SWIFT-WFD Screening methods for Water data InFormaTion in support of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive Contribution to the monitoring GW: using screening methods for groundwater monitoring A.M. Fouillac (BRGM)

General information about SWIFT 6FP, Priority 8 : “Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area” Activity “Policy Support and Anticipating Scientific and Technological Needs” 40 partners Private research Institutes, Universities, 8 SMEs, regulatory organisms 18 countries Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italia, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sloviaka, Spain, Sweden, UK Coordinator : Armines-Alès, France Contact : Catherine Gonzalez catherine.gonzalez@ema.fr Duration 36 months Start date : 1 January 2004 Contract n°SSPI-CT-2003-502492

SWIFT-WFD objectives To produce an inventory of existing methods for water monitoring To produce RMs for validating methods at laboratory scale To produce a set of good practices for assessing emerging tools for field measurements and compare their results to standard procedures To develop a methodology for in situ validation of promising tools To assess socio-economic impact of these emerging tools To transfer knowledge and technologies (EU 25) via professional training actions, workshops, e-learning programmes In fine to improve efficiency of water monitoring (accurate water quality assessment for appropriate costs)

SWIFT-WFD project Needs for regulatory purposes Inventory Inventory of of of screening screening existing methods methods methods (WP1) (WP1) (WP1) Guidance on Guidance on Guidance on quality quality quality assurance assurance assurance Control Control Control tools tools tools (WP2) (WP2) (WP2) Training Training Training (WP4) (WP4) (WP4) Field Field Field intercomparaison intercomparaison intercomparison on on on selected selected selected sites sites sites (WP3) (WP3) (WP3) Impact low cost screening Impact low cost methods Impact low cost screening Up Up Up coming coming coming rapid rapid rapid methods methods (WP6) (WP6) (WP6) screening screening screening methods methods methods (WP5) (WP5) (WP5) Innovation Innovation Innovation implementing implementing implementing strategy strategy strategy (WP7) (WP7) (WP7) Assessment of quality procedures

Screening methods What are they? Rapid and low cost existing or emerging tools which are use to analyse lot of water samples Can be qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative Qualitative or semi-quantitative methods are : designed for a large number of samples, few samples expected to have levels of the test analyte, close to specified limit rapid and give an indicative value (semi quantitative) or an information (yes/no for qualitative) Positive samples will be subject for further analyse carried out by classical methods but, so, the number of samples to be analysed in lab is lowered Some of them can give info on group of compounds (early warning)

Examples of field screening methods On site the measurement is done after sampling In situ the measurement is done on the medium On line/continuous Spot sampling Continuous/remote Passive samplers Biological Warning System Continuous Flow analysers Colorimetric kits Semi-permeable membrane Fish, Mossel, Daphnid UV, IR, ISE detectors Merck Biosensors DGT ELISA, immunoassays SAMOS Automated HPLC Optical fibers Toxicity tests On line Microtox Sensors (optical, electrochemical) Lab based techniques Electrochemistry, XRF HPLC, GC, UV, IR

Types of sampling Spot sampling

Types of sampling time integrated sampling = passive samplers

Types of sampling continuous measurement

Screening/emerging methods, why? Groundwater variability 3D chemical content distribution temporal change Need of early warning spills, discharges Accidents impossibility to measure all compounds (info on group of compounds = early warning) Need of reliable and comparable data, provided on time and that allow decisions to be made obtained at minimum cost & effort “fit for purpose” Unreliable measurements or inappropriate monitoring strategies lead to: duplication of measurements and use of extra resources negative economic impact wrong policy decision impact on public health / disasters

Monitoring of groundwater Fit for purpose Screening methods

Trends in ‘new’ approaches for monitoring strategy ‘Classical’ methods: Chemical analysis of spot samples low sampling frequency due to high costs of analyses impossibility to measure all compounds Might lead to a poor assessment of the quality of the waterbody due to its spatio-temporal variability Use of ‘Passive Samplers’ = a clue for estimation of chemical trends time integrated sampling increased concentrations, easier/better analysis Assessment of low level pollutant trends becomes easier Screening methods giving info on group of compounds (semi) continuous operation quantification based on summed signal (semi-identification and semi-quantification of compounds) Role of early warning : more investigation is needed Positive samples will be subject for further analyse carried out by classical methods but, so, the number of samples to be analysed in lab is lowered

Conclusion Screening methods can improve the monitoring of groundwater : frequency of the measurement/monitoring knowledge of water quality (composition variation) ecological/biological and chemical monitoring purposes control of water bodies at risk Screening methods have to be integrated to monitoring program and to be used as a complement of classical laboratory methods SWIFT project will provide a better water quality assessment through development, validation and integration of field chemical measurement systems

Thank you for your attention! www.swift-wfd.com Thank you for your attention!