oEPA
United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-24-009
Protection Agency 4304T September 2024
Acute Freshwater Aquatic Life Benchmarks
for Eight Data-Limited PFAS:
PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA, PFBS, PFHxS,
8:2 FTUCA, and 7:3 FTCA
September 2024
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Ecological Risk Assessment Branch
Washington, D.C.
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
List of Appendices iii
List of Tables iii
List of Figures v
Project Team vii
Acronyms viii
Notices ix
Foreword xi
Executive Summary xii
1 Background 1
2 Introduction to ICE 5
3 Application of ICE with Selected PFAS 8
4 Effects Analysis for Aquatic Life 11
4.1 Summary and Evaluation of Available Empirical Toxicity Test Data 11
4.2 Prediction of Species Sensitivity Using ICE Models 15
5 Derivation of Acute Water Quality Benchmarks for Selected PFAS 17
5.1 Approach 17
5.1.1 Use of Empirical and ICE Data 17
5.1.2 Application Factor to Adjust for Additional Unrepresented Sensitive Species
Data 19
5.2 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA) 21
5.3 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) 27
5.4 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) 33
5.5 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA) 39
5.6 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS) 48
5.7 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid (PFHxS).. 57
5.8 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Hexadecafluoro-2-decenoic Acid
(8:2 I I I ( A) 63
5.9 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Pentadecafluorodecanoic Acid
(7:3 FTC A) 74
5.10 Summary of Benchmarks for Evaluated PFAS Substances and Effects
Characterization 85
5.10.1 Summary and Evaluation of Benchmark Values 85
5.10.2 Comparison of Benchmarks to Other Calculation Methods for Data-Limited
PFAS 91
5.10.3 Summary and Conclusions 95
6 References 99
Appendices 102
ii
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A Quantitatively Acceptable Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies A-l
Appendix B Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Freshwater Acute Toxicity
Studies B-l
Appendix C Qualitative Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies C-l
Appendix D Unused Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies D-l
Appendix E ICE Models Available in Web-ICE v4.0 for Freshwater Predicted Species
Based on Surrogates with Measured Toxicities E-l
Appendix F Derivation of PFAS Benchmarks using Scaled Data F-l
Appendix G PFAS Acute Benchmark Calculations using a Data Binning Approach G-l
List of Tables
Table Ex-1. Acute Freshwater Aquatic Life Benchmarks for Eight PFAS xv
Table 3-1. Measured Surrogate Species Sensitivity Values and Number of Available ICE
Models for Eight PFAS 8
Table 4-1. Summary Table of PFAS Forms and Associated CAS Numbers Identified for the
Evaluation of Available Empirical Data 11
Table 4-2. Number of Acute Genus and Species Level Mean Values in the Empirical Toxicity
Datasets and Freshwater Minimum Data Requirements Fulfilled per the Aquatic
Life Criteria Guidelines for the Eight PFAS 15
Table 5-1. Application Factors Applied to Adjust for Additional Unrepresented Sensitive
Species Data 21
Table 5-2. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBA 23
Table 5-3. Ranked PFBA Genus Mean Acute Values 25
Table 5-4. PFBA Protective Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark 26
Table 5-5. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity of PFHxA 29
Table 5-6. Ranked PFHxA Genus Mean Acute Values 31
Table 5-7. PFHxA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark 32
Table 5-8. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFNA 35
Table 5-9. Ranked PFNA Genus Mean Acute Values 37
Table 5-10. PFNA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark 38
Table 5-11. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFDA 41
Table 5-12. Ranked PFDA Genus Mean Acute Values 45
Table 5-13. PFDA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark 47
Table 5-14. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBS 51
Table 5-15. Ranked PFBS Genus Mean Acute Values 55
Table 5-16. PFBS Protective Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark 56
Table 5-17. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFHxS 59
Table 5-18. Ranked PFHxS Genus Mean Acute Values 61
in
-------
Table 5-19. PFHxS Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark 62
Table 5-20. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 8:2 FTUCA 66
Table 5-21. Ranked 8:2 FTUCA Genus Mean Acute Values 71
Table 5-22. 8:2 FTUCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark 73
Table 5-23. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 7:3 FTCA 77
Table 5-24. Ranked 7:3 FTCA Genus Mean Acute Values 82
Table 5-25. 7:3 FTCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark 84
Table 5-26. Acute Freshwater Benchmarks for Eight PFAS (mg/L, ppm) 87
Table 5-27. Summary of Data Inputs, MDRs Fulfilled and Benchmark Outcomes Using the
Extrapolation and Scaled Approach when Web-ICE Input PFAS Values Exceed
Model Range 89
Table 5-28. Comparison of PFAS Chain Length to Perfluorocarboxylic and Perfluorosulfonic
Acid Benchmarks and PFOA and PFOS Acute Criteria Values 90
Table 5-29. Comparison of Benchmark Outcomes with Acute Benchmarks Calculated Based
on Approach by Giddings et al. (2019) (Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines and SSD
Generator-Based Values) 93
Table 5-30. Comparison of Benchmark Outcomes with Water Quality-Based Ecological
Screening Values Calculated by Grippo et al. (2021) Using the Great Lakes
Initiative (GLI) Approach 95
Table 5-31. Summary of the EPA Acute Benchmark Values and Acute Values Calculated
Using Alternative Methods 98
Table E-l. All ICE Models Selected for the Derivation of PFAS Benchmarks E-l
Table F-l. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBA using the
scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated F-4
Table F-2. Ranked PFBA Genus Mean Acute Values F-8
Table F-3. PFBA Protective Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark F-9
Table F-4. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFHxA using the
scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated F-12
Table F-5. Ranked PFHxA Genus Mean Acute Values F-16
Table F-6. PFHxA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-17
Table F-7. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFNA using the
scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated F-20
Table F-8. Ranked PFNA Genus Mean Acute Values F-24
Table F-9. PFNA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-25
Table F-10. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFDA using the
scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated F-28
Table F-l 1. Ranked PFDA Genus Mean Acute Values F-34
Table F-12. PFDA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-36
Table F-13. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBS using the
scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated F-39
iv
-------
Table F-14. Ranked PFBS Genus Mean Acute Values F-48
Table F-15. PFBS Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-50
Table F-16. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFHxS using the
scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated F-53
Table F-17. Ranked PFHxS Genus Mean Acute Values F-55
Table F-18. PFHxS Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-56
Table F-19. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 8:2 FTUCA using
the scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated. ..F-59
Table F-20. Ranked 8:2 FTUCA Genus Mean Acute Values F-65
Table F-21. 8:2 FTUCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-67
Table F-22. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 7:3 FTCA using
the scaling approach for data outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated. ..F-70
Table F-23. Ranked 7:3 FTCA Genus Mean Acute Values F-76
Table F-24. 7:3 FTCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark F-78
Table F-25. Acute Freshwater Benchmarks for Eight PFAS F-80
Table G-l. Acute LCsos, SMAVs, normalized Danio rerio equivalent values and rank of
SMAV D. rerio equivalent values for the sulfonic acid PFAS G-5
Table G-2. Acute LCsos, SMAVs, normalized Daphnia magna equivalent values and rank
of SMAV D. magna equivalent values for carboxylic acid PFAS G-l
Table G-3. Results of lognormal regression analysis of combined PFAS group SSDs based
on key species equivalents and using the EPA's SSD Generator G-10
Table G-4. Calculated freshwater FAV based on four lowest SMAV key species
equivalents for sulfonic acid PFAS G-10
Table G-5. Calculated freshwater FAV based on four lowest SMAV key species
equivalents for carboxylic acid PFAS G-10
Table G-6. PFAS acute benchmarks for individual PFAS within sulfonic and carboxylic
acid groups calculated using approach presented by Giddings et al. (2019):
Summary of values determined from SSDs derived using Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines-based and SSD Generator-based values G-l 1
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Example of ICE Model for Rainbow Trout (surrogate) and Atlantic Salmon
(predicted) 7
Figure 3-1. Example Calculation for Daphnia magna PFBA Toxicity Data Based on
Extrapolation and Scaled Approaches 10
Figure 4-1. Chemical Structures of Selected PFAS 12
Figure 5-1. Ranked Acute PFBA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 27
v
-------
Figure 5-2. Ranked Acute PFHxA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculations 33
Figure 5-3. Ranked Acute PFNA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 39
Figure 5-4. Ranked Acute PFDA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 48
Figure 5-5. Ranked Acute PFBS GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 57
Figure 5-6. Ranked Acute PFHxS GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 63
Figure 5-7. Ranked Acute 8:2 FTUCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 74
Figure 5-8. Ranked Acute 7:3 FTCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation 85
Figure F-l. Ranked Acute PFBA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation F-10
Figure F-2. Ranked Acute PFHxA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculations F-l 8
Figure F-3. Ranked Acute PFNA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation F-26
Figure F-4. Ranked Acute PFDA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation F-37
Figure F-5. Ranked Acute PFBS GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation F-51
Figure F-6. Ranked Acute PFHxS GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation F-57
Figure F-7. Ranked Acute 8:2 FTUCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute
Benchmark Calculation F-68
Figure F-8. Ranked Acute 7:3 FTCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation F-79
Figure G-l. Species sensitivity distributions for sulfonic acid PFAS based on Danio rerio
equivalents, using the EPA's SSD Generator (left panel - A) or the Aquatic Life
Criteria Guidelines procedure (right panel - B) G-l2
Figure G-2. Species sensitivity distributions for carboxylic acid PFAS based on Daphnia
magna equivalents, using the EPA's SSD Generator (left panel - A) or the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines procedure (right panel - B) G-l3
vi
-------
Project Team
Technical Analysis Leads:
Mike Elias, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Ecological Risk Assessment Branch Division, Washington, DC (Lead)*
Kathryn Gallagher, Branch Chief, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health
and Ecological Criteria Division, Ecological Risk Assessment Branch Division, Washington, DC
Interspecies Correlation Estimate Model Contributors:
Crystal Lilavois, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measuring and
Modeling, Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Gulf Breeze, FL
Sandy Raimondo, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measuring
and Modeling, Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Gulf Breeze, FL
Reviewers:
Colleen Flaherty, Division Director, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health
and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC
*Please contact Mike Elias at Elias.mike@epa.gov for any questions.
vii
-------
Acronyms
AWQC
CAS
CWA
DER
ECOTOX
ECx
EPA
FAV
7:3 FTCA
8:2 FTUCA
GMAV
hpf
ICE
LCx
LOECs
MDRs
MSE
NAMS
NOECs
OCSPP
ORD
OW
PFAS
PFBA
PFBS
PFDA
PFHxA
PFHxS
PFNA
PFOA
PFOS
SMAV
SOP
SSD
U.S.
web-ICE
WWTPs
National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Chemical Abstracts Service
Clean Water Act
Data Evaluation Record
ECOTOXicology database
Effect concentration at x percent level
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Final Acute Value
2H,2H,3H,3H-Pefluorodecanoic acid
2H-Perfluoro-2-decenoic acid
genus mean acute value
hours post fertilization
Interspecies Correlation Estimation
Lethal concentration at x percent level
Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations
minimum data requirements
Mean square error
New Approach Methods
No Observed Effect Concentrations
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Office of Research and Development
Office of Water
per- and polyfluorinated substances
Perfluorobutanoic acid
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
Perfluorodecanoic acid
Perfluorohexanoic acid
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid, pentadecafluoro-l-octanoic acid,
pentadecafluoro-n-octanoic acid, octanoic acid, pentadecafluoro-,
perfluorocaprylic acid, pentadecafluorooctanoic acid, perfluoroalkyl
carboxylic acid or perfluoroheptanecarboxylic acid
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid or perfluorooctane sulfonate
Species Mean Acute Value
standard operating procedure
species sensitivity distribution
United States
Web-based Interspecies Correlation Estimation
wastewater treatment plants
Vlll
-------
This document provides information that states and authorized tribes may consider in
their water quality protection programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect freshwater
aquatic life from the acute effects of eight individual per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
substances: Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA),
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
(PFBS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Hexadecafluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA),
and Pentadecafluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA). Toxicity data for these eight PFAS are limited
relative to recommended data requirements traditionally used to develop ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC) for the protection of aquatic life. Therefore, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) derived acute PFAS aquatic life freshwater benchmark values under
Section 304(a)(2) of the CWA using the best available data, as informational values that states
and Tribes may consider in their water quality protection programs, including establishing their
water quality criteria. While this document contains the EPA's scientific analyses regarding
benchmark values for ambient freshwater concentrations of these eight PFAS protective of
aquatic life, this document does not substitute for the CWA or the EPA's regulations; nor is this
document or the benchmarks values for the PFAS it presents a regulation itself. Thus, this
document does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations, or impose legally binding
requirements on the EPA, states, Tribes, or the regulated community. It cannot be finally
determinative of the issues addressed. This document has been approved for publication by the
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2024-08/pfas-report-2024.pdf
x
-------
Foreword
This document presents acute freshwater benchmark values for aquatic life in ambient
water based upon consideration of all available toxicity information relating to the acute effects
of eight individual per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances on freshwater aquatic
organisms: Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), Perfluorononanoic
acid (PFNA), Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS),
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Hexadecafluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA), and
Pentadecafluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA). The EPA developed this document to provide
information that states and authorized Tribes may consider in their water quality protection
programs.
Deborah G. Nagle
Director, Office of Science and Technology
XI
-------
Executive Summary
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are organic, human-made chemical
compounds composed of an alkyl chain bound to multiple fluorine atoms. There are estimated to
be over 3,000 PFAS present in the global marketplace, that are used in a variety of specialized
applications, including surface coatings and a variety of other industrial and commercial
products (Wang et al. 2017). In addition to Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS), for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently
developed Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA 2024b,c), the EPA
recognizes that there may be thousands of other PFAS present in the environment. The EPA
(2024b,c) provides a detailed discussion of the sources, occurrence, fate and transport of PFOA,
PFOS and other PFAS in the environment.
The EPA has developed acute freshwater aquatic life acute ambient water quality
benchmarks for eight selected polyfluorinated substances. The eight chemicals for which acute
benchmarks were developed are: Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), Perfluorohexanoic acid
(PFHxA), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Hexadecafluoro-2-
decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA), and Pentadecafluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA). These eight
chemicals were selected based on interest by stakeholders and aquatic toxicity data availability.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) supports the protection of U.S. waters by helping to ensure
that aquatic species have clean water to live in. States, Tribes, or the EPA may establish
concentration limits of pollutants that will ensure that fish and other aquatic species can live,
grow, and reproduce. CWA Section 304(a) directs the EPA to develop and publish water quality
criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge.
xii
-------
National recommended ambient water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life
establish chemical concentrations (magnitude) that are averaged over a given time period
(duration) and should not be exceeded more than once during a specified time period
(frequency). The EPA's 304(a)(1) criteria recommendations generally follow the Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses (hereafter "Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines" (U.S. EPA 1985). The Aquatic Life
Criteria Guidelines recommend toxicity data for a minimum of eight families of aquatic animals
be used in developing aquatic life criteria to protect aquatic ecosystems as a whole.
Aquatic life benchmarks, developed under 304(a)(2) of the CWA, are informational
values that the EPA generates when there are limited high quality toxicity data available and data
gaps exist for several families of aquatic organisms. Aquatic life benchmarks provide
information that states and Tribes may consider in their water quality protection programs. In
developing aquatic life benchmarks, data gaps may be filled using new approach methods
(NAMs), such as computer-based toxicity estimation tools (e.g., the EPA's Web-ICE; Version
4.0) or other new approach methods intended to reduce reliance on animal-based testing
(https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/epa-new-approach-methods-work-plan-reducing-use-
vertebrate-animals-chemical). including the use of read-across estimates based on other
chemicals with similar structures. The EPA's aquatic life benchmark values are not regulatory,
nor do they automatically become part of a state's water quality standards.
Because direct empirical data are more limited for the eight PFAS evaluated within this
document and do not fulfill MDRs as described by the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S.
EPA 1985), the EPA developed acute protective benchmarks for these eight PFAS using
available freshwater species empirical test data in conjunction with the application of the EPA's
-------
peer-reviewed web-based Interspecies Correlation Estimate (ICE) tool (Web-ICE; Version 4.0;
https://www.epa.gov/webice/) (Raimondo et al. 2010). ICE models support the derivation of
acute values, and do not currently support the derivation of chronic values. This document
accordingly focuses on the derivation of acute aquatic life benchmarks. These acute aquatic life
benchmarks, developed using the direct empirical and ICE (estimated) data for these chemicals,
were calculated by applying methods described in the EPA Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines
(U.S. EPA 1985).
In addition to addressing data limitations through NAMs, the EPA also developed
application factors to account for species that are known to show markedly greater sensitivity to
PFOA and PFOS. Specifically, Soucek et al. (2023) and Razak et al. (2023) indicated the mayfly,
Neocloeon tricmgulifer, and the cladoceran, Moina micrura, are markedly more sensitive to
PFOA and PFOS relative to other species tested. The EPA accordingly derived the adjustment
factors from the available PFOA and PFOS data and applied them to the eight PFAS benchmarks
to account for greater sensitivity of these species. The inclusion of the application factors protect
the many untested species in the environment, some of which may be similarly sensitive to these
PFAS as the mayfly and cladoceran species noted above. Development of these PFAS
benchmarks reflects goals in the EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap and aligns with the Agency's
intention to reduce the use of additional animal testing through application of NAMs. They
provide information to states and Tribes regarding protective values for aquatic life for these
eight data-limited PFAS.
This document describes the process used and results of a systematic review of available
direct empirical toxicity data for aquatic organisms identified via the EPA's literature search for
the eight selected PFAS substances, inclusive of their anionic, acid, and ammonium salt forms.
xiv
-------
The derived acute benchmark values are summarized for each of the eight evaluated PFAS in
Table Ex-1. These concentrations are expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera
exposed to the listed PFAS under short term conditions of one-hour of duration, if the one-hour
average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years. However, because only limited
toxicity test data were available for these eight chemicals and aquatic toxicity was estimated for
some taxa to develop these benchmarks, the values are somewhat less certain than national
recommended Aquatic Life AWQC developed using more robust empirical data sets (i.e., those
that meet the MDRs according to the EPA's Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines). Further, while the
eight MDRs were fulfilled for six of the PFAS chemicals when direct empirical and ICE data
were combined, only seven of the eight MDRs were fulfilled for PFBS and only six of the eight
MDRs were fulfilled for PFHxS when data were combined, and there is considered to be greater
uncertainty associated with these benchmark values.
Table Ex-1. Acute Freshwater Aquatic Life Benchmarks for Eight PFAS.
Chemical
PFBA
PFHxA
PFNA
PFDA
PFBS
PFHxS
8:2
FTUCA
7:3
FTC A
Magnitude1
5.3
4.8
0.65
0.50
5.0
0.21
0.037
0.012
Duration
One hour average
Frequency
Not to be exceeded more than once in three years on average
1 Values expressed as mg/L, or ppm.
The EPA additionally explored the application of a data "binning" approach, used by
Giddings et al. (2019) for pyrethroids, as an exploratory approach for deriving protective acute
aquatic life values for grouped perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids and grouped perfluoroalkyl
sulfonic acids. This approach is based on combining chemicals with similar modes of action to
provide more robust datasets to support value derivation in data-limited situations. The EPA
followed this methodology to explore the calculation of protective benchmark values for six of
xv
-------
the PFAS, based on the combined perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid (PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA)
and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid (PFBS, PFHxS) groupings, that were used to support value
derivation.
xvi
-------
1 Background
This document describes the development of acute water quality benchmarks to protect
freshwater aquatic life from acute toxic effects of eight PFAS substances and their related forms:
• Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)(CAS# 375224, 45048622, 2218544)
• Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)(CAS# 307244, 92612527)
• Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)(CAS# 375951)
• Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)(CAS# 335762)
• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)(CAS# 375735, 108427527, 29420493)
• Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)(CAS# 355464, 108427538, 3871996, 82382125)
• 2H-Perfluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA)(CAS# 70887842)
• 2H,2H,3H,3H-Pefluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA)(CAS# 812704)
These eight chemicals were selected based on interest by stakeholders and aquatic toxicity test
data availability. Notably, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) published a set of draft
Ecological Screening Values (Grippo et al. 2021) for six of these substances (PFBA, PFHxA,
PFNA, PFDA, and PFHxS) based on stated concerns about the historic release of these
substances at DOD facilities. The ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase (ECOTOX;
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/). a curated source of high-quality toxicity data for aquatic life,
terrestrial plants, and wildlife, was also searched to identify PFAS, besides PFOA and PFOS,
that have some of the greatest numbers of empirical studies available to support benchmark
development.
In addition to PFOA and PFOS, for which the EPA has recently developed final Aquatic
Life AWQC, the EPA is aware of thousands of other PFAS chemicals that may be present in the
environment. The above eight chemicals were selected to represent a range of PFAS that are
present in aquatic ecosystems and of concern to stakeholders (e.g., states, Tribes, DOD. Another
important consideration for selection was the availability of both acute direct empirical and ICE
model toxicity data for these chemicals.
1
-------
The EPA typically follows the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (U.S. EPA 1985),
which requires toxicity data for a minimum of eight families be available to fulfill taxonomic
MDRs to calculate freshwater Aquatic Life AWQC. The MDR groups represent taxa with
different ecological, trophic, taxonomic and functional characteristics in aquatic ecosystems, and
are intended to collectively represent the diversity and range of sensitivity of species within an
aquatic community. The MDRs, as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines, consist of
the following representative taxa:
a) Family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
b) Second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally
important warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
c) Third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an
amphibian, etc.)
d) Planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
e) Benthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
f) Insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
g) Family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida,
Mollusca, etc.)
h) Family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented
For some contaminants, particularly those with newer or novel chemistries and emerging
contaminants, these MDRs often cannot be met, and an alternative approach is necessary to
provide information to states and Tribes under CWA Section 304(a). In this case, empirical acute
data for these eight PFAS fulfill some but not all of these MDRs. Accordingly, the EPA applied
the peer reviewed Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) models (Raimondo et al. 2010,
2024) to estimate acute toxicity data to fulfill MDRs for which direct empirical toxicity data are
not available. ICE models support the derivation of acute values, and do not currently support the
derivation of chronic values and/or the values associated with potential bioaccumulative effects.
2
-------
This document accordingly focuses on the derivation of acute aquatic life benchmarks. The EPA
has previously used this same approach to derive final acute estuarine/marine benchmarks for
PFOA and PFOS (U.S. EPA 2024b,c).
As noted above, the EPA used the acute empirical test data for these chemicals
supplemented with the ICE values derived for the missing MDRs to derive acute freshwater
benchmark recommendations for aquatic life using calculation procedures provided in the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The EPA also developed application factors
to account for species that are known to show markedly greater sensitivity to PFOA and PFOS.
Specifically, Soucek et al. (2023) and Razak et al. (2023) indicated the mayfly, Neocloeon
tricmgulifer, and the cladoceran, Moina mi crura, are markedly more sensitive to PFOA and
PFOS relative to other species tested. The EPA accordingly derived the adjustment factors from
the available PFOA and PFOS data and applied them to the eight PFAS benchmarks to account
for greater sensitivity of these species. The inclusion of the application factors protect the many
untested species in the environment, some of which may be similarly sensitive to these PFAS as
the mayfly and cladoceran species noted above. The above approaches are consistent with the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines "good science" clause, the EPA's interest in providing useful
information to states and Tribes regarding protective benchmark values for aquatic life, and also
the EPA's intention to reduce the use of animal testing via application of NAMS in toxicity
assessment (https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/epa-new-approach-methods-work-plan-
reducing-use-animals-chemical-testing).
The EPA additionally explored the application of a data "binning" approach, used by
Giddings et al. (2019), to derive protective aquatic life values for grouped carboxylic acid PFASs
and grouped sulfonic acid PFAS. This approach, which is detailed in Appendix G, is based on
3
-------
combining chemicals with similar modes of action to provide more robust datasets to support
value derivation in data-limited situations.
4
-------
2 Introduction to ICE
Interspecies Correlation Estimation (ICE) models are log-linear regressions of the acute
toxicity (EC50/LC50) of two species across a range of chemicals that represent the relationship of
inherent sensitivity between those species (Figure 2-1). ICE models are derived from an
extensive, standardized database of acute toxicity values by pairing each species with every other
species for which acceptable toxicity data are available (Raimondo et al. 2010, 2024). ICE
models are used to predict the sensitivity of an untested taxon (predicted taxa are represented by
the y-axis) from the known, measured sensitivity of a surrogate species (represented by the x-
axis).
ICE models have been developed from a broad range of chemicals (e.g., metals and other
inorganics, pesticides, solvents, and reactive chemicals) and across a wide range of toxicity
values and have been validated as accurate predictors of acute toxicity when model criteria
parameters are followed (Raimondo et al. 2024). The Web ICE application (v4.0,
https://www3.epa.gov/webice/) contains approximately 4,800 statistically-significant ICE
models for aquatic animal and plant species.
Validation and uncertainty analyses of ICE models are founded in both leave-one-out
cross validation and direct comparison of measured and predicted acute values (Raimondo et al.
2010, 2024; Willming et al. 2016). Acute toxicity predictions have high accuracy when values
are derived from models with robust parameters (e.g., mean square error and R2 of regression
between the tested and untested species), and variability of prediction accuracy is consistent with
that of empirical test data (Raimondo et al. 2024). Box 1 below outlines the parameter measures
used to define acceptable ICE models for evaluation. Models identified as acceptable based on
5
-------
the parameter measures identified in Box 1 were further evaluated for use as discussed in
Sections 4.2 and 5.1.
ICE models have undergone extensive peer review and their use has been supported
through external peer review for development of aquatic life benchmark values for saltwater and
estuarine species exposed to PFOA and PFOS (U.S. EPA 2024b,c). The application of ICE-
predicted values to develop protective aquatic life values by multiple independent, international
groups confirms that values developed from ICE-generated species sensitivity distributions
(SSDs) provide a level of protection that is consistent with using measured laboratory data (Dyer
et al. 2008; Feng et al. 2013; Fojut et al. 2012a,b; Palumbo et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2015, 2016;
Wang et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2017). A recent review of ICE models additionally supports their
use in regulatory applications based on the reliability of underlying data, model transparency,
statistical robustness, predictive reliability, proof of principle, applicability to probabilistic
approaches, and reproducibility of model accuracy by numerous independent research teams
(Bejarano and Wheeler 2020).
6
-------
Figure 2-1. Example of ICE Model for Rainbow Trout (surrogate) and Atlantic Salmon
(predicted).
Each model datapoint is a common chemical that was tested with both species to develop a log-linear
model.
Box I. ICE Model User Parameter Criteria for Robust Predictions
(Willming et al. 2016, Raimondo et al. 2024):
• Low mean squared error (MSE) (<~ 0.95)
• High R2 value (>~0.6)
• High slope (>~0.6; 0.66 - 1.33 when (ig/L input is beyond model domain)
• Confidence interval range of 2 orders of magnitude between lower and
upper limit
• For models between vertebrates and invertebrates, using those with lower
MSE or MOA-specific models (not available for PFAS) has been
recommended for listed species predictions
7
-------
3 Application of ICE with Selected PFAS
ICE models for freshwater species were used to predict acute toxicity of the eight PFAS
from measured sensitivity of surrogate species listed in Table 3-1. For the application of ICE
models, the type and number of predicted species available to fulfill missing MDRs in the
selected PFAS acute criteria dataset was based on the number of models available within ICE for
the surrogate species (Table 3-1). It is important to note, not all available ICE models met the
prediction robustness criteria outlined in Box 1 for quantitative use. Accordingly, an evaluation
of the predictions was conducted following the acquisition of all available predicted values from
all available surrogate species for each compound.
Table 3-1. Measured Surrogate Species Sensitivity Values and Number of Available ICE
Models for Eight PFAS.
The number of freshwater ICE models for each surrogate excludes models that predict values for species
for which measured acute toxicity data are already available. Available ICE models are presented in
Chemical
Taxa
Surrogate Species
Acute
Toxicity
(mg/L)
Number of
Freshwater ICE
Models
PFBA
Vertebrate
Danio rerio
13,779
18 (5 Juveniles,
13 Embryo)
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
5,251
69
PFHxA
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
1,048
69
Vertebrate
Lithobates catesbeianus
1,105
8
PFNA
Invertebrate
Chydorus sphaericus
28
2
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
85
69
Vertebrate
Xenopus laevis
336
4
PFDA
Invertebrate
Chydorus sphaericus
41
2
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
120
69
Invertebrate
Daphnia pulicaria
150
2
Vertebrate
Oncorhvnchus mykiss
32
78
Vertebrate
Xenopus laevis
77
4
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
2,183
69
Vertebrate
Lepomis macrochirus
6,452
76
Vertebrate
Pimephales promelas
1,938
74
8
-------
Chemical
Taxa
Surrogate Species
Acute
Toxicity
(mg/L)
Number of
Freshwater ICE
Models
PFHxS
Vertebrate
Danio rerio
23
18 (5 Juveniles,
13 Embryo)
Vertebrate
Lithobates catesbeianus
1,105
8
8:2 FTUCA
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
3
69
Vertebrate
Oncorhynchus mvkiss
81
78
7:3 FTC A
Invertebrate
Daphnia magna
1
69
Vertebrate
Oncorhynchus mvkiss
32
78
PFAS acute values (typically reported as mg/L) can be beyond the range of values used
to calibrate the ICE model (ICE database toxicity range lxl0"4and lxlO8 (J,g/L) such that the
input PFAS value of the surrogate would be outside the model domain. In situations where the
input PFAS value is beyond the model range, a user can either:
• Enter the measured toxicity value (LC50/ EC50) into the ICE model as [j,g/L and allow the
regression to extrapolate beyond the model range; or
• "Scale" the toxicity value by entering the measured LC50 value as mg/L, bringing the
input value within the model range.
Because it is recognized that extrapolating beyond the model range can result in large confidence
intervals around the prediction and can result in the acceptance of fewer ICE models based on
acceptability parameters (see Box 1), a "scaled" approach was considered by Raimondo et al.
(2024) as an alternative approach to predicting species sensitivity to place the input value within
the model domain. The scaled approach underwent detailed evaluation by Raimondo et al.
(2024), who compared the two approaches and reported that ICE models predict toxicity with the
same level of accuracy using scaled and extrapolated input values, with smaller confidence
intervals for the scaled approach (allowing acceptance of more ICE models). The first
("extrapolated") approach was selected as the primary approach for deriving the benchmark
9
-------
values. The "scaled" approach was applied as an alternative approach and serves as an additional
analysis to compare SSDs and HC5s with those based on extrapolated values and are
summarized in Section 5.10 and presented in detail in Appendix F.
Figure 3-1 provides an example of the approach taken to calculate a toxicity value when
an LC50 or EC50 value falls beyond the ICE model range, through the use of either an
"extrapolation" or "scaled" approach. The data plots and calculations below provide an
illustrative example using an EC50 value for Daphnia magna for PFBS.
EXTRAPOLATION APPROACH
SCALED APPROACH
Figure 3-1. Example Calculation for Daphnia magna PFBA Toxicity Data Based on
Extrapolation and Scaled Approaches.
10
-------
4 Effects Analysis for Aquatic Life
4.1 Summary and Evaluation of Available Empirical Toxicity Test Data
The EPA reviewed and considered all relevant empirical toxicity test data for the eight
PFAS. Information available for all relevant species and genera were reviewed to identify data
from acceptable tests that meet data quality standards. All available empirical studies relating to
the acute toxicological effects of each PFAS on aquatic life were considered in the derivation of
these freshwater acute benchmarks. Empirical data for possible inclusion in the derivation of the
benchmarks were obtained from published literature reporting acute exposures of the selected
PFAS that were associated primarily with mortality/survival. The development of benchmarks
included the review of a range of forms of each PFAS substance for which data were available,
as summarized in Table 4-1. Figure 4-1 presents representative chemical structures for these
PFAS. With the exception of 8:2 FTUCA, all of these PFAS can be analyzed using the EPA
Method 1633 (U.S. EPA 2024a).
Table 4-1. Summary Table of PFAS Forms and Associated CAS Numbers Identified for the
Evaluation of Available Empirical Data.
PFAS
Form
Chemical Formula
CAS
Number
Perfluorobutanoic acid
(PFBA)
PFBA
C4HF7O2
375224
PFBA Ion
C4F7O2
45048622
PFBA-Na
C4F7Na02
2218544
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
(PFHxA)
PFHxA
c6hf„o2
307244
PFHxA Ion
C6F11O2"
92612527
Perfluorononanoic acid
(PFNA)
PFNA
C9HF17O2
375951
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
(PFDA)
PFDA
C10HF19O2
335762
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
(PFBS)
PFBS
C4HF9O3S
375735
T etrabutylammonium
perfluorobutanesulfonate
C20H36F9NO3S
108427527
PFBS.K
C4F9KO3S
29420493
11
-------
PFAS
Form
Chemical Formula
CAS
Number
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
(PFHxS)
PFHxS
CHF;=()=S
355464
Perfluorohexanesulfonate
C6F1303S
108427538
PFHxS.K
c6f13ko3s
3871996
PFHxS Na
C6Fi3Na03S
82382125
2H-Perfluoro-2-decenoic acid
(8:2 FTUCA)
8:2 FTUCA
C10H2F16O2
70887842
2H,2H,3H,3H-
Pefluorodecanoic acid (7:3
FTCA)
7:3 FTCA
C10H5F15O2
812704
/Ns
HO ^0
Perfluorobutanoic
Acid (PFBA)
o oh
Perfluorohexanoic
Acid (PFHxA)
f f f n
Perfluorononanoic
Acid (PFNA)
Perfluorodecanoic
Acid (PFDA)
O F F F F
OH F F F F
Perfluorobutane
sulfonic Acid
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexane
sulfonic acid
(PFHxS)
2H-Perfluoro-2-
decenoic acid
(8:2 FTUCA)
2H,2H,3H,BH-
Pefluorodecanoic
acid (7:3 FTCA)
Figure 4-1. Chemical Structures of Selected PFAS.
Empirical studies available for the eight PFAS were identified using ECOTOX. Toxicity
studies accessed from the ECOTOX database were further evaluated. Studies were evaluated for
data quality as described by the EPA OW's data quality standard operating procedure (SOP), and
12
-------
consistent with OW's data quality review approach (U.S. EPA 1985), and the EPA's Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)'s Ecological Effects Test Guidelines (U.S.
EPA 2016). The EPA completed a Data Evaluation Record (DER) for each species empirical
toxicity test from the studies identified by ECOTOX for the eight PFAS undergoing evaluation.
This in-depth review ensured the studies used for derivation would result in robust, scientifically-
defensible benchmarks. Studies that did not fully meet the data quality objectives outlined in the
EPA SOP were not considered for inclusion in the benchmark derivation, including some studies
with other PFAS exposures. Further, only single chemical toxicity tests (i.e., not tests with
chemical mixtures) were considered for possible inclusion in benchmark derivation. When
available, both controlled laboratory experiments and field observations/studies were evaluated
for inclusion.
Due to the EPA's interest in using all available quality data, particularly for these data-
limited chemicals, toxicity studies were considered for possible inclusion regardless of the test
species residential status in North America. Use of non-North American residential species is
also consistent with other published aquatic life criteria (U.S. EPA 2018). Non-North American
resident species also help to serve as taxonomically-related surrogate organisms for untested
resident species.
Toxicity data from tests reporting either measured or nominal concentrations were
considered for quantitative use in benchmark derivation. Toxicity tests used in many of the
EPA's previous aquatic life criteria documents are typically based only on measured chemical
concentrations. For PFOA and PFOS, the EPA examined the issue of whether nominal
(unmeasured) and measured concentrations are in close agreement with each other (U.S. EPA
2024b,c). For both PFOA and PFOS, pairs of nominal and corresponding measured
13
-------
concentrations were compared to one another through: (1) linear correlation analysis and; (2) an
assessment of measured concentrations as a percent of its paired nominal concentration. For
PFOA 83% of measured freshwater concentrations and 82% of the measured concentrations for
PFOS fell within 20% of paired nominal concentrations, which represent the test acceptability
threshold identified by the EPA's OCSPP's Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. Based on the
results for PFOA and PFOS (U.S. EPA 2024b,c), the EPA concluded that nominal test
concentrations adequately represent actual PFAS exposures in standard acute laboratory-based
toxicity tests and PFAS toxicity tests were not excluded from quantitative use in benchmark
derivation on the basis of unmeasured test concentrations alone. Resultingly, renewal, and flow-
through experiments were considered for inclusion for species mean acute values regardless of
whether the PFAS concentrations were measured.
Available empirical acute data meeting the quality objectives and test requirements were
utilized quantitatively in conjunction with ICE values in deriving benchmarks for aquatic life.
The number of acute genus and species level mean values and MDRs fulfilled by the
quantitatively acceptable empirical acute toxicity data available for each of the eight PFAS is
summarized in Table 4-2 and detailed in Appendix A: Quantitatively Acceptable Freshwater
Acute Toxicity Studies. Studies that were determined to be qualitatively acceptable as
supporting information, but not acceptable for quantitative use, are summarized in Appendix C:
Qualitative Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies. Studies that were not considered acceptable
for quantitative or qualitative use are summarized in Appendix D: Unused Freshwater Acute
Toxicity Studies.
Acute values were presented as reported by the study authors for each individual study.
Author-reported toxicity values were included in each study summary included in corresponding
14
-------
appendices, as applicable. The results of all toxicity values (e.g., individual toxicity test
outcomes and species- and genus-mean values) are given to four significant figures to prevent
round-off error in subsequent calculations, not to reflect the precision of the value. The specific
toxicity value utilized in the derivation of the corresponding benchmarks is stated for each study
at the end of the summaries in Appendix A.
Table 4-2. Number of Acute Genus and Species Level Mean Values in the Empirical
Toxicity Datasets and Freshwater Minimum Data Requirements Fulfilled per the Aquatic
Life Criteria Guidelines for the
MDR
PFBA
PFHxA
PPFNA
PFDA
PFBS
PFHxS
8:2
FTUCA
7:3
FTCA
Family Salmonidae in the class
Osteichthyes
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
Second family in the class
Osteichthyes, preferably a
commercially or recreationally
important wannwater species
1
-
-
-
3
1
-
-
Third family in the phylum
Chordata (may be in the class
Osteichthyes or may be an
amphibian, etc.)
-
2
1
1
-
2
-
-
Planktonic Crustacean
3
1
2
3
1
-
1
1
Benthic Crustacean
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Insect
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Family in a phylum other than
Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g.,
Rotifera, Annelida, or Mollusca)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Family in any order of insect or
any phylum not already
represented
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total number of empirical
studies
5
4
3
5
4
3
2
2
MDRs fulfilled with
empirical data
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
4.2 Prediction of Species Sensitivity Using ICE Models
Values for the selected PFAS were first predicted with Web-ICE v4.0 for all possible
species. The resulting ICE models are summarized in Appendix E. These ICE models were then
evaluated using the acceptance parameters (e.g., MSE, R2, slope) summarized in Box 1, provided
15
-------
above under Section 2. Only ICE models based on freshwater species were considered for use.
Models that met these acceptance parameters were used to derive species toxicity data, which
were used in conjunction with empirical toxicity data to support the derivation of the benchmark
values. The ICE models selected for use are summarized in each of the chemical-specific
discussions presented in Section 5.
16
-------
5 Derivation of Acute Water Quality Benchmarks for Selected
PFAS
5.1 Approach
5.1.1 Use of Empirical and ICE Data
The following section describes the process used to derive the water quality benchmarks
for each of the eight PFAS. The first step encompassed development of the acute toxicity dataset
used to support the derivation of each benchmark, which involved combining available empirical
test data with ICE-derived toxicity data in order to both meet the eight MDRs, as described in the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985), and provide as robust of a dataset as possible
for benchmark derivation. The following approach was used to develop the dataset for the
derivation of each acute PFAS benchmark:
• All acceptable empirical data (evaluated as described in Section 4.1 and summarized in
Appendix A and B) were used and prioritized for benchmark derivation. Accordingly, if
both acceptable empirical and ICE-estimated LCso/ ECso values were available for a
species, then only the empirical data were averaged to derive that SMAV, based on the
greater certainty assumed to be associated with quantitatively-acceptable empirical test
data.
• ICE-derived toxicity data were derived from acceptable ICE models (as described in
Section 4.2 and summarized in Appendix E), and used to derive toxicity data for each
PFAS, with the objective of fulfilling gaps in the MDRs and creating an overall more
robust acute dataset for benchmark derivation. As noted, ICE-estimated LC50/EC50 values
were used to derive SMAVs, except when empirical data were available. If multiple
acceptable ICE models were available for a given species (based on prediction by
17
-------
multiple surrogates) then only the model with the closest taxonomic relationship was
used to support deriving the SMAV.
Following development of the toxicity database, values were then calculated using the
same basic procedure as described in the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985) for
the derivation of acute criteria. Please refer to the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines for a detailed
description of this approach. The primary difference between the derivation of aquatic life
criteria versus the derivation of protective acute benchmarks in this document is in the
composition of the constituent dataset, which consists of both empirical test and ICE-derived
acute toxicity data, since the eight MDRs could not be fulfilled for these compounds using the
available empirical test data.
Consistent with the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985), acceptable
empirical data were then used in conjunction with ICE estimated LC50 values to derive a
"preliminary" value as follows:
• Species mean acute values (SMAVs) were derived based on the availability of multiple
acceptable empirical or the selected ICE-estimated values by combining the accepted
data into species-level groupings and calculating the means for each grouping.
• Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) were then calculated by combining the SMAVs
(comprised of both empirical data and ICE-estimated values) into genus-level groupings
and calculating the means for each grouping.
• Sensitivity Distributions (SD) were developed from the GMAVs
• The four GMAVs closest to the 5th percentile of the distribution were used to calculate
the Final Acute Value (FAV).
18
-------
• The FAV is then divided by two, which is intended to estimate a minimal effect level and
provide an acute value that is protective of nearly all individuals in the distribution (U.S.
EPA 1985).
5.1.2 Application Factor to Adjust for Additional Unrepresented Sensitive Species Data
It was noted that no acceptable empirical data and limited ICE-estimated toxicity data
were available for some taxa. This is particularly notable as recent investigations with both
PFOA and PFOS indicate the mayfly, Neocloeon tricmgulifer (Soucek et al. 2023) and the
cladoceran, Moina mi crura (Razak et al. 2023) are among the most acutely sensitive of any
species tested to these substances amongst the acceptable data, as determined by the EPA:
• For PFOA, the author-reported acute EC so (i.e., 0.4747 mg/L) for M mi crura from a new
study (Razak et al. 2023) was determined to be acceptable for quantitative use and was
averaged as a geometric mean with other quantitatively acceptable acute Moina data,
yielding the most sensitive genus mean acute value (8.885 mg/L). The EPA-calculated
acute LCso (i.e., 13.045 mg/L) for N. triangulifer from Soucek et al. (2023) was
acceptable for quantitative use and was the second most sensitive genus mean acute value
in the final PFOA acute freshwater criterion.
• For PFOS, the EPA-calculated acute LC50 (i.e., 0.07617 mg/L) for N. triangulifer was
acceptable for quantitative use and was the most sensitive genus mean acute value in the
final PFOS acute freshwater criterion. The new author-reported acute LC50 (i.e., 0.5496
mg/L) forM mi crura (Razak et al. 2023) was acceptable for quantitative use and was
averaged as a geometric mean with other Moina data to yield the second most sensitive
genus mean acute value (3.075 mg/L) in the final acute PFOS criterion.
These data were not available when the draft freshwater PFOA and PFOS acute aquatic life
criteria were released (U.S. EPA 2022a,b), but were incorporated into the final freshwater acute
19
-------
criteria released for these compounds (U.S. EPA 2024b,c), significantly lowering the derived
freshwater acute values for these substances:
• For PFOA, the final acute freshwater criterion is 3.1 mg/L, compared to the draft acute
criterion of 49 mg/L, and the addition of the acute value for N. triangulifer along with the
addition of the sensitive M. micrura data decreased the criterion by a factor of 15.8.
• For PFOS, the final acute freshwater criterion is 0.071 mg/L, compared to the draft acute
criterion of 3.0 mg/L, and the addition decreased the criterion by a factor of 42.3.
Based on the limited available data and to account for this marked difference in sensitivity, the
EPA applied an application factor to the calculation of each PFAS benchmark value, to account
for the absence of empirical insect, and other sensitive invertebrate, data and the markedly
greater sensitivity of the mayfly N. triangulifer, and M micrura. The following application
factors were used:
• For PFAS with carboxylate groups (PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA, 8:2 FTUCA, and 7:3
FTC A), an application factor of 15.8 was used based on the difference in draft and final
PFOA acute criterion values when the additional sensitive species data were added.
• For PFAS with sulfonate groups (PFBS and PFHxS), an application factor of 42.3 was
similarly used.
These application factors were used to convert the "preliminary" benchmark value to a final
benchmark value. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the application factors developed to adjust
for insect sensitivity.
20
-------
Table 5-1. Application Factors Applied to Adjust for Additional Unrepresented Sensitive
Species Data.
Chemical
Draft Acute
Freshwater
Criterion
(mg/L)
Final Acute
Freshwater
Criterion
(mg/L)
Application
Factor
PFAS Applied To
PFOA
49
3.1
15.8
PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA,
8:2 FTUCA, 7:3 FTCA
PFOS
3.0
0.071
42.3
PFBS, PFHxS
Final benchmark values were calculated by dividing the value derived from the
sensitivity distribution using procedures presented in the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S.
EPA 1985) by the relevant application factors, to derive benchmark values protective of the
aquatic community, including sensitive aquatic insects. The following sections detail the
derivation of the acute benchmark values for each of the eight PFAS.
5.2 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorobutanoic Acid
(PFBA)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFBA were available for five species
comprising four genera and fulfilling three MDR groups (Tables 4-2 and 5-3). Because only
three of the MDRs were met with empirical data, ICE-derived values were used to fulfill the
remaining five MDRs. A total of 22 ICE models were acceptable for use. Of these, three ICE
models were not selected for use because empirical data were available for the three genera (i.e.,
models for Daphniapulex, Chydorus sphaericus and Danio rerio). One other model was not
used because there was an acceptable model for a more closely-related surrogate species (i.e.,
Daphnia magna predicting for Pimephalespromelas). A total of 18 ICE models were selected
for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 18 SMAVs, representing 18 genera and seven MDRs
(Tables 5-2 and 5-3).
21
-------
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 22 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-3. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of eight of each other (Table 5-4). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFBA is 166.1 mg/L (Table 5-4), which is lower than all of
the GMAVs except for one tested species (the rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, GMAV=110
mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of 83.03 mg/L PFBA and
then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water
column benchmark magnitude of 5.3 mg/L PFBA (rounded to two significant figures). This
value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFBA under short-
term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more
than once in three years (Figure 5-1).
22
-------
Table 5-2. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBA.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted ECsos used for SMAV calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
B/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251**
0.0002
5,000
878.8
(199.6-3,869.5)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp (Thamnocephalus
platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.0003
8,694.5
2,248.7
(1,108.2-4,562.9)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.0001
46,278.3
959.0
(508.0-1,810.5)
Daplinid (Ceriodaplinia dubia)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.0003
46,278.3
4,100.3
(2,125.4-7,909.9)
Daphnid (Daplinia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251**
0.0002
4,894.7
4,297.8
(2,058.5-8,973.1)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.0002
46,500
l,174.4b
(655.0-2,105.8)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio -
embryo)
13,779
0.023
54,579
11,531.9
(6,189.6-21,485.3)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
2,013.5
(809.4-5,008.9)
Flagfish (Jordanella floridae)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
13,779**
7.797
649.3
85,148.8
(12,990.4-558,127.6)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio -
embryo)
13,779**
0.145
304.5
19,384.5
(4,544.6-82,682.6)
Midge (Paratanytarsus parthenogeneticus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.37
14,500
12,920.8
(3,394.0-49,189.4)
Oriental river shrimp (Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251**
0.011
281.6
7,457.2
(1,357.9-40,952.1)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
1,748.6
(862.3-3,545.6)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.0001
14,500
677.7
(396.2-1,159.4)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea stagnalis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
3,490.7
(670.8-18,164.6)
23
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
B/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
3,740.1
(1,061.7-13,176.1)
Threeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251**
0.014
4,894.7
881.4
(169.6-4,582.0)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta
lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
2,852.6
(949.6-8,569.8)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
1,759.2
(742.4-4,168.8)
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251**
0.009
977.6
1,522.7
(748.6-3,097.1)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251
0.014
8,694.5
1,528.3
(497.6-4,694.2)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-embryo)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
5,251
0.0001
46,500
1,391.4
(413.4-4,683.2)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
24
-------
Table 5-3. Ranked PFBA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFBA toxicity tests with the species.
MDR
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
Group1
Name
Species
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Rank
1
H
Rotifer
Brachionus calyciflorus
110.0
110.0
0.04
2
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
677.7
677.7
0.09
3
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus fascia tus
878.8**
878.8
0.13
4
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
881.4**
881.4
0.17
5
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
959.0
959.0
0.22
6
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
1,528
1,528
0.26
7
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
1,749
1,749
0.30
8
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
1,759
1,759
0.35
9
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
2,013
2,013
0.39
10
E
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
Thamnocephalus
platyurus
2,249
2,249
0.43
11
E
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lvnchi
2,853
2,853
0.48
12
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
3,491
3,491
0.52
13
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
3,740
3,740
0.57
14
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
4,100
4,100
0.61
15
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
>4,281
>4,281
0.65
16
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
4,741
4,741
0.70
D
Daphnid
Daphnia pulicaria
>l,006a
17
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
7,457**
7,457
0.74
18
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
11,532
11,532
0.78
19
F
Midge
Paratanv tarsus
parthenogeneticus
12,921
12,921
0.83
20
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
13,779
13,779
0.87
21
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
19,385**
19,385
0.91
22
C
Flagfish
Jordanella floridae
85,149**
85,149
0.96
a Not used in GMAV calculation, because values represents a greater than low value
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
25
-------
Table 5-4. PFBA Protective Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=22 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Brachionus
110.0
4.70
22.09
0.043
0.209
2
Oncorhynchns
677.8
6.52
42.49
0.087
0.295
3
Gammarus
878.8
6.78
45.95
0.130
0.361
4
Amblema
881.4
6.78
45.99
0.174
0.417
£ (Sum):
24.78
156.53
0.43
1.28
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
125.08
S = slope
L =
2.612
L = X-axis intercept
A =
5.112
A = InFAV
FAV =
166.1
FAV/2 =
83.03 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
83.03 / 15.8 = 5.255 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
5.3 mg/L PFBA (rounded to two significant figures)
26
-------
1.00
0.90
g 0.80
CJ
CZ
«
QJ
>
0.70
0.60
x 0.50
a
ft
Pi
£ 0.40 -¦
QJ
5 0.30
Ph
0.20
0.10
0.00
•
Fish (Empirical)
o
Fish (WeblCE)
+
Insect (WeblCE)
~
Invertebrate (Empirical)
A
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
O
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary Value
- Acute Benchmark
Jordanella O
O Carassius
# Danio
+ Paratanytarsus
O Pimephales
A Macrobrachium
A Daphnia
A Chydorus
A Ceriodaphnia
O Physella
O Lymnaea
A Branchinecta
A Thamnocephalus
O Lampsilis
O Megalonaias
O Utterbackia
O Margaritifera
O Lepomis
O Amblema
A Gammarus
O Oncorhynchus
A Brachionus
10 100 1,000 10,000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFBA)
100,000
Figure 5-1. Ranked Acute PFBA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
5.3 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorohexanoic Acid
(PFHxA^
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFHxA were available for four species
comprising three genera and fulfilling three MDR groups (Tables 4-2 and 5-6). Because only
three of the MDRs were met with empirical data, ICE-derived values were used to fulfill the
remaining five MDRs. A total of 28 ICE models were accepted for use. Of these, two ICE
models were not selected for use because empirical data were available for the genus (i.e.,
models for Daphnia magna and Daphniapiilex). Three other ICE models were not used because
27
-------
there was an acceptable model for a more closely-related surrogate species (i.e., Daphnia magna
predicting for Lepomis macrochirus; Daphnia magna predicting for Pimephalespromelas; and
Daphnia magna predicting for Oncorhynchus mykiss). A total of 23 ICE models were selected
for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 23 SMAVs representing, 21 genera, and 6 MDRs
(Tables 5-5 and 5-6).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 24 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-6. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 2.4 of each other (Table 5-7). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFHxA is 150.4 mg/L (Table 5-7), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for one tested species, the rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, GMAV=140
mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of 75.21 mg/L PFHxA and
then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water
column benchmark magnitude of 4.8 mg/L PFHxA (rounded to two significant figures). This
value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFHxA under short-
term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more
than once in three years (Figure 5-2).
28
-------
Table 5-5. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity of PFHxA.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0002
5,000
234.7
(64.5-853.7)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0003
8,694.5
517.3
(280.8-953.1)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105**
0.003
233
1,576.9
(395.3-6,289.9)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0001
46,278
303.5b
(176.0-523.2)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
719.8
(362.4-1,429.7)
Daphnid (Ceriodaplinia dubia)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0003
46,278
785.1
(446.2-1,381.6)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)*
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
424.1
(68.5-2,627.9)
Daphnid (Daplinia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0002
4,894.7
841.4
(444.8-1,591.6)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0002
46,500
384.7b
(235.8-627.7)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
1,083.6
(468.5-2,506.4)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
470.8
(220.2-1,006.8)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
1,027.7
(405.9-2,602.1)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.37
14,500
2,676.6
(917.7-7,806.3)
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
18.6
20,900
805.1
(394.5-1,643.4)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048**
0.042
166.8
404.3
(69.6-2,349.3)
29
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Oriental river shrimp (Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
1,048**
0.011
281.6
1,172.2
(290.4-4,732.5)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
418.5
(231.7-755.9)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0001
14,500
214.2b
(135.8-337.8)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
713.5
(200.3-2,541.4)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea stagnalis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
762.0
(188.8-3,075.8)
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
794.5
(277.3-2,276.3)
Threeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
4,894.7
191.3
(48.0-761.8)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynclii)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
623.8
(247.0-1,575.4)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
372.3
(181.1-765.2)
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048**
0.009
977.6
329.4
(183.8-590.5)
Wavyrayed lampmussel (Lampsilis
fasciola)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
166.8
4,894.7
686.2
(127.8-3,684.7)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera
falcata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.014
8,694.5
370.2
(145.8-940.1)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
1,048
0.0001
46,500
481.7
(172.4-1,346.1)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
* *Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
30
-------
Table 5-6. Ranked PFHxA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFHxA toxicity tests with the species.
MDR
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
Group1
Name
Species
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Rank
1
H
Rotifer
Brachionus calyciflorus
140.0
140.0
0.04
2
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
191.3
191.3
0.08
3
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus fascia tus
234.7
234.7
0.12
4
D
Water flea
Chydorus sphaericus
329.4**
329.4
0.16
5
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
370.2
370.2
0.20
6
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
372.3
372.3
0.24
7
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
418.5
418.5
0.28
8
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio-embrvo
481.7
481.7
0.32
G
Wavyrayed lampmussel
Lampsilis fasciola
686.2
9
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
404.3**
507.4
0.36
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
470.8
10
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus
platyurus
517.3
517.3
0.40
11
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lvnchi
623.8
623.8
0.44
12
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
713.5
713.5
0.48
13
B
Channel catfish
Ictaliirus piinctatus
719.8
719.8
0.52
14
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
762.0
762.0
0.56
15
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
785.1
785.1
0.60
16
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
794.5
794.5
0.64
17
B
Mosquitofish
Gambusia affinis
805.1
805.1
0.68
18
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
1,105
915.2
0.72
C
Green frog
Lithobates clamitans
758.0
19
B
Goldfish
Carassins auratus
1,028
1,028
0.76
20
D
Daphnia
Daphnia magna
1,048
1,048
0.80
21
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
1,084
1,084
0.84
22
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
1,172**
1,172
0.88
23
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirns
1,577**
1,577
0.92
24
F
Midge
Paratanv tarsus
parthenogeneticus
2,677
2,677
0.96
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
31
-------
Table 5-7. PFHxA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=24 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Brachionus
140.0
4.94
24.42
0.040
0.200
2
Amblema
191.3
5.25
27.60
0.080
0.283
3
Gammarus
234.7
5.46
29.79
0.120
0.346
4
Chydorus
329.4
5.80
33.61
0.160
0.400
£ (Sum):
21.45
115.42
0.40
1.23
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
17.41
S = slope
L =
4.080
L = X-axis intercept
A =
5.013
A = InFAV
FAV =
150.4
FAV/2 =
75.21 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
75.21 / 15.8 = 4.760 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
4.8 mg/L PFHxA (rounded to two significant figures)
32
-------
1.00
0.90
-a 0.80
o
C5
is
QJ
>
«
3
E
3
u
-£
a
«
Pi
-------
not used because there was an acceptable model for a more closely taxonomically-related model
where the measured surrogate EC50 value fell within the ICE model range (i.e., Daphnia magna
predicting for Danio rerio). A total of 24 ICE models were selected for use resulting in ICE
models predicting 24 SMAVs representing 22 genera and 7 MDRs (Tables 5-8 and 5-9).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 25 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-9. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 2.0 of each other (Table 5-10). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFNA is 20.58 mg/L (Table 5-10), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for the one ICE-derived species value for the threeridge mussel, Amblema
plicata (GMAV=17.58 mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of
10.29 mg/L PFNA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain
the freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.65 mg/L PFNA (rounded to two
significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed
to PFNA under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is
not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure 5-3).
34
-------
Table 5-8. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFNA.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0002
5,000
29.8
(10.9-81.6)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51**
0.0001
68.3
57.2
(12.4-263.1)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0003
8,694.5
52.1
(32.2-84.2)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0001
46,278
50.3
(33.3-75.9)
Daplinid (Ceriodaplinia dubia)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0003
46,278
59.4
(38.2-92.1)
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)*
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
27.84
0.007
462.0
76.4
(48.0-121.5)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0002
4,894.7
65.8
(40.3-107.5)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulicaria)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
281.6
84.2
(18.0-392.8)
Daplinid (Simocephalus serrulatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51**
0.0002
7.2
39.7
(8.4-187.6)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0002
46,500
67.3
(47.1-96.2)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
48.6
(27.6-85.6)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0003
166.8
1,261.8
(217.7-7314.9)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.37
14,500
228.8
(101.9-513.5)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.042
166.8
42.9
(12.1-152.7)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.003
281.6
181.9
(43.1-768.2)
35
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Oriental river shrimp (Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.011
281.6
65.1
(24.3-174.3)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
44.8
(28.6-70.2)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.042
545.9
54.4
(13.3-222.4)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0001
14,500
35.4
(25.2-49.7)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea stagnalis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
70.7
(24.0-207.9)
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
70.6
(31.3-159.2)
Threeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
4,894.7
17.6
(6.1-50.8)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynclii)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
58.0
(28.6-117.6)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
32.9
(18.5-58.5)
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.009
977.5
30.1
(19.3-47.1)
Water flea (Moina macrocopa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.009
281.6
44.3
(8.8-223.1)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera
falcata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.014
8,694.5
40.4
(19.8-82.5)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51**
0.0001
50.0
104.2°
(15.4-703.8)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio -
embryo)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
84.51
0.0001
46,500
91.8
(42.1-200.2)
*Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
* *Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
36
-------
Table 5-9. Ranked PFNA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFNA toxicity tests with the species.
MDR
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
Group1
Name
Species
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
17.58
17.58
0.04
2
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
27.84
27.84
0.08
3
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
32.90
32.90
0.12
4
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
35.40
35.40
0.15
5
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
39.74**
39.74
0.19
6
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
40.41
40.41
0.23
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus fascia tus
29.82
7
E
Amphipod
Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus
57.16**
41.28
0.27
8
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
44.31
44.31
0.31
9
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
44.82
44.82
0.35
10
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
42.93
45.69
0.38
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
48.63
11
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirns
50.29
50.29
0.42
12
E
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
Thamnocephalus
platyurus
52.08
52.08
0.46
13
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
54.41
54.41
0.50
14
E
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lvnchi
58.02
58.02
0.54
15
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
59.35
59.35
0.58
16
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
65.10
65.10
0.62
17
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
67.29
67.29
0.65
18
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
70.62
70.62
0.69
19
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
70.68
70.68
0.73
20
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
84.51
84.51
0.77
21
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
91.85
91.85
0.81
22
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
181.9
181.9
0.85
23
F
Midge
Paratanv tarsus
parthenogeneticus
228.8
228.8
0.88
24
C
Clawed frog
Xenopus sp.
335.8
335.8
0.92
25
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
1,262
1,262
0.96
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
37
-------
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
Table 5-10. PFNA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=25 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
17.58
2.87
8.22
0.038
0.196
2
Chydorus
27.84
3.33
11.07
0.077
0.277
3
Megalonaias
32.90
3.49
12.20
0.115
0.340
4
Oncorhynchns
35.40
3.57
12.72
0.154
0.392
£ (Sum):
13.25
44.21
0.38
1.21
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
13.85
S = slope
L =
2.192
L = X-axis intercept
A =
3.024
A = InFAV
FAV =
20.58
FAV/2 =
10.29 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
10.29 / 15.8 = 0.6511 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.65 mg/L PFNA (rounded to two significant figures)
38
-------
JX
a
ss
C4
-------
there was an acceptable model for a more closely-related surrogate species (i.e., Daphnia magna
predicting for Lepomis macrochirus\ Daphnia magna predicting for Pimephalespromelas; and
Daphnia magna predicting for Danio rerio). A total of 46 ICE models were selected for use
resulting in ICE models predicting 46 SMAVs representing 38 genera and all eight MDRs
(Tables 5-11 and 5-12)
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 42 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-12. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 2.9 of each other (Table 5-13). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFDA is 15.71 mg/L (Table 5-13), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for the ICE-derived species values for the isopod, Caecidotea brevicauda,
GMAV= 8.17 mg/L. The FAV was divided by two to obtain a benchmark value of 7.856 mg/L
PFDA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain the freshwater
acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.50 mg/L PFDA (rounded to two significant
figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFDA
under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not
exceeded more than once in three years (Figure 5-4).
40
-------
Table 5-11. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFDA.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0002
5,000
39.7
(14.0-112.7)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7**
0.0001
68.3
78.6
(16.1-384.0)
Apache trout (Oncorhynchus gilae)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.0041
1.625
39.4
(9.0-173.4)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
95.86
31.0
(15.6-61.3)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0003
8,694.5
71.5
(43.6-117.5)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0001
8,341.5
33.1
(27.6-39.6)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0001
46,278
64.5b
(42.0-99.0)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.003
43.1
72.7
(12.6-420.2)
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
96.7
31.4
(18.8-52.5)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
95.9
33.1
(19.8-55.3)
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
13,400
58.8
(23.7-145.4)
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.004
1.625
114.0
(33.0-394.0)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
13,400
31.6
(19.9-50.1)
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.003
724.4
40.0
(24.0-66.9)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
43.1
49.4
(38.4-63.6)
41
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
198.4
35.6
(16.3-77.7)
Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
198.4
27.1
(18.7-39.3)
Cuvier's foam froglet (Physalaemus
cuvieri)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.71
155.5
51.8
(30.8-87.1)
Daplinid (Ceriodaplinia dubia)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0003
46,278
84.8
(53.8-133.7)
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)*
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
41.13
0.007
462.0
114.5
(70.9-184.8)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)*
Daplinid (Daplinia pulicaria)
149.6
0.009
237.4
122.1
(27.4-544.5)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0002
4,894.7
93.7
(56.2-156.0)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulicaria)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
281.6
122.0
(24.2-614.6)
Daplinid (Simocephalus serrulatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7**
0.0002
7.2
55.1
(11.0-275.1)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
13,400
46.7
(36.0-60.7)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0002
46,500
85.6b
(58.9-124.4)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
66.6
(37.0-119.8)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
13,400
62.2
(31.6-122.5)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
<0.0001
19.9
45.8
(19.9-105.3)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
198.4
28.3
(7.6-105.3)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0003
166.8
1,699.9
(273.7-10,558.5)
Isopod (Caecidotea brevicauda)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
82.0
8.2
(1.9-35.7)
42
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
198.4
18.0
(11.4-28.3)
Largemouth bass (Micropteras
salmoides)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
95.9
19.5
(9.5-40.3)
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.007
54.4
52.1
(10.9-248.7)
Midge (Paratanytarsus dissimilis)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
1,330
105.8
(35.6-314.4)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.37
14,500
321.4
(140.5-735.3)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.042
166.8
58.5
(15.4-222.1)
Northern leopard frog (Lithobates
pipiens)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.002
198.4
64.7
(33.7-124.2)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.003
281.6
232.8
(51.5-1,052.2)
Oriental river slirimp (Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.011
281.6
97.1
(34.6-272.8)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
61.0
(38.3-97.2)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.042
545.9
76.0
(17.4-332.2)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.0001
14,500
45.4
(31.9-64.7)
Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen
texanus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.003
43.1
26.6
(5.3-134.0)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostruin)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.03
95.9
45.7
(11.2-185.6)
Silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.0014
7.075
73.0
(29.7-179.7)
Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.03
7.5
25.7
(4.0-164.6)
Southern leopard frog (Lithobates
sphenocephaly)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.03
9.7
312.8
(88.4-1,106.8)
43
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea stagnalis)
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
98.2
(32.2-299.3)
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
98.7
(42.7-227.9)
Threeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
4,894.7
24.5
(8.2-73.1)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
80.6
(38.8-167.4)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
46.0
(25.6-82.8)
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.009
977.6
41.9
(26.5-66.4)
Water flea (Moina macrocopa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.009
281.6
56.9
(10.6-305.9)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera
falcata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.014
8,694.5
54.9
(26.3-114.5)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
<0.0001
16.2
22.2
(5.1-95.7)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
229.1
17.6
(6.4-48.5)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio -
embryo)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
8,341.5
34.4
(16.8-70.4)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
119.7
0.0001
46,500
115.5b
(51.4-259.4)
*Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
44
-------
Table 5-12. Ranked PFDA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFDA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
(mg/L)
Percentile
Rank
1
E
Isopod
Caecidotect brevicauda
8.173
8.173
0.02
2
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterns scdmoides
19.52
19.52
0.05
3
B
Yellow perch
Percct flavescens
22.20**
22.20
0.07
4
A
Brook trout
Salve linns fontinalis
31.44
23.80
0.09
A
Lake trout
Salvelinus namaycush
18.01
5
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
24.46
24.46
0.12
6
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
24.56
24.56
0.14
7
B
Razorback sucker
Xvrctuchen texamis
26.57
26.57
0.16
8
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
28.31
28.31
0.19
9
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatiis
31.55
31.55
0.21
10
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
32.00
32.00
0.23
11
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
30.96
32.02
0.26
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
33.12
12
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
35.58
35.58
0.28
13
B
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
45.79**
38.92
0.30
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirns
33.08
14
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
41.13
41.13
0.33
15
B
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
45.67
45.67
0.35
16
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
46.01
46.01
0.37
17
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
46.72
46.72
0.40
18
C
Cuvier's foam froglet
Phvsalaemus cuvieri
51.77
51.77
0.42
19
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
52.12
52.12
0.44
20
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
54.89
54.89
0.47
21
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serndatus
55.07**
55.07
0.49
22
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatas
39.66
55.84
0.51
E
Amphipod
Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus
78.62**
23
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
56.93
56.93
0.53
24
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
61.04
61.04
0.56
25
B
Goldfish
Carassins auratus
62.18
62.18
0.58
26
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis raflnesqueana
58.54
62.42
0.60
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
66.56
27
E
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
Thamnocephalus
platyurus
71.54
71.54
0.63
28
B
Bonytail
Gila elegans
72.68
72.68
0.65
29
B
Silver perch
Bidyanns bidyanns
73.03**
73.03
0.67
30
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
76.02
76.02
0.70
31
C
Clawed frog
Xenopus sp.
76.50
76.50
0.72
45
-------
MDR
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
Group1
Name
Species
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Rank
32
E
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Brcmchinecta lvnchi
80.58
80.58
0.74
33
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dabia
84.82
84.82
0.77
34
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
97.09
97.09
0.79
35
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
98.19
98.19
0.81
36
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
98.69
98.69
0.84
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
58.75
37
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
64.72
106.0
0.86
C
Southern leopard frog
Lithobates
sphenocephalus
312.8**
38
B
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
114.0**
114.0
0.88
39
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
145.5
147.5
0.91
D
Daphnid
Daphnia pulicaria
149.6
40
F
Midge
Paratanv tarsus
dissimilis
105.8
184.4
0.93
F
Midge
P aratanv tarsus
parthenogeneticus
321.4
41
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
232.8
232.8
0.95
42
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
1,700
1,700
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
46
-------
Table 5-13. PFDA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=42 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Caecidotea
8.17
2.10
4.41
0.023
0.152
2
Micropterus
19.52
2.97
8.83
0.047
0.216
3
Perca
22.20
3.10
9.61
0.070
0.264
4
Salve limis
23.80
3.17
10.05
0.093
0.305
£ (Sum):
11.34
32.90
0.23
0.94
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
57.22
S = slope
L =
1.063
L = X-axis intercept
A =
2.754
A = InFAV
FAV =
15.71
FAV/2 =
7.856 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
7.856 / 15.8 = 0.4972 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.50 mg/L PFDA (rounded to two significant figures)
47
-------
1.00 -T
0.90
g 0.80 4
s
3
u
0.70
0.60
0.50
u
a
rt
Pi
jj 0.40
a
| 0.30 4
Oh
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.1
¦
Amphibian (Empirical)
~
Amphibian (WeblCE)
•
Fish (Empirical)
o
Fish (WeblCE)
+
Insect (WeblCE)
~
Invertebrate (Empirical)
A
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
O
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary Value
-Acute Benchmark
A Limnodrilus
+ Paratanytarsus
~ Daphnia
O Notropis
~ Lithobates
O Physella
O Lvmnaea
A Macrobrachium
A Ceriodaphnia
A Branchinecta
¦ Xenopus
O Ortmanniana
O Bidvanus
O Gila
A Thamnocephalus
O Lampsilis
O Carassius
O Utterbackia
A Moina
A Gammarus
A Simocephalus
O Margaritifera
O Orvzias
~ Physalaemus
O Pimephales
O Megalonaias
O Acipenser
A Asellus
A Chvdorus
O Lepomis
O Cyprinus
O Salmo
# Oncorhvnchus
O Ictalurus
O Poecilia
O Xyrauchen
O Danio
O Amblema
O Sah'elinus
O Perca
O Micropterus
Caecidotea
i i i ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
10
100
1000
10000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFDA)
Figure 5-4. Ranked Acute PFDA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
5.6 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorobutanesulfonie
Acid (PFBS)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFBS were available for four species
comprising four genera and fulfilling two MDR groups (Tables 4-2 and 5-15). Because only two
of the MDRs were met with empirical data, ICE-derived values were used to fulfill the remaining
six MDRs. A total of 55 ICE models were acceptable for use. Of these, thirteen ICE models were
not selected for use because empirical data were available for the genera (e.g., models for
Lepomis macrochirus and Daphnia magna). Three ICE models were not selected for use because
48
-------
they were derived based on saltwater species surrogates (i.e., model for an amphipod, Hyalella
azteca; daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia; and rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss). Four other
models were not used because there were acceptable models for more closely-related surrogate
species (i.e., Lepomis macrochirus predicting for Cyprinus carpio; Lepomis macrochirus
predicting for Carassius auratus; Daphnia magna predicting for Oncorhynchus mykiss; and
Pimephales promelas predicting for Amble ma plicata). Two additional models (models for the
bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus and channel catfish, Ictaluruspunctatus) were not used
because the measured EC50 values fell outside of the ICE model range and other acceptable
models for taxonomically-related species with measured EC50 values within the ICE model range
were used. A total of 33 ICE models were selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 30
SMAVs representing 26 genera and seven MDRs (Tables 5-14 and 5-15). An ICE model was
not available to fulfill the MDR for a family in any order of insect or any phylum not already
represented (Tables 5-14 and 5-15).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 30 GMAVs that collectively fulfill
seven MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-15. Surrogate species EC50 values fell outside
the ICE model range for 14 of the predicted SMAVs and the resultant GMAVs are less certain
than GMAVs based on ICE models where surrogate EC50 values were in the range of the model.
GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera were within a factor of 1.7 of each other (Table 5-
16). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFBS is
422.1 mg/L (Table 5-16), which is lower than all of the GMAVs except for the ICE-derived
species value for the threeridge mussel, Amblemaplicata (GMAV=383.6 mg/L). The FAV was
49
-------
divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of 211.0 mg/L PFBS and then adjusted by the
sulfonic acid application factor (42.3) to obtain the freshwater acute water column benchmark
magnitude of 5.0 mg/L PFBS (rounded to two significant figures). This value is expected to be
protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFBS under short-term conditions of one-
hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years
(Figure 5-5).
50
-------
Table 5-14. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBS.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
B/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.0002
5,000
428.1
(107.9-1,697.9)
Amphipod (Hyalella azteca)
Mysid (Americamysis baliia)
372**
<0.0001
193.4
4494a
(93.4-2,162.8)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.004
123.3
14,523.6
(2,825.4-74,655)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.0003
8,694.5
1,010
(525.1-1,942.9)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.0001
46,278
512.5
(285.3-920.4)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)*
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.0002
50,154
751.0
(390.0-1,446)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)*
Mysid (Americamysis baliia)
372**
<0.0001
79.0
207.7
(107.0-403.2)
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.0004
123.3
3,505.7
(612.1-20,077)
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.001
26,500
1,791.4
(756.1-4,244.6)
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.0004
201.0
3,420.6°
(841.4-13,905)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.001
26,500
1,617.3
(755.0-3,464.4)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.0004
517.8
1,863.7°
(713.6-4,867.2)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.0004
150.8
1,609.5
(248.6-10,421)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938**
0.005
133
1,952.5
(498.7-7,644.4)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.0009
180
2,962.4b
(569.2-15,418.0)
51
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
B/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938**
0.001
140.2
602.6
(113.4-3,203.2)
Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.0004
180
2,561.1
(548.4-11,961)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Mysid (Americamysis baliia)
372
<0.0001
4,100
171.7a
(36.6-804.9)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
0.0003
46,278
1,666.6
(909.0-3,055.6)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Mysid (Americamysis baliia)
372
<0.0001
11,000
243.9
(143.9-413.4)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
0.0002
4,894.7
1,768.1
(893.9-3,497.1)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)*
Mysid (Americamysis baliia)
372
<0.0001
11,000
158.6
(74.5-337.5)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)*
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
0.0002
46,500
639.5
(375.7-1,088.5)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)*
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452
0.0001
27,540
3,399.2
(1,631.9-7080.3)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
912.5
(399.0-2,086.8)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.001
26,500
2,152.4
(1,075.2-4,309.0)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.0004
201
1,922.7 b
(312.9-11,813.0)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)*
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.004
113
2,817.7
(563.5-14,089.5)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938**
0.001
140.2
499.3
(131.8-1,892.4)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.0004
180
687.3
(105.9-4,461.3)
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.003
180
320.8
(49.0-2,102.1)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.0004
123.3
8,225.3
(2,938.4-23,024.8)
52
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
B/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938**
0.003
1,420
1,013.6
(496.2-2,070.7)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.37
14,500
5,481.6
(1,674.6-17,943.7)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183**
0.042
166.8
777.2
(115.1-5,248.1)
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.002
6.969
11,873.0
(8,879.5-15,875.6)
Oriental river slirimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183**
0.011
281.6
2,722.2
(587.7-12,609.0)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
802.5
(422.2-1,525.5)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.0001
14,500
361.9b
(221.2-592.1)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.0002
26,500
788.9
(505.7-1,230.8)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452
0.0001
7,100
3,208.6
(2,275.7-4,524.0)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Mysid (Americamysis baliia)
372**
<0.0001
113
110.03
(58.8-205.9)
Redear sunfish (Lepomis
microlophus)*
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrocliirus)
6,452**
0.017
4.5
9,763.6
(7,469.9-12,761.7)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
1,523.7
(337.4-6,881.2)
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
1,608.6
(512.8-5,046.1)
Tlireeridge (Amblema plicata)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.814
10,831
250.3b
(39.4-1,592.2)
Tlireeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.014
4,894.7
383.6
(85.6-1,717.6)
Vernal pool fairy slirimp
(Branchinecta lynclii)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
1,246.4
(457.0-3,399.4)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
755.1
(345.4-1,650.5)
53
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
B/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
0.009
977.6
661.4
(349.2-1,252.8)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera
falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
0.014
8,694.5
706.1
(255.8-1,948.9)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
0.0004
9.41
3,426.2
(710.8-16,515)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)*
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938**
0.013
26.69
1,069.6
(242.1-4,726.4)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio -
embryo)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
0.0001
46,500
780.8
(257.2-2,370.6)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)*
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
1,938
0.004
70,200
1,707.9
(1,061.5-2,748)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
54
-------
Table 5-15. Ranked PFBS Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFBS toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
(mg/L)
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
383.6
383.6
0.03
2
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus fascia tus
428.1
428.1
0.06
3
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
585.8**
585.8
0.10
4
D
Water flea
Chydorus sphaericus
661.4**
661.4
0.13
5
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
706.1
706.1
0.16
6
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
755.1
755.1
0.19
7
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
802.5
802.5
0.23
8
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis raflnesqueana
777.2**
842.1
0.26
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
912.5
9
E
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
Thamnocephalus
platyurus
1,010
1,010
0.29
10
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
1,014**
1,014
0.32
11
A
Brook trout
Salve linns fontinalis
3,506**
1,060
0.35
A
Lake trout
Salvelinus namavcush
320.8**
12
E
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lvnchi
1,246
1,246
0.39
13
A
Cutthroat trout
Oncorhvnchiis clarkii
1,242**
1,471
0.42
A
Coho salmon
Oncorhvnchiis kisutch
1,610**
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchiis mykiss
1,591
14
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
1,524
1,524
0.45
15
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
1,609
1,609
0.48
16
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
1,617
1,617
0.52
17
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
1,667
1,667
0.55
18
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
1,791
1,791
0.58
19
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
1,938
1,938
0.61
20
B
Common carp
Cypriniis carpio
1,952**
1,952
0.65
21
B
Goldfish
Carassins auratus
2,152
2,152
0.68
22
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
2,183
2,183
0.71
23
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
2,722**
2,722
0.74
24
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
>3,000
>3,000
0.77
25
B
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
3,426**
3,426
0.81
26
F
Midge
Paratanv tarsus
parthenogeneticus
5,482
5,482
0.84
27
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
6,452
6,452
0.87
28
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
8,225**
8,225
0.90
29
B
Nile tilapia
Oreochromis niloticus
11,873**
11,873
0.94
30
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
14,524**
14,524
0.97
55
-------
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
Table 5-16. PFBS Protective Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=30 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the sulfonic acid application factor (42.3)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
383.6
5.95
35.40
0.032
0.180
2
Gammarus
428.1
6.06
36.72
0.065
0.254
3
Hyalella
585.8
6.37
40.61
0.097
0.311
4
Ceriodaphnia
661.4
6.49
42.18
0.129
0.359
£ (Sum):
24.88
154.90
0.32
1.10
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
11.02
S = slope
L =
5.303
L = X-axis intercept
A =
6.045
A = InFAV
FAV =
422.1
FAV/2 =
211.0 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
211.0 / 42.3 = 4.989 (Preliminary Value / Sulfonic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
5.0 mg/L PFBS (rounded to two significant figures)
56
-------
1.00 -T
0.90
a 0.80 -¦
o
w
C3
0.70
0.60
u
X 0.50 -¦
s
C5
es
£ 0.40 4
a
2
t 0.30 4
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
~
o
+
~
A
O
Amphibian (WeblCE)
Fish (Empirical)
Fish (WeblCE)
Insect (WeblCE)
Invertebrate (Empirical)
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary V alue
¦ Acute Benchmark
O Salmo
O Oreochromis
O Micropterus
# Lepomis
+ Paratanvtarsus
O Perca
# Danio
A Macrobrachium
A Daphnia
O Carassius
O Cyprinus
# Pimephales
~ Lithobates
A Ceriodaphnia
O Ictalurus
O Physella
O Lymnaea
O Oncorhvnchus
A Branchinecta
O Salvelinus
O Oryzias
A Thamnocephalus
O Lampsilis
O Utterbackia
O Megalonaias
<0 Margaritifera
A Chydorus
O Poecilia
A Gammarus
O Amblema
10 100 1,000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFBS)
10,000
100,000
Figure 5-5. Ranked Acute PFBS GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
5.7 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorohexanesulfonic
Acid (PFHxS)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFHxS were available for three species
comprising two genera and fulfilling two MDR groups (Tables 4-2 and 5-18). Because only two
of the MDRs were met with empirical data, ICE-derived values were used to fulfill the remaining
six MDRs. A total of 17 ICE models were acceptable for use. Of these, four models were not
used because there were acceptable models for more closely-related surrogate species (i.e.,
Lithobates catesbeicmus predicting for Ictaluruspunctatus\ Lithobates catesbeianus predicting
57
-------
for Pimephalespromelas; Lithobates catesbeianus predicting for Carassius auratus; and
Lithobates catesbeianus predicting for Oncorhynchus mykiss). A total of 13 ICE models were
selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 10 SMAVs representing 10 genera and five
MDRs (Tables 5-17 and 5- 18). ICE models were not available to fulfill two MDRs: an insect,
and a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata.
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 12 GMAVs that collectively fulfill six
of the eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life
Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with
the MDR met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-18. GMAVs for the four most
sensitive genera were within a factor of 1.2 of each other (Table 5-19). The freshwater FAV (the
5th percentile of the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFHxS is 18.07 mg/L (Table 5-19), which
is lower than all of the GMAVs. The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of
9.035 mg/L PFHxS and then adjusted by the sulfonic acid application factor (42.3) to obtain the
freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.21 mg/L PFHxS (rounded to two
significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed
to PFHxS under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is
not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure 5-6). However, because only six of the eight
MDRs were fulfilled for PFHxS (when both empirical test and ICE data were considered), there
is considered to be greater uncertainty associated with this benchmark value compared with other
PFAS benchmarks developed.
58
-------
Table 5-17. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFHxS.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105**
0.003
233.0
1,576.9
(395.3-6,289.9)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
22.5
0.145
304.5
19.5
(9.2-41.0)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
719.8b
(362.4-1,429.7)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
0.003
36.91
5.2
(1.2-22.7)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
424.1
(68.5-2,627.9)
Fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus
rubricaudatus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
22.5
4.622
5,100.7
114.2
(33.4-390.2)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
22.5
0.023
54,579
18.3
(13.3-25.2)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
0.018
25.08
26.0
(11.6-58.2)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
1,083.6b
(468.5-2,506.4)
Flagfish (Jordanella floridae)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
7.797
649.3
33.9
(19.7-58.4)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
22.5
0.145
304.5
37.3
(23.2-59.9)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
1,027.7b
(405.9-2,602.1)
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
18.6
20,900
805.1
(394.5-1,643.4)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
22.5
0.145
239.3
63.2
(9.9-403.1)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
22.5
0.023
8,843.9
9.6
(4.2-22.0)
59
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
0.003
26.39
38.3
(9.5-155.1)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
0.003
20,900
713.5b
(200.3-2,541.4)
* *Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
60
-------
Table 5-18. Ranked PFHxS Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFHxS toxicity tests with the species.
MDR
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
Group1
Name
Species
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Rank
1
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
19.19
19.19
0.08
2
B
Channel catfish
Ictcdurus punctatiis
19.46
19.46
0.15
3
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
21.79
21.79
0.23
4
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
22.50
22.50
0.31
5
B
Flagfish
Jordanellct floridae
33.90
33.90
0.38
6
B
Goldfish
Cctrctssius auratus
37.28
37.28
0.46
7
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
46.87
46.87
0.54
8
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
63.23
63.23
0.62
9
E
Fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus
nibricaiidatiis
114.2
114.2
0.69
10
B
Mosquitofish
Gambusia afftnis
805.1
805.1
0.77
11
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeiana
1,105
915.2
0.85
C
Green frog
Lithobates clamitans
758.0
12
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirns
1,577**
1,577
0.92
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
61
-------
Table 5-19. PFHxS Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=12 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the
sulfonic acid application factor (42.3)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Oncorhynchus
19.19
2.95
8.73
0.077
0.277
2
Ictalurus
19.46
2.97
8.81
0.154
0.392
3
Pimephales
21.79
3.08
9.50
0.231
0.480
4
Danio
22.50
3.11
9.69
0.308
0.555
£ (Sum):
12.12
36.73
0.77
1.70
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
0.45
S = slope
L =
2.745
L = X-axis intercept
A =
2.894
A = InFAV
FAV =
18.07
FAV/2 =
9.035 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
9.035 / 42.3 = 0.2136 (Preliminary Value / Sulfonic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.21 mg/L PFHxS (rounded to two significant figures)
62
-------
E
9
1.00 -T
0.90 -J
0.80 -•
0.70 -¦
0.60
JZ 0.50 -
a
R
06
0.40 -¦
-------
acceptable models for more closely-related surrogate species (i.e., Daphnia magna predicting for
Lepomis macrochirus; Daphnia magna predicting for Pimephalespromelas; Daphnia magna
predicting for Danio rerio). A total of 53 ICE models were selected for use, resulting in ICE
models predicting 52 SMAVs representing 43 genera and all eight MDRs (Tables 5-20 and 5-
21).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 45 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV is summarized in Table 5-21. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 1.8 of each other (Table 5-22). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for 8:2 FTUCA is 1.171 mg/L (Table 5-22), which is lower
than all of the GMAVs except for the ICE-derived species value for the threeridge mussel,
Amblemaplicata (GMAV=0.79 mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary
value of 0.5853 mg/L 8:2 FTUCA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor
(15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.037 mg/L 8:2
FTUCA (rounded to two significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of
freshwater genera exposed to 8:2 FTUCA under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if
the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure 5-7).
There is a visible gap in the data between the water flea (Miona macrocopa, SMAV = 4.2
mg/L) and bryozoan (Pectinatella magnifica, SMAV =15.2 mg/L) for these ICE-generated
values (see Figure 5-7). Although the exact reason is unclear for this large gap in values, it is
noted that the lower portion of the curve is primarily composed of the phyla Mollusca and
Arthropoda, while the upper portion of the curve is primarily composed of the phylum Chordata.
64
-------
The distinct difference in sensitivity indicated by the gap in these data is thus likely to result
from a greater estimated sensitivity of most invertebrates than vertebrates to 8:2 FTUCA.
Additionally, the ICE estimates for the lower portion of the curve are based primarily on the
surrogate Daphnia magna, while the ICE estimates for the upper portion of the curve are based
primarily on the surrogate Oncorhynchns mykiss. However, these differences fall within the
range of differences in acute response frequently observed between species. For example, within
the PFOA and PFOS acute criteria datasets, there was single species sensitivity that spanned over
two orders of magnitude, and the variation in acute toxicity values is frequently an order of
magnitude and can be as high as three orders of magnitude (Hrovat et al. 2009, Schiir et al. 2023,
Raimondo et al. 2024). It is, therefore, not unexpected to see the difference in sensitivity
observed between these species.
65
-------
Table 5-20. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 8:2 FTUCA.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0008
166.8
28.6
(7.0-116.1)
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0002
5,000
2.0
(1.0-4.1)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
68.3
2.9
(1.0-7.8)
Apache trout (Oncorhynchus gilae)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
0.004
1.625
109.4
(20.3-589.1)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
95.86
79.3
(36.6-171.6)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0003
8,694.5
2.6
(1.8-3.9)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
46,278
4.9b
(3.7-6.4)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0001
8,341.5
79.0
(64.3-97.1)
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0006
96.69
79.4
(44.1-142.9)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
95.86
83.8
(47.0-149.4)
Bryozoan (Pectinatella magnifica)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3 2**
0.014
0.232
15.2
(3.5-66.6)
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0006
13,400
132.5
(51.0-344.2)
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
0.004
1.625
339.1
(82.8-1,388.7)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
<0.0001
13,400
67.4
(39.8-114.0)
Cliinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.003
724.4
102.9
(57.1-185.4)
66
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
<0.0001
43.07
128.3
(96.6-170.5)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
198.4
75.2
(31.0-182.2)
Cuttliroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
<0.0001
198.4
65.5
(42.9-100.0)
Cuvier's foam froglet (Physalaemus
cuvieri)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.7099
155.5
91.1
(48.4-171.5)
Daphnid (Ceriodaplinia dubia)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0003
46,278
2.1
(1.5-2.9)
Daplinid (Daplinia galeata)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3 2**
0.0001
0.646
3.1
(0.8-12.3)
Daplinid (Daplinia longispina)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.009
10.36
4.9
(1.0-23.7)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0002
4,894.7
2.4
(1.7-3.3)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulicaria)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
281.6
2.6
(0.7-9.5)
Daplinid (Simocephalus serrulatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0002
7.2
1.8
(0.7-5.2)
Daplinid (Simocephalus vetulus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
166.8
1.7
(0.2-12.3)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0002
46,500
7.0b
(5.4-9.0)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
13,400
107.7
(79.8-145.3)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
2.5
(1.6-4.1)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
<0.0001
13,400
132.7
(62.2-283.3)
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
166.8
1.9
(0.4-9.4)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
<0.0001
19.93
105.8
(41.7-269)
67
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0006
198.4
54.9
(12.3-243.7)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0003
166.8
76.6
(23.0-255.1)
Isopod (Caecidotea brevicauda)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0006
82
16.8
(3.2-89.7)
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
198.4
41.3
(24.5-69.7)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
<0.0001
95.86
46.8
(20.6-106.2)
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
0.007
54.4
121.6
(20.2-733.2)
Midge (Paratanytarsus dissimilis)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0006
1,330
241.0
(72.2-804.7)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.37
14,500
9.3
(3.5-24.7)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0003
58
1.3
(0.3-6.2)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.042
166.8
2.3
(1.1-5.1)
Northern leopard frog (Lithobates
pipiens)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.002
198.4
125.5
(62.3-252.8)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.003
281.6
17.9
(6.9-46.2)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
4,894.7
31.6
(7.4-134.7)
Oriental river shrimp (Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.011
281.6
1.5
(0.7-3.4)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
2.5
(1.6-3.7)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.042
545.9
2.3
(0.8-7.0)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
my kiss)*
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
14,500
3.4
(2.7-4.3)
68
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen
texanus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
0.003
43.07
54.8
(8.5-352.2)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.028
95.86
134.5
(26.7-677.1)
Silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
0.0014
7.075
200.3
(73.6-544.8)
Southern leopard frog (Lithobates
sphenocephalus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
0.028
9.7
1,023.9
(231.9-4,520.4)
Swamp lymnaea (Lyinnaea stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
3.2
(1.2-8.4)
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
3.0
(1.4-6.7)
Tlireeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
4,894.7
0.8
(0.3-2.1)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
2.6
(1.4-4.9)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
1.4
(0.8-2.6)
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.009
977.6
1.3
(0.8-2.2)
Water flea (Moina macrocopa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.009
281.6
4.2
(1.3-13.2)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera
falcata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.014
8,694.5
2.3
(1.1-4.6)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81**
<0.0001
16.24
51.2
(10.0-262.6)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
50
8.3b
(2.5-28.0)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
229.1
34.6
(11.3-106.0)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
3.2
0.0001
46,500
10.6b
(5.7-19.9)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
81
0.0002
8,341.5
65.2
(29.0-146.3)
69
-------
*Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
* *Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate EC50 values fell within the ICE model range were available.
70
-------
Table 5-21. Ranked 8:2 FTUCA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
(mg/L)
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
0.7894
0.7894
0.02
2
E
Mississippi grass
shrimp
Palaemonetes
kadictkensis
1.327
1.327
0.04
3
D
Water flea
Chydorus sphaericus
1.344
1.344
0.07
4
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
1.403
1.403
0.09
5
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
1.518
1.518
0.11
6
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
1.848
1.795
0.13
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
1.743
7
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
1.900
1.900
0.15
8
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
2.066
2.066
0.17
9
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
2.268
2.268
0.20
10
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
2.347
2.347
0.22
11
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus fascia tus
2.040
2.412
0.24
E
Amphipod
Gammarus
pseiidolimnaens
2.853
12
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
2.325
2.430
0.26
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
2.540
13
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
2.454
2.454
0.28
14
E
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
Thamnocephalus
platyurus
2.632
2.632
0.30
15
E
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lvnchi
2.645
2.645
0.33
16
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
3.035
3.035
0.35
17
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
3.200
3.200
0.37
18
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
3.210
3.210
0.39
19
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
4.192
4.192
0.41
20
H
Bryozoan
Pectinatella magnifica
15.21**
15.21
0.43
21
E
Isopod
Caecidotea brevicauda
16.82
16.82
0.46
22
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
17.89
17.89
0.48
23
E
Amphipod
Crangonyx
pseudogracilis
28.57
28.57
0.50
24
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
31.57
31.57
0.52
25
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterns salmoides
46.83
46.83
0.54
26
B
Zebraflsh
Danio rerio
47.47
47.47
0.57
27
F
Midge
Paratanv tarsus
dissimilis
241.0
47.45
0.59
F
Midge
P aratanv tarsus
parthenogeneticus
9.343
28
B
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
51.18**
51.18
0.61
29
B
Razorback sucker
Xyrauchen texanus
54.83**
54.83
0.63
i the species.
71
-------
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
(mg/L)
Percentile
Rank
30
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
54.85
54.85
0.65
31
A
Brook trout
Salve linns fontinalis
79.36
57.25
0.67
A
Lake trout
Salvelinus namavcush
41.30
32
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatiis
67.38
67.38
0.70
33
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
75.18
75.18
0.72
34
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
76.56
76.56
0.74
35
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
81.00
81.00
0.76
36
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
79.29
81.49
0.78
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
83.76
37
C
Cuvier's foam froglet
Phvsalaemus cuvieri
91.14
91.14
0.80
38
B
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
105.8**
91.43
0.83
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirns
78.99
39
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
107.7
107.7
0.85
40
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
121.6**
121.6
0.87
41
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
132.7
132.7
0.89
42
B
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
134.5
134.5
0.91
43
B
Silver perch
Bidvanus bidvanus
200.3**
200.3
0.93
44
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
132.5
257.2
0.96
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
125.5
C
Southern leopard frog
Lithobates
sphenocephalns
1,024**
45
B
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
339.1**
339.1
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
72
-------
Table 5-22. 8:2 FTUCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=45 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
0.7894
-0.24
0.06
0.022
0.147
2
Palaemonetes
1.327
0.28
0.08
0.043
0.209
3
Chydorus
1.344
0.30
0.09
0.065
0.255
4
Megalonaias
1.403
0.34
0.11
0.087
0.295
£ (Sum):
0.68
0.34
0.22
0.91
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
18.39
S = slope
L =
-0.801
L = X-axis intercept
A =
0.158
A = InFAV
FAV =
1.171
FAV/2 =
0.5853 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
0.5853 / 15.8 = 0.03705 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.037 mg/L 8:2 FTUCA (rounded to two significant figures)
73
-------
1.00 T
0.90 ¦ -
0.80
C3 0.70 --
•3 0.60 »
s
3
0.50
~
Amphibian (WeblCE)
•
Fish (Empirical)
o
Fish (WeblCE)
+
Insect (WeblCE)
A
Invertebrate (Empirical)
A
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
©
Mollusk (WeblCE)
• Preliminary Value
-Acute Benchmark
A Moina
O Lymnaea
~ D'aphnia
O Physella
A Branchinecta
A Thamnocephalus
O Utterbackia
O Lampsilis
A Gammarus
O Ortmanniana
O Margaritifera
A Ceriodaphnia
O Lasmigona
A Simocephalus
A Macrobrachium
O Megalonaias
A Chvoorus
A Palaemonetes
Amblema
O Notropis
~ Lithobates
O Bidyanus
O Acipenser
O Carassius
O Oryzias
O Pimephales
O Lepomis
~ Phvsalaemus
O Salmo
• Oncorhynchus
A Asellus
O C\prinus
O Ictalurus
O Salvelinus
O Poecilia
O Xvrauchen
O Perca
+ Paratanvtarsus
O Danio
O Micropterus
A Tubifex
A Crangom'x
A Limnodrilus
A Caecidotea
A Pectinatella
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L 2H-Pei fluoio-2-deceuoic acid (8:2 FTUCA))
Figure 5-7. Ranked Acute 8:2 FTUCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute
Benchmark Calculation.
5.9 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Pentadecafluorodecanoic
Acid (7:3 IK A)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for 7:3 FTCA were available for two species
comprising two genera and fulfilling two MDR groups (Tables 4-2 and 5-24). Because only two
of the MDRs were met with empirical data, ICE-derived values were used to fulfill the remaining
six MDRs. A total of 70 ICE models were accepted for use. Of these, ten ICE models were not
selected for use because empirical data were available for the two genera (e.g., models for
Oncorhynchus gi/ae and Daphnia put ex). Four other models were not used because there were
74
-------
acceptable models for more closely-related surrogate species (i.e., Daphnia magna predicting for
Lepomis macrochirus; Daphnia magna predicting for Pimephalespromelas; Daphnia magna
predicting for Danio rerio). A total of 56 ICE models were selected for use, resulting in ICE
models predicting 55 SMAVs representing 46 genera and all eight MDRs (Tables 5-23 and 5-
24).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 48 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table 5-24. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 1.7 of each other (Table 5-25). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for 7:3 FTCA is 0.3727 mg/L (Table 5-25), which is lower
than all of the GMAVs except for the ICE-derived species value for the threeridge mussel,
Amblemaplicata (GMAV=0.2519 mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary
value of 0.1864 mg/L 7:3 FTCA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor
(15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.012 mg/L 7:3
FTCA (rounded to two significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of
freshwater genera exposed to 7:3 FTCA under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the
one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure 5-8).
There is a gap in the data between the water flea (Moina macrocopa, SMAV =1.76
mg/L) and midge (Chironomus tentans, SMAV = 4.63 mg/L) for these ICE-generated values
(see Figure 5-8). This trend was also noted for 8:2 FTUCA, the other fluorotelomer evaluated.
Although it is unclear the exact reason for this gap in values, it is noted that the lower portion of
the curve is primarily composed of the phyla Mollusca and Arthropoda, while the upper portion
75
-------
of the curve is primarily composed of the phylum Chordata. The distinct difference in sensitivity
indicated by the gap in these data is thus likely to result from a greater estimated sensitivity of
most invertebrates than vertebrates to 7:3 FTCA. Additionally, and as for 8:2 FTUCA, the ICE
estimates for the lower portion of the curve are based primarily on the surrogate Daphnia magna,
while the ICE estimates for the upper portion of the curve are based primarily on the surrogate
Oncorhynchns mykiss. However, these differences fall within the range of differences in acute
response frequently observed between species. For example, within the PFOA and PFOS acute
criteria datasets, there was single species sensitivity that spanned over two orders of magnitude,
and the variation in acute toxicity values is frequently an order of magnitude and can be as high
as three orders of magnitude (Hrovat et al. 2009, Schiir et al. 2023). It is, therefore, not
unexpected to see the difference in sensitivity observed between these species.
76
-------
Table 5-23. Acceptable Models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 7:3 FTCA.
Includes values that were extrapolated as indicated. Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daplinid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0008
166.8
9.5
(2.8-32.4)
Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0002
5,000
0.8
(0.4-1.4)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
68.3
0.9
(0.4-2.2)
Apache trout (Oncorhynchus gilae)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.004
1.625
39.4
(9.0-173.4)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
95.9
31.0
(15.6-61.3)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0003
8,694.5
0.9
(0.6-1.3)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
46,278
2.1b
(1.6-2.7)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrocliirus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0001
8,341.5
33.1
(27.6-39.6)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.003
43.07
72.7
(12.6-420.2)
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
96.69
31.4
(18.8-52.5)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
95.86
33.1
(19.8-55.3)
Bryozoan (Pectinatella magnifica)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592**
0.014
0.232
5.3
(1.9-15.4)
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
13,400
58.8
(23.7-145.4)
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.004
1.625
114.0
(33.0-394.0)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
13,400
31.6
(19.9-50.1)
77
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.003
724.4
40.0
(24.0-66.9)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
43.07
49.4
(38.4-63.6)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
198.4
35.6
(16.3-77.7)
Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
198.4
27.1
(18.7-39.3)
Cuvier's foam froglet (Physalaemus
cuvieri)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.7099
155.5
51.8
(30.8-87.1)
Daplinid (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0003
46,278
0.6
(0.4-0.8)
Daplinid (Daplinia galeata)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592**
0.0001
0.646
1.0
(0.3-3.2)
Daplinid (Daplinia longispina)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0089
10.36
1.1
(0.3-4.3)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulex)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0002
4,894.7
0.7
(0.5-0.9)
Daplinid (Daplinia pulicaria)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
281.6
0.7
(0.2-3.1)
Daplinid (Simocephalus serrulatus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0002
7.2
0.6
(0.3-1.4)
Daplinid (Simocephalus vetulus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
166.8
0.7
(0.1-3.8)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0002
46,500
3.0b
(2.3-3.9)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
13,400
46.7
(36.0-60.7)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
0.9
(0.5-1.5)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
13,400
62.2
(31.6-122.5)
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
166.8
0.8
(0.2-3.5)
78
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
<0.0001
19.93
45.8
(19.9-105.3)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
198.4
28.3
(7.6-105.3)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0003
166.8
27.3
(9.3-80.1)
Isopod (Caecidotea brevicauda)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
82.0
8.2
(1.9-35.7)
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
198.4
18.0
(11.4-28.3)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
<0.0001
95.86
19.5
(9.5-40.3)
Leech (Nephelopsis obscura)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0008
4.369
131.2
(18.7-920.2)
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.007
54.4
52.1
(10.9-248.7)
Midge (Chironomus tentans)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0003
472
4.6
(0.7-32.5)
Midge (Paratanytarsus dissimilis)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0006
1,330
105.8
(35.6-314.4)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.37
14,500
2.9
(0.9-9.1)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0003
58
0.5
(0.1-1.9)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.042
166.8
0.8
(0.4-1.6)
Northern leopard frog (Lithobates
pipiens)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.002
198.4
64.7
(33.7-124.2)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.003
281.6
7.6
(3.1-18.5)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
4,894.7
10.8
(3.0-38.4)
Oriental river shrimp (Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.011
281.6
0.4
(0.2-0.9)
79
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
0.8
(0.5-1.3)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.042
545.9
0.7
(0.2-2.4)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)*
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
14,500
1.4
(1.2-1.8)
Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen
texanus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.003
43.07
26.6
(5.3-134.0)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostruin)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.028
95.86
45.7
(11.2-185.6)
Silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.001
7.075
73.0
(29.7-179.7)
Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka)*
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.028
7.5
25.7
(4.0-164.6)
Southern leopard frog (Lithobates
sphenocephalus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
0.028
9.7
312.8
(88.4-1,106.8)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea stagnalis)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
1.0
(0.4-2.9)
Tadpole physa (Physella gyrina)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
1.0
(0.4-2.3)
Tlireeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
4,894.7
0.3
(0.1-0.7)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
0.8
(0.4-1.6)
Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
0.4
(0.2-0.9)
Water flea (Chydorus sphaericus)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.009
977.6
0.4
(0.2-0.7)
Water flea (Moina macrocopa)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.009
281.6
1.8
(0.6-5.2)
Western pearlshell (Margaritifera
falcata)
Daplinid (Daplinia magna)
0.9592
0.014
8,694.5
0.8
(0.4-1.7)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32**
<0.0001
16.24
22.2
(5.1-95.7)
80
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model
(m
Value Range
2/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Minimum
Maximum
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
50
3.3b
(1.1-10.0)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
229.1
17.6
(6.4-48.5)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.0001
46,500
4.8b
(2.5-9.2)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio rerio-
embryo)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
32
0.0002
8,341.5
34.4
(16.8-70.4)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
* *Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model bounds.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
81
-------
Table 5-24. Ranked 7:3 FTCA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical 7:3 FTCA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
(mg/L)
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
0.2519
0.2519
0.02
2
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
0.3806
0.3806
0.04
3
D
Water flea
Chydorus sphaericus
0.4278
0.4278
0.06
4
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
0.4393
0.4393
0.08
5
E
Mississippi grass
shrimp
Palaemonetes
kadictkensis
0.5324
0.5324
0.10
6
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
0.6004
0.6004
0.12
7
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
0.5972
0.6489
0.14
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
0.7051
8
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
0.7379
0.7379
0.16
9
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
0.7857
0.7857
0.18
10
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis raflnesqueana
0.7949
0.8254
0.20
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
0.8571
11
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
0.8426
0.8426
0.22
12
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus fasciatus
0.7600
0.8483
0.24
E
Amphipod
Gammctrus
pseudolimncteus
0.9468
13
E
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Brcmchinecta lvnchi
0.8488
0.8488
0.27
14
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
0.8497
0.8497
0.29
15
E
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
Thamnocephcdus
platyurus
0.8773
0.8773
0.31
16
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gyrina
0.9531
0.9531
0.33
17
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
0.9592
0.9592
0.35
18
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
1.029
1.029
0.37
19
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
1.760
1.760
0.39
20
F
Midge
Chironomus tentans
4.630
4.630
0.41
21
H
Bryozoan
Pectinatella magnifica
5.340**
5.340
0.43
22
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
7.621
7.621
0.45
23
E
Isopod
Caecidotea brevicauda
8.173
8.173
0.47
24
E
Amphipod
Crangonyx
pseudogracilis
9.512
9.512
0.49
25
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
10.75
10.75
0.51
26
F
Midge
Paratany tarsus
dissimilis
105.75
17.45
0.53
F
Midge
Paratany tarsus
parthenogeneticus
2.880
27
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
19.52
19.52
0.55
28
B
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
22.20**
22.20
0.57
29
A
Brook trout
Salve linns fontinalis
31.44
23.80
0.59
82
-------
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
(mg/L)
Percentile
Rank
A
Lake trout
Salvelinus namavcush
18.01
30
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
24.56
24.56
0.61
31
B
Razorback sucker
Xvrctuchen texamis
26.57
26.57
0.63
32
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
27.30
27.30
0.65
33
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
28.31
28.31
0.67
34
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatiis
31.55
31.55
0.69
35
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
32.00
32.00
0.71
36
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
30.96
32.02
0.73
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
33.12
37
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
35.58
35.58
0.76
38
B
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
45.79**
38.92
0.78
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirns
33.08
39
B
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
45.67
45.67
0.80
40
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
46.72
46.72
0.82
41
C
Cuvier's foam froglet
Phvsalaemus cuvieri
51.77
51.77
0.84
42
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
52.12
52.12
0.86
43
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
62.18
62.18
0.88
44
B
Bonytail
Gila elegans
72.68
72.68
0.90
45
B
Silver perch
Bidvanus bidvanus
73.03**
73.03
0.92
46
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
58.75
106.0
0.94
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
64.72
C
Southern leopard frog
Lithobates
sphenocephaly
312.8**
47
B
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
114.0**
114.0
0.96
48
H
Leech
Nephelopsis obscura
131.2
131.2
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and predicted SMAV is based on extrapolation beyond model
bounds.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
83
-------
Table 5-25. 7:3 FTCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=48 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
0.2519
-1.38
1.90
0.020
0.143
2
Macrobrachium
0.3806
-0.97
0.93
0.041
0.202
3
Chydorus
0.4278
-0.85
0.72
0.061
0.247
4
Megalonaias
0.4393
-0.82
0.68
0.082
0.286
£ (Sum):
-4.02
4.23
0.20
0.88
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
17.53
S = slope
L =
-1.923
L = X-axis intercept
A =
-0.987
A = InFAV
FAV =
0.3727
FAV/2 =
0.1864 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
0.1864 / 15.8 = 0.01179 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.012 mg/L 7:3 FTCA (rounded to two significant figures)
84
-------
1.00 -T
0.90
a" 0.80 -¦
o
0.70 -
C3
O*
>
•s 0.60
# 0.50 -
S3
ct
g 0.40 4
*-w
a
I 0.30 4
(X
0.20 -¦
0.10
0.00
~
Amphibian (WeblCE)
•
Fish (Empirical)
o
Fish (WeblCE)
+
Insect (WeblCE)
A
Invertebrate (Empirical)
A
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
O
Mollusk (WeblCE)
• Preliminary Value
- Acute Benchmark
A Nephelopsis
O Notropis
~ Lithobates
O Bidvanus
O Gila
O Carassius
O Orvzias
~ Phvsalaemus
O Pim'ephales
O Acipenser
O Lepomis
O Cvprinus
O Safmo
• Oncorhynchus
O Ictalurus
O Poecilia
A Asellus
O Xwauchen
O Danio
O Salvelinus
O Perca
O Micropterus
+ Paratanytarsus
A Tubifex
A Cranjjonyx
A Caeciabtea
A Limnodrilus
A Pectinatella
4- Chironomus
A Moina
O Lvmnaea
~ Daphnia
O Physella
A Thainnocephalus
O Lasmigona
A Branchinecta
A Gammarus
O Utterbackia
O Lampsilis
O Margaritifera
O Ortmaimiana
A Simocephalus
A Ceriodaphnia
A Palaemonetes
O Meaalonaias
A Chydorus
A Macrobrachium
O Amblema
I I I I I I I I I I I L
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L 2H,2H,3H,3H-Pefluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA))
Figure 5-8. Ranked Acute 7:3 FTCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
5.10 Summary of Benchmarks for Evaluated PFAS Substances and Effects
Characterization
5.10.1 Summary and Evaluation of Benchmark Values
Freshwater acute benchmarks for the eight selected PFAS are summarized in Table 5-26.
These concentrations are expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to these
PFAS under short-term conditions of one-hour of duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is
not exceeded more than once in three years. However, because only limited empirical toxicity
test data were available for the eight PFAS and the use of ICE models were required to fill in
85
-------
data gaps to derive the benchmarks, the recommended aquatic life acute ambient water quality
benchmarks are less certain than the standard Aquatic Life AWQC typically developed.
Quantitatively acceptable empirical toxicity data were coupled with ICE-predicted values
to try to fulfill the eight MDRs for deriving acute freshwater criteria per the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). Using this approach, the eight MDRs were fulfilled for six of the
evaluated compounds (PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA, 8:2 FTUCA, and 7:3 FTCA). Seven of the
eight MDRs were fulfilled for PFBS while six of the eight MDRs were fulfilled for PFHxS; thus,
there is somewhat greater uncertainty associated with these latter benchmarks. It is also noted
that ICE models for some chemicals were highly dependent on one or a couple of surrogate
species. For example, Daphnia magna comprised the majority of surrogate species for PFNA.
This heavy reliance on a surrogate potentially increases the uncertainty associated with these ICE
models. Conversely, there is somewhat less uncertainty associated with those PFAS benchmarks
with empirical test endpoints amongst the most sensitive test species. Notably, empirical test data
comprised the mean acute value for the most sensitive test species for PFBA (Brachionus
calyciflorus), PFHxA (Brachionus calyciflorus), and PFHxS (Danio rerio), and the second most
sensitive species for PFNA (Chydorus sphaericus). Mean acute values comprised of empirical
test data did not fall amongst the most sensitive test species for the remaining PFAS for which
acute benchmark values were derived. The resulting acute water column-based benchmark
magnitudes range from 0.012 mg/L for 7:3 FTCA to 5.3 mg/L for PFBA.
86
-------
Chemical
PFBA
PFHxA
PFNA
PFDA
PFBS
PFHxS
8:2
FTUCA
7:3
FTC A
Magnitude
5.3
4.8
0.65
0.50
5.0
0.21
0.037
0.012
Duration
One hour average
Frequency
Not to be exceeded more than once in three years on average
Table 5-27 compares the model inputs and freshwater acute benchmarks where the ICE
input PFAS value (surrogate value) was beyond the model range and the model prediction used
for deriving the EPA's acute PFAS benchmark values was based on the extrapolation approach
or using an alternative scaled approach, as discussed in Section 3 (see also Appendix F). The
alternative scaled approach adjusts the toxicity values to bring them within the ICE model range,
when necessary, by changing the measured toxicity units from mg/L to |ig/L so the values fall
within the range of ICE toxicity values, rather than allowing regressions to extrapolate beyond
the model range. This alternative approach underwent detailed evaluation by Raimondo et al.
(2024) and values were calculated using the scaled approach to compare with values calculated
using the extrapolation approach.
As shown in Table 5-27, the scaled approach allowed for the acceptance of up to two
times more models than the extrapolation approach, based primarily on the greater number of
scaled inputs and associated output values meeting the confidence interval acceptability
parameters presented in Box 1 (Section 2). Although there was a meaningful increase in the
number of models accepted with the scaled approach, there was only a slight increase in the
number of MDRs fulfilled. Using the scaled approach, MDRs were met for PFBS (an increase of
one MDR) and one additional MDR was met for PFHxS (seven versus six MDRs met). The
differences between the resulting acute benchmarks, although consistently higher using the
scaled approach, were also small, with each of the benchmarks falling within a factor of < 2.1 of
87
-------
one another, indicating close agreement between benchmark values calculated using either
approach. Raimondo et al. (2024) compared the extrapolated and scaled approaches and found
no significant differences in prediction accuracy between the two approaches. It is likely the
small but generally higher benchmark values (values were the same for PFHxS) resulting from
the scaled approach result from the increase in the number of GMAVs available using the
approach (see in Table 5-27), which will tend to mathematically increase the resulting values
because of the effect of increasing the number of genera (n) in the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines calculation method.
Several investigations have indicated a trend of increasing toxicity with increasing carbon
chain length of PFAS (Cousins et al. 2020, Chambers et al. 2021). This pattern was observed for
both carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid PFAS in this document, as demonstrated by the
decreasing benchmark values with an increasing number of carbons (i.e., increasing chain
length) based on both the extrapolation and scaled approaches, as shown in Table 5-28. Further,
the final acute aquatic life criterion recently derived by the EPA (U.S. EPA 2024b) for the eight
carbon carboxylic acid PFOA is 3.1 mg/L, which falls between the benchmark values for PFHxA
with six carbons (4.8 mg/L with the extrapolated approach; 6.0 mg/L with the scaled approach)
and PFNA with nine carbons (0.65 mg/L with the extrapolated approach; 0.73 mg/L with the
scaled approach) (see Table 5-28). Similarly, the acute aquatic life criterion recently derived by
the EPA (U.S. EPA 2024c) for the eight carbon sulfonic acid PFOS is 0.071 mg/L, which falls
below the benchmark values for PFHxS with six carbons (0.21 mg/L for both the extrapolated
and scaled approaches). The trend of increasing toxicity with increasing chain length for
carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid PFAS thus holds for both the calculated acute benchmark
values and with the final acute criteria for PFOA and PFOS.
88
-------
Table 5-27. Summary of Data Inputs, MDRs Fulfilled and Benchmark Outcomes Using the Extrapolation and Scaled
Approach when Web-ICE Input PFAS Values Exceed Model Range.
Chemical
MDRs
Met with
Empirical
Data
Number of Accepted ICE
Predictions
MDRs Filled with ICE
Models
Total MDRs Met
(Number of GMAVs)
Acute Benchmark (mg/L)
Extrapolation
Approach
Scaled
Approach
Extrapolation
Approach
Scaled
Approach
Extrapolation
Approach
Scaled
Approach
Extrapolation
Approach
Scaled
Approach
Carboxylic Acids
PFBA
3
22
43
5
5
8(22)
8(33)
5.3
11
PFHxA
3
28
43
5
5
8(24)
8(33)
4.8
6.0
PFNA
2
29
42
6
6
8(25)
8(33)
0.65
0.73
PFDA
3
61
85
5
5
8(42)
8(60)
0.50
0.65
Sulfonic Acids
PFBS
2
55
119
5
6
7(30)
8(58)
5.0
7.6
PFHxS
2
17
18
4
5
6(12)
7(13)
0.21
0.21
Fluorotelomers
8:2
FTUCA
2
66
80
6
6
8(45)
8(55)
0.037
0.041
7:3 FTCA
2
70
81
6
6
8(48)
8(59)
0.012
0.015
89
-------
Table 5-28. Comparison of PFAS Chain Length to Perfluorocarboxylic and Perfluorosulfonic Acid Benchmarks and PFOA
and PFOS Acute Criteria Values.
Chemical
Chain Length:
Number of
Carbons
Acute Benchmark (mg/L)
PFOA and PFOS Aquatic Life
Criteria (mg/L)1
Extrapolation Approach
Scaled Approach
Carboxylic Acids
PFBA
4
5.3
11
NA
PFHxA
6
4.8
6.0
NA
PFOA
8
NA
NA
3.1
PFNA
9
0.65
0.73
NA
PFDA
10
0.50
0.65
NA
Sulfonic Acids
PFBS
4
5.0
7.6
NA
PFHxS
6
0.21
0.21
NA
PFOS
8
NA
NA
0.071
NA = Not Applicable
1 Final aquatic life criteria for PFOA and PFOS are presented in U.S. EPA (2024b) and U.S. EPA (2024c), respectively.
90
-------
5.10.2 Comparison of Benchmarks to Other Calculation Methods for Data-Limited PFAS
5.10.2.1 Comparison with Giddings et al. (2019) Approach of Combining Data Across Chemical
Class
In addition to calculating PFAS benchmarks using a combination of empirical and
predicted (ICE model) values for each individual PFAS, the EPA explored the application of an
approach used by Giddings et al. (2019) to derive protective values for data-limited synthetic
pyrethroid insecticides (detailed in Appendix G). In brief, Giddings et al. (2019) combined acute
toxicity data across several synthetic pyrethroid insecticide active ingredients (e.g., bifenthrin,
cypermethrin, permethrin, etc.) into a single pyrethroid species sensitivity distribution (SSD) to
provide a more robust dataset for the derivation of protective aquatic life values. The Giddings et
al. (2019) approach thus involved combining or "binning" data within a general chemical class,
and expected similar mode of action, to develop a larger data set for their analyses. The EPA
followed the same binning approach to estimate protective aquatic life values for PFAS, using
quantitatively acceptable empirical data (Appendix A) for combined carboxylic acid PFAS
(PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, and PFDA) and combined sulfonic acid PFAS (PFBS and PFHxS)
datasets. The EPA additionally incorporated quantitatively acceptable empirical data used for
derivation of the acute PFOA and PFOS criteria (U.S. EPA 2024b,c) in the carboxylic acid and
sulfonic acid data groupings, respectively, to further support derivation of these benchmark
values. Data for carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid groupings were each then normalized by a
common species and pooled according to PFAS grouping to derive group-specific SSDs. Group-
specific SSDs were then generated using both the EPA's SSD Generator (as was done by
Giddings et al. 2019) and following procedures described in the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines
(U.S. EPA 1985). A more detailed description of the process used to derive these benchmark
values is presented in Appendix G.
91
-------
Exploratory acute benchmarks derived using the Giddings binning approach and SSD
Generator-based values are summarized in Table 5-29 and compared to those calculated using
the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-based values. Exploratory benchmark values for both
carboxylic acids (5.6 times) and sulfonic acids (5.0 times) were consistently higher when
calculated using the SSD Generator-based values versus the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-
based values. However, these benchmarks did not show a consistent pattern in magnitude of
differences when compared to the EPA's recommended acute benchmark values (see Table 5-
29). For carboxylic acid PFAS, for example, exploratory benchmark values calculated using the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-based approach were between 0.5 and 3.7 times different (both
higher and lower) compared to the EPA's recommended acute benchmarks. For sulfonic acid
PFAS, exploratory benchmark values calculated using the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-
based values were between 0.5 and 3.0 times different (both higher and lower) compared to
recommended benchmarks. Although the differences between these outcomes cannot be
definitively determined, outcomes are likely to reflect inherent differences in the derivation
processes being used. For example, use of the EPA's Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines procedure
to derive an SSD and calculate a protective value relies on a single distribution based on
averaging the data for the four most sensitive genera around the fifth centile of the distribution,
whereas the EPA's SSD Generator (used by Giddings et al. 2019) supports the calculation of
four different distributions (normal, logistic, triangular, and Gumbel), with the protective value
selected from the best-fit distribution. The limited size of the constituent empirical datasets
available for the binning approach used to generate SSDs based on Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines-based and SSD Generator-based values for the specific PFAS (24 studies total for
PFBA, PFNA, PFDA, and PFHxA datasets and seven studies total for PFBS and PFHxS
92
-------
datasets) and the limited number of datapoints available for the species used for normalization
(one to three datapoints for PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, and PFDA datasets and seven studies total
for PFBS and PFHxS datasets) are also likely to influence the individual benchmark outcomes.
Table 5-29. Comparison of Benchmark Outcomes with Acute Benchmarks Calculated
Based on Approach by Giddings et al. (2019) (Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines and SSD
Generator-Based Values).
Chemical
EPA
Recommended
Acute
Benchmark
(mg/L)
Acute Benchmarks Calculated
Using Binning Approaches1
Factor Difference Between EPA
Acute Benchmark and Binning-
based Benchmark Values
Aquatic Life
Criteria
Guidelines-
Based Values
(mg/L)
SSD Generator-
Based Values
(mg/L)
Aquatic Life
Criteria
Guidelines-
Based Values
SSD Generator-
Based Values
Carboxylic Acids
PFBA
5.3
19
110
3.6
21
PFHxA
4.8
4.3
24
0.9
5.0
PFNA
0.65
0.35
2.0
0.5
3.0
PFDA
0.50
0.49
2.8
1.0
5.6
Sulfonic Acids
PFBS
5.0
15
75
3.0
15
PFHxS
0.21
0.11
0.56
0.5
2.7
1 Acute bene
imarks-binning approach is presented in Appendix G.
5.10.2.2 Comparison with Grippo et al. (2021) Approach of Deriving Water Quality-Based
Ecological Screening Values
Grippo et al. (2021) calculated aquatic life surface water ecological screening values for
each of the carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid PFAS for which the EPA developed benchmarks.
Grippo et al. (2021) employed the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Tier II water quality value
derivation approach (U.S. EPA 1995a,b,c), which uses secondary acute factors to account for the
increased uncertainty associated with the reduced number of tested genera, when they fall below
the eight MDRs. A comparison of the resulting screening values to the EPA's recommended
93
-------
benchmark values is presented in Table 5-30. The Tier IIGLI values calculated by Grippo et al.
(2021) using the Tier II water quality value derivation approach were generally in agreement
with the EPA benchmarks for carboxylic acid PFAS (within a factor of < 8 of one another),
whereas the Tier II GLI value calculated by Grippo et al. (2021) for sulfonic acid PFAS trended
towards a greater difference (factor of 8 for PFHxS and 130 for PFBS). This trend towards a
larger difference in Tier II GLI value versus the EPA benchmark for sulfonic acid PFAS is likely
primarily due to differences between the application factor used by the EPA for calculation of
the acute benchmark (42.3) and the application factor used by Grippo et al. (2021) for calculation
of the Tier II GLI values (13), and some differences in the data used for the calculation of the
Tier II values. If, for example, the Tier II GLI application factor of 13, used by Grippo et al.
(2021) for PFBS and PFHxS, were applied to the EPA calculated benchmarks for these
compounds (instead of the application factor used by the EPA) the difference between the two
values decreases to a factor difference of 9.2 for PFBS and 2.4 for PFHxS). Overall, the EPA's
acute benchmark values are lower than the Tier GLI values. This is primarily because the EPA
used application factors to account for the high sensitivity of some invertebrate species to PFAS,
as represented by the mayfly Neocloeon triangulifer (Soucek et al. 2023) and the cladoceran
Moina micrura (Razak et al. 2023) to PFOA and PFOS. These sensitive species were not
represented in the derived Tier II GLI values.
94
-------
Table 5-30. Comparison of Benchmark Outcomes with Water Quality-Based Ecological
Screening Values Calculated by Grippo et al. (2021) Using the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI)
Chemical
EPA Recommended
Acute Benchmark
(mg/L)
Grippo et al. (2021)
Calculated Tier II
GLI Values
(mg/L)
Factor Difference
Between EPA Acute
Benchmark and
Calculated Tier II GLI
Values
Carboxylic Acids
PFBA
5.3
13.75
2.6
PFHxA
4.8
17.5
3.6
PFNA
0.65
2.14
3.3
PFDA
0.50
4
8
Sulfonic Acids
PFBS
5.0
149.1
30
PFHxS
0.21
1.7
8
5.10,3 Summary and Conclusions
The EPA developed recommended aquatic life acute ambient water quality benchmarks
for eight PFAS with limited empirical test data in accordance with the provisions of section
304(a) of the CWA. Benchmarks were developed for the following eight chemicals:
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), Perfluorononanoic acid
(PFNA), Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS),
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), 2H-Perfluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA), and
2H,2H,3H,3H-Pefluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA).
Because of limitations in the available direct empirical test data, the EPA developed acute
protective benchmarks for these PFAS using available freshwater species empirical test data in
conjunction with the application of the EPA, Office of Research and Development's (ORD's)
peer-reviewed Web-based Interspecies Correlation Estimate tool (Web-ICE; Version 4.0;
https://www.epa.gov/webice/) (Raimondo et al. 2024). Two approaches were used for
95
-------
benchmark development because PFAS acute values can extend beyond the range of values used
to calibrate the ICE model. One approach allowed extrapolation of the data beyond the calibrated
range of the model, while the other (presented in Appendix F) "scaled" the toxicity values to
bring them within the ICE model range, when necessary.
Table 5-27 summarizes and compares the model inputs and aquatic life ambient water
quality benchmark values between the extrapolation approach and alternative scaled approach.
Benchmark values calculated using the scaled approach were consistently higher than those
calculated using the extrapolation approach, though the difference was small (within a factor of
<2.1 of one another), indicating close agreement between the two approaches. It is likely this
small but consistent difference results from an increase in the number of GMAVs available when
using the scaled approach, which tends to mathematically increase the resulting values.
Several investigations have indicated a trend of increasing toxicity with increasing carbon
chain length of PFAS compounds (Cousins et al. 2020, Chambers et al. 2021). This pattern was
also observed for carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid PFAS, as demonstrated by the decreasing
benchmark values with an increasing number of carbons (i.e., increasing chain length) for both
the extrapolation and scaled approaches (Table 5-28).
Table 5-31 compares the EPA benchmark values with those calculated using alternative
approaches. The EPA explored the application of an alternative data "binning" approach,
developed by Giddings et al. (2019) (see Table 5-31), which combines data for multiple related
compounds to provide a more robust dataset. This approach supported derivation of protective
aquatic life values for grouped perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids and grouped perfluoroalkyl
sulfonic acids. SSDs were derived using both Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines -based
procedures, which derive a single distribution and determine the benchmark value based on
96
-------
averaging the data for the four most sensitive genera around the fifth centile, and by using the
EPA's SSD Generator, which was used by Giddings et al. (2019) and supports the calculation of
four different distributions and selects a protective value from the best-fit distribution using all of
the genera. Exploratory benchmark values for both carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids were
consistently higher (5.6 to 5.8 times and 5.0 times, respectively) when derived using the SSD
Generator versus the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines procedures but did not show a consistent
pattern in magnitude when compared to the EPA's recommended benchmark values (Tables 5-
31 and 5-29). For carboxylic acid PFAS, for example, exploratory benchmark values calculated
using Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-based values were between 1.02 and 3.6 times different
(both higher and lower) compared to EPA's recommended acute benchmarks. For sulfonic acid
PFAS, exploratory benchmark values calculated using Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-based
values were between 1.9 and 3.0 times different (both higher and lower) compared to
recommended benchmarks. These mostly small differences likely reflect inherent differences in
the derivation processes being used and the constituent datasets.
Grippo et al. (2021) employed the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Tier II water quality value
derivation approach (U.S. EPA 1995a,b,c) to derive draft ecological screening values for the
same carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid PFAS evaluated in this document. This GLI approach
uses secondary acute factors to account for the increased uncertainty associated with the reduced
number of tested genera, when the number of genera for which data is available falls below the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines eight MDRs. The Grippo et al. (2021) calculated draft Tier II
GLI values were in generally close agreement with the EPA's acute benchmarks for both
carboxylic acid PFAS (within a factor of < 8 of one another) and sulfonic acid PFAS (30 for
PFBS and 8 for PFHxS) (Table 5-31). These differences likely reflect the use of different
97
-------
application factors and some differences in the data used for the calculation of the draft Grippo et
al. (2021) Tier II values, which did not include the sensitive mayfly (N. Iriangiilifer) data as the
Grippo et al. (2021) publication preceded the publication of the mayfly data.
These acute aquatic life benchmarks, developed under Section 304(a)(2) of the CWA,
are informational values that the EPA generated because there are limited high quality toxicity
data available and data gaps exist for several aquatic organism families, such that 304(a)(1)
criteria could not be developed. The EPA developed these aquatic life benchmarks to provide
information that states and Tribes may consider in their water quality protection programs,
including establishing their water quality criteria. However, the EPA's aquatic life benchmark
values are not regulatory, nor do they automatically become part of a state's or Tribe's water
quality standards.
Table 5-31. Summary of the EPA Acute Benchmark Values and Acute Values Calculated
Using Alternative Methods
Chemical
EPA Acute
Benchmarks -
Extrapolation
Approach
(mg/L)
Acute Benchmarks
Binning A
Calculated Using
pproaches
Grippo et al (2021)
Calculated Draft Tier
II GLI Values
(mg/L)
Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines-Based
Values (mg/L)
SSD Generator-
Based Values
(mg/L)
PFBA
5.3
19
110
13.75
PFHxA
4.8
4.3
24
17.5
PFNA
0.65
0.35
2.0
2.14
PFDA
0.50
0.49
2.8
4
PFBS
5.0
15
75
149.1
PFHxS
0.21
0.11
0.56
1.7
8:2 FTUCA
0.037
-
-
-
7:3 FTCA
0.012
-
-
-
98
-------
6 References
Bejarano, A.C. and J.R. Wheeler. 2020. Scientific basis for expanding the use of interspecies
correlation estimation models. Integr. Environ. Assess Manage. 16(4): 525-530.
Chambers W.S., J.G. Hopkins and S.M. Richards. 2021. A review of per- and polyfluorinated
alkyl substance impairment of reproduction. Front. Toxicol. 3:1-9.
Cousins, I.T., J.C. DeWitt, J. Gluge, G. Goldenman, D. Herzke, R. Lohmann, C.A. Ng, M.
Scheringer and Z. Wang. 2020. The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management
as a chemical class. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts. 22(12):2307-2312.
Dyer, S.D., D.J. Versteeg, S.E. Belanger, J.G. Chaney, S. Raimondo and M.G. Barron. 2008.
Comparison of species sensitivity distributions derived from interspecies correlation models to
distributions used to derive water quality criteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (8): 3076-3083.
Feng, C.L., F. Wu, S.D. Dyer, H. Change and X.L. Zhao. 2013. Derivation of freshwater quality
criteria for zinc using interspecies correlation estimation models to protect aquatic life in China.
Chemosphere. 90: 1177-1183.
Fojut, T.L., A.J. Palumbo and R.S. Tjeerdema. 2012a. Aquatic life water criteria derived via the
UC Davis Method: II. Pyrethroid Insecticides. In. Tjeerdema, R.S., ed., Springer, New York,
NY. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 216: 51-104.
Fojut, T.L., A.J. Palumbo, and R.S. Tjeerdema. 2012b. Aquatic life water criteria derived via the
UC Davis Method: III. Diuron. In. Tjeerdema, R.S., ed., Springer, NY, NY. Rev. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 216:105-142.
Giddings, J.M., J. Wirtz, D. Campana and M. Dobbs. 2019. Derivation of combined species
sensitivity distributions for acute toxicity of pyrethroids to aquatic animals. Ecotoxicol. 28: 242-
250.
Grippo, M., J. Hayse, I. Hlohowskyj and K. Picel. 2021. Derivation of PFAS ecological
screening values. Final. September 2021. Environmental Science Division, Argonne National
Laboratory.
Hrovat, M., H. Segner and S. Jeram. 2009. Variability of in vivo fish acute toxicity data. Regul
Toxicol Pharmacol. 54(3):294-300. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.05.013. Epub 2009 May 23.
PMID: 19467285.
Palumbo, A.J., P.L. TenBrook, T.L. Fojut, I.R. Faria and R.S. Tjeerdema. 2012. Aquatic life
water criteria derived via the UC Davis Method: I. Organophosphate Insecticides. In. Tjeerdema,
R.S., ed., Springer, New York, NY. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 216. Pp. 1-50.
99
-------
Raimondo, S., C.R. Jackson and M.G. Barron. 2010. Influence of taxonomic relatedness and
chemical mode of action in acute interspecies estimation models for aquatic species. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 44: 7711-7716.
Raimondo, S., C. Lilavois and S.A. Nelson. 2024. Uncertainty analysis and updated user
guidance for interspecies correlation estimation (ICE) models and low toxicity compounds.
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. Accepted Author Manuscript, https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4884
Razak, M.R., A.Z. Aris, A.H. Zainuddin, F.M. Yusoff, Z.N.B. Yusof, S.D. Kim, and K.W. Kim.
2023. Acute toxicity and risk assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) in tropical cladocerans Moina micrura. Chemosphere 313: 9 p.
Schiir, C., L. Gasser, F. Perez-Cruz, K. Schirmer and M. Baity-Jesi. 2023. A benchmark dataset
for machine learning in ecotoxicology. Sci. Data. 10:718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-Q23-
02612-2
Soucek, D.J., R.A. Dorman, E.L. Pulster, B.G. Perrotta, D.M. Walters and J.A. Steevens. 2023.
Perfluorooctanesulfonate adversely affects a mayfly {Neocloeon tricmgulifer) at environmentally
realistic concentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. DOI: DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00056
<3March2023>.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Guidelines for deriving
numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses.
EPA Report 822/R-85-100 (NTIS Report PB85-227049).
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. Final water quality guidance
for the Great Lakes system. 60 CFR Part 60, No. 56.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1995b. Water quality guidance for
the Great Lakes system. 40 CFR Part 132.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995c. Great Lakes water quality
initiative technical support document for wildlife criteria. EPA-820-B-95-009, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. OCSPP 850.1000 Background
and Special Considerations-Tests with Aquatic and Sediment-Dwelling Fauna and Aquatic
Microcosms (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0042). Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. Final aquatic life ambient
water quality criteria for aluminum - 2018 (EPA-822-R-18-001). Office of Water. Washington,
D.C.
100
-------
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2022a. Draft aquatic life ambient
water quality criteria for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). EPA-842-D-22-001. U.S. EPA, Office
of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2022b. Draft Aquatic Life Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). EPA-842-D-22-002. U.S. EPA,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2024a. Method 1633 analysis of
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in aqueous, solid, biosolids, and tissue samples by
LC-MS/MS. EPA 821-R-24-001. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2024b. Freshwater aquatic life
ambient water quality criteria and acute saltwater aquatic life benchmark for perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA). EPA-842-R-24-002. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2024c. Freshwater aquatic life
ambient water quality criteria and acute saltwater aquatic life benchmark for perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS). EPA-842-R-24-003. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Wang, W.J., C. DeWitt, C.P. Higgins and I.T. Cousins. 2017. A never-ending story of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)? Environ. Sci. Technol. 5(51): 2508-2518.
Wang, X., B. Fan, M. Fan, S. Belanger, J. Li, J. Chen, X. Gao and Z. Liu. 2020. Development
and use of interspecies correlation estimation models in China for potential application in water
quality criteria. Chemosphere. 240: 124848.
Willming, M.M., C.R. Lilavois, M.G. Barron and S. Raimondo. 2016. Acute toxicity prediction
to threatened and endangered species using interspecies correlation estimation (ICE) models.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 50: 10700-10707.
Wu, J., Z. Liu, Z. Yan and X. Yi. 2015. Derivation of water quality criteria of phenanthrene
using interspecies correlation estimation models for aquatic life in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 22: 9457-9463.
Wu, J., Z. Yan, X. Yi, Y. Lin, J. Ni, X. Goa., Z. Liu and X. Shi. 2016. Comparison of species
sensitivity distributions constructed with predicted acute toxicity data from interspecies
correlation estimation models and measured acute data for Benzo[a]pyrene. Chemosphere. 144:
2183-2188.
Zhang, S., L. Wang, Z. Wang, D. Fan, L. Shi and J. Lui. 2017. Derivation of freshwater water
quality criteria for dibutyltin dilaurate from measured data and data predicted using interspecies
correlation estimation models. Chemosphere. 171: 142-148.
101
-------
Appendices
102
-------
Appendix A Quantitatively Acceptable Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies
Species (lifestage)
Method"
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
i)H
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author Reported
Effect Cone.
(mg/L)
Species Mean
Acute Value
(mg/L)
Reference
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
Rotifer (neonate, <2 h),
Brachionus calvciflorus
S,U
24 hr
PFBA
98%
7.0
20
LCso
110
110
Wang et al. 2017
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Chvdorus sphaericus
S, M
48 hr
PFBA
98%
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
>4,280.8
>4,280.8
Ding et al. 2012
Zebrafish (embryo, 60 mpf),
Danio rerio
S,U
96 hr
PFBA
>97%
7.2-
7.5
26
LCso
>3,000b
-
Hagenaars et al. 2011
Zebrafish (gastrula, 4.5 hpf),
Danio rerio
R, U
96 hr
PFBA
NR
7.0 -
7.5
28
LCso
13,779
13,779
Godfrey et al. 2017
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia magna
S,U
48 hr
PFBA
>97%
NR
21
ECso
(immobilization)
>l,006b
-
Boudreau 2002
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia magna
S, M
48 hr
PFBA
98%
8.0
20
ECso
(immobilization)
>4,280.8
-
Ding et al. 2012
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia magna
S, M
48 hr
PFBA
>98%
7.0-
7.82
20
ECso
(immobilization)
5,251
4,741
Bannentlo et al. 2015
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia pulicaria
S,U
48 hr
PFBA
>97%
-
21
ECso
(immobilization)
>1,006
>1,006
Boudreau 2002
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia magna
S, M
48 hr
PFBS
97.3-97.9%
8.1-
8.5
19.8-
20.1
ECso
(immobilization)
2,183
2,183
Wildlife International Ltd.
2001
Fathead minnow (juvenile),
Pimephales promelas
S, M
96 hr
PFBS
97.3 - 97.9%
8.4-
8.5
20.7-
22.8
LCso
1,938
1,938
Wildlife International Ltd.
2001
Bluegill (juvenile), Lepomis
macrochirus
S, M
96 hr
PFBS
97.3 - 97.9%
8.1-
8.4
22.1-
23.9
LCso
6,452
6,452
Drottar and Krueger 2001
A-l
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author Reported
Effect Cone.
(mg/L)
Species Mean
Acute Value
(mg/L)
Reference
Zebrafish (embryo, 60 mpf),
Danio rerio
S,U
96 lir
PFBS
>97%
7.2-
7.5
26
LCso
>3,000
>3,000
Hagenaars et al. 2011
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
Cladoceran (<24 hours),
Chvdorus sphaericus
S, M
48 lir
PFNA
97%
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
27.84
27.84
Ding et al. 2012
Cladoceran (neonate, 24
hours), Daphnia magna
S,U
48 lir
PFNA
98%
7.7-
8.4
20
ECso
(immobilization)
43.42
-
Lu et al. 2016
Cladoceran (neonate, 24
hours), Daphnia magna
S,U
48 lir
PFNA
>97%
-
21
ECso
(immobilization)
91.89
-
Boudreau 2002
Cladoceran (neonate, 24
hours), Daphnia magna
S, M
48 lir
PFNA
97%
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
151.29
84.51
Ding et al. 2012
Clawed frog (blastula),
Xenopus sp.
R, U
96 lir
PFNA
NR
-
23
LCso
335.8
335.8
Kim et al. 2013
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Chvdorus sphaericus
S,U
48 lir
PFDA
98%
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
41.13
41.13
Ding et al. 2012
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Daphnia magna
S,U
48 lir
PFDA
99.6%
-
20
ECso
>100b
-
Hoke et al. 2012
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Daphnia magna
S,U
48 lir
PFDA
>97%
-
21
ECso
(immobilization)
129.54
-
Boudreau 2002
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Daphnia magna
s,u
48 lir
PFDA
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
163.48
145.5
Ding et al. 2012
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Daphnia pulicaria
s,u
48 lir
PFDA,
>97%
-
21
ECso
(immobilization)
149.59
149.59
Boudreau 2002
Clawed frog (blastula),
Xenopus sp.
R, U
96 lir
PFDA
NR
-
23
LCso
76.5
76.5
Kim et al. 2013
A-2
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author Reported
Effect Cone.
(mg/L)
Species Mean
Acute Value
(mg/L)
Reference
Rainbow trout (not reported,
28-61 dph), Oncorhynchus
mvkiss
S,U
96 lir
PFDA
99.6%
12
LCso
32
32
Hoke et al. 2012
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
Rotifer (neonate, <2 h),
Brachionus calvciflorus
s,u
24 lir
PFHxA
98%
7.0
20
LCso
140
140
Wang et al. 2017
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hours), Daphnia magna
S, M
48 lir
PFHxA
>97%
7.0-
7.82
20
ECso
(immobilization)
1,048
1,048
Bannentlo et al. 2015
American bullfrog (larva, 26
go), Lithobates catesbeianus
(formerly, Rana catesbeiana)
S,U
96 lir
PFHxA
>98%
-
21
LCso
1,105
1,105
Tornabene et al. 2021
Green frog (larva, 26 gosner
stage), Lithobates clamitans
(formerly, Rana clamitans)
S,U
96 lir
PFHxA
NR
-
21
LCso
758
758
Tornabene et al. 2021
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
Zebrafish (embryo, 3 hpf),
Danio rerio
RU
96 lir
PFHxS
NR
7.2
28
NOEC
(growth, length)
22.5
22.5
Annunziato et al. 2020
American bullfrog (larva, 26
gosner stage), Lithobates
catesbeianus
(formerly, Rana catesbeiana)
S,U
96 lir
PFHxS
NR
-
21
LCso
1,105
1,105
Tornabene et al. 2021
Green frog (larva, 26 gosner
stage), Lithobates clamitans
(formerly, Rana clamitans)
S,U
96 lir
PFHxS
NR
-
21
LCso
758
758
Tornabene et al. 2021
H-Perfluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA)
Cladoceran (neonate, 24 lir),
Daphnia magna
s,u
48 lir
8:2 FTUCA
99.8%
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
3.2
3.2
Hoke et al. 2012
A-3
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author Reported
Effect Cone.
(mg/L)
Species Mean
Acute Value
(mg/L)
Reference
Rainbow trout (not reported,
28-61 dph), Oncorhynchus
mvkiss
S,U
96 hr
8:2 FTUCA
99.8%
12
LCso
81
81
Hoke et al. 2012
2H,2H,3H,3H-Pefluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA)
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia magna
S, M
48 hr
7:3 FTCA
>99.%
-
20
ECso
(immobilization)
0.4
-
Hoke et al. 2012
Cladoceran (neonate, <24
hr), Daphnia magna
S,U
48 hr
7:3 FTCA
>99%
-
ECso
(immobilization)
2.3
0.9592
Hoke et al. 2012
Rainbow trout (not reported,
28-61 dph), Oncorhynchus
mvkiss
S,U
96 hr
7:3 FTCA
>99%
-
12
LCso
32
32
Hoke et al. 2012
a S=static, R=renewal, F=flow-through, U=unmeasured, M=measured.
b Not used in species mean calculation because the value is greater than low value.
A-4
-------
A.l References
Annunziato, K.M., J. Doherty, J. Lee, J.M. Clark, W. Liang, C.W. Clark, M. Nguyen, M.A. Roy
and A.R. Timme-Laragy. 2020. Chemical characterization of a legacy aqueous film-forming
foam sample and developmental toxicity in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Health
Perspect. 128(9): 97006-97006.
Barmentlo, S.H., J.M. Stel, M. Van Doom, C. Eschauzier, P. De Voogt and M.H.S. Kraak. 2015.
Acute and chronic toxicity of short chained perfluoroalkyl substances to Daphnia magna.
Environ. Pollut. 198:47-53.
Boudreau, T.M. 2002. Toxicity of perfluorinated organic acids to selected freshwater organisms
under laboratory and field conditions. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada: 145
P-
Ding, G.H., T. Fromel, E.J. Van den Brandhof, R. Baerselman and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg. 2012.
Acute toxicity of poly- and perfluorinated compounds to two cladocerans, Daphnia magna and
Chydorus sphaericus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31(3): 605-610.
Drottar, K.R. and H.O. Krueger. 2001. Perfluoro butane sulfonate, potassium salt (PFBS): A 96-
hour static acute toxicity test with bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Project 454A-114. Wildlife
International Ltd.:43 p.
Godfrey, A., A. Abdel-Moneim and M.S. Sepulveda. 2017. Acute mixture toxicity of
halogenated chemicals and their next generation counterparts on zebrafish embryos.
Chemosphere. 181:710-712.
Hagenaars, A., L. Vergauwen, W. De Coen and D. Knapen. 2011. Structure-activity relationship
assessment of four perfluorinated chemicals using a prolonged zebrafish early life stage test.
Chemosphere. 82:764-772.
Hoke, R.A., L.D. Bouchelle, B.D. Ferrell and R.C. Buck. 2012. Comparative acute freshwater
hazard assessment and preliminary PNEC development for eight fluorinated acids.
Chemosphere. 87(7): 725-733.
Kim, M., J. Son, M.S. Park, Y. Ji, S. Chae, C. Jun, J.S. Bae, T.K. Kwon, Y.S. Choo, H. Yoon, D.
Yoon, J. Ryoo and S.H. Kim. 2013. In vivo evaluation and comparison of developmental toxicity
and teratogenicity of perfluoroalkyl compounds using Xenopus embryos. Chemosphere. 93(6):
1153-1160.
Lu, G.H., B.H. Ma, S. Li, and L.S. Sun. 2016. Toxicological Effects of Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA) on Daphnia magna. Mat. Sci. Environ. Eng.: 559-564
A-5
-------
Tornabene, B.J., M.F. Chislock, M.E. Gannon, M.S. Sepulveda and J.T. Hoverman. 2021.
Relative acute toxicity of three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on nine species of larval
amphibians. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.l7(4): 684-689.
Wang, Y., J. Niu, L. Zhang and J. Shi. 2014. Toxicity assessment of perfluorinated carboxylic
acids (PFCAs) towards the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Sci. Total Environ. 491/492:266-270.
Wang, W.J., C. DeWitt, C.P. Higgins and I.T. Cousins. 2017. A never-ending story of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)? Environ. Sci. Technol. 5(51): 2508-2518.
Wildlife International Ltd.. 2001. Perfluorobutane Sulfonate, Potassium Salt: (PFBS): A 48-hour
static acute toxicity test with the cladoceran (Daphnia magna). Wildlife International Ltd.
Project No. 454A-118A: 42 p.
A-6
-------
Appendix B Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Freshwater
Acute Toxicity Studies
B.l Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Empirical Toxicity Studies Used to
Derive Aquatic Life Benchmarks
Quantitatively acceptable empirical acute toxicity data were available for 27 freshwater
species across the 8 PFAS: PFBA (5 species), PFBS (4 species), PFNA (3 species), PFDA (4
species), PFHxA (4 species), PFHxS (3 species), 8:2 FTUCA (2 species), and 7:3 FTCA (2
species) (Table 4-2; Appendix A). The following presents summaries of the freshwater toxicity
studies with empirical effect values that were used quantitatively to derive acute benchmarks,
which consist of toxicity values falling amongst the four most sensitive values. These values are
used quantitatively to derive the benchmarks consistent with procedures presented in the Aquatic
Life Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985) designed to protect 95% of aquatic taxa. These "most
sensitive" empirical studies consist of one study each for PFBA, PFNA, PFHxA, and PFHxS.
Study summaries for the most sensitive taxa are presented below for each of these substances.
Acute values are presented as reported by the study authors, unless indicated otherwise.
B.2 Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Empirical Toxicity Studies for
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
Wang et al. (2014) exposed the rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, to perfluorobutanoic
acid (PFBA, CAS # 375-22-4, 98% purity) in a 24-hour acute toxicity test. The test was
performed under static, non-renewal conditions beginning with <2-hour old neonates. Exposures
consisted of 10 test organisms per 15 mL well in 6-well cell culture plates containing 10 mL of
test medium. The control and each of nine PFBA test concentrations were replicated three times
for a total of 30 neonates per treatment. Nominal test concentrations were 0.0 mg/L for the
control and treatments ranged from 40-140 mg/L PFBA. Neonates were exposed at pH 7.0 and
20 ± 1°C under darkness. After 24 h of exposure, the number of dead and live rotifers was
B-l
-------
enumerated under a microscope at 10x magnification. Rotifers were deemed inactive if they did
not move in a period of 30s. The author-reported acute LC50 was 110 mg/L. This value was
acceptable for quantitative use in deriving the recommended acute freshwater PFBA benchmark.
B.3 Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Empirical Toxicity Studies for
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
Wang et al. (2014) exposed the rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, to perfluorohexanoic
acid (PFHxA, CAS # 307-24-4, 98% purity) in a 24-hour acute toxicity test. The test was
performed under static, non-renewal conditions beginning with <2-hour old neonates. Exposures
consisted of 10 test organisms per 15 mL well in 6-well cell culture plates containing 10 mL of
test medium. The control and each of nine PFHxA test concentrations were replicated three times
for a total of 30 neonates per treatment. Nominal test concentrations were 0.0 mg/L for the
control and treatments ranged from 40-140 mg/L PFHxA. Neonates were exposed at pH 7.0 and
20 ± 1°C under darkness. After 24 h of exposure, the number of dead and live rotifers was
enumerated under a microscope at 10x magnification. Rotifers were deemed inactive if they did
not move in a period of 30s. The author-reported acute LC50 was 140 mg/L. This value was
acceptable for quantitative use in deriving the recommended acute freshwater PFHxA
benchmark.
B.4 Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Empirical Toxicity Studies for
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
Ding et al. (2012) exposed the cladoceran, Chydorus sphaericus, to perfluorononanoic
acid (PFNA, CAS # 375-95-1, 97% purity) in a 48-hour acute toxicity test. The test was
performed under static, non-renewal conditions beginning with <24-hour old neonates.
Exposures consisted of five test organisms per 2 ml vial to which 250 |il test solution was added.
Because the water solubility of PFNA was low, dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) was used for
preparing the stock solution. The concentration of DMSO in test solutions did not exceed 0.2%.
B-2
-------
A solvent control was tested simultaneously with a negative (dilution water) control. The two
controls and each of six PFNA test concentrations were replicated four times for a total of 20
neonates per treatment. Nominal test concentrations were 0.0 (controls), 0.05, 0.07, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2
and 0.25 mMPFNA, or 0, 23.20, 32.49, 69.61, 92.82 and 116.0 mg/L after conversion using a
molecular weight for PFNA of 464.08 mg/mmol. Samples containing the highest and the lowest
test concentrations were analyzed to confirm the nominal concentrations. Although partial
chemical analysis was conducted, only nominal concentrations were reported. To assess the test
concentration variability, all samples at a selected nominal concentration were analyzed, with a
relative standard deviation of 6.5%. The measured concentrations were between 82 and 91% of
the nominal concentration. Neonates were exposed at 20 ± 1°C under a 16:8-hour light:dark
cycle. The animals were not fed during the test period and were checked under a reverse
dissecting microscope at 24 and 48 h. Immobilization was determined based on inactivation of
the animals after slightly tapping with a finger to the vial and monitoring them for 30s. The
author-reported acute immobilization LCso was 0.060 mM (or 27.84 mg/L). This value was
acceptable for quantitative use in deriving the recommended acute freshwater PFNA benchmark.
B.5 Summary of Lowest Quantitatively Acceptable Empirical Toxicity Studies for
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
Annunziato et al. (2020) exposed the wildtype AB strain of zebrafish, Danio rerio, to
perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS, CAS # 355-46-4, purity not reported) in a 93-hour acute
toxicity test following OECD Test No. 236 (OECD 2013). The test was performed under static-
renewal conditions beginning with 3-hour post fertilization (hpf) embryos. Fifteen embryos were
assigned at random to each treatment or control group, with each embryo placed into an
individual glass vial containing 1 mL of solution. Test solutions were prepared and refreshed
daily. Because of the low water solubility of PFHxS, dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) was used for
B-3
-------
preparing the stock solution. The concentration of DMSO in test solutions did not exceed 0.01%.
A solvent control and each of seven PFHxS test concentrations were replicated three times for a
total of 45 organisms per treatment. Nominal test concentrations were 0.0 (control), 0.07, 1.41,
2.81, 5.63, 11.25, 22.50, and 45.00 mg/L PFHxS. Embryos were exposed at pH 7.2, 28 ± 1°C
under a 14:10-hour light:dark cycle and monitored daily through 96 hpf. There was >90% health
and survival in the control group. Test concentrations of PFHxS were too low to derive an LCso
value. Larval growth (length) was assessed at test termination. The author-reported a growth
(weight) NOEC of 22.5 mg/L. This value was acceptable for quantitative use in deriving the
recommended acute freshwater PFHxS benchmark.
B.6 References
Annunziato, K.M., J. Doherty, J. Lee, J.M. Clark, W. Liang, C.W. Clark, M. Nguyen, M.A. Roy
and A.R. Timme-Laragy. 2020. Chemical characterization of a legacy aqueous film-forming
foam sample and developmental toxicity in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Health
Perspect. 128(9): 97006-97006.
Ding, G.H., T. Fromel, E.J. Van den Brandhof, R. Baerselman and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg. 2012.
Acute toxicity of poly- and perfluorinated compounds to two cladocerans, Daphnia magna and
Chydorus sphaericus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.31(3): 605-610.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Guidelines for deriving
numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses.
EPA Report 822/R-85-100 (NTIS Report PB85-227049).
Wang, Y., J. Niu, L. Zhang and J. Shi. 2014. Toxicity assessment of perfluorinated carboxylic
acids (PFCAs) towards the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Sci. Total Environ. 491/492: 266-
270.
B-4
-------
Appendix C Qualitative Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
PH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
Green alga, Raphidocelis
subcapitata
(formerly, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and Selenastrum
capriconnituni)
S,U
4.5 hr
Perfluorobutanoic
acid/
98%
NR
NR
ECso
(population
photosynthesis)
262.2b
Test duration too
short
Ding et al. 2012
Duckweed,
Lenma gibba
s,u
7 d
Perfluorobutyric
acid/
>97%
NR
25
IC50
(population/
weight)
>l,006b
Test duration too
long
Boudreau 2002
Japanese medaka (embryo, <6
hpf),
Orvzias latipes
R,U
48 hr post
hatch
Perfluorobutyric
acid/
NR
7.0-
7.5
25
LOEC
(velocity)
137
Only one
concentration
tested; atypical
endpoint
Godfrey 2017
Japanese medaka,
Orvzias latipes
S,U
96 hr
Perfluorobutyric
acid/
NR
7.0-
7.5
25
NOEC
(mortality)
>13,795
Only one
concentration tested
Godfrey et al. 2019
Japanese medaka (embryo, <6
hpf),
Orvzias latipes
R,U
10 d
Perfluorobutyric
acid/
NR
7.0-
7.5
25
NOEC
(growth -
length)
137
Only one
concentration
tested; duration too
short for a chronic
test
Godfrey et al. 2019
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
144 hr
post fert.
Perfluorobutyric
acid/
NR
7.2-
7.6
26
ECso
(heart rate,
hatching time)
2,200
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Ulhaqetal. 2013
Zebrafish (embryo, 5-6 hpf),
Danio retio
R, U
90-91 hr
Perfluorobutyric
acid/
>99%
7
28
LCso
9,703
Test duration too
short
Wasel et al. 2020
C-l
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
112-114
hr
Perfluoro-n-
butanoic acid /
>98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
0.2504b
Only one
concentration
tested; duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
Green alga, Raphidocelis
subcapitata
(formerly, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and Selenastnim
capriconnituni)
S, M
96 hr
Perfluorobutane
sulfonate
potassium salt /
97.3%
00
23.8-
24.5
ECso
(population
abundance)
2,146
Wildlife
International 2001
Green alga,
Raphidocelis subcapitata
S,U
48 hr
1 -Butanesulfonic
acid,
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-
Nonafluoro-,
Potassium salt /
>95%
7.2
20
ECio
(population
growth rate)
299
Test duration too
short
Kusk et al. 2018
Zebrafish (embryo),
Danio retio
S,U
144 hr
post fert.
Perfluorobutane
sulfonic acid / NR
7.2-
7.6
26
LCso
1,500
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Ulhaqetal. 2013
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 hr
Potassium
nonafluoro-1-
butanesulfonate /
NR
NR
28
NOEC
(growtli
stunting)
20.84b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Truong et al. 2014
Zebrafish (embryo),
Danio retio
R,U
168 hr
post fert.
Nonafluorobutane-
1-sulfonic acid /
NR
7.5
28-
28.5
LCso
921.9
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Stinckens et al.
2018
Zebrafish (embryo, 3 hpf),
Danio retio
R,U
5 d post
fert.
Nonafluorobutane-
1-sulfonic acid /
97%
NR
NR
LCso
406.2b
Test duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Sant et al. 2019
C-2
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 hr
Potassium
nonafluoro-1-
butanesulfonate /
NR
NR
NR
BMDio
(mortality)
(benchmark
dose)
27.75b
Test duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Thomas et al. 2019
Zebrafish (embryo, 5-6 hpf),
Danio retio
R,U
90-91 hr
Potassium
perfluorobutane-
sulfonate / >99%
NR
28
LCso
1,394
Test duration too
short
Wasel et al. 2020
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
112-114
hr
Potassium
perfluoro-1-
butanesulfonate /
>98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
0.2295b
Only one
concentration
tested; duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
Zebrafish (3-yr old adults),
Danio retio
R,U
14 d
Perfluorobutanesul
fonate /
>98%
NR
NR
LOEC
(multiple
genetic and
biochemistry
endpoints)
0.100
Only non-apical
endpoints evaluated
Liu et al. 2022
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
Rainbow trout (oocyte, ova),
Oncorhvnchiis mykiss
S, M
3 hr
Perfluorohexanoic
acid / >97%
8.5
6
NOEC
(accumulation
residue)
10.83
Test duration too
short
Raine et al. 2021
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 hr
Perfluorohexanoic
acid / NR
NR
28
NOEC
(growth
stunting)
20.10b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Truong et al. 2014
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 hr
Perfluorohexanoic
acid / NR
NR
NR
BMDio
(mortality)
(benchmark
dose)
22.18b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Thomas et al. 2019
Zebrafish (embryo, 5-6 hpf),
Danio retio
R, U
90-91 hr
Perfluorohexanoic
acid / >99%
7
28
LCso
6,486
Test duration too
short
Wasel et al. 2020
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
120 hr
Perfluoro-n-
hexanoic acid /
>98%
NR
28
MATC
(mortality)
5.367
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Guo et al. 2021
C-3
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
112-114
hr
Perfluoro-n-
hexanoic acid /
>98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
0.2512b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
Zebrafish (embryo, 0.5-2 hpf),
Danio retio
R,U
94-95.5 hr
Perfluorohexanoic
acid / >99%
NR
28
MATC
(mortality)
5.367
Test duration too
short
Zhang et al. 2022
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 hr
Potassium
perfluorohexanesul
fonate / NR
NR
28
MATC
(mortality)
8.889b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Truong et al. 2014
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 lir
Potassium
perfluorohexanesul
fonate / NR
NR
NR
BMDio
(mortality)
(benchmark
dose)
1.968b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Thomas et al. 2019
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
112-114
hr
Sodium perfluoro-
1 -hexanesulfonate
/ >98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
0.2503b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
Green alga, Raphidocelis
subcapitata
(formerly, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and Selenastnim
capriconnituni)
s,u
4.5 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid/97%
NR
NR
ECso
(population
photosyntliesis)
481.7b
Test duration too
short
Ding et al. 2012
Duckweed,
Lemna gibba
s,u
7 d
Perfluorononanoic
acid / >97%
NR
25
IC50
(population/
weight)
89.10b
Test duration too
long
Boudreau 2002
Cladoceran (<24 h old),
Daphnia pulicaria
R,U
21 d
Perfluorononanoic
acid / >97%
NR
21
MATC
(reproduction:
young/brood)
8.694b
Lack of procedural
details cannot judge
against data quality
objectives
Boudreau 2002
Zebrafish (embryo, 0 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
72 lir post
fert.
Perfluorononanoic
acid/97%
8.3
28.5
LCso
84
Test duration too
short
Zheng et al. 2012
C-4
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Zebrafish (embryo),
Danio retio
S,U
144 hr
post fert.
Perfluorononanoic
acid / NR
7.2-
7.6
26
LCso
>10
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Ulhaqetal. 2013
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
114 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid / NR
NR
28
MATC
(mortality)
0.9392b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Truong et al. 2014
Zebrafish (embryo, 1 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
23 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid/97%
7.2-
8.0
28
LCso
140.2b
Test duration too
short
Liu et al. 2015
Zebrafish (embryo, 3 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
117 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid / NR
7.2-
7.7
26-28
MATC
(growth -
length)
0.2935b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Jantzen et al. 2016
Zebrafish (embryo, 72 hpf),
Danio retio
S, M
48 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid / NR
NR
27
LCso
108.6
Test duration too
short
Rainieri et al. 2017
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
114 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid / NR
NR
NR
BMDio
(mortality)
(benchmark
dose)
17.10b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Thomas et al. 2019
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
112-114
hr
Perfluoro-n-
nonanoic acid /
97%
NR
28
LOEC
(development
deformation)
45.02b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
African clawed frog (embryo, 8-
11 stage),
Xenopiis laevis
R,U
96 hr
Perfluorononanoic
acid / NR
6.5-
7.5
24
NOEC
(mortality,
growth)
3.5
Only one
concentration
evaluated
Mitchell 2010
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
Green alga, Raphidocelis
subcapitata
(formerly, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and Selenastnim
capriconmtum)
S,U
4.5 hr
Perfluorodecanoic
acid/
98%
NR
NR
ECso
(population
photosynthesis)
437.5b
Test duration too
short
Ding et al. 2012
Green alga,
Raphidocelis subcapitata
s,u
72 hr
n-
Perfluorodecanoic
acid/
99.6%
-7.5
24
ECso
(population
biomass)
10.6
Test duration too
short
Hoke et al. 2012
C-5
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
PH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Duckweed,
Lemna gibbet
S,U
7 d
Perfluorodecanoic
acid/
>97%
NR
25
IC50
(population/
weight)
99.22b
Test duration too
long
Boudreau 2002
Zebrafish (embryo),
Danio retio
s,u
144 hr
post fert.
Perfluorodecanoic
acid / NR
7.2-
7.6
26
LCso
8.4
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Ulhaqetal. 2013
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
114 hr
Perfluorodecanoic
acid / NR
NR
28
NOEC
(growth
stunting)
32.90b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Truong et al. 2014
Zebrafish (embryo, 6 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
114 hr
Perfluorodecanoic
acid / NR
NR
NR
BMDio
(mortality)
(benclimark
dose)
5,141b
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Thomas et al. 2019
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
s,u
112-114
hr
Perfluoro-n-
decanoic acid /
98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
50.38b
Only one
concentration
tested; duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
African clawed frog (embryo, 8-
11 stage),
Xenopiis laevis
R,U
96 hr
Perfluorodecanoic
acid / NR
6.5-
7.5
24
NOEC
(mortality,
growth)
3.5
Only one
concentration
evaluated
Mitchell 2010
Hexadecafluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA)
Green alga,
Raphidocelis subcapitata
(formerly, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and Selenastnim
capriconnituni)
S, M
72 hr
8:2 Fluorotelomer
unsaturated
carboxylate /
>98%
6.5-
7.5
24
ECio
(population
abundance)
2.3
Test duration too
short
Mitchell et al. 2011
Green alga, Raphidocelis
subcapitata
S,U
72 hr
8:2 FTUCA /
99.8%
-7.5
24
ECso
(population
biomass)
7.5
Test duration too
short
Hoke et al. 2012
C-6
-------
Species (lifestage)
Method3
Test
Duration
Chemical /
Purity
pH
Temp.
(°C)
Effect
Author
Reported
Effect
Concentration
(mg/L)
Deficiencies
Reference
Green alga (exponential growth
phase (log), 3-7 d),
Chlorella vulgaris
S, M
72 hr
8:2 Fluorotelomer
unsaturated
carboxylate /
>98%
6.5-
7.5
24
ECio
(population
abundance)
2.2
Test duration too
short
Mitchell et al. 2011
Amphipod,
Hvalella azteca
R,M
10 d
8:2 Fluorotelomer
unsaturated
carboxylate /
>98%
6.5-
7.5
23
NOEC
(mortality and
growth)
6.1
Duration too long
for an acute test and
too short for a
chronic test
Mitchell et al. 2011
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
112-114
hr
2H-Perfluoro-2-
decenoic acid /
>98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
0.2520b
Only one
concentration
tested; duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
Pentadecafluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA)
Green alga, Raphidocelis
subcapitata
(formerly, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and Selenastrum
capriconmtum)
S,U
72 hr
4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,
9,9,10,10,10-
Pentadecafluorode
canoic acid / >99%
-7.5
24
ECso
(population
biomass)
2.1
Test duration too
short
Hoke et al. 2012
Zebrafish (embryo, 6-8 hpf),
Danio retio
S,U
112-114
hr
3-Perfluoroheptyl
propanoic acid /
>98%
NR
28
NOEC
(mortality)
0.2520b
Only one
concentration
tested; duration too
long for an acute
test and too short for
a chronic test
Rericha et al. 2021
a S=static, R=renewal, F=flow-through, U=unmeasured, M=measurec.
b Converted to mg/L based on molecular weight.
C-7
-------
C.l References
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
Boudreau, T.M. 2002. Toxicity of perfluorinated organic acids to selected freshwater organisms
under laboratory and field conditions. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada: 145 p.
Ding, G., M. Wouterse, R. Baerselman and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg. 2012. Toxicity of
polyfluorinated and perfluorinated compounds to lettuce {Lactuca sativa) and green algae
(Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 62(1): 49-55.
Godfrey, A.E.. 2017. Endocrine disrupting effects of halogenated chemicals on fish. Ph.D.
Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN: 125 p.
Godfrey, A., B. Hooser, A. Abdelmoneim, and M.S. Sepulveda. 2019. Sex-Specific Endocrine-
Disrupting Effects of Three Halogenated Godfrey,A., B. Hooser, A. Abdelmoneim, and M.S.
Sepulveda. 2019. Sex-Specific Endocrine-Disrupting Effects of Three Halogenated Chemicals in
Japanese Medaka. J. Appl. Toxicol. 39(8): 1215-1223.
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
Ulhaq, M., G. Carlsson, S. Orn and L. Norrgren. 2013. Comparison of developmental toxicity of
seven perfluoroalkyl acids to zebrafish embryos. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36: 423-426.
Wasel, O., K.M. Thompson, Y. Gao, A.E. Godfrey, J. Gao, C.T. Mahapatra, L.S. Lee, M.S.
Sepulveda and J.L. Freeman. 2020. Comparison of zebrafish in vitro and in vivo developmental
toxicity assessments of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A. 84:
125-136.
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
Kusk, K.O., A.M. Christensen and N. Nyholm. 2018. Algal growth inhibition test results of 425
organic chemical substances. Chemosphere. 204: 405-412.
Liu, M.Y., B.L. Sun, X.Z. Zhou and L.G. Chen. 2022. Disturbed glucose metabolism by
perfluorobutanesulfonate pollutant and benefit of young fecal transplantation in aged zebrafish.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 241: 113721.
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
C-8
-------
Sant, K.E., O.L. Venezia, P.P. Sinno and A.R. Timme-Laragy. 2019. Perfluorobutanesulfonic
acid disrupts pancreatic organogenesis and regulation of lipid metabolism in the zebrafish, Danio
rerio. Toxicol. Sci. 167(1): 258-268.
Stinckens, E., L. Vergauwen, G.T. Ankley, R. Blust, V.M. Darras, D.L. Villeneuve, H. Witters,
D.C. Volz and D. Knapen. 2018. An AOP-based alternative testing strategy to predict the impact
of thyroid hormone disruption on swim bladder inflation in zebrafish. Aquat. Toxicol. 200: 1-12.
Thomas, D.G., H. Shankaran, L. Truong, R.L. Tanguay andK.M. Waters. 2019. Time-dependent
behavioral data from zebrafish reveals novel signatures of chemical toxicity using point of
departure analysis. Comput. Toxicol. 9: 50-60.
Truong, L., D.M. Reif, L. St Mary, M.C. Geier, H.D. Truong and R.L. Tanguay. 2014.
Multidimensional in vivo hazard assessment using zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 137(1): 212-233.
Ulhaq, M., G. Carlsson, S. Orn and L. Norrgren. 2013. Comparison of developmental toxicity of
seven perfluoroalkyl acids to zebrafish embryos. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36: 423-426.
Wasel, O., K.M. Thompson, Y. Gao, A.E. Godfrey, J. Gao, C.T. Mahapatra, L.S. Lee, M.S.
Sepulveda and J.L. Freeman. 2020. Comparison of zebrafish in vitro and in vivo developmental
toxicity assessments of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A. 84:
125-136.
Wildlife International Ltd.. 2001. PFBS: A 96-hour static acute toxicity test with the freshwater
alga (Selenastrum capricornutum). Wildlife International Ltd. Project No. 454A-129: 57.
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
Guo, X., S. Zhang, X. Liu, S. Lu, Q. Wu and P. Xie. 2021. Evaluation of the acute toxicity and
neurodevelopmental inhibition of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) in zebrafish embryos.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 225: 1-8.
Raine, J.C., S. Su, E. Lin, Z.L. Yang, J.P. Giesy and P.D. Jones. 2021. Prefertilization exposure
of rainbow trout eggs to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances to simulate accumulation during
oogenesis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 40(11): 3159-3165.
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
Thomas, D.G., H. Shankaran, L. Truong, R.L. Tanguay andK.M. Waters. 2019. Time-dependent
behavioral data from zebrafish reveals novel signatures of chemical toxicity using point of
departure analysis. Comput. Toxicol. 9: 50-60.
Truong, L., D.M. Reif, L. St Mary, M.C. Geier, H.D. Truong and R.L. Tanguay. 2014.
Multidimensional in vivo hazard assessment using zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 137(1): 212-233.
C-9
-------
Wasel, O., K.M. Thompson, Y. Gao, A.E. Godfrey, J. Gao, C.T. Mahapatra, L.S. Lee, M.S.
Sepulveda and J.L. Freeman. 2020. Comparison of zebrafish in vitro and in vivo developmental
toxicity assessments of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A. 84:
125-136.
Zhang, S.N., X. Guo, S. Lu, J. He, Q. Wu, X. Liu, Z.Y. Han and P. Xie. 2022. Perfluorohexanoic
acid caused disruption of the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis in zebrafish larvae. Ecotoxicol.
Environ. Saf. 2022 Mar 1:232: 113283.
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
Thomas, D.G., H. Shankaran, L. Truong, R.L. Tanguay and K.M. Waters. 2019. Time-dependent
behavioral data from zebrafish reveals novel signatures of chemical toxicity using point of
departure analysis. Comput. Toxicol. 9: 50-60.
Truong, L., D.M. Reif, L. St Mary, M.C. Geier, H.D. Truong and R.L. Tanguay. 2014.
Multidimensional in vivo hazard assessment using zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 137(1): 212-233.
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
Boudreau, T.M. 2002. Toxicity of perfluorinated organic acids to selected freshwater organisms
under laboratory and field conditions. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada: 145 p.
Ding, G., M. Wouterse, R. Baerselman and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg. 2012. Toxicity of
polyfluorinated and perfluorinated compounds to lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and green algae
(Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 62(1): 49-55.
Jantzen, C.E., K.A. Annunziato, S.M. Bugel and K.R. Cooper. 2016. PFOS, PFNA, and PFOA
sub-lethal exposure to embryonic zebrafish have different toxicity profiles in terms of
morphometries, behavior and gene expression. Aquat. Toxicol. 175: 160-170.
Liu, H., N. Sheng, W. Zhang and J. Dai. 2015. Toxic effects of perfluorononanoic acid on the
development of zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. J. Environ. Sci. (China). 32: 26-34.
Mitchell, R.J. 2010. The toxicity of fluorotelomer acids to freshwater organisms and a
preliminary evaluation of mechanism of action. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario,
Canada: 118 p.
Rainieri, S., N. Conlledo, T. Langerholc, E. Madorran, M. Sala and A. Barranco. 2017. Toxic
effects of perfluorinated compounds at human cellular level and on a model vertebrate. Food
Chem. Toxicol. 104: 14-25.
C-10
-------
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
Thomas, D.G., H. Shankaran, L. Truong, R.L. Tanguay andK.M. Waters. 2019. Time-dependent
behavioral data from zebrafish reveals novel signatures of chemical toxicity using point of
departure analysis. Comput. Toxicol. 9: 50-60.
Truong, L., D.M. Reif, L. St Mary, M.C. Geier, H.D. Truong and R.L. Tanguay. 2014.
Multidimensional in vivo hazard assessment using zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 137(1): 212-233.
Ulhaq, M., G. Carlsson, S. Orn and L. Norrgren. 2013. Comparison of developmental toxicity of
seven perfluoroalkyl acids to zebrafish embryos. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36: 423-426.
Zheng, X.M., H.L. Liu, W. Shi, S. Wei, J.P. Giesy and H.X. Yu. 2012. Effects of perfluorinated
compounds on development of zebrafish embryos. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 19(7): 2498-2505.
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
Boudreau, T.M. 2002. Toxicity of perfluorinated organic acids to selected freshwater organisms
under laboratory and field conditions. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada: 145
P-
Ding, G., M. Wouterse, R. Baerselman and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg. 2012. Toxicity of
polyfluorinated and perfluorinated compounds to lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and green algae
(Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 62(1): 49-55.
Hoke, R.A., L.D. Bouchelle, B.D. Ferrell and R.C. Buck. 2012. Comparative acute freshwater
hazard assessment and preliminary PNEC development for eight fluorinated acids.
Chemosphere. 87(7): 725-733.
Mitchell, R.J. 2010. The toxicity of fluorotelomer acids to freshwater organisms and a
preliminary evaluation of mechanism of action. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario,
Canada: 118 p.
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field, and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
Thomas, D.G., H. Shankaran, L. Truong, R.L. Tanguay andK.M. Waters. 2019. Time-dependent
behavioral data from zebrafish reveals novel signatures of chemical toxicity using point of
departure analysis. Comput. Toxicol. 9:50-60.
Truong, L., D.M. Reif, L. St Mary, M.C. Geier, H.D. Truong, and R.L. Tanguay. 2014.
Multidimensional in vivo hazard assessment using zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 137(1): 212-233.
C-ll
-------
Ulhaq, M., G. Carlsson, S. Orn, and L. Norrgren. 2013. Comparison of developmental toxicity of
seven perfluoroalkyl acids to zebrafish embryos. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36: 423-426.
Hexadecafluoro-2-decenoic acid (8:2 FTUCA)
Hoke, R.A., L.D. Bouchelle, B.D. Ferrell and R.C. Buck. 2012. Comparative acute freshwater
hazard assessment and preliminary PNEC development for eight fluorinated acids.
Chemosphere. 87(7): 725-733.
Mitchell, R.J., A.L. Myers, S.A. Mabury, K.R. Solomon and P.K. Sibley. 2011. Toxicity of
fluorotelomer carboxylic acids to the algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Chlorella
vulgaris, and the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 74(8): 2260-2267.
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
Pentadecafluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTCA)
Hoke, R.A., L.D. Bouchelle, B.D. Ferrell and R.C. Buck. 2012. Comparative acute freshwater
hazard assessment and preliminary PNEC development for eight fluorinated acids.
Chemosphere. 87(7): 725-733.
Rericha, Y., D. Cao, L. Truong, M. Simonich, J.A. Field and R.L. Tanguay. 2021. Behavior
effects of structurally diverse per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in zebrafish. Chem. Res.
Toxicol. 34(6): 1409-1416.
C-12
-------
Appendix D Unused Freshwater Acute Toxicity Studies
Author
Citation
Reason Unused
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
Blanc, M., J. Ruegg, N.
Scherbak and S.H. Keiter
2019. Environmental chemicals differentially affect
epigenetic-related mechanisms in the zebrafish liver
(ZF-L) cell line and in zebrafish embryos. Aquat.
Toxicol. 215: 105272-9999.
No control
information
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
Dale, K., F. Yadetie, T.
Horvli, X. Zhang, H.G.
Froysa, OA. Karlsen and A.
Goksoyr
2022. Single PFAS and PFAS mixtures affect
nuclear receptor- and oxidative stress-related
pathways in precision-cut liver slices of Atlantic cod
(Gctdus morhaa). Sci. Total Environ. 814: 1-12.
In vitro exposure
Garoche, C., A. Boulahtouf,
M. Grimaldi, B. Chiavarina,
L. Toporova, M.J. Den
Breeder, J. Legler, W.
Bourguet and P. Ba
2021. Interspecies differences in activation of
peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma
by pharmaceutical and environmental chemicals.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 55(24): 16489-16501.
In vitro exposure
D-l
-------
Appendix E ICE Models Available in Web-ICE v4.0 for Freshwater Predicted Species Based on
Surrogates with Measured Toxicities
Table E-l. All ICE Models Selected for the Derivation of PFAS Benchmarks.
Model parameters are used to evaluate prediction robustness. Cross-validation success is the percentage of all model data that were predicted within five-fold of
the measured value through leave-one-out cross-validation (Raimondo et al. 2024). Taxonomic distance describes the relationship between surrogate and predicted
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
African clawed frog
(Xenopus laevis)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.76
0.77
4
0.91
0.00
0.14
18.0
140,225.3
100
5
PFBS
Amphipod
(Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.91
1.26
12
0.75
0.00
0.76
0.8
166,819.4
50
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Amphipod
(Gammaras
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.82
0.44
51
0.75
0.00
0.76
0.2
5,000,000.0
49
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Amphipod
(Gammaras
fasciatus)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.91
0.58
26
0.70
0.00
0.81
0.0
4,400.0
57
4
PFBS
Amphipod
(Gammaras minus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.73
1.50
2
0.96
0.02
0.05
239.0
107,584.8
75
6
PFBS
Amphipod
(Gammaras
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.92
0.25
30
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.1
68,300.0
63
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Amphipod
(Gammaras
pseudolimnaeus)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.82
0.22
18
0.80
0.00
0.56
0.0
7,170.0
55
4
PFBS
Amphipod (Hyalella
azteca)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
1.03
-0.10
30
0.88
0.00
0.68
0.0
193,390.8
63
4
PFBS
E-l
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Apache trout
(Oncorhynchus gilae)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.10
-0.35
3
0.99
0.00
0.02
4.1
1,624.7
100
1
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Arctic grayling
(Thymallus arcticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.14
-0.59
1
1.00
0.02
0.01
37.9
150,750.0
N/A
4
PFBS
Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.15
-0.64
11
0.95
0.00
0.13
4.3
123,267.3
92
4
PFBS
Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.01
-0.07
12
0.96
0.00
0.11
0.2
95,857.7
86
2
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.28
-1.51
6
0.68
0.01
0.84
44.4
140,225.3
63
4
PFBS
Beaver-tail fairy
shrimp
(Thamnocephalus
platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.91
0.22
18
0.97
0.00
0.12
0.3
8,694,505.9
95
4
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Black bullhead
(Ameiurns melas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.74
1.21
12
0.60
0.00
0.95
0.0
9,809.6
43
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Black bullliead
(Ameiurus melas)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.07
-0.10
3
0.97
0.00
0.17
1.2
20,922.0
80
4
PFBS
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.71
1.18
270
0.65
0.00
0.84
0.1
46,278,306.5
57
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.71
1.38
150
0.71
0.00
0.55
0.0
79,000.0
72
6
PFBS
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.94
0.30
314
0.89
0.00
0.22
0.1
8,341,462.7
90
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.94
-0.02
108
0.81
0.00
0.43
0.2
50,154,461.4
82
4
PFBS
E-2
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochiriis)
Bullfrog
(Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1.10
-0.48
5
0.98
0.00
0.10
2.5
233,000.0
100
5
PFHxS, PFHxA
Bonytail (Gila
elegans)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochiriis)
0.96
-0.37
6
0.69
0.01
0.62
53.9
150,750.0
50
4
PFBS
Bonytail (Gila
elegans)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.92
0.70
6
0.89
0.00
0.22
3.3
43,073.0
75
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Bonytail (Gila
elegans)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.01
-0.39
5
0.62
0.04
0.50
58.3
8,320.3
43
2
PFBS
Brook trout
(Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochiriis)
0.97
-0.06
21
0.86
0.00
0.27
0.4
123,267.3
83
4
PFBS
Brook trout
(Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.00
0.01
25
0.95
0.00
0.11
0.6
96,692.7
93
2
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Brook trout
(Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.95
-0.43
17
0.70
0.00
0.75
1.2
140,225.3
68
4
PFBS
Brown trout (Salmo
tratta)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochiriis)
0.91
-0.10
16
0.73
0.00
0.68
2.3
123,267.3
78
4
PFBS
Brown trout (Salmo
tratta)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.00
0.02
20
0.97
0.00
0.07
0.2
95,857.7
100
2
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Bryozoan
(Pectinatella
magnifica)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.87
1.14
2
0.98
0.01
0.01
14.1
231.7
100
6
PFNA, PFDA,
7:3 FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochiriis)
0.89
0.48
5
0.98
0.00
0.08
0.4
201,000.0
100
5
PFBS
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.88
0.82
9
0.95
0.00
0.31
0.6
13,400,000.0
73
5
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.97
0.15
7
0.98
0.00
0.10
1.2
26,500,000.0
100
5
PFBS
E-3
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.17
-0.23
3
0.99
0.00
0.01
4.1
1,624.7
100
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Catla (Gibelion catla)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.09
-0.36
2
0.97
0.02
0.02
333.0
8,320.3
100
2
PFBS
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-
embryo)
0.77
0.95
5
0.91
0.00
0.07
144.8
304,541.0
86
4
PFHxS, PFBA
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.81
0.74
77
0.77
0.00
0.43
0.4
517,824.6
82
4
PFBS
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.82
0.82
98
0.76
0.00
0.50
0.0
13,400,000.0
76
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.98
0.06
52
0.87
0.00
0.30
1.2
26,500,000.0
85
4
PFBS
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
Bullfrog
(Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1.02
-0.28
7
0.99
0.00
0.08
2.5
20,900,000.0
100
5
PFHxS, PFHxA
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
African clawed
frog (Xenopus
laevis)
1.00
0.47
3
0.93
0.01
0.20
18.4
122,473.4
100
5
PFNA
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.91
-0.10
13
0.65
0.00
0.95
4.1
150,750.0
67
4
PFBS
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.02
0.02
18
0.96
0.00
0.11
3.3
724,430.8
95
1
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.16
-1.22
9
0.71
0.00
0.82
10.5
140,225.3
45
4
PFBS
Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.91
0.01
25
0.79
0.00
0.47
0.4
150,750.0
78
4
PFBS
Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.03
0.06
36
0.99
0.00
0.04
0.0
43,073.0
100
1
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-4
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.91
-0.23
19
0.65
0.00
0.69
1.2
20,922.0
67
4
PFBS
Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus
lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.91
0.92
7
0.73
0.00
0.56
3.3
43,073.0
67
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus
lucius)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.07
-0.58
6
0.68
0.01
0.49
58.3
20,922.0
63
2
PFBS
Common carp
(Cyprinus carpio)
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-
embryo)
0.83
0.45
5
0.66
0.03
0.37
86.0
34,190.0
71
2
PFBA
Common carp
(Cyprinus carpio)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.86
0.60
30
0.79
0.00
0.47
0.9
180,000.0
81
4
PFBS
Common carp
(Cyprinus carpio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.81
0.92
47
0.74
0.00
0.52
0.2
198,443.9
76
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Common carp
(Cyprinus carpio)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.99
0.06
25
0.84
0.00
0.21
4.7
133,000.0
89
2
PFBS
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus
clarkii)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.88
0.42
32
0.79
0.00
0.36
0.4
180,000.0
71
4
PFBS
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus
clarkii)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.95
0.15
36
0.96
0.00
0.08
0.0
198,443.9
97
1
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus
clarkii)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.99
-0.45
22
0.82
0.00
0.35
1.2
140,225.3
79
4
PFBS
Cuvier's foam froglet
(Physalaemus
cuvieri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.61
1.97
2
0.99
0.01
0.01
709.9
155,541.7
100
5
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Daphnid
(Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Daphnid (Daplinia
magna)
1.03
-0.28
40
0.95
0.00
0.24
0.3
46,278,306.5
83
2
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-5
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Daplinid
(Ceriodaplinia dubia)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.98
-0.21
25
0.84
0.00
0.77
0.0
4,100,000.0
52
5
PFBS
Daplinid
(Ceriodaplinia
reticulata)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.87
-0.03
7
0.70
0.01
0.24
0.8
231.7
89
2
PFNA, PFDA,
8:2 FTUCA
Daplinid (Daphnia
galeata)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.92
0.27
4
0.96
0.00
0.08
0.1
646.2
83
1
PFNA, PFDA,
7:3 FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
PFNA, PFHxA,
Daplinid (Daplinia
longispina)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
1.22
-0.57
2
0.99
0.01
0.06
8.9
10,359.2
100
1
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
Water flea
(Chydorus
sphaericus)
1.04
0.27
7
0.98
0.00
0.06
7.1
462,000.0
100
3
PFNA, PFDA
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
0.92
-0.31
11
0.71
0.00
0.74
3.1
36,910.0
54
6
PFHxS, PFBA
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
Daplinid (Daplinia
pulicaria)
0.88
0.51
4
0.94
0.00
0.19
9.3
237,367.4
83
1
PFDA
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.82
0.83
246
0.73
0.00
0.76
0.0
11,000,000.0
70
5
PFBS
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
Bullfrog
(Litliobates
catesbeianus)
0.82
0.68
9
0.84
0.00
0.79
2.5
20,900,000.0
73
6
PFHxS, PFHxA
PFNA, PFHxA,
Daplinid (Daplinia
pulex)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
1.01
-0.17
40
0.96
0.00
0.15
0.2
4,894,739.3
95
1
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
PFNA, PFHxA,
Daplinid (Daplinia
pulicaria)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
1.07
-0.32
4
0.94
0.00
0.23
14.1
281,641.4
83
1
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-6
-------
Degrees
of
Mean
Square
Surrogate
model
minimum
Surrogate
model
Cross-
validation
Freedom
Error
value
maximum
Success
Taxonomic
PFAS
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
(N-2)
R2
p-value
(MSE)
(Hg/L)
value (ng/L)
(%)
Distance
Compound
PFNA, PFHxA,
Daplinid
(Simocephalus
semilatus)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.94
-0.02
21
0.86
0.00
0.28
0.2
7,200.0
87
2
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Daplinid
(Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.75
0.61
5
0.88
0.00
0.35
0.1
166,819.4
57
2
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
7:3 FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Fairy shrimp
(Streptocephalus
riibricaudatus)
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-
embryo)
0.60
2.45
2
0.95
0.03
0.06
4622.4
5,100,709.2
75
6
PFHxS
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
1.07
-0.25
4
0.97
0.00
0.05
18.0
25,076.0
100
2
PFHxS, PFBA
Fathead minnow
Zebrafish-embryo
(Pimephales
(Danio rerio-
1.00
-0.11
41
0.93
0.00
0.22
23.0
54,578,562.0
84
2
PFHxS, PFBA
promelas)
embryo)
PFNA, PFHxA,
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.69
1.42
236
0.64
0.00
0.76
0.2
46,500,000.0
66
6
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
promelas)
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochiriis)
0.87
0.62
108
0.81
0.00
0.40
0.1
27,540,000.0
81
4
PFBS
Fathead minnow
Mysid
(Pimephales
promelas)
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.62
1.74
104
0.62
0.00
0.75
0.0
11,000,000.0
60
6
PFBS
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout
PFDA, 7:3
(Pimephales
promelas)
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.90
0.62
146
0.87
0.00
0.27
0.2
13,400,000.0
86
4
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Fathead minnow
Bullfrog
(Pimephales
(Litliobates
1.01
-0.10
7
0.98
0.00
0.10
2.5
20,900,000.0
100
5
PFHxS, PFHxA
promelas)
catesbeianus)
Fathead minnow
African clawed
(Pimephales
promelas)
frog (Xenopus
laevis)
1.20
-0.62
4
0.91
0.00
0.22
44.7
122,473.4
67
5
PFNA
E-7
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.90
0.24
17
0.94
0.00
0.19
14.1
8,694,505.9
79
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.94
-0.40
13
0.65
0.00
0.93
13.4
10,830,770.1
47
6
PFBS
Flagfish (Jordanella
floridae)
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
1.22
-0.78
2
0.99
0.00
0.01
7797.4
649,307.3
100
4
PFHxS, PFBA
Flagfish (Jordanella
floridae)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.86
0.47
7
0.89
0.00
0.30
0.4
113,000.0
78
4
PFBS
Flagfish (Jordanella
floridae)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.91
0.11
8
0.84
0.00
0.46
1.2
32,537.5
80
4
PFBS
Goldfish (Carassius
auratus)
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-
embryo)
0.97
0.33
7
0.96
0.00
0.06
144.8
304,541.0
100
2
PFHxS, PFBA
Goldfish (Carassius
auratus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.78
0.98
27
0.71
0.00
0.51
0.4
201,000.0
72
4
PFBS
Goldfish (Carassius
auratus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.82
1.12
35
0.83
0.00
0.49
0.0
13,400,000.0
81
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Goldfish (Carassius
auratus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.98
0.19
26
0.94
0.00
0.14
1.2
26,500,000.0
93
2
PFBS
Goldfish (Carassius
auratus)
Bullfrog
(Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1.04
-0.30
7
0.98
0.00
0.14
2.5
20,900,000.0
89
5
PFHxS, PFHxA
Green floater
(Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.67
0.94
2
0.97
0.02
0.08
14.1
166,819.4
75
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Green floater
(Lasmigona
subviridis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.60
1.44
4
0.73
0.03
0.36
3.3
95,857.7
67
6
PFDA
Green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.85
0.63
13
0.92
0.00
0.14
4.1
113,000.0
93
1
PFBS
E-8
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Green simfish
(Lepomis cyaiiellus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.90
0.60
13
0.95
0.00
0.13
0.0
19,926.0
100
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Green simfish
(Lepomis cyanellus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.90
-0.09
6
0.64
0.02
0.89
10.5
26,685.4
50
4
PFBS
Greentliroat darter
(Etheo stoma
lepidum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.05
-0.04
3
0.93
0.01
0.11
4.1
1,624.7
100
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Greentliroat darter
(Etheo stoma
lepidum)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.85
-0.09
3
0.92
0.01
0.13
5.7
8,320.3
100
4
PFBS
Guppy (Poecilia
reticulata)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.70
1.04
22
0.75
0.00
0.39
0.4
180,000.0
67
4
PFBS
Guppy (Poecilia
reticulata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.71
1.24
24
0.63
0.00
0.68
0.6
198,443.9
69
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Guppy (Poecilia
reticulata)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.85
0.35
27
0.78
0.00
0.39
1.2
140,225.3
66
4
PFBS
Indian bullfrog
(Euphlyctis
hexadactylus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.88
0.02
4
0.86
0.01
0.29
37.9
113,000.0
67
5
PFBS
Indian bullfrog
(Euphlyctis
hexadactylus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.25
-0.12
5
0.78
0.01
0.59
28.3
19,926.0
57
5
8:2 FTUCA
Isopod (Asellus
aquaticus)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.86
1.88
7
0.91
0.00
0.31
0.3
166,819.4
67
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Isopod (Asellus
aquaticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.09
-0.19
5
0.91
0.00
0.37
2.8
123,267.3
43
6
PFBS
Isopod (Asellus
aquaticus)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.79
1.69
4
0.89
0.00
0.31
0.0
6,982.6
83
4
PFBS
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.86
0.28
17
0.74
0.00
0.48
0.4
26,700.0
68
6
PFBS
E-9
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.78
0.41
19
0.70
0.00
0.52
0.6
82,000.0
57
6
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.76
-0.05
8
0.73
0.00
0.49
1.2
20,922.0
60
6
PFBS
Lake trout
(Salvelinus
namaycush)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.69
0.80
20
0.72
0.00
0.27
2.8
180,000.0
77
4
PFBS
Lake trout
(Salvelinus
namaycush)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.89
0.23
26
0.94
0.00
0.07
0.2
198,443.9
96
2
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Lake trout
(Salvelinus
namaycush)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.77
0.04
12
0.66
0.00
0.34
44.4
133,000.0
79
4
PFBS
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus
sahnoides)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.03
-0.10
33
0.93
0.00
0.12
0.4
123,267.3
94
2
PFBS
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus
sahnoides)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.94
0.04
32
0.89
0.00
0.21
0.0
95,857.7
91
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Leech (Nephelopsis
obscura)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
1.16
1.67
2
0.98
0.01
0.13
0.8
4,369.3
75
6
PFNA, PFDA,
7:3 FTCA
Mayfly (Drunella
grandis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.01
0.64
3
0.98
0.00
0.13
0.6
95,857.7
100
6
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Medaka (Oryzias
latipes)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.91
0.61
3
0.95
0.01
0.16
6.6
54,399.6
80
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Medaka (Oryzias
latipes)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.86
0.60
6
0.98
0.00
0.05
2.7
1,420,000.0
88
4
PFBS
Midge (Chironomus
plumosus)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.74
0.93
13
0.78
0.00
0.66
0.0
87,600.0
67
5
PFBS
E-10
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Midge (Chironomus
tentans)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.97
0.76
6
0.89
0.00
0.82
0.3
472,000.0
50
5
PFNA, PFDA,
7:3 FTCA
Midge (Chironomus
tentans)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.03
0.11
5
0.94
0.00
0.39
0.1
517,824.6
71
6
PFBS
Midge
(Paratanytarsus
dissiniilis)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.85
1.02
5
0.89
0.00
0.49
0.4
201,000.0
57
6
PFBS
Midge
(Paratanytarsus
dissiniilis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.89
1.03
8
0.90
0.00
0.33
0.6
1,330,000.0
80
6
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Midge
(Paratanytarsus
dissiniilis)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.86
0.97
8
0.85
0.00
0.52
1.2
1,430,000.0
80
6
PFBS
Midge
(Paratanytarsus
dissiniilis)
Bullfrog
(Litliobates
catesbeianus)
1.09
-0.27
3
0.97
0.00
0.25
2.5
3,019,983.4
40
6
PFHxS, PFHxA
Midge
(Paratanytarsus
partlienogeneticus)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.98
0.55
3
0.99
0.00
0.06
370.0
14,500,000.0
100
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Midge
(Paratanytarsus
partlienogeneticus)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.99
0.57
2
0.98
0.01
0.09
280.0
10,600,000.0
100
6
PFBS
Mississippi grass
shrimp
(Palaemonetes
kadiakensis)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.76
0.47
20
0.63
0.00
0.72
0.3
58,000.0
64
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Mosquitofish
(Gambusia affmis)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.95
0.01
2
0.99
0.01
0.12
5.7
26,500,000.0
100
4
PFBS
Mosquitofish
(Gambusia affmis)
Bullfrog
(Litliobates
catesbeianus)
0.97
0.07
1
1.00
0.01
0.00
18600.0
20,900,000.0
N/A
5
PFHxS, PFHxA
E-ll
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Mozambique tilapia
(Oreochromis
mossambicus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.86
0.36
9
0.73
0.00
0.33
44.4
140,225.3
64
4
PFBS
Mrigal carp
(Cirrhinus mrigala)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.76
1.03
4
0.71
0.04
0.43
0.6
1,624.7
67
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Mrigal carp
(Cirrhinus mrigala)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.11
-0.59
3
0.98
0.00
0.01
196.9
8,320.3
100
2
PFBS
Neosho mucket
(Lampsilis
rafmesqueana)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.89
0.24
2
0.99
0.00
0.02
42.0
166,819.4
100
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis
niloticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.04
-0.04
1
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.3
6,969.1
N/A
3
PFBS
Northern leopard
frog (Lithobates
pipiens)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.80
1.13
1
1.00
0.02
0.01
7.9
180,000.0
N/A
5
PFBS
Northern leopard
frog (Lithobates
pipiens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.71
1.60
1
1.00
0.01
0.00
2.3
198,443.9
N/A
5
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Northern pike (Esox
lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.04
-0.30
6
0.80
0.00
0.27
4.7
1,822.3
88
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Oligochaete
(Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-
embryo)
1.17
-0.31
3
0.92
0.01
0.24
144.8
239,250.6
60
6
PFHxS, PFBA
Oligochaete
(Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.71
1.77
10
0.81
0.00
0.36
3.2
281,641.4
67
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Oligochaete
(Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.71
1.60
6
0.67
0.01
0.76
3.3
707,000.0
50
6
8:2 FTUCA
E-12
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Oligochaete
(Lumbriculus
variegatus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.94
0.28
14
0.82
0.00
0.43
1.2
140,225.3
75
6
PFBS
PFNA, PFHxA,
Oligochaete (Tubifex
tubifex)
Daphnid (Daplinia
magna)
0.89
1.37
13
0.80
0.00
0.78
0.1
4,894,739.3
47
6
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Oligochaete (Tubifex
tubifex)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.72
0.67
7
0.72
0.00
0.84
0.1
113,000.0
56
6
PFBS
Oligochaete (Tubifex
tubifex)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.04
-0.10
8
0.87
0.00
0.53
15.3
10,830,770.1
50
6
PFBS
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daplinia
magna)
1.15
-0.84
3
0.99
0.00
0.06
11.0
281,641.4
100
5
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Paper pondshell
(Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daplinia
magna)
0.89
0.28
11
0.98
0.00
0.08
14.1
8,694,505.9
100
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Paper pondshell
(Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.86
-0.16
9
0.65
0.00
0.85
134.2
10,830,770.1
18
6
PFBS
Peppered loach
(Lepidocephalichthys
guntea)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.78
0.72
1
1.00
0.03
0.00
196.9
43,785.6
N/A
3
PFBS
Pheasantshell
(Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daplinia
magna)
0.96
0.00
3
0.97
0.00
0.11
42.0
545,927.5
100
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
1.31
-1.12
5
0.96
0.00
0.24
3.1
26,390.0
71
4
PFHxS, PFBA
E-13
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-
embryo)
1.16
-1.06
27
0.80
0.00
0.61
23.0
8,843,890.0
66
4
PFHxS, PFBA
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.71
1.03
377
0.63
0.00
0.84
0.1
14,500,000.0
60
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.95
0.03
314
0.89
0.00
0.22
0.1
7,100,000.0
91
4
PFBS
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.66
1.35
201
0.62
0.00
0.72
0.0
113,000.0
68
6
PFBS
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.97
-0.20
146
0.87
0.00
0.29
0.2
26,500,000.0
87
4
PFBS
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Bullfrog
(Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1.09
-0.71
9
0.95
0.00
0.38
2.5
20,900,000.0
73
5
PFHxS, PFHxA
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.81
0.01
6
0.67
0.01
0.48
53.9
150,750.0
75
4
PFBS
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.78
0.91
6
0.87
0.00
0.19
3.3
43,073.0
88
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.98
-0.36
5
0.66
0.03
0.40
58.3
8,320.3
71
3
PFBS
Redear sunfish
(Lepomis
microlophus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.03
-0.03
2
1.00
0.00
0.00
17.0
4,500.0
100
1
PFBS
Riceland prawn
(Macrobrachium
lanchesteri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.85
0.97
2
0.95
0.03
0.09
3.3
2,040.4
100
6
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.94
0.77
4
0.94
0.00
0.21
0.8
7,326.2
83
4
PFBS
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.07
0.86
4
0.89
0.00
0.37
0.6
1,624.7
67
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-14
-------
Surrogate
Degrees
Mean
model
Surrogate
Cross-
of
Square
minimum
model
validation
Freedom
Error
value
maximum
Success
Taxonomic
PFAS
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
(N-2)
R2
p-value
(MSE)
(Hg/L)
value (ng/L)
(%)
Distance
Compound
Fathead minnow
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.98
0.32
4
0.87
0.01
0.30
2.3
8,320.3
83
2
PFBS
Shortiiose sturgeon
Rainbow trout
PFDA, 7:3
(Acipenser
(Oncorhynchus
1.16
-0.58
3
0.98
0.00
0.06
28.3
95,857.7
100
5
FTCA, 8:2
brevirostriim)
mykiss)
FTUCA
Silver perch
(Bidyanus bidyanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.09
-0.03
1
1.00
0.01
0.00
1.4
7,075.2
N/A
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Snipefly (Atherix
variegata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.94
0.88
1
1.00
0.02
0.00
0.6
68.4
N/A
6
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA
Sockeye salmon
Rainbow trout
PFDA, 7:3
(Oncorhynchus
(Oncorhynchus
0.85
0.60
5
0.85
0.00
0.14
28.3
7,500.0
71
1
FTCA, 8:2
nerka)
mykiss)
FTUCA
Southern leopard
Rainbow trout
PFDA, 7:3
frog (Lithobates
(Oncorhynchus
1.28
-0.26
4
0.98
0.00
0.04
28.3
9,700.0
100
5
FTCA, 8:2
sphenocephalus)
mykiss)
FTUCA
Spotfm chub
Rainbow trout
PFDA, 7:3
(Erirnonax
(Oncorhynchus
1.20
-0.41
3
0.97
0.00
0.06
4.1
1,624.7
100
4
FTCA, 8:2
monachus)
mykiss)
FTUCA
PFNA, PFHxA,
Swamp lymnaea
(Lymnaea stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.94
0.20
6
0.96
0.00
0.23
14.1
8,694,505.9
88
6
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
PFNA, PFHxA,
Tadpole physa
(Phy sella gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.96
0.11
8
0.96
0.00
0.20
14.1
8,694,505.9
80
6
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Tadpole physa
(Physella gyrina)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.22
-1.60
6
0.84
0.00
0.58
813.9
10,830,770.1
25
6
PFBS
PFNA, PFHxA,
Threeridge
(Amblema plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.95
-0.43
4
0.97
0.00
0.13
14.1
4,894,739.3
100
6
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-15
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Threeridge
(Amblema plicata)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.30
-2.81
3
0.98
0.00
0.13
813.9
10,830,770.1
100
6
PFBS
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp (Branchinecta
lynchi)
Daplinid (Daphnia
magna)
0.94
0.12
5
0.98
0.00
0.07
14.1
8,694,505.9
100
4
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Walleye (Sander
vitreus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirns)
0.74
0.54
7
0.78
0.00
0.22
4.3
6,722.1
67
3
PFBS
Walleye (Sander
vitreus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.68
0.60
7
0.69
0.01
0.28
4.7
16,235.6
56
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Washboard
(Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.96
-0.23
9
0.97
0.00
0.13
14.1
8,694,505.9
91
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Water flea (Chydorns
sphaericus)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.95
-0.20
7
0.98
0.00
0.06
8.9
977,589.9
100
3
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.72
1.10
3
0.97
0.00
0.11
8.9
281,641.4
100
3
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Wavy rayed
lampmussel
(Lampsilis fasciola)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
1.18
-1.28
1
0.99
0.05
0.01
166819.4
4,894,739.3
N/A
6
PFHxA
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera
falcata)
Daplinid (Daplinia
magna)
0.88
0.27
8
0.96
0.00
0.16
14.1
8,694,505.9
80
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-16
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Western toad
(Anaxyrus boreas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
1.33
-0.51
3
0.90
0.01
0.15
28.3
1,624.7
80
5
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
White sucker
(Catostomus
commersonii)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
1.05
-0.32
7
0.92
0.00
0.18
35.0
123,267.3
89
4
PFBS
White sucker
(Catostomus
commersonii)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
1.15
-0.37
5
0.93
0.00
0.21
43.9
140,225.3
86
3
PFBS
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
0.98
-0.11
17
0.92
0.00
0.15
0.4
9,409.7
89
3
PFBS
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.90
0.29
23
0.77
0.00
0.58
0.0
16,235.6
84
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.94
-0.38
12
0.74
0.00
0.54
1.2
20,922.0
64
4
PFBS
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.77
1.22
11
0.71
0.00
0.62
0.1
50,000.0
62
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
Mysid
(Americamysis
bahia)
0.73
1.91
7
0.68
0.01
0.83
0.0
5,666.0
33
6
PFBS
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.73
0.96
5
0.96
0.00
0.14
0.2
229,100.0
100
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Zebrafish (Danio
rerio)
Fatliead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.91
0.31
4
0.97
0.00
0.04
13.4
26,685.4
100
2
PFBS
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
0.66
1.72
43
0.67
0.00
0.87
0.1
46,500,000.0
56
6
PFNA, PFHxA,
PFDA, PFBS,
PFBA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
Zebrafish-embryo
(Danio rerio-embryo)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
0.69
1.43
27
0.80
0.00
0.37
0.2
8,341,462.7
76
4
PFDA, 7:3
FTCA, 8:2
FTUCA
E-17
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate Species
Slope
Intercept
Degrees
of
Freedom
(N-2)
R2
p-value
Mean
Square
Error
(MSE)
Surrogate
model
minimum
value
(Hg/L)
Surrogate
model
maximum
value (ng/L)
Cross-
validation
Success
(%)
Taxonomic
Distance
PFAS
Compound
Zebrafish-embryo
(Daiiio rerio-embryo)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
0.93
0.38
41
0.93
0.00
0.20
4.0
70,200,000.0
81
2
PFBS
E-18
-------
Appendix F Derivation of PFAS Benchmarks using Scaled Data
As discussed in Section 3.0, PFAS acute values (typically reported as mg/L) can be
greater than those used to develop an ICE model (ICE database toxicity range lxlO"4 and 1x10s
(j,g/L) such that the input PFAS value of the surrogate would be outside the model domain. In
these situations, a user can either enter the measured toxicity value (LC50/EC50) into the ICE
model as [j,g/L and allow the regression to extrapolate beyond the range of the model or enter a
"scaled" toxicity value (i.e., enter the measured LC50 value as mg/L) (Raimondo et al. 2024).
Figure 3-1 provides an example data plots and calculation of an EC50 value for Daphnia magna
for PFBS for a value that falls beyond the model range, when calculated using an "extrapolation"
and "scaled" approach. Calculations presented in Section 5 of this document allowed
extrapolation beyond the range of the regression model, recognizing that such an extrapolation
has inherent uncertainties and can result in larger confidence intervals around the prediction than
would typically occur using the scaled approach. Within this section, we apply the alternative
scaled approach to explore calculating benchmark values for the eight PFAS using this
alternative method (Raimondo et al. 2024).
For the scaled approach, values are directly entered as [j,g/L in situations when the
surrogate species measured PFAS value falls within the range of the ICE model. In cases where
the surrogate species measured value is beyond the range of the ICE model, the value is then
entered as mg/L, so that it falls within the range of the model data. For example, if a hypothetical
concentration of 15 [j,g/L is beyond the range of the ICE model data for a chemical, it is then
entered as 15 mg/L to bring it within range of the model data. Values were also scaled in some
situations where the measured value falls within the model range but where the confidence
interval was large (>50 fold), and use of scaling resulted in acceptable confidence intervals.
F-l
-------
The use of scaled values has been validated through a comprehensive analysis of ICE
data, where it has been demonstrated that 3,104 values predicted in this manner had the same
level of accuracy as values entered into ICE models as |ig/L within and beyond the model
domain for models with slopes ranging from 0.66 - 1.33 (Raimondo et al. 2024). Raimondo et al.
(2024) also demonstrated that using ICE models in this manner does not violate any of the model
assumptions, which are: 1) they represent the relationship of inherent sensitivity between two
species, which is conserved across chemicals, mechanisms of action, and ranges of toxicity and
2) the nature of a contaminant that was tested on the surrogate reflects the nature of the
contaminant in the predicted species (e.g., effect concentration [ECso] or lethal concentration
[LCso]), percentage of active ingredient, technical grade, toxicity unit). Additionally, there are no
statistical assumptions of linear regressions (linear relationship, normality, homoscedasticity, no
auto-correlation, no or little multicollinearity; Dowdy et al. 2011) violated by this application.
The following sections present the calculations and resulting alternative benchmark values for
each of eight selected PFAS using the scaled approach. ICE models selected for use for the
derivation of recommended PFAS benchmarks are presented in Table E-l and the empirical data
used for this evaluation are presented in Appendix A.
F.l Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFBA were available for five species
comprising four genera and fulfilling three MDR groups (Table F-2). A total of 43 ICE models
were accepted for use. Of these, seven ICE models were not selected for use because empirical
data were available for the genera (e.g., models for Chydorus sphaericus and Daphnia magna).
Three other models were not used because there were acceptable models for more closely-related
surrogate species (e.g., Daphnia magna predicting for Pimephalespromelas). One additional
model (Danio rerio predicting for Pimephales promelas) was not used because the measured
F-2
-------
EC50 values fell outside of the ICE model range and other acceptable models for taxonomically-
related species with measured EC50 values within the ICE model range were used. A total of 32
ICE models were selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 31 SMAVs, representing
29 genera (Tables F-l and F-2).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 33 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-2. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 13.9 of each other (Table F-3). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFBA is 347.1 mg/L (Table F-3), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for one tested species (the rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, GMAV=110
mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of 173.5 mg/L PFBA and
then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain the alternative freshwater
acute water column benchmark magnitude of 11 mg/L PFBA (rounded to two significant
figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFBA
under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not
exceeded more than once in three years (Figure F-l).
F-3
-------
Table F-l. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBA using the scaling approach for data outside of the
model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted EC50
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0008
166.8
44,908.2
(10,018-201,313)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0002
5,000
3,060.4
(1,474.4-6,352.5)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0001
68.3
4,490.4
(1,523.0-13,240)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
2,248.7
(1,108-4,563)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Ug/L)
0.0001
46,278.3
959.02
(507.98-1,810.6)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.145
304.5
13,361.7
(6,856.1-26,037)
Common carp (Cyprinus
carpio)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.086
34.19
7,908.4
(1,225.4-51,039)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.0003
46,278.3
4,100.3
(2,125.4-7,909.9)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.009
10.36
8,995.3
(1,641.2-49,301)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.003
36.91
3,291.4
(831.19-13,034)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
3,957.7
(2,788.6-5,616.9)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.014
281.6
4,361.5
(1,223.6-15,546)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0002
7.2
2,939.0
(964.77-8,953.2)
F-4
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted EC50
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
46,500
l,174.4b
(655.01-2,105.8)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.018
25.08
15,343.0C
(7,383.2-31,884)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
13,779
13,779,000
(Hg/L)
0.023
54,579
11,532.0
(6,189.6-21,485)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
2,013.5
(809.37-5,008.9)
Flagfish (Jordanella floridae)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
7.797
649.3
18,640.2
(10,316-33,681)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.145
304.5
23,117.1
(14,833-36,028)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.014
166.8
2,645.9
(481.11-14,552)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0003
166.8
116,979.2
(32,795-417,264)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.37
14,500
12,921.0
(3,394.0-49,189)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0003
58
1,932.2
(372.75-10,016)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.042
166.8
3,613.7
(1,572.1-8,306.4)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.003
281.6
25,412.0
(9,374.1-68,889)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.145
239.3
35,536.4b
(6,336.9-199,284)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
49,159.1
(10,555-228,948)
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.011
281.6
2,680.1
(1,224.4-5,866.5)
F-5
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted EC50
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1,748.6
(862.33-3,545.6)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.042
545.9
3,775.7
(1,269.6-11,229)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
14,500
677.8b
(396.18-1,159.4)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mvkiss)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.003
26.39
20,148.4
(5,451.2-74,471)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
13,779**
13,779
(mg/L)
0.023
8,843.9
5,447.6
(2,518.2- 11,785)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
3,490.7
(670.81-18,165)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
3,740.1
(1,061.7-13,176)
Threeridge (Amblema plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.014
4,894.7
1,262.4
(480.17-3,318.7)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
2,852.6
(949.6-8,569.8)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1,759.2
(742.37-4,168.8)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.009
977.6
2,151.3
(1,364.7-3391.2)
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.009
281.6
5,989.5
(1,810.5-19,815)
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1,528.3
(497.59-4,694.2)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251**
5,251
(mg/L)
0.0001
50
12,209.2
(3,373.7-44,185)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
5,251
5,251,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
46,500
1,391.4
(413.39-4,683.2)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
F-6
-------
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate EC50 values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-7
-------
Table F-2. Ranked PFBA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFBA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
H
Rotifer
Brachionus calyciflorus
110
110
0.03
2
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
959
959
0.06
3
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
1,262**
1,262
0.09
4
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
1,528
1,528
0.12
5
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
1,749
1,749
0.15
6
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
1,759
1,759
0.18
7
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
1,932**
1,932
0.21
8
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
2,249
2,249
0.24
9
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
2,646**
2,646
0.26
10
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
2,680**
2,680
0.29
11
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
3,614**
2,697
0.32
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
2,013
12
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Brcmchinecta Ivnchi
2,853
2,853
0.35
13
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
2,939**
2,939
0.38
14
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
3,491
3,491
0.41
15
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
3,060**
3,707
0.44
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
4,490**
16
G
Tadpole physa
Phvsella gvrina
3,740
3,740
0.47
17
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
3,776**
3,776
0.50
18
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
4,100
4,100
0.53
19
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
>4,280.8
>4,280.8
0.56
20
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
4,741
4,741
0.59
D
Daphnid
Daphnia pulicaria
>l,006a
21
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
5,989**
5,989
0.62
22
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
7,908**
7,908
0.65
23
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
10,477**
10,477
0.68
24
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
11,532
11,532
0.71
25
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
12,921
12,921
0.74
26
C
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
13,361**
13,361
0.76
27
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
13,779
13,779
0.79
28
C
Flagfish
Jordanella floridae
18,640**
18,640
0.82
29
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
23,117**
23,117
0.85
30
H
Oligochaete
Linmodrilus hoffmeisteri
25,412**
25,412
0.88
31
E
Amphipod
Crangonyx pseudogracilis
44,908**
44,908
0.91
32
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
49,159**
49,159
0.94
33
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
116,979**
116,979
0.97
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model,
a Not used in GMAV calculation, because value represents a greater than low value
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
F-8
-------
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abentliic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
Table F-3. PFBA Protective Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=33 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Brachionus
110.0
4.70
22.09
0.029
0.171
2
Lepomis
959.0
6.87
47.14
0.059
0.243
3
Amblema
1262.4
7.14
50.99
0.088
0.297
4
Margaritifera
1528.3
7.33
53.76
0.118
0.343
£ (Sum):
26.04
173.98
0.29
1.05
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
273.69
S = slope
L =
2.150
L = X-axis intercept
A =
5.849
A = InFAV
FAV =
347.1
FAV/2 =
173.5 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
173.5 / 15.8 = 10.98 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
11 mg/L PFBA (rounded to two significant figures)
F-9
-------
1.00 -r
0.90
.2 0.80 4
*2 0.70 -
>
0.60
0.50
5
«
06
J 0.40 4
| 0.30 4
OI
Ph
0.20 4
0.10
0.00
1
o
+
~
A
O
Fish (Empirical)
Fish (WeblCE)
Insect (WeblCE)
Invertebrate (Empirical)
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary Value
¦Acute Benchmark
A Asellus
A Tubifex
A Crangonyx
A Limnodrilus
O Carassius
o Jordanella
9 Danio
O Ictalurus
+ Paratanytarsus
O Pimephales
O Oncorhynchus
O Cyprinus
A Moina
A Daphnia
A Chydorus
A Ceriodaphnia
O Ortmaimiana
O Physella
A Gammarus
O Lymnaea
A Simocephalus
A Branchinecta
O Lampsilis
A Macrobrachium
O Lasmigona
A Thamnocephalus
A Palaemonetes
O Megalonaias
O Utterbackia
O Margaritifera
O Amblema
O Lepomis
10 100 1,000 10,000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFBA)
100,000
1,000,000
Figure F-l. Ranked Acute PFBA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
F.2 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFHxA were available for four species
comprising three genera and fulfilling three MDR groups (Table F-5). A total of 43 ICE models
were accepted for use. Of these, four ICE models were not selected for use because empirical
data were available for the genus (e.g., models for Daphnia longispina and Daphnia magna).
Three other models were not used because there were acceptable models for more closely-related
surrogate species (e.g., Daphnia magna predicting for Lepomis macrochirus). One additional
model (Daphnia magna predicting for Danio rerio) was not used because the measured EC so
values fell outside of the ICE model range and other acceptable models for taxonomically-related
F-10
-------
species with measured EC50 values within the ICE model range were used. A total of 35 ICE
models were selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 35 SMAVs representing 30
genera (Tables F-4 and F-5).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 33 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-5. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 2.7 of each other (Table F-6). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFHxA is 189.1 mg/L (Table F-6), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for one tested species (the rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, GMAV=140
mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of 94.57 mg/L PFHxA and
then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water
column benchmark magnitude of 6.0 mg/L PFHxA (rounded to two significant figures). This
value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFHxA under short-
term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more
than once in three years (Figure F-2).
F-ll
-------
Table F-4. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFHxA using the scaling approach for data outside of
the model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0008
166.8
10,313.0
(3,000.6-35,445)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
5,000
234.7
(64.5-853.7)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0001
68.3
1,026.8
(431.3-2,444.8)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
517.3
(280.8-953.1)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105**
1,105
(mg/L)
0.003
233
766.4
(378-1,553.6)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
46,278
303.5b
(176-523.2)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Ug/L)
0.003
20,900
719.8
(362.4-1,429.7)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0003
46,278
785.2
(446.2-1,381.6)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.009
10.36
1,267.8
(334.3-4,808.1)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
424.1
(68.5-2,627.9)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
841.4
(444.8-1,591.6)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.014
281.6
783.4
(181.5-3,381.5)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0002
7.2
648.9
(269.3-1,563.9)
F-12
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Daphnid (Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0001
166.8
753.7
(136-4,175.6)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Ug/L)
0.003
20,900
1,083.6
(468.5-2,506.4)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
46,500
384.7b
(235.8-627.7)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
470.8
(220.2-1,006.8)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
1,027.7
(405.9-2,602.1)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.014
166.8
901.5
(216-3,761.6)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0003
166.8
29,446.1
(9,967-86,994)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105A
1,105
(mg/L)
0.003
3,020.0
1,069.7
(176.6-6,480.9)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.37
14,500
2,676.6
(917.7-7,806.3)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0003
58
569.4
(155.9-2,080.1)
Mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
18.6
20,900
805.1
(394.5-1,643.4)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.042
166.8
860.1
(421.3-1,755.9)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffineisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.003
281.6
8,114.2
(3,337.6-19,727)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048A
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
11,637.0
(3,223.3-42,013)
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.011
281.6
421.3
(176.7-1004.7)
F-13
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
418.5
(231.7-755.9)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.042
545.9
803.4
(252.6-2,555.1)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
713.5
(200.3-2,541.4)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(ug/L)
0.0001
14,500
214.2b
(135.8-337.8)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
762.0
(188.8-3,075.8)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
794.5
(277.3-2,276.3)
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
4,894.7
191.3
(48-761.8)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
623.8
(247-1,575.4)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
372.3
(181.1-765.2)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.009
977.6
465.4
(271.8-796.9)
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.009
281.6
1,876.3
(633.2-5,560.2)
Wavyrayed lampmussel
(Lampsilis fasciola)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Ug/L)
166.8
4,894.7
686.2
(127.8-3,684.7)
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
370.2
(145.8-940.1)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048**
1,048
(mg/L)
0.0001
50
3,520.9C
(1,155.2-10,731)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
1,048
1,048,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
46,500
481.7
(172.4-1,346.1)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
F-14
-------
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
A |ig/L CI greater than 50-fold. Used mg/L with acceptable CI.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate EC50 values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-15
-------
Table F-5. Ranked PFHxA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFHxA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
H
Rotifer
Brachionus calyciflorus
140.0
140.0
0.03
2
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
191.3
191.3
0.06
3
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
370.2
370.2
0.09
4
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
372.3
372.3
0.12
5
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
418.5
418.5
0.15
6
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
421.3**
421.3
0.18
7
D
Water flea
Chydorus sphaericus
465.4**
465.4
0.21
8
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
481.7
481.7
0.24
9
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
234.7
490.9
0.26
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
1,027**
10
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
517.3
517.3
0.29
11
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
569.4**
569.4
0.32
12
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Brcmchinecta Ivnchi
623.8
623.8
0.35
13
G
Wavyrayed lampmussel
Lampsilis fasciola
686.2
652.6
0.38
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
860.1**
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
470.8
14
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
648.9**
699.3
0.41
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
753.7**
15
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
713.5
713.5
0.44
16
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
719.8
719.8
0.47
17
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
762.0
762.0
0.50
18
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
766.4**
766.4
0.53
19
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
785.2
785.2
0.56
20
G
Tadpole physa
Phvsella gyrina
794.5
794.5
0.59
21
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
803.4**
803.4
0.62
22
B
Mosquitofish
Gambusia affmis
805.1
805.1
0.65
23
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
901.5**
901.5
0.68
24
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
1,105
915.2
0.71
C
Green frog
Lithobates clamitans
758.0
25
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
1,028
1,028
0.74
26
D
Daphnia
Daphnia magna
1,048
1,048
0.76
27
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
1,084
1,084
0.79
28
F
Midge
Paratanvtarsus dissimilis
1,070
1,692
0.82
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
2,677
29
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
1,876**
1,876
0.85
30
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
8,114**
8,114
0.88
31
E
Amphipod
Crangonyx pseudogracilis
10,313**
10,313
0.91
32
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
11,637
11,637
0.94
33
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
29,446**
29,446
0.97
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
F-16
-------
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
Table F-6. PFHxA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=33 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Brachionus
140.0
4.94
24.42
0.029
0.171
2
Amblema
191.3
5.25
27.60
0.059
0.243
3
Margaritifera
370.2
5.91
34.98
0.088
0.297
4
Megalonaias
372.3
5.92
35.04
0.118
0.343
£ (Sum):
22.03
122.04
0.29
1.05
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
44.02
S = slope
L =
3.759
L = X-axis intercept
A =
5.242
A = InFAV
FAV =
189.1
FAV/2 =
94.57 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
94.57 / 15.8 = 5.985 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
6.0 mg/L PFHxA (rounded to two significant figures)
F-17
-------
1.00 -r
o.9o
0.80 -f
0.70
s 0.60 -+
S
s
u
a
«
41
0.50
0.40
g 0.30
Oh
0.20
o.io 4
0.00
1
~
A
o
Amphibian (Empirical)
Fish (WeblCE)
Insect (WeblCE)
Invertebrate (Empirical)
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary Value
-Acute Benchmark
A Asellus
A Tubifex
A Crangonyx
A Limnodrilus
A Moina
+ Paratanvtarsus
O Pimephales
~ Daphnia
O Carassius
¦ Lithobates
O Lasmigona
O Gambusia
O Ortmamiiana
O Physella
A Ceriodaphnia
O Lepomis
O Lymnaea
O Ictalurus
O Oncorhynchus
A Simocephalus
O Lampsilis
A Branchinecta
A Palaemonetes
A Thamnocephalus
A Gammarus
O Danio
A Chydorus
A Macrobrachium
O Utterbackia
O Megalonaias
O Margaritifera
O Amblema
A Brachionus
—i i i i i i i 11
_i i i i i i i i i
—i i i i i i i 11
10 100 1,000 10,000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFHxA)
100,000
Figure F-2. Ranked Acute PFHxA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculations.
F.3 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFNA were available for three species
comprising three genera and fulfilling two MDR groups (Table F-8). A total of 42 ICE models
were accepted for use. Of these, six ICE models were not selected for use because empirical data
were available for the genus (e.g., models for Daphnia longispina and Daphnia magna). One
other model was not used because there was an acceptable model for more closely-related
surrogate species (i.e., Daphnia magna predicting tor Pimephalespromelas). One additional
model (i.e., Daphnia magna predicting for Danio rerio) was not used because the measured EC so
values fell outside of the ICE model range and other acceptable models for taxonomically-related
F-18
-------
species with measured EC50 values within the ICE model range were used. A total of 34 ICE
models were selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 34 SMAVs representing 30
genera (Tables F-7 and F-8).
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 33 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-8. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 2.0 of each other (Table F-9). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFNA is 23.18 mg/L (Table F-9), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for the one ICE-derived species value (the threeridge mussel, Amblema
plicata, GMAV=17.58 mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of
11.59 mg/L PFNA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain
the freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.73 mg/L PFNA (rounded to two
significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed
to PFNA under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is
not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure F-3).
F-19
-------
Table F-7. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFNA using the scaling approach for data outside of the
model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51A
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0008
166.8
1,035.5
(296.9-3,611.9)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.0002
5,000
29.8
(10.9-81.6)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0001
68.3
102.4
(51.2-204.7)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
52.1
(32.2-84.2)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.0001
46,278
50.3
(33.3-75.9)
Bryozoan (Pectinatella
magnifica)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.014
0.232
648.8
(426-988.3)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
African clawed frog
(Xenopus laevis)
335.8**
335.8
(mg/L)
0.018
122.5
977.6
(162.9-5,867.9)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.0003
46,278
59.4
(38.2-92.1)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
reticulata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0008
0.232
44.5
(16.1-123.4)
Daphnid (Daphnia galeata)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0001
0.646
109.2
(49.2-242.4)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.009
10.36
59.4
(16.2-217.7)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
27.84
27,840
(Hg/L)
0.007
462
76.4
(48-121.5)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
65.8
(40.3-107.5)
F-20
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Daphnid (Daphnia pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.014
281.6
84.2
(18-392.8)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0002
7.2
61.3
(33.8-111)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51A
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0001
166.8
113.7
(29.4-439.6)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
African clawed frog
(Xenopus laevis)
335.8**
335.8
(mg/L)
0.045
122.5
260.9
(48.9-1,393.3)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.0002
46,500
67.3b
(47.1-96.2)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
48.6
(27.6-85.6)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51A
84.51
(mg/L)
0.014
166.8
167.6
(38.9-721.5)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.0003
166.8
1,261.8
(217.7-7,314.9)
Leech (Nephelopsis obscura)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0008
4.369
7,904.0
(1,279-48,846)
Midge (Chironomus tentans)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51A
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0003
472
435.6
(71.7-2,647.8)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.37
14,500
228.8
(101.9-513.5)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0003
58
84.4
(33.9-210)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.042
166.8
42.9
(12.1-152.7)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.003
281.6
181.9
(43.1-768.2)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51A
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
1,225.2
(393.2-3,817.5)
F-21
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.011
281.6
65.1
(24.3-174.3)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
44.8
(28.6-70.3)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.042
545.9
54.4
(13.3-222.4)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.0001
14,500
35.4
(25.2-49.7)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
70.7
(24-208)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
70.6
(31.3-159.2)
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.014
4,894.7
17.6
(6.1-50.8)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
58.0
(28.6-117.6)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
32.9
(18.5-58.5)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.009
977.6
30.1
(19.3-47.1)
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Hg/L)
0.009
281.6
44.3
(8.8-223.1)
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
40.4
(19.8-82.5)
Zebraflsh (Danio rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51**
84.51
(mg/L)
0.0001
50
504.6C
(137.4-1,853.4)
Zebraflsh-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
84.51
84,510
(Ug/L)
0.0001
46,500
91.9
(42.1-200.2)
*Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" ECso was therefore entered in ICE model.
A |ig/L CI greater than 50-fold. Used mg/L with acceptable CI.
F-22
-------
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate EC50 values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-23
-------
Table F-8. Ranked PFNA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFNA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
17.58
17.58
0.03
2
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
27.84
27.84
0.06
3
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
32.90
32.90
0.09
4
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
35.40
35.40
0.12
5
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
40.41
40.41
0.15
6
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
44.31
44.31
0.18
7
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
44.82
44.82
0.21
8
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
42.93
45.69
0.24
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
48.63
9
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
50.29
50.29
0.26
10
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
59.35
51.41
0.29
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
44.54**
11
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
52.08
52.08
0.32
12
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
54.41
54.41
0.35
13
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
29.82
55.26
0.38
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
102.4**
14
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta Ivnchi
58.02
58.02
0.41
15
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
65.1
65.10
0.44
16
G
Tadpole physa
Phvsella gvrina
70.62
70.62
0.47
17
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
70.68
70.68
0.50
18
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
61.28**
83.48
0.53
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
113.7
19
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
84.41**
84.41
0.56
20
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
84.51
84.51
0.59
21
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
91.85
91.85
0.62
22
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
167.6
167.6
0.65
23
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
181.9
181.9
0.68
24
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
228.8
228.8
0.71
25
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
260.9**
260.9
0.74
26
C
Clawed frog
Xenopus sp.
335.8
335.8
0.76
27
F
Midge
Chironomus teutons
435.6
435.6
0.79
28
H
Bryozoan
Pectinate/la magnifica
648.8**
648.8
0.82
29
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
977.6**
977.6
0.85
30
E
Amphipod
Crangonvx pseudogracilis
1,035
1,035
0.88
31
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
1,225
1,225
0.91
32
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
1,262
1,262
0.94
33
H
Leech
Nephelopsis obscura
7,904**
7,904
0.97
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
F-24
-------
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abentliic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
Table F-9. PFNA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Calculated Freshwater FAV based on 4 lowest values; N=33 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAV by 2 and by the carboxylic acic
application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
17.58
2.87
8.22
0.029
0.171
2
Chydorus
27.84
3.33
11.07
0.059
0.243
3
Megalonaias
32.90
3.49
12.20
0.088
0.297
4
Oncorhynchns
35.40
3.57
12.72
0.118
0.343
£ (Sum):
13.25
44.21
0.29
1.05
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
18.12
S = slope
L =
2.192
L = X-axis intercept
A =
3.143
A = InFAV
FAV =
23.18
FAV/2 =
11.59 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
11.59 / 15.8 = 0.7337 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.73 mg/L PFNA (rounded to two significant figures)
F-25
-------
s
9
u
-C
a
S3
0£
<3J
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
P. 0.30
i.
su
Ph
0.20
0.10
0.00
¦
Amphibian (Empirical)
o
Fish (WeblCE)
+
Insect (WeblCE)
~
Invertebrate (Empirical)
A
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
O
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary Value
-Acute Benchmark
0.1
Nephelopsis A
A Asellus
A Tubifex
A Crangonvx
O Ictalurus
A Pectinatella
+ Chironomus
I Xenopus
O Pimephales
+ Paratanytarsus
A Limnodrilus
O Lasmigona
O Danio
A Daphnia
A Palaemonetes
A Simocephalus
O Lymnaea
Physella
A Macrobrachium
A Branchinecta
A Gammarus
O Ortmanniana
A Thamnocephalus
A Ceriodaphnia
O Lepomis
O Lampsilis
O Utterbackia
A Moina
O Margaritifera
O Oncorhynchus
O Megalonaias
A Chydorus
O Amblema
10 100 1000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFNA)
10000
Figure F-3. Ranked Acute PFNA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
F.4 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFDA were available for five species
comprising four genera and fulfilling three MDR groups (Table F-ll). A total of 85 ICE models
were accepted for use. Of these, thirteen ICE models were not selected for use because empirical
data were available for the genus (e.g., models for Chydorus sphaericus and Daphnia magna).
Four other models were not used because there were acceptable models for more closely-related
surrogate species (e.g., Daphnia magna predicting tor Pimephalespromelas). A total of 68 ICE
models were selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 67 SMAVs representing 56
genera (Table F-10 and F- 11)
F-26
-------
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 60 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-ll. GMAVs for the four genera used in the
FAV calculation were within a factor of 1.3 of each other (Table F-12). The freshwater FAV
(the 5th percentile of the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFDA is 20.53 mg/L (Table F-12),
which is lower than all of the GMAVs except for three of the ICE-derived species values (the
isopod, Caecidotea brevicauda, GMAV= 8.170 mg/L the northern pike, Esox lucius,
GMAV=18.36 mg/L, and the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, GMAV=19.52 mg/L).
The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of 10.27 mg/L PFDA and then
adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water
column benchmark magnitude of 0.65 mg/L PFDA (rounded to two significant figures). This
value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to PFDA under short-
term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more
than once in three years (Figure F-4).
F-27
-------
Table F-10. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFDA using the scaling approach for data outside of
the model bounds as in cases indicated.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso (units)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7A
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0008
166.8
1,422.9
(423.1-4,784.7)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.0002
5,000
39.7
(14-112.7)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0001
68.3
140.9
(70-283.6)
Apache trout (Oncorhynchus
gilae)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
20.0
(12.3-32.6)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mvkiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0002
95.86
31.0
(15.7-61.3)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
71.5
(43.6-117.5)
Black bullhead (Ameiurus
melas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mvkiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
<0.0001
9.810
207.8
(56.1-770)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.0001
46,278
64.5b
(42-99)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mvkiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0001
8,341.5
33.1
(27.6-39.6)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.003
43.07
72.7
(12.6-420.2)
Brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.0006
96.69
31.4
(18.8-52.5)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.0002
95.86
33.1
(19.8-55.3)
Bryozoan (Pectinatella
magnifica)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.014
0.232
877.8
(553.4-1,392.2)
F-28
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso (units)
Minimum
Maximum
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.0006
13,400
58.8
(23.7-145.4)
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0041
1.625
34.4
(22.8-51.9)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
<0.0001
13,400
31.6
(19.9-50.1)
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Mg/L)
0.003
724.4
40.0
(24-66.9)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
<0.0001
43.07
49.4
(38.4-63.6)
Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32A
32
(mg/L)
0.0033
43.07
195.1
(34.5-1,103.6)
Common carp (Cyprinus
carpio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.0002
198.4
35.6
(16.3-77.7)
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
<0.0001
198.4
27.1
(18.7-39.3)
Cuvier's foam froglet
(Physalaemus cuvieri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.7099
155.5
51.8
(30.8-87.1)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.0003
46,278
84.8
(53.8-133.7)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
reticulata)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0008
0.232
60.4
(19.8-184.4)
Daphnid (Daphnia galeata)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0001
0.646
150.2
(65.6-344.1)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.009
10.36
90.7
(25.8-318.7)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
pulicaria)
149.6
149,600
(kg/L)
0.009
237.4
122.1
(27.4-544.5)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
41.13
41,130
(kg/L)
0.007
462
114.5
(70.9-184.8)
F-29
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso (units)
Minimum
Maximum
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
93.7
(56.2-156)
Daphnid (Daphnia
pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(ug/L)
0.014
281.6
122.0
(24.2-614.7)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0002
7.2
84.9
(45.5-158.4)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7A
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0001
166.8
147.7
(37.1-587.8)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.0002
46,500
85.6b
(58.9-124.4)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0002
13,400
46.7
(36-60.7)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
66.6
(37-119.8)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
<0.0001
13,400
62.2
(31.6-122.5)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7A
119.7
(mg/L)
0.014
166.8
211.5
(51.2-874.2)
Green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
<0.0001
19.93
90
(54.2-149.3)
Greenthroat darter
(Etheostoma lepidum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0041
1.625
34.9
(11-110.9)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0006
198.4
28.3
(7.6-105.3)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.0003
166.8
1,699.9
(273.7-10,559)
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0006
82
8.2
(1.9-35.7)
Lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.0002
198.4
18.0
(11.4-28.4)
F-30
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso (units)
Minimum
Maximum
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(W$/L)
<0.0001
95.86
19.5
(9.5-40.3)
Leech (Nephelopsis obscura)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0008
4.369
11,822
(1,982-70,511)
Mayfly (Drunella grandis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32A
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
95.86
143.5
(43.1-477.3)
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.007
54.4
52.1
(10.9-248.7)
Midge (Chironomus tentans)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7A
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0003
472
611.2
(100.7-3,709.3)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0006
1,330
105.8
(35.6-314.4)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.37
14,500
321.5
(140.5-735.3)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7**
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0003
58
109.9
(42.7-282.7)
Mrigal carp (Cirrhinus
mrigala)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
1.625
147.7
(24.4-896.1)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(Ug/L)
0.042
166.8
58.5
(15.4-222.1)
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.002
198.4
64.7
(33.7-124.2)
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.005
1.822
18.4
(6.5-52)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.003
281.6
232.8
(51.5-1,052.2)
Oligochaete (Tubifex
tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7A
119.7
(mg/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
1,672.6
(538.3-5,196.9)
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium
nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(Mg/L)
0.011
281.6
97.1
(34.6-272.8)
F-31
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso (units)
Minimum
Maximum
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.014
8,694.5
61.0
(38.4-97.2)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(ug/L)
0.042
545.9
76.0
(17.4-332.2)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(W$/L)
0.0001
14,500
45.4
(31.9-64.7)
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0033
43.07
26.6
(5.3-134)
Riceland prawn
(Macrobrachium lanchesteri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.003
2.04
177.6
(34.2-922.7)
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
1.625
302
(61.5-1,484.6)
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(kg/L)
0.028
95.86
45.7
(11.2-185.7)
Silver perch (Bidyanus
bidyanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0014
7.075
40.3
(25.8-62.8)
Snipefly (Atherix variegata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
0.068
194.9
(89.6-424)
Sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.028
7.5
74.6
(17.1-325.1)
Southern leopard frog
(Lithobates sphenocephalus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.028
9.7
46.3
(19.9-107.9)
Spotfin chub (Erimonax
monachus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0041
1.625
24.5
(10.4-57.6)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
98.2
(32.2-299.3)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
98.7
(42.7-227.9)
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.014
4,894.7
24.5
(8.2-73.1)
F-32
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso (units)
Minimum
Maximum
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.014
8,694.506
80.6
(38.8-167.4)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.005
16.24
41.8
(12.1-144.6)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
46.0
(25.6-82.8)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)*
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(Ug/L)
0.009
977.6
41.9
(26.5-66.4)
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.009
281.6
56.9
(10.6-305.9)
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
54.9
(26.3-114.5)
Western toad (Anaxyrus
boreas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.028
1.625
31.3
(4.6-211.6)
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
<0.0001
16.24
44.5
(21-94.5)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
H9 7**
l,19.7(mg/L)
0.0001
50
660. lb
(190-2,293.1)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
229.1
17.6
(6.4-48.5)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia
magna)
119.7
119,700
(kg/L)
0.0001
46,500
115.5b
(51.4-259.4)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
8,341.5
34.4
(16.8-70.4)
*Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" ECso was therefore entered in ICE model.
A |ig/L CI greater than 50-fold. Used mg/L with acceptable CI.
F-33
-------
Table F-ll. Ranked PFDA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFDA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
E
Isopod
Caecidotea brevicauda
8.170
8.170
0.02
2
B
Northern pike
Esox lucius
18.36**
18.36
0.03
3
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
19.52
19.52
0.05
4
A
Brook trout
Salvelimis fontinalis
31.44
23.80
0.07
A
Lake trout
Salvelimis namavcush
18.01
5
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
24.46
24.46
0.08
6
B
Spotfin chub
Erimonax monachus
24.47**
24.47
0.10
7
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
24.57
24.57
0.11
8
B
Razorback sucker
Xyrauchen texcmus
26.57
26.57
0.13
9
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
28.31
28.31
0.15
10
C
Western toad
Anaxvrus boreas
31.29**
31.29
0.16
11
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
31.55
31.55
0.18
12
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
32.00
32.00
0.20
13
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
30.96
32.02
0.21
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
33.12
14
B
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
34.42**
34.42
0.23
15
B
Greenthroat darter
Etheostoma lepidum
34.87**
34.87
0.25
16
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
35.58
35.58
0.26
17
B
Silver perch
Bidvamis bidvanus
40.28**
40.28
0.28
18
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
41.13
41.13
0.30
19
B
Walleye
Sander vitreus
41.80**
41.80
0.31
20
B
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
44.48**
44.48
0.33
21
B
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
45.67
45.67
0.34
22
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
46.01
46.01
0.36
23
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
46.72
46.72
0.38
24
C
Cuvier's foam froglet
Phvsalaemus cuvieri
51.77
51.77
0.39
25
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
52.12
52.12
0.41
26
B
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
89.98**
54.56
0.43
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
33.08
27
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
54.89
54.89
0.44
28
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
58.75
56.04
0.46
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
64.72
C
Southern leopard frog
Lithobates sphenocephalus
46.28**
29
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
56.93
56.93
0.48
30
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
61.04
61.04
0.49
31
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
62.18
62.18
0.51
32
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
58.54
62.42
0.52
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
66.56
33
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
71.54
71.54
0.54
34
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
84.82
71.55
0.56
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
60.35**
35
B
Bonytail
Gila elegans
72.68
72.68
0.57
36
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
39.66
74.75
0.59
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
140.9**
F-34
-------
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
37
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
76.02
76.02
0.61
38
C
Clawed frog
Xenopus sp.
76.50
76.50
0.62
39
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Brcmchinecta Ivnchi
80.58
80.58
0.64
40
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
98.19
98.19
0.66
41
G
Tadpole physa
Phvsella gvrina
98.69
98.69
0.67
42
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
109.9**
109.9
0.69
43
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
84.92**
112.0
0.70
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
147.7
44
E
Riceland prawn
Macrobrachium
lanchesteri
177.6**
131.3
0.72
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
97.09
45
F
Mayfly
Drunella grandis
143.5
143.5
0.74
46
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
145.5
147.5
0.75
D
Daphnid
Daphnia pulicaria
149.6
47
B
Mrigal carp
Cirrhinus mrigala
147 7**
147.7
0.77
48
F
Midge
Paratanvtarsus dissimilis
105.8
184.4
0.79
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
321.5
49
F
Snipefly
Atherix variegata
194 9**
194.9
0.80
50
B
Colorado squawfish
Ptvchocheilus lucius
195.1
195.1
0.82
51
B
Black bullhead
Ameiurus melas
207.8**
207.8
0.84
52
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
211.5
211.5
0.85
53
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
232.8
232.8
0.87
54
B
Rohu
Labeo rohita
302.0**
302.0
0.89
55
F
Midge
Chironomus teutons
611.2
611.2
0.90
56
H
Bryozoan
Pectinate/la magnifica
877.8**
877.8
0.92
57
E
Amphipod
Crangonvx pseudogracilis
1,423
1,423
0.93
58
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
1,673
1,673
0.95
59
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
1,700
1,700
0.97
60
H
Leech
Nephelopsis obscura
11,822**
11,822
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
F-35
-------
Table F-12. PFDA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark
Calculated Freshwater FAV based on 4 values closest to 0.05 percentile; N=60 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAV by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
2
Esox
18.36
2.91
8.47
0.033
0.181
3
Micropterus
19.52
2.97
8.83
0.049
0.222
4
Salve limis
23.80
3.17
10.05
0.066
0.256
5
Amblema
24.46
3.20
10.22
0.082
0.286
£ (Sum):
12.25
37.57
0.23
0.95
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
9.92
S = slope
L =
2.318
L = X-axis intercept
A =
3.022
A = InFAV
FAV =
20.53
FAV/2 =
10.27 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
10.27 / 15.8 = 0.6498 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.65 mg/L PFDA (rounded to two significant figures)
F-36
-------
a
©
SJ
cs
;>
s
s
u
G
£ 0.40 4
—
| 0.30 4
s
Oh
^ Asellus
A Nephelopsis
O Labeo
k Lin
Tubifex
A Crangonyx
A Pectinatella
+ Chironomus
Carassius
Utterbackia
Moina
Lithobates
Margaritifera
Lepomis
Oryzias
. Physalaemus
Pimephales
Megalonaias
Acipenser
Perca
Sander
Chydorus
, Bidyanus
Cvprinus
Etheo stoma
Notropis
Salmo
Oncorhynchus
Ictalums
. Anaxyrus
Poecilia
Xyrauchen
Dahio
Erimonax
Amblema
Salvelinus
A Limnodnlus
Lasmigona
O Amehmis
Q Ptychodieilus
+ Atherix
+ Paratanytarsus
Q Cirrhinus
A Daphnia
-r Dninella
A Macrobraclium
A Simocephalus
A Palaemonetes
Phy sella
O Lynmaea
Brarichinecta
Xenopus
Ortmanmana
Gammarus
Gila
Cerio daphnia
Thamno cephalus
Lamps ills
O Micropterus
O Esox
¦
Amphibian (Empirical)
~
Amphibian (WeblCE)
•
Fish (Empirical)
o
Fish (WeblCE)
+
Insect (WeblCE)
~
Invertebrate (Empirical)
A
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
O
Mollusk (WeblCE)
• Preliminary Value
-Acute Benchmark
10 100 1000 10000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L PFDA)
100000
Figure F-4. Ranked Acute PFDA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
F.5 Derivation of Acute Water Benchmark for Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS)
Quantitatively acceptable empirical data for PFBS were available for four species
comprising four genera and fulfilling two MDR groups (Table F-14). A total of 119 ICE models
were accepted for use. Of these, seventeen ICE models were not selected for use because
empirical data were available for the genera (e.g., models for Lepomis macrochirus and Daphnia
magna). Seven ICE models were not selected for use because they were derived based on
saltwater species surrogates (e.g., Americamysis bahia predicting for Gammams fasciatus).
Sixteen other models were not used because there were acceptable models for more closely-
related surrogate species (e.g., Lepomis macrochirus predicting for Cyprinus carpio). Two
F-37
-------
additional models (e.g., Ictaluruspunctatus predicting for Lithobates catesbeianus) were not
used because the measured EC50 values fell outside of the ICE model range and other acceptable
models for taxonomically-related species with measured EC50 values within the ICE model range
were used. A total of 77 ICE models were selected for use, resulting in ICE models predicting 66
SMAVs, representing 54 genera (Tables F-13 and F- 14)
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 58 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-14. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 1.9 of each other (Table F-15). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFBS is 646.3 mg/L (Table F-15), which is lower than all
of the GMAVs except for two of the ICE-derived species values (the threeridge mussel,
Amblemaplicata, GMAV=383.6 mg/L and the greenthroat darter, Etheostoma lepidum,
GMAV=518.0 mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary benchmark value of
323.1 mg/L PFBS and then adjusted by the sulfonic acid application factor (42.3) to obtain the
freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 7.6 mg/L PFBS (rounded to two
significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed
to PFBS under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is
not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure F-5).
F-38
-------
Table F-13. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFBS using the scaling approach for data outside of
the model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
African clawed frog
(Xenopus laevis)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.018
140.2
1,868.8
(685.1-5,097.5)
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0008
166.8
20,152
(5,302.8-76,585)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
5,000
428.1
(107.9-1,697.9)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
4.4
826.2a
(280.5-2,433.7)
Amphipod (Gammarus
minus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.239
107.6
7,872.6
(1,934.1-32,046)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0001
68.3
2,010.4
(770.9-5,242.9)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
7.17
220.9a
(87-560.8)
Amphipod (Hyalella azteca)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
193.4
251.T
(156.5-817.5)
Arctic grayling (Thymallus
arcticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.038
150.8
5,722.4
(958.9-34,148)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.004
123.3
5,330.1
(2,929.8-9,696.8)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.044
140.2
493.4
(76.8-3,169.5)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
1,010.1
(525.1-1,942.9)
Black bullhead (Ameiurus
melas)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
20.92
2,628.4
(591-11,689)
F-39
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
46,278
512.5
(285.3-920.4)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)*
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
50,154
751.0
(390-1,446)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)*
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
79
1,574.6
(1,174.5-2,111)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.054
150.8
1,895,4b
(374.7-9,588.1)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.058
8.32
880.6
(168.2-4,610.9)
Brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
123.3
4,301.9
(2,141.8-8,640.5)
Brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
140.2
506.7
(192.5-1,334)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.002
123.3
2,390.2
(732.9-7,795.5)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
201
7,340c
(3,632.2-14,833)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Ug/L)
0.001
26,500
1,791.4
(756.1-4,244.6)
Catla (Gibelion catla)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.333
8.32
1,718.3
(810.4-3,643.3)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
517.8
6,851.9C
(4,607-10,191)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Hg/L)
0.001
26,500
1,617.3
(755.1-3,464.4)
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.004
150.8
2,417.4
(631.8-9,249.7)
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.011
140.2
397.2
(94.8-1,664.3)
F-40
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
150.8
3,010.5
(1,399.5-6,475.7)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
20.92
589.1
(232.4-1,493.1)
Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus lucius)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.058
20.92
868.0
(215.4-3,498.7)
Common carp (Cyprinus
carpio)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0009
180
7,708.8b
(3,816-15,573)
Common carp (Cyprinus
carpio)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.005
133
2,074.7
(1,359.3-3,166.5)
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
180
5,874.5
(3,202.5-10,776)
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
140.2
645.0
(354.7-1,172.7)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.0003
46,278
1,666.6
(909-3,055.6)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372
372,000
(Hg/L)
<0.0001
4,100
171.7a
(36.6-804.9)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.009
10.36
3,094.2
(706.1-13,559)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)*
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372
372,000
(Hg/L)
<0.0001
11,000
243.9
(143.9-413.4)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
1,768.1
(893.9-3,497.1)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.014
281.6
1,712.1
(445.5-6,580.5)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0002
7.2
1,291.0
(482.8-3,451.9)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0001
166.8
1,307.9
(202.3-8,457.1)
F-41
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)*
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452
6,452,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
27,540
3,399.2
(1,631.9-7,080.3)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
46,500
639.5
(375.7-1,088.5)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)*
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372
372,000
(Hg/L)
<0.0001
11,000
158.6
(74.6-337.5)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
912.5
(399-2,086.8)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938A
1,938
(mg/L)
0.013
10,831
487.4b
(125.7-1,889.9)
Flagfish (Jordanella floridae)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
113
5,648.7
(1,648.7-19,354)
Flagfish (Jordanella floridae)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
32.54
1,232.7
(388.5-3,911.1)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
201
8,832.2b
(4,286.5-18,199)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Hg/L)
0.001
26,500
2,152.4
(1,075.2-4,309)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.014
166.8
1,471.9
(318.2-6,807.8)
Green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus)*
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.004
113
7,710.8
(3,925.7-15,146)
Green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus)*
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.011
26.69
720.9
(107.3-4,841.9)
Greenthroat darter
(Etheostoma lepidum)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.006
8.32
518.0
(105.9-2,533.1)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
180
5,295.7
(2,358.2-11,892)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
140.2
1,407.4
(816.4-2,426.3)
F-42
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Indian bullfrog (Euphlyctis
hexadactylus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.038
113
2,330.8
(410.6-13,232)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.003
123.3
9,389.6b
(2,238.7-39,383)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0003
166.8
55,185
(17,354-175,483)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
6.983
5,240.6a
(964.7-28,468.1)
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
26.7
3,753.7
(1,068.9-13,183)
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
20.92
286.2
(83.9-976.8)
Lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.003
180
2,719.2
(1,374-5,381.5)
Lake trout (Salvelinus
namavcush)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.044
133
374.7
(171.7-817.4)
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
123.3
6,684.3
(4,375-10,213)
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.003
1,420
2,670.2
(1,679.9-4,244.3)
Midge (Chironomus
plumosus)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
87.6
672. la
(228.5-1,977.3)
Midge (Chironomus tentans)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0001
517.8
10,675
(1,696.1-67,189)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
201
18,234
(3,711.6-89,583)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
1,430
6,295.4
(1,795.6-22,072)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.37
14,500
5,481.6
(1,674.6-17,944)
F-43
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938A
1,938
(mg/L)
0.28
10,600
6,562.8b
(1,034.9-41,616)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0003
58
993.2
(233.2-4,230.7)
Mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938A
1,938
(mg/L)
0.006
26,500
1,349.6
(216.3-8,421.7)
Mozambique tilapia
(Oreochromis mossambicus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.044
140.2
1,578
(636.6-3,911.6)
Mrigal carp (Cirrhinus
mrigala)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.1969
8.32
1,132.5
(742.8-1,726.6)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.042
166.8
1,653.6
(781.8-3,497.4)
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.002
6.969
8,705.2
(7,662.2-9,890.2)
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.008
180
14,976.0
(2,672.6-83,915)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.003
281.6
13,646.0
(5,444.3-34,203)
Oligochaete (Lumbriculus
variegatus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
140.2
2,368.1
(1,042.6-5,378.4)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0001
113
2,696.5b
(423.5-17,169)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183A
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
22,428.0
(5,594.7-89,907)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938A
1,938
(mg/L)
0.015
10,831
2,039.0b
(591.9-7,024)
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.011
281.6
978.3
(434.4-2,203.5)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
802.5
(422.2-1,525.5)
F-44
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938A
1,938
(mg/L)
0.134
10,831
478.6b
(99.6-2,299.1)
Peppered loach
(Lepidocephalichthys guntea)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.1969
43.79
1,937.8
(699.6-5,367.4)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.042
545.9
1,625.4
(540-4,892.6)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452,000
(Ug/L)
0.0001
7,100
3,208.6
(2,275.7-4,524)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
14,500
361.9b
(221.2-592.1)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
26,500
788.9
(505.7-1,230.8)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
113
l,127.7a
(854.1-1,489)
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.054
150.8
l,223b
(295.2-5,067.6)
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.058
8.32
742.7
(170.7-3,231.1)
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0008
7.326
22,073b
(3,315.4-146,959)
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.002
8.32
3,518.1
(750.6-16,489)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1,523.7
(337.4-6,881.2)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1,608.6
(512.8-5,046.1)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938A
1,938
(mg/L)
0.814
10,831
263,4b
(41-1,694.5)
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
4,894.7
383.6
(85.7-1,717.6)
F-45
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Hg/L)
0.814
10,831
250.3b
(39.4-1,592.2)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1,246.4
(457-3,399.4)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.004
6.722
2,272.6
(535.8-9,639.4)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
755.1
(345.4-1,650.5)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.009
977.6
934.5
(569.8-1,532.6)
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.009
281.6
3,183.1
(1,038.3-9,758.3)
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
706.1
(255.8-1,948.9)
White sucker (Catostomus
commersonii)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.035
123.3
4,920.4b
(2,000.4-12,103)
White sucker (Catostomus
commersonii)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.044
140.2
2,552.9
(896.1-7,273)
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
6,452**
6,452
(mg/L)
0.0004
9.41
4,050.0
(2,122-7,729.6)
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.001
20.92
504.lb
(168.3-1,509.3)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183**
2,183
(mg/L)
0.0001
50
6,202.4
(1,930.8-19,924)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)*
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938**
1,938
(mg/L)
0.013
26.69
2,005.9
(1,169.6-3,440.3)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)*
Mysid (Americamysis
bahia)
372**
372
(mg/L)
<0.0001
5.666
6,109.6
(1,057.2-35,308)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
2,183
2,183,000
(Hg/L)
0.0001
46,500
780.8
(257.2-2,370.6)
F-46
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)*
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
1,938
1,938,000
(Hg/L)
0.004
70,200
1,707.9
(1,061.5-2,748)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" ECso was therefore entered in ICE model.
A |ig/L CI greater than 50-fold. Used mg/L with acceptable CI.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-47
-------
Table F-14. Ranked PFBS Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFBS toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
383.6
383.6
0.02
2
B
Greenthroat darter
Etheostoma lepidum
518.0**
518.0
0.03
3
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
706.1
706.1
0.05
4
B
Razorback sucker
Xvrauchen texanus
742.7**
742.7
0.07
5
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
755.1
755.1
0.08
6
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
802.5
802.5
0.10
7
B
Colorado squawfish
Ptvchocheilus lucius
868.0**
868.0
0.12
8
B
Bonytail
Gila elegans
880.6**
880.6
0.14
9
D
Water flea
Chydorus sphaericus
934.5**
934.5
0.15
10
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
978.3**
978.3
0.17
11
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
993.2**
993.2
0.19
12
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
1,010
1,010
0.20
13
E
Isopod
Caecidotea brevicauda
1,036**
1,036
0.22
14
B
Mrigal carp
Cirrhinus mrigala
1,132**
1,132
0.24
15
A
Brook trout
Salvelimis fontinalis
1,476**
1,221
0.25
A
Lake trout
Salvelimis namavcush
1,009**
16
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
1,654**
1,228
0.27
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
912.5
17
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Brcmchinecta Ivnchi
1,246
1,246
0.29
18
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
1,291**
1,299
0.31
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
1,308**
19
B
Mosquitofish
Gambusia qffinis
1,350
1,350
0.32
20
A
Cutthroat trout
Oncorhvnchus clarkii
1,946**
1,418
0.34
A
Coho salmon
Oncorhvnchus kisutch
1,332**
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
1,591
A
Chinook salmon
Oncorhvnchus tshawvtscha
979 9**
21
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
1,472**
1,472
0.36
22
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
1,524
1,524
0.37
23
G
Tadpole physa
Phvsella gvrina
1,609
1,609
0.39
24
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
1,617
1,617
0.41
25
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
1,625**
1,625
0.42
26
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
1,667
1,667
0.44
27
B
Catla
Gibelion catla
1,718**
1,718
0.46
28
C
African clawed frog
Xenopus laevis
1,869**
1,869
0.47
29
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
428.1
1,892
0.49
E
Amphipod
Gammarus minus
7,873**
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
2,010**
30
B
Peppered loach
Lepidocephalichthvs
guntea
1,938**
1,938
0.51
31
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
1,938
1,938
0.53
32
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
1,622**
1,969
0.54
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
2,390**
33
B
Common carp
Cvprinus carpio
2,075**
2,075
0.56
F-48
-------
MDR
Percentile
Rank
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Rank
34
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
2,152
2,152
0.58
35
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
2,183
2,183
0.59
36
B
Walleye
Sander vitreus
2,273**
2,273
0.61
37
C
Indian bullfrog
Euphlyctis hexadactylus
2,331**
2,331
0.63
38
H
Oligochaete
Lumbriculus variegatus
2,368**
2,368
0.64
39
B
White sucker
Catostomus commersonii
2,553**
2,553
0.66
40
B
Black bullhead
Ameiurus melas
2,628**
2,628
0.68
41
B
Flagfish
Jordcmella floridae
2,639**
2,639
0.69
42
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
2,670**
2,670
0.71
43
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
2,730**
2,730
0.73
44
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
>3,000
>3,000
0.75
45
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
3,183**
3,183
0.76
46
B
Rohu
Labeo rohita
3,518**
3,518
0.78
47
B
Mozambique tilapia
Oreochromis mossambicus
1,578**
3,706
0.80
B
Nile tilapia
Oreochromis niloticus
8,705**
48
B
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
4,050**
4,050
0.81
49
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
1,791
5,180
0.83
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
14,976**
50
A
Arctic grayling
Thvmallus arcticus
5,722**
5,722
0.85
51
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
6,452
6,452
0.86
52
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
6,684**
6,684
0.88
F
Midge
Paratanvtarsus dissimilis
10,714**
53
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
5,482
7,664
0.90
54
F
Midge
Chironomus teutons
10,675**
10,675
0.92
55
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
13,646**
13,646
0.93
56
E
Amphipod
Crangonvx pseudogracilis
20,152**
20,152
0.95
57
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
22,428**
22,428
0.97
58
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
55,185**
55,185
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
F-49
-------
Table F-15. PFBS Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=58 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the sulfonic acid application factor (42.3)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
383.6
5.95
35.40
0.017
0.130
2
Etheostoma
518.0
6.25
39.06
0.034
0.184
3
Margaritifera
706.1
6.56
43.03
0.051
0.225
4
Xyrcnichen
742.7
6.61
43.70
0.068
0.260
£ (Sum):
25.37
161.18
0.17
0.80
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
29.92
S = slope
L =
5.248
L = X-axis intercept
A =
6.471
A = InFAV
FAV =
646.3
FAV/2 =
323.1 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
323.1 / 42.3 = 7.639 (Preliminary Value / Sulfonic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
7.6 mg/L PFBS (rounded to two significant figures)
F-50
-------
1.00 T
0.90 -j
0.80
« 0.70 --
>
B
3
u
£6
S
«
Pi
-------
Criteria Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with
the MDR met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-17. GMAVs for the four most
sensitive genera were within a factor of 1.2 of each other (Table F-18). The freshwater FAV (the
5th percentile of the genus sensitivity distribution) for PFHxS is 18.17 mg/L (Table F-18), which
is lower than all of the GMAVs. The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary value of
9.084 mg/L PFHxS and then adjusted by the sulfonic acid application factor (42.3) to obtain the
freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.21 mg/L PFHxS (rounded to two
significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed
to PFHxS under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is
not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure F-6).
F-52
-------
Table F-16. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to PFHxS using the scaling approach for data outside of
the model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105**
1,105
(mg/L)
0.003
233
766.4
(378-1,553.6)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
719.8b
(362.4-1,429.7)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
22.5
22,500
(Ug/L)
0.145
304.5
19.5
(9.3-41)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
424.1
(68.5-2,627.9)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
22,500
(Ug/L)
0.003
36.91
5.2
(1.2-22.7)
Fairy shrimp
(Streptocephalus
rubricaudatus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
22.5
22,500
(Mg/L)
4.622
5,100.7
114.2
(33.4-390.3)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
l,083.6b
(468.5-2,506.4)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
22,500
(Ug/L)
0.018
25.08
26.0
(11.6-58.2)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
22.5
22,500
(Hg/L)
0.023
54,579
18.3
(13.3-25.2)
Flagfish (Jordanella floridae)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
22,500
(Ug/L)
7.797
649.3
33.9
(19.7-58.4)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
l,027.7b
(405.9-2,602.1)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
22.5
22,500
(Ug/L)
0.145
304.5
37.3
(23.2-59.9)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
3,020.0
1,069.7
(176.6-6,480.9)
F-53
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
18.6
20,900
805.1
(394.5-1,643.4)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
22.5
22,500
(ug/L)
0.145
239.3
63.2
(9.9-403.1)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
1,105
1,105,000
(Hg/L)
0.003
20,900
713.5b
(200.3-2,541.4)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
22.5
22,500
(UR/L)
0.003
26.39
38.3
(9.5-155.1)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
22.5
22,500
(Hg/L)
0.023
8,843.9
9.6
(4.2-22)
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" ECso was therefore entered in ICE model.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-54
-------
Table F-17. Ranked PFHxS Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical PFHxS toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
19.19
19.19
0.07
2
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
19.46
19.46
0.14
3
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
21.80
21.80
0.21
4
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
22.50
22.50
0.29
5
B
Flagfish
Jordcmella floridae
33.90
33.90
0.36
6
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
37.28
37.28
0.43
7
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
46.87
46.87
0.50
8
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
63.23
63.23
0.57
9
E
Fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus
proboscideus
114.2
114.2
0.64
10
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
766.4**
766.4
0.71
11
B
Mosquitofish
Gambusia affmis
805.1
805.1
0.79
12
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeiana
1,105
915.2
0.86
C
Green frog
Lithobates clamitans
758.0
13
F
Midge
Paratanvtarsus dissimilis
1,070
1,070
0.93
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
F-55
-------
Table F-18. PFHxS Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Bold values represent genera for which empirical toxicity data were available.
Note: Missing MDR Group: G
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=13 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the sulfonic acid application factor (42.3)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Oncorhynchns
19.19
2.95
8.73
0.071
0.267
2
Ictalurus
19.46
2.97
8.81
0.143
0.378
3
Pimephales
21.80
3.08
9.50
0.214
0.463
4
Danio
22.50
3.11
9.69
0.286
0.535
£ (Sum):
12.12
36.73
0.71
1.64
S2 =
L =
A =
FAV =
FAV/2 =
Adjustment =
Benchmark =
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
0.48 S = slope
2.744 L = X-axis intercept
2.900 A = InFAV
18.17
9.084 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
9.084 / 42.3 = 0.2147 (Preliminary Value / Sulfonic Acid Application Factor)
0.21 mg/L PFHxS (rounded to two significant figures)
F-56
-------
s
3
u
-£
a
C3
<&
-------
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 55 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV is summarized in Table F-20. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 1.8 of each other (Table F-21). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for 8:2 FTUCA is 1.292 mg/L (Table F-21), which is lower
than all of the GMAVs except for the ICE-derived species value for the threeridge mussel,
Amblemaplicata, GMAV = 0.79 mg/L. The FAV was divided by two to obtain a preliminary
value of 0.6458 mg/L 8:2 FTUCA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid application factor
(15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of 0.041 mg/L 8:2
FTUCA (rounded to two significant figures). This value is expected to be protective of 95% of
freshwater genera exposed to 8:2 FTUCA under short-term conditions of one-hour duration, if
the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years (Figure F-7).
F-58
-------
Table F-19. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 8:2 FTUCA using the scaling approach for data
outside of the model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.0008
166.8
28.6
(7-116.1)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.0002
5,000
2.0
(1-4.1)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.0001
68.3
2.9
(1-7.8)
Apache trout (Oncorhynchus
gilae)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
55.5
(35-87.9)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(ug/L)
0.0002
95.86
79.3
(36.6-171.6)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(n.g/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
2.6
(1.8-3.9)
Black bullhead (Ameiurus
melas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
<0.0001
9.81
411.3
(105.2-1,607.8)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(n.g/L)
0.0001
46,278
4.9b
(3.7-6.4)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(ug/L)
0.0001
8,341.5
79.0
(64.3-97.1)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.003
43.07
288.8
(102.7-811.8)
Brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(n.g/L)
0.0006
96.69
79.4
(44.1-142.9)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(n.g/L)
0.0002
95.86
83.8
(47-149.4)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(n.g/L)
0.0006
13,400
132.5
(51-344.2)
F-59
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
102.3
(69.6-150.5)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(ug/L)
<0.0001
13,400
67.4
(39.8-114)
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Mg/L)
0.003
724.4
102.9
(57.1-185.4)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
<0.0001
43.07
106.1
(91.6-122.9)
Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.003
43.07
453.5
(101.9-2,018.3)
Common carp (Cyprinus
carpio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
198.4
75.2
(31-182.2)
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
<0.0001
198.4
65.5
(42.9-100)
Cuvier's foam froglet
(Physalaemus cuvieri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.7099
155.5
91.1
(48.4-171.5)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.0003
46,278
2.1
(1.5-2.9)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
reticulata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3 2**
3.2
(mg/L)
0.0008
0.232
2.6
(0.6-11.3)
Daphnid (Daphnia galeata)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3 2**
3.2
(mg/L)
0.0001
0.646
5.4
(2.1-14.2)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.009
10.36
4.9
(1-23.7)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
2.4
(1.7-3.3)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.014
281.6
2.6
(0.7-9.5)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.0002
7.2
1.9
(0.7-5.2)
F-60
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Daphnid (Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.0001
166.8
1.7
(0.3-12.3)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.0002
46,500
7.0b
(5.4-9)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
13,400
107.7
(79.8-145.3)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
2.5
(1.6-4.1)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(n.g/L)
<0.0001
13,400
132.7
(62.2-283.3)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.014
166.8
1.9
(0.4-9.4)
Green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
<0.0001
19.93
208
(129.4-334.4)
Greenthroat darter
(Etheostoma lepidum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
92.6
(31.2-274.7)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(n.g/L)
0.0006
198.4
54.9
(12.3-243.7)
Indian bullfrog (Euphlyctis
hexadactylus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.028
19.93
184.0
(26-1,301.7)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(n.g/L)
0.0003
166.8
76.6
(23-255.1)
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(ug/L)
0.0006
82
16.8
(3.2-89.7)
Lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(n.g/L)
0.0002
198.4
41.3
(24.5-69.8)
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(ug/L)
<0.0001
95.86
46.8
(20.7-106.2)
Mayfly (Drunella grandis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81A
81
(mg/L)
0.0006
95.86
365.0
(106.1-1,255.8)
F-61
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.0006
1,330
241.0
(72.2-804.7)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.37
14,500
9.3
(3.5-24.7)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.0003
58
1.3
(0.3-6.2)
Mrigal carp (Cirrhinus
mrigala)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.0006
1.625
298.8
(53.6-1,666.3)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.042
166.8
2.3
(1.1-5.1)
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Ug/L)
0.002
198.4
125.5
(62.3-252.8)
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.005
1.822
48.1
(16.4-141.3)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Ug/L)
0.003
281.6
17.9
(6.9-46.2)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81A
81
(mg/L)
0.003
707
889.5b
(128.1-6,176.8)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Ug/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
31.6
(7.4-134.7)
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.011
281.6
1.5
(0.7-3.4)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
2.5
(1.6-3.7)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.042
545.9
2.4
(0.8-7)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3 2**
3200
( Ug/L)
0.0001
14,500
3.4
(2.7-4.3)
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.003
43.07
250.4
(96.5-649.5)
F-62
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Riceland prawn
(Macrobrachium lanchesteri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.003
2.04
392.0
(87.1-1,764.3)
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.0006
1.625
818.9
(162.1-4,136.2)
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.028
95.86
134.5
(26.7-677.1)
Silver perch (Bidyanus
bidyanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.001
7.075
110.5
(70.9-172.1)
Sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.028
7.5
163.6
(50.5-529.6)
Southern leopard frog
(Lithobates sphenocephalus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.028
9.7
151.5
(76.9-298.6)
Spotfin chub (Erimonax
monachus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
74.3
(33.2-166.2)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
3.2
(1.2-8.4)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
3.0
(1.4-6.7)
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Ug/L)
0.014
4,894.7
0.8
(0.3-2.1)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
2.6
(1.4-4.9)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81*
81
(mg/L)
0.005
16.24
78.4
(27.6-222.5)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1.4
(0.8-2.6)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Ug/L)
0.009
977.6
1.3
(0.8-2.2)
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.009
281.6
4.2
(1.3-13.2)
F-63
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
2.3
(1.1-4.6)
Western toad (Anaxyrus
boreas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
0.028
1.625
107.9
(25.9-450.6)
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81**
81
(mg/L)
<0.0001
16.24
102.6
(49.6-212)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.0001
50
8.3b
(2.5-28)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
229.1
34.6
(11.3-106)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
3.2
3,200
(ug/L)
0.0001
46,500
10.7b
(5.7-19.9)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
81
81,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
8,341.5
65.2
(29-146.3)
* Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" ECso was therefore entered in ICE model.
A |ig/L CI greater than 50-fold. Used mg/L with acceptable CI.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-64
-------
Table F-20. Ranked 8:2 FTUCA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical 8:2 FTUCA
1 the species
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
0.7900
0.7900
0.02
2
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
1.330
1.330
0.04
3
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
1.340
1.340
0.05
4
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
1.400
1.400
0.07
5
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
1.850
1.794
0.09
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
1.740
6
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
1.900
1.900
0.11
7
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
2.270
2.270
0.13
8
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
2.560**
2.302
0.14
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
2.070
9
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
2.350
2.350
0.16
10
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
2.040
2.411
0.18
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
2.850
11
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
2.320
2.428
0.20
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
2.540
12
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
2.450
2.450
0.21
13
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
2.630
2.630
0.23
14
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta Ivnchi
2.640
2.640
0.25
15
G
Tadpole physa
Phvsella gvrina
3.030
3.030
0.27
16
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
3.200
3.200
0.29
17
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
3.210
3.210
0.30
18
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
4.190
4.190
0.32
19
E
Isopod
Caecidotea brevicauda
16.82
16.82
0.34
20
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
17.89
17.89
0.36
21
E
Riceland prawn
Macrobrachium
lanchesteri
392.0**
24.41
0.375
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
1.520
22
E
Amphipod
Crangonyx pseudogracilis
28.57
28.57
0.39
23
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
31.57
31.57
0.41
24
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
46.83
46.83
0.43
25
F
Midge
Paratanvtarsus dissimilis
241.0
47.44
0.45
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
9.340
26
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
47.48
47.48
0.46
27
B
Northern pike
Esox lucius
48.13**
48.13
0.48
28
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
54.85
54.85
0.50
29
A
Brook trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
79.36
57.25
0.52
A
Lake trout
Salvelinus namavcush
41.30
30
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
67.38
67.38
0.54
31
B
Spotfin chub
Erimonax monachus
74.30**
74.30
0.55
32
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
75.18
75.18
0.57
33
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
76.56
76.56
0.59
34
B
Walleye
Sander vitreus
78.36**
78.36
0.61
F-65
-------
Rank
MDR
Group1
Name
Species
SMAV
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
35
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
81.00
81.00
0.63
36
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
79.29
81.49
0.64
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
83.76
37
C
Cuvier's foam froglet
Phvsalaemus cuvieri
91.14
91.14
0.66
38
B
Greenthroat darter
Etheostoma lepidum
92.55**
92.55
0.68
39
B
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
102.3**
102.3
0.70
40
B
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
102.6**
102.6
0.71
41
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
107.7
107.7
0.73
42
C
Western toad
Anaxvrus boreas
107.9**
107.9
0.75
43
B
Silver perch
Bidvamis bidvanus
110.5**
110.5
0.77
44
B
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
208.0**
128.2
0.79
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
78.99
45
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
132.7
132.7
0.80
46
B
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
134.5
134.5
0.82
47
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
132.5
136.0
0.84
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
125.5
C
Southern leopard frog
Lithobates sphenocephalus
151.5**
48
C
Indian bullfrog
Euphlyctis hexadactvlus
184.0**
184.0
0.86
49
B
Razorback sucker
Xwauchen texanus
250.4**
250.4
0.88
50
B
Bonytail
Gila elegans
288.8**
288.8
0.89
51
B
Mrigal carp
Cirrhinus mrigala
298.8**
298.8
0.91
52
F
Mayfly
Drunella grandis
365.0
365.0
0.93
53
B
Black bullhead
Ameiurus melas
411.3**
411.3
0.95
54
B
Colorado squawfish
Ptvchocheilus lucius
453.5**
453.5
0.96
55
B
Rohu
Labeo rohita
818.9**
818.9
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
F-66
-------
Table F-21. 8:2 FTUCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=55 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
0.79
-0.24
0.06
0.018
0.134
2
Palaemonetes
1.33
0.29
0.08
0.036
0.189
3
Chydorus
1.34
0.29
0.09
0.054
0.231
4
Megalonaias
1.40
0.34
0.11
0.071
0.267
£ (Sum):
0.68
0.34
0.18
0.82
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
22.23
S = slope
L =
-0.798
L = X-axis intercept
A =
0.256
A = InFAV
FAV =
1.292
FAV/2 =
0.6458 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
0.6458 / 15.8 = 0.04087 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.041 mg/L 8:2 FTUCA (rounded to two significant figures)
F-67
-------
1.00 -r
0.90
0.80
« 0.70 -
>
s
3
u
s
rt
06
-------
The combined empirical and ICE data resulted in 59 GMAVs that collectively fulfill the
eight MDR groups for deriving a freshwater criterion as defined by the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). The ranked GMAVs for these combined data along with the MDR
met by each GMAV are summarized in Table F-23. GMAVs for the four most sensitive genera
were within a factor of 2.1 of each other (Table F-24). The freshwater FAV (the 5th percentile of
the genus sensitivity distribution) for 7:3 FTCA is 0.4609 mg/L (Table F-24), which is lower
than all of the GMAVs except for three of the ICE-derived species values (the threeridge mussel,
Amblemaplicata, GMAV=0.25 mg/L, the water flea Chydorus sphaericus, GMAV=0.43 mg/L,
and the washboard, Megalonaias nervosa, GMAV=0.44 mg/L). The FAV was divided by two to
obtain a preliminary value of 0.2305 mg/L 7:3 FTCA and then adjusted by the carboxylic acid
application factor (15.8) to obtain the freshwater acute water column benchmark magnitude of
0.015 mg/L 7:3 FTCA (rounded to two significant figures). This value is expected to be
protective of 95% of freshwater genera exposed to 7:3 FTCA under short-term conditions of one-
hour duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years
(Figure F-8).
F-69
-------
Table F-22. Acceptable models for ICE-estimated Species Sensitivity to 7:3 FTCA using the scaling approach for data outside
of the model bounds as in cases indicated.
Bold predicted EC50S used for SMAY calculations.
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Amphipod (Crangonyx
pseudogracilis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.0008
166.8
9.5
(2.8-32.4)
Amphipod (Gammarus
fasciatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0002
5,000
0.8
(0.4-1.4)
Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.0001
68.3
1.0
(0.4-2.2)
Apache trout (Oncorhynchus
gilae)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0041
1.625
20.0
(12.3-32.6)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0002
95.86
31.0
(15.7-61.3)
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
(Thamnocephalus platyurus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(n.g/L)
0.0003
8,694.5
0.9
(0.6-1.3)
Black bullhead (Ameiurus
melas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
<0.0001
9.81
207.8
(56.1-770)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(n.g/L)
0.0001
46,278
2.1b
(1.6-2.7)
Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0001
8,341.5
33.1
(27.6-39.6)
Bonytail (Gila elegans)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(n.g/L)
0.003
43.07
72.7
(12.6-420.2)
Brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(n.g/L)
0.0006
96.69
31.4
(18.8-52.5)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(n.g/L)
0.0002
95.86
33.1
(19.8-55.3)
Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(n.g/L)
0.0006
13,400
58.8
(23.7-145.4)
F-70
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
34.4
(22.8-51.9)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
<0.0001
13,400
31.6
(19.9-50.1)
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Mg/L)
0.003
724.4
40.0
(24-66.9)
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
<0.0001
43.07
49.4
(38.4-63.6)
Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32A
32
(mg/L)
0.003
43.07
195.1
(34.5-1,103.6)
Common carp (Cyprinus
carpio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
198.4
35.6
(16.3-77.7)
Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
<0.0001
198.4
27.1
(18.7-39.3)
Cuvier's foam froglet
(Physalaemus cuvieri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
0.7099
155.5
51.8
(30.8-87.1)
Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia
dubia)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0003
46,278
0.6
(0.4-0.9)
Daphnid (Daphnia galeata)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592**
0.9592
(mg/L)
0.0001
0.646
1.8
(0.6-5.8)
Daphnid (Daphnia
longispina)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.009
10.36
1.1
(0.3-4.3)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulex)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0002
4,894.7
0.7
(0.5-1)
Daphnid (Daphnia pulicaria)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.014
281.6
0.7
(0.2-3.1)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
serrulatus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0002
7.2
0.6
(0.3-1.4)
Daphnid (Simocephalus
vetulus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0001
166.8
0.7
(0.1-3.8)
F-71
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0002
46,500
3.0b
(2.3-3.9)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
13,400
46.7
(36-60.7)
Fatmucket (Lampsilis
siliquoidea)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
0.9
(0.5-1.5)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
<0.0001
13,400
62.2
(31.6-122.5)
Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.014
166.8
0.9
(0.2-3.5)
Green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
<0.0001
19.93
90.0
(54.2-149.3)
Greenthroat darter
(Etheostoma lepidum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
34.9
(11-110.9)
Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0006
198.444
28.3
(7.6-105.3)
Isopod (Asellus aquaticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0003
166.8
27.3
(9.3-80.1)
Isopod (Caecidotea
brevicauda)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0006
82
8.2
(1.9-35.7)
Lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
0.0002
198.4
18.0
(11.4-28.4)
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
<0.0001
95.86
19.5
(9.5-40.3)
Leech (Nephelopsis obscura)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0008
4.369
131.2
(18.7-920.2)
Mayfly (Drunella grandis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32A
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
95.86
143.5
(43.1-477.3)
Medaka (Oryzias latipes)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
0.007
54.400
52.1
(10.9-248.7)
F-72
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Midge (Chironomus tentans)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0003
472
4.6
(0.7-32.5)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
dissimilis)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(ug/L)
0.0006
1,330
105.8
(35.6-314.4)
Midge (Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.37
14,500
2.9
(0.9-9.1)
Mississippi grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes kadiakensis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.0003
58
0.5
(0.2-1.9)
Mrigal carp (Cirrhinus
mrigala)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
1.625
147.7
(24.4-896.1)
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.042
166.8
0.8
(0.4-1.6)
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(n.g/L)
0.002
198.4
64.7
(33.7-124.2)
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.005
1.822
18.4
(6.5-52)
Oligochaete (Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(n.g/L)
0.003
281.6
7.6
(3.1-18.5)
Oligochaete (Tubifex tubifex)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.0001
4,894.7
10.8
(3-38.4)
Oriental river shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(n.g/L)
0.011
281.6
0.4
(0.2-0.9)
Paper pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
0.8
(0.5-1.3)
Pheasantshell (Ortmanniana
pectorosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(n.g/L)
0.042
545.9
0.7
(0.2-2.4)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)*
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(ug/L)
0.0001
14,500
1.4
(1.2-1.8)
Razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(n.g/L)
0.003
43.07
26.6
(5.3-134)
F-73
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Riceland prawn
(Macrobrachium lanchesteri)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.003
2.04
177.6
(34.2-922.7)
Rohu (Labeo rohita)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
1.625
302.0
(61.5-1,484.6)
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Hg/L)
0.028
95.86
45.7
(11.2-185.7)
Silver perch (Bidyanus
bidyanus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.001
7.075
40.3
(25.8-62.8)
Snipefly (Atherix variegata)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.0006
0.068
194.9
(89.6-424)
Sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka)*
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.028
7.5
74.6
(17.1-325.1)
Southern leopard frog
(Lithobates sphenocephalus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.028
9.7
46.3
(19.9-107.9)
Spotfin chub (Erimonax
monachus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.004
1.625
24.5
(10.4-57.6)
Swamp lymnaea (Lymnaea
stagnalis)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1.0
(0.4-2.9)
Tadpole physa (Physella
gyrina)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
1.0
(0.4-2.3)
Threeridge (Amblema
plicata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
0.9592
(mg/L)
0.014
4,894.7
0.3
(0.1-0.7)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
0.9
(0.4-1.6)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.005
16.24
41.8
(12.1-144.6)
Washboard (Megalonaias
nervosa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
0.4
(0.2-0.9)
Water flea (Chydorus
sphaericus)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.009
977.6
0.4
(0.3-0.7)
F-74
-------
Predicted Species
Surrogate
ICE Model Value Range
(mg/L)
Predicted ECso
(Confidence Limits)
(mg/L)
Species
Measured
ECso
(mg/L)
Entered
ECso
(units)
Minimum
Maximum
Water flea (Moina
macrocopa)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.009
281.6
1.8
(0.6-5.2)
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Ug/L)
0.014
8,694.5
0.8
(0.4-1.7)
Western toad (Anaxyrus
boreas)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
0.028
1.625
31.3
(4.6-211.6)
Yellow perch (Perca
flavescens)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32**
32
(mg/L)
<0.0001
16.24
44.5
(21-94.5)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0001
50.000
3.3b
(1.1-10)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
229.1
17.6
(6.4-48.5)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Daphnid (Daphnia magna)
0.9592
959.2
(Hg/L)
0.0001
46,500
4.8b
(2.5-9.2)
Zebrafish-embryo (Danio
rerio-embryo)
Rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
32
32,000
(Ug/L)
0.0002
8,341.5
34.4
(16.8-70.4)
*Acceptable models that were not used because genus level empirical data were available.
**Measured ECso falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" ECso was therefore entered in ICE model.
A |ig/L CI greater than 50-fold. Used mg/L with acceptable CI.
a Saltwater surrogate species were not used.
b Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models were available.
0 Not used because other more closely taxonomically-related models where the measured surrogate ECso values fell within the ICE model range were available.
F-75
-------
Table F-23. Ranked 7:3 FTCA Genus Mean Acute Values.
Values in bold and highlighted are derived from empirical 7:3 FTCA toxicity tests with the species.
Rank
MDR
Group1
Common Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
1
G
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
0.2500
0.2500
0.02
2
D
Daphnid
Chydorus sphaericus
0.4300
0.4300
0.03
3
G
Washboard
Megalonaias nen'osa
0.4400
0.4400
0.05
4
E
Mississippi grass shrimp
Palaemonetes kadiakensis
0.5300
0.5300
0.07
5
D
Daphnid
Ceriodaphnia dubia
0.6000
0.6000
0.08
6
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus serrulatus
0.6000
0.6527
0.10
D
Daphnid
Simocephalus vetulus
0.7100
7
G
Pheasantshell
Ortmanniana pectorosa
0.7400
0.7400
0.12
8
G
Western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
0.7900
0.7900
0.13
9
G
Neosho mucket
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
0.7900
0.8243
0.15
G
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
0.8600
10
G
Paper pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
0.8400
0.8400
0.17
11
E
Amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus
0.7600
0.8497
0.18
E
Amphipod
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
0.9500
12
G
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
0.8500
0.8500
0.20
13
E
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Brcmchinecta Ivnchi
0.8500
0.8500
0.22
14
E
Beaver-tail fairy shrimp
Thamnocephalus platvurus
0.8800
0.8800
0.23
15
G
Tadpole physa
Physella gvrina
0.9500
0.9500
0.25
16
D
Daphnid
Daphnia magna
0.9592
0.9592
0.27
17
G
Swamp lymnaea
Lymnaea stagnalis
1.030
1.030
0.28
18
D
Water flea
Moina macrocopa
1.760
1.760
0.30
19
F
Midge
Paratanytarsus
parthenogeneticus
2.880
2.880
0.32
20
F
Midge
Chironomus teutons
4.630
4.630
0.33
21
H
Oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
7.620
7.620
0.35
22
E
Isopod
Caecidotea brevicauda
8.170
8.170
0.37
23
E
Riceland prawn
Macrobrachium
lanchesteri
177.6**
8.214
0.38
E
Oriental river shrimp
Macrobrachium
nipponense
0.3800
24
E
Amphipod
Crangonvx pseudogracilis
9.510
9.510
0.40
25
H
Oligochaete
Tubifex tubifex
10.75
10.75
0.42
26
B
Northern pike
Esox lucius
18.36**
18.36
0.43
27
B
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
19.52
19.52
0.45
28
A
Brook trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
31.44
23.80
0.47
A
Lake trout
Salvelinus namavcush
18.01
29
B
Spotfin chub
Erimonax monachus
24.47**
24.47
0.48
30
B
Zebrafish
Danio rerio
24.57
24.57
0.50
31
B
Razorback sucker
Xvrauchen texanus
26.57
26.57
0.52
32
E
Isopod
Asellus aquaticus
27.30
27.30
0.53
33
B
Guppy
Poecilia reticulata
28.31
28.31
0.55
34
C
Western toad
Anaxvrus boreas
31.29**
31.29
0.57
35
B
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
31.55
31.55
0.58
36
A
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
32.00
32.00
0.60
F-76
-------
Rank
MDR
Group1
Common Name
Species
SMAV
(mg/L)
GMAV
Percentile
Rank
37
A
Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
30.96
32.02
0.62
A
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
33.12
38
B
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
34.42**
34.42
0.63
39
B
Greenthroat darter
Etheostoma lepidum
34.87**
34.87
0.65
40
B
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
35.58
35.58
0.67
41
B
Silver perch
Bidvamis bidvanus
40.28**
40.28
0.68
42
B
Walleye
Sander vitreus
41.80**
41.80
0.70
43
B
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
44.48**
44.48
0.72
44
B
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
45.67
45.67
0.73
45
B
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
46.72
46.72
0.75
46
C
Cuvier's foam froglet
Phvsalaemus cuvieri
51.77
51.77
0.77
47
B
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
52.12
52.12
0.78
48
B
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
89.98**
54.56
0.80
B
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
33.08
49
C
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
58.75
56.04
0.82
C
Northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
64.72
C
Southern leopard frog
Lithobates sphenocephaly
46.28**
50
B
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
62.18
62.18
0.83
51
B
Bonytail
Gila elegans
72.68
72.68
0.85
52
F
Midge
Paratanvtarsus dissimilis
105.8
105.8
0.87
53
H
Leech
Nephelopsis obscura
131.2
131.2
0.88
54
F
Mayfly
Drunella grandis
143.5
143.5
0.90
55
B
Mrigal carp
Cirrhinus mrigala
147 7**
147.7
0.92
56
F
Snipefly
Atherix variegata
194 9**
194.9
0.93
57
B
Colorado squawfish
Ptvchocheilus lucius
195.1
195.1
0.95
58
B
Black bullhead
Ameiurus melas
207.8**
207.8
0.97
59
B
Rohu
Labeo rohita
302.0**
302.0
0.98
**Measured EC50 falls outside range of ICE model and a "scaled" EC50 was therefore entered in ICE model.
1: Freshwater MDR Groups
A) The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes
B) A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important
warmwater species (e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.)
C) A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.)
D) A planktonic crustacean (e.g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
E) Abenthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.)
F) An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.)
G) A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.)
H) A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
F-77
-------
Table F-24. 7:3 FTCA Final Acute Value and Protective Aquatic Acute Benchmark.
Calculated Freshwater FAY based on 4 lowest values; N=59 GMAVs total
Benchmark calculated by dividing the FAY by 2 and by the carboxylic acid application factor (15.8)
GMAV
Rank
Genus
(mg/L)
ln(GMAV)
ln(GMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Amblema
0.25
-1.39
1.92
0.017
0.129
2
Chydorus
0.43
-0.84
0.71
0.033
0.183
3
Megalonaias
0.44
-0.82
0.67
0.050
0.224
4
Palaemonetes
0.53
-0.63
0.40
0.067
0.258
£ (Sum):
-3.69
3.71
0.17
0.79
P = cumulative probability
R = rank
N = number of GMAVs
S2 =
33.93
S = slope
L =
-2.077
L = X-axis intercept
A =
-0.775
A = InFAV
FAV =
0.4609
FAV/2 =
0.2305 mg/L (Preliminary Value)
Adjustment =
0.2305 / 15.8 = 0.01459 (Preliminary Value / Carboxylic Acid Application Factor)
Benchmark =
0.015 mg/L 7:3 FTCA (rounded to two significant figures)
F-78
-------
0>
>
-2
"3
s
3
-J
J*
s
CB
<&
41
1.00 -r
0.90 V
0.80 -j
0.70
0.60 -¦
o.5o
0.40
g 0.30 4
41
04
0.20
0.10
0.00
Amphibian (WeblCE)
Fish (Empirical)
Fish (WeblCE)
Insect (WeblCE)
Invertebrate (Empirical)
Invertebrate (WeblCE)
Mollusk (WeblCE)
Preliminary Value
¦Acute Benchmark
$
O Labeo
Amehmis
Ptychpcheilus
Athens
O Cirrhinus
+ Drunella
A Nephelopsis
+ Par at anytarsus
O Gila.
J Carassius
Lithobates
Lepomis
Oryzias
Physalaemus
Pimephales
Acipenser
Perca
Sander
_ Bidyanus
1 Cvpnnus
Etheo stoma
Notropis
Safino
Oncorh^Tichjs
Ictalurus
_ Anax\Tus
Poecilia
Asellus
Xyrauchen
Dahio
Erimonax
w Salvelinus
Q Micropterus
O Esox
A Tubifex
A Cianaom'x
i \h -
\lacrobracfium
Caecidotea
Limnodrilus
+ Chironomus
+ Paratan\rtarsus
A Moina
O Lymnaea
^ Daphma
. ^ ChySorus
t & |-Am)ble|na| ", , , |
Phy sella
Thamno c ephalus
A Branchinecta
y Lasmigona
A Gammams
O Uttetbackia
O Lampsitis
O ^-arsaritifera
O Ortmahmana
A Simocephalus
A Ceriodaphnia
A Palaemonetes
Aleealonaias
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Genus Mean Acute Value (mg/L 2H,2H,3H,3H-Pefluorodecanoic acid (7:3 FTC'A))
Figure F-8. Ranked Acute 7:3 FTCA GMAVs Used for the Aquatic Life Acute Benchmark
Calculation.
F.9 Summary of Benchmarks for Evaluated PFAS Substances
Acute freshwater Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Benchmarks for the eight selected
PFAS are summarized in Table F-25. These concentrations are expected to be protective of 95%
of freshwater genera exposed to the listed PFAS under short term conditions of one-hour of
duration, if the one-hour average magnitude is not exceeded more than once in three years.
Quantitatively-acceptable empirical toxicity data were coupled with ICE predicted values to
fulfill the eight MDRs for deriving acute freshwater criteria per the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985). Using this approach, the eight MDRs were fulfilled for seven of the
evaluated compounds (PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA, PFBS, 8:2 FTUCA, and 7:3 FTCA).
F-79
-------
Seven of the eight MDRs were fulfilled for PFHxS and there is considered to be greater
uncertainty associated with this benchmark value compared to benchmarks developed with all
MDRs met. The resulting acute water column-based benchmark magnitudes range from 0.015
mg/L for 7:3 FTC A to 11 mg/L for PFBA.
Table F-25. Acute Freshwater Benchmarks for Eight PFAS.
8:2
7:3
Chemical
PFBA
PFHxA
PFNA
PFDA
PFBS
PFHxS
FTUCA
FTC A
Magnitude1
11
6.0
0.73
0.65
7.6
0.21
0.041
0.015
Duration
One hour average
Frequency
Not to be exceeded more than once in three years on average
1 Values expressed as mg/L, or ppm.
F-80
-------
F.l References
Dowdy, S., S. Wearden and D. Chilko. 2011. Statistics for research. John Wiley & Sons.
Raimondo, S., C. Lilavois and S.A. Nelson. 2024. Uncertainty analysis and updated user
guidance for interspecies correlation estimation (ICE) models and low toxicity compounds.
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. Accepted Author Manuscript, https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4884
U.S. EPA. (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Guidelines for deriving
numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses.
EPA Report 822/R-85-100 (NTIS Report PB85-227049).
F-81
-------
Appendix G PFAS Acute Benchmark Calculations using a Data Binning
Approach
The EPA investigated the utility of applying an approach described in Giddings et al.
(2019) for synthetic pyrethroid insecticides as another alternative for deriving benchmark values
for data-limited PFAS. For this approach, Giddings et al. (2019) combined acute toxicity data
available for multiple data-limited synthetic pyrethroid insecticide active ingredients (e.g.,
bifenthrin, cypermethrin, permethrin, etc.) to create a more robust combined species sensitivity
distribution (SSD) with the grouped pyrethroids. Before combining, the available toxicity data
were normalized across the individual pyrethroid active ingredients. This was done by
normalizing the data across the individual pyrethroid active ingredients based on the relative
sensitivity of a single selected "key" species, that has data for each constituent active ingredient.
Giddings et al. (2019) then combined the normalized species data (i.e., key species equivalents)
for the individual pyrethroids and calculated an HCs (hazard concentration at the 5% level) based
on the combined pyrethroid SSD composed of normalized acute toxicity values. Estimated HCss
were then back-calculated for individual constituent pyrethroids based on the relative sensitivity
of the species used for the normalization.
The EPA followed the same methodology to calculate predicted HCs values for selected
PFAS combined into two groups: carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids. Constituent PFAS for
these groups are as follows:
G-l
-------
• Carboxylic acid PFAS substances for which acceptable acute toxicity data were
available:
o PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid or perfluorooctanoate)
o PFBA (perfluorobutanoic acid or perfluorobutanoate)
o PFHxA (perfluorohexanoic acid or perfluorohexanoate)
o PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid or perfluorononanoate)
o PFDA (perfluorodecanoic acid or perfluorodecanoate)
• Sulfonic acid PFAS substances for which acceptable acute toxicity data were available:
o PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate or perfluorooctane sulfonate acid)
o PFBS (perfluorobutane sulfonic acid or perfluorobutane sulfonate)
o PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid or perfluorohexane sulfonate)
The EPA conducted the following steps to complete this evaluation:
1. High quality acute toxicity data for each PFAS were compiled. These toxicity data
consist of the same quantitatively acceptable empirical data used for derivation of the
ICE-based values (see Appendix A) for PFBA, PFBS, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA,
PFDA, and the same quantitatively acceptable data used for derivation of the PFOA
and PFOS criteria (U.S. EPA 2024a,b). All data were converted into mg/L.
2. Species mean acute values (SMAVs) were identified. If multiple acute toxicity values
were available for a single species and PFAS substance, then the geometric mean of
those values was calculated.
3. "Key" species to be used for normalizing the data across the constituent substances
within each PFAS grouping (sulfonic acid PFAS and carboxylic acid PFAS grouping)
were identified and species equivalent values were calculated. Zebrafish (Danio
rerio) was identified as the key species for sulfonic acid PFAS, and the planktonic
crustacean (Daphnia magna) was identified as the key species for carboxylic acid
G-2
-------
PFAS. The SMAV for each constituent substance within each PFAS grouping was
then divided by the corresponding normalization value for the key species to calculate
species equivalent values. The following examples illustrate the procedure for
calculating key species equivalents for daphnids for PFOA within the carboxylic acid
PFAS group:
• Equivalent for Daphnia magna:
o D. magna PFOA SMAV of 213.9 mg/L I). magna PFOA SMAV of
213.9 mg/L PFOA = 1.00 D. magna equivalent
• Equivalent for Daphnia pulicaria:
o D. pnlicaria PFOA SMAV of 203.7 mg/L PFOA I). magna PFOA
SMAV of 213.9 mg/L PFOA = 0.9523 D. magna equivalent
The species equivalent values were then ranked. The key species equivalent acute
toxicity values and their rankings are shown in Table G-l for sulfonic acids and
Table G-2 for carboxylic acids.
4. Species equivalent values for constituent substances were pooled for each PFAS
grouping to derive SSDs for sulfonic acid PFAS and for carboxylic acid PFAS. If a
key species equivalent value was available for a species having two or more
constituent PFAS within a group, then the geometric mean of those values was
calculated as the SMAV equivalent for that species. These SMAVs representing key
species equivalent values were then ranked to create SSDs for their respective PFAS
group (sulfonic acid and carboxylic acid PFAS). SSDs were derived for sulfonic acid
PFAS and carboxylic acid PFAS using both the EPA SSD Generator1, as was done by
Giddings et al. (2019), and procedures described in the Aquatic Life Criteria
1 Available online at: Download Software I US EPA. Use of this tool results in the estimation of an HC\.
G-3
-------
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985), as is typically done for the derivation of aquatic life
criteria. The SSDs generated by the EPA's SSD Generator are shown in Figure G-la
for sulfonic acid PFAS and Figure G-2a for carboxylic acid PFAS. The SSDs
generated using procedures described in the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines are
shown in Figure G-lb for sulfonic acid PFAS and Figure G-2b for carboxylic acid
PFAS.
5. HCs values were calculated for sulfonic acid PFAS and carboxylic acid PFAS from
the SSDs using both the EPA SSD Generator2 and procedures described in the
Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines (termed Final Acute Value [FAV] for the Aquatic
Life Criteria Guidelines calculations [U.S. EPA 1985]). For any given species within
the PFAS group-specific SSD, a key species equivalent greater than 1.0 indicated it
was less sensitive than the key species, and a value less than 1.0 indicated it was more
sensitive than the key species. Once the key species equivalent HC5 (or FAV) was
calculated, the HC5 (or FAV) species equivalent value calculated from the SSD was
multiplied by the key species toxicity value (i.e., SMAV) for the PFAS of interest
within that group (sulfonic or carboxylic PFAS) to generate a substance-specific HC5
(or FAV). For example:
• FAV for PFHxS:
o FAV for Sulfonic Acid PFAS of 0.01004 x D. rerio PFHxS SMAV of
22.5 mg/L = PFHxS FAV of 0.2260 mg/L
• FAV for PFBA:
o FAV for Carboxylic Acid PFAS of 0.008213 xD. magna PFBA SMAV of
4,741 mg/L = PFBA FAV of 38.94 mg/L
The calculations and values are summarized in Tables G-3 through G-6.
2 Available online at: Download Software I US EPA. Use of this tool results in the estimation of an HCs.
G-4
-------
Table G-l. Acute LCsos, SMAVs, normalized Danio rerio equivalent values and rank of SMAV D. rerio equivalent values for
the sulfonic acid PFAS.
folding indicates key species used for normalizing data across constituent substances.
PFAS
Species
Species Common Name
SMAV3
(mg/L)
Danio rerio
equivalentb
SMAV
D. rerio
equivalent0
Rank of
SMAV
D. rerio
equivalent1*
PFOS
Amby stoma jeffersonianum
Jefferson salamander
51.71
1.86
1.86
17
PFOS
Ambvstoma texanum
Small-mouthed salamander
30.00
1.08
1.08
14
PFOS
Amby stoma tigrinum
Eastern tiger salamander
68.63
2.46
2.46
23
PFOS
Anaxyrus americanns
American toad
56.49
2.03
2.03
18
PFOS
Brachionus calycifloriis
Rotifer
61.80
2.22
2.22
21
PFBS
Danio rerio
Zebrafish
>3,000
1.00
1.00
13
PFHxS
Danio rerio
Zebrafish
22.50
1.00
PFOS
Danio rerio
Zebrafish
27.86
1.00
PFOS
Daphnia carinata
Daphnid
11.56
0.41
0.41
5
PFBS
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
2,183
0.73
1.16
15
PFOS
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
51.86
1.86
PFOS
Daphnia piilicaria
Daphnid
134.0
4.81
4.81
27
PFOS
Dugesia japonica
Planaria
22.48
0.81
0.81
12
PFOS
Elliptio complanata
Eastern elliptio
64.35
2.31
2.31
22
PFOS
Hvla versicolor
Gray treefrog
19.88
0.71
0.71
11
PFOS
Lampsilis siliquoidea
Fatmucket
16.50
0.59
0.59
9
PFBS
Lepomis macrochirns
Bluegill
6,452
2.15
2.15
20
PFOS
Ligumia recta
Black sandshell
13.50
0.48
0.48
6
PFHxS
Lithobates catesbeianus
Bullfrog
1,105
49.11
15.33
30
PFOS
Lithobates catesbeianus
American bullfrog
133.3
4.78
PFOS
Lithobates clamitans
Green frog
113.0
4.06
4.06
25
PFOS
Lithobates pipiens
Northern leopard frog
72.72
2.61
2.61
24
PFOS
Lithobates sylvatica
Wood frog
130.0
4.67
4.67
26
G-5
-------
Rank of
SMAV
SMAV
SMAV3
Danio rerio
D. rerio
D. rerio
PFAS
Species
Species Common Name
(mg/L)
equivalentb
equivalent0
equivalent1*
PFOS
Moinct macrocopct
Daphnid
17.20
0.62
0.62
10
PFOS
Moinct mi crura
Daphnid
0.5496
0.02
0.02
2
PFOS
Neocaridina denticulata
Japanese swamp shrimp
15.61
0.56
0.56
7
PFOS
Neocleon triangulifer
Mayfly
0.07617
0.003
0.003
1
PFOS
Oncorhvnchiis mykiss
Rainbow trout
7.515
0.27
0.27
3
PFOS
Phvsella acuta
Bladder snail
183.0
6.57
6.57
29
PFOS
Physella heterostropha pomilia
Snail
161.8
5.81
5.81
28
PFBS
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
1,938
0.65
0.40
4
PFOS
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
6.950
0.25
PFOS
Pontastacus leptodactylus
Crayfish
48.81
1.75
1.75
16
PFOS
Procambarus fallax f. virginalis
Crayfish
59.87
2.15
2.15
19
PFOS
Xenopus laevis
African clawed frog
15.99
0.57
0.57
8
a Data used for PFBS and PFHxS are presented in Appendix A; data used for PFOS are the same as the quantitatively acceptable data used for derivation of the
PFOS criteria (US EPA 2024b).
b Danio rerio equivalents determined according to the following equation: Species x SMAV for PFAS D. rerio SMAV for PFAS x = D. rerio equivalent for
species.
0 SMAV Danio rerio equivalents are the geometric means of the D. rerio equivalents for that species.
d Rank order of the D. rerio equivalents.
G-6
-------
Table G-2. Acute LCsos, SMAVs, normalized Daphnia magna equivalent values and rank of SMAV D. magna equivalent
values for carboxylic acid PFAS.
Bolding indicates key species used for normalizing data across constituent substances
PFAS
Species
Species Common Name
LCso
(mg/L)
SMAV3
(mg/L)
Daphnia
magna
equivalentb
SMAV D.
magna
equivalent0
Rank of
SMAV
D. magna
equivalent1*
PFOA
Ambystoma jeffersonictnum
Jefferson salamander
1,070
5.00
5.00
27
PFOA
Ambystoma texcmum
Small-mouthed salamander
407.3
1.90
1.90
14
PFOA
Ambystoma tigrinum
Eastern tiger salamander
752.0
3.52
3.52
24
PFOA
Anaxyrus americanus
American toad
793.9
3.71
3.71
25
PFBA
Brachionus calycifloriis
Rotifer
110
110.0
0.02
0.13
3
PFHxA
Brachionus ccdycifloriis
Rotifer
140
140.0
0.13
PFOA
Brachionus calycifloriis
Rotifer
150.0
0.70
PFBA
Chydorus sphaericus
Daphnid
>4,280.8
>4,280.8
0.90
0.46
5
PFDA
Chydorus sphaericus
Daphnid
41.13
41.13
0.34
PFNA
Chydorus sphaericus
Daphnid
27.84
27.84
0.33
PFOA
Chydorus sphaericus
Daphnid
93.17
0.44
PFBA
Danio rerio
Zebrafish
>3,000®
13,779
2.91
2.47
18
PFBA
Danio rerio
Zebrafish
13,779
PFOA
Danio rerio
Zebrafish
450.4
2.11
PFOA
Daphnia carinata
Daphnid
66.80
0.31
0.31
4
PFBA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
>1,006
4,741
1.00
1.00
10
PFBA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
>4,280.8
PFBA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
5,251
PFDA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
81
119.7
1.00
PFDA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
129.54
PFDA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
163.48
PFHxA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
1048
1,048
1.00
PFNA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
43.42
84.51
1.00
PFNA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
91.89
G-7
-------
Rank of
Daphnia
SMAV D.
SMAV
PFAS
Species
Species Common Name
LCso
(mg/L)
SMAVa
(mg/L)
magna
equivalentb
magna
equivalent0
D. magna
equivalent1*
PFNA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
151.29
PFOA
Daphnia magna
Daphnid
213.9
1.00
PFBA
Daphnia piilicaria
Daphnid
>1,006
>1,006
0.21
PFDA
Daphnia piilicaria
Daphnid
149.59
149.6
1.25
0.63
6
PFOA
Daphnia piilicaria
Daphnid
203.7
0.95
PFOA
Dugesia japonica
Planaria
383.6
1.79
1.79
12
PFOA
Hvla versicolor
Gray treefrog
646.2
3.02
3.02
20
PFOA
Lampsilis siliquoidea
Fatmucket
164.4
0.77
0.77
8
PFOA
Lepomis macrochims
Bluegill
664.0
3.10
3.10
21
PFOA
Ligumia recta
Black sandshell
161.0
0.75
0.75
7
PFHxA
Lithobates catesbeiana
Bullfrog
1,105
1,105
1.05
2.24
17
PFOA
Lithobates catesbeiana
American bullfrog
1,020
4.77
PFHxA
Lithobates clamitans
Green frog
758
758.0
0.72
1.90
13
PFOA
Lithobates clamitans
Green frog
1,070
5.00
PFOA
Lithobates pipiens
Northern leopard frog
751.7
3.51
3.51
23
PFOA
Lithobates sylvatica
Wood frog
999.0
4.67
4.67
26
PFOA
Moina macrocopa
Daphnid
166.3
0.78
0.78
9
PFOA
Moina mi crura
Daphnid
0.4747
0.0022
0.0022
1
PFOA
Neocaridina denticulata
Green neon shrimp
431.5
2.02
2.02
15
PFOA
Neocloeon triangulifer
Mayfly
13.05
0.061
0.061
2
PFDA
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout
32
32.00
0.27
2.24
16
PFOA
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
Rainbow trout
4,001
18.71
PFOA
Physella acuta
Bladder snail
681.1
3.18
3.18
22
PFOA
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
593.6
2.78
2.78
19
PFDA
Xenopus sp.
Clawed frog
76.5
76.50
0.64
1.65
11
PFNA
Xenopus sp.
Clawed frog
335.8
335.8
3.97
G-8
-------
PFAS
Species
Species Common Name
LCso
(mg/L)
SMAV3
(mg/L)
Daphnia
magna
equivalentb
SMAV D.
magna
equivalent0
Rank of
SMAV
D. magna
equivalent1*
PFOA
Xenopus sp.
Frog
377.0
1.76
a Data used for PFBA, PFNA, PFDA, and PFHxA are presented in Appendix A; data used for PFOA are the same as the quantitatively acceptable data used for
derivation of the PFOA criteria (US EPA 2024a).
b Daphnia magna equivalents determined according to the following equation: Species x SMAV for PFAS D. magna SMAV for PFAS x = I), magna
equivalent for species.
0 SMAV Daphnia magna equivalents are the geometric means of the D. magna equivalents for that species.
d Rank order of the D. magna equivalents.
e Non-definitive value, not used in SMAV calculation.
G-9
-------
Table G-3. Results of lognormal regression analysis of combined PFAS group SSDs based
on key species equivalents and using the EPA's SSD Generator.
HC5 value expressed as mg/L.
PFAS Group
Na
Intercept
Slope
R2
HCs (95% prediction interval)
Sulfonic acidb
30
4.970
1.241
0.827
0.0500 (0.0120-0.2079)
Carboxylic acid0
27
4.946
1.193
0.732
0.04636 (0.00705 - 0.30478)
a Number of species in SSD.
b Danio rerio equivalents.
0 Daphnia magna equivalents.
Table G-4. Calculated freshwater FAV based on four lowest SMAV key species equivalents
for sulfonic acid PFAS.
SMAV
Rank
Species
(mg/L)
ln(SMAV)
ln(SMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Neocloeon triangulifer
0.003
-5.90
34.83
0.032
0.180
2
Moina mi crura
0.02
-3.93
15.41
0.065
0.254
3
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
0.27
-1.31
1.72
0.097
0.311
4
Pimephales promelas
0.40
-0.91
0.83
0.129
0.359
E(Sum):
-12.05
52.79
0.32
1.10
N
30
S2 =
919.63
S = slope
L =
A =
-11.382
-4.601
L = X-axis intercept
A = InFAV
FAV =
0.01004
P = cumulative probability
Table G-5. Calculated freshwater FAV based on four lowest SMAV key species equivalents
for carboxylic acid PFAS. i
SMAV
Rank
Species
(mg/L)
ln(SMAV)
ln(SMAV)2
P=R/(N+1)
sqrt(P)
1
Moina mi crura
0.0022
-6.11
37.34
0.036
0.189
2
Neocloeon triangulifer
0.061
-2.80
7.82
0.071
0.267
3
Brachionus calvciflorus
0.13
-2.04
4.18
0.107
0.327
4
Daphnia carinata
0.31
-1.16
1.35
0.143
0.378
E(Sum):
-12.11
50.69
0.36
1.16
N
27
S2 =
705.20
S = slope
L =
A =
-10.740
-4.802
L = X-axis intercept
A = InFAV
FAV =
0.008213
P = cumulative probability
G-10
-------
Table G-6. PFAS acute benchmarks for individual PFAS within sulfonic and carboxylic
acid groups calculated using approach presented by Giddings et al. (2019): Summary of
values determined from SSDs derived using Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines-based and
SSD Generator-based values.
PFAS
Substance
Group
Aquatic Life Cri
Based Va
teria Guidelines-
ues, mg/L
SSD Generator-Based Values, mg/L
FAV
Benchmark3
HCS,
Benchmark3
PFBS FAV
30.13
15.07
150.0
74.98
PFHxS FAV
0.2260
0.1130
1.125
0.5623
PFOS FAV
0.2798
0.1399
1.393
0.6963
PFBA FAV
38.94
19.47
219.8
109.9
PFNA FAV
0.6941
0.3471
3.918
1.959
PFDA FAV
0.983
0.4916
5.550
2.775
PFHxA FAV
8.607
4.304
48.59
24.29
PFOA FAV
1.757
0.8784
9.917
4.959
a Benchmarks by dividing the FAV or HCs by two, consistent with approach described in the Aquatic Life Criteria
Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985) for derivation of acute aquatic life criteria.
G-ll
-------
A 1 -
5 0.5 -
Q.
(A
O
C 0.4 -
o
X
o
o 0.3
£
02 -
0 Lithobates catesbeiana
0 Physelia
° PhyseJltflTeterostropfia'pomilia
Daphfrfapulicaria y*
° Litja^oates sylvatica
ites clam^tans
;' ° Litigates pipiens/'
jystoma tigriotim
. Iiptio complanaia
rachionus caljkiflorus
y' /Lepomis macfochirus
Procambarus fallax f. virginalis
Anaxyrus imericanus
~ Arnbystqma jeffersonianum
Pontastacus leptodactylus
Daphnia magna
Ambystonia texanum
° Daniorerki)
Ougesia japonica
Hyla versicolor
Moina macrocopa
Lampsilis siliquoidea
Xenopus laevis
5 Neijcaridina denticulata
0 Ligumia recta
° D.aphma carinata
yPimephales promelas
©ncorhynchus mykiss
' Neocleon triangulifer
Stressor Intensity
1.0
0.9
0.8 -¦
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o
Artliropoda
~
Chordata
A
Mollusca
O
Platylielmiiillies
A
Rotifer a
Guidelines FAV
SSD Generator HC5
0.0
0.001
O Moina micrura
O Neocleon triangulifer !
|~] Lithobates catesbeiana
A Physelia acuta
A Physelia heterostropha pomilia
O Daphnia pulicaria
~ Lithobates sylvatica
Q Lithobates claniiians
~ Lithobates pipiens
f~] Anibystonia tigrinum
A Elliptio complanata
A Brachionus calyciflorus
Q Lepomis macrochirus
O Procambarus fallax f. virginalis
[~~1 Anaxyrus americanus
Q Ambystonia jeffersonianum
O Pontastacus leptodactylus
O Daplmia magna
~ Ambystoma texanum
~ Daniorerio
O Dugesia japonica
~ Hyla versicolor
O Moina macrocopa
A Lampsilis siliquoidea
~ Xenopus laevis
O Neocaridina denticulata
A Ligumia recta
O Daphnia carinata
Q Pimephales promelas
f~[ Oncorhynchus mykiss
0.01 0.1 1
Species Mean Value (unitless, Danio rerio equivalent)
Figure G-l. Species sensitivity distributions for sulfonic acid PFAS based on Danio rerio equivalents, using the EPA's SSD
Generator (left panel - A) or the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines procedure (right panel - B).
G-12
-------
° Ambystoma jeffersonianum
¦*' ° Lithobatessyttatica
° Anaxyru^sfnericanus , ./•''
° AmbysJ^ma tigrinum
Litholwtes pipiens
ella acuta
lomis macrochfrus
fiyla versicolor^
f Pimephales Pamelas
f Danio rerio f
1 Lithobates catesbeiana
• OncorhyncHus mykiss
° Neocaridina denticulata
° Ambystoma texanum
- Lithobates clamitans
° DugeS|i& japonica
« Xenopus sp.
0 Daphnif'magna
• Moina mjfcrocopa
° Lampsjlis siliquoidea
a Liguijita recta
« Dapbrlia pulicaria
° Chydofus sphaericus
' Daphra^ carinata
• Brachiongs ^alyciflorus
Neocloeon triafigulifer
0 -
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Stressor Intensity
I 10
0.9 -
0.8
i 0.7
I 0.6
u
I
; 0.4
j 0.3
0.2
0.1 -
0.0 •
0.001
o
Arthropoda
~
Chordata
A
Mollusca
O
Platyhelminthes
~
Rotifera
Guidelines FAV
SSD Generator HC5
O Moina micrura
Neocloeon triangulifer Q
Ambystoma jeffersonianum ~
Lithobates sylvatica ~
Anaxyras ainericanns ~
Ambystoma tigrinum Q
~ Lithobates pipiens
A Physella acuta
Q Leponus macrochirus
~ Hyla versicolor
~ Pimephales promelas
Q Danio rerio
O Lithobates catesbeiana
~ Oncorhynchus myfciss
O Neocaridina denticulata
~ Ambystoma texanum
~ Lithobates clamitans
O Dtigesia japonica
~ Xenopus sp.
O Dapluiia magna
O Moina macrocopa
A Lampsilis siliquoidea
A Liaumis recta
O Dapluiia pulicaria
O Cliydorus sphaericus
O Daphnia carinata
Brachionus calyci floras
0.01
0.1
Species Mean Value (uniiless, Dapluiia magna equivalent)
Figure G-2. Species sensitivity distributions for carboxylic acid PFAS based on Daphnia magna equivalents, using the EPA's
SSD Generator (left panel - A) or the Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines procedure (right panel - B)
G-13
-------
G.l References
Giddings, J.M., J. Wirtz, D. Campana and M. Dobbs. 2019. Derivation of combined species
sensitivity distributions for acute toxicity of pyrethroids to aquatic animals. Ecotoxicol. 28: 242-
250.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Guidelines for deriving
numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses.
EPA Report 822/R-85-100 (NTIS Report PB85-227049).
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2024a. Aquatic life ambient water
quality criteria for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). EPA-842-D-22-001. U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2024b. Aquatic life ambient water
quality criteria for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). EPA-842-D-22-002. U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C.
G-14
------- |