Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 486–498

Substance-related environmental monitoring

Work group ‘Environmental Monitoring’—Position paper
  • Heinz Rüdel
  • Winfried Schröder
  • Karl Theo von der Trenck
  • Gerhard Andreas Wiesmüller
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING • SERIES

Abstract

Background

Due to the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive and other legal regulations (e.g., national laws like the German Federal Soil Protection Act), but also due to the implementation of the new EU chemicals management system REACH, environmental monitoring will gain increasing importance for the surveillance of environmental quality as well as for the assessment of chemicals. Against this background, the Work Group on ‘Environmental Monitoring’ of the Division of ‘Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology’ within the German Chemical Society has compiled a position paper on substance-related environmental monitoring.

Scope

Core elements of this position paper are the definitions of important terms like monitoring, exposure monitoring, effect monitoring, and integrated monitoring. Moreover, temporal and spatial aspects (monitoring of spatial distributions, trend monitoring, and retrospective monitoring) and their applications are discussed. The main focus of this position paper is the coverage of aspects which have to be observed for the preparation and implementation of a monitoring program. Essential is the clear specification of the targets of the monitoring which determine the development of the monitoring concept and its realization, e.g., if environmental media (compartments) or organisms are most appropriate as samples for the aim of the study. Of course, also the properties of the target substances are important (e.g., lipophilicity/bioaccumulation as pre-requisite for an exposure monitoring with organisms). Finally, the monitoring phases of sample planning, sampling, storage and transport of samples, selection of analytical methods, quality assurance measures as well as reporting are discussed.

Perspectives

An important issue for the future is to link the quantification of chemicals in environmental compartments (exposure and pollution monitoring) more closely to the study of biological effects (effect monitoring) than has been the case up to now. Furthermore, by inclusion of a spatial differentiation, a comprehensive evaluation of the state of an ecosystem can be obtained and the relevance of the results improved. Practical examples of monitoring studies which illustrate various aspects covered in this position paper will be presented in a series of publications by members of the Work Group in the following issues of this journal.

Keywords

Monitoring Biomonitoring Human biomonitoring Effect monitoring Exposure monitoring Integrated monitoring 

References

  1. Angerer J, Ewers U, Wilhelm M (2007) Human biomonitoring: state of the art. Int J Hyg Environ Health 210:201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arndt U, Nobel W, Schweizer B (1987) Bioindikatoren. Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und neue Erkenntnisse. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  3. Arndt U, Fomin A, Lorenz S (Ed.) (1996): Bioindikation. Neue Entwicklungen, Nomenklatur, Synökologische Aspekte—Beiträge und Diskussion. 1. Hohenheimer Workshop zur Bioindikation am Kraftwerk Altbach-Deizisau 1995. G. Heimbach, OstfildernGoogle Scholar
  4. Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W (2006) Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Draggan S (2006) Monitoring. In: Cleveland CJ (ed) Encyclopedia of earth. Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C http://www.eoearth.org/article/Monitoring [Retrieved October 15, 2008]Google Scholar
  6. Elmasri R, Navathe SB (2003) Fundamentals of database systems. 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. EN 1483 (2007) Water quality—determination of mercury. Method using atomic absorption spectrometry. Beuth-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. EURACHEM/CITAC Guide (2000) Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, Ellison SLR., Rosslein M, Williams A (Eds.), 2nd Edition, April 2000. http://www.measurementuncertainty.org/mu/QUAM2000-1.pdf [Retrieved October 15, 2008]
  9. European Community (2000) 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. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF [Retrieved October 15, 2008]
  10. European Community (2003) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No 7—Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive. Produced by Work Group 2.7—Monitoring. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. ISBN 92-894-5127-0. http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos7smonitoring/_EN_1.0_&a=d [Retrieved October 15, 2008]
  11. European Community (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849:EN:PDF [Retrieved October 15, 2008]
  12. Ferretti M (1997) Forest health assessment and monitoring. Issues for consideration. Environ Monit Assess 48:45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferretti M (2001) Ecosystem monitoring. From the integration between measurements to the integration between networks. Publicazione del Corso di Cultura in Ecologia, Università degli studi di Padova 2001:3–54Google Scholar
  14. Greenwood R, Mills GA, Vrana B (Ed.) (2007) Passive sampling techniques in environmental monitoring. Vol. 48 of Wilson & Wilson’s comprehensive analytical chemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam. ISBN 978-0-444-52225-2Google Scholar
  15. Handbuch der Bodenuntersuchung (2000) Verfahrensvorschriften und Datenblätter. Physikalische, chemische, biologische Untersuchungsverfahren. In: Blume H-P, Deller B, Leschber R, Paetz A, Schmidt S, Wilke B-M (eds) Loose-leaf collection. Beuth-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 5667 Part 15 (1999) Water quality-sampling. Guidelines for the conservation and handling of sludge and sediment samples. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 5667 Part 1 (2006) Water quality-sampling. Guidance on the design of sampling programmes and sampling techniques. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein R, Paulus M (Ed.) (1995) Umweltproben für die Schadstoffanalytik im Biomonitoring. G. Fischer Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  19. Magnusson B, Näykki T, Hovind H, Krysell M (2004) Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories. Report TR 537, 2nd edn. NORDTEST, Espoo Finland. http://www.nordicinnovation.net/nordtestfiler/tec537.pdf [Retrieved October 15, 2008]Google Scholar
  20. Maier WA, Grunewald J, Habedank B, Hartelt K, Kampen H, Kimmig P, Naucke T, Oehme R, Vollmer A, Schöler A, Schmitt C (2003) Mögliche Auswirkungen von Klimaveränderung auf die Ausbreitung von primär humanmedizinisch relevanten Krankheitserregern über tierische Vektoren sowie auf die wichtigen Humanparasiten in Deutschland. Climate Change 05/03. (Berlin) UmweltbundesamtGoogle Scholar
  21. Markert BA (2008) Definitions and principles for bioindication and biomonitoring of trace metals in the environment. J Trace Elem Med Bio 21(Suppl 1):77–82Google Scholar
  22. Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister HG (Eds.) (2003) Bioindicators & biomonitors: principles, concepts and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 997 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Pesch R, Schröder W, Dieffenbach-Fries H, Genßler L (2008) Optimierung des Moosmonitoring-Messnetzes in Deutschland. UWSF—Z Umweltchem Ökotox 20:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petkovi D (2003) SQL objektorientiert. Addison-Wesley, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  25. Quevauviller P (Ed.) (1995) Quality assurance in environmental monitoring—from sampling to laboratory. VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  26. Reineke N, Bester K, Hühnerfuss H, Weigel S, Jastorff B (2002) Bioassay-directed analysis of river Elbe (Germany) surface water including large volume extractions and high performance fractionation. Chemosphere 47:717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rüdel H, Müller J, Steinhanses J, Schröter-Kermani C (2007) Retrospective monitoring of organotin compounds in freshwater fish from 1988 to 2003: results from the German Environmental Specimen Bank. Chemosphere 66:1884–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schröder W (2003) Umweltstandards. Funktionen, Strukturen und naturwissenschaftliche Begründung. In: Fränzle O, Müller F, Schröder W (eds) Handbuch der Umweltwissenschaften. Grundlagen und Anwendungen der Ökosystemforschung. Landsberg am Lech, München, Zürich; Kap. VI-1.3 (9. Erg.Lfg.):21 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Schröder W, Pesch R (2007) Synthesizing bioaccumulation data from the German Metals in Mosses Surveys and relating them to ecoregions. Sci Total Environ 374:311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schröder W, Garbe-Schönberg CD, Fränzle O (1991) Die Validität von Umweltdaten - Kriterien für ihre Zuverlässigkeit: Repräsentativität, Qualitätssicherung und -kontrolle. UWSF—Z Umweltchem Ökotox 3:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schröder W, Schmidt G, Pesch R (2003) Harmonization of environmental monitoring. Tools for examination of methodical comparability and spatial representativity. Gate to Environmental and Health Sciences, July 2003:1–13Google Scholar
  32. UN/ECE (2006) United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Strategies for monitoring an assessment of transboundary rivers, lakes and groundwaters. New York and Geneva, 2006. http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/documents/StrategiesM&A.pdf [Retrieved October 15, 2008]
  33. VDI 3957 Part 1 (1999) Biological measuring techniques for the determination und evaluation of effects of air pollutants on plants—fundamentals and aims. Beuth-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. VDI 4330 Part 1 (2006) Monitoring the ecological effects of genetically modified organisms—genetically modified plants—basic principles and strategies. Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, 19 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. von der Trenck KT (1997) Verunreinigte Böden: Prüfwerte und Konzepte - Ein kritischer Überblick. UWSF—Z Umweltchem Ökotox 9:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von der Trenck KT, Ruf J, Flittner M (1994) Guide values for contaminated sites in Baden-Württemberg. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1:253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner G (1995) Basic approaches and methods for quality assurance and quality control on sample collection and storage of environmental specimens. Sci Total Environ 176:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagner G (2005) Bioindikation und biomonitoring. In: Fischer-Stabel P (ed) Umweltinformationssysteme. Wichmann, Heidelberg, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  39. Wenzel A, Böhmer W, Müller J, Rüdel H, Schröter-Kermani C (2004) Retrospective monitoring of alkylphenols and alkylphenol monoethoxylates in aquatic biota from 1985–2001: results from the German Environmental Specimen Bank. Environ Sci Technol 38:1654–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. WGEM (2007a): Work Group on ‘Environmental Monitoring’ of the Division of ‘Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology’ within the German Chemical Society: Rüdel H, Bester K, Eisenträger A, Franzaring J, Haarich M, Köhler J, Körner W, Oehlmann J, Paschke A, Ricking M, Schröder W, Schröter-Kermani C, Schulze T, Schwarzbauer J, Theobald N, von der Trenck KT, Wagner G, Wiesmüller GA. Positionspapier zum stoffbezogenen Umweltmonitoring. Teil 1 Mitt Umweltchem Ökotox 13:34–41; Teil 2. Mitt Umweltchem Ökotox 13:72–79Google Scholar
  41. WGEM (2007b): Rüdel H, Bester K, Eisenträger A, Franzaring J, Haarich M, Köhler J, Körner W, Oehlmann J, Paschke A, Ricking M, Schröder W, Schröter-Kermani C, Schulze T, Schwarzbauer J, Theobald N, von der Trenck KT, Wagner G, Wiesmüller GA. Positionspapier zum stoffbezogenen Umweltmonitoring. In: Wichmann H-E, Schlipköter H-W, Füllgraf G (Eds.): Handbuch der Umweltmedizin. Loseblattwerk, 37. Erg.Lfg., ecomed MEDIZIN, Landsberg, Bd. 2, Kapitel IV-7.1:1–48Google Scholar
  42. Zimmermann R-D, Wagner G, Fink M (2000) Guidelines for the use of biological monitors in air pollution control (Plants)—Part 1, WHO Air Hygiene Report No. 12, 70 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinz Rüdel
    • 1
  • Winfried Schröder
    • 2
  • Karl Theo von der Trenck
    • 3
  • Gerhard Andreas Wiesmüller
    • 4
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institut fuer Molekularbiologie und Angewandte Oekologie (IME)SchmallenbergGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl fuer LandschaftsoekologieHochschule VechtaVechtaGermany
  3. 3.Landesanstalt für UmweltMessungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg (LUBW)KarlsruheGermany
  4. 4.Teilbank Humanproben und Datenbank, Umweltprobenbank des BundesUniversitätsklinikum MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations