为什么各国的全氟辛烷磺酸生态地表水水质标准差异如此之大?监管指导差异综述。

IF 8.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Belinda Goldsworthy, Bryant Gagliardi, Betsy Ruffle, Christine Archer, Craig W Davis, Paul Koster Van Groos, Anita Thapalia
{"title":"为什么各国的全氟辛烷磺酸生态地表水水质标准差异如此之大?监管指导差异综述。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

全氟辛烷磺酸(PFOS)的生态地表水质量标准(SWQC)在不同司法管辖区之间存在几个数量级的差异。这种差异会削弱人们对SWQC及其科学依据的信心。本研究进行了敏感性分析,以调查导致美利坚合众国(美国)、澳大利亚和加拿大公布的全氟辛烷磺酸SWQC中所观察到的差异的因素。在获得SWQC时,每个管辖区都遵循大致相似的三步程序:1)从文献中选择可靠的生态毒理学数据(变量1,研究选择);2)提取一组保护单个水生分类群的值(变量2,数据约简);3)得出保护水生生态系统的最终奇异值(变量3,SWQC推导)。我们发现在每个司法管辖区被认为可靠的研究之间存在实质性差异(变量1)。将每个司法管辖区的数据简化和SWQC推导程序(变量2和3)应用于其他司法管辖区的数据集,结果大致相当,但澳大利亚除外。澳大利亚的数据简化和SWQC推导方法在某些方面是独一无二的,导致SWQC值明显降低(即大于一个数量级的差异)。我们建议在合理的科学推理基础上,澄清差异驱动步骤决策背后的科学原理,并加强司法管辖区之间的协调,以提高监管一致性和透明度,并减少颁布的SWQC的总体不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why are PFOS Ecological Surface Water Quality Criteria So Different Between Countries? A Review of Differences in Regulatory Guidance.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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