RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 1 Eduardo Cimino Cervi PhD in Environmental Engineering at the University of São Paulo (USP). Research fellow at the University of Michigan – Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States. Cristiano Poleto PhD in Water Resources and Sanitation at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Professor of the Graduate Program in Water Resources and Sanitation of the Institute of Hydraulic Research (IPH) – Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil. Corresponding address: Eduardo Cimino Cervi – Avenida Trabalhador Sancarlense, 400 – Centro – CEP 13564-002 – São Carlos (SP), Brazil – E-mail: eduardocervi@usp.br Received on: 02/13/2017 Accepted on: 06/08/2018 ABSTRACT During the past 40 years, ecological risk assessments (ERA) were being performed by different organizations, using different various principles and methods, with little or no communication and inconsistencies between the different many assessment methodologies. Brazil still does not have a regulation based on quality criteria for sediments. Also, ERA approach has only been introduced here, and detailed guidance on how to interpret and apply these frameworks is still generally inadequate. In our paper, ERA framework and its application around the globe is are presented. Also, some promising future directions in ERA are briefly discussed, and critical challenges to future success of this tool in Brazil are identified. Keywords: ecological risk assessments; toxicity; sediment quality guidelines; weight of evidence. RESUMO Durante os últimos 40 anos, avaliações de risco ecológico têm sido aplicadas por diferentes organizações. Utilizando métodos e princípios distintos, essas abordagens geralmente são aplicadas com pouca ou nenhuma comunicação e inconsistências entre si. O Brasil ainda não possui critérios definidos por lei, federal ou estadual, para a avaliação da qualidade de sedimentos. Além disso, as abordagens baseadas em avaliações de risco ecológico para esse fim são recentes no país, sendo essencial a obtenção de mais informações quanto a seus métodos de aplicação e interpretação. Neste estudo, a estrutura das avaliações de risco ecológico e seus métodos de aplicação ao redor do mundo são mostrados. Ainda, ações promissoras e direções futuras em relação à utilização das avaliações de risco ecológico são brevemente discutidas, identificando pontos críticos para o sucesso dessa ferramenta para a avaliação da qualidade de sedimentos no Brasil. Palavras-chave: análise de risco ecológico; avaliações de risco ecológico; toxicidade; valores-guia da qualidade de sedimentos; pesos de evidência. DOI: 10.5327/Z2176-947820180234 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS IN BRAZIL AVALIAÇÃO DE RISCO ECOLÓGICO EM SEDIMENTOS CONTINENTAIS NO BRASIL https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2446-5550 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7376-1634 Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 2 INTRODUCTION Sediments are essential to the functioning of aquat- ic ecosystems and have long been recognized as the ultimate repository of most of the contaminants dis- charged into the water bodies. It is widely accepted that sources of contaminants in this environment — such as the organic (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons — PAHs, and aliphatic hydrocarbons) and inorganic pollutants (metals and metalloids) — are the result of numerous human activities. Therefore, there is a clear need for continued scientific dialogue around the ecological risk that these sediment contaminants might pose to the aquatic biota. The environmental quality and disposal options for sediments dredged from navigational channels have been judged by use of some combination of physical, chemical, and biological analyses for over 40 years, being that the earliest regulatory interest in sed- iments dates back to the 1960s, with the London Dumping Convention. This was subsequently followed up in the 1970s with the work Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into ocean waters: implementation manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers (EEL, 1973). Since the 1980s, ecological risk assessment (ERA) is increasingly seen as a way to integrate science, pol- icy, and risk management to address sediment con- tamination around the world. It is a process that evaluates the likelihood or probability for adverse ecological effects occurring as a result of exposure to contaminants or other stressors. It comprises a framework for gathering data and evaluating their sufficiency for decision-making (ENVIRONMENTAL CANADA AND ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRON- MENT, 2008). The current state of the science in ERA is predicated on the use of the sediment quality triad (SQT) in a weight of evidence (WOE) approach (SIMPSON et al., 2005). Consisting initially of three lines-of-evidence (LOE) — chemical, ecotoxicological and ecological —, this approach is usually applied within a tiered sys- tem. E.g., information from each LOE is collected at each tier following a stepwise cost-effective process. The SQT is not restricted to only three LOE and can in- corporate additional data, such as bioaccumulation/ biomagnification, toxicity identification evaluation (TIE), contaminant body residue (CBR) analyses, and sediment stability. Despite the power of this tool to inform environmental management decisions, the practice has not reached its full potential, since there is little experience with applying the framework outside the United States. Although a number of countries (Australia/New Zea- land, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United King- dom) have developed or promulgated regulatory or procedural approaches to risk assessment, only a few have developed formal guidance documents for per- formance of ERA. In Brazil, for instance, ERA has only been introduced, but detailed guidance on how to in- terpret and apply these frameworks — especially in continental areas — is generally inadequate. Therefore, our paper attempts to cover the state-of- the-art system-based models prevailing over the ERA activities. First, a retrospective look at the concepts and characteristics of ERA is given. Then ahead we review the ERA framework tiered approach that has been developed and applied around the globe in the past decades. Based on this review, future perspec- tives and some key issues in the fields of ERA — espe- cially in continental areas of Brazil — are provided in the last section. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION According to Suter (2008), the ERA, as with other hu- man enterprises, should be understood as a product of its history. In particular, the current practice of ERA re- sults from blending two historical streams: risk assess- ment and ecological assessment. This account address- es the history of ERA in the context of its institution of origin, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). In 1981, the U.S. EPA commissioned the Oak Ridge National Laboratory aiming to develop and apply ERA methods. From an analogy to the cancer risks estimates made by human health assessments, it Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 3 was assumed that ERA should also estimate proba- bilities of clearly defined effects, while addressing all relevant levels of biological organization. These two assumptions guided development and publication of a set of probabilistic methods for assessment of risks to organisms, populations and ecosystems (SUTER et al., 2003). Then, in 1983, the framework of the National Re- search Council (NRC) and the tools initially developed for the quantification of human health risks have subsequently been extended to other environmental problems including ERA, in the report Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process (commonly referred to as the Red Book). It recom- mended development of assessments for non-human or ecological endpoints and also suggested that risk assessment should not only estimate probabilities of clearly defined effects, but follow a standard meth- odological approach based on an explicit framework (NRC, 1983). Considering a conceptual framework for the identifica- tion and assessment of risks to human health, the NRC created a process comprising the following four stages: 1. Hazard identification: which chemicals are import- ant and why?; 2. Exposure assessment: fate and transport of chemi- cals, who might be exposed and how?; 3. Toxicity assessment: determining the numerical in- dices of toxicity for computing risk; 4. Risk characterization: estimating the magnitude of risk and the uncertainty of the estimate. The Red Book provided key concepts that impelled the investigators at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to develop a framework similar to the one for human health, but more suited to assessment of ecological risk. Based on this framework, the U.S. EPA proposed, in 1992, an initial methodological guidance for man- aging contaminated industrial sites. This framework extended the NRC and Oak Ridge National Laborato- ry frameworks by describing the process in detail and showing how it could be applied to a broad range of situations (U.S. EPA, 1992). Following a certain number of works, this guide was improved to become Guidelines for Ecological Risk As- sessment (U.S. EPA, 1998), which has now become the reference around the world regarding ERA. Referring to the generic framework and guidelines proposed by the U.S. EPA, ERA is defined as “a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring to ecosystems exposed to one or more stressors” (U.S. EPA, 1998). Since then, this guide has been revised by many countries and adapted to man- age their polluted sites. THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK An ERA is a rigorous scientific process used to quantify the magnitude of risk attributable to a single stress- or or a combination of stressors at a specific location. The end goal of this process is to enable the risk man- agers to identify, prioritize, and manage the associat- ed risks. This framework is appropriate for sites where the costs and/or ecological impacts of remediation are likely to be large relative to the cost of assess- ment. Remediation costs or other risk management may ultimately be much lower using a risk-based ap- proach compared to an approach based on compari- son of contaminant concentrations to sediment qual- ity guidelines (SQGs). The key to success was the realization by the archi- tects of ERA that risk assessment is a process and not a specific set of data collection techniques or analytical methods (BARNTHOUSE, 2008). Because situations to which an ERA may be applied can vary greatly in scope and complexity, an iterative, tiered approach is often employed. Use of a tiered approach, with expert review between tiers, helps ensure more efficient use of resources, and that limited resources are continually re-focused on an ever-narrowing number of increasingly significant stressor – receptor interactions. As showed by Figure 1, the ERA approach typically in- volves tree main phases: 1. Problem formulation determines the questions that are to be asked during the risk assessment process; Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 4 2. Analysis assessment details the biological effects of the stressor under examination. Simultaneously, the exposure potential of the material to the criti- cal biological group is calculated as part of an expo- sure assessment; 3. The determination of the likelihood (statistical probability) of an effect is formalized as risk char- acterization. This format was originally proposed for human health risk assessment and has to be modified for ERA. Risk characterization Ecological risk assessment Pl an ni ng (r is k as se ss or / ris k m an ag er d ia lo gu e) Communicate results to risk manager Risk management As necessary: acquire data, iterate process, m onitor results Problem formulation An al ys is Characterization of exposure Characterization of ecological effects Fonte: U.S. EPA (1998). Figure 1 – General ecological risk assessment overview. Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 5 The risk management decision based on ERA provides scientific evaluation of ecological risks that are typical- ly rated from high to low. This allows to make rapid de- cisions, so that immediate remediation actions can be focused on receptors with the highest risks. The main steps of ERA and procedure are as follows ahead. PROBLEM FORMULATION PHASE The problem formulation is a systematic planning step for identifying the major factors to be considered in a particular assessment. It provides the foundation for the entire ERA (U.S. EPA, 1998). A robust problem for- mulation outcome will greatly assist assessors, man- agers, and interested parties in identifying the most logical risk-management options for protecting human health (NRC, 2009). This section summarizes the chem- ical, physical and biological characteristics of study areas, identifies the stressors and endpoints derived from stakeholder’s values, and defines risk regions. These decisions will guide the type of data and infor- mation that need to be gathered and help to identify knowledge gaps. According to U.S. EPA (1998), the problem formulation phase results in three products: • Assessment endpoints that adequately reflect man- agement goals and the ecosystem they represent; • Conceptual models that describe key relation- ships between a stressor and assessment end- point or between several stressors and assess- ment endpoints; • An analysis plans. A key component of the problem formulation stage is defining an assessment endpoint to determine what ecological entity is important to protect. Such ecolog- ical entity can be a species, a community, or even an ecosystem. Once the entity has been identified, the next step is to determine what specific attribute(s) of the entity is potentially at risk and important to protect. This provides a basis for measurement in the risk assessment. Once assessment endpoints are chosen, a conceptual model is developed to provide a visual representation (a map, flow chart, or schematic) of hypothesized re- lationships between ecological entities and the stress- ors to which they may be exposed, accompanied by a written description of this process and of the risk questions. These models should include information about the source, stressors, receptors, potential ex- posure, and predicted effects on the assessment end- point. The Figure 2 illustrates an example of a concep- tual model. The analysis plan is the final stage of problem formula- tion. During analysis planning, risk hypotheses are evalu- ated to determine how they will be assessed using avail- able and new data. The plan includes a delineation of the assessment design, data needs, measures, and methods for conducting the analysis phase of the risk assessment. ANALYSIS PHASE Analysis is a process that examines the two primary components of risk, exposure and effects, and their relationships between each other and ecosystem characteristics. The objective is to provide the in- gredients necessary for determining or predicting ecological responses to stressors under exposure conditions of interest. The analysis phase incorpo- rates both exposure assessment and ecological ef- fects assessment: • Exposure assessment: data gathering and analysis phase focused on determining exposure concentra- tions or rates not associated with adverse ecologi- cal effects, or focused on actually characterizing the presence or absence of adverse effects to ecological resources at a site; • Ecological effects assessment: data gathering and analysis phase geared towards quantifying relevant exposure concentrations for ecological resources of concern at a site. The data and models used for exposure assessment de- pend in part on the types of effects that are expected and are most relevant for decision making; the data and Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 6 models used for effects assessment depend in part on the expected spatial and temporal exposure patterns. Together, exposure and effects assessment provide the scientific foundation for the risk assessment. RISK CHARACTERIZATION PHASE Risk characterization is the final phase of an ERA. It is the culmination of all work done during the previous phases. During risk characterization, the assessor uses the results of analysis to estimate the risk posed to ecological entities. The assessor then describes the risk, indicating the overall degree of confidence in the risk estimates, summarizing un- certainties, citing evidence supporting the risk es- timates, and interpreting the adversity of ecologi- cal effects. Risks are estimated by integrating exposure and stressor–response profiles using a wide range of tech- niques. To reduce uncertainty, risk characterization generally builds the final risk estimates upon different lines of evidence, using a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach. Lines of evidence may include laboratory studies (e.g., bioassays), ecological field investigations, model predictions, and comparison of point estimates or distributions of exposure and effects data. Agree- ment among different lines of evidence increases confidence in the conclusions of the risk assessment (BURTON et al., 2002). Completing risk characterization allows risk assessors to clarify the relationships between stressors, effects, and ecological entities and to reach conclusions re- garding the occurrence of exposure and the adversity of existing or anticipated effects. A good risk charac- terization will restate the scope of the assessment, express results clearly, articulate major assumptions and uncertainties, identify reasonable alternative in- terpretations, and separate scientific conclusions from policy judgments. Sediment organic carbon Infaunal invertebrates Predator fish Pb Pb As As Zn Zn Bioaccumulation Juvenile fish Bottom fish Toxicity River bottom Zooplankton/ water column invertebrates Particulate organic matter Epifaunal invertebrates Macrophytes FCSI: Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory. Figure 2 – Example of a conceptual model for bioaccumulation/biomagnification of metals from sediment through an aquatic food chain to fish, birds, and humans. Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 7 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AROUND THE WORLD A general overview of the ERA framework and tools from North America, United Kingdom, Australia/New Zealand, and developing countries, i.e., Brazil, were considered. Overall, the ERA approach followed by the U.S. EPA (described previously) is best used when performing hazard identification and prospective risk assessment. The approaches adopted by the U.K. and Australia/New Zealand follow the precautionary princi- ple and are conservative approaches to hazard identifi- cation and risk assessment. Although risk assessment is undertaken in various ways in other countries, the following section fo- cuses on where formal guidance is currently avail- able. A general observation is that access to doc- umentation about ERA and its regulatory uses is variable between those places, making the appli- cation and consistent review of the issues difficult. In developing countries, such as Brazil, ERA is ei- ther adopted from the U.S. EPA, or formal risk are completely lacking. United States The U.S. EPA’s framework and guidelines, used to con- duct assessments over the past two decades, have been and continue to be a robust and useful foundation upon which to build the information needed to support decision making for ecological resources. According to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR, 1999), the vast majority of ERA by the U.S. EPA has been in three areas: • Premanufacture notification (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); • Chemical or pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); • Contaminated waste sites under either the Compre- hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Generally, ERA for pesticide registration are prospec- tive estimates based on single active ingredients and use sites and follow an iterative four-tiered approach (HOPE, 2006). The vast majority of ERA is directed at PMNs and contaminated waste sites, with the latter having proved a most fruitful area for the evolution of the science and practice of ERA (STAHL et al., 2005). ERA techniques, but not necessarily the complete framework, have also been applied to invasive species (ORR et al., 1993), agroecosystems, and ecosystems management (LANDIS, 2005). Besides the ERAs framework, U.S. EPA has devel- oped guidance for designing a data collection plan to support study goals (U.S. EPA, 2000), which should be consulted during the problem formu- lation phase of ERA. The U.S. EPA also published guidance on developing ecological assessment end- points that analyzed the rationale for selecting var- ious levels of biological organization as endpoints for risk-management decision making (U.S. EPA, 2003). The decision to use organism-level or pop- ulation-level endpoints in assessing ecological risk should be made in the problem-formulation stage of an ERA. In early 2004, the U.S. EPA staff published a report, An examination of EPA risk assessment principles and practices, that presented current U.S. EPA risk as- sessment principles and practices (U.S. EPA, 2004). Carried out by a broad group of agency staff repre- senting headquarters and the regional offices, the paper goals are to present a different perspective on several significant technical positions taken by the agency and to highlight key technical areas where further dialogue, research, and scientific analysis will help advance the state of agency practice. According to U.S. EPA, this type of review provides an accessi- ble starting point for external review, analysis, and feedback regarding agency practices and rationales. Paralleling or subsequently following the U.S. EPA example, many nations (Canada, Australia/New Zea- land, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) de- veloped similar frameworks to assess ecological risk; structurally, the most significant differences comprise the extent of stakeholder involvement and the degree of inclusion of management processes. Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 8 Canada The basic framework for ERA in Canada has been provided by Environment Canada (1994) and elabo- rated upon numerous books (SUTER, 1993; LANDIS, 2005). As a part of its National Contaminated Sites Remediation Programme, Environment Canada produced A framework for ecological risk assess- ment at contaminated sites in Canada: review and recommendations (ENVIRONMENT CANADA, 1994). This report is a review of ERA methods and recom- mends an approach to promote consistency in site assessment and remediation in Canada. Canadian ERA framework is composed by exposure assess- ment, receptor characterization, hazard assess- ment, and risk characterization, and is compatible with US tiered approaches and is particularly useful in that many of the regulatory factors that pervade US literature. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 provides a legislative framework to deal with toxic sub- stances in the environment (HOPE, 2006). Under the act, environmental (ecological) risk assessments are carried out by Environment Canada, with the objec- tives of determining whether a substance is toxic, as defined by the act, and of providing scientific support for the determination. In 2008, the Canada-Ontario decision-making frame- work for assessment of Great Lakes contaminated sediment was prepared by Peter Chapman (Golder Associates) with the Sediment Task Group on be- half of Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change under the Can- ada-Ontario Agreement (ENVIRONMENT CANADA AND ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 2008). The purpose of this document was to provide a decision-making framework for contaminated sed- iments explicitly based on ERA principles, and which also has applications to contaminated sediments in other areas (e.g., freshwater, estuarine and marine). The framework is conceptually divided into a series of seven steps and six decisions that correspond to different ERA tiers. Three years later, the Island Marine Aquatic Sites Working Group developed the final guidance for assessing, classifying, and managing federal aquat- ic sites funded by the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) (CHAPMAN, 2011). This frame- work, elaborated for the Island Marine Aquatic Sites Working Group subcommittee of the inter-depart- mental Contaminated Sites Management Working Group (CSMWG), is based on the CSMWG (1999) 10-step process for terrestrial contaminated sites (A federal approach to contaminated sites), and pro- vides an objective, transparent, consistent and sci- entifically rigorous framework for identifying and addressing contaminated aquatic sites, focusing on the sediment. The 10-step FCSAP risk-based framework (Figure 3) is iterative and sequential in both scope and de- Risk management Identify suspect aquatic site List on FCSI Yes No suspect aquatic site? Yes No Yes No suspect aquatic site? No management actions needed No management actions needed No management actions needed No management actions needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Historical review Initial testing program Classify aquatic site contaminated aquatic site? Yes No No Yes contaminated aquatic site? Some class 1 sites go to step 7 All other sites go to step 5 Detailed testing program Reclassify aquatic site Go back to step 7 Develop risk management strategy Implement risk management strategy Confirmatory sampling Long-term monitoring remedial goals met? Stop Information gathering Screening level assessment Detailed level assessment Source: Environmental Canada (2013). Figure 3 – Canadian framework for assessing and managing contaminated aquatic sites. Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 9 cision points (the latter comprise simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ criteria). It is intended to be sufficiently prescriptive to standardize the decision-making process while still allowing for necessary site-spe- cific flexibility. There are four tiers: information gathering; screening level assessment; detailed level assessment; and risk management (including monitoring). It has five decision points and three routes of exposure (water column, sediment, con- taminant transfer). A Decision-Making Framework (DMF) for the FCSAP (ENVIRONMENTAL CANADA, 2013) was latter pub- lished. This guidance outlines the specific activities and requirements for addressing federal contaminat- ed sites in Canada. This framework (Figure 4) was de- veloped to provide a common approach to managing contaminated sites for which the federal government is responsible, but does not replace the FCSAP 10- step process; rather, it is a complementary guide to assist federal custodians in managing their contami- nated sites. Australia and New Zealand In October 2000, the Australia and New Zealand En- vironment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) released “In- terim” guidelines for sediment quality as part of the revised Australian and New Zealand guidelines for Step 1: identify suspect site Step 2: historical review Step 3: initial testing program Step 4: classify site (optional) Step 5: detailed testing program Step 6: re-classify site Step 7: develop remediation/risk management strategy Step 8: implement remediation/risk management strategy Step 9: confirmatory sampling and final report Step 10: long-term monitoring (if required)t Source: Environmental Canada (2013). Figure 4 – The 10-step Decision-Making Framework (DMF) for the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP). Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 10 aLocal biological effects data not required in the decision trees (see section 3.1.5) bFurther investigations are mandatory; users may opt to proceed to management/remedial action Define primary management aims Determine appropriate guideline trigger values for selected indicators Sediment contaminant characterization Measure total then dilute acid-soluble metals, organics plus TOC, grain size Decision tree framework for applying the sediment quality guidelinesa Test against guideline values Compare contaminant/stressor concentration with lower and upper guideline values Below lower value Above upper valueb Low risk (no action) Low risk (no action) Low risk (no action) Low risk (no action) Between upper and lower valuesb Check background concentrations Below Aboveb Below Aboveb Examine factors controlling bioavailability (optional) e.g., AVS pore water concentrations sediment speciation organic carbon Test against guideline value Compare bioavailable concentration with lower guideline value Acute toxicity testing Not toxicb Not toxic Toxic Toxic Chronic toxicity testing Moderately contaminated (initiate remedial actions) Highly contaminated (initiate remedial actions) TOC: total organic carbon; AVS: acid volatile sulfide. Source: ANZECC; ARMCANZ (2000). Figure 5 – Decision tree for the assessment of contaminated sediments Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 11 fresh and marine water quality (ANZECC; ARMCANZ, 2000). According to Simpson et al. (2005), at the time, these represented the latest in international thinking. However, in recognition that the science underpinning these guidelines required improve- ment, the guidelines were termed “interim” with the intention being that they would be significantly revised in the future. The interim guidelines involved a tiered, decision-tree approach (Figure 5), in keep- ing with the risk-based approach introduced in the water quality guidelines. Following this framework, the total concentrations of contaminants are compared to sediment quality guideline (SQG) values, termed trigger values (TVs). If the contaminant concentrations exceed the TVs, further investigations should be initiated to deter- mine whether there is indeed an environmental risk associated with the exceedance (BATLEY; SIMPSON, 2008). The framework then recommended the con- sideration of contaminant bioavailability and toxic- ity testing to demonstrate the presence or absence of an unacceptable impact (ANZECC; ARMCANZ, 2000). The interim framework has been widely ap- plied in both Australia and New Zealand to make in- formed decisions about sediment ecosystem health. However, these applications have also highlighted the weaknesses in the interim framework and are currently being reviewed and updated (WARNE et al., 2014). Since 2000, considerable advances have occurred worldwide in the science underpinning sediment qual- ity assessment. These have included the use of WOE approaches, the development of new toxicity tests, the recognition of limitations in some TVs and the de- velopment of TVs for contaminants for which no val- ues currently exist, as well as additional information on contaminant bioavailability and uptake pathways (SIMPSON et al., 2005). The actual ANZECC/ARMCANZ framework revision is being coordinated by the Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. The revision will be evolutionary in nature reflecting the latest scientific developments and a range of stakeholder desires. According to Warne et al. (2014), key changes will be: increas- ing the types and sources of data that can be used; working collaboratively with industry to permit the use of commercial-in-confidence data; increasing the minimum data requirements; including a mea- sure of the uncertainty of the trigger value; improv- ing the software used to calculate trigger values; increasing the rigor of site-specific trigger values; improving the method for assessing the reliability of the trigger values; and providing guidance of mea- sures of toxicity and toxicological endpoints that may, in the near future, be appropriate for trigger value derivation. The United Kingdom The use of ERA has received growing prominence in the United Kingdom (UK) since the early 1990s, in part as a response to the explicit requirements of recent envi- ronmental legislation. An original set of guidelines was published in 1995 by the Department of the Environ- ment (DOE) (ENVIRONMENT CANADA, 1995). In 2000 the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), the Environment Agency (EA), and the Institute of Environment and Health (IEH) published the Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (DETR, 2000). In 2011, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) developed the Green Leaves III, the latest and revised edition of the Guidelines for En- vironmental Risk Assessment and Management, which supersede the earliest versions. This revision brings the guidelines in England and Wales in line with current thinking in the field of environmental risk management (GORMLEY et al., 2011). A cyclical framework for environmental risk manage- ment is provided to offer structure in what would otherwise be a complex array of considerations for the decision-maker (Figure 6). The framework also offers a mechanism through which the process of ERA and management can be explained to stake- holders, and acts as a valuable aide-mémoire to multidisciplinary teams conducting risk assessment. This framework identifies four main components of risk assessment: • Formulating the problem; Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 12 Frame the problem Develop conceptual model Screen and prioritize risks Plan the assessment Mitigate, terminate, transfer or accept Report strategy Monitor and survey Reduce uncertainty Economic Technological Organizational Environmental security Social issues Stages within risk assessment: 1. Identify the hazard(s) 2. Assess the consequences 3. Assess their probabilities 4. Characterize risk and uncertainty Formulate problem Address risk Appraise options Assess risk Iterate communicate learn Source: Gormley et al. (2011). Figure 6 – The cyclical framework for environmental risk assessment and management in the United Kingdom. • Carrying out an assessment of the risk; • Identifying and appraising the management options available; • Addressing the risk with the chosen risk manage- ment strategy. Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 13 CURRENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN BRAZIL Brazilian current regulatory programs In Brazil, since 1986, the protection of freshwater, es- tuarine and marine waters against pollution has been based on the Resolution no. 20 from the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA, 1986). On May 13, 2011, CONAMA issued Resolution no. 430, on the conditions and standards of effluent discharges to ad- dress wastewater treatment systems and industrial dischargers. Resolution no. 430 amends the existing effluent standards of Resolution no. 357/2005, which also extends to the classification and ecological man- agement of water bodies (CONAMA, 2005; 2011). Resolution no. 430 establishes standards for the dis- charge of effluents from sanitary sewers, which con- sists of residential, commercial and publicly collected liquid wastes and may include some industrial dis- charges (CONAMA, 2011). Wastewater treatment sys- tems that discharge directly into the ocean through submarine pipes are subject to a distinct set of stan- dards. For industrial pollution sources, this resolution imposes a new regime of obligatory self-monitoring and testing. The requirements include collection of samples by trained professionals and testing of sam- ples by laboratories specially accredited by the Nation- al Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industri- al Quality (INMETRO). On December 28, 2009, following three years of de- bate, CONAMA issued Resolution no. 420, establish- ing federal standards for the environmental manage- ment of contaminated sites. The resolution provides state and municipal environmental agencies with a framework of guidelines for the management of site remediation programs. It also contains monitoring and reporting requirements that may apply to Brazilian fa- cilities. Subject to implementation by state agencies, all facilities with the potential to pollute may be required to institute soil monitoring programs and submit tech- nical reports on the results with each renewal of their environmental licenses (CONAMA, 2009). The core of the new federal standards is a multi-stage process under which potentially contaminated sites are to be identified, investigated, classified, remediated and monitored. Responsible parties must submit to the ap- propriate environmental agency a plan that addresses: • The control and elimination of the sources of con- tamination; • The current and future use of the area; • An evaluation of risks to human health; • Intervention alternatives considered technically and economically viable; • A monitoring program; • Costs and timeframes for implementing the inter- vention alternatives. The resolution also creates technical criteria for use by environmental agencies, setting reference values for contaminants and procedures for determining the an- alytical methods to be employed by state environmen- tal agencies. The Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) is also di- rected to create a National Database of Contaminated Sites using information obtained by the state agencies. Environmental agencies of each Brazilian state should list the different soils in their territory and establish reference values (backgrounds) until 2013, providing crucial information to identify contaminated areas and carry out intervention actions. Until now, states such as São Paulo (CETESB, 2005), Pernambuco (BIONDI, 2010), and Minas Gerais (COPAM, 2010) already car- ried out studies for soil reference values. Juchen et al. (2014) compared the local background concentrations for trace elements in two different sets of soils from the states of Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul, south region of Brazil. The authors concluded that the trace element levels may vary from location to loca- tion, especially due to different classes of soils and/or parent materials. Poleto and Gonçalves (2006) report- ed that the specificity of each reference value is also Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 14 clear when comparing the thresholds established by different guidelines. In 2005 the São Paulo Environmental Agency (CETESB, 2005) published Guiding Values for Soils and Groundwater in the State of São Paulo, including quality reference values (QRV) obtained from background concentrations of trace elements in soils from the state. As well as QRVs, CETESB proposed prevention and intervention values, above which heavy metal levels indicate potentially polluted soil and a potential risk to human health. Quality reference values for soils in Brazil and other individual states are giv- en in Table 1. Regarding sediment quality assessment, Brazil still does not have regulation based on quality criteria for sediments. However, given the contamination of res- ervoirs, rivers, estuaries and coastal areas, sediment quality evaluation started to receive more attention from scientists over the last two decades, as a means to promote conservation and remediation criteria. According to Poleto et al. (2009), new studies of urban sediments should provide a means of formulating man- agement strategies focused on the way in which pollut- ed sediment is transported in the urban environment, particularly from the perspective of Brazilian cities. In the São Paulo state, sediment quality has been mon- itored by CETESB since 2002. A comprehensive and sys- tematic study of sediment was needed, because some studies have indicated that several rivers and reservoirs in the state have relatively high concentrations of con- taminants at levels likely to affect the benthic communi- ty. However, one of the biggest issues regarding sediment quality assessment in Brazil is that most of the laborato- ry tests has been standardized for regions of temperate climate, which imposes some constraints for apply this frameworks in tropical areas, especially for in situ testing. Brazilian sediment quality criteria to orientate dredged material management are given by the Resolution no. 454/2012 from CONAMA, but such values were estab- lished based on the American and Canadian SQGs and do not consider the toxicity tests and the contaminant bioaccumulation (CONAMA, 2012). Some examples of the quality reference values for metals in dredged ma- terials are given in Table 2. Ecological risk assessment approaches in Brazil Despite the existence of effluent discharge, contami- nated sites, and water quality standards, ERA approach- es have only been introduced in South American coun- tries, and detailed guidance on how to interpret and apply these frameworks is still generally inadequate. Usually, Brazilian studies are carried out based on the U. S. EPA framework. An advanced search in the Science Direct website us- ing the keywords ecological risk assessment and Brazil showed an increase in the number of ERA researches Table 1 – Quality reference values (QRVs) for trace elements of Brazil and regional background values for Pernambuco, São Paulo and Minas Gerais states. Background [Reference value] A rs en ic (A s) Ca dm iu m (C d) Ba ri um (B a) Ch ro m iu m (C r) Co op er (C u) N ic ke l ( N i) Le ad (P b) A nti m on y (S b) Se le ni um (S e) Zi nc (Z n) mg kg-1d. wt Pernambuco (BIONDI, 2010) 0.6 0.6 84 35 5 8.5 12 0.1 0.4 34.5 São Paulo (CETESB, 2005) 3.5 < 0.5 75 40 35 13 17 < 0.5 0.2 60 Minas Gerais (COPAM, 2010) 8 < 0.4 93 75 49 21.5 19.5 0.5 0.5 46.5 Brazil (CONAMA, 2009) 15 1.3 150 75 60 30 72 2 5 300 Source: Conama (2012). Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 15 in the last five years, especially in the São Paulo state. From 2005 to 2010, 3,443 results were observed. In the years of 2006, 2007, and 2008, the number of observed papers was 405, 508, and 600, respective- ly. Since 2010 to the present, 6,735 papers were pub- lished, being 1,147, 1,456 and 1,743 for 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. Regarding ERA in Brazil, the QualiSed Project is among the most complete researches developed so far (MOZETO et al., 2004). Aiming to develop the techni- cal basis for deriving sediment-quality guidelines that could be applied to the São Paulo state water bodies, the QualiSed Project — a multidisciplinary coopera- tive project which involved the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), the State University of Campi- nas (UNICAMP), and CETESB — included, from 2000 to 2003, studies of a series of reservoirs on the Tietê River (São Paulo state), from its headwaters (Billings and Rasgão reservoirs in the most polluted area) and middle Tietê (Barra Bonita and Bariri, moderately de- graded reservoirs) to the lower reaches (Promissão, a better-quality water body). The data collected during the project were used to define an operational scheme or framework for sed- iment-quality assessment. Analysis of the QualiSed Project database showed that the application of Ca- nadian guidelines does not provide a straightforward evaluation of the sediment quality for the protection of aquatic life. As an alternative, it suggested a pro- gram involving an integrated and hierarchic evalua- tion of sediment quality (AIHQS), in which the eco- toxicological aspects are prioritized. The success of this ERA in particular was the development of the management goals in a collaboration between deci- sion makers, assessors, scientists, and stakeholders; included in the problem formulation; translated into information needs; and then articulated with da- ta-quality objectives. Sanchez (2012) evaluated the impact of anthropogenic activities in the São Paulo state, more specifically the Lobo Hydrographic Basin, using an ERA approach based on the U.S. EPA framework. Also, the assessment of dif- ferent lines of evidence (LOE) were carried out by Tor- res et al. (2015) in the Santos Estuarine System (SES) for the evaluation of environmental quality. The WOE approach was applied to compare and harmonize LOEs commonly used in sediment quality assessments and to then classify estuary environments according to both their potential for having adverse effects on the biota and their possible ecological risks. The authors recommended that this kind of approach must be used when evaluating sediment quality in special situations, such as the design of dredging projects in port areas that have a history of sediment contamination. 1Environmental Canada (1995); 2Long et al. (1995); 3FDEP (1994). Table 2 – Quality reference values (QRVs) for dredged materials (µg.g-1) established by the Resolution no. 454/2012 from National Council for the Environment. Pollutants Classification levels of dredged material (in dry weight unit) Freshwater Saline/Brackish Water Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 Metals and arsenic (mg/kg) Arsenic (As) 5.91 171 8.22 702 Cadmium (Cd) 0.61 3.51 1.22 9.62 Lead (Pb) 351 91.31 46.72 2182 Copper (Cu) 35.71 1971 342 2702 Chromium (Cr) 37.31 901 812 3702 Mercury (Hg) 0.171 0.4861 0.152 0.712 Nickel (Ni) 183 35.93 20.92 51.62 Zinc (Zn) 1231 3151 1502 4102 Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 16 In 2012, World Wide Fund for Nature in Brazil (WWF-BRAZIL, 2012) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) partnered in order to identify the environmen- tal risks in the Paraguay River Basin using an approach developed by Mattson and Angermeier (2007). This method is based on a multicriteria participatory approach that takes into consideration knowledge of the basin by local stakeholders — an ecological risk index is developed according to the severity of the impacts on ecosystems. The purpose of this study was to identify the status of the ecological compo- nents that ensure integrity of aquatic ecosystems in the basin. This assessment provides the governments of the four countries that share the basin (Brazil, Ar- gentina, Paraguay and Bolivia), as well as civil soci- ety organizations so that they can develop a climate change adaptation agenda for the Pantanal Wetlands and work to enhancing resilience and minimizing the basin’s vulnerability. In 2000, U.S. EPA has developed guidance for design- ing a data collection plan to support study goals. A par- ticular guidance should be developed and consulted for Brazil aiming to support the problem formulation and the analysis phase, taken into account the great variability of biomes and its enormous territory. Ac- cording to Dale et al. (2008), ERA case studies should be compiled and developed to provide useful informa- tion for developing standards of practice to determine ecological condition. This case studies compilation would also be useful to risk assessors in Brazil consid- ering how to address issues of spatial and temporal scale, geomorphology, quality reference values, and standard toxicity tests. CONCLUSIONS ERA is widely used and will continue to be used to protect the environment and prioritize remedial ac- tions around the world. As ERA continues to grow at a phenomenal pace, Brazilian environmental authori- ties should establish a standard framework for risk as- sessment in sites posing some risk. Experience can be acquired with the system by testing the U.S. EPA basic approach in practical situations at a number of charac- teristic sites, aiming to provide important information to help the regular utilization of the risk assessment process to support site restoration and reclamation de- cisions in Brazil. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the scholarship support from National Council for Scientific and Technological Devel- opment (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científ- ico e Tecnológico – CNPq) (Process nº 163760/2014-4). REFERENCES AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL (ANZECC); AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (ARMCANZ). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Canberra: ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000. BARNTHOUSE, L. The strengths of the ecological risk assessment process: linking science to decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, v. 4, n. 3, p. 299-305, 2008. http://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2007-065.1 BATLEY, G.; SIMPSON, S. Advancing Australia’s sediment quality guidelines. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, v. 14, p. 11-20, 2008. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. BIONDI, C. M. Teores naturais de metais pesados nos solos de referência do Estado de Pernambuco. 70 f. Tese (Doutorado) – Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, 2010. Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 17 BURTON, G. A.; BATLEY, G. E.; CHAPMAN, P. M.; FORBES, V. E.; SMITH, E. P.; REYNOLDSON, T.; SCHLEKAT, C. E.; DEN BESTEN, P. J.; BAILER, A. J.; GREEN, A. S.; DWYER, R. L. A weight-of-evidence framework for assessing sediment (or other) contamination: improving certainty in the decision-making process. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, v. 8, n. 7, p. 1675-1696, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1080/20028091056854. CHAPMAN, P. M. Framework for Addressing and Managing Aquatic Contaminated Sites Under the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP). Burnaby: Golder Associates, 2011. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (CENR). Ecological risk assessment in the Federal Government. CENR/5-99/001. Washington, D.C.: CENR, 1999. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. COMPANHIA AMBIENTAL DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO (CETESB). Decisão de Diretoria nº 195-2005-E, de 23 de novembro de 2005. Dispõe sobre a aprovação dos Valores Orientadores para Solos e Águas Subterrâneas no Estado de São Paulo – 2005, em substituição aos Valores Orientadores de 2001, e dá outras providências. São Paulo: CETESB, 2005. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ______. Guiding Values for Soils and Groundwater in the State of São Paulo. São Paulo: CETESB, 2016. Available at: . Accessed on: 17 July, 2018. CONSELHO ESTADUAL DE POLÍTICA AMBIENTAL (COPAM). Deliberação Normativa Conjunta COPAM/CERH nº 02, de 08 de setembro de 2010. Institui o Programa Estadual de Gestão de Áreas Contaminadas, que estabelece as diretrizes e procedimentos para a proteção da qualidade do solo e gerenciamento ambiental de áreas contaminadas por substâncias químicas. Brasil: COPAM, 2010. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ______. Resolução CONAMA nº 20, de 18 de junho de 1986. O CONSELHO NACIONAL DO MEIO AMBIENTE - CONAMA, no uso das atribuições que lhe confere o art. 7º, inciso lX, do Decreto 88.351, de 1º de junho de 1983, e o que estabelece a RESOLUÇÃO CONAMA Nº 003, de 5 de junho de 1984. Diário Oficial da União, 1986. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 27, 2018. CONSELHO NACIONAL DO MEIO AMBIENTE (CONAMA). Resolução nº 357, de 17 de março de 2005. Dispõe sobre a classificação dos corpos de água e diretrizes ambientais para o seu enquadramento, bem como estabelece as condições e padrões de lançamento de efluentes, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, p. 58-63, 2005. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ______. Resolução nº 420, de 28 de dezembro de 2009. Dispõe sobre critérios e valores orientadores de qualidade do solo quanto à presença de substâncias químicas e estabelece diretrizes para o gerenciamento ambiental de áreas contaminadas por essas substâncias em decorrência de atividades antrópicas. Diário Oficial da União, p. 81-84, 2009. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ______. Resolução nº 430, de 13 de maio de 2011. Dispõe sobre as condições e padrões de lançamento de efluentes, complementa e altera a Resolução nº 357, de 17 de março de 2005, do Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente- CONAMA. Brazil, 2011. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ______. Resolução nº 454, de 01 de novembro de 2012. Estabelece as diretrizes gerais e os procedimentos referenciais para o gerenciamento do material a ser dragado em águas sob jurisdição nacional. Brazil, 2012. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 18 CONTAMINATED SITES MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP (CSMWG). A federal approach to contaminated sites. Ottawa (ON), Canada: Dillon Consulting, 1999. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. DALE, V. H.; BIDDINGER, G. R.; NEWMAN, M. C.; ORIS, J. T.; SUTER, G. W.; THOMPSON, T.; ARMITAGE, T. M.; MEYER, J. L.; ALLEN-KING, R. M.; BURTON, G. A.; CHAPMAN, P. M.; CONQUEST, L. L.; FERNANDEZ, I. J.; LANDIS, W. G.; MASTER, L. L.; MITSCH, W. J.; MUELLER, T. C.; RABENI, C. F.; RODEWALD, A. D.; SANDERS, J. G.; VAN HEERDEN, I. L. Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, v. 4, n. 3, p. 306-313, 2008. http://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2007-066.1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS (DETR). Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. Revised Departmental Guidance. London, UK: The Stationary Office, 2000. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ENVIRONMENT CANADA. A framework for ecological risk assessment at contaminated sites in Canada: review and recommendations. Ottawa, Canada: Environment Canada, 1994. 108 p. ______. Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) decision-making framework. Ottawa, Canada: Environment Canada, 2013. 68 p. ______. Guidance Document on Measurement of Toxicity Test Precision Using Control Sediments Spiked with a Reference Toxicant. Environmental Protection Service. Ottawa, Canada: Environment Canada, 1995. 69 p. ENVIRONMENT CANADA AND ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Canada-Ontario decision-making framework for assessment of Great Lakes contaminated sediment. Ottawa (ON), Canada, 2008. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS LABORATORY (EEL). Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into ocean waters: implementation manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532. Vicksburg: EEL, 1973. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP). Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines. Ladysmith, British Columbia: D. D. MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd., 1994. v. 1. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun 26, 2018. GORMLEY, A.; POLLARD, S.; ROCKS, S.; BLACK, E. Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. Green Leaves III. London, UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2011. 84 p. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun. 26, 2018. HOPE, B. K. An examination of ecological risk assessment and management practices. Environment International, v. 32, n. 8, p. 983-995, 2006. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.005 JUCHEN, C. R.; CERVI, E. C.; VILAS BOAS, M. A.; CHARLESWORTH, S.; POLETO, C. Comparative of local background values for trace elements in different Brazilian tropical soils. International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Natural Resources, v. 1, n. 6, p. 255-261, 2014. LANDIS, W. G. Regional scale ecological risk assessment: using the relative risk model. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2005. 301 p. LONG, E. R.; MACDONALD, D. D.; SMITH, S. L.; CALDER, F. D. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management, v. 19, n. 1, p. 81-97, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472006. Ecological risk assessment of freshwater sediments in Brazil RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 19 MATTSON, K. M.; ANGERMEIER, P. L. Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning. Environmental Management, v. 39, n. 1, p. 125-138, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267- 005-0238-7 MOZETO, A. A.; ARAÚJO, P. A.; KULMANN, M. L.; SILVÉRIO, P. F.; NASCIMENTO, M. R. L.; ALMEIDA, F. V.; UMBUZEIRO, G. A.; JARDIM, W. F.; WATANABE, H. M.; RODRIGUES, P. F.; LAMPARELLI, M. C. Integrated hierarchical sediment quality assessment program: QualiSed Project’s approach proposal (São Paulo, Brazil). Proceedings, Third SedNet Workshop, Monitoring Sediment Quality at the River Basin Scale, Lisbon, p. 115-119, 2004. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. Washington: National Academy Press, 1983. 191 p. ______. Science and Decisions: advancing risk assessment. Washington: The National Academies Press, 2009. 422 p. https://doi.org/10.17226/12209. ORR, R. L.; COHEN, S. D.; GRIGGIN, R. L. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment process: for estimating pest risk associated with the introduction of non-indigenous organisms. Beltsville: United States Department of Agriculture, 1993. 40 p. POLETO, C.; BORTOLUZZI, E. C.; CHARLESWORTH, S. M.; MERTEN, G. H. Urban sediment particle size and pollutants in Southern Brazil. Journal of Soils and Sediments, v. 9, p. 317-327, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-009-0102-0. POLETO, C.; GONÇALVES, G. R. Qualidade das amostras e valores de referência. In: POLETO, C.; MERTEN, G. H. (Orgs.). Qualidade dos sedimentos. Porto Alegre: ABRH, 2006. p.237-277. SANCHEZ, A. L. Análise de risco ecológico para o diagnóstico de impactos ambientais em ecossistemas aquáticos continentais tropicais. 216 p. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, 2012. https://doi.org/10.11606/D.18.2012.tde-20042012-153101 SIMPSON, S. L.; BATLEY, G. E.; CHARITON, A. A.; STAUBER, J. L.; KING, C. K.; CHAPMAN, J. C.; HYNE, R. V.; GALE, S. A.; ROACH, A. C.; MAHER, W. A. Handbook for Sediment Quality Assessment. Bangor: CSIRO, 2005. 126 p. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun 26, 2018. STAHL, R. G. Jr.; GUISEPPI-ELIE, A.; BINGMAN, T. S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s examination of its risk assessment principles and practices: a brief perspective from the regulated community. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, v. 1, n. 1, p. 86-92, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2004a-018.1 SUTER, G. W. II. Ecological risk assessment. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993. ______. Ecological Risk Assessment in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: A Historical Overview. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, v. 4, n. 3. p. 285-289, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1897/ IEAM_2007-062.1 SUTER, G. W. II; NORTON, S. B.; BARNTHOUSE, L. W. The evolution of frameworks for ecological risk assessment from the red book ancestor. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, v. 9, n. 5, p. 1349-1360, 2003. https://doi. org/10.1080/10807030390240391 TORRES, R. J.; CESAR, A.; PASTOR, V. A.; PEREIRA, C. D. S.; CHOUERI, R. B.; CORTEZ, F. S.; MORAIS, R. D.; ABESSA, D. M. S.; NASCIMENTO, M. R. L.; MORAIS, C. R.; FADINI, P. S.; DEL VALLS CASILLAS, T. A.; MOZETO, A. A. A Critical Comparison of Different Approaches to Sediment-Quality Assessments in the Santos Estuarine System in Brazil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 68, n. 1, p. 132-147, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00244-014-0099-2 Cervi, E.C.; Poleto, C. RBCIAMB | n.48 | jun 2018 | 1-20 20 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (U.S. EPA). An examination of EPA risk assessment principles and practices. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science Advisor. EPA/100/B-04/001, 2004. ______. Framework for ecological risk assessment. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-92/001, 1992. ______. Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs) for ecological risk assessment. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-02/004B, 2003. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun 26, 2018. ______. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F, 1998. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun 26, 2018. ______. Stressor identification guidance document. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA/822/B-00/025, 2000. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun 26, 2018. WARNE, M. S. J.; BATLEY, G. E.; BRAGA, O.; CHAPMAN, J. C.; FOX, D. R.; HICKEY, C. W.; STAUBER, J. L.; VAN DAM, R. Revisions to the derivation of the Australian and New Zealand guidelines for toxicants in fresh and marine waters. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, v. 21, n. 1, p. 51-60, 2014. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1779-6 WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE IN BRAZIL (WWF-BRAZIL). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Paraguay River Basin: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay. Brasilia: The Nature Conservancy Brazil, 2012. Available from: . Accessed on: Jun 26, 2018. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license.