Literature DB >> 23619928

Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics.

Graham Merrington1, Youn-Joo An, Eric P M Grist, Seung-Woo Jeong, Chuthamat Rattikansukha, Susan Roe, Uwe Schneider, Suthipong Sthiannopkao, Glenn W Suter, Rick Van Dam, Patrick Van Sprang, Ju-Ying Wang, Michael St J Warne, Paul T Yillia, Xiao-Wei Zhang, Kenneth M Y Leung.   

Abstract

Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify 'good practice' in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23619928     DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int        ISSN: 0944-1344            Impact factor:   4.223


  17 in total

1.  Species sensitivity distributions: data and model choice.

Authors:  J R Wheeler; E P M Grist; K M Y Leung; D Morritt; M Crane
Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.553

2.  Bad habits die hard: the NOEC's persistence reflects poorly on ecotoxicology.

Authors:  Tjalling Jager
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.742

Review 3.  More than obvious: better methods for interpreting nondetect data.

Authors:  Dennis R Helsel
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Development of bioassessment-based benchmarks for iron.

Authors:  Tyler K Linton; Manoel A W Pacheco; Dennis O McIntyre; William H Clement; John Goodrich-Mahoney
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.742

5.  Comparison of tropical and temperate freshwater animal species' acute sensitivities to chemicals: implications for deriving safe extrapolation factors.

Authors:  Kevin W H Kwok; Kenneth M Y Leung; Gilbert S G Lui; S Vincent K H Chu; Paul K S Lam; David Morritt; Lorraine Maltby; Theo C M Brock; Paul J Van den Brink; Michael St J Warne; Mark Crane
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.992

6.  "What exactly are you inferring?" A closer look at hypothesis testing.

Authors:  Michael C Newman
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.742

7.  A Bayesian approach for determining the no effect concentration and hazardous concentration in ecotoxicology.

Authors:  David R Fox
Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 6.291

8.  Deriving sediment quality guidelines from field-based species sensitivity distributions.

Authors:  Kenneth M Y Leung; Anders Bjørgesaeter; John S Gray; W K Li; Gilbert C S Lui; Yuan Wang; Paul K S Lam
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 9.028

9.  Global geographic differences in marine metals toxicity.

Authors:  Peter M Chapman; Blair G McDonald; Peter E Kickham; Sarah McKinnon
Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull       Date:  2006-05-13       Impact factor: 5.553

10.  Use of field data to support European Water Framework Directive quality standards for dissolved metals.

Authors:  Mark Crane; Kevin W H Kwok; Claire Wells; Paul Whitehouse; Gilbert C S Lui
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2007-07-15       Impact factor: 9.028

View more
  6 in total

1.  Derivation of marine water quality criteria for metals based on a novel QICAR-SSD model.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Yunsong Mu; Fengchang Wu; Ruiqing Zhang; Hailei Su; John P Giesy
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Assessing watercourse quality: challenges in implementing European and Swiss legal frameworks.

Authors:  Marianne Milano; Nathalie Chèvre; Emmanuel Reynard
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Does a sum of toxic units exceeding 1 imply adverse impacts on macroinvertebrate assemblages? A field study in a northern Japanese river receiving treated mine discharge.

Authors:  Yuichi Iwasaki; Megumi Fujisawa; Tagiru Ogino; Hiroyuki Mano; Naohide Shinohara; Shigeki Masunaga; Masashi Kamo
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Emerging and priority contaminants with endocrine active potentials in sediments and fish from the River Po (Italy).

Authors:  Viganò Luigi; Mascolo Giuseppe; Roscioli Claudio
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 5.  How Specific Is Site-Specific? A Review and Guidance for Selecting and Evaluating Approaches for Deriving Local Water Quality Benchmarks.

Authors:  Rick A van Dam; Alicia C Hogan; Andrew J Harford; Chris L Humphrey
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.992

Review 6.  Toward Sustainable Environmental Quality: Priority Research Questions for Asia.

Authors:  Kenneth M Y Leung; Katie W Y Yeung; Jing You; Kyungho Choi; Xiaowei Zhang; Ross Smith; Guang-Jie Zhou; Mana M N Yung; Carlos Arias-Barreiro; Youn-Joo An; S Rebekah Burket; Robert Dwyer; Nathalie Goodkin; Yii Siang Hii; Tham Hoang; Chris Humphrey; Chuleemas Boonthai Iwai; Seung-Woo Jeong; Guillaume Juhel; Ali Karami; Katerina Kyriazi-Huber; Kuan-Chun Lee; Bin-Le Lin; Ben Lu; Patrick Martin; Mae Grace Nillos; Katharina Oginawati; I V N Rathnayake; Yenny Risjani; Mohammad Shoeb; Chin Hon Tan; Maria Claret Tsuchiya; Gerald T Ankley; Alistair B A Boxall; Murray A Rudd; Bryan W Brooks
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 3.742

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.