This project was the first phase of a study that seeks to assess and integrate the advice provided to Environment Canada on potential changes to their DM DaS regulatory framework at a 2006 workshop on DM management and since that time. We developed a database of North American coastal and estuarine sediment contaminant levels, and applied a range of potential chemical assessment protocols to it, and drew conclusions about the potential changes in regulatory outcomes from changes in the Canadian DM DaS Chemical Protocols summarized in Agius and Porebski (2008). The first 2006 selleck chemicals llc workshop recommendation was that EC consider the inclusion

of a broader suite of metals (or even a full metal scan) rather than just Cd and Hg, in Tier 1 assessments. Although this review only evaluated the effects of the addition of metals addressed in other DM programs rather than a full scan, study results indicated that the current DaS protocol has the potential to miss a significant number of samples that are

potentially affected by metal contamination. Using mined datasets, the two metals (Cd and Hg) currently considered failed to serve as sentinel analytes Quizartinib supplier that captured other metal-contaminated sediments. Including other metals in the DaS chemical action list would likely improve the overall detection of metal-contaminated sediments. The precise SQG levels for currently used and potential new analytes do not appear to have nearly as much influence on the conservatism of regulatory outcomes as the

list of analytes itself. Therefore, the decision to add metals to the list of analytes would be immediately beneficial to the DaS program’s decision making ability. A review of the appropriate SQG levels might also be considered Niclosamide but as a lower priority. However, if such a review is carried out, it will be important to ensure that SQGs considered have been developed using sample preparation, extraction and analytical methods that are compatible with the DaS protocols. Whilst a final selection of LAL and UAL levels will be a policy decision, we recommend that the implications of these differences are reviewed in due course. Although there are strong arguments for greater conservatism at LAL levels and less conservatism at UAL levels, these choices also have cost implications for applicants, and may affect applicant behavior as well as environmental outcomes. Given their performance relative to other SQGs in this study, the DaS program could consider the use of consensus SQGs as a starting point. The second workshop recommendation was that EC consider the expansion of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) examined in Tier 1 from the 16 parent compounds to include a focus on the more persistent and toxic alkylated PAHs, which are often present at higher concentrations.