View in EDS

Linking chemical surface water monitoring and pesticide regulation in selected European countries

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Linking chemical surface water monitoring and pesticide regulation in selected European countries
Authors: Simon Spycher, Dennis Kalf, Joost Lahr, Mikaela Gönczi, Bodil Lindström, Emanuela Pace, Fabrizio Botta, Nolwenn Bougon, Pierre-François Staub, Kristina L. Hitzfeld, Oliver Weisner, Marion Junghans, Alexandra Kroll
Contributors: Open Repository DS7.6 Demo
Source: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int
Publisher Information: Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024.
Publication Year: 2024
Subject Terms: Surface water, Research and Education Highlights, Environmental risk assessment, Risk Assessment, 01 natural sciences, Monitoring strategy, 6. Clean water, Europe, Pesticide regulation, 13. Climate action, Water Pollutants, Chemical/analysis [MeSH], Europe [MeSH], Risk Assessment [MeSH], Plant protection products, Pesticides, Environmental Monitoring [MeSH], Pesticides/analysis [MeSH], Chemical monitoring, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Environmental Monitoring, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences
Description: The progress in chemical analytics and understanding of pesticide dynamics in surface waters allows establishing robust data on compounds with frequent exceedances of quality standards. The current chemical, temporal, and spatial coverage of the pesticide monitoring campaigns differs strongly between European countries. A questionnaire revealed differences in monitoring strategies in seven selected European countries; Nordic countries prioritize temporal coverage, while others focus on spatial coverage. Chemical coverage has increased, especially for non-polar classes like synthetic pyrethroids. Sweden combines monitoring data with agricultural practices for derived quantities, while the Netherlands emphasizes spatial coverage to trace contamination sources. None of the EU member states currently has established a process for linking chemical surface water monitoring data with regulatory risk assessment, while Switzerland has recently established a legally defined feedback loop. Due to their design and objectives, most strategies do not capture concentration peaks, especially 2-week composite samples, but also grab samples. Nevertheless, for substances that appear problematic in many data sets, the need for action is evident even without harmonization of monitoring programs. Harmonization would be beneficial, however, for cross-national assessment including risk reduction measures.
Document Type: Article
Other literature type
Language: English
ISSN: 1614-7499
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-024-33865-y
Access URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38862805
https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:6490308
https://hdl.handle.net/10029/627715
Rights: CC BY
Accession Number: edsair.doi.dedup.....58e5ed3fecd577d6fa52a0f7c29e9a0a
Database: OpenAIRE
Description
Abstract:The progress in chemical analytics and understanding of pesticide dynamics in surface waters allows establishing robust data on compounds with frequent exceedances of quality standards. The current chemical, temporal, and spatial coverage of the pesticide monitoring campaigns differs strongly between European countries. A questionnaire revealed differences in monitoring strategies in seven selected European countries; Nordic countries prioritize temporal coverage, while others focus on spatial coverage. Chemical coverage has increased, especially for non-polar classes like synthetic pyrethroids. Sweden combines monitoring data with agricultural practices for derived quantities, while the Netherlands emphasizes spatial coverage to trace contamination sources. None of the EU member states currently has established a process for linking chemical surface water monitoring data with regulatory risk assessment, while Switzerland has recently established a legally defined feedback loop. Due to their design and objectives, most strategies do not capture concentration peaks, especially 2-week composite samples, but also grab samples. Nevertheless, for substances that appear problematic in many data sets, the need for action is evident even without harmonization of monitoring programs. Harmonization would be beneficial, however, for cross-national assessment including risk reduction measures.
ISSN:16147499
DOI:10.1007/s11356-024-33865-y