scholarly journals Comparing the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES) environmental exposure calculations with monitoring data for alkyl sulphate surfactants

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Spaniol ◽  
Marlies Bergheim ◽  
James Dawick ◽  
Denise Kötter ◽  
Kathleen McDonough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Exposure ◽  
Monitoring Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Adjustment Factor ◽  
Degradation Rates ◽  
The Us ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Alkyl Sulfates ◽  
Specific Degradation ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Background The European surfactant and detergent industry initiated a project to conduct an EUSES-based environmental exposure assessment for the total volume of alkyl sulfate (AS) surfactants, and to verify if the EUSES assessment leads to a realistic prediction of the environmental exposure or to an over- respectively under-estimation of the environmental concentrations of the surfactants. Verification of the EUSES environmental concentration prediction (Clocaleffluent) was carried out by benchmarking them against environmental monitoring data. Recently published data from the United States of America adjusted to the European Union (EU) frame conditions were used for the assessment, as for the EU only historical data from the mid-1990s are available. In addition to the standard (default) EUSES assessment, a higher tier assessment using substance-specific properties, particularly increased biodegradation rates (192 per day instead of the default of 24 per day for WWTP), was conducted. Results A figure of 178,400 tonnes of AS was established as the total maximum volume (2016) handled annually in Europe. This total volume includes the volumes from all EU manufacturers and all registered AS > 100 t/a, as well as the amount of AS contained in EU REACH registered alkyl ether sulfates (AES). The total tonnage was split and assigned to the different uses as reported to ECHA in the C12 AS, Na (151-21-3) registration dossier in 2010. The EUSES calculation was limited to widespread (professional and consumer) uses, covering in total 97,889 t of AS homologues. The EUSES calculation gave a Clocaleffluent of 335 µg/L for the SimpleTreat “readily” biodegradation rate default and a Clocaleffluent of 44.6 µg/L for the AS-specific degradation rates. Recent US monitoring data showed a mean effluent concentration of 4.24 µg alkyl sulfates/L (∑ C12 + C14 + C16 homologues). Taking into account the different annual per capita AS use (including AS from AES) in the US (295 g) and the EU (348 g), the daily per capita water use (EU 200 L, US 408 L), and the WWTP efficiency in the EU and the US (comparable), an US to EU adjustment factor of 2.4 was established. Application of the adjustment factor to the US monitoring data resulted in a calculated EU mean effluent concentration = 10.18 µg alkyl sulfates/L (∑ C12, C14, C16 homologues). This value was used as an independent benchmark for the EUSES calculations. Conclusions Comparing the predicted Clocaleffluent = 335 µg alkyl sulfates/L (SimpleTreat default) and a Clocaleffluent = 44.6 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (AS-specific degradation rates) with the 10.18 µg alkyl sulfates/L from the adjusted monitoring data it is evident, that the EUSES calculation overestimates the AS environmental exposure by factors of > 32 and > 4, respectively. Taking into consideration, that only widespread uses (covering only 50% of the total AS volume) were included in the EUSES calculation, the overestimation of the default exposure by a factor of 4 is still conservative, despite the fact, that eightfold higher, substance-specific biodegradation rates were used. In conclusion, using the 2010 C12-AS REACH dossier (CAS-No. 151-21-3) as an example, it has been shown, that EUSES model exposure calculations using default biodegradation rates significantly overestimate effluent concentrations.

scholarly journals Comparing the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES) environmental exposure calculations with monitoring data for alkyl sulphate surfactants

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Spaniol ◽  
Marlies Bergheim ◽  
James Dawick ◽  
Denise Kötter ◽  
Kathleen McDonough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Exposure ◽  
Monitoring Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Adjustment Factor ◽  
Degradation Rates ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Alkyl Sulfates ◽  
Specific Degradation ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Abstract BackgroundThe European surfactant and detergent industry initiated a project to conduct an EUSES-based environmental exposure assessment for the total volume of alkyl sulfate ( AS) surfactants, and to verify if the EUSES assessment leads to a realistic prediction of the environmental exposure or to an over- respectively under-estimation of the environmental concentrations of the surfactants. Verification of the EUSES environmental concentration prediction (Clocaleffluent) was carried out by benchmarking them against environmental monitoring data. Recently published data from the United States of America adjusted to the European Union (EU) frame conditions were used for the assessment, as for the EU only historical data from the mid 1990’s are available. In addition to the standard (default) EUSES assessment, a higher tier assessment using substance-specific properties, particularly increased biodegradation rates (192 per day instead of the default of 24 per day for WWTP), was conducted.ResultsA figure of 178,400 tonnes of AS was established as the total maximum volume (2016) handled annually in Europe. This total volume includes the volumes from all EU manufacturers and all registered AS > 100 t/a, as well as the amount of AS contained in EU REACH registered Alkyl Ether Sulfates (AES). The total tonnage was split and assigned to the different uses as reported to ECHA in the C12 AS, Na (151-21-3) registration dossier in 2010. The EUSES calculation was limited to widespread (professional and consumer) uses, covering in total 97,889 t of AS homologues. The EUSES calculation gave a Clocaleffluent of 335 µg/L for the SimpleTreat “readily” biodegradation rate default and a Clocaleffluent of 44.6 µg/L for the AS specific degradation rates. Recent U.S. monitoring data showed a mean effluent concentration of 4.24 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (∑ C12 + C14 + C16 homologues). Taking into account the different annual per capita AS use (including AS from AES) in the U.S. (295 g) and the EU (348 g), the daily per capita water use (EU 200 L, U.S. 408 L), and the WWTP efficiency in the EU and the U.S. (comparable), an U.S. to EU adjustment factor of 2.4 was established. Application of the adjustment factor to the U.S. monitoring data resulted in a calculated EU mean effluent concentration = 10.18 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (∑ C12, C14, C16 homologues). This value was used as an independent benchmark for the EUSES calculations. ConclusionsComparing the predicted Clocaleffluent = 335 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (SimpleTreat default) and a Clocaleffluent = 44.6 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (AS-specific degradation rates) with the 10.18 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L from the adjusted monitoring data it is evident, that the EUSES calculation overestimates the AS environmental exposure by factors of > 32 and > 4, respectively. Taking into consideration, that only widespread uses (covering only 50 % of the total AS volume) were included in the EUSES calculation, the overestimation of the default exposure by a factor of 4 is still conservative, despite the fact, that 8-fold higher, substance-specific biodegradation rates were used. In conclusion, using the 2010 C12-AS REACH dossier (CAS-No. 151-21-3) as an example, it has been shown, that EUSES model exposure calculations using default biodegradation rates significantly overestimate effluent concentrations.

scholarly journals Comparing the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES) environmental exposure calculations with monitoring data for alkyl sulphate surfactants

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Spaniol ◽  
Marlies Bergheim ◽  
James Dawick ◽  
Denise Kötter ◽  
Kathleen McDonough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Exposure ◽  
Monitoring Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Adjustment Factor ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Alkyl Sulfates ◽  
Specific Degradation ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Abstract BackgroundThe European surfactant and detergent industry initiated a project to conduct an EUSES-based environmental exposure assessment for the total volume of alkyl sulfate ( AS) surfactants, and to verify if the EUSES assessment leads to a realistic prediction of the environmental exposure or to an over- respectively under-estimation of the environmental concentrations of the surfactants. Verification of the EUSES environmental concentration prediction (Clocaleffluent) was carried out by benchmarking them against environmental monitoring data. Recently published data from the United States of America adjusted to the European Union (EU) frame conditions were used for the assessment, as for the EU only historical data from the mid 1990’s are available. In addition to the standard (default) EUSES assessment, a higher tier assessment using substance-specific properties, particularly increased biodegradation rates (192 per day instead of the default of 24 per day for STP), was conducted.ResultsA figure of 178,400 tonnes of AS was established as the total maximum volume (2016) handled annually in Europe. This total volume includes the volumes from all EU manufacturers and all registered AS > 100 t/a, as well as the amount of AS contained in EU REACH registered Alkyl Ether Sulfates (AES). The total tonnage was split and assigned to the different uses as reported to ECHA in the C12 AS, Na (151-21-3) registration dossier in 2010. The EUSES calculation was limited to widespread (professional and consumer) uses, covering in total 97,889 t of AS homologues. The EUSES calculation gave a Clocaleffluent of 335 µg/L for the SimpleTreat “readily” biodegradation rate default and a Clocaleffluent of 44.6 µg/L for the AS specific degradation rates.Recent U.S. monitoring data showed a mean effluent concentration of 4.24 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (∑ C12 + C14 + C16 homologues). Taking into account the different annual per capita AS use (including AS from AES) in the U.S. (295 g) and the EU (348 g), the daily per capita water use (EU 200 L, U.S. 408 L), and the WWTP efficiency in the EU and the U.S. (comparable), an U.S. to EU adjustment factor of 2.4 was established. Application of the adjustment factor to the U.S. monitoring data resulted in a calculated EU mean effluent concentration = 10.18 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (∑ C12, C14, C16 homologues). This value was used as an independent benchmark for the EUSES calculations.ConclusionsComparing the predicted Clocaleffluent = 335 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (SimpleTreat default) and a Clocaleffluent = 44.6 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L (AS-specific degradation rates) with the 10.18 µg Alkyl Sulfates/L from the adjusted monitoring data it is evident, that the EUSES calculation overestimates the AS environmental exposure by factors of > 32 and > 4, respectively. Taking into consideration, that only widespread uses (covering only 50 % of the total AS volume) were included in the EUSES calculation, the overestimation of the default exposure by a factor of 4 is still conservative, despite the fact, that 8-fold higher, substance-specific biodegradation rates were used. In conclusion, using the 2010 C12-AS REACH dossier (CAS-No. 151-21-3) as an example, it has been shown, that EUSES model exposure calculations using default biodegradation rates significantly overestimate effluent concentrations.

TTIP, CETA, and TiSA Behind Closed Doors

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

scholarly journals The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, EuropeanUnion, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
American Universities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Eu

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.

Eine Gabe an St. Nimmerlein? - Zur zeitlichen Dimension der Schuldenbremse

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Current Economic Crisis ◽  
Automatic Stabilizer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Income Shock ◽  
Large Heterogeneity ◽  
Automatic Stabilizers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an automatic stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We consider two scenarios: a proportional income shock and a shock on employment which increases the rate of unemployment.We find that automatic stabilizers absorb 38 per cent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 per cent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 48 per cent of the shock is absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 per cent in the US. Under the assumption that only credit constrained households adjust current spending on consumption goods to current disposable income, the cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of 26 to 35 per cent in the EU and 19 per cent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. With respect to income stabilization, Germany is above the European average for both scenarios. Demand stabilization in Germany is weaker because the number of liquidity constrained households is below the EU average.

European Union and China Relations in the Light of Changing Global Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 417-434
Author(s):  
Sedef Eylemer ◽  
Elif Cemre Besgur
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Relationship Context ◽  
Normative Identity ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Strategic Perspective ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU), United States (US), and China are the main global drivers of the international trade system. However, trade wars between them create tensions in the world. As the world is facing increasing neo-protectionist trade applications of the Trump administration, this chapter analyses whether a greater convergence between China and the EU is possible for protecting multilateralism through two case studies, namely (1) market conditions and discrimination, (2) cybersecurity. In this context, the chapter argues that although the US pressure has led the EU to rapprochement with China, this situation creates a dilemma for the EU in terms of the fears about the problems of alignment with the normative identity of the EU. Whereas the EU aims at regulating the global trade on a normative basis originating from its acquis, China has a more strategic perspective based upon specific relationship context. It is difficult to take a side for the EU due to its different standpoint compared to China in defending the multilateral trading system.

Government Funding of E-collaboration Research in the European Union

2009 ◽  
pp. 142-150
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Society ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
The Us ◽  
National Science ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Eu

Government funding of e-collaboration research in both the US and EU seems to be growing. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collabo-ration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the US, government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several gov-ernment branches and organizations, notably the National Science Foundation. There are key differences in the approaches used for government funding of e-collaboration research in the EU and US. Some of these differences are discussed here, as well as related implications.

Lithuania and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramūnas Vilpišauskas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Political Support ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Coalition Building ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
The Eu

For Lithuania, the geopolitical motive to join the European Union (EU) in order to prevent a repetition of the 1940s occupation has been as important as a motive to “return to Europe.” This motivation to become part of the West led the country’s political elites to conceptualize accession into the EU as an important part of the transition reforms which were expected to modernize Lithuania’s economy, public administration, and governance as well as contribute to the country’s security and create conditions for economic catching up. Membership in the EU, accession into NATO, and good neighborly relations became the three cornerstones of Lithuania’s foreign policy since the early 1990s and enjoyed broad political support. It was this support that arguably allowed for the maintenance of political and administrative mobilization and consistency of preparations for the membership during the pre-accession process. Public support for the EU membership remained above the EU average since accession in 2004. Around the time of accession, a new concept of Lithuania as “a regional leader” was formulated by the core of the nation’s foreign policy makers. The concept of a regional leader implied active efforts of mediating between Eastern neighbors and the EU, often in coordination with Poland, which was driven by the desire to stabilize the Eastern neighborhood and advance relations between Eastern neighbors and the EU and NATO. Although coalition building within the EU has been fluctuating between a strategic partnership with Poland and Baltic-Nordic cooperation, also most recently the New Hanseatic league, attention to the Eastern neighborhood and geopolitical concerns originating from perceived aggressive Russian policies remained a defining characteristic of the country’s European policy independent of personalities and political parties, which have been at the forefront of policy making. Completion of integration into the EU, in particular in the fields of energy and transport, as well as dealing with “leftovers” from accession into the EU, such as joining the Schengen area and the euro zone, became the other priorities since 2004. Lithuania has been one of the fastest converging countries in the EU in terms of GDP per capita since its accession. However, membership in the EU Single Market also had controversial side effects. Relatively large flows of emigrants to other EU member states generated political debates about the quality of governance in Lithuania and its long-term demographic trends such as a decreasing and aging population. Introduction of the euro in 2015 was perceived by the public as the main factor behind price rises, making inflation the most important public issue in 2016–2018. High per capita income growth rates as well as the prospect of the United Kingdom exiting the EU triggered discussions about excessive dependency on EU funding, the potential effects of its decline after 2020, and sources of economic growth. There are increasingly divergent opinions regarding further deepening of integration within the EU, especially in regard to alignment of member states’ foreign and security policies as well as tax harmonization. Still, membership in the EU is rarely questioned, even by those who oppose further integration and advocate a “Europe of nations.”

Analysis of the US Privacy Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Francisco García Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Data Privacy ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Us ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Eu

The creation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) constituted an enormous advance in data privacy, empowering the online consumers, who were doomed to the complete loss of control of their personal information. Although it may first seem that it only affects companies within the European Union, the regulation clearly states that every company who has businesses in the EU must be compliant with the GDPR. Other non-EU countries, like the United States, have seen the benefits of the GDPR and are already developing their own privacy laws. In this article, the most important updates introduced by the GDPR concerning US corporations will be discussed, as well as how American companies can become compliant with the regulation. Besides, a comparison between the GDPR and the state of art of privacy in the US will be presented, highlighting similarities and disparities at the national level and in states of particular interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document