Managing the analytical challenges related to micro- and nanoplastics in the environment and food: filling the knowledge gaps.

This paper identifies knowledge gaps on the sustainability and impacts of plastics and presents some recommendations from an expert group that met at a special seminar organised by the European Commission at the end of 2018. The benefits of plastics in society are unquestionable, but there is an urgent need to better manage their value chain. The recently adopted European Strategy for Plastics stressed the need to tackle the challenges related to plastics with a focus on plastic litter including microplastics. Microplastics have been detected mainly in the marine environment, but also in freshwater, soil and air. Based on today's knowledge they may also be present in food products. Although nanoplastics have not yet been detected, it can be assumed that they are also present in the environment. This emerging issue presents challenges to better understand future research needs and the appropriate immediate actions to be taken to support the necessary societal and policy initiatives. It has become increasingly apparent that a broad and systematic approach is required to achieve sustainable actions and solutions along the entire supply chain. It is recognised that there is a pressing need for the monitoring of the environment and food globally. However, despite the number of research projects increasing, there is still a lack of suitable and validated analytical methods for detection and quantification of micro- and nanoplastics. There is also a lack of hazard and fate data which would allow for their risk assessment. Some priorities are identified in this paper to bridge the knowledge gaps for appropriate management of these challenges. At the same time it is acknowledged that there is a great complexity in the challenges that need to be tackled before a really comprehensive environmental assessment of plastics, covering their entire life cycle, will be possible.

Environmental footprint family to address local to planetary sustainability and deliver on the SDGs.

The number of publications on environmental footprint indicators has been growing rapidly, but with limited efforts to integrate different footprints into a coherent framework. Such integration is important for comprehensive understanding of environmental issues, policy formulation and assessment of trade-offs between different environmental concerns. Here, we systematize published footprint studies and define a family of footprints that can be used for the assessment of environmental sustainability. We identify overlaps between different footprints and analyse how they relate to the nine planetary boundaries and visualize the crucial information they provide for local and planetary sustainability. In addition, we assess how the footprint family delivers on measuring progress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), considering its ability to quantify environmental pressures along the supply chain and relating them to the water-energy-food-ecosystem (WEFE) nexus and ecosystem services. We argue that the footprint family is a flexible framework where particular members can be included or excluded according to the context or area of concern. Our paper is based upon a recent workshop bringing together global leading experts on existing environmental footprint indicators.

Using REACH for the EU Environmental Footprint: Building a Usable Ecotoxicity Database, Part I.

The European Union Environmental Footprint (EU-EF) is a harmonized method to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. Among 16 different impact categories included in the EU-EF, 1 focuses on the impact of substances on freshwater ecosystems and requires the use of toxicity data. This paper evaluates the use of the aquatic toxicity data submitted to the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. It presents an automated computerized approach for selecting substance ecotoxicity values, building on a set of quality and reliability criteria to extract the most relevant data points for calculating the substance specific hazard values. A selected set of criteria led to the exclusion of approximately 82% of the original REACH ecotoxicological data available as of May 2015 due to incomplete initial encoding of the data by the REACH registrant, missing information such as duration of exposure, endpoint measured, species tested, and imprecise toxicity values (i.e., reported with greater than or less than signs). From an initial set of 305 068 ecotoxicity data records available in the REACH database, the final usable database contains 54 353 toxicity records (29 421 characterized as acute and 24 941 as chronic) covering 9 taxonomic groups, with algae, crustaceans, and fish representing 93% of the data. This data set is valuable for assessing the environmental toxicity of the substance contained whether through traditional substance risk assessment, product toxicity labeling, life cycle assessment (LCA) or environmental impact assessment approaches. However, the resulting loss of approximately 82% of the data suggests that changes in procedures used to generate, report, and document the data within REACH are needed to improve data utility for the various assessment approaches. The rules used to select the data to be used are the primary focus of this article. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:783-795. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Estimating chemical ecotoxicity in EU ecolabel and in EU product environmental footprint.

The EU Commission Ecolabel and the Product and Environmental Footprint (PEF) aim at promoting the development and consumption of greener products. The product aquatic toxicity score from these 2 methods may lead in some circumstances to opposite conclusions. Although this could be interpreted as an inconsistency, the score should not be compared to each other but used in a complementary way. In short, CDV provided a "full" product formula aquatic toxicity score, even if some chemicals may never reach or persist in freshwater ecosystems. The USEtox® score, by integrating fate and exposure, focuses on the potential toxicity of persistent-water-soluble chemicals at steady state. Since no risk or safety assessment can be conducted with USEtox® nor with the CDV, both are a hazard-based scoring system. This short communication clarifies the difference between approaches underpinning the toxicity scores used in Ecolabel and PEF, providing guidance on how to interpret the results.

Improving substance information in USEtox® , part 2: Data for estimating fate and ecosystem exposure factors.

The scientific consensus model USEtox® has been developed since 2003 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme-Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Life Cycle Initiative as a harmonized approach for characterizing human and freshwater toxicity in life cycle assessment and other comparative assessment frameworks. Using physicochemical substance properties, USEtox quantifies potential human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity impacts by combining environmental fate, exposure, and toxicity effects information, considering multimedia fate and multipathway exposure processes. The main source to obtain substance properties for USEtox 1.01 and 2.0 is the Estimation Program Interface (EPI Suite™) from the US Environmental Protection Agency. However, since the development of the original USEtox substance databases, new chemical regulations have been enforced in Europe, such as the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and the Plant Protection Products regulations. These regulations require that a chemical risk assessment for humans and the environment is performed before a chemical is placed on the European market. Consequently, additional physicochemical property data and new toxicological endpoints are now available for thousands of chemical substances. The aim of the present study was to explore the extent to which the new available data can be used as input for USEtox-especially for application in environmental footprint studies-and to discuss how this would influence the quantification of fate and exposure factors. Initial results show that the choice of data source and the parameters selected can greatly influence fate and exposure factors, leading to potentially different rankings and relative contributions of substances to overall human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts. Moreover, it is crucial to discuss the relevance of the exposure factor for freshwater ecotoxicity impacts, particularly for persistent highly adsorbing and bioaccumulating substances. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3463-3470. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Improving substance information in USEtox® , part 1: Discussion on data and approaches for estimating freshwater ecotoxicity effect factors.

The scientific consensus model USEtox® is recommended by the European Commission as the reference model to characterize life cycle chemical emissions in terms of their potential human toxicity and freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity impacts in the context of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook and the Environmental Footprint pilot phase looking at products (PEF) and organizations (OEF). Consequently, this model has been systematically used within the PEF/OEF pilot phase by 25 European Union industry sectors, which manufacture a wide variety of consumer products. This testing phase has raised some questions regarding the derivation of and the data used for the chemical-specific freshwater ecotoxicity effect factor in USEtox. For calculating the potential freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity impacts, USEtox bases the effect factor on the chronic hazard concentration (HC50) value for a chemical calculated as the arithmetic mean of all logarithmized geometric means of species-specific chronic median lethal (or effect) concentrations (L[E]C50). We investigated the dependency of the USEtox effect factor on the selection of ecotoxicological data source and toxicological endpoints, and we found that both influence the ecotoxicity ranking of chemicals and may hence influence the conclusions of a PEF/OEF study. We furthermore compared the average measure (HC50) with other types of ecotoxicity effect indicators, such as the lowest species EC50 or no-observable-effect concentration, frequently used in regulatory risk assessment, and demonstrated how they may also influence the ecotoxicity ranking of chemicals. We acknowledge that these indicators represent different aspects of a chemical's ecotoxicity potential and discuss their pros and cons for a comparative chemical assessment as performed in life cycle assessment and in particular within the PEF/OEF context. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3450-3462. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Rethinking the area of protection "natural resources" in life cycle assessment.

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in classical life cycle assessment (LCA) aims at analyzing potential impacts of products and services typically on three so-called areas of protection (AoPs): Natural Environment, Human Health, and Natural Resources. This paper proposes an elaboration of the AoP Natural Resources. It starts with analyzing different perspectives on Natural Resources as they are somehow sandwiched in between the Natural Environment (their cradle) and the human-industrial environment (their application). Reflecting different viewpoints, five perspectives are developed with the suggestion to select three in function of classical LCA. They result in three safeguard subjects: the Asset of Natural Resources, their Provisioning Capacity, and their role in Global Functions. Whereas the Provisioning Capacity is fully in function of humans, the global functions go beyond provisioning as they include nonprovisioning functions for humans and regulating and maintenance services for the globe as a whole, following the ecosystem services framework. A fourth and fifth safeguard subject has been identified: recognizing the role Natural Resources for human welfare, either specifically as building block in supply chains of products and services as such, either with or without their functions beyond provisioning. But as these are far broader as they in principle should include characterization of mechanisms within the human industrial society, they are considered as subjects for an integrated sustainability assessment (LCSA: life cycle sustainability assessment), that is, incorporating social, economic and environmental issues.