The Relative Sensitivity of Macrophyte and Algal Species to Herbicides and
Fungicides: An Analysis Using Species Sensitivity Distributions
Jeffrey M. Giddings, Ph.D.
Compliance Services International
Rochester, Massachusetts, USA
for the Species Sensitivity Distribution Working Group (SSD WG), functioning under the umbrella of the
Aquatic Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Group (AMEG)
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
September 30, 2011
CSI Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 2
Acknowledgments
This project was initiated under the sponsorship of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) as an activity arising from the 2008 SETAC workshop on Aquatic Macrophyte Risk
Assessment for Pesticides (AMRAP). AMRAP projects, including this one led by the Species Sensitivity
Distribution (SSD) Working Group, were later incorporated into the activities of the SETAC Aquatic
Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Group (AMEG).
The SSD Working Group consists of Stefania Loutseti, Chair (DuPont); Gertie Arts (Alterra, Wageningen
University and Research Centre); Heino Christl (APC); Jo Davies (Syngenta); Michael Dobbs (Bayer
CropScience); Mark Hanson (U. Manitoba); Udo Hommen (Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology
and Applied Ecology); Joy Honegger (Monsanto); Phil Manson (Cheminova); Giovanna Meregalli (Dow
AgroSciences); and Gabe Weyman (Makhteshim-Agan).
Data were contributed by Alterra (through governmental funding by the Ministry of Economic Affairs,
Agriculture and innovation), Bayer CropScience, Nina Cedergreen (U. Copenhagen, with support from
the Danish Environmental Protection Agency), Cheminova, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Fraunhofer
Institute, Makhteshim-Agan, Mark Hanson (U. Manitoba), Monsanto, and Syngenta.
Funding for data analysis and reporting was provided by Bayer CropScience, Cheminova, Dow
AgroSciences, DuPont, Makhteshim-Agan, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
Jeffrey Wirtz (Compliance Services International) contributed to the compilation and evaluation of the
data. Thomas Priester (Compliance Services International) assisted with development of the SSD
calculation spreadsheet.
Disclaimer
This report is the result of an activity arising from the 2008 Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) workshop on Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides (AMRAP). Projects
originating from AMRAP, including this one led by the Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) Working
Group, were later incorporated into the activities of the SETAC Aquatic Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Group
(AMEG). This report presents the views of its authors, and is not necessarily endorsed by or
representative of the policy or views of SETAC.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 3
Table of Contents
page
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................2
Disclaimer..........................................................................................................................................2
Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................................3
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................4
List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction: Background and Objectives .....................................................................................6
2. Data Compilation and Evaluation .................................................................................................7
3. SSD Analysis Methods ..................................................................................................................9
3.1 Overview of SSD Analysis ................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Data Selection ................................................................................................................................ 10
3.3 Lognormal Regression.................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Presentation of Results .................................................................................................................. 12
4. Results....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Chemical A ..................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Chemical B...................................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Chemical C...................................................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Chemical D1 ................................................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Chemical D2 ................................................................................................................................... 21
4.6 Chemical E1 .................................................................................................................................... 23
4.7 Chemical E2 .................................................................................................................................... 24
4.8 Chemical E3 .................................................................................................................................... 26
4.9 Chemical E4 .................................................................................................................................... 28
4.10 Chemical F1 ............................................................................................................................. 30
4.11 Chemical F2 ............................................................................................................................. 32
4.12 Chemical F3 ............................................................................................................................. 34
4.13 Chemical F4 ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.14 Chemical F5 ............................................................................................................................. 38
5. Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 40
5.1 Lemna gibba................................................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Algae .............................................................................................................................................. 43
5.3 Myriophyllum spicatum ................................................................................................................. 45
5.4 Combined data for Lemna gibba, algae, and Myriophyllum spicatum .......................................... 48
6. Uncertainties ............................................................................................................................. 50
7. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................ 52
8. References................................................................................................................................. 54
Appendix A. AMRAP SSD database ................................................................................................... 55
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 4
List of Tables
Table 1. Chemical A: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Chemical B: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 16
Table 3. Chemical C: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data (other
than macroalgae) were not used to construct the SSD. ..................................................................... 18
Table 4. Chemical D1: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 20
Table 5. Chemical D2: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 22
Table 6. Chemical E1: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 23
Table 7. Chemical E2: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 25
Table 8. Chemical E3: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD. .................................................................................................................. 27
Table 9. Chemical E4: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data (other
than macroalgae) were not used to construct the SSD. ..................................................................... 29
Table 10. Chemical F1: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were
not used to construct the SSD............................................................................................................. 31
Table 11. Chemical F2: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data (other
than macroalgae) were not used to construct the SSD. ..................................................................... 33
Table 12. Chemical F3: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were
not used to construct the SSD............................................................................................................. 35
Table 13. Chemical F4: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were
not used to construct the SSD............................................................................................................. 37
Table 14. Chemical F5: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were
not used to construct the SSD............................................................................................................. 39
Table 15. Position of Lemna gibba in macrophyte SSDs. ............................................................................ 41
Table 16. Rank of Lemna gibba among Lemna species in sensitivity to herbicides and fungicides. .......... 41
Table 17. Sensitivity of the most sensitive of the FIFRA algal species relative to macrophyte SSDs. ........ 43
Table 18. Position of Myriophyllum spicatum in macrophyte SSDs. .......................................................... 45
Table 19. Rank of Myriophyllum spicatum among Myriophyllum species in sensitivity to herbicides
and fungicides. .................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 20. Sensitivity of the most sensitive species of Lemna gibba, FIFRA algae, or Myriophyllum
spicatum relative to macrophyte SSDs. .............................................................................................. 48
List of Figures
page
Figure 1. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical A .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical B .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical C .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical D1 ................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical D2 ................................................................................................ 21
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 5
Figure 6. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical E2 ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 7. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical E3 ................................................................................................ 26
Figure 8. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical E4 ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 9. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F1................................................................................................. 30
Figure 10. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F2............................................................................................... 32
Figure 11. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F3............................................................................................... 34
Figure 12. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F4............................................................................................... 36
Figure 13. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F5............................................................................................... 38
Figure 14. Sensitivity of Lemna gibba relative to all macrophytes. ............................................................ 42
Figure 15. Sensitivity of standard algal species relative to all macrophytes. ............................................. 44
Figure 16. Sensitivity of Myriophyllum spicatum relative to all macrophytes............................................ 47
Figure 17. Sensitivity of the most sensitive species of Lemna gibba, FIFRA algae, and Myriophyllum
spicatum relative to all macrophytes. ................................................................................................. 49
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
1.
p. 6
Introduction: Background and Objectives
In January 2008, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) held a workshop on
Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides (AMRAP) in The Netherlands (Maltby et al. 2010). At
the workshop, a Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) working group was formed to address questions
about the sensitivity of standard surrogate aquatic plant test species relative to other aquatic
macrophyte species. For various practical and historical reasons, the macrophytes most widely used in
toxicity tests with pesticides are duckweeds of the genus Lemna. However, the sensitivity of Lemna spp.
relative to other macrophyte species is largely unknown. The primary objective of the SSD working
group was to investigate this question using available data on the toxicity of pesticides, especially
herbicides, to aquatic macrophytes. The SSD working group selected Compliance Services International
(CSI) to conduct the analysis. Seven companies whose scientists were members of the working group
generously provided funding for the project. In 2009, a new SETAC advisory group, the Aquatic
Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Group (AMEG), was formed to continue the efforts initiated at the AMRAP
workshop. AMEG assumed responsibility for the AMRAP projects, including the SSD project.
CSI collected macrophyte and algal toxicity data for nearly 60 herbicides and fungicides from the open
literature and confidential company reports. CSI reviewed each data source according to predefined
criteria, and only data from studies determined to meet the quality criteria were included in the
analysis. (In a few cases data were taken from reliable secondary sources and data quality was not
independently confirmed.) For 11 herbicides and 3 fungicides, useful toxicity data were found for at
least 6 macrophyte species, which was considered the minimum needed for SSD analysis. Macrophyte
SSDs for 13 of these chemicals were fitted using lognormal regression as described below; for one
chemical, too many “greater-than” values prevented calculation of an SSD. The position of Lemna gibba
in each SSD, as well as the sensitivity of the 4 algal test species required for pesticide registration in the
United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) relative to the
macrophytes in each SSD, were determined. The position of a rooted macrophyte species, Myriophyllum
spicatum, was also determined where data were available, because a standardized Myriophyllum test is
currently under development through another AMRAP working group (Maltby et al. 2010; Dohmen
2010) and through a UBA ring-test (Maleztki and Kussatz 2011; Maleztki et al. 2011) and is
recommended under the recent SANCO 11802-2010 draft regulation.
To maintain the confidentiality of data provided by pesticide registrants, the identity of the herbicides
and fungicides was revealed only to CSI and was not shared with the SSD workgroup. In this report, the
chemicals are identified by codes that indicate the mode of action (MoA) of each chemical but not its
specific identity. The MoAs included inhibition of amino acid synthesis (Chemical A), auxin simulation
(Chemical B), inhibition of cell division or elongation (Chemical C), inhibition of fungal respiration
(Chemicals D1 and D2), inhibition of multiple biosynthesis pathways (Chemicals E1, E2, E3, and E4), and
inhibition of photosynthesis (Chemicals F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5). Because the six MoAs were not equally
represented in the database and three were represented by only a single chemical, conclusions about
the relationship between MoA and species sensitivity must be made with caution.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 7
2. Data Compilation and Evaluation
Macrophyte toxicity data were compiled from open literature and from confidential test reports
provided by participating companies. Algal toxicity data were obtained from the OPP Pesticide Toxicity
Database (EPA 2011b) and, in a few cases, from company reports. A few data points (mostly for algae)
were obtained from other secondary sources such as the EPA ECOTOX database (EPA 2011a) and the
European Commission pesticide review report.
Each primary source was examined and evaluated based on a set of criteria established at the beginning
of the project. Data used in the analysis were required to meet the following criteria:
Test organisms must be identified at least to genus.
Test substance must be identified.
o Active ingredient (a.i.).
o Form (technical-grade or specified formulation, including % a.i.).
Test substance must not include more than one active ingredient.
Negative and/or solvent controls (as appropriate) must be included.
Exposure medium must be reported.
Exposure duration must be specified.
Methods for measuring effects must be described.
Test concentration units must be unambiguous.
o Active ingredient or whole formulation.
o Nominal or measured.
o Initial or mean.
Toxicity endpoint (e.g., EC50, NOEC) must be reported or calculable from data presented.
Beyond these minimum criteria, other criteria were considered in evaluating the relevance and
reliability of the data. These additional criteria were applied in particular cases based on the
professional judgment of the reviewer:
Were the data derived using a standard, validated test method?
Was the source of test organisms described?
Were the plants maintained under appropriate conditions before use in the test?
Were the test organisms healthy at the beginning of the exposure period?
Did the study include multiple exposure concentrations?
o Tests with only two or three concentrations are insufficient for determination of
ECx values.
o No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOECs) are useful only if at least three closelyspaced concentrations are tested.
o Exception: exposure to a single concentration at the water solubility limit is
sufficient to generate a useful NOEC or a “greater than” ECx value.
Were exposure concentrations confirmed by chemical analysis?
o Measured concentrations are preferred for endpoint calculation.
o Measured concentrations should be at least 50% of nominal concentrations.
o Nominal concentrations may be acceptable for relatively stable substances well
below their solubility limits.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 8
Are response measurements reported for each exposure concentration, or only statistical
endpoints such as EC50 or NOEC values?
o If only the endpoint is reported, the statistical method must be specified.
Are response measurements for controls and treatment groups reported?
Is control response acceptable?
Are methods documented sufficiently?
o Organism collection methods
o Pre-exposure acclimation/culture conditions
o Size, age, condition, life stage at initiation of exposure
o Exposure system
o Number of replicates at each concentration
o Procedures for randomization
o Exposure medium composition
o Exposure conditions (light, temperature, aeration, agitation, etc.)
From publications and reports judged to be sound according to the criteria described above, data points
usable for SSD analysis were identified. The data points were compiled in a database (Microsoft Access
2007). For each data point, the following supporting information was recorded:
Study ID (a unique ID for each test).
Reference ID (linked to document information, kept confidential to protect chemical identity).
Active Ingredient Code (linked to confidential information such as chemical name, CAS number,
chemical class, etc.).
Test Substance Code (linked to confidential information such as product name, percent a.i.,
formulation type, etc.).
Species scientific name.
Species common name.
Source of test organisms (field, culture).
Part/size/age at test initiation.
Experimental unit.
Test container.
Medium.
Sediment.
Light (intensity, photoperiod).
Temperature.
Other conditions.
Exposure type (static, semi-static renewal, flow-through).
Exposure duration.
Exposure concentrations.
Analytical confirmation (none, stock solution, initial exposure concentration, mean measured,
etc.).
Measured concentration as percent of nominal concentration.
Controls.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 9
Number of replicates.
Response: plant part (shoot, root, whole plant, etc.).
Response: measurement (number, length, biomass, etc.).
Response: interval (final, increase/decrease during exposure, specific growth rate during
exposure, etc.).
Endpoint (EC50, NOEC, etc.).
Concentration.
Measured or nominal (applies to endpoint concentration).
Control performance.
Comments.
The database, without the confidential information about chemical identity and without details about
test methods, is provided in Appendix A of this report.
3. SSD Analysis Methods
Methods for statistical analysis of SSDs have been thoroughly reviewed by others (e.g., Posthuma et al.
2002; Intrinsik 2009), and advancing the methodology was outside the scope of this project. Given the
uncertainties related to data selection and other factors (Section 6), SSD results should be considered
approximations regardless of the rigor of the statistical method. To address the question of Lemna gibba
and Myriophyllum spicatum position in the SSD, and algal sensitivity relative to all macrophytes, we
believe it is sufficient, at least for an initial analysis, to apply a single, generally applicable distribution
model, the lognormal, to estimate the SSDs for all chemicals. In specific cases other models may fit the
data better than the lognormal. We acknowledge that applying a single statistical model to all datasets
adds another source of uncertainty to the results. The analysis reported here could be refined through
exploration of alternative distribution models. The ranking of species according to sensitivity is
unaffected by the SSD model used.
3.1 Overview of SSD Analysis
The SSD analysis method used in this investigation is based on the assumption that the sensitivity of
aquatic plant species (represented by data points from toxicity tests) follows a lognormal distribution.
For each herbicide or fungicide to be analyzed, one data point is selected from the available data for
each species (see Section 3.2). The species data points for that herbicide or fungicide are sorted (lowest
to highest), the rank of each data point is transformed based on a normal distribution, and a linear
regression is fitted to the data using the log of the data point concentration as the independent variable
and the normalized rank as the dependent variable. The slope and intercept of the regression can be
used to estimate the concentration at which a specified fraction of species is affected (the HCx value,
where x represents the percentage of species, typically 5% or 50%), and to estimate the fraction of
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 10
species affected (FA)1 at a specified concentration. The calculations are implemented in a Microsoft
Excel 2007 spreadsheet.
3.2 Data Selection
The database contained a variety of statistical endpoints, but only median effect concentrations (EC50s)
were available for a sufficient number of species to support SSD analysis. The EC50s were based on a
wide variety of biological measurements, and these had to be pooled for SSD analysis. Basing SSDs on a
variety of measurements was necessary for two reasons. First, differences in biology of the test species
necessitate differences in measured responses (e.g. frond number, root length, plant dry weight); to
construct an SSD that includes macrophytes with different morphology and growth characteristics
requires the use of differently-derived EC50s for different species. Second, as a practical matter,
subdividing the database by categories of measured data points severely reduces the number of SSDs
that can be evaluated, because equivalent data are often unavailable for 6 or more species.
Comparisons across chemicals are also limited if they are based on subsets of the measurement data
points.
Toxicity data points for aquatic plants are typically derived from single or repeated measurements of
plant standing crop. Standing crop can be quantified as biomass (wet or dry weight), shoot length,
chlorophyll, or a similar measurement. The effect of the chemical on the plant can be assessed based on
(a) the standing crop at a particular point in time, (b) the absolute increase in standing crop over a span
of time, or (c) the relative rate of increase (specific growth rate). Even for a single standing crop
measurement (e.g., whole plant dry weight), toxicity data points based on (a), (b), and (c) from a single
test will differ.
Bergtold and Dohmen (2011) present reasons why data points based on specific growth rate are more
informative and better suited to effects characterization than data points based on standing crop or
standing crop increase (the “yield” response). Growth rate data points are preferred (e.g., OECD
Guideline 201) because they are independent of the absolute level of the control growth rate, the slope
of the concentration-effect curve, and the test duration; in contrast, all of these factors affect the
numerical value of a yield-based data point. For mathematical reasons, an EC50 calculated for growth
rate is usually greater than an EC50 calculated for yield from the same experimental data.
A small percentage of the data points in the AMRAP database were based on functional measurements,
mainly photosynthesis. There were not enough of these data points to support any firm conclusions
about their sensitivity relative to yield-based or growth rate data points. Methods for functional
measurements are even less standardized than other aspects of aquatic macrophyte ecotoxicology.
Given the difficulties of restricting data selection for SSDs based on categories of measurement data
points, the SSDs examined in this project used the lowest reported EC50 for each species, regardless of
the biological measurement upon which the EC50 was based. While selection of the lowest available
EC50 is standard regulatory practice (e.g., US EPA 2004), it leaves open the possibility that a data point
based on a non-standard measurement parameter could unduly influence the SSD. If all of the original
1
The meaning of “affected” depends on the data points used in the SSD. In this analysis, the SSDs were based on
EC50 values, so FA indicates the expected fraction of species for which the response measurement (e.g. biomass) is
reduced by 50% or more.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 11
data were available for each study, much of the variation among measurement data points could be
normalized by re-calculating EC50s based on relative growth rate. However, such re-calculations were
outside the scope of the current project.
3.3 Lognormal Regression
The process used to generate each SSD using Microsoft Excel functions was as follows:
1. Sort data points (one per species) from lowest to highest.
2. Assign a rank from 1 to N (number of data points) to each data point.
3. Transform rank of each data point (n) to corresponding Weibull plotting position (p) as follows:
p = n/(N+1)
4. Transform each Weibull plotting position (p) to a normal scale (p’) using Excel NORMSINV
function as follows:
p’ = NORMSINV(p)
The NORMSINV() function returns the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution,
with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
5. Transform concentration value (C) of each data point to a logarithm (c’) as follows:
c’ = log(C)
6. Use Excel functions to estimate the parameters of a linear regression with c’ as the independent
variable and p’ as the dependent variable:
Slope = SLOPE(p’,c’)
Intercept = INTERCEPT(p’,c’)
r2 = RSQ(p’,c’)
Note: only values between (but not including) the lowest “greater than” value and the highest
“less than” value are used in the regression.
7. Treat “greater than” and “less than” values as follows:
a. Include “greater than” and “less than” values when sorting and ranking data points.
b. “Greater than” values and all data points larger than the smallest “greater than” value
are not used in the lognormal regression but are included in calculation of rank.
c. “Less than” values and all data points smaller than the largest “less than” value are not
used in the lognormal regression but are included in calculation of rank. (Note: This
situation was not encountered in this database.)
8. Estimate the HCx (the concentration at which x percent of species are affected) from the slope
and intercept of the regression as follows:
HCx = 10^((NORMSINV(x)-Intercept)/Slope)
Note: express x as a fraction in the NORMSINV() function.
9. Estimate the lower and upper 95% confidence limits on HCx as follows:
LL=100*NORMSDIST(NORMSINV(x)-t0.5,N-2*SQRT((1+1/N+(HCx-average(c’))2/(var(c’)*(N-1)))*S2(y.x)))
UL=100*NORMSDIST(NORMSINV(x)+t0.5,N-2*SQRT((1+1/N+(HCx-average(c’))2/(var(c’)*(N-1)))*S2(y.x)))
The NORMSDIST() function returns the standard normal cumulative distribution (has a mean of zero
and a standard deviation of one).
10. Estimate the fraction of species affected (FA) at any exposure concentration (EC) as follows:
FA = NORMSDIST(log(EC)*Slope+Intercept)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 12
3.4 Presentation of Results
The approach to presentation of the SSD analysis was as follows:
1. Tabulate the data points used in the SSD calculation.
2. Report the parameters of the lognormal regression (slope, intercept, r2, N).
3. Plot the fitted lognormal curve and the individual observations (data points).
Note: “Greater than” data points were plotted as open symbols distributed along the upper tail
of the regression curve. For each such data point, the vertical plotting position was the assumed
Weibull value and the horizontal plotting position was the corresponding concentration derived
from the slope and intercept of the regression. This simplification was used as a plotting
convention and did not affect the numerical results, because these points were not used in the
regression.
4. Report the HC5 and HC50 and their 95% confidence limits as representative descriptors of the
SSD.
5. Report the empirical position (as a Weibull value) of Lemna gibba and Myriophyllum spicatum
on the macrophyte SSD. For algae, which are not included in the SSD, estimate the fraction of
macrophyte species that would be affected (FA) at the EC50 of the most sensitive algal species.
6. Report the ratios of each Lemna gibba and Myriophyllum spicatum data point, and of the lowest
algal EC50, to the HC5 concentrations.
7. Report the ratios of each L. gibba and M. spicatum data point, and of the lowest algal EC50, to
the data point for the most sensitive macrophyte species.
4. Results
Results of the analysis for each of the 14 chemicals are presented below.
4.1 Chemical A
Chemical A inhibits amino acid biosynthesis. There are EC50 values for 16 macrophyte species.
Myriophyllum spicatum is the most sensitive of 16 macrophyte species. M. sibiricum and M. aquaticum
are 4 to 10 times less sensitive than M. spicatum and fall in the upper half of the macrophyte SSD.
Lemna minor and L. gibba rank 4th and 5th on the SSD, respectively, with EC50 values 2 to 3 times
higher than M. spicatum. L. trisulca is in the upper end of the macrophyte SSD. Two macrophyte species
have indeterminate (greater-than) EC50s.
Of the standard algal species required for testing under FIFRA, three have indeterminate EC50s as high
as >92,800 ppb (Navicula pelliculosa). The only definitive algal EC50, for Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata,
is greater than 14 of the 16 macrophyte EC50 values (i.e., all except the indeterminate EC50s).
All of the macrophyte data points are standing crop data points. Most (11 of the 16 EC50s) are 14-d leaf
area. Three data points, including the two most sensitive species (M. spicatum and Elodea nuttallii) as
well as M. sibiricum, are root length or weight. The position of M. spicatum and E. nuttallii at the low
end of the SSD is not simply a reflection of root measurements, however: the EC50 for new shoot length
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 13
is nearly as low as the lowest EC50 for M. spicatum, and the EC50 for plant dry weight is nearly as low as
the lowest EC50 for E. nuttallii (see Appendix A for a listing of all data points).
Figure 1. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical A
Note: larger circles indicate “greater than” points extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
16
N (in regression)
14
r2
0.8965
HC5 (ppb)
0.018 (0.0056-0.060)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
0.39 (0.14-1.1)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 14
Table 1. Chemical A: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range2
Myriophyllum spicatum
21-d root length
0.055
0.055 - 1.035 (9)
Elodea nuttallii
21-d root dry wt
0.058
0.058 – 3.82 (33)
Batrachium trichophyllum
14-d leaf area
0.07
0.07 (1)
Lemna minor
14-d leaf area
0.1
0.1 - 1.57 (9)
Lemna gibba
21-d dry wt
0.142
0.142 – 4.00 (11)
Spirodela polyrhiza
14-d leaf area
0.19
0.19 – 0.32 (2)
Ceratophyllum demersum
14-d leaf area
0.2
0.2 - >1000 (3)
Myriophyllum sibiricum
14-d root dry wt
0.22
0.22 – 0.39 (3)
Potamogeton crispus
14-d leaf area
0.23
0.23 (1)
Elodea canadensis
14-d leaf area
0.57
0.57 – 0.79 (2)
Lemna trisulca
14-d leaf area
0.62
0.62 - >1000 (3)
Myriophyllum aquaticum
14-d chlorophyll a
0.624
0.624 - 7.0 (7)
Ceratophyllum submersum
14-d leaf area
2.21
2.21 - >300 (2)
Berula erecta
14-d leaf area
3.92
3.92 (1)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
n.s.
>93.6
>93.6 (1)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
n.s.
>95.4
>95.4 (1)
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Callitriche platycarpa
n.s.
130
130 – 286 (3)
14-d leaf area
>300
>300 (1)
Sparganium emersum
14-d leaf area
>1000
>300 - >1000 (2)
n.s.
>92800
>92800 (1)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 15
4.2 Chemical B
Chemical B is an auxin herbicide. There are EC50 values for 15 macrophyte species.
Myriophyllum sibiricum, M. spicatum, and M. aquaticum are the 3 most sensitive species, with all EC50s
in a narrow range. M. brasiliense is the least sensitive rooted macrophyte species, more than 40x less
sensitive than the other three Myriophyllum species. This difference may be due to different response
measurements: the data point for M. brasiliense is 14-d plant transpiration, a functional measurement,
while the other three are standing-crop measurements. Lemna minor, L. gibba and L. trisulca are the 3
least sensitive macrophyte species. All algae are less sensitive than all sediment-rooted macrophytes.
Most of the macrophyte data points, including the 9 lowest EC50s, are for standing crop. There is one
growth endpoint and one functional endpoint. The lowest EC50s for the three Myriophyllum species
clustered at the lower end of the SSD are for a variety of measurements: root length (M. sibiricum), bud
number (M. spicatum), and carotenoid contents (M. aquaticum).
Figure 2. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical B
Note: larger circles indicate “greater than” points extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
15
N (in regression)
13
r2
0.9390
HC5 (ppb)
7.7 (3.0-20)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
177 (78-400)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 16
Table 2. Chemical B: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Myriophyllum sibiricum
14-d root length
13
13 - >1470 (3)
Myriophyllum spicatum
5-d bud number
14
14 - 730 (14)
Myriophyllum aquaticum
14-d carotenoid
19
19 - >5100 (9)
Ranunculus aquatilis
28-d root length
92
92 - >3000 (4)
Ranunculus circinatus
28-d root length
100
100 – 2731 (6)
Potamogeton pectinatus
77-d plant biomass
121
121 (1)
Ranunculus peltatus
28-d shoot length
140
140 – 271 (4)
Potamogeton lucens
28-d root length
181
181 - >3000 (5)
Salvinia natans
28-d chlorophyll
250
250 – 5400 (5)
Potamogeton crispus
28-d root length
290
290 - >3000 (6)
Elodea nuttallii
28-d relative growth
292
292 - >3000 (12)
Myriophyllum brasiliense
14-d plant transpiration
690
690 – 2070 (4)
Lemna gibba
n.s.
695
695 (1)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
n.s.
2020
2020 (1)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
n.s.
2020
2020 (1)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
n.s.
>2020
>2020 (1)
Lemna trisulca
28-d plant dry wt
>3000
>3000 (2)
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Lemna minor
n.s.
33200
33200 – 41772 (2)
>100000
>100000 (1)
4-d frond number
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 17
4.3 Chemical C
Chemical C inhibits cells division and elongation. There are EC50 values for 10 macrophyte species
(including Chara intermedia, a macroalga).
Lemna gibba is the most sensitive macrophyte. Myriophyllum spicatum and M. aquaticum are relatively
insensitive; both are indeterminate (greater-than) values in the extrapolated portion of the SSD. Three
of the 4 FIFRA algal species (excluding Anabaena flos-aquae) are more sensitive than all macrophyte
species, about twice as sensitive as L. gibba.
Most of the macrophyte data points are for standing crop (weight or length) or standing crop increase.
The two Lemna data points are for growth rate. EC50 values based on growth rate are expected (for
mathematical reasons) to be greater than EC50 values based on standing crop; if a standing crop EC50
were available for L. gibba, the position of this species at the low end of the SSD would be unaffected.
Figure 3. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical C
Note: larger circles indicate “greater than” points extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
10
N (in regression)
6
r2
0.9723
HC5 (ppb)
4.8 (1.7-14)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
366 (156-855)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 18
Table 3. Chemical C: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data (other than
macroalgae) were not used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
n.s.
5.2
5.2 (1)
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
n.s.
5.4
5.4 (1)
n.s.
6.7
6.7 (1)
10-d growth rate (frond
number)
14-d shoot fresh wt
11.8
11.8 – 288 (14)
25
25 – 86.5 (3)
Heteranthera zosterifolia
14-d shoot length increase
108
108 – 193 (4)
Ceratophyllum demersum
7-d shoot length
146
146 (1)
n.s.
>174
>174 (1)
280
280 – 634 (2)
Myriophyllum spicatum
7-d growth rate (frond
area)
21-d shoot length increase
>400
>400 (3)
Egeria densa
7-d shoot length increase
>400
>400 (3)
Potamogeton natans
14-d shoot length increase
>400
>400 (4)
Hygrophila polysperma
14-d shoot length
403
403 (1)
Myriophyllum aquaticum
14-d shoot length increase
8550
8550 – 24130 (6)
Lemna gibba
Chara intermedia (macroalgae)
3
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
Lemna minor
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
3
Included in SSD construction.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 19
4.4 Chemical D1
Chemical D1 inhibits fungal respiration. There are EC50 values for 9 macrophyte species.
The most sensitive macrophyte species is Elodea nuttallii. Myriophyllum spicatum is in the lower portion
of the macrophyte SSD, with an EC50 twice as high as E. nuttallii. M. aquaticum is near the middle of the
SSD. Lemna gibba and L. trisulca are near the upper end of the SSD. Only Callitriche platycarpa is less
sensitive than the two Lemna species. Three FIFRA algae species are more sensitive than all
macrophytes and the fourth species (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) is more sensitive than all
macrophytes except E. nuttallii.
Six of the macrophyte data points are for standing crop (dry weight, shoot length, or root length). The
other three macrophyte data points, including M. spicatum, are for growth rate.
Figure 4. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical D1
Note: larger circle indicates “greater than” point extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
9
N (in regression)
8
r2
0.8431
HC5 (ppb)
36 (7.5-174)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
459 (135-1557)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 20
Table 4. Chemical D1: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
n.s.
13
13 (1)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
n.s.
14
14 (1)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
n.s.
74
74 – 200 (2)
Elodea nuttallii
21-d new shoot length
94
94 - >3300 (7)
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Elodea canadensis
n.s.
190
190 (1)
21-d root dry wt
194
194 - >3300 (8)
Myriophyllum spicatum
21-d plant relative growth
rate
21-d root dry wt
200
200 - >3300 (5)
297
297 - >3300 (7)
354
354 – 783 (2)
Myriophyllum aquaticum
21-d plant relative growth
rate
14-d root length
480
480 – 4490 (7)
Lemna gibba
14-d frond dry wt
510
510 – 720 (3)
Lemna trisulca
21-d plant relative growth
rate
21-d plant dry wt
2881
2881 - >3300 (2)
>3300
>3300 (2)
Potamogeton crispus
Ceratophyllum demersum
Callitriche platycarpa
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 21
4.5 Chemical D2
Chemical D2 inhibits fungal respiration. There are EC50 values for 10 macrophyte species.
Macrophyte sensitivity to this chemical is highly variable, with EC50 values spanning 3 orders of
magnitude. The most sensitive macrophyte species is Elodea canadensis. Myriophyllum spicatum and
Lemna gibba are near the midpoint of the macrophyte SSD. L. minor and L. trisulca are at the upper end
of the SSD.
Skeletonema costatum, the most sensitive of the FIFRA algal species, is 5 times less sensitive than E.
canadensis, but the EC50 is still in the low end of the macrophyte SSD. EC50s for all of the FIFRA algal
species are in the lower half of the macrophyte SSD.
The lowest EC50s for most macrophytes are based on standing crop data points for roots (dry weight or
length). Data points based on shoot or whole plant standing crop are as much as 1000 times higher than
root data points for all rooted species (see Appendix A for a list of all data points). For example, the
lowest non-root EC50 for E. canadensis is 451 ppb for new shoot length, which is 100 times higher than
the EC50 for root length. No root-based EC50 is available for Potamogeton cripsus or Callitriche
platycarpa, and these species are at or near the upper end of the macrophyte SSD. This SSD is therefore
strongly influenced by the differences in data points between and within species.
Figure 5. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical D2
Note: larger circle indicates “greater than” point extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
10
N (in regression)
9
r2
0.8992
HC5 (ppb)
2.8 (0.49-144)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
229 (8.7-5966)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 22
Table 5. Chemical D2: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Elodea canadensis
21-d root length
4
4 - >3300 (8)
Ranunculus peltatus
21-d root dry wt
16
16 – 1108 (6)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
4-d (n.s.)
20.3
20.3 – 80 (3)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
5-d (n.s.)
50
50 (1)
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Elodea nuttallii
4-d (n.s.)
50
50 – 290 (2)
21-d root dry wt
109
109 – 1018 (7)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
5-d (n.s.)
124
124 (1)
Myriophyllum spicatum
21-d root dry wt
236
236 – 1599 (6)
Lemna gibba
14-d (n.s.)
250
250 (1)
Potamogeton crispus
338
338 – 888 (3)
Ranunculus circinatus
21-d plant relative growth
rate
21-d root length
341
341 – 696 (6)
Lemna minor
2-d (n.s.)
800
800 (1)
Lemna trisulca
21-d plant relative growth
rate
21-d plant dry wt
1282
1282 – 1656 (2)
>3300
>3300 (2)
Callitriche platycarpa
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 23
4.6 Chemical E1
Chemical E1 inhibits multiple biosynthesis pathways. There are EC50 values for 6 macrophyte species.
There is a broad range of aquatic plant sensitivity to this herbicide, with EC50s spanning 4 orders of
magnitude. Three macrophyte species have indeterminate (greater-than) EC50s. There are definitive
EC50 values for only 3 macrophyte species, which is insufficient for an SSD. However, the relative
sensitivity of the aquatic plants is clear. Lemna gibba is the most sensitive of the 6 macrophyte species.
Myriophyllum spicatum is among the three macrophyte species with indeterminate EC50s, at least 75
times less sensitive than L. gibba. Two algal species, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Skeletonema
costatum, are similar in sensitivity to L. gibba.
Five of the 6 macrophyte data points are for standing crop (dry weight or frond number); 1 (the highest)
is for growth rate.
Table 6. Chemical E1: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (algae)
Lemna gibba
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
5-d (n.s.)
1.43
1.43 (1)
7-d frond number
2.7
2.7 - >26 (9)
4-d (n.s.)
3.4
3.4 (1)
Elodea canadensis
27-d dry wt
>16
>8 - >16 (10)
Lagarosiphon major
21-d dry wt
47
47 - >200 (5)
Glyceria maxima
70-d dry wt
>200
>200 (11)
Myriophyllum spicatum
21-d dry wt
>200
>200 (5)
4-d (n.s.)
1380
1380 (1)
4-d growth rate
6950
6950 (1)
5-d (n.s.)
35000
35000 (1)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
Spirodela oligorrhiza
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 24
4.7 Chemical E2
Chemical E2 inhibits multiple biosynthesis pathways. There are EC50 values for 12 macrophyte species.
There is a broad range of aquatic plant sensitivity to this herbicide, with a factor of at least 2750
between the smallest and greatest EC50. Lemna gibba is the most sensitive macrophyte. All other
macrophyte species (including L. minor) are more than 40 times less sensitive than L. gibba.
Myriophyllum spicatum is in the low end of the SSD. Many macrophyte species have indeterminate
(greater-than) EC50s.
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, the only algal species for which data are available, is comparable in
sensitivity to L. gibba and much more sensitive than all other macrophyte species.
All of the macrophyte data points are for standing crop.
Figure 6. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical E2
Note: larger circles indicate “greater than” points extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
12
N (in regression)
6
r2
0.9035
HC5 (ppb)
1.4 (0.067-30)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
2428 (163-36119)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 25
Table 7. Chemical E2: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Lemna gibba
5-d (n.s.)
1.64
1.64 – 6 (2)
14-d frond number
2.3
2.3 (1)
Ceratophyllum demersum
14-d wet wt increase
85
85 (1)
Myriophyllum spicatum
14-d shoot length
104.3
104.3 - >5018 (3)
Lemna minor
4-d frond number
198
198 – 482 (2)
Najas sp.
14-d wet wt
584
584 (1)
Lagarosiphon major
14-d shoot fresh wt
825.4
825.4 - >2878 (2)
Potamogeton pectinatus
14-d wet wt increase
>1000
>1000 (1)
Glyceria maxima
14-d dry wt
>1610
>1610 (3)
Elodea canadensis
14-d wet wt increase
>3000
>3000 (1)
Myriophyllum heterophyllum
14-d wet wt increase
>3000
>3000 (1)
Potamogeton crispus
14-d dry wt
>3075
>3075 (3)
Ranunculus penicillatus
14-d dry wt
>4499
>4499 (3)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 26
4.8 Chemical E3
Chemical E3 inhibits multiple biosynthesis pathways. There are EC50 values for 8 macrophyte species.
Lemna gibba is the most sensitive macrophyte. L. paucicostata and L. minor are in the middle and upper
portion of the macrophyte SSD. There are no data for Myriophyllum spicatum. The EC50 for M.
heterophyllum is indeterminate, and greater than all other tested macrophytes.
The most sensitive algal species is Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, about 4-fold more sensitive than L.
gibba. The EC50 for Skeletonema costatum is also in the lower end of the macrophyte SSD, only 1.5
times greater than the EC50 for L. gibba. Other algal species are in the upper end of the macrophyte
SSD.
All of the macrophyte data points are for standing crop.
Figure 7. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical E3
Note: larger circle indicates “greater than” point extrapolated from the SSD as described in Section 3.4.
N (total)
8
N (in regression)
7
r2
0.8563
HC5 (ppb)
6.5 (0.65-66)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
244 (43-1389)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 27
Table 8. Chemical E3: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Lemna gibba
n.s.
10
10 – 77 (2)
14-d plant biomass
43
43 – 169 (5)
Salvinia natans
28-d chlorophyll b
50
50 – 550 (5)
n.s.
61
61 (1)
Ceratophyllum demersum
14-d plant wet wt increase
70
70 (1)
Lemna paucicostata
7-d plant dry wt
118
118 – 511 (2)
Najas sp.
14-d plant wet wt
242
242 (1)
Lemna minor
4-d frond number
343
343 - >575 (4)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
n.s.
380
380 (1)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
n.s.
1200
1200 (1)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
Elodea canadensis
14-d plant wet wt increase
2355
2355 (1)
Myriophyllum heterophyllum
14-d plant wet wt increase
>3000
>3000 (1)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 28
4.9 Chemical E4
Chemical E4 inhibits multiple biosynthesis pathways. There are EC50 values for 8 macrophyte species,
including Chara intermedia (a macroalga).
EC50s for macrophytes are within a fairly narrow range (25-fold difference between the highest and
lowest). The most sensitive macrophyte species is Ceratophyllum demersum. There are no data for
Lemna gibba. L. minor is near the middle of the macrophyte SSD, but only 3 times less sensitive than C.
demersum. Myriophyllum spicatum is in the upper end of the macrophyte SSD.
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata is more sensitive than all macrophyte species. The only other algal
species for which data are available, Anabaena flos-aquae, is less sensitive than all macrophyte species.
All macrophyte data points are based on standing crop. Six of the 8 data points are for shoot length
increase.
Figure 8. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical E4
N (total)
8
N (in regression)
8
r2
0.9739
HC5 (ppb)
6.3 (3.5-11)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
51 (32-81)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 29
Table 9. Chemical E4: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data (other than
macroalgae) were not used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Ceratophyllum demersum
3-d biomass
1.95
1.95 – 3.96 (2)
7-d shoot length increase
10.3
10.3 – 19.4 (2)
Elodea densa
7-d shoot length increase
25.6
25.6 – 28.9 (2)
Lemna minor
14-d biomass
31.8
31.8 – 39.5 (2)
Heteranthera zosterifolia
14-d shoot length increase
39.6
39.6 (1)
Vallisneria spiralis
21-d leaf length increase
45.4
45.4 (1)
13-d shoot length increase
81.5
81.5 (1)
7-d shoot length increase
139
139 (1)
14-d shoot length increase
258.7
258.7 (1)
4-d biomass
9400
9400 (1)
Myriophyllum spicatum
Chara intermedia (macroalgae)
3
Hygrophila polysperma
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
3
Included in SSD construction.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 30
4.10 Chemical F1
Chemical F1 is a photosynthesis inhibitor. There are EC50 values for 9 macrophyte species. Some of
these data come from secondary sources (EPA pesticide toxicity database, peer-reviewed risk
assessment) and have not been evaluated for quality; for these, details about experimental methods
and measurement endpoints are incomplete.
Three macrophyte species with very similar EC50s (Elodea canadensis, Ceratophyllum demersum, and
Najas sp.) are at the low end of the SSD. Lemna gibba is the next most sensitive species, with an EC50
within a factor of 2 of E. canadensis, C. demersum, and Najas sp. L. minor is less sensitive, with an EC50
near the middle of the SSD. Myriophyllum spicatum is the least sensitive species, with an EC50 10-fold
greater than the next most sensitive macrophyte. M. heterophyllum is near the middle of the SSD.
EC50s for algae occur throughout the macrophyte SSD. The most sensitive algal species, Skeletonema
costatum, is as sensitive as the most sensitive macrophytes.
The lognormal model does not fit the data well, especially at the low end of the SSD. A better fitting
model would probably result in a higher HC5.
Figure 9. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F1
N (total)
9
N (in regression)
9
r2
0.8452
HC5 (ppb)
2.5 (0.24-26)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
95 (14-638)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 31
Table 10. Chemical F1: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Measurement
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Elodea canadensis
14-d wet wt increase
21
21 (1)
Ceratophyllum demersum
14-d wet wt increase
22
22 (1)
Najas sp.
14-d wet wt
24
24 (1)
5-d EC50
24
24 (1)
n.s.
37
37 (1)
5-d EC50
49
49 (1)
5-d EC50
60
60 (1)
92
92 (1)
Hydrilla verticillata
4-d growth rate (frond
number)
n.s.
110
110 (1)
Myriophyllum heterophyllum
14-d wet wt increase
132
132 (1)
5-d EC50
230
230 (1)
Thalassia testudinum
n.s.
320
320 (1)
Myriophyllum spicatum
5-d branch number
3700
3700 (1)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
Lemna gibba
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
Lemna minor
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 32
4.11 Chemical F2
Chemical F2 is a photosynthesis inhibitor. There are EC50 values for 8 macrophyte species, including
Chara globularis (a macroalga).
The range of macrophyte sensitivity is very narrow, with only a 5-fold difference between the most
sensitive (Elodea nuttallii) and the least sensitive (Lemna minor). Myriophyllum spicatum is nearly as
sensitive as E. nuttallii. L. gibba is near the upper end of the macrophyte SSD, but still less than 3-fold
less sensitive than E. nuttallii.
The FIFRA algal species are less sensitive than all macrophytes except the two Lemna species.
Nevertheless, even the least sensitive algal species, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, is within a factor of
10 of the most sensitive macrophyte.
Most of the macrophyte EC50s are for a functional measurement, photosynthesis. The Lemna data
points are based on standing crop (L. gibba) and growth rate (L. minor). The two lowest EC50s are for
photosynthesis after 35 days of exposure, while the other photosynthesis EC50s are derived from
measurements made after 1 day of exposure. Data for both exposure durations are available for E.
nuttallii and the resulting EC50s are similar, implying that the difference in exposure duration among
species data points is not a significant factor in this SSD.
Figure 10. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F2.
N (total)
8
N (in regression)
8
r2
0.8147
HC5 (ppb)
4.1 (1.6-11)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
14 (6.8-30)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 33
Table 11. Chemical F2: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data (other
than macroalgae) were not used to construct the SSD.
Species
Endpoint
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Elodea nuttallii
35-d photosynthesis
8.3
8.3 – 13.4 (3)
Ceratophyllum demersum
35-d photosynthesis
8.7
8.7 (1)
1-d photosynthesis
11.8
11.8 (1)
1-d photosynthesis
12.1
12.1 (1)
Potamogeton crispus
1-d photosynthesis
12.9
12.9 (1)
Ranunculus circinatus
1-d photosynthesis
13.2
13.2 (1)
n.s.
13.7
13.7 (1)
7-d dry wt increase
21.0
21 – 55 (3)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
n.s.
35.9
35.9 (1)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
n.s.
38.8
38.8 (1)
7-d growth rate (plant biomass)
46.5
46.5 – 85.2 (4)
n.s.
67.0
67.0 (1)
Myriophyllum spicatum
Chara globularis (macroalga)
3
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
3
Included in SSD construction.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 34
4.12 Chemical F3
Chemical F3 is a photosynthesis inhibitor. There are EC50 values for 6 macrophyte species. The
lognormal distribution is not a good fit for these data (r2 = 0.7602); thus the HCx values and ratios based
upon them are uncertain. However, the relative sensitivity of species can still be determined from the
data.
The most sensitive macrophyte species is Lemna minor, and the least sensitive species is L. gibba. These
EC50s span a 20-fold range. There are no data for Myriophyllum spicatum. M. heterophyllum is near the
middle of the macrophyte SSD.
The most sensitive algal species, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, is nearly as sensitive as L. minor. Other
algal species are scattered throughout the macrophyte SSD.
All of the macrophyte data points are based on standing crop.
Figure 11. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F3.
N (total)
6
N (in regression)
6
r2
0.7602
HC5 (ppb)
1.8 (0.12-28)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
22 (3.2-154)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 35
Table 12. Chemical F3: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Endpoint
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Lemna minor
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
14-d plant biomass
7.9
7.9 – 37 (5)
n.s.
8.09
8.09 – 43 (3)
n.s.
11.9
11.9 (1)
Ceratophyllum demersum
14-d wet wt increase
14
14 (1)
Myriophyllum heterophyllum
14-d wet wt increase
17
17 (1)
n.s.
17
17 (1)
Najas sp.
14-d plant wet wt
19
19 (1)
Elodea canadensis
14-d wet wt increase
21
21 (1)
n.s.
80.88
80.88 (1)
n.s.
160
160 (1)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
Lemna gibba
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 36
4.13 Chemical F4
Chemical F4 is a photosynthetic inhibitor. There are EC50 values for 10 macrophyte species.
There is only about a 15-fold EC50 range among macrophyte species. The most sensitive macrophyte
species is Lemna gibba, and the least sensitive species is L. trisulca. L. minor is in the lower end of the
macrophyte SSD. Myriophyllum spicatum is near the middle of the macrophyte SSD, but its EC50 is
within a factor of 4 of the EC50 for L. gibba.
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, the most sensitive algal species, is 5-fold more sensitive than L. gibba.
Navicula pelliculosa is also more sensitive than all macrophyte species. EC50s for the other two FIFRA
algal species are in the middle of the macrophyte SSD.
All of the macrophyte data points except L. gibba are for standing crop. The L. gibba EC50 comes from
the EPA pesticide toxicity database, which does not specify the measurement endpoint.
Figure 12. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F4.
N (total)
10
N (in regression)
10
r2
0.9366
HC5 (ppb)
10 (4.8-22)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
75 (39-142)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 37
Table 13. Chemical F4: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Endpoint
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
(algae)
Navicula pelliculosa (algae)
n.s.
3.2
3.2 (1)
n.s.
11
11 (1)
Lemna gibba
n.s.
16
16 (1)
Ceratophyllum submersum
14-d plant dry wt
17
17 – 69 (2)
n.s.
31
31 (1)
Lemna minor
14-d plant dry wt
40
40 – 182 (6)
Myriophyllum spicatum
14-d plant dry wt
55
55 (1)
Elodea canadensis
14-d plant dry wt
98
98 – 305 (2)
n.s.
99
99 (1)
Potamogeton crispus
14-d plant dry wt
109
109 – 199 (2)
Callitriche platycarpa
14-d plant dry wt
119
119 – 158 (2)
Spirodela polyrhiza
14-d plant dry wt
146
146 – 228 (2)
Ceratophyllum demersum
14-d plant dry wt
196
196 (1)
Lemna trisulca
14-d plant dry wt
254
254 (1)
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
Anabaena flos-aquae (algae)
1
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
n.s.: measurement not specified in data source.
2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 38
4.14 Chemical F5
Chemical F5 is a photosynthetic inhibitor. There are EC50 values for 8 macrophyte species.
The most sensitive macrophyte species is Spirodela polyrhiza. There are no data for Lemna gibba; L.
minor is the least sensitive macrophyte species, and L. trisulca is near the middle of the macrophyte SSD.
Myriophyllum spicatum is less sensitive than all macrophytes except L. minor.
Skeletonema costatum, the only standard FIFRA species for which data are available, is more sensitive
than all macrophyte species.
Nearly all of the macrophyte data points are based on growth rate. EC50s for both Lemna species are
based on a functional measurement, photosynthesis.
Figure 13. Macrophyte SSD for Chemical F5.
N (total)
8
N (in regression)
8
r2
0.9832
HC5 (ppb)
2.9 (1.8-4.7)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
HC50 (ppb)
26 (18-39)
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 39
Table 14. Chemical F5: Macrophyte and algal toxicity values used in the analysis. Algal data were not
used to construct the SSD.
Species
Endpoint
EC50 (ppb)1
EC50 range 2
3-d growth
0.86
0.86 (1)
Spirodela polyrhiza
Skeletonema costatum (algae)
21-d relative growth
4.6
4.6 – 33.1 (2)
Elodea nuttallii
21-d relative growth
11.8
11.8 – 97.7 (2)
Ceratophyllum demersum
21-d relative growth
12.9
12.9 – 1357.3 (2)
Elodea canadensis
21-d relative growth
23.4
23.4 – 44.5 (2)
Lemna trisulca
21-d photosynthesis
36.1
36.1 – 64.5 (2)
Potamogeton crispus
21-d relative growth
38.8
38.8 (1)
Myriophyllum spicatum
21-d relative growth
73.4
73.4 (1)
Lemna minor
21-d photosynthesis
130.4
130.4 – 198.9 (2)
1
2
Lowest EC50 for each species.
Number of EC50 values in parentheses.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 40
5. Discussion
Taken together, the results described above for the 14 chemicals show that neither Lemna gibba nor
Myriophyllum spicatum is consistently among the most sensitive macrophyte species for all herbicides
and fungicides. For the majority of the chemicals examined, the most sensitive of the FIFRA algal species
is more sensitive than the most sensitive macrophyte. For 13 of the 14 chemicals, one or more of the
EC50s for L. gibba and the 4 FIFRA algal species is near or below the EC50 for the most sensitive
macrophyte species. For the remaining chemical, while neither Lemna gibba nor the FIFRA algal species
lie within the lower portion of the macrophyte SSD, M. spicatum is among the most sensitive species.
The positions of L. gibba, the most sensitive algal species, and M. spicatum relative to the macrophyte
SSD are characterized below in three ways:
1. The position of the species in the macrophyte SSD. For L. gibba and M. spicatum, position is
expressed as a Weibull percentile (p = n/(N+1)). This is an empirical value, independent of the
distribution model. For algae, position is expressed as the fraction of macrophyte species with
EC50 below the EC50 of the algal species (Fraction Affected), which is estimated from the
lognormal SSD regression. The algae are not included in the SSD.
2. The ratio of the EC50 for the species to the HC5 of the macrophyte SSD. This is a function of the
rank (or, in the case of algae, the equivalent macrophyte FA) of the species and the slope of the
macrophyte SSD. This ratio is subject to the uncertainties of the HC5 estimation; for example, a
poor fit of the lognormal model will introduce error in the EC50/HC5 ratio.
3. The ratio of the EC50 for the species to the EC50 of the most sensitive macrophyte. This is an
empirical measure of the difference in sensitivity between the species and the most sensitive
macrophyte species.
As summarized below, evaluation of the results in terms of these parameters indicates that, while no
single species consistently represents the most sensitive macrophyte species, the combination of L.
gibba and the 4 FIFRA algae includes a data point near or below the most sensitive macrophyte data
point or the macrophyte HC5 for 13 of the 14 chemicals examined. For the remaining chemical, M.
spicatum is among the most sensitive macrophyte species.
5.1 Lemna gibba
The position of Lemna gibba in the macrophyte SSD for the 12 chemicals for which data are available
ranges from 7.7% to 85.7% (Table 15 and Figure 14). For 5 of the 12 chemicals, the position of L. gibba is
low (below the 15th percentile). For the other chemicals, L. gibba EC50s are distributed through the
middle and upper end of the SSD.
The L. gibba EC50 is within a factor of 10 of the HC5 of the macrophyte SSD for 6 of 11 chemicals. (The
HC5 cannot be calculated for Chemical E1 due to fewer than 6 definitive EC50s.) Among the other 5
chemicals, the EC50/HC5 ratio ranges from 14 to 90.
The L. gibba EC50 is within a factor of 10 of the lowest macrophyte EC50 for 9 of the 12 chemicals. For
the other 3 chemicals, the EC50/lowest EC50 ratio ranges from 20 to 63.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 41
By all of these measures, L. gibba is among the most sensitive macrophyte species for 5 of the 12
chemicals for which data are available (Chemicals C, E1, E2, E3,and F4). For these chemicals plus four
others (Chemicals A, D1, F1, and F2), the L. gibba EC50 is within a factor of 10 of both the macrophyte
HC5 and the lowest macrophyte EC50. For the other 3 chemicals (Chemicals B, D2, and F3), L. gibba is
among the least sensitive macrophyte species by all measures.
Table 15. Position of Lemna gibba in macrophyte SSDs.
Chemical
Empirical Percentile
EC50/HC5
A
29.4%
7.8
B
81.3%
90
C
9.1%
2.5
D1
70.0%
14
D2
45.5%
90
E1
14.3%
No SSDa
E2
7.7%
1.6
E3
11.1%
6.6
E4
No data
No data
F1
40.0%
15
F2
77.8%
5.2
F3
85.7%
88
F4
9.1%
1.5
F5
No data
No data
a
No SSD analysis (fewer than 6 definitive EC50 values), so HC5 is not determined.
EC50/lowest EC50
2.6
54
1.0
5.4
63
1.0
1.0
1.0
No data
1.8
2.5
20
1.0
No data
For 10 of the 11 chemicals for which data are available for L. gibba and at least one other Lemna species,
L. gibba is the most sensitive Lemna species (Table 16). The exception is Chemical F3, to which L. minor
is the most sensitive macrophyte and L. gibba the least sensitive macrophyte, with EC50 values
separated by a factor of 20 (Table 12).
Table 16. Rank of Lemna gibba among Lemna species in sensitivity to herbicides and fungicides.
Chemical
Number of Lemna species in database
Rank of L. gibba among Lemna species
A
3
1
B
3
1
C
2
1
D1
2
1
D2
3
1
E1
1
1
E2
2
1
E3
3
1
E4
1
No data for L. gibba
F1
2
1
F2
2
1
F3
2
2
F4
3
1
F5
2
No data for L. gibba
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Figure 14. Sensitivity of Lemna gibba relative to all macrophytes.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 42
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 43
5.2 Algae
EC50s for the most sensitive of the FIFRA algal test species (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Navicula
pelliculosa, Anabaena flos-aquae, and Skeletonema costatum) for 14 chemicals correspond to positions
on the macrophyte SSD ranging from less than 1% to 99.8% (Table 17 and Figure 15). For half of the
chemicals, the lowest algal EC50 is below the 10th percentile of the macrophyte SSD; 10 of 14 are at or
below the 25th percentile. (These percentiles are used here for comparative purposes only; no special
significance is attributed to the 10th or 25th percentiles.) The only chemicals for which algae are
substantially less sensitive than the most sensitive macrophytes (greater than 25% of macrophyte
species affected at the lowest algal EC50) are Chemicals A, B, and F2. It should be noted that not all
chemicals have data for all four FIFRA species.
The lowest algal EC50 is within a factor of 10 of the HC5 of the macrophyte SSD for 11 of 13 chemicals.
The only exceptions are Chemicals A and B. For 10 of 14 chemicals, algal EC50 values are less than or
equal to the EC50 of the most sensitive macrophyte. The four exceptions are Chemicals A, B, D2, and F2.
By these measures, algae are at least as sensitive as the most sensitive macrophytes to nearly all of
these chemicals. For a few, especially Chemicals A and B, algae are much less sensitive than
macrophytes.
Table 17. Sensitivity of the most sensitive of the FIFRA algal species relative to macrophyte SSDs.
Chemical
Fraction Affected
EC50/HC5
EC50/lowest EC50
A
99.8%
5110
1702
B
90.0%
261
155
C
5.3%
1.1
0.4
D1
1.0%
0.4
0.1
D2
18.3%
7.3
5.1
E1
No SSD
No SSD
0.5
E2
5.4%
1.2
0.7
E3
7.3%
1.5
0.2
E4
0.52%
0.3
0.2
F1
26.6%
9.6
1.1
F2
47.9%
3.4
1.7
F3
25.4%
4.5
1.0
F4
0.43%
0.3
0.2
F5
0.55%
0.3
0.2
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Figure 15. Sensitivity of standard algal species relative to all macrophytes.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 44
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
5.3
p. 45
Myriophyllum spicatum
The position of Myriophyllum spicatum in the macrophyte SSD for 12 chemicals ranges from 5.9% to
90% (Table 18 and Figure 16). M. spicatum is among the most sensitive macrophyte species (i.e., within
the lower quartile) for 3 of the 12 chemicals (Chemicals A, B, and E2).
The M. spicatum EC50 is within a factor of 10 of the macrophyte HC5 for 5 of 11 chemicals. Among the
other 6 chemicals, the EC50/HC5 ratio ranges from 13 to 1473.
The M. spicatum EC50 is within a factor of 10 of the lowest macrophyte EC50 for 6 of the 12 chemicals.
For the other 6 chemicals, the EC50/lowest EC50 ratio ranges from 16 to 176.
Overall, M. spicatum is among the most sensitive macrophyte species for one quarter of the chemicals,
and for about half of the chemicals the M. spicatum EC50 is within a factor of 10 of both the macrophyte
HC5 and the lowest macrophyte EC50. For the remaining half of the chemicals, M. spicatum is among
the least sensitive macrophyte species.
Table 18. Position of Myriophyllum spicatum in macrophyte SSDs.
Chemical
Empirical Percentile
EC50/HC5
A
5.9%
3.0
B
12.5%
1.8
C
72.7%
>84
D1
30.0%
5.5
D2
36.4%
85
E1
≥57.1%
No SSD
E2
23.1%
75
E3
No data
No data
E4
66.7%
13
F1
90.0%
1473
F2
33.3%
2.9
F3
No data
No data
F4
36.4%
5.3
F5
77.8%
26
EC50/lowest EC50
1.0
1.1
>34
2.1
59
>74
45
No data
7.9
176
1.4
No data
3.4
16
For 5 of the 6 chemicals for which data are available for M. spicatum and at least one other
Myriophyllum species, M. spicatum is the most sensitive Myriophyllum species (Table 16). The
exception is Chemical F1, to which M. heterophyllum is 30 times more sensitive than M. spicatum (Table
10).
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 46
Table 19. Rank of Myriophyllum spicatum among Myriophyllum species in sensitivity to herbicides and
fungicides.
Chemical
Number of Myriophyllum species in
Rank of M. spicatum among
database
Myriophyllum species
A
3
1
B
4
1
C
2
1
D1
2
1
D2
1
1
E1
1
1
E2
2
1
E3
1
No data for M. spicatum
E4
1
1
F1
2
2
F2
1
1
F3
1
No data for M. spicatum
F4
1
1
F5
1
1
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Figure 16. Sensitivity of Myriophyllum spicatum relative to all macrophytes.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 47
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 48
5.4 Combined data for Lemna gibba, algae, and Myriophyllum spicatum
When the most sensitive species of interest (i.e., L. gibba, the 4 FIFRA algae, and M. spicatum) are
considered, the lowest of the EC50s is within the lower 25th percentile of the macrophyte SSD for nearly
all chemicals (Table 20 and Figure 17). For 10 of the 14 chemicals, at least one of these species is within
the 15th percentile of the macrophyte SSD. (These percentiles are used here only for descriptive
purposes; no special significance is attributed to the 15th or 25th percentiles.)
The EC50 for the most sensitive of these species is at or below the corresponding macrophyte HC5 for 6
of 14 chemicals. The lowest EC50 of these species is within a factor of 10 of the HC5 for all chemicals.
The lowest of these EC50s is at or below the EC50 of the most sensitive macrophyte for all chemicals
except Chemicals D2 and F2; even for these exceptions, the difference is within a factor of 5. (Chemical
D2 is an uncertain SSD – see Section 4.5.)
Table 20. Sensitivity of the most sensitive species of Lemna gibba, FIFRA algae, or Myriophyllum
spicatum relative to macrophyte SSDs.
Chemical Most sensitive of the six
Percentile or
EC50/HC5
EC50/lowest EC50
species1
Fraction Affected
A
M. spicatum, L. gibba
5.9
3
1.0
B
M. spicatum
12.5
1.8
1.1
C
S. costatum,
5.3
1.1
0.4
P. subcapitata,
N. pelliculosa,
L. gibba
D1
S. costatum,
1
0.4
0.1
N. pelliculosa
D2
S. costatum,
18.3
7.3
5.1
A. flos-aquae,
P. subcapitata
E1
P. subcapitata, L. gibba, S.
14.3
No SSD2
0.5
costatum
E2
P. subcapitata, L. gibba
5.4
1.2
0.7
E3
P. subcapitata
7.3
1.5
0.2
E4
P. subcapitata
0.52
0.3
0.2
F1
S. costatum, L. gibba, P.
26.6
9.6
1.1
subcapitata, N. pelliculosa
F2
M. spicatum, N.
33.3
2.9
1.4
pelliculosa, L. gibba, S.
costatum
F3
P. subcapitata, N.
25.4
4.5
1.0
pelliculosa, A. flos-aquae
F4
P. subcapitata
0.43
0.3
0.2
F5
S. costatum
0.55
0.3
0.2
1
Numerical values in table are based on the most sensitive of the 6 species under consideration. When
multiple species are similar in sensitivity (EC50 within a factor of 3), all are listed in order of sensitivity.
2
No SSD analysis (fewer than 6 definitive EC50 values), so HC5 is not determined.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 49
Figure 17. Sensitivity of the most sensitive species of Lemna gibba, FIFRA algae, and Myriophyllum
spicatum relative to all macrophytes.
A, L, and M indicate that the lowest value for each chemical is based on algae (FIFRA species), Lemna gibba, or
Myriophyllum spicatum, respectively. In some cases two or three of these species are similar in sensitivity, as
indicated by multiple letters separated by commas.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 50
6. Uncertainties
This analysis has examined the data to address the question of sensitivity of standard aquatic plant test
species relative to other macrophyte species. The answer to this question depends on the data selected
for the analysis. Each particular data point – each toxicity test result – varies according to many factors,
and the SSD analysis is itself conditioned by data selection and statistical methodology.
The macrophyte SSD for each chemical, the position of particular species in each SSD, and the overall
conclusions based on comparisons among chemicals, are contingent upon the scope of the data
examined, including:
Chemicals: the identities of the chemicals, their mechanisms of toxic action, and their form
(technical grade active ingredient or formulated product);
Species: the test species, their growth habits (e.g., submersed, emergent, floating) and habitats
(e.g., flowing or standing water, depth);
Measurements: the measured biological responses, including what plant part is affected (e.g.
shoot, root, frond, whole plant), the quantified response (e.g. final length or weight, increase
during the test, growth rate, area under the growth curve), and the duration of exposure or the
period over which the response is measured;
Endpoints: the statistical endpoints (EC50, No Observed Effect Concentration, etc.).
When data are available for a sufficient number of chemicals, it will be possible to examine the data to
better understand how the relative sensitivity of macrophyte species varies depending on what
chemicals, species, measured responses, and test endpoints are included in the SSD. Unfortunately, the
current data (see Appendix A) are too sparse to support such an exploration. Thus, the scope of the
present analysis is based on certain assumptions and exclusions:
In most cases, only data for technical grade active ingredient are used; in a few exceptional
cases, data for formulations are included.
No distinctions are made based on mechanism of action. In some cases SSDs are similar for
chemicals with similar mechanism of action, but there are many exceptions. Information on
specific mechanisms of action is not factored into the analysis.
No distinctions are made based on growth habit or habitat. That is, separate SSDs are not
examined for subsets of the available macrophyte species (rooted species, flowing water
species, etc.). Individual SSDs may be dominated by different groups of macrophytes, but this is
not factored into the analysis.
No distinctions are made based on the nature of the measured biological response. For each
species, the lowest reliable EC50 value is selected regardless of the measured effect or the
duration of exposure. This is common regulatory practice, but it is not ideal for scientific analysis
of SSDs.
The analysis is based entirely on EC50 values. Data for other statistical endpoints (e.g., EC20s,
NOECs) are much more limited.
Each individual toxicity test result used in the SSD may also be affected by a suite of experimental
variables, such as:
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 51
Test organism: The outcome of a toxicity test can vary depending on the organism source (e.g.,
laboratory culture, field collection, or commercial supplier); plant part (e.g., shoot, whole plant)
used as inoculum; and age, size, and condition of the plants at the start of test.
Test conditions and procedures: The source and type of aqueous medium; presence or absence
and source of sediment; light, temperature, and other water quality parameters during
exposure; and exposure system (e.g., static, semi-static, or flow-through), can influence the
result of the toxicity test.
Chemical exposure regime: Most of the data were based on aqueous chemical exposure, and all
data points are given as aqueous concentrations (ppb); some studies reported results for surface
spray (µg/m2) or spiked sediment (µg/kg), but these were not incorporated into the data
analysis. Results were reported based on nominal or measured concentrations, with measured
concentrations preferred but not necessarily more reliable. When concentrations decrease
during the exposure period, data points based on mean measured concentrations may differ
from data points based on initial concentrations.
Because toxicity test results are understood to be dependent on these and other methodological
factors, standardized test guidelines attempt to reduce variability by specifying the methods and
conditions required for an acceptable test. This may enhance the comparability of results from different
tests, but does not eliminate the uncertainties, for at least three reasons: (1) test guidelines cannot
specify the acceptable range for every conceivable experimental parameter; (2) the influence of many
experimental conditions on toxicity is unknown; and (3) the specified test conditions cannot represent
the full range of conditions encountered in the field.
As the AMRAP database was compiled, information on test methods and conditions was extracted from
the original data sources and documented in the database for possible further evaluation – for example,
comparison of results for a particular species with and without sediment present, or for static vs flowthrough exposure regimes. Such methodological explorations were beyond the scope of the SSD
analysis, but could be highly relevant to the development of test guidelines and the interpretation of
test results.
Finally, the analysis is subject to several sources of statistical uncertainty. Some of these are associated
with individual data points:
Experimental design: Parameters such as the number and spacing of test concentrations, the
number of replicates per concentration, and number of organisms per replicate, influence the
calculation of both point-based (e.g., EC50) and hypothesis-based (e.g., NOEC) endpoints.
Experimental variability: The accuracy and precision of point-based estimates and the power of
hypothesis tests are a function of the variability of measurements among individual organisms,
between experimental replicates, and between treatment groups in a given test. Some of this
variability is presumably inherent in the biology of the test organisms, while some is due to
laboratory technique (test organism handling, maintenance of test conditions, etc.) and some
reflects measurement error.
Statistical method for deriving endpoints: Estimation of EC50, NOEC, and other endpoints from a
given set of experimental data entails a suite of statistical uncertainties related to model
selection and model fitting.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 52
Similar statistical issues – data variability, model selection, model fitting – relate to the SSD analysis, and
have been addressed by others (Hart et al. 2006; Intrinsik 2009; Posthuma et al. 2002; Rodney and
Moore 2008). In addition to these, the SSD analysis is subject to uncertainties arising from the criteria
used to select or derive the final dataset from the larger database of available test results. Particular
issues are described below. The manner in which these issues are addressed can affect the results and
interpretation of the analysis.
Data points from multiple tests: In situations where multiple equally reliable data points are
available for a species and a chemical, a geometric mean is often considered the most
appropriate representation of the species in the SSD. This approach was followed in the current
analysis. Some regulatory agencies prefer to select the lowest data point as a precautionary
policy. This may be appropriate for some purposes, but the objective of SSD analysis is to
quantify the distribution of sensitivity among species, and that quantification is more robust
when based on species means than on extreme test results.
Representation of indeterminate (greater-than) values: Although indeterminate toxicity values
are less useful than determinate values in evaluating relative sensitivity, to ignore them
completely would be to lose valuable information and would distort the SSD. However, a large
number of indeterminate values adds uncertainty to the SSD, both by reducing the number of
data points available and by concentrating the analysis on the lower end of the sensitivity
distribution. In the long run, the best solution to this situation is to develop determinate toxicity
data and avoid generating indeterminate results.
Data quality: When studies are conducted and reported according to appropriate Good
Laboratory Practices, they are usually reliable. Deficiencies of studies reported under GLP can
almost always be clearly seen by an experienced reviewer, and questionable studies identified.
Studies that are not conducted or reported according to GLP may be fully as robust and reliable
as GLP studies, but are not always so, and deficiencies are more difficult to evaluate. When both
GLP and non-GLP studies are available for a single species and chemical, the GLP study will
usually, but not always, be found to be more complete and reliable and therefore preferred over
the non-GLP study. However, reliable data from non-GLP studies are extremely valuable in
developing SSDs, because GLP studies are conducted with a limited number of species for which
standard methods exist.
The SSD analysis presented here is subject to all of these sources of uncertainty: limitations in scope
(chemicals, species, data points), experimental variability (test organisms, conditions, procedures, and
exposure regimes), statistical methods, and data selection decisions.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
Neither Lemna gibba nor Myriophyllum spicatum is consistently among the most sensitive
macrophyte species for all herbicides and fungicides.
Lemna gibba is among the most sensitive macrophyte species for approximately half of the
herbicides and fungicides examined. L. gibba is quite insensitive to about a quarter of the
chemicals.
M. spicatum is among the most sensitive macrophyte species for approximately one-quarter of
the herbicides and fungicides examined. M. spicatum is among the least sensitive macrophytes
to several others.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 53
For a majority of the chemicals examined, the most sensitive of the FIFRA algal species is more
sensitive than the most sensitive macrophyte. In a few cases, the tested algae are much less
sensitive than most macrophytes.
While no single species consistently represents the most sensitive macrophyte species, the
combination of L. gibba and the 4 FIFRA algae almost always includes a data point that is near or
below the most sensitive macrophyte data point and the macrophyte HC5.
For the exceptional chemicals for which the EC50s of L. gibba and the FIFRA algae are not near
or below the most sensitive macrophyte EC50, M. spicatum is among the most sensitive species.
These conclusions are subject to the limitations of the available data. This analysis is based on
chemicals representing 6 different modes of action but some modes of action are represented
by only one chemical. As data become available for additional chemicals, it may be possible to
refine the analysis.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 54
8. References
Bergtold M, Dohmen GP. 2011. Biomass or growth rate endpoint for algae and aquatic plants: relevance
for the aquatic risk assessment of herbicides. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:237-247.
Dohmen P. 2010. Myriophyllum sp. – Test Methodology for a Rooted Aquatic Macrophyte. Presentation
at the SETAC North America 31st Annual Meeting. 7–11 November 2010, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Hart A et al. 2006. EUFRAM - Concerted action to develop a European Framework for probabilistic risk
assessment of the environmental impacts of pesticides. Final Report. Volume 1 - 4. Available from
www.eufram.com. Accessed August 2, 2011.
Intrinsik. 2009. Framework and derivation of benchmarks for the protection of aquatic life from
pesticides. Report prepared by Intrinsik Environmental Sciences for National Guidelines and Standards
Office, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Maltby L, Arnold D, Arts G, Davies J, Heimbach F, Pickl C, Poulsen V. 2010. Aquatic Macrophyte Risk
Assessment for Pesticides. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Pensacola, FL.
Maletzki D, Kussatz CK. 2011. Myriophyllum spicatum as a test organism for eco toxicity testing and the
impact of sucrose in the test medium on the photosynthesis activity and sensitivity of the test species.
Poster presentation at the SETAC Europe 21st Annual Meeting, 15-19 May 2011, Milan, Italy.
Maletzki, D, Kussatz, CK, Ratte, MR, Ratte, TR. 2011 Myriophyllum spicatum toxicity test: design and first
results of an interlaboratory ring test using a sediment-free test system. Poster presentation at the
SETAC Europe 21st Annual Meeting, 15-19 May 2011, Milan, Italy.
Posthuma L, Traas TP, Suter GW (eds.). 2002. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Risk Assessment. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Rodney SI, Moore DRJ. 2008. Development of an Excel-based tool for fitting and evaluating species
sensitivity distributions. Report prepared for National Guidelines and Standards Office, Environment
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk
Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011a. ECOTOX Database. Accessed from
http://cfpub.epa/ecotox/, January 2011.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Pesticide Toxicity Database. Accessed from http://www.ipmcenters.org/Ecotox/index.cfm, January
2011.
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
p. 55
Appendix A. AMRAP SSD database
Explanation of fields and abbreviations
Chem: Chemical code
Exp. Type: Exposure type (S = static, R = static renewal, F = flowthrough)
Interval: Time period (d) of measurement; range (e.g., 0-14) indicates period of growth rate calculation
or increase in plant part measurement
Meas/Nom: Measured or nominal exposure concentrations (M = measured, N = nominal)
Study: Study identification number (all records with the same Study ID were from a single study)
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Species
Anabaena flos-aquae
Batrachium
trichophyllum
Berula erecta
Callitriche platycarpa
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
submersum
Ceratophyllum
submersum
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Exp. Plant Part
Type
S
R
plant
Measurement
specific leaf area
p. 56
Interval Endpoint
(d)
EC50
14
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
>95.4
234
0.07
M
27
R
R
R
plant
plant
plant
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
14
14
14
EC50
EC50
EC50
3.92
>300
>1000
M
M
M
80
77
76
R
plant
0-14
EC50
4.13
M
19
R
plant
growth rate
(biomass)
specific leaf area
14
EC50
0.20
M
19
R
plant
specific leaf area
14
EC50
2.21
M
24
R
plant
specific leaf area
14
EC50
>300
M
81
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
root
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
main shoot
new shoots
root
root
root
plant
root
root
root
root
root
root
root
root
root
shoot
root
root
root
shoot
shoot
shoot
root
new shoots
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
dry weight
number
average length
average length
length
length
length
number
number
length
average length
dry weight
number
dry weight
dry weight
length
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
average length
average length
average length
number
length
total length
number
number
average length
dry weight
total length
total length
length
length
14
14
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
EC50
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC10
NOEC
EC50
EC10
NOEC
EC10
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC10
NOEC
EC50
EC10
NOEC
NOEC
EC10
NOEC
EC10
EC10
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC50
0.57
0.79
0.036
0.789
0.034
0.100
0.271
0.062
0.100
0.073
0.100
3.3
0.402
0.127
0.338
0.033
3.3
0.033
0.142
0.053
0.100
0.133
0.081
0.033
0.1
0.048
0.100
0.095
0.290
0.100
1.000
1.133
0.050
0.121
0.185
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
22
23
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
47
48
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
47
48
47
48
48
48
48
47
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Species
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
root
shoot
shoot
shoot
new shoots
root
new shoots
root
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
main shoot
new shoots
root
root
root
root
plant
root
shoot
root
root
root
root
root
root
root
root
new shoots
shoot
root
root
root
root
plant
root
root
plant
shoot
root
shoot
root
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
Measurement
length
total length
total length
total length
average length
dry weight
average length
dry weight
length
length
number
number
number
length
average length
length
average length
length
length
dry weight
number
dry weight
number
average length
length
length
average length
average length
average length
dry weight
length
total length
average length
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
number
number
dry weight
dry weight
average length
total length
number
average length
average length
average length
length
length
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
Interval Endpoint
(d)
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
p. 57
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
0.100
N
47
0.340
N
47
0.005
N
47
0.033
N
47
0.618
N
47
0.058
N
46
0.330
N
47
0.015
N
46
0.034
N
47
0.033
N
47
0.228
N
47
0.015
N
47
0.033
N
47
3.3
N
47
0.078
N
47
0.033
N
46
0.100
N
47
0.144
N
47
0.052
N
47
1.000
N
48
0.268
N
47
3.3
N
47
0.100
N
47
0.054
N
47
0.018
N
46
0.062
N
46
0.033
N
46
0.014
N
46
0.061
N
46
0.033
N
46
0.033
N
49
3.3
N
46
0.243
N
49
0.100
N
49
0.076
N
49
0.207
N
49
3.3
N
49
0.431
N
46
0.151
N
46
0.01
N
48
3.3
N
46
0.057
N
49
0.990
N
46
0.1
N
46
1.373
N
46
0.108
N
46
1
N
46
1.449
N
46
0.267
N
46
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
Measurement
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
main shoot
new shoots
main shoot
shoot
plant
root
new shoots
plant
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
root
new shoots
root
root
root
root
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
root
frond
plant
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
A
Lemna gibba
S
frond
A
A
A
A
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
S
S
S
S
plant
frond
frond
frond
A
Lemna gibba
S
frond
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
S
S
S
S
S
S
frond
length
number
number
length
number
length
total length
dry weight
average length
number
dry weight
number
length
length
average length
average length
length
average length
length
number
number
number
dry weight
total length
total length
total length
length
number
dry weight
growth rate
number
growth rate
growth rate
area under growth
curve
area under growth
curve
dry weight increase
number
growth rate
area under growth
curve
area under growth
curve
dry weight increase
frond
frond
plant
frond
number
number
biomass
number
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 58
Interval Endpoint
(d)
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC50
7
EC50
14
EC50
0-7
NOEC
7
EC10
0-7
EC50
0-7
EC10
0-7
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
0.33
N
46
0.454
N
46
3.3
N
46
3.3
N
46
0.014
N
49
3.3
N
49
3.824
N
46
0.08
N
48
0.100
N
49
0.100
N
49
3.3
N
46
0.746
N
49
0.039
N
49
0.192
N
49
0.330
N
49
0.065
N
49
0.100
N
49
0.454
N
49
0.088
N
49
0.375
N
49
0.177
N
49
0.330
N
49
3.3
N
49
0.298
N
49
0.008
N
49
0.100
N
49
0.191
N
49
0.377
M
43
4.00
N
45
0.201
M
43
0.204
M
43
0.541
M
43
0.200
M
43
0.375
M
43
0-7
EC10
0.184
M
43
0-7
7
0-7
0-7
EC10
LOEC
LOEC
NOEC
0.137
0.623
0.623
0.060
M
M
M
M
43
43
43
43
0-7
LOEC
0.201
M
43
0-7
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
0.201
0.41
2.93
2.00
1.00
0.201
M
43
238
45
45
45
43
14
14
14
7
N
N
N
M
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
plant
frond
plant
A
A
A
A
A
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
R
R
R
S
R
frond
plant
plant
frond
plant
A
Lemna trisulca
R
plant
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lemna trisulca
Lemna trisulca
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
R
R
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
root
root
shoot
shoot
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum sibiricum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant
root
shoot
shoot
root
root
root
root
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
plant
plant
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
plant
Measurement
dry weight increase
number
number
number
number
number
number
number
number
dry weight
dry weight
mean dry weight
per frond
dry weight increase
number
dry weight
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
number
number
number
growth rate (area)
growth rate
(biomass)
number
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
growth rate (area)
growth rate
(biomass)
growth rate
(biomass)
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
total length
number
length increase
area under curve
(length)
carotenoid
chlorophyll a
chlorophyll b
number
length
length
dry weight
dry weight
number
dry weight
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 59
Interval Endpoint
(d)
0-7
LOEC
21
EC10
7
EC10
7
EC50
14
NOEC
14
EC10
21
NOEC
7
NOEC
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
NOEC
0-7
14
21
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
0.623
M
43
0.049
N
51
0.059
N
51
0.756
N
51
0.100
N
51
0.077
N
51
0.100
N
51
0.330
N
51
0.150
N
51
0.100
N
51
0.042
N
51
3.3
N
51
0.581
0.304
0.142
0.36
0.79
0.45
0.2
<0.2
0.4
1.57
1.13
M
N
N
0-7
0-7
4
4
4
0-7
0-14
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC10
LOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
43
51
51
233
53
54
55
55
55
54
17
14
14
14
0-7
0-14
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC10
EC50
0.356
0.10
0.18
0.37
0.80
N
M
M
N
M
44
17
16
53
16
0-14
EC50
10.44
M
18
14
14
14
14
0-14
0-14
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
0.62
>1000
4.0
3.0
7.0
1.0
M
M
N
N
N
N
18
75
56
56
56
56
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
21
EC50
EC50
EC50
IC25
IC25
IC50
IC50
IC25
IC50
EC10
0.882
0.624
0.882
0.19
0.15
0.39
0.22
0.06
0.29
0.034
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
56
56
56
52
52
52
52
52
52
50
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Species
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Navicula pelliculosa
Potamogeton crispus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Skeletonema costatum
Sparganium emersum
Sparganium emersum
Spirodela polyrhiza
Spirodela polyrhiza
Anabaena flos-aquae
Chlorococcum sp.
Dunaliella tertiolecta
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
S
Plant Part
Measurement
root
root
root
plant
root
root
plant
root
root
root
root
root
shoot
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
new shoots
shoot
root
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
new shoots
new shoots
dry weight
average length
dry weight
dry weight
average length
length
specific leaf area
length
number
number
average length
length
dry weight
number
number
length
length
length
average length
average length
total length
number
length
length
length
average length
number
plant
plant
specific leaf area
fluorescence
p. 60
Interval Endpoint
(d)
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
14
EC50
21
EC50
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC50
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
NOEC
21
EC10
21
EC50
21
EC50
21
NOEC
EC50
14
EC50
4
NOEC
S
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
0.080
N
50
0.021
N
50
0.033
N
50
0.033
N
50
0.101
N
50
0.013
N
50
0.29
M
25
0.055
N
50
0.388
N
50
0.030
N
50
0.033
N
50
0.033
N
50
0.001
N
50
0.104
N
50
0.014
N
50
3.3
N
50
0.007
N
50
0.061
N
50
3.3
N
50
0.078
N
50
0.330
N
50
0.330
N
50
0.330
N
50
0.082
N
50
1.035
N
50
0.397
N
50
0.330
N
50
>92800
237
0.23
M
26
<19
N
92
EC50
285.6
232
S
plant
fluorescence
4
EC50
190
N
92
S
plant
fluorescence
4
LOEC
19
N
92
EC50
130
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
>93.6
>1000
>300
0.19
0.32
>2020
50000
75000
997
2243
1807
S
S
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant
plant
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
specific leaf area
14
14
14
14
root
plant
root
growth
growth
length
dry weight
number
28
28
28
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
236
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
235
78
79
21
20
198
196
195
90
90
90
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Isochrysis galbana
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna trisulca
Lemna trisulca
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
Plant Part
Measurement
root
shoot
root
plant
root
root
shoot
plant
plant
dry weight
length
length
relative growth
number
dry weight
length
dry weight
relative growth
growth
plant
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
frond
frond
frond
plant
plant
shoot
shoot
root
root
plant
plant
plant
plant
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
root
plant
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
Myriophyllum brasiliense
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
root
shoot
root
plant
shoot
root
shoot
root
shoot
plant
plant
root
plant
plant
plant
shoot
number
number
number
relative growth
dry weight
length increase
length increase
number
total length
dry weight
chlorophyll b
carotenoid
fresh weight
increase
dry weight
chlorophyll a
length
fresh weight
increase
length
dry weight
dry weight
transpiration
fresh weight
fresh weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
transpiration
transpiration
dry weight
transpiration
transpiration
transpiration
fresh weight
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 61
Interval Endpoint
(d)
28
EC50
28
EC50
28
EC50
0-28
EC50
28
EC50
28
EC50
28
EC50
28
EC50
0-28
EC50
EC50
EC50
1
NOEC
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
898
N
84
>3000
N
84
574
N
84
292
N
90
982
N
84
1096
N
90
785
N
90
>3000
N
84
>3000
N
84
50000
193
695
202
900
N
104
4
4
4
0-28
28
0-10
0-10
14
14
10
14
14
0-10
EC50
EC50
LOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
<2020
>100000
>100000
100000
>3000
>3000
>5100
150
158
50
5100
22
19
>5100
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
201
70
70
70
83
83
82
82
62
62
82
62
62
82
10
14
10
0-10
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
>5100
20
260
5100
N
N
N
N
82
62
82
82
10
14
14
7
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
7
14
7
14
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
51
1530
2210
22.1
221
2210
221
2210
221
221
22.1
2070
1350
690
553
221
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
82
183
182
182
183
183
183
183
182
183
182
183
183
183
183
182
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Exp.
Type
Myriophyllum brasiliense
S
Myriophyllum sibiricum
S
Myriophyllum sibiricum
S
Myriophyllum sibiricum
S
Myriophyllum sibiricum
S
Myriophyllum sibiricum
S
Myriophyllum sibiricum
S
Myriophyllum spicatum
F
Myriophyllum spicatum
F
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
root
shoot
shoot
root
root
root
root
root
shoot
plant
plant
B
B
B
B
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
F
F
F
S
plant
shoot
shoot
root
plant
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
F
S
F
S
F
F
plant
shoot
plant
shoot
plant
root
plant
B
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
plant
plant
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
plant
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
plant
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
plant
B
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
plant
B
B
Navicula pelliculosa
Phaeodactylum
tricornutum
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton lucens
Potamogeton lucens
S
S
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Species
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
Measurement
fresh weight
growth
growth
number
number
length
length
biomass
height
number of leaves
number of new
structures
number of leaves
dry weight
biomass
biomass
number of new
structures
number of branches
height
number of buds
biomass
number of roots
dry weight
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
number of branches
branch number
reduction
biomass (after
posttreatment
period)
biomass (after
posttreatment
period)
visual injury (after
posttreatment
period)
visual injury (after
posttreatment
period)
p. 62
Interval Endpoint
(d)
14
NOEC
14
IC50
14
IC25
14
IC25
14
IC50
14
IC25
14
IC50
77
EC50
77
EC50
5
NOEC
5
EC50
5
140
77
77
5
EC50
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
23
30
<30
50
20
N
MI
M
M
N
178
184
185
185
178
5
77
5
77
5
140
1
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
26
50
14
57
20
134
450
N
M
N
M
N
MI
N
178
185
178
185
178
184
105
5
5
NOEC
EC50
20
40
N
N
178
176
1.5
EC50
550
N
181
2
EC50
150
N
181
1.5
EC50
730
N
181
2
EC50
140
N
181
EC50
EC50
2020
50000
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
>3000
>3000
347
1988
290
326
>3000
1063
growth
plant
plant
root
shoot
root
root
plant
shoot
relative growth
dry weight
dry weight
length
length
number
dry weight
length
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
221
N
182
>1470
N
91
410
N
91
8
N
91
18
N
91
5
N
91
13
N
91
50
M
185
102
M
185
100
N
178
28
N
178
0-28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
199
194
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
87
87
87
87
87
87
89
89
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
B
B
B
B
B
B
Potamogeton lucens
Potamogeton lucens
Potamogeton lucens
Potamogeton pectinatus
Potamogeton pectinatus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Ranunculus aquatilis
Ranunculus aquatilis
Ranunculus aquatilis
Ranunculus aquatilis
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena flos-aquae
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Chara intermedia
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
F
F
S
Plant Part
Measurement
p. 63
Interval Endpoint
(d)
28
EC50
28
EC50
0-28
EC50
77
NOEC
77
EC50
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
181
N
89
299
N
89
1300
N
89
30
M
186
121
M
186
33200
197
root
root
plant
plant
plant
length
number
relative growth
biomass
biomass
S
plant
fluorescence
4
LOEC
50000
N
98
S
plant
fluorescence
4
EC50
41772
N
98
S
plant
fluorescence
4
NOEC
25000
N
98
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
root
shoot
root
root
shoot
root
plant
plant
root
root
root
shoot
plant
stem
plant
plant
plant
leaf
leaf
leaf
stem
stem
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
dry weight
relative growth
length
length
length
number
length
dry weight
relative growth
dry weight
dry weight
number
length
length
chlorophyll b
length
fresh weight
fresh weight
fresh weight
number
number
number
length
length
chlorophyll a
chlorophyll b
chlorophyll b
chlorophyll a
chlorophyll a
28
0-28
28
28
28
28
28
28
0-28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
growth
length
0-7
>3000
242
92
683
100
112
1120
111
719
2731
245
271
263
140
83
5400
8300
830
5400
8300
830
4980
830
8300
250
830
250
83
830
2020
>174
4.0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
shoot
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
LOEC
NOEC
EC50
LOEC
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
LOEC
EC50
LOEC
EC50
NOEC
LOEC
EC50
EC50
EC10
MS
86
86
86
86
85
85
85
85
85
85
88
88
88
88
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
200
242
9
S
shoot
length
0-7
EC50
146
MS
9
S
shoot
length
0-7
NOEC
36.9
MS
9
S
shoot
length
0-7
EC50
42.2
MS
11
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Egeria densa
Egeria densa
Egeria densa
Egeria densa
Egeria densa
Egeria densa
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Hygrophila polysperma
C
Plant Part
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
Hygrophila polysperma
S
plant
C
Hygrophila polysperma
S
shoot
C
Lemna gibba
S
frond
C
Lemna gibba
R
frond
C
Lemna gibba
R
frond
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
S
S
frond
frond
C
Lemna gibba
S
frond
C
Lemna gibba
S
frond
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
plant
frond
plant
plant
plant
plant
frond
frond
Measurement
length
length
fresh weight
dry weight
fresh weight
dry weight
dry weight
fresh weight
fresh weight
dry weight
length increase
dry weight
length increase
length increase
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
fresh weight
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
fresh weight
total length
increase
fresh and dry
weight
total length
increase
number (area under
curve)
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
growth rate
number (area under
curve)
number (area under
curve)
number (growth
rate)
dry weight
number
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
number
number
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 64
Interval Endpoint
(d)
0-7
EC10
0-7
NOEC
14
EC50
14
EC50
0-14
NOEC
0-14
NOEC
0-14
EC10
7
EC50
7
NOEC
7
EC50
0-7
NOEC
7
NOEC
0-7
EC50
0-14
EC20
14
EC50
14
EC20
14
EC10
14
EC50
0-14
EC50
0-7
EC20
0-14
EC10
0-7
EC50
0-7
EC10
14
EC20
0-14
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
27.6
MS
11
25.0
MS
11
25.0
MS
11
86.5
MS
11
≥ 100
MS
11
50.0
MS
11
27.2
MS
11
>400
N
10
400
N
10
>400
N
10
400
N
10
400
N
10
>400
N
10
39.7
MS
12
137
MS
12
38.9
MS
12
20.1
MS
12
193
MS
12
108
MS
12
60.9
MS
12
23.4
MS
12
153
MS
12
37.5
MS
12
7.2
MS
12
403
N
13
0-21
NOEC
≥ 400
N
13
0-14
EC10
112
N
13
0-7
LOEC
7.54
M
71
0-7
EC20
27.6
M
73
0-7
EC50
288
M
73
0-7
0-7
NOEC
NOEC
3.0
3.0
M
M
71
71
0-7
EC50
25.7
M
71
0-7
EC50
11.8
M
71
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
NOEC
EC50
EC10
EC20
EC50
EC50
EC20
EC10
5
12.2
4.26
7.21
260
210
4.65
7.83
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
15
72
72
72
73
15
72
73
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
Exp. Plant Part
Type
R
frond
S
frond
R
frond
C
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
C
Lemna gibba
R
frond
C
Lemna gibba
R
frond
C
C
C
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
R
R
R
R
R
frond
plant
frond
plant
frond
C
C
C
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
R
R
R
R
R
frond
frond
plant
plant
plant
C
Lemna gibba
R
frond
C
Lemna gibba
R
plant
C
Lemna gibba
R
frond
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
R
R
frond
frond
C
C
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
S
S
S
R
plant
plant
plant
plant
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
frond
frond
frond
frond
plant
root
shoot
shoot
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
Measurement
number
growth rate
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
number
dry weight
number
dry weight
number (growth
rate)
number
number
dry weight
dry weight
growth rate (dry
weight)
number (growth
rate)
growth rate (dry
weight)
number (growth
rate)
number
number (growth
rate)
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
growth rate (dry
weight)
growth
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
chlorophyll a
number
length increase
area under curve
(length)
chlorophyll b
carotenoid
dry weight
length increase
fresh weight
dry weight
length increase
fresh weight
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 65
Interval Endpoint
(d)
7
NOEC
0-7
LOEC
0-7
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
5
M
15
7.54
M
71
268
M
15
0-7
NOEC
5
M
15
0-7
LOEC
10
M
15
7
7
7
7
0-7
EC50
EC50
LOEC
LOEC
EC50
71
36.6
10
10
36.6
M
M
M
M
M
15
72
15
15
72
7
7
7
7
0-7
EC20
EC50
EC10
EC20
EC50
18.9
70.2
28.5
64.8
>263
M
M
M
M
M
73
73
73
73
72
0-7
EC10
14.1
M
73
0-7
EC10
12.8
M
72
0-7
EC20
12.7
M
72
7
0-7
EC10
EC10
3.13
7.21
M
M
72
72
7
7
7
0-7
NOEC
LOEC
EC50
EC20
3.0
7.54
>65.0
38.4
M
M
M
M
71
71
71
72
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
14
14
0-14
0-14
EC50
EC10
EC10
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
12.5
41
90
634
280
13970
24130
10744
8550
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
243
60
59
59
60
63
63
63
63
14
14
21
0-21
21
21
0-21
21
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
EC50
16450
16360
> 400
> 400
> 400
> 400
≥ 400
> 400
N
N
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
63
63
8
8
8
8
8
8
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Species
C
D1
Navicula pelliculosa
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Potamogeton natans
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena flos-aquae
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
Measurement
growth
fresh weight
length increase
length increase
length increase
dry weight
length increase
dry weight
fresh weight
S
S
plant
Anabaena flos-aquae
Anabaena flos-aquae
Anabaena flos-aquae
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant
R
R
R
plant
plant
plant
R
plant
dry weight
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
Callitriche platycarpa
Callitriche platycarpa
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
growth
biomass (area
under curve)
growth rate
growth rate
biomass (area
under curve)
relative growth
dry weight
relative growth
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
plant
root
shoot
root
new shoot
plant
new shoot
root
new shoot
plant
plant
shoot
new shoot
root
root
frond
frond
D1
Lemna gibba
R
frond
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna trisulca
Lemna trisulca
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
S
R
R
R
S
S
S
frond
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
D1
p. 66
Interval Endpoint
(d)
EC50
14
EC50
0-14
EC50
0-7
EC50
0-7
NOEC
14
NOEC
0-14
NOEC
14
EC50
14
NOEC
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
6.7
241
> 400
MS
14
> 400
MS
14
> 400
MS
14
400
MS
14
400
MS
14
400
MS
14
> 400
MS
14
400
MS
14
5.4
239
0-5
EC50
NOEC
5.2
20
N
240
121
0-5
0-5
0-5
NOEC
EC50
EC50
40
200
74
N
N
N
121
121
121
0-21
21
0-21
EC50
EC50
EC50
>3300
>3300
354
N
N
N
111
111
112
21
EC50
783
N
112
relative growth
number
length
length
number
dry weight
length
dry weight
number
dry weight
relative growth
length
length
number
dry weight
dry weight increase
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
0-21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
0-21
21
21
21
21
0-14
0-14
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
299
485
>3300
286
>3300
>3300
>3300
194
786
>3300
>3300
>3300
94
323
189
510
290
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
122
122
0-14
EC50
720
M
122
dry weight increase
dry weight
relative growth
chlorophyll a
chlorophyll b
carotenoid
0-14
21
0-21
14
14
14
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
630
290
>3300
2881
2680
2540
2550
M
N
N
N
N
N
210
122
106
106
64
64
64
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
Species
Exp. Plant Part
Type
Myriophyllum aquaticum
S
shoot
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Navicula pelliculosa
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena flos-aquae
Callitriche platycarpa
Callitriche platycarpa
Dunaliella tertiolecta
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna trisulca
Lemna trisulca
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
R
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
R
R
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Measurement
shoot
root
root
plant
new shoot
shoot
plant
new shoot
area under curve
(length)
length increase
total length
number
relative growth
length
length
dry weight
number
plant
root
new shoot
new shoot
shoot
root
plant
dry weight
dry weight
number
length
length
number
relative growth
Interval Endpoint
(d)
0-14
EC50
0-14
14
14
0-21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
0-21
plant
plant
relative growth
dry weight
0-21
21
root
root
new shoot
new shoot
shoot
plant
plant
root
root
new shoot
root
shoot
root
plant
plant
dry weight
number
length
number
length
relative growth
dry weight
length
number
number
length
length
dry weight
relative growth
dry weight
21
21
21
21
21
0-21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
0-21
21
plant
plant
plant
plant
root
root
new shoot
relative growth
dry weight
relative growth
dry weight
dry weight
length
number
0-21
21
0-21
21
21
21
21
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 67
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
4490
N
64
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
2940
480
2210
200
468
>3300
693
1626
14
907
297
404
299
>3300
615
354
190
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
13
50
>3300
>3300
170
296
18
471
501
>3300
827
3265
4
371
778
305
973
109
670
1018
250
800
1282
1656
568
1599
236
309
626
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
64
64
64
108
108
108
108
108
212
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
209
211
246
114
114
248
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
244
252
113
113
120
120
120
120
120
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
Species
Myriophyllum spicatum
Navicula pelliculosa
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus circinatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Ranunculus peltatus
Skeletonema costatum
Skeletonema costatum
Skeletonema costatum
Thalassiosira
pseudonana
Anabaena flos-aquae
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Exp.
Type
R
S
R
R
R
S
Plant Part
Measurement
new shoot
length
plant
new shoot
plant
relative growth
length
dry weight
p. 68
Interval Endpoint
(d)
21
EC50
EC50
0-21
EC50
21
EC50
21
EC50
EC50
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
R
S
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
new shoot
root
plant
plant
shoot
root
shoot
root
root
plant
plant
root
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
main shoot
shoot
shoot
number
number
dry weight
relative growth
length
length
length
length
number
dry weight
relative growth
dry weight
length
dry weight
moisture content
length
wet weight
dry weight
wet weight
moisture content
wet weight
moisture content
wet weight
dry weight
dry weight
moisture content
moisture content
dry weight
wet weight
moisture content
wet weight
dry weight
dry weight
height
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
21
21
21
0-21
21
21
21
21
21
21
0-21
21
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
21
14
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
471
N
120
124
247
338
N
119
888
N
119
512
N
119
50
254
EC50
290
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
369
610
592
402
696
341
1108
18
362
922
588
16
80
20.3
27
179
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
NEOC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
35000
8
>8
0.5
>8
8
8
>8
8
>16
>16
16
16
>16
>8
16
>8
>8
>8
8
8
125
>200
250
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
115
115
115
115
115
115
116
116
116
116
116
116
251
253
245
249
203
283
282
282
283
283
283
282
283
284
284
284
284
284
283
284
283
283
282
282
282
270
269
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
frond
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lemna gibba
E1
Lemna gibba
R
frond
E1
Lemna gibba
R
frond
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
R
R
S
S
S
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
S
S
S
S
S
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
E1
Lemna gibba
S
frond
Measurement
height
dry weight
dry weight
height
height
dry weight
height
height
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
height
dry weight
dry weight
height
height
number
number
dry weight
height
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
biomass (dry
weight)
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
dry weight increase
dry weight increase
number
growth rate
biomass (dry
weight)
number
number
growth rate
growth rate
biomass (dry
weight)
number
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 69
Interval Endpoint
(d)
14
NOEC
14
EC50
21
EC50
7
NOEC
7
EC50
7
NOEC
4
EC50
4
NOEC
4
EC50
4
NOEC
14
NOEC
21
EC50
70
NOEC
70
EC50
70
NOEC
70
EC50
70
NOEC
70
EC50
7
EC50
21
NOEC
7
NOEC
70
EC50
70
NOEC
14
EC50
7
EC50
21
EC50
4
EC50
4
NOEC
21
NOEC
14
NOEC
4
NOEC
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
125
N
269
>200
N
269
>200
N
270
200
N
268
>200
N
268
200
N
268
>200
N
267
200
N
267
>200
N
267
200
N
267
200
N
269
>200
N
270
200
N
271
>200
N
271
200
N
271
>200
N
271
200
N
271
>200
N
271
>200
N
268
200
N
270
50
N
273
166
N
276
50
N
276
158
N
274
>200
N
273
47
N
275
>200
N
272
200
N
272
20
N
275
50
N
274
<0.85
M
264
0-14
EC50
5.3
M
263
0-14
NOEC
2.3
M
263
0-14
0-14
4
0-4
4
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
0.12
3.4
6.6
>26
5.7
M
M
M
M
M
263
263
264
264
264
7
7
0-7
0-7
7
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
<0.85
2.7
<0.85
7.4
3.6
M
M
M
M
M
265
265
265
265
265
4
NOEC
<0.85
M
264
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
E1
Lemna gibba
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Navicula pelliculosa
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Skeletonema costatum
Spirodela oligorrhiza
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Elodea canadensis
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Glyceria maxima
Lagarosiphon major
Lagarosiphon major
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
E1
E1
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Myriophyllum
heterophyllum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Najas sp.
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton pectinatus
Potamogeton pectinatus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Exp. Plant Part
Type
S
frond
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Measurement
biomass (dry
weight)
p. 70
Interval Endpoint
(d)
7
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
3.4
<0.85
200
50
200
>200
>200
50
>200
>200
200
>200
1380
1.43
EC50
EC50
EC50
3.4
6950
85
>3000
>1610
>1610
>1610
825.4
>2878
2.3
198
482
N
4
0-4
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
N
N
129
190
190
190
191
191
187
67
141
2
2
4
4
0-14
EC50
EC50
NOEC
LOEC
EC50
14.5
10.1
32
62
>3000
N
N
N
N
N
172
171
67
67
133
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
0-14
0-14
4
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
104.3
908.6
>5018
584
>3075
>3075
>3075
>1000
1000
6
4
NOEC
4
frond
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
growth rate
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
0-4
7
21
4
14
70
14
21
7
70
4
plant
plant
growth rate
wet weight increase
0-4
0-14
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
frond
frond
plant
wet weight increase
dry weight
fresh weight
shoot length
fresh weight
dry weight
number
number
number (growth
rate)
growth ?
growth ?
number
number
wet weight increase
0-14
14
14
14
14
14
S
S
plant
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
frond
frond
frond
S
S
S
shoot
shoot
shoot
plant
shoot
shoot
shoot
plant/tuber
plant/tuber
plant
length
fresh weight
dry weight
wet weight
length
dry weight
fresh weight
wet weight increase
wet weight increase
fluorescence
S
plant
fluorescence
S
S
S
S
S
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
<0.85
M
265
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
204
264
278
280
277
279
281
279
280
278
281
277
206
207
205
266
125
N
N
N
192
192
192
137
189
189
189
170
170
95
N
95
N
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
E2
Species
E3
E3
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Ranunculus penicillatus
Ranunculus penicillatus
Ranunculus penicillatus
Anabaena flos-aquae
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
Elodea canadensis
Lemna gibba
E3
E3
E3
E3
E2
E2
E2
E2
E3
E3
E3
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
Measurement
p. 71
Interval Endpoint
(d)
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
1.64
208
plant
fluorescence
4
LOEC
8
shoot
shoot
shoot
dry weight
fresh weight
length
14
14
14
plant
wet weight increase
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
>4499
>4499
>4499
1200
70
EC50
57100
0-14
14
EC50
EC50
2355
43
N
MI
130
150
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
48
8.4
51
15
MI
MI
MI
218
150
150
150
169
>95400
43000
250
M
N
151
223
225
147
0-14
S
N
95
N
188
188
188
219
126
224
S
S
plant
plant
wet weight increase
biomass (dry
weight)
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant
14
14
14
E3
E3
E3
E3
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
R
S
S
F
frond
frond density
frond density
biomass (dry
weight)
number
1
E3
E3
E3
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
R
R
S
plant
frond
frond
7
7
0-4
EC50
EC50
EC50
78
>562
360
M
M
N
151
152
142
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna paucicostata
Lemna paucicostata
Myriophyllum
heterophyllum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
R
S
R
R
S
frond
frond
plant
frond
plant
frond
plant
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
dry weight
number
number (growth
rate)
number
number
dry weight
number
dry weight
number
wet weight increase
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
4
4
7
4
7
7
0-14
EC50
NOEC
EC50
LOEC
EC50
EC50
EC50
343
187
>575
375
118
511
>3000
N
N
M
N
M
M
N
68
68
152
68
153
153
134
F
plant
Najas sp.
Navicula pelliculosa
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
S
S
S
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
plant
7
1
NOEC
250
N
148
plant
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
wet weight
14
fluorescence
4
242
380
77
N
plant
EC50
EC50
EC50
N
138
222
96
S
plant
fluorescence
4
LOEC
75
N
96
S
plant
fluorescence
4
NOEC
38
N
96
EC50
10
EC50
EC50
NOEC
50
75
10
S
S
S
S
plant
leaf
plant
chlorophyll b
number
chlorophyll a
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
28
28
28
221
N
N
N
149
149
149
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
E4
E4
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Salvinia natans
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena flos-aquae
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Chara intermedia
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Elodea densa
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Heteranthera zosterifolia
Hygrophila polysperma
Hygrophila polysperma
Hygrophila polysperma
Hygrophila polysperma
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Exp.
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Plant Part
Measurement
p. 72
Interval Endpoint
(d)
28
LOEC
28
LOEC
28
EC50
28
LOEC
28
NOEC
28
EC50
28
LOEC
28
NOEC
28
EC50
28
NOEC
28
NOEC
28
LOEC
EC50
4
EC50
0-14
EC10
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
100
N
149
100
N
149
80
N
149
1000
N
149
100
N
149
550
N
149
1000
N
149
100
N
149
150
N
149
10
N
149
10
N
149
100
N
149
61
220
9400
290
2.3
M
2
plant
plant
plant
stem
stem
stem
plant
plant
plant
leaf
plant
leaf
chlorophyll b
chlorophyll a
chlorophyll a
length
length
length
fresh weight
fresh weight
fresh weight
number
chlorophyll b
number
S
shoot
biomass
length increase
S
shoot
length increase
0-14
EC20
4.9
M
2
S
shoot
length increase
0-14
NOEC
14.6
M
2
S
shoot
length increase
0-7
EC20
0.7
M
2
S
shoot
length increase
0-7
EC10
0.2
M
2
S
shoot
length increase
0-7
EC50
10.3
M
2
S
shoot
length increase
0-14
EC50
19.4
M
2
S
shoot
length increase
0-7
NOEC
14.6
M
2
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-13
0-7
0-13
0-7
0-13
0-13
0-7
0-7
0-14
0-14
0-14
0-14
0-14
0-14
0-14
0-14
EC20
NOEC
EC50
EC10
NOEC
EC50
EC50
EC20
EC20
EC10
EC10
NOEC
EC50
EC10
NOEC
EC20
EC20
NOEC
EC10
EC50
6.0
14.6
139
1.2
<2.0
25.6
28.9
2.8
1.3
0.2
0.9
5.4
39.6
14.3
14.6
20.3
31.6
39.4
10.5
258.7
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
Exp. Plant Part
Type
R
frond
E4
Lemna minor
E4
Lemna minor
R
frond
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
R
frond
R
R
R
frond
frond
frond
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
S
S
S
S
shoot
shoot
shoot
shoot
F1
F1
F1
F1
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Vallisneria spiralis
Vallisneria spiralis
Vallisneria spiralis
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Elodea canadensis
Hydrilla verticillata
Lemna gibba
Lemna gibba
F1
F1
F1
E4
E4
E4
E4
F1
Measurement
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
dry weight increase
biomass
dry weight increase
dry weight increase
number (growth
rate)
length increase
length increase
length increase
length increase
biomass
p. 73
Interval Endpoint
(d)
0-7
EC10
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
2.6
N
74
0-7
EC50
31.8
N
74
0-7
14
0-7
0-7
0-7
NOEC
EC50
EC10
EC50
NOEC
1.0
7.9
0.8
39.5
1.0
N
74
292
74
74
74
0-13
0-13
0-13
0-13
Day 3
EC20
EC10
EC50
NOEC
EC50
50.3
50.3
81.5
106
1.95
M
M
M
M
growth
Day 3
EC50
3.96
N
N
N
1
1
1
1
291
291
S
S
S
S
leaf
leaf
leaf
plant
length increase
length increase
length increase
wet weight increase
0-21
0-21
0-21
0-14
EC20
NOEC
EC50
EC50
0.2
<2.0
45.4
22
M
M
M
N
7
7
7
123
S
plant
wet weight increase
0-14
plant
14
1
N
127
261
260
144
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
S
S
F
frond
frond
plant
4
4
1
NOEC
LOEC
NOEC
75
150
<200
N
N
N
65
65
145
F1
Lemna minor
S
frond
0-4
EC50
92
N
139
F1
F1
S
S
frond
plant
4
0-14
EC50
EC50
153
132
N
N
65
131
F1
Lemna minor
Myriophyllum
heterophyllum
Myriophyllum spicatum
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
number
number
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
number (growth
rate)
number
wet weight increase
21
110
37
<25
N
S
F
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
S
plant
5
NOEC
30000
N
179
F1
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
plant
5
EC50
3700
N
177
F1
F1
F1
F1
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
S
F
plant
plant
plant
plant
5
5
5
1
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
100000
<100
30000
<200
N
N
N
N
179
179
179
146
F1
F1
F1
F1
Myriophyllum spicatum
Najas sp.
Potamogeton pectinatus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant/tuber
plant
number of new
structures
branch number
reduction
number of buds
number of leaves
number of branches
photosynthesis
(oxygen production)
number of roots
wet weight
wet weight increase
fluorescence
5
14
0-14
4
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
EC50
100000
24
<100
235
N
N
N
N
179
135
169
93
S
plant
fluorescence
4
NOEC
75
N
93
F1
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
F1
Species
Exp. Plant Part
Type
S
plant
F2
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Thallassia testudinum
Anabaena flos-aquae
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Chara globularis
F2
Elodea nuttallii
S
shoot
F2
Elodea nuttallii
S
shoot
F2
Elodea nuttallii
S
shoot
F2
Lemna gibba
R
frond
F2
Lemna gibba
R
frond
F2
Lemna gibba
R
plant
F2
Lemna gibba
R
plant
F2
F2
F2
F2
F2
F2
F2
F2
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
frond
plant
F2
Lemna minor
R
plant
F2
F2
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
S
plant
shoot
F2
Myriophyllum spicatum
S
plant
F2
F2
F2
F2
F2
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Navicula pelliculosa
Potamogeton crispus
S
S
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant
F2
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Ranunculus circinatus
S
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena flos-aquae
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Elodea canadensis
Lemna gibba
S
S
S
F1
F2
F2
F2
F2
F3
F3
F3
F3
S
S
shoot
S
shoot
S
S
S
shoot
shoot
Measurement
fluorescence
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
number (growth
rate)
number (growth
rate)
biomass increase
(dry weight)
biomass increase
(dry weight)
specific growth rate
specific growth rate
biomass growth
biomass growth
log biomass growth
log biomass growth
log biomass dry
weight
log biomass dry
weight
number of buds
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
number of new
structures
number of branches
number of roots
number of leaves
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
p. 74
Interval Endpoint
(d)
4
LOEC
35
EC50
EC50
EC50
320
38.8
8.7
N
262
216
161
1
EC50
12.1
N
159
1
EC50
13.4
N
155
35
EC50
8.3
N
160
1
EC50
9.0
M
154
0-7
NOEC
10
N
175
0-7
EC50
55
N
175
0-7
NOEC
10
N
175
0-7
EC50
21
N
175
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
EC50
NOEC
EC50
EC50
NOEC
EC50
NOEC
NOEC
27.3
12.4
62.0
46.5
12.4
77.5
12.4
12.4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
214
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
0-7
EC50
85.2
N
174
5
1
NOEC
EC50
100000
11.8
N
N
180
156
5
NOEC
100000
N
180
5
5
5
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
EC50
EC50
100000
100000
100000
13.7
12.9
N
N
N
180
180
180
215
157
EC50
67
1
EC50
13.2
EC50
EC50
EC50
35.9
17
14
EC50
EC50
21
160
1
plant
wet weight increase
0-14
plant
wet weight increase
0-14
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
150
N
93
N
213
N
158
N
217
229
124
N
128
230
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
F3
Myriophyllum
heterophyllum
Najas sp.
Navicula pelliculosa
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena flos-aquae
Callitriche platycarpa
Callitriche platycarpa
Callitriche platycarpa
Callitriche platycarpa
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
submersum
Ceratophyllum
submersum
Ceratophyllum
submersum
Ceratophyllum
submersum
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
Exp.
Type
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
Plant Part
Measurement
frond
plant
frond
frond
frond
frond
plant
frond
frond
frond
S
plant
number
biomass
number
number
number
number
biomass
number
number
number (growth
rate)
wet weight increase
S
S
S
plant
S
p. 75
Interval Endpoint
(d)
4
LOEC
14
NOEC
0-14
EC50
0-14
NOEC
0-7
EC50
0-7
NOEC
14
EC50
4
NOEC
4
EC50
0-4
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
38
N
66
0.58
N
173
13.3
N
173
0.58
N
173
17.8
N
173
1.0
N
173
7.9
N
173
19
N
66
37
N
66
36
N
140
0-14
EC50
17
N
132
wet weight
14
EC50
EC50
EC50
19
11.9
20.8
N
136
227
226
plant
fluorescence
4
LOEC
38
N
94
S
plant
fluorescence
4
NOEC
19
N
94
S
plant
fluorescence
4
EC50
43
N
94
S
EC50
8.09
228
S
S
R
R
R
R
R
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
14
14
14
14
14
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC10
EC50
80.88
99
158
28
119
27
196
M
M
M
M
M
231
258
34
33
33
34
42
R
plant
dry weight
14
EC10
4
M
42
R
plant
dry weight
14
EC10
2
M
40
R
plant
dry weight
14
EC10
8
M
41
R
plant
dry weight
14
EC50
17
M
40
R
plant
dry weight
14
EC50
69
M
41
R
R
R
R
S
R
R
R
plant
plant
plant
plant
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
14
14
14
14
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
14
14
14
64
305
27
98
16
40
43
6
M
M
M
M
plant
plant
plant
EC10
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC10
EC10
37
37
36
36
255
28
29
28
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
M
M
M
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
Species
Exp. Plant Part
Type
R
plant
Measurement
p. 76
Interval Endpoint
(d)
0-14
EC50
F4
Lemna minor
F4
F4
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
R
R
plant
plant
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
S
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
S
R
R
R
R
S
frond
frond
frond
frond
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
14
14
14
14
S
R
R
R
R
S
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
S
plant
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
relative growth
F5
F5
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
Lemna trisulca
Lemna trisulca
Myriophyllum spicatum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Navicula pelliculosa
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton crispus
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
Skeletonema costatum
Spirodela polyrhiza
Spirodela polyrhiza
Spirodela polyrhiza
Spirodela polyrhiza
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Ceratophyllum
demersum
Elodea canadensis
Elodea canadensis
growth rate (dry
weight)
dry weight
growth rate (dry
weight)
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
growth rate (area)
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
dry weight
S
S
plant
plant
F5
F5
Elodea nuttallii
Elodea nuttallii
S
S
plant
plant
F5
F5
Lemna minor
Lemna minor
S
S
plant
plant
F5
Lemna trisulca
S
plant
F5
F5
F5
F5
Lemna trisulca
Myriophyllum spicatum
Potamogeton crispus
Scenedesmus
quadricauda
Scenedesmus
quadricauda
Scenedesmus
quadricauda
Scenedesmus
quadricauda
S
S
S
plant
plant
plant
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F5
F5
F5
F5
F5
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
153
M
29
14
0-14
EC50
EC50
111
182
M
M
29
28
0-7
0-7
0-7
0-7
14
14
14
14
EC10
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC10
EC10
EC50
EC50
EC50
35
105
42
115
254
38
55
20
11
63
22
109
199
3.2
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
57
57
58
58
30
30
35
35
256
39
38
39
38
259
14
14
14
14
21
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC10
EC50
EC50
31
16
228
6
146
1357.3
M
M
M
M
N
257
32
32
31
31
165
0-21
EC50
12.9
N
165
relative growth
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
relative growth
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
relative growth
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
relative growth
relative growth
relative growth
growth
0-21
21
EC50
EC50
23.4
44.5
N
N
168
168
0-21
21
EC50
EC50
11.8
97.7
N
N
166
166
0-21
21
EC50
EC50
198.9
130.4
N
N
167
167
21
EC50
36.1
N
164
0-21
0-21
0-21
0-12
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
64.5
73.4
38.8
1.429
N
N
N
164
169
163
285
photosynthesis
12
EC50
4.51
285
photosynthesis
2
EC50
18.62
286
chlorophyll
2
EC50
1
286
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
M
M
M
M
SSD Analysis of Macrophyte Sensitivity to Herbicides and Fungicides
Chem
F5
Species
F5
F5
F5
Scenedesmus
subspicatus
Skeletonema costatum
Spirodela polyrhiza
Spirodela polyrhiza
F5
Thalassiosira guillardii
Exp.
Type
Plant Part
Measurement
growth
S
S
plant
plant
growth
relative growth
photosynthesis
(fluorescence)
growth
Compliance Services International Report No. 11702
p. 77
Interval Endpoint
(d)
0-3
EC50
Conc (µg Meas/ Study
a.s./L)
Nom
32
287
0-3
0-21
21
EC50
EC50
EC50
0.86
4.6
33.1
0-3
EC50
1.09
N
N
288
162
162
289