Field evaluation of an avian risk assessment model

We conducted two laboratory subacute dietary toxicity tests and one outdoor subacute dietary toxicity test to determine the effectiveness of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's deterministic risk assessment model for evaluating the potential of adverse effects to birds in the field. We t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental toxicology and chemistry 2006-07, Vol.25 (7), p.1762-1771
Hauptverfasser: Vyas, Nimish B., Spann, James W., Hulse, Craig S., Borges, Shannon L., Bennett, Richard S., Torrez, Martin, Williams, Bruce I., Leffel, Robert
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We conducted two laboratory subacute dietary toxicity tests and one outdoor subacute dietary toxicity test to determine the effectiveness of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's deterministic risk assessment model for evaluating the potential of adverse effects to birds in the field. We tested technical‐grade diazinon and its D·Z·N® 50W (50% diazinon active ingredient wettable powder) formulation on Canada goose (Branta canadensis) goslings. Brain acetylcholinesterase activity was measured, and the feathers and skin, feet, and gastrointestinal contents were analyzed for diazinon residues. The dose–response curves showed that diazinon was significantly more toxic to goslings in the outdoor test than in the laboratory tests. The deterministic risk assessment method identified the potential for risk to birds in general, but the factors associated with extrapolating from the laboratory to the field, and from the laboratory test species to other species, resulted in the underestimation of risk to the goslings. The present study indicates that laboratory‐based risk quotients should be interpreted with caution.
ISSN:0730-7268
1552-8618
DOI:10.1897/05-230R.1