One Substance, Multiple Assessments: How the Various European Environmental Risk Frameworks Affect the Outcome of Chemical Risk Assessments.

IF 3.3 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Alexandra Kroll, Annette Aldrich, Sandrine Andres, Carmen Casado-Martinez, Sabine Duquesne, Peter C von der Ohe, Marion Junghans
{"title":"One Substance, Multiple Assessments: How the Various European Environmental Risk Frameworks Affect the Outcome of Chemical Risk Assessments.","authors":"Alexandra Kroll, Annette Aldrich, Sandrine Andres, Carmen Casado-Martinez, Sabine Duquesne, Peter C von der Ohe, Marion Junghans","doi":"10.1093/inteam/vjag052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The European Union (EU) regulates chemicals to protect the environment, but different regulations apply depending on the intended use of the substances in question. Advances in chemical monitoring have revealed inconsistencies in environmental risk assessments, prompting the European Commission to advocate for a \"one substance, one assessment\" (OS-OA) approach. As part of the EU Partnership for the Assessment of the Risk from Chemicals (PARC), this study examines the implementation and outcome of environmental risk assessments carried out within different regulatory frameworks, focusing on the aquatic environment. Using case studies on imidacloprid and deltamethrin, we highlight methodological differences and their implications for OS-OA. Our analysis reveals little consistency in the data used by assessments in different regulatory processes. This is partially due to the historical development of risk assessments. In addition, we show that new scientific data are not consistently incorporated into risk assessments, leading to delays and prolonged environmental risks. Finally, we demonstrate that low analytical sensitivities contribute to low detection rates in monitoring programs and hinder comparisons between prospective and retrospective risk assessments. Differences in data accessibility and validity assessments and lack of collaboration and varying involvement of Member States contribute to these inconsistencies and underscore the need for standardized methods. As a result of different data requirements, models, and protection goals, isolated risk assessments of the same substance lead to divergent outcomes. In cases where data gaps exist and safe uses cannot be demonstrated, we strongly recommend read-across of hazard assessments between regulations to support more efficient regulatory conclusions. In summary, our findings highlight the need for coherent regulation and risk assessment to improve environmental protection in the EU.</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":"1608-1622"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","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/vjag052","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

The European Union (EU) regulates chemicals to protect the environment, but different regulations apply depending on the intended use of the substances in question. Advances in chemical monitoring have revealed inconsistencies in environmental risk assessments, prompting the European Commission to advocate for a "one substance, one assessment" (OS-OA) approach. As part of the EU Partnership for the Assessment of the Risk from Chemicals (PARC), this study examines the implementation and outcome of environmental risk assessments carried out within different regulatory frameworks, focusing on the aquatic environment. Using case studies on imidacloprid and deltamethrin, we highlight methodological differences and their implications for OS-OA. Our analysis reveals little consistency in the data used by assessments in different regulatory processes. This is partially due to the historical development of risk assessments. In addition, we show that new scientific data are not consistently incorporated into risk assessments, leading to delays and prolonged environmental risks. Finally, we demonstrate that low analytical sensitivities contribute to low detection rates in monitoring programs and hinder comparisons between prospective and retrospective risk assessments. Differences in data accessibility and validity assessments and lack of collaboration and varying involvement of Member States contribute to these inconsistencies and underscore the need for standardized methods. As a result of different data requirements, models, and protection goals, isolated risk assessments of the same substance lead to divergent outcomes. In cases where data gaps exist and safe uses cannot be demonstrated, we strongly recommend read-across of hazard assessments between regulations to support more efficient regulatory conclusions. In summary, our findings highlight the need for coherent regulation and risk assessment to improve environmental protection in the EU.

一种物质,多重评估:各种欧洲环境风险框架如何影响化学品风险评估的结果。
欧盟对化学品进行监管以保护环境,但根据相关物质的预期用途,适用不同的法规。化学品监测的进展揭示了环境风险评估的不一致性,促使欧盟委员会提倡“一种物质,一种评估”(OS-OA)方法。作为欧盟化学品风险评估伙伴关系(PARC)的一部分,本研究考察了在不同监管框架内进行的环境风险评估的实施和结果,重点是水生环境。通过对吡虫啉和溴氰菊酯的案例研究,我们强调了方法上的差异及其对OS-OA的影响。我们的分析显示,不同监管过程中评估使用的数据几乎没有一致性。这部分是由于风险评估的历史发展。此外,我们表明,新的科学数据并没有始终纳入风险评估,导致延误和长期的环境风险。最后,我们证明了低分析灵敏度导致监测程序中的低检出率,并阻碍了前瞻性和回顾性风险评估之间的比较。数据可及性和有效性评估方面的差异,以及缺乏合作和会员国不同程度的参与造成了这些不一致,并强调了标准化方法的必要性。由于不同的数据要求、模型和保护目标,对同一物质的孤立风险评估会导致不同的结果。在存在数据缺口且无法证明安全用途的情况下,我们强烈建议对法规之间的危害评估进行通读,以支持更有效的法规结论。综上所述,我们的研究结果强调了需要制定连贯的法规和风险评估,以改善欧盟的环境保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESTOXICOLOGY&nbs-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
156
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书