ZINC - Europa · Web viewChemical IDENTITY Common name Zinc Chemical name (IUPAC) Zinc (min.) Synonym(s) Zinc Chemical class (when available/relevant) Metal CAS number 7440-66-6 EU

Zn fact Sheet. UK Environment Agency March 2010

ZINC

1 CHEMICAL IDENTITY

Common name Zinc

Chemical name (IUPAC) Zinc (min.)

Synonym(s) Zinc

Chemical class (when available/relevant) Metal

CAS number 7440-66-6

EU number 231-175-3

Molecular formula Zn

Molecular weight (g.mol-1) 65.38

2 EXISTING EVALUATIONS AND REGULATORY INFORMATION

Annex III EQS Dir. (2008/105/EC) Not included

Existing Substances Reg. (793/93/EC) Priority List No.2, Final EU RAR report available online

Pesticides(91/414/EEC) Zinc phosphide and Zinc-dimethylditiocarbamate out of Annex I

Biocides (98/8/EC) Several compounds containing zinc out of Annex I

PBT substances No – Bioaccumulation potential is low (RIVM 2006)

Substances of Very High Concern (1907/2006/EC) No

POPs (Stockholm convention) No

Other relevant chemical regulation (veterinary products, medicament, ...) No

Endocrine disrupter (Groshart and Okkerman, 2000; Johnson and Harvey, 2002; Petersen et al., 2007)

There are no indications that zinc has any endocrine disrupter potential (RIVM 2006).


3 PROPOSED QUALITY STANDARDS (QS)

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARD (EQS)

Value Comments

Proposed AA-EQS for [freshwater] [µg.l-1]

Proposed AA-EQS in [marine waters] [µg.L-1]

10.9 (UK)

7.8 (EU RA)

3 (RIVM) (tentative)

AA-EQS are expressed as Added Risk and represent conditions of high bioavailability and should be protective of sensitive areas. A bioavailability correction needs to be made to compensate for local conditions when undertaking a compliance check.

Assessment factor of 2 included. Added risk EQS.

Proposed MAC-EQS for [freshwater] [µg.L-1]

Proposed MAC-EQS for [marine waters] [µg.L-1]

33 (UK)

23.4 (EU RA)

No value

Based on Acute to Chronic ratio of 3

3.2 SPECIFIC QUALITY STANDARD (QS)

Protection objective1 Unit Value Comments

Pelagic community (freshwater) [µg.l-1]

10.9 (UK)

7.8 (EU RA)

Pelagic community (marine water) [µg.l-1] 3 (RIVM) (tentative)

Benthic community (freshwater)[µg.kg-1 dw]

Not relevant[µg.l-1]

Benthic community (marine)[µg.kg-1 dw]

[µg.l-1]

Predators (secondary poisoning)[µg.kg-1

biota ww]Not relevant

[µg.l-1]

Human health via consumption of fishery products

[µg.kg-1biota ww] Not relevant

[µg.l-1]

1 Please note that as recommended in the Technical Guidance for deriving EQS (E.C., 2009) , “EQSs […] are not reported for ‘transitional and marine waters’, but either for freshwater or marine waters”. If justified by substance properties or data available, QS for the different protection objectives are given independently for transitional waters or coastal and territorial waters.


Human health via consumption of water [µg.l-1]

4 MAJOR USES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS

4.1 USES AND QUANTITIES

Production and consumption of Zinc metal within the EU

Year 2006 2007

EU production of zinc (T/y) 2515000 2529000

EU consumption of zinc (T/y) 2787000 2811000

Source: International Lead and Zinc study group (2008)

Use percentages for each industry branch (data from International Lead and Zinc Study Group ILZSG and IZA-Europe)

No. Branch of industry Use percentage 1997(information from EU

industrial)

1 Galvanising 38.8%

2 Zinc in brass 25.5%

3 Die casting alloy 12.4%

4 Rolled/wrought zinc 11.8%

5 Zinc powder/dust 2.9%

6 Others (production other zinc compounds) 8.6%


4.2 ESTIMATED ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS

The EU RA analysed in detail the regional releases of zinc. As a basis for the analysis extensive data for the Netherlands (from 1999) were used, confirmed by data from B, SW, UK and D.

Zinc emissions to water, soil and air in the Netherlands (1999) (in t/y).

Waste water Surface water Soil Air

Agriculture 4 4 2240

Industry 63 31 64

Waste treatment 4 -

Traffic 140 54 150 22

Consumers 212 8 4 5

Trade and Services 37 2

Effluents STP - 95

Others 0.4 50 238

Atmospheric deposition - 8 90

2

Total 460 254 2720 91

More recent emissions data is also available from the Netherlands using better estimation methods and this is given below:Zinc emissions to water, soil and air in the Netherlands in t/yr in 2000, 2005 and 2007.

Source: Deltares, 2009. www.prtr.nl

Year Source Waste water Surface water Soil Air

2000 Agriculture 1,2 145 1,548 0,0049

Industry 22 33 56

Waste treatment 9,1 0,9 2,3 0,12

Traffic 38 175 113 35

Consumers 192 1,9 4,2 5,0

Trade and services 32 0,4 9,1

Effluents STP 101

Nature 57 324 70

Others 0,19 32 3,2 0,0006

Total 352,06 813,80 1,749,82 96,07


Zinc emissions to water, soil and air in the Netherlands in t/yr in 2000, 2005 and 2007 Contd.

Source: Deltares, 2009. www.prtr.nl

Year Waste water Surface water Soil Air

2005 Agriculture 2,3 97 917 8

Industry 23 22 38

Waste treatment 5,2 0,6 2,3 0,01

Traffic 42 177 110 38

Consumers 208 0,8 3,7 4,8

Trade and services 33 0,25 8,9 0,02

Effluents STP 85

Nature 35 200 65

Others 0,13 30 5,0 0,0003

Total 348,82 613,17 1,112,46 88,90

Year Waste water Surface water Soil Air

2007 Agriculture 2,1 156 822 9,0

Industry 15 14 42

Waste treatment 5 0,7 2,3 0,26

Traffic 43 178 107 39

Consumers 206 0,38 3,3 4,8

Trade and services 29 0,01 7,8 0,03

Effluents STP 84

Nature 34 192 50

Others 0,06 29 6,6 0,0003

Total 333,55 654,02 999,43 94,95


5 ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRIBUTION

Master reference

Water solubility (mg.l-1) Insoluble (E.C., 2008)

Volatilisation

Vapour pressure (Pa) 31 at 450ºC(E.C., 2008)Henry's Law constant

(Pa.m3.mol-1) Not applicable

Adsorption

Organic carbon – water partition coefficient (KOC) Not applicable

(E.C., 2008)Kpsed 73 000 l/kg

(Kpsusp) :Suspended matter – water partition coefficient(Ksusp-water)

110 000 l/kg

Bioaccumulation

According to Risk Assessment Report (RAR), based on the ICDZ data (E.C., 2008) on bioaccumulation of zinc in animals and on biomagnification (i.e. accumulation and transfer through the food chain), it is concluded that secondary poisoning is considered to be not relevant in the effect assessment of zinc. Major decision points for this conclusion are the following. The accumulation of zinc, an essential element, is regulated in animals of several taxonomic groups, for example in molluscs, crustaceans, fish and mammals. In mammals, one of the two target species for secondary poisoning, both the absorption of zinc from the diet and the excretion of zinc, are regulated. This allows mammals, within certain limits, to maintain their total body zinc level (whole body homeostasis) and to maintain physiologically required levels of zinc in their various tissues, both at low and high dietary zinc intakes. The results of field studies, in which relatively small differences were found in the zinc levels of small mammals from control and polluted sites, are in accordance with the homeostatic mechanism. These data indicate that the bioaccumulation potential of zinc in both herbivorous and carnivorous mammals will be low. Based on the above data, evaluation of quality standards for protection of top predators from secondary poisoning and protection of human health from consumption of fishery products are deemed not relevant.

Octanol-water partition Not relevant (see above) (E.C., 2008)


coefficient (Log Kow)

BCF (measured)

5.2 ABIOTIC AND BIOTIC DEGRADATIONS

Abiotic and biotic degradation are not relevant parameters for environmental fate of metals.


6 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS

6.1 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

The concentrations of zinc in surface waters (both marine waters and freshwater) are dependent on natural conditions: it is almost impossible to determine experimentally a natural background concentration in Europe. Due to geochemical differences, the natural background concentrations will differ in Europe. In addition, since the concentrations that are measured in the environment are the sum of an anthropogenic and a ‘natural’ source, one cannot simply distinguish the ‘natural’ part from the anthropogenic part. Hence, background concentrations are not measured, but estimated or determined with other methods (E.C., 2008).

Master reference

Surface open ocean (µg.l-1) Range 0.001 – 0.06

(E.C., 2008)

Dissolved concentration in deep Atlantic Ocean water (µg.l-1) 0.1 ± 0.4

Coastal seas (µg.l-1) Range 0.5 – 1

European Freshwater (µg total Zn.l-1) 3 – 12

Freshwater Sediment (mg.kg dwt-1)Range: 70-175;

Used value: 140

6.2 ESTIMATED CONCENTRATIONS

Compartment Predicted environmental concentration (PEC) Master reference

Freshwater 6.3ug/l added dissolved zinc

EU RA section 3.2.5.3.2

Calculated from EU Region Total Zn PEC of

16.8ug/l assuming 15mg/l suspended solids

Sediment

Biota

Biota (marine)

Biota (marine predators)

6.3 MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS

Compartment Measured environmental concentration (MEC) Master reference

Water See Table 6.3.1 below for Country specific data

INERIS (2010)

International Zinc Association (2010)

WWTP effluent No Data

Sediment 270mg/kg dw (<2 mm fraction) INERIS (2010)


948 mg/kg dw (<20um fraction) INERIS (2010)

399 mg/kg dw (<63um fraction) INERIS (2010)

Biota83 mg/kg ww (fish) INERIS (2010)

199 mg/kg ww (invertebrates) INERIS (2010)

Biota (marine predators) No data

Total zinc is a frequently monitored substance across freshwaters within the EU and data for measured values should be comparable with few confounding factors. Dissolved zinc is less frequently measured and if different sampling protocols are used ( e.g. filtration methods ) it can make comparison of dissolved zinc values uncertain. Therefore, total zinc data was used in the analysis below. Total zinc data were reported (INERIS 2010) by 16 member states (see attached). The PECs are calculated by country in Table 6.3.1 below (IZA 2010). Values in italics are from less than 30 stations and may be less reliable. The data was calculated as follows:

For the purposes of this assessment, the RAR PNEC of 7.8ug/l was applied. This PNEC includes an assessment factor of 2.

PEC values were corrected for background by applying the average and worst case background levels for zinc in the EU RAR (12 and 3 ug/l total zinc or 1.1 and 4.4 ug/l dissolved zinc)

Total PEC add values were converted to dissolved concentrations (to allow comparison with the PNEC) by applying the equilibrium partitioning approach and assuming a suspended solids concentration of 15mg/l

A general correction of 60% bioavailability was applied based on information on EU water conditions reported in the RAR. It is not possible to make a more precise bioavailability correction on a country specific basis due to lack of the necessary data. For information, some estimates of average region specific bioavailability factors are given below in Table 6.3.2.

Table 6.3.1 Analysis of Measured Freshwater Zinc Data (INERIS 2010, IZA 2010)

Country

Nr of statio

nsNr of

analyses

90th percentile

(all analyses)

90P add 90Padd dissolved

90P add dissolved

bio-available

Risk ratio

AUSTRIA 383 13330 5.94 2.9 1 0.6 0.1BELGIUM 27 269 30.55 27.5-18.6 10.1-6.9 6.1-4.1 0.8-0.5

CYPRUS 31 84 121.67118.7-109.7

44.0-40.6 26.3-24.3 3.4-3.12

CZECH REPUBLIC 312 20641 38.47 35.5-26.5 13.1-9.8 7.9-5.9 1.01-0.8DENMARK 16 317 21.41 18.4-9.4 6.8-3.5 4.1-2.1 0.5-0.3ESTONIA 11 142 19.82 16.8-7.8 6.2-2.9 3.7-1.7 0.5-0.2FRANCE 968 8630 36.28 33.3-24.3 12.3-9.0 7.4-5.4 0.95-0.7GERMANY 200 8644 36.22 33.2-24.2 12.3-9.0 7.4-5.4 0.95-0.7GREECE 165 628 38.36 35.4-26.4 13.1-9.8 7.9-5.9 1.01-0.8LITHUANIA 21 233 35.55 32.6-23.6 12.1-8.7 7.3-5.2 0.93-0.7LUXEMBOURG 7 180 31.15 28.2-19.2 10.4-7.1 6.3-4.3 0.8-0.55NETHERLANDS 32 799 29.82 26.8-17.8 9.9-6.6 6.0-4.0 0.8-0.5PORTUGAL 318 8021 21.28 18.3-9.3 6.8-3.4 4.1-2.1 0.5-0.3ROMANIA 104 768 64.85 61.9-52.9 22.9-19.6 13.7-11.7 1.8-1.53

2 The 90P value for Cyprus is related to the monitoring of a mixed waste dump site which is in the process of being remediated.


SLOVAKIA 27 764 93.7190.71-

81.730.3-33.6 18.2-20.2 2.3-2.6

UNITED KINGDOM 3254 52022 26.78 23.8-14.8 8.8-5.5 5.3-3.3 0.7-0.4

Table 6.3.2 Examples of Average Bioavailability factors4

River basin or Region Average Zinc Bioavailability

Meuse River (Belgium/Netherlands) 0.8

Elbe 0.5

Main 0.7

Mosel 0.7

Flanders Region (Belgium) 0.6

Walloon Provinces Region (Belgium) 0.7

Netherlands Region 0.3

Rhine Meuse region (France) 0.6

Rhone Region (France) 0.9

UK (England & Wales) – average of 86 rivers 0.56

7 EFFECTS AND QUALITY STANDARDS

Bioavailability of zincZinc exists in the +2 oxidation state in forms that are dependent on physicochemical parameters, particularly pH, hardness and the content of dissolved organic carbon. Bioavailability and toxicity may be affected by organic and inorganic complexation, with anions such as chloride (Cl -) and carbonate (CO3

2-), and by the competition of cations (e.g. Ca2+ and H+) with zinc at biological receptors. These abiotic factors vary considerably in the freshwater environment. Detailed studies have demonstrated the protective effects of complexation by DOC and competing cations like Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and H+ on zinc toxicity to fish, crustaceans and algae (van Sprang et al. 2009).

Biotic Ligand Models (BLMs) have been developed for zinc which account for the effects of these factors, reducing substantially the observed variation in ecotoxicity to organisms when tests are carried out in different waters. This allows for a bioavailability-based approach to EQS setting. In practice, an EQS for zinc would be expressed as an EQSadd (i.e. an ‘added risk’ approach to compliance assessment that takes the local background into account).

EQS implementationBecause of variations in key water quality characteristics, the bioavailability of zinc will vary across different locations. This means that a risk may exist at one location but the same concentration of dissolved zinc does not pose a risk at another because much less of the zinc is actually in a form that is bioavailable. The concept endrlying the zinc EQS is a based on a single ‘generic’ EQS coupled with a tiered approach to compliance assessment that takes account of the factors that mitigate bioavailability.

3 The Romanian dataset contains data that result from direct point source monitoring4 Average bioavailability factors taken from EU RA except for UK which is calculated from 86 river sites monitored for compliance against the Freshwater Fish directive.


For an EQS that can be applied across all MSs, the ‘generic’ EQS should be one that affords protection even under conditions of high bioavailability (i.e. a ‘worst case’ value). This may be compared directly with monitoring data as a first tier in the assessment of compliance. If this ‘face value’ comparison shows that the measured zinc concentration exceeds this EQS, bioavailability is taken into account at subsequent tiers using BLMs5 (initially screening versions of BLMs in conjunction with local measurements of key water quality parameters (pH, DOC and [Ca]), or default values where these are not available). If a sample shows an exceedance of the ‘generic’ EQS after bioavailability is accounted for, then background levels of zinc may be considered. Only if there is an exceedance after these steps can we be confident that good chemical status has not been achieved and remedial measures may be needed.

1. Comparison with generic (100% bioavailable) EQS

2. Use of screening tool

3. Use of NiBLM

4. Consideration of local ambient background concentrations

5. Remedial measures

Class

ificati

onPr

ogra

mme o

f Me

asur

es

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

No fu

rther

actio

n nec

essa

ry Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

BLM

Tiered assessment scheme for implementing an EQS for zinc

Derivation of EQSSince a Risk Assessment Report (RAR) for Zinc and Zinc compounds (E.C., 2008) has been prepared and published, the PNECs derived from this process are normally adopted as EQSs unless new evidence is available to prompt a revision (Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards (E.C., 2009). In the 2008 RAR for zinc, the chronic databases for zinc (aquatic and terrestrial) were examined on the basis of the criteria developed in 2001 (E.C., 2001) and included in the current EU Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment (E.C., 2003) and PNEC values (PNECadd, aquatic) were derived by statistical extrapolation.

The UK has recently conducted a review (Environment Agency, 2010) which modifies the conclusions drawn in the RAR in the light of new information. It develops a ‘generic’ EQSadd for zinc that aims to afford protection to waters in which zinc is highly bioavailable using the following steps:

5 ‘Full’ BLMs take account of all water quality factyors that affect zinc bioavailability whilst ‘screening’ BLMs are restricted to the main factors (DOC, pH and hardness). Estimates of bioavailable concentrations of zinc asing the ‘screening’ BLMs tend to be more conservative (lower) than those derived using the ‘full’ BLMs.


(a) Selection and normalisation of ecotoxicity data

(b) Selection of a ‘generic’ HC5

(c) Selection of AF to deal with residual uncertainty.

Both the RAR PNEC and UK PNEC are summarised below for clarity. They have much in common i.e. both take account of bioavailability of zinc but differ in the input data, the way in which bioavailability is dealt with, and the levels of protection afforded.

7.1 ACUTE AND CHRONIC AQUATIC ECOTOXICITY

7.1.1 Dealing with backgroundsIn both the RAR (E.C., 2008) and UK review (Environment Agency, 2010) the results of the aquatic toxicity studies are expressed as either the actual (measured) concentration or as the nominal (added) concentration (Cn). The actual concentrations include the background concentration (Cb) of zinc. Because of the “added risk approach”, the results based on actual concentrations in individual ecotoxicity tests have been corrected for background, if possible. This correction for background is based on the assumption that only the added concentration of zinc is relevant for toxicity. In case both actual and nominal concentrations were reported, the results are expressed as nominal concentrations, provided the actual concentrations were within 20% of the nominal concentrations.

7.1.2 Availability of dataA substantial body of laboratory ecotoxicity data is available for zinc. Chronic freshwater ecotoxicity data of adequate quality are available for 25 species from eight taxonomic groups: algae ( 2 species of unicellular and 1 species of multicellular), amphibians (1 species), crustaceans (4 species), fish (8 species), insects (1 species), molluscs (2 species), rotifers (2 species), and sponges (4 species). Not all these data were available in 2008 when the RAR was carried out.

Marine species are also well-represented with a total of 36 chronic NOECs for saltwater species. Long-term data are available for eight taxonomic groups: algae (unicellular and multicellular), annelids, cnidarians, crustaceans, echinoderms, fish, molluscs, and nematodes. As with the freshwater data, the “species mean” NOEC values of 36 species (below) were used to derive the PNECadd,saltwater.


ACUTE EFFECTS Master reference

Algae & aquatic plants(mg.l-1)

FreshwaterSelenastrum capricornutum / 72hEC50 : 0.136 (lowest value still valid after revision of dataset)

(E.C., 2008)

Marine Not available

Invertebrates(mg.l-1)

Freshwater

Daphnia magna / 48hLC50 : 0.076Dataset has been revised extensively. Species geomean value for D. magna is 0.244 (N=9; data obtained under most sensitive conditions)

Marine EC50: 0.17 – 950 under revisionSediment Not available

Fish(mg.l-1)

FreshwaterOncorhynchus mykiss / 96hLC50 :0.17 (lowest value still valid after revision of dataset)

Marine EC50: 0.19 – 83 (majority: 3 – 30) under revision


CHRONIC EFFECTS Master reference

Algae & aquatic plants(mg.l-1)

Freshwater

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata/ 72h

NOEC : 4.9-124 µg.l-1

Geometric mean (n = 25): 25.5µg /l

Chlorella sp 48h: NOEC/EC10: 4.9-349 ug/l

Geometric mean : 48µg/l

(E.C., 2008)

Marine

Amphidinium carteri/ 9 d

NOEC : 0.1 (Cn)

(E.C., 2008)

Asterionella japonica/ 72h

NOEC : 0.007 – 0.04

Geometric mean (n = 7): 0.015 (Cn)

Chaetoceros compressum/ 72h

NOEC : 0.01 (Cn)

Gymnodinium splendens/ 5 w

NOEC : 0.5 (Cn)

Nitzchia closterium/ 72h

NOEC : 0.02 (Cn)

Phaeodactylum tricornutum/ 2 w

NOEC : 0.5 - 10


Skeletonema costatum/ 10 d

NOEC : 0.007 – 0.2


Laminaria hyperborea/ 4 w

NOEC : 0.1 (Cn)



Invertebrates(mg.l-1)

Freshwater9 more species data on different species available (N=13)

Ceriodaphnia dubia / 7d

NOEC : 0.014 – 0.1

Geometric mean (n = 13): 0.037 (Cn) (revised: OK)

(E.C., 2008)

Daphnia magna / 21d

NOEC : 0.031 – 0.42

Geometric mean (n = 27): 0.088 (Actual) revised: 0.098

Hyalella azteca

NOEC : 0.042 (Actual) OK

Chironomus tentans/ 8 w

NOEC : 0.166 (Actual) revised: 0.137

MarineAnnelids

Capitella capitata /25/40-d ?

NOEC : 0.32 (Cu)

(E.C., 2008)

Ctenodrilus serratus / 3-w

NOEC : 0.1 (Cn)

Nereis arenaceodentata /4-m?

NOEC : 0.1 (Cu)

Ophryotrocha diadema / 3-w

NOEC : 0.1 (Cn)

MarineMolluscs

Crassostrea gigas/5-d

NOEC : 0.05 (Cn)

(E.C., 2008)

Haliotis refescens /9-d

NOECr : 0.019 (Cu)

Mercenaria mercenaria / 8-d

NOEC : 0.05 (Cn)

Scrobicularia plana / 14-d

NOECs : 1 (Cn)

Marine Crustaceans

Callianassa australiensis / 14-d

NOECs : 0.44 (Cu)

(E.C., 2008)Holmesimysis costata / 7-w

NOEC : 0.018 (actual)

Mysidopsis bahia

NOEC : 0.12 (Cu)

MarineEchinoderms

Arbacia lixula /4-d

NOEC : 0.01 (Cu)(E.C., 2008)



Sediment organisms(mg .kg dw -1)3 additional species data available

SedimentOligochaetes

Tubifex tubifex / 4-w

NOEC :1 135 (actual)(E.C., 2008)

SedimentCrustaceans

Hyalella azteca /6-w

NOEC : 488 (actual-Cb)(E.C., 2008)

SedimentInsects

Chironomus tentans /8-w

NOEC : 850 (actual)(E.C., 2008)

Chironumus tentans /3-w

NOEC : 639 (actual)

Fish(mg.l-1)

Freshwater

Brachidanio rerio/ 2 w

NOEC : 0.18 – 2.9


(E.C., 2008)

Jordanella floridae/ 14 w

NOEC : 0.026 – 0.075

Geometric mean (n = 2): 0.044 (Actual)OK

Oncorhynchus mykiss/ 30 d

NOEC : 0.025 – 0.974

Geometric mean (n = 15): 0.189 (Actual) revised: 0.146

Phoxinus phoxinus/ 5 m

NOEC : 0.05 (Actual)OK

Pimephales promelas/ 8 m


Salvelinus fontinalis/ 3 y


Marine No available information

Cn : Nominal zinc concentration in test water.Cb :Background zinc concentration in test water.actual :Analysed zinc concentration in test water.Cu : Unknown; reported NOEC from review, without data on analysis of zinc in test water.

7.1.3 Derivation of PNEC (2008 RAR)

In the EU-RAR (E.C., 2008), the freshwater PNECadd, aquatic is applied for both freshwater and for saltwater in the risk characterisation, as no saltwater PNECadd, aquatic was derived. Although there are sufficient NOEC values available for saltwater organisms to apply statistical extrapolation and a 5 th percentile value for saltwater was calculated in this RAR, the 5th percentile value for saltwater is considered to be too unreliable for saltwater PNECadd, aquatic derivation, because the saltwater NOEC values (from Janus, 1993) were not updated and not checked for reliability based on the criteria that have been used in this RAR for the freshwater NOEC values. The tentative EQS value for a saltwater PNECadd, aquatic given in this dossier is taken from the derivation by RIVM in 2006.


Input data to the SSD are based on geometric means from all studies using the same species/endpoint/duration, irrespective of test conditions, and giving rise to the values presented below.

“Species mean” NOEC values that are used as input values for deriving the 5th percentile values as a basis for the freshwater PNECadd¸ aquatic (E.C., 2008)

Taxonomic groups “Species mean” NOEC values (μg.l-1)

Algae (unicellular) 19

Algae (multicellular) 60

Poriferans 43; 43; 43; 65

Molluscs 75; 400

Crustaceans 37; 42; 88

Insects 137

Fish 44; 50; 78; 189; 530; 660

“Species mean” NOEC values that are used as input values for deriving the 5th percentile values as a basis for the saltwater PNECadd¸ aquatic (E.C., 2008):

“Species” “Species mean” NOEC values (μg.l-1)

Algae (unicellular) 10; 10; 10, 15; 15; 20; 32; 100; 100; 100; 140; 200; 500; 2700

Algae (multicellular) 100

Coelenterates 300

Annelids 100; 100; 100; 320

Molluscs 19; 50; 50; 1000

Crustaceans 18; 120; 440

Echinoderms 10

The PNEC is based on extrapolation using an SSD using 18 chronic NOECs normalised to physico-chemistry relating to water quality conditions that reflect protection of 95% of European watercourses. The water quality parameters used to define the level of protection for the proposed PNEC for zinc are as follows:

All species: 10%ile of European DOC6

invertebrates and fish: 10%ile of inorganic parameters (including pH and hardness)

algae: 90%ile of inorganic parameters

The resulting HC5 is 15.9 ug/l as bioavailable zinc. For soft waters that lie outside the operating conditions of the BLM, a separate ‘softwater’ PNEC has been derived.

6 Data extracted from GEMS-B database


7.1.4 Derivation of EQS (UK, 2010)

(a) Selection of ecotoxicity data

As explained later, there is no need to consider a separate soft water EQS because the factors affecting toxicity can be dealt with in a single EQS covering a wide range of water types. For this reason, no data are rejected because they were undertaken under soft water conditions.

For a number of species for which ecotoxicity data are available, there are several studies of comparable exposure duration and endpoint. This can give rise to different EC10 or NOEC values simply due to tests having been undertaken by different people in different laboratories using different cultures or stocks of test organisms. Where such variation in EC10 and NOEC values occurs, this can be taken into account by taking the geometric mean of NOECs or EC10 values (ECHA 2008, EC2009)7.

However, the differences in EC10 or NOEC values can also result from systematic differences in water chemistry having been tested that give rise to differences in bioavailability and, hence, toxicity. Indeed, several studies have been performed in the same laboratory with the specific aim of determining ecotoxicity under different water quality conditions. Differences in EC10 and NOEC values which can reasonably be expected to be due to differences in bioavailability should not be harmonised by taking a geometric mean of the results.

In order to separate variability due to between-lab variability and that due to differences in water quality, sensitive (i.e. high bioavailability) tests from each study were identified and a species geometric mean was derived only from the selected tests8. This allows variability between laboratories and cultures to be accounted for in the way intended in the Technical Guidance. No ecotoxicity data was excluded from the analysis due to having been performed under low water hardness conditions.

This approach yields the species NOECs listed below.

Species NOEC values used in derivation of UK EQS

Algae (unicellular)P. subcapitata* 25.5

Chlorella sp.* 4.9

Algae (multicellular)

7 29 individual test results were available for the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, with EC10 or NOEC values ranging from 4.9 to 124 g l-1.8 In the case of these algal tests, there are 5 test results performed under ‘high bioavailability’ conditions giving rise to NOECs of 4.9, 24, 28, 50 and 65 ug/l zinc. The geometric mean of these values is 25.5 ppb. The geometric mean of all the algal data (29 values) is 19.7 ppb, but this is made up of values spanning a range of water qualities.


C. glomerata 60

Sponges

E. fluviatilis 43

E. muelleri 43

S. lacustris 65

E. fragilis 43

Molluscs

D. polymorpha 400

P. jenkinsi 75

Crustaceans

C., dubia* 36.9

D. magna* 90.1

D. longispina* 70.5

H. azteca 42

Insects

C. tentans 137

Rotifers

A. fissa 48

B. rubens 24

Fish

D. rerio* 666.1

J.floridae* 44.2

P. phoxinus 50

P. promelas 78

O. mykiss* 189.3

S. fontinalis 530

S. trutta 76.4

C. bairdi 169

Amphibians

R. arenarum 840

* Geometric mean values

(b) Derivation of ‘generic’ HC5

The species NOECS shown above can be used as input data to an SSD to which a log-normal model may be fitted. However, this gives rise to a poor model fit. This is to be expected because the species NOEC/EC10 values used as input data to the SSD are from tests covering a wide range of water quality conditions, so the influence of water quality dominates the ranking of species sensitivities. To overcome this, the SSD must be based on similar water quality conditions; as explained earlier, for deriving a ‘generic’ EQS, these should also be conditions that favour bioavailability of zinc.


To ensure the ‘generic’ EQS is sufficiently protective for a high proportion of waters, it was necessary to normalize the input data shown above to a target water of physico-chemical conditions that favour high bioavailability.

That target water condition was selected as follows:North West Region in the UK is the most sensitive of the 10 Regions in Great Britain (six in England, one in Wales and three in Scotland) for which data are available, followed by Wales and the South West9. If water quality conditions were selected that protect 95% of sites in the UK as a whole, 32% of locations in the more vulnerable NW are at risk of under-protection i.e. the HC5 is higher than that required to protect these sites. To overcome this risk, attention was focused on protecting 95% of sites in the most sensitive ecoregion (the NW Region).

HC5 values were calculated from SSDs constructed for approximately 100 sites from each Region in the UK by normalising the species NOECs shown above to the actual water quality at each of those 100 sites/Region. For each site, the annual averages of pH (mean), DOC (median) and Ca (mean) of at least six samples were used10. Using the normalisation process illustrated below, these measured water quality data provided the target water inputs to the scheme below (green) whilst the conditions of the tests giving the NOECs listed above gave the other inputs (pink).

This process gave rise to around 100 HC5 values for each Region from which various percentiles of the calculated Zn HC5 for individual sites across the whole of Great Britain (n = 916) and the North West Region (n = 103) could be estimated (below).

Frequency distribution of Zn HC5 values (µg l-1) for Great Britain and North West Region

9 Predominantly upland areas of igneous geology 10 The Environment Agency monitoring data was collected in 2007 to 2008 for Scotland and 2000 to 2009 for England and Wales. The use of the mean is consistent with requirements under the WFD, whereas a median value for DOC was chosen as it is less likely to be sensitive to outliers and skewed data.

NOEC dissolved,x (µg l-1)

Exposure medium x

(pHx, DOCx, Cax, Mgx, Nax,

BLM

f ZnBL, NOEC, x or Q NOEC, x

=

Intrinsic sensitivity

Target water y

(pHy, DOCy, Cay, Mgy, Nay,

NOEC dissolved,y (µg l-1)

For target water y

BLM


Percentile Great Britain North West

5th 14.15 10.92

10th 16.56 11.59

15th 18.29 12.01

25th 21.85 12.85

50th 31.01 23.46

75th 41.21 41.35

90th 54.61 57.78

95th 64.47 63.50

Setting the ‘generic’ HC5 to a predefined level of protection for the whole of Great Britain, such as the level for 95% protection of 14.2 µg l-1, has limitations in that the selected value represents a rather lower level of protection (approximately only 68% in the North West Region).

To provide 95% protection for the most sensitive region - which would ensure a high level of protection if applied on a UK basis - a ‘generic’ HC5 of 10.9 µg l-1 bioavailable Zn is proposed. This corresponds to water conditions 0.52 mg l-1 dissolved organic carbon, mean Ca 1.6 mg l-1, mean pH 6.29.

The bioavailability conditions used here also provide a high level of protection to other regions across Europe, including those with upland, igneous geology. Comparison of the percentiles of estimated PNEC from NW UK with those calculated for several other European datasets is shown in the Table below.

Estimated percentiles of Zn HC5 values for datasets from Austria, Sweden and Northern France. North West Region in England has been included for comparative purposes. Values are in µg Zn L-1.

Dataset 5th percentile 10th percentile

Austria* (n = 1779) 9.29 10.55

Sweden# (n = 3997) 15.34 18.24

Northern France# (n = 144) 16.68 17.29

North West Region (UK) ∞ (n = 103)

8.56 9.05

* http://wisa.lebensministerium.at# Data from EIONET

∞These data are annual averages and annual medians

The data in the table clearly show that the HC5 at the 5 th percentile of sites from North West Region in the UK is the lowest of those estimated11.

11 The value of 8.56 ug/l is lower than the proposed HC5 of 10.9 ug/l due to the use of a more conservative Screening Tool rather than the ‘full’ ZnBLM. However, the relative difference shown in the table between the PNEC at the 5th percentile of the NW data and the other datasets provide a robust indication that this will be protective of the other regions/Member states listed


The same principles, in terms of DOC complexation and competition from major ions, are responsible for affecting zinc toxicity across a wide range of water qualities, including soft waters. Therefore, there does not appear to be a need for a separate softwater EQS because the proposed ‘generic’ HC5 applies across a wide range of waterbodies, including soft waters.

(c) Accounting for residual uncertainty (choice of AF in derivation of EQSadd)

An assessment factor between 1 and 5 should be applied to the 50% confidence value of the 5 th percentile value (i.e. EQS = HC5/AF). The AF selected is based on the confidence in the estimation of the HC5 and the likelihood of residual uncertainty that might give rise to risks that are not adequately accounted for in the extrapolation and estimation of the HC5.

The factors of relevance are as follows:

Quantity of data used in SSD

Taxonomic diversity in the dataset used to construct the SSD, including any information about sensitive taxa

Risk of underestimating toxicity due to conditions of high bioavailability

Reference to field and mesocosm data

Quantity of data: There is a substantial database of chronic NOECs, comparable only with the dataset for copper and more than that for most other metals. The chronic NOEC database of 25 species entries exceeds the requirements for taxonomic groups (8) and species (at least 10, preferably more than 15) set out in the Technical Guidance.

The large number of species in the SSD results in a low uncertainty on the HC5 value, as shown by the small difference between the 50% confidence level and the 95% confidence limits found for the lognormal distribution which is less than a factor of 2.5.

Taxonomic diversity: The taxonomic diversity within the available data is broad, as shown in the Table of species means above. Although reliable chronic data for higher plants are lacking, several toxicity studies are available but do not meet quality criteria e.g. they reported unbound NOECs. However, aquatic higher plants were not very sensitive to zinc toxicity in comparison with algae or animals and thus the lack of useful NOEC values for higher plants was considered acceptable. Furthermore, the database of accepted NOEC values includes a relatively high NOEC (60 µg/l) for the macro alga Cladophora glomerata which shares some important characteristics (specialised tissues and organs) with higher plants.

Some NOEC values in the database fall below the HC5, notably some of the 25 values for the alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. However, these occur only under high pH conditions where they are the most sensitive species; the “species mean” NOEC value for P. subcapitata (25.5 µg/l) is higher than the HC5 (10.9µg/l). On statistical considerations, the chance of having a value below the HC5 is, by definition, significant when the SSD includes > 20 data points i.e. having one or more values below the HC5 is inherent to bigger datasets. The tests with P. subcapitata resulting in a NOEC below the HC5 value (all from the study by De Schamphelaere et al., 2003) were performed in artificial test water with a very low DOC concentration and hence high bioavailability. Another algal species (Chlorella sp.) demonstrates a lower sensitivity to zinc so there is little indication that algae as a taxonomic group are particularly sensitive to zinc. Relevant algal ecotoxicity endpoints will only fall below the HC5 under conditions where they are the most sensitive taxonomic group (i.e. under conditions of high pH and low DOC concentrations).

Bioavailability: The estimation of bioavailable concentrations tends to err on the side of caution (from studies validating the development of the BLMs). Chronic ecotoxicity data are normalised to conditions of high bioavailability in the target water. Therefore, when used in a tiered assessment as a ‘generic’ EQS (Section …..), the HC5 should afford protection to >95% of sites within Europe, even without the addition of an AF>1.


Ecotoxicity results obtained under very low zinc backgrounds consistently show a higher sensitivity to zinc than is observed for organisms cultivated under conditions relevant for the natural background in EU waters (Muyssen and Janssen 2002, Muyssen and Janssen 2005). The inclusion of these data into the NOEC database thus introduces a further level of conservatism into the SSD and HC5 derivation.

Field and mesocosm data: Annex V of the Water Framework Directive invites a comparison of predicted EQSs with field data and to ‘review the derivation to allow a more precise safety factor to be calculated’. Such studies would ideally comprise a spectrum of species of different taxonomic groups and trophic levels, all life stages of the included organisms, realistic exposures, with replicates for each treatment, a food web including indirect effects due to competition or predation, and ecosystem function endpoints.

Two lines of independently derived evidence are available for such a comparison. They include (a) a series of mesocosm studies for both the freshwater and marine environments, and (b) analyses of matched biology and chemistry data for freshwater sites in the UK.

(a) Mesocosms: Four freshwater mesocosm studies are described in the 2008 RAR and show effects in the range of 10-20 ug/l zinc (and above, depending on endpoint). Two saltwater mesocosm studies yielded no effects concentrations for C fixation of 7-13 ug/l and >100 ug/l.

Van Sprang et al (2009) discuss in detail the available evidence on mesocosms in the zinc risk assessment, and investigated the protective capacity of the single species HC5 value towards effects in aquatic mesocosms after normalisation of the single-species NOEC values to the abiotic conditions occurring in mesocosm experiments. They identified several problems related to the quality and relevancy of the studies, and concluded that “it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions as to whether or not the HC5 is conservative enough to protect ecosystems”. They recommended that additional exposures of multi-species systems (or model ecosystems) to zinc should be carried out to get to more reliable conclusions, and that special care should be taken in the design of the studies to avoid the problems related to those available in the literature (Van Sprang et al 2009).

Based on the advice offered by Van Sprang et al (2009), a large scale chronic mesocosm/microcosm study is being performed in which special attention has been paid for making sure that the design and setup of the study should be relevant for and reflect the European aquatic environment. The study design and performance strictly followed established protocols for microcosm systems. Control treatments were included for all statistical comparisons and characteristics of sediments and water composition (background and treatments) were analytically verified. Zinc was tested at nominal concentrations of 8, 20, 40, 80, and 160 μg/L, which were maintained by spiking treatments every four days. Test water conditions were relevant for the EU while, at the same time, ensuring relatively high bioavailability conditions.

This study is ongoing and exposures will last 12 weeks. Interim results (Rand, et al, 2010) based on the first (28 days) results conclude that effects on community abundance, richness and diversity showed no relevant direct effects (NOEC) up to 22.8 μg/L for phytoplankton and >60.4 μg/L for zooplankton. Although provisional, the results of this mesocosm study indicate that an HC5 of 10.9ug/l would be protective of the communities exposed in this mesocosm study.

(b) Field data: A large scale field study on UK waters derived field-based thresholds based on matched (i.e. coincident in time and location) measured metal concentrations and benthic invertebrate field monitoring data at sites across the UK (291 for zinc) (Crane et al 2007). Using regression techniques to identify field-based thresholds, the authors suggested field thresholds for dissolved zinc should be in the range 20-27µg Zn/l. This study did not take bioavailability into account and considered only effects on invertebrates, but does not indicate a need to increase the assessment factor.


In a more recent statistical analysis of matched chemistry data (Environment Agency, 2010) and biological data at 622 sites for for benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, benthic diatoms and aquatic macrophytes, pH, DOC and Ca data were also collected, so that bioavailable zinc concentrations could be calculated. The methods are those used to classify waterbodies under the WFD and have been subject to extensive international intercalibration. The ecological data were expressed as Ecological Quality Ratios according to the accepted methods for assessing ecological status under the Water Framework Directive in the UK. The inclusion of assessments for primary producers is important because of the potential sensitivity of some of these species indicated by standard ecotoxicity testing. Analysis showed that 90% of sites of ‘high’ or ‘good’ quality (as defined by the observed: expected ratio for several ecological metrics: diatoms, macrophytes, fish, invertebrate (abundance of taxa), and invertebrates (ASPT)) was achieved with thresholds of 109.4, 30.5, 8.6, 23.9 and 11.3 ug/l bioavailable zinc, respectively.

In both these studies it is not possible to ascertain the risk of false negatives (i.e. where there is poor biology yet chemical status is good) because of confounding factors from other stressors (e.g. BOD, other toxic chemicals, flow problems). However, they can help illuminate the risk of false positives i.e. where the biology is good despite less-than-good chemical status. It follows that over-stringent chemical thresholds would increase the number of false positives, where good biology is achieved despite exceedance of the threshold. These field-based thresholds may not necessarily ensure complete ecotoxicological protection, because the biological metrics may not necessarily respond to the loss of a single zinc-sensitive taxa. Nevertheless, they provide an important independent line of evidence that helps meet the WFD’s requirement to ‘review the derivation to allow a more precise safety factor to be calculated’.

Evaluation of field and mesocosm data to review the AF shows there is no evidence, from either mesocosm or field studies, that there is a need for an AF>1 in order to ensure adequate protection of sensitive aquatic organisms from zinc toxicity.

Proposed EQSadd,freshwater

A number of important factors combine to reduce uncertainty in the derivation of an EQS for bioavailable zinc, notably the quantity of ecotoxicity data available, their taxonomic representativeness, and the inherent conservatism in the derivation of the HC5.

Applying an AF=2 (leading to an EQSadd of 5.5 ug/l bioavailable zinc) would obviously achieve a high level of environmental protection but, given the low levels of residual uncertainty in the dataset and assumptions underlying EQS derivation, would be unnecessary to meet the requirements of the WFD. Examination of field data for bioavailable zinc also shows such a step would increase the incidence of false positives (where measures (in response to EQS failure) could be instigated with little or no environmental benefit) would be doubled (see below).

Risk of false positives12 for different AFs applied to HC5 = 10.9 ug/l bioavailable zinc

Biological metric EQS = 10.9 ug/l bioavailable Zn (i.e. AF = 1)

EQS = 5.5 ug/l bioavailable Zn (i.e. AF = 2)

Phytobenthos (Diatom Assessment of River Ecological Status, DARES)

7/19 11/19

Invertebrate diversity (RICT; number of taxa)

13/110 39/110

Fish (Fisheries Classification Scheme 2) 2/37 8/37

Macrophytes (LEAFPACS) 7/34 14/34

12 Biological status according to WFD-compliant metrics is ‘good’ but the EQS is exceeded (i.e. chemical status is ‘less than good’). Values in the table refer to the incidence of false positives/total number of sites at ‘good’ biological status


Benthic macroinvertebrates (RICT; Average score per taxon, ASPT)

16/110 38/110

Using an AF=1 is consistent with the Technical Guidance on EQSs (EC, 2009) where residual uncertainty is low. In addition, there is no counter-evidence arising from mesocosm and field studies that an EQSadd of 10.9 ug/l bioavailable zinc (i.e. the HC5 with an AF = 1) would not be sufficiently protective to allow waterbodies to meet good biological status.

7.2 SECONDARY POISONING

Secondary poisoning of top predators Master reference

Mammalian oral toxicity Not relevant (E.C., 2008)

Avian oral toxicity Not relevant (E.C., 2008)

Tentative QSbiotaRelevant study for derivation of QS

Assessmentfactor

Tentative QS

Biota Not relevant (E.C., 2008)

7.3 HUMAN HEALTH

Human health via consumption of fishery products Master reference

Mammalian oral toxicity Not relevant (E.C., 2008)

CMRzinc and zinc

compounds are not classified CMR E.C. 2008

Tentative QSbiota, hhRelevant study for derivation of QS

AssessmentFactor

Tentative QSbiota, hh

Human health Not relevant (E.C., 2008)

Human health via consumption of drinking water Master reference

Existing drinking water standard(s)

No standard available Directive 98/83/EC

Not of health concern at concentrations normally observed in drinking-water

WHO Drinking Water Guidelines

8 TENTATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS (EQS)

QS for protection of organisms living in the water column is the “critical QS” for derivation of an Environmental Quality Standard for zinc.

Value Comments

Proposed AA-EQS for [freshwater] [µg.l-1] 10.9 (UK) AA-EQS are expressed as Added Risk and represent


Proposed AA-EQS in [marine waters] [µg.L-1]

7.8 (EU RA)

3 (RIVM) (tentative)

conditions of high bioavailability and should be protective of sensitive areas. A bioavailability correction needs to be made to compensate for local conditions when undertaking a compliance check.

Assessment factor of 2 included. Added risk EQS.

Proposed MAC-EQS for [freshwater] [µg.L-1]

Proposed MAC-EQS for [marine waters] [µg.L-1]

33 (UK)23.4 (EU RA)

No value

Based on Acute to Chronic ratio of 3

The conclusions drawn by the RAR of 2008 and the recent UK analysis for the AA-EQS are slightly different, because of differences in:

1. Bioavailability correction (pH, DOC and hardness conditions used in the estimation of – and therefore protected by – a generic PNEC)

2. Quantity of input (ecotoxicity) data

3. Emphasis placed on field and mesocosm data, and it’s influence on

4. Size of the AF applied to the HC5

The 2008 RAR utilises the following inputs to EQS derivation.

1. All species: 10%ile of European DOC13, invertebrates and fish: 10%ile of inorganic parameters (including pH and hardness), algae: 90%ile of inorganic parameters

2. SSD based on 18 chronic NOECs normalised to physico-chemistry relating to (1) → HC5 = 15.9 ug/l as bioavailable zinc

3. Field and mesocosm data considered in selection of AF

4. AF= 2 to account for residual uncertainty → PNEC add,freshwater = 7.8 ug/l bioavailable zinc

The 2010 UK review utilises the following inputs to EQS derivation. The main factors favouring an AF of only 1 (compared with the AF of 2 used in the RAR) are (a) bioavailability conditions for estimating the HC5 are more stringent so a high level of protection is incorporated into this ‘generic’ EQS, (b) a large ecotoxicity dataset reduces uncertainty, similar to the situation for other metals e.g. copper and nickel and (c) corroboration of the EQS by field and mesocosm data, indicating a risk of false positives if a higher AF is applied

1. 95% of waters within a sensitive ecoregion (upland lakes of NW England) are protected14

13 Data extracted from GEMS-B database


2. SSD based on 25 chronic NOECs normalised to sensitive ecoregion-specific physico-chemistry → HC5 = 10.9 ug/l as bioavailable zinc

3. Analysis of independently derived field and mesocosm data corroborates an EQS of ~10 ug/l

4. AF= 1 to account for residual uncertainty (consistent with AF used for copper and corroboration from field and mesocosm evidence) → PNEC add,freshwater = 10.9 ug/l bioavailable zinc

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY, SOURCES AND SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION

E.C. (2001). Report of the Workshop. Expert Consultation Workshop on Statistical Extrapolation Techniques for Environmental Effects., London, European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Chemicals Bureau, Ispra (VA), Italy.E.C. (2003). Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.E.C. (2008). European Union Risk Assessment Report for Zinc metal (CAS-No.: 7440-66-6, EINECS-No.: 231-175-3)(Final report, Part I, Environment). Institute for Health and Consumer Protection - European Chemicals Bureau: 117.E.C. (2009). Draft Technical Guidance Document for deriving Environmental Quality Standards (July 2009 version). Not yet published.Groshart C. and Okkerman P.C. (2000). Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption: preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority setting. Final report (incorporating corrigenda to final report dated 21 June 2000), BKH Consulting Engineers, Delft, The Netherlands; in association with TNO Nutrition and Food Research, Zeist, The Netherlands: 29.International Lead and Zinc Study group. Lead and zinc statistics, Vol 48, nr4, April 2008. ILZSG Publ. Lisbon, P.Johnson I. and Harvey P. (2002). Study on the scientific evaluation of 12 substances in the context of endocrine disrupter priority list of actions. Medmenham, Marlow. Buckinghamshire, WRc-NSF.Petersen G., Rasmussen D. and Gustavson K. (2007). Study on enhancing the Endocrine Disrupter priority list with a focus on low production volume chemicals, DHI: 252.C.W.M Bodar. Environmental risk limits for zinc. RIVM project M/60150/06.

14 The most sensitive region of UK is not adequately protected by water quality assumptions made in EU RAR (only 68% of waterbodies are protected). The bioavailability conditions used in the 2010 review are the most sensitive when compared with the corresponding 5%ile of data from other MSs (Austria: http://wisa.lebensministerium.at, Sweden and Northern France: EIONET)


http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr

10 SUBSTANCES FACTSHEET OF CHEMICAL POLLUTANTS

Home | Expert group | More information | Disclaimer | Download | ContactHome > Expert group > Zinc

Export to PDF

11 ZINC(CAS N° 7440-66-6) Whole water for metals

Water dissolved fraction for metals

Sediment fraction <2mm

Sediment fraction <20um

Sediment fraction <63um

Biota, fish

Biota, invertebrates (Molluscs, mussels, Macro Invertebrate, Benthos)

11.1 ► ZINC - FRACTION WHOLE WATER FOR METALS

11.1.1 ♦ Summary statistics on the fraction

Analyses 118827

Stations 5881

Member States (MSs) 16

River Basin Districts (RBDs) 78

PNEC 1.08e+1 ug/l

PEC 1 4.42e+1 ug/l

PEC 2 3.20e+1 ug/l

Analyses <= DLs (used in PEC2 calculation) 43317

% analysis <=DLs for which DLs>2PNEC 7.05 %

Minimum of the average by station 1.00e-1 ug/l

Maximum of the average by station 9.74e+4 ug/l

Minimum of analyses 5.00e-3 ug/l

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#BI%23BI

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#BF%23BF

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#S63um%23S63um

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#S20um%23S20um

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#S2mm%23S2mm

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#WdM%23WdM

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#WwM%23WwM

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/fiche_pdfRank.php?determinandID=190

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/indexRank.php

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/index.php

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/download.php

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/disclaimer.php

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/more_info.php

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/indexRank.php

http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/index.php

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/


Maximum of analyses 1.09e+5 ug/l

11.1.2 ♦ Numerical distribution of quantified data

11.1.2.1 Quantified values compared to the PNEC

Concentration classStations with

quantified results (>DL)

Analyses >DL (used in PEC1 and PEC2 calculation)

Nb MS

Nb RBDs

Analyses <=DLs (used in PEC2 calculation)

100 PNEC < concentration 60 392 7 16 15

10 PNEC < concentration < 100 PNEC 501 1955 15 53 0

PNEC < concentration < 10 PNEC 3835 36299 16 73 8364

concentration < PNEC 3994 36863 13 67 34937

11.1.2.2 Quantified values compared to the LoQ

Concentration class Nb stations with quantified results (>DL)

Nb analysis >DL (used in PEC1 and PEC2 calc.)

Nb MS

Nb RBDs

100 LoQ < concentration 216 1102 7 28

10 LoQ < concentration < 100 LoQ 646 4895 12 41

LoQ < concentration < 10 LoQ 829 17379 12 45

no LoQ 4319 52133 5 27


11.1.3 ♦ Distribution of quantified and non quantified values


11.1.4 ♦ Map of average quantified concentration by station


Zn fact Sheet. UK Environment Agency March 2010Page up

11.2 ► ZINC - FRACTION WATER DISSOLVED FRACTION FOR METALS


Analyses 62058

Stations 3767



PNEC 1.08e+1 ug/l

PEC 1 7.40e+1 ug/l

PEC 2 5.17e+1 ug/l


% analysis <=DLs for which DLs>2PNEC 15.19 %

Minimum of the average by station 7.50e-3 ug/l

Maximum of the average by station 1.13e+4 ug/l

Minimum of analyses 7.50e-3 ug/l

Maximum of analyses 3.42e+4 ug/l






Nb MS

Nb RBDs









Nb MS

Nb RBDs



http://www.priority.substances.wfd.oieau.fr/determinandRank.php?determinandID=190#top%23top



no LoQ 2460 25299 3 16






11.3 ► ZINC - FRACTION SEDIMENT FRACTION <2MM


Analyses 6312

Stations 1958



PNEC -

PEC 1 2.70e+5 ug/kg dw



% analysis <=DLs for which DLs>2PNEC 0 %

Minimum of the average by station 1.00e+2 ug/kg dw

Maximum of the average by station 8.89e+6 ug/kg dw

Minimum of analyses 1.00e+2 ug/kg dw

Maximum of analyses 5.00e+7 ug/kg dw





Nb MS

Nb RBDs




no LoQ 1927 6174 3 19








11.4 ► ZINC - FRACTION SEDIMENT FRACTION <20UM


Analyses 2990

Stations 235



PNEC -













Nb MS

Nb RBDs




no LoQ 0 0 0 0








11.5 ► ZINC - FRACTION SEDIMENT FRACTION <63UM


Analyses 670

Stations 94



PNEC -













Nb MS

Nb RBDs




no LoQ 94 670 1 2








11.6 ► ZINC - FRACTION BIOTA, FISH


Analyses 571

Stations 125



PNEC 5.00e+4 ug/kg ww

PEC 1 8.30e+4 ug/kg ww




Minimum of the average by station 1.22e+4 ug/kg ww

Maximum of the average by station 1.00e+5 ug/kg ww

Minimum of analyses 1.60e+3 ug/kg ww

Maximum of analyses 1.70e+5 ug/kg ww






Nb MS

Nb RBDs









Nb MS

Nb RBDs






no LoQ 111 548 3 13






11.7 ► ZINC - FRACTION BIOTA, INVERTEBRATES (MOLLUSCS, MUSSELS, MACRO INVERTEBRATE, BENTHOS)


Analyses 601

Stations 105



PNEC 5.00e+4 ug/kg ww





Minimum of the average by station 5.70e+3 ug/kg ww

Maximum of the average by station 4.52e+5 ug/kg ww

Minimum of analyses 5.58e+3 ug/kg ww

Maximum of analyses 6.90e+5 ug/kg ww






Nb MS

Nb RBDs









Nb MS

Nb RBDs






no LoQ 82 436 2 5






Project lead by DGENV of the European Commission , conducted by INERIS and IOW under contract n° 07010401/2008/508122/ATA/D2

For any additional information please contact the webmaster

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.oieau.org/

http://www.ineris.fr/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/


http://www.oieau.org/

http://www.ineris.fr/

Documents

ZINC - Europa · Web viewChemical IDENTITY Common name Zinc Chemical name (IUPAC) Zinc (min.) Synonym(s) Zinc Chemical class (when available/relevant) Metal CAS number 7440-66-6 EU