|
|
“Towards harmonization of water quality management : a comparison of chemical drinking water and surface water quality standards around the globe”. Van Winckel T, Cools J, Vlaeminck SE, Joos P, Van Meenen E, Borregán-Ochando E, Van Den Steen K, Geerts R, Vandermoere F, Blust R, Journal Of Environmental Management 298, 113447 (2021). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.113447
Abstract: Water quality standards (WQS) set the legal definition for safe and desirable water. WQS impose regulatory concentration limits to act as a jurisdiction-specific legislative risk-management tool. Despite its importance in shaping a universal definition of safe, clean water, little information exists with respect to (dis)similarity of chemical WQS worldwide. Therefore, this paper compares chemical WQS for drinking and surface water matrices in eight jurisdictions representing a global geographic distribution: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, the region of Flanders in Belgium, the United States of America, and South Africa. The World Health Organization's list is used as a reference for drinking water standards. Sørensen–Dice indices (SDI) showed little qualitative similarity in the compounds that are regulated in drinking water (median SDI = 40%) and surface water (median SDI = 33%), indicating that the heterogeneity within a matrix is substantial at the level of the standard. Quantitative similarity for matching standards was higher than the qualitative per Kendall correlation (median = 0.73 and 0.58 for drinking water and surface water respectively), yet variance observed within standards remained inexplicably high for organic compounds. Variations in WQS were more pronounced for organic compounds. Most differences cannot be easily explained from a toxicological or risk-based point-of-view. Historical development, ease of measurement, and (toxicological) knowledge gaps on the risk of a vast number of organic compounds are theorized to be the drivers. Therefore, this study argues for a more tailored, risk-based approach in which standards incorporated into water safety plans are dynamically set for compounds that are persistent and could pose a risk for human health and/or aquatic ecosystems. Global variations in WQS should therefore not necessarily be avoided but rather globally harmonized with enough flexibility to ensure a global, up-to-date definition of safe and desirable water everywhere.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL); Centre for Research on Environmental and Social Change
Impact Factor: 4.01
DOI: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.113447
|
|
|
|
“Bottle or tap? Toward an integrated approach to water type consumption”. Geerts R, Vandermoere F, Van Winckel T, Halet D, Joos P, Van Den Steen K, Van Meenen E, Blust R, Borregán-Ochando E, Vlaeminck SE, Water Research 173, 115578 (2020). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2020.115578
Abstract: While in many countries, people have access to cheap and safe potable tap water, the global consumption of bottled water is rising. Flanders, Belgium, where this study is located, has an exceptionally high consumption of bottled water per capita. However, in the interest of resource efficiency and global environmental challenges, the consumption of tap water is preferable. To our knowledge, an integrated analysis of the main reasons why people consume tap and bottled water is absent in Flanders, Belgium. Using Flemish survey data (N = 2309), we first compared tap and bottled water consumers through bivariate correlation analysis. Subsequently, path modelling techniques were used to further investigate these correlations. Our results show that bottled water consumption in Flanders is widespread despite environmental and financial considerations. For a large part, this is caused by negative perceptions about tap water. Many consumers consider it unhealthy, unsafe and prefer the taste of bottled water. Furthermore, we found that the broader social context often inhibits the consumption of tap water. On the one hand, improper infrastructures (e.g. lead piping) can limit access to potable tap water. On the other hand, social norms exist that promote bottled water. Lastly, results suggest that the consumption of bottled water is most common among men, older people and less educated groups. We conclude that future research and policy measures will benefit from an approach that integrates all behavioural aspects associated with water type consumption. This will enable both governments and tap water companies to devise more effective policies to manage and support tap water supply networks.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL); Centre for Research on Environmental and Social Change
Impact Factor: 12.8
Times cited: 2
DOI: 10.1016/J.WATRES.2020.115578
|
|
