Search

There is public and scientific concern about air, soil and water contamination and possible adverse environmental and human health effects as a result of hydraulic fracturing activities. The use of greener chemicals in fracturing fluid aims to mitigate these effects. This study compares fracturing fluids marketed as either ‘conventional’ or ‘green’, as assessed by their chemical composition and their toxicity in bioassays. Chemical composition was analysed via non-target screening using liquid chromatography - high resolution mass spectrometry, while toxicity was evaluated by the Ames fluctuation test to assess mutagenicity and CALUX reporter gene assays to determine specific toxicity. Overall, the results do not indicate that the ‘green’ fluids are less harmful than the ‘conventional’ ones. First, there is no clear indication that the selected green fluids contain chemicals present at lower concentrations than the selected conventional fluids. Second, the predicted environmental fate of the identified compounds does not seem to be clearly distinct between the ‘green’ and ‘conventional’ fluids, based on the available data for the top five chemicals based on signal intensity that were tentatively identified. Furthermore, Ames fluctuation test results indicate that the green fluids have a similar genotoxic potential than the conventional fluids. Results of the CALUX reporter gene assays add to the evidence that there is no clear difference between the green and conventional fluids. These results do not support the claim that currently available and tested green-labeled fracturing fluids are environmentally more friendly alternatives to conventional fracturing fluids.

Monitoring of chemicals in the aquatic environment by chemical analysis alone cannot completely assess and predict the effects of chemicals on aquatic species and ecosystems. This is primarily because of the increasing number of (unknown) chemical stressors and mixture effects present in the environment. In addition, the ability of ecological indices to identify underlying stressors causing negative ecological effects is limited. Therefore, additional complementary methods are needed that can address the biological effects in a direct manner and provide a link to chemical exposure, i.e. (eco)toxicological tests. (Eco)toxicological tests are defined as test systems that expose biological components (cells, individuals, populations, communities) to (environmental mixtures of) chemicals to register biological effects. These tests measure responses at the sub-organismal (biomarkers and in vitro bioassays), whole-organismal, population, or community level. We performed a literature search to obtain a state-of-the-art overview of ecotoxicological tests available for assessing impacts of chemicals to aquatic biota and to reveal datagaps. In total, we included 509 biomarkers, 207 in vitro bioassays, 422 tests measuring biological effects at the whole-organismal level, and 78 tests at the population- community- and ecosystem-level. Tests at the whole-organismal level and biomarkers were most abundant for invertebrates and fish, whilst in vitro bioassays are mostly based on mammalian cell lines. Tests at the community- and ecosystem-level were almost missing for organisms other than microorganisms and algae. In addition, we provide an overview of the various extrapolation challenges faced in using data from these tests and suggest some forward looking perspectives. Although extrapolating the measured responses to relevant protection goals remains challenging, the combination of ecotoxicological experiments and models is key for a more comprehensive assessment of the effects o

Freshwater is a precious resource, and shortages can lead to water stress, impacting agriculture, industry, and other sectors. Wastewater reuse is increasingly considered as an opportunity to meet the freshwater demand. Legislative frameworks are under development to support the responsible reuse of wastewater, i.e., to balance benefits and risks. In an evaluation of the proposed European regulation for water reuse, we concluded that the proposed regulation is not practically feasible, as the water provider alone is responsible for the risk assessment and management, even beyond their span of control. The required knowledge and resources are extensive. Therefore, without clear guidance for implementation, the regulation would hinder implementation of reuse programs. As a consequence, the current practice of uncontrolled, unintentional, and indirect reuse continues, including related risks and inefficiency. Therefore, we provide an outline of the interdisciplinary approach required to design and achieve safe, responsible water reuse. Responsible water reuse requires knowledge of water demand and availability, quality and health, technology, and governance for the various types of application. Through this paper we want to provide a starting point for an interdisciplinary agenda to compile and generate knowledge (databases), approaches, guidelines, case examples, codes of practice, and legislation to help bring responsible water reuse into practice., Sanitary Engineering

The Partnership for Chemicals Risk Assessment (PARC) is currently under development as a joint research and innovation programme to strengthen the scientific basis for chemical risk assessment in the EU. The plan is to bring chemical risk assessors and managers together with scientists to accelerate method development and the production of necessary data and knowledge, and to facilitate the transition to next-generation evidence-based risk assessment, a non-toxic environment and the European Green Deal. The NORMAN Network is an independent, well-established and competent network of more than 80 organisations in the field of emerging substances and has enormous potential to contribute to the implementation of the PARC partnership. NORMAN stands ready to provide expert advice to PARC, drawing on its long experience in the development, harmonisation and testing of advanced tools in relation to chemicals of emerging concern and in support of a European Early Warning System to unravel the risks of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and close the gap between research and innovation and regulatory processes. In this commentary we highlight the tools developed by NORMAN that we consider most relevant to supporting the PARC initiative: (i) joint data space and cutting-edge research tools for risk assessment of contaminants of emerging concern; (ii) collaborative European framework to improve data quality and comparability; (iii) advanced data analysis tools for a European early warning system and (iv) support to national and European chemical risk assessment thanks to harnessing, combining and sharing evidence and expertise on CECs. By combining the extensive knowledge and experience of the NORMAN network with the financial and policy-related strengths of the PARC initiative, a large step towards the goal of a non-toxic environment can be taken.

The Partnership for Chemicals Risk Assessment (PARC) is currently under development as a joint research and innovation programme to strengthen the scientific basis for chemical risk assessment in the EU. The plan is to bring chemical risk assessors and managers together with scientists to accelerate method development and the production of necessary data and knowledge, and to facilitate the transition to next-generation evidence-based risk assessment, a non-toxic environment and the European Green Deal. The NORMAN Network is an independent, well-established and competent network of more than 80 organisations in the field of emerging substances and has enormous potential to contribute to the implementation of the PARC partnership. NORMAN stands ready to provide expert advice to PARC, drawing on its long experience in the development, harmonisation and testing of advanced tools in relation to chemicals of emerging concern and in support of a European Early Warning System to unravel the risks of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and close the gap between research and innovation and regulatory processes. In this commentary we highlight the tools developed by NORMAN that we consider most relevant to supporting the PARC initiative: (i) joint data space and cutting-edge research tools for risk assessment of contaminants of emerging concern; (ii) collaborative European framework to improve data quality and comparability; (iii) advanced data analysis tools for a European early warning system and (iv) support to national and European chemical risk assessment thanks to harnessing, combining and sharing evidence and expertise on CECs. By combining the extensive knowledge and experience of the NORMAN network with the financial and policy-related strengths of the PARC initiative, a large step towards the goal of a non-toxic environment can be taken.