Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 2810–2827 | Cite as

Substance-related environmental monitoring strategies regarding soil, groundwater and surface water — an overview

  • Werner Kördel
  • Hemda Garelick
  • Bernd M. Gawlik
  • Nadia G. Kandile
  • Willie J. G. M. Peijnenburg
  • Heinz RüdelEmail author
Review Article


Substance-related monitoring is an essential tool within environmental risk assessment processes. The soundness of policy decisions including risk management measures is often directly related to the reliability of the environmental monitoring programs. In addition, monitoring programs are required for identifying new and less-investigated pollutants of concern in different environmental media. Scientifically sound and feasible monitoring concepts strongly depend on the aim of the study. The proper definition of questions to be answered is thus of pivotal importance. Decisions on sample handling, storage and the analysis of the samples are important steps for the elaboration of problem-oriented monitoring strategies. The same applies to the selection of the sampling sites as being representative for scenarios to be investigated. These steps may become critical to handle for larger international monitoring programs and thus trigger the quality of their results. This study based on the work of an IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) task group addresses different kinds and approaches of substance-related monitoring of different compartments of soil, groundwater and surface water, and discusses their advantages and limitations. Further important aspects are the monitoring across policies and the monitoring data management using information systems.


Chemical monitoring Trend monitoring Retrospective monitoring Exposure monitoring Quality assurance Legislation Risk assessment 



The funding of project no. 2009-048-1-600: Guidance for substance-related environmental monitoring strategies regarding soil and surface water (chairman: Werner Kördel) by IUPAC Division ‘Chemistry and the Environment’ is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Balmer ME, Poiger T, Droz C, Romanin K, Bergqvist P-A, Müller MD, Buser H-R (2004) Occurrence of methyl triclosan, a transformation product of the bactericide triclosan, in fish from various lakes in Switzerland. Environ Sci Technol 38:390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker PR, Wise SA (2006) National biomonitoring specimen bank and the marine environmental specimen bank. J Environ Monit 8:795–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bester K (2003) Triclosan in a sewage treatment process — balances and monitoring data. Water Res 37:3891–3896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böhmer W, Rüdel H, Wenzel A, Schröter-Kermani C (2004) Retrospective monitoring of triclosan and methyl-triclosan in fish: results from the German environmental specimen bank. Organohalogen Comp 66:1516–1521Google Scholar
  5. Brack W (2011) Effect-directed analysis of complex environmental contamination. The Handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 15. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 345 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brand E, Peijnenburg W, Groenenberg B, Vink J, Lijzen J, Ten Hulscher D, Jonker C, Römkens P, Roex E (2009) Towards implementation of bioavailability measurements in the Dutch regulatory framework. RIVM report number 701711 084. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (1999): Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Lindane. Fact sheet. Accessed 5 December 2012
  8. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2002): Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life - Summary Tables. Original version 1999, last update 2002. Accessed 5 December 2012
  9. Den Hollander, A (2008) Spatial variation in multimedia mass balance models. PhD thesis, Radbout University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, ISBN 978-90-9023269-0Google Scholar
  10. Dijkstra JJ, Meeussen JCL, Comans RNJ (2004) Leaching of heavy metals from contaminated soils: an experimental and modeling study. Environ Sci Techn 38:4390–4395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EC (2000) Water Framework Directive (WFD), Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Accessed 5 December 2012
  12. EC (2003) Guidance Document no. 7: Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Accessed 5 December 2012
  13. EC (2007) Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) on the development of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (INSPIRE). Accessed 5 December 2012
  14. EC (2008) Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. Accessed 5 December 2012
  15. EC (2009a) Guidance Document no. 19: Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive: Guidance on surface water chemical monitoring under the Water Framework Directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Accessed 5 December 2012
  16. EC (2009b) Commission Directive 2009/90/EC of 31 July 2009 laying down, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. Accessed 5 December 2012
  17. EC (2012a) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy. COM(2011)876 final. European Commission, Brussels, 31.01.2012. Accessed 5 December 2012
  18. EC (2012b) The combination effects of chemicals Chemical mixtures. Communication from the European Commission to the European Council. COM/2012/0252 final, Accessed 5 December 2012
  19. ECOLAS (2005) Assessing economic impacts of the specific control measures for priority substances and priority hazardous substances regulated under the WFD. Report for European Commission DG ENV. 03/07767/DL. July 2005 Accessed 5 December 2012
  20. Egli H, Dassenakis M, Garelick H, van Grieken R, Peijnenburg WJGM, Klasinc L, Kördel W, Priest N, Tavares T (2003) Minimum requirements for reporting analytical data for environmental samples. IUPAC Technical Report. Pure Appl Chem 75, 1097–1106 Accessed 5 December 2012
  21. Environment Canada (1994) Guidance Document on Collection and Preparation of Sediments for Physicochemical Characterization and Biological Testing; Report EPS 1/RM/29. December 1994. Accessed 5 December 2012
  22. Fedotov PS, Kördel W, Miró M, Peijnenburg WJGM, Wennrich R, Huang P-M (2012) Extraction and Fractionation Methods for Exposure Assessment of Trace Metals, Metalloids and Hazardous Organic Compounds in Terrestrial Environments. Rev Environ Sci Technol 42:1117–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gies A, Schröter-Kermani C, Rüdel H, Paulus M, Wiesmüller GA (2007) Frozen Environmental History: The German Environmental Specimen Bank. Organohalogen Comp 69:504–507, Accessed 5 December 2012Google Scholar
  24. Giesy JP, Kannan K (2001) Global distribution of perfluorooctane sulfonate in wildlife. Environ Sci Technol 35:1339–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ISBER (2008) Best practices for repositories — collection, storage, retrieval and distribution of biological materials for research. Second Edition. Cell Preserv Technol 6, 3–58 Accessed 5 December 2012
  26. Jager DT (1998) Mechanistic approach for estimating bioconcentration of organic chemicals in earthworms (Oligochaeta). Environ Toxicol Chem 17:2080–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jager, DT (2003) Worming your way into bioavailability — modelling the uptake of organic chemicals in earthworms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. Kördel W, Bernhardt C, Derz K, Hund-Rinke K, Harmsen J, Peijnenburg W, Comans R, Terytze K (2012). Incorporating availability/bioavailability in risk assessment and decision making of polluted sites, Germany as example. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  29. Loos R, Gawlik BM, Locoro G, Rimaviciute E, Contini S, Bidoglio G (2009) EU-wide survey of polar organic persistent pollutants in European river waters. Environ Pollut 157:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loos R, Locoro G, Comero S, Contini S, Schwesig D, Werres F, Balsaa P, Gans O, Weiss S, Blaha L, Bolchi M, Gawlik BM (2010) Pan-European survey on the occurrence of selected polar organic persistent pollutants in ground water. Water Res 44:4115–4126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odsjö T (2006) The environmental specimen bank, Swedish Museum of Natural History — a base for contaminant monitoring and environmental research. J Environ Monit 8:791–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ort C, Lawrence MG, Reungoat J, Mueller JF (2010) Sampling for PPCPs in wastewater systems: comparison of different sampling modes and optimization strategies. Environ Sci Technol 44:6289–6296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Otto F (2008) Handboek voor de provinciale en landelijke meetnetten bodem- en grondwaterkwaliteit. Platform meetnetbeheerder bodem- en grondwaterkwaliteit, Utrecht (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  34. Paquin PR, Gorsuch JW, Apte S, Batley GE, Bowles KC, Campbell PG, Delos CG, Di Toro DM, Dwyer RL, Galvez F, Gensemer RW, Goss GG, Hostrand C, Janssen CR, McGeer JC, Naddy RB, Playle RC, Santore RC, Schneider U, Stubblefield WA, Wood CM, Wu KB (2002) The biotic ligand model: a historical overview. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 133:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peijnenburg W, Vijver MG (2007) Metal specific interactions at the interface of chemistry and biology. Pure Appl Chem 79:2351–2366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peijnenburg W, Capri E, Kula C, Liess M, Luttik R, Montforts M, Nienstedt K, Römbke J, Sousa JP, Jensen J (2012) Evaluation of exposure metrics for effect assessment of soil invertebrates. Crit Reviews Environ Sci Technol 42:1862–1893Google Scholar
  37. Rüdel H, Böhmer W, Schröter-Kermani C (2006) Retrospective monitoring of synthetic musk compounds in aquatic biota from German rivers and coastal areas. J Environ Monit 8:812–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Rüdel H, Schröder W, von der Trenck KT, Wiesmüller GA (2009) Substance-related environmental monitoring: Work group 'Environmental Monitoring' — Position paper. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:486–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rüdel H, Böhmer W, Müller M, Fliedner A, Ricking M, Teubner D, Schröter-Kermani C (2013) Retrospective study of triclosan and methyl-triclosan residues in fish and suspended particulate matter: results from the German Environmental Specimen Bank. Chemosphere, (Available online 19 January 2013)
  41. Schwarzbauer J, Ricking M (2010) Non-target screening analysis of river water as compound related base for monitoring measures. Environ Sci Pollut Res 17:934–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schymanski EL, Gallampois CM, Krauss M, Meringer M, Neumann S, Schulze T, Wolf S, Brack W (2012) Consensus structure elucidation combining GC/EI-MS, structure generation, and calculated properties. Anal Chem 84:3287–3295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SEC (2006) Impact Assessment: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC947 Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels, 17.7.2006. Accessed 5 December 2012
  44. Singer H, Mueller S, Tixier C, Pillonel L (2002) Triclosan: occurrence and fate of a widely used biocide in the aquatic environment: field measurements in wastewater treatment plants, surface waters, and lake sediments. Environ Sci Technol 36:4998–5004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tanabe S (2006) Environmental specimen bank in Ehime University (es-Bank), Japan for global monitoring. J Environ Monit 8:782–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. EPA (1994) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. Publication EPA QA/G-4. Accessed 5 December 2012
  47. U.S. EPA (2009) Targeted National Sludge Survey. Sampling and Analysis Technical Report. Accessed 5 December 2012
  48. U.S. EPA (2012) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Accessed 5 December 2012
  49. Wiesmüller GA, Gies A (2011) Environmental specimen bank for human tissues. In: Nriagu J (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wind T (2004) Prognosis of environmental concentrations by geo-referenced and generic models: a comparison of GREAT-ER and EUSES exposure simulations for some consumer product ingredients in the Itter. Chemosphere 54:1135–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WISE (2008) Water Note 3. Groundwater at Risk: Managing the water under us. Water Information System for Europe (WISE). ISBN 978-92-79-09299-2 Accessed 5 December 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner Kördel
    • 1
  • Hemda Garelick
    • 2
  • Bernd M. Gawlik
    • 3
  • Nadia G. Kandile
    • 4
  • Willie J. G. M. Peijnenburg
    • 5
  • Heinz Rüdel
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied EcologySchmallenbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Natural SciencesMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.European Commission — DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment & SustainabilityIspraItaly
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  5. 5.National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations