Assessment of riverine load of contaminants to european seas under policy implementation scenarios: An example with 3 pilot substances

Abstract

An evaluation of conventional emission scenarios is carried out targeting a possible impact of European Union (EU) policies on riverine loads to the European seas for 3 pilot pollutants: lindane, trifluralin, and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The policy scenarios are investigated to the time horizon of year 2020 starting from chemical-specific reference conditions and considering different types of regulatory measures including business as usual (BAU), current trend (CT), partial implementation (PI), or complete ban (PI ban) of emissions. The scenario analyses show that the model-estimated lindane load of 745 t to European seas in 1995, based on the official emission data, would be reduced by 98.3% to approximately 12.5 t in 2005 (BAU scenario), 10 years after the start of the EU regulation of this chemical. The CT and PI ban scenarios indicate a reduction of sea loads of lindane in 2020 by 74% and 95%, respectively, when compared to the BAU estimate. For trifluralin, an annual load of approximately 61.7 t is estimated for the baseline year 2003 (BAU scenario), although the applied conservative assumptions related to pesticide use data availability in Europe. Under the PI (ban) scenario, assuming only small residual emissions of trifluralin, we estimate a sea loading of approximately 0.07 t/y. For PFOS, the total sea load from all European countries is estimated at approximately 5.8 t/y referred to 2007 (BAU scenario). Reducing the total load of PFOS below 1 t/y requires emissions to be reduced by 84%. The analysis of conventional scenarios or scenario typologies for emissions of contaminants using simple spatially explicit GIS-based models is suggested as a viable, affordable exercise that may support the assessment of implementation of policies and the identification or negotiation of emission reduction targets.

Current Contributions of Organofluorine Compounds to the Agrochemical Industry

“…Although trifluralin is relatively persistent, it is gradually degraded in soil by microorganisms with a degradation half-life of less than 1 year ( US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996 ; Ribas et al., 1996 ; Gebel et al., 1997 ; Waite et al., 2004 ; Bouvier et al., 2006 ; Kang et al., 2008 ; Triantafyllidis et al., 2010 ). Nevertheless, trifluralin can be detected in the Arctic environment owing to sufficiently high quantities that are globally used and the long-range atmospheric transport that most likely occurs ( Marinov et al., 2013 ). Trifluralin, which had been a very prominent drug for half a century, was eventually banned in the European Union in 2008, owing to its toxicity to aquatic and human life ( UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), 2007 ).…”

Biodegradation and Abiotic Degradation of Trifluralin: A Commonly Used Herbicide with a Poorly Understood Environmental Fate

“…Early animal studies suggested trifluralin was not carcinogenic or teratogenic and that it had low toxicity, but later studies have shown that trifluralin can impact mitochondrial function, it has hormonal activity, , and it associates with higher cancer incidence rates in exposed agricultural workers . Trifluralin was ranked in the top five most hazardous pesticides of public health concern in a recent U.S.-specific study, and it has been banned in the European Union (EU) since 2008 due to concerns over its toxicity . An acceptable operator exposure level of 26 μg kg –1 day –1 has been determined for workers .…”

“…17 Trifluralin was ranked in the top five most hazardous pesticides of public health concern in a recent U.S.-specific study, 18 and it has been banned in the European Union (EU) since 2008 due to concerns over its toxicity. 19 An acceptable operator exposure level of 26 μg kg −1 day −1 has been determined for workers. 20 Inhalation of either volatilized or atmospheric particulate-bound trifluralin is the most likely exposure pathway for humans.…”