It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Aquatic ecosystems are affected by man-made pressures, often causing combined impacts. The analysis of the impacts of chemical pollution is however commonly separate from that of other pressures and their impacts. This evolved from differences in the data available for applied ecology vis-à-vis applied ecotoxicology, which are field gradients and laboratory toxicity tests, respectively. With this study, we demonstrate that the current approach of chemical impact assessment, consisting of comparing measured concentrations to protective environmental quality standards for individual chemicals, is not optimal. In reply, and preparing for a method that would enable the comprehensive assessment and management of water quality pressures, we evaluate various quantitative chemical pollution pressure metrics for mixtures of chemicals in a case study with 24 priority substances of Europe-wide concern. We demonstrate why current methods are sub-optimal for water quality management prioritization and that chemical pollution currently imposes limitations to the ecological status of European surface waters. We discuss why management efforts may currently fail to restore a good ecological status, given that to date only 0.2% of the compounds in trade are considered in European water quality assessment and management.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, DMG), Bilthoven, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.31147.30) (ISNI:0000 0001 2208 0118); Radboud University Nijmegen, Department of Environmental Science, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5590.9) (ISNI:0000000122931605)
2 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, DMG), Bilthoven, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.31147.30) (ISNI:0000 0001 2208 0118)
3 DdZ-Ecotox, Odijk, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.31147.30); Mermayde, Groet, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.31147.30)
4 Radboud University Nijmegen, Department of Environmental Science, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5590.9) (ISNI:0000000122931605); Mermayde, Groet, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.5590.9)
5 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia (GRID:grid.8954.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0721 6013)
6 Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.4818.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0791 5666)
7 Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.6385.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9294 0542)
8 University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Biology, Aquatic Ecology, Essen, Germany (GRID:grid.5718.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2187 5445); University of Duisburg-Essen, Center for Water and Environmental Research, Essen, Germany (GRID:grid.5718.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2187 5445)