Policy analysis: Does the WFD works with regard to CEC in aquatic environments? Case study: The Netherlands

The problematic of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) in the European Union (EU) surface water has been reported over the last decades as well as CEC’s potential impact on human health and the environment. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC; WFD) is the main EU Directive for the protection of aquatic environments since it came in force. This Directive requires the monitoring of 45 priority substances regarding their environmental quality standards in order to achieve the good chemical status of water bodies until 2027. The last revision of the WFD in 2015 showed that Member States have not met the targets yet. The present dissertation aims to analyse whether WFD has been efficient enough to protect the aquatic ecosystems against CEC and evaluate if the environmental objectives will be complied until its last revision. The Netherlands was used as the case study. Interviews were carried out to 13 employees of the different layers in the Dutch water management system. Based on results obtained, it was concluded that the WFD has been the main European water legislation used to protect the aquatic environment from the occurrence of CEC in the last years. The Directive have created awareness and encourages Member States to take actions, however, some issues were identified. The conclusion is that WFD has not been efficient enough in the protection of aquatic environments against CEC. Although it is difficult to predict its success in 2027, two possible scenarios were identified. In the end, it was suggested a consistent assessment of CEC in aquatic environments, connection of WFD goals with EU’s chemicals regulations, collaboration between all interested parties and an integrated strategy to WFD implementation in the Member States

Analytical methods for possible WFD 1st watch list substances

Directive 2013/39/EU amending the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC under the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) has introduced the new “Watch List” monitoring mechanism in order to collect high-quality Union-wide monitoring data for the purpose of supporting future prioritisation exercises. Diclofenac, 17-beta-estradiol, and 17-alpha-ethinylestradiol were identified in Directive 2013/39/EU for inclusion in the 1st Watch List. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has been tasked with proposing seven substances as candidates for the completion of the 1st Watch List and identifying analytical methods for their monitoring. The procedure and criteria used to identify a short-list of substances for possible inclusion in the Watch List is described in the JRC Science and Policy Report “Development of the 1st Watch List under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive" (Carvalho et al., 2015). EU Member States and stakeholder groups had the opportunity to comment on the proposed substances and on the analytical methods, whose availability was a criterion for the selection of the compounds. The finally proposed 10 (groups of) substances for inclusion in the 1st Watch List are diclofenac, 17-beta-estradiol (E2) and estrone (E1), 17-alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2), oxadiazon, methiocarb, 2,6-ditert-butyl-4-methylphenol, tri-allate, neonicotinoid insecticides as a group (imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, acetamiprid), macrolide antibiotics (erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin), and 2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate. Analytical methods for additional substances were searched and investigated because they were among those considered for inclusion in the list, but either did not fulfil all selection criteria, in some cases because enough monitoring data were found to exist already, or were not ranked highly enough. These substances were trichlorfon, cyclododecane, aminotriazole (amitrole), dimethenamid-P, diflufenican, dichlofluanid, formaldehyde, triphenyl phosphate, tolylfluanid, ciprofloxacin, and free cyanide. Little or no information on analytical methods was found for trichlorfon, aminotriazole, cyclododecane, and tolylfluanid. For the other compounds analytical methods are available and published. Some of them have already been analysed in the aquatic environment. The analysis of free cyanide in water is difficult. The available analytical methods do not reach the proposed PNEC value of 0.26 µg/l.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

MONITOOL: new tools for monitoring the chemical status in transitional and coastal waters under the Water Framework Directive

The MONITOOL Project is based upon Directive 2013/39/EU [1] with regards to priority metals in the field of water policy, including cadmium, nickel, and lead. Existing Environmental Quality Standards for these methods only include biota sampling, and therefore new in situ solution sampling methodologies are a priority. The MONITOOL Project aims to define suitable EQS to allow for the use of Diffusive Gradient in Thin film (DGT) passive sampling devices [2] for the monitoring of these priority metals in a regulatory context. DGT devices are composed of an ion-exchange resin, separated from solution by a diffusive ion-permeable gel layer. Their design allows for the continuous accumulation of metals in situ, and subsequent quantitation via methods such as ICP-MS. While many of the chemical aspects of the devices have been well studied [3], effects of environmental physicochemical parameters on the functionality of the devices has not been examined in detail. Five-day deployments of DGT devices, alongside spot sampling and physicochemical parameter measurement, will be conducted in both wet and dry seasons in coastal and transitional waters of the North Atlantic coast, including locations in Ireland such as Cobh, Dun Laoghaire and the Alexandra Basin. The data collected from these sampling campaigns will inform potential future EQS adaptations

Levels and origin of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fluvial sediment of Drava river

Within the scope of an international monitoring program to assess water and sediment quality in the Danube basin, sediment samples (river bottom/bank, suspended and active floodplain/overbank) were collected in the summer of 2020 at a sampling site in the Drava river to monitor 19 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as apparent water contaminants. Among these, 8 PAHs were specified as priority pollutants in the corresponding EU Directive on environmental quality standards (2008/105/EC). The highest levels were measured for fluoranthene (1.73 µg/g), benzo(b)fluoranthene+benzo(k)fluoranthene (0.765 µg/g) and anthracene (0.528 µg/g) sampled from the upper 5 cm layer of the bottom sediment on 5th August 2020

Development of the First Watch List under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive

According to Directive 2008/105/EC (the Environmental Quality Standards Directive, EQSD), a new mechanism is needed to provide high-quality monitoring information on the concentrations of polluting substances in the aquatic environment across the EU. The aim of this mechanism is to support the identification of priority substances for regulation under the Water Framework Directive. A restricted number of substances (up to 10) are to be included in a dynamic Watch List, remaining there for limited time. Three compounds, i.e. diclofenac, 17-beta-estradiol (E2), and 17-alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) have already been identified for inclusion in the first Watch List, for the specific purpose of better informing the determination of suitable risk reduction measures. Therefore, up to seven additional substances should be identified for inclusion. This report describes the procedure to identify a short-list of substances, based on the suspected risk to or via the aquatic environment, as well as on the unavailability of sufficient monitoring data or data of sufficient quality to identify the risk posed by those substances, and to prioritise them at EU level. From the short-list, seven additional substances are proposed for inclusion in the first Watch List.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Monitoring of Surface Water Status in the Lower Danube Basin

Water pollution demands emergency actions for better water resource management to respect the concept of sustainable development. The aim of the Water Framework Directive, as long-term water policy of the European Union, is to assure the good quality of surface waters. Each state from Europe has to identify all the river basins lying within their national territory and to assign them to individual river basin districts. In this respect, an effective integrated system and monitoring technology, analysing, interpreting data and utilizing the results to make decisions related to the water resources protection, were developed. The main objectives are focused on the expansion of monitoring activities and obtaining more detailed information on the state of surface waters. Specific recommended equipment which enables to perform the analysis of recommended water quality parameters should be placed on the monitoring stations of the Lower Danube Basin. Respectively, this lack of equipment provides a challenge in the development of effective methodologies for collection and analysis of water quality data. The main priority was the development of an integrated water catchment area management strategy and to build up the online continuous monitoring system. Some of the technical goals for continuous water monitoring were reached in Hungary and Romania and are presented here

Recommendations to derive quality standards for chemical pollutants in reclaimed water intended for reuse in agricultural irrigation

The reuse of treated municipal wastewater (herein referred to as reclaimed water) in agricultural irrigation (RWAI) as a means to alleviate water scarcity is gaining increasing policy attention, particularly in areas where water demand mitigation measures have proved insufficient. However, reclaimed water reuse in practice is lagging behind policy ambition, with <2.5% of it reused in a European context. A key barrier identified as limiting its full valorisation is concern over its impact on human and environmental health. To address this concern, and to meet further objectives including achieving parity between current reclaimed water reuse guidelines operational in various Member States, the European Commission has proposed a regulation which identifies minimum quality requirements (MQR) for a range of microbiological and physico-chemical parameters but the inclusion of compounds of emerging concern (CECs) in terms of the determination of quality standards (QS) is missing. This paper reviews the existing pertinent EU legislation in terms of identifying the need for CEC QS for RWAI, considering the scope and remit of on-going pan-European chemicals prioritisation schemes. It also evaluates opportunities to link in with the existing EQS derivation methodology under the EU WFD to address all protection targets in the environmental compartments exposed via potential pathways of RWAI. Finally, it identifies the main data gaps and research needs for terrestrial ecosystems, the removal efficiency of CECs by WWTPs and transformation products generated during the wastewater reuse cycle

Occurrence of halogenated flame retardants in commercial seafood species available in European markets

PBDEs (congeners 28, 47, 99, 100, 153, 154, 183, 209), HBCD (α, β, γ), emerging brominated flame retardants (PBEB, HBB and DBDPE), dechloranes (Dec 602, 603, 604, syn- and anti-DP), TBBPA, 2,4,6-TBP and MeO-PBDEs (8 congeners) were analysed in commercial seafood samples from European countries. Levels were similar to literature and above the environmental quality standards (EQS) limit of the Directive 2013/39/EU for PBDEs. Contaminants were found in 90.5% of the seafood samples at n. d.-356 ng/g lw (n. d.-41.1 ng/g ww). DBDPE was not detected and 2,4,6-TBP was detected only in mussels, but at levels comparable to those of PBDEs. Mussel and seabream were the most contaminated species and the Mediterranean Sea (FAO Fishing Area 37) was the most contaminated location. The risk assessment revealed that there was no health risk related to the exposure to brominated flame retardants via seafood consumption. However, a refined risk assessment for BDE-99 is of interest in the future. Moreover, the cooking process concentrated PBDEs and HB

The usefulness of ecotoxicological tools to improve the assessment of water bodies in a climate change reality

This study aimed to analyse the added value of using ecotoxicological tools to complement and improve the assessment of natural water bodies status, in situations of climate change, with a higher frequency of extreme events as floods or droughts. Four water bodies of streams in the Guadiana Basin (Álamos, Amieira, Lucefécit, Zebro) were studied in 2017 and 2018 and classified based on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) parameters: Biological Quality Element - Phytobenthos (diatoms), General chemical and physicochemical elements, Specific pollutants, and Priority Substances. Complementarily, bioassays (including lethal and sublethal parameters) were carried out with organisms of different trophic levels: (i) the bacteria Aliivibrio fischeri; (ii) the microalgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata; (iii) the crustaceans Daphnia magna, Thamnocephalus platyurus and Heterocypris incongruens. A classification system with 5 scores was developed, permitting to classify water bodies from non-toxic (EC50 > 100 %; growth and feeding rate > 80 %; blue) to highly toxic (EC50 < 10 %; growth and feeding rate < 10 %; red). The comparison between the classification based on the WFD parameters and on ecotoxicological endpoints showed similar results for 71 % of the samples, and significant positive Pearson correlations were detected between the diatom-based Specific Polluosensitivity Index (SPI) and EC50V.fisheri, the algae growth rate and Shannon diversity index. These results indicate that when the biological quality elements cannot be used (namely under drought or flooding conditions) the application of ecotoxicological bioassays may be a good alternative. Further, when ecotoxicological parameters were included, an increase of worse classifications (Bad and Poor) was observed, revealing an improvement in the sensitivity of the classification, mainly in presence of specific and priority substances. So, the ecotoxicological analysis appears to provide useful information regarding the potential presence of both known and unknown contaminants at concentrations that cause biological effects (even within the WFD limits), in agreement with several authors that have already suggested its use in biomonitoring