Listen
13 Ergebnisse
Filter
Einstellungen
Suchergebnisse
Veröffentlichung New Test Strategy for Dung Beetles During the Authorization Process of Parasiticides(2013) Adler, Nicole; Bachmann, Jean; Römbke, JörgAccording to European legislation, an environmental risk assessment (ERA) of veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) for dung fauna is required in the authorization process, if the substance acts as a parasiticide for the treatment of pasture animals. In the past, however, the demonstration of the environmental safety of those VMPs for dung fauna was strongly hampered by the fact that no standardized tests were available. Therefore, starting with recommendations from the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) advisory group, dung organism toxicity test standardization (DOTTS) test systems for phase II Tier A standardized tests on the mortality of dung fly and dung beetle larvae were developed and published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2008 and 2010. If a risk is identified for dung organisms in phase II Tier A of the ERA process, further tests are required for Tier B. So far, however, no advice is given for such studies in the existing guidelines. Therefore, 4 workshops took place between 2007 and 2009 with international dung fauna experts (Aveiro-Group) to find an appropriate test strategy for dung fauna organisms beyond Tier A mortality testing. For the first time, 2 different Tier B extended laboratory test approaches for dung beetles and test strategies for scenarios beyond Tier B are described in more detail. In case the risk assessment is still not clear, further options for Tier C (i.e., field studies) or Tier D (modeling) are briefly presented. Finally, the role of uncertainty and variability of test results is discussed, including recommendations for assessment factors for the different tiers to be used when assessing the risk of VMPs on dung organisms. The approach, especially the test strategy, will help industry, consultants, and assessors appropriately assess the environmental risk assessments during the authorization procedure of parasiticides. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:524-530. © 2013 SETACVeröffentlichung Pharmaceuticals in the environment(2014) Küster, Anette; Adler, NicoleDuring the past two decades scientists, regulatory agencies and the European Commission have acknowledged pharmaceuticals to be an emerging environmental problem. In parallel, a regulatory framework for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pharmaceutical products has been developed. Since the regulatory guidelines came into force the German Federal Agency (UBA) has been evaluating ERAs for human and veterinary pharmaceutical products before they are marketed. The results show that approximately 10% of pharmaceutical products are of note regarding their potential environmental risk. For human medicinal products, hormones, antibiotics, analgesics, antidepressants and antineoplastics indicated an environmental risk. For veterinary products, hormones, antibiotics and parasiticides were most often discussed as being environmentally relevant. These results are in good correlation with the results within the open scientific literature of prioritization approaches for pharmaceuticals in the environment. UBA results revealed that prospective approaches, such as ERA of pharmaceuticals, play an important role in minimizing problems caused by pharmaceuticals in the environment. However, the regulatory ERA framework could be improved by (i) inclusion of the environment in the risk-benefit analysis for human pharmaceuticals, (ii) improvement of risk management options, (iii) generation of data on existing pharmaceuticals, and (iv) improving the availability of ERA data. In addition, more general and integrative steps of regulation, legislation and research have been developed and are presented in this article. In order to minimize the quantity of pharmaceuticals in the environment these should aim to (i) improve the existing legislation for pharmaceuticals, (ii) prioritize pharmaceuticals in the environment and (iii) improve the availability and collection of pharmaceutical data.
Quelle: http://www.researchgate.net/Veröffentlichung Nanopharmaceuticals - tiny challenges for the environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals(2015) Berkner, Silvia; Schwirn, Kathrin; Völker, DorisMany new developments and innovations in health care are based on nanotechnology. The field of nanopharmaceuticals is diverse and not as new as one might think; indeed, nanopharmaceuticals have been marketed for many years, and the future is likely to bring more nanosized compounds to the market. Therefore, it is time to examine whether the environmental risk assessment for human pharmaceuticals is prepared to assess the exposure, fate, and effects of nanopharmaceuticals in an adequate way. Challenges include the different definitions for nanomaterials and nanopharmaceuticals, different regulatory frameworks, the diversity of nanopharmaceuticals, the scope of current regulatory guidelines, and the applicability of test protocols. Based on the current environmental risk assessment for human medicinal products in the European Union, necessary adaptations for the assessment procedures and underlying study protocols are discussed and emerging solutions identified. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;9999:1-8. © 2015 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.Veröffentlichung Results of extended plant tests using more realistic exposure scenarios for improving environmental risk assessment of veterinary pharmaceuticals(2016) Richter, Elisabeth; Berkner, Silvia; Ebert, Ina; Förster, Bernhard; Graf, Nadine; Herrchen, Monika; Kühnen, Ute; Römbke, Jörg; Simon, MarkusVeröffentlichung Improving environmental risk assessments of chemicals: Steps towards evidence-based ecotoxicology(2019) Martin, Olwenn V.; Adams, Julie; Beasley, Amy; Maack, GerdVeröffentlichung Better define beta-optimizing MDD (minimum detectable difference) when interpreting treatment-related effects of pesticides in semi-field and field studies(2020) Alalouni, Urwa; Duquesne, Sabine; Egerer, Sina Elisabeth; Frische, Tobias; Gergs, René; Gräff, Thomas; Sahm, René; Pieper, Silvia; Wogram, JörnThe minimum detectable difference (MDD) is a measure of the difference between the means of a treatment and the control that must exist to detect a statistically significant effect. It is a measure at a defined level of probability and a given variability of the data. It provides an indication for the robustness of statistically derived effect thresholds such as the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) when interpreting treatment-related effects on a population exposed to chemicals in semi-field studies (e.g., micro-/mesocosm studies) or field studies. MDD has been proposed in the guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products in edge of field surface waters (EFSA Journal 11(7):3290, 2013), in order to better estimate the robustness of endpoints from such studies for taking regulatory decisions. However, the MDD calculation method as suggested in this framework does not clearly specify the power which is represented by the beta-value (i.e., the level of probability of type II error). This has implications for the interpretation of experimental results, i.e., the derivation of robust effect values and their use in risk assessment of PPPs. In this paper, different methods of MDD calculations are investigated, with an emphasis on their pre-defined levels of type II error-probability. Furthermore, a modification is suggested for an optimal use of the MDD, which ensures a high degree of certainty for decision-makers. © 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AGVeröffentlichung Environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials in the light of new obligations under the REACH regulation: which challenges remain and how to approach them?(2020) Schwirn, Kathrin; Galert, Wiebke; Völker, DorisWithin the European regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH, EC No 1907/2006) specific provisions for nanomaterials were included, which have become effective on 1 January 2020. Although knowledge on the peculiarities of testing and assessing fate and effects of nanomaterials in the environment strongly increased in the last years, uncertainties about how to perform a reliable and robust environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials still remain. These uncertainties are of special relevance in a regulatory context, challenging both industry and regulators. The present paper presents current challenges in regulatory hazard and exposure assessment under REACH, as well as classification of nanomaterials, and makes proposals to address them. Still, the nanospecific considerations made here are expected to also be valid for environmental risk assessment approaches in other regulations of chemical safety. Inter alia, these proposals include a way forward to account for exposure concentrations in aquatic toxicity test systems, a discussion of how to account for availability of dissolving nanomaterials in aquatic test systems, and a pragmatic proposal to deduce effect data for soil organisms. Furthermore, it specifies how to potentially deal with nanoforms under the European regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) and outlines the needs for proper exposure assessments of nanomaterials from a regulatory perspective. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:706-717. © 2020 The Authors.Veröffentlichung Options for an environmental risk assessment of intentional and unintentional chemical mixtures under REACH(2021) Galert, Wiebke; Hassold, Enken; Schulze, JonaIt is acknowledged that a variety of chemicals enter the environment and may cause joint effects. Chemicals regulated under the European Chemicals Regulation REACH are often part of formulated mixtures and during their processing and use in various products they can be jointly released via sewage treatment plants or diffuse sources, and may combine in the environment. One can differentiate between intentional mixtures, and unintentional mixtures. In contrast to other substance-oriented legislations, REACH contains no explicit requirements for an assessment of combined effects, exposures and risks of several components. Still, it requires ensuring the safe use of substances on their own, in mixtures, and in articles. The available options to address intentional as well as unintentional mixtures are presented and discussed with respect to their feasibility under REACH, considering the responsibilities, communication tasks and information availability of the different actors (registrants, downstream-user and authorities). Specific mixture assessments via component-based approaches require a comprehensive knowledge on substances properties, uses, fate and behaviour, and the composition of the mixture under consideration. This information is often not available to the responsible actor. In principle, intentional mixtures of known composition can be assessed by the downstream-user. But approaches have to be improved to ensure a transparent communication and sound mixture assessment. In contrast, unintentional mixtures appear to be better addressable via generic approaches such as a mixture allocation factor during the chemical safety assessment, although questions on the magnitude, implementation and legal mandates remain. Authorities can conduct specific mixture risk assessments in well-defined and prioritized cases, followed by subsequent regulatory measures. In order to address intentional and unintentional mixtures within the current REACH framework, legal mandates together with guidance for the different actors are needed. Furthermore, further data on mixture compositions, uses and co-exposures need to be made accessible via shared databases. © The Author(s) 2021.Veröffentlichung Validation of a method to determine transformation of chemicals in anaerobic liquid pig and cattle manure for the OECD test guideline programme(2022) Berkner, Silvia; Anke, Julia Margaretha; Düring, Rolf-Alexander; Walter-Rohde, SusanneManure is widely used as a fertilizer and applied to agricultural land. It may contain highly active chemicals like veterinary medicinal products or biocides, which enter into the environment by this pathway. This is recognized by several regulatory frameworks, however, a detailed method for examining the transformation of chemicals in manure was lacking. This article describes the validation of a method for studying the anaerobic transformation of chemicals in pig and cattle liquid manure. Different steps are covered with an emphasis on the validation ring test and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) process that led to the recent adoption of the method as OECD Test Guideline (TG) 320. © 2022 The Authors.Veröffentlichung A risk based assessment approach for chemical mixtures from wastewater treatment plant effluents(2022) Finckh, Saskia; Beckers, Liza-Marie; Busch, Wibke; von der Ohe, Peter C.In this study, 56 effluent samples from 52 European wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were investigated for the occurrence of 499 emerging chemicals (ECs) and their associated potential risks to the environment. The two main objectives were (i) to extend our knowledge on chemicals occurring in treated wastewater, and (ii) to identify and prioritize compounds of concern based on three different risk assessment approaches for the identification of consensus mixture risk drivers of concern. Approaches include (i) PNEC and EQS-based regulatory risk quotients (RQs), (ii) species sensitivity distribution (SSD)-based hazard units (HUs) and (iii) toxic units (TUs) for three biological quality elements (BQEs) algae, crustacean, and fish. For this purpose, solid-phase extracts were analysed with wide-scope chemical target screening via liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS), resulting in 366 detected compounds, with concentrations ranging from < 1 ng/L to > 100 Ìg/L. The detected chemicals were categorized with respect to critical information relevant for risk assessment and management prioritization including: (1) frequency of occurrence, (2) measured concentrations, (3) use groups, (4) persistence & bioaccumulation, and (5) modes of action. A comprehensive assessment using RQ, HU and TU indicated exceedance of risk thresholds for the majority of effluents with RQ being the most sensitive metric. In total, 299 out of the 366 compounds were identified as mixture risk contributors in one of the approaches, while 32 chemicals were established as consensus mixture risk contributors of high concern, including a high percentage (66%) of pesticides and biocides. For samples which have passed an advanced treatment using ozonation or activated carbon (AC), consistently much lower risks were estimated. © 2022 Authors