BACKGROUND, AIM, AND SCOPE: Aquatic microcontaminants (MCs) comprise diverse chemical classes, such as pesticides, biocides, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and industrial chemicals. For water pollution control and the evaluation of water protection measures, it is crucial to screen for MCs. However, the selection and prioritization of which MCs to screen for is rather difficult and complex. Existing methods usually are strongly limited because of a lack of screening regulations or unavailability of required data. METHOD AND MODELS: Here, we present a simple exposure-based methodology that provides a systematic overview of a broad range of MCs according to their potential to occur in the water phase of surface waters. The method requires input of publicly available data only. Missing data are estimated with quantitative structure-property relationships. The presented substance categorization methodology is based on the chemicals' distribution behavior between different environmental media, degradation data, and input dynamics. RESULTS: Seven different exposure categories are distinguished based on different compound properties and input dynamics. Ranking the defined exposure categories based on a chemical's potential to occur in the water phase of surface waters, exposure categories I and II contain chemicals with a very high potential, categories III and IV contain chemicals with a high potential, and categories V and VI contain chemicals with a moderate to low potential. Chemicals in category VII are not evaluated because of a lack of data. We illustrate and evaluate the methodology on the example of MCs in Swiss surface waters. Furthermore, a categorized list containing potentially water-relevant chemicals is provided. DISCUSSION: Chemicals of categories I and III continuously enter surface waters and are thus likely to show relatively steady concentrations. Therefore, they are best suited for water monitoring programs requiring a relatively low sampling effort. Chemicals in categories II and IV have complex input dynamics. They are consequently more difficult to monitor. However, they should be considered if an overall picture is needed that includes contaminants from diffuse sources. CONCLUSIONS: The presented methodology supports compound selection for (a) water quality guidance, (b) monitoring programs, and (c) further research on the chemical's ecotoxicology. The results from the developed categorization procedure are supported by data on consumption and observed concentrations in Swiss surface waters. The presented methodology is a tool to preselect potential hazardous substances based on exposure-based criteria for policy guidance and monitoring programs and a first important step for a detailed risk assessment for potential microcontaminants.
BACKGROUND, AIM, AND SCOPE: Aquatic microcontaminants (MCs) comprise diverse chemical classes, such as pesticides, biocides, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and industrial chemicals. For water pollution control and the evaluation of water protection measures, it is crucial to screen for MCs. However, the selection and prioritization of which MCs to screen for is rather difficult and complex. Existing methods usually are strongly limited because of a lack of screening regulations or unavailability of required data. METHOD AND MODELS: Here, we present a simple exposure-based methodology that provides a systematic overview of a broad range of MCs according to their potential to occur in the water phase of surface waters. The method requires input of publicly available data only. Missing data are estimated with quantitative structure-property relationships. The presented substance categorization methodology is based on the chemicals' distribution behavior between different environmental media, degradation data, and input dynamics. RESULTS: Seven different exposure categories are distinguished based on different compound properties and input dynamics. Ranking the defined exposure categories based on a chemical's potential to occur in the water phase of surface waters, exposure categories I and II contain chemicals with a very high potential, categories III and IV contain chemicals with a high potential, and categories V and VI contain chemicals with a moderate to low potential. Chemicals in category VII are not evaluated because of a lack of data. We illustrate and evaluate the methodology on the example of MCs in Swiss surface waters. Furthermore, a categorized list containing potentially water-relevant chemicals is provided. DISCUSSION: Chemicals of categories I and III continuously enter surface waters and are thus likely to show relatively steady concentrations. Therefore, they are best suited for water monitoring programs requiring a relatively low sampling effort. Chemicals in categories II and IV have complex input dynamics. They are consequently more difficult to monitor. However, they should be considered if an overall picture is needed that includes contaminants from diffuse sources. CONCLUSIONS: The presented methodology supports compound selection for (a) water quality guidance, (b) monitoring programs, and (c) further research on the chemical's ecotoxicology. The results from the developed categorization procedure are supported by data on consumption and observed concentrations in Swiss surface waters. The presented methodology is a tool to preselect potential hazardous substances based on exposure-based criteria for policy guidance and monitoring programs and a first important step for a detailed risk assessment for potential microcontaminants.
Authors: Christian Leu; Heinz Singer; Christian Stamm; Stephan R Müller; René P Schwarzenbach Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Luciana Gomides Freitas; Christian W Götz; Matthias Ruff; Heinz P Singer; Stephan R Müller Journal: J Chromatogr A Date: 2004-03-05 Impact factor: 4.759
Authors: Adriano Joss; Sebastian Zabczynski; Anke Göbel; Burkhard Hoffmann; Dirk Löffler; Christa S McArdell; Thomas A Ternes; Angela Thomsen; Hansruedi Siegrist Journal: Water Res Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 11.236
Authors: Carin A Huset; Aurea C Chiaia; Douglas F Barofsky; Niels Jonkers; Hans-Peter E Kohler; Christoph Ort; D Walter Giger; Jennifer A Field Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Tvrtko Smital; Senka Terzić; Jovica Lončar; Ivan Senta; Roko Žaja; Marta Popović; Iva Mikac; Knut-Erik Tollefsen; Kevin V Thomas; Marijan Ahel Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Maximilian E Müller; Beate I Escher; Marc Schwientek; Martina Werneburg; Christiane Zarfl; Christian Zwiener Journal: Environ Sci Eur Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.893
Authors: Leo Posthuma; Colin D Brown; Dick de Zwart; Jerome Diamond; Scott D Dyer; Christopher M Holmes; Stuart Marshall; G Allen Burton Journal: Environ Toxicol Chem Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 3.742
Authors: Cornelia Kienle; Etiënne L M Vermeirssen; Andrea Schifferli; Heinz Singer; Christian Stamm; Inge Werner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Milo L de Baat; Nienke Wieringa; Steven T J Droge; Bart G van Hall; Froukje van der Meer; Michiel H S Kraak Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 9.028