Report 601779002/2009
E.A.J. Bleeker | E.M.J. Verbruggen
Bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in aquatic organisms
RIVM report 601779002/2009
Bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
aquatic organisms
E.A.J. Bleeker
E.M.J. Verbruggen
Contact:
E.A.J. Bleeker
Expertise Centre for Substances
[email protected]
This investigation has been performed by order and for the account of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment (VROM), within the framework of the project ‘Strategic research for
REACH’ (M/601779)
RIVM, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands Tel +31 30 274 91 11 www.rivm.nl
© RIVM 2009
Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided acknowledgement is given to the 'National Institute for Public Health and the
Environment', along with the title and year of publication.
2
RIVM report 601779002
Abstract
Bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic organisms
RIVM has evaluated the available data on bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) in aquatic organisms. As a result the categorisation of PAHs regarding their bioaccumulation
potential was adapted. Phenanthrene and fluoranthene are now no longer considered ‘very
bioaccumulative’ in fish, but ‘bioaccumulative’.
The level of accumulation of compounds in organisms (bioaccumulation) is an important criterion in
chemicals regulation. It gives an indication that higher in the food chain higher concentrations of a
compound are found that may become harmful. Data on individual PAHs, including data on
bioaccumulation, are used in risk assessment of (mixtures of) compounds in which PAHs are major
components, e.g. oil and oil compounds.
As measure for accumulation the bioconcentration factor (BCF) of a compound is used. This is defined
as the ratio between the uptake rate of a compound from water into the organism and its elimination
rate to water. In the European REACH legislation compounds are divided over three BCF categories:
not bioaccumulative (BCF is below 2000), bioaccumulative (BCF is between 2000 and 5000) and very
bioaccumulative (BCF is above 5000).
Fish are capable of transforming PAHs into compounds that are better soluble in water, which
facilitates elimination. This results in lower measured BCF values in fish. Mussels and other
invertebrates are much less capable of PAH transformation, which results in higher accumulation of
PAHs in these organisms.
Key words:
bioaccumulation, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), risk assessment
RIVM report 601779002
3
Rapport in het kort
Bioaccumulatie van polycyclische aromatische koolwaterstoffen in waterorganismen
Het RIVM heeft beschikbare gegevens over ophopingen van polycyclische aromatische
koolwaterstoffen (PAK’s) in waterorganismen geëvalueerd. Naar aanleiding hiervan is de indeling van
deze stoffen voor regelgeving aangepast. Fenantreen en fluoranteen worden nu niet meer als ‘zeer
bioaccumulerend’ beschouwd in vis, maar als ‘bioaccumulerend’.
De mate waarin stoffen in organismen ophopen (bioaccumulatie) is een belangrijk criterium voor
regelgeving. Het is een indicatie dat hoger in de voedselketen hogere concentraties van de stof worden
aangetroffen die schadelijk kunnen zijn. Gegevens van individuele PAK’s, waaronder bioaccumulatiegegevens, worden gebruikt voor de risicobeoordeling van stoffen(mengsels) waarin PAK’s een
belangrijk bestanddeel zijn, zoals bijvoorbeeld olie en olieachtige stoffen.
Als maat voor de ophoping wordt de bioconcentratiefactor (BCF) van een stof gebruikt. Dat is de ratio
tussen de snelheid waarmee het organisme de stof vanuit water opneemt en de snelheid waarmee het
naar water wordt uitgescheiden. Op grond hiervan worden stoffen in de Europese REACH-regelgeving
ingedeeld in drie categorieën: niet bioaccumulerend (de BCF is kleiner dan 2000), bioaccumulerend (de
BCF ligt tussen 2000 en 5000) en zeer bioaccumulerend (de BCF is hoger dan 5000).
Vissen zijn in staat om PAK’s om te zetten in stoffen die beter in water oplosbaar zijn waardoor ze
makkelijker kunnen worden uitgescheiden. Hierdoor worden in vissen vaak lagere BCF-waarden
gemeten. Mosselen en andere ongewervelden kunnen PAK’s veel minder goed omzetten waardoor
PAK’s in deze organismen meer ophopen.
Trefwoorden:
bioaccumulatie, polycyclische aromatische koolwaterstoffen (PAK’s), risicobeoordeling
4
RIVM report 601779002
Contents
Summary
7
1
Introduction
9
2
Methods
11
3
Results
13
3.1
3.2
3.3
Reliability of reported BCF values
Additional data
Evaluation of reliable BCF values
13
13
15
4
Discussion
21
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Evaluating the bioaccumulation assessment by Lampi and Parkerton
Evaluating the bioaccumulation assessment in the RAR
Dietary bioaccumulation studies
Using bioaccumulation data for regulatory purposes
21
23
24
25
References
29
Annex I Overview of BCF values from studies that were rated as not reliable (validity 3)
37
Annex II Overview of BCF values from studies for which validity was not assignable
(validity 4)
47
RIVM report 601779002
5
6
RIVM report 601779002
Summary
In risk assessment the potential of a substance to accumulate in a food web is an important criterion.
Bioaccumulation may result in increasing internal concentrations in organisms higher in the food chain
and then it is called biomagnification. Whether this process of biomagnification actually takes place
depends on the properties of the compound itself (e.g. stability, lipophilicity) and on the organisms in
the food chain (ability to metabolize and/or excrete the compound). This may result in situations where
at lower trophic levels bioaccumulation and biomagnification take place, while higher in the food chain
organisms are capable of handling the compound and efficiently excreting it. In the present report and
in agreement with regulatory frameworks, therefore, bioaccumulation data on fish (higher in the food
chain) and other aquatic organisms (lower in the food chain) are evaluated. These organisms include,
but are not restricted to molluscs, crustaceans, insects, oligochaetes and polychaetes.
As a measure for bioaccumulation usually the bioconcentration factor (BCF) is used as a trigger. The
BCF is defined as the ratio between uptake and depuration rates, which in a steady state situation
equals the ratio between the internal concentration in an organism and the concentration in water. Since
this ratio not only depends on compound properties and test organisms, but also on the test setup used,
quality criteria for testing and reporting bioconcentration have been debated. Using such criteria in the
present report reliabilities of reported BCF values for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
aquatic organisms are evaluated, focussing on the 16 PAHs defined as priority substances by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, 9H-fluorene,
anthracene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[a]pyrene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene).
Based on existing databases and reviews, as well as a search in the recent literature, 133 original papers
were examined to evaluate the reliability of 855 BCF values.
Only about 34% of these values were deemed reliable (in many cases with restrictions), but another
40% were deemed not assignable (due to lack of information in the report).
As part of the present study the (re-)evaluated BCFs are compared with previous evaluations of BCF
studies and differences in opinion are discussed. Also the role of dietary uptake is discussed but it is
concluded that at present not enough data are available to use and compare bioaccumulation data from
dietary studies with those from aqueous tests.
Finally the evaluation is summarized and conclusions on bioaccumulation potential for each of the
16 PAHs are given, applying the triggers as used in the EU-legislation REACH: compounds are
considered as bioaccumulative (B) when their BCF is between 2000 and 5000 and very
bioaccumulative (vB) when the BCF is >5000. Naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene and 9Hfluorene are considered not bioaccumulative. Anthracene, phenanthrene and fluoranthene are
considered B for fish, but they are vB at lower trophic levels (molluscs, crustaceans). Pyrene,
benz[a]anthracene and benzo[a]pyrene do not accumulate in fish (due to biotransformation), but are vB
at lower trophic levels. For chrysene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, and
dibenz[a,h]anthracene only reliable data on daphnids are available which deem these compounds as vB.
For benzo[b]fluoranthene and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene no reliable data are available at all, so
bioaccumulative potential could not be established.
RIVM report 601779002
7
8
RIVM report 601779002
1
Introduction
In risk assessment the degree of bioaccumulation of a compound is an important criterion. This is based
on the assumption that compounds that accumulate in organisms can accumulate in a food web,
resulting in higher internal concentrations in organisms higher in the food chain. This process is known
as biomagnification. Whether biomagnification will actually take place depends on the
physicochemical properties of the compound (e.g. stability, lipophilicity) and on the organism(s) that
take up the compound (ability to metabolize and/or excrete the compound) (Gobas et al., 2009). This
may result in situations where at lower trophic levels bioaccumulation and biomagnification takes
place, while higher in the food chain organisms are capable of handling the compound and efficiently
excreting it (e.g. Wang and Wang, 2006; Wan et al., 2007; Nfon et al., 2008; Takeuchi et al., 2009).
Nevertheless, specifically this metabolization may activate the toxicity of some compounds. For
regulatory purposes the process of biomagnification is often simplified by assessing the
bioaccumulation, especially in fish. According to the European REACH 1 legislation, however, ‘the
assessment of bioaccumulation shall be based on measured data on bioconcentration in aquatic species’
(EU, 2007). Also in other frameworks (e.g. Stockholm Convention, 2001) assessment of
bioaccumulation is not restricted to fish, so in this report bioaccumulation data on other aquatic
organisms are evaluated as well.
In aquatic tests the degree of bioaccumulation is usually expressed as a bioconcentration factor (BCF),
defined as the ratio between uptake from water into an organism and elimination from an organism to
water. In a steady state situation this ratio is independent of time and then it equals the ratio between
the concentration in the organism and the concentration in water.
The BCF is used as a trigger for bioaccumulation in several regulatory frameworks (e.g. REACH,
OSPAR 2 , GHS 3 ), but the trigger values in these frameworks may differ. In this report we focus on the
triggers defined in REACH: a compound is defined as bioaccumulative (B) when the wet-weight BCF
value (normalized to lipid content) is higher than 2000 and as very bioaccumulative (vB) if this value is
higher than 5000. Lipid normalization is applied when bioaccumulating compounds tend to accumulate
in the lipids of organisms (ECHA, 2008), resulting in higher BCF values for organisms with higher
lipid content. To enable comparison between species BCF values are normalized to an organism that
contains 5% lipids, the average value for the small fish species used in OECD guideline 305 (OECD,
1996; Tolls et al., 2000).
The degree of bioaccumulation of compounds depends on several factors. First of all, it depends on the
compound tested and its properties as well as the test species used, but in addition several test
conditions have an influence, e.g. the time of exposure, the type of exposure (static vs. continuous
flow), etc. To minimize variation between tests guidelines were developed in which test conditions
were described (e.g. OECD, 1996). Still comparisons between bioaccumulation studies are difficult,
because quite a few data were generated before guidelines were established. In addition, in some cases
not all relevant details on the test setup are described. This has lead to a debate to come to quality
criteria for BCF values (e.g. Parkerton et al., 2008), as this is seen as essential in getting a clearer
picture on the possibility of predicting BCF values from physicochemical properties of compounds.
The present report gives an evaluation of reported BCF values for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) in aquatic organisms. By examining the studies in detail the reliability of reported values is
1
2
3
REACH: Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals.
OSPAR: OSlo and PARis conventions (OSPAR, 1992).
GHS: Global Harmonizing System of classification and labelling of chemicals.
RIVM report 601779002
9
examined. The study was limited to the 16 PAHs defined as priority substances by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/pollutants.htm;
further indicated as EPA-PAHs, Figure 1
naphthalene
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
9H-fluorene
anthracene
phenanthrene
fluoranthene
pyrene
benz[a]anthracene
chrysene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[b]fluoranthene
benzo[k]fluoranthene
benzo[ghi]perylene
dibenz[a,h]anthracene
indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Figure 1: Structural formulae of the 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons defined as priority substances by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
10
RIVM report 601779002
2
Methods
In collecting reported BCF values the following sources were used to create an overview.
− The Ecotoxicology Database (ECOTOX) of the US EPA. This database is a source for locating
single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. ECOTOX was created
and is maintained by the US EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid-Continent Ecology
Division (MED). It is publicly available at the internet (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/).
− The bioconcentration Gold Standard Database of
(EURAS). This database was established in 2006
Research Initiative. Cefic is de European Chemical
chemical industry. The database is linked to
http://ambit.acad.bg.
the European Academy of Standardization
in the framework of the Cefic Long-range
Industry Council, representing the European
the AMBIT database and available at
− The database of the Japanese National Institute of Technology and Evaluation. The Chemical
Management Field of this institute aims at collecting and transmitting information required for total
risk assessment and management of chemical substances. Their Biodegradation and
Bioconcentration database is available in English at http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/english/kizon/
KIZON_start_hazkizon.html. Test details are published in the Official Bulletin of Economy, Trade
and Industry (in Japanese only).
− The EU risk assessment report (RAR) that was produced in the framework of EU regulation
EEC/793/93 (EU, 1993) for coal-tar pitch and copied into an Annex XV Transitional Dossier under
REACH (The Netherlands, 2008). The risk assessment of coal-tar pitch is based on data for the 16
EPA-PAHs (Figure 1). This report includes an overview of bioconcentration factors for fish and
mussels, as well as for oligochaetes, polychaetes, crustaceans and insects.
− The database of 1535 data points for 702 chemicals in fish as summarized in the supplementary
information for the paper by Arnot et al. (2008). In this paper measured bioconcentration values are
compared with values estimated by several quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs).
− An assessment of the bioaccumulation data of the 16 EPA-PAHs for fish by Lampi and Parkerton
(2008). This document complements the review in the EU risk assessment for coal-tar pitch and
identifies preferred values for the PBT 4 Working Group of the Technical Committee New and
Existing Substances. In 2009 an update of this document (Lampi and Parkerton, 2009) was provided
to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in a reaction to their proposal to include coal-tar pitch
high temperature on the list of compounds for which authorisation is needed.
− Finally recent or additional literature was scanned in Scopus (http://www.scopus.com) for each
individual PAH (identified by substance name or CAS registration number) using the following
keywords: bioconcentrat*, bioaccumulat*, uptake, depuration, food-web, trophic, biomagnificat*,
BCF*, BAF*, FWMF*, TMF*, BMF*, or BSAF*.
Information from these sources showed considerable overlap, but eventually the data collection resulted
in a list of 855 BCF values, reported in 133 references. With a few exceptions (see below), each of
these references were consulted individually and the reliability of reported BCF values was examined
by using similar criteria as those formulated by Parkerton et al. (2008). These criteria are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
4
(details of) test compound and test organism are clearly described
the compound is analysed both in water and in the organism
no significant adverse effects are reported
the reported BCF reflects steady-state conditions with unambiguous units
Persistent, Bioaccumulating and Toxic compounds.
RIVM report 601779002
11
However, due to different interpretation of the results, the assessment of the studies is not necessarily
the same as in the assessment recently submitted to ECHA (Lampi and Parkerton, 2009).
Based on this analysis Klimisch scores (Klimisch et al., 1997) were assigned to each BCF value to
indicate the reliability. Data that are generated from studies that comply with or are comparable to
published guidelines or are conducted with accepted methods that are described in sufficient detail are
rated reliable (validity = 1). Studies that include adequate documentation details, but lack specific
details or deviate from guideline requirements are deemed reliable with restrictions (validity = 2). Data
are rated as unreliable if key information is lacking or when documentation details reveal unacceptable
test performance or methodological flaws (validity = 3). The most common reasons for unreliability are
exposure concentrations above water solubility and a clear absence of steady state while steady state
BCFs are reported. When insufficient details are provided on critical study aspects data are defined as
not assignable (validity = 4). Reasons for assigning a validity of 4 include BCF values being based on
total radioactivity (which deems it impossible to distinguish between the concentration of the parent
compound and that of its transformation products), uncertainty about the exposure concentration (e.g.
exposure concentration reported in graphs only, nominal concentration reported only, exposure via
sediment or diet, exposure to oil) or (pre-)exposure duration (e.g. for field collected animals). In
addition, two studies (Dunn and Stich, 1976; Rantamäki, 1997) that reported depuration half-lives were
scored as not assignable, because information was lacking to calculate BCF values from these half-lives
(validity = 4).
In addition to these 4 scores to indicate reliability we added the score 5 for BCF values that were
reported in one of our sources (see above), but for which the original publication could not be
evaluated. For instance, a small number of references (US-EPA, 1976; Linder, 1982; Hall, 1993) could
not be traced and BCF values from these references (as reported in the ECOTOX-database) were
assigned a validity of 5 (not evaluated). In addition Veith et al. (1979) refer to unpublished data by Call
and Brook (1977). As such data are by definition untraceable this reference was also assigned a validity
of 5. It is, however, possible that (part of) these unevaluated data were reported in public literature as
well. In the assessment by Lampi and Parkerton (2009) several references are made to reports by
EMBSI (EMBSI, 2001; 2005; 2006; 2007c; 2007b; 2007a; 2008a; 2008b; 2009). These reports are not
publicly available and thus the BCF values of these references were also assigned a validity of 5.
12
RIVM report 601779002
3
Results
3.1
Reliability of reported BCF values
For almost 40% of the reported BCF values reliability could not be assigned (validity = 4; see Annex
II). The main reason for assigning this validity is given for each BCF value as a reliability remark in
Annex II. For the majority of unassignable BCF values this was the result of the BCF being based on
total radioactivity.
Those BCF values that were assigned not reliable (invalid due to experimental flaws or design
limitations; validity 3) are summarized in Annex I. This was about 25 % of the BCF values. The main
reasons for deeming the study unreliable are given as reliability remark in Annex I.
Only 293 BCF values (circa 34 %) were deemed reliable, although in many cases (264) with
restrictions (i.e. non-guideline studies, but documented and defensible, validity = 2), because many of
these studies were performed before guidelines were established. These 293 BCF values were derived
for different types of organisms and are summarized in Table 1.
The remaining few BCF values were not evaluated.
3.2
Additional data
Most of the data (re-)evaluated in the present study were already described in the RAR 5 (The
Netherlands, 2008). Additional studies are briefly described here.
Landrum and Poore (1988) determined the role of lipid content and temperature in the bioaccumulation
of phenanthrene and benzo[a]pyrene by mayfly (Hexagenia limbata). The values for benzo[a]pyrene
were reported already in the RAR, but those for phenanthrene were not. The study report includes
enough details to rate this study reliable with restrictions (validity = 2). In Table 1 the range of BCF
values given from this study is based on fresh weight. When lipid normalization (to 5% lipid content) is
applied the range for phenanthrene yields 666 – 2600 L/kg and for benzo[a]pyrene this range yields
3400 – 7800 L/kg.
Hall and Oris (1991) determined BCFs for male and female fathead minnows and for eggs of this
species exposed to a concentration series of anthracene for 21 d. Steady water concentrations were
maintained, but lipid content was not presented. BCFs were calculated for male and female carcasses
individually, and is rated reliable with restrictions (validity = 2).
Weinstein (2001) exposed glochidia of Utterbackia imbecillis to fluoranthene in a flow-through system.
Both a steady state (1735) and a kinetic BCF value (1813) is given, which are very similar. This is in
agreement with the observed steady state. Also further details provided in the study report are sufficient
to rate this study as valid with restrictions (validity = 2).
Schuler et al. (2004) exposed crustacean species (Diporeia spec. and Hyalella azteca) and insect larvae
(3rd instar Chironomus tentans) to fluoranthene to determine the influence of exposure concentration on
bioaccumulation and compare species specific differences. The study report provides sufficient detail to
5
RAR: Risk Assessment Report, produced in the framework of EU regulation EEC/793/93 (EU, 1993).
RIVM report 601779002
13
rate this study as valid with restrictions (validity = 2). The exposure concentration appears not to have a
big influence, but in contrast to Diporeia spec. the other species are able to metabolise fluoranthene,
resulting in higher elimination rates and lower BCF values.
Richardson et al. (2005) conducted semi-batch seawater experiments to follow the uptake and release
of anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene, as well as 4 organochlorine pesticides, in
semi-permeable membrane devices and green-lipped mussels (Perna viridis). This study was well
conducted and appears to yield reliable BCF values based on lipid weight (anthracene: 380000;
fluoranthene: 245000; pyrene: 891000; benzo[a]pyrene: 170000). Normalised to a 5% lipid content
(ECHA, 2008), these BCF are 19000, 12250, 44550, and 8500, respectively. Lipid weight itself was not
given in the study. This study is rated as reliable with restriction (validity = 2).
Wang and Wang (2006) studied the bioaccumulation and transfer of benzo[a]pyrene in a simplified
marine food chain. Both dietary and aqueous exposure to benzo[a]pyrene were examined in copepods
(Acartia erythraea) and fish (Lutjanus argentimaculatus), but details are not always clear deeming this
study unassignable (validity = 4).
Yakata et al. (2006) tested seven organic compounds including acenaphthylene in carp (Cyprinus
carpio). The tests were conducted according to OECD Guideline 305 (OECD, 1996), resulting in a
BCF for acenaphthylene of 271 L/kg (560 after lipid normalization). Sufficient details were provide to
rate this guideline study as reliable (validity = 1).
Jonker and Van der Heijden (2007) determined BCF values for Lumbriculus variegatus in several
different test setups. These studies were, however, deemed unreliable (validity = 3), because sediment
was present in the test (adding uncertainties to the exposure route) and BCF values were given in
graphs only.
In a study by Cheikyula et al. (2008) fish (Paralichthys olivaceus, Pagrus major and Oryzias
javanicus) were exposed for ten days to a mixture of 4 PAHs (phenanthrene, pyrene, chrysene and
benzo[a]pyrene). The exposure concentration of chrysene in this study appeared to be above the water
solubility of this compound, and consequently the mixture as a whole must be oversaturated. So BCF
values from this study are not reliable (validity = 3).
Bioavailability of benzo[k]fluoranthene was reported for Oryzias latipes by Chen et al. (2008). From
this study a BCF value could only be estimated from concentrations in water and fish that were
reported in graphs. In addition the reported exposure concentrations appear to be nominal
concentrations (validity = 3).
Grass shrimp larvae were exposed to fluoranthene and benzo[a]pyrene by Weinstein and Garner
(2008). The reported BCF values were averages for several exposure concentrations, but information is
lacking to examine the validity of this procedure. In addition, BCF values appear to be based on dry
weight and the exposure concentration for benzo[a]pyrene appears to be above water solubility
(validity = 3).
A rather reliable study in estuarine copepods (Cailleaud et al., 2009), reports dry weight based BCF
values for phenanthrene (550), pyrene (900), chrysene (950), benzo(b+k)fluoranthene (1300), and
benzo[a]pyrene (1750). These values are only reported in a graph deeming this study as reliable with
restrictions (validity = 2). Since no distinction was made between benzo[b]fluoranthene and
benzo[k]fluoranthene the value for benzo(b+k)fluoranthene is rated as unassignable (validity 4).
In a study by Takeuchi et al. (2009) biomagnification profiles were elucidated for a range of PAHs,
alkylphenols and polychlorinated biphenyls. The molluscs, crustaceans and fish that were examined
were collected in the Tokyo Bay, which makes the actual exposure concentrations uncertain (although
measured water concentrations were given). However, the reported concentrations in seawater and the
14
RIVM report 601779002
organisms can be used to calculate bioaccumulation values (BAFs) and thus this study is rated reliable
with restrictions (validity = 2). In general 5% lipid normalized BAF values for all species tested are
>5000 L/kg for anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene,
benzo(j+k)fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and benzo[ghi]perylene, with a few
exceptions: in the fish (Acanthogobius flavimanus) BAF values are lower for anthracene (4527),
fluoranthene (629), pyrene (1010), and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (4167), and in the crustacean
(Hemigrapsus penicillatus) BAF values are lower for anthracene (4026) and fluoranthene (1713). For
phenanthrene the values fall within the 2000 – 5000 L/kg range, with the mollusc Mytilopsis sallei
(BAF: 1781), the crustacean (BAF: 776) and the fish (BAF: 1019) as exceptions. Because these values
cannot be directly compared with BCF values, the BAF values are not included in Table 1.
3.3
Evaluation of reliable BCF values
From Table 1 it can be concluded that BCF values are low for naphthalene (in fish: 66 – 999 L/kg; in
crustaceans: 131 – 736 L/kg), acenaphthene (in fish: 735 – 760 L/kg), acenaphthylene (in fish: 271 –
387 L/kg) and 9H-fluorene (in fish: 590 – 1467 L/kg; in Daphnia magna: 506 L/kg; in Lumbriculus
variegatus: 400 L/kg).
In aquatic plants (Lemna gibba) this holds for all PAHs tested (anthracene: 4 – 28 L/kg; phenanthrene:
11 – 92 L/kg; benzo[a]pyrene: 7 – 910 L/kg). Also polychaetes (Nereis virens) do not highly
accumulate the PAHs tested (BCF values for phenanthrene, fluoranthene and pyrene are all below
1000 L/kg).
Anthracene is clearly accumulated. Both for carp (Cyprinus caprio) and for fathead minnows
(Pimephales promelas) BCF values are reported above 2000 L/kg. For female fathead minnows, the
highest BCF (4973 L/kg) is even close to the very bioaccumulative (vB) limit of 5000 L/kg. Hall and
Oris (1991) argue that this may be due to a higher lipid content in females, but unfortunately they did
not measure lipid content in the fish. The only study that reports lipid content in Pimephales promelas
(Carlson et al., 1979) does not distinguish between males and females, but their highest reported lipid
content value is 4.8 ± 1.5 % (average ± SD). Assuming that the females are in the higher region of this
range (i.e. around 6%), the lipid normalized BCF value will be around 4100. For the amphipod
Pontoporeia hoyi the BCF is (far) above this limit (16800 – 40000 L/kg) and also the polychaete
Stylodrilus heringianus show a high BCF value for anthracene (5206 L/kg).
For phenanthrene BCF values are reported above 2000 L/kg for sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon
variegatus; 2229 L/kg) and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas; BCFK: 3611 L/kg). For both
species also values below 2000 L/kg are reported, but for fathead minnows also a final BCF value of
5100 L/kg is reported on day 28, although concentrations in fish appear to decrease over the period
from day 18 to 28 of the uptake phase. In molluscs phenanthrene is accumulating, but BCF levels
remain well below 2000 L/kg (maximum: 1280 L/kg). In crustaceans BCF values are generally very
high (cf. Diporeia spp. and Pontoporeia hoyi >5000 L/kg), but low values are also reported (cf.
Daphnia sp. and Crangon septemspinosa: 210 – 325 L/kg). Whether these differences are due to
differences between species is difficult to judge, since other experimental settings (e.g. exposure time)
also differ. For insects (Hexagenia limbata) BCFs clearly depend on lipid content of the organism, but
on average values are above 2000 L/kg. For oligochaetes (Stylodrilus heringianus) the BCF for
phenanthrene is 5222 L/kg.
Fluoranthene does accumulate in fish (Pimephales promelas; kinetic BCF calculated from the
presented data: 2439). The uptake curve does not fit well to a first order kinetic model. This is mainly
because the concentrations in fish are remarkably lower at 28 days than at 4, 7, 14, and 21 days. Static
RIVM report 601779002
15
BCF values at these time intervals are 2275, 3265, 2962, and 3443, respectively. In contrast, the static
BCF at 28 days is only 1507 – 1884. In juvenile fish, fluoranthene accumulation may be significant,
e.g. Cho et al. (2003) reported a kinetic BCF of 14839, although exposure in this experiment was very
short (24 h, followed by 24 h depuration phase) and the value may be based on dry weight (study
validity = 4). In molluscs (Mya arenaria and Mytilus edulis) fluoranthene is clearly accumulating and
also in some crustaceans (Diporeia spp. and Hyalella azteca) fluoranthene shows very high BCF
values. The low BCF value for Crangon septemspinosa is likely species specific, since this species
generally shows lower BCF values in comparison with other invertebrates (cf. McLeese and Burridge,
1987). For insects (Chironomus tentans larvae) BCF values for fluoranthene are around 2000 L/kg.
Fluoranthene is also the only PAH tested on an amphibian (Rana pipiens), but for this species BCF
values are (far) below 2000 L/kg.
Based on Table 1 BCF values for pyrene in fish are lower than 2000, most likely because it is
metabolized and subsequently excreted. For a study with fathead minnows (Carlson et al., 1979) the
BCFK was estimated as 1279 L/kg. As with fluoranthene, however, these data appear to deviate from
first order kinetics. The concentrations in fish after 28 d are much lower than those after 14 or 21 days,
resulting a much lower BCFss after 28 d (785 L/kg) than the ones reported after 14 and 21 days (2300
and 2600 L/kg respectively). Yet, in a recent field study (Takeuchi et al., 2009) pyrene was not highly
accumulating (BAF: 1010), supporting the non-bioaccumulative behaviour of pyrene in fish. Also
insects (Chironomus riparius larvae) do not highly accumulate pyrene (Wildi et al., 1994). In molluscs,
however, BCF values are generally (far) above 5000 L/kg, which is only partly due to their relatively
high lipid content (cf. Bruner et al., 1994; Baussant et al., 2001a). In crustaceans (Diporeia spp.,
Pontoporeia hoyi) BCF values are also very high. Only Cragon septemspinosa shows again a low BCF
value (see also the results for fluoranthene). The oligochaete Stylodrilus heringianus shows a very high
BCF for pyrene (6688), but for Lumbriculus variegatus the BCF is much lower (1720).
Benz[a]anthracene hardly accumulates in fish (Pimephales promelas) but in crustaceans BCF values
are very high (>10000).
Benzo[a]pyrene shows similar patterns with fish hardly accumulating and invertebrates that do so
significantly, with the exception of Chironomus riparius that is capable of metabolizing benzo[a]pyrene (Leversee et al., 1981; 1982).
For chrysene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene and dibenz[a,h]anthracene only for Daphnia
magna valid data are available, showing very high BCF values for all compounds.
For benzo[b]fluoranthene and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene no reliable data are available at all, although
these compounds appear to accumulate in molluscs in the field (Takeuchi et al., 2009).
Table 1.
Overview of reliable BCF values.
Species
Test
Systema)
Chem.
analysisb)
BCF (L/kg)
c)
Type
Vd)
Ref.e)
Naphthalene
16
Pisces
Cyprinodon variegatus
Cyprinus carpio
Lepomis macrochirus
FT
FT
FT
GCMS
GC
14
C
895, 999 1)
66, 76 1)
300
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
1
2
2
[12]
[26]
[20]
Crustacea
Daphnia pulex
Diporeia spp.
S
SR
Flu.Spec.
14
C
131
311, 459, 736 1)
Equi.
Kin.
2
2
[31]
[15]
RIVM report 601779002
Species
Test
Systema)
Chem.
analysisb)
BCF (L/kg)
c)
Type
Vd)
Ref.e)
Acenaphthene
Pisces
Cyprinus carpio
FT
HPLC
735, 760 1)
Equi.
2
[27]
FT
FT
HPLC
HPLC
385, 387 1)
271
Equi.
Equi.
2
1
[28]
[34]
Pisces
Cyprinus carpio
Pimephales promelas
FT
FT
GCMS
HPLC
590, 637 1)
1112, 1459 1)
Equi.
Kin.
2
2
[29]
[4]
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
SR
HPLC
506
Equi.
2
[23]
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus variegatus
SR
HPLC
400
Equi.
2
[1]
FT
GCMS
[25]
HPLC
HPLC
HPLC
Equi.
Kin.
Equi.
Equi.
Equi.
2
FT
FT
FT
1890, 2225 1)
2545, 1960 2)
563 – 966 1)
1126, 2476 1)
3581, 4973 1)
2
2
2
[10]
[10]
[10]
SR
GC
19000 3)
Equi.
2
[24]
SR
S
FT
FT
FT
HPLC
Flu.Spec.
14
C
14
C
14
C
970
917
1800
16800
39727
Equi.
Equi.
Equi.
Kin.
Kin.
2
2
2
2
1
[23]
[31]
[14]
[16]
[17]
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus variegatus
Stylodrilus heringianus
SR
FT
HPLC
14
C
1370
5206
Equi.
Kin.
2
2
[1]
[8]
Magnoliophyta
Lemna gibba
S
14
4 – 28 1)
Kin.
2
[6]
Pisces
Cyprinodon variegatus
Pimephales promelas
FT
FT
GCMS
HPLC
810, 2229 1)
2050 – 5100 1)
4)
2086 – 3611
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
1
2
2
[12]
[4]
Mollusca
Mya arenaria
Mytilus edulis
FT
FT
HPLC
HPLC
1280
1240
Kin.
Kin.
1
1
[21]
[21]
Acenaphthylene
Pisces
Cyprinus carpio
9H-fluorene
Anthracene
Pisces
Cyprinus carpio
Pimephales promelas (eggs)
Pimephales promelas (male)
Pimephales promelas (female)
Mollusca
Perna viridis
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Hyalella azteca
Pontoporeia hoyi
C
Phenanthrene
RIVM report 601779002
17
Species
Crustacea
Crangon septemspinosa
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Diporeia spp.
Eurytemora affinis
Pontoporeia hoyi
Test
Systema)
FT
SR
S
SR
FT
Chem.
analysisb)
BCF (L/kg)
c)
Type
Vd)
Ref.e)
HPLC
HPLC
Flu.Spec.
14
C
GCMS
14
C
210
324
325
5513 – 11440 1)
550 5)
28043
Kin.
Equi.
Equi.
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
1
2
2
2
2
1
[21]
[23]
[31]
[15]
[3]
[17]
Insecta
Hexagenia limbata
FT
14
C
493 – 5697 6)
Kin.
2
[13]
Oligochaeta
Stylodrilus heringianus
FT
14
C
5222
Kin.
2
[8]
Polychaeta
Nereis virens
FT
HPLC
500
Kin.
1
[21]
Magnoliophyta
Lemna gibba
S
14
11 – 92 1)
Kin.
2
[6]
Pisces
Pimephales promelas
FT
HPLC
2439
Equi.
2
[4]
Mollusca
Mya arenaria
Mytilus edulis
Perna viridis
Utterbackia imbecillis (glochidia)
FT
FT
SR
FT
HPLC
HPLC
GC
HPLC
4120
5920
12250 3)
1735,
1813
Kin.
Kin.
Equi.
Equi.,
Kin.
1
1
2
2
[21]
[21]
[24]
[32]
Crustacea
Crangon septemspinosa
Daphnia magna
Diporeia spp.
Hyalella azteca
FT
SR
SR
SR
HPLC
HPLC
14
C
14
C
180
1742
15136 – 58884 1)
1202 – 5370 1)
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
Kin.
1
2
2
2
[21]
[23]
[30]
[30]
SR
14
891 – 2512 1)
Kin.
2
[30]
Polychaeta
Nereis virens
FT
HPLC
720
Kin.
1
[21]
Amphibia
Rana pipiens
FT
HPLC
611 – 1659 1)
Equi.
1
[22]
FT
FT
GCMS
HPLC
97, 145 1)
1297
Kin.
Kin.
1
2
[12]
[4]
S
S
FT
FT
SR
3
13000 – 35000 6)
22000 – 77000 7)
6430
4430
44550 3)
Kin.
Kin.
Kin.
Kin.
Equi.
2
2
1
1
2
[2]
[9]
[21]
[21]
[24]
C
Fluoranthene
Insecta
Chironomus tentans
rd
(3 instar larvae)
C
Pyrene
Pisces
Cyprinodon variegatus
Pimephales promelas
Mollusca
Dreissena polymorpha
Mya arenaria
Mytilus edulis
Perna viridis
18
H
H
HPLC
HPLC
GC
3
RIVM report 601779002
Species
Crustacea
Crangon septemspinosa
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Diporeia spp.
Eurytemora affinis
Pontoporeia hoyi
Test
Systema)
FT
SR
S
SR
FT
Chem.
analysisb)
BCF (L/kg)
c)
Type
Vd)
Ref.e)
HPLC
HPLC
Flu.Spec.
14
C
GCMS
3
H
225
2702
2702
12300 – 36333 1)
900 5)
166000
Kin.
Equi.
Equi.
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
1
2
2
2
2
1
[21]
[23]
[31]
[15]
[3]
[17]
713 – 1227 8)
Equi.
2
[33]
Insecta
Chironomus riparius (larvae)
S
14
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus variegatus
Stylodrilus heringianus
SR
FT
HPLC
3
H
1720
6688
Equi.
Kin.
2
2
[1]
[8]
Polychaeta
Nereis virens
FT
HPLC
700
Kin.
1
[21]
Pisces
Pimephales promelas
FT
HPLC
260
Equi.
2
[5]
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Pontoporeia hoyi
SR
S
FT
HPLC
Flu.Spec.
14
C
10226
10109
63000
Equi.
Equi.
Kin.
2
2
1
[23]
[31]
[17]
SR
HPLC
GCMS
6088
950 5)
Equi.
Equi.
2
2
[23]
[3]
FT
FT
14
367 – 608 9)
30
Kin.
Kin.
2
2
[11]
[20]
S
S
SR
3
3
H
H
GC
41000 – 84000 6)
24000 – 273000 7)
8500 3)
Kin.
Kin.
Equi.
2
2
2
[2]
[9]
[24]
SR
S
HPLC
14
C
GCMS
3
H
14
C
3
H
12761
2837
1750 5)
8496
73000
48582
Equi.
Equi.
Equi.
Kin.
Kin.
Kin.
2
2
2
2
1
2
[23]
[18]
[3]
[7]
[17]
[7]
S
14
650
Equi.
2
[19]
S
FT
14
166
2725 – 11167 6)
Equi.
Kin.
2
2
[18]
[13]
C
Benz[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Eurytemora affinis
Benzo[a]pyrene
Pisces
Lepomis macrochirus
Mollusca
Dreissena polymorpha
Perna viridis
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Eurytemora affinis
Mysis relicta
Pontoporeia hoyi
Insecta
Chironomus riparius
th
(4 instar larvae)
Hexagenia limbata
RIVM report 601779002
FT
FT
FT
14
3
C
C
C
C
H
19
Species
Test
Systema)
Chem.
analysisb)
Oligochaeta
Stylodrilus heringianus
FT
3
Magnoliophyta
Lemna gibba
S
14
SR
H
BCF (L/kg)
c)
Type
Vd)
Ref.e)
7317
Kin.
2
[8]
7 – 910 1)
Kin.
2
[6]
HPLC
13225
Equi.
2
[23]
SR
HPLC
28288
Equi.
2
[23]
SR
HPLC
50119
Equi.
2
[23]
C
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Benzo[ghi]perylene
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
a)
b) 14
FT: flow-through system; S: static; SR: static renewal.
C: radioactive carbon in the parent compound; GC: Gas chro3
matography; GCMS: Gas chromatography with mass spectrometry; Flu.Spec.: fluorescence spectrometry; H: radioactive
c)
hydrogen in the parent compound; HPLC: high pressure liquid chromatography. Kin.: Kinetic BCF, i.e. k1/k2; Equi.: BCF at
d)
e)
(assumed) equilibrium, i.e. Corganism/Cwater. V: validity; 1: valid without restrictions; 2: valid with restrictions. References:
[1] (Ankley et al., 1997); [2] (Bruner et al., 1994); [3] (Cailleaud et al., 2009); [4] (Carlson et al., 1979); [5] (De Maagd et al.,
1998); [6] (Duxbury et al., 1997); [7] (Evans and Landrum, 1989); [8] (Frank et al., 1986); [9] (Gossiaux et al., 1996); [10]
(Hall and Oris, 1991); [11] (Jimenez et al., 1987); [12] (Jonsson et al., 2004); [13] (Landrum and Poore, 1988); [14]
(Landrum and Scavia, 1983); [15] (Landrum et al., 2003); [16] (Landrum, 1982); [17] (Landrum, 1988); [18] (Leversee et al.,
1981); [19] (Leversee et al., 1982); [20] (McCarthy and Jimenez, 1985); [21] (McLeese and Burridge, 1987); [22] (Monson
et al., 1999); [23] (Newsted and Giesy, 1987); [24] (Richardson et al., 2005); [25] (RIITI, 1977); [26] (RIITI, 1979); [27]
(RIITI, 1990a); [28] (RIITI, 1990b); [29] (RIITI, 1990c); [30] (Schuler et al., 2004); [31] (Southworth et al., 1978); [32]
(Weinstein, 2001); [33] (Wildi et al., 1994); [34] (Yakata et al., 2006)
1)
2)
Values represent (a range of) BCF values from (a range of) different exposure concentrations. Kinetic model with
3)
estimated uptake rate constant based on fish size applied to the data, high and low concentration, respectively. In this
4)
study BCF values are based on lipid weight, values given in this table are normalized to 5% lipid content. Kinetic value
based on the presented data. However, the uptake curve for phenanthrene does not show the regular levelling off in time.
5)
6)
Therefore, static BCF values at the end of 28 d do exceed 5000. BCFs are based on dry weight. BCFs were determined
7)
8)
with test animals that differ in lipid content. BCFs were determined at different exposure temperatures. BCFs were
9)
determined at different exposure pHs. BCFs were determined at different feeding regimes, i.e. fed both during uptake and
depuration, not fed during uptake but fed during depuration.
20
RIVM report 601779002
4
Discussion
In the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) on coal-tar pitch, high temperature (The Netherlands, 2008) and
in the assessment by Lampi and Parkerton (2009) validity was also assigned to the different BCF
studies. In the present report the re-evaluation of the studies resulted in different validity scores in
comparison to these references which are discussed below.
4.1
Evaluating the bioaccumulation assessment by Lampi and Parkerton
In a study by De Voogt et al. (1991) BCFs were calculated for 9H-fluorene, anthracene and pyrene,
based on 7-day semi-static renewal bioaccumulation tests with guppy (Poecilia reticulata). In the RAR
(The Netherlands, 2008) these BCF were assigned a validity of 2 (valid with restrictions), but Lampi
and Parkerton (2009) argue that many details on test set-up and results (e.g. whether fish are fed or not,
measured water concentrations) are lacking from the paper, so they rate these values not assignable
(validity = 4). De Voogt et al. (1991) also report BCF values from 48-hour static exposures. Our reevaluation of this source showed some inconsistencies within the study and thus reliability of the
reported BCF could not be assigned (validity 4). First, the static renewal study with renewal every 12 h
showed a steady state BCF for pyrene at 48 h of 11300 L/kg, which is extraordinarily high, even
considering the high lipid content of 9%. However, in the static Banerjee method during 48 h, with
correction for loss due to volatilisation and sorption in controls, the BCF was 4810 L/kg. Analysis of
the fish was only performed at the end of this 48 h period. The amount of pyrene in fish was only 62%
of that estimated from the loss of the water phase. The remaining 38% might be attributed to
metabolism, which would yield a BCF value of circa 3000 L/kg. The elimination of pyrene from fish
was followed as well during 6 days after the static exposure had ended. This yielded an elimination rate
constant of 0.66 d-1. With the estimated rate constant from the static uptake phase this would yield a
BCF value of 4863 L/kg. However, the uptake rate constant estimated by the Banerjee method is
remarkably high, even considering the small size of the fish (135 mg). If the uptake rate constant would
be estimated from the fish size (ECHA, 2008), similar to what is done in the dietary bioaccumulation
tests (see section 4.3), the BCF would only be 1485 L/kg. The results from this study are therefore
rather inconclusive (validity 4).
For similar reasons the short-term BCF values as reported in De Maagd (1996) were rated as unreliable
(validity = 3) by Lampi and Parkerton (2009). However, the BCF values from De Maagd (1996) were
derived kinetically with the adjusted Banerjee method, in which not only the decrease in the water
concentration is monitored but the increase in the concentration in fish as well. Additional measurements were done with piperonyl butoxide added to the water to stop metabolism in the fish by
inhibiting the cytochrome P450 isoenzymes. The test duration is very short and induction of
metabolization may occur if fish are exposed for a prolonged period. Yet, for benz[a]anthracene De
Maagd et al. (1998) found that the exposure time did not influence the metabolic rate. This substance,
however, is metabolized to a large extent by fish and for the PAHs that are less easily metabolised,
induction may still be an important process. The BCF values from De Maagd (1996) for anthracene,
phenanthrene and fluoranthene are indeed higher than values obtain from studies with the same species
but a longer exposure time, with constant exposure over time (Carlson et al., 1979; Hall and Oris,
1991), but still within a factor of 1 to 3. Therefore, the results from De Maagd (1996) should be
considered with care, but are still important as circumstantial evidence in a weight of evidence
approach to decide on the bioaccumulation potential of the studies PAHs.
RIVM report 601779002
21
Further, Lampi and Parkerton (2009) state that the water concentrations of several PAHs as used by De
Maagd (1996) approach the LC50. However, such LC50 values can only be obtained by irradiation with
ultraviolet light, such that the PAHs exert phototoxic effects. Under normal laboratory conditions with
gold or cool white fluorescent lighting or similar, under which BCF studies are performed, such
phototoxic effects will not occur. Most PAHs are not acutely toxic to fish up to their limit of solubility
under such conditions.
Values for benz[a]anthracene as reported by De Maagd et al. (1998) were rated as unassignable by
Lampi and Parkerton (2009), in contrast with the rating in the RAR (validity = 2). This appears to be
based on the absence of lipid data only, which in our opinion is not sufficient for rating a study as
unassignable. We therefore still support the rating from the RAR (validity = 2).
A study by Weinstein and Oris (1999) with larval fathead minnows reports a BCF for fluoranthene of
9054. This value, however, is based on dry weight, which makes it difficult to compare with BCF
values based on wet weight. Lampi and Parkerton (2009) assigned the study as unassignable (validity =
4), which we consider justified given the uncertainties regarding the expression of the concentration.
Assuming a water content of 75 – 85%, which is not uncommon in fish, the BCF will be 1358 – 2264
based on wet weight. In addition, it might be assumed that this value is an overestimation for the larger
fish regularly used in bioconcentration tests, because biotransformation systems in larvae are not yet
fully developed, although for the same species a BCF of 2439 was derived from a 28-day study with
fish that were 5 to 6 weeks old (Carlson et al., 1979).
Another study with larval fathead minnows (Cho et al., 2003) was rated reliable (validity = 1) in the
RAR. Lampi and Parkerton (2009) rated the same study as unreliable (validity = 3), based on the
absence of reported units for BCF, the absence of reported lipid content, the test concentration being
close to LC50, and uncertainty about whether the BCF is based on dry weight or wet weight. In our
opinion these reasons just rate this value as unassignable due to a lack of information provided (validity
= 4). Moreover, given the fact that an earlier publication from this group (Weinstein and Oris, 1999)
are based on dry weight and for the analysis a reference is made to this publication, it seems plausible
to assume that BCF values are on a dry weight basis. With the same assumptions as above for the dry
weight content, BCF values on wet weight basis of 2225 – 3709 are calculated, in the presence of
40 µg/L methyl-tert-butyl ether the range is 4381 – 7302. With respect to toxicity, it should be noted
that fluoranthene is only acutely toxic to fish at the used concentrations in the presence of UV-lighting
and certainly not under laboratory lighting.
From a study by Finger et al. (1985) in which bluegills are exposed to 9H-fluorene for 30 days
exposure concentrations and internal fish concentrations could be derived. These values were based on
dry weight and Lampi and Parkerton (2009) rated the study as unassignable (validity = 4), which is
agreed upon. Using the highest reported value (1800) and assuming a water content of 75 – 85%, the
BCF will be 270 – 450 based on wet weight.
Baussant et al. (2001a; 2001b) reported BCF values for several PAHs based on studies in which turbots
were exposed to crude oil. Due to the absence of reported fish and water concentrations these BCF
values were rated as unassignable by Lampi and Parkerton (2009). Exposure concentrations, are
however given in a figure, and although these values did not exceed water solubility, the test was
performed using a dispersed crude oil. Consequently, the solution is oversaturated and BCF values are
rated unreliable (validity = 3) instead of unassignable. A depuration phase was also reported in these
studies. The half-lives for naphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene and chrysene were remarkably constant,
varying only between 14 and 29 hours. With the uptake rate constant estimated from fish size (see
section 4.3), BCF values of 196 to 407 are calculated for these compounds. However, the lack of
differentiation in the BCF values for the studied PAHs is not in accordance with other studies. Possibly,
the use of saturated concentrations leads to high fish concentrations of total PAH, such that interference
22
RIVM report 601779002
of the different single PAHs can not be excluded. Therefore, these results should be considered as
unassignable (validity =4).
A study by Carlson et al. (1979) reports BCF results for fathead minnows exposed to a series of PAHs
via flow-through conditions for 28 d, followed by a 5 d depuration phase. Although this is not a
guideline study, enough details are provided to rate this study as reliable with restrictions (validity = 2).
Instead of using the reported BCF values for day 28 we calculated kinetic BCF values based on the
reported fish and water concentrations to minimize variability. Lampi and Parkerton (2009) indicated
that phenanthrene exposures in one exposure (experiment 2, tank #1) are unreliable, because of
declining water concentrations during the 28 d exposure. In addition they assign the results from
another exposure (experiment 2, tank#2) reliable only up to 10 days (averaging reported BCFss values
for days 7 and 10), considering data later in the experiment as unreliable ‘due to lack of steady state,
and fluctuating test concentrations’. We agree that in this experiment a steady state is lacking, but in
our opinion the test concentrations in this study do not fluctuate too much. Using the average BCFss
value of the last three reported values (day 18, 25 and 28; resulting in a BCF value of 4300) appears
more reasonable than the approach by Lampi and Parkerton.
4.2
Evaluating the bioaccumulation assessment in the RAR
Freitag et al. (1982; 1985) report steady state BCF values for golden ide (Leuciscus idus melanotus)
exposed to different PAHs for 3 d. In the RAR these studies are rated unassignable (validity = 4). The
exposure, however, is static for 3 days, which deems it unlikely that a steady state has been established.
In addition, no aeration of the water column was provided, suggesting additional stress for the fish and
deeming these studies unreliable (validity = 3).
Barrows et al. (1980) report a reliable study on the accumulation of acenaphthene in bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus) (RAR: validity = 2). Unfortunately, concentrations were based on total
radioactivity and since biotransformation can be expected this study is rated unassignable (validity =
4).
Also the study by Weinstein and Polk (2001), which reports BCF values for Utterbackia imbecillis
glochidia exposed to anthracene and pyrene is a very good study (RAR: validity = 2) with one major
flaw: BCF values are based on dry weight, resulting in very high values and complicating comparisons
with BCF values based on wet weight (validity = 4). In general, however, BCFs in this study are low.
Assuming a water content of 75 – 85% the highest value for anthracene (420) would result in a wet
weight BCF of 63 – 105, and for pyrene this value (1229) would result in a wet weight BCF of 184 –
307.
McCarthy and Jimenez (1985) report both a kinetic and a steady state BCF for bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus) after a 2 d benzo[a]pyrene exposure, followed by a 4 d depuration phase In the
RAR these values are rated valid with restrictions (validity = 2). In this re-assessment, the short
exposure time and the presence of humic material in some of the tests, and the high fish loading should
rate these values as unreliable (validity = 3), especially since these values are based on total
radioactivity. A correction for parent substance in fish between 16 and 32 hours of the uptake phase is
not accurate but would indicate a BCF value well below 100 for benzo[a]pyrene. The results for
naphthalene, without added humic material, can be considered as more reliable as it was shown that
naphthalene was not metabolized to a significant degree.
RIVM report 601779002
23
4.3
Dietary bioaccumulation studies
Lampi and Parkerton (2009) underline the importance of dietary exposure scenarios, especially for the
more lipophilic PAHs. Although we agree with their views in this respect, the available data that could
be evaluated were restricted to two studies (Niimi and Palazzo, 1986; Niimi and Dookhran, 1989).
Other dietary studies only appear to be done by EMBSI (EMBSI, 2001; 2005; 2006; 2007c; 2007b;
2007a; 2008a; 2008b), which could not be evaluated for this study (validity = 5).
For the dietary studies that could be evaluated, Lampi and Parkerton (2009) give half-lives (t0.5) and
normalized BCF values. These BCF values are calculated based on the following two equations
(ECHA, 2008):
BCF = k1 ⋅
t 0.5
k
= 1
ln(2) k 2
and
k1 = (520) ⋅ W −0.32
in which: k1 = uptake rate (ml/gwet weight/day); k2 = elimination rate (/day); W = fish wet weight (g); t0.5 =
growth-corrected half-life in fish (days).
With the weight of the fish at the beginning of the depuration phase (estimated from the values
presented during the depuration phase) of 658 g (Niimi and Palazzo, 1986), BCF values were estimated
to be 645 for fluorene, 847 for phenanthrene, 672 for anthracene, 582 for fluoranthene, 286 for
benzo[a]pyrene, and 356 for benz[a]anthracene. Values for phenanthrene, anthracene and fluoranthene
are remarkably lower than from studies with aqueous exposure (Table 1). For the study with
acenaphthylene (Niimi and Dookhran, 1989) a weight of 250 g is reported and a BCF of 139 can be
calculated from the presented data.
These values differ from the values reported by Lampi and Parkerton (2009) and the reason for these
differences could not be produced, even if other weight assumptions were applied. For instance, for
phenanthrene Niimi and Palazzo reported a growth corrected depuration rate (k2 = t0.5/0.693) of
0.077 (d-1), resulting in a t0.5 of 9 d (in agreement with Lampi and Parkerton). The calculated k1
depends on the fish weight. Niimi and Palazzo reported a weight range of 651 ± 132 to 875 ± 141 g,
resulting in a k1 range of 57 – 70 (using 1016 and 519 g as weights). These values would result in a
BCF range of 738 – 915. When these values are normalized to a fish with 5% lipid content (using the
lipid content of 8% as reported in Lampi and Parkerton, although no lipid content is indicated in the
Niimi and Palazzo study) this results in a range for the normalized BCF of 461 – 572, while a
normalized BCF of 407 is reported by Lampi and Parkerton (2009). Similar differences were found for
the other compounds from the Niimi and Palazzo study, which suggests that the calculations in Lampi
and Parkerton (2009) are not as straightforward as indicated in that report.
Further, very low BCF values are reported by Lampi and Parkerton (2009) for chrysene and pyrene
based on the study by Niimi and Palazzo (1986). This was based on the fact that these compounds were
not detected at all in fish tissues and the assumption that this could be attributed to low half-lives of less
than 2 days. However, this assumption could be incorrect, because the absence of the compounds in the
fish tissue may be fully attributable to a very low absorption efficiency. This is also indicated in a
subsequent paper (Niimi and Dookhran, 1989), where the same was observed for the PAHs
dibenz[a,h]anthracene and benzo[ghi]perylene.
24
RIVM report 601779002
In addition, the reported BCF values from dietary studies in Lampi and Parkerton (2009) show other
oddities, e.g. the data for benz[a]anthracene, pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene from the EMBSI 2005 study
show the same BCF value for all compounds, which is highly unlikely.
Due to the uncertainties in calculating BCF values from the evaluated dietary studies (Niimi and
Palazzo, 1986; Niimi and Dookhran, 1989) and the fact that the study reports from EMBSI could not be
evaluated at all, in the present report BCF values based on dietary studies were not considered in the
assessment of bioaccumulation of PAHs.
4.4
Using bioaccumulation data for regulatory purposes
In regulatory frameworks BCFs values are usually considered as a measure for the biomagnification
potential of a certain compound. As stated before in the introduction, several factors influence the level
of biomagnification of a compound, which may result in situations where at lower trophic levels
bioaccumulation and biomagnification takes place, while higher in the food chain organisms are
capable of handling the compound and efficiently excreting it (e.g. Wang and Wang, 2006; Wan et al.,
2007; Nfon et al., 2008; Takeuchi et al., 2009).
According to the European REACH legislation, ‘the assessment of bioaccumulation shall be based on
measured data on bioconcentration in aquatic species’ (EU, 2007). When data are available for several
aquatic species (preferably from several levels within a food chain) all these data should be taken into
account. It might be argued that in this case it appears to make sense to take a weight-of-evidence
approach in which (reliable) information from fish (which are higher in the food chain and serve as
food for mammals, including humans, and birds) add more weight to an assessment of
biomagnification than information on e.g. daphnids (lower in the food chain), although it cannot be
excluded that bioaccumulation in the lower food chain may result in effects higher up in the food chain
that are not directly related to internal concentrations. In addition, although mussels are relatively low
in the food chain, (reliable) results from mussel studies, may add more weight to a biomagnification
assessment than data on daphnids, because mussels serve as food for mammals and birds as well.
Recently the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published an Annex XV Report proposing coal-tar
pitch, high temperature, for identification of a substance as a CMR, PBT, vPvB or substance of
equivalent level of concern. Part of this report is an assessment of the aquatic bioaccumulation of this
substance, which is based on the bioaccumulation potential of the 16 EPA-PAHs. This assessment is
solely based on data that were published in the RAR (The Netherlands, 2008). As argued above (see
sections 4.1 and 4.2), the present re-evaluation of bioaccumulation data resulted in conflicts with the
conclusions from the RAR, which may result in a different conclusion on the PBT/vPvB assessment for
the individual PAHs, but not for coal-tar pitch, high temperature as a substance and other substances
for which such an assessment is based on PAHs, considering the fact that at least some of the
substances that can regarded as PBT and/or vPvB are present in amounts amply exceeding 0.1%.
ECHA did not assess the bioaccumulation potential of naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, and
9H-fluorene, as these were not detected in coal-tar pitch high temperature in concentrations exceeding
0.1%. Anthracene was deemed bioaccumulative (B: BCF 2000 – 5000) and each of the other EPAPAHs were deemed very bioaccumulative (vB: BCF >5000), although only for fluoranthene and pyrene
this was based on fish data. For the other PAHs the vB status was based on invertebrates.
RIVM report 601779002
25
Table 2.
Summary of highest reliable BCF values for the 16 EPA-PAHs.
Substance
BCF
value
(WW)
Type b)
BCF value Species
(5% lipid
norm.) a)
Reference c)
Naphthalene1)
999
515
Cyprinodon variegatus (Fish)
Kin.
[6]
Acenaphthene1)
760
1000
Cyprinus carpio (Fish)
Equi.
[10]
Acenaphthylene1)
387
509
Cyprinus carpio (Fish)
Equi.
[11]
9H-fluorene1)
1459
1658
Pimephales promelas (Fish)
Kin.
[1]
2)
Anthracene
4973
–3)
39727
–
19000
210984)
Pimephales promelas (Fish)
Perna viridis (Mollusc)
Pontoporeia hoyi (Crustacean)
Equi.
Equi.
Kin.
[4]
[9]
[7]
Phenanthrene
3611
28043
4751
148934)
Pimephales promelas (Fish)
Pontoporeia hoyi (Crustacean)
Kin.
Kin.
[1]
[7]
Fluoranthene
2439
–3)
58884
2772
12250
–5)
Pimephales promelas (Fish)
Perna viridis (Mollusc)
Diporeia spec. (Crustacean)
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
[1]
[9]
[12]
Pyrene
1297
–3)
166000
1474
44550
881574)
Pimephales promelas (Fish)
Perna viridis (Mollusc)
Pontoporeia hoyi (Crustacean)
Kin.
Equi.
Kin.
[1]
[9]
[7]
Benz[a]anthracene
260
63000
–6)
334574)
Pimephales promelas (Fish)
Pontoporeia hoyi (Crustacean)
Equi.
Kin.
[2]
[7]
Chrysene
6088
–
Daphnia magna (Crustacean)
Equi.
[8]
608
1910009)
73000
–8)
119375
387684)
Lepomis macrochirus (Fish)
Dreissena polymorpha (Mollusc)
Pontoporeia hoyi (Crustacean)
Kin.
Kin.
Kin.
[5]
[3]
[7]
–
–
No experimental data available
–
–
10)
Daphnia magna (Crustacean)
Equi.
[8]
Daphnia magna (Crustacean)
Equi.
[8]
Equi.
[8]
–
–
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
7)
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
13225
–
Benzo[ghi]perylene
28288
–11)
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
50119
12)
Daphnia magna (Crustacean)
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
–
–
No experimental data available
a)
–
b)
BCF values are normalized to organisms with a lipid content of 5%. Kin.: kinetic BCF value (k1/k2); Equi. BCF value at
c)
(assumed) equilibrium (Corganism/Cwater). [1] (Carlson et al., 1979); [2] (De Maagd et al., 1998); [3] (Gossiaux et al., 1996);
[4] (Hall and Oris, 1991); [5] (Jimenez et al., 1987); [6] (Jonsson et al., 2004); [7] (Landrum, 1988); [8] (Newsted and Giesy,
1987); [9] (Richardson et al., 2005); [10] (RIITI, 1990a); [11] (RIITI, 1990b); [12] (Schuler et al., 2004).
1)
2
For these compounds invertebrates showed lower BCF values than fish, so only fish data are given. In this study no
lipid content was given, but based on lipid contents in fathead minnows reported by Carlson et al. (1979) lipid content is
3)
expected to be 5 – 6 %, which would result in lipid normalized values ranging from 4100 – 5000. In this study only lipid4)
based BCF values were given, but lipid content itself was not reported. In this study lipid content was expressed only as
percentage of dry weight (35%). In addition the ratio between total wet weight and dry weight was given (0.269). For lipid
normalization it was assumed that the same ratio holds for lipids, resulting in a lipid content of 9.4% based on wet weight.
5)
In this study no lipid content was given, but for a lipid normalized value to fall below the trigger value of 5000 the lipid
6)
content needs to be 59%, which seems to be unrealistically high. In this study no lipid content was given, but for a lipid
normalized value to exceed the trigger value of 2000 the lipid content needs to be 0.65%, which seems to be unrealistically
7)
low. In this study no lipid content was given, but Liu et al. (1996) report lipid contents in Daphnia magna ranging from 4 –
6%, suggesting that a lipid normalized BCF value will be similar to the wet weight value. If the lipid content is higher than
8)
6.1%, the normalized BCF value will be below 5000. In this study no lipid content was given, but for a lipid normalized
value to exceed the trigger value of 2000 the lipid content needs to be 1.5%, which seems to be unrealistically low.
9)
10)
Higher BCF values were reported, but this is the highest value for which lipid normalization could be applied.
In this
study no lipid content was given, but for a lipid normalized value to fall below the trigger value of 5000 the lipid content
11)
needs to be 13%, which seems to be unrealistically high.
In this study no lipid content was given, but for a lipid
normalized value to fall below the trigger value of 5000 the lipid content needs to be 28%, which seems to be unrealistically
12)
high.
In this study no lipid content was given, but for a lipid normalized value to fall below the trigger value of 5000 the
lipid content needs to be 50%, which seems to be unrealistically high.
26
RIVM report 601779002
The results from the present evaluation of BCF values are summarized in Table 2. This table shows that
for most PAHs the same conclusions are reached for their bioaccumulative properties, i.e. naphthalene,
acenaphthene, acenaphthylene and 9H-fluorene are considered not bioaccumulative, and chrysene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, and dibenz[a,h]anthracene are considered vB (based on
invertebrates). Anthracene is still considered B for fish, but additional data show that it is vB in
molluscs and crustaceans. For phenanthrene and fluoranthene, however, re-evaluation of data deemed
these compounds B instead of vB when based on fish. Based on invertebrates (crustaceans for
phenanthrene; mussels and crustaceans for fluoranthene) both compounds are considered vB. Similarly
pyrene, benz[a]anthracene and benzo[a]pyrene do not accumulate in fish (due to biotransformation),
but are very bioaccumulative at lower trophic levels (molluscs and crustaceans).
RIVM report 601779002
27
28
RIVM report 601779002
References
Ahrens MJ, Nieuwenhuis R and Hickey CW, 2002. Sensitivity of juvenile Macomona liliana (bivalvia) to
UV-photoactivated fluoranthene toxicity. Environ. Toxicol. 17: 567-577.
Anderson JW, Neff JM, Cox BA, Tatem HE and Hightower GM, 1974. The effects of oil on estuarine
animals: toxicity, uptake and depuration, respiration. In: Vernberg FJ and Vernberg WB, eds.
Pollution and Physiology of Marine Organisms. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 367379.
Ankley GT, Erickson RJ, Sheedy BR, Kosian PA, Mattson VR and Cox JS, 1997. Evaluation of models for
predicting the phototoxic potency of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Aquat. Toxicol. 37: 37-50.
Arnot JA, Mackay D, Parkerton TF and Bonnell M, 2008. A database of fish biotransformation rates for
organic chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27: 2263-2270.
Barrows ME, Petrocelli SR, Macek KJ and Carroll JJ, 1980. Bioconcentration and elimination of selected
water pollutants by bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus. In: Hague R, ed. Dynamic Exposure
Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
USA, pp. 379-392.
Baussant T, Sanni S, Jonsson G, Skadsheim A and Børseth JF, 2001a. Bioaccumulation of polycyclic
aromatic compounds: 1. Bioconcentration in two marine species and in semipermeable membrane
devices during chronic exposure to dispersed crude oil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 1175-1184.
Baussant T, Sanni S, Skadsheim A, Jonsson G, Børseth JF and Gaudebert B, 2001b. Bioaccumulation of
polycyclic aromatic compounds: 2. Modeling bioaccumulation in marine organisms chronically
exposed to dispersed oil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 1185-1195.
Bayona JM, Fernandez P, Porte C, Tolosa I, Valls M and Albaiges J, 1991. Partitioning of urban wastewater
organic microcontaminants among coastal compartments. Chemosphere 23: 313-326.
Black MC, Burton W, McCarthy JF, Peterson MJ and Southworth GR, 1993. Bioaccumulation studies. In:
Hinzman RL, ed. Second Report on the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Biological Monitoring and
Abatement Program for East Fork Poplar Creek. Publication Nr 3859. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, pp. 109-172.
Boese BL, Ozretich RJ, Lamberson JO, Swartz RC, Cole FA, Pelletier J and Jones J, 1999. Toxicity and
phototoxicity of mixtures of highly lipophilic PAH compounds in marine sediment: Can the ΣPAH
model be extrapolated? Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 36: 270-280.
Bruner KA, Fisher SW and Landrum PF, 1994. The role of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in
contaminant cycling: I. The effect of body size and lipid content on the bioconcentration of PCBs
and PAHs. J. Great Lakes Res. 20: 725-734.
Cailleaud K, Budzinski H, Le Menach K, Souissi S and Forget-Leray J, 2009. Uptake and elimination of
hydrophobic organic contaminants in estuarine copepods: An experimental study. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 28: 239-246.
Carls MG and Rice SD, 1988. Sensitivity differences between eggs and larvae of walleye pollock (Theragra
chalcogramma) to hydrocarbons. Mar. Environ. Res. 26: 285-297.
Carlson RM, Oyler AR, Gerhart EH, Caple R, Welch KJ, Kopperman HL, Bodenner D and Swanson D,
1979. Implications to the aquatic environment of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons liberated from
Northern Great Plains coal. US EPA report EPA-600/3-79-093, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA), Duluth, MN.
Casserly DM, Davis EM, Downs TD and Guthrie RK, 1983. Sorption of organics by Selenastrum
capricornutum. Wat. Res. 17: 1591-1594.
Cheikyula JO, Koyama J and Uno S, 2008. Comparative study of bioconcentration and EROD activity
induction in the Japanese flounder, red sea bream, and Java medaka exposed to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. Environ. Toxicol. 23: 354-362.
Chen S, Ke R, Zha J, Wang Z and Khan SU, 2008. Influence of humic acid on bioavailability and toxicity of
benzo[k]fluoranthene to Japanese medaka. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42: 9431-9436.
Cho EA, Bailer AJ and Oris JT, 2003. Effect of methyl tert-butyl ether on the bioconcentration and
photoinduced toxicity of fluoranthene in fathead minnow larvae (Pimephales promelas). Environ.
Sci. Technol. 37: 1306-1310.
RIVM report 601779002
29
Clements WH, Oris JT and Wissing TE, 1994. Accumulation and food chain transfer of fluoranthene and
benzo[a]pyrene in Chironomus riparius and Lepomis macrochirus. Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 26:
261-266.
Correa M and Coler R, 1983. Enhanced oxygen uptake rates in dragonfly nymphs (Somatochlora cingulata)
as an indication of stress from naphthalene. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30: 269-276.
Correa M and Venables BJ, 1985. Bioconcentration of naphthalene in tissues of the white mullet (Mugil
curema). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4: 227-231.
Couch JA, Courtney LA, Winstead JT and Foss SS, 1979. American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as an
indicator of carcinogens in the aquatic environment. In: Animals as Monitors of Environmental
Pollutants. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 65-84.
De Maagd PG-J, 1996. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: fate and effects in aquatic environment. Ph.D.
thesis. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
De Maagd PG-J, de Poorte J, Opperhuizen A and Sijm DTHM, 1998. No influence after various exposure
times on the biotransformation rate constants of benzo(a)anthracene in fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas). Aquat. Toxicol. 40: 157-169.
De Voogt P, van Hattum B, Leonards P, Klamer JC and Govers H, 1991. Bioconcentration of polycyclic
heteroaromatic hydrocarbons in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Aquat. Toxicol. 20: 169-194.
DiMichele L and Taylor MH, 1978. Histopathological and physiological responses of Fundulus heteroclitus
to naphthalene exposure. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 1060-1066.
Djomo JE, Garrigues P and Narbonne JF, 1996. Uptake and depuration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from sediment by the zebrafish (Brachydanio rerio). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 1177-1181.
Dunn BP and Stich HF, 1976. Release of the carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene from environmentally contaminated
mussels. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15: 398-401.
Duxbury CL, Dixon DG and Greenberg BM, 1997. Effects of simulated solar radiation on the
bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by the duckweed Lemna gibba. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 16: 1739-1748.
Eastmond DA, Booth GM and Lee ML, 1984. Toxicity, accumulation, and elimination of polycyclic
aromatic sulfur heterocycles in Daphnia magna. Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 13: 105-111.
ECHA, 2008. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.11: PBT
Assessment. Guidance for the implementation of REACH. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),
Helsinki, Finland.
EMBSI, 2001. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation test, study no. 100047AB. Report 01MRL61, ExxonMobil
Biomedical Sciences Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2005. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation test, study no. 100047P. Report 05MRL127, ExxonMobil
Biomedical Sciences Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2006. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation test, study no. 0681647. Report 06EMBSI506, ExxonMobil
Biomedical Sciences Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2007a. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation study, study no. 0711047. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2007b. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation study, study no. 0796347C. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2007c. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation study, study no. 0796347T. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2008a. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation study, study no. 0818447. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2008b. Fish, dietary bioaccumulation study, study no. 0821047. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EMBSI, 2009. Fish, aqueous bioaccumulation study, study no. 0829644. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
Inc. (EMBSI), Annandale, NJ, USA.
EU, 1993. Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks
of existing substances. O. J. L 84: 1-75.
EU, 2007. Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC
and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94
30
RIVM report 601779002
as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC,
93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. O. J. L 136: 3-280.
Evans MS and Landrum PF, 1989. Toxicokinetics of DDE, benzo(a)pyrene, and 2,4,5,2',4',5'hexachlorobiphenyl in Pontoporeia hoyi and Mysis relicta. J. Great Lakes Res. 15: 589-600.
Fan CW and Reinfelder JR, 2003. Phenanthrene accumulation kinetics in marine diatoms. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 37: 3405-3412.
Finger SE, Little EF, Henry MG, Fairchild JF and Boyle TP, 1985. Comparison of laboratory and field
assessment of fluorene - Part I: Effects of fluorene on the survival, growth, reproduction, and
behavior of aquatic organisms in laboratory tests. In: Boyle TP, ed. Validation and Predictability of
Laboratory Methods for Assessing the Fate and Effects of Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Frank AP, Landrum PF and Eadie BJ, 1986. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon rates of uptake, depuration,
and biotransformation by Lake Michigan Stylodrilus heringianus. Chemosphere 15: 317-330.
Freitag D, Ballhorn L, Geyer H and Korte F, 1985. Environmental hazard profile of organic chemicals. An
experimental method for the assessment of the behaviour of organic chemicals in the ecosphere by
means of simple laboratory tests with 14C labelled chemicals. Chemosphere 14: 1589-1616.
Freitag D, Geyer H and Kraus A, 1982. Ecotoxicological profile analysis. VII. Screening chemicals for their
environmental behavior by comparative evaluation. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 6: 60-81.
Gerould S, Landrum P and Giesy JP, 1983. Anthracene bioconcentration and biotransformation in
chironomids: Effects of temperature and concentration. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A 30: 175-188.
Geyer H, Politzki G and Freitag D, 1984. Prediction of ecotoxicological behaviour of chemicals:
Relationship between n-octanol/water partition coefficient and bioaccumulation of organic
chemicals by alga Chlorella. Chemosphere 13: 269-284.
Gharrett JA and Rice SD, 1987. Influence of simulated tidal cycles on aromatic hydrocarbon uptake and
elimination by the shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus. Mar. Biol. 95: 365-370.
Gobas FAPC, de Wolf W, Burkhard LP, Verbruggen E and Plotzke K, 2009. Revisiting bioaccumulation
criteria for POPs and PBT assessments. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 5: 624-637.
Gossiaux DC, Landrum PF and Fisher SW, 1996. Effect of temperature on the accumulation kinetics of
PAHs and PCBs in the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. J. Great Lakes Res. 22: 379-388.
Granier LK, Lafrance P and Campbell PGC, 1999. An experimental design to probe the interactions of
dissolved organic matter and xenobiotics: Bioavailability of pyrene and 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
to Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 38: 335-350.
Haitzer M, Abbt-Braun G, Traunspurger W and Steinberg CEW, 1999a. Effects of humic substances on the
bioconcentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Correlations with spectroscopic and
chemical properties of humic substances. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 2782-2788.
Haitzer M, Höss S, Traunspurger W and Steinberg C, 1999b. Relationship between concentration of
dissolved organic matter (DOM) and the effect of DOM on the bioconcentration of benzo[a]pyrene.
Aquat. Toxicol. 45: 147-158.
Hall AT, 1993. Reproductive and behavioral toxicity of anthracene in the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). PhD Thesis. Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA.
Hall AT and Oris JT, 1991. Anthracene reduces reproductive potential and is maternally transferred during
long-term exposure in fathead minnows. Aquat. Toxicol. 19: 249-264.
Halling-Sørensen B, Nyholm N, Kusk KO and Jacobsson E, 2000. Influence of nitrogen status on the
bioconcentration of hydrophobic organic compounds to Selenastrum capricornutum. Ecotox.
Environ. Saf. 45: 33-42.
Herbes SE, 1976. Transport and bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in aquatic
systems. In: Coal Technology Program Quarterly Progress Report for the Period Ending December
31, 1975. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, pp. 65-71.
Herbes SE and Risi GF, 1978. Metabolic alteration and excretion of anthracene by Daphnia pulex. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19: 147-155.
Jimenez BD, Cirmo CP and McCarthy JF, 1987. Effects of feeding and temperature on uptake, elimination
and metabolism of benzo[a]pyrene in the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Aquat. Toxicol.
10: 41-57.
Johnsen S, Kukkonen J and Grande M, 1989. Influence of natural aquatic humic substances on the
bioavailability of benzo(a)pyrene to Atlantic Salmon. Sci. Total Environ. 81-82: 691-702.
RIVM report 601779002
31
Jonker MTO and Van der Heijden SA, 2007. Bioconcentration factor hydrophobicity cutoff: An artificial
phenomenon reconstructed. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 7363-7369.
Jonsson G, Bechmann RK, Bamber SD and Baussant T, 2004. Bioconcentration, biotransformation, and
elimination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus)
exposed to contaminated seawater. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23: 1538-1548.
Kane Driscoll S, Landrum PF and Tigue E, 1997. Accumulation and toxicokinetics of fluoranthene in wateronly exposures with freshwater amphipods. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 754-761.
Kira S, Nogami Y, Taketa K and Hayatsu H, 1996. Comparison of techniques for monitoring water-borne
polycyclic mutagens: Efficiency of blue rayon, sep-pak C18, and a biota, Corbicula, in
concentrating benzo(a)pyrene in a model water system. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 57: 278283.
Klimisch HJ, Andreae M and Tillmann U, 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of
experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25: 1-5.
Kuhnhold WW and Busch F, 1978. On the uptake of three different types of hydrocarbons by salmon eggs
(Salmo salar L.). Meeresforschung 26: 50-59.
Kukkonen J, McCarthy JF and Oikari A, 1990. Effects of XAD-8 fractions of dissolved organic carbon on
the sorption and bioavailability of organic micropollutants. Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 19: 551-557.
Lampi M and Parkerton T, 2008. Bioaccumulation Assessment of PAHs - Draft. ExxonMobil Biomedical
Sciences, Inc.
Lampi M and Parkerton T, 2009. Bioaccumulation Assessment of PAHs - Draft. ExxonMobil Biomedical
Sciences, Inc. (EMBSI).
Landrum PF, 1982. Uptake, depuration and biotransformation of anthracene by the scud Pontoporeia hoyi.
Chemosphere 11: 1049-1057.
Landrum PF, 1988. Toxicokinetics of organic xenobiotics in the amphipod, Pontoporeia hoyi: Role of
physiological and environmental variables. Aquat. Toxicol. 12: 245-271.
Landrum PF, Lotufo GR, Gossiaux DC, Gedeon ML and Lee JH, 2003. Bioaccumulation and critical body
residue of PAHs in the amphipod, Diporeia spp.: Additional evidence to support toxicity additivity
for PAH mixtures. Chemosphere 51: 481-489.
Landrum PF and Poore R, 1988. Toxicokinetics of selected xenobiotics in Hexagenia limbata. J. Great
Lakes Res. 14: 427-437.
Landrum PF and Scavia D, 1983. Influence of sediment on anthracene uptake, depuration, and
biotransformation by the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 298-305.
Laurén DJ and Rice S, 1985. Significance of active and passive depuration in the clearance of naphthalene
from the tissues of Hemigrapsus nudus (Crustacea: Decapoda). Mar. Biol. 88: 135-142.
Lee JH, Landrum PF and Koh CH, 2002. Toxicokinetics and time-dependent PAH toxicity in the amphipod
Hyalella azteca. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 3124-3130.
Lee RF, Sauerheber R and Dobbs GH, 1972. Uptake, metabolism and discharge of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons by marine fish. Mar. Biol. 17: 201-208.
Leversee GJ, Giesy JP, Landrum PF, Bartell S, Gerould S, Bruno M, Spacie A, Bonling J, Haddock J and
Fannin T, 1981. Disposition of benzo(a)pyrene in aquatic system components: periphyton,
chironomids, daphnia, fish. In: Cooke M and Dennis AJ, eds. Analysis and Biological Fate:
Polynuclear Aromatic HydroCarbons. Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp. 357-366.
Leversee GJ, Giesy JP, Landrum PF, Gerould S, Bowling JW, Fannin TE, Haddock JD and Bartell SM,
1982. Kinetics and biotransformation of benzo(a)pyrene in Chironomus riparius. Arch. Environ.
Con. Tox. 11: 25-31.
Leversee GJ, Landrum PF, Giesy JP and Fannin T, 1983. Humic acids reduce bioaccumulation of some
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: s63–s69.
Levine SL, Czosnyka H and Oris JT, 1997. Effect of the fungicide clotrimazole on the bioconcentration of
benzo[a]pyrene in Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum): In vivo and in vitro inhibition of
cytochrome P4501A activity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 306-311.
Linder G, 1982. Anthracene bioconcentration in rainbow trout in single-compound and complex chemical
mixture exposures. PhD Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA.
Linder G and Bergman HL, 1984. Periodic depuration of anthracene metabolites by rainbow trout. T. Am.
Fish. Soc. 113: 513-520.
32
RIVM report 601779002
Linder G, Bergman HL and Meyer JS, 1985. Anthracene bioconcentration in rainbow trout during singlecompound and complex-mixture exposures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4: 549-558.
Liu ZT, Kong ZM, Zhou F and Wang LS, 1996. Bioconcentration and toxicity effect on lipid content of
aquatic organisms. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 56: 135-142.
Lockhart WL, Metner DA, Billeck BN, Rawn GP and Muir DCG, 1983. Bioaccumulation of some forestry
pesticides in fish and aquatic plants. In: Chemical and Biological Controls in Forestry. ACS
Symposium Series. 238. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., pp. 297-318.
Lu PY, Metcalf RL, Plummer N and Mandel D, 1977. The environmental fate of three carcinogens: Benzo(α)-pyrene, benzidine, and vinyl chloride evaluated in laboratory model ecosystems. Arch. Environ.
Con. Tox. 6: 129-142.
Mailhot H, 1987. Prediction of algal bioaccumulation and uptake rate of nine organic compounds by ten
physicochemical properties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21: 1009-1013.
McCarthy JF, 1983. Role of particulate organic matter in decreasing accumulation of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons by Daphnia magna. Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 12: 559-568.
McCarthy JF and Jimenez BD, 1985. Reduction in bioavailability to bluegills of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons bound to dissolved humic material. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4: 511-521.
McCarthy JF, Jimenez BD and Barbee T, 1985. Effect of dissolved humic material on accumulation of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Structure-activity relationships. Aquat. Toxicol. 7: 15-24.
McLeese DW and Burridge LE, 1987. Comparative accumulation of PAHs in four marine invertebrates. In:
Capuzzo JM and Kester DR, eds. Biological Processes and Wastes in the Ocean. Oceanic Processes
in Marine Pollution. 1. Robert E Krieger, Malabar, FL, USA, pp. 109-118.
Melancon Jr MJ and Lech JJ, 1978. Distribution and elimination of naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene in
rainbow trout during short- and long-term exposures. Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 7: 207-220.
Monson PD, Call DJ, Cox DA, Liber K and Ankley GT, 1999. Photoinduced toxicity of fluoranthene to
northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 308-312.
Moy FE and Walday M, 1997. Accumulation and depuration of organic micro-pollutants in marine hard
bottom organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 33: 56-63.
Murray AP, Richardson BJ and Gibbs CF, 1991. Bioconcentration factors for petroleum hydrocarbons,
PAHs, LABs and biogenic hydrocarbons in the blue mussel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22: 595-603.
Neff JM and Anderson JW, 1975. Accumulation, release and distribution of benzo[a]pyrene-C14 in the clam
Rangia cuncata. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution,
March 25-27, 1975. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 469-471.
Neff JM, Anderson JW, Cox BA, Laughlin Jr. RB, Rossi SS and Tatem HE, 1976a. Effects of petroleum on
survival, respiration and growth of marine animals. In: Sources, Effects and Sinks of Hydrocarbons
in the Aquatic Environment. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Arlington, VA, USA, pp.
515-539.
Neff JM, Cox BA, Anderson JW and Dixit D, 1976b. Accumulation and release of petroleum derived
aromatic hydrocarbons by four species of marine animals. Mar. Biol. 38: 279-289.
Netherlands, 2008. Coal Tar Pitch High Temperature. Documentation of the work done under the Existing
Substance Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and submitted to the European Chemicals Agency
according to Article 136(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Annex XV Transitional Dossier,
Rapporteur: the Netherlands. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland.
Newsted JL and Giesy JP, 1987. Predictive models for photoinduced acute toxicity of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons to Daphnia magna, Strauss (Cladocera, Crustacea). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6: 445461.
Nfon E, Cousins IT and Broman D, 2008. Biomagnification of organic pollutants in benthic and pelagic
marine food chains from the Baltic Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 397: 190-204.
Niimi AJ and Dookhran GP, 1989. Dietary absorption efficiencies and elimination rates of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:
719-722.
Niimi AJ and Palazzo V, 1986. Biological half-lives of eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Wat. Res. 20: 503-507.
OECD, 1996. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals 305: Bioconcentration: Flow-through Fish Test.
Organisation for Econonomic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
RIVM report 601779002
33
Ogata M, Fujisawa K, Ogino Y and Mano E, 1984. Partition coefficients as a measure of bioconcentration
potential of crude oil compounds in fish and shellfish. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33: 561567.
Oris JT, Hall AT and Tylka JD, 1990. Humic acids reduce the photo-induced toxicity of anthracene to fish
and daphnia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9: 575-583.
OSPAR. 1992. OSPAR Convention. http://www.ospar.org.
Palmork KH and Solbakken JE, 1981. Distribution and elimination of [9-14C]phenanthrene in the horse
mussel (Modiola modiolus). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26: 196-201.
Parkerton TF, Arnot JA, Weisbrod AV, Russom C, Hoke RA, Woodburn K, Traas T, Bonnell M, Burkhard
LP and Lampi MA, 2008. Guidance for evaluating in vivo fish bioaccumulation data. Integr.
Environ. Assess. Manag. 4: 139-155.
Petersen GI and Kristensen P, 1998. Bioaccumulation of lipophilic substances in fish early life stages.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 1385-1395.
Rantamäki P, 1997. Release and retention of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their
methylated derivatives by the common mussel (Mytilus edulis) in the brackish water of the Baltic
Sea. Chemosphere 35: 487-502.
Richardson BJ, Tse ES-C, De Luca-Abbott SB, Martin M and Lam PKS, 2005. Uptake and depuration of
PAHs and chlorinated pesticides by semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and green-lipped
mussels (Perna viridis). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51: 975-993.
RIITI, 1977. Anthracene. The Official Bulletin of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Research
Insititute of International Trade and Industry (RIITI), Tokyo, Japan.
RIITI, 1979. Naphthalene. The Official Bulletin of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
Research Insititute of International Trade and Industry (RIITI), Tokyo, Japan.
RIITI, 1990a. Acenaphthene. The Official Bulletin of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
Research Insititute of International Trade and Industry (RIITI), Tokyo, Japan.
RIITI, 1990b. Acenaphthylene. The Official Bulletin of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
Research Insititute of International Trade and Industry (RIITI), Tokyo, Japan.
RIITI, 1990c. Fluorene. The Official Bulletin of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Research
Insititute of International Trade and Industry (RIITI), Tokyo, Japan.
Riley RT, Mix MC, Schaffer RL and Bunting DL, 1981. Uptake and accumulation of naphthalene by the
oyster Ostrea edulis, in a flow-through system. Mar. Biol. 61: 267-276.
Roubal WT, Stranahan SI and Malins DC, 1978. The accumulation of low molecular weight aromatic
hydrocarbons of crude oil by Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and starry flounder (Platichthys
stellatus). Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 7: 237-244.
Schuler LJ, Landrum PF and Lydy MJ, 2004. Time-dependent toxicity of fluoranthene to freshwater
invertebrates and the role of biotransformation on lethal body residues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:
6247-6255.
Seaton CL and Tjeerdema RS, 1996. Tissue disposition and biotransformation of naphthalene in striped bass
(Morone saxatilis). Mar. Environ. Res. 42: 345-348.
Sheedy BR, Mattson VR, Cox JS, Kosian PA, Phipps GL and Ankley GT, 1998. Bioconcentration of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by the freshwater oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus.
Chemosphere 36: 3061-3070.
Skarphéðinsdóttir H, Ericson G, Dalla Zuanna L and Gilek M, 2003. Tissue differences, dose-response
relationship and persistence of DNA adducts in blue mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) exposed to
benzo[a]pyrene. Aquat. Toxicol. 62: 165-177.
Southworth GR, Beauchamp JJ and Schmieder PK, 1978. Bioaccumulation potential of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in Daphnia pulex. Wat. Res. 12: 973-977.
Spacie A, Landrum PF and Leversee GJ, 1983. Uptake, depuration, and biotransformation of anthracene and
benzo[a]pyrene in bluegill sunfish. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 7: 330-341.
Stockholm Convention. 2001. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
http://www.pops.int/.
Takeuchi I, Miyoshi N, Mizukawa K, Takada H, Ikemoto T, Omori K and Tsuchiya K, 2009.
Biomagnification profiles of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, alkylphenols and polychlorinated
biphenyls in Tokyo Bay elucidated by δ13C and δ15N isotope ratios as guides to trophic web
structure. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58: 663-671.
34
RIVM report 601779002
Tolls J, Haller M, Labee E, Verweij M and Sijm DTHM, 2000. Experimental determination of
bioconcentration of the nonionic surfactant alcohol ethoxylate. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19: 646653.
Trucco RG, Engelhardt FR and Stacey B, 1983. Toxicity, accumulation and clearance of aromatic
hydrocarbons in Daphnia pulex. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A 31: 191-202.
US-EPA, 1976. Semi-Annual Report. April-September 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA), Gulf Breeze, FL, USA.
Van Hattum B and Cid Montañes JF, 1999. Toxicokinetics and bioconcentration of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in freshwater isopods. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33: 2409-2417.
Veith GD, DeFoe DL and Bergstedt BV, 1979. Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor of
chemicals in fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36: 1040-1048.
Veith GD, Macek KJ, Petrocelli SR and Carroll J, 1980. An evaluation of using partition coefficients and
water solubility to estimate bioconcentration factors for organic chemicals in fish. In: Eaton JG,
Parrish PR, and Hendricks AC, eds. Aquatic Toxicology. ASTM STP 707. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 116-129.
Wan Y, Jin X, Hu J and Jin F, 2007. Trophic dilution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in a
marine food web from Bohai Bay, North China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 3109-3114.
Wang X and Wang WX, 2006. Bioaccumulation and transfer of benzo(a)pyrene in a simplified marine food
chain. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 312: 101-111.
Weinstein JE, 2001. Characterization of the acute toxicity of photoactivated fluoranthene to glochidia of the
freshwater mussel, Utterbackia imbecillis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 412-419.
Weinstein JE, 2002. Photoperiod effects on the UV-induced toxicity of fluoranthene to freshwater mussel
glochidia: Absence of repair during dark periods. Aquat. Toxicol. 59: 153-161.
Weinstein JE and Garner TR, 2008. Piperonyl butoxide enhances the bioconcentration and photoinduced
toxicity of fluoranthene and benzo[a]pyrene to larvae of the grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio).
Aquat. Toxicol. 87: 28-36.
Weinstein JE and Oris JT, 1999. Humic acids reduce the bioaccumulation and photoinduced toxicity of
fluoranthene to fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 2087-2094.
Weinstein JE and Polk KD, 2001. Phototoxicity of anthracene and pyrene to glochidia of the freshwater
mussel Utterbackia imbecillis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 2021-2028.
Weinstein JE, Sanger DM and Holland AF, 2003. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of fluoranthene in the
estuarine oligochaete Monopylephorus rubroniveus. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 55: 278-286.
Weston DP, 1990. Hydrocarbon bioaccumulation from contaminated sediment by the deposit-feeding
polychaete Abarenicola pacifica. Mar. Biol. 107: 159-169.
Widdows J, Moore SL, Clarke KR and Donkin P, 1983. Uptake, tissue distribution and elimination of [114
C] naphthalene in the mussel Mytilus edulis. Mar. Biol. 76: 109-114.
Wilcoxen SE, Meier PG and Landrum PF, 2003. The toxicity of fluoranthene to Hyalella azteca in sediment
and water-only exposures under varying light spectra. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 54: 105-117.
Wildi E, Nagel R and Steinberg CEW, 1994. Effects of pH on the bioconcentration of pyrene in the larval
midge, Chironomus riparius. Wat. Res. 28: 2553-2559.
Yakata N, Sudo Y and Tadokoro H, 2006. Influence of dispersants on bioconcentration factors of seven
organic compounds with different lipophilicities and structures. Chemosphere 64: 1885-1891.
RIVM report 601779002
35
36
RIVM report 601779002
Annex I Overview of BCF values from studies that were
rated as not reliable (validity 3)
Total
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
type
Ref.
SR
UD
1778
–
Equi. Value based on dry weight
[47]
SR
UD
1820
–
Equi. Value based on dry weight
[47]
S
UD
nr
nr
–
S
U
–
30
Equi.
U
U
U
–
–
71.5, 4153)
245.5
283.7
–
Equi.
Equi.
Equi.
FT
UD
13000
–
Equi.
FT
U
–
Equi.
S
U
25, 25,
1754)
–
302
Equi.
S
UD
–
6.1
Equi.
S
UD
–
51.3
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[5]
Mollusca
Rangia cuneata
NR
UD
9.30
6.1
Equi. No steady state
[44]
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
S
U
–
57 – 745)
S
U
–
19
UD
–
1270
Equi. Static exposure, only nominal
[30]
exposure concentration reported
Kin. Short, static exposure; constant [38]
exposure unlikely
Kin. BCF calculated based on con[27]
centrations at beginning and end
of depuration phase and nominal
water concentrations
S
U
–
24.9 –
6)
1548
Equi. Static exposure, no monitoring of [10]
water concentrations
S
U
–
130
S
U
–
6965
Equi. Static exposure, steady state
unlikely
Equi. Static exposure, steady state
unlikely
Species
g)
Naphthalene
Pisces
Brachydanio rerio
(larvae)
Brachydanio rerio
(eggs)
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Leuciscus idus
melanotus
Morone saxatilis
Oncorhynchus
mykiss2)
Pimephales
promelas
Theragra
chalcogramma
(eggs)
Theragra
chalcogramma
(larvae)
FT
FT
S
Hemigrapsus nudus S
Insecta
Somatochlora
cingulata
Algae
Chlorella fusca
Selenastrum
capricornutum
RIVM report 601779002
1)
Short exposure to oil; concentrations only in graphs; steady state
unlikely
3-day static exposure, no
aeration
Exposure less than 96h
Exposure less than 96h
Static exposure, biotransformation reported, BCF in bile
Biotransformation reported, BCF
in bile
Biotransformation reported, BCF
in different tissues
No constant exposure, exposure
less than 96h
Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[1]
[17
[48]
[48]
[40]
[40]
[40]
[12]
[5]
[18]
[6]
37
Species
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
Ref.
S
S
UD
UD
[13]
[34]
FT
Short, static exposure
Short, static exposure; decrease
in exposure concentration
Exposed to oil, PAH concentration > water solubility; BCF
based on lipid weight
Kin. Exposed to oil, PAH concentration > water solubility; BCF
based on lipid weight
g)
9H-Fluorene
Pisces
Poecilia reticulata
Oncorhynchus
2)
mykiss (larvae)
Scophthalmus
maximus
2230
–
UD
–
422,
512
–
FT
UD
–
1451
SR
U
–
405, 5003)
Equi. Exposure too short to reach
steady state
[49]
NR
UD
88,
105
nr
Kin. Based on total radioactivity of
Equi. initial concentration
[34]
S
UD
9500
–
[14]
Carassius auratus
NR
U
–
162
Lepomis
macrochirus
Leuciscus idus
melanotus
Oncorhynchus
2)
mykiss
S
U
–
675
Kin. Sediment exposure, less than
96h; parent compound not
distinguished
Equi. Exposure concentration and test
system unknown
Equi. Juveniles exposed for 4h only
S
U
–
910
S
UD
–
190, 270
SR
UD
–
5400
SR
UD
–
9100
Pimephales
promelas
Poecilia reticulata
S
U
–
6760
S
UD
–
7260
Scophthalmus
maximus
FT
UD
–
17200
S
UD
–
560
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Magnoliophyta
Lemna minor
33100
Equi
Kin.
Equi.
Equi
[2]
[3]
Anthracene
Pisces
Brachydanio rerio
Crustacea
Asellus aquaticus
38
Equi. 3-day static exposure, no
aeration, no food
Equi. Decreasing exposure concentration, no steady state
Equi. Exposure concentration above
water solubility; exposure to a
mixture
Equi. Exposure concentration above
water solubility
Kin. Decreasing exposure concentration, exposure less than 96h
Equi. Static exposure, steady state
unlikely
Equi. Animals exposed to oil; PAH
concentration > water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[45]
[51]
[16;
17]
[32]
[33]
[33]
[12]
[13]
[2]
[52]
RIVM report 601779002
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
NR
UD
–
200
Equi. Exposure system and concentration unknown
5)
S
U
–
319 – 607
Equi. DOC present, only initial water
concentration used; static exposure
5)
Equi. Static exposure; also yeast
S
U
–
230, 370
present in system (as DOC),
steady state unlikely
S
U
–
500
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely
S
U
–
512
Kin. Static exposure; constant exposure unlikely
FT
UD
–
1419
Kin. Biotransformation reported, but
not corrected for
FT
UD
947
Kin. Exposure via sediment; author
indicates this BCF to be misleading
FT
UD
10985
9096
Equi. Exposure via sediment; author
indicates this BCF to be misleading
Ref.
Insecta
Hexagenia sp.
(nymph)
NR
U
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
S
U
SR
Species
Daphnia magna
Hyalella azteca
g)
[21]
[30]
[39]
[39]
[38]
[26]
[26]
[26]
3500
Equi. Exposure system and concentration unknown; also yeast
present in system (as DOC),
steady state unlikely
[21]
–
40700
[24]
U
–
1010,
14103)
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
Equi. Steady state unlikely; exposure
concentration above water
solubility
S
U
–
7800
[16]
S
U
–
7770
S
U
7800
–
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely; exposure concentration
above water solubility
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely; exposure concentration
above water solubility
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely; little details on setup
reported
S
UD
11446
–
[14]
SR
UD
–
Clupea harengus
SR
UD
7943 –
91203)
20893
Gadus morhua
SR
UD
10715
–
Kin. Exposure via sediment for less
than 96h
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Algae
Chlorella fusca
Selenastrum
capricornutum
[49]
[18]
[36]
Phenanthrene
Pisces
Brachydanio rerio
RIVM report 601779002
–
[47]
[47]
[47]
39
Species
Leuciscus idus
melanotus
Oryzias javanicus
Pagrus major
Parlychthys
olivaceus
Pimephales
promelas
Scophthalmus
maximus
Mollusca
Modiola modiolus
FT
UD
–
10300
FT
UD
–
936
SR
UD
11220
–
S
UD
3.1
–
NR
UD
240
32
S
UD
–
S
U
S
Equi. Exposure to oil, PAH concen[2]
tration appears to be above
water solubility
Kin. Exposure to oil, PAH concen[3]
tration appears to be above
water solubility
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight; [47]
early life stages used
Equi. Low on experimental detail,
exposure concentration unclear.
Kin. Low on experimental detail,
exposure type not reported;
steady state not reached
[46]
1300
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[52]
–
34700
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
U
–
1760
[18]
S
U
–
10620
S
U
4.22 –
4.477)
–
Thalassiosira
pseudonana
S
U
17
–
Thalassiosira
weissfloggii
S
U
38.3
–
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely; BCF value based on dry
weight and total radioactivity
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely; BCF value based on dry
weight and total radioactivity
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely; BCF value based on dry
weight and total radioactivity
Rangia cuneata
Crustacea
Asellus aquaticus
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Algae
Chlorella fusca
Selenastrum
capricornutum
40
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Ref.
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
S
U
–
1760
Equi. No air or food was provided;
[17]
exposure for 72h
FT
U
–
150
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
[7]
mixture
FT
U
–
180
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
[7]
mixture
FT
U
–
173, 7372)
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
[7]
mixture ;BCF values in different
tissues
FT
U
–
75
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
[7]
mixture
2)
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
[7]
FT
U
–
10, 181
mixture; BCF values in different
tissues
S
U
–
6760
Kin. Static exposure for less than 96h [12]
[44]
[6]
[20]
[15]
[15]
RIVM report 601779002
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
Ref.
S
U
–
3388
[12]
FT
UD
–
>10000
Mollusca
Utterbackia
imbecillis
(glochidia)
SR
U
–
2147
Equi. BCF averaged for 5 different ex- [56]
posure concentrations; individual
exposure concentrations uncertain
Crustacea
Palaemonetes
pugio
(larvae)
SR
U
–
142
Equi. BCF averaged for different ex[54]
posure concentrations; individual
exposure concentrations uncertain
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
S
U
–
27500
FT
U
–
SR
U
–
1510 –
30803)
10893
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
[24]
present; steady state unlikely
Equi. Short exposure; steady state
[49]
unlikely
Equi. BCF averaged for different ex[55]
posure concentrations; individual
exposure concentrations uncetain
S
UD
4333
–
SR
UD
–
Carassius auratus
NR
U
10000 –
549543)
–
Clupea harengus
SR
UD
97724
–
Gadus morhua
SR
UD
60256
–
Oryzias javanicus
FT
U
–
15
Pagrus major
FT
U
–
10
FT
U
–
9, 572)
FT
U
–
5
FT
U
–
4, 52
Species
g)
Fluoranthene
Pisces
Pimephales
promelas
Scophthalmus
maximus
Monopylephorus
rubroniveus
Kin. Decreasing exposure
concentration
Equi. Exposure to oil, PAH concentration above water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
[2]
Pyrene
Pisces
Brachydanio rerio
Parlychthys
olivaceus
RIVM report 601779002
457
2)
Kin. Exposure via sediment for less
than 96h
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Equi. Exposure concentration above
water solubility
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
mixture
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
mixture
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
mixture ; BCF values in different
tissues
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
mixture
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
mixture ; BCF values in different
tissues
[14]
[47]
[45]
[47]
[47]
[7]
[7]
[7]
[7]
[7]
41
Species
Poecilia reticulata
Scophthalmus
maximus
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
S
UD
–
4810
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
FT
UD
–
<5000
Equi. Exposure to oil, PAH concentration above water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
Ref.
g)
[13]
[2]
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
FT
UD
–
334300
Equi. Exposure to oil, PAH concentration above water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
[2]
Crustacea
Asellus aquaticus
S
UD
–
2050
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[52]
S
U
–
380000
[24]
SR
U
–
1480 –
3)
2370
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
Equi. Short exposure; steady state
unlikely
S
U
–
16760
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely
[6]
S
U
–
350
[17]
FT
UD
–
>10000
Equi. No food, no aeration; exposure
concentration above water
solubility
Equi. Exposure to oil, PAH concentration above water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
S
U
–
2920
Kin. Static exposure; constant exposure unlikely
[38]
S
U
–
3090000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
S
U
–
3180
Equi. Static exposure; steady state
unlikely
[17]
FT
U
–
10
[7]
Pagrus major
FT
U
–
15
Scophthalmus
maximus
FT
UD
–
>10000
FT
UD
–
54
Equi. Exposure concentration above
water solubility
Equi. Exposure concentration above
water solubility
Equi. Exposure to oil, PAH concentration above water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
Kin. Exposure to oil, PAH concentration above water solubility;
BCF based on lipid weight
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
[49]
Benz[a]anthracene
Pisces
Leuciscus idus
melanotus
Scophthalmus
maximus
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Algae
Chlorella fusca
[2]
Chrysene
Pisces
Oryzias javanicus
42
[7]
[2]
[3]
RIVM report 601779002
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
Exp. Test
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
type
Ref.
NR
UD
31.56
8.2
Equi. Exposure type not reported;
steady state unlikely
[44]
Crustacea
Rhepoxynius
abronius
SD
U
–
1141
Equi. Exposure via sediment; exposure [4]
concentration above water solubility
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
S
U
–
3020000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
S
UD
3600
–
[14]
SR
UD
–
FT
U
20893 –
3311313)
–
D
U
–
30 – 1403)
Gillichthys mirabilis S
U
20 –
3,4)
7400
S
U
–
490
FT
FT
UD
UD
–
–
3208
225
FT
UD
–
301
Kin. Exposure via sediment for less
than 96h
Equi. BCF values based on dry weight;
early life stages used
Equi. Short exposure; steady state
unlikely
Equi. Exposure in model ecosystem;
exposure concentration appears
to be above water solubility
Equi. Based on total radioactivity;
based on several organs; short
exposure concentration, steady
state unlikely
Equi. Very short static exposure;
steady state unlikely
Kin. Not fed; short exposure
Kin. Humic material present; short
exposure
Equi. Humic material present; short
exposure; steady state unlikely
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
Equi. Exposed to oversaturated PAH
mixture
Kin. Short exposure; uncertain exposure concentration; based on
total radioactivity
Species
Mollusca
Rangia cuneata
g)
Benzo[a]pyrene
Pisces
Brachydanio rerio
Dorosoma
cepedianum
Gambusia affinis
Lepomis
macrochirus
3.2, 3.7
Leuciscus idus
melanotus
Oryzias javanicus
S
U
–
480
FT
U
–
5
Salmo salar
FT
UD
1160 –
23101)
–
FT
U
–
4 – 416)
FT
U
–
236 – 244
Mollusca
Corbicula japonica
Crassostrea
virginica
RIVM report 601779002
6)
Equi. Short exposure; no constant
exposure concentration
Equi. Initial concentration above water
solubility; steady state unlikely;
BCF values based on dry weight
[47]
[31]
[35]
[28]
[51]
[22]
[37]
[37]
[17]
[7]
[23]
[25]
[11]
43
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
FT
UD
255
–
Equi. Based on total radioactivity but
metabolism reported; no steady
state
SR
U
6294 –
–
Equi. BCF based on dry weight and
152783,6)
nominal exposure concentrations; photolytic breakdown
possible
FD
U
–
100000
Equi. Field collected animals; BCF
based on dry weight; exposure
unclear
FD
U
–
1400000
Equi. Field collected animals; BCF
based on lipid weight; exposure
unclear
Equi. Exposed in model ecosystem;
FT
U
–
4860 –
3)
exposure concentrations appears
7520
to be above water solubility
S
UD
187, 236
–
Equi. No measured water concentrations reported; nominal exposure
concentration > water solubility
NR
UD
55.63
8.7
Equi. Short exposure to oil; no steady
state; exposure type not reported
Ref.
Crustacea
Acartia erythraea
S
UD
5500000
24000
[53]
Asellus aquaticus
S
UD
–
32400
Daphnia magna
S
U
–
838 –
27453,5)
S
U
–
1000 –
25005)
S
U
–
8250
S
U
–
5771
SR
U
–
289
U
–
250
UD
–
200
Species
Mytilus edulis
Physa spp.
Rangia cuneata
Palaemonetes
pugio (larvae)
Insecta
Chironomus riparius S
th
(4 instar larvae)
S
44
Kin. Short, static exposure; also
uptake via food
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
Equi. Short, static exposure; DOC
present; only initial exposure
concentration used; steady state
unlikely
Equi. Short, static exposure; yeast
present, resulting in dietary
uptake as well; steady state
unlikely
Equi. Short, static exposure; biotransformation reported; no constant
exposure; steady state unlikely
Kin. Short, static exposure; constant
exposure unlikely
Equi. BCF averaged for different exposure concentrations; individual
exposure concentrations
uncertain
g)
[41]
[50]
[42]
[42]
[35]
[43]
[44]
[52]
[30]
[39]
[39]
[38]
[54]
Equi. Exposure concentration reported [9]
in graphs only and above water
solubility; sediment present
Equi. Short, static exposure; reported
[29]
BCF is average for several exposure concentrations; steady state
unlikely
RIVM report 601779002
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
Exp. Test
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
type
Equi. Exposed in model ecosystem;
D
U
–
2093 –
3)
exposure concentration appears
2120
to be above water solubility
Ref.
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
S
U
–
18200000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
Nematoda
Caenorhabiditis
elegans
S
U
>25000
–
Equi. Short exposure above water solubility; BCF reported in graphs
only; steady state unlikely
[19]
S
U
–
3300
[17]
Fucus vesiculosus
FT
UD
55.4
–
Oedogonium
cardiacum
D
U
–
3610,
41053)
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
Equi. Based on total radioactivity, but
metabolism observed; steady
state unlikely
Equi. Exposed in model ecosystem;
exposure concentration appears
to be above water solubility
FD
U
–
430000
[42]
FD
U
–
2800000
Equi. Field collected animals; BCF
based on dry weight; exposure
unclear
Equi. Field collected animals; BCF
based on lipid weight; exposure
unclear
S
U
–
13800000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
Species
Culex pipiens
quinquefasciatus
Algae
Chlorella fusca
g)
[35]
[41]
[35]
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
[42]
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Pisces
Oryzias latipes
nr
U
–
17
Equi. Only nominal exposure concentration reported, concentration in
fish only reported in graphs
[8]
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
FD
U
–
300000
[42]
FD
U
–
1700000
Equi. Field collected animals; BCF
based on dry weight; exposure
unclear
Equi. Field collected animals; BCF
based on lipid weight; exposure
unclear
S
U
–
15100000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
S
UD
–
16000
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[52]
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
[42]
Benzo[ghi]perylene
Crustacea
Asellus aquaticus
RIVM report 601779002
45
Species
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
Ref.
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
S
g)
U
–
33100000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
S
U
–
10
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[17]
S
U
–
666 – 9685)
Equi. Short, static exposure; DOC pre- [30]
sent; only initial exposure concentration used; steady state
unlikely
S
U
–
20000000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
S
U
–
2380
Equi. Short, static exposure; steady
state unlikely
[17]
U
–
39800000
Equi. Static exposure; sediment
present; steady state unlikely
[24]
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Pisces
Leuciscus idus
melanotus
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
Algae
Chlorella fusca
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculus
variegatus
a)
S
b)
FD: organisms collected from the field; FT: flow-through system; S: static; SR: static renewal; NR: not reported. Test
c)
d)
phases: U: uptake phase only; UD: both uptake and depuration phase. nr: not reported; –: only parent BCF available. nr:
e)
not reported; –: only total BCF available. Kin.: Kinetic BCF, i.e. k1/k2; Equi.: BCF at (assumed) equilibrium, i.e.
f)
f)
Corganism/Cwater. Main reason(s) for rating the specific BCF value(s) as unreliable. References: [1] (Anderson et al., 1974);
[2] (Baussant et al., 2001a); [3] (Baussant et al., 2001b); [4] (Boese et al., 1999); [5] (Carls and Rice, 1988); [6] (Casserly et
al., 1983); [7] (Cheikyula et al., 2008); [8] (Chen et al., 2008); [9] (Clements et al., 1994); [10] (Correa and Coler, 1983); [11]
(Couch et al., 1979); [12] (De Maagd, 1996); [13] (De Voogt et al., 1991); [14] (Djomo et al., 1996); [15] (Fan and
Reinfelder, 2003); [16] (Freitag et al., 1982); [17] (Freitag et al., 1985); [18] (Geyer et al., 1984); [19] (Haitzer et al., 1999a;
1999b); [20] (Halling-Sørensen et al., 2000); [21] (Herbes, 1976); [22] (Jimenez et al., 1987); [23] (Johnsen et al., 1989);
[24] (Jonker and Van der Heijden, 2007); [25] (Kira et al., 1996); [26] (Landrum and Scavia, 1983); [27] (Laurén and Rice,
1985); [28] (Lee et al., 1972); [29] (Leversee et al., 1982); [30] (Leversee et al., 1983); [31] (Levine et al., 1997); [32]
(Linder and Bergman, 1984); [33] (Linder et al., 1985); [34] (Lockhart et al., 1983); [35] (Lu et al., 1977); [36] (Mailhot,
1987); [37] (McCarthy and Jimenez, 1985); [38] (McCarthy et al., 1985); [39] (McCarthy, 1983); [40] (Melancon Jr and
Lech, 1978); [41] (Moy and Walday, 1997); [42] (Murray et al., 1991); [43] (Neff and Anderson, 1975); [44] (Neff et al.,
1976a); [45] (Ogata et al., 1984); [46] (Palmork and Solbakken, 1981); [47] (Petersen and Kristensen, 1998); [48] (Seaton
and Tjeerdema, 1996); [49] (Sheedy et al., 1998); [50] (Skarphéðinsdóttir et al., 2003); [51] (Spacie et al., 1983); [52] (Van
Hattum and Cid Montañes, 1999); [53] (Wang and Wang, 2006); [54] (Weinstein and Garner, 2008); [55] (Weinstein et al.,
2003); [56] (Weinstein, 2002)
1)
2)
3)
Exposed in salt water (35 ‰). Formerly known as Salmo gairdneri. Values represent (a range of) BCF values from (a
4)
5)
range of) different exposure concentrations. Values represent BCF values for different tissues. BCFs were determined
6)
7)
at different DOC concentrations. BCFs were determined at different exposure durations. Values represent (a range of)
BCF values for (a range of) different lipid contents.
46
RIVM report 601779002
Annex II Overview of BCF values from studies for which
validity was not assignable (validity 4)
Species
Naphthalene
Pisces
Fundulus
heteroclitus
Total
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
a)
c)
d)
b)
e)
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
type
1)
Ref.
g)
S
U
2.0, 2.2
–
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[13]
S
U
1.0 – 1051,2) –
[13]
Gillichthys mirabilis S
UD
S
Mugil curema
FT
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
Platichthys stellatus FT
U
U
263 –
37·106 1,2,3)
–
–
Equi. Based on total radioactivity;
values for different organs
Kin. Based on total radioactivity;
values for different organs
Kin. Values for different organs
Equi. BCF based on dry weight
U
–
FT
Salmo salar (eggs) S
UD
U
–
–
FT
UD
–
150 –
11002,3)
100 – 7003)
18.5 –
82.51,3)
17800
FT
UD
–
421
FT
UD
–
266
NR
FT
D
U
nr
–
nr
48
FT
FT
U
UD
–
–
24 – 592)
2.3
Equi. Exposed to oil; BCF based on
lipid weight
– Only half-life reported
Equi. Steady state reported, but no
exposure concentrations
Equi. Values for different organs
Equi. Exposed to oil
S
S
NR
Daphnia pulex
Hemigrapsus nudus FT
U
UD
U
U
36.5
50
677, 23371)
325
–
–
–
–
Equi.
Equi.
Equi.
Equi.
Based on total radioactivity
Based on total radioactivity
Based on total radioactivity
Based on total radioactivity;
based on one organ
[6]
[15]
[37]
[18]
S
UD
387
nr
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[2]
FT
FT
UD
UD
387
–
nr
5500
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
Equi. Exposure to oil
[38]
[3]
FT
UD
–
1308
Equi. Exposed to oil
[3]
Scophthalmus
maximus
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
Ostrea edulis
Rangia cuneata
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
81 – 11582)
3)
20 – 80
[25]
[11]
[35]
Equi. BCF based on dry weight; values [35]
for different organs
Equi. BCF based on dry weight
[35]
Equi. Based on total radioactivity;
[23]
exposure of eggs
Equi. Exposed to oil; BCF based on
[3]
lipid weight
Kin. Exposed to oil
[4]
[3]
[33]
[43]
[34]
[33]
Acenaphthene
Pisces
Lepomis
macrochirus
Scophthalmus
maximus
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
RIVM report 601779002
47
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
c)
d)
b)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
Ref.
D
D
–
128
Kin. Exposed via diet
[30]
FT
UD
–
53300
Equi. Exposure to oil
[3]
FT
UD
–
2892
Equi. Exposed to oil
[3]
FT
U
–
D
–
Equi. No details on exposure
concentration
Kin. Exposed via diet
[16]
D
180 –
1)
1800
589
SR
U
–
1050
Equi. No details on exposure
concentration
[12]
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
FT
UD
–
1018
Equi. Exposed to oil
[3]
Crustacea
Hyalella azteca
SR
UD
255 – 3151) –
Kin. Based on total radioactivity
[26]
D
D
–
773
Kin. Exposed via diet
[31]
SR
U
–
1016
SR
U
–
4550
Equi. Exposure concentration is
[32]
unclear
Equi. Exposure concentration
[12]
uncertain, based on two fish only
Mollusca
Utterbackia
imbecillis
(glochidia)
SR
U
–
247 – 4201)
Equi. Value based on dry weight
[41]
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Rhepoxynius
abronius
SR
S
SD
U
U
U
–
760
–
2699
–
3267 –
267861)
Equi. Exposure concentration unclear
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
Equi. Exposure via sediment
[32]
[21]
[7]
Insecta
Chironomus riparius FT
(larvae)
U
47 – 1964
–
Kin. Based on total radioactivity
[17]
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
23.6
6.6
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
D
D
–
613
Kin. Exposed via diet
[31]
Species
g)
Acenaphthylene
Pisces
Oncorhynchus
4)
mykiss
Scophthalmus
maximus
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
9H-Fluorene
Pisces
Lepomis
macrochirus
Oncorhynchus
mykiss4)
Poecilia reticulata
[31]
Anthracene
Pisces
Oncorhynchus
mykiss4)
Pimephales
promelas
Poecilia reticulata
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
1)
Phenanthrene
Pisces
Oncorhynchus
mykiss4)
48
RIVM report 601779002
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
c)
d)
b)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
Ref.
FT
NR
UD
D
–
nr
Equi. Exposed to oil
– Only half-lives reported
[3]
[33]
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
S
NR
UD
U
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[15]
[37]
Hyalella azteca
SR
UD
600
–
1165 –
–
14241)
440 – 5041) –
Kin. Based on total radioactivity
[26]
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
30.7
5.7
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
D
D
–
531
Kin. Exposed via diet
[31]
FT
UD
–
14836
[10]
SR
U
–
9054
Kin. Short exposure; BCF value
maybe based on dry weight
Equi. BCF value based on dry weight
[40]
S
FT
NR
UD
UD
D
14
–
nr
–
2932
nr
Kin. Based on total radioactivity
Equi. Exposed to oil
– Only half-lives reported
[1]
[3]
[33]
SR
UD
UD
SR
U
[44]
SD
U
980 –
1)
4741
–
Kin. Based on nominal exposure
concentration
Equi. Based on nominal exposure
concentration
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[22]
SR
28095 –
1)
56757
1932 –
23351)
–
18470 –
1)
50484
Equi. Exposure via sediment
[7]
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
12
5.7
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
FD
U
–
61
Equi. Exposed in the field
[36]
SR
U
–
11300
Equi. Based on 2 fish only; little detail
reported
[12]
NR
SR
D
U
nr
–
nr
830 –
1)
1229
Only half-lives reported
Equi. Value based on dry weight
[33]
[41]
S
U
1400
–
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[18]
Species
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
2932
nr
g)
Fluoranthene
Pisces
Oncorhynchus
mykiss4)
Pimephales
promelas
Mollusca
Macomona liliana
Mytilus edulis
Crustacea
Diporeia spp.
Hyalella azteca
Rhepoxynius
abronius
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
[22]
Pyrene
Pisces
Acanthogobius
flavimanus
Poecilia reticulata
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
Utterbackia
imbecillis
(glochidia)
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
RIVM report 601779002
49
Species
Hyalella azteca
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
c)
d)
b)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
SR
UD
2323 –
–
Kin. Based on total radioactivity
51651)
Ref.
g)
[26]
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
13.3
5.2
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
S
U
>11000
–
Equi. Values only reported in graph
only
[20]
D
D
–
325
Kin. Exposed via diet
[33]
NR
U
–
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[37]
SD
U
803 –
11061)
–
2832 –
1)
25465
Equi. Exposure via sediment
[7]
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
3.6
9.4
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
S
FT
SD
UD
U
U
5500
–
–
–
950
1560 –
1)
21080
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[15]
Equi. BCF value reported in graph only [8]
Equi. Exposure via sediment
[7]
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
6.2
14.7
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
Pisces
FT
Gambusia affinis
Gillichthys mirabilis S
U
U
22
Equi. Exposed in model ecosystem
Kin. Based on total radioactivity;
based on several organs
Kin. Based on total radioactivity
[28]
[25]
nr
Nematoda
Caenorhabiditis
elegans
Benz[a]anthracene
Pisces
Oncorhynchus
4)
mykiss
Crustacea
Daphnia pulex
Rhepoxynius
abronius
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
Chrysene
Crustacea
Daphnia magna
Eurytemora affinis
Rhepoxynius
abronius
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
Benzo[a]pyrene
Lepomis
macrochirus
Lutjanus
argentimaculatus
Oligocottus
maculosus
Oncorhynchus
mykiss4)
Oryzias javanicus
Salmo salar (eggs)
Mollusca
Mytilus edulis
Physa spp.
50
S
UD
–
158 –
57451)
4700
S
U
275000
S
U
70 – 200
D
D
–
261
Equi. Exposure in simplified marine
food chain
Equi. Based on total radioactivity;
based on several organs
Kin. Exposed via diet
FT
S
U
U
–
8.2 –
70.71,3)
5
–
Equi. BCF value reported in graph only [9]
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[23]
FD
FT
D
U
nr
–
nr
2177
– Only half-lives reported
Equi. Exposed in model ecosystem
nr
1)
[27]
[39]
[25]
[31]
[14]
[28]
RIVM report 601779002
Species
Crustacea
Acartia erythraea
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Insecta
Culex pipiens
quinquefasciatus
Exp. Test
Parent
Type Reliability remark f)
Total
a)
c)
d)
b)
e)
type
BCF (ww) BCF (ww)
FT
U
–
3056
Equi. Exposed to mixture in model
ecosystem
Ref.
S
UD
5500000
24000
[39]
S
S
NR
U
U
U
5990
5990
1259,
27201)
FT
U
FT
[28]
–
–
–
Kin. Exposure in simplified marine
food chain
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
Equi. Based on total radioactivity
[6]
[24]
[37]
–
37
Equi. Exposed in model ecosystem
[28]
U
–
453
Equi. Exposed to mixture in model
ecosystem
[28]
U
–
Equi. Exposed via sediment
[42]
nr
nr
–
–
4700 –
110001)
0.7
13.8
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
FT
U
–
1300
[8]
SD
U
–
1657 –
167721)
Equi. Pooled value for benzo[k]fluoranthene and benzo[b]fluoranthene
Equi. Exposure via sediment
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
1.7
9.1
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
Polychaeta
Aberenicola pacifica S
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
g)
FD
FD
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Crustacea
Eurytemora affinis
Rhepoxynius
abronius
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
[7]
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Crustacea
Eurytemora affinis
FT
U
–
1300
Equi. Pooled value for benzo[k]fluoranthene and benzo[b]fluoranthene
[8]
Polychaeta
Capitella capitata
Polychaete sp.
FD
FD
nr
nr
–
–
1.8
14.1
Equi. Exposed in the field
Equi. Exposed in the field
[5]
[5]
a
b)
FD: organisms collected from the field; FT: flow-through system; S: static; SR: static renewal; NR: not reported Test
c)
d)
phases: U: uptake phase only; UD: both uptake and depuration phase. nr: not reported; –: only parent BCF available nr:
e)
not reported; –: only total BCF available.
Kin.: Kinetic BCF, i.e. k1/k2; Equi.: BCF at (assumed) equilibrium, i.e.
f)
g)
Corganism/Cwater. Main reason for rating the specific BCF value(s) not assignable. References: [1] (Ahrens et al., 2002); [2]
(Barrows et al., 1980); [3] (Baussant et al., 2001a); [4] (Baussant et al., 2001b); [5] (Bayona et al., 1991); [6] (Black et al.,
1993); [7] (Boese et al., 1999); [8] (Cailleaud et al., 2009); [9] (Cheikyula et al., 2008); [10] (Cho et al., 2003); [11] (Correa
and Venables, 1985); [12] (De Voogt et al., 1991); [13] (DiMichele and Taylor, 1978); [14] (Dunn and Stich, 1976); [15]
(Eastmond et al., 1984); [16] (Finger et al., 1985); [17] (Gerould et al., 1983); [18] (Gharrett and Rice, 1987); [18] (Granier
et al., 1999); [20] (Haitzer et al., 1999a); [21] (Herbes and Risi, 1978); [22] (Kane Driscoll et al., 1997); [23] (Kuhnhold and
Busch, 1978); [24] (Kukkonen et al., 1990); [25] (Lee et al., 1972); [26] (Lee et al., 2002); [27] (Leversee et al., 1981); [28]
(Lu et al., 1977); [29] (Neff et al., 1976b); [30] (Niimi and Dookhran, 1989); [31] (Niimi and Palazzo, 1986); [32] (Oris et al.,
1990); [33] (Rantamäki, 1997); [34] (Riley et al., 1981); [35] (Roubal et al., 1978); [36] (Takeuchi et al., 2009); [37] (Trucco
et al., 1983); [38] (Veith et al., 1980); [39] (Wang and Wang, 2006); [40] (Weinstein and Oris, 1999); [41] (Weinstein and
Polk, 2001); [42] (Weston, 1990); [43] (Widdows et al., 1983); [44] (Wilcoxen et al., 2003).
1)
2)
Values represent (a range of) BCF values from (a range of) different exposure concentrations. Values represent BCF
3)
4)
values for different tissues. BCFs were determined at different exposure durations. Formerly known as Salmo gairdneri.
RIVM report 601779002
51
RIVM
National Institute
for Public Health
and the Environment
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
The Netherlands
www.rivm.com