1. Posters and discussions
Initiative towards improving our understanding of persistence in the 21st century Key findings from Sept 2018 Workshop
Graham Whale1, Paul van Elsacker2, Kees van Ginkel3, Russell Davenport4, John Parsons5 and Eleni Vaiopoulou6, Kathrin Fenner7and Andreas Schaeffer8
1Formerly Shell Health, Shell Centre, London UK, 2Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium, 3Nouryon Deventer, NL, 4Environmental Engineering Group, Newcastle University, UK. 5Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam NL, 6Concawe, Brussels, Belgium, 7Chemistry Department, University of Zürich, Switzerland, 8Institute for Environmental Research, Aachen University, Germany.
Abstract and background 
There is increasing awareness that progress in the scientific understanding of factors which influence the outcome of persistence (P) assessments of chemicals (particularly biodegradation) are not fully recognised in existing regulations and environmental risk assessments. As all biodegradation tests have their limitations, which are accentuated for ‘difficult to test’ substances, failure to recognise these can potentially lead to chemicals being incorrectly labelled as ‘P’, ‘vP’ or not P.
Many of the shortcomings of existing biodegradation studies have been previously recognised but the challenge is how these can be incorporated into regulatory frameworks for environmental hazard and risk assessment. Recognising that this situation needs to be rectified led to a multi-stakeholder Persistence Workshop being held in Helsinki on the 27th September 2018.
The objective of the workshop was to disseminate key findings from recent research projects and ongoing initiatives to develop proposals regarding how the current situation can be improved to ensure appropriate classification of the hazards posed by a wide range of chemicals. The key challenge being to develop consensus regarding how recent knowledge can be incorporated into existing regulatory frameworks to improve the environmental hazard and risk assessment of chemicals.
From the outset it was recognised that any proposal to modify guidance needs to be based on sound science, transparent and relevant to all stakeholders. The workshop provided a unique opportunity to initiate a process to re-examine the fundamentals of biodegradation and what existing test methods can achieve by:-
providing an overview of some of the key elements and messages coming from recent research initiatives and
stimulating discussion regarding how these interrelate and can be used to redress some of the previously identified persistence assessment needs.
This presentation provides a summary of the key messages from the workshop and the steps required to take the persistence assessment of chemicals into the 21st Century.
Participants
6 from consultancies/Contract Research Organisations (CROs)
17 from industry
16 from academia (CH, DE, DK, ES, FR, NL, UK)
36 from European regulatory bodies (AT, BE, CH, DE, DK, FI, FR, IT, LT, NL, NO, SE, UK) 
Linking research activities to help bridge the gap to ensure sound science based, credible regulations
Workshop intended to act as a catalyst to:-
Forge links between Concawe, Cefic and other key ‘persistence’ research activities (past and present)
Recognise importance of linking specific research projects to provide a more holistic persistence assessment
Need for key messages and links from research has to be disseminated to improve understanding of chemical persistence
Need to understand and assess how scientific knowledge can be incorporated into better regulations?
Recognise of links between persistence (P), Bioaccumulation/bioavailability (B) and Toxicity
Start to assess and address specific challenges posed by UVCBs (Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products and Biological Materials)
Workshop structure
Divided into 3 principle sessions on:-
Role of microbial community in degradation testing (adaptation, variability, growth & cometabolism)
Impact of environmental factors on bioavailability and degradation
Interpretation of the OECD simulation test results and identified challenges
For each session
Q&A based on session chair summaries to distil key messages and propose how these could be incorporated and/or used to improve guidance
Plus poster session
Posters assessed on their relevance for risk assessment
Schematic initially prepared to try to link Cefic Lri ‘Eco’ persistence (see lri.org/projects/) and Concawe e.g. Danish Technical University (DTU) projects.
Key outcomes/main messages from each of the sessions
Session 1 Role of microbial community
Need for more robust screening (enhanced) biodegradability tests
Eco 11 - Use widely different fresh water inocula, more concentrated seawater inocula
Not widely accepted by regulators.
Need for improved guidance? Noted that OECD 306 did consider inocula concentration but reliable methods were not available when original guidance was written
Eco 29 - Include adaptation as tool to improve screening test
Not widely accepted by regulators, open for discussion as adaptation does occur and can be a key removal mechanism
Proposal the length and methods of exposure thought environmentally relevant
Compare results of OECD results (e.g. from DTU project) with results obtained in tests with pre-exposed inocula  
DTU - Use of specific analyses at low concentrations in a OECD 309 test set-up
Required to assess UVCB and multi- constituent substances
Probably the only way forward may be in combination ready biodegradation tests (RBTs) or enhanced test (mineralization)
OECD tests do not adequately cover the space of environmental factors that are important for degradation
More information and guidance required on effects of exposure history, microbial community biomass/composition, soil properties, redox etc. on test outcomes
Steps can be taken to reduce variability but can we realistically remove variability of testing outcomes? If not, how we deal with this inherent variability?
Biodegradability/or persistency indicators (e.g. half-lives) derived from current simulation tests do not adequately describe ‘true’ biodegradation rates of poorly soluble substances due to influence of bioavailability limitations
Combining novel testing methods with modelling incorporating biodegradation and partitioning yields relevant insights into compartment specific biodegradability
Focus on risk-based approach using bioavailability/activity?
Session 2 Impact of environmental factors
Influence on current OECD tests
Improvements in study reproducibility, reliability and comparability will allow consistent comparison for benchmarking and interpretation of P data
Robust modified studies should be undertaken to support and help interpret such studies especially for multi-constituent/UVCB testing
Regulatory studies need to be performed within the scope of the intrinsic properties of a substance e.g. high Kow /high KRegulatory studies need to be performed within the scope of the intrinsic properties of a substance e.g. high Kow /high Kaw substances will increase the number of chemicals that can be assessed for P.
Corrected t1/2 KBIO
Many assumptions are made, increased understanding of use and interpretation
Currently drivers of degradation both abiotic and biotic cannot be quantified to refine this value
New criteria? Standardised sediment?
substances will increase the number of chemicals that can be assessed for P.
What steps will be required to enable these considerations to be built into regulatory guidance?
Session 3 Interpretation of simulation tests
Potential improvements required
Posters and discussions
The workshop and subsequent poster sessions indicated that a lot of previous research findings plus concerns raised by industry and leading academics had not been recognised in the ECHA guidance. In fact some posters provided data to directly contradict recent changes in guidance from the EU ECHA PBT working group notably on the influence of temperature on degradation in simulation studies, persistence of some poly aromatic hydrocarbons and importance of taking adaptation into account. These issues need to be openly discussed and where decisions are deemed to be questionable a mechanism established so these can be appropriately challenged and where necessary subject to independent evaluation. The current premise of relying on hazard properties and precautionary principle is considered by many to be too blunt a regulatory instrument (all chemicals even glucose can persist in certain situations) and there is a recognised need to improve the current situation. This workshop was seen as an important first step to try and improve understanding of factors affecting persistence of chemicals (particularly UVCBs) and assess how the current regulatory system can be improved to identify ‘persistent’ chemicals of real concern.
Next steps
The key findings from the workshop will be published
An ECETOC task force comprising key involved participants has been established to
Develop proposals to improve how persistence assessments can be improved
Recommend how persistence data is used as part of a more holistic ‘PBT’ assessment
Present findings to key stakeholders including EU PBT Working Group
Work with Concawe to improve persistence assessment of UVCBs
Other opportunities?
SETAC focussed symposium - extend beyond EU as this is a global issue
Develop collaborative (e.g. EU Framework) projects aimed at better defining persistence
The workshop has provided a catalyst to raise concerns about the limitations of existing methods and the need to discuss and agree on how information gained from previous and ongoing/new research can help to move persistence assessments of all chemicals into the 21st Century