Registration Dossier

Environmental fate & pathways

Monitoring data

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
monitoring data
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: The study is well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment, GLP is not necessary.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2015
Report Date:
2015

Materials and methods

GLP compliance:
no
Type of measurement:
natural background concentration
Media:
other: wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) influents/effluents; WWTP Sludge; Sediment; Soil; Leaf

Test material

Reference
Name:
Unnamed
Type:
Constituent

Results and discussion

Any other information on results incl. tables

Table. USA 2009 study in the Luray area, Virginia, USA (Little Hawksbill River catchment (Mudge 2010).  

Variable

Medium

N

Mean

SE

St. Dev

Min

Q1

Median

Q3

Max

C9

Influent

3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

C10

Influent

3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

C11

Influent

3

2.42

0.43

0.75

1.60

1.60

2.58

3.07

3.07

C9

Effluent

10

0.20

0.10

0.33

0.00

0.03

0.10

0.20

1.09

C10

Effluent

10

0.13

0.07

0.23

0.00

0.02

0.07

0.13

0.76

C11

Effluent

10

0.24

0.13

0.41

0.04

0.05

0.10

0.19

1.39

C9

Sludge

4

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.04

C10

Sludge

4

0.03

0.02

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.08

0.08

C11

Sludge

4

1.04

0.66

1.32

0.07

0.07

0.61

2.45

2.88

C9

Sediment

25

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.15

C10

Sediment

25

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.09

C11

Sediment

25

0.08

0.01

0.06

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.11

0.23

C9

Soil

19

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

C10

Soil

19

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.02

C11

Soil

19

0.06

0.01

0.05

0.00

0.03

0.05

0.09

0.17

C9

Dust

7

0.04

0.01

0.04

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.04

0.11

C10

Dust

7

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.10

C11

Dust

7

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

C9

Leaf

2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

*

0.00

*

0.00

C10

Leaf

2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

*

0.00

*

0.00

C11

Leaf

2

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.02

*

0.02

*

0.03

Notes:

Units = µg.g-1(Dry Weight) for soils, sediments, sludge, dust and leaf litter and µg.l-1for WWTP influent and effluents.

'Leaf' refers to leaf litter collected in the upper catchment.

The arithmetic mean C10 concentration is highlighted for quick reference.

N = number of samples, SE = standard error, St. Dev = standard deviation, Min = minimum, Q1 = quartile 1, Q3 = quartile 3 and Max = maximum.

Items with * cannot be calculated with only 2 samples.

 

Table. USA 2011 study in Oregon, Ohio and Oklahoma, USA (Mudge 2012).

Variable

Medium

N

Mean

SE

St. Dev

Min

Q1

Median

Q3

Max

C9

Influent

24

5.5

3.4

16.8

0.0

0.1

0.4

1.9

79.2

C10

Influent

24

6.3

3.0

14.5

0.0

0.1

0.4

3.8

66.4

C11

Influent

24

12.5

4.5

22.1

0.0

2.1

2.7

7.1

88.9

C9

Effluent

25

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

C10

Effluent

25

0.1

0.1

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

C11

Effluent

25

4.3

1.5

7.7

0.0

0.3

2.3

2.9

32.0

C9

Sediment

23

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

C10

Sediment

23

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

C11

Sediment

23

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.6

Notes:

Units = µg.g-1(Dry Weight) for sediments and µg.l-1for WWTP influent and effluents.

The arithmetic mean C10 concentration is highlighted for quick reference.

 

Table. UK 2009 study around Menai Bridge, UK (Mudge 2009).

Variable

Medium

N

Mean

SE

St. Dev

Min

Q1

Median

Q3

Max

C9

Influent

6

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.6

C10

Influent

6

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

1.0

C11

Influent

6

2.7

2.0

4.8

0.0

0.0

0.8

4.6

12.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C9

Primary

2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

*

0.0

*

0.0

C10

Primary

2

6.9

0.5

0.8

6.4

*

6.9

*

7.5

C11

Primary

2

2.8

0.1

0.1

2.7

*

2.8

*

2.9

C9

Secondary

2

1.9

1.9

2.7

0.0

*

1.9

*

3.8

C10

Secondary

2

8.3

7.3

10.3

1.0

*

8.3

*

15.6

C11

Secondary

2

6.4

5.7

8.0

0.7

*

6.4

*

12.0

C9

Effluent

3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

C10

Effluent

3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

C11

Effluent

3

2.2

1.1

1.9

0.4

0.4

2.0

4.2

4.2

C9

Sludge

2

1.4

1.4

2.0

0.0

*

1.4

*

2.8

C10

Sludge

2

2.5

0.1

0.2

2.3

*

2.5

*

2.6

C11

Sludge

2

1.1

0.4

0.5

0.7

*

1.1

*

1.5

C9

Sediment

4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

C10

Sediment

4

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

C11

Sediment

4

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.2

C9

Soil

4

0.7

0.7

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.1

2.7

C10

Soil

4

22.9

22.9

45.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

68.6

91.5

C11

Soil

4

0.8

0.8

1.6

0.0

0.0

0.1

2.4

3.2

Table notes: 

Units = µg.g-1 (Dry Weight) for marine sediments, soils and sludges and µg.l-1 for WWTP influent and effluents.

Samples were collected after primary settlement and after secondary treatment in this case.

In this case, the sediments are marine in origin.

The arithmetic mean C10 concentration is highlighted for quick reference.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
Decan-1-ol was detected at low levels in environmental samples of various media from urban, suburban and rural sampling locations in UK and USA. Concentrations range between 0-2.6 µg/g (dry weight) in WWTP sludges; 0-0.4 µg/g (dry weight) in sediments; 0-0.04 µg/g (dry weight) in soils (arable soil: 0.01 µg/g (dry weight)), with a single outlier of 91.5 µg/g (dry weight) from a conifer woodland soil. The results are reliable and relevant.
Executive summary:

It is important for context to note the findings from studies in the EU and USA which consistently show that anthropogenic alcohols in the environment are minimal compared to the level of natural occurrence. Using stable isotope signatures of fatty alcohols in a wide variety of household products and in environmental matrices sampled from river catchments in the United States and United Kingdom, Mudgeet al.,(2012) estimated that 1% or less of fatty alcohols in rivers are from waste water treatment plant (WWTP) effluents, 15% is from in situ production (by algae and bacteria), and 84% is of terrestrial origin. Further, the fatty alcohols discharged from the WWTP are not the original fatty alcohols found in the influent. While the compounds might have the same chain lengths, they have different stable isotopic signatures (Mudge, 2012).

In conclusion, the environmental impact of these studies is that it has confirmed that the fatty alcohols entering a sewage treatment plant (as influent) are partly derived from detergents, but these are not the same alcohols as those in the effluent which arise fromin-situbacterial synthesis. In turn, the fatty alcohols found in the sediments near the outfall of the WWTP are derived from natural synthesis and are not the same alcohols as those in the effluent.