slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Primary question. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Primary question.

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 7

Primary question. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 124 Views
  • Uploaded on

Primary question. What process or criteria should be used for identification and prioritization of CECs … International perspective for chemical regulation (REACh), Great Lakes prioritization – IJC, USGS etc Other reviews and prioritizations; can we use national and int’l priority lists?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Primary question.' - gladys


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Primary question.

  • What process or criteria should be used for identification and prioritization of CECs …
  • International perspective for chemical regulation (REACh), Great Lakes prioritization – IJC, USGS etc
  • Other reviews and prioritizations; can we use national and int’l priority lists?
  • EPA list e.g. POTW
  • Analytical chemistry – broad spectrum screening using GC and LC Time-of-flight MS
  • Potential for missing chemicals that are not P and B; unusual mode of action
  • Should there be a CA specific list? What is unique about CA?
    • Potable water reuse? This may be a key issue relative to rest of country
    • Surface water, coastal/estuary and oceans aspect relatively unique
    • High % effluent in streams in some jurisdictions
    • Build on good record of environmental activism re contaminants in water, biota, and on air quality/pollutants
    • Opportunity to influence state and national assessments
    • Ecological and human priorities – good correspondence
slide2

Primary Question continued

  • Process
  • Risk based approach – includes exposure x effects
  • List based on published data on effects on aquatic species e.g. of pharmas
  • Mode of action based assessment – use pharma databases
  • Develop High quality data - on MOA basis – can develop list with similar MOA
  • e.g. estrogens, beta-blockers, SSRIs, hormone receptor agonists
  • Top down using MOA approach i.e. top down – get compounds that are active at very low conc
  • Also bottom up approach of screening based on volume, QSARs – ranking, or categorization i.e. limited use data for exposure assessment
  • Endocrine disruption – EE2 would have been missed using 1985 aq life criteria
  • could be misidentified analytically; UK setting very lo limit 0.3 ng/L; EPA White paper
slide3

Question 3. Are there CECs that should be included/excluded?

  • EE2, population level effects demonstrated or likely
  • Other steroids
  • Diclofenac – population level effect but may not be relevant
  • SSRIs – conversed mode of action in vertebrates
  • Antilipidemic – inverts – conserved MOA
  • APE/APs – alkyl phenol ethoxylates and alkyl ethoxylates – degradation makes them estrogenic. Multiple MOAs. Reproductive effects
  • Pesticides e.g. fipronil at mesocosm/lab level
  • Quaternary ammonium – surfactants; Analytically challenging; high concentrations
  • Flame retardants (both in products and for fire suppression) are unique to CA
  • Perfluorinated alkyl acids (PFOA, PFOS)
  • Engineered nanomaterials could be a unique issue given R&D and manufacturing in CA
    • Also manufacturing byproducts could be problematic; carbon nanotubes regulated as graphite
    • Environmental measurement not possible at the moment except possibly for gold. Metal nanos likely to be transformed
slide4

Question 4. Information gaps

  • Precise production volume
    • OPC could recommend tracking of production
  • Conceptual model of class of compound; life cycle
  • Population effects data is missing for all except EE2
  • Limited chronic toxicity e.g. pharmas
  • EPIsuite model QSAR/QSPRs have limited “domains”
  • Nano materials – MOAs not known; analytical methods lacking
  • Trophic transfer of pharmaceuticals
  • Metabolites and conjugates
slide5

Question 2. Different approaches …classes of CECs

MOA can be used to priortize

Fipronil

Pesticides could be replaced but could be viewed as a success story

Bioaccumulation of pharmas important for prioritizing

Hormone receptor binding

List should vary with type of application

Limit to capacity to measure i.e. cost, number of methods,

Centralization of analytical capacity especially for new, difficult to analyse compounds

Removal effectiveness could be a criterion – poorly removed compounds could be a priority

Have a list based on effects, bioaccumulation, - then consider degradation, removal

Ocean outfalls – difference from freshwater emissions

slide6

Question 1. Different approaches …

  • Ecological and human priorities – good correspondence
  • Population level effect for ecosystems e.g.
slide7

Tiered approach

  • Short list of things of concern
  • May be related to performance of treatment systems
  • Adjust list based on regional factors (industry, sources) and new science

Conceptual models of the exposure useful

Or should we select just a few winners?

TIE approach for effluents –