Prev. Article Next Article Articles ASAP

Policy Analysis

Predictive Environmental Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures: A Conceptual Framework

Your current credentials do not allow retrieval of the full text.

Purchase the full-text

PDF/HTML,
figures/images,
references and tables,
(where available)

Thomas Backhaus†* and Michael Faust‡

^† Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

^‡ Faust & Backhaus, Environmental Consulting, BITZ-Bremer Innovations-und Technologie-Zentrum, Fahrenheitstr. 1, 28359 Bremen, Germany

Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP

DOI: 10.1021/es2034125

Publication Date (Web): January 16, 2012

*Phone: +46-(0)31-7862734 Email: thomas.backhaus@gu.se.

Abstract

Environmental risks of chemicals are still often assessed substance-by-substance, neglecting mixture effects. This may result in risk underestimations, as the typical exposure is toward multicomponent chemical “cocktails”. We use the two well established mixture toxicity concepts (Concentration Addition (CA) and Independent Action (IA)) for providing a tiered outline for environmental hazard and risk assessments of mixtures, focusing on general industrial chemicals and assuming that the “base set” of data (EC50s for algae, crustaceans, fish) is available. As mixture toxicities higher than predicted by CA are rare findings, we suggest applying CA as a precautious first tier, irrespective of the modes/mechanisms of action of the mixture components. In particular, we prove that summing up PEC/PNEC ratios might serve as a justifiable CA-approximation, in order to estimate in a first tier assessment whether there is a potential risk for an exposed ecosystem if only base-set data are available. This makes optimum use of existing single substance assessments as more demanding mixture investigations are requested only if there are first indications of an environmental risk. Finally we suggest to call for mode-of-action driven analyses only if error estimations indicate the possibility for substantial differences between CA- and IA-based assessments.

View: Full Text HTML | Hi-Res PDF | PDF w/ Links