Environmental quality benchmarks—the good, the bad, and the ugly

Abstract

Environmental quality benchmarks (EQBs) such as water or sediment quality guidelines comprise one line of evidence for assessing the potential harm from chemicals and other stressors (physical, biological). They are useful but not perfect tools, should not always be used, and should never be used alone for final decision-making. The “good” can be designed to be situation-specific and can provide understandable scientific input to decision-makers. The “bad” includes perception that they are absolutes (i.e., definitive binary decision points), no or limited adaptability based on good science or common sense, and protection of individual organisms not populations of organisms. The “ugly” includes benchmarks based on simplistic indices (information loss, misleading results), misuse of biomarkers, and misapplication of EQBs. Other factors to be considered include the following: appropriately deriving EQBs, uncertainty, the laboratory is not the field, contaminant uptake and cause-effect, and specifics regarding sediment quality benchmarks (i.e., their specific “good,” “bad,” and “ugly” components). EQBs are not always needed or useful.