Commentary: Toward Identifying The Next Generation of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Site Contaminants
Commentary: Toward Identifying The Next Generation of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Site Contaminants
Commentary: Toward Identifying The Next Generation of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Site Contaminants
and Environmental Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; 2Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of CaliforniaBerkeley, Berkeley, California, USA; 3Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA; 4Superfund Research Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, USA; 5Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Research Division, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Canada; 6Environmental
Health Sciences Water Research Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; 7National Exposure Research Laboratory,
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, USA; 8Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina, USA; 9Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA; 10National Water Quality
Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, USA; 11Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada; 12School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona;
13Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 14National Program Chemicals
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA; 15Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington,
Indiana, USA; 16Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; 17Syracuse Research Corporation, Syracuse,
New York, USA; 18Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA; 19Environmental and Munitions
Center of Expertise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, USA; 20Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri, USA; 21Nutritional Science and Toxicology, University of CaliforniaBerkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
Background: This commentary evolved from a workshop sponsored by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences titled Superfund Contaminants: The Next Generation held in
Tucson, Arizona, in August 2009. All the authors were workshop participants.
Objectives: Our aim was to initiate a dynamic, adaptable process for identifying contaminants of
emerging concern (CECs) that are likely to be found in future hazardous waste sites, and to identify the gaps in primary research that cause uncertainty in determining future hazardous waste site
contaminants.
Discussion: Superfund-relevant CECs can be characterized by specific attributes: They are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, occur in large quantities, and have localized accumulation with a
likelihood of exposure. Although still under development and incompletely applied, methods to
quantify these attributes can assist in winnowing down the list of candidates from the universe
of potential CECs. Unfortunately, significant research gaps exist in detection and quantification,
environmental fate and transport, health and risk assessment, and site exploration and remediation
for CECs. Addressing these gaps is prerequisite to a preventive approach to generating and managing hazardous waste sites.
Conclusions: A need exists for a carefully considered and orchestrated expansion of programmatic
and research efforts to identify, evaluate, and manage CECs of hazardous waste site relevance, including developing an evolving list of priority CECs, intensifying the identification and monitoring of
likely sites of present or future accumulation of CECs, and implementing efforts that focus on a holistic
approach to prevention.
Key words: contaminants of emerging concern, emerging contaminant, hazardous waste site,
Superfund. Environ Health Perspect 119:610 (2011). doi:10.1289/ehp.1002497 [Online
1October 2010]
Contaminants of Concern at
Hazardous Waste Sites
Relatively little attention has been directed
toward the occurrence of CECs at existing
hazardous waste sites or to the possibility that
the use or disposal of CECs may create new
hazardous waste sites. Nevertheless, increased
monitoring has identified cases in which the
contamination of CECs has been linked to
industrial use and to the disposal of chemi
cals (Phillips etal. 2010). For example, in
a German study, Skutlarek et al. (2006)
reported that land disposal of organic waste
that contained perfluorinated compounds
caused elevated concentrations of perfluoro
octanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sul
fonate (PFOS) (Figure 1) in the Ruhr river
that were considered harmful to human
health. In another study, Hoh etal. (2006)
noted that CECs that were discovered dur
ing routine monitoring were later traced back
to industrial sites where the flame retardant
Dechlorane Plus (Figure1) had been released
near Niagara Falls, New York, USA. In an
earlier report, Motzer (2001) found that per
chlorate had been introduced into the lower
Colorado River near Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
(Motzer 2001).
In some cases, CECs have been detected
after remediation of priority contaminants,
Cl
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
Cl
Cl
DBDE
Cl
Cl
Cl
Br
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Dechlorane Plus
Perfluorinated chemicals
F F
F F
F F
F F
F F
O
F F
F F
F F
O
S
F
F F
FF
F F
F F
F F
PFOA
Siloxanes
H3C
O
Si
O
Si
H3C
PFOS
CH3
Si
H3C
F F
CH3
H3C
Si
H3C
D4
CH3
CH3
O
CH3
Si
CH3
O
CH3
Si
CH3
CH3
HMDS
Figure 1. Some potential CECs relevant to the Superfund. Abbreviations: D4, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane;
DBDE, decabromodiphenyl ether; HMDS, hexamethyldisiloxane; PFOA, perfluorooctanoate; PFOS,
perfluorooctane sulfonate.
Ela et al.
Research Needs
The authors of this article met at a workshop
in August 2009 that was sponsored by the
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) to identify CECs relevant
to the Superfund and to other hazardous waste
programs (NIEHS 2009). The group discussed
potential classes of CECs (Figure 1) and pro
cesses that may lead to future hazardous waste
Table 1. Attributes of CECs of Superfund relevance
High-volume production (surrogate for occurrence
quantity)
Persistence in a compartment with likelihood of
exposure
Bioavailability and bioaccumulation
Toxicity
Localized accumulation with likelihood of exposure
Table 2. Research needs identified.
Detection and quantification
Final disposition of CECs
Bioassay-directed methods
Environmental fate and transport
Transformation processes
Fate and transport models
Health effects and risk assessment
Unconventional responses and impacts
Bioaccumulation models
Site investigation and remediation approaches
Epidemiologically and ecologically focused
geospatial analysis
Remedial technologies
Ela et al.
10
Muir DCG, Howard PH. 2006. Are there other persistent organic
pollutants? A challenge for environmental chemists.
Environ Sci Technol 40:71577166.
National Research Council. 2001. Classifying Drinking Water
Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration. Washington,
DC:National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2002. Biosolids Applied to Land:
Advancing Standards and Practices. Washington,
DC:National Academies Press.
NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences).
2009. Superfund Research Program Meeting Report:
Superfund Contaminants: The Next Generation. Available:
http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/events/index.cfm?id=324
[accessed 22 September 2010].
Nolan LA, Nolan JM, Shofer FS, Rodway NV, Emmett EA. 2009.
The relationship between birth weight, gestational age
and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)-contaminated public
drinking water. Reprod Toxicol 27:231238.
Phillips PJ, Smith SG, Kolpin DW, Zaugg SD, Buxton HT,
Furlong ET etal. 2010. Pharmaceutical formulation facilities as sources of opioids and other pharmaceuticals to
wastewater treatment plant effluents. Environ Sci Technol
44:49104916.
Poynton HC, Vulpe CD. 2009. Ecotoxicogenomics: emerging technologies for emerging contaminants. J Am Water Resour
Assoc 45:8396.
Ren G, Yu Z, Ma S, Li H, Peng P, Sheng G, Fu J. 2009.
Determination of Dechlorane Plus in serum from electronics
dismantling workers in South China. Environ Sci Technol
43:94539457.
Richardson SD. 2009. Water analysis: emerging contaminants
and current issues. Anal Chem 81:46454677.
Rodman LE, Shedlofsky SI, Mannschreck A, Pttmann M,
Swim AT, Robertson LW. 1991. Differential potency of
atropisomers of polychlorinated biphenyls on cytochrome
P450 induction and uroporphyrin accumulation in the
chick embryo hepatocyte culture. Biochem Pharmacol
41:915922.
Routledge EJ, Sumpter JP. 1996. Estrogenic activity of surfactants and some of their degradation products assessed
using recombinant yeast screen. Environ Toxicol Chem
15:241248.
Schultz MM, Barofsky DF, Field JA. 2004. Quantitative determination of fluorotelomer sulfonates in groundwater by LC
MS/MS. Environ Sci Technol 38:18281835.
Schultz M, Higgins C, Huset C, Luthy R, Barofsky D, Field J.
2006. Fluorochemical mass flows in a municipal waste
water treatment facility. Environ Sci Technol 40:73507357.
Skutlarek D, Exner M, Frber H. 2006. Perfluorinated surfactants in surface and drinking water. Environ Sci Poll Res
Int 13:299307.
Snyder SA, Snyder E, Villeneuve D, Kurunthachalam K,
Villalobos A, Blankenship A, etal. 2000. Instrumental and
volume
Copyright of Environmental Health Perspectives is the property of Superintendent of Documents and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.