Belinda Goldsworthy, Bryant Gagliardi, Betsy Ruffle, Christine Archer, Craig W Davis, Paul Koster Van Groos, Anita Thapalia
{"title":"Why are PFOS Ecological Surface Water Quality Criteria So Different Between Countries? A Review of Differences in Regulatory Guidance.","authors":"Belinda Goldsworthy, Bryant Gagliardi, Betsy Ruffle, Christine Archer, Craig W Davis, Paul Koster Van Groos, Anita Thapalia","doi":"10.1093/inteam/vjaf089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecological surface water quality criteria (SWQC) for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) vary several orders of magnitude between jurisdictions. Such differences can undermine confidence in the SWQC and their scientific basis. The current study undertakes a sensitivity analysis to investigate the factors that drive the differences observed in the PFOS SWQC published by the United States of America (USA), Australia and Canada. Each jurisdiction follows a broadly similar three-step procedure when deriving SWQC: 1) selecting reliable ecotoxicological data from the literature (Variable 1, Study Selection); 2) extracting a suite of values that are protective of individual aquatic taxa (Variable 2, Data Reduction); and 3) deriving a final singular value that is protective of aquatic ecosystems (Variable 3, SWQC Derivation). We found substantial differences between the studies deemed reliable in each jurisdiction (Variable 1). Applying each jurisdiction's data reduction and SWQC derivation procedures (Variables 2 and 3) to the other jurisdictions' datasets showed generally comparable outcomes, except for Australia. Aspects of Australia's data reduction and SWQC derivation approach were unique and resulted in materially lower (ie, greater than an order of magnitude difference) SWQC values. We suggest clarification of the scientific rationale behind the decision-making for difference-driving steps and greater alignment between jurisdictions, based on sound scientific reasoning, to increase regulatory consistency and transparency and decrease overall uncertainty in promulgated SWQC.</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ecological surface water quality criteria (SWQC) for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) vary several orders of magnitude between jurisdictions. Such differences can undermine confidence in the SWQC and their scientific basis. The current study undertakes a sensitivity analysis to investigate the factors that drive the differences observed in the PFOS SWQC published by the United States of America (USA), Australia and Canada. Each jurisdiction follows a broadly similar three-step procedure when deriving SWQC: 1) selecting reliable ecotoxicological data from the literature (Variable 1, Study Selection); 2) extracting a suite of values that are protective of individual aquatic taxa (Variable 2, Data Reduction); and 3) deriving a final singular value that is protective of aquatic ecosystems (Variable 3, SWQC Derivation). We found substantial differences between the studies deemed reliable in each jurisdiction (Variable 1). Applying each jurisdiction's data reduction and SWQC derivation procedures (Variables 2 and 3) to the other jurisdictions' datasets showed generally comparable outcomes, except for Australia. Aspects of Australia's data reduction and SWQC derivation approach were unique and resulted in materially lower (ie, greater than an order of magnitude difference) SWQC values. We suggest clarification of the scientific rationale behind the decision-making for difference-driving steps and greater alignment between jurisdictions, based on sound scientific reasoning, to increase regulatory consistency and transparency and decrease overall uncertainty in promulgated SWQC.
期刊介绍:
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas:
Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making
Health and ecological risk and impact assessment
Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems
Sustaining ecosystems
Managing large-scale environmental change
Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society:
Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation
Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability
Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability
Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.