Substance-related environmental monitoring strategies regarding soil, groundwater and surface water — an overview

Substance-related monitoring is an essential tool within environmental risk assessment processes. The soundness of policy decisions including risk management measures is often directly related to the reliability of the environmental monitoring programs. In addition, monitoring programs are required for identifying new and less-investigated pollutants of concern in different environmental media. Scientifically sound and feasible monitoring concepts strongly depend on the aim of the study. The proper definition of questions to be answered is thus of pivotal importance. Decisions on sample handling, storage and the analysis of the samples are important steps for the elaboration of problem-oriented monitoring strategies. The same applies to the selection of the sampling sites as being representative for scenarios to be investigated. These steps may become critical to handle for larger international monitoring programs and thus trigger the quality of their results. This study based on the work of an IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) task group addresses different kinds and approaches of substance-related monitoring of different compartments of soil, groundwater and surface water, and discusses their advantages and limitations. Further important aspects are the monitoring across policies and the monitoring data management using information systems.     

The removal of arsenate from water using iron-modified diatomite (D-Fe): isotherm and column experiments

Iron hydroxide supported onto porous diatomite (D-Fe) is a low-cost material with potential to remove arsenic from contaminated water due to its affinity for the arsenate ion. This affinity was tested under varying conditions of pH, contact time, iron content in D-Fe and the presence of competitive ions, silicate and phosphate. Batch and column experiments were conducted to derive adsorption isotherms and breakthrough behaviours (50 μg L^?1) for an initial concentration of 1,000 μg L^?1. Maximum capacity at pH 4 and 17 % iron was 18.12–40.82 mg of arsenic/g of D-Fe and at pH 4 and 10 % iron was 18.48–29.07 mg of arsenic/g of D-Fe. Adsorption decreased in the presence of phosphate and silicate ions. The difference in column adsorption behaviour between 10 % and 17 % iron was very pronounced, outweighing the impact of all other measured parameters. There was insufficient evidence of a correlation between iron content and arsenic content in isotherm experiments, suggesting that ion exchange is a negligible process occurring in arsenate adsorption using D-Fe nor is there co-precipitation of arsenate by rising iron content of the solute above saturation.     

PSD and Nonattainment Regulation: Implications of a Settlement Agreement

The EPA recently issued an internal memorandum and a settlement agreement in the case of Chemical Manufacturers Association et al. vs. EPA. The agreement reflects potential changes to the PSD regulations and the Emissions Offset Interpretive Ruling for nonattainment areas. The information presented in this paper is a summary of the significant aspects of the agreement, as it will affect future industrial sources. This paper also discusses other recent changes to the PSD and nonattainment regulations.

The changes to the regulations provide for significant relaxation of some aspects of PSD and the nonattainment regulations. The most significant aspect is the proposed change in the method of tabulating net increases of emissions due to source modifications. The change would allow offset credit for decreases in emissions due to shutdown of equipment based on the potential emission rate rather than the actual.