European union system for the evaluation of substances: the second version

Vermeire, Theo; Rikken, M.G.J.; Attias, Leonello; Boccardi, P.; Boeije, Geert; Brooke, David N.; Bruijn, Jack de; Comber, Mike; Dolan, B.; Fischer, Stellan; Heinemeyer, Gerhard; Koch, Volker; Lijzen, Johannes; Muller, Brook; Murray‐Smith, Richard; Tadeo, J.

doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.01.062

Cited by 97 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, for the three POPs, the maximum iFs are 10 À7. 4 (water), 10 À8.8 (air), and 10 À9.5 (soil). The AWS emissions scenario iF estimates are generally dominated by the 33% discharge to water.…”

Section: à8mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: The roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation

Arnot

Mackay

Parkerton

et al. 2009

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Risk Assessment IDentification And Ranking (RAIDAR) model is refined to calculate relative human exposures as expressed by total intake, intake fraction (iF), and total body burden (TBB) metrics. The RAIDAR model is applied to three persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and six petrochemicals using four mode-of-entry emission scenarios to evaluate the effect of metabolic biotransformation estimates on human exposure calculations. When biotransformation rates are assumed to be negligible, daily intake and iFs for the nine substances ranged over six orders of magnitude and TBBs ranged over 10 orders of magnitude. Including biotransformation estimates for fish, birds, and mammals reduced substance-specific daily intake and iF by up to 4.5 orders of magnitude and TBB by more than eight orders of magnitude. The RAIDAR iF calculations are compared to the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES) model iF calculations and differences are discussed, especially the treatment of food web bioaccumulation. Model selection and application assumptions result in different rankings of human exposure potential. These results suggest a need to critically consider model selection and to include reliable biotransformation rate estimates when assessing relative human exposure and ranking substances for priority setting. Recommendations for further model evaluations and revisions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: à8mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The models are described in detail elsewhere [3,4,7,8]. Briefly, RAIDAR and EUSES calculate Level III steady-state fate and transport processes in each of the physical compartments of air, water, soil, and sediment.…”

Section: Model Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: The roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation

Arnot

Mackay

Parkerton

et al. 2009

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EUSES program is used for this purpose as part of the EU REACH regulatory effort (Vermeire et al 2005). A large number of models exist for multimedia environments, lakes, rivers, soils, and atmospheric systems at scales ranging from indoors to urban, regional, continental and global scales (McKone and MacLeod 2003;Mackay, Arnot, Webster, et al 2009).…”

Section: Activity and Chemodynamic Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical activity as an integrating concept in environmental assessment and management of contaminants

Mackay

Arnot

Wania

et al. 2010

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is suggested that chemical activity in environmental media can serve as an integrating concept for holistic evaluations of contaminants, including their fate and effects. In support of this assertion, information underlying the thermodynamic principles and the relationships between monitored and modeled concentrations and activities are presented. The toxicological significance of activity is discussed, with emphasis on substances that exert baseline narcosis. Illustrations are given of the application of activity using models and monitoring data for chemical risk assessment and management. It is argued that the proximity of prevailing multimedia environmental activities to activities causing toxic effects is a particularly insightful metric of environmental contamination for both narcotics and reactive toxic substances.

show abstract

“…Some pesticides can have applications outside agriculture, such as weed control in industry or in public areas, the emissions of which were not taken into account in this study. Expected ambient concentrations in the freshwater environment at steady-state, according to the use pattern of 2004, were predicted with SimpleBox 3.0 (Den Hollander et al 2004), which is the underlying fate model of the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (Vermeire et al 2005). In its default settings, the regional scale in SimpleBox is represented by a simplified model of the rivers Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt.…”

Section: Input Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Pesticide ecotoxicological effect factors and their uncertainties for freshwater ecosystems

Zelm

Huijbregts

Posthuma

et al. 2008

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background, aim, and scope Characterization factors for ecotoxicity in the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) are used to convert emissions into ecotoxicological impacts. Deriving them involves a fate and an effect analysis step. The fate factor quantifies the change in environmental concentration per unit of emission, while the effect factor quantifies the change in impact on the ecosystem per unit of environmental concentration. This paper calculates freshwater ecotoxicological effect factors for 397 pesticides belonging to 11 pesticide-specific toxic modes of action (TMoA), such as acetylcholinesterase inhibition and photosynthesis inhibition. Moreover, uncertainties in the effect factors due to uncertain background concentrations and due to limited toxicity data are quantified. Methods To calculate median ecotoxicological effect factors (EEFs), toxic pressure assessments were made, based on the species sensitivity distribution-and the multisubstance potentially affected fraction-concept. The EEF quantifies an estimate of the fraction of species that is probably affected due to a marginal change in concentration of a pesticide. EEFs were divided into a TMoA-specific and a chemical-specific part, which were calculated on the basis of physicochemical properties, emissions, and toxicity data. Propagation of parameter uncertainty in the EEFs and the TMoA-and chemical-specific parts was quantified by Monte Carlo simulation and results were reported as 90% confidence intervals. Results Median EEFs range from 2·10 −3 to 7·10 6 l/g. Uncertainty in the TMoA-specific part is dominated by uncertainty in the TMoA-specific spread in species sensitivity and by uncertainty in the effective toxicity of a TMoA. Uncertainty in the chemical-specific part of the EEFs depends on the number of species for which toxicity data are available to calculate average toxicity (n s ) and ranges from a median uncertainty of 2.6 orders of magnitude for n s =2 to one order of magnitude for n s ≥4. The TMoA-specific effect factor for systemic fungicides shows the largest uncertainty range. For seven TMoAs, uncertainty ranges of the TMoA-specific effect factor are less than two orders of magnitude. For the other four TMoAs, the EEF uncertainty range is between two and eight orders of magnitude. For the chemical-specific part of the EEFs, we found that variation in uncertainty readily decreases for pesticides for which toxicity data are available for at least three species. Discussion The same parameters that contributed most to uncertainty were found for pesticides as were found before for high-production-volume chemicals. However, uncertainty in concentrations of pesticides was lower. TMoA-specific factors obtained with the applied nonlinear method differ up to nine orders of magnitude from the factor of 0.5, which is used in the linear method. With the applied method, a distinction in EEFs can be made among different TMoAs. Conclusions Ecotoxicological effect factors are presented, including overviews of their uncertainty ranges and the main ...

show abstract

European union system for the evaluation of substances: the second version

Cited by 97 publications

References 7 publications

Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: The roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation

Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: The roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation

Chemical activity as an integrating concept in environmental assessment and management of contaminants

Pesticide ecotoxicological effect factors and their uncertainties for freshwater ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About