Display options
Cite
Korkaric M, Junghans M, Pasanen-Kase R, et al. Revising Environmental Quality Standards: Lessons Learned. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2019;15(6):948-960doi: 10.1002/ieam.4192.
Korkaric, M., Junghans, M., Pasanen-Kase, R., & Werner, I. (2019). Revising Environmental Quality Standards: Lessons Learned. Integrated environmental assessment and management, 15(6), 948-960. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4192
Korkaric, Muris, et al. "Revising Environmental Quality Standards: Lessons Learned." Integrated environmental assessment and management vol. 15,6 (2019): 948-960. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4192
Korkaric M, Junghans M, Pasanen-Kase R, Werner I. Revising Environmental Quality Standards: Lessons Learned. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2019 Nov;15(6):948-960. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4192. PMID: 31310040.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2019 Nov;15(6):948-960. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4192.

Revising Environmental Quality Standards: Lessons Learned.

Integrated environmental assessment and management

Muris Korkaric, Marion Junghans, Robert Pasanen-Kase, Inge Werner

Affiliations

  1. Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
  2. Agroscope, Wädenswil, Switzerland.
  3. University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, School of Life Sciences, Institute of Ecopreneurship, Muttenz, Switzerland.

PMID: 31310040 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4192

Abstract

An environmental quality standard (EQS) is a threshold value applied in regulatory monitoring for retrospective environmental risk assessment. However, an EQS may vary with time and between countries with shared water bodies, challenging coherent risk management. This study aimed to analyze the underlying reasons for changes in EQS values following a revision of previously derived EQSs for 62 substances. Relevant data were retrieved from publicly accessible databases, available literature, registration dossiers, and, in some cases, provided by manufacturers. Ecotoxicological data were assessed regarding reliability and relevance. As in previous studies, EQS derivation followed the European Union guideline. Overall, 61 annual average EQSs (AA-EQS) and 58 maximum acceptable concentration EQSs (MAC-EQS) were derived. Size and completeness of data sets generally increased due to the revision. AA-EQSs increased in 13 cases and decreased in 21 cases. MAC-EQSs increased in 22 cases and decreased in 11 cases. Most EQSs were derived using the deterministic assessment factor (AF) method. The number of substances for which EQSs were derived probabilistically by reference to the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) method increased from 2 to 5 AA-EQSs and from 6 to 11 MAC-EQSs. For AA-EQS derivation, AFs were reduced in 14 cases and increased in 6 cases. For MAC-EQS derivation, AFs were reduced in 9 cases and increased in 2 cases. Results demonstrate that the revisions did not generally lead to either lower or higher EQSs. The majority of EQSs (>93%) changed less than 10-fold. Clearly, EQSs based on small or incomplete data sets with large AFs were more prone to considerable changes in their numeric values when revised than EQSs based on SSDs. Thus, revision can reduce uncertainty and increase robustness of an EQS. In this study, however, available data continued to be insufficient to construct SSDs for the majority of substances. This was mostly due to a lack of reliable data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1-13. © 2019 SETAC.

© 2019 SETAC.

Keywords: Environmental quality standard (EQS); Environmental risk assessment; Water quality criteria; Water quality guidelines

References

  1. Ågerstrand M, Küster A, Bachmann J, Breitholtz M, Ebert I, Rechenberg B, Ruden C. 2011. Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Environ Pollut 159(10):2487-2492. - PubMed
  2. Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK et al. 2010. Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):730-741. - PubMed
  3. Boxall AB, Rudd MA, Brooks BW, Caldwell DJ, Choi K, Hickmann S, Innes E, Ostapyk K, Staveley JP, Verslycke T. 2012. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions? Environ Health Perspect 120(9):1221. - PubMed
  4. Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D. 1998. A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17(1):99-108. - PubMed
  5. Claussen U, Müller P, Merkelbag A, Garling T, Arle J. 2012. Comparisons of limits of river basin district specific pollutants set for the demands of the European Water Framework Directive in streams and rivers. Report for the WFD CIS ECOSTAT WG A. Dessau-Roßlau (DE): Umweltbundesamt (UBA). 24 p. - PubMed
  6. Cox C, Surgan M. 2006. Unidentified inert ingredients in pesticides: Implications for human and environmental health. Environ Health Perspect 114(12):1803. - PubMed
  7. Dulio V, Van Bavel B, Brorström-Lundén E, Harmsen J, Hollender J, Schlabach M, Slobodnik J, Thomas K, Koschorreck J. 2018. Emerging pollutants in the EU: 10 years of NORMAN in support of environmental policies and regulations. Environ Sci Eur 30(1):5. - PubMed
  8. [EC] European Commission. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. OJ L 327:1-72. - PubMed
  9. [EC] European Commission. 2011. Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance document No. 27. Prepared by EU, member states and stakeholders. Technical Report-2011-055. http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library - PubMed
  10. [EC] European Commission. 2013. Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 200/60/EC and 2008/105 EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy OJ L 226/1, 24.8.2013. - PubMed
  11. [ECHA] European Chemicals Agency. 2009. Helsinki, Finland. REACH registration database. Registration dossiers. Helsinki (FI). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances - PubMed
  12. [ECHA] European Chemicals Agency. 2012. Member state committee support document for identification of 4-nonylphenol, branched and linear. 135 p. [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://echa.europa.eu - PubMed
  13. [ECHA] European Chemicals Agency. 2017. Information on chemicals. EC inventory. Helsinki (FI). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/ec-inventory - PubMed
  14. [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2015. Draft assessment reports (DARs) and renewal assessment reports (RARs) prepared by Member States before March 2015. Parma (IT). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. http://dar.efsa.europa.eu/dar-web/provision - PubMed
  15. [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2018. Draft assessment reports (DARs) and renewal assessment reports (RARs) prepared by Member States after March 2015. Parma (IT). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/calls/consultations - PubMed
  16. Hahn T, Diamond J, Dobson S, Howe P, Kielhorn J, Koennecker G, Lee-Steere C, Mangelsdorf I, Schneider U, Sugaya Y. 2014. Predicted no effect concentration derivation as a significant source of variability in environmental hazard assessments of chemicals in aquatic systems: An international analysis. Integr Environ Assess Manag 10(1):30-36. - PubMed
  17. [INERIS] French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks. 2009. Portail Substances Chimiques. Verneuil-en-Halatte (FR). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://substances.ineris.fr/fr/ - PubMed
  18. Irmer U, Rau F, Arle J, Claussen U, Mohaupt V. 2014. Ecological environmental quality standards of “river basin specific pollutants” in surface waters-Update and development analysis of a comparison between EU member states. Working Group Ecological Status. Dessau-Roßlau (DE): Umweltbundesamt (UBA). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/93fc95d2-3afe-485f-93e0-be1aa6e1e432/9%20-%20Environmental%20Quality%20Standards_28012014.docx - PubMed
  19. Ittner LD, Junghans M, Werner I. 2018. Aquatic fungi: A disregarded trophic level in ecological risk assessment of organic fungicides. Front Environ Sci 6:105. - PubMed
  20. Johnson I. 2012. Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans-task 2c (comparison of specific pollutants and EQS). Final report for the DG Environment European Commission, Report No: UC 8981/1. Contract 70311 (2011):603663. Swindon (UK): WRc plc. 215 p. - PubMed
  21. Junghans M, Chevre N, Di Paolo C, Eggen R, Gälli R, Gregorio V, Häner A, Homazava C, Perazzolo C, Kase R. 2011. Aquatic risks of plant protection products: A comparison of different hazard assessment strategies for surface waters in switzerland. Duebendorf (CH): Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Eawag-EPFL. 176 p. - PubMed
  22. Kase R, Eggen R, Junghans M, Götz C, Hollender J. 2011. Assessment of micropollutants from municipal wastewater-Combination of exposure and ecotoxicological effect data for Switzerland. London (UK): InTech Open. p 31-54. - PubMed
  23. Kase R, Korkaric M, Werner I, Ågerstrand M. 2016. Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data (CRED): Comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies. Environ Sci Eur 28(1):7. - PubMed
  24. Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, Tillmann U. 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 25(1):1-5. - PubMed
  25. Merrington G, An YJ, Grist EP, Jeong SW, Rattikansukha C, Roe S, Schneider U, Sthiannopkao S, Suter GW, Van DR et al. 2014. Water quality guidelines for chemicals: Learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21(1):6-16. - PubMed
  26. Moermond C, Kase R, Korkaric M, Ågerstrand M. 2016. CRED: Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(5):1297-1309. - PubMed
  27. Nugegoda D, Kibria G. 2013. Water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems. In: Férard JF, Blaise C, editors. Encyclopedia of aquatic ecotoxicology. Dordrecht (NL): Springer. p 1177-1196. - PubMed
  28. [RIVM] Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. 2017. Zoeksysteem Risico's van stoffen. Bilthoven (NL). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://rvszoeksysteem.rivm.nl/ - PubMed
  29. Roe D, Pease W, Florini K, Silbergeld E. 1997. Toxic ignorance: The continuing absence of basic health testing for top-selling chemicals in the United States. New York (NY): Environmental Defense Fund. 65 p. - PubMed
  30. Rudén C, Adams J, Ågerstrand M, Brock TCM, Poulsen V, Schlekat CE, Wheeler JR, Henry TR. 2017. Assessing the relevance of ecotoxicological studies for regulatory decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13(4):652-663. - PubMed
  31. [UBA] Umweltbundesamt. 2012. ETOX Informations system Ökotoxikologie und Umweltqualitätsziele. Dessau-Roßlau (DE). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://webetox.uba.de/webETOX - PubMed
  32. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Ecological effects test guidelines, OPPTS 850.1075: Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine. Washington (DC). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/850-1075.pdf - PubMed
  33. [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. ECOTOXicology knowledgebase (ECOTOX). Washington (DC). [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ - PubMed
  34. van de Merwe JP, Neale PA, Melvin SD, Leusch FD. 2018. In vitro bioassays reveal that additives are significant contributors to the toxicity of commercial household pesticides. Aquat Toxicol 199:263-268. - PubMed
  35. Van Vlaardingen P, Traas T, Wintersen A, Aldenberg T. 2005. ETX 2.0 [computer program]. RIVM Rapport 601501028. Bilthoven (NL): RIVM. - PubMed
  36. Vorkamp K, Sanderson H. 2016. EQS variation study: European Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) Variability Study. Analysis of the variability between national EQS values across Europe for selected Water Framework Directive River Basin-Specific Pollutants. Scientific Report from DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 198. Aarhus (DK): Aarhus University, DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. 96 p. http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR198.pdf - PubMed
  37. Warne MSJ. 1998. Critical review of methods to derive water quality guidelines for toxicants and a proposal for a new framework. Supervising Scientist Report 135. 92 p. - PubMed
  38. Weinhold B. 2010. Mystery in a bottle: Will the EPA require public disclosure of inert pesticide ingredients? Environ Health Perspect 118(4):A168. - PubMed
  39. [WFD-TAG] Water Framework Directive UK Technical Advisory Group. 2014. Resources. [accessed 2018 Oct 22]. http://www.wfduk.org/resources - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types