National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Effects
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

5

Risk Characterization

Risk characterization is the final stage of an ecological risk assessment in which results of exposure and effects analyses are integrated to provide decision-makers with a risk estimate—the probability of adverse effects of exposure to a chemical stressor—and its associated uncertainty. A decision-maker does not want to make a decision on the basis of a belief that a pesticide is unlikely to yield an adverse effect and discover afterwards that it did yield an adverse effect. That is often referred to as avoiding a Type II error. For example, if the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes registering a pesticide with a specific label use, it needs to know how much confidence there is that doing so will lead to the desired outcome, such as reduction in the abundance of the target species, and not result in jeopardy to a listed species. It is most useful if the risk estimate and its associated uncertainty are expressed in a quantitative manner—for example, “there is a 20% ± 10% probability of a 25% reduction in the population growth rate as a result of this action.”

In addition to generating a quantitative risk estimate, risk characterization includes a narrative discussion (termed the risk description) that includes discussion of data gaps, lack of knowledge, natural variability, and other factors that might influence confidence in the risk estimate. The discussion can be viewed as a weight-of-evidence description in which the strengths and weaknesses of each assumption and each type of data used in the risk assessment are discussed. At the risk assessor’s discretion, the narrative might be summarized in a table that lists all the lines of evidence and their various weights that are scored on the basis of relevance, degree of quantification, variability, and robustness of the data analysis (see, for example, Linkov et al. 2009; Exponent 2010). The discussion provides guidance to the decision-maker about which aspects of the risk assessment are more reliable, where there are greater unknowns, and how natural variability or lack of knowledge might hinder the development of a more accurate estimate of risk.

There are many practical methods for combining the results (with their associated uncertainties) of exposure and effects analyses to provide an estimate of risk and the confidence in it. Two broad approaches have been used; one is a

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

deterministic concentration-ratio approach, which compares point estimates of exposure and effect concentrations, and the other is a probabilistic approach, which evaluates the probability that exposure to a chemical will lead to a specified adverse effect at some future time. The latter is technically sound, and the former is ad hoc (although commonly used) and has unpredictable performance outcomes. EPA uses the concentration-ratio approach for its assessments. In biological opinions on salmon, the National Marine Fisheries Service appears to favor a probabilistic approach that is based on population modeling. The Fish and Wildlife Service seems not to use a quantitative approach, either concentration-ratio or probabilistic, for risk characterization.

CONCENTRATION-RATIO APPROACH

The concentration-ratio approach, which is commonly used by EPA for Step 1 and 2 assessments (see Figure 2-1), does not estimate risk (the probability of an adverse effect) itself but rather relies on there being a large margin between a point estimate of the most likely maximum pesticide environmental concentration and a point estimate of the lowest concentration at which a specified adverse effect might be expected (EPA 2004). The superficial attraction of this approach is that one feels confident that a decision will not lead to an adverse effect (that is, a Type II error will be avoided) if sufficiently large margins are used. There is a belief that the larger the margin between the estimated exposure and the response threshold, the greater the certainty (or the smaller the uncertainty). The flaws in that approach are that it does not account for the probability of an adverse effect before worst-case assumptions are applied and that it does not calculate how the use of the assumptions modifies that probability. Given that approach, decision-makers do not know what the probability of an adverse effect is, but they hope that they can assume (or be reassured) that it is small. However, such an assumption is not reliable. If they or their constituencies have doubts, the common response is to widen the margin with additional conservative assumptions, including addition of specific uncertainty factors or more stringent, and possibly implausible, exposure scenarios. However, simply widening the gap indefinitely might lead to decisions that limit pesticide use to a greater extent than is intended by policy and will not meaningfully express the underlying probability of an adverse effect.

For pesticides, as evaluated by EPA, the concentration ratio is quantified in the form of a risk quotient (RQ) that might be less or greater than some specified level of concern (LOC). However, an RQ is not actually a risk estimate in that it provides no information about the probability of an adverse effect. Thus, although an RQ of 10 is several times higher than most numerical LOCs, there is no fixed relationship between RQs and the probability of an adverse effect on a listed species. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what an RQ of 10 means with respect to a possible adverse effect on a listed species. Nor is there a fixed relationship for comparing the difference between, for example, RQs of 10 and

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

100 with respect to the probability of an adverse effect. Theoretically, an RQ of 100 means a greater probability of an adverse effect than an RQ of 10, but one cannot determine whether the difference in probability between the two RQs is substantial or negligible or whether the final error associated with the risk estimate is appropriate for the management needs.

Thus, although RQs are often used by EPA for Step 2 assessments that might trigger later, more refined and focused assessments for listed species, the committee concludes that RQs are not appropriate for assessments for listed species or indeed for any application in which it is desired to base a decision on the probabilities of various possible outcomes. Furthermore, the committee concludes that adding uncertainty factors to RQs to account for lack of data (on formulation toxicity, synergy, additivity, or any other aspect) is unwarranted because there is no way to determine whether the assumptions being used substantially overestimate or underestimate the probability of an adverse effect.

The committee has not been asked about and is not commenting on policy decisions about what level of risk is acceptable or how conservative the agencies should be in establishing an “acceptable” risk level when considering jeopardy to listed species.

PROBABILISTIC APPROACH

Risk is defined as the probability of an adverse effect (Burmaster 1996). Thus, natural tools for quantifying and analyzing risk are probability, statistics, and the algebra of random variables, and an alternative to the deterministic concentration-ratio approach is a probabilistic one. In the probabilistic approach, the probability that a decision will lead to an adverse effect is calculated from the available information and then used to support an informed decision (again, the committee is purposefully refraining from a discussion of what an “acceptable” probability of risk might be). The probabilistic approach requires integration of the uncertainties (from sampling, natural variability, lack of knowledge, and measurement and model error) in the exposure and effects analyses by using probability distributions, rather than single point estimates, for uncertain quantities (EPA 2001). The distributions are then integrated mathematically to calculate the risk as a probability and its associated uncertainty in that estimate. Ultimately, decision-makers are provided with a risk estimate that reflects the probability of exposure to a range of pesticide concentrations and the magnitude of an adverse effect (if any) to the exposures that answers the fundamental question, What is the probability that registration of this pesticide will lead to a specified adverse effect on a listed species or its critical habitat?

Implementing a probabilistic approach requires three primary actions on the part of a risk assessor:

(1) Describe uncertain variables with distributions and recognize that not all variables in a model or an analysis need be treated this way. The task can be

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

made considerably more tractable if only variables identified as key drivers via a sensitivity analysis are defined by distributions. The methods and problems in fitting or otherwise deriving the distributions from data are not discussed here because a large literature is available on these topics (see, for example, EUFRAM 2006; Warren-Hicks and Hart 2010). However, the models or measurements used to estimate exposure concentrations are capable of providing results as distributions, and results of the multispecies toxicity testing that is already part of the registration process could be expressed as discrete exposure-response distributions or combined into a species sensitivity distribution.

(2) Propagate the uncertainty through to distributions of exposure and effect by using one of several calculation methods. The most readily accessible of these (in terms of software and experience) are Monte Carlo analysis (including second-order methods), probability-bounds analysis, and Bayesian methods (Warren-Hicks and Hart 2010) (see Chapter 2 for recommendations of method selection).

(3) Integrate exposure and effect estimates to calculate risk. Aldenberg et al. (2001) have shown that a variety of risk-estimation methods calculate the same probability that a stated exposure concentration will produce a specified adverse effect given a specific exposure-response relationship. Such methods include discrete summation for expected risk (Cardwell et al. 1999), ecological risk overlap plot (Van Straalen 2002), numerical integration of risk-distribution curves (Parkhurst et al. 1996; Solomon and Takacs 2001; Warren-Hicks et al. 2001), and various area-under-the-curve (AUC) methods, such as exceedance profile plots (ECOFRAM 1999ab; Giesy et al. 1999; Solomon and Takacs 2001), cumulative profile plots (Aldenberg et al. 2001), and cumulative distribution functions of risk estimates (Aldenberg et al. 2001; EUFRAM 2006). The area under the joint probability curve is considered as a numerical measure of the risk to a species posed by a chemical stressor (Giddings et al. 2005), a value that a decision-maker would seek to minimize.

The committee has concluded that EPA and the Services can begin the transition now from concentration ratios to established, scientifically defensible statistical-inference methods for propagating uncertainties in exposure and effect through to a risk estimate for both individual receptors (Step 2) and populations of receptors (Step 3). The committee recognizes the pragmatic demands of the pesticide registration process and encourages EPA and the Services to consider probabilistic methods that have already been successfully applied to pesticide risk assessments (Odenkirchen 2003 [EPA’s Terrestrial Investigation Model v 2.0]; Giddings et al 2005; Warren-Hicks and Hart 2010), have otherwise appeared frequently in the technical literature, are familiar to many risk-assessment practitioners, can be implemented with commercially available software, and are most readily explicable to decision-makers, stakeholders, and the public. The committee also notes that transitioning to a probabilistic approach can begin with simple registrations (for example, pesticides for use on a few crops or in a small geographic area) and will not require that all variables be immediately represented with prob-

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

ability distributions (that is, sensitivity analyses can be used to identify key parameters that are important to represent as probability distributions).

CONCLUSIONS

•  Inclusion of uncertainty factors to account for lack of various data is unwarranted because there is no way to determine whether the assumptions being used substantially overestimate or underestimate the probability of adverse effects.

•  RQs are not appropriate for risk assessments or for any application in which it is desired to base a decision on the probabilities of the various possible outcomes.

•  EPA (for Step 2 assessments) and the Services (for Step 3 assessments) should use established, scientifically defensible, statistical methods to calculate risk as a probability to assist decision-makers’ understanding of the potential consequences of their decisions.

•  A number of existing probabilistic methods have been shown to be applicable and practical for ecological risk assessments that involve pesticides.

•  The transition from concentration-ratio to probabilistic approaches can begin now, starting with simple registrations, focusing on a small set of sensitive key parameters, and drawing on the considerable literature and guidance on probabilistic approaches.

REFERENCES

Aldenberg, T., J.S. Jaworska, and T.P. Traas. 2001. Normal species sensitivity distributions and probabilistic ecological risk assessment. Pp. 49-102 in Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, L. Posthuma, G.W. Suter, II, and T.P. Traas, eds. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Burmaster, D.E. 1996. Benefits and costs of using probabilistic techniques in human health risk assessments—with an emphasis on site-specific risk assessments. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2(1):35-43.

Cardwell, R.D., M.S. Brancato, J. Toll, D. DeForest, and L. Tear. 1999. Aquatic ecological risks posed by tributyltin in United States surface waters: Pre-1989 to 1996 data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18(3):567-577.

ECOFRAM (Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods).1999a. ECOFRAM Aquatic Report. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 4, 1999 [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk/aquareport.pdf [accessed Nov. 21, 2012].

ECOFRAM (Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods). 1999b. ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 10, 1999 [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk/terrreport.pdf [accessed Nov. 21, 2012].

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III - Part A. Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk As-

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

      sessment. EPA 540-R-02-002, OSWER 9285.7-45. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/rags3adt/pdf/rags3adt_complete.pdf [accessed Nov. 21, 2012].

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. January 23, 2004 [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf [accessed Aug. 29, 2012].

EUFRAM. 2006. Concerted Action to Develop a European Framework for Probabilistic Risk Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Pesticides. Fifth Framework Programme, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, European Commission, Brussels [online]. Available: http://www.eufram.com/ [accessed Nov. 21, 2012].

Exponent. 2010. Report on Guidance for a Weight of Evidence Approach in Conducting Detailed Ecological Risk Assessments (DERA) in British Columbia. Prepared for The Ministry of Environment, British Columbia, by Exponent, Inc., Bellevue, WA. June 2010 [online]. Available: http://www.sabcs.chem.uvic.ca/woe.html [accessed Aug. 2012].

Giddings, J.M., T.A. Anderson, L.W. Hall, Jr., A.J. Hosmer, R.J. Kendall, R.P. Richards, K.R. Solomon, and W.M. Williams. 2005. Atrazine in North American Surface Waters: A Probabilistic Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press. 392 pp.

Giesy, J.P., K.R. Solomon, J.R. Coats, K.R. Dixon, J.M. Giddings, and E.E. Kenaga. 1999. Chlorpyrifos: Ecological risk assessment in North American aquatic environments. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 160:1-129.

Linkov, I., D. Loney, S. Cormier, K. Satterstrom, and T. Bridges. 2009. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 407(19):5199-5205.

Odenkirchen, E. 2003. Evolution of OPP's Terrestrial Investigation Model Software and Programming to Meet Technical/Regulatory Challenges. Presentation at EUropean FRamework for Probabilistic Risk Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Pesticides Workshop, June 5-8, 2003. Bilthoven, the Netherlands [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk/presentations/eufram_overview.htm [accessed Mar. 28, 2013].

Parkhurst, B.R., W. Warren-Hicks, T. Etchison, J.B. Butcher, R.D. Cardwell and J. Voloson. 1996. Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment. RP91-AER-1 1995. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.

Solomon, K.R., and P. Takacs. 2001. Probabilistic risk assessment using species sensitivity distributions. Pp. 285-314 in Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, L. Posthuma, G.W. Suter, II, and T.P. Traas, eds. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Van Straalen, N.M. 2002. Threshold models for species sensitivity distributions applied to aquatic risk assessment for zinc. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 11(3-4):167-172.

Warren-Hicks, W.J., and A. Hart, eds. 2010. Application of Uncertainty Analysis to Ecological Risks of Pesticides. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press. 228 pp.

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×

Warren-Hicks, W.J., B.R. Parkhurst, and J.B. Butcher. 2001. Methodology for aquatic ecological risk assessment. Pp. 345-382 in Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology, L. Posthuma, G.W. Suter, II, and T.P. Traas, eds. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"5 Risk Characterization." National Research Council. 2013. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18344.
×
Page 154
Next: Appendix A: Selected Excerpts from 40 CFR Part 158 Data Requirements for Pesticides »
Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $53.00 Buy Ebook | $42.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for protecting species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and for protecting habitats that are critical for their survival. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for registering or reregistering pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and must ensure that pesticide use does not cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, which is interpreted to include listed species and their critical habitats. The agencies have developed their own approaches to evaluating environmental risk, and their approaches differ because their legal mandates, responsibilities, institutional cultures, and expertise differ. Over the years, the agencies have tried to resolve their differences but have been unsuccessful in reaching a consensus regarding their assessment approaches.

As a result, FWS, NMFS, EPA, and the US Department of Agriculture asked the National Research Council (NRC) to examine scientific and technical issues related to determining risks posed to listed species by pesticides. Specifically, the NRC was asked to evaluate methods for identifying the best scientific data available; to evaluate approaches for developing modeling assumptions; to identify authoritative geospatial information that might be used in risk assessments; to review approaches for characterizing sublethal, indirect, and cumulative effects; to assess the scientific information available for estimating effects of mixtures and inert ingredients; and to consider the use of uncertainty factors to account for gaps in data. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides, which was prepared by the NRC Committee on Ecological Risk Assessment under FIFRA and ESA, is the response to that request.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!