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.

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 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 World trade and regional trade orientation in the context of forthcoming transatlantic trade and investment partnership

Equilibrium ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czarny ◽  
Paweł Folfas
Keyword(s):  
World Trade ◽  
World Economy ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Regional Trade ◽  
The World ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

We analyse potential consequences of the forthcoming Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States (TTIP) for trade orientation of both partners. We do it so with along with the short analysis of the characteristics of the third wave of regionalism and the TTIP position in this process as well as the dominant role of the EU and the U.S. in the world economy – especially – in the world trade. Next, we study trade orientation of the hypothetical region created in result of TTIP. We use regional trade introversion index (RTII) to analyze trade between the EU and the U.S. that has taken place until now to get familiar with the potential changes caused by liberalization of trade between both partners. We analyze RTII for mutual trade of the EU and the U.S. Then, we apply disaggregated data to analyze and compare selected partial RTII (e.g. for trade in final and intermediate goods as well as goods produced in the main sectors of economy like agriculture or manufacturing). The analysis of the TTIP region’s orientation of trade based on the historical data from the period 1999-2012 revealed several conclusions. Nowadays, the trade between the EU and the U.S. is constrained by the protection applied by both partners. Trade liberalization constituting one necessary part of TTIP will surely help to intensify this trade. The factor of special concern is trade of agricultural products which is most constrained and will hardly be fully liberalized even within a framework of TTIP. Simultaneously, both parties are even now trading relatively intensively with intermediaries, which are often less protected than the average of the economy for the sake of development of final goods’ production. The manufactured goods are traded relatively often as well, mainly in consequence of their poor protection after many successful liberalization steps in the framework of GATT/WTO. Consequently, we point out that in many respects the TTIP will be important not only for its participants, but for the whole world economy as well. TTIP appears to be an economic and political project with serious consequences for the world economy and politics.

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.”

Lessons from the EU's REACH Program

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-182
Author(s):  
Adam Abelkop ◽  
John D. Graham ◽  
Lois R. Wise
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Alternative View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Duke University ◽  
Aaron Wildavsky ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

In the casual political rhetoric about environmental regulation, it is often claimed that the U.S. government regulates on the basis of risk while the European Union (or EU member states) regulates on the basis of hazard. The implication is that the U.S. government relies on a more rigorous, scientific process of assessment than does the EU, which allegedly helps explain why the EU is more pro-regulation than is the United States.An alternative view, advanced originally by the late Professor Aaron Wildavsky of the University of California-Berkeley and amplified in a recent book by Professor Jonathan Wiener of Duke University, and colleagues, is that societies engage in a process of “risk selection.” What worries some societies does not worry others.

A tale of two commodities: how EU mycotoxin regulations have affected u.s. tree nut industries

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Wu
Keyword(s):  
Economic Impacts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Export Markets ◽  
Quality Product ◽  
The World ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
High Quality Product ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) has some of the strictest standards for mycotoxins in food and feed in the world. This paper explores the economic impacts of these standards on other nations that attempt to export foods that are susceptible to one mycotoxin, aflatoxin, to the EU. The current EU standard for total aflatoxins in food is 4 ng/g in food other than peanuts, and 15 ng/g in peanuts. Under certain conditions, export markets may actually benefit from the strict EU standard. These conditions include a consistently high-quality product, and a global scene that allows market shifts. Even lower-quality export markets can benefit from the strict EU standard, primarily by technology forcing. However, if the above conditions are not met, export markets suffer from the strict EU standard. Two case studies are presented to illustrate these two different scenarios: the U.S. pistachio and almond industries. Importantly, within the EU, food processors may suffer as well from the strict aflatoxin standard. EU policymakers should consider these more nuanced economic impacts when developing mycotoxin standards for food and feed.

scholarly journals Pomoc publiczna na szkolenia pracowników a konkurencyjność gospodarki Unii Europejskiej

2017 ◽  
pp. 159-173
Author(s):  
Piotr Podsiadło
Keyword(s):  
State Aid ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Gdp Per Capita ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Skilled Workers ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Positive Externalities ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
The Eu

The paper discusses guidelines for implementation of art. 107-109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, from the point of view of state aid for training. Training usually generates positive externalities for society as a whole, since it increases the pool of skilled workers from which other firms may draw, improves the competitiveness of the EU industry and plays an important role in the EU employment strategy. Statistical analysis was carried out on state aid granted by the EU Member States in the period 2001-2014 - from the perspective of its impact on competitiveness of these countries. This should lead to verification of thesis that the amount of state aid granted by the EU Member States for training, should positively correlate with the size of the GDP per capita of these countries

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document