Content uploaded by Susanne Wuijts
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susanne Wuijts on Oct 05, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Risk governance of potential emerging risks to drinking water quality:
Analysing current practices
Julia Hartmann
a,b,⁎
, Monique van der Aa
a
, Susanne Wuijts
a,c
, Ana Maria de Roda Husman
a,d
,
Jan Peter van der Hoek
b,e
a
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
b
Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands
c
Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80125, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands
d
Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands
e
Waternet, P.O. Box 94370, 1090 GJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Emerging contaminants
Risk governance
Drinking water quality
ABSTRACT
The presence of emerging contaminants in the aquatic environment may affect human health via exposure to
drinking water. And, even if some of these emerging contaminants are not a threat to human health, their
presence might still influence the public perception of drinking water quality. Over the last decades, much
research has been done on emerging contaminants in the aquatic environment, most of which has focused on the
identification of emerging contaminants and the characterisation of their toxic potential. However, only limited
information is available on if, and how, scientific information is implemented in current policy approaches. The
opportunities for science to contribute to the policy of emerging contaminants in drinking water have, therefore,
not yet been identified.
A comparative analysis was performed of current approaches to the risk governance of emerging chemical
contaminants in drinking water (resources) to identify any areas for improvement. The policy approaches used in
the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and the state of Minnesota were analysed using the International Risk
Governance Council framework as a normative concept. Quality indicators for the analysis were selected based
on recent literature. Information sources used were scientific literature, policy documents, and newspaper ar-
ticles.
Subsequently, suggestions for future research for proactive risk governance are given. Suggestions include the
development of systematic analytical approaches to various information sources so that potential emerging
contaminants to drinking water quality can be identified quickly. In addition, an investigation into the possi-
bility and benefit of including the public concern about emerging contaminants into the risk governance process
was encouraged.
1. Introduction
Human activities affect the chemical and microbial composition of
the aquatic environment. The effects on water quality may be both
direct and indirect. Direct effects include the release of anthropogenic
chemicals into freshwater resources as a result of industrial and mu-
nicipal wastewater discharges (Pal et al., 2010). An example of an in-
direct effect is the positive correlation between the temperature in-
crease caused by climate change and pathogen survival in aquifers
(Sterk et al., 2013). Because of demographic and environmental
changes such as rapid urbanisation and extreme rainfall, the intensity
and number of these direct and indirect effects is expected to increase
(Gavrilescu et al., 2015;Lindahl & Grace, 2015).
Newly recognised potential hazards in the aquatic environment are
often referred to as emerging contaminants and may be of both mi-
crobial and chemical nature. In this study, we focus on emerging che-
mical contaminants. The presence of emerging chemical contaminants
in the aquatic environment may be a threat to human health, as water
resources are being used for recreation as well as food and drinking
water production. In addition, even if some of these emerging con-
taminants were not of concern from a public health point of view, their
presence might still influence the public perception of drinking water
quality (Schriks et al., 2010). Negative risk perception of drinking water
quality might lead consumers to search for alternatives to tap water.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.015
Received 14 November 2017; Received in revised form 26 February 2018; Accepted 28 February 2018
⁎
Corresponding author at: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
E-mail address: Julia.hartmann@rivm.nl (J. Hartmann).
Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
Available online 17 March 2018
1462-9011/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T
Alternatives include bottled water and sweetened beverages, which are
related to sustainability issues and in some cases even human health
concerns (Doria et al., 2009;Doria, 2006;Lustig et al., 2012). There-
fore, emerging contaminants are defined here as any chemical com-
pound that may pose a new, or increased, threat to public health
through the exposure to drinking water. The threat might be real,
perceived or expected.
In regard to drinking water production, it is the emerging chemical
contaminants found in groundwater (Lapworth et al., 2012), and sur-
face water resources (Pal et al., 2010) that are of particular concern.
Examples include pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and mi-
croplastics (Houtman et al., 2014). Technological advances in analy-
tical techniques will enable the detection of even more contaminants in
the future. Thus, the effective risk governance of emerging con-
taminants in drinking water and its resources is and will remain very
important in order to protect public health.
Over the past years, much research has focused on emerging con-
taminants in the aquatic environment (Noguera-Oviedo & Aga, 2016).
Studied topics include: the identification of emerging contaminants
through screening efforts (Richardson & Kimura, 2016), the prioritisa-
tion of monitoring programmes (Smital et al., 2013), and the in-
vestigation into the toxicological potential of emerging contaminants
(Houtman, 2010;Schwarzenbach et al., 2010). The risk management of
emerging contaminants in drinking water (Murphy et al., 2012), and in
the environment in general, has also been studied (Naidu et al., 2016a).
However, as far as we understand, any research into the risk govern-
ance of emerging contaminants in drinking water and if, and how,
scientific knowledge is implemented into current policy approaches has
not yet been published.
This paper describes a comparative analysis of a range of existing
policy approaches to the risk governance of emerging contaminants in
drinking water and its resources. The objective is to identify areas in
current risk governance approaches that are suitable for improvement
and make suggestions for future scientific research, which will add to
the proactive risk governance of emerging contaminants in drinking
water.
2. Analytical approach
2.1. The IRGC risk governance framework
In this study, the risk governance framework issued by the
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) was used as a normative
concept. Risk governance refers to the identification, assessment,
management, and communication of potential chemical risks to
drinking water quality (IRGC, 2012). The IRGC framework was chosen
because of its proven applicability to the risk governance of emerging
chemical and microbial risks (Assmuth et al., 2016;Roodenrijs et al.,
2014).
The IRGC risk governance framework consists of five elements: pre-
assessment, risk appraisal, risk evaluation, risk management and risk
communication. We redefined two steps of the five elements to make
them more readily applicable to the governance of drinking water
contaminants. Pre-assessment and risk evaluation were redefined into
identification of emerging contaminants and risk acceptance respec-
tively.
2.2. Selected countries and state
Transboundary differences in a river catchment area were examined
using the policy approaches for emerging contaminants in drinking
water employed by the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, coun-
tries which all lie within the Rhine River catchment area. The Rhine is a
multifunctional river that is used for transportation purposes, power
generation, and urban sanitation, while at the same time providing
drinking water for 25 million people (Uehlinger et al., 2009). These
characteristics make the Rhine highly susceptible to the influence of
emerging contaminants and thus interesting for the purpose of this
paper.
Minnesota is one of the few jurisdictions which has a specific pro-
gramme in place aiming explicitly at the identification and risk as-
sessment of emerging contaminants in drinking water (The Minnesota
Department of Health Contaminants of Emerging Concern (MDH CEC)
program) (http://www.health.state.mn.us/cec). Therefore, the policy
approaches used in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland were
compared to the approach used in the state of Minnesota (the United
States of America). This programme has also been analysed by Naidu
et al. (2016b).
2.3. Quality indicators
For the analysis of the risk governance process, suggestions for best
practice in the governance of emerging contaminants proposed by
Naidu et al. (2016a) and Naidu et al. (2016b) were used for defining
quality indicators. The suggestions for best practice that were con-
sidered were (1) the integration of science into policymaking, (2) the
acceptance of the risk governance process by all stakeholders, (3) the
defensibility of decisions made, and (4) the consideration of other
factors as well as public health-risk reduction when choosing re-
mediation strategies.
Number 2 was not used as a direct indicator. To analyse the ac-
ceptance levels of all the relevant stakeholders during the risk gov-
ernance process required having insight into which stakeholders were
involved in the process first. However, this information was not avail-
able. We therefore evaluated the stakeholders who were involved in
each of the five elements of the risk governance process.
Furthermore, the defensibility of decisions made (3) can be ensured
by creating transparency. Indeed, transparency is stated by the IRGC
(2012) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment (OECD, 2015) as one of the principles of good governance. We
therefore chose to assess transparency as a quality indicator. Trans-
parency was evaluated upon the sharing of information with involved
stakeholders during all the elements of the risk governance process.
2.4. Incidences of PFOA in drinking water or its resources
Four incidences of the same emerging contaminant in drinking
water resources and/or treated drinking water were assessed. The
emerging contaminant of choice was Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
Additional information on PFOA is included in Appendix A.
Table 1 shows the selected incidences of PFOA in drinking water per
country/state. From now on, these incidences of pollution will be re-
ferred to as cases. A description of each case study can be found in
Appendix B.
2.5. Risk communication
In risk communication, two different models of communication can
be distinguished, described by Ramirez-Andreotta et al. (2014) as the
technical and the cultural models. The technical model uses one-way
communication to inform the public, change behaviour and assure
people of the acceptability of the risk as determined by experts. In
contrast, the cultural model is based on two-way communication and
includes the opinions of the affected public in the risk assessment ele-
ment.
In this study, the type of communication model used in the different
cases was determined. Furthermore, a quantitative analysis of the risk
communication process during the four selected cases was performed.
During this process, we assumed that less media coverage meant that
there would be less tumult in the affected society, and thus less public
concern. Although it is recognised that the relationship between news
media coverage and public opinion is a dynamic process, studies have
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
98
shown that information on risks provided by news media may influence
public risk perception (Bakir, 2010). The analysis was therefore based
on the number of published newspaper articles before, during and after
the incident of pollution. Newspaper articles were searched in Lex-
isNexis®using search strings listed in Appendix B.
Fig. 1 is a graphical representation of the analytical approach used
in this study. The comparative analysis of the risk acceptance, risk
management and risk communication approaches is illustrated by the
selected cases (see paragraph 2.4). In Appendix E, a short description of
what the main elements are based on and the key questions used for the
interpretation of the quality indicators are shown.
3. Results
The results of the comparative analysis will be described per ele-
ment of the risk governance framework as shown in Fig. 1. The eva-
luation of one of the quality indicators, namely stakeholder involve-
ment, is described separately for practical reasons.
3.1. Identification of emerging contaminants
In Minnesota, the first step in the identification process of possible
emerging contaminants in drinking water was voluntary nomination by
stakeholders via the website of the MDH CEC program.
1
By November
2016, state government agencies, advocacy organisations, and citizens
had nominated 117 contaminants (MDH CEC program, 2016). Nomi-
nations were mostly based on monitoring studies or studies that re-
vealed new toxicity data (Katie Nyquist, personal communication).
Nominated contaminants were selected for further review if (1) they
were, or potentially could be, found in surface water or groundwater in
Minnesota (2) there were no Health Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) in
Minnesota (3) they posed a real or perceived health threat, or (4) there
was new or changing health or exposure information (Lewandowski
et al., 2016). A list of nominated contaminants including argumentation
for nomination (if available) and whether the contaminant was selected
for further review was published on the MDH CEC webpage.
In Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, identification of
emerging contaminants was mainly based on the monitoring of
drinking water (resources) and the screening efforts made by drinking
water suppliers as well as national government agencies (Bucheli, 2012;
Kleeschulte et al., 2007;Sacher, 2013;van der Aa et al., 2017). Details
on the trigger values used can be found in Appendix D. The identifi-
cation process was less transparent compared to that of Minnesota, as
not all monitoring and screening data were publicly available.
Scientific literature (Wilhelm et al., 2010) and media articles were
also found to be sources for the identification of possible emerging
contaminants to drinking water. However, none of the analysed policy
approaches appeared to contain formal procedures for any evaluation
of these information sources to be made.
3.2. Risk appraisal
In the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, the aim of the hazard
assessment was to determine whether there was a need to develop
HBGVs and whether it was feasible to do so. In the MDH CEC program,
the hazard and exposure assessments were merely two of the factors
that were taken into account by the MDH CEC program staffwhen
evaluating the need for developing HBGVs. Other factors that were
taken into account include the need for and feasibility of developing
HBGVs (Lewandowski et al., 2016).
3.2.1. Hazard assessment
The potential risk posed by the contaminants selected for review in
Table 1
Overview of the selected incidences of PFOA contamination of drinking water resources and/or treated water.
Case Method by which the contaminant was identified When identified Source of pollution Time of pollution References
PFOA in the rivers Ruhr and Möhne, Germany A scientific publication 2006 Soil improver containing
industrial waste
Not known Kleeschulte et al. (2007) ;(Wilhelm et al.,
2010, 2008)
PFOA in Dordrecht, the Netherlands A publication of an investigation into the same
polluter in the United States
2016 Industrial wastewater 1970-2012 Bokkers et al. (2016);Zeilmaker et al.
(2016)
PFOA in Basel, Switzerland Target monitoring of drinking water for per- and
poly-fluorinated compounds
2011 Not known Not known Wiedemann (2011) ;Zwick and
Ackerman (2012)
MDH response to new health advisory Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Minnesota
A publication of lower health advisory level by the
EPA
2016
a
Industrial waste Not known EPA (2016);MDH (2017)
a
First discovery of contaminated groundwater was in 2002 (MDH, 2017).
1
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/nominate.cfm.
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
99
the MDH CEC program was evaluated by scoring the contaminant using
relevant potency and exposure data. The method used for scoring the
contaminants was described extensively in a recent review by
Lewandowski et al. (2016). The hazard assessment was based on a
combination of scoring available threshold toxicity data (e.g. no ob-
served adverse effect levels) and non-threshold toxicity data (e.g.
cancer classifications from the International Agency for Research on
Cancer) into one potency score.
In the Netherlands, the hazard assessment of unregulated con-
taminants found in drinking water (resources) was compound-specific
and highly dependent on the availability and reliability of toxicity data.
When reliable and sufficient toxicity data were available, these were
used to derive a Tolerable Daily Intake (or comparable) value, which
was then used to calculate a HBGV for the contaminant in drinking
water. Also, HBGVs derived by other national or international organi-
sations were considered for evaluation (e.g. by the German
Environment Agency) (van der Aa et al., 2017). In Switzerland, a si-
milar approach was used (Bucheli, 2012).
However, in relation to emerging contaminants, toxicity data are
often insufficient or unreliable. In those cases, experts in the
Netherlands and Switzerland were able to use the Threshold of
Toxicological Concern (TTC) or the Read-Across approach. The TTC
was first developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is
considered to be a level of human exposure below which negligible risk
is expected even though toxicity data are unavailable (Mons et al.,
2013). The TTC approach allocates chemicals to five different chemical
groups based on their chemical structure (International Life Sciences
Institute, 2005).
For some compounds the TTC approach is not applicable, e.g. in-
organic compounds, proteins, and steroids, as is described by the
European Food Safety Agency (2012). If the identified emerging con-
taminant belongs to one of these groups, the Read-Across-approach can
be used instead of the TTC-approach (Brüschweiler, 2010;European
Chemicals Agency, 2013). The use of the TTC approach to determine
safe levels in drinking water has been explained in depth elsewhere for
the Netherlands (van der Aa et al., 2017) and Switzerland
(Brüschweiler, 2010;Bucheli, 2012).
Although the Netherlands and Switzerland used similar approaches
during the hazard assessment element, several differences can be
identified. Different standard body weights (70 vs. 60 kg), exposure
allocations to drinking water (20% vs. 100%), and human exposure
threshold values for the different classes in the TTC approach
(European Food Safety Agency (2012) vs. International Life Sciences
Institute (2005)) were used. These differences resulted in diverse
HBGVs.
In Germany, the hazard assessment of emerging contaminants with
insufficient or unreliable toxicity data was based on a scheme of health
related indication values that was first published in 2003 by the
German Environment Agency. The scheme consists of four possible
health related indication values, namely 0.1, 0.3, 1, and 3 μg/L. Health
related indication values increase with sufficient and reliable toxicity
data, and decrease with the severity and irreversibility of the toxic
endpoints, as described by Dieter (2014).
3.2.2. Exposure assessment
The exposure assessment in Minnesota was based on a different
exposure-related data that are combined into three indicators for po-
tential exposure via drinking water intake. These indicators include
persistency (e.g. log K
ow
, biodegradability), emission and disposal rates
(wastewater and industrial releases), and a measure of occurrence
(detected concentrations in different waterbodies and drinking water).
The scores as well as the data they are based on are not published on the
MDH website.
The exposure assessments performed in the Netherlands, Germany
and Switzerland were very similar to one another. Preferably, con-
centrations of the contaminant in treated drinking water were used.
When unavailable, concentrations in the drinking water resource were
used. The expected concentration in drinking water can then be cal-
culated using estimated removal rates by the drinking water treatment
system.
3.2.3. Concern assessment
The IRGC (2012) has suggested relevant factors for the concern
assessment, such as the assessment of perceptions associated with the
hazard and the relationship between the perception and behaviour.
In three out of four cases (not in the Swiss case), public meetings
were held. It was unclear to the authors whether a formal concern as-
sessment of all stakeholders had taken place during the public meetings,
as no minutes of these meetings were available. Also, in Minnesota, the
opportunity for anyone to nominate a contaminant could be interpreted
as part of the concern assessment. However, these concerns and the
assessment of potential concern during the public meetings, do not
appear to have had any influence on the further decision-making and
risk management steps to be taken. None of the analysed policy
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the analytical approach used in this study.
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
100
approaches seem to have formal procedures in place for the concern
assessment.
3.3. Risk acceptance and risk management
Risk management is the combination of actions taken to avoid,
decrease or retain the potential risk posed by a hazard. The need and
choice of risk reduction measures is based on the outcome of the risk
acceptance element.
The risk acceptance element is based on the decision of the involved
stakeholders on whether an identified risk is acceptable (no measures
need to be taken), tolerable (risk reduction measures are needed), or
intolerable (should be avoided) (IRGC, 2012). The IRGC framework is
unclear about who to involve and not involve in the concern assessment
and risk acceptance element respectively. It was thus decided that, in
this study, the concern assessment would include the assessment of
public associations with the hazard. In contrast, the risk acceptance
element included only the risk evaluation of professionals.
In the selected Dutch case no measures could be taken to reduce or
eliminate the risk, as the source of pollution had already been elimi-
nated and exposure to it had gone on since 2012 (Zeilmaker et al.,
2016). Also, considering the fact that the company had phased out the
PFOA on a voluntary basis, no relevant risk management steps initiated
by Dutch government agencies could be pointed out. The risk accep-
tance process and the resulting risk management steps in the remaining
cases are described below. Also, flowcharts of the risk management
processes can be found in Appendix F.
No measures were taken in the Swiss case, where the drinking water
treatment system was able to remove PFOA. The risk of PFOA in
drinking water was thus considered acceptable. During the German and
Minnesotan case, the threat posed by PFOA was considered intolerable,
because the drinking water treatment system in place was not able to
remove PFOA from the resource water. However, by adding activated
carbon to the drinking water treatment system, the potential risk posed
by PFOA moved from being intolerable to tolerable (Kleeschulte et al.,
2007).
In all selected cases, the decision as to whether the posed risk by
PFOA was acceptable, tolerable or intolerable was solely based on the
ability of the drinking water treatment system to remove PFOA and thus
on the human health impact. No other aspects, such as economic im-
plications, were taken into consideration. This illustrates the need for
the timely identification of emerging contaminants to drinking water
quality and the inclusion of the risk acceptance element as soon as
possible after identification.
3.4. Risk communication
The technical risk communication model was used in all the selected
cases. The communication was one-way in order to induce protective
behaviour (in the German and Minnesotan case) or to reassure people
that the drinking water was safe despite the presence of PFOA (in the
Swiss and Dutch case).
Fig. 2 shows the number of articles published per month about
PFOA in drinking water in German newspapers from January 2005 to
January 2008 (N = 137). The articles were divided based upon pub-
lication in national or regional newspapers, as the selected cases were
local incidents of PFOA contamination. Also, a timeline of the most
important risk communication incidences by local, regional or national
government agencies is shown (based on Kleeschulte et al. (2007)).
Before May 2006 and after June 2007, no articles about PFOA in
drinking water were published in Germany. This indicates that the ar-
ticles shown in Fig. 1 are a reaction to the incidence of PFOA in the
Rivers Ruhr and Möhne. A clear decline in newspaper articles can be
seen after August 2006 indicating a decrease in public concern. This is
based on our assumption that lower media coverage indicates lower
public concern.
Fig. 3 illustrates the number of articles about PFOA in drinking
water published in Dutch newspapers from January 2015 to May 2017
(N = 50). In contrast to the German case, there was no clear decline in
the number of newspaper articles after the last communication in-
cidence. This indicates no decline in public concern. This is in line with
the fact that, in the Netherlands, research has been focussing on the
potential health effects of the alternative for PFOA that has been used
by industry since 2012 (Heydebreck et al., 2015;Smit, 2017). However,
it is recognised that differences in the type of incidence, such as other
routes of exposure to PFOA (e.g. via air in the Dutch case), as well as the
timing of the incident, might have also contributed to the differences in
media coverage.
No results that correlated to the selected Swiss case were found
between October 2010 and January 2014. Also, the search for articles
about PFOA in drinking water between January 2016 and June 2017 in
Minnesotan newspapers resulted in only two articles. This indicated low
to no public concern in the Minnesotan and Swiss case.
The presented cases show the influence that risk communication has
on public concern about an emerging contaminant. Comparing the
German and Dutch case illustrates the need for timely risk commu-
nication.
3.5. Stakeholder involvement
Fig. 4 shows the range of stakeholders involved in the selected risk
governance approaches to emerging contaminants in drinking water. In
this analysis, stakeholders were defined as all those parties, which had
an interest in the matter of emerging contaminants in drinking water.
The risk appraisal element is divided into its sub elements. However, as
the concern assessment element was not represented in either of the
analysed policy approaches, it is not shown in Fig. 4. The analysis of
stakeholder involvement was based on different information sources,
mainly grey literature. An overview of the references used per element
is shown in Appendix G.
4. Areas identified for improvement
This study has shown that, with regard to proactive risk governance,
a key area for improvement in the risk governance of emerging con-
taminants is their timely identification. Timely identification enables
appropriate risk management options to be taken, allows other factors
as well as public health to be included in deliberating the need for risk
remediation measures, and can positively influence risk communication
as was illustrated by the selected cases.
The identification process used by the MDH CEC program appeared
to be more proactive, as identification was based on the nomination of
contaminants and not necessarily on monitoring data. However, the
main reasons for contaminants to be nominated in the MDH CEC pro-
gram came from screening and monitoring data or from studies that
revealed new toxicity data. Therefore, it can be concluded that the in-
formation sources used in the selected risk governance approaches are
comparable. However, based on recent scientific literature, several
additional information sources could be used by government agencies
for the timely identification of possible emerging contaminants.
Firstly, the use of product registration under REACH (European
Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) for the identification of
persistent, mobile, and toxic contaminants has been suggested by
Reemtsma et al. (2016) and Arp et al. (2017). This could be a valuable
added classification of chemicals next to the persistent, bioaccumula-
tive, and toxic-chemicals, by which physical-chemical properties in-
dicate the possible threat a compound poses to drinking water quality.
The use of other product registration databases besides REACH is also
encouraged, such as the Biocidal Products Regulation.
Secondly, analysing driving forces behind current emerging con-
taminants in drinking water could be valuable. Driving forces in this
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
101
Fig. 2. Number of published articles about PFOA in drinking water per month in Germany (May 2006 to June 2007) in relation to important risk communication event times during the
selected German case.
Fig. 3. Number of published articles about PFOA in drinking water per month in Dutch newspapers (January 2015 to May 2017) in relation to important risk communication events
during the selected case.
Fig. 4. Stakeholders involved in the risk governance of emerging contaminants in drinking water in Minnesota, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany.
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
102
case relate to social, economic, technical and political processes that
have initiated drinking water contamination in the past. Correlating
driving forces to risks has been done for infectious disease threats in
Europe (Semenza et al., 2016) and chemical risks to biodiversity
(Maxim & Spangenberg, 2009). Finding relevant driving forces for
chemical and microbial risks to drinking water quality can result in
proactive risk governance by enabling timely interventions on relevant
drivers.
Thirdly, the systematic review of newspaper articles could accel-
erate the identification of possible emerging contaminants. This was
illustrated by the Dutch case. Investigation into the same polluter in the
United States started already in 2001 (Krimsky, 2007). Therefore, sys-
tematic analysis of international newspaper articles would have ac-
celerated the identification of the possible PFOA contamination near
Dordrecht. However, to make the analysis of international news re-
levant, the chance of false positives has to be minimised. Well-struc-
tured analytical approaches, such as the media monitoring approach by
Alomar et al. (2015), are thus needed.
An additional area for improvement could be expanding the range
of involved stakeholders by including consumers in the risk governance
process. Participatory governance has been shown to positively influ-
ence stakeholder acceptance (Kochskämper et al., 2016;Ramirez-
Andreotta et al., 2014). However, who to involve and not to involve still
needs critical reflection and further study.
Also, in terms of transparency, the results show that not all in-
formation is publicly available. Making monitoring data on micro-
pollutants publicly available could positively influence risk perception
since studies have suggested that people evaluate drinking water
quality based on their expectations (Doria, 2010). By sharing mon-
itoring data, expectations can be managed. It is recognised that in order
to make this kind of information understandable for non-experts,
thorough explanation is needed.
Finally, harmonisation of the hazard assessment is encouraged for
contaminants with limited toxicity data. Different approaches are
shown to result in very different HBGVs, which impedes risk commu-
nication as communication on chemical drinking water contaminants is
mainly based on water quality standards (Johnson, 2008). A harmo-
nised shift from chemical specific risk assessment to assessing groups of
chemicals based on their modes of action and physical-chemical prop-
erties is suggested (Murphy et al., 2012). This will enable the timely
hazard assessment of contaminants with limited toxicological in-
formation.
5. Limitations
Some limitations of this study have to be considered. Firstly, it is
recognised that the selected cases are considerably different from one
another, both in terms of the size of the affected population and in
terms of the knowledge level on human health effects of PFOA. These
differences may have had an effect on the differences in the risk man-
agement and risk communication processes. In addition, the analyses of
which stakeholders were involved in the risk assessment, risk man-
agement and risk communication elements of the risk governance
process were based on the selected cases. The overview of the involved
stakeholders in these elements, as shown in Fig. 4, is therefore specific
for the selected case and may not be representative for each incident of
an emerging contaminant in a drinking water resource.
Furthermore, the LexisNexis®database is limited in terms of in-
cluded newspapers, which may have affected the results. Also, the
framing of the risk event by news media was not taken into account.
Recent literature shows that the framing of risk communication in case
of emerging contaminants in drinking water can have a positive and
negative effect on risk perception (Tobias, 2016). Therefore, further
analysis of the risk communication during the selected cases is con-
sidered valuable.
Finally, the analysis focused on policy approaches and did not
include voluntary actions taken by drinking water companies or other
involved stakeholders.
6. Conclusions
The IRGC framework with a few modifications was found to be a
valuable instrument for identifying areas for improvement in current
risk governance approaches for emerging contaminants to drinking
water quality. A key area for improvement was found to be the timely
identification of and subsequent communication on emerging con-
taminants in drinking water. Similar results have been found for the risk
communication on infectious diseases (Roodenrijs et al., 2014).
7. Future research suggestions
Based on the areas identified for improvement, the following sug-
gestions for future scientific research that will add to the proactive risk
governance of emerging contaminants in drinking water can be made:
•The development of systematic analytical approaches for the timely
identification of emerging contaminants to drinking water quality
using product registration databases, news media, drivers of risk,
and scientific literature is encouraged.
•The possibility and benefits of integrating the concern assessment
into the risk governance process of emerging contaminants in
drinking water and improving transparency by sharing monitoring
data should be investigated.
•The risk communication process and consequent public risk per-
ception and risk behaviour that took place in past incidences of
emerging contaminants in drinking water should be further ana-
lysed.
Funding
This research was funded by the RIVM Strategic Research Project
PS-DRINK (S/121014).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Liesbeth Claassen (RIVM) for her valuable
comments on the risk communication analysis. Also, we are grateful for
the input of Pierre Studer (Swiss Federal Food safety and Veterinary
Office) and Katie Nyquist (MDH CEC program) on details of the risk
governance processes in Switzerland and the state of Minnesota.
Furthermore, we thank Ulrich Borchers (IWW Water Centre in
Germany) for making his presentation on drinking water analytics in
Germany accessible online. Finally, we would like to acknowledge
Friederike Vietoris (Ministry for Environment, Agriculture,
Conservation and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-
Westphalia) for her comments on an earlier draft of this work.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.015
References
Alomar, O., Batlle, A., Brunetti, J.M., García, R., Gil, R., Granollers, A., Jiménez, S.,
Laviña, A., Linge, J.P., Pautasso, M., Reverté, C., Riudavets, J., Rortais, A.,
Stancanelli, G., Volani, S., Vos, S., 2015. Development and testing of the media
monitoring tool MedISys for early identification and reporting of existing and
emerging plant health threats. EPPO Bull. 45 (2), 288–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/epp.12209.
Arp, H.P.H., Brown, T.N., Berger, U., Hale, S.E., 2017. Ranking REACH registered neutral,
ionizable and ionic organic chemicals based on their aquatic persistency and mobi-
lity. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts 19 (7), 939–955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/
c7em00158d.
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
103
Assmuth, T., Simola, A., Pitkanen, T., Lyytimaki, J., Huttula, T., 2016. Integrated fra-
meworks for assessing and managing health risks in the context of managed aquifer
recharge with river water. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 12 (1), 160–173. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1660.
Bakir, V., 2010. Media and risk: old and new research directions. J. Risk Res. 13 (1), 5–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870903135953.
Bokkers, B.G.H., Versteegh, J.F.M., Janssen, P.J.C.M., Zeilmaker, M.J., 2016. Risk
Assessment of the Exposure to PFOA via Drinking Water at Two Locations (in Dutch).
Brüschweiler, B., 2010. The TTC concept method of assessment of unknown toxicity in
drinking water (in German). GWA 90 (4), 295–303.
Bucheli, M., 2012. Dealing With Unregulated Foreign Substances in Drinking Water (in
German). Federal Office of Public Health (BAG.
Dieter, H.H., 2014. Health related guide values for drinking-water since 1993 as guidance
to assess presence of new analytes in drinking-water. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 217
(2–3), 117–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2013.05.001.
Doria, M.F., 2006. Bottled water versus tap water: understanding consumers’preferences.
J. Water Health 4 (2), 271–276.
Doria, Md.F., 2010. Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality.
Water Policy 12 (1), 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.051.
Doria, Md.F., Pidgeon, N., Hunter, P.R., 2009. Perceptions of drinking water quality and
risk and its effect on behaviour: a cross-national study. Sci. Total Environ. 407 (21),
5455–5464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.06.031.
EPA, 2016. FACT SHEET PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories (EPA 800-F-16-
003). Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/
documents/drinkingwaterhealthadvisories_pfoa_pfos_updated_5.31.16.pdf.
European Chemicals Agency, 2013. Grouping of Substances and Read-across Approach.
Retrieved from. http://echa.europa.eu/.
European Food Safety Agency, 2012. Scientific opinion on exploring options for providing
advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of threshold of tox-
icological concern (TTC). EFSA J. 10 (7). http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.
2750.
Gavrilescu, M., Demnerova, K., Aamand, J., Agathos, S., Fava, F., 2015. Emerging pol-
lutants in the environment: present and future challenges in biomonitoring, ecolo-
gical risks and bioremediation. New Biotechnol. 32 (1), 147–156. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.nbt.2014.01.001.
Heydebreck, F., Tang, J., Xie, Z., Ebinghaus, R., 2015. Alternative and legacy per-
fluoroalkyl substances: differences between European and Chinese River/Estuary
systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (14), 8386–8395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.5b01648.
Houtman, C.J., 2010. Emerging contaminants in surface waters and their relevance for
the production of drinking water in Europe. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 7 (4), 271–295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2010.511648.
Houtman, C.J., Kroesbergen, J., Lekkerkerker-Teunissen, K., van der Hoek, J.P., 2014.
Human health risk assessment of the mixture of pharmaceuticals in Dutch drinking
water and its sources based on frequent monitoring data. Sci. Total Environ. 496,
54–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.022.
International Life Sciences Institute, 2005. Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC).
Retrieved from. http://ilsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/C2005Thres_
Tox.pdf.
IRGC, 2012. An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Retrieved from.
www.IRGC.org.
Johnson, B.B., 2008. Public views on drinking water standards as risk indicators. Risk
Anal. 28 (6), 1515–1530.
Kleeschulte, P., Schäfer, O., Klung, M., Püttmann, A., 2007. Experiences of a district
health authority with PFT-contaminated drinking water (in German). Umweltmed.
Forsch. Prax. 12, 73–78.
Kochskämper, E., Challies, E., Newig, J., Jager, N.W., 2016. Participation for effective
environmental governance? Evidence from water framework directive implementa-
tion in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. J. Environ. Manage. 181, 737–748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.007.
Krimsky, S., 2007. Risk communication in the internet age: the rise of disorganized
skepticism. Environ. Hazards 7 (2), 157–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.
2007.05.006.
Lapworth, D.J., Baran, N., Stuart, M.E., Ward, R.S., 2012. Emerging organic contaminants
in groundwater: a review of sources, fate and occurrence. Environ. Pollut. 163,
287–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.034.
Lewandowski, A., Kelley, S., Meinert, J., Williams, C., 2016. Review of the MDH CEC
Program Process for Selecting Chemicals. Retrieved from. . https://www.wrc.umn.
edu/sites/wrc.umn.edu/files/cec2016report.pdf.
Lindahl, J.F., Grace, D., 2015. The Consequences of Human Actions on Risks for Infectious
Diseases: A Review. 2015. pp. 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/iee.v5.30048.
Lustig, R.H., Schmidt, L.A., Brindis, C.D., 2012. Public health: the toxic truth about sugar.
Nature 482 (7383), 27.
Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J.H., 2009. Driving forces of chemical risks for the European
biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 69 (1), 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.
03.010.
MDH, 2017. MDH Response to EPA Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA. Retrieved from.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcs/current.html.
MDH CEC program, 2016. Nominated Contaminants Status Table: November 2016.
Retrieved from. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/
chemstatus.pdf.
Mons, M.N., Heringa, M.B., van Genderen, J., Puijker, L.M., Brand, W., van Leeuwen, C.J.,
Stoks, P., van der Hoek, J.P., van der Kooij, D., 2013. Use of the threshold of tox-
icological concern (TTC) approach for deriving target values for drinking water
contaminants. Water Res. 47 (4), 1666–1678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.
2012.12.025.
Murphy, E.A., Post, G.B., Buckley, B.T., Lippincott, R.L., Robson, M.G., 2012. Future
challenges to protecting public health from drinking-water contaminants. Ann. Rev.
Public Health 33, 209.
Naidu, R., Arias Espana, V.A., Liu, Y., Jit, J., 2016a. Emerging contaminants in the en-
vironment: risk-based analysis for better management. Chemosphere 154, 350–357.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.03.068.
Naidu, R., Jit, J., Kennedy, B., Arias, V., 2016b. Emerging contaminant uncertainties and
policy: the chicken or the egg conundrum. Chemosphere 154, 385–390. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.03.110.
Noguera-Oviedo, K., Aga, D.S., 2016. Lessons learned from more than two decades of
research on emerging contaminants in the environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 316,
242–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.058.
OECD, 2015. OECD Principles on Water Governance. Retrieved from. https://www.
oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/OECD-Principles-on-Water-Governance-brochure.pdf.
Pal, A., Gin, K.Y.-H., Lin, A.Y.-C., Reinhard, M., 2010. Impacts of emerging organic
contaminants on freshwater resources: review of recent occurrences, sources, fate and
effects. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (24), 6062–6069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2010.09.026.
Ramirez-Andreotta, M.D., Brusseau, M.L., Artiola, J.F., Maier, R.M., Gandolfi, A.J., 2014.
Environmental research translation: enhancing interactions with communities at
contaminated sites. Sci. Total Environ. 497, 651–664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2014.08.021.
Reemtsma, T., Berger, U., Arp, H.P.H., Gallard, H., Knepper, T.P., Neumann, M.,
Quintana, J.B., Voogt, Pd., 2016. Mind the gap: persistent and mobile organic com-
pounds—water contaminants that slip through. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (19),
10308–10315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03338.
Richardson, S.D., Kimura, S.Y., 2016. Water analysis: emerging contaminants and current
issues. Anal. Chem. 88 (1), 546–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.
5b04493.
Roodenrijs, J.C.M., Kraaij-Dirkzwager, M.M., van den Kerkhof, J.H.T.C., Runhaar, H.A.C.,
2014. Risk governance for infectious diseases: exploring the feasibility and added
value of the IRGC-framework for Dutch infectious disease control. J. Risk Res. 17 (9),
1161–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.875935.
Sacher, F., 2013. How is our drinking water monitored? (In German). Chemie unserer Zeit
47 (3), 148–156.
Schriks, M., Heringa, M.B., van der Kooi, M.M., de Voogt, P., van Wezel, A.P., 2010.
Toxicological relevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality. Water
Res. 44 (2), 461–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.08.023.
Schwarzenbach, R.P., Egli, T., Hofstetter, T.B., von Gunten, U., Wehrli, B., 2010. Global
water pollution and human health. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 109–136.
Semenza, J.C., Rocklöv, J., Penttinen, P., Lindgren, E., 2016. Observed and projected
drivers of emerging infectious diseases in Europe. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1382 (1),
73–83.
Smit, C.E., 2017. RIVM Report 2017-0045 Research into Indicative Water Quality
Standards for Substances Used in the GenX Technology (in Dutch). Retrieved from. .
http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2017-0045.pdf.
Smital, T., Terzić, S., Lončar, J., Senta, I., Žaja, R., Popović, M., Mikac, I., Tollefsen, K.E.,
Thomas, K.V., Ahel, M., 2013. Prioritisation of organic contaminants in a River Basin
using chemical analyses and bioassays. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20 (3), 1384–1395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1059-x.
Sterk, A., Schijven, J., de Nijs, T., de Roda Husman, A.M., 2013. Direct and indirect effects
of climate change on the risk of infection by water-transmitted pathogens. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 47 (22), 12648–12660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es403549s.
Tobias, R., 2016. Communication about micropollutants in drinking water: effects of the
presentation and psychological processes. Risk Anal. 36 (10), 2011–2026. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/risa.12485.
Uehlinger, U.F., Wantzen, K.M., Leuven, R.S., Arndt, H., 2009. The Rhine River Basin.
van der Aa, M., van Leerdam, R., van de Ven, B., Janssen, P., Smit, E., Versteegh, A., 2017.
RIVM Report 2017-0091 Evaluation Signaling Value Anthropogenic Substances in
Drinking Water Policy (in Dutch).
Wiedemann, J., 2011. 2011-018 Interpellation Von Jürg Wiedemann, Grüne Fraktion.
Wilhelm, M., Kraft, M., Rauchfuss, K., Holzer, J., 2008. Assessment and management of
the first German case of a contamination with perfluorinated compounds (PFC) in the
Region Sauerland, North Rhine-Westphalia. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 71 (11–12),
725–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287390801985216.
Wilhelm, M., Bergmann, S., Dieter, H.H., 2010. Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds
(PFCs) in drinking water of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany and new approach to
assess drinking water contamination by shorter-chained C4–C7 PFCs. Int. J. Hyg.
Environ. Health 213 (3), 224–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.05.004.
Zeilmaker, M.J., Janssen, P., Versteegh, A., van Pul, A., de Vries, W., Bokkers, B., Wuijts,
S., Oomen, A., Herremans, J., 2016. RIVM Report 2016-0049 Risk Assessment of the
Emission of PFOA (in Dutch). pp. 68.
Zwick, Ackerman, 2012. Answer to the Question of Jürg Wiedemann 2011/018 (in
German). Liestal. .
J. Hartmann et al. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (2018) 97–104
104
