The Risk Assessment of River Water Pollution Based on a Modified Non-Linear Model

Given the huge number of chemicals released into the environment and existing time and budget constraints, there is a need to prioritize chemicals for risk assessment and monitoring in the context of the European Union Water Framework Directive (EU WFD). This study is the first to assess the risk of 500 organic substances based on observations in the four European river basins of the Elbe, Scheldt, Danube and Llobregat. A decision tree is introduced that first classifies chemicals into six categories depending on the information available, which allows water managers to focus on the next steps (e.g. derivation of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS), improvement of analytical methods, etc.). The priority within each category is then evaluated based on two indicators, the Frequency of Exceedance and the Extent of Exceedance of Predicted No-Effect Concentrations (PNECs). These two indictors are based on maximum environmental concentrations (MEC), rather than the commonly used statistically based averages (Predicted Effect Concentration, PEC), and compared to the lowest acute-based (PNEC(acute)) or chronic-based thresholds (PNEC(chronic)). For 56% of the compounds, PNECs were available from existing risk assessments, and the majority of these PNECs were derived from chronic toxicity data or simulated ecosystem studies (mesocosm) with rather low assessment factors. The limitations of this concept for risk assessment purposes are discussed. For the remainder, provisional PNECs (P-PNECs) were established from read-across models for acute toxicity to the standard test organisms Daphnia magna, Pimephales promelas and Selenastrum capricornutum. On the one hand, the prioritization revealed that about three-quarter of the 44 substances with MEC/PNEC ratios above ten were pesticides. On the other hand, based on the monitoring data used in this study, no risk with regard to the water phase could be found for eight of the 41 priority substances, indicating a first success of the implementation of the WFD in the investigated river basins.

Groundwater contamination risk assessment is an effective tool for groundwater management. Most existing risk assessment methods only consider the basic contamination process based upon evaluations of hazards and aquifer vulnerability. In view of groundwater exploitation potentiality, including the value of contamination-threatened groundwater could provide relatively objective and targeted results to aid in decision making. This study describes a groundwater contamination risk assessment method that integrates hazards, intrinsic vulnerability and groundwater value. The hazard harmfulness was evaluated by quantifying contaminant properties and infiltrating contaminant load, the intrinsic aquifer vulnerability was evaluated using a modified DRASTIC model and the groundwater value was evaluated based on groundwater quality and aquifer storage. Two groundwater contamination risk maps were produced by combining the above factors: a basic risk map and a value-weighted risk map. The basic risk map was produced by overlaying the hazard map and the intrinsic vulnerability map. The value-weighted risk map was produced by overlaying the basic risk map and the groundwater value map. Relevant validation was completed by contaminant distributions and site investigation. Using Beijing Plain, China, as an example, thematic maps of the three factors and the two risks were generated. The thematic maps suggested that landfills, gas stations and oil depots, and industrial areas were the most harmful potential contamination sources. The western and northern parts of the plain were the most vulnerable areas and had the highest groundwater value. Additionally, both the basic and value-weighted risk classes in the western and northern parts of the plain were the highest, indicating that these regions should deserve the priority of concern. Thematic maps should be updated regularly because of the dynamic characteristics of hazards. Subjectivity and validation means in assessing the vulnerability result were also discussed. In addition, GIS technology was essential in completing the assessment work.