Derivation of soil values for the path 'soil-soil organisms' for metals and selected organic compounds using species sensitivity distributions.
OBJECTIVE
According to the German Federal Soil Protection Act, the natural function of soil as a habitat for human beings, animals, plants and soil organisms is, among other things, to be protected by deriving soil values for important chemicals regarding their amounts in the environment, their persistence and/or their toxicity. This contribution presents the results of the mathematical derivation of such values for nine metals and ten organic substances from soil ecotoxicological effect values available in the literature for microbial processes, plants and soil invertebrates.


METHODS
Ecotoxicological data were mostly extracted from published papers and reports and had to originate from valid studies that were performed according to internationally standardised guidelines (e.g. ISO) or were otherwise well documented, plausible and performed according to accepted laboratory practice. As test results, both structural (i.e., effects on mortality, growth or reproduction) and functional (i.e., effects on microbial activity or organic matter breakdown) parameters were included. The derivation of soil values was performed using the distribution based extrapolation model (DIBAEX) and EC(50)s (Effective Concentration) as input data.


RESULTS
For 19 compounds, soil values could be calculated. In 18 of these 19 cases clear laboratory ecotoxicological effects (i.e., EC50 values) below the calculated soil value have been found in the literature.


CONCLUSIONS
In those few cases where a comparison with field studies is possible, effects have been observed in the same order of magnitude as the calculated soil values. A comparison with other similar approaches confirmed the plausibility of the calculated values.


CONCLUSIONS
The DIBAEX-method is a feasible and widely accepted method for deriving soil values from ecotoxicological input data. Data availability was already satisfactory for some substances, but other substances, especially organics, were only poorly covered. The soil values presented here were based on EC50 input data. However, depending on the protection level aimed at by using soil values in legislation, it might be appropriate to use other input data such as NOECs in the derivation process.


CONCLUSIONS
It is recommended to generate an appropriate number of data for further relevant substances by means of a test battery or multi-species approaches such as terrestrial model ecosystems. These tests should also consider the influence of the bioavailability of substances. A final recommendation for legally binding soil values demands a plausibility check of the mathematically derived values. This should include a comparison with natural background concentrations, soil values for other pathways and soil values used in legislation of other countries. Finally, expert judgement always has to be considered.
Jänsch
Stephan
S
ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH, Böttgerstr. 2-14, 65439 Flörsheim, Germany. s-jaensch@ect.de
Römbke
Jörg
J
Schallnass
Hans-Joachim
HJ
Terytze
Konstantin
K
D000818:Animals; D007448:Invertebrates / Q000187:drug effects; D008670:Metals / Q000592:standards; D008954:Models, Biological; D019055:No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level; D010944:Plants / Q000187:drug effects; D012016:Reference Values; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012988:Soil Microbiology; D012989:Soil Pollutants / Q000592:standards* / Q000633:toxicity*; D013045:Species Specificity
D008670:Metals; D012989:Soil Pollutants