Suchergebnisse

AbstractIt is acknowledged that a variety of chemicals enter the environment and may cause joint effects. Chemicals regulated under the European Chemicals Regulation REACH are often part of formulated mixtures and during their processing and use in various products they can be jointly released via sewage treatment plants or diffuse sources, and may combine in the environment. One can differentiate between intentional mixtures, and unintentional mixtures. In contrast to other substance-oriented legislations, REACH contains no explicit requirements for an assessment of combined effects, exposures and risks of several components. Still, it requires ensuring the safe use of substances on their own, in mixtures, and in articles. The available options to address intentional as well as unintentional mixtures are presented and discussed with respect to their feasibility under REACH, considering the responsibilities, communication tasks and information availability of the different actors (registrants, downstream-user and authorities). Specific mixture assessments via component-based approaches require a comprehensive knowledge on substances properties, uses, fate and behaviour, and the composition of the mixture under consideration. This information is often not available to the responsible actor. In principle, intentional mixtures of known composition can be assessed by the downstream-user. But approaches have to be improved to ensure a transparent communication and sound mixture assessment. In contrast, unintentional mixtures appear to be better addressable via generic approaches such as a mixture allocation factor during the chemical safety assessment, although questions on the magnitude, implementation and legal mandates remain. Authorities can conduct specific mixture risk assessments in well-defined and prioritized cases, followed by subsequent regulatory measures. In order to address intentional and unintentional mixtures within the current REACH framework, legal mandates together with guidance for the different actors are needed. Furthermore, further data on mixture compositions, uses and co-exposures need to be made accessible via shared databases.

AbstractThere is indisputable evidence that the environment, humans and wildlife are continuously exposed not to single but to multiple chemicals from different sources. Exposure to these mixtures can lead to combined risks not yet sufficiently addressed in any of the European chemical legislations. Under the REACH regulation for industrial chemicals, specific environmental mixture assessments are challenged by a lack of data on toxicity, use and exposures and the communication of data along the supply chain. Within the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability the European Commission proposed to introduce (a) mixture allocation factor(s) (MAF) as regulatory management tool to reduce exposures, effects and potential risks of unintentional mixtures. The MAF is proposed to be applied as default value within the chemical safety assessments undertaken by companies under REACH. Here, we critically review the relevant literature discussing the conceptual background of the MAF and approaches to derive its magnitude. The analysis focuses on the environment and key issues for an implementation in regulatory practise together with remaining uncertainties and needs for possible ways forward. At this stage introducing a MAF in REACH Annex I appears the most pragmatic and immediately implementable measure to address risks from unintentional mixtures in the environment. A so-called MAFceiling appears as the preferred option of policy makers, since it would only affect relevant substances close to their respective risk threshold. While the magnitude of a MAF will be decided politically, the choice of methods and assumptions to derive its size should be clear and transparent, build on the available scientific evidence and take account for uncertainties. A MAF will be most effective reducing environmental releases and exposure levels if risk mitigation measures are implemented in practise. Its socioeconomic impacts and costs need to be assessed in a balanced way together with the benefits for the environment, society, and for companies—also in comparison to the efforts needed for specific mixture risk assessments. In the future and with the experiences gathered in practise, a discussion is needed on how to assess and regulate unintentional mixtures across different pieces of chemicals legislation to consider the true exposure situation and ensure harmonisation.

AbstractBackgroundEuropean chemicals management aims to protect human health and the environment from legacy and emerging contaminants. The plasticizer market changed in response to the restriction of low molecular weight (LMW) phthalate plasticizers such as Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) due to their hazardous properties. We investigated patterns and trends of 19 regulated and emerging plasticizers in house dust from German homes and in suspended particulate matter (SPM) from major German rivers. The samples were used from the mid-2000s and late 2010s from two governmental long-term monitoring programs in Germany.ResultsWhile the sum of the respective plasticizer levels hardly changed over the study period, we observed a significant decrease of LMW phthalates in both house dust (2003/06, 80% of the ∑plasticizer concentration; 2014/17, 31%) and SPM (2005, 48%; 2017, 28%). This was accompanied by their substitution with high molecular weight (HMW) phthalates and non-phthalates. HMW phthalates increased from 19% of the ∑plasticizer concentration to 46% between the mid-2000s and the late 2010s in house dust, and from 50% to 63% in SPM samples. Diisononyl phthalate (DINP) replaced DEHP as the dominant plasticizer in both compartments. A significant tenfold increase (p < 0.05) was observed in SPM samples for Di (2-propylheptyl) phthalate (DPHP) (1–13%), compared to low levels in house dust (2014/17, 1%). Non-phthalates increased to 23% of the ∑plasticizer concentration in house dust but only to 9% in SPM (mid-2000s: house dust, < 1%; SPM, 1.5%). In recent house dust samples, Di (2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DEHT) had the third highest concentration of all plasticizers and contributed 18% to the total load, whereas Tris (2-ethylhexyl) trimellitate (TOTM) was one of the major non-phthalates in SPM samples.ConclusionsUnlike in the indoor environment, the substitution of LMW phthalates in the aquatic environment was characterized by a significant shift towards plasticizers with potentially hazardous properties. DPHP and TOTM were identified by European chemical regulation as potentially endocrine disrupting compounds and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic compounds. Our data document the need for integrated chemicals management to safeguard the transition to a non-toxic environment.

Abstract
Background
Safe and clean drinking water is essential for human life. Persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances and/or very persistent and very mobile (vPvM) substances are an important group of substances for which additional measures to protect water resources may be needed to avoid negative environmental and human health effects. PMT/vPvM substances do not sufficiently biodegrade in the environment, they can travel long distances with water and are toxic (those that are PMT substances) to the environment and/or human health. PMT/vPvM substance research and regulation is arguably in its infancy and in order to get in control of these substances the following (non-exhaustive list of) knowledge gaps should to be addressed: environmental occurrence; the suitability of currently available analytical methods; the effectiveness and availability of treatment technologies; the ability of regional governance and industrial stewardship to contribute to safe drinking water while supporting innovation; the ways in which policies and regulations can be used most effectively to govern these substances; and, the identification of safe and sustainable alternatives.

Methods
The work is the outcome of the third PMT workshop, held in March 2021, that brought together diverse scientists, regulators, NGOs, and representatives from the water sector and the chemical sector, all concerned with protecting the quality of our water resources. The online workshop was attended by over 700 people. The knowledge gaps above were discussed in the presentations given and the attendees were invited to provide their opinions about knowledge gaps related to PMT/vPvM substance research and regulation.

Results
Strategies to closing the knowledge, technical and practical gaps to get in control of PMT/vPvM substances can be rooted in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic Free Environment from the European Commission, as well as recent advances in the research and industrial stewardship. Key to closing these gaps are: (i) advancing remediation and removal strategies for PMT/vPvM substances that are already in the environment, however this is not an effective long-term strategy; (ii) clear and harmonized definitions of PMT/vPvM substances across diverse European and international legislations; (iii) ensuring wider availability of analytical methods and reference standards; (iv) addressing data gaps related to persistence, mobility and toxicity of chemical substances, particularly transformation products and those within complex substance mixtures; and (v) advancing monitoring and risk assessment tools for stewardship and regulatory compliance. The two most effective ways to get in control were identified to be source control through risk governance efforts, and enhancing market incentives for alternatives to PMT/vPvM substances by using safe and sustainable by design strategies.

Background: Safe and clean drinking water is essential for human life. Persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances and/or very persistent and very mobile (vPvM) substances are an important group of substances for which additional measures to protect water resources may be needed to avoid negative environmental and human health effects. PMT/vPvM substances do not sufficiently biodegrade in the environment, they can travel long distances with water and are toxic (those that are PMT substances) to the environment and/or human health. PMT/vPvM substance research and regulation is arguably in its infancy and in order to get in control of these substances the following (non-exhaustive list of) knowledge gaps should to be addressed: environmental occurrence; the suitability of currently available analytical methods; the effectiveness and availability of treatment technologies; the ability of regional governance and industrial stewardship to contribute to safe drinking water while supporting innovation; the ways in which policies and regulations can be used most effectively to govern these substances; and, the identification of safe and sustainable alternatives. Methods: The work is the outcome of the third PMT workshop, held in March 2021, that brought together diverse scientists, regulators, NGOs, and representatives from the water sector and the chemical sector, all concerned with protecting the quality of our water resources. The online workshop was attended by over 700 people. The knowledge gaps above were discussed in the presentations given and the attendees were invited to provide their opinions about knowledge gaps related to PMT/vPvM substance research and regulation. Results: Strategies to closing the knowledge, technical and practical gaps to get in control of PMT/vPvM substances can be rooted in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic Free Environment from the European Commission, as well as recent advances in the research and industrial stewardship. Key to closing these gaps are: (i) advancing remediation and removal strategies for PMT/vPvM substances that are already in the environment, however this is not an effective long-term strategy; (ii) clear and harmonized definitions of PMT/vPvM substances across diverse European and international legislations; (iii) ensuring wider availability of analytical methods and reference standards; (iv) addressing data gaps related to persistence, mobility and toxicity of chemical substances, particularly transformation products and those within complex substance mixtures; and (v) advancing monitoring and risk assessment tools for stewardship and regulatory compliance. The two most effective ways to get in control were identified to be source control through risk governance efforts, and enhancing market incentives for alternatives to PMT/vPvM substances by using safe and sustainable by design strategies. ; ISSN:2190-4715 ; ISSN:2190-4707