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.

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

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.

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.”

scholarly journals COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS AND A SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED PRESENCE OF THE EU AS THE BASIS OF STABLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

2018 ◽  
pp. 147-166
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Socioeconomic Development ◽  
Eu Enlargement ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Gdp Per Capita ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Slow Tempo ◽  
The Eu

It is important for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also for the European Union, that the negotiation process begins as soon as possible. Real changes in the legal, administrative and political sense commence only with fulfilment of benchmarks for opening and closing of chapters. The negotiation process is also important for learning and progressing in the understanding of European policies which help to strengthen state institutions, democracy and openness to grow and result with stronger economic growth due to an increased level of trust and safety. It is important for the European Union that the country at the very heart of Europe, which belongs to Europe not only geographically, but also historicallyand in terms of tradition and culture becomes a part of it as soon as possible and also in terms of the standards it applies. In this paper we give an overview of recommendations that the European Commission has provided to Bosnia and Herzegovina since 2002, and it is precisely from the recommendations which are being repeated each year that the most important challenges which Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to solve are still visible. Rule of law, respecting human rights and rights of minorities, as well as the constitutionality of the three nations, in addition to a fast and efficient judicial system and the public sector as a whole are the key elements for fulfilling political, legal and administrative criteria. In terms of GDP per capita in PPS, B&H has been converging during the last ten years, however with a very slow tempo. Thereby in 2005 GDP per capita in PPS amounted to 24 % in relation to EU28, whereas during the last four years it amounted to 29%. At the moment B&H is significantly lagging behind even the least developed Member States and convergence towards the EU average is necessary because on the current level B&H could not equally participate in the EU Single Market, and accession would create more obstacles than advantages. The EU is expected to take a more active approach in solving the challenges of economic convergence of B&H, therefore in this paper is provided and overview of the priorities of the new EU Enlargement Strategy in which support to socioeconomic development is pointed out as one of the initiatives.

DOES MERGER POLICY CONVERGE AFTER THE 2004 EUROPEAN UNION REFORM?

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 664-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats A Bergman ◽  
Malcolm B Coate ◽  
Anh T V Mai ◽  
Shawn W Ulrick
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Merger Policy ◽  
Logit Models ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Effective Competition ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Unilateral Effects ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT The European Union (EU) formally changed its merger policy in 2004, moving from a dominance standard to one based on a significant impediment of effective competition, which appears more closely aligned with the U.S. substantial lessening of competition standard. We use data from both before and after this reform to explore whether EU policy has converged toward the U.S. standard. We start by identifying changes in the EU regime and detect a softer EU policy for unilateral effects. We model the outcomes of EU and U.S. investigations with logit models and use their predictions in decompositions and other exercises to show policy convergence for unilateral effects cases.

A Comparative Analysis of E-Collaboration Research Funding in the European Union and the United States

2009 ◽  
pp. 40-48
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
Research Tradition ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Much of the funding for research and development initiatives in the area of e-collaboration comes from government agencies in various countries. Government funding of e-collaboration research in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.), in particular, seems to be experiencing steady growth in recent years. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collaboration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the U.S., government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several government 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 U.S. Among other differences, the EU model appears to foster research that is aligned with the action research tradition, whereas the U.S. model places emphasis on research that is better aligned with the experimental research tradition.

US Perspectives on the EU Medical Device Approval System, and Lessons Learned from the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-464
Author(s):  
Christa Altenstetter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
The United States ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

The literature on the regulation of drugs at the FDA and the European Union is substantial, yet little research has provided comparative analyses and robust empirical data on the regulation of medical devices in the United States and the European Union. As medical and health markets become increasingly globalized, and the U.S. and the EU compete for leadership and recognition, salient domestic regulatory issues are becoming increasingly international and transnational policy issues. Building on Carpenter's (2010) work on drug regulation at the FDA, but taking a slightly narrower yet at the same time a broader approach by drawing on interdisciplinary studies instead of limiting ourselves to only the Political Science literature, this comparison focuses on key aspects of risk regulation and governance of medical devices in the U.S. and the EU, and shows how and why individual and organizational learning is imperative in each case.

scholarly journals Non-Tariff Measures in Indian Context and the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Rakhi Singh ◽  
Seema Sharma ◽  
Deepak Tandon
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Strategic Partner ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Per Capita Gdp ◽  
Indian Economy ◽  
The World ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
The Eu

Indian economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the world today. In line with global trade trends, Indian export sector has been growing and contributing significantly to the economy. Given its exports structure, India is well positioned to benefit from the structural changes in technology and emerging forces of globalization. Indian economy has shown remarkable progress in terms of foreign trade after the introduction of economic reforms in 1991. The European Union (EU) is a very important trading partner of India. The trade volumes between India and EU have shown remarkable improvement in last one and a half decade. After starting out at a relatively low level in the 1990’s, the trade volumes, both with respect to Indian exports to the EU as well as with respect to Indian imports from the EU, started to increase most noticeably after the year 2001.Use of non-tariff measures (NTMs) as means of protection has captured a lot of focus after reduction of tariffs in the world trade. India even after being a strategic partner for European Union (EU) has to face lot of NTMs on its exports. Based on studies in the past, link between the incidence of NTMs imposed by the home country and the income level of the foreign country has been established. The interplay of incidence of NTMs and the GDP remains largely unexplored in the context of India-EU trade relationship. This paper tries to fill this gap and show the importance of the study in policy decisions. Authors have used UNCTAD’s NTM data and Spearman’s correlation coefficient to measure the strength and direction of the relationship between incidence of NTM with per capita GDP of the exporting country (India). The authors have used different permutations of data from the main data set (1994-95 to 2016-17) for analysis and have concluded that incidence of NTMs on Indian exports to EU is positively co-related to the per capita GDP of India.

scholarly journals Asymmetry of the economic development of cross-border areas in the European Union: assessment and typology

Europa XXI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 45-62
Author(s):  
Andrzej Jakubowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Gdp Per Capita ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Border Areas ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Spatially Differentiated

The article aims to characterise the phenomenon, determine the degree, and analyse the dynamics and directions of change in the level of asymmetry of economic development of cross-border areas in the European Union (EU) based on GDP per capita (PPP). It also aims to propose a typology of cross-border areas in the EU considering the above criteria. The obtained results show that despite a relatively evident reduction of the level of asymmetry of economic development in many cases in the period 1990-2015, and particularly after 2004, many cross-border areas show significant disparities in the economic sphere. Moreover, the dynamics of the observed transformations remain spatially differentiated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document