Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Graham Merrington (1)
  Youn-Joo An (2)
  Eric P. M. Grist (1)
  Seung-Woo Jeong (3)
  Chuthamat Rattikansukha (4)
  Susan Roe (5)
  Uwe Schneider (6)
  Suthipong Sthiannopkao (7)
  Glenn W. Suter II (8)
  Rick Van Dam (9)
  Patrick Van Sprang (10)
  Ju-Ying Wang (11)
  Michael St. J. Warne (12)
  Paul T. Yillia (13)
  Xiao-Wei Zhang (14)
  Kenneth M. Y. Leung (15)
  
• 关键词：Water quality guidelines ; International collaboration ; Harmonisation ; Water quality management ; Environmental quality standards
• 刊名：Environmental Science and Pollution Research
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：January 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：21
• 期：1
• 页码：6-16
• 全文大小：220 KB
• 作者单位：Graham Merrington (1)
  Youn-Joo An (2)
  Eric P. M. Grist (1)
  Seung-Woo Jeong (3)
  Chuthamat Rattikansukha (4)
  Susan Roe (5)
  Uwe Schneider (6)
  Suthipong Sthiannopkao (7)
  Glenn W. Suter II (8)
  Rick Van Dam (9)
  Patrick Van Sprang (10)
  Ju-Ying Wang (11)
  Michael St. J. Warne (12)
  Paul T. Yillia (13)
  Xiao-Wei Zhang (14)
  Kenneth M. Y. Leung (15)
  
  1. WCA Environment Limited, Brunel House, Volunteer Way, Faringdon, Oxfordshire, SN7 7YR, UK
  2. Department of Environmental Science, Konkuk University, 1 Hwayang Dong, Seoul, 143701, South Korea
  3. Department of Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University, Kunsan, 573701, South Korea
  4. Pollution Control Department, Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment, Bangkok, Thailand
  5. National Guidelines and Standards Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau, QC, Canada
  6. Independent Environmental Consultant, 1944 Forced Road, Ottawa, K0A3H0, ON, Canada
  7. Department of Environmental and Occupational health, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan
  8. National Centre for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA
  9. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin, Australia
  10. ARCHE, Stapelplein 70 box 104, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
  11. National Marine Environmental Monitoring Center, State Oceanic Administration, 42 Linghe Street, Dalian, 116023, China
  12. Water Quality and Investigations, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Science, Science Delivery, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, GPO Box 5078, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia
  13. Institute of Water Quality, Vienna University of Technology, Karlspl 13-226, A-1040, Vienna, Austria
  14. School of the Environment, Nanjing University, 22 Hankou Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210023, China
  15. The Swire Institute of Marine Science and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China
  
• ISSN：1614-7499

文摘

Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice-in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.