Ecotoxicity Thresholds for Ametryn, Diuron, Hexazinone and Simazine in Fresh and Marine Waters

Triazine and urea herbicides are two groups of photosystem II inhibiting herbicides frequently detected in surface, ground and marine waters. Yet, there are few water quality guidelines for herbicides. Ecotoxicity thresholds (ETs) for ametryn, hexazinone and simazine (triazine herbicides) and diuron (a urea herbicide) were calculated using the Australian and New Zealand method for deriving guideline values to protect fresh and marine ecosystems. Four ETs were derived for each chemical and ecosystem that should theoretically protect 99, 95, 90 and 80% of species (i.e. PC99, PC95, PC90 and PC80, respectively). For all four herbicides, the phototrophic species were significantly more sensitive than non-phototrophic species, and therefore, only the former data were used to calculate the ETs. Comparison of the ET values to measured concentrations in 2606 samples from 15 waterways that discharge to the Great Barrier Reef (2011–2015) found three exceedances of the simazine PC99, regular exceedances (up to 30%) of the PC99 in a limited number of rivers for ametryn and hexazinone and frequent (> 40%) exceedances of the PC99 and PC95 ETs in at least four waterways for diuron. There were no exceedances of the marine ETs in inshore reef areas. Further, ecotoxicity data are required for ametryn and hexazinone to fresh and marine phototrophic species, for simazine to marine phototrophic species, for tropical phototrophic species, repeated pulse exposures and long-term (2 to 12 months) exposures to environmentally relevant concentrations.Griffith Sciences, Griffith Institute for Drug DiscoveryNo Full Tex

Risk-based prioritization of pharmaceuticals in the natural environment in Iraq

Numerous studies have demonstrated the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the natural environment, raising concerns about their impact on non-target organisms or human health. One region where little is known about the exposure and effects of pharmaceuticals in the environment is Iraq. Due to the high number of pharmaceuticals used by the public health sector in Iraq (hospitals and care centres) and distributed over the counter, there is a need for a systematic approach for identifying substances that should be monitored in the environment in Iraq and assessed in terms of environmental risk. In this study, a risk-based prioritization approach was applied to 99 of the most dispensed pharmaceuticals in three Iraqi cities, Baghdad, Mosul and Basrah. Initially, information on the amounts of pharmaceuticals used in Iraq was obtained. The top used medicines were found to be paracetamol, amoxicillin and metformin with total annual consumption exceeding 1000 tonnes per year. Predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) and predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs), derived from ecotoxicological end-points and effects related to the therapeutic mode of action, were then used to rank the pharmaceuticals in terms of risks to different environmental compartments. Active pharmaceutical ingredients used as antibiotics, antidepressants and analgesics were identified as the highest priority in surface water, sediment and the terrestrial environment. Antibiotics were also prioritized according to their susceptibility to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria or to accelerate the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic-resistant genes in water. Future work will focus on understanding the occurrence, fate and effects of some of highly prioritized substances in the environment

A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Background - The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. Methods - We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Results - Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. Conclusions - When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.The workshops that supported the writing of this manuscript were funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research “Mistra”. LNV was funded by Award Number K22ES025811 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. TJW was funded by The Clarence Heller Foundation (A123547), the Passport Foundation, the Forsythia Foundation, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grants ES018135 and ESO22841), and U.S. EPA STAR grants (RD83467801 and RD83543301). JT was funded by the Academy of Finland and Sigrid Juselius. UH was funded by the Danish EPA. KAK was funded by the Canada Research Chairs program grant number 950–230607

The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must b

Publisher Correction: On the issue of transparency and reproducibility in nanomedicine

© 2019, Springer Nature Limited. In the version of this Correspondence originally published, Christine Dufès was incorrectly written as Christine Dufés. This has been corrected in the online versions of the Correspondence

On the issue of transparency and reproducibility in nanomedicine.

Following our call to join in the discussion over the suitability of implementing a reporting checklist for bio-nano papers, the community responds

How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a more full assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection