Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 70, Issue 8, pp 3907–3920 | Cite as

Proposal for applying a component-based mixture approach for ecotoxicological assessment of fracturing fluids

  • Janet Riedl
  • Stefanie Rotter
  • Sonja Faetsch
  • Mechthild Schmitt-Jansen
  • Rolf Altenburger
Special Issue

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing is increasingly being used to produce gas from unconventional resource sites for energy supply. Therefore, concerns about risks of this technology related to human health and the environment have to be addressed. Among the major issues is the potential contamination of surrounding water systems by chemical additives used in fracturing fluids. In this study, the ecotoxicological hazards of fracturing fluids, both, their individual components (chemicals) as well as their mixtures (product) were assessed using a component-based mixture approach. For five exemplary fracturing fluids, 40–90 wt% of the contained substances could unambiguously be defined in their chemical identity. The concentrations used in the applied fluid mixture were considered as (maximum) exposure concentrations. For components with mass fractions between 10 and 74 wt%, the effect concentrations for acute and chronic toxicity of fish, daphnia and algae were retrieved from experimental databases and through predictive modeling. The hazard indices calculated from the ratio of exposure to effect concentration were >1 for all fracturing fluids, using different scenarios. This indicated a hazard from the undiluted fracturing fluids. The assessment framework presented in this study allows for dealing with data gaps and uncertainties in a tiered fashion and in particular accommodates for combined effects resulting from chemical mixtures. It might be employed for ecotoxicological risk assessment of products containing chemical mixtures and optimization of their environmental performance.

Keywords

Mixture toxicity Fracking/fraccing Hazard assessment Hazard quotient Hazard index Eco-/toxicological product assessment 

Supplementary material

12665_2013_2320_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (63 kb)
The supplementary material comprises a table with data used for the hazard index calculation of the five selected fracturing fluids (Annex I), a table with the retrieved basic data set of experimental and predicted, acute and chronic fish, daphnia and algae toxicity (Annex II) and flowcharts illustrating the search criteria used for data retrieval (Annex III). Annex I, II and III are electronically available under http://www.editorialmanager.com/enge/download.aspx?id=200209&guid=f43c38c2-63e3-4f76-8f5c-b85042b08420&scheme=1 (PDF 62 kb)

References

  1. Altenburger R, Greco WR (2009) Extrapolation concepts for dealing with multiple contamination in environmental risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altenburger R, Walter H, Grote M (2004) What contributes to the combined effect of a complex mixture? Environ Sci Technol 38:6353–6362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhaus T, Faust M (2012) Predictive environmental risk assessment of chemical mixtures: a conceptual framework. Environ Sci Technol 46:2564–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ewen C, Borchardt D, Richter S, Hammerbach R (2012) Study concerning the safety and environmental compatibility of hydrofracking for natural gas production from unconventional reservoirs (executive summary). http://dialogerdgasundfrac.de/sites/dialog-erdgasundfrac.de/files/Ex_HydrofrackingRiskAssessment_120611.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2013
  5. Braungart M, McDonough W, Bollinger A (2007) Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions—a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J Cleaner Product 15:1337–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell PJ, Brown KC, Harrison EG et al (2000) A Hazard Quotient approach for assessing the risk to non-target arthropods from plant protection products under 91/414/EEC: hazard quotient trigger value proposal and validation. J Pest Sci 73:117–124Google Scholar
  7. EC/1107/2009, European Parliament Council (2009) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009R1107:EN:NOT. Accessed 15 November 2012
  8. EC/1272/2008, European Parliament, Council (2008) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008R1272:EN:NOT. Accessed 23 March 2012
  9. EC/1907/2006, European Parliament, Council (2006) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849:EN:PDF. Accessed 16 February 2012
  10. ECHA, European Chemicals Agency (2012) Guidance for identification and naming of substances under REACH and CLP. Version 1.2. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/substance_id_en.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2012
  11. European Union (1995–2012) International Uniform ChemicaL Information Database (IUCLID) as part of the European chemical Substances Information System (ESIS). http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Date of retrieval: August 2011-January 2012
  12. Gordalla BC, Ewers U, Frimmel FH (2013) Hydraulic fracturing—toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking water? Environ Earth Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  13. Han GH, Hur HG, Kim SD (2006) Ecotoxicological risk of pharmaceuticals from wastewater treatment plants in Korea: occurrence and toxicity to Daphnia magna. Environ toxicol Chem 25:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Health Canada (2004) Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part I: Guidance on human health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA), Cat. H46-2/04-367E, ISBN 0-662-38244-7. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contamsite/part-partie_i/index-eng.php. Accessed 20 July 2012
  15. Kissinger A, Helmig R, Ebigbo A, Class H, Lange T, Sauter M, Heitfeld M, Klünker J, Jahnke W (2013) Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional gas reservoirs—Risks in the geological system, Part 2. Environ Earth Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  16. Lange T, Sauter M, Heitfeld M, Klünker J, Jahnke W, Kissinger A, Helmig R, Ebigbo A, Class H (2013) Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional reservoirs—Risks in the geological system, part1. Environ Earth Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  17. Länge R, Hutchinson TH, Scholz N, Solbe J (1998) Analysis of the ECETOC aquatic toxicity (EAT) database-II-Comparison of acute to chronic ratios for various aquatic organisms and chemical substances. Chemosphere 36:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemly aD (1996) Evaluation of the hazard quotient method for risk assessment of selenium. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 35:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lienert J, Güdel K, Escher BI (2007) Screening method for ecotoxicological hazard assessment of 42 pharmaceuticals considering human metabolism and excretory routes. Environ Sci Technol 41:4471–4478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McDonough W, Braungard M, Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB (2003) Applying the principles of green engineeing to Cradle-to-Cradle Design. Environ Sci Technol 37:434A–441ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olsson O, Weichgrebe D, Rosenwinkel KH (2013) Hydrofracking wastewater in Germany: composition, treatment, concerns. Environ Earth Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  22. OSPAR Convention (2000) OSPAR Decision 2000/2 on a Harmonised Mandatory Control System for the Use and Reduction of the Discharge of Offshore Chemicals (as amended by OSPAR Decision 2005/1). OSPAR Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/decrecs/decisions/od00-02e.doc. Accessed 21 July 2012
  23. Raybould A, Caron-Lormier G, Bohan DA (2011) Derivation and interpretation of hazard quotients to assess ecological risks from the cultivation of insect-resistant transgenic crops. J Agric Food Chem 59:5877–5885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rossnagel A, Hentschel A, Polzer A (2013) Legal contributions to conflict resolution—the legal evaluation of unconventional natural gas extraction by means of fracking in Germany. Environ Earth Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  25. Sanderson H (2003) Probabilistic hazard assessment of environmentally occurring pharmaceuticals toxicity to fish, daphnids and algae by ECOSAR screening. Toxicol Lett 144:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SCHER/SCCS/SCENIHR (2012) Opinion on the toxicity and assessment of chemical mixtures. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consultations/public_consultations/scher_consultation_06_en.htm. Accessed 21 July 2012
  27. Schmitt-Jansen M, Aulhorn S, Faetsch S, Riedl J, Rotter S, Altenburger R (2012) Ökotoxikologische Beurteilung von beim hydraulischen Fracking eingesetzten Chemikalien. Gutachten des Helmholtz-Zentrums für Umweltforschung. http://dialog-erdgasundfrac.de/sites/dialog-erdgasundfrac.de/files/Gutachten-Oekotoxikologie.pdf
  28. Scholten MC, Karman CC, Huwer S (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment related to chemicals and pollutants in off-shore oil production. Toxicol Lett 112–113:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sheahan D, Girling J, Millais A, Neall P, Rycroft R, Thompson S, Tolhurst M, Weiss L (2007) Evaluation of the hazard and risk of chemicals used by the UK offshore Oil and gas industry and the management and reduction of use of those considered of greatest environmental concern. SETAC, Porto Portugal. http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/posters/33516web.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012
  30. Thatcher M, Robson M, Henriquez LR, Karman CL, Payne G (2005) A user guide for the evaluation of chemicals used and discharged offshore: Version 1.4. CIN Revised CHARM III Report 2004. Charm Implementation Network (CIN), European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association (EOSCA). http://www.eosca.com/docs/CHARMManualFeb05.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012
  31. The Tyndall Centre (2011) Shale gas: a provisional assessment of climate change and environmental impacts. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/tyndallcoop_shale_gas_report_final.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2011
  32. Thompson H (2012) Fracking boom spurs environmental audit. Nature 485:556–557Google Scholar
  33. UBA, Umweltbundesamt (2011) Einschätzung der Schiefergasförderung in Deutschland. Stellungnahme des Umweltbundesamtes. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de. Accessed 2 Mai 2012
  34. US EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final, EPA 540-R-97-006. http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/8stepera.html Accessed 21 July 2012
  35. US EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (2007) ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 4.0. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/. Date of retrieval: August 2011–January 2012
  36. US EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (2011a) Draft plan to study the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/D-11/001/February 2011/http://www.epa.gov/research. Accessed 11 August 2011
  37. US EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (2011b) The ECOSAR (ECOlogical Structure Activity Relationship) Class Program™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 1.10. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Date of retrieval: November 2011–March 2012Google Scholar
  38. Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. VwVwS (2005) Einstufung aufgrund der Verwaltungsvorschrift wassergefährdender Stoffe (VwVwS). http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/wgs/vwvws.htm Accessed 27 October 2011
  40. Yamamoto H, Tamura I, Hirata Y, Kato J, Kagota K, Katsuki S, Yamamoto A et al (2011) Aquatic toxicity and ecological risk assessment of seven parabens: individual and additive approach. Sci Total Environ 410–411:102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Riedl
    • 1
  • Stefanie Rotter
    • 1
  • Sonja Faetsch
    • 1
  • Mechthild Schmitt-Jansen
    • 1
  • Rolf Altenburger
    • 1
  1. 1.Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research-UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations