Identification, assessment and management of "endocrine disruptors" in wildlife in the EU substance legislation--discussion paper from the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA).

A discussion paper was developed by a panel of experts of the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) contributing to the on-going debate on the identification, assessment and management of endocrine disruptors with a view to protect wildlife according to the EU substance legislation (plant protection products, biocides, industrial chemicals). Based on a critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art regarding regulatory requirements, testing methods, assessment schemes, decision-making criteria and risk management options, we advise an appropriate and consistent implementation of this important subject into existing chemicals legislation in Europe. Our proposal for a balanced risk management of endocrine disruptors essentially advocates transparent regulatory decision making based on a scientifically robust weight of evidence approach and an adequate risk management consistent across different legislations. With respect to the latter, a more explicit consideration of the principle of proportionality of regulatory decision making and socio-economic benefits in the on-going debate is further encouraged.

Integrated testing and intelligent assessment-new challenges under REACH.

BACKGROUND, AIM AND SCOPE: Due to a number of drawbacks associated with the previous regime for the assessment of new and existing chemicals, the European Union established a new regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH). All relevant industrial chemicals must now be assessed. Instead of the authorities, industry itself is responsible for the risk assessment. To achieve better and more efficient assessments while reducing animal testing, all information-standard, non-standard and non-testing-has to be used in an integrated manner. To meet these challenges, the current technical guidance documents for risk assessment of new and existing chemicals had to be updated and extended considerably. This was done by experts in a number of REACH Implementation Projects. This paper presents the most relevant results of the expert Endpoint Working Group on Aquatic Toxicity in order to illustrate the change of paradigm in the future assessment of hazards to the aquatic environment by chemical substances. MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES: REACH sets certain minimum data requirements in order to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment. It encourages the assessor to use alternative information instead of or in addition to standard one. This information has to be equivalent to the standard information requirement and adequate to draw overall conclusions with respect to the regulatory endpoints classification and labelling, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) assessment and predicted no-effect concentrations (PNEC) derivation. The main task of the expert working group was to develop guidance on how to evaluate the toxicity of a substance based on integration of information from different sources and of various degrees of uncertainty in a weight of evidence approach. INTEGRATED TESTING AND INTELLIGENT ASSESSMENT: In order to verify the equivalence and adequacy of different types of information, a flexible sequence of steps was proposed, covering characterisation of the substance, analysis of modes of action, identification of possible analogues, evaluation of existing in vivo and in vitro testing data as well as of QSAR results. Finally, all available data from the different steps have to be integrated to come to an overall conclusion on the toxicity of the substance. This weight of evidence approach is the basis for the development of integrated testing strategies (ITS), in that the available evidence can help to determine subsequent testing steps and is essential for an optimal assessment. Its flexibility helps to meet the different requirements for drawing conclusions on the endpoints classification and labelling, PNEC derivation as well as PBT assessment. The integration of all kinds of additional information in a multi-criteria assessment reduces the uncertainties involved with extrapolation to the ecosystem level. The weight of evidence approach is illustrated by practical examples. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: REACH leads to higher challenges in order to make sound decisions with fewer resources, i.e. to move away from extensive standard testing to an intelligent substance-tailored approach. Expert judgement and integrated thinking are key elements of the weight of evidence concept and ITS, potentially leading to better risk assessments. Important sub-lethal effects such as endocrine disruption, which are not covered by the current procedure, can be considered. Conclusions have to be fully substantiated: Risk communication will be an important aspect of future assessments.

Risk assessment of biocides in roof paint. Part 1: experimental determination and modelling of biocide leaching from roof paint.

BACKGROUND, AIM AND SCOPE: Many surface coatings, including roof paints, contain biocides. It is generally not known to what extent roof paint biocides leach from the paint, and consequently, what concentration the biocide may attain in a rainwater collection system. To this end the leaching of specific biocides from a variety of German roof paints was investigated and the resulting concentrations in collected rain water were estimated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A laboratory simulation was used to determine the time dependant leaching rate of the biocide from the paint into synthetic rainwater. The concentrations of biocide in the leachate were quantified using HPLC. The course of the leachate concentrations over time was fitted using a simple mathematical model. This was then used to estimate concentrations of biocides in a typical household rainwater collection system over time. RESULTS: Surprisingly, the biocides found in the paints did not always concur with the declared biocides. Concerning the modelling of runoff concentrations, it was found that--under the model assumptions--the rain intensity and cumulative raining time after application are the dominant factors influencing the concentration of the biocide. At the highest modelled rain intensity of 40 mm/hour it only takes about 2 hours to reach peak concentrations lower than 0.1 mg/L, at 0.3 mm/hour it takes about 10 hours to reach peak concentrations of 1.3, 0.9, 5.2 and 1.1 mg/L for terbutryn from Emalux paint, terbutryn from Südwest paint, carbendazim from Emalux paint, and carbendazim from MIPA paint, respectively. DISCUSSION: The results confirm that biocides leached from roof paint will be present in roof runoff. The highest estimated peak concentrations are close to the water solubility of the respective biocides. This indicates that the model assumption of a concentration independent leaching rate will tendentially lead to an overestimation of the leached concentrations under these circumstances. However, under most circumstances such as higher rain intensities, and longer time after peak concentrations have been reached, the runoff concentrations are far from the solubility limit, and therefore it is proposed that the model assumptions are tenable. CONCLUSIONS: The leaching of biocides from roof paints can be roughly assessed using a relatively simple approach. The declaration of biocidal ingredients in roof paints should be improved and information on their biocide leaching behaviour should be made available. Furthermore, the estimations should be evaluated by a field study. RECOMMENDATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: The leaching study indicated that the concentrations of selected biocides can reach significant levels, especially after low intensity rainfall. Taking into account the inherent biological activity of the substances under scrutiny, it can already be concluded that it is not advisable to use runoff water from roofs freshly painted with biocide containing roof paints. These results have been complemented by a literature search of biological effects of the investigated biocides, ecotoxicological tests with several species and a risk analysis for organisms exposed to runoff water. This will be presented in Part 2 of this contribution.