BIOAVAILABILITY OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS: LINKING SCIENCE ... - SETAC...

BIOAVAILABILITY OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS:

LINKING SCIENCE TO RISK ASSESSMENT AND REGULATION

PROGRAMME

S E T A C E u r o p e 2 0 1 5

Environmental protection in a multi-stressed world: challenges for science, industry and regulators

S E TAC E U R O P E 25 T H A N N UA L M E E T I N G3 - 7 M AY 2015 | B A R C E LO N A , S PA I N

For Abstract submission & Registration, go to barcelona.setac.orgAbstract submission deadline: 26 November 2014

Early registration deadline: 4 March 2015

SE

TAC

2 5 y e a r s i n E

u ro

pe

SETAC EUROPE VZW, AV. DE LA TOISON D’OR 67, 1060 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

WWW.SETAC.ORG - [email protected]

3

WELCOME

Welcome to the 10th SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium!

Dear Participant

Welcome to the 10th SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium “Bioavailability of organic chemicals: Linking science to risk assessment and regulation”. Producers and regulators face many challenges when it comes to the incorporation of bioavailability in risk assessment of chemicals.

At this symposium renown experts will highlight the main issues about bioavailability and discuss with you how science can contribute to provide practical solutions for risk assessment.

As you may have noticed, SETAC significantly reduced the registration fees for this sympo-sium. With these reduced fees we hope to make this symposium accessible for a broad and balanced group of participants representing the three sectors -business, government and aca-demia- that are so important to SETAC. The downside is that we could be less generous with travel support to our speakers and therefore a sincere thank you to these experts for donating their support to this symposium.

Anyway, I trust you will get inspired by the speakers, learn something new, and can provide your specific input to the discussions. Together, I hope, we should be able to take the bioavailability issue to a next level.

Enjoy the meeting!

Bart Bosveld SETAC Europe Executive Director

Special thanks to our contributors:

5

WELCOME

Welcome!It is my pleasure to join the SETAC Europe Executive Director, Bart Bosveld, in welcoming you to the 10th SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium (SESSS10). I never imagined back in 1993 when I started my postdoc at Martin Alexander´s lab in Cornell, either that I would be attending (or even chairing) a whole series of bioavailability sessions at SETAC Europe meet-ings , or that I would chair this SETAC symposium on bioavailability. During these 20 years, I have been fortunate in being a close witness of the continued interest in this field. Today, we can see that these scientific developments are ready for implementation into risk assessment and regulation. The perception originates the objective of this symposium.

The programme for this SESSS10 is the result of the contributions from the enthusiastic group of experts who formed the Steering Committee. I personally thank them, and especially the co-chairs Joop Harmsen and John Parsons, for their dedication and continuous input. I would also like to thank Roel Evens and the rest of people from the Brussels office of SETAC Europe for their professionalism and efficient work in the organization of this event. A big thank to our sponsors who provide a valuable financial contribution to this symposium.

Last but not least, you can see that the programme is highly interactive. You already had the chance to participate through a questionnaire. You will also have plenty of possibilities for interaction when participating in the discussion groups and for obtaining tools for application of bioavailability concepts into your own work. The two-day programme contains, each day, a few, strategic talks given by experts, followed by group discussions where you will be distrib-uted, in accordance to your choice, to work and discuss together a given issue each.

So I invite you to make this symposium a complete success with your active participation!

Jose-Julio Ortega-Calvo Symposium Chair

6

CONTENTS

Symposium information 8

Symposium organisers 9

About SETAC 10

Upcoming events 11

Programme overview 12

About the Speakers 14

Speaker abstracts 18Introducing bioavailability and setting the scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Protecting the environment: The chemical industry perspective . . . . . . . . . 18

Protecting soils: the ‘Dutch regulation case’ with regard to bioavailability . . . . 19

Remediating soils: bioavailability as a tool in site management . . . . . . . . . . 20

Bioavailability approaches in the regulatory context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Approaches on bioavailability in REACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Measuring bioavailability: from a scientific approach to standard methods . . . 22

Case studies on the application of passive sampling in risk assessment of soils

and sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Bound residues: to be or not to be; is that the question? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The “biological” component of bioavailability: the usage of eco toxicological

tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Group Discussions 25Discussion group A: Bioavailability in retrospective risk assess ment and

remediation of waters and sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

7

CONTENTS

Discussion group B: Bioavailability in retrospective risk assess ment and

remediation of soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Discussion group C: Prospective bioavailability in the regulatory context . . . . 27

Discussion group D: Introducing bioavailability to industry and regulators . . . . 28

Discussion group E: Methodologies for measuring bioavailability . . . . . . . . 29

Discussion group F: What about non-bioavailable compounds? . . . . . . . . . 30

Poster abstracts 31

Participants list 40

Notes 42

8

SYMPOSIUM INFORMATION

BadgesYour badge is made using thick and durable recycled paper certified by FSC. It is made to last the entire meeting and to attach to a lanyard without the use of a plastic badge holder.

Evaluation formAn email will be sent to you immediately after the symposium with a link to an online evalu-ation form. Please take a moment to complete the online form upon your return home. We value your input and strive to continually improve our meetings.

Insurance and liabilitySETAC Europe and the organisers cannot accept liability for personal accidents or for loss of or damage to private property of participants, either during or directly arising from the SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium. Participants should make their own arrangements with respect to health and travel insurance.

Mobile phonesAs a kindness to speakers and other attendees, all mobile phones must be switched off during all sessions.

Photo policyNo attendee at the symposium may record, film, tape, photograph, interview or use any other such media during any presentation or display without the express, advance approval of the SETAC Europe Executive Director. This policy applies to all SETAC members, non-members and guests, as well as members of the print, online and broadcast media.

Smoking policySmoking is expressly forbidden in the symposium area.

9

SYMPOSIUM ORGANISERS

Scientific steering committee• Jose-Julio Ortega-Calvo (IRNAS-CSIC, Spain), Chair

• Joop Harmsen (Alterra, WUR, NL), Co-chair

• John Parsons (University of Amsterdam, NL), Co-chair

• Charles Eadsforth (Shell International, UK)

• Roel Evens (SETAC Europe, BE)

• Malyka Galay Burgos (ECETOC, BE)

• Michiel Jonker (Utrecht University, NL)

• Robin Oliver (Syngenta, UK)

• Willie Peijnenburg, (RIVM, NL)

• Georg Streck (European Commission, Belgium)

Symposium secretariatSETAC Europe Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67 b6 B-1060 Brussels Belgium

+32 2 772 72 81 [email protected]

http://www.setac.org

10

ABOUT SETAC

SETAC: global and localThe Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) is a not-for-profit, global pro-fessional organisation established in 1979 to provide a forum for individuals and institutions engaged in education, research and development, ecological risk assessment and life cycle assessment, chemical manufacture and distribution, management and regulation of natural resources, and the study, analysis and solution of environmental problems. SETAC is an open and democratic organisation that operates in a broad social context, reflecting the needs of the environment and people. Application of sound science plays a key role in this process. Membership worldwide comprises more than 5000 professionals in the field of chemistry, toxicology, biology and ecology; atmospheric, health and earth sciences; and environmental engineering.

SETAC EuropeSETAC Europe is one of the five Geographic Units (GU) of the global Society, established to promote and undertake activities of SETAC in Europe and to support the activities of SETAC in the Middle East and Russia. As a GU, we share the mission of SETAC: to support the develop-ment of principles and practices for protection, enhancement and management of sustain-able environmental quality and ecosystem integrity.

SETAC Europe is dedicated to the use of multidisciplinary approaches to examine the impacts of stressors, chemicals and technology on the environment. The Society also provides an open forum for scientists and institutions engaged in the study of environmental problems, management and regulation of natural resources, education, research and development, and manufacturing. SETAC Europe is incorporated in Belgium as a not-for-profit organisation. The Society is governed according to its articles of association and bylaws. SETAC Europe main-tains its administrative office in Brussels, Belgium. SETAC Europe is governed by a volunteer council, elected by the general membership at the Annual General Assembly. The General Assembly convenes every year during the SETAC Europe Annual Meeting.

For more information on SETAC and its activities, please visit www.setac.org.

11

UPCOMING EVENTS

SETAC North America 34th Annual MeetingHarmonizing science across disciplines 9-13 November 2014 | Vancouver, Canada | vancouver.setac.org

SETAC Europe 20th LCA Case Study SymposiumLCA in promoting eco-innovation and sustainability: education, research and application 24-26 November 2014 | Novi Sad, Serbia | lcanovisad.setac.org

SETAC Europe 25th Annual MeetingEnvironmental protection in a multi-stressed world: challenges for science, industry and regulators 3-7 May 2015 | Barcelona, Spain | barcelona.setac.org

12

PROGRAMME OVERVIEW

Day 1: Tuesday 14 October 201409:45 Welcome Bart Bosveld, SETAC Europe, BE

09:50 Introducing bioavailability and setting the scene Jose Julio Ortega-Calvo, IRNAS-CSIC, ES

What can we do with bioavailability?10:10 Protecting the environment: The chemical industry

perspectiveRobin Oliver, Syngenta, UK

10:45 Protecting soils: the ‘Dutch regulation case’ with regard to bioavailability

Willie Peijnenburg, RIVM, NL

11:20 Coffee break and poster viewing

11:50 Remediating soils: Bioavailability as a tool in site management

Ravi Naidu, CRC CARE, AU

12:25 Bioavailability approaches in the regulatory context Georg Streck, EC, BE

13:00 Bioavailability and uncertainty in the context of REACH

Bram Versonnen, ECHA, FI

13:35 Lunch and poster viewing

Breakout sessions14:35 Introduction to breakout groups A, B, C and question-

naire resultsJoop Harmsen, Alterra/Wagenin-gen UR, NL

14:50 Discussion in breakout groups

Group A: Bioavailability in retrospective risk assess-ment and remediation of waters and sediments

Group B: Bioavailability in retrospective risk assess-ment and remediation of soils Group C: Prospective bioavailability in the regulatory context

Leader: Michiel Jonker (Utrecht University, NL) and Co-leader: John Parsons (University of Amsterdam, NL) Leader: Willie Peijnenburg (RIVM, NL), Co-leader: Jose Julio Ortega-Calvo (IRNAS-CSIC, ES) Leader: Charmaine Ajao (ECHA, FI), Co-leader: Georg Streck (EC, BE)


16:50 Wrap up of breakout groups A, B and C

17:50 Poster Sessions and drinks20:00 Symposium dinner

13

PROGRAMME OVERVIEW

Day 2: Wednesday 15 October 201408:50 Setting the scene of the second day Julio Ortega-Calvo (IRNAS-CSIC, ES)

How can science contribute?09:00 Measuring bioavailability: from a scientific approach to

standard methodsJoop Harmsen, Alterra/Wageningen UR, NL

09:35 Case studies on the application of passive sampling in risk assessment of soils and sediments

Michiel Jonker, Utrecht University, NL

10:10 Bound residues: to or not to be: is that the question? Kirk Semple, Lancaster University, UK

10:45 The ‘bio’ component of bioavailability: using bioassays Jörg Römbke, ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH, DE


Breakout sessions11:50 Introduction to breakout groups D, E, F and question-

naire resultsJohn Parsons, University of Amster-dam, NL

12:05 Discussion in breakout groups

Group D: Introducing bioavailability to industry and regulators

Group E: Methodologies for measuring bioavailability Group F: What about non-bioavailable compounds?

Leader: Joop Harmsen (Alterra/Wa-geningen, NL) and Co-leader: Jose Julio Ortega-Calvo (IRNAS-CSIC, ES) Leader: Charles Eadsforth (Shell, UK), Co-leader: Robin Oliver (Syn-genta, UK) Leader: Malyka Galay Burgos (ECE-TOC, BE), Co-leader: Kirk Semple (Lancaster University, UK)

13:35 Lunch and poster viewing

14:35 Wrap up of breakout groups D, E and F

15:35 Final discussion

16:30 End of symposium

14

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

In alphabetical order:

Charmaine Ajao (ECHA, FI)Charmaine Ajao is an ecotoxicologist. She has been working with the Europe-an Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki for 7 years. At ECHA she started as a Helpdesk officer then as a scientific secretary of the Member State Committee and currently she is also Chairing the Scientific Platform for Environment and Exposure in ECHA. She has over 12 years of experience in regulatory science. She started with chemical market surveillance, followed by implementation of EU environmental legislation on ozone depleting substances, hydrofluoro

carbons and industrial emissions (IPPC) with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority until she moved to Helsinki where she started working on REACH with ECHA. She has served in many regulatory committees and boards, both nationally and EU-wide. She received a Bachelors degree with Honours in Chemistry and Biology, and a Masters degree in Biology, both from the University of Malta. Her postgraduate research focused on the assessment of the biological impact of heavy metals generated by shipyard activities on sediments, bottom and surface waters and a marine gastropod. She is also a SETAC member.

Charles Eadsforth (Shell, UK)Charles Eadsforth holds a B.Sc (Hons) in Applied Chemistry and a Ph.D in Biochemistry from the University of Salford, Manchester. He has worked for Shell since 1980, initially in research at Sittingbourne Research Centre and Shell Technology Centre, Thornton and more recently providing environmen-tal support to Shell businesses. He is a member of a number of inter-industry working groups (e.g. CONCAWE, ERASM, ISOPA) dealing with environmen-tal safety assessment of chemicals and oil products. He has been actively

involved in ECETOC Task Forces addressing ecotoxicity and PBT issues, more latterly extraction methods for bioavailable residues and risk assessment of non-extractable residues (NERs)

Malyka Galay Burgos (ECETOC, BE)Dr. Malyka Galay Burgos joined ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals) in September 2007 as the Environmental Sci-ences Manager. She has a background in environmental molecular biology and genetics, obtaining a PhD from the University of London in Environmen-tal Toxicology. Her research work concerned the responses of cells/organisms to natural and anthropogenic stress and the physiological adaptation to environmental change in soils and aquatic systems. She has collaborated in

UNEP projects at King’s College London and whilst at Cardiff University, she led and contrib-uted to a broad spectrum of multidisciplinary UK and EU funded research projects. Her current areas of interest are in strengthening risk assessment through an evolving systems toxicology approach, utilising an understanding of chemical, biological interactions across natural com-pounds, emerging contaminants and potentially novel technologies.

Joop Harmsen (Alterra, WUR, NL)Dr. Joop Harmsen working at Alterra Wageningen UR, studied analytical chemistry at the University of Utrecht and has a PhD on Environmental sci-ences at Wageningen University. In his field of research he connects the fate of contaminants with possibilities for risk reduction and site development. In his research he is looking for equilibrium between the environmental risks caused by man, the possibility of nature to recover and the necessity of add-ing technologies to help nature. He is active in (inter)national standardization

15

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

in order to translate scientific concepts to practical methods for risk assessment. He chairs the working group of ISO/TC190 Soil Quality on bioavailability.

Michiel T .O . Jonker (IRAS, NL)Michiel T.O. Jonker is an assistant professor at the Institute for Risk Assess-ment Sciences (IRAS) of the Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He has been active for many years in the field of bioavailability of hydrophobic organic chemicals in soils and sediments and has published several scientific papers on the development of bioavailability tools, their application in the lab and the field, and the comparison of different bioavailability methods. Michiel Jonker performs bioavailability measurements for problem owners through bioavailability-lab.com.

Ravi Naidu (University of South Australia, AU)Ravi Naidu is Professor of Environmental Remediation at the University of South Australia (UniSA) and Director of UniSA’s Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation, which he established in 2002. Ravi is also the Managing Director and CEO of the Cooperative Research Centre for Contami-nation Assessment and Remediation (CRC CARE), which he established in 2005 after winning an Australian National Centre of Excellence grant in 2004. With Commonwealth and industry funding through to 2020, CRC CARE brings

together major industry sectors, regulatory agencies and research providers. Despite his managerial work, Ravi has remained active for 25 years in the field of bioavailability and con-taminated site remediation research. As part of his vision to bring together world-renowned contamination researchers, major industries and environment protection authorities (EPAs), Ravi has organised numerous international events, including workshops on chemical bioavail-ability (biennial since 2000) and ‘CleanUp’, an international conference on contaminated site assessment and remediation (biennial since 1996). More recently he initiated global-CARE™, an international knowledge network that brings together key industry sectors, EPAs and researchers with the aim of defining, quantifying, setting limits to and cleaning up chemical contamination worldwide.

Robin Oliver (Syngenta, UK)Robin currently leads Syngenta’s Soil Platform which elucidates the environ-mental behaviour of early stage research compounds to enable the opti-misation of their efficacy and registrability. Robin has 20+ years’ experience in plant and soil metabolism with Syngenta and previously with Aventis CropScience. He has led several successful research projects and initiatives aimed at developing a better understanding of a number of environmental fate processes and the development of more realistic test systems.

José-Julio Ortega-Calvo (IRNAS-CSIC, ES)Dr. José-Julio Ortega-Calvo is scientific researcher at Institute of Natural Resources and Agrobiology, from Spanish National Research Council (IRNAS-CSIC), Seville (Spain) and head of the research team “Bioremediation and Bio-availability”. After obtaining his Ph.D. in 1991, he worked on different aspects of microbial ecology during postdoctoral stays in Amsterdam University (The Netherlands) and Cornell University (USA), and obtained his permanent posi-tion as tenured scientist at IRNAS in 1996. He has experience in microbiology

and environmental chemistry, working on microbial aspects of bioavailability of organic pol-lutants since the last 21 years. His involvement in SETAC activities includes: Current member of SETAC Europe Council since (2011), SETAC Europe Executive Committee member and trea-

16

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

surer (2012-2014), Chairman of the Scientific and Local Organizing Committees of the 20th annual meeting of SETAC Europe in Seville (2010), and Annual Meetings Scientific Committee member (2009-2012).

John Parsons (University of Amsterdam, NL)John performed his PhD project on the biodegradation of chlorinated aromat-ic compounds at the University of Amsterdam under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Otto Hutzinger. He currently is assistant professor at the same university in the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics. His research interest is in the environmental behaviour of organic contaminants and how they interact with natural biogeochemical processes. The focus of his research is on the fate of organic pollutants or contaminants in the environment and more

specifically how they interact with organic matter (sorption) and with microbial communities (biodegradation) and the relationships between these interactions (bioavailability).

Willie Peijnenburg (RIVM, NL)Prof. Dr. Willie Peijnenburg is senior researcher at the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven (The Netherlands) and extraordinary professor at the Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) of the Faculty of Science of Leiden University, Leiden (The Netherlands), chair position “Environmental Toxicology and Biodiversity”. He obtained his PhD in 1988. His research interests deal with the impacts of chemical stressors on ecosystems, focussing on topics like bioavailability, nano-ecotoxicology, fate

assessment, QSAR modelling. He is active as editor and editor-in-chief of a number of scien-tific journals, including the SETAC Journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and has published over 140 papers in peer reviewed journals.

Jörg Römbke (ECT GmbH, DE)Dr. Römbke has a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of Frankfurt a.M. In 1994, he co-founded ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH as a private contract research laboratory, where he is still one of two Managing Directors. ECT GmbH is located in Flörsheim/Germany and employs some 35 scientists and technicians. Dr. Römbke is responsible for ecotoxicological and environmental fate tests and environmental risk assessment for the chemical industry and for national and international governmental authorities (e.g. in the area of

pesticide registration). Especially he is interested in the development and standardization of ecotoxicological test methods as well as in the international harmonization of methods for biological soil monitoring.

Kirk T . Semple (Lancaster University, UK)Prof Kirk Semple is an environmental microbiologist with over 20 years of research experience in the fields of organic contaminant-biota interactions in soils, availability of contaminants in soil, availability of contaminant residues in soils, and risk assessment and bioremediation of contaminated land and, most recently, the use of anaerobic digestion for energy generation in wastewater treatment and the use of resulting by-products as soil amendments. A par-ticular area of expertise lies in organic contaminant bioavailability in soil, and

it is in this area where his reputation is best known internationally. Funding has come from TSB, NERC, BBSRC and EPSRC; Government agencies, including the DTI and Pesticide Safety Directorate; environmental consultancies, such as Remedios, and industry, including National Grid, Syngenta and United Utilities. He continues to manage an active research group, having

17

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

supervised 35 PhD students, and has published over 160 articles in peer-reviewed journals, book chapters and international conferences; his current H index is 36.

Georg Streck (European Commission, BE)Georg Streck is employed by the European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, as a Policy Officer in the unit responsible for REACH, the Regulation on chemicals substances. As such, his working life is at the crossing point of risk assessment of chemicals, and regulatory and policy issues. Before joining the EU Commission in 2012, Georg was a (senior) researcher and lecturer in Bayreuth and Leipzig (Germany), being active in bioavailability research of organic chemicals in aquatic systems. He has experience in field and labora-

tory methods for determining bioavailable fractions in sediments and the water phase as well as in the application of modeling approaches. For several years, he was deeply committed in establishing passive sampling methods. One of his current tasks comprises the assessment of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals.

Bram Versonnen (ECHA, FI)Dr Bram Versonnen is an ecotoxicologist working at the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki for more than 6 years. He holds a PhD in Bioengineering Sciences (environmental toxicology) from Ghent University (Belgium) and has research experience in soil, sediment and aquatic ecotoxicology and endo-crine disruption in aquatic species in particular. He gained further experience in environmental risk assessment working as an environmental consultant advising both industry and regulators. In ECHA, he is involved in the evalua-

tion of registration dossiers under the REACH Regulation and in environmental fora bringing together ecotoxicologists within ECHA. He is also active in scientific and international organ-isations such as SETAC and the OECD.

18

In order of presentation:

Introducing bioavailability and setting the sceneJ.J. Ortega-Calvo (IRNAS-CSIC, ES), J. Harmsen (Alterra/Wageningen UR, NL) and J. Parsons (University of Amsterdam, NL)

Science provides today thorough knowledge on how bioavailability of organic chemicals affects environmental quality, how bioavailability can be predicted, and how to determine bioavailability through appropriate assays. Although risk assessment of chemicals and con-taminated sites will improve by implementing bioavailability concepts, as yet, the application of new insights in regulatory frameworks is still limited. The main objective of this Symposium is to identify and provide scientifically-based solutions to the challenges faced by regulators and industries in handling bioavailability issues during risk assessment and regulation of organic chemicals.

We propose, therefore, to discuss in this symposium current insights into bioavailability and how these can be implemented in risk assessment and remediation (bio)technology, covering the different environmental protection goals in which bioavailability is involved. Attention will be focused on the needs and questions from regulators and industry (first day), with the aim to provide a practical framework and tools needed for a realistic risk assessment (second day). Arguments for this order are that we need tools for real practice and these tools have to be accepted by regulation. It is possible that this tool is not the best scientific solution in relation to our scientific understanding of bioavailability. Acceptation by regulation and probably also costs and time will be arguments.

The list of topics to be discussed by breakout groups has been designed to cater for, in a balanced way, participants to this symposium with different perspectives and interests on bioavailability: Whether their focus is on soils, sediments or waters; on retrospective (e.g. remediation) or prospective (e.g. REACH) approaches; if the concern is on methodological or communication issues; and, finally, if participants are strongly motivated to look at the evolution of non-bioavailable residues. We expect that the distribution of participants in these groups will successfully produce active discussions, where everyone finds the right opportuni-ties for productive interactions. The objective of the wrap up sessions is to distil these interac-tions into clear messages to the whole symposium audience.

Protecting the environment: The chemical industry perspectiveRobin Oliver, Syngenta, Biological Sciences, UK

The global population is predicted to increase from 6.1 billion in 2000 to somewhere between 7.4 and 10.6 billion (UNDESA) by 2050. Coupled to increasing affluence in many develop-ing economies there will be substantially increased demand for food, medicine, transport, personal care products, consumer goods and other products supplied or supported by the chemical industry. This will result in major growth opportunities for Industry but these will be coupled to societal expectations that this demand be met with a reducing environmental footprint backed by potentially business ending penalties for failure.

Progress towards sustainable intensification will be achieved in different ways by different parts of the chemical industry but there are a number of common elements required for prog-ress, such as the need for

• Innovative, more effective and/or better targeted products

• Reduced waste and meaningful progress towards closed loop production/use systems

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

19

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

• Regulation (both before and after introduction to the market)

• Stewardship

Effective regulation makes a significant contribution to societal trust and confidence in the safety of registered products. At present however Industry faces a significant challenge in trying to meet the diverse requirements of different regulatory frameworks. Furthermore inconsistent approaches and outcomes of regulation across geographies and industry sectors have not built public confidence in regulated products. This situation may be improved if regulation were consistently

• Protective, with clear goals

• Informed, based on scientific evidence

• Implementable, with clear procedures

• Enabling, to facilitate access to technology

• Enforceable, for accountability

This aim of this symposium is to link the science of bioavailability to risk assessment and regulation. However this only relevant in the context of science based, risk assessment driven regulation. It is of little relevance in circumstances where regulation defaults to the use of worst case data or default cut-off values. Investment by Industry to generate additional data and to support research to reduce uncertainty should be encouraged by regulatory frame-works and recognized by a willingness to appropriately reduce conservatism.

The application of bioavailability concepts can reduce the uncertainties in exposure predic-tions and help improve the integration estimations of exposure with measures of effect. In some sectors particularly those dealing with historical contamination there is an emerging consensus on the value of such approaches. In other sectors particularly those with pre-emp-tive regulation there is little consideration of bioavailability concepts.

Within such regulatory frameworks there are two areas where consideration of bioavailability concepts could reduce uncertainty. The first of these is the calculation of degradation rates and the second is in considerations around POP and PBT criteria and these will be covered in detail.

Protecting soils: the ‘Dutch regulation case’ with regard to bioavailabilityWillie J.G.M. Peijnenburg, Center for Safety of Substances and Products, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands

In risk evaluations of contaminated soil in the Netherlands, soil quality used to be determined on the basis of total contaminant concentrations. These measured total concentrations are compared with Soil Quality Standards. If the soil concentration exceeds the Soil Quality Standards, a second tier risk evaluation can be performed. This second evaluation can be both chemical and/or biological of nature and is usually directed towards assessing actual risks.

From practice the perception rises that performing risk evaluation by measuring total concen-trations leads to an inaccurate prediction of the actual risks. The idea exists that there is too often an indication for risks, while the ecosystem is not visibly affected or while no effects can be determined using batteries of ecotoxicity tests. These observations are related to the bind-ing capacity of the soil, and it has become clear that there are circumstances in which the soil’s physical-chemical properties can reduce the effective concentrations of the contaminants in the ecosystem. Therefore it is only the bioavailable fraction that is available to exert adverse effects in the soil ecosystem. It is suggested that if bioavailability is taken into account during

20

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

a risk evaluation, the amount of either wrong positives or wrong negatives in the soil risk evaluations can significantly be reduced.

Bioavailability of chemicals in the environment has been a topic of scientific research for a large number of years. Great improvements have been made in regard to increasing our understanding of the chemical and ecological mechanisms responsible for making chemicals available for uptake and toxicity.

The legislators now face the challenge of finding a way to implement the (expert) knowl-edge in nowadays risk evaluations. In this contribution the Dutch approach with regard to implementation of bioavailability in the current risk evaluation of contaminated soils will be presented. Amongst others the methods selected for second tier risk evaluation for soils will be highlighted, as well as the underlying processes. Although a risk evaluation can also relate to the protection of human health, this presentation focuses on the protection of the soil ecosystem only.

Remediating soils: bioavailability as a tool in site managementRavi Naidu, CRC CARE, AustraliaManaging and remediating contaminated sites is a complex process often involving decisions with high degrees of uncertainty arising from a lack of reliable data, poor knowledge of effec-tive methods, and an absence of appropriate remediation technologies.

Current approaches often adopt cautious conservatism and tend to ‘over-remediate’ in order to protect the environment – regardless of costs. In Australia, regulatory concentrations in soils are typically based on total concentrations of a contaminant, with the underlying as-sumption that it is 100% bioavailable. This assumption may lead to an overestimation of risk and thus to unnecessary (and possibly financially unfeasible) remediation of individual sites. It may also prompt the remediation of more sites than necessary given actual environmental risks to biota. Genuinely effective site assessment must determine if a chemical substance is present in a form and at levels that pose risk to the receptor. In other words, the contaminant in question must be bioavailable.

Despite general acceptance that contaminant bioavailability is an important consideration in the site assessment process, there has been considerable reticence to incorporate bioavail-ability–bioaccessibility assessments into regulatory guidelines. In Australia, this reticence is based on the following reasons:

• bioavailability–bioaccessibility results depend on the assessment method used, the soil type and the contaminant

• a method developed and validated for one contaminant is not always appropriate for other contaminants

• a method developed and validated for one soil type is not always appropriate for other soil types

• contaminant bioavailability changes with time, reaching a steady state in long-term contaminated soils

• there are no standard reference materials that can be used to validate the results from bioavailability–bioaccessibility tests or to check their reproducibility.

21

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

Australian regulatory jurisdictions now recognise a risk-based approach to managing contaminated sites. As a consequence, they have led acceptance of bioavailability as a key indicator of risk and, consequently, the adoption of risk-based land management. While there are no recognised standard operating procedures (SOPs) for measuring organic contaminant bioavailability, the Australian National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contami-nation) Measure (the NEPM) now includes methods for assessing bioavailability of lead and arsenic. Such assessments are then used as the underlying basis for assessing risk.

Despite the lack of SOPs for assessing organic contaminant bioavailability in soils, risk-based approaches have been used to remediate a number of hydrocarbon-contaminated sites in Australia. These methods reduce organic contaminant bioavailability using naturally occurring materials that immobilise the contaminants.

A key focus of Australian research is the development of an SOP for organic contaminants with a view to incorporating the method into the NEPM.

Bioavailability approaches in the regulatory contextGeorg Streck, European Commission, Belgium

Several European legal frameworks address the risks from using chemicals to the environ-ment, e.g. REACH, the Plant Protection Products Regulation, the Biocidal Products Regulation or the Water Framework Directive. The environmental risk assessment methodologies applied under these legal frameworks and their guidance documents allow taking bioavailability of chemicals into account in various ways. The presentation will give examples on how bioavail-ability is being considered.

REACH as well as other legal frameworks pay special attention to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances. Degradation half-lives (i.e. persistence), bioaccumulation as well as toxicity are all linked to the bioavail-ability of a chemical in the respective compartment. This presentation will therefore lay a special focus on the consideration of bioavailability in the PBT-assessment. In the past, risk assessments were often following a precautionary approach, assuming that the total amount of a chemical is available to organism, which may lead to an unrealistic estimation (under- or overestimation) of the risk. Increasingly, however, bioavailability is taken into account on a case-by-case basis. For instance, half-live degradation rates from simulation tests may be derived by modelling first-order kinetics assuming reduced availability due to binding of chemicals to the solid matrix.

Closely linked to the issue of bioavailability are those of bound residues. The question of how to deal with bound residues, including non-extractable residues, in the regulatory context is another issue that is controversially discussed by policy makers, regulators and stakeholders.

Approaches on bioavailability in REACHBram Versonnen, Vincent Bonnomet, Anu Kapanen, Derek Knight, Charmaine Ajao ECHA, Finland

As part of the special symposium will deal with the regulatory acceptance, we will 1) cover a number of aspects which are of specific importance in a regulatory context, 2) describe a few cases of ‘bioavailability approaches’, 3) give examples of issues which need further investiga-tion with a focus on water and sediment.

22

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

1. In a regulatory context, the remaining uncertainty is a key issue. Such uncertainties in-clude re-suspension of bound substance, changing environmental conditions, incorpora-tion of (bio)degradability (or not) into bioavailability concepts/tools, long-range trans-port, advantages and disadvantages over existing (worst-case?) methods/estimations such as equilibrium partitioning.

2. Prospective risk assessment (as is done in REACH) either follows ‘standard’ lower tier ap-proaches or uses tailor-made approaches which are substance-specific. Some of these approaches might lead to assessments which appear valid for one endpoints (bioavail-ability in water), but when too narrowly focused on one endpoint, might be unrealistic from a more holistic assessment (e.g. overall fate of the substance, including partitioning to water, sediment, soil, and air compartments, bioaccumulation, (non-)degradation). This will be exemplified with 2 (anonymised) cases, describing effects of (reduced) bioavail-ability on the overall risk assessment of substances.

3. Finally, we will include issues that need further research and will formulate a number of open questions to the symposium participants. This will be partly based on the outcome of ECHA’s Topical Scientific Workshop on Sediment Risk Assessment and partly on learn-ings from dossier evaluations and experiences of risk assessors.

Measuring bioavailability: from a scientific approach to standard methods Joop Harmsen, Alterra/Wageningen UR, The Netherlands

In scientific research, bioavailability is a well accepted concept, being an approach to explain risks of chemicals in the environment. The scientific discussion is not on whether bioavailabil-ity should be part of assessment procedures, but on how bioavailability should be imple-mented. Scientific research includes scientific debate and there is much debate on not only the most appropriate definitions, but also on the methods to be used in the assessment. There is no general scientific agreement on these topics, but this is not a problem, and stimulates further scientific development.

Scientists do not, however, take decisions on how contaminated areas are to be managed, e.g. is remediation necessary and to what extend are risks acceptable or not. These decissions are taken by regulators and administrations. For industry it is important to know how their products and their environmental behaviour will be evaluated. Industrytherefore requires clear assessment procedures which make use of wel defined, preferably standardized meth-ods. The costs of methods to be applied should be low and consequently they should be simple.

Taking account of all uncertainties, complex models and different schools science has to deliver tools to regulation where consistent treatment, comparability, easy explainability and acceptable costs are driving forces. Standardization is a tool to connect science with decission making. Within standard methods (preferably international ones such as ISO or EN standards), guidelines can be presented on how risks of contaminants can be estimated as part of an as-sessment procedure and more specifically which chemical and or biological methods should be used. This implies that choices have to be made. These choices are already more or less made for heavy metals, but work has to be done to have a comparable system for organic chemicals. There is sufficient knowledge available to make standard methods that should be suitable for this purpose. Scientific research on bioavailability will continue to increase our knowledge about this issue but should also contribute to developing specific and more com-plex methods suitable for risk assessment purposes.

23

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

Case studies on the application of passive sampling in risk assessment of soils and sedimentsMichiel T.O. Jonker, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

Scientific research in the field of bioavailability of organic chemicals in sediments and soils has led to many scientific papers during the past two decades, but also to practical tools. These include various passive samplers that can be used to determine the so-called freely dissolved aqueous concentration of chemicals in pore or interstitial water, and extractions of the ‘bioaccessible’ fraction with Tenax and cyclodextrin. In the Netherlands, bioavailability measurements are accepted as part of a weight of evidence approach within ecological risk assessments (TRIADE assessments). In addition, the measurements are mentioned in Euro-pean guidance documents. Since 2010, the presenter of this talk is offering bioavailability measurements in soils and sediments to problem owners. Preferably, he performs these measurements with passive samplers, because they provide a robust metric (freely dissolved concentrations) that can be linked directly to ecological risks. Also, several international activi-ties (workshops, inter-laboratory study) are ongoing to improve the quality and acceptability of passive sampling. In this talk, a couple of case studies based on these measurements will be presented. They concern bioavailability measurements for PAHs, PCBs, and OCPs in soils and sediments performed for several Dutch environmental consultants. The consultants have used the results for site management purposes (remediation decisions). For each case study, site-specific questions, problems, and conditions will be discussed, along with the measure-ment approach, the results, and the management decision. In some cases, the assessments suggested that remediation was unnecessary and huge costs could be saved. In other cases however, risks were assessed to be unacceptable and risk-reducing measures were advised. Passive sampling methods thus are fully operational and provide a simple way to help better assess and manage risks of contaminated soils and sediments.

Bound residues: to be or not to be; is that the question?Kirk Semple, Lancaster University, United Kingdom

There has been a considerable amount of research over the last 30 years or so investigating the behaviour of a plethora of man-made and naturally occurring chemicals in soils. No only did these studies reveal the extent to which organic chemicals could be lost from soil through volatilization, leaching and biodegradation, they also showed that over time, chemicals could be retained and even accumulate in soil, leading to persistence in the environment. More detailed investigations revealed that these chemicals could form very strong associations with soil fractions (clay and organic matter) that they ultimately became ‘locked up’ in the soil. These persistent fractions were originally described as ‘bound residues’ (BRs), but are now more commonly referred to as non-extractable residues (NERs).

There have been a number of studies investigating the formation of NERs in soil, with signifi-cant interest directed at the persistence and bioavailability of pesticides. Clearly, it is undesir-able to be releasing chemicals, such as pesticides, into the environment, which are known to form significant levels of NERs. Indeed, the formation of NERs has been and continues to be measured in the testing of new pesticides, prior to regulatory approval. Many studies have investigated the mobility and bioavailability of NERs of pesticides and other bioactive com-pounds; the majority of studies have reported little or no measurable extractability, uptake or toxicity in soil.

More recently, a number of researchers have investigated how the formation of NERs could be used as a remediation strategy for contaminated land, by reducing the mobility and bioavail-ability of target pollutants. For example, black carbon (biochar, activated charcoal, etc) are known to strongly sorb organic chemicals, particularly those considered to be hydrophobic

24

SPEAKER ABSTRACTS

(e.g. PAHs, PCBS, organo-chlorine pesticides). Many studies have shown that the addition of black carbon to contaminated soil can lead to the formation of residues that are no longer/minimally extractable and considerably less bioavailable than in soils that have not received black carbon amendments.

There are many instances where soils and sediments may be polluted with chemicals that are persistent, due to their low volatility, hydrophobicity and resistance to microbial degradation. This makes these pollutants difficult to remove from the soil technologically and/or economi-cally. Although the formation of NERs means that the pollutants themselves may not be removed from the soil, by actively reducing mobility and bioavailability of the chemicals, the hazards posed by the contamination may be reduced such that the risks to humans, ecologi-cal receptors or waters are either removed completely or considered acceptable. However, what is less well known is how permanent NERs are in the environment and what the likeli-hood of remobilization of the target chemicals may be in the future.

The “biological” component of bioavailability: the usage of eco-toxicological testsJörg Römbke, ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH, Germany

In 2008, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) published a guidance docu-ment describing methods for the assessment of bioavailability in soils (ISO 2008). Despite the fact that its content is already more than six years old it is still relevant, especially when it states: “The only direct way of measuring bioavailability for an organism to be protected is the use of that organism and to measure the effect and/or the accumulation” of a given chemcial. In this contribution, I will – starting with this statement – give an overview on existing (mostly standardized) ecotoxicological test methods useful for the determination and the assessment of bioavailability in the soil compartment. As examples I will focus on soil invertebrates and, to a lesser degree, on plants, mainly because they are relatively well studied and they can be used both as effect as well as accumulation indicators. Because of the high number of organic chemicals (which may end up in soils), the large differences in soil properties (which may in-fluence the availability of these chemcials) and the taxonomic, physiological and behavioural diversity of soil organisms (which may react quite differently), it is obvious that there is not one / best test method to be recommended: in any case a test battery is needed, consisting of methods which reflect the various combinations between chemicals, soils and organisms, especially the different exposure pathways (e.g. Peijnenburg et al. 2012). Of course, this does not mean that these tests have always to be used – but different standardized methods must be available when assessing the bioavailability of a given organic chemical in soil. In addition, I will briefly discuss whether there are still gaps in test methodology. But more importantly, criteria are needed in order to identify those tests which are most suitable and practical for ad-dressing the bioavailability of chemicals in a regulatory context, preferably as part of existing test strategies.

International Organization for Standardization. (2008): ISO No.17402. Soil quality: Require-ments and guidance for the selection and application of methods for the assessment of bioavailability of contaminants in soil and soil materials. Geneva, Switzerland.

Peijnenburg, W., Capri, E., Kula, C., Liess, M., Luttik, R., Montforts, M., Nienstedt, K., Römbke, J., Sousa, J.P. & Jensen, J. (2012): Evaluation of exposure metrics for effect assessment of soil invertebrates. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 42: 1862-1893.

25

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion group A: Bioavailability in retrospective risk assess-ment and remediation of waters and sedimentsLeader: Michiel Jonker, Co-leader: John Parsons

Current retrospective risk assessment of contaminated sediments and water systems is based on total concentrations of the targeted chemicals. This approach has a long history, is fol-lowed in the majority of countries worldwide, and seems robust and safe. Still, the approach has been criticized by scientists for many years now, who have advocated the use of bioavail-ability assessments in risk assessment. So far, bioavailability has however not been included in risk assessment procedures to its full potential, as many questions still exist. In this discussion group, we will focus on identifying what are the most important problems/bottlenecks in incorporating bioavailability in retrospective risk assessment and what would be required to improve acceptance by regulatory bodies.

Discussion questions:

• Is there sufficient experience and knowledge to implement the bioavailability concept in retrospective risk assessment or do we need more research (specify) prior to acceptance by regulatory bodies and possible implementation?

• Would it be desirable/possible to replace total concentration measurements (first tier assessments) with bioavailability assessments? If not, what would be the role of bioavail-ability in retrospective risk assessment? Is a second tier approach sufficient?

• What would be the advantages of incorporating bioavailability in retrospective risk as-sessment? Are there disadvantages too? Can these be overcome?

• Do we need one (measuring or modeling) approach or method to assess bioavailability or are multiple methods desirable for different situations? Should these be standardized methods or is a scientifically-justified method sufficient?

• What would be needed for regulatory implementation (national or EU level)? Do existing quality criteria need to be changed or can we fit the bioavailability results to the existing system? Are the protection goals sufficiently clear for bioavailability to be implemented, or non-bioavailable residues to be considered, in regulatory frameworks?

26

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion group B: Bioavailability in retrospective risk assess-ment and remediation of soilsLeader: Willie Peijnenburg, Co-leader: Jose Julio Ortega-Calvo

The term “retrospective risk assessment” may have several definitions, which by one way or the other have in common that the chemical status of a (contaminated or remediated) soil is compared to environmental and human health quality standards, and to its eco(toxico)logical status. Bioavailability assessment is often a key issue in retrospective risk assessment, commonly employing a tiered approach. Typically, methods that are increasingly tailored to specific endpoints of assessment are used in the tiered approach, whilst warranting that both false positives and false negatives are minimized. In general the common starting point of assessment are total concentrations of specific organics, whereas in higher tiers more specific chemical and ecological assessment methods are applied which allow to increasingly incor-porate bioavailability considerations in the assessment. A key issue in higher-tier retrospective risk assessment is the evaluation of the causal linkage between observed ecological effects and chemical stressor(s) in the environment. This linkage is known to depend on the envi-ronmental conditions such as the intrinsic composition of the soil and extrinsic factors like temperature and humidity. Thereupon it is to be realized that the linkage between effects and stressors is dependent on the ecological receptors present. Optimal bioavailability assessment would allow to incorporate and quantify all these issues in retrospective risk assessment. It is clear however, that this ideal situation has not yet been reached and various issues with regard to retrospective risk assessment still need to be solved.

The potential of bioavailability management for innovative remediation is huge. For example, laboratory and field studies have shown that soil remediation can be achieved through strong sorbents such as activated carbon, thus decreasing risks. Also, new developments in the inter-actions between sorption, solubilization and biodegradation processes show that end-point levels after bioremediation can be reduced by coupling bioavailability enhancements with the actual metabolic potential of soil microorganisms (for example, by using surfactants only when it is really needed).


• What general approach is to be taken towards inclusion of bioavailability in retrospective risk assessment? Is a tiered approach the optimal choice, or are there alternatives? Are the protection goals sufficiently clear for bioavailability to be implemented, or non-bio-available residues to be considered, in regulatory frameworks?

• Which methods are most suited to assess bioavailability of organics in soil? One might imagine that the following requirements apply for the selection of methods for assessing bioavailability: Scientifically justified; Standardized; “Easily” executable; Yielding compa-rable results; Cheap; Fast; What more requirements can you think of? Is there a need to deal with uptake routes of biota in case of bioavailability assessment?

• How to derive a multi-tier risk assessment framework in terms of toxicological refer-ence values that allow to link results of bioavailability assessments to toxicity, preferably suited for soils and sediments? Can similar methods be used for risk assessment and for assessing the effectiveness of remediation efforts, considering for instance possible time-dependent effects?

• Is it really possible to control/modify bioavailability in remediation of soils polluted by organics?

27

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion group C: Prospective bioavailability in the regulatory context Leader: Charmaine Ajao, Co-leader: Georg Streck

By prospective bioavailability we mean predicting the bioavailable concentrations of organic chemicals in the relevant environmental compartments that can be utilised in the risk assess-ment of different EU legislations. Two generic problem formulations can be used as examples for covering the most relevant regulatory needs: 1) Predictive risk assessments for marketing of chemicals, such as REACH or the authorisation of pesticides, biocides, etc. and 2) Setting Quality Standards and criteria for relevant environmental compartments like sediment/ soil, to be compared with measured values (chemical and/or biological) from monitoring pro-grammes covering potentially contaminated sediments, such as in WFD, or similar legislations.

In the regulatory context, if a PEC is calculated based on the assumption of 100% bioavail-ability, and the ratio between this PEC and the PNEC indicates no risk, i.e PEC/PNEC ratio <1, this finding basically means there may not be a need to account for bioavailability any further. However, if the PEC/PNEC ratio is >1, then the exposure assessment (e.g. release rate) of the substance should be refined and/or the bioavailability might be estimated based on physico-chemical data of the substance, monitoring data (if available) and properties of the environment. Bioavailability may depend on environmental conditions such as the content of organic matter in the sediment. Therefore, for a given compound, it can be appropriate to derive PECs specifically for different environmental conditions (such as sediment types). PECs can be calculated for different time periods after the beginning of the exposure, to account for the change in bioavailability over time. Modelling is acceptable for some situations; however, for other chemicals (e.g. polar or ionised compounds) interaction with the environmental is complex and difficult to describe with commonly applied models.

Many regulatory frameworks ask for the identification of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals. In both the determination of persistence and bioaccumulation, binding of chemicals to soil or sediment constituents may confound the calculation of parameters such as half-lives or bioconcentration factors. Effects such as aging or formation of non-extractable residues complicate the determination of the parameters used in the regulatory frameworks.


• Looking at the cases given in the last presentation how could bioavailability have been taken into account in the risk assessment (re-suspension of bound substance, changing environmental conditions, (bio)degradation, different equilibrium partitioning)?

• How should biovailability be taken into account (lab and field experiments, modelling approaches) when determining degradation half-lives and bioaccumulation of PBT-sub-stances? How to deal with non-extractable residues? Shall predictions always take place under standard conditions or under field conditions?

• Which available new tools are mature enough to be used by regulators and for which purpose?

• What research needs do you feel that are still necessary in the area of bioavailability?

• Are the protection goals sufficiently clear for bioavailability to be implemented, or non-bioavailable residues to be considered, in regulatory frameworks?

28

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion group D: Introducing bioavailability to industry and regulatorsLeader: Joop Harmsen, Co-leader: Jose Julio Ortega-Calvo

Most countries in Europe have methods to evaluate the presence of organic contaminants in the environment. These are based on total concentrations, what is a simple and cheap system, but the results can be discussed. To introduce a better system, based on bioavailability, it must give advantages, both for regulators and industry. Both parties have the intention to have a safer environment, but have a different background and responsibility: An optimistic view for industry (ignoring incidental negative effects) and more pessimistic for regulation (taking care of all stakeholders and therefore including incidental effects). Both parties like to base deci-sions on a simple and cheap assessment system and on certainty.

Scientist are positive about the tools they can provide. It is, however important that these tools are understood by industry and regulators, because tools are useless if it is not known how, when or where the tools can be used. Even more important is what to do with the re-sults. Without a proper understandin implementation of bioavailability will be difficult

THE method for an assessment which includes bioavailability does not exist. The behaviour of contaminants and organisms does differ too much. The relatively simple, cheap and fast ap-proach as can be used for heavy metals is not applicable for organic contaminants. Moreover there is still discussion on methods in use. This gives uncertainty and may cause a wait and see attitude at industry and regulations.


• Are scientific concepts/models on bioavailability known to regulators and industry. If not, how van we improve their knowledge? If yes, why are they not implemented?

• Do we have a common concept/model generally?

• What are the most important tools to support this concept?

• What is the best strategy to have bioavailability implemented within regulation on such a way that it is workable and logical for industry?

29

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion group E: Methodologies for measuring bioavailabilityLeader: Charles Eadsforth, Co-leader: Robin Oliver

Industry, regulators and academics work from different perspectives on bioavailability, but, in effect, the regulatory framework has also a significant influence on the extent to which bio-availability can be taken into account, at least in the short term. To ensure that the discussions do not suffer as a consequence of working on different regulatory frameworks, participants will be distributed in two subgroups: Retrospective regulatory frameworks and prospective regulatory frameworks.

Retrospective regulatory frameworks set universally applied guidelines (ISO) that are ap-plied at site specific locations. This geographical specificity makes it straightforward to apply measurements of bioavailability (biological or analytical) as location relevant matrices can be used in the tests. Here, methods to assess bioavailability can be divided into three categories: in vivo methods, in vitro methods, and in silico methods. However, we need to discuss if any of these are actually accepted, and/or could be implemented further, in risk assessment and regulation.

Prospective regulatory frameworks, such as that for crop protection products, work by using the endpoints (DT50 and Koc) from laboratory and field studies as inputs to mathematical models to predict the 90% centile worst case exposure value on a regional scale. Ecotox stud-ies are conducted separately (on different matrices) to determine effects endpoints. These are then compared and if there is a sufficient margin of safety the risk assessment is passed. Thus while it may be possible to measure the “bioavailable” fraction the results from such a study would be of limited geographical relevance and the endpoint cannot be easily included in the models that are currently used.


• What methodologies are available for particular pollutants (site specific)?

• In prospective regulatory frameworks, DT50 and Koc are used to calculate bioavailability. Can we continue with this approach or do we need new model parameters?

• Where are the uncertainties within regulatory community on the use and implementa-tion of bioavailability methodologies?

• Complexity v standardisation v what is actually achievable (who is actually making the measurements?) v costs (who is going to pay?)?

30

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion group F: What about non-bioavailable compounds?Leader: Malyka Galay Burgos, Co-leader: Kirk Semple

We will first provide a working definition of non-bioavailable residues (NBR) to try to address this issue and ensure a common understanding of the terminology to be used in risk assess-ment and regulation. The starting point will be the framework set at the Technical Reports from ECETOC “Understanding the relationship between extraction technique and bioavailabil-ity” and “Development of interim guidance for the inclusion of non-extractable residues (NER) in the risk assessment of chemicals” (TRs no.117 and 118, ECETOC, 2013).

We will also deal in the discussions on the reversibility of this process in the context of long-term exposure. Although the formation of NBRs means that the pollutants themselves will persist in the environment, by reducing mobility and bioavailability of the chemicals, the haz-ards posed by the contamination may be reduced such that the risks to humans, ecological receptors or waters are either completely absent or considered acceptable. However, what it is less well known is how permanent NBRs are in the environment and what the likelihood of remobilization of the target chemicals may be in the future. To assure whether is it really safe to exclude NBR from risk evaluations, we need to know to what extent the parent structures and their active derivatives can be remobilized by changes in the conditions in which these NBR were formed (for example: animal digestion, climate change, etc.)..


• Is it feasible to quantify non-available residues reliably for contaminated land risk assess-ment?

• Should we worry about non-available/non-extractable residues in soil and sediment?

• To what extent is it irreversible the process of NBR formation? How long is long-enough for risk assessment, remediation and other protective measures?

• Is it really safe to remediate polluted soils and sediments by inducing the formation of NBRs?

31

POSTER ABSTRACTS

P01

withdrawn

P02

Thermodesorption – gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (Td-GC-MS) as a new tool to measure organic contaminants availabilityCoralie Biache1, C. Lorgeoux1, A. Saada2, P. Faure1 1Université de Lorraine, LIEC, UMR 7360, France/ CNRS, LIEC, UMR 7360, France 2BRGM, France

This study aimed at developing a new tool for the determination of the available fraction of organic compounds in contaminated soils. It consists in a thermodesorption – gas chroma-tography – mass spectrometry coupling (Td-GC-MS) and is based on linking binding energy between the compound and the matrix with the desorption temperature. In order to test the feasibility of such technique two sample sets were analyzed. The first one consisted in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and mineral mixtures. The minerals, silica sand and bentonite, were chosen for their contrasted sorption properties and the chosen PAHs (phen-anthrene, pyrene and perylene) present different physico-chemical properties. Unlike the silica sand, for which the PAH desorption temperatures were close to their boiling points, the desorption temperature of the PAH associated with bentonite were high (500°C). Differences in PAH abundances were also observed, intensities being 10 to 35 times higher i when PAHs were associated with sand than with bentonite. The low PAH abundance observed for the PAH/bentonite mixture went along with smaller units corresponding to mono or di-aromatic compounds resulting from thermal cracking of the PAHs strongly retained at the bentonite surface. The second set of samples consisted in PAH contaminated soils presenting various levels of contaminant availability. Td-GC-MS allowed linking these levels to the PAH desorp-tion temperatures. Comparison between the PAH released at different temperature and the PAH actually degraded during remediation treatments (chemical oxidation and biodegrada-tion) indicated that the available fraction corresponded to PAH released up to 200 and 300°C for low and high molecular weight compounds, respectively. These preliminary results indi-cate that the TD-GC-MS is a promising tool for a precise, fast and exhaustive determination of the organic compound available fraction in soil and sediment.

P03

Contaminants at boatyards and characterization with ecotoxicological testsBritta Eklund1, D. Eklund1, E. Ytreberg2 1Department of Applied Environmental Science (ITM), Stockholm University, Sweden 2Department of shipping and marine technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Our investigation of 34 boatyards in Sweden shows these to be highly contaminated with high concentrations of several well-known toxic metals (Cu, Zn, Pb, Hg, Cd) and organic compounds (i.e. TBT, TPhT, PCBs and PAHs,). The maximum sample concentrations for all substances are several orders of magnitude higher than the existing guidelines; Sensitive use of Land (SL) and Less Sensitive use of Land (LSL). One boatyard was more intensively studied. Surface and subsurface (20 cm depth) soil samples were collected in this typical boatyard (200 boats, 12000 m2) at a 70 m (station A), 90 m (station B), 120 m (station C), and 160 m

32

POSTER ABSTRACTS

(station D) distance from the shoreline. Very high concentrations of Cu, Pb, Zn were detected, with maximum values of 16 300, 6 430 and 18 600 mg/kg dw, respectively. Organic hazardous compounds were found in high concentrations with maximum values of 37, 27 and 16 mg/kg dw for tributytin (TBT), dibutyltin (DBT) and triphenyltin (TPhT), respectively. All pollut-ants exceeded existing guidance values for both sensitive land use and less sensitive land use by several factors, in both surface and subsurface soil. Leachate waters were produced from pooled samples from three replicates per station and used for toxicity testing with the bacterium Vibrio fischeri, the macroalga Ceramium tenuicorne, the macrophyte Myriophyl-lum aquaticum and the crustacean Nitocra spinipes. Leachates were shown to be toxic to all test organisms where the macroalga test with C. tenuicorne was the most sensitive species. The result underlines that boat maintenance facilities in general should be better regulated to minimize further exposure to humans and spread of contaminants in the environment. Our conclusion is that this test battery could be useful may in risk assessment and in regulating contaminated soil.

P04

Passive sampling of bioavailable pesticides in a catchment from Northeast ScotlandZulin Zhang1, M. Osprey1, C. Kerr1, P. Hallett2, M. Troldborg1, R. Hough1, S.M. Rhind1, J. Dawson1, K. Yates3 1The James Hutton Institute, UK 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, UK 3Innovation, Design and Sustainability in research (IDEAS), The Robert Gordon University, UK

Pesticides are widely used for crop protection. Every year there are 3 million tons of pesti-cides used worldwide, which increased 40% of food production. However, pesticide use also raises a number of environmental concerns. Over 95% of pesticides reach a destination other than their target species, including non-target species, air, soil and water. Assessment of the adverse effect of pesticides to the aquatic organisms requires understanding the bioavailable concentration of these chemicals in the waters. Passive samplers (including integrative or kinetic and equilibrium samplers) are relatively new emerging tools for sampling micro-pol-lutants in waters. Since the appearance of the first passive sampler for surface waters, these tools have quickly become widespread for micro-pollutants monitoring and water quality assessment. In this study, passive sampling technique (e.g. polar organic chemical integrative sampler, POCIS) was employed to assess bioavailable concentrations of pesticides in a priority catchment (Ugie catchment) from Northeast Scotland. A broad range of pesticides (Metalde-hyde, Isoproturon, Simazine, Chlorotoluron, Atrazine, Epoxiconazole, Chlorpyrifos, Cyperme-thrin and Permethrin) with different physico-chemical properties were monitored monthly in the catchment for one year. The concentration data from passive samplers was compared with spot sampling. Also, the seasonal changes of pesticides in the river were assessed in term of both passive and spot sampling. The consistency between passive and spot sampling for pes-ticides measurement suggested the validity of passive samplers for assessing these chemicals contamination in the aquatic environment.

P05

Quantifying bioavailable concentrations of PAHs in Swiss and Cu-ban soil samplesNora Bartolome1, I. Hilber1, R. Schulin2, P. Mayer3, T. D. Bucheli1 1Agroscope Institute for Sustainability Sciences ISS, Switzerland

33

POSTER ABSTRACTS

2Department of Environmental System Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland 3Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

Total concentrations of organic pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil may not be related to actual exposures to organisms, because not all pollutant fractions are expected to be equally bioavailable (Reichenberg & Mayer 2006). Due to a lack of agreed stan-dardized methods to assess available organic pollutant concentrations, soil and sediment risk assessment and legal threshold values are still mainly based on total pollutant contents and not on bioavailability. Here, we compared total concentrations of PAHs with bioavailable concentra-tions in a large number of samples from the Swiss Soil Monitoring Network (NABO), which is operating since 1985 and has a huge archive with samples from more than hundred observa-tion sites and Cuba soil samples in order to have complementary location, nature and pollutant exposure. As chemical proxies of bioavailability, we used both infinite sink method with silicon rods (Gouliarmou & Mayer, 2012) as extractants (representing accessibility), and passive sam-pling with polyoxymethylene (POM; Jonker & Koelmans 2001), representing chemical activity. The results of these two methods will be related to soil parameters such as total organic carbon and black carbon content, and discussed with regard to their potential application in soil pollu-tion risk assessment and legislation. References: Gouliarmou, V., Mayer, P. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 10682-10689 Jonker, M.T.O., Koelmans, A.A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 3742-3748 Reichenberg, F., Mayer, P. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2006, 25, 1239-1245

P06

withdrawn

P07

Formation of non-extractable residues and environmental risk – the role of biogenic residuesAnja Miltner1, K. Nowak1, A. Schäffer2, M. Kästner1

1UFZ - Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Environmental Biotechnol-ogy, Germany 2Department of Environmental Biology and Chemodynamics, Institute for Environmental Re-search (Biology V), RWTH Aachen University, Germany

EU legislation requires information about the fate of chemicals in soil, which generally includes non-extractable residue (NER) formation. This information is usually obtained from laboratory incubation studies using 14C-labelled chemicals to provide isotope mass balances. With this approach, however, it is not possible to distinguish between residual xenobiotics and microbial biomass formed during biodegradation. Biomolecules can thus contribute to NER determined by the isotope mass balance approach. The risk associated with NER may therefore be overesti-mated. Biogenic NER (bioNER) therefore need to be quantified precisely for proper risk assess-ment. We quantified bioNER formation in laboratory incubation studies with 13C-labelled 2,4-D and ibuprofen. Isotope mass balances were established, and label incorporation into biomol-ecules (fatty acids and amino acids) was analysed. Both compounds were biodegraded fast, and NER accumulated. A significant amount of the pollutant-derived 13C was incorporated into the biomolecules, indicating the formation of 13C-labelled microbial biomass. BioNER of both easily degradable compounds made up virtually all of the NER determined in the mass balance approach. As bioNER formation is correlated with mineralisation of the pollutant, a review of literature data on mineralisation and NER formation was performed to estimate their impor-tance. Pesticides can be grouped into three groups: (1) compounds with high mineralisation and low NER formation, indicating mainly bioNER formation and thus low environmental risk, (2)

34

POSTER ABSTRACTS

compounds with low mineralisation and high NER formation, indicating the formation of NER with high environmental risk, and (3) compounds with intermediate mineralisation and NER formation, which need to be studied in detail for proper assessment of their environmental risk. Including this information into the regulatory process will contribute to realistic environ-mental risk assessment for chemicals.

P08

The impact of in-the-field organic fraction on the interpretation of sediment threshold values under the Water Framework Direc-tiveNicolas Pucheux, Josselin Penisson, Fabrizio Botta, Sandrine Andres

National competence centre for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection (INERIS), France

In the context of the Water Framework Directive, the EU Technical Guidance Document on Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) recommends in certain circumstance to apply the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) method to derive a standard in sediment based on the standard derived in water. It assumes that the bioavailability of the substance depends on the chemical compound itself and the organic fraction of the sediment. Indeed, a chemical substance with a high soil organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient (Koc) is expected to bind strongly with sediment. Furthermore, a chemical substance will bind more easily with the fraction of organic carbon in the sediment (foc).The formula uses some generic value and organic carbon content in sediment is one of them (generic Total Organic Carbon or TOC = 5 and generic foc=5%). In 2012, an exceptional monitoring campaign in France gave the op-portunity to investigate if bioavailability in sediment is efficiently taken into account by the default application of EqP method when compared to-field data. On 110 sampling point, TOC has been analyzed along with the concentration of 85 substances. The investigation reveals that the generic foc used in the formula may not be sufficiently protective in a majority of the station sampled and conducts to underestimate the bioavailable fraction of the pollutant. As a conclusion, it is recommended to consider measured TOC in poor organic matter station for substances that are not expected to be bioavailable.

P09

withdrawn

P10

Substitution of prioritized poly- and perfluorinated chemicals to eliminate diffuse sources (SUPFES)Steffen Schellenberger1, Hanna Maria Andersson2, Urs Berger1, Ian T. Cousins1, Philip Gillgard3, Pim Leonards4, Gregory Peters2, Stefan Posner3, Ike van der Veen 4, Jana Weiss 4, Christina Jöns-son3

1 Department of Applied Environmental Science, Stockholm University, 2 Research Group of Chemical Environmental Science, Chalmers University of Technology, 3 Textile research institute, Swerea IVF 4 Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam

35

POSTER ABSTRACTS

Fabric`s repellency against polar and non-polar liquids while maintaining breathability is a key functionality in modern textiles. Durable water repellent (DWR) polymers can provide these properties and are therefore produced in high tonnages. Despite differences in polymer architecture that mainly depend on end-uses in textiles, all state-of-the-art DWR polymers have hydrophobic side chains based on hydrocarbons, silicones, or fluorinated alkyl moieties attached to a polymer backbone.

“High performance” DWR-polymers containing “long-chain” per- or polyfluoroalkyl side chains have been of recent concern because they can act as a source of long-chain per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to the environment. Concerns about the persistence, long-range transport potential, bioaccumulation and toxicity of these long-chain PFASs has led to the recent phase-out of DWR technologies based on long-chain PFAS chemistry. Polymers containing “short-chain” PFAS (C6 and C4) side chains were developed as alternatives be-cause the short-chain PFASs were considered less bioaccumulative to wildlife and humans. Although these replacements are claimed to be of lower risk to wildlife and humans, their use and emissions are increasing, they are highly persistent, will be globally distributed and are bioavailable. Other supposedly “ecofriendly” DWR technologies based on silicones or novel star-shaped hydrocarbons (dendrimers) have been developed, but due to a lack of data it is challenging to assess their environmental fate, bioaccumulation and toxicity.

An important aim of the interdisciplinary collaboration SUPFES (http://www.supfes.eu/) is to perform hazard and risk assessments for new DWR-developments in textiles. Within the project a unique consortium of scientific and industrial partners collaborate to make sure that functionality and environmental impact can be balanced in the design of future DWR products. At this SETAC workshop we will present a preliminary hazard assessment of alterna-tive DWR technologies in textiles. Specifically, we will provide an overview of what is currently known regarding the sources, fate, bioaccumulation potential and toxicity and highlight important data gaps.

P11

Evaluation of availability tools for PAH plant uptake predictionJ. Dupuy, Stéphanie Ouvrard, P. Leglize, T. Sterckeman

Université de Lorraine/INRA, France

Total concentrations of soil contaminants are useful to indicate pollution, however they do not necessarily indicate risk. Methods describing actual bioavailability of soil contaminant are sup-posed to give more accurate and realistic risk assessments. However these methods still need to be validated and some guidelines for their selection, implementation and interpretation

36

need to be established. Indeed, choice criteria should consider exposure pathways, contami-nant type and concentration levels. A myriad of soil t esting methods have been developed to predict uptake, toxicity and degradation potential of soil contaminants. However, despite many years of intensive research, there is no generally accepted methodology to incorporate contaminant bioavailability in risk assessment models. For high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) human exposure via consumption of vegetables grown on the site is decisive for the guideline value (sensitive landuse scenario). As part of the IBRACS proj-ect (“Integrating Bioavailability in Risk Assessment of Contaminated Soils: opportunities and feasibilities”, http://projects.swedgeo.se/ibracs/), a SNOWMAN research project, we evaluated how two availability tools, Tenax extraction and POM pore water estimate, could predict PAH plant uptake. Maize was cultivated for five weeks on fourteen contaminated industrial soils from Belgium, France and Sweden. Total PAH concentrations were determined in roots and shoots and compared to those estimated from Tenax extraction, POM and total concentra-tions. As a result, both availability measurement methods give similar estimation of PAH pore water concentrations. However those concentrations lead to underestimate actual root and shoot uptakes calculated using classical organic contaminant uptake models. In this case, total soil concentration correlate better to actual uptake and gives more accurate predictions.

P12

Screening Nonionic Surfactants for Enhanced Biodegradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Contaminated SoilA. Adrion, J. Nakamura, Michael D. Aitken

Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, USA

The efficacy of bioremediation for soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may be limited by the fractions of PAHs that are less bioavailable to PAH-degrading mi-croorganisms, if the concentrations of PAHs remaining after conventional biological treatment might exceed cleanup standards. We evaluated the effects of adding surfactants on removal of the PAHs remaining after laboratory-scale, aerobic biological treatment of PAH-contaminat-ed soil from a former manufactured-gas plant (MGP) site. Four nonionic surfactants (Brij 30, Span 20, Ecosurf™ EH-3, and polyoxyethylene sorbitol hexaoleate [POESH]) and a rhamnolipid biosurfactant were evaluated for their ability to enhance PAH desorption and biodegradation in the bioreactor-treated soil at two doses less than that required to reach the critical micelle concentration in the aqueous phase. The effect of surfactant-amended treatment on soil cyto-toxicity and genotoxicity was also evaluated for Brij 30, Span 20, and POESH using the chicken DT40 B-lymphocyte cell line and two of its isogenic DNA-repair-deficient mutants. Compared to no-surfactant controls, incubation of the bioreactor-treated soil with all surfactants resulted in modest increases in PAH desorption as measured with an infinite-sink desorption method. All four nonionic surfactants substantially increased PAH biodegradation in the bioreactor-treated soil relative to the no-surfactant control. POESH had the greatest effect, resulting in removal of 52% of total measured PAH. Brij 30, Span 20, and POESH were particularly effective at enhancing biodegradation of four- and five-ring PAH, with removals up to 80%. Significant dose-dependent effects were observed for both Brij 30 and POESH. All treatments except POESH at the optimum dose for PAH removal significantly increased soil cytotoxicity. Only the no-surfactant control and Brij 30 at the optimum dose significantly decreased soil genotoxic-ity as evaluated with either mutant cell line.

POSTER ABSTRACTS

37

POSTER ABSTRACTS

P13

Low-risk exploitation of microbial and plant influences on bio-availability of PAHsCelia Jimenez-Sanchez, E. Congiu, M. Cantos, J. J. Ortega-Calvo

IRNAS (CSIC), Spain

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of organic contaminants characterized by a low solubility in water and a tendency to be associated to the solid particles of the soil or to dissolved in non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), thus causing their persistence in the en-vironment. In the context of biodegradation, bioavailability represents the accessibility of the chemicals for biotransformation and toxicity to microorganisms. It could be assessed through a variety of indicators, such as chemical activity (fraction of the aqueous solubility of the PAHs in subcooled liquid state that can be measured as freely dissolved chemical concentrations) and bioaccessibility (fraction of potentially biodegradable PAHs over time in the absence of limitations other than restricted phase exchanges). Bioavailability is one of the main factors limiting bioremediation techniques. Traditional engineering approaches are based on the idea to increase desorption of PAHs to make them more available. However, without a microbial population having the proper catabolic capacity, these approachesmay enhance environmen-tal risks, and even cause a greater toxicity. Furthermore, these approaches are usually focused in the fraction that is rapidly desorbed. Therefore, the new technology should also be effective in removing the fraction that desorbs more slowly to reduce residual contaminant concentra-tions after treatment. In our group, we are investigating in risk-minimizing strategies to be applied on treatment methods based on the biological promotion on bioavailability. This includes, for example, the reduction of the distance between the contaminant sources and the degrader microorganisms. Thus, microorganisms can solve a range of low bioavailability situations by improving their contact with the PAHs through mechanisms like adhesion or chemotaxis. Bioavailability can also be enhanced with the use of biosurfactants and fertilizers, that act specifically on slow phase exchange processes (desorption, partitioning). Finally, our group also study the promotion of bioavailability through mobilization mediated by exuda-tion released by sunflower plants.

38

POSTER ABSTRACTS

AuthorsLeglize P. 11

Adrion A. 12 Leonards P. 10

Aitken M.D. 12 Lorgeoux C. 2

Andersson H.M. 10 Mayer P. 5

Andres S. 8 Miltner A. 7

Bartolome N. 5 Nakamura J. 12

Berger U. 10 Nowak K. 7

Biache C. 2 Ortega-Calvo J. J. 13

Botta F. 8 Osprey M. 4

Bucheli T. D. 5 Ouvrard S. 11

Cantos M. 13 Penisson J. 8

Congiu E. 13 Peters G. 10

Cousins I.T. 10 Posner S. 10

Dawson J. 4 Pucheux N. 8

Dupuy J. 11 Rhind S.M. 4

Eklund B. 3 Saada A. 2

Eklund D. 3 Schäffer A. 7

Faure P. 2 Schellenberger S. 10

Gillgard P. 10 Schulin R. 5

Hallett P. 4 Sterckeman T. 11

Hilber I. 5 Troldborg M. 4

Hough R. 4 van der Veen I. 10

Jimenez-Sanchez C. 13 Weiss J. 10

Jönsson C. 10 Yates K. 4

Kästner M. 7 Ytreberg E. 3

Kerr C. 4 Zhang A. 4

39

POSTER ABSTRACTS

Keywords

bentonite 2

bioavailability 5, 8, 12, 13

bioremediation 12

biosurfactants 13

boatyard 3

Ceramium 3

chemotaxis 13

contaminated soil 2

environmental risk assessment 7

equilibrium partitioning method 8

exudates 13

isotope mass balance 7

microbial biomass residues 7

non-extractable residues 7

Passive sampling 4, 5

Pesticides 4

plants 11

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 2, 5, 11, 12

POM 11

sediment 8

soil pollution 5

sorption 2

surfactants 12

TBT 3

Tenax 11

Water Framework Directive 8

Waters 4

40

PARTICIPANTS LIST

Last name First name Affiliation Country

Aitken Mike U. North Carolina United States

Ajao Charmaine ECHA Finland

Bandow Nicole BAM Germany

Bartolome Nora Agrosocpe Switzerland

Biache Coralie CNRS France

Bosveld Bart SETAC Europe Belgium

Casado Carmen Oekotoxzentrum Switzerland

Collins Chris Reading University United Kingdom

Crawford Mike Goodyear Tires Luxembourg

Doyle Ian Environment Agency United Kingdom

Duffus John EdinTox United Kingdom

Eadsforth Charles Shell Internationa United Kingdom

Eklund Britta Stockholm Univ. Sweden

Evens Roel SETAC Europe Belgium

Faure Pierre CNRS France

Galay Burgos Malyka ECETOC Belgium

Guillaumier Ruth Biology, Uni Malta Malta

Harmsen Joop Alterra, WUR Netherlands

Jacobi Sylvia Albemarle Belgium

Jimenez Sanchez Celia IRNAS-CSIC Spain

Jonker Michiel Utrecht University Netherlands

Josefsson Sarah SLU Sweden

Lorgeoux Catherine GeoRessources France

Miltner Anja UFZ Germany

Monsieurs Katrien Apeiron Team n.v. Belgium

MOUTIER Maryline Ram-Ses sprl Belgium

Mühlegger Simone Mag.a Austria

Nadzialek Stephanie Albemarle Europe Belgium

Naidu Ravi CRC CARE Australia

Oliver Robin Syngenta United Kingdom

Ortega-Calvo Jose-Julio IRNAS-CSIC Spain

Ouvrard Stéphanie INRA France

participants list 24 September 2014

41

PARTICIPANTS LIST

Parsons John Univ. of Amsterdam Netherlands

Peijnenburg Willie RIVM Netherlands

Pucheux Nicolas INERIS France

Römbke Jörg ECT Ökotoxikologie Germany

Schellenberger Steffen German Sweden

Semple Kirk Univ. of Lancaster United Kingdom

Sobek Anna Sthlm University Sweden

Streck Georg European Comm. Belgium

Teisseire Marie-Laure EquiTox France

Telscher Markus BayerCropScience Germany

Van Sprang Patrick ARCHE Belgium

Vandeveire Veerle SETAC Belgium

Vangheluwe Marnix ARCHE Belgium

Versonnen Bram ECHA Finland

Winther-Nielsen Margrethe DHI Denmark

Zhang Zulin Organic Chemist United Kingdom

participants list 24 September 2014

42

NOTES

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

43

NOTES

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

44

NOTES

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

45

NOTES

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

NOTESSETAC North America 35th Annual Meeting9 – 1 3 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 4 , VA N C O U V E R , B CVA N C O U V E R . S E TA C . O R G

Sea to Sky Interconnecting Ecosystems

Do you have late-breaking science you would like to present at SETAC Vancouver? There's still time to submit a poster abstract by 29 October.

Learn more at

VANCOUVER.SETAC.ORG.

Not a SETAC member yet? Sign up today to receive the following benefits:

Online subscriptions• SETAC’s prestigious peer-reviewed journals Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

(ET&C, monthly) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM, quarterly)

• SETAC Globe electronic newsletter and SETAC News messages to members, up-to-date monthly articles and announcements

Other SETAC publications• Reduced prices on SETAC books, covering topics from ecological risk assessment,

environmental toxicology and chemistry, endocrine disruption, risk communication and management, life-cycle assessment and fate-and-effects modeling

• Periodic special reductions below member prices

Annual meetings, short courses and special symposia worldwide• Reduced registration fees• Networking, professional and social opportunities, including platform and poster

presentations

CareerCenter Online for job seekers and employers• Connect with employers from academia, business, government and nongovernmental

organizations• Find qualified employees from the SETAC pool of environmental professionals

• Free to job seekers

Additional student member benefits• Reduced membership dues• Mentorship program

• Awards and fellowships

How can I join?Joining SETAC has never been easier! Visit www.setac.org and click “Join Now!”

Environmental Quality Through Science®

S O C I E T Y O F E N V I R O N M E N TA L T O X I C O L O G Y A N D C H E M I S T RY

Join SETAC today!

10th SETAC EuropeSpecial Science Symposium

14-15 October 2014 | Hotel Marivaux, Brussels, BE sesss10.setac.org | www.setac.org | [email protected]

F O L LO W S E TAC O N

BIOAVAILABILITY OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS: LINKING SCIENCE ... - SETAC...

Documents

Transcript of BIOAVAILABILITY OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS: LINKING SCIENCE ... - SETAC...