Towards harmonization of water quality management: A comparison of chemical drinking water and surface water quality standards around the globe. (15th November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Van Winckel, Tim; Cools, Jan; Vlaeminck, Siegfried E.; Joos, Pieter; Van Meenen, Els; Borregán-Ochando, Elena; Van Den Steen, Katleen; Geerts, Robbe; Vandermoere, Frédéric; Blust, Ronny
• Is Part Of: Journal of environmental management. Volume 298(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-11-15
• Subjects: World health organization -- Risk assessment -- Water safety plan -- Environmental policy -- Toxicology -- Potable water; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; 363.705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113447
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-4797

Abstract

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. Graphical abstract: Image 1 Highlights: Water quality standards were statistically compared for drinking and surface waters. The standards showed a high degree of heterogeneity found worldwide. This is true for what compounds are measured and their respective regulatory limit. Differences are more pronounced for surface water quality standards. Majority of heterogeneity can often not be toxicologically explained.