to each other and to
control sites.
(iii) Methods used for treatment randomization.
(iv) Method of test substance application: exposure route (e.g., foliar exposure,
surface water contact), application or delivery methods (including equipment type
and design (nozzles, orifices, pressures, flow rates, volumes, etc.)) and method for
calibrating the application equipment), information about any solvent used to
dissolve and apply the test substance.
(v) Number of applications and dates applied.
(vi) Study duration.
(vii) Methods and frequency of measuring flow, turnover, flooding or tidal regime
during the study.
(viii) Methods and frequency of water quality monitoring performed during the
screening or definitive study.
(viii) Methods and frequency of characterizing adjacent terrestrial, riparian, or
wetland system vegetation and soils or sediments.
(ix) Methods and frequency of climatological monitoring performed during the
screening or definitive study for air temperature, thermoperiod, humidity, rainfall
and watering regime, light intensity, and wind speed.
(x) The photoperiod and light quality.
(xi) Methods and frequency of monitoring of other ancillary nontreatment related
factors that may influence the measures of effect at the study site should be
reported. For example, if a crop species is studied or if a crop is treated
concurrent to the investigation of nontarget plant effects, cultural practices during
the tests such as cultivation, pest control, irrigation practices; and any nutrient
amendments. Any infestations of disease or insects should be monitored and
reported for the study sites.
Page 12 of 15
-------
(xii) For the screening and definitive studies, all analytical procedures should be
described. The accuracy of the method, method detection limit, and limit of
quantification should be given. Provide the ILV report.
(6) Results.
(i) Environmental monitoring data results (air temperature, humidity and light
intensity, rainfall, water quality) in tabular form (provide raw data for
measurements not made on a continuous basis), and descriptive statistics (mean,
standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
(ii) Tabulation of the results of study-specific vegetative measures (e.g.,
emergence, height, dry weight, yield of seeds or fruit, germination rate of second
generation, phytotoxicity rating, diversity, abundance) by field site and treatment
(provide the raw data), and summary statistics. If phytotoxicity rating measures
are made a description of the rating system should be included.
(iii) Description (i.e.., method of determination) of and tabular summary of any
secondary vegetative measures.
(iv) Statement of the data objectives for specific direct and secondary vegetative
measures (i.e., the critical or threshold level for an effect, precision of a point
estimate).
(v) Description of the statistical method(s), software package(s) used, the basis for
the choice of the method(s), statements of the reasons why particular methods are
being used, including, at least qualitatively, the meaning that different results
might have.
(vi) Results of the statistical analysis including graphical and tabular summaries,
and results of goodness-of-fit tests or minimum significant differences detectable,
as appropriate.
(i) References. The following references should be consulted for additional background
material on this test guideline.
(1) Campbell, P.J., D. Arnold, T. Brock, N. Grandy, W. Heger, F. Heimbach, SJ. Maund
and M. Streloke, 1999. Guidance document on higher-tier aquatic risk assessment for
pesticides (HARAP), Report of a SETAC-Europe/OECD/EC workshop, 19-22 April
1998.
(2) Crossland, N.O. and T.W. LaPoint, 1992. The design of mesocosm experiments.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11: 1-4.
(3) Davis, J.A., 1981. Comparison of static-replacement and flow-through bioassays
using duckweed, Lemna gibba G-3. EPA Report No. EPA 560/6-81-003.
Page 13 of 15
-------
(4) DeNoyelles, F. Jr. et al., 1987. Use of Experimental Ponds to Assess the Effects of a
Pesticide on the Aquatic Environment. Miscellaneous Publication No. 75, 34th Annual
Meeting of the Entomological Society of America, Nov. 29 - Dec. 3, 1987. MPPEAL 75:
1-88.
(5) Fairchild, J.F., et al., 1992. Population-, community-, and ecosystem-level responses
of aquatic mesocosms to pulsed doses of a pyrethroid insecticide. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 11: 115-129.
(6) Graney, R.L. et al. (Eds.), 1994. Aquatic Mesocosm Studies in Ecological Risk
Assessment Lewis, Boca Raton, FL.
(7) Hill, I.R. et al. (Eds), 1994. Freshwater Field Tests for Hazard Assessment of
Chemicals, Lewis, Boca Raton, FL.
(8) Hoist, R.W., et al., 1982. Effect of several pesticides on the growth and nitrogen
assimilation of Azolla-Anabaena symbiosis. Weed Science 30:54-58.
(9) Little, T.M., andFJ. Hills, 1978. Agricultural Experimentation—Design and Analysis.
Wiley, NY.
(10) Sculthorpe, C.D., 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. London. Arnold
Publishers.
(11) SETAC Europe, 1991. Guidance Document on Testing Procedures for Pesticides in
Freshwater Mesocosms, report from the workshop "A meeting of experts on guidelines
for static field mesocosm tests" held at Monks Wood Experimental Station, Abbots
Ripton, Huntingdon, UK, July 3-4, 1991.
(12) SETAC-RESOLVE, 1992. Proceedings of a workshop on aquatic microcosms for
ecological assessment of pesticides, held at Wintergreen, Virginia, October 1991.
SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education and the RESOLVE Program of the
World Wildlife Fund, 56 pp.
(13) Siefert, R. E., et al, 1987. Littoral Enclosures for Aquatic Field Testing of
Pesticides: Effects of Chlorpyrifos on a Natural System. Miscellaneous Publication No.
75, 34th Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America, Nov. 29—Dec. 3,
1987. MPPEAL 75: 1-88.
(14) Touart, L.W., 1988. Aquatic Mesocosm Tests to Support Pesticide Registrations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Evaluation Division; Technical Guidance
Document. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
(15) Touart, L. W. and M. W. Slimak, 1987. Mesocosm Approach for Assessing the
Ecological Risk of Pesticides. Miscellaneous Publication No. 75, 34th Annual Meeting of
the Entomological Society of America, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 1987. MPPEAL 75: 1-88.
Page 14 of 15
-------
(16) Truelove, D., 1977. Research Methods in Weed Science, 2nd Ed., Southern Weed
Science Society, Auburn Printing Inc., Auburn, AL.
(17) Urban, DJ. and N.J. Cook, 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation
Procedure: Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA-540/9-86/167, Washington, DC.
(18) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines
Subdivision J, Hazard Evaluation: Non-target plants. Office of Pesticides Programs,
Washington, D.C. EPA-540/9-82-020, October 1982.
(19) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard
Evaluation Procedure, Non-target Plants: Aquatic Field Testing - Tier 3. Office of
Pesticides Program, Washington, D.C. EPA 540/9-86-136, June 1986.
(20) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Guidance for the Data Quality
Objectives Process (QA/G-4), Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-96/055.
(21) Voshell, J.R. Jr. Using Mesocosms to Assess the Aquatic Ecological Risk of
Pesticides: Theory and Practice. Miscellaneous Publication No. 75, 34th Annual Meeting
of the Entomological Society of America, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 1987MPPEAL 75: 1-88
(1987).
Page 15 of 15
------- |