DBP Consortium. Halogenated active substances and products ARROW REGULATORY LIMITED 6 TH FLOOR CITY GATE EAST TOLL HOUSE HILL NOTTINGHAM NG1 5FS

Similar documents
DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS (DBPS) IN DRINKING WATER AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HEALTH RISK: A REVIEW

Chlorinated Disinfection By-Products (CDBPs) Prepared for the CDBP Task Group

Scientific Facts on. Water Disinfectants. & disinfectant by-products

Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation

Risk Assessment and Characterization of Chloroform and Other Disinfection Byproducts

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Nitrogenous Disinfection By-Products Formation Potential from Molecular Weight Fractions of Natural Organic Matter

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Trisodium nitrilotriacetate (NTA)

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Science Dossier. Human health aspects of halogenated organic by-products from use of active chlorine

The regulatory landscape. The now and the not yet

Special Report: How Your Shower May Be Hazardous To Your Health! By Joel Kaye, MA

Risk Assessment Report on Chlorine. Human Health Part. CAS No.: EINECS No

Restrictions in the use of biocides for disinfection procedures

Risk of Birth Defects in Australian Communities with High Levels of Brominated Disinfection By-products

Recent Developments and Future Plans in the EFSA Assessments of Pesticides. Hermine Reich Pesticides Unit

Chapter 6 Physical and chemical quality of drinking water

Aeration to remove THMs from drinking water. Ron Hofmann Susan Andrews Arash Zamyadi Hong Zhang

A Comparison Between Freshwater and Seawater Swimming Pools: From Chemical Profile to Genotoxicity

Studies Show Link Between Chlorinated Water and Cancer By Apollo Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Danielle Westerman, Hannah K. Liberatore, Kristin H. Cochran Cassiana Montagner, Dion D. Dionysiou, Leslie H. Cizmas, Susan Richardson

ECPA position paper on the criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties under Regulation

Questions and Answers on Candidates for Substitution

CEE 697z Organic Compounds in Water and Wastewater

REACH Authorisation. REACH Conference Bratislava September 3-4, 2018

Risk Assessment Report on sodium hypochlorite Human Health Part. CAS No.: EINECS No

Justification for the selection of a substance for CoRAP inclusion

1 OJ L 354, , p OJ L 80, , p. 19.

EFSA Statement regarding the EU assessment of glyphosate and the socalled

PRODUCT INFORMATION SHEET

DEGRADATION AND REMOVAL OF TRIHALOMETHANES FROM DRINKING WATER

RISK MANAGEMENT OPTION ANALYSIS CONCLUSION DOCUMENT

GLP in the European Union Ecolabel detergents, GLP and accreditation

FoodDrinkEurope Position on GLP studies

Introduction. Doc-Biocides-2002/01 Version

Health & Consumer Protection. EC legislation on food. Olga Solomon Unit E3

Section 1: Identification of the substance or mixture and the company

Safety Assessment of Hypobromous Acid (220 ppm as Br 2 ) Used as a Beef Carcass Wash

Substance Evaluation Conclusion document EC No SUBSTANCE EVALUATION CONCLUSION DOCUMENT. as required by REACH Article 48.

Applying the Precautionary Principle to Consumer Household Cleaning Product Design

RPA. Assessment of the Impact of the New Chemicals Policy on Occupational Health. Final Report

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU)

What is an Infocard? July 2018

Quality Assurance Policy. for the. Procurement of HIV Point-of-Care Technology. under the UNITAID Grant

Annual Epidemiological Report

Survey results - Analysis of higher tier studies submitted without testing proposals

Guideline scope Smoking cessation interventions and services

Guidelines to Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013. laying down common criteria for the justification of claims used

Is Rosin Classifiable as a Skin Sensitiser? Paul Illing

FÜR RISIKOBEWERTUNG BUNDESINSTITUT

Safe Drinking Water? Effect of Wastewater Inputs and Source Water Impairment and Implications for Water Reuse. Susan D. Richardson

Pesticide risk assessment: changes and perspectives for mammalian toxicology in the new EC regulation 1107/2009

Justification Document for the Selection of a CoRAP Substance

Antimicrobial Processing Aids for Which Health Canada Has Issued a Letter of No Objection (LONO) or an interim Letter of No Objection (ilono)

Chemical Name: Complex Chloride Sodium Chloride, Potassium Chloride, Magnesium Chloride, Calcium Chloride

19 September The Committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC)

SAFETY DATA SHEET Clinell Antibacterial Hand Wipes According to Regulation (EU) No 453/2010

Challenges in environmental risk assessment (ERA) for birds and mammals and link to endocrine disruption (ED) Katharina Ott, BASF SE, Crop Protection

Controlling Risk in your Supply Chain - Instruments of Change

1,1 - iminodipropan-2-ol

Justification for the selection of a candidate CoRAP substance UPDATE

Good Laboratory Practice. EU-Serbia screening meeting Brussels, 19 June 2014

Roadmap to review the Nutrition and Health Claims legislation expression of interest to contribute to the upcoming external study

Safety Data Sheet Safety Data Sheet according to Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 (REACH)

Why the detergent industry relies on a limited number of in-can preservatives

Validation of Relationship Between Free Chlorine Dose and Pathogen Inactivation in Drinking Water

Follow-up of the food additive re-evaluation programme by the European Commission

Assessing and Managing Health Risks from Chemical Constituents and Contaminants of Food

Animal testing versus calculation method

EVALUATING OXIVIR TB VERSUS CRITERIA OF IDEAL DISINFECTANTS HOW DOES IT STACK UP?

Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU).../... of XXX

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Evaluation of active substances in plant protection products Residues Anja Friel European Food Safetey Authority, Parma/ Italy

Fellowes UK Yorkshire Way, West Moor Park Doncaster, South Yorkshire DN3 3FB UK Telephone: + 44 (0) Fax: + 44 (0)

British American Tobacco Snus Marketing Standards

Pesticide Product Labels What the label says.and Why. Dr. Jeff Birk BASF Corporation Regulatory Manager

Human health risk from trihalomethanes in drinking water evaluation with fuzzy aggregation

the EUROPEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE

Substance Evaluation Conclusion document EC No SUBSTANCE EVALUATION CONCLUSION DOCUMENT. as required by REACH Article 48.

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 7 September 2009 (OR. en) 11261/09 Interinstitutional File: 2008/0002 (COD) DENLEG 51 CODEC 893

Annex to a news release

Janeen A. Skutnik-Wilkinson ICH Topic co-creator EWG Team Member

Introduction to HACCP for the Agri Feed/ Food Supply chain

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL. PHARMACEUTICAL COMMITTEE 21 October 2015

Working Document prepared by the Commission services - does not prejudice the Commission's final decision 3/2/2014 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Working together on Food Safety

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FOOD CHAIN AND ANIMAL HEALTH HELD IN BRUSSELS ON 10 DECEMBER 2012 (Section General Food Law)

Hand disinfection PT 1 harmonisation of exposure determinants for professional users

Current state of play on FCMs, including the risk assessment Eric Barthélémy, EFSA FCM team

IPEC Europe Suggested Alternative (if none then original text is clear and needs no alteration) Purpose and Scope

ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment: Evaluation of the Classification and Labelling of Glyphosate

Transcription:

DBP Consortium Halogenated active substances and products ARROW REGULATORY LIMITED 6 TH FLOOR CITY GATE EAST TOLL HOUSE HILL NOTTINGHAM NG1 5FS

Contents What are Disinfection By-Products (DBP)? Why are DBPs important to biocide product authorisation? Why form a consortium? What is the consortium doing? Where are we now? 2

What are DBPs? A chemical compound formed by the reaction of a water disinfectant (e.g. chlorine) with a precursor (e.g. natural organic matter) in a water supply. The most commonly known DBPs are those formed with halogens, e.g. chlorine and bromine. Any disinfectant can form DBPs during use, including free radicals and ozone. All natural water sources contain halogens. All potable water contains DBPs 3

What are DBPs? From halogenated disinfectants Trihalometanes (THMs) Haloacetic acids (HAAs) Haloaldehydes Haloacetonitriles Haloamines Chlorate/bromate From ozonation formaldehyde and other aldehydes, carboxylic acids hydrogen peroxide bromate bromomethanes brominated acetic acids brominated acetonitriles and ketones http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/s04.pdf 4

DBPs and the BPR ECHA Guidance Document Volume V: Guidance on Disinfection By- Products. Jan 2017 The disinfection of water with oxidising biocides leads to the formation of by-products (DBPs). According to the Biocides Product Regulation (BPR), the effect of residues should be evaluated in the risk assessment (see e.g. Art. 19,(1)(b)(iii)) and according to the definition in Art. 3,(1)(h), residues include reaction products. A number of known (groups of) DBPs are biologically active, and some are (suspected) carcinogens or mutagens (e.g. chloroform, halogenated methanes, bromate). Moreover, most DBPs are more stable than the biocide itself. Therefore, a risk assessment of DBPs as part of the authorisation of biocidal products is necessary. 5

DBP Guidance Strategy for the evaluation of DBPs - Proposed methodology for assessment Included: Halogenated active substances (oxidisers) Identification of marker substances PT 2, swimming pool disinfectants and PT 11 and 12 preservatives a tentative list of PT for which DBP assessment is relevant It does not exclude: Risk assessment for all PT where DBP may be formed Any other reactive active substance that may form DBP 6

Risk v benefit of disinfection; a balance The risk of waterborne infectious disease is very high when no chlorination is used, and drops sharply to a low value when even minimal levels of chlorination are maintained. We know this on the basis of a century's experience. Morris 1978 the risk of death from pathogens is at least 100 to 1000 times greater than the risk of cancer from disinfection byproducts (DBPs); the risk of illness from pathogens is at least 10 000 to 1 million times greater than the risk of cancer from DBPs; morbidity and mortality rates from pathogens compared with those from DBPs, may be considerably higher in developing countries where the sanitary and health status is not as good; in societies where infant mortality and life expectancy is low, many people would not be expected to live long enough to incur cancer, which also causes much higher differences in risk resulting from exposure to pathogens versus DBPs cited above. Regli et al. (1993) http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/s04.pdf 7

DBP s and the BPR World Health Organisation: Adequate disinfection of drinking-water is the most important priority to assure a safe water supply. BPR Authorisation may be granted if the biocidal product has no immediate or delayed unacceptable effects itself, or as a result of its residues, on the health of humans, including that of vulnerable groups, or animals, directly or through drinking water, food, feed, air, or through other indirect effects (Art 19 1(b) (iii)) A biocidal product may be authorised when the conditions laid down in paragraph 1(b)(iii) and (iv) are not fully met, or may be authorised for making available on the market for use by the general public when the criteria referred to in paragraph 4(c) are met, where not authorising the biocidal product would result in disproportionate negative impacts for society when compared to the risks to human health, animal health or the environment arising from the use of the biocidal product under the conditions laid down in the authorisation. 8

DBP s and the BPR BPR places onus on product manufacturers to identify the application range where risk/benefit is maximised for their products. The BPR cannot force end-users to; use products in accordance with label claim monitor DBP formation and take steps to ensure limits are adhered to. Measurements must be applied via other legal statutes (EU and National). 9

BPR Active substance applications; Substance manufacturers Representative product, often dummy product Default models for risk assessment Generic use patterns Product authorisation Substance manufacturers, formulators or distributors Real products All uses Application dose defined by efficacy studies Deficiencies: Efficacious dose vs DBP formation Lack of incentive for end-user of products to buy-in to product approval scheme 10

Why form a Consortium? Cost Duplication of work Harmonisation/concensus across industry Pooling of knowledge Raising end-user awareness of BPR and it s impact on their business Influencing end-users to become involved, sharing of data 11

DBP Consortium Limited to halogenated active substances and products Open to active substance manufacturers and any company placing halogenated products on the market. Currently 95 members and 11 companies in the process of joining Entry to late-joining members open Steering Committee and Technical Committee Independent experts 12

Scope of work Chlorinated and brominated substances; Sodium and calcium hypochlorite Chlorine Active chlorine and Active bromine Chlorine dioxide Monochloramine Chlorinated isocyanurates; TCCA, NaDCC anhydrous and dihydrate Halohydantoins (e.g. BCDMH) Product Types (halogenated products); PT 1 5 PT 11 and 12 13

Aim A harmonised standard for both chlorinated and brominated biocidal products, i.e. a worst case DBP profile for each disinfectant/preservative use will be identified and assessed for safety. This will lead to the production of a list of label claims (dosing regime and application conditions) that lead to a safe use, in respect to DBP generation, that applicants can reference for their own authorisations. 14

Work Plan Phase 1: Data Collection Phase 2: Expert Assessment Exposure/release data Hazard determination Relevance of marker or groups of DBP Phase 3: Data Gap Assessment Phase 4: Data Generation Phase 5: Risk Assessment and Report on Safe Conditions of Use Report due date: Oct 2018 15

Where are we now? Phase 1: Data Collection Phase 2: Expert Assessment Data Gap Analysis Study planning 16

Sara Kirkham sara@arrowregulatory.com DBP@arrowregulatory.com WEBSITE: ARROWREGULATORY.COM TELEPHONE (+44) (0)1159352243