Expertise Center for Substances

Bilthoven, Netherlands

Expertise Center for Substances

Bilthoven, Netherlands
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

van den Brandhof E.-J.,Laboratory for Ecological Risk Assessment | Montforts M.,Expertise Center for Substances
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety | Year: 2010

Frequently measured pharmaceuticals in environmental samples were tested in fish embryo toxicity (FET) tests with Danio rerio, based on the draft OECD test protocol. In this FET test 2-h-old zebrafish embryos were exposed for 72h to carbamazepine, diclofenac and metoprolol to observe effects on embryo mortality, gastrulation, somite formation, tail movement and detachment, pigmentation, heartbeat, malformation of head, otoliths and heart, scoliosis, deformity of yolk, and hatching success at 24, 48 and 72h. We found specific effects on growth retardation above 30.6mg/l for carbamazepine, on hatching, yolk sac and tail deformation above 1.5mg/l for diclofenac, and on scoliosis and growth retardation above 12.6mg/l for metoprolol. Scoring all effect parameters, the 72-h-EC50 values were: for carbamazepine 86.5mg/l, for diclofenac 5.3mg/l and for metoprolol 31.0mg/l (mean measured concentrations). In conclusion, our results for carbamazepine and metoprolol are in agreement with other findings for aquatic toxicity, and also fish embryos responded in much the same way as rat embryos did. For diclofenac, the FET test performs comparably to Early Life Stage testing. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.


Moermond C.T.A.,Expertise Center for Substances | Janssen M.P.M.,Expertise Center for Substances | de Knecht J.A.,Expertise Center for Substances | Montforts H.M.M.,Expertise Center for Substances | And 3 more authors.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management | Year: 2012

There is no uniform Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) or very Persistent, very Bioaccumulative (vPvB) assessment of chemicals in Europe, as the various regulatory frameworks use only limited or dissimilar PBT assessments, or none at all. The European REACH Regulation requires a PBT/vPvB assessment for all chemical substances that are produced within or imported into the EU in amounts exceeding 10 tonnes per year, using the criteria as described in REACH Annex XIII. However, not all substances on the EU market need to be screened according to these criteria under REACH. For a number of substances, such as those imported or produced in lower volumes, there is no REACH requirement, and for human and veterinary medicinal products, biocides, plant protection products, and food and feed additives, other EU legislation is in force to regulate their marketing and use. Compounds may also be screened for PBT properties within international agreements, such as the Oslo Paris Convention (OSPAR), the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, the UNECE POP Protocol, and the UNEP Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which all have their own set of PBTor POP criteria. This study compares the PBT/vPvB assessment under REACH with PBT or POP assessments performed within other regulatory frameworks. Attention is paid to the process of PBT/vPvB/POP identification and which legislative steps can be taken if the PBT/vPvB/POP status is assigned. In addition to the different PBT or POP criteria of the various frameworks, descriptions of these criteria and approaches for application of weight of evidence also vary. Some EU frameworks still refer to the criteria in the former Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) of 2003, which preceded REACH. Although differences between the old TGD criteria and those in the REACH Annex XIII are small, this does cause dissimilarities among the frameworks. The risk management follow-up of a PBT or vPvB identification, which may include a socio economic analysis, also depends on the legal framework and the specific conditions under which a substance is used. Irrespective of the framework in which a substance is used, individual European MemberStates may propose a substance evaluation for PBTor vPvB identification under REACH. However, authorization is only possible for uses of PBTsubstances that are not covered by their regular framework but are registered under REACH. How socio-economic criteria should be weighed against PBT/vPvB properties and environmental risks in authorizing or restricting the use of PBT/vPvB substances is often not specified. Thus, although the goal of restricting or banning the use of PBT/vPvB substances is shared among all EU-based regulatory frameworks, there are many differences in how to achieve this goal. These differences create a challenge to harmonize the PBT/vPvB assessment of substances, not only regarding technical criteria, but also regarding regulatory follow-up. © 2011 SETAC.


Moermond C.T.A.,Expertise Center for Substances | Verbruggeni E.M.J.,Expertise Center for Substances
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management | Year: 2013

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is a priority hazardous substance within the Water Framework Directive (WFD). For aquatic systems, the European Commission has derived quality standards (QS) for HCB in biota. However, in some countries a preference may exist for QS based on water concentrations. The conversion of biota QS into water QS can be done by dividing the quality standard for biota by a reliable bioaccumulation factor (BAF) or by the product of the bioconcentration factor (BCF) and the biomagnification factor (BMF) (BCF × BMF). An extensive literature review of HCB bioaccumulation was performed, and data on bioaccumulation, biomagnification and bioconcentration, both from the field and the laboratory, were assessed for their usefulness to recalculate biota standards into water standards. The evaluation resulted in 10 reliable values for field BAFs, with a geometric mean of 221 000 L/kg (5% lipid-normalized). Bioaccumulation factor measurements show a high variation of more than 1 order of magnitude. At lower trophic levels (algae, small zooplankton), accumulation of HCB already exceeds expected accumulation through equilibrium partitioning by far. This affects BAFs at higher trophic levels as well. Moreover, observed BAF values for HCB in fish cannot be easily explained from the age of the fish, but there is a significant increase with trophic level. Reliable values for laboratory BCFs for fish were retrieved from literature, partly with water-based exposure and partly with dietary exposure. The5%lipid-normalized BCF of all these data is 12 800 L/kg. Regarding biomagnification, a number of reliable BMF and trophic magnification factor values, mostly determined in the field, were retrieved. From these data, an overall BMF of 3 per trophic level can be deduced. When comparing BCF values for fish multiplied by the BMF (12800×3=38400 L/kg) to the observed BAF values for fish (geometric mean 238 000 L/kg), there appears to be a large gap. Thus, the uncertainties surrounding values for bioaccumulation of HCB are high. Although the confidence in laboratory BCFs is higher, these data seem to be not relevant for small fish in the field. This makes it difficult to obtain a reliable BAF or BCF×BMF value to recalculate biota standards into water standards. On the other hand, biota concentrations in the field show a high variability that also hampers comparison with a fixed limit such as a quality standard. Thus, compliance checking using biota in the field means that a relatively large amount of fish will have to be used to obtain a reliable estimate. The following "tiered approach" is suggested: 1) calculate a water quality standard, using the BAF value that is most relevant for the trophic level to be protected, and 2) if this standard is exceeded in the field, sample representative biota in the field and compare concentrations of HCB in biota and water with their respective standards in a weight of evidence approach for compliance checking. In this way, unnecessary biota sampling can be avoided for reasons of efficiency and animal welfare. © 2012 SETAC.


PubMed | Expertise Center for Substances
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Integrated environmental assessment and management | Year: 2012

There is no uniform Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) or very Persistent, very Bioaccumulative (vPvB) assessment of chemicals in Europe, as the various regulatory frameworks use only limited or dissimilar PBT assessments, or none at all. The European REACH Regulation requires a PBT/vPvB assessment for all chemical substances that are produced within or imported into the EU in amounts exceeding 10 tonnes per year, using the criteria as described in REACH Annex XIII. However, not all substances on the EU market need to be screened according to these criteria under REACH. For a number of substances, such as those imported or produced in lower volumes, there is no REACH requirement, and for human and veterinary medicinal products, biocides, plant protection products, and food and feed additives, other EU legislation is in force to regulate their marketing and use. Compounds may also be screened for PBT properties within international agreements, such as the Oslo Paris Convention (OSPAR), the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, the UNECE POP Protocol, and the UNEP Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which all have their own set of PBT or POP criteria. This study compares the PBT/vPvB assessment under REACH with PBT or POP assessments performed within other regulatory frameworks. Attention is paid to the process of PBT/vPvB/POP identification and which legislative steps can be taken if the PBT/vPvB/POP status is assigned. In addition to the different PBT or POP criteria of the various frameworks, descriptions of these criteria and approaches for application of weight of evidence also vary. Some EU frameworks still refer to the criteria in the former Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) of 2003, which preceded REACH. Although differences between the old TGD criteria and those in the REACH Annex XIII are small, this does cause dissimilarities among the frameworks. The risk management follow-up of a PBT or vPvB identification, which may include a socio economic analysis, also depends on the legal framework and the specific conditions under which a substance is used. Irrespective of the framework in which a substance is used, individual European Member States may propose a substance evaluation for PBT or vPvB identification under REACH. However, authorization is only possible for uses of PBT substances that are not covered by their regular framework but are registered under REACH. How socio-economic criteria should be weighed against PBT/vPvB properties and environmental risks in authorizing or restricting the use of PBT/vPvB substances is often not specified. Thus, although the goal of restricting or banning the use of PBT/vPvB substances is shared among all EU-based regulatory frameworks, there are many differences in how to achieve this goal. These differences create a challenge to harmonize the PBT/vPvB assessment of substances, not only regarding technical criteria, but also regarding regulatory follow-up.

Loading Expertise Center for Substances collaborators
Loading Expertise Center for Substances collaborators