The UN Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) - An ocean science-policy interface standing the test of time.

Addressing the wide range of marine pollution problems facing the global ocean requires a continual transfer of credible, relevant and timely scientific information to policy and decision makers in coastal and ocean management. The United Nations GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) is a long-standing scientific advisory group providing such information on a wide range of marine topics and emerging issues of concern to ten UN Sponsoring Organizations. This paper presents an overview of GESAMPs operation and examples of its current work. The group's scientific output is often cited by national governments, inter-governmental groups, and a range of non-governmental groups. Given the growing concerns about ocean health and the impacts of many stressors in an era of climate change, the development of timely and effective ocean policy and decision making would benefit from wider recognition and application of GESAMPs work.

Inputs of disinfection by-products to the marine environment from various industrial activities: Comparison to natural production.

Oxidative treatment of seawater in coastal and shipboard installations is applied to control biofouling and/or minimize the input of noxious or invasive species into the marine environment. This treatment allows a safe and efficient operation of industrial installations and helps to protect human health from infectious diseases and to maintain the biodiversity in the marine environment. On the downside, the application of chemical oxidants generates undesired organic compounds, so-called disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are discharged into the marine environment. This article provides an overview on sources and quantities of DBP inputs, which could serve as basis for hazard analysis for the marine environment, human health and the atmosphere. During oxidation of marine water, mainly brominated DBPs are generated with bromoform (CHBr3) being the major DBP. CHBr3 has been used as an indicator to compare inputs from different sources. Total global annual volumes of treated seawater inputs resulting from cooling processes of coastal power stations, from desalination plants and from ballast water treatment in ships are estimated to be 470-800 × 109 m3, 46 × 109 m3 and 3.5 × 109 m3, respectively. Overall, the total estimated anthropogenic bromoform production and discharge adds up to 13.5-21.8 × 106 kg/a (kg per year) with contributions of 11.8-20.1 × 106 kg/a from cooling water treatment, 0.89 × 106 kg/a from desalination and 0.86 × 106 kg/a from ballast water treatment. This equals approximately 2-6% of the natural bromoform emissions from marine water, which is estimated to be 385-870 × 106 kg/a.

Are workers on board vessels involved with chemicals from treated ballast water sufficiently protected? - A decadal perspective and risk assessment.

Ballast Water Managements Systems (BWMS) installed on vessels may use Active Substances (AS) to inactivate organisms. This paper provides new insights in the global issue of noxious Disinfection By-Products (DBP) produced with primarily oxidant-based BWMS, and the risk assessment for workers, including port State control officers, while performing tasks on a vessel that involve exposure to treated ballast water. The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection - Ballast Water Working Group (GESAMP-BWWG) plays a role in the certification process of BWMS that make use of AS evaluating potential negative effects. All BWMS that passed GESAMP-BWWG Final Approval until mid 2019 were analyzed providing an overview of chemicals in the treated ballast water before and after neutralization. The ballast tank cleaning scenario, the sampling scenario, and the ballast tank inspection scenario all showed elevated human health risks using the Derived Minimal Effect Levels approach. The most critical exposure occurs in the ballast tank cleaning scenario through the inhalation of volatile DBP, such as tribromomethane. This substance may cause acute effects such as headache, dizziness and also has carcinogenic properties. The two risk reducing options available in the GESAMP-BWWG Tier 2 calculations were compared, one being mitigation measures such as protective gloves and coveralls, the other option is taking into account a time correction factor. The results showed that the trihalomethanes in air are most problematic, however, there is a possibility that the calculated values may be overestimated as generally worst case assumptions were used.

Is human health sufficiently protected from chemicals discharged with treated ballast water from vessels worldwide? - A decadal perspective and risk assessment.

Ballast water managements systems (BWMS) installed on vessels may use active substances to inactivate organisms. This paper provides new insights in the global issue of noxious disinfection by-products (DBP) discharge with ballast water, and the related risk assessment for human health. The GESAMP ballast water working group plays a role in the certification process of BWMS that make use of active substances evaluating potential negative effects. We analyzed all BWMS that passed GESAMP final approval over a decade until 2017 providing an overview of chemicals in the discharged ballast water generated by BWMS. We used these data to calculate the chemical load humans may be exposed to for two different commercial ports (Koper, Slovenia and Hamburg, Germany). None of the chemicals in this study reached levels of concern that would indicate a risk for humans after exposure to chemicals present in the discharged ballast water. Nevertheless, although this exposure only adds to a lesser degree to the overall exposure to disinfection by-products, some chemicals, such as tribromomethane, have carcinogenic properties. In case studies we show which chemicals have the largest contribution to the aggregated exposure of humans. We note that tribromomethane, despite its low bio-concentration factor (BCF), may accumulate in fat, when fish are continuously exposed to DBPs during low-level chlorination. Since this figure would give a higher value for the internal dose for tribromomethane from seafood consumption than the current BCF in the GISIS database, the calculated value may underestimate the contribution of tribromomethane, and possibly also other DBPs.

Is the aquatic environment sufficiently protected from chemicals discharged with treated ballast water from vessels worldwide? - A decadal environmental perspective and risk assessment.

Ballast water managements systems (BWMS) installed on vessels may use active substances to inactivate or kill organisms in the ballast water. This paper provides new insights in this global issue - discharge of hazardous disinfection by-products with ballast water and related risk assessment for the environment. Considering the possible extent of this issue, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) engaged the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP)-Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) to oversee the evaluation process of BWMS that make use of active substances to prevent negative effects. We analysed all BWMS that received IMO final approval over a decade until 2017 and provide an overview of active substances used for ballast water treatment and disinfection by-products in the discharged ballast water. A risk assessment was conducted using the GESAMP-BWWG methodology for two very different commercial ports (Koper, Slovenia and Hamburg, Germany). Some relevant chemicals (chloropicrin, monochloroacetic acid, and dibromoacetonitrile) and other chemicals (isocyanuric acid and sodium thiosulphate) reached levels of concern, indicating a risk for aquatic organisms after discharge of that ballast water. From this analysis, it became clear GESAMP-BWWG worst-case scenario assumptions do not fully account for the potential environmental risks. We provide recommendations how to make this risk assessment more robust, recommend further research, and urge for policy as well as regulatory responses.

Emerging risks from ballast water treatment: the run-up to the International Ballast Water Management Convention.

Uptake and discharge of ballast water by ocean-going ships contribute to the worldwide spread of aquatic invasive species, with negative impacts on the environment, economies, and public health. The International Ballast Water Management Convention aims at a global answer. The agreed standards for ballast water discharge will require ballast water treatment. Systems based on various physical and/or chemical methods were developed for on-board installation and approved by the International Maritime Organization. Most common are combinations of high-performance filters with oxidizing chemicals or UV radiation. A well-known problem of oxidative water treatment is the formation of disinfection by-products, many of which show genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, or other long-term toxicity. In natural biota, genetic damages can affect reproductive success and ultimately impact biodiversity. The future exposure towards chemicals from ballast water treatment can only be estimated, based on land-based testing of treatment systems, mathematical models, and exposure scenarios. Systematic studies on the chemistry of oxidants in seawater are lacking, as are data about the background levels of disinfection by-products in the oceans and strategies for monitoring future developments. The international approval procedure of ballast water treatment systems compares the estimated exposure levels of individual substances with their experimental toxicity. While well established in many substance regulations, this approach is also criticised for its simplification, which may disregard critical aspects such as multiple exposures and long-term sub-lethal effects. Moreover, a truly holistic sustainability assessment would need to take into account factors beyond chemical hazards, e.g. energy consumption, air pollution or waste generation.

Agrochemical spray drift; assessment and mitigation--a review.

During application of agrochemicals spray droplets can drift beyond the intended target to non-target receptors, including water, plants and animals. Factors affecting this spray drift include mode of application, droplet size, which can be modified by the nozzle types, formulation adjuvants, wind direction, wind speed, air stability, relative humidity, temperature and height of released spray relative to the crop canopy. The rate of fall of spray droplets depends upon the size of the droplets but is modified by entrainment in a mobile air mass and is also influenced by the rate of evaporation of the liquid constituting the aerosol. The longer the aerosol remains in the air before falling to the ground (or alternatively striking an object above ground) the greater the opportunity for it to be carried away from its intended target. In general, all size classes of droplets are capable of movement off target, but the smallest are likely to move the farthest before depositing on the ground or a non-target receptor. It is not possible to avoid spray drift completely but it can be minimized by using best-management practices. These include using appropriate nozzle types, shields, spray pressure, volumes per area sprayed, tractor speed and only spraying when climatic conditions are suitable. Field layout can also influence spray drift, whilst crop-free and spray-free buffer zones and windbreak crops can also have a mitigating effect. Various models are available to estimate the environmental exposure from spray drift at the time of application.

Bioavailability of xenobiotics in the soil environment.

It is often presumed that all chemicals in soil are available to microorganisms, plant roots, and soil fauna via dermal exposure. Subsequent bioaccumulation through the food chain may then result in exposure to higher organisms. Using the presumption of total availability, national governments reduce environmental threshold levels of regulated chemicals by increasing guideline safety margins. However, evidence shows that chemical residues in the soil environment are not always bioavailable. Hence, actual chemical exposure levels of biota are much less than concentrations present in soil would suggest. Because "bioavailability" conveys meaning that combines implications of chemical sol persistency, efficacy, and toxicity, insights on the magnitude of a chemicals soil bioavailability is valuable. however, soil bioavailability of chemicals is a complex topic, and is affected by chemical properties, soil properties, species exposed, climate, and interaction processes. In this review, the state-of-art scientific basis for bioavailability is addressed. Key points covered include: definition, factors affecting bioavailability, equations governing key transport and distributive kinetics, and primary methods for estimating bioavailability. Primary transport mechanisms in living organisms, critical to an understanding of bioavailability, also presage the review. Transport of lipophilic chemicals occurs mainly by passive diffusion for all microorganisms, plants, and soil fauna. Therefore, the distribution of a chemical between organisms and soil (bioavailable proportion) follows partition equilibrium theory. However, a chemical's bioavailability does not always follow partition equilibrium theory because of other interactions with soil, such as soil sorption, hysteretic desorption, effects of surfactants in pore water, formation of "bound residue", etc. Bioassays for estimating chemical bioavailability have been introduced with several targeted endpoints: microbial degradation, uptake by higher plants and soil fauna, and toxicity to organisms. However, there bioassays are often time consuming and laborious. Thus, mild extraction methods have been employed to estimate bioavailability of chemicals. Mild methods include sequential extraction using alcohols, hexane/water, supercritical fluids (carbon dioxide), aqueous hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin extraction, polymeric TENAX beads extraction, and poly(dimethylsiloxane)-coated solid-phase microextraction. It should be noted that mild extraction methods may predict bioavailability at the moment when measurements are carried out, but not the changes in bioavailability that may occur over time. Simulation models are needed to estimate better bioavailability as a function of exposure time. In the past, models have progressed significantly by addressing each group of organisms separately: microbial degradation, plant uptake via evapotranspiration processes, and uptake of soil fauna in their habitat. This approach has been used primarily because of wide differences in the physiology and behaviors of such disparate organisms. However, improvement of models is badly needed, Particularly to describe uptake processes by plant and animals that impinge on bioavailability. Although models are required to describe all important factors that may affect chemical bioavailability to individual organisms over time (e.g., sorption/desorption to soil/sediment, volatilization, dissolution, aging, "bound residue" formation, biodegradation, etc.), these models should be simplified, when possible, to limit the number of parameters to the practical minimum. Although significant scientific progress has been made in understanding the complexities in specific methodologies dedicated to determining bioavailability, no method has yet emerged to characterized bioavailability across a wide range of chemicals, organisms, and soils/sediments. The primary aim in studying bioavailability is to define options for addressing bioremediation or environmental toxicity (risk assessment), and that is unlikely to change. Because of its importance in estimating research is needed to more comprehensively address the key environmental issue of "bioavailability of chemicals in soil/sediment."

Pesticide soil sorption parameters: theory, measurement, uses, limitations and reliability.

The soil sorption coefficient Kd and the soil organic carbon sorption coefficient KOC of pesticides are basic parameters used by environmental scientists and regulatory agencies worldwide in describing the environmental fate and behavior of pesticides. They are a measure of the strength of sorption of pesticides to soils and other geosorbent surfaces at the water/solid interface, and are thus directly related to both environmental mobility and persistence. KOC is regarded as a 'universal' parameter related to the hydrophobicity of the pesticide molecule, which applies to a given pesticide in all soils. This assumption is known to be inexact, but it is used in this way in modeling and estimating risk for pesticide leaching and runoff. In this report we examine the theory, uses, measurement or estimation, limitations and reliability of these parameters and provide some 'rules of thumb' for the use of these parameters in describing the behavior and fate of pesticides in the environment, especially in analysis by modeling.