New technologies for long-term protection of drinking-water resources from landfill emissions - investigation, containment and targeted material conversion

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-249
Author(s):  
Timo Dörrie ◽  
Helmut Eschkötter ◽  
Michael Struve ◽  
Peter Spillmann
Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 860
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Simeonidis ◽  
Manassis Mitrakas

Elevated concentrations of heavy metals in drinking water resources and industrial or urban wastewater pose a serious threat to human health and the equilibrium of ecosystems [...]


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Hale ◽  
Hans Peter H. Arp ◽  
Ivo Schliebner ◽  
Michael Neumann

Abstract Background Under the EU chemicals regulation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals EC 1907/2006), registrants are not obliged to provide information related to intrinsic substance properties for substances that pose a threat to the drinking water resources. In 2019, perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic acid (HFPO-DA trade name GenX) were demonstrated to have an equivalent level of concern (ELoC) to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (PBT/vPvB) substances owing to their persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substance properties and very persistent and very mobile (vPvM) substance properties, respectively. They were both subsequently identified as substances of very high concern (SVHC) applying Article 57(f) in REACH. This work follows up on this regulatory decision by presenting a science based, conceptual level comparison that all PMT/vPvM substances pose an ELoC to PBT/vPvB substances. Using the two cases named above, as well as 1,4-dioxane, 16 categories were developed to evaluate a) serious effects on human health, b) serious effects on the environment and c) additional effects. 1,4-dioxane has recently been proposed to be classified as Carcinogenic 1B by the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC). The aim was to enable an objective and scientifically justified conclusion that these classes of substances have an equivalent level of concern for the environment and human health. Results In all of the categories related to human health, the environment and other effects, the PMT/vPvM case study substances exhibited comparable effects to PBT/vPvB substances. A difference in the human and environmental exposure pathways of PMT/vPvM and PBT/vPvB substances exists as they vary temporally and spatially. However, effects and impacts are similar, with PMT/vPvM substances potentially accumulating in (semi-)closed drinking water cycles and pristine aquatic environments, and PBT/vPvB substances accumulating in humans and the food chain. Both PMT/vPvM and PBT/vPvB substances share the common difficulty that long term and long-range transport and risk of exposure is very difficult to determine in advance and with sufficient accuracy. Conclusion The registration process of substances under REACH should reflect that PMT/vPvM substances pose an equivalent level of concern to PBT/vPvB substances.


2011 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen E. Gibson ◽  
Yayi Guo ◽  
James T. Schissler ◽  
Melissa C. Opryszko ◽  
Kellogg J. Schwab

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 1405-1413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Muñoz ◽  
Erik de Vries ◽  
Janneke Wittebol ◽  
Jens Aamand

A prospective environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) and financial cost assessment is performed to the application of bioaugmentation to sand filters in Danish waterworks, to remove 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM) from drinking water resources. Based on pilot-scale and laboratory-scale data, we compare bioaugmentation to current alternative strategies, namely granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and well re-location. Both assessments identified well re-location as the least preferred option, however, this result is very sensitive to the distance from the waterworks to the new well. When bioaugmentation is compared to GAC, the former has a lower impact in 13 impact categories, but if immobilized bacteria are used, the impacts are higher than for GAC in all impact categories. On the other hand, from a cost perspective bioaugmentation appears to be preferable to GAC only if immobilized bacteria are used.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document