Evaluation of Measured and Predicted Environmental Concentrations of Selected Human Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (10 pp)
Evaluation of Measured and Predicted Environmental Concentrations of Selected Human Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (10 pp)
复制标题
选定人类药物和个人护理产品的测量和预测环境浓度评估（10 页）
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Knacker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Liebig;J. Moltmann;T. Knacker
摘要目的、范围和背景在过去的几年里，人们越来越意识到地表水和饮用水资源中存在药物和个人护理产品（PPCPs），并对地表水、沉积物或废水中的一些PPCPs进行了测量。在监管方面，环境风险评估对于新的PPCPs至关重要。作为环境风险评估的两大支柱之一，化学品的环境浓度（佩奇或MEC）的可靠预测或测量对于暴露评估至关重要。
本文报告了地表水沃茨中选定PPCPs的测量数据，并将测量值与暴露模型预测的环境浓度进行了比较。这种模式已被欧洲药品评价机构（EMEA）和新的通知和现有的化学物质（TGD）的风险评估的技术指导文件提出。方法四种药物和个人护理产品的调查范围内，在这里报告：17α-炔雌醇，卡马西平，磺胺甲恶唑和碘普罗胺以及托那利特。科学文献中审查了这些PPCPs在地表沃茨中的实测环境浓度。根据TGD建议的监测数据标准评价了这些数据的适当性。共对38份参考文献进行了评价，重点是化学分析的充分性和取样的代表性。根据监测质量标准，地表水（MECsw）中的浓度测量值被认为足以用于接触评估，将其平均并与从接触模型中得出的地表水（PECsw）中的相应佩奇进行比较（参见表1）。结果和讨论在38个参考文献中的20个中发现了足以用于暴露评估的测量环境浓度。德国的几个测量值可用于与计算的佩奇进行比较。在德国，17α-乙炔基乙胺的平均MECssw < 0.58 ng/L，卡马西平为454 ng/L，磺胺甲恶唑为126 ng/L，碘普罗胺为1105 ng/L，托那利特为311 ng/L。与实测浓度相比，使用EMEA于2001年提出的模型计算的佩奇在相同范围内，但略高于MEC。2001年的EMEA模型基于PPCP的生产/使用量。最近的EMEA模型（2003/2005）将卡马西平和磺胺甲恶唑的佩奇高估了一个数量级以上，但与MEC相比，将17α-乙炔基苯丙氨酸的浓度低估了近5倍。该模型基于最大日剂量和假设1%的人群正在服用药物（默认值）。使用欧盟物质评价系统（EUSES）进行的计算（EUSES是描述化学品和杀生物剂风险评估的TGD的一部分）得出的研究药物的PEC几乎与旧EMEA模型（2001）得出的PEC相同。对于PCP托那利特，最新的EMEA模型（2003/2005）无法适用，与德国的平均MECsw相比，旧EMEA模型（2001）的PEC被高估了3倍，但EUSES的PEC被低估了5倍。结论在大多数情况下，使用EMEA和TGD提供的暴露模型计算PEC，佩奇与相应的MEC非常接近。然而，在某些情况下，环境浓度可能被模型低估，例如，由于高亲脂性，假设污水污泥的吸附在真实的条件下不会发生这种程度。因此，看起来暴露模型不符合真实的环境的复杂性。然而，对预测的环境浓度影响最大和不确定性程度较高的主要因素是生产量，被评价为不足以用于接触评估的建议和展望参考资料及其数据主要由于缺少与取样程序和/或样品代表性有关的规格或规格不足而被拒绝。若干已评价的研究旨在采用和确立一种新的分析方法。因此，忽略了对取样频率和模式的详细说明。通常，对分析程序、取样模式和数据统计分析的更准确描述就足以为接触评估提供充分的依据，从而建立对环境风险评估程序的信心。
对于新物质，接触评估完全基于使用环境转归模型的估计。为避免对环境造成不可接受的风险，佩奇不应低估实际环境浓度。由于研究表明，在特定条件下，本研究中使用的模型低估了测量的环境浓度，因此似乎有必要进一步开发计算模型。
AbstractGoal, Scope and Background In the past few years, there was an increasing awareness of the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in surface water and drinking water resources, and measurements in surface water, sediment or waste water were done for a number of PPCPs. In the regulatory context, an environmental risk assessment (ERA) has become essential for new PPCPs. Reliably predicted or measured environmental concentrations (PECs or MECs) of chemicals are essential for the exposure assessment, which is one of the two main pillars of environmental risk assessment (ERA).
This paper reports on measured data of selected PPCPs in surface waters and compares the measured values with predicted environmental concentrations from exposure models. Such models have been proposed by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and the Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for New Notified and Existing Chemical Substances (TGD).Methods Four pharmaceuticals and one personal care product were in the scope of the investigation reported here: 17α-ethinylestradiol, carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole and iopromide as well as tonalide. Measured environmental concentrations in surface waters for these PPCPs were reviewed in the scientific literature. The appropriateness of these data was evaluated according to criteria for monitoring data recommended by the TGD. A total of 38 references were evaluated with emphasis on the adequacy of chemical analysis and the representativeness of sampling. Measurements of concentrations in surface water (MECsw), which were found to be adequate for use in exposure assessment according to the monitoring quality criteria, were averaged and compared with respective PECs in surface water (PECsw) derived from exposure modelling (cf. EMEA and TGD).Results and Discussion Measured environmental concentrations adequate for use in exposure assessment were found in 20 out of 38 references. Several of the measurements from Germany could be used for a comparison with calculated PECs. Average MECssw in Germany were < 0.58 ng/L for 17α-ethinylestradiol, 454 ng/L for carbamazepine, 126 ng/L for sulfamethoxazole, 1105 ng/L for iopromide and 311 ng/L for tonalide. In comparison to the measured concentrations, PECs calculated with the model proposed by the EMEA in 2001 were in the same range, but slightly higher than the MECs. The EMEA model from 2001 is based on a production/use volume of the PPCPs. The more recent EMEA model (2003/2005) overestimated the PECs by more than one order of magnitude for carbamazepine and sulfamethoxazole, but underestimated the concentration of 17α-ethinylestradiol by a factor of almost 5 compared to the MECs. This model is based on maximum daily doses and the assumption that 1% of the population is consuming the pharmaceutical (default value). Calculations with the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES), which is part of the TGD describing the risk assessment of chemicals and biocides, resulted for the investigated pharmaceuticals in almost the same PECs as derived by the older EMEA model (2001). For the PCP tonalide, to which the recent EMEA model (2003/2005) cannot be applied, the PEC was overestimated by a factor of 3 with the older EMEA model (2001), but underestimated with EUSES by a factor of 5 compared to the averaged MECsw in Germany. Conclusions It was shown that PEC calculations with exposure models provided by EMEA and the TGD, resulted in PECs very close to the corresponding MECs in most cases. However, environmental concentrations can be underestimated by models in cases, where, e.g. due to high lipophilicity, sorption to sewage sludge is assumed which does not occur to that extent under real conditions. Thus, it appears that the exposure models do not come up to the complexity of the real environment. However, the main factor with the highest impact on predicted environmental concentrations and a high degree of uncertainty is the production volume.Recommendations and Outlook References and their data evaluated as not adequate for use in exposure assessment were mainly rejected due to missing or insufficient specifications related to the sampling procedure and/or representativeness of the samples. Several of the evaluated studies aimed at the introduction and establishment of a new analytical methodology. A detailed description of sampling frequency and pattern, for example, was therefore neglected. Often, a more accurate description of analytical procedure, sampling pattern and statistical analysis of data would be sufficient to provide an adequate basis for exposure assessment and hence establish confidence in environmental risk assessment procedures.
For new substances, an exposure assessment is solely based on estimations using environmental fate models. To avoid unacceptable risks for the environment, PECs should not underestimate actual environmental concentrations. Since it was shown that under specific conditions the models applied in this study underestimated measured environmental concentrations, further development of the calculation models appears to be necessary.