## 6.3.4. Setting safe standards for ecosystem protection: the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC)

Authors: Els Smit, Eric Verbruggen

Reviewers: Alexandra Kroll, Inge Werner

Learning objectives

You should be able to:

- explain what a reference level for ecosystem protection is;
- explain the basic concepts underlying the assessment factor approach for deriving PNECs;
- explain why secondary poisoning needs specific consideration when deriving a PNEC using the assessment factor approach.

Key words: PNEC, quality standards, extrapolation, assessment factor

Introduction

The key question in environmental risk assessment is whether environmental exposure to chemicals leads to unacceptable risks for human and ecosystem health. This is done by comparing the measured or predicted concentrations in water, soil, sediment, or air, with a reference level. Reference levels represent a dose (intake rate) or concentration in water, soil, sediment or air below which unacceptable effects are not expected. The definition of ‘no unacceptable effects’ may differ between regulatory frameworks, depending on the protection goal. The focus of this section is the derivation of reference levels for aquatic ecosystems as well as for predators feeding on exposed aquatic species (secondary poisoning), but the derivation of reference values for other environmental compartments follows the same principles.

Terminology and concepts

Various technical terms are in use as reference values, e.g. the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC) for ecosystems or the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for humans (Section on Human toxicology). The term “reference level” is a broad and generic term, which can be used independently of the regulatory context or protection goal. In contrast, the term “quality standard” is associated with some kind of legal status, e.g., inclusion in environmental legislation like the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Other terms exist, such as the terms ‘guideline value’ or ‘screening level’ which are used in different countries to indicate triggers for further action. While the scientific basis of these reference values may be similar, their implementation and the consequences of exceedance are not. It is therefore very important to clearly define the context of the derivation and the terminology used when deriving and publishing reference levels.

PNEC

A frequently used reference level for ecosystem protection is the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC). The PNEC is the concentration below which adverse effects on the ecosystem are not expected to occur. PNECs are derived per compartment and apply to the organisms that are directly exposed. In addition, for chemicals that accumulate in prey, PNECs for secondary poisoning of predatory birds and mammals are derived. The PNEC for direct ecotoxicity is usually based on results from single species laboratory toxicity tests. In some case, data from field studies or mesocosms may be included.

A basic PNEC derivation for the aquatic compartment is based on data from single species tests with algae, water fleas and fish. Effects on the level of a complex ecosystem are not fully represented by effects on isolated individuals or populations in a laboratory set-up. However, data from laboratory tests can be used to extrapolate to the ecosystem level if it is assumed that protection of ecosystem structure ensures protection of ecosystem functioning, and that effects on ecosystem structure can be predicted from species sensitivity.

Accounting for Extrapolation Uncertainty: Assessment Factor (AF) Approach

To account for the uncertainty in the extrapolation from single species laboratory tests to effects on real life ecosystems, the lowest available test result is divided by an assessment factor (AF). In establishing the size of the AF, a number of uncertainties must be addressed to extrapolate from single-species laboratory data to a multi-species ecosystem under field conditions. These uncertainties relate to intra- and inter-laboratory variation in toxicity data, variation within and between species (biological variance), test duration and differences between the controlled laboratory set-up and the variable field situation. The value of the AF depends on the number of studies, the diversity of species for which data are available, the type and duration of the experiments, and the purpose of the reference level. Different AFs are needed for reference levels for e.g. intermittent release, short-term concentration peaks or long-term (chronic) exposure. In particular, reference levels for intermittent release and short-term exposure may be derived on the basis of acute studies, but short-term tests are less predictive for a reference level for long-term exposure and larger AFs are needed to cover this. Table 1 shows the generic AF scheme that is used to derive PNECs for long-term exposure of freshwater organisms in the context of European regulatory framework for industrial chemicals (REACH; see Section on REACH environment). This scheme is also applied for the authorisation of biocidal products, pharmaceuticals and for derivation of long-term water quality standards for freshwater under the EU Water Framework Directive. Further details on the application of this scheme, e.g., how to compare acute and chronic data and how to deal with irregular datasets, are presented in guidance documents (see suggested reading: EC, 2018; ECHA, 2008). Similar schemes exist for marine waters, sediment, and soil. However, for the latter two environmental compartments often too little experimental information is available and risk limits have to be calculated by extrapolation from aquatic data using the Equilibrium Partitioning concept. The derivation of Regulatory Acceptable Concentrations (RAC) for plant protection products (PPPs) is also based on the extrapolation of laboratory data, but follows a different approach focussing on generating data for specific taxonomic groups, taking account of the mode of action of the PPP (see suggested reading: EFSA, 2013).

Table 1. Basic assessment factor scheme used for the derivation of PNECs for freshwater ecosystems used in several European regulatory frameworks. Consult the original guidance documents for full schemes and additional information (see suggested reading: EC, 2018; ECHA, 2008).

Available data | Assessment factor
At least one short-term L(E)C50 from each of three trophic levels (fish, invertebrates (preferred Daphnia) and algae) | 1000
One long-term EC10 or NOEC (either fish or Daphnia) | 100
Two long-term results (e.g. EC10 or NOECs) from species representing two trophic levels (fish and/or Daphnia and/or algae) | 50
Long-term results (e.g. EC10 or NOECs) from at least three species (normally fish, Daphnia and algae) representing three trophic levels | 10

Application of Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) and Other Additional Data

The AF approach was developed to account for the uncertainty arising from extrapolation from (potentially limited) experimental datasets. If enough data are available for other species than algae, daphnids and fish, statistical methods can be applied to derive a PNEC. Within the concept of species sensitivity distribution (SSD), the distribution of the sensitivity of the tested species is used to estimate the concentration at which 5% of all species in the ecosystem is affected (HC5; see section on SSDs). When used for regulatory purposes in European regulatory frameworks, the dataset should meet certain requirements regarding the number of data points and the representation of taxa in the dataset, and an AF is applied to the HC5 to cover the remaining uncertainty from the extrapolation from lab to field.

Where available, results from semi-field experiments (mesocosms, see section on Community ecotoxicology) can also be used, either on its own or to underpin the PNEC derived from the AF or SSD approach. SSDs and mesocosm-studies are also used in the context of authorisation of PPP.

Reference levels for secondary poisoning

Substances might be toxic to wildlife because of bioaccumulation in prey or a high intrinsic toxicity to birds and mammals. If this is the case, a reference level for secondary poisoning is derived for a simple food chain: water è fish or mussel è predatory bird or mammal. The toxicity data from bird or mammal tests are transformed into safe concentrations in prey. This can be done by simply recalculating concentrations in laboratory feed into concentrations in fish using default conversion factors (see e.g., ECHA, 2008). For the derivation of water quality standards under the WFD, a more sophisticated method was introduced that uses knowledge on the energy demand of predators and energy content in their food to convert laboratory data to a field situation. Also, the inclusion of other, more complex and sometimes longer food chains is possible, for which field bioaccumulation factors are used rather than laboratory derived values.

Suggested additional reading

EC (2018). Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 27. Technical Guidance For Deriving Environmental Quality Standards. Updated version 2018. Brussels, Belgium. European Commission. https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/ba6810cd-e611-4f72-9902-f0d8867a2a6b/details

ECHA (2008). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Chapter R.10: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for environment. Helsinki, Finland. European Chemicals Agency. May 2008. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r10_en.pdf/bb902be7-a503-4ab7-9036-d866b8ddce69

EFSA (2013). Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(7): 3290 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290

Traas, T.P., Van Leeuwen, C. (2007). Ecotoxicological effects. In: Van Leeuwen, C., Vermeire, T.C. (Eds.). Risk Assessment of Chemicals: an Introduction, Chapter 7. Springer.