Performance of the CalTOX fate and exposure model in a case study for a dioxin-contaminated site
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Volume 22, Issue 11, p. 8719-8727
ISSN: 1614-7499
16 results
Sort by:
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Volume 22, Issue 11, p. 8719-8727
ISSN: 1614-7499
SSRN
In: Environmental sciences Europe: ESEU, Volume 32, Issue 1
ISSN: 2190-4715
Abstract
Background
The vast occurrence of organic micropollutants in surface waters has raised concerns about drinking water safety and public health. The Tai Hu Basin region in China, a typical developing and populous area, is facing the challenge of water pollution. To ensure drinking water safety, the knowledge on how treatment techniques and raw water quality affect the quality of finished water must be improved. The aim of the current study was to evaluate drinking water quality with respect to organic micropollutants and how the purity of the finished water depends on source water contamination and drinking water treatment strategies. Five drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs), using three different source waters in the Tai Hu River Basin, (i) Yangtze River, (ii) Wetland River Network, and (iii) Lake Tai Hu, were studied by analyzing 291 micropollutants in raw and finished water.
Results
Major differences in concentrations and composition profiles of organic micropollutants were observed between the source waters. Among the studied micropollutants, the dominating group was pesticides in the Wetland River Network and flame retardants in Yangtze. The total concentration of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in Tai Hu water was far higher than in the other samples. In total, 51 compounds were detected in the finished water, with an overall average total concentration of 730 ± 160 ng L−1. The removal efficiency of the detected compounds in the DWTPs averaged 24 ± 150%, which highlights the major challenge for the DWTPs in removing the emerging organic micropollutants through current treatment processes.
Conclusions
Our study showed that if the source water contains high levels of PFASs and organophosphorus flame retardants, even advanced treatment procedures are inefficient in removing the micropollutants, and the finished drinking water may contain cumulative levels of organic micropollutants in the µg L−1 range. On the other hand, if pesticides and pharmaceuticals dominate, a high overall treatment efficiencies may be obtained if advanced treatment techniques are used. The DWTPs are advised to use advanced treatment techniques or alternative water sources to guarantee the safety of drinking water. As surface water systems are highly impacted by upstream activities, efforts should also be made in the water sector for improving the surface water quality.
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Volume 23, Issue 19, p. 19602-19612
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Volume 16, Issue 4, p. 396-409
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: ENVPOL-D-22-03105
SSRN
The general European population has a total intake of dioxins and dioxin-like chemicals near the limit recommended by the European Union, making additional exposure above background levels undesirable. For populations living near dioxin contaminated sites additional exposure may occur by intake of locally produced food, inhalation of particles, dermal contact with soils, or by other exposure pathways. Risk assessment tools are required to estimate risks associated with contaminated sites and to set priorities for site remediation. Here, we review several multimedia models that can be applied as tools to support risk assessment. We then and present a strategy to select, apply, evaluate and adapt a model to address a specific situation. The case study we consider is a risk assessment of generic background dioxin exposure in Sweden, and we compare the predictions with environmental observations and exposure data from Sweden. Arguments are presented for selecting the CalTOX model for this case study. We demonstrate the application, evaluation and adaptation of the model, and discuss the requirements for extending the analysis to conduct risk assessment for subpopulations living near dioxin contaminated sites.
BASE
Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) are widespread in the water cycle. Their levels in disinfected waters are usually low, as they may transform into CEC disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during disinfection processes or partially removed in previous water treatment steps. The occurrence of CEC DBPs in real waters has been scarcely addressed, although their presence may be of relevance in water circular economy scenarios, and thus deserves further study in water regeneration systems. In this work, a database of CEC DBPs (n=1338) after chlorination was generated and is ready to use in future screening studies to assess the relevance of these chemicals in contaminat mixtures. Moreover, the transformation of CECs during chlorination, their main reaction pathways with chlorine, and current knowledge gaps were critically reviewed. ; CP acknowledges support from Fundación General del CSIC through the ComFuturo Programme (2nd edition). This work was supported by the Government of Catalonia (Consolidated Research Groups 2017 SGR 01404), and the "Agencia Estatal de Investigación" from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MEDISTRAES III, PID2019-110212RB-C22) and the IDAEA-CSIC, a Centre of Excellence Severo Ochoa (CEX2018-000794-S). CP acknowledges support from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences through the August T Larsson Guest Researcher Programme. We would also like to acknowledge the personnel from the WWTPs that kindly assisted in water sample collection. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Volume 17, Issue 1, p. 26-39
ISSN: 1614-7499
Abstract The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
BASE
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; Stockholm University ; http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/69 ; am2014
BASE
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
BASE
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; ISSN:1476-069X
BASE
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
BASE
In: Bergman , Å , Andersson , A-M , Becher , G , Berg , M V D , Blumberg , B , Bjerregaard , P , Bornehag , C-G , Bornman , R , Brandt , I , Brian , J V , Casey , S C , Fowler , P A , Frouin , H , Giudice , L C , Iguchi , T , Hass , U , Jobling , S , Juul , A , Kidd , K A , Kortenkamp , A , Lind , M , Martin , O V , Muir , D , Ochieng , R , Olea , N , Norrgren , L , Ropstad , E , Ross , P S , Rudén , C , Scheringer , M , Skakkebæk , N E , Söder , O , Sonnenschein , C , Soto , A , Swan , S , Toppari , J , Tyler , C R , Vandenberg , L N , Vinggaard , A M , Wiberg , K & Zoeller , R T 2013 , ' Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors ' , Environmental Health (Online Edition) , vol. 12 , 69 . https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
BASE