The use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) for environmental remediation, known as nanoremediation, represents a challenging and innovative solution, ensuring a quick and efficient removal of pollutants from contaminated sites. Although the growing interest in nanotechnological solutions for pollution remediation, with significant economic investment worldwide, environmental and human risk assessment associated with the use of ENMs is still a matter of debate and nanoremediation is seen yet as an emerging technology. Innovative nanotechnologies applied to water and soil remediation suffer for a proper environmental impact scenario which is limiting the development of specific regulatory measures and the exploitation at European level. The present paper summarizes the findings from the workshop: \"Ecofriendly Nanotechnology: state of the art, future perspectives and ecotoxicological evaluation of nanoremediation applied to contaminated sediments and soils\" convened during the Biannual ECOtoxicology Meeting 2016 (BECOME) held in Livorno (Italy). Several topics have been discussed and, starting from current state of the art of nanoremediation, which represents a breakthrough in pollution control, the following recommendations have been proposed: (i) ecosafety has to be a priority feature of ENMs intended for nanoremediation; ii) predictive safety assessment of ENMs for environmental remediation is mandatory; (iii) greener, sustainable and innovative nano-structured materials should be further supported; (iii) those ENMs that meet the highest standards of environmental safety will support industrial competitiveness, innovation and sustainability. The workshop aims to favour environmental safety and industrial competitiveness by providing tools and modus operandi for the valorization of public and private investments.

A Best Practice Guideline about Dialysis fluid purity was developed under the leadership of the Spanish Society of Nephrology in 2004. The second edition revised Guideline considered new evidences and International Standard. The Guideline has established recommendations for standards for preparing dialysate: water, concentrates and hemodialysis proportioning systems. This Guideline is based on the ISO13959, European Pharmacopoeia, the Real Farmacopea Española, the AAMI Standards and Recommended Practices, European Best Practice Guidelines for Haemodialysis, literature reviews, according to their level of evidence, and the opinion of the expert Spanish group. Two levels of quality of water were defined: purified water and high purified water (ultra pure) and for dialysate: ultra pure dialysate. Regular use of ultra pure dialysate is recommended for all type of hemodialysis to prevent and delay the occurrence of complications: inflammation, malnutrition, anaemia and amiloidosis. Water, concentrates and dialysate quality requirements are defined as maximum allowable contaminant levels: chemicals (4.1.2), conductivity, microbial and endotoxins (4.1.1): Monitoring frequency, maintenance and corrective actions were specified. Methods of sampling and analysis were described in appendix (anexos). For microbiological monitoring, R2A medium is recommended, incubated during 7-14 days at a temperature of 17-23°C. The dialysate quality assurance process involves all dialysis staff members and requires strict protocols. The physician in charge of hemodialysis has the ultimate responsibility for dialysate quality. All suggestions and questions about this Guideline are wellcome to www.senefro.org.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Toxicity tests using nine freshwater species (Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Pimephales promelas, Lumbriculus variegatus, Tubifex tubifex, Chironomus dilutus, Hyallela azteca, and Brachionus calyciflorus) were conducted to evaluate their sensitivity to chloride. Acute-to-chronic ratios (ACRs) from these tests indicate the ACR of 7.59 employed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in deriving its water quality guideline for chloride may be conservative; a revised ACR of 3.50 is presented here. The endpoints used to calculate the ACR included 24-h to 96-h median lethal concentrations (LC50s) for acute tests, and 48-h to 54-d inhibition concentration (ICx) values for growth or reproduction for chronic exposures. Data from the present chronic toxicity tests, and other investigators, were used to propose a water quality guideline for long-term exposure to chloride using a species sensitivity distribution (SSD) approach. The 5th percentile from the SSD was calculated as 307 mg/L and proposed as the water quality guideline. Cladocerans were the most sensitive species in the dataset. Ceriodaphnia dubia was used to evaluate the relationship between water hardness and sensitivity to chloride. A strong relationship was observed and was used to establish a hardness-related equation to modify the proposed water quality guideline on the basis of water hardness, resulting in values ranging from 64 mg/L chloride at 10 mg/L hardness to 388 mg/L chloride at 160 mg/L hardness (as CaCO₃). These data suggest that current water quality guidelines for chloride may be overly conservative in water with moderate-to-high hardness, and may not be sufficiently protective under soft-water conditions.

Elevated concentrations of sulfate occur commonly in anthropogenically impacted and natural waters. However, water quality guidelines (WQG) have not been developed in many jurisdictions, and chronic toxicity data are scarce for this anion. A variety of test organisms, including species of invertebrate, fish, algae, moss, and an amphibian, were tested for chronic toxicity to develop a robust dataset that could be used to develop WQGs. As an example of how these data might be used to establish guidelines, calculations were performed using two standard procedures: a species sensitivity distribution (SSD) approach, following methods employed in developing Canadian WQGs, and a safety factor approach, according to procedures typically used in the development of provincial WQGs in British Columbia. The interaction of sulfate toxicity and water hardness was evaluated and incorporated into the calculations, resulting in separate values for soft (10-40 mg/L), moderately hard (80-100 mg/L) and hard water (160-250 mg/L). The resulting values were 129, 644, and 725 mg/L sulfate, respectively, following the SSD approach, and 75, 625, and 675 mg/L sulfate, following the safety factor approach.

Reuse of greywater for landscape irrigation can significantly reduce domestic water consumption. Alongside its benefits, there are potential drawbacks to greywater reuse, raising legitimate concerns about the impact on human and environmental health. In this review, a risk assessment framework is used to assess the adequacy of different regulations to ensure safe and long-lasting, onsite greywater reuse for irrigation. Existing regulations from around the world are assessed along with a standardized evaluation of measures taken to protect public and environmental health. In most cases, human health considerations currently dominate regulatory strategies, while environmental risks are either ignored or underrepresented. A distinction between single and multiple households was found to be a fundamental component of the regulations which often lead to approved utilization of untreated greywater among single households. We concluded that the use of untreated greywater is not recommended, especially in multihousehold systems as it may compromise public health, with single household systems posing more likely risks to the environment. Existing rules to control greywater use should be further revised toward the establishment of a more advanced regulatory system which can avert the salient potential risks associated with greywater reuse, while exploiting the enormous potential of this alternative water resource.

Benthic indices are typically developed independently by habitat, making their incorporation into large geographic scale assessments potentially problematic because of scaling inequities. A potential solution is to establish common scaling using expert best professional judgment (BPJ). To test if experts from different geographies agree on condition assessment, sixteen experts from four regions in USA and Europe were provided species-abundance data for twelve sites per region. They ranked samples from best to worst condition and classified samples into four condition (quality) categories. Site rankings were highly correlated among experts, regardless of whether they were assessing samples from their home region. There was also good agreement on condition category, though agreement was better for samples at extremes of the disturbance gradient. The absence of regional bias suggests that expert judgment is a viable means for establishing a uniform scale to calibrate indices consistently across geographic regions.

暂无摘要。