Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:42:16.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological risk assessment of contaminated soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

J. M. Weeks  and
S. D. W. Comber
J. M. Weeks*
Affiliation:
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK
S. D. W. Comber
Affiliation:
WRc-NSF Ltd., Henley Road, Medmenham, Marlow, Buckinghamshire SL7 2HD, UK
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basis for an ecological risk assessment based on meeting the needs of recent UK and EU legislation is described. The background to the framework and the legislative driver and relevant definitions of harm are provided, prior to an overview of the proposed ecological risk assessment process, which has been broken down into a Tiered approach. Tier 0 requires the establishment of a conceptual site model, where potential contaminant-pathway-receptor linkages are sought and, assuming they are identified, lead on to higher Tier assessments. Tier 1 relies largely on chemical analysis of soil contaminant levels and comparison with soil quality guideline values to assess the likelihood of harm. In some cases biological screening assays may also be undertaken within this Tier. Based on a weight of evidence approach, should data from Tier 1 indicate harm or leave uncertainty, then Tier 2 biological testing is undertaken using assays relevant to the site of interest. In situations where harm is identified under Tier 2 then Tier 3 is reserved for establishing the extent of harm within the ecosystem. Finally the use of the 'weight-of-evidence' approach to generate scientifically robust conclusions regarding the harm (or potential for harm) within the ecosystem is briefly outlined. The framework discussed is currently being adopted by the UK Environment Agency, with implementation expected in 2005. The UK scheme compares favourably with comparative schemes operating in other countries possessing the merits of being iterative, tiered, flexible with agreed exit points subject to satisfying defined criteria and so speeding the decision-making process.

Keywords

ERAsoilrisk assessmenttoxicity testing
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 69 , Issue 5 , October 2005 , pp. 601 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Breure, T. and Peijnenburg, W. (2003) Developments in soil protection in The Netherlands. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 3, 248–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrns, T. and Crane, M. (2002) Assessing risks to ecosystems from land contamination. R&D technical Report P299. Environment Agency and Sniffer, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.M. (1986) Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality TRIAD: an example. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 5, 957–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, P.M. (1992) Sediment quality triad approach. In: Sediment classification methods compendium. EPA 823-R-92-006, September 1992.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.M., Feiyue, W., Janssen, C.R., Goulet, R.R. and Kamunde, C.N. (2003) Conducting ecological risk assessments of inorganic metals and metalloids: current status. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9, 641—697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIRIA (2002) Biological methods for the assessment of contaminated land — case studies. CIRIA research project 625. CIRIA, London.Google Scholar
CLARINET (2001) Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land. Proceedings of the CLARINET Final Conference, June 2001, Vienna, Austria, Federal Environment Agency, Austria. ISBN 3-85457-594-7.Google Scholar
Crane, M. and Byrns, T. (2002) Ecotoxicological and Biological test methods for the Assessment of Contaminated Land. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR.Google Scholar
DETR (1995) Department of Environment Transport and the Regions. Contaminated land research report 2, Guidance on preliminary site inspection of contaminated land (two volumes).Google Scholar
DETR (2000a) Department of Environment Transport and the Regions. Contaminated land environmental protection act 1990: Part IIA DETR Circular 02/2000.Google Scholar
DETR (2000b) Department of Environment Transport and the Regions. Guidelines for environmental risk assessment and management. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
EC (2003) European Commission Technical Guidance Document (TGD) on risk assessment of chemical substances following European Regulations ad Directives, 2nd edition. European Chemicals Bureau.Google Scholar
EEA (2001) European Environment Agency report No 22 on late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896—2000. EEA, Copenhagen, 2001.Google Scholar
English Nature (2003) England's best wildlife and geological sites — the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England in 2003. English Nature.Google Scholar
Environment Agency (2000) Secondary model procedure for the development of appropriate soil sampling strategies for land contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Environment Agency (2003) Ecological risk assessment: a public consultation on a framework and methods for assessing harm to ecosystems from contaminants in soil. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Environment Agency (2004) Derivation of soil screening values. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C., Darmendrail, D., Freier, K., Jensen, B.K., Jensen, J., Kasamas, H., Urzelai, A. and Vegter, J. (editors) (1998) Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe. Volume 1. Scientific basis. LQM Press, Nottingham, UK, 165 pp.Google Scholar
Janssen, C.R., Heijerick, D.G., De Schamphelaere, K.A.C. and Allen, H.E. (2003) Environmental risk assessment of metals: tools for incorporating bioavailability. Environment International, 28, 793–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwan, K.K. and Dutka, B.J. (1992) Evaluation of toxichromotest direct sedimentary toxicity testing procedure and Microtox solid-phase testing procedure. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 49, 656–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kördel, W., Konstantin, T. and Hund-Rinke, K. (2003) Mobility and bioavailability of pollutants: international methods standardization. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 3, 235–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (1984) Guideline for the testing of chemicals: 208 Terrestrial plants, Growth Test. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Ruby, M.V., Davis, A., Schoof, R., Eberle, S. and Sellstone, C.M. (1996) Estimation of lead and arsenic bioavailability using a physiologically based extraction test. Environmental Science and Technology, 30, 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutgers, M., Faber, J., Postma, J. and Eijsackers, H. (2000) Site-specific ecological risks: a basic approach to the function-specific assessment of soil pollution. Reports of the Programme on Integrated Soil Research, 28, Programme Bureau Soil Research, Wageningen, Germany.Google Scholar
Smith, R., Pollard, S.J.T., Weeks, J.M. and Nathanail, C.P. (2005) Assessing significant harm to terrestrial ecosystems from contaminated land. Soil Use and Management Journal, special issue on contaminated land (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suter, G.W. (1993) Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
Suter, G.W., Efroymson, R.A., Sample, B.E. and Jones, D.S. (2000) Ecological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessier, A., Campbell, P.G.C. and Bisson, M. (1979) Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of paniculate trace metals. Analytical Chemistry, 51, 844–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/ R-95/002F, April 1998.Google Scholar
Van Straalen, N. (2002) Assessment of soil contamination — a functional perspective. Biodegradation, 13, 41–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, J.M., Sorokin, N., Johnson, I.J., Whitehouse, P., Ashton, D., Spurgeon, D.J., Hankard, P., Svendsen, C. and Hart, A. (2004) Biological test methods for contaminated land. Stage 2 — A demonstration of the use of a framework for the ecological risk assessment of land contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar