Recycling of electric and electronic waste products (e-waste) which amounted to more than 50 million metric tonnes per year worldwide is a massive and global operation. Unfortunately, an estimated 70-80% of this waste has not been properly managed because the waste went from developed to low-income countries to be dumped into landfills or informally recycled. Such recycling has been carried out either directly on landfill sites or in small, often family-run recycling shops without much regulations or oversights. The process traditionally involved manual dismantling, cleaning with hazardous solvents, burning and melting on open fires, etc., which would generate a variety of toxic substances and exposure/hazards to applicators, family members, proximate residents and the environment. The situation clearly calls for global responsibility to reduce the impact on human health and the environment, especially in developing countries where poor residents have been shouldering the hazardous burden. On the other hand, formal e-waste recycling has been mainly conducted in small scales in industrialised countries. Whether the latter process would impose less risk to populations and environment has not been determined yet. Therefore, the main objectives of this review are: 1. to address current trends and emerging threats of not only informal but also formal e-waste management practices, and 2. to propose adequate measures and interventions. A major recommendation is to conduct independent surveillance of compliance with e-waste trading and processing according to the Basel Ban Amendment. The recycling industry needs to be carefully evaluated by joint effort from international agencies, producing industries and other stakeholders to develop better processes. Subsequent transition to more sustainable and equitable e-waste management solutions should result in more effective use of natural resources, and in prevention of adverse effects on health and the environment.
Intensive and widespread use of pesticides raises serious environmental and human health concerns. The presence and levels of 209 pesticide residues (active substances and transformation products) in 625 environmental samples (201 soil, 193 crop, 20 outdoor air, 115 indoor dust, 58 surface water, and 38 sediment samples) have been studied. The samples were collected during the 2021 growing season, across 10 study sites, covering the main European crops, and conventional and organic farming systems. We profiled the pesticide residues found in the different matrices using existing hazard classifications towards non-target organisms and humans. Combining monitoring data and hazard information, we developed an indicator for the prioritization of pesticides, which can support policy decisions and sustainable pesticide use transitions. Eighty-six percent of the samples had at least one residue above the respective limit of detection. One hundred residues were found in soil, 112 in water, 99 in sediments, 78 in crops, 76 in outdoor air, and 197 in indoor dust. The number, levels, and profile of residues varied between farming systems. Our results show that non-approved compounds still represent a significant part of environmental cocktails and should be accounted for in monitoring programs and risk assessments. The hazard profiles analysis confirms the dominance of compounds of low-moderate hazard and underscores the high hazard of some approved compounds and recurring "no data available" situations. Overall, our results support the idea that risk should be assessed in a mixture context, taking environmentally relevant mixtures into consideration. We have uncovered uncertainties and data gaps that should be addressed, as well as the policy implications at the EU approval status level. Our newly introduced indicator can help identify research priority areas, and act as a reference for targeted scenarios set forth in the Farm to Fork pesticide reduction goals.
Exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] may occur in several occupational activities, e.g., welding, Cr(VI) electroplating and other surface treatment processes. The aim of this study was to provide EU relevant data on occupational Cr(VI) exposure to support the regulatory risk assessment and decision-making. In addition, the capability and validity of different biomarkers for the assessment of Cr(VI) exposure were evaluated. The study involved nine European countries and involved 399 workers in different industry sectors with exposures to Cr(VI) such as welding, bath plating, applying or removing paint and other tasks. We also studied 203 controls to establish a background in workers with no direct exposure to Cr(VI). We applied a cross-sectional study design and used chromium in urine as the primary biomonitoring method for Cr(VI) exposure. Additionally, we studied the use of red blood cells (RBC) and exhaled breath condensate (EBC) for biomonitoring of exposure to Cr(VI). Personal measurements were used to study exposure to inhalable and respirable Cr(VI) by personal air sampling. Dermal exposure was studied by taking hand wipe samples. The highest internal exposures were observed in the use of Cr(VI) in electrolytic bath plating. In stainless steel welding the internal Cr exposure was clearly lower when compared to plating activities. We observed a high correlation between chromium urinary levels and air Cr(VI) or dermal total Cr exposure. Urinary chromium showed its value as a first approach for the assessment of total, internal exposure. Correlations between urinary chromium and Cr(VI) in EBC and Cr in RBC were low, probably due to differences in kinetics and indicating that these biomonitoring approaches may not be interchangeable but rather complementary. This study showed that occupational biomonitoring studies can be conducted successfully by multi-national collaboration and provide relevant information to support policy actions aiming to reduce occupational exposure to chemicals.
5 February 2018 in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
The WHO has ranked environmental hazardous exposures in the living and working environment among the top risk factors for chronic disease mortality. Worldwide, about 40 million people die each year from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) including cancer, diabetes, and chronic cardiovascular, neurological and lung diseases. The exposure to ambient pollution in the living and working environment is exacerbated by individual susceptibilities and lifestyle-driven factors to produce complex and complicated NCD etiologies. Research addressing the links between environmental exposure and disease prevalence is key for prevention of the pandemic increase in NCD morbidity and mortality. However, the long latency, the chronic course of some diseases and the necessity to address cumulative exposures over very long periods does mean that it is often difficult to identify causal environmental exposures. EU-funded COST Action DiMoPEx is developing new concepts for a better understanding of health-environment (including gene-environment) interactions in the etiology of NCDs. The overarching idea is to teach and train scientists and physicians to learn how to include efficient and valid exposure assessments in their research and in their clinical practice in current and future cooperative projects. DiMoPEx partners have identified some of the emerging research needs, which include the lack of evidence-based exposure data and the need for human-equivalent animal models mirroring human lifespan and low-dose cumulative exposures. Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach incorporating seven working groups, DiMoPEx will focus on aspects of air pollution with particulate matter including dust and fibers and on exposure to low doses of solvents and sensitizing agents. Biomarkers of early exposure and their associated effects as indicators of disease-derived information will be tested and standardized within individual projects. Risks arising from some NCDs, like pneumoconioses, cancers and allergies, are predictable and preventable. Consequently, preventative action could lead to decreasing disease morbidity and mortality for many of the NCDs that are of major public concern. DiMoPEx plans to catalyze and stimulate interaction of scientists with policy-makers in attacking these exposure-related diseases.
Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residues in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy.