Premium
Does the scientific underpinning of regulatory tools to estimate bioavailability of nickel in freshwaters matter? The European‐wide environmental quality standard for nickel
Author(s) -
Peters Adam,
Schlekat Christian E.,
Merrington Graham
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
environmental toxicology and chemistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 171
eISSN - 1552-8618
pISSN - 0730-7268
DOI - 10.1002/etc.3510
Subject(s) - bioavailability , normalization (sociology) , european union , ecotoxicity , water framework directive , nickel , environmental chemistry , environmental science , biotic ligand model , dissolved organic carbon , water quality , chemistry , ecology , biology , toxicity , business , bioinformatics , organic chemistry , sociology , anthropology , economic policy
A bioavailability‐based environmental quality standard (EQS) was established for nickel in freshwaters under the European Union's Water Framework Directive. Bioavailability correction based on pH, water hardness, and dissolved organic carbon is a demonstrable improvement on existing hardness‐based quality standards, which may be underprotective in high‐hardness waters. The present study compares several simplified bioavailability tools developed to implement the Ni EQS (biomet, M‐BAT, and PNECPro) against the full bioavailability normalization procedure on which the EQS was based. Generally, all tools correctly distinguished sensitive waters from insensitive waters, although with varying degrees of accuracy compared with full normalization. Biomet and M‐BAT predictions were consistent with, but less accurate than, full bioavailability normalization results, whereas PNECpro results were generally more conservative. The comparisons revealed important differences in tools in development, which results in differences in the predictions. Importantly, the models used for the development of PNECpro use a different ecotoxicity dataset, and a different bioavailability normalization approach using fewer biotic ligand models (BLMs) than that used for the derivation of the Ni EQS. The failure to include all of the available toxicity data, and all of the appropriate NiBLMs, has led to some significant differences between the predictions provided by PNECpro and those calculated using the process agreed to in Europe under the Water Framework Directive and other chemicals management programs (such as REACH). These considerable differences mean that PNECpro does not reflect the behavior, fate, and ecotoxicity of nickel, and raises concerns about its applicability for checking compliance against the Ni EQS. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:2397–2404. © 2016 SETAC