International scientists' priorities for research on pharmaceutical and personal care products in the environment
International scientists' priorities for research on pharmaceutical and personal care products in the environment
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ieam.1551
复制
发表时间：
2014-10
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
M. Rudd;G. Ankley;A. Boxall;B. Brooks
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Rudd;G. Ankley;A. Boxall;B. Brooks
药品和个人护理产品(PPCP)通过多种途径广泛排放到环境中。PPCP对环境的影响可能对人类和生态系统健康产生重要影响，因此需要可信、突出和合法的科学证据，以便为应对潜在风险的监管和政策反应提供信息。最近的一次“大问题”活动，参与者主要来自北美，确定了22个关于PPCP在环境中的风险的重要研究问题，这些问题将有助于解决未来十年最紧迫的知识差距。为了扩展这一分析，我们开发了一项由来自57个国家的环境科学家完成的调查，其中49%的人认为环境或分析化学是他们的主要学科背景。他们对22个原始研究问题进行了排名，并提交了171个他们认为也是高度优先的候选研究问题。在原始问题中，被认为最重要的3个问题涉及：1)长期暴露在低浓度PPCP混合物中对非目标生物的影响；2)可以减少PPCPs在环境中的影响而不增加整个废水的毒性的污水处理方法；以及3)PPCP代谢物和环境转化产物的环境风险评估。关于文化视角在PPCP风险评估中的作用的问题被列为最低优先事项。完成英文版和中文版调查的科学家在研究方向上存在显著差异。我们发现，中国受访者对管理风险概况、污水处理、残留物生物利用度和区域评估等问题有强烈的倾向性。在英语受访者中，研究取向的进一步差异与受访者在对调查的15个比较进行排名时的一致性水平有关。随着内部决策一致性的提高，人们越来越重视各种其他压力源相对于公私伙伴关系的作用，并强调风险优先次序。受访者在排名选择上的一致性与SETAC成员、作者发表的出版物数量和较长的调查完成时间显著正相关。我们的研究突出了国际科学家的研究重点，并应有助于为有关危险类型的决策和基于风险的研究提供信息，以最好地为有关环境中的PPCP的决策提供信息。科学家或工程师的学科培训似乎强烈影响对研究优先事项的偏好，以了解环境中的PPCP。因此，参与者的选择以及研究优先工作的深度和广度可能会对研究优先工作的结果产生影响。进一步阐明学术科学家和政府科学家之间以及科学家与其他政府和利益攸关方之间的研究优先模式是如何变化的，这将有助于今后提供信息，帮助将科学努力集中在与环境中的PPCP有关的社会相关挑战上。它还表明，未来工业界、政府和学术界之间关于PPCP以外的环境污染物的合作研究的潜力。综合环境评估马纳格2014；10：576-587。©2014年SETAC
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are widely discharged into the environment via diverse pathways. The effects of PPCPs in the environment have potentially important human and ecosystem health implications, so credible, salient, and legitimate scientific evidence is needed to inform regulatory and policy responses that address potential risks. A recent “big questions” exercise with participants largely from North America identified 22 important research questions around the risks of PPCP in the environment that would help address the most pressing knowledge gaps over the next decade. To expand that analysis, we developed a survey that was completed by 535 environmental scientists from 57 countries, of whom 49% identified environmental or analytical chemistry as their primary disciplinary background. They ranked the 22 original research questions and submitted 171 additional candidate research questions they felt were also of high priority. Of the original questions, the 3 perceived to be of highest importance related to: 1) the effects of long‐term exposure to low concentrations of PPCP mixtures on nontarget organisms, 2) effluent treatment methods that can reduce the effects of PPCPs in the environment while not increasing the toxicity of whole effluents, and 3) the assessment of the environmental risks of metabolites and environmental transformation products of PPCPs. A question regarding the role of cultural perspectives in PPCP risk assessment was ranked as the lowest priority. There were significant differences in research orientation between scientists who completed English and Chinese language versions of the survey. We found that the Chinese respondents were strongly orientated to issues of managing risk profiles, effluent treatment, residue bioavailability, and regional assessment. Among English language respondents, further differences in research orientation were associated with respondents' level of consistency when ranking the survey's 15 comparisons. There was increasing emphasis on the role of various other stressors relative to PPCPs and on risk prioritization as internal decision making consistency increased. Respondents' consistency in their ranking choices was significantly and positively correlated with SETAC membership, authors' number of publications, and longer survey completion times. Our research highlighted international scientists' research priorities and should help inform decisions about the type of hazard and risk‐based research needed to best inform decisions regarding PPCPs in the environment. Disciplinary training of a scientist or engineer appears to strongly influence preferences for research priorities to understand PPCPs in the environment. Selection of participants and the depth and breadth of research prioritization efforts thus have potential effects on the outcomes of research prioritization exercises. Further elucidation of how patterns of research priority vary between academic and government scientists and between scientists and other government and stakeholders would be useful in the future and provide information that helps focus scientific effort on socially relevant challenges relating to PPCPs in the environment. It also suggests the potential for future collaborative research between industry, government, and academia on environmental contaminants beyond PPCPs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2014;10:576–587. © 2014 SETAC