Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics

G. Merrington, Y.-J. An, E. P. M. Grist, S.-W. Jeong, C. Rattikansukha, S. Roe, U. Schneider, S. Sthiannopkao, G. W. Suter II, R. Van Dam, P. Van Sprang, J.-Y. Wang, Michael St. J. Warne, P. T. Yillia, X.-W. Zhang, K. M. Y. Leung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice’ in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6-16
JournalEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research
Volume21
Issue number1
Early online date26 Apr 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Water Quality
Water quality
learning
Learning
Guidelines
water quality
Information Dissemination
Education
Aquatic ecosystems
Environmental management
regulatory framework
Monitoring
Chemical potential
Hong Kong
aquatic ecosystem
environmental management
Biological Availability
bioavailability
Ecosystem
Toxicity

Keywords

  • Water quality guidelines
  • International collaboration
  • Harmonisation
  • Water quality management
  • Environmental quality standards

Cite this

Merrington, G., An, Y-J., Grist, E. P. M., Jeong, S-W., Rattikansukha, C., Roe, S., ... Leung, K. M. Y. (2014). Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(1), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8

Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics. / Merrington, G.; An, Y.-J.; Grist, E. P. M.; Jeong, S.-W.; Rattikansukha, C.; Roe, S.; Schneider, U.; Sthiannopkao, S.; Suter II, G. W.; Van Dam, R.; Van Sprang, P.; Wang, J.-Y.; Warne, Michael St. J.; Yillia, P. T.; Zhang, X.-W.; Leung, K. M. Y.

In: Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 21, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 6-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Merrington, G, An, Y-J, Grist, EPM, Jeong, S-W, Rattikansukha, C, Roe, S, Schneider, U, Sthiannopkao, S, Suter II, GW, Van Dam, R, Van Sprang, P, Wang, J-Y, Warne, MSJ, Yillia, PT, Zhang, X-W & Leung, KMY 2014, 'Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics' Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8
Merrington, G. ; An, Y.-J. ; Grist, E. P. M. ; Jeong, S.-W. ; Rattikansukha, C. ; Roe, S. ; Schneider, U. ; Sthiannopkao, S. ; Suter II, G. W. ; Van Dam, R. ; Van Sprang, P. ; Wang, J.-Y. ; Warne, Michael St. J. ; Yillia, P. T. ; Zhang, X.-W. ; Leung, K. M. Y. / Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics. In: Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2014 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 6-16.
@article{101e15e32deb446da0ab86b4fbb64498,
title = "Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics",
abstract = "Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice’ in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.",
keywords = "Water quality guidelines, International collaboration, Harmonisation, Water quality management, Environmental quality standards",
author = "G. Merrington and Y.-J. An and Grist, {E. P. M.} and S.-W. Jeong and C. Rattikansukha and S. Roe and U. Schneider and S. Sthiannopkao and {Suter II}, {G. W.} and {Van Dam}, R. and {Van Sprang}, P. and J.-Y. Wang and Warne, {Michael St. J.} and Yillia, {P. T.} and X.-W. Zhang and Leung, {K. M. Y.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "6--16",
journal = "Environmental Science and Pollution Research",
issn = "0944-1344",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics

AU - Merrington, G.

AU - An, Y.-J.

AU - Grist, E. P. M.

AU - Jeong, S.-W.

AU - Rattikansukha, C.

AU - Roe, S.

AU - Schneider, U.

AU - Sthiannopkao, S.

AU - Suter II, G. W.

AU - Van Dam, R.

AU - Van Sprang, P.

AU - Wang, J.-Y.

AU - Warne, Michael St. J.

AU - Yillia, P. T.

AU - Zhang, X.-W.

AU - Leung, K. M. Y.

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice’ in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.

AB - Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice’ in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.

KW - Water quality guidelines

KW - International collaboration

KW - Harmonisation

KW - Water quality management

KW - Environmental quality standards

U2 - 10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8

DO - 10.1007/s11356-013-1732-8

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 6

EP - 16

JO - Environmental Science and Pollution Research

JF - Environmental Science and Pollution Research

SN - 0944-1344

IS - 1

ER -