Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 6–16

Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics

  • Graham Merrington
  • Youn-Joo An
  • Eric P. M. Grist
  • Seung-Woo Jeong
  • Chuthamat Rattikansukha
  • Susan Roe
  • Uwe Schneider
  • Suthipong Sthiannopkao
  • Glenn W. SuterII
  • Rick Van Dam
  • Patrick Van Sprang
  • Ju-Ying Wang
  • Michael St. J. Warne
  • Paul T. Yillia
  • Xiao-Wei Zhang
  • Kenneth M. Y. Leung
Environmental Quality Benchmarks for Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8

Cite this article as:
Merrington, G., An, YJ., Grist, E.P.M. et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21: 6. doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8

Abstract

Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice’ in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.

Keywords

Water quality guidelinesInternational collaborationHarmonisationWater quality managementEnvironmental quality standards

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham Merrington
    • 1
  • Youn-Joo An
    • 2
  • Eric P. M. Grist
    • 1
  • Seung-Woo Jeong
    • 3
  • Chuthamat Rattikansukha
    • 4
  • Susan Roe
    • 5
  • Uwe Schneider
    • 6
  • Suthipong Sthiannopkao
    • 7
  • Glenn W. SuterII
    • 8
  • Rick Van Dam
    • 9
  • Patrick Van Sprang
    • 10
  • Ju-Ying Wang
    • 11
  • Michael St. J. Warne
    • 12
  • Paul T. Yillia
    • 13
  • Xiao-Wei Zhang
    • 14
  • Kenneth M. Y. Leung
    • 15
  1. 1.WCA Environment LimitedFaringdonUK
  2. 2.Department of Environmental ScienceKonkuk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Environmental EngineeringKunsan National UniversityKunsanSouth Korea
  4. 4.Pollution Control DepartmentMinistry of Natural Resource and EnvironmentBangkokThailand
  5. 5.National Guidelines and Standards Office, Environment CanadaGatineauCanada
  6. 6.Independent Environmental ConsultantOttawaCanada
  7. 7.Department of Environmental and Occupational healthNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainan CityTaiwan
  8. 8.National Centre for Environmental AssessmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA
  9. 9.Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising ScientistDarwinAustralia
  10. 10.ARCHEGhentBelgium
  11. 11.National Marine Environmental Monitoring CenterState Oceanic AdministrationDalianChina
  12. 12.Water Quality and Investigations, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Science, Science Delivery, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the ArtsBrisbaneAustralia
  13. 13.Institute of Water QualityVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  14. 14.School of the EnvironmentNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  15. 15.The Swire Institute of Marine Science and School of Biological SciencesThe University of Hong KongPokfulamChina