Toward a Consistent Evaluative Framework for POP Risk Characterization

被引:25
作者
Arnot, Jon A. [1 ]
Armitage, James M. [2 ]
McCarty, Lynn S. [3 ]
Wania, Frank [1 ]
Cousins, Ian T. [2 ]
Toose-Reid, Liisa [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto Scarborough, Dept Phys & Environm Sci, Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, Canada
[2] Stockholm Univ, Dept Appl Environm Sci ITM, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
[3] LS McCarty Sci Res & Consulting, Newmarket, ON L3X 3E2, Canada
[4] Trent Univ, Canadian Ctr Environm Modelling & Chem, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS; SCREENING CHEMICALS; IDENTIFICATION;
D O I
10.1021/es102551d
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
083001 [环境科学];
摘要
The purpose of Annex E in the Stockholm Convention (SC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is to assess whether a chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted. To date, risk profiles for nominated POPs have not consistently selected assessment endpoints or completed mandated risk characterizations. An assessment endpoint hierarchy is proposed to facilitate risk characterization for the implementation of the SC. The framework is illustrated for a nominated POP, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), using three risk estimation methods. Based on current monitoring and toxicity data, the screening-level results indicate that humans and ecological receptors in remote regions such as the Arctic are unlikely to experience significant adverse effects (i.e., low risk) due to long-range environmental transport of HBCD. The results for birds are more uncertain than the results for fish and mammals due to the paucity of avian toxicity data. Risk characterization results for HBCD and for some listed POPs are compared to illustrate how the proposed methods can further assist decision-making and chemical management.
引用
收藏
页码:97 / 103
页数:7
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2000, OECD SER TEST ASS, P53
[2]
[Anonymous], 2001, FINAL ACT C PLENIPOT, P44
[3]
Arnot J., 2009, EVALUATION HEXABROMO
[4]
Screening chemicals for the potential to he persistent organic pollutants: A case study of Arctic contaminants [J].
Brown, Trevor N. ;
Wania, Frank .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2008, 42 (14) :5202-5209
[5]
A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment [J].
Chapman, PM ;
Fairbrother, A ;
Brown, D .
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, 1998, 17 (01) :99-108
[6]
Cowan-Ellsberry Christina E., 2009, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, V5, P662, DOI 10.1897/IEAM_2008-084.1
[7]
de Wit C., 2004, AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic, P310
[8]
European Commission, 2008, 25637994 CAS EUR COM, P492
[9]
Klecka Gary M., 2009, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, V5, P535, DOI 10.1897/IEAM_2009-045.1
[10]
A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data [J].
Klimisch, HJ ;
Andreae, M ;
Tillmann, U .
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 1997, 25 (01) :1-5