Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.
Shell, Brabazon House, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester M22 0RR, UK.
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Feb 15;580:1222-1236. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.083. Epub 2016 Dec 24.
Clearly defined protection goals specifying what to protect, where and when, are required for designing scientifically sound risk assessments and effective risk management of chemicals. Environmental protection goals specified in EU legislation are defined in general terms, resulting in uncertainty in how to achieve them. In 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a framework to identify more specific protection goals based on ecosystem services potentially affected by plant protection products. But how applicable is this framework to chemicals with different emission scenarios and receptor ecosystems? Four case studies used to address this question were: (i) oil refinery waste water exposure in estuarine environments; (ii) oil dispersant exposure in aquatic environments; (iii) down the drain chemicals exposure in a wide range of ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic); (iv) persistent organic pollutant exposure in remote (pristine) Arctic environments. A four-step process was followed to identify ecosystems and services potentially impacted by chemical emissions and to define specific protection goals. Case studies demonstrated that, in principle, the ecosystem services concept and the EFSA framework can be applied to derive specific protection goals for a broad range of chemical exposure scenarios. By identifying key habitats and ecosystem services of concern, the approach offers the potential for greater spatial and temporal resolution, together with increased environmental relevance, in chemical risk assessments. With modifications including improved clarity on terminology/definitions and further development/refinement of the key concepts, we believe the principles of the EFSA framework could provide a methodical approach to the identification and prioritization of ecosystems, ecosystem services and the service providing units that are most at risk from chemical exposure.
为了对化学品进行科学合理的风险评估和有效管理,需要明确界定保护目标,具体说明要保护的对象、地点和时间。欧盟法规中规定的环境保护目标是一般性的,导致如何实现这些目标存在不确定性。2010 年,欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)发布了一个框架,根据可能受到植物保护产品影响的生态系统服务来确定更具体的保护目标。但是,对于具有不同排放情景和受体生态系统的化学品,这个框架有多少适用性呢?为了解决这个问题,我们进行了四项案例研究:(i)河口环境中炼油厂废水暴露;(ii)水生环境中石油分散剂暴露;(iii)各种生态系统(陆地和水生)中“随污水排入”化学品暴露;(iv)偏远(原始)北极环境中持久性有机污染物暴露。我们采用了一个四步流程来识别可能受到化学排放影响的生态系统和服务,并定义具体的保护目标。案例研究表明,原则上,生态系统服务概念和 EFSA 框架可以应用于推导广泛的化学暴露情景的具体保护目标。通过识别关键栖息地和关注的生态系统服务,该方法有可能在化学风险评估中提高空间和时间分辨率,并提高环境相关性。通过修改,包括术语/定义的改进清晰度和关键概念的进一步发展/细化,我们相信 EFSA 框架的原则可以为识别和优先考虑最容易受到化学暴露影响的生态系统、生态系统服务和提供服务的单位提供一种有条理的方法。