Author:
Usman Muhammad,Hüben Michael,Hahn Stefan,Wieck Stefanie,Kehrer-Berger Anja,Linnemann Volker,Wintgens Thomas
Abstract
AbstractDisinfectants and preservatives used as biocides may contain or release active substances (a.s.) that can form by-products with the surrounding matrices during their application which may be released into the environment. Over the past 40 years, several hundred of these so-called disinfection by-products (DBPs) have been detected after applications of biocides used for disinfection. Due to intensive research and further development of analytical capabilities, many new DBP classes, such as iodinated DBPs (I-DBPs), halonitromethanes (HNMs), haloacetamides (HaAms), or halomethanesulfonic acids were detected worldwide in various matrices and applications. Due to the possible hazards and risks for humans and the environment, frequently occurring DBP classes, such as trihalomethanes (THM), haloacetic acids (HAA) and nitrosamines (NDMA), have already been included in many legislations and given limit values. In the European Union, biocides are assessed under the Biocidal Products Regulation 528/2012 (BPR) regarding their efficacy, potential hazards, and risks to human health and the environment. However, the available guidance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of DBPs remains vague. To identify knowledge gaps and to further develop the assessment scheme for the ERA of DBPs, a literature search on the multiple uses of biocides and their formation potential of DBPs was performed and the existing process for ERA was evaluated. The results show knowledge gaps on the formation of DBP in non-aqueous systems and DBP formation by non-halogen-based biocidal active substances. Based on the literature research on biocides, a possible proposal of grouping a.s. to consider their DBP formation potential is presented to simplify future ERAs. However, this also requires further research. Until then, a pragmatic approach considering the DBPs formation potential of the active substances and the identified knowledge gaps need to be established for the environmental risk assessment of DBPs in the EU.
Graphical Abstract
Funder
Umweltbundesamt
Fraunhofer-Institut für Toxikologie und Experimentelle Medizin ITEM
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference173 articles.
1. ECHA (2012) Biocidal Products Regulation. https://echa.europa.eu/de/regulations/biocidal-products-regulation/legislation. Accessed 10 Aug 2023
2. ECHA (2017) Guidance on the BPR: Guidance on Disinfection By-Products. https://doi.org/10.2823/72847
3. Richardson SD, Plewa MJ, Wagner ED et al (2007) Occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products in drinking water: a review and roadmap for research. Mutat Res 636:178–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2007.09.001
4. ECHA (2023) Information on biocides—ECHA. https://echa.europa.eu/de/information-on-chemicals/biocidal-active-substances. Accessed 23 Feb 2023
5. European Commission Environment Directorate-GeneralI (2009) Assessment of different options to address risks from the use phase of biocides Final report. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ppps/pdf/final_report0309.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2023
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献