Are ready biodegradation tests effective screens for non-persistence in all environmental compartments?

IF 5.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 Environmental Science
Alberto Martin-Aparicio, Louise Camenzuli, Christopher Hughes, Emma Pemberton, David Saunders, Neil Wang, Delina Y. Lyon
{"title":"Are ready biodegradation tests effective screens for non-persistence in all environmental compartments?","authors":"Alberto Martin-Aparicio,&nbsp;Louise Camenzuli,&nbsp;Christopher Hughes,&nbsp;Emma Pemberton,&nbsp;David Saunders,&nbsp;Neil Wang,&nbsp;Delina Y. Lyon","doi":"10.1186/s12302-023-00769-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Persistence assessment is a cornerstone of chemical hazard and risk assessment in numerous regulatory frameworks, as the longevity of a substance in the environment relates to exposure and ultimately the risk it poses. A chemical that is readily biodegradable is commonly assumed to undergo rapid and ultimate biodegradation under most environmental conditions. Ready biodegradability tests (RBT), such as the OECD 301 test series, are used to quickly screen out non-Persistent substances and focus regulatory scrutiny on the most hazardous substances. The stringency of the RBT as a screen for all environmental compartments is paramount to ensure that there are no readily biodegradable yet Persistent substances. To assess this stringency in practice, we here describe a systematic comparison of substances with both RBT data and biodegradation simulation test data for soil, sediment, or water compartments to see whether there are any substances which are readily biodegradable yet meet EU REACH regulatory Persistence criteria in any specific environmental compartment.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A rough assembly of data extracted from the ECHA database showed that, out of 263 substances with both RBT and simulation test data, there were 19 substances that were readily biodegradable but Persistent (based on the most conservative result and after a temperature adjustment to the half-life). However, many of the underpinning simulation study information were either not high-quality guideline studies or the substances were UVCBs. To more accurately compare the RBT and simulation testing outcomes, quality criteria on the RBT and simulation tests were applied, which limited the data set to about one-third.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>When examining quality-screened, temperature-adjusted simulation testing half-lives for readily biodegradable substances, there were no readily biodegradable substances that were Persistent. A side-by-side comparison of the available data supports the stringency and effectiveness of RBTs to identify non-Persistent chemicals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54293,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://enveurope.springeropen.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12302-023-00769-6","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-023-00769-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Persistence assessment is a cornerstone of chemical hazard and risk assessment in numerous regulatory frameworks, as the longevity of a substance in the environment relates to exposure and ultimately the risk it poses. A chemical that is readily biodegradable is commonly assumed to undergo rapid and ultimate biodegradation under most environmental conditions. Ready biodegradability tests (RBT), such as the OECD 301 test series, are used to quickly screen out non-Persistent substances and focus regulatory scrutiny on the most hazardous substances. The stringency of the RBT as a screen for all environmental compartments is paramount to ensure that there are no readily biodegradable yet Persistent substances. To assess this stringency in practice, we here describe a systematic comparison of substances with both RBT data and biodegradation simulation test data for soil, sediment, or water compartments to see whether there are any substances which are readily biodegradable yet meet EU REACH regulatory Persistence criteria in any specific environmental compartment.

Results

A rough assembly of data extracted from the ECHA database showed that, out of 263 substances with both RBT and simulation test data, there were 19 substances that were readily biodegradable but Persistent (based on the most conservative result and after a temperature adjustment to the half-life). However, many of the underpinning simulation study information were either not high-quality guideline studies or the substances were UVCBs. To more accurately compare the RBT and simulation testing outcomes, quality criteria on the RBT and simulation tests were applied, which limited the data set to about one-third.

Conclusions

When examining quality-screened, temperature-adjusted simulation testing half-lives for readily biodegradable substances, there were no readily biodegradable substances that were Persistent. A side-by-side comparison of the available data supports the stringency and effectiveness of RBTs to identify non-Persistent chemicals.

Abstract Image

现成的生物降解试验是否能有效地筛选所有环境隔间中的非持久性?
在许多监管框架中,持久性评估是化学品危害和风险评估的基石,因为物质在环境中的寿命与暴露及其最终构成的风险有关。易于生物降解的化学物质通常被认为在大多数环境条件下会经历快速和最终的生物降解。现成的生物降解性测试(RBT),如经合组织301系列测试,用于快速筛选非持久性物质,并将监管审查重点放在最危险的物质上。RBT作为所有环境隔间的筛选的严格性是至关重要的,以确保没有容易生物降解的持久性物质。为了在实践中评估这种严格性,我们在这里描述了一种物质与RBT数据和土壤、沉积物或水隔间的生物降解模拟测试数据的系统比较,以查看在任何特定环境隔间中是否存在易于生物降解但符合欧盟REACH法规持久性标准的物质。结果从ECHA数据库中提取的数据粗略汇总显示,在263种同时具有RBT和模拟试验数据的物质中,有19种物质易于生物降解,但具有持久性(基于最保守的结果,并在温度调整到半衰期后)。然而,许多基础模拟研究信息要么不是高质量的指导性研究,要么这些物质是uvcb。为了更准确地比较RBT和模拟测试结果,应用了RBT和模拟测试的质量标准,这将数据集限制在约三分之一。结论:在对易生物降解物质进行质量筛选、温度调节的模拟半衰期测试时,没有易生物降解物质具有持久性。对现有数据的并排比较支持rbt在识别非持久性化学品方面的严谨性和有效性。
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
Environmental Sciences Europe
Environmental Sciences Europe Environmental Science-Pollution
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation. ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation. ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation. Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues. Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信