A Model-Based Prioritisation Exercise for the European Water Framework Directive
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Identification of Candidates for Prioritisation
- All substances in the list of monitoring data provided by MS (922 substances);
- Substances indicated by EU Member States (Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden and United Kingdom) after a general call for substances to be analyzed for prioritisation (712 substances);
- List of substances included by the European Parliament for further investigation (34 substances);
- Lists of substances provided by stakeholders: EEB (European Environmental Bureau) (25 substances), Greenpeace which indicated OSPAR lists of substances for priority action  and of substances of possible concern (331 substances), IARW (International Working Group Rhine Waterworks) (25 substances), ESR (Existing Substances Regulation) (141 substances);
- Substances indicated by research consortiums: the NORMAN Association  provided a list of Emerging Substances (ES) of concern derived from scientific literature and expert judgment as well as a monitoring database (422 substances);
- Substances indicated by international organizations: OSPAR lists of substances for priority action and of substances of possible concern (331 substances) and ICPDR  substances monitored during the second Joint Danube Survey (JDS2) in surface water and sediments (310 substances);
2.2. Outline of the Modelling-Based Prioritisation Approach
2.3. Hazard Assessment
- BIOWIN 3 < 2.2 (ultimate biodegradation timeframe is equal or greater than months) and BIOWIN 6 < 0.5 (low probability of fast biodegradation).
- - BCF > 2,000 L kg−1 and BCF< 5000 L kg−1 → B
- - BCF > 5,000 L kg−1 → vB
- the long-term no-observed effect concentration (NOEC) for marine or freshwater organisms is less than 0.01 mg L−1, or
- the substance is classified as carcinogenic (category 1 or 2), mutagenic (category 1 or 2), or toxic for reproduction (category 1, 2 or 3), or
- there is evidence of chronic toxicity, as identified by the classifications: T, R48, or Xn, R48.
2.4. Exposure Assessment
2.5. Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) Derivation
2.5.1. Multimedia model
2.5.2. ECETOC TRA Tool
- Tier 0: to screen chemicals and conditions of no immediate concern out of the process and to identify chemicals and conditions where further targeting risk assessment is required.
- Tier 1: based on pre-defined and conservative use scenarios corresponding to Environmental Release Categories (ERC) .
- Tier 2: detailed risk assessment on previously identified uses (additional more realistic exposure input).
2.6. Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC) Derivation
- WFD_prioritisation_summary.xls contains the SoLC list as well as relevant information on each substance.
- WFD_Risk_Ranking_1.xls contains the preliminary risk assessment process carried out on the SoLC.
- WFD_IUCLID_Industry_TYPE_Use.xls contains the information found in IUCLID and SPIN on use type and industry involved used for the calculation of PEC.
- PECvsPNEC_TRATool.xls contains the Risk ratio calculation (PEC/PNEC) using ECETOC TRA tool (version 2010) for the 78 substances assessed as category 1 in the preliminary risk assessment procedure.
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Hazard Assessment
- vP: 138 substances (13.2%)
- Intermediate: 346 substances (33.1%)
- NonP: 561 substances (53.68%)
3.3. Exposure Assessment
3.4. Resulting List of Candidate Substances
3.5. Resulting List of Risk Ranked (PEC/PNEC) Substances
4.1. Assessing the SLoC Representativity
- - Banned Plant Protection Products (PPP): it was argued that PPP which are already banned and they are not any longer produced or placed on the European market should not be considered since risk management measures have been already taken. However, it was pointed out that looking from an ecosystem health perspective they still pose a risk, therefore, it was agreed to keep these substances in the SLoC. In addition, local authorities are monitoring, amongst others, banned pesticides to understand the effectiveness of the implementation of risk reduction measures.
- - Emerging chemicals: it was emphasized that emerging substances (ES) for which less monitoring data is available should be included. The NORMAN network  provided the list of emerging substances.
- - Pharmaceuticals: Even though European legislation managing pharmaceuticals already exists, some of these substances were included in the SLoC.
- - Grouping of Chemicals: a strategy is needed for grouping chemicals for specific substances having congeners (e.g., PAH—Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, PBDE—Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, PCB—Polychlorinated Biphenyls, PCDD/F—Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans). However, to take into account the combined effects of chemical mixtures would need a different approach and it was decided to run first the prioritisation process and then to study the possibility of grouping on a case-by-case basis depending on the selected compounds.
4.2. Toxicity Assessment
4.3. PEC Calculation: Comparison between ECETOC TRA and OECD Pov and LRTP Screening Tool
- DisclaimerThe views expressed in this paper are purely those of the authors and may not under any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
- European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Commun 2000, L327, 1–72. [Google Scholar]
- Bodar, CWM; Berthault, F; de Bruijn, JHM; van Leeuwen, CJ; Pronk, MEJ; Vermeire, TG. Evaluation of EU Risk Assessments Existing Chemicals (EC Regulation 793/93); RIVM Rapport 601504002; RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment): Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). The Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment; European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, Finland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Off. J. Eur. Commun 1998, L123, 1–63. [Google Scholar]
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Risk assessment for birds and mammals. EFSA J 2008, 734, 1–181. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Commun 2008, L348, 84–97. [Google Scholar]
- Muir, DCJ; Howard, PH. Are there other Persistent Organic Pollutants? A challenge for environmental chemists. Environ. Sci. Technol 2006, 40, 7157–7166. [Google Scholar]
- Bonnomet, V; Alvarez, C. Implementation of Requirements on Priority Substances within the Context of the Water Framework Directive. Methodology for Setting EQS: Identifying Gaps and Further Developments. Background Document; Report ENV.D.2/ATA/2004/0103; International Office for Water (INERIS): Limoges, France, 2006; p. 49. [Google Scholar]
- James, A; Bonnomet, V; Morin, A; Fribourg-Blanc, B. Implementation of Requirements on Priority Substances within the Context of the Water Framework Directive. Prioritization Process: Monitoring-based Ranking; Contract NO. 07010401/2008/508122/ADA/D2; International Office for Water (INERIS): Limoges, France, 2009; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson, H; Sturdy, L; Whitehouse, P. Prioritising Chemicals for Standard Derivation under Annex VIII of the Water Framework Directive; Science Report—SC040038/SR; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2007; p. 145. [Google Scholar]
- Chapter R.11: PBT Assessment. In ECHA Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment; European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, Finland, 2008; p. 97.
- International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID). Available online: http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esis (accessed on 21 October 2010) and SPIN database 2010 Substances in Preparations in Nordic Countries. Available online: http://www.spin2000.net/ (accessed on 4 October 2010).
- ECETOC. ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment Tool. 2009. Available online: http://www.ecetoc.org/tra (accessed on 14 October 2010).
- Scheringer, M; MacLeod, M; Wegmann, F. OECD Pov and LRTP Screening Tool. Version 2.0. Manual. Avalable online: http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34373_40754961_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed on 14 October 2010).
- OSPAR (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic). Hazardous Substances. Available online at: http://www.ospar.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2010).
- NORMAN (Network of Reference Laboratories for Monitoring of Emerging Environmental Pollutants). The Norman Database on Emerging Substances. Avalable online: http://www.norman-network.net/index_php.php (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River). Joint Danube Survey 2. Available online: http://www.icpdr.org/jds (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- ECB (European Chemicals Bureau). Existing Chemicals. Avalable online: http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- Endocrine Disrupters Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/strategy/short_en.htm (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- Computational Toxicology Group. Avalable online: http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qsar/ (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- REACH. 2010; Chapter R.16: Environmental Exposure Estimation (version 2 of May 2010). In Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment; European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, Finland; p. 138. [Google Scholar]
- Klasmeier, J; Matthies, M; Fenner, K; Scheringer, M; Stroebe, M; Le Gall, AC; Mckone, T; van de Meent, D; Wania, F. Application of multimedia models for screening assessment of long-range transport potential and overall persistence. Environ. Sci. Technol 2006, 40, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Technical Guidance Document (TGD) in Support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for New Notified Substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for Existing Substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market, 2nd ed.; European Commission: Ispra, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Exposure Assessment Tools and Models. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals no 305. Bioaconcentration: Flow-Through Fish Test; OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development): Paris, France, 1996.
- European Commission. Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances. Off. J. Eur. Commun 1993, L84, 1–75. [Google Scholar]
- Mackay, D. Multimedia Environmental Models: The Fugacity Approach, 2nd ed; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Mostrag-Szlichtyng, A; Zaldívar, JM; Worth, AP. Computational toxicology at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol 2010, 6, 785–792. [Google Scholar]
- Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] Models; Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69; OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications: Paris. France, 2007.
- OECD QSAR Tool. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,3343,en_2649_34379_33957015_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed on 10 March 2010).
- Footprint Database. Available online: http://www.eu-footprint.org (accessed on 2 February 2010).
- ECETOC Technical Report 91. Available online: http://www.ecetoc.org/ (accessed on 10 March 2010).
- DSSTOX Database. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/ (accessed on 5 March 2010).
- Aroson, D; Boethling, R; Howard, P; Stiteler, W. Estimating biodegradation half-lives for use in chemical screening. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 1953–1960. [Google Scholar]
- CAESAR Project. Available online: http://www.caesar-project.eu/index.php?page=results§ion=endpoint&ne=1 (accessed on 8 April 2010).
- ADMET Modeler Software; Simulations Plus: Lancaster, CA, USA. Avaiable online: http://www.simulations-plus.com (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- Crane, M; Watts, C; Daginnus, K; Worth, A. Possible Application of Non-Testing Methods in Setting Environmental Quality Standards (EQS); EUR 23758 EN; Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission: Ispra, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Altenburger, R; Walter, H; Grote, M. What contributes to the combined effect of a cmplex mixture? Environ. Sci. Technol 2004, 38, 6353–6362. [Google Scholar]
- Combination effects of chemicals. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/effects.htm (accessed on 31 January 2011).
- Intelligent Data Analysis: An Introduction, 2nd ed; Berthold, MR; Hand, DJ (Eds.) Springer Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2003.
|Exposure score||Annual Use (tons)|
|A. How much is produced/imported annually in EU?||Ton/year||Data from IUCLID and SPIN databases (Nordic Countries) |
|B. What is the use pattern?||Use Index (0.1–1)||0.1 Controlled system (isolated intermediate)|
0.2 Industrial (non dispersive) use or use resulting in inclusion into/onto matrix
0.5 Wide dispersive use (mainly diffusive sources)
1.0 Used in the environment
|Exposure assessment score|
|P||Fresh (estuarine) water t1/2 > 40 day, or marine water t1/2 > 60 day, or|
Fresh (estuarine) sediment t1/2 > 120 day, or marine sediment t1/2 > 180 day.
|vP||Pov > 195 day and CTD * > 5097 km or TE > 2.25%.|
|ECETOC mandatory input||Measurement unit|
|Substance identification||IUPAC name|
|Sector of Use (SU)|
|Physico-chemical properties||Molecular weight||g mol−1|
|Vapour pressure||Pa or hPa|
|Water solubility||mg L−1|
|Octanol/water partition coefficient||Kow or logKow|
|Biodegradability test result|
|Environmental exposure scenario||Tonnage||tons year−1|
|Fraction of tonnage to region|
|CAS||Name||PNEC (mg L −1)||PEC (mg l−1)||Risk ratio|
|2921-88-2||chlorpyrifos||3.00 × 10−6||1.40 × 10−3||465|
|834-12-8||ametryn||3.60 × 10−6||8.82 × 10−4||245|
|3520-72-7||4,4′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[2,4-dihydro-5-methyl-2-phenyl-3H-pyrazol-3-one]||1.97 × 10−5||3.19 × 10−3||162|
|5567-15-7||2,2′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxobutyramide]||4.93 × 10−5||7.48 × 10−3||152|
|5468-75-7||2,2′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(2-methylphenyl)-3-oxobutyramide]||3.78 × 10−5||5.52 × 10−3||146|
|1085-98-9||dichlofluanide||1.00 × 10−5||1.40 × 10−3||140|
|7287-19-6||prometryn||2.00 × 10−6||1.83 × 10−4||91|
|886-50-0||terbutryn||2.40 × 10−6||1.83 × 10−4||76|
|119-47-1||6,6′-di-tert-butyl-2,2′-methylenedi-p-cresol||4.49 × 10−5||3.27 × 10−3||73|
|56-35-9||bis(tributyltin) oxide||9.90 × 10−6||6.92 × 10−4||70|
|5102-83-0||2,2′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-3-oxobutyramide]||2.81 × 10−5||1.35 × 10−3||48|
|42576-02-3||methyl 5-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-2-nitrobenzoate||3.50 × 10−6||1.25 × 10−4||36|
|79-94-7||2,2′,6,6′-tetrabromo-4,4′-isopropylidenediphenol||8.45 × 10−5||2.13 × 10−3||25|
|1897-45-6||chlorothalonil||6.00 × 10−5||1.39 × 10−3||23|
|21725-46-2||cyanazine||8.60 × 10−5||1.96 × 10−3||23|
|67774-74-7||undecylbenzene||4.60 × 10−5||9.69. × 10−4||21|
|50-29-3||clofenotane||5.00 × 10−6||7.12 × 10−5||14|
|74070-46-5||2-chloro-6-nitro-3-phenoxyaniline||5.00 × 10−5||6.84 × 10−4||14|
|1582-09-8||trifluralin||4.00 × 10−5||4.84 × 10−4||12|
|2312-35-8||propargite||6.00 × 10−5||5.77 × 10−4||10|
|67747-09-5||N-propyl-N-[2-(2,4,6-trichlorophenoxy)ethyl]-1H-imidazole-1-carboxamide||1.00 × 10−4||7.45 × 10−4||8|
|115-32-2||dicofol||8.80 × 10−5||5.52 × 10−4||6|
|25637-99-4||hexabromocyclododecane||9.68 × 10−5||5.32 × 10−4||6|
|3194-55-6||1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclodecane||4.86 × 10−4||2.59 × 10−3||5|
|107-64-2||dimethyldioctadecylammonium chloride||1.59 × 10−5||8.32 × 10−5||5|
|52740-90-6||1-amino-N-(3-bromo-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo-2-anthryl)-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxoanthracene-2-carboxamide||4.19 × 10−5||2.17 × 10−4||5|
|32536-52-0||diphenyl ether, octabromo derivative||4.75 × 10−5||2.44 × 10−4||5|
|52315-07-8||alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethyl- cyclopropanecarboxylate||3.00 × 10−7||1.38 × 10−6||5|
|68442-68-2||4-(1-phenylethyl)-N-[4-(1-phenylethyl)phenyl]aniline||1.87 × 10−5||8.16 × 10−5||4|
|96-69-5||6,6′-di-tert-butyl-4,4′-thiodi-m-cresol||5.04 × 10−5||1.85 × 10−4||4|
|55283-68-6||ethalfluralin||4.00 × 10−6||1.22 × 10−5||3|
|1163-19-5||bis(pentabromophenyl) ether||4.29 × 10−5||1.18 × 10−4||3|
|52-68-6||trichlorfon||6.00 × 10−5||1.53 × 10−4||3|
|1912-24-9||atrazine||1.30 × 10−3||3.16 × 10−3||2|
|31570-04-4||tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl) phosphite||1.67 × 10−5||3.55 × 10−5||2|
|63449-39-8||paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes, chloro||1.67 × 10−4||2.82 × 10−4||2|
© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Daginnus, K.; Gottardo, S.; Payá-Pérez, A.; Whitehouse, P.; Wilkinson, H.; Zaldívar, J.-M. A Model-Based Prioritisation Exercise for the European Water Framework Directive. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 435-455. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020435
Daginnus K, Gottardo S, Payá-Pérez A, Whitehouse P, Wilkinson H, Zaldívar J-M. A Model-Based Prioritisation Exercise for the European Water Framework Directive. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2011; 8(2):435-455. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020435Chicago/Turabian Style
Daginnus, Klaus, Stefania Gottardo, Ana Payá-Pérez, Paul Whitehouse, Helen Wilkinson, and José-Manuel Zaldívar. 2011. "A Model-Based Prioritisation Exercise for the European Water Framework Directive" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 2: 435-455. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020435