Development of a strontium chronic effects benchmark for aquatic life in freshwater.

There are no national water-quality guidelines for strontium for the protection of freshwater aquatic life in North America or elsewhere. Available data on the acute and chronic toxicity of strontium to freshwater aquatic life were compiled and reviewed. Acute toxicity was reported to occur at concentrations ranging from 75 mg/L to 15 000 mg/L. The majority of chronic effects occurred at concentrations above 11 mg/L; however, calculation of a representative benchmark was confounded by results from 4 studies indicating that chronic effects occurred at lower concentrations than all other studies, in 2 cases below background concentrations reported for US and European streams. Two of these studies, including 1 reporting effects below background concentrations, were repeated and found not to be reproducible; chronic effects occurred at considerably higher strontium concentrations than in the original studies. Studies with narrow-mouthed toad and goldfish were not repeated; both studies reported chronic effects below background concentrations, and both studies had been conducted by the authors of 1 of the 2 studies that were repeated and shown to be nonreproducible. Studies by these authors (3 of the 4 confounding studies), conducted over 30 yr ago, lacked detail in reporting of methods and results. It is thus likely that repeating the toad and goldfish studies would also have resulted in a higher strontium effects concentration. A strontium chronic effects benchmark of 10.7 mg/L that incorporates the results of additional testing summarized in the present study is proposed for freshwater environments.

Using sparse dose-response data for wildlife risk assessment.

Hazard quotients based on a point-estimate comparison of exposure to a toxicity reference value (TRV) are commonly used to characterize risks for wildlife. Quotients may be appropriate for screening-level assessments but should be avoided in detailed assessments, because they provide little insight regarding the likely magnitude of effects and associated uncertainty. To better characterize risks to wildlife and support more informed decision making, practitioners should make full use of available dose-response data. First, relevant studies should be compiled and data extracted. Data extractions are not trivial--practitioners must evaluate the potential use of each study or its components, extract numerous variables, and in some cases, calculate variables of interest. Second, plots should be used to thoroughly explore the data, especially in the range of doses relevant to a given risk assessment. Plots should be used to understand variation in dose-response among studies, species, and other factors. Finally, quantitative dose-response models should be considered if they are likely to provide an improved basis for decision making. The most common dose-response models are simple models for data from a particular study for a particular species, using generalized linear models or other models appropriate for a given endpoint. Although simple models work well in some instances, they generally do not reflect the full breadth of information in a dose-response data set, because they apply only for particular studies, species, and endpoints. More advanced models are available that explicitly account for variation among studies and species, or that standardize multiple endpoints to a common response variable. Application of these models may be useful in some cases when data are abundant, but there are challenges to implementing and interpreting such models when data are sparse.