Tire related additive chemicals can leach out and enter the environment. Road run-off and recipient waters are particularly prone to contamination by these chemicals, though data from large screening studies is lacking. Here, we present data from water (road run-off & recipients, atmospheric deposition (rain), snow), sediment (marine, snow dumping sites) and biota (blue mussels) samples collected in the Nordic countries. The aim of this study was to provide a first assessment of the presence of tire related chemicals in road run-off and associated samples in the Nordic countries. Tire related additive chemicals were detected in 85 out of 87 samples, with varying concentrations depending on the sample type and location.
In a world where plastic production is steadily increasing, our awareness of the environmental risks associated with plastics has become more crucial. Concerns have arisen not only due to additives in plastics but also regarding the chemicals that make up plastic; information is still needed on their impact and properties. Additionally, there is apprehension about the role of plastics in the long-range transport of pollutants to the Arctic region. Furthermore, the heightened focus on a circular economy and increased recycling might result in the reoccurrence of legacy pollutants.
As we navigate through the challenges posed by plastics, we aim to foster an open exchange of information. With an overarching goal to address the evolving landscape of plastics and chemical additives, our seminar seeks to discuss the following questions:
Which chemicals are present in plastics?
To what extent are chemicals of concern transported via long range transport of plastics
Which plastics related chemicals should be considered for Nordic screening exercises and/or environmental monitoring?
On behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Screening Group, NILU performed a study on short-, medium- and long-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs, MCCPs, LCCPs) in urban air. Tire wear particles have been suggested to be a source for CPs and elevated urban concentrations of CPs. Air samples were here collected in three Nordic capitals (Finland, Iceland and Norway) in wintertime and in summertime. Higher concentrations of SCCPs and MCCPs were observed in wintertime than in summertime in Norway and Finland but no difference was observed in Iceland. Elevated concentrations of MCCPs and LCCPs were found at individual sites, but the concentrations at the urban sites were not consistently higher than at a background monitoring site. The results therefore showed no clear relationship to traffic. Instead, sources may be more diffusive and local sources seem to differ.
On behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Screening Group, NILU and NIVA performed a monitoring study on selected environmental contaminants, namely UV-filters, dechloranes, and chlorinated paraffins. UV-compounds were frequently detected in samples related to the marine food web. In the group of dechloranes, dechlorane 602 was detected most frequently in samples related to the marine, freshwater, and terrestrial food web. Short and medium chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs and MCCPs) were found in most of the samples, but long chain chlorinated paraffins (LCCPs) with a slightly lower detection frequency. For nearly all biota samples, the concentrations of MCCPs were higher than the SCCP concentrations. LCCP-concentrations were as high or higher than the SCCP-concentrations.
Figure 1. Unknown pollutants and chemicals going through risk assessment vs the tiny fraction of the known and characterized pollutants
New chemicals are continuously being developed every day and many of them end up in the environment where they can cause damage to wildlife, nature and humans. Because of the influx of chemicals, national environmental monitoring programs need to be continuously revisited.
In addition to the increasing chemical selection, analytical methods are becoming increasingly more precise and more available along with improvement on other tools e.g. modelling. As more compounds can be detected more of them can be included in monitoring programs.
Unfortunately, including more compounds leads to higher prices for these programs causing regulators of chemicals (single component, mixtures or in products) to choose carefully which chemicals should be monitored. Thus, prioritization is a key factor when planning and organizing environmental monitoring programs.
The goal for the seminar is to exchange information on prioritization of hazardous substances for environmental monitoring. The following questions will be discussed:
– Lessons learned, are we actually smarter
today?
– Is substitution one of the solutions?
– Prioritization and regulation – how does
it interact?
– Prioritization and risk assessment – how
does it interact?
– How are substances prioritized in
national environmental monitoring programs today?
– New methods on prioritization – what’s up?
A variety of speakers were invited to discuss various topics relating to these questions. Among them are researchers from Nordic universities, governmental bodies as well as selected international research institutes and agencies. If interested, please feel free to download the agenda and majority of the presentations below.
The purpose of this project is to dig deeper into the data material already generated in the Suspect screening in Nordic countries: Point sources in city areas (TemaNord: 2017:561) to further optimize the benefits of the major work that has already been done. Samples (effluent, sediment, and biota) from all of the Nordic countries were carefully selected, sampled and analysed by a consortium of some of the Nordic region’s most experienced scientific groups in analyses of emerging environmental contaminants. But where perhaps the full potential of the generated data is still to be realized. This project will try to further identify and describe the substances already detected, to be able to better understand what substances we in modern Nordic societies release into the sea via our wastewater.
This report expands upon the work of Woldegiorgis et al. (2019), employing similar methodologies with minor revisions to facilitate a pan-Nordic assessment of chemical use, exposure, and monitoring. The analysis has been updated to incorporate data from 2018 to 2020 and involves a prioritization process consisting of five filtering steps, beginning with an initial set of 1,872 compounds. Out of these, 194 compounds passed the first filter, 23 proceeded through the fourth filter, and ultimately, 16 compounds were identified after the final monitoring filter. The resulting screening lists need to be analyzed with expert-judgement and supplemented with problematic compounds that did not pass the 3-5 filters.
A comparison of the 16 proposed chemical candidates with the 13 proposed candidates for screening presented in Table 18 of Woldegiorgis et al. (2019) reveals that 10 of these candidates are also prioritized in the current study. Two chemicals, i.e. CAS 2425-85-6 Pigment Red 3 and CAS 2814-77-9 Pigment Red 4 are the only prioritized chemicals not assessed before, as they are new additions in the CoRAP list.
The analysis provides an objective, semi-quantitative risk based prioritization screening of compounds for consideration in a monitoring context in the Nordic region. The method can be adjusted and further developed, e.g. scores and cut-offs can be adjusted and other properties can be added e.g. mobility. The database analysis could moreover be further developed by including databases outside the EU system e.g. via the OECD e-chem portal and the US EPA ToxCast and chem-dashboard. In the not too distant future the analysis could be expanded in a machine-learning/artificial intelligence (AI) environment.
The report aims to assist the Joint Nordic Screening Group in evaluating and prioritizing chemicals within national aquatic environmental monitoring programs. Specific objectives include: 1) identifying knowledge gaps and monitoring needs for emerging substances expected in the aquatic environment, based on lists of potentially hazardous chemicals; and 2) proposing a pan-Nordic screening study for prioritized substances.
This report describes a screening study of in all ninety-nine conventional and emerging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the Nordic environment. In addition, extractable organic fluorine (EOF) was analysed. The latter can provide the amount, but not identity, of organofluorine in the samples, which in turn can be used to assess the mass balance between known and unknown PFASs. The study was initiated by the Nordic Screening Group and funded by these and the Nordic Council of Ministers through the Chemicals Group.A total of 102 samples were analyzed in this study, including bird eggs, fish, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, surface water, WWTP effluents and sludge, and air. Samples were collected by institutes from the participating countries and self-governing areas; Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
The overarching goal for the seminar was to exchange information on emerging contaminants leaking from urban environment. Presentations were given by invited speakers under the following four section headings:
This report describes the results of a suspect screening study in samples from city areas in the Nordic countries. In contrast to target analysis, suspect screening starts with a general sample preparation and identification including as much compounds as possible. The resulting list of recorded compounds will be identified by comparison with a list of suspected compounds. Suspect screening has shown to be very useful for identification of emerging environmental pollutants. It was possible to identify: Perfluorinated compounds (PFC), chlorinated and brominated compounds, flame retardants, bisphenols, polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC), industrial additives, and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP). This study was jointly performed by NILU, NIVA, and Umeå University on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers. The study was supervised by the Nordic screening group.
