Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 4–8 | Cite as

The need for new concepts in risk management of sediments historical developments, future perspectives and new approaches

  • Susanne Heise
  • Wolfgang Ahlf
Feature

Abstract

Being part of a highly dynamic system, contaminated sediments are especially in need of an integrated management approach. Due to change in importance from source to diffuse pollution and the variety of chemical substances in the environ-ment, different scientific fields need to cooperate and incorpo-rate their data in a common risk assessment scheme. Public perception of risk that is associated with sediments and with chemical data is low while the acceptance of ecotoxico-logical data with decision makers is often missing. A growing demand of the public to be involved in decision processes and informed about environmental problems demands a change of methods and concepts in the future. Necessity of an integration of risk assessment and management procedures has been suggested in order to increase the efficiency of the process and the early involvement of public concern. As the confidence in experts’ opinions decreases, a strong need for communication with and transparency for all involved parties arises.

Keywords

Integrated approach perception of risk quality criteria ecotoxicological quality criteria chemical risk assessment risk management SedNet (EU sediment research network) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für die Reinhaltung der Elbe (ARGE ELBE) (1996): Umgang mit belastetem Baggergut an der Elbe. Zustand und Empfehlungen. Hamburg, Wassergütestelle ElbeGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander M (2000): Ageing, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk form environmental pollutants. Environmental Science & Technology34 (20): 4259–4391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BfG — Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (1999): Handlungsan- weisung für den Umgang mit Baggergut im Küstenbereich (HABAK-WSV). BfG Nr 1100Google Scholar
  4. BfG — Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (2000): Handlungsanweisung für den Umgang mit Baggergut im Binnenland (HABAB-WSV). BfG Nr 1070Google Scholar
  5. Cairns J (1991): The need for integrated environmental systems management. In: Integrated Environmental Management. Cairns J, Crawford TV (eds), Lewis Publishers Inc, Chelsea, MI, pp 5–20Google Scholar
  6. Chapman PM (1991): Environmental quality criteria. Environmental Science & Technology25 (8): 1353–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman PM, Power EA, Burton GA, Jr (1992): Integrative assessments in aquatic ecosystems. In: Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Burton GA, Jr (ed), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp 313–340Google Scholar
  8. Chapman PM, Paine MD, Arthur AD, Taylor LA (1996): A triad study of sediment quality associated with a major, relatively untreated marine sewage discharge. Marine Pollution Bulletin32 (1): 47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiToro DM, Zarba CS, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Swartz RC, Cowan CE, Pavlou SP, Allen HE, Thomas NA, Paquin PR (1991): Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry10: 1541–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eduljee GH (2000): Trends in risk assessment and risk management. The Science of the Total Environment249: 13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferguson C, Darmendarial D, Feier K, Jensen BK, Jensen J, Kasamas H, Urzelai A, Vegter J (eds) (1998): Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe. Vol 1: (Scientific Basis). Nottingham, LQM PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferguson C, Kasamas H (1999): General introduction. Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe. Nottingham, LQM Press. Vol2 (Policy Frameworks), pp 1–3Google Scholar
  13. Ferguson C (1999): Assessing risks from contaminated sites: Policy and practice in 16 European countries. Land Contamination & Reclamation7 (2): 33–54Google Scholar
  14. Funtowicz SO, Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, Ravetz JR (1999): Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity. Environmental Issues Series. European Environmental Agency (http://www.eea.eu.int)Google Scholar
  15. Gandrass J, Eberhardt R(2001): ‘New’ substances - Substances to watch. Dredged material in the Port of Rotterdam — Interface between Rhine catchment area and North Sea. Gandrass J, Salomons W (eds), Geesthacht, Germany, GKSS Research Centre, pp 289–305Google Scholar
  16. Haerlin B, Parr D (1999): How to restore public trust in science. Nature400: 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heise S, Maaß V, Gratzer H, Ahlf A (2000): Ecotoxicological sediment classification - Capabilities and potentials. Presented for Elbe River Sediments. BfG-Mitteilungen Nr 22, Sediment Assessment in European River Basins: 96‱104Google Scholar
  18. Kosian PA, West CW, Pasha MS, Cox JS, Mount DR, Huggett RJ, Ankley GT (1999): Use of nonpolar resin for reduction of fluoranthene bioavialability in sediment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry18: 201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lebo JA, Huckins JN, Petty JD, Ho KT (2001): Removal of contaminant toxicity from sediments — Early work toward development of a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) method. Chemosphere39: 389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ludwig D (2001): The Era of management is over. Ecosystems4: 758–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mohamed AMO, Côté K (1999): Decision analysis of polluted sites — A fuzzy set approach. Waste Management19: 519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Connor TP, Paul JF (2000): Misfit between sediment toxicity and chemistry. Marine Pollution Bulletin40 (1): 59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peerboom R, van Hattum B (2001): The national policy framework in The Netherlands. Dredged Material in the Port of Rotterdam — Interface between Rhine catchment area and North Sea. Gandrass J, Salomons W (eds), Geesthacht, Germany, GKSS Research Centre, pp 138–159Google Scholar
  24. Reid BJ, Jones KC, Semple KT (2000): Bioavailability of persistent organic pollutants in soils and sediments — A perspective on mechanisms, consequences and assessment. Environmental Pollution108: 103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riedhammer C, Schwarz-Schulz B (2001): The newly proposed EU risk assessment concept for the sediment compartment. J Soils & Sediments1 (2): 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silvert W (1997): Ecological impact classification with fuzzy sets. Ecological Modelling96: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Leeuwen CJ (1997): Ecological risk assessment: An input for decision-making. Perspectives of the scientific community on the status of Ecological Risk Assessment. Environmental Management (special section)21 (6): 812–816Google Scholar
  28. Vink R, Behrend H (2001): Present and future quality of sediments in the Rhine catchment area — Heavy metals. Dredged material in the Port of Rotterdam — Interface between Rhine catchment area and North Sea. Gandrass J, Salomons W (eds), Geesthacht, Germany, GKSS Research Centre, pp 23–85Google Scholar
  29. Wick LY, Springael D, Harms H (2001): Bacterial strategies to improve the bioavailability of hydrophobic organic pollutants. Treatment of contaminated soil. Stegmann R, Brunner G, Calmano W, Matz G (eds), Springer Berlin, pp 203–218Google Scholar
  30. Zadeh LT (1965): Fuzzy sets. Information and Control8: 338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and TechnologyTechnical University Hamburg-HarburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations