File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Measuring and monitoring persistent organic pollutants in the context of risk assessment
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleMeasuring and monitoring persistent organic pollutants in the context of risk assessment
 
AuthorsWu, RSS2
Chan, AKY2
Richardson, BJ2
Au, DWT2
Fang, JKH2
Lam, PKS2
Giesy, JP2 1 3
 
KeywordsGuideline
POPs
Risk assessment
 
Issue Date2008
 
PublisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
 
CitationMarine Pollution Bulletin, 2008, v. 57 n. 6-12, p. 236-244 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.03.012
 
AbstractDue to growing concerns regarding persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment, extensive studies and monitoring programs have been carried out in the last two decades to determine their concentrations in water, sediment, and more recently, in biota. An extensive review and analysis of the existing literature shows that whilst the vast majority of these efforts either attempt to compare (a) spatial changes (to identify "hot spots"), or (b) temporal changes to detect deterioration/improvement occurring in the environment, most studies could not provide sufficient statistical power to estimate concentrations of POPs in the environment and detect spatial and temporal changes. Despite various national POPs standards having been established, there has been a surprising paucity of emphasis in establishing accurate threshold concentrations that indicate potential significant threats to ecosystems and public health. Although most monitoring programs attempt to check compliance through reference to certain "environmental quality objectives", it should be pointed out that many of these established standards are typically associated with a large degree of uncertainty and rely on a large number of assumptions, some of which may be arbitrary. Non-compliance should trigger concern, so that the problem can be tracked down and rectified, but non-compliance must not be interpreted in a simplistic and mechanical way. Contaminants occurring in the physical environment may not necessarily be biologically available, and even when they are bioavailable, they may not necessarily elicit adverse biological effects at the individual or population levels. As such, we here argue that routine monitoring and reporting of abiotic and biotic POPs concentrations could be of limited use, unless such data can be related directly to the assessment of public health and ecological risks. Risk can be inferred from the ratio of predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and the predicted no effect concentration (PNEC). Currently, the paucity of data does not allow accurate estimation of PNEC, and future endeavors should therefore, be devoted to determine the threshold concentrations of POPs that can cause undesirable biological effects on sensitive receivers and important biological components in the receiving environment (e.g. keystone species, populations with high energy flow values, etc.), to enable derivation of PNECs based on solid scientific evidence and reduce uncertainty. Using the threshold body burden of POPs required to elicit damages of lysosomal integrity in the green mussel (Perna virvidis) as an example, we illustrate how measurement of POPs in body tissue could be used in predicting environmental risk in a meaningful way. © 2008.
 
ISSN0025-326X
2012 Impact Factor: 2.531
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.054
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.03.012
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000257816300003
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorWu, RSS
 
dc.contributor.authorChan, AKY
 
dc.contributor.authorRichardson, BJ
 
dc.contributor.authorAu, DWT
 
dc.contributor.authorFang, JKH
 
dc.contributor.authorLam, PKS
 
dc.contributor.authorGiesy, JP
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-17T10:56:25Z
 
dc.date.available2010-09-17T10:56:25Z
 
dc.date.issued2008
 
dc.description.abstractDue to growing concerns regarding persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment, extensive studies and monitoring programs have been carried out in the last two decades to determine their concentrations in water, sediment, and more recently, in biota. An extensive review and analysis of the existing literature shows that whilst the vast majority of these efforts either attempt to compare (a) spatial changes (to identify "hot spots"), or (b) temporal changes to detect deterioration/improvement occurring in the environment, most studies could not provide sufficient statistical power to estimate concentrations of POPs in the environment and detect spatial and temporal changes. Despite various national POPs standards having been established, there has been a surprising paucity of emphasis in establishing accurate threshold concentrations that indicate potential significant threats to ecosystems and public health. Although most monitoring programs attempt to check compliance through reference to certain "environmental quality objectives", it should be pointed out that many of these established standards are typically associated with a large degree of uncertainty and rely on a large number of assumptions, some of which may be arbitrary. Non-compliance should trigger concern, so that the problem can be tracked down and rectified, but non-compliance must not be interpreted in a simplistic and mechanical way. Contaminants occurring in the physical environment may not necessarily be biologically available, and even when they are bioavailable, they may not necessarily elicit adverse biological effects at the individual or population levels. As such, we here argue that routine monitoring and reporting of abiotic and biotic POPs concentrations could be of limited use, unless such data can be related directly to the assessment of public health and ecological risks. Risk can be inferred from the ratio of predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and the predicted no effect concentration (PNEC). Currently, the paucity of data does not allow accurate estimation of PNEC, and future endeavors should therefore, be devoted to determine the threshold concentrations of POPs that can cause undesirable biological effects on sensitive receivers and important biological components in the receiving environment (e.g. keystone species, populations with high energy flow values, etc.), to enable derivation of PNECs based on solid scientific evidence and reduce uncertainty. Using the threshold body burden of POPs required to elicit damages of lysosomal integrity in the green mussel (Perna virvidis) as an example, we illustrate how measurement of POPs in body tissue could be used in predicting environmental risk in a meaningful way. © 2008.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationMarine Pollution Bulletin, 2008, v. 57 n. 6-12, p. 236-244 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.03.012
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.03.012
 
dc.identifier.epage244
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000257816300003
 
dc.identifier.issn0025-326X
2012 Impact Factor: 2.531
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.054
 
dc.identifier.issue6-12
 
dc.identifier.pmid18522862
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-46549086631
 
dc.identifier.spage236
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/92762
 
dc.identifier.volume57
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
 
dc.relation.ispartofMarine Pollution Bulletin
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subjectGuideline
 
dc.subjectPOPs
 
dc.subjectRisk assessment
 
dc.titleMeasuring and monitoring persistent organic pollutants in the context of risk assessment
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Wu, RSS</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Chan, AKY</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Richardson, BJ</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Au, DWT</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Fang, JKH</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lam, PKS</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Giesy, JP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-09-17T10:56:25Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-09-17T10:56:25Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2008</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2008, v. 57 n. 6-12, p. 236-244</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0025-326X</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/92762</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Due to growing concerns regarding persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment, extensive studies and monitoring programs have been carried out in the last two decades to determine their concentrations in water, sediment, and more recently, in biota. An extensive review and analysis of the existing literature shows that whilst the vast majority of these efforts either attempt to compare (a) spatial changes (to identify &quot;hot spots&quot;), or (b) temporal changes to detect deterioration/improvement occurring in the environment, most studies could not provide sufficient statistical power to estimate concentrations of POPs in the environment and detect spatial and temporal changes. Despite various national POPs standards having been established, there has been a surprising paucity of emphasis in establishing accurate threshold concentrations that indicate potential significant threats to ecosystems and public health. Although most monitoring programs attempt to check compliance through reference to certain &quot;environmental quality objectives&quot;, it should be pointed out that many of these established standards are typically associated with a large degree of uncertainty and rely on a large number of assumptions, some of which may be arbitrary. Non-compliance should trigger concern, so that the problem can be tracked down and rectified, but non-compliance must not be interpreted in a simplistic and mechanical way. Contaminants occurring in the physical environment may not necessarily be biologically available, and even when they are bioavailable, they may not necessarily elicit adverse biological effects at the individual or population levels. As such, we here argue that routine monitoring and reporting of abiotic and biotic POPs concentrations could be of limited use, unless such data can be related directly to the assessment of public health and ecological risks. Risk can be inferred from the ratio of predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and the predicted no effect concentration (PNEC). Currently, the paucity of data does not allow accurate estimation of PNEC, and future endeavors should therefore, be devoted to determine the threshold concentrations of POPs that can cause undesirable biological effects on sensitive receivers and important biological components in the receiving environment (e.g. keystone species, populations with high energy flow values, etc.), to enable derivation of PNECs based on solid scientific evidence and reduce uncertainty. Using the threshold body burden of POPs required to elicit damages of lysosomal integrity in the green mussel (Perna virvidis) as an example, we illustrate how measurement of POPs in body tissue could be used in predicting environmental risk in a meaningful way. &#169; 2008.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Pergamon. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Marine Pollution Bulletin</relation.ispartof>
<subject>Guideline</subject>
<subject>POPs</subject>
<subject>Risk assessment</subject>
<title>Measuring and monitoring persistent organic pollutants in the context of risk assessment</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.03.012</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>18522862</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-46549086631</identifier.scopus>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-46549086631&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>57</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>6-12</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>236</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>244</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000257816300003</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United Kingdom</publisher.place>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. University of Saskatchewan
  2. City University of Hong Kong
  3. National Food Safety and Toxicology Center