Search

This work presents a new and unbiased method of risk ranking chemicals based on the threat they pose to the aquatic environment. The study ranked 12 metals, 23 pesticides, 11 other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 13 pharmaceuticals, 10 surfactants and similar compounds and 2 nanoparticles (total of 71) of concern against one another by comparing their median UK river water and median ecotoxicity effect concentrations. To complement this, by giving an assessment on potential wildlife impacts, risk ranking was also carried out by comparing the lowest 10th percentile of the effects data with the highest 90th percentile of the exposure data. In other words, risk was pared down to just toxicity versus exposure.Further modifications included incorporating bioconcentration factors, using only recent water measurements and excluding either lethal or sub-lethal effects. The top ten chemicals, based on the medians, which emerged as having the highest risk to organisms in UK surface waters using all the ecotoxicity data were copper, aluminium, zinc, ethinylestradiol (EE2), linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), triclosan, manganese, iron, methomyl and chlorpyrifos. By way of contrast, using current UK environmental quality standards as the comparator to median UK river water concentrations would have selected 6 different chemicals in the top ten. This approach revealed big differences in relative risk; for example, zinc presented a million times greater risk then metoprolol and LAS 550 times greater risk than nanosilver. With the exception of EE2, most pharmaceuticals were ranked as having a relatively low risk.

Aquatic organisms can be exposed to thousands of chemicals discharged by the human population. Many of these chemicals are considered disruptive to aquatic wildlife; the literature on the impacts of these chemicals grows daily. However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must focus on the chemicals which represent the greatest threat. One group of chemicals of increasing concern is the pharmaceuticals, where the struggle is to identify which of them represent the greatest threat. In the present study, we compiled a list of 12 pharmaceuticals based on scoring the prevalence of different compounds from previous prioritization reviews. These included rankings based on prescription data, environmental concentrations, PEC/PNEC ratios, PBT, and fish plasma model approaches. The most frequently cited were diclofenac, paracetamol, ibuprofen, carbamazepine, naproxen, atenolol, ethinylestradiol, aspirin, fluoxetine, propranolol, metoprolol and sulfamethoxazole. For each pharmaceutical, literature on effect concentrations was compiled and compared with river concentrations in the UK. The pharmaceuticals were ranked on the degree of difference between the median effect and median river concentrations. EE2 was ranked as the highest concern, followed by fluoxetine, propranolol and paracetamol. The relative risk of these pharmaceuticals was compared with those of metals and some persistent organic pollutants. Pharmaceuticals appear to be less of a threat to aquatic organisms than some metals (Cu, Al, Zn) and triclosan using this ranking approach

Freshwater aquatic organisms face the challenge of being exposed to a multitude of chemicals discharged by the human population. The objective of this study was to rank metals according to the threat they pose to aquatic organisms. This will contribute to a wider Chemical Strategy for freshwater which will risk rank all chemicals based on their potential risk to wildlife in a UK setting. The method involved comparing information on ecotoxicological thresholds with measured concentrations in rivers. The bioconcentration factor was also considered as a ranking method. The metals; Ag, Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn, were analysed using this approach. Triclosan and lindane were used as comparative organic pollutants. Using a range of ranking techniques, Cu, Al and Zn came top of the list of concern, with Cu coming first.