DRAFT
Second Five Year Review Report
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
APPENDIX 11
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISKS
Prepared by:
Chuck Nace, Environmental Toxicologist
and
Marian Olsen, Risk Assessor
EPA Region 2 ERRD/Program Support Branch
April 12, 2017
-------
FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Human Health Risks 1-1
1.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Consucted for 2002
ROD 1-1
1.2 Evaluation of Human Health Risks for Question B for the Second
Five-Year Review 1-5
2 Ecological Risks 2-1
2.1 Summary of Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Conducted for
2002 ROD 2-1
2.2 Evaluation of Ecological Risks for Question B of the Second Five-
Year Review 2-2
3 References 3-1
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
i
April 2017
-------
SECOND FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Table 1
Table 2
LIST OF TABLES
Comparison of use of Various Exposure Parameters and Toxicity
Reference Values on Risk Estimates for Female Mink and River Otters
Summary of Studies Conducted Evaluating Dietary Toxicity of PCBs to
Mammals
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
ii
April 2017
-------
The human health and ecological risk assessments conducted for the 2002 Record of
Decision (ROD) for the for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site (Site) were evaluated
for this five-year review to determine if the assumptions and data used in the original
assessments were still appropriate. This appendix discusses the evaluations and results
that are included in the Second Five-Year Review Report.
1 HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
1.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Consucted for 2002 ROD
Following a peer-review of its 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Site, in
November 2000 EPA issued a Revised Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) that
evaluated both cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to young children, adolescents
and adults posed by PCBs in the Upper and Mid-Hudson River. PCBs were identified as
the only chemical of concern (COC) for the Site.
Risk Conclusions for Upper Hudson
The 2000 HHRA found that ingestion of fish contaminated with PCBs resulted in the
highest lifetime cancer risks. The cancer risks and non-cancer hazards that served as the
basis for the decision were based on the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME). The
RME is defined as the highest exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur for a
given exposure pathway at a Site and is intended to account for both uncertainties in the
contaminant concentration and variability in exposure parameters (e.g., exposure
frequency, averaging time, etc.). The estimate of increased risk to the RME individual
developing cancer averaged over a lifetime (childhood through adulthood over 40 years),
"3
based on the exposure assumptions in the 2000 HHRA, is lx 10" , or one in 1,000. The
total cancer risk of 1 x 10"3 is composed of risks to the adult (6 x 10"4 or six in 10,000), to
the adolescent (4 x 10"4 or four in 10,000), and to the young child (4 x 10"4 or four in ten
thousand). The cancer risks to the RME individual exceed the risk range established
under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4. Consistent with the
1996 Reassessment of the Carcinogenicity of PCBs (Smith 1996), RME cancer risks
associated with the dioxin-like PCBs were evaluated and found to be comparable to those
from total PCBs.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-1
April 2017
-------
EPA's evaluation of non-cancer health effects in the 2000 HHRA (EPA 2000) involved
comparing the average daily exposure levels (dose) to determine whether the estimated
exposures exceed the Reference Dose (RfD). The ratio of the site-specific calculated dose
to the RfD for each exposure pathway was summed to calculate the Hazard Index (HI)
for the exposed individual. An HI of 1 is the reference level established by USEPA above
which concerns relating to noncancer health effects must be evaluated. Ingestion of fish
resulted in the highest HI values. The RME HI was 104, 71, and 65, for the young child,
adolescent, and adult, respectively.
Estimated RME and central tendency cancer risks relating to PCB exposure in sediment
and water while swimming or wading, or from inhalation of volatilized PCBs in air by
residents living near the river, are much lower than those for fish ingestion, falling
generally at the low end, or below, the range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6. At the time of the
assessment, the cancer risks from exposure to volatilized PCBs under residential
exposure assumptions were below 1 x 10"6 and a calculation of noncancer hazards from
exposure to PCBs in air based on a calculated inhalation RfC for a resident, developed
after the HHRA was completed, was also below the goal of protection of HI = 1.
Risk Conclusions for Mid-Hudson River
Ingestion of fish contaminated with PCBs resulted in the highest lifetime cancer risks.
Consistent with the approach used in the Upper Hudson described above, the cancer risk
was 7 x 10"4, or 7 in 10,000 increased chance of developing cancer. The RME cancer
risks associated with the dioxin-like PCBs are comparable. The total cancer risk of 7 x
10"4 is comprised of risks to the adult (3 x 10"4 or three in 10,000); to the adolescent (2 x
10"4 or two in 10,000); and the risk to the young child (2 x 10"4 or two in ten thousand).
The cancer risks to the RME individual exceed the risk range established under the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4. Consistent with the 1996
Reassessment of the Carcinogenicity of PCBs, RME cancer risks associated with the
dioxin-like PCBs were evaluated and found to be comparable to those from total PCBs.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-2
April 2017
-------
The evaluation of noncancer health effects followed the same process as for the Upper
Hudson. An HI of one (1) is the reference level established by USEPA above which
concerns relating to noncancer health effects must be evaluated. Ingestion of fish resulted
in the highest HI values. The RME HI was 53, 37, and 34, for the young child,
adolescent, and adult, respectively.
Estimated RME and central tendency cancer risks relating to PCB exposure in sediment
and water while swimming or wading, or from inhalation of volatilized PCBs in air by
residents living near the river in the Mid-Hudson, are much lower than those for fish
ingestion, falling generally at the low end, or below, the range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6. At
the time of the assessment, the cancer risks from exposure to volatilized PCBs under
residential exposure assumptions were below 1 x 10"6 and a calculation of noncancer
hazards from exposure to PCBs in air based on a calculated inhalation reference
concentration (RfC), developed after the HHRA was completed, for a resident was also
below the goal of protection of a HI = 1.
Toxicity Assessment
OSWER Directive 9285.7-53 (Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk
Assessment (USEPA 2003) outlines a process for selecting toxicity values for use in the
HHRA. The toxicity hierarchy identifies the Integreated Risk Information System (IRIS)
as a Tier 1 source of toxcity information. The IRIS PCB toxicity values identified in the
2000 HHRA are considered Tier 1 toxicity criteria. IRIS identifies PCBs as:
• a probable human carcinogen and known animal carcinogen - consistent with
Superfund guidance, chemicals classified as known, probable or possible human
carcinogens are all evaluated in the HHRA for carcinogenic effects; and
• having health effects observed in laboratory animal studies including a reduced
ability to fight infections, low birth weights, and learning problems.
The basis for the systemic toxicity values were studies of Aroclors 1016 and 1254 in
Rhesus monkeys following a thorough review of the literature that existed when the files
were developed.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-3
April 2017
-------
Exposure Assessment
The 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) was selected as the primary
source of information for the Monte Carlo probabilistic analysis (PRA) of fish ingestion
rates for Upper Hudson River anglers because the climate and characteristics of other
New York waterbodies are more likely to be similar to the Upper Hudson River than
other non-New York surveys that were evaluated. Further reasoning for selecting the
New York Angler survey is the fact that it reasonably matches the demographics of the
Upper Hudson angler population that was surveyed in an independent study (Barclay
1993) The fish ingestion rate included in the PRA represents the amount of fish an
individual consumes on average within the year, annualized such that it is expressed in
units of grams of fish per day (g/day). Upper Hudson River anglers were defined as all
individuals who would consume self-caught fish from the Upper Hudson River at least
once per year in the absence of fish consumption advisories. Only non-zero ingestion
rates were included in the analysis (42.7% of the responses indicated the anglers did not
consume the fish they caught). The entire distribution of fish ingestion rates was used in
the Monte Carlo Analysis (MCA, described below) to represent variability of fish
consumption patterns among the angler population.
Exposure assumptions included an evaluation of population mobility data from the U.S.
Census Bureau for the five counties surrounding the Upper Hudson River and fishing
duration data from the 1991 the New York Angler survey to determine the length of time
an angler fishes in the Upper Hudson River (i.e., exposure duration). Standard USEPA
default factors at the time of the HHRA were used for angler body weight. Future
concentrations of PCBs in fish were derived from forecasts which were then grouped by
fish species and averaged over species for the entire Upper Hudson River, and a separate
evaluation was conducted for the Mid-Hudson. Other exposure assumptions were
obtained from the USEPA Standard Default Exposure Assumptions applicable at the time
(USEPA, 1989a, b) and the 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997f) or
professional judgment where appropriate.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-4
April 2017
-------
Monte Carlo Analysis
In addition to the "deterministic" risk assessment discussed above, a Monte Carlo
analysis was conducted pursuant to the Agency's guidance on probabilistic analysis for
risk assessment (USEPA, 1997a). The purpose of the MCA was to estimate a probability
distribution of PCB exposure among members of the angler population and to quantify
the extent to which important sources of uncertainty affect the precision of these
estimates. When combined with the toxicity information for PCBs, the range of PCB
exposure is translated into a range of cancer risks and noncancer health hazards. The
MCA included a distribution of cancer risks and noncancer health hazards for the fish
ingestion pathway.
The Monte Carlo base case scenario is the one from which point estimate exposure
factors for fish ingestion used in the deterministic HHRA were drawn. Thus, the point
estimate RMEs and the Monte Carlo base case estimates can be compared. Similarly, the
point estimate central tendency (average) and the Monte Carlo base case midpoint (50th
percentile) are comparable. For cancer risk, the point estimate RME for fish ingestion (1
"3
x 10") falls approximately at the 95th percentile from the Monte Carlo base case
analysis. The point estimate central tendency value (3 x 10"5) and the Monte Carlo base
case 50th percentile value (6 x 10"5) are similar. For noncancer health hazards, the point
estimate RME for fish ingestion (104 for young child) falls between the 95th and 99th
percentiles of the Monte Carlo base case. The point estimate central tendency HI (12 for
young child) is approximately equal to the 50th percentile of the Monte Carlo base case
HI of 11. That the deterministic and MCA risk estimates were closely aligned provided
additional confidence in the risk results used to support the remedy decision.
1.2 Evaluation of Human Health Risks for Question B for the Second Five-Year
Review
Remnant Deposits (OU1)
There have been no changes in the physical conditions of Remnant Deposits 2 through 5
that would change the protectiveness of the remedy. The cap system on the Remnant
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-5
April 2017
-------
Deposits prevents exposure to the capped sediments, and perimeter fencing prevents
access to the sites. Posted signage provides an additional barrier to exposure. The
Remnant Deposits have limited access based on location in addition to perimeter fencing.
The ongoing procedures to inspect and re-establish the fencing where appropriate should
continue as a barrier to exposure.
The Town of Moreau is considering whether to construct a passive park (i.e., a park that
would use portions of Remnant Deposit sites 2 and/or 4. Likely use would consist of
passive recreation activities such as hiking and cycling over the area. Details of the
passive use and any additional design measures on the OU1 area would need to be
developed in close consultation between EPA, NYS, and the parcel
owners. Consideration would need to be given to the fences (i.e. institutional control) on
the area that limit use of the area. If the fences are modified in the development of
passive use of the parcel, additional engineering controls may be necessary. As noted
above, the institutional control needs be maintained to ensure that future use of the
Remnant Deposits does not compromise the integrity of the cap system or result in unsafe
exposures.
In 1984, when the Remnant Deposits remedy was selected, guidance on the development
of risk assessment was only beginning at EPA and, as a result, a risk assessment was not
conducted. The selection of a value of 5 mg/kg as the basis for determining areas for
capping is, however, consistent with a potential recreational use of the property using
current risk assessment tools. Currently, 1 mg/kg is the concentration associated with a
residential property assuming exposures to a young child 1 to 6 years of age exposed 350
days/year for six years with an oral Reference Dose for Aroclor 1254 of 0.00002 mg/kg-
day. Considering the less frequent exposures of an adolescent trespassing on the property,
capping of all PCB concentrations greater than 5 mg/kg is protective.
In-River Sediments (OU2)
There have been no changes in the physical condition of the Site since the last five-year
review that would change the protectiveness of the remedy. Since the last five-year
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-6
April 2017
-------
review, dredging in the Upper Hudson River was completed. The cleanup goal for the
Hudson River of 0.05 mg/kg in fish remains protective of human health since there have
been no significant changes to the toxicity and exposure assumptions used in the original
risk assessment. Monitoring of PCB concentrations in fish continues and ICs in the form
of fish consumption advisories continue to inform the public about the health risks
associated with consumption of fish from the Hudson River.
Exposure
Since the last five-year review exposure assumptions were updated with the release of the
2014 OSWER Directive # 9200.1-120 (Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental
Guidance: Update of Standard Default Expsoure Factors (USEPA 2014). Updates
include changes in exposure assumptions for body weight for the adult, skin surface area
for the adult and child, drinking water ingestion rate for the young child, and other
parameters. These changes do not change the conclusions of the risk assessment or the
protectiveness of the remedy.
The fish ingestion rate used in the 2000 HHRA represented a site-specific ingestion rate.
This rate is consistent with the 2011 Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 2011)
recommendation to use site-specific information to develop ingestion rates.
The fish ingestion rate used in the HHRA represented the amount of fish an individual
consumes on average within the year, annualized such that it is expressed in units of
grams of fish per day (g/day). Upper Hudson River anglers are defined as all individuals
who would consume self-caught fish from the Upper Hudson River at least once per year
in the absence of fish consumption advisories. The population in question therefore
includes a range of infrequent to frequent anglers, who may fish for sport (recreational)
or for sustenance (food source). Based on a review of the available literature and
consideration of a number of scientific issues relevant to fish ingestion rates, a probability
distribution of fish consumption rates was determined using data from the 1991 New
York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) to represent Upper Hudson River anglers.
The 2000 HHRA (Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1 and Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1) provides a
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-7
April 2017
-------
detailed analysis of the evaluation. The same fish ingestion rate was used for the Mid-
Hudson. There are no new studies of fish consumption that call for the development of a
fish ingestion rate that would change the overall conclusions of the HHRA.
Toxicity
OSWER Directive 9285.7-53 (USEPA 2003) outlines a process for selecting toxicity
values for use in the HHRA. The directive revises the hierarchy of human health toxicity
values generally recommended for use in risk assesments. EPA followed this toxicity
hierarchy in evaluating potential changes in toxicity values.
• The IRIS cancer toxicity information used in the HHRA meets the Tier I toxicity
criteria for the Superfund program. The IRIS chemical file identifies PCBs as a
Probable Human Carcinogen (B2 classification). Superfund guidance states that
chemicals classified as known, probable or possible human carcinogens are all
evaluated for carcinogenic risk when a Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) necessary to
calculate cancer risk is available. PCBs for this were evaluated for carcinogencu
risk as per this guidance. The IRIS agenda that lists chemicals being assessed
under the IRIS program does not identify plans to update cancer toxcity values for
PCBs.
• The noncancer toxicity values used in the HHRA were also obtained from IRIS.
At the current time, the IRIS agenda identifies the noncancer toxicity values as
being scheduled for update. The update will evaluate systemic toxicity (e.g.,
noncancer health effects) including the oral RfD and inhalation RfC. Any
changes in the IRIS noncancer toxicity values will be evaluated in the next five-
year review.
Dioxin-like PCBs. A subset of PCB congeners is considered to be dioxin-like, that is,
they are structurally similar to dibenzo-p-dioxins, bind to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor,
and cause dioxin-specific biochemical and toxic responses (reviewed in USEPA, 1996).
Several investigators have estimated the carcinogenic potency of these dioxin-like PCB
congeners relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Dioxins, furans, and
dioxin-like PCBs have been associated with numerous adverse health effects, including
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-8
April 2017
-------
cancer, developmental and reproductive effects, as well as immunotoxicity. USEPA has
set a CSF of 150,000 (mg/kg-day)"1 for TCDD, based on liver and respiratory tumors in
chronically-exposed rats (USEPA, 1997).
The 2012 Five Year Review discussed the update to the dioxin-TEFs for dioxin-like
PCBs (USEPA 2010). Since that time, the IRIS program issued a noncancer toxicity
value for dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs. The updated reference dose for dioxin is 7 x 10"10
mg/kg-day. A comparison of the results from the original risk assessment with those
calculated with the updated reference dose for the dioxin-like PCBs show that RME
cancer risks associated with the dioxin-like PCBs are comparable to those from total
PCBs, indicating the dioxin-like PCBs do not enhance the risks from PCB exposure
(USEPA 1996).
Cleanup Levels
There are no ARARs or TBCs for PCBs in fish and sediment. . USEPA determined that
0.05 mg/kg (wet weight in fish fillets) is an acceptable risk-based PCB concentration for
Hudson River fish based on an annual consumption of 51 half-pound meals per year by
an adult. Other target concentrations are 0.2 mg/kg PCBs in fish fillet, which is
protective at a fish consumption rate of one half-pound meal per month, and 0.4 mg/kg
PCBs in fish fillet, which is protective of the average angler who consumes one half-
pound meal every two months. These targets of higher concentrations in fish represent
points at which fish consumption advisories and fishing restrictions might become less
stringent (e.g., the "eat none" advisory for the Upper Hudson may be relaxed as
conditions improve).
With respect to the fish advisories, the New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH) continues to reach out to both people who fish the Hudson and to their
family members. Appendix 13 provides a summary of the NYSDOH outreach and other
activities from 2009 to 2016. NYSDOH continues to work with partners to inform
anglers along the 200-mile site of the advisories. NYSDOH's partners include
recreational fishing associations, marina and boating community representatives,
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-9
April 2017
-------
nutrition educators, neighborhood associations and community group leaders, food pantry
and community food networks, environmental justice advocates, environmental educators
and non-profits, immigrant support networks, local health and municipal officials,
environmental conservation officials, parks and recreation officials, health care provider
representatives, housing authorities and schools and youth programs. Connecting at the
local level, these partners work with NYSDOH to promote awareness of the health
advice, help NYSDOH learn more about who is eating fish from the Hudson River, and
develop educational tools and outreach activities. Grantees work in a variety of settings,
from fishing locations on the river to nutrition programs, clinic waiting rooms,
community events, food pantries, and in programs with students and youth groups. Since
2009, NYSDOH project partners have reached over 5,000 school children and nearly
3,000 adults through environmental programs. Each spring Transport of Rockland
County has collaborated in posting the health advice in English and Spanish on public
buses with an annual ridership of nearly three million people.
NYSDOH also conducted fish consumption surveys along the 200 miles of the Hudson
River that included 1,332 participations. The short fish consumption surveys were
conducted by NYSDOH and their partners (e.g., Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE)
staff) to better understand how individuals learned about the fish consumption advice and
how this information is being applied. NYSDOH learned that many people who fish in
the Hudson also fish in other waters. The popularity of striped bass is also clear from the
survey results. The CCE staff, conducting surveys at health clinics, food banks and a
variety of community settings in Dutchess, Columbia, Greene, Orange and Ulster
Counties, found three-quarters of the people surveyed since 2014 are women under 50
years. The survey highlighted that some people are unaware of the advisories and
continue to consume fish from the Hudson.
Based on the results of the survey, and discussions with participants, NYSDOH:
• Developed displays specific to striped bass to help people understand the
message.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-10
April 2017
-------
• Updated brochures emphasizing how individuals can reduce their exposure to
contaminants. For example, NYSDOH's newest brochures for the Hudson Valley
Region, for each of the thirteen counties that border the Hudson River in the
project area, NYSDOH includes local alternatives of New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) public access water bodies where the
whole family can catch fish that are acceptable for consumption.
• NYSDOH developed a series of county maps that show NYSDEC public access
waters with the health advisories overlaid. The maps serve to highlight the waters
with the general advisory - waters where the whole family can eat up to four fish
meals a month. NYSDOH utilizes local events, where these maps help people see
fishing locations other than the Hudson if their intent is to eat the fish rather than
fish for recreation. This fishing season, through social service providers in Albany
and Rensselaer counties, NYSDOH plans to reach out to families at homeless
shelters and other community spaces, to promote eating fish from healthier waters
than the Hudson
EPA will continue to work with NYSDOH to improve awareness of fish advisories for
the Hudson River and share information on NYSDOH's work with the community.
Remedial Action Objectives
Based on EPA's evaluation of the HHRA data and assumptions as discussed in this
appendix, the human health RAOs identified in the 2002 ROD are still valid and
appropriate for the Site.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
1-11
April 2017
-------
2 ECOLOGICAL RISKS
2.1 Summary of Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Conducted for 2002 ROD
The Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA), completed in 2000, evaluated
multiple assessment endpoints across several trophic levels of the Hudson River aquatic
environment. The results of the BERA supported EPA's decision that a remedial action
was necessary to reduce unacceptable risks to ecological receptors, specifically by
reducing the concentration of PCBs in fish. The risk-based remedial goal for the
ecological exposure pathway is a range from 0.3 to 0.03 mg/kg PCBs in fish (largemouth
bass, whole body), based on the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and
the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for consumption of fish by the river
otter. This remedial goal was selected in the 2002 ROD and is considered protective of all
the ecological receptors evaluated because the river otter was calculated to be at greatest
risk from PCBs at the Site. The previous five-year review (2012) indicated that the
exposure assumptions and toxicity data were still valid. These factors, along with the
remedial goals and remedial action objectives were evaluated as part of this five-year
review. The remainder of this section answers two critical questions related to the current
protectiveness and validity of the selected remedy, specifically:
• Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents; and
• Are the (a) exposure assumptions, (b) toxicity data, (c) cleanup levels, and (d)
remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid?
Question A. Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Regarding the remedy functioning as it pertains to ecological risk, the remedial action
that has been conducted (i.e., dredging) is functioning as intended (i.e., reducing PCB
inventory in the sediment). The ongoing remedial action following the dredging (i.e.,
monitored natural attenuation) is anticipated to meet the RAOs when completed.
Therefore, the remedial actions that are completed or are still being completed are
functioning as intended for the ecological interests at the Site, although remediation goals
have not yet been reached.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-1
April 2017
-------
2.2 Evaluation of Ecological Risks for Question B of the Second Five-Year Review
(a) Expsoure Assumptions: The exposure assumptions that were used in the BERA
were evaluated during this five-year review to determine if they were still valid.
Five exposure parameters were evaluated: body weight, food ingestion rates,
water ingestion rates, sediment ingestion rates, and home range. The RAOs in the
2002 ROD were based on risk calculations for female river otters and female
mink from the BERA (TAMS and Menzie-Cura 2000). Since that time, many
exposure parameters and toxicity reference values (TRVs) have been updated by
the EPA Superfund Headquarters Environmental Response Team (ERT) and used
for BERA. This literature search and review (last update, November 2016)
focused on exposure parameters cited for female piscivorous mammals. The only
exception is the wet weight food ingestion rate for the mink. The BERA used the
average ingestion rate for both sexes in the risk calculationsAverage or mean
exposure parameters were used in the risk calculations and in this comparison.
Table 1 illustrates the effect on the calculated Average Daily Dose (ADD) and
hazard quotient (HQ) of substituting each ERT exposure parameter individually in
the risk calculations for the parameters used in the 2000 BERA. The effect of
using all ERT parameters instead of the 2000 BERA parameters is also shown.
Body Weight
The body weights for mink and river otter used in the BERA were derived from
the 1993 Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA 1993), consultation
with personnel from the New York Museum, and a river otter reintroduction study
conducted by NYSDEC. Body weights for historic specimens collected from the
Hudson River Valley Region were compared with the ranges cited in U.S. EPA
(1993) to determine whether region-specific body weights fell within traditional
ranges for each species.
The ERT exposure parameters were derived from a comprehensive literature
search and review of field and laboratory studies that cite body weights, ingestion
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-2
April 2017
-------
rates, and home range sizes for adult mink and river otters. The field studies are
from various states and regions within the United States. As different studies
report body weights using different statistical measures (means, medians, ranges),
the ERT "average" is the midpoint of all reported body weights. For mink, 34
papers that cited mink body weights were reviewed and incorporated into the ERT
"average." For river otter, 25 papers that cited adult body weights were reviewed
and incorporated. All of the original papers cited in U.S. EPA 1993 were
included in this review.
The body weight used by ERT for female mink (0.816 kg) is slightly (1.7%)
lower than the value used in the BERA (0.83 kg). The body weight for female
otters used by ERT is 5% higher than the value used in the BERA (7.72 kg vs.
7.32 kg).
For the mink, use of a lower body weight would result in a slightly higher
calculated ADD, and slightly higher calculated HQs (i.e., a more conservative risk
estimate). Use of a higher body weight for otter would result in a lower
calculated ADD and HQ (a less conservative risk estimate).
Food Ingestion Rates, kg/day wet or dry weight
The wet weight (ww) food ingestion rates (FIRs) for mink used in the BERA
came from Bleavins and Aulerich (1981). Dry weight (dw) food ingestion rates
were estimated using allometric equations from Nagy (1987).
For mink, ERT reviewed ten laboratory studies that reported daily food
consumption rates. Six laboratory studies or animal care guidelines were
reviewed to estimate daily food consumption for river otters. Dry weight FIRs
were either reported in the study or calculated using moisture contents cited in
U.S. EPA (1993) for the listed dietary components.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-3
April 2017
-------
The ww FIR used by ERT for female mink (0.233 kg/day) is substantially higher
(43%) than the value used in the BERA (0.132 kg/day). The ww FIR for female
otters used by ERT is 31% higher than the value used in the BERA (1.31 versus
0.9 kg/day, respectively). For both species, use of a higher ww FIR would result
in a higher ADD and HQ and a more conservative risk estimate. For mink, the
calculated HQs using the ERT ww FIR would be almost twice as high as the HQs
from the BERA.
The dw FIR used by ERT for female mink (0.074 kg/day) is higher (20%) than
the value used in the BERA (0.059 kg/day). The dw FIR for female otters used
by ERT is 7% lower than the value used in the BERA (0.328 versus 0.353 kg/day,
respectively). For mink, use of a higher dw FIR would result in a higher ADD
(more conservative). For otter, the calculated ADD and HQs using the ERT dw
FIR would be slightly lower (less conservative) than the ADD and HQ calculated
using the BERA FIR.
Water ingestion Rates
The water ingestion rates (WIR) used for mink and otter in the BERA and for
otter used by ERT were calculated using the allometric equation for mammals
developed by Calder and Braun (1983):
WIR = 0.099 * BW0-90
where WIR = water ingestion in liters per day (L/day) and BW = body weight in
kilograms.
Because the female river otter body weight used by ERT is slightly higher than
the body weight used in the BERA, the ERT calculated WIR for otters (0.62
L/day) was slightly higher (4%) than the WIR used in the BERA (0.59 L/day).
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-4
April 2017
-------
For mink, ERT uses WIRs measured in two laboratory studies. The WIR used in
the BERA (0.084 L/day) is 21% higher than the WIR used by ERT, and results in
a higher ADD. However, water ingestion, especially for a highly hydrophobic
contaminant class such as PCBs, has only a very small impact on risk estimates
for both receptors and a negligible effect on the calculated HQ.
Sediment Ingestion Rates
Measured sediment ingestion rates (SIRs) have not been reported for either mink
or otter. The BERA assumed a SIR of 1% of the food ingestion rate for both
mink and river otter. Because sediment concentrations are typically reported on a
dry weight (dw) basis, the SIR was calculated using the dw FIR (0.00059 and
0.00353 kg sediment dw/day for the mink and otter, respectively).
ERT calculates a SIR based upon the amount of sediment entrained in a fish
multiplied by the receptor species FIR. For mink and otter, the estimated SIRs are
0.00012 and 0.00055 kg dw/day, respectively.
The SIR used in the BERA for mink is 80% greater than the ERT SIR estimate,
and the SIR used for river otter is 84% greater than the ERT estimate. Use of a
higher SIR in the BERA results in a higher ADD and calculated HQ, resulting in a
more conservative estimate of risk relative to the estimates that would result from
using the updated SIRs.
Home Range
The BERA reported home range sizes for both species in units of kilometers (km)
stream length. ERT summarized home range sizes from nine studies for mink and
eight studies for otter in units of area (square kilometers) and from three studies
for mink and eight studies for otter in km stream length.
The ERT home range value for mink, reported in units of stream length, is 35%
higher than the value in the BERA (2.93 versus 1.9 km, respectively), while the
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-5
April 2017
-------
ERT home range value for river otter (19.7 km) is almost twice as large as the
BERA value (10 km).
The differences in home range sizes had no effect on risk calculations, as an area
use factor of 1 (continuous spatial exposure) was used in risk calculations for both
species.
Summary of Evaluation of Exposure Assumptions: The values associated with the
five exposure parameters used to estimate risk for piscivorous mammals (mink
and river otters) have been refined since the competition of the BERA for the
2002 ROD. Some of the parameters have increased, while others have decreased.
Use of the currently recommended ERT values for body weight, WIR, and SIR
would have almost no impact on the calculated LOAEL HQs for both mink and
otter. Conversely, the ERT ww FIR is higher for both mink and river otter, and
the ERT dw FIR is higher for mink. Use of these ERT exposure parameters would
result in a more conservative estimate of risk (higher ADD and calculated HQ).
(b) Toxicity Data: The toxicity data that were used in the BERA were evaluated
during this five-year review to determine if they were still valid. The BERA
toxicity data for the mink and river otter were compared to literature values that
are currently used for evaluating exposure to mink and river otter. The LOAEL
toxicity reference value (TRV) of 0.044 mg/kg-BW/day used in the 2000 BERA
was from Restum et al. (1998). ERT uses a LOAEL TRV of 0.033 mg/kg-
BW/day reported in a more recent study (Bursian et al. 2013). Use of a lower
TRV results in a more conservative estimate of risk. EPA evaluated the
relationship between LOAELs and NOAELs in studies that reported both values.
Sixteen studies were reviewed to derive the TRV used in the mink dietary
exposure calculations (see Table 2). Two of the studies reported measured
LOAELs and NOAELs, whereas the remaining 14 studies estimated the NOAEL
by using a factor of 10. The ratios of the LOAEL to NOAEL in the two studies
reporting measured toxicity values indicated a 2.1 to 2.4-fold difference as
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-6
April 2017
-------
opposed to the higher 10-fold difference that was used as a conservative default
ratio when estimating a NOAEL in the final BERA. This suggests a factor of 3
may be an appropriate adjustment for estimating the NOAEL. To summarize,
EPA's review of recent toxicity data suggests that the LOAEL and NOAEL
toxicity values used in the original BERA could be revised to 0.033 and 0.011
mg/kg/day, respectively.
(c) Remedial Goals: Remedial goals were identified in the 2002 ROD to reduce
ecological risk in piscivorous mammals using the mink and river otter as
surrogate receptors. The risk-based remedial goal from the ROD for the
ecological exposure pathway is a range from 0.3 to 0.03 mg/kg PCBs in fish, as
measured by whole-body largemouth bass, based on the LOAEL and NOAEL for
consumption of fish by the river otter. The ecological remedial goal is considered
to be protective of all the ecological receptors evaluated because it was developed
for the river otter, the piscivorous mammal and ecological receptor calculated to
be at greatest risk from PCBs at the Site. In addition, a range of 0.7 to 0.07 mg/kg
PCBs in spottail shiner (whole fish) was developed in the ROD based on the
LOAEL and NOAEL for the mink, a species known to be sensitive to PCBs.
Utilizing the refined exposure parameters and toxicity values presented above, the
risk-based remedial goal range for the otter and risk-based concentration range for
the mink that were developed for the 2002 ROD were recalculated. Specifically,
the recalculated remedial goal range for largemouth bass consumed by the river
otter would be 0.2 to 0.07 mg/kg PCBs in fish compared to 0.3 to 0.03 mg/kg
PCBs in fish as reported in the ROD. The recalculated risk-based concentration
range for spottail shiner consumed by the mink would be 0.34 to 0.11 mg/kg
PCBs in fish compared with 0.7 to 0.07 mg/kg PCBs in fish in the final BERA.
Thus, refinement of the toxicity values and exposure parameters would result in
risk-based ranges of PCBs in largemouth bass and spottail shiner that would be
less uncertain and bring into better focus the ranges of PCBs in fish expected to
be protective of the ecological exposure pathway. The lower bounds of the
updated ranges are not lower than the lower bounds for both ranges identified in
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-7
April 2017
-------
the ROD, and the refinement of toxicity values and recalculation of the ecological
remedial goal range for the river otter and risk-based concentration range for the
mink does not affect the protectiveness determination of the selected remedy with
respect to ecological receptors.
(d) Remedial Action Objectives for Ecological Receptors: Consumption of fish
contaminated with PCBs remains the primary route of exposure for upper trophic
level wildlife species, and the river otter and mink are still considered the most
sensitive wildlife species. Therefore, the remedial action objective to reduce the
risks to ecological receptors by reducing the concentration of PCBs in fish is still
valid.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
2-8
April 2017
-------
3 REFERENCES
Connelly, N.A., and T.L. Brown, and B.A. Knuth. 1996. New York Statewide Angler
Survey. Report 1: Angler Effort and Expenditures. Published by NYSDEC Division of
Fish and Wildlife in October 1997.
Smith, Mary Alice (1996). "Reassessment of the carcinogenicity of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBS)." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 50(6): 567-579
U.S. EPA). 1997a. "Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessment at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, USEPA/630/R-97/001.
U.S. EPA. 1989a, Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8-89/043, July.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I. Human
Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C. USEPA/540/1-89/002, December.
Barclay, B. 1993. "Hudson River Angler Survey." Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.,
Poughkeepsie, New York.
U. S. EPA 1996. "PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to
Environmental Mixtures." Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/P-96/001F
U.S. EPA 1997. "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)". Washington
Office, Washington, DC.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
3-1
April 2017
-------
U. S. EPA. 1997f. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I-III, Office of Research and
Development, USEPA/600/P-95/002Fa, August.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Phase 2 Report Further Site Characterization and Analysis Volume 2f-
Revised Human Health Risk Assessment Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Nov
2000
U.S. EPA 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessment, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. December 2003 OSWER Directive
9285.7-53
U.S. EPA 2010 Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health
Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds.
Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-10/005.
U.S. EPA 2011 Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Office of Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/R-090/052F,
Washington, DC. September 2011.
U.S, EPA 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of
Standard Default Expsoure Factors, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation. Feb 2014 OSWER Directive 9200.1-120
Bleavins, M. R. and R. J. Aulerich. (1981). "Feed consumption and food passage in mink
{Mustela vison) and European ferrets (Mustela putorious furo)" Lab. Anim. Sci. 31: 268-
269.
Bursian, S. J., et al. (2013). "Dietary exposure of mink (Mustela vison) to fish from the
upper Hudson River, New York, USA: Effects on reproduction and offspring growth and
mortality." Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 32(4): 780-793.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
3-2
April 2017
-------
Calder, W. A. and E. J. Braun. (1983). "Scaling of osmotic regulation in mammals and
birds." American Journal of Physiology 244: R601-R606.
Nagy, K. A. (1987). "Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and
birds." Ecological Monographs 57: 111-128.
Restum, J. C., el al. (1998). "Multigenerational study of the effects of consumption of
PCB-contaminated carp from Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, on mink: Effects on mink
reproduction, kit growth, and survival, and selected biological parameters." J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health 54: 343-375.
TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. (2000). Phase 2 Report,
Further Site Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2E - Revised Baseline Ecological
Risk Assessment, Hudson River PCBs Reassessment. For U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. November.
U.S. EPA. (1993). Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of II. Washington,
DC. EPA/600/4-93/187a., United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
3-3
April 2017
-------
Insert
Table 1 Comparison of use of Various Exposure Parameters and Toxicity
Reference Values on Risk Estimates for Female Mink and River Otters
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
3-4
April 2017
-------
Insert
Table 2 Summary of Studies Conducted Evaluating Dietary Toxicity of PCBs
to Mammals
Appendix 11 Human Health and Ecological Risks
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five Year Review
3-5
April 2017
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Use of Various
Exposure Parameters and Toxicity Reference
Values on Risk Estimates for Female Mink and
River Otters
Exposure
Parameter
Source
NOAEL
(mg/kg/day)
HQ
NOAEL
LOAEL
(mg/kg/day)
HQ
LOAEL
Concentration
in
Sediment
(mg/kg d.w.)
Sediment
Ingestion Rate
(kg/day dw)
Female Mink, fish cone 0.7 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.0044
9.4
0.044
0.9
5.0
0.00059
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.0044
1.7
0.044
0.2
5.0
0.00059
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.0033
10.2
().(.)33
1.0
5.0
0.00012
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.0033
1.2
0.033
0.1
5.0
0.00012
All ERT parameters, 34%) fish, NOAEL AF = 3
0.011
1.0
0.033
0.3
5.0
0.00012
Exposure
Parameter
Source
NOAEL
(mg/kg/day)
HQ
NOAEL
LOAEL
(mg/kg/day)
HQ
LOAEL
Concentration
in
Sediment
(mg/kg d.w.)
Sediment
Ingestion Rate
(kg/day dw)
Female Otter, fish cone 0.3 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA
0.0044
8.4
0.044
0.8
5.0
0.00353
Hudson River BERA
0.0044
1.4
0.044
0.1
5.0
0.00353
All ERT parameters
0.0033
10.4
0.033
1.0
5.0
0.00055
All ERT parameters
0.0033
1.1
0.033
0.1
5.0
0.00055
All ERT parameters, NOAEL AF=3
0.011
1.1
0.033
0.4
5.0
0.00055
1 Benthic concentration is zeroed out; RAO is
based on dietary exposure to forage fish
2 Water concentration is ARAR for surface water
from the ROD; federal MCL
AF = Adjustment factor
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Use of Various
Exposure Parameters and Toxicity Reference
Values on Risk Estimates for Female Mink and
River Otters
Exposure
Parameter
Source
Dose
Sediment
(mg/kg/day)
Concentration
in
Water 2
(mg/Liter)
Water
Ingestion Rate
(L/day)
Dose
Water
(mg/kg/day)
Concentration
in
Fish
(mg/kg w.w.)
% of diet fish
Female Mink, fish cone 0.7 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.00355
0.0005
0.084
0.0001
0.700
0.340
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.00355
0.0005
0.084
0.0001
0.070
0.340
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.00074
0.0005
0 ()(>()
0.0000
0.340
0.340
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.00074
0.0005
0.066
0.0000
0.034
0.340
All ERT parameters, 34%) fish, NOAEL AF = 3
0.00074
0.0005
0.066
0.0000
0.100
0.340
Exposure
Parameter
Source
Dose
Sediment
(mg/kg/day)
Concentration
in
Water
(mg/Liter)
Water
Ingestion Rate
(L/day)
Dose
Water
(mg/kg/day)
Concentration
in
Fish
(mg/kg w.w.)
Body
Weight
(kg)
Female Otter, fish cone 0.3 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA
0.00000
0.0005
0.594
0.0000
0.300
7.32
Hudson River BERA
0.00241
0.0005
0.594
0.0000
0.030
7.32
All ERT parameters
0.00036
0.0005
0.620
0.0000
0.200
-J
All ERT parameters
0.00036
0.0005
0.620
0.0000
0.020
7.72
All ERT parameters, NOAEL AF=3
0.00036
0.0005
0.620
0.0000
0.070
7.72
1 Benthic concentration is zeroed out; RAO is
based on dietary exposure to forage fish
2 Water concentration is ARAR for surface water
from the ROD; federal MCL
AF = Adjustment factor
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Use of Various
Exposure Parameters and Toxicity Reference
Values on Risk Estimates for Female Mink and
River Otters
Exposure
Parameter
Source
Concentration
in
benthos 1
(mg/kg w.w.)
%o of diet benthos
Body
Weight
(kg)
Food
Ingestion Rate
(kg/day ww)
Dose
diet
(mg/kg/day)
Female Mink, fish cone 0.7 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.000
0.165
0.83
0.132
0.037850602
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.000
0.165
0.83
0.1
2
0.00378506
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.000
0.165
0.816
0.2
0.033008333
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.000
0.165
0.816
0.2
0.003300833
All ERT parameters, 34%) fish, NOAEL AF = 3
0.000
0.165
0.816
0.2
0.009708333
Exposure
Parameter
Source
Food
Ingestion Rate
(kg/day ww)
Dose
fish
(mg/kg/day)
Total
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Reference for TRVs
Female Otter, fish cone 0.3 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA
0.9
0.036885246
0.0369
Restumetal. 1998
Hudson River BERA
0.9
0.003688525
0.0061
Restumetal. 1998
All ERT parameters
1.31
0.033937824
0.0343
Bursian et al. 2013
All ERT parameters
1.31
0.003393782
0.0038
Bursian et al. 2013
All ERT parameters, NOAEL AF=3
1.31
0.011878238
0.0123
Bursian et al. 2013
1 Benthic concentration is zeroed out; RAO is
based on dietary exposure to forage fish
2 Water concentration is ARAR for surface water
from the ROD; federal MCL
AF = Adjustment factor
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Use of Various
Exposure Parameters and Toxicity Reference
Values on Risk Estimates for Female Mink and
River Otters
Exposure
Parameter
Source
Total
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Reference for TRVs
Female Mink, fish cone 0.7 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.0415
Restum et al. 1998
Hudson River BERA, 34% fish
0.0074
Restum et al. 1998
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.0338
Bursian et al. 2013
All ERT parameters, 34% fish
0.0041
Bursian et al. 2013
All ERT parameters, 34% fish, NOAEL AF = 3
0.0105
Bursian et al. 2013
Exposure
Parameter
Source
Female Otter, fish cone 0.3 mg/kg ww
Hudson River BERA
Hudson River BERA
All ERT parameters
All ERT parameters
All ERT parameters, NOAEL AF=3
1 Benthic concentration is zeroed out; RAO is
based on dietary exposure to forage fish
2 Water concentration is ARAR for surface water
from the ROD; federal MCL
AF = Adjustment factor
-------
Table 2. Summary of Studies Conducted Evaluating Dietary Toxicity of PCBs to Mammals
Mammals
NOAEL
(mg/kg/day)
LOAEL
(mg/kg/day)
NOAEL type
LOAEL:
NOAEL ratio
Aroclor
Test species
Exposure Duration
Effect
Reference
0.169
0.414
Measured
2.4
Housatonic River fish
Mink
11 weeks prior to mating
through weaning
Decreased kit survival and growth
Bursian et al. 2006
Measured..
2.1
0.0033
0.033
(0.34 jug/g diet)
Estimated
Diets containing 2.5 to
20% Hudson River fish
Mink
Two months prior to
mating through
20% kit mortality at six weeks of age
Bursian et al. 2013b
0.0044
0.044
Estimated
Saginaw-Bay carp
Mink
Multigeneration
Decreased kit growth
Restum etal. 1998
0.008
0.08
Estimated
Clophen A50
Mink
Two reproductive seasons
Fewer kits per mated female, decreased kit survival
Brunstrom et al. 2001
0.01
0.1
Estimated
Aroclor 1254
Mink
6 months
Growth rate of kits
Wren etal. 1987
0.0134
0.134
Estimated
Saginaw-Bay, Lake
Huron carp
Mink
12 weeks
Reduced kit survival
Heaton et al. 2001
0.014
0.14
Estimated
Aroclor 1254
mink
160 days
12.5% adult mortality
1 IdldilUW dilU I'vcliSLclU
0.0223
0.223
Estimated
Diets containing 2.5 to
20% Hudson River fish
Mink
Two months prior to
mating through
20%) jaw lesions
Bursian et al. 2013a
0.044
0.44
Estimated
Aroclor 1254
Mink
9 months prior to whelping
through four weeks kit age
Almost complete reproductive failure (two of seven mated females whelped, one live kit produced; 8
of 8 control females whelped, 28 live kits produced)
Aulerich and Ringer
1977
0.054
0.538
Estimated
Clophen A50
2 weeks prior to mating to
4 to 6 weeks post-mating
Number of placentas with viable fetuses significantly lower in PCB-exposed group
Backlin etal. 1998
0.11
1.1
Estimated
Aroclor 1254
Mink
Six months
95% reduction in number of kits born alive
1977
0.11
1.1
Estimated
PCBs
Mink
8.5 months
Complete reproductive failure
Aulerich and Ringer
1977
0.162
1.62
Estimated
Aroclor 1268
Mink
Two months prior to
mating unitl kits 6 weeks
old
LC20 for kit mortality
Folland etal. 2016
0.059
PCBs
Mink
NA
EC20, Production of surviving kits. Mink-specific dose-response curve. Results from ^peer-
reviewed papers with 50 dose groups, all of which tested reproductive toxicity of PCBs to mink.
Fuchsman et al. 2008
0.17
PCBs
Mink
NA
EC50, Production of surviving kits. Mink-specific dose-response curve. Results from ^peer-
reviewed papers with 50 dose groups, all of which tested reproductive toxicity of PCBs to mink.
Fuchsman et al. 2008
References:
Aulerich, R.J. and R.K. Ringer. 1977. A Current Status of PCB Toxicity to Mink, and Effect on Their Reproduction.^ ^rc/z. Environ. Contam. Toxicol, 6:279-292.
Backlin, B. M., et al. (1998). "Expression of the insulin-like growth factor II gene in polychlorinated biphenyl exposed female mink (Mustela vison) aid their fetuses." 'J. Clin. Pathol: Mol. Pathol. 51: 43-47.
Brunstrom, B., Lund, B.O., Bergman, A, Asplund, L., Athanassiadis, I., Athanasiadou, M,. Jensen, S. and J. Orberg. 2001. Reproductive toxicity in mink (Mustela vison) chronically exposed to environmentally relevant polychlorinated biphenyl
concentrations. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20(10):2318-2327.
Bursian, S. J., C. Sharma, R. J. Aulerich, B. Yamini, R.R Mitchell, C.E. Orazio, D.R.J. Moore, S. Svirsky and D.E. Tillitt. 2006. Dietary exposure of mink (Mustela vison) to fish from the Housatonic River, Berkshire County, Massachusetts, USA:
Effects on reproduction, kit growth, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25(6): 1533-1540.
Bursian, S. J., J. Kern, R. E. Remington, J. E. Link and S. D. Fitzgerald. (2013a). "Dietary exposure of mink (Mustela vison) to fish from the Upper Hudson River, New York, USA: Effects on organ mass and pathology."
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 32(4): 794-801.
Bursian, S. J., J. Kern, R. E. Remington, J. E. Link and S. D. Fitzgerald. (2013b). "Dietary exposure of mink (Mustela vison) to fish from the upper Hudson River, New York, USA: Effects on reproduction and offspring growth and mortality." Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 32(4): 780-793.
Folland, W. R., et al. (2016). "Growth and reproductive effects from dietary exposure to Aroclor 1268 in mink (Neovison vison), a surrogate for marine mammals." Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35(3): 604-618
Fuchsman, P. C., et al. (2008). "Effectiveness of various exposure metrics in defining dose-response relationships for mink (Mustela vison) exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls." Arch Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 54: 130-144.
-------
Table 2 References (Continued)
Heaton, S.N., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillitt, J. A. Render, P.D. Jones, D.A. Verbrugge, T.J. Kubiak, and R.J. Aulerich. 1995. Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. 1. Effects on Reproduction and Survival, and the Potential
Risks to Wild Mink Populations. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 28:334-343.
Linzey, A. V. (1987). "Effects of chronic poly chlorinated biphenyls exposure on reproductive success of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus)." Arch Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16: 455-460
Linzey, A. V. (1988). "Effects of chronic poly chlorinated biphenyls on growth and reproduction of second generation white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus)." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17(1): 39-45
McCoy, G., et al. (1995). "Chronic polychlorinated biphenyls exposure on three generations of oldfield mine (Peromyscus polionotus): Effects on reproduction, growth, and body residues." Arch Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28: 431-435.
Platanow, N.S. andL.H. Karstad. 1973. Dietary Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyls on Mink. Can. J. Comp. Med, 37:391-400.
Restum, J.C., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, J. A. Render, W.G. Helferich, E.B. Shipp, D.A. Verbrugge, and R.J.. Aulerich. 1998. Multigenerational Study of the Effects of Consumption of PCB-Contaminated Carp from Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, on Mink. 1:
Effects on Mink Reproduction, Kit Growth, and Survival, and Selected Biological Parameters. J. Toxicol. Env. Health, 54:343-375.
Spencer, F. (1982). "An assessment of the reproductive toxic potential of Aroclor 1254 in female Sprague-Dawley rats." Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28: 290-297
Wren, C. D., et al. (1987a). "The effects of polychlorinated biphenyls and methylmercury singly and in combination, on mink. I. Uptake and toxic responses." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16: 441-447.
Wren, C. D., et al. (1987b). "The effects of polychlorinated biphenyls and methylmercury singly and in combination, on mink. II. Reproduction and kit development." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16: 449-454.
------- |