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

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 guidelines International collaboration Harmonisation Water quality management Environmental quality standards 

References

  1. Alberta Environmental Protection (1996) Protocol to Develop Alberta Water Quality Guidelines for Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life. Available at http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7006.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
  2. An YJ, Lee JK, Cho S (2008) Korean water quality standards for the protection of human health and aquatic life. Proceedings of the 2nd International Forum on Water Environment Partnership in Asia. Paper No. 10. Available at http://www.wepa-db.net/pdf/0712forum/paper10.pdf. Accessed Dec 2012
  3. ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000a) Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No 4, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council/Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000b) Australian Guidelines for water quality monitoring and reporting. National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No 7, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council / Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. CCME (2007) A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life 2007. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Winnipeg, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers PA, Culp JM, Glozier NE, Cash KJ, Wrona FJ, Noton L (2006) Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative: nutrients and dissolved oxygen—issues and impacts. Env Mon Ass 113:117–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman PM, McDonald B, Kickham PE, McKinnon S (2006) Global geographic differences in marine metals toxicity. Mar Pollut Bull 52:1081–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa Silva G, Dubé MG (2013) Water quality assessment at a global scale: a comparison between world regions. Water Internat 38:78–94Google Scholar
  9. Crane M, Kwok KWH, Wells C, Whitehouse P, Lui GCS (2007) Use of field data to support European Water Framework Directive quality standards for dissolved metals. Environ Sci Technol 41:5014–5021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crane M, Matthiessen P, Maycock DS, Merrington G, Whitehouse P (2010) Derivation and use of environmental quality and human health standards for chemical substances in water and soil. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 140Google Scholar
  11. Crommentuijn T, Polder MD, Posthumus R, Van de Plassche E (1997) Maximum permissible concentrations and negligible concentrations for metals, taking backgrounds concentrations into account. Netherlands Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report No. 601501001, Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (European Commission) (2011) Guidance Document No. 27. Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards. Technical Report-2011–055. European Communities, Brussels. Available at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/tgd-eqs_cis-wfd/_EN_1.0_&a=d. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
  13. EC (European Commission) (2012) 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. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  14. Environment Agency (2008) Determination of metal background reference concentrations: feasibility study. Environment Agency Science Report SC050063/SR, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Environment Agency (2009) Using biotic ligand models to help implement environmental quality standards for metals under the Water Framework Directive. Science Report SC080021/SR7b, Environment Agency, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. FMWQ Working Group 4 (2010) Draft FMWQ Working Group 4 Workshop Minutes. Fresh and Marine Water Quality Working Group 4—toxicants and sediments. 14–16 April 2010. Lucas Heights, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  17. Forbes TL, Forbes VE (1993) A critique of the use of distribution-based extrapolation models in ecotoxicology. Function Ecol 7:249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox DR (2010) A Bayesian approach for determining the no effect concentration and hazardous concentration in ecotoxicology. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 73:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gronewold AD, Borsuk ME (2010) Improving water quality assessments through a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of variability. Environ Sci Technol 44:7858–7864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamon RE, McLaughlin MJ, Gilkes RJ, Rate AW, Zarcinas B, Robertson A, Cozens G, Radford N, Bettenay L (2004) Geochemical indices allow estimation of heavy metal background concentrations in soils. Global Biogeochem Cycle 18:GB1014:1–6Google Scholar
  21. Helsel DR (2005) More than obvious: better methods for interpreting nondetect data. Environ Sci Technol 39:419A–423ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helsel DR, Cohn T (1988) Estimation of descriptive statistics for multiply censored water quality data. Water Resour Res 24:1997–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs DA, Warne MStJ, Markich SJ (2004) Utility of northern hemisphere metal toxicity data in Australasia. SETAC Globe 5(2):38–39Google Scholar
  24. Hose GC (2005) Assessing the need for groundwater quality guidelines using the species sensitivity distribution approach. Human Ecol Risk Assess 11:951–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. International Organisation for Standardisation (2005a) ISO 19258:2005 Soil Quality: Guidance on Determination of Background Values. ICS code 13.080.99Google Scholar
  26. International Organisation for Standardisation (2005b) Water quality—sampling—Part 20: Guidance on the use of sample data for decision making—compliance with limit values and classification. BSI British Standards Publications, London, p 34Google Scholar
  27. Jager T (2012) Bad habits die hard: the NOEC’s persistence reflects poorly on ecotoxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:228–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jin XW, Lei BL, Xu YP, Zha JM, Wang ZJ (2009) Methodologies for deriving water quality criteria to protect aquatic life (ALC) and proposal for development of ALC in China: a review. Asian J Ecotoxicol 4:609–616Google Scholar
  29. Junghans MJ, von Arb S, Whitehouse P, Johnson I (2012) Variability in environmental quality standards—how much is there and what are the causes? Poster presented at SETAC World Congress 2012, May. Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML (2003a) Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. Springer, New York, p 536Google Scholar
  31. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML (2003b) Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kwok KWH, Leung KMY, Chu VKH, Lam PKS, Morritt D, Maltby L, Brock TCM, Van den Brink PJ, Warne MStJ, Crane M (2007) Comparison of tropical and temperate freshwater species sensitivities to chemicals: implications for deriving safe extrapolation factors. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3(1):49–67Google Scholar
  33. Landis WG, Chapman PM (2011) Well past time to stop using NOELs and LOELs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:vi–viiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leung KMY, Bjørgesæter A, Gray JS, Li WK, Lui GCS, Wang Y, Lam PKS (2005) Deriving sediment quality guidelines using field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Sci Technol 39:5148–5156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liney KE, Hagger JA, Tyler CR, Depledge MH, Galloway TS, Jobling S (2006) Health effects in fish of long-term exposure to effluents from wastewater treatment works. Environ Health Perspect 114:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linton TK, Pacheco MAW, McIntyre DO, Clement WH, Goodrich-Mahoney J (2007) Development of bioassessment based benchmarks for iron. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1291–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. London Workshop (2001) Report of the expert consultation workshop on statistical extrapolation techniques for environmental effects assessments. London, VK, European Chemicals Bureau, 17–18 January 2001Google Scholar
  38. Meeker WO, Escobar LA (1998) Statistical methods for reliability of data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Ministry for the Environment (2003) Contaminated land management guidelines no. 2. Ministry for the Environment, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore DRJ, Caux PY (1997) Estimating low toxic effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:794–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. NEPC (National Environment Protection Council) (2011) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. Schedule B5b—guideline on methodology to derive ecological investigation levels in contaminated soils. NEPC, Adelaide, Australia. pp. 87. Available at: http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/Schedule_B5b__Guideline_on_methodology_to_derive_EILs__SEP10.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2012
  42. Newman MC (1995) Quantitative methods in aquatic ecotoxicology. CRC/Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 24–26Google Scholar
  43. Newman MC (2008) What exactly are you inferring? A closer look at hypothesis testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1013–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peters A, Simpson P (2012) Accounting for both local aquatic community composition and bioavailability in setting local quality standards for metals. Platform Presentation, 6th SETAC World Congress/SETAC Europe 22nd Annual Meeting, Berlin, 20–24 MayGoogle Scholar
  45. Peters A, Crane M, Simpson P, Merrington G (2010) Assessment of the effects of nickel on benthic invertebrates in the field. Final Report Prepared for the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association, Durham, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Peters A, Crane M, Adams W (2011) Effects of iron on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the field. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 86:591–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Posthuma L, Suter GW, Traas TP (eds) (2001) Species sensitivity distributions for ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  48. SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks) (2010) Opinion on the Chemicals and the Water Framework Directive: technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_127.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
  49. Singh A, Nocerino J (2002) Robust estimation of mean and variance using environmental datasets with below detection limit observations. Chemometrics Intellig Lab Syst 60:69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stephan CE, Rogers JW (1985) Advantages of using regression analysis to calculate results of chronic toxicity tests. In: Bahner RC, Hansen DJ (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment. STP 891. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 328–338Google Scholar
  51. Stephan CE, Mount DI, Hanson DJ, Gentile JH, Chapman GA, Brungs WA (1985) Guidelines for deriving numeric National Water Quality Criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report PB85-227049, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  52. UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive (2008) Proposals for Environmental Quality Standards for Annex VIII Substances. Available at http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Environmental%20standards/Specific%20pollutants%20proposals_Final_010608.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
  53. US EPA (1994) Guidance for the data quality objectives process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/600/R-96/055Google Scholar
  54. US Environmental Protection Agency (1985) Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/index.cfm#guide. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
  55. Van Sprang P, Delbeke K, Regoli L, Waeterschoot H, Van Assche F, Adams W, Haesaerts D, Mattelet C, Bush A, Chung L, Verougstraete V (2008) Assessment of metal bioavailability and natural background levels—WFD monitoring from the perspective of metals industry. In: Qusvauviller P, Borchers U, Thompson C, Simonart T (eds) The Water Framework Directive: ecological and chemical status monitoring. Wiley, New York, pp 299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Warne MStJ (1998) Critical review of methods to derive water quality guidelines for toxicants and a proposal for a new framework. Supervising Scientist Report 135, Supervising Scientist, Canberra, ACT, Australia. ISBN 0 642 24338 7. 82 pGoogle Scholar
  57. Warne MStJ, Van Dam R (2008) NOEC and LOEC data should no longer be generated or used. Australasian J Ecotoxicol 14(1):1–5Google Scholar
  58. Wepener V, Chapman PM (2012) South African ecotoxicology—present status and future prognosis. African J Aquat Sci. doi:10.2989/16085914.2012.717051 Google Scholar
  59. Wheeler JR, Grist EPM, Leung KMY, Morritt D, Crane M (2002) Species sensitivity distribution: data and model choice. Mar Pollut Bull 45:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu FC, Meng W, Zhao XL, Li HX, Zhang RQ, Cao YJ, Liao HQ (2010) China embarking on development of its own national water quality criteria system. Environ Sci Technol 44:7992–7993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhao FJ, McGrath SP, Merrington G (2007) Estimates of ambient background concentrations of trace metals in soils for risk assessment. Environ Pollut 148(1):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Personalised recommendations