Suchergebnisse

AbstractBecause of their usually high molecular weight, polymers are generally considered as being of low environmental concern and are, therefore, exempted from registration and evaluation within REACH. This exemption is currently being reviewed by the European Commission. Against this background, data on the environmental fate and effects of selected water-soluble synthetic organic polymers used in cosmetic products were evaluated. The considered polymers include non-ionic polyethylene glycols (PEGs), anionic homo- and copolymers of acrylic acid (AA-P&CoPs), and cationic polyquaterniums (PQs). The PEGs are more amenable to biodegradation than the AA-P&CoPs and the PQs, which biodegrade slowly. In wastewater treatment plants, sorption and precipitation are expected to lead to an effective removal of the considered polymers from the wastewater. Uptake and bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms are limited by the large molecular size and, for AA-P&CoPs and PQs, the ionic charge of the polymers. In aquatic ecotoxicity tests, the PEGs and the AA-P&CoPs showed generally no to low toxicity. Effects of AA-P&CoPs on algae and crustaceans are attributed to the chelation of cationic nutrients in soft water, with toxicity being mitigated at higher water hardness. Toxicity of the cationic PQs to aquatic organisms ranged from absent to high, depending on the polymer structure, charge density and molecular weight, as well as on the test organism and test conditions. The observed effects most likely result from interactions with the organisms' surfaces. Aquatic toxicity of the PQs is reduced by dissolved organic carbon, suspended solids, sediments minerals, and at higher water hardness, representative of natural conditions. Results from toxicity tests with sediment and soil organisms were only identified for homopolymers of acrylic acid, showing no toxicity. The evaluation of the available ecotoxicity data suggests that test methods may need to be adapted to the respective polymer type, and further standardised to improve reproducibility. Based on the identified data, the considered polymers are likely to be of low environmental concern. However, this conclusion must be seen as preliminary, since environmental concentrations could not be estimated, and further ecotoxicity data are required, e.g., for sediment and soil organisms.

Authorisation of biocidal products in the European Union is a two-stage process, where the biocidal active substances are approved in a first step at the European level, and the biocidal products are authorised in a second step at member state level. If an active substance is designated as Candidate for Substitution (CFS) during this process, a comparative assessment must be carried out for each biocidal product containing this CFS by the competent authority. The aim of the current project was to evaluate the practicability of the existing technical guidance for this procedure by conducting a number of exemplary comparative assessments, and to develop recommendations for improvements. The analysis of the existing guidance revealed that essential concepts are only vaguely defined and would need considerable expert judgement and ad hoc decisions to be applied within a comparative assessment. The here developed recommendations relate to the definition of a product's intended uses, which are subject to a comparative assessment, and the requirement for chemical diversity of active substances in authorised products that currently often leads to a stop of the comparative assessment. Further recommendations relate to the use of risk mitigation measures and various hazard indices for a qualitative comparative assessment, and a standardised process of a quantitative, risk-based comparative assessment using recalculated risk quotients as decisive step. It is acknowledged that particularly the recommendations regarding the risk-based comparison may result in a considerable workload related to the comparative assessment of biocidal products. However, such efforts appear to be a precondition for a sound and defensible comparison of environmental risks. This could not be obtained by comparing risk quotients that were derived using different assumptions for the products within the assessment.

In view of the advanced development of new specific active pharmaceutical ingredients, the question arises as to whether the established standard procedures for the environmental risk assessment in the context of marketing authorization are still sufficient to adequately cover relevant effects on environmental organisms. The focus of this project is on specific test strategies for substances from the group of oncologicals, cardiologicals and statins, as well as their experimental verification in case studies. Studies with aquatic plants in the Lemna sp. Growth Inhibition Test (⁠OECD⁠ 221), the zebrafish embryo toxicity test (OECD 236) amended with sublethal endpoints and the comet assay with environmentally relevant cell types are discussed as possible adaptations, although not all of them proved to be suitable.

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic. ; Centro de Investigaciones del Medioambiente

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic. ; Fil: Boxall, Alistair B. A. University of York; Reino Unido ; Fil: Rudd, Murray A. University of York; Reino Unido ; Fil: Brooks, Bryan W. Baylor University; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Caldwell, Daniel J. Johnson & Johnson; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Choi, Kyungho. Seoul National University; Corea del Sur ; Fil: Hickmann, Silke. Umweltbundesamt; Alemania ; Fil: Innes, Elizabeth. Health Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Ostapyk, Kim. Health Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Staveley, Jane P. Exponent; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Verslycke, Tim. Gradient; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Ankley, Gerald T. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Beazley, Karen F. Dalhousie University Halifax; Canadá ; Fil: Belanger, Scott E. Procter And Gamble; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Berninger, Jason P. Baylor University; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Carriquiriborde, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Departamento de Química. Centro de Investigaciones del Medio Ambiente; Argentina ; Fil: Coors, Anja. Ect Oekotoxikologie Gmbh; Alemania ; Fil: DeLeo, Paul C. American Cleaning Institute; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Dyer, Scott D. Procter And Gamble; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Ericson, Jon F. Pfizer Inc.; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Gagné, François. Environment Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Giesy, John P. University of Saskatchewan; Canadá ; Fil: Gouin, Todd. Unilever; Reino Unido ; Fil: Hallstrom, Lars. University of Alberta; Canadá ; Fil: Karlsson, Maja V. University of York; Reino Unido ; Fil: Joakim Larsson, D.G. University of Göteborg; Alemania ; Fil: Lazorchak, James M. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Mastrocco, Frank. Pfizer Inc.; Estados Unidos ; Fil: McLaughlin, Alison. Health Canada; Canadá ; Fil: McMaster, Mark E. Environment Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Meyerhoff, Roger D. Eli Lilly And Company; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Moore, Roberta. Health Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Parrott, Joanne L. Environment Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Snape, Jason R. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino Unido ; Fil: Murray-Smith, Richard. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino Unido ; Fil: Servos, Mark R. University of Waterloo; Canadá ; Fil: Sibley, Paul K. University of Guelph; Canadá ; Fil: Straub, Jürg Oliver. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Suiza ; Fil: Szabo, Nora D. University of Ottawa; Canadá ; Fil: Topp, Edward. Agriculture Et Agroalimentaire Canada; Canadá ; Fil: Tetreault, Gerald R. University of Waterloo; Canadá ; Fil: Trudeau, Vance L. University of Ottawa; Canadá ; Fil: Van Der Kraak, Glen. University of Guelph; Canadá

Earthworms are an important soil taxon as ecosystem engineers, providing a variety of crucial ecosystem functions and services. Little is known about their diversity and distribution at large spatial scales, despite the availability of considerable amounts of local-scale data. Earthworm diversity data, obtained from the primary literature or provided directly by authors, were collated with information on site locations, including coordinates, habitat cover, and soil properties. Datasets were required, at a minimum, to include abundance or biomass of earthworms at a site. Where possible, site-level species lists were included, as well as the abundance and biomass of individual species and ecological groups. This global dataset contains 10,840 sites, with 184 species, from 60 countries and all continents except Antarctica. The data were obtained from 182 published articles, published between 1973 and 2017, and 17 unpublished datasets. Amalgamating data into a single global database will assist researchers in investigating and answering a wide variety of pressing questions, for example, jointly assessing aboveground and belowground biodiversity distributions and drivers of biodiversity change. ; H.R.P.P., B.K-R., and the sWorm workshops were supported by the sDiv [Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (DFG FZT 118)]. H.R.P.P., O.F. and N.E. acknowledge funding by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 677232 to NE). K.S.R. and W.H.v.d.P. were supported by ERC-ADV grant 323020 to W.H.v.d.P. Also supported by iDiv (DFG FZT118) Flexpool proposal 34600850 (C.A.G. and N.E.); the Academy of Finland (285882) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (postdoctoral fellowship and RGPIN-2019-05758) (E.K.C.); German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LO0901A) (D.J.R.); ERC-AdG 694368 (M.R.); the TULIP Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-41) (M.L); and the BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship to F.T.d.V. (BB/L02456X/1). In addition, data collection was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (12-04-01538-а, 12-04-01734-a, 14-44-03666-r_center_a, 15-29-02724-ofi_m, 16-04-01878-a 19-05-00245, 19-04-00-609-a); Tarbiat Modares University; Aurora Organic Dairy; UGC(NERO) (F. 1-6/Acctt./NERO/2007-08/1485); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (RGPIN-2017-05391); Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV-0098-12); Science for Global Development through Wageningen University; Norman Borlaug LEAP Programme and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (12/22510-8); Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station; INIA - Spanish Agency (SUM 2006-00012-00-0); Royal Canadian Geographical Society; Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) (2005-S-LS-8); University of Hawai'i at Mānoa (HAW01127H; HAW01123M); European Union FP7 (FunDivEurope, 265171; ROUTES 265156); U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander Pacific Fleet (W9126G-13-2-0047); Science and Engineering Research Board (SB/SO/AS-030/2013) Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India; Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) of the U.S. Department of Defense (RC-1542); Maranhão State Research Foundation (FAPEMA 03135/13, 02471/17); Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES 3281/2013); Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (LTT17033); Colorado Wheat Research Foundation; Zone Atelier Alpes, French National Research Agency (ANR-11-BSV7-020-01, ANR-09-STRA-02-01, ANR 06 BIODIV 009-01); Austrian Science Fund (P16027, T441); Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank Frankfurt am Main; Welsh Government and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (Project Ref. A AAB 62 03 qA731606); SÉPAQ, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland; Science Foundation Ireland (EEB0061); University of Toronto (Faculty of Forestry); National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Haliburton Forest & Wildlife Reserve; NKU College of Arts & Sciences Grant; Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (837393 and 837426); Mountain Agriculture Research Unit of the University of Innsbruck; Higher Education Commission of Pakistan; Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala; UNEP/GEF/TSBF-CIAT Project on Conservation and Sustainable Management of Belowground Biodiversity; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland; Complutense University of Madrid/European Union FP7 project BioBio (FPU UCM 613520); GRDC; AWI; LWRRDC; DRDC; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council) and FONCyT (National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion) (PICT, PAE, PIP), Universidad Nacional de Luján y FONCyT (PICT 2293 (2006)); Fonds de recherche sur la nature et les technologies du Québec (131894); Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHR1000/3-1, SCHR1000/6-1, 6-2 (FOR 1598), WO 670/7-1, WO 670/7-2, & SCHA 1719/1-2), CONACYT (FONDOS MIXTOS TABASCO/PROYECTO11316); NSF (DGE-0549245, DGE-0549245, DEB-BE-0909452, NSF1241932, LTER Program DEB-97–14835); Institute for Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Dean's Scholar Program at UIC; Garden Club of America Zone VI Fellowship in Urban Forestry from the Casey Tree Endowment Fund; J.E. Weaver Competitive Grant from the Nebraska Chapter of The Nature Conservancy; The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Depaul University; Elmore Hadley Award for Research in Ecology and Evolution from the UIC Dept. of Biological Sciences, Spanish CICYT (AMB96-1161; REN2000-0783/GLO; REN2003-05553/GLO; REN2003-03989/GLO; CGL2007-60661/BOS); Yokohama National University; MEXT KAKENHI (25220104); Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (25281053, 17KT0074, 25252026); ADEME (0775C0035); Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain (CGL2017-86926-P); Syngenta Philippines; UPSTREAM; LTSER (Val Mazia/Matschertal); Marie Sklodowska Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (747607); National Science & Technology Base Resource Survey Project of China (2018FY100306); McKnight Foundation (14–168); Program of Fundamental Researches of Presidium of Russian Academy of Sciences (AААА-A18–118021490070–5); Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq 310690/2017–0, 404191/2019–3, 307486/2013–3); French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs; Bavarian Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forestry (Project No B62); INRA AIDY project; MIUR PRIN 2008; Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station; Estonian Science Foundation; Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Canada; Russian Science Foundation (16-17-10284); National Natural Science Foundation of China (41371270); Australian Research Council (FT120100463); USDA Forest Service-IITF. ; Peer reviewed