Polycarbonate plastics: if only toxicology could be that clear

An ongoing debate about the health impacts of bisphenol A (BPA), the ubiquitous chemical used in production of polycarbonate - that hard clear plastic we use for eating, drinking, and storing food – continues, according to a recent article by Janet Raloff published in the September 29 issue of Science News. Her analysis provides good insight into why we often hear conflicting reports when it comes to environmental and health impacts of chemicals.

Raloff reports on the conflicting results of two different panels recruited by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and charged with reviewing and evaluating the potential developmental and reproductive impacts of BPA. While one panel “labeled ‘as confident’ its assessment that BPA at low doses has had negative effects on experimental animals,” and that such findings were suggestive of impacts in humans, the other panel “concluded that current BPA exposures appear to pose little risk to humans.”

According to Raloff, one of the differences cited in this analysis, leading to conclusions ranging from don’t use the stuff if you don’t have to, to it’s a non-issue, were concerns about the basic experimental design used by scientists evaluating BPA. When laboratory animals are exposed to experimental chemicals there is often a trade-off between ensuring exposure to the chemical, verses exposing the animal in a realistic manner. Way back when, when I was interested in the effects of PCBs in fish populations, I’d load up syringe and inject. Now unless fish were mainlining PCBs (and concentrations in some wild fish were certainly suggestive of that!) clearly this wasn’t realistic. But, what it did provide us with was an exposure where we were sure that PCBs got to where we wanted them to go. Confident of our exposures (we’d also do some chemical analysis – which was the most costly part of the study back then, and so something toxicologists would like to avoid if at all possible), we could more efficiently get down to our intended business, evaluating the effects. Our option would have been to develop food with amounts of PCBs that fish would eat in amounts that we could somehow measure (you ever watch fish eat? Biting off pieces of food, letting the rest drift to the bottom, possibly snatched up by less aggressive fishes), that wouldn’t leave us with gallons of toxic water to cleanse in the end. The fact is there are often good reasons to use the needle, although as pointed out by the panels, there are limitations to these kinds of unrealistic exposures, one of them is interpreting experimental results to a broader range of more realistic exposure scenarios.

Raloff outlines other differences in the panels, for example, she writes that the panel which concluded impacts are likely, had either worked with the chemical or similar chemicals, while the panel that came to nearly an opposite conclusion “were selected precisely because they had no direct BPA experience and, therefore, no obvious vested interest in judging the quality of the data on the chemical.” Fair enough, I suppose. You’d hope scientists can see past their own interests, although I’ve always thought it’d be interesting to see a study correlating the evaluation of experimental data with sustained funding for a particular subject over a period of time.

For more details on the subject, the article is available on the Science News site, and, according to Raloff, “ultimately, NTP will issue a single report that integrates conclusions from both panels, along with any new information on BPA that comes to light during the next few months.” Now that ought to be an interesting read.

Bodily defense: detoxification update

Years ago as a budding toxicologist I studied a fascinating system called cytochrome P450, so called because under certain conditions one could measure a peak at the light wavelengths of 450nm. What was so fascinating was that it was, at the time, one of the few recognized detoxification systems. That is, this system, which consists of various proteins, could metabolize certain toxic chemicals and send them on their way out of the body. Now almost two decades later a recent paper, published in Developmental Biology by Goldstone and others, presents the “chemical defensome,” described as an “integrated network of genes and pathways that allow an organism to mount an orchestrated defense against toxic chemicals.” Though it sounds like something that belongs on a football field, it’s a little more highly evolved than that.

Back in the simple days, before scientists had the capability to identify each and every gene in our bodies, toxicology students studied the fate of fairly simple chemicals like polyaromatic hydrocarbons – those ubiquitous chemicals found in combustion products from the tip of a cigarette to the tip of your tailpipe – chemicals that basically sealed their doom by activating the system responsible for their own destruction. You see this particular detoxification system required activation or binding to a receptor, sort of the old lock and key - now an obsolete analogy but still good enough to get the basic idea across. A chemical binds to a receptor, and opens the door for specific proteins to be produced, in this case specific cytochrome P450 enzymes, which then go to work metabolizing the chemical sending it on its way to eventual detoxification.

Learning the story of P450 and polyaromatic chemicals was a must for nascent toxicologists. That was back in the old days, before the cigarette industry acknowledged the connection between inhaling a lungful of chemicals and cancer, but even back then we all knew that once some of those chemicals entered the lungs, little PAH keys entered PAH locks, or what we called aryl hydrocarbon receptors, activating genes necessary for P450 induction all around the body, in lung cells, liver cells, and kidney cells. We also knew that this process presented the proverbial “double-edged sword.” That is, detoxification of some chemicals, particularly PAHs, required several steps – some of them resulting in activation of a chemical to a more toxic or reactive state – before eventual detoxification and finally excretion. And, in the case of PAH, activation meant that the reactive PAH could bind to genetic material in way that could promote formation of cancerous tumors. We also knew there was a genetic component - even if we didn't know much about the genetics of the system. We knew then that the detoxification pathway proceeded differently and to different extents in some folks compared with others.

But at that time we were aware of just a few kinds of P450 enzymes, and, we had no idea of the breadth of the detoxification system, or the basic genetics of a system we now know we share with creatures ranging from tunicates, our slimy cousins that still cling to rocks by the seashore, to the pesky fruit flies that zip around the bruised fruit in my kitchen.

It made sense though, that given the harsh earthly conditions in which they evolved, our ancestors would need to protect themselves from constant chemical assault. But even so, back then, toxicologists wondered if receptors like the aryl hydrocarbon or PAH receptor evolved as a defense mechanism, or if its role in detoxification of foreign chemicals was a surreptitious side effect. Maybe, the system had evolved to deal with what are called endogenous chemicals, a way to get rid of the body’s own powerful chemicals once they no longer serve their purpose, like steroids for example (which, at least in my teen seems toxic enough, though to be fair, without them we’d probably still be clinging to rocks in some tide pool alongside our tunicate cousins.)

Now, a decade and a half later, scientists have unveiled a diverse and sprawling system of detoxification, or defense mechanisms from a plethora of P450 enzymes to antioxidants responsible for quenching the highly reactive oxygen produced by many metabolic processes protecting us from a range of potentially deadly chemicals, including microbial and plant toxins, PAHs and heavy metals.

In a paper that goes into genetic detail way beyond what my tunicate brain can comprehend, J.V. Goldstone and others introduce these systems collectively as a “defensome,” a fascinating concept of protective mechanisms that we humans take for granted, as we challenge our bodies with ever more complex combinations of naturally occurring and manmade chemicals. Let's just hope that unlike the typical Superbowl blowouts, we won't suffer a similar defensome overload, leaving us at the mercy of our natural and unnatural environment.

All the genetic details (and a hint to the youthful secrets of elderly sea urchins) can be found in Goldstone, J.V. et al. “The chemical defensome: Environmental sensing and response genes in the Strongylocentrotus purpuratus genome,” Developmental Biology 300:366-384.

The fire-retardants, they are a’changing

Say goodbye to PBDEs (well... at least in some states, in some products in the near future.)

There’s one of those rare heartening reports just published in the this week's online News section of Environmental Science and Technology, Formulating Environmental Friendly Flame Retardants. It’s good to hear every once in a while that industrial processes can change, even if not completely voluntary, particularly when it comes to chemicals that we know are a problem.

Take for example, the polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) that are commonly used as flame retardants when added to plastics including computer plastics, furniture plastics (polyurethane is highly flammable), plastic plastics, and other plastics. PBDE’s are just about every where now, from my neighbor’s breast milk here in Western Mass to big momma polar bear’s milk in Alaska, to overly thin, hyperactive, perpetually hungry hyperthyroid house cats.

According to ES&T, in response to legislative pressures (certain PBDEs have already been discontinued, others are now banned in a few states), and pressure from consumers and plastics' producers, “The industry is responding with new approaches for making flame retardants, and some design teams are actively adopting the tenets of green chemistry. In the long run, the work now under way could result in the development of materials that are inherently resistant to fire.”

As industry moves away from halogenated flame retardants ( chemicals like bromine, fluorine and chlorine) a positive move, and turns instead to phosphorus-based flame retardants, metal hydroxide flame retardants, and nanoclay flame retardants, let’s just hope there’s enough foresight, oversight and whatever else, such that the use and development of these new products won’t bypass careful environmental and health evaluation. Otherwise we might end up in another twenty or thirty years wondering why Isidora the house cat, after spending her life lounging around on the carpet, the new couch, or the new bed (the slim high def television will no longer be an option) isn't acting quite right.

UPDATE: A letter in the October 12 2007 issue of Science by biophysical chemist Arlene Blum addresses "The Fire Retardant Dilemma." While pointing out that replacements for pentabrominated fire-retardants may be no safer than the chemicals they replace, Blum calls for the United States to follow the example set by the Europeans. Writes Blum, "New European regualtions for the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) require industry to provide data to establish the safety of new and existing chemicals. The United States should follow suit." Adding that "Fire-retardant chemicals in our homes should not pose a greater hazard to our health and environment than the risk of the fires they are supposed to prevent."

Well said.

On the Life Cycle and Environmental Impact of Last Year's Fashion Must Haves

We recycle bottles, computers and paper. But what about clothing? Many of us think we’re doing some good by sorting through t-shirts and shorts our kids wore last summer, or through our own closets adhering to the fashion mantra, “if you haven’t worn it for two seasons, toss it.” We pack away anything that’s not too dirty or torn and cart it off to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. But really, for those who are environmentally inclined, we’d do best by remembering the first R, of the Reduce, Recycle, Reuse slogan, and consider the impact of our clothing on earth’s environments and inhabitants.

In the September issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, there’s a fascinating article, “Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry”, by Luz Claudio, revealing the full life-cycle of clothes. Might just make you want to keep your shirt on for a little bit longer.

Luz highlights the trend for cheap "disposable" clothing - or "fast fashion," and the impacts not only of clothing production, but its afterlife as well.

Aside from the pesticides used for cotton - and the U.S. is the largest exporter of cotton, which accounts for a large chunk pesticides used in the U.S. - there's the petroleum based synthetic fibers, the toxic chemicals used for treating and dyeing textiles and the energy required to keep our cottons and other materials crisp and clean.

There's hope though, as Claudio notes, the fashion industry is just beginning to embrace "sustainably grown cotton, hemp, bamboo and other fiber crops that require less pesticides, irrigation, and other imputs." Additionally, some companies are looking to reduce their footprint futher, by recycling materials Patagonia, for example not only uses recycled PET bottles, but recycles certain garments (including Capilene undergarments and their cotton T's.) And, still others are experimenting with biodegradable materials.

"Well Dressed," a report on the clothing industry (detailing production, human and environmental cost) by researchers at Cambridge University suggests that reductions in the environmental impact of clothing will require major changes in both industrial and consumer behavior. A few examples of industrial changes include increased recycling of certain materials, changes in production (such as a switch from conventional to organic cotton, ) and innovations that result in an extended consumer lifetime for products, and less energy intensive upkeep. Reducing the need for frequent washings, for example, or reducing water temperatures required for cleansing and drying.

Likewise, according to the report, we all can contribute by choosing more durable clothing, buying garments produced in both a socially and environmentally equitable manner, washing less often - using cooler water and line-drying, and, when we're finished with our duds, sending them off to a second hand store, or a reliable clothing recycler.

Electronics Recycling Can be a Dirty Business, or Not....

Electronic Recycling Parts I and II: Reprinted from the Montague Reporter

Part I

When I mentioned I was doing some research into e-waste, or electronic waste, meaning anything from iPods to computers, my neighbor Patrick groused, “I’ve got a ware-house half-full of computers. I don’t know what to do with them.” Patrick owns several Turn it Up! record and CD stores, providing plenty of opportunity for e-waste. Later that day I mentioned the e-waste issue to William, a self-employed computer repair and software expert. He pointed to a tall shelf stuffed with old computer parts.

Patrick and William aren’t alone. We’ve all got some, haunting us with their lack of utility, taking up space. I’ve got an old monitor in my shed, a laptop no one wants (not even the kids) under the couch, and then there’s the box labeled, “Misc. electronics stuff.”

In a recent report on e-waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that of the almost two billion electronics sold (this includes things like laptops, desktops, cell phones, keyboards) over the past twenty-four years, roughly 180 million units are in storage somewhere, lurking in basements, attics and sheds around the nation.

William told me a while back he’d carted a bunch of his old computer parts down to his local elementary school, “They were recycling a bunch of their own stuff – I asked their permission, of course – but I have no idea what happened after that.”

What happens after that it the big question. A question all of use who use computers, digital cameras, cell phones and iPods ought to be asking. As many of us already know – for the most part – you can’t give the stuff away, particularly things like computers, even if they’re still in fine working condition. Many years ago, when computers were room-sized modern miracles, my father helped pioneer the Used Computer business, buying and selling the behemoths across the country and around the world. But, over the period of a couple of decades as computer chips shrank, and the million dollar equipment that used to require its own air-conditioned room evolved into desk-top computers that cost a few hundred dollars, he also observed the demise of the used computer business. A decade ago, when visiting Israel, he was shown an empty classroom. “Our computer room,” they hinted. He offered to fill it with completely functional used desktops for free – they declined. They wanted new.

These days new doesn’t last long. In fact my four-year old IBM is at the shop around the corner– and I can only hope if my hard drive has taken its last spin, that Veronica and Cathy who are tending to it, can save the e-mails that were never backed up, the early drafts, the photos and all those iTunes my son downloaded.

“I know how many we see die, and the landfill thing just kills me,” said Veronica, when I mentioned e-waste. As I imagine is the case with most computer ER’s like Veronica’s, the workshop was filled with computer cases, monitors and cables. I asked Veronica about rebuilding, or updating old computers. “We can take an old case,” she said, “but the new motherboards just don’t fit in them.” We were standing over a large box filled with circuit boards bound for the recyclers, each board a different concoction of colorful wires, copper, precious metals (gold, silver, and platinum) and plastic. These boards are the heart and soul of our computers and sought out by recyclers around the world interested in recovering metals, and this is where my own journey into the toxicology and politics of e-waste really begins.

Recently two disturbing articles on e-waste published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology caught my eye. The title of the first article, by Huiru Li and others, is Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F Pollution in Air around an Electronic Waste Dismantling Area in China and the other by Xinhui Bi and others is Exposure of Electronics Dismantling Workers to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Organochlorine Pesticides in South China. The titles say it all. Together these articles describe the exceedingly high concentrations of toxic chemicals released from e-waste plastics that contaminate not only the workers who dismantle and “recycle” e-waste.

But what has this got to do with me and my useless electronics?

According to the authors, upwards of one million tons of electronic waste is shipped to China from the United States, Europe and other countries, and as they note, “Unfortunately, appropriate methods and advanced techniques to deal with such a great quantity of EW [e-waste] in China are lacking. Cheap and primordial methods, like manual disassembly, roasting, and combustion, are often used to dismantle the EW to recover valuable metals, plastics, and electronic devices.”

Roasting. We’re talking toxic metals and plastics like polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene which often contain chlorides and flame retardants including polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. Although the impacts of PBDE exposure on humans is unclear, in animal studies they impair thyroid function (in fact, a recent study associates PBDEs with hyperthyroidism in house cats), additionally these chemicals are widespread in the environment, and like their polychlorinated cousins (for example PCBs and dioxins) are persistent in the environment, accumulating in both humans and in wildlife. But that’s not all folks, when heated the plastics and the chemicals with which they’re impregnated melt and recombine to form even more toxic products including polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins, which then contaminate not only the worker’s air, but the air of local villages, delivering these hazardous chemicals to both the oldest and youngest residents. In fact, based on concentrations in local air, the authors estimate that residents may be exposed to upwards of fifty times the total daily intake of toxic equivalents established by the World Health Organization (because chemicals like dioxins really represent a large family of similarly shaped chemicals with a broad range of toxicity – toxic equivalents are used to establish a single number that can be used to refer to toxic doses of dioxin and like-chemical mixtures), and, they add, workers are likely exposed to much higher amounts.

My thoughts turned to the monitor in the shed, and the laptop under the couch. In our Massachusetts town, for five dollars a piece I cart the monitor and laptop over to the local transfer station. But surely they don’t end up in one of those communities I’d read about? Or do they?

Part II

“Great question,” says Jan Ameen, the executive director of my county’s solid waste management district. “The company most towns use had been processing everything in the U.S.China. I heard they don’t do that anymore. We are looking into different companies that appear to have a better market.” They got bought out a couple of years ago and I just thought to ask about their markets. A bunch of end product goes overseas. …the company Montague uses was sending things on a box car to

My heart sank. Our little town of Montague tends towards the progressive. We’ve got great recycling, Prius’s zip through town, and biodiesels abound. Solar panels glint from rooftops and good luck to the Nestle Corporation, currently considering sucking spring water from the Montague Plains. After a few more e-mail exchanges with Jan, I began to wonder if it was even possible to ensure that our e-waste did not sicken workers nor contaminate their local environment.

I was on a mission. Jan gave me the names of a few local companies that collect e-waste and after Googling e-waste and recycling, I sent a raft of emails to various companies around the country. “I am interested in learning about e-waste recycling and dismantling,” I wrote, and attached a list of questions I’d hope would get some answers. Perhaps I shouldn’t have included that I was a toxicologist and a writer. I received just one response.

“Almost any electronic waste can be recycled,” wrote Andrew McManus, Environmental Engineer at Metech International, a large precious metal and electronic waste recycler with facilities in Worcester, MA and Gilroy, CA, which serves commercial businesses and equipment manufacturers. In response to the questions I’d sent, he provided a detailed narrative of what happens to the plastics, metals, and batteries once they leave our homes and enter their facility.

“Current historic high prices for base and precious metals, rapid changeover of technology, data security systems, and high labor costs,” explained McManus, “favor shredding domestically.

Current standard shredding process is as follows: Desktop computers usually have one small "button-cell" lithium metal battery inside which functions as the computer memory clock. Typically the case is opened, the main circuit board is pulled out, and the battery is removed. The entire CPU frame is placed on a conveyor and shredded. A magnetic belt removes the steel after shredding, sometimes followed by an Eddy Current separator to remove non-ferrous metals like aluminum and copper materials. The remaining mixed material contains circuit boards, some mixed metals, and plastic.”

This was all very interesting, and positive, until I got to the following:

“This is sent overseas to a smelter for recovery of the copper, precious metals, and other base metals while the remaining plastic/circuit board is consumed as fuel in the process. There are no facilities in the U.S. that can take circuit boards and effectively recover metals.”

“Overseas,” I responded, “as in Asia? Why are there no facilities in the U.S.?” I thought about the box of circuit boards at Veronica’s, and imagined them waiting to be roasted in Guiyu, China. Knowing that the conditions in China and elsewhere was likely a sensitive topic, thanks in part to the Basal Action Network, a nonprofit toxic-trade watchdog group, responsible for the documentary, “Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia,” and more recently “The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa,” I wondered if McManus would answer.

The response was swift, maybe for those reasons above, he was quick to point out they do not ship circuit boards to Asia.

“We send our circuit boards to Germany, Sweden, or Belgium. There are also large smelters in Canada and Japan.”

In response to my question about why no U.S. facilities, McManus wrote, “In my opinion there are none in the U.S. because our government in unwilling to establish conditions favorable to operate. Regulations are no stricter than other places in the world. Our environmental agencies do not co-operate with business, and our legal system makes lawsuits by almost any party a constant risk. The complexity of materials would require an enormous capital investment. The German smelter, Norddeutsche Affinerie, recently announced they plan to build a secondary copper smelter to recover electronic waste in Louisiana.”

His comments about difficulties with recycling in our own country where we’ve got electronic gadgets galore, made me wonder about who ought to be responsible for recycling, aside from the consumer, many of whom would like to do the right thing but who just don’t have the time to investigate what happens to their cast-offs once they’ve deposited them at the town transfer station.

Turns out this is a question that states across the country have been asking in recent years, with California, of course, leading the way. Back in 2003 California enacted “The Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003” requiring retailers to collect e-waste recycling fees from consumers, which then cover the cost of collection and recycling of unwanted electronics. This is just one approach. Another is to hold the producer responsible. According to Dennis Brown Vice President of State Government Relations for the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, eight states so far have passed electronic recycling legislation with seven of the eight enacting producer responsibility legislation and it looks like Massachusetts may follow suit.

“Massachusetts is all the more unlikely to do what California did if it results in a ten dollar tax – New Hampshire would throw a party for the legislature if they did,” says Brown, adding that, “producer responsibility to develop programs for recycling also spurs development of more green products.”

And some producers are already reclaiming their own materials. Most recently, Sony announced a take-back program for any Sony product, joining computer companies Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Apple, all of which now have some version of recycling (Dell for example will take back any brand of computer upon purchase of a new Dell.)

This all seems like great news, but none of it answers the “Then What,” question. Most companies refer to their “environmentally responsible practices,” but it would take some digging to learn specifics. What would Massachusetts do if they enacted legislation requiring some sort of recycling?

According to Greg Cooper of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, “The legislation would hopefully build on the existing collection and processing infrastructure that Massachusetts has built since its, first in the nation, ban on the disposal of televisions and computer monitors and ensure that e-waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner."

Thankfully, I don’t need to think about recycling the old IBM just yet – Veronica and Cathy fixed it up just fine - but hopefully when the day comes for the blue screen of death to rear it’s ugly head – I’ll be able to send her off for disassembly and recycling without contaminating workers and their families half-way around the world.

For more information check out EPA's site on e-waste and the Basal Action Network's site. If you want a whole book about it, read High Tech Trash, by Elizabeth Grossman, published by Island Press.

For detailed information on Cell Phone recycling see: Cell Phone Recycling

Please feel free to distribute or reprint with proper attribution: E. Monosson, theneighborhoodtoxicologist.blogspot.com

Poisoning by Water

As any toxicologist will tell you, and as most of us know, too much of a good thing - or in toxicology, too much of just about anything can be bad. Whenever I introduce students to toxicology, I usually begin with very accessible examples, like anti-inflammatory medication. I also like to use personal examples whenever possible, like the time our dog Bruno, after placing himself in front of a van and winding up with a broken leg and a severely dislocated hip – decided to consume a whole bottle of doggie anti-inflammatory medication, blue plastic and all. To his defense the things were disguised as meaty treats, and after getting his stomach pumped, and kidney and liver function tested, all was well.

Another example is that of water, although, having too much water always seemed a bit far-fetched. That is, until this past weekend when my husband Ben, almost passed on to hilly bicycle heaven – after a bout of water poisoning – or hyponatremia. I might sound glib about this now, but perhaps that’s to assuage my own anxiety over potentially loosing someone I love to something so preventable.

In his case, he didn't just drink too much water, he lost too much sodium. He might be described as a passionate biker. When he rides the seven miles to work, he takes the long way home, logging twenty to forty miles a day. When he rides on weekends he takes the long way to anywhere, riding from thirty to sixty miles. When he rides for fundraisers, he chooses the 100 mile ride – or in this case the 120 mile, 10,000 feet of climbing, dirt road ride. In other words, riders like Ben are not like you and me (well at least not like me – these days, fifty is my limit.)

Now Ben is an experienced rider, who knows to watch his water and electrolyte intake. Electrolytes are ions that exist in solution and include sodium, potassium, calcium, and chloride. In our blood these ions and others are essential for normal cell function. You might be familiar with the multitude of electrolyte replacement drinks available in a range of wholly unappetizing colors (Neon Green, Antifreeze blue etc.) marketed to both the general public and to athletes. The idea is when you exercise you sweat out not just water but electrolytes, and so you need to replace accordingly (they also contain carbos for energy I suppose.)

What Ben didn’t know on that fateful day was how carefully to watch that balance, and that riding over 100 miles, on a steamy August day (one of the most unbearable of the summer), though the hilltowns of western Massachusetts, would not only wring the salt right out of him, but also cause him to over drink. Though he quaffed electrolyte drinks, and consumed little powdery packets of the stuff, none of it had sufficient amounts of sodium to maintain the balance.

The result? An ambulance trip to the ER, an overnight stay in the hospital, one very concerned wife. When the nurses asked simple questions like, “Where are you?” “What month is it?” “When is your birthday?” he was unable to respond (though he didn’t miss a beat when she inquired about our current president, Dubya, an unfortunately tough thing to forget.)

Turns out, his sodium concentration had fallen to below 121 milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L) of blood. The normal range is 136 to 145 mEq/L, and anything below that is considered hyponatremia. Ben had a severe case of hynonatremia. Proper sodium (and other electrolytes) concentration in the blood is essential for life, and keeps our cells in balance with the fluids that surround them. When the sodium concentration in our blood becomes too dilute, the cells take up water, causing them to swell. Hence, Ben’s swollen brain forgot most things. In the worst cases seizure and death can result.

Thankfully, Ben was plugged into a saline I.V. drip moments after the ambulance arrived. Several I.V. bags later, he could finally recall our kids ages, state that he was indeed in the hospital and recall our anniversary date (well, he missed by eleven days but at this point who’s counting?)

So, there you have it – an unfortunately personal but thankfully nonfatal example of poisoning by water. Hopefully his tale and the articles below will help others avoid his fate.

For more about hyponatremia, warning signs, and how to prevent, check out the following sites:

Salt and the Athlete

Fluid Balance and Electrolyte Balance and Endurance Exercise: What can we learn from recent research?

Hyponatremia, Mayo Clinic

New Statement on Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia Issued

From Our Town Dump to.....The fate of high tech waste, the journey begins

Crossposted from Earth Forum:

Sidney's post on Waste Management, prompted me to add this post. When I read his title, my own thoughts jumped to management of e-waste (and wondered if this would be covered at that meeting.)

From my impression, this one of those waste issues where growing awareness is making a difference. In my own town, for example, you can rid yourself of computers, televisions and any electronic waste for something like five dollars. But the question is - then what? Turns out it "used" to go into a box car and then apparently on to China. I emphasize "used to" because that's only what I am told. The change, presumably, occurred because of environmental and health concerns. But at the moment no one can tell me if they've really changed their practices (it's something I'm looking into for a future article on the stuff.)

Two articles recently published in Environmental Science and Technology reveal the high risk to residents and workers caused by the dismantling of e-waste in regions where environmental laws are lax or nonexistent. The first article, by Huiru Li and others, is entitled " Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F Pollution in Air around an Electronic Waste Dismantling Area in China " and the other by Xinhui Bi and others "Exposure of Electronics Dismantling Workers to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Organochlorine Pesticides in South China," describe the exceedingly high concentrations of these toxic chemicals to which not only workers but local residents are exposed during the dismantling processes.

For those interested in further reading on the subject, check out "High Tech Trash," written by Elizabeth Grossman, published by Island Press. An informative and sobering book, through which I'm slowing making my way.

Doh! There's more to bioaccumulation than we thought!

Here’s one for the “why didn’t we figure this out sooner” file, or maybe the “gee – those of us air-breathers really are different from our gilled cousins!” You see, for years one of the primary methods of determining the ability of a chemical to accumulate in living creatures was to study the accumulation (or bioaccumulation) of the chemical in fish. The model is based on the idea that fat-loving chemicals, which includes most bioaccumulative chemicals, are essentially absorbed from the surrounding water by fish, or, more or less technically, by “swimming bags of lipid.” Those that are not rapidly metabolized are retained in the fat, allowing not only for accumulation in our little fish, but also for the proverbial big fish that eats the little fish all the way up the food chain to polar bears, bald eagles and homo sapiens. Some infamous lipid-loving chemicals that we all know and fear include certain PCBs, dioxins, and DDTs.

Most governments, including the U.S., have thankfully learned (after…umm decades) to consider carefully a chemical’s potential for persistence, or ability to hang around the environment, and bioaccumulation when evaluating and regulate commercial chemicals.

Great! No more bioaccumlative chemicals climbing up the food chain. Problem solved. Or is it? A recent report by Barry Kelly, Frank Gobas and others, published in Science (Volume 317, pages 236-239) suggests that our current method for evaluating bioaccumulation may miss – and in a big way. According the study, some chemicals that don’t accumulate in fish, or chemicals that might pass the “swimming lipid bag” test with flying colors, can accumulate land mammals and marine mammals.

What’s the difference? After all fat is fat – be it a swimming or walking bag of lipid (which I must admit sometimes I’ve felt myself as I struggle to squeeze into my favorite jeans at the end of the summer.) Turns out, as with anything, there’s more to bioaccumulation than hanging out in fat. Living organisms are dynamic creatures, and most things that enter the body have the potential to be metabolized and/or excreted. Even chemicals that hide out in fat can be eliminated given enough time. But what’s different between fish and polar bears or fish and humans (among other things) is that according to Kelly and others, “…air-breathing organisms in this analysis exhibit higher [biomagnification factors] than those in water-respiring organisms because of their greater ability to absorb and digest their diet, which is related to differences in digestive tract physiology and body temperature.” Additionally, note the author, air-breathers may be less efficient when it comes to eliminating certain chemicals from their bodies than water-respirers.

Go figure. This is where, as a toxicologist who bought into the “bag of lipid” model years ago without question, now wonders – what was I thinking? Chemicals that might pass (and have passed) the fish bioaccumulation test, wouldn't pass a mammalian test, according to the authors who note that these chemicals, “representing a third of organic chemicals in commercial use, constitute an unidentified class of potentially bioaccumulative substances that require regulatory assessment to prevent possible ecosystem and human-health consequences.”

Time once again, to reconsider how we evaluate and regulate, and release chemicals into our environment.

Our bodies, the ultimate transformers: PFOA and other perfluorinated chemicals in our bodies

Our bodies are constantly working, transforming chemicals from one form to another like that bagel and cream cheese I had for breakfast into something hopefully more useful or, the chemicals from that greaseproof food-packaging paper into something more toxic. Whoa. What?

A few posts back I wrote about perfluorinated chemicals – known as PFOA and PFOS - used for waterproofing and nonstick pans. Then I added a post about PFOA and popcorn bags. Now it’s even more insidious and complicated than being exposed to just PFOA. Considering recently reported concentrations of these chemicals in human blood, Jessica D’Eon and Scott Mabury, in a study just published in Environmental Science and Technology suggest that concentrations in humans are likely the result of “exposure to current-use fluorinated materials and not the historical load present in the environment,” (Certain perfluorinated chemicals have been phased out of use by major producers once recognized as human and environmental contaminants.)

These current-use chemicals, particularly those used to manufacture waterproof or greaseproof paper (think microwave popcorn,) known as polyfluoroalkyl phosphate surfactants or PAPs, can be transformed once transferred from say, that greasy microwave popcorn bag to our fingers or popcorn and then to our guts, not only into PFOA (which a recent draft assessment by EPA suggests is a carcinogen) but also chemical compounds which might be more immediately toxic.

Referring to the byproducts of metabolism D’Eon and Mabury write,“Due to their inherent reactivity, exposure to these transient metabolites is likely of greater toxicological concern than exposure to PFCAs [which includes PFOA] alone.”

Huh. Ain’t that funky now.

Of course further work is necessary before the potential impacts of these kinds of exposures can be fully understood, including a better understanding of how (and how much of) these chemicals migrate into food, what kinds of food are most important for this kind of exposure, and how much of these foods we consume. Microwave popcorn anyone?

You can find the full article, in issue 41, of Environmental Science & Technology, pages 47-99-4805.

New Report on EPA and Nanotech - just what I've been waiting for!

For those of us concerned with health and environmental impacts of new and old chemicals, the production and use of nanomaterials presents a fascinating opportunity to consider and then reconsider the mechanisms by which chemicals are tested and controlled in the United States. While I've been trying to keep up with the toxicology of nanomaterials, I've wondered about the adequacy of our current regulatory framework to evaluate and manage these materials. Fortunately for me and anyone else wondering the same thing, a recent report by Dr. Terry Davies entitled EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21^st Century opens the door for us, by reviewing the principle laws and regulations developed to manage and control chemicals and considers the effectiveness of their application down in Whoville, where all things are nano.

As Davies notes, “In a few decades, almost every aspect of our existence….is likely to be changed for the better by nano. However, if the potential for good is to be realized, society must also faces nano’s potential for harm.”

One of the primary issues for toxicologists investigating nanomaterials, is my favorite, “It’s hard to find what you don’t know you’re looking for,” or it’s pretty difficult anyway…unless one is trained to expect the unexpected. And it seems that nanomaterials have the potential to behave quite differently not only from their non-nano counterparts, but also from different formulations of the same material. In some cases, as Davies notes, contrary to current underlying toxicological concept that smaller doses tend to be less toxic (in general – there’s a whole ‘nother discussion to be had about hormesis – the differential behavior of some chemicals at very low concentrations) in some cases nanomaterials may behave differently and potentially more toxic when present in lower concentrations than their non-nano counterparts. Just that issue alone has the potential to turn our current toxicity testing, assessment and regulatory practices upside down when it comes to nanomaterials!

But really the focus of Davies report is the “so what” question. Given where we are now – in terms of understanding the potential health and environmental impacts of these materials – what can be done in terms of regulation and management? As Davies points out, while some of EPA’s programs, as they are now, may provide adequate oversight of nanomaterials (he cites FIFRA – which has jurisdiction over all pesticides – as a program that has “strong legal adequacy” when it comes to nanomaterials) TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act, which has the greatest potential to cover the most nanomaterials, is “particularly deficient” for a number of chemical oversight functions. According to Davies “the Act desperately needs to be amended, both to deal with nano and to adequately address all types of chemicals.”

This is an informative and readable report, and if you’re at all interested in nanomaterials, you might want to take a look.

The full report is available free and online through the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, an initiative of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts, www.nanotechproject.org.

What's Emerging in your Water?

There is a nice review of Emerging Contaminants, recently published in the journal Analytical Chemistry, by Susan Richardson. In it is a review of the "oldies" like PFOA, PFOS, and polybrominated flame retardants and newbies like nanomaterials and ethylene dibromide or EDB, a gasoline additive from back in the day when gasoline was leaded.

In the excerpt below she discusses the term “Emerging,” a term over which I sometimes stumble. Which chemicals fit into the category of emerging contaminants? Why are some chemicals which have been around for decades suddenly appear as “emerging” and, why are others, which have yet to be detected in major quantities (like the category of nanomaterials – which describes a type of chemical rather than any one specific chemical) on the list?

“Emerging environmental contaminants were the focus of a recent issue of Environmental Science & Technology (December 1, 2006), where current research on emerging chemical and microbial contaminants was highlighted. This is a must-read issue, and several of those papers will be discussed in this review. The guest editors of this issue also published an excellent perspective on "What is emerging?" as a lead-off editorial to this issue, which points out that the longevity of a contaminant's "emerging" status is typically determined by whether the contaminant is persistent or has potentially harmful human or ecological effects (2). It is often the case that emerging contaminants have actually been present in the environment for some time (in some cases, decades), but they are discovered through a wider search of potential contaminants (as in the case of ethylene dibromide, in this current review) or through the use of new technologies (such as LC/MS) that have enabled their discovery and measurement in the environment for the first time (as in the case of many pharmaceuticals).”

Although a bit technical in spots (this is Analytical Chemistry afterall,) the current literature for each emerging contaminant is reviewed in a readable manner, and there is an impressive list of over 200 citations for those looking to learn more.

What do nonstick pans, carpets, polar bears and newborn cord blood have in common? Perfluorinated chemicals in the news again

Once again, the “miracle” chemicals that coat most of our fry pans, raincoats and the ever-white (well maybe after 10 years of leg-sweat and black dogs - off-white) stain repellant couch in the living room are in the news. I’m referring to that most complex family of perfluorinated chemicals which includes perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) (and I promise not to mention the whole chemical name again in this entry!)

I wrote about PFOA and PFOS earlier, some of the legal loopholes that led to this current situation, and the ongoing phase-out of certain types of these chemicals, and now there is an excellent article summarizing the current research on the toxic effects of these chemicals written by Kellyn Betts and published in the Environews section of Environmental Health Perspectives.

After decades of use, these wondrous and now infamous chemicals are a part of us all. Scientists have measured the chemicals in the bodies and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. In fact, a recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology reported the presence of these chemicals in “99-100% of umbilical cord sera” of newborn babies tested in Baltimore, MD.

What I find most frustrating is that though these chemicals have been used (and released) by the ton for decades, once again toxicologists are playing catch-up. The great majority of toxicity studies about how a chemical behaves in a body, and its toxicity depends upon experimental exposures to laboratory animals. The difficulty lies in translating these effects to the “target” species; it may be humans or it maybe certain wildlife species that are at greatest risk of exposure (for example – Atlantic dolphins.) One key, among many, to extrapolating from laboratory animals to target species is understanding the similarities, and differences of how a chemical moves through the body. Where it goes, how long it remains and what happens to it (is it broken down, metabolized, excreted?) But according to EPA scientists interviewed by Betts, for chemicals like PFOA and PFOS there are very large differences in how long the chemical remains in the body, not only between species but between sexes, that they don’t understand just yet. For example while PFOA might be eliminated in a few hours from a female laboratory rat, it might be days for a male rat, and years for a human.

Among the findings reported in this recent Environmental Health Perspectives article are a summary of studies indicating that both PFOA and PFOS suppress immune function, in some cases at concentrations that occur in wildlife (some of the highest concentrations reported in wildlife have been found in Atlantic dolphins, according to the article,) in addition, researchers report impacts on growth and development of offspring born to exposed mothers, and neonatal morality. For more, read the article published in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115, Number 5, May 2007

Update Nov 1, 2007: Another study just published in Environmental Health Perspectives evaluates the relationship between PFOA and PFOS concentrations in cord blood with birth size and weight. Although the authors report a small negative relationship between PFOA, PFOS and birth weight and head circumference, the authors suggest "...cautious interpretation of this study until the findings can be replicated in other populations."

Drugs Down the Drain

Many years ago a study out of England reported the discovery of mixed-sex fish (primarily male fish with eggs). Although nothing new now, this was one of the first reports of feminized fish. What I remember most about that study, was how we laughed (I was working with some fish physiologists) at some of their possible explanations, which included hormones from the pill or just every-day urine that had been flushed down the toilet.

Years later, the USGS routinely measures drugs, or the remnants of drugs flushed after passing through our bodies, or intentionally flushed by folks wanting to discard old or unused drugs. Scientists are increasingly concerned about the impacts of pharmaceuticals not only on aquatic creatures (imagine swimming in a sea of heart medication, pain killers and birth control pills) but in some cases on drinking water.

Now the American Pharmaceuticals Association (APhA) has teamed up with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service to educate the public about proper drug disposal through a campaign called SMARxT DISPOSAL.

I don’t have the numbers on how much is estimated to come from intentional disposal and how much is excreted, (although either way – giving drugs a proper burial as described in the disposal guidelines has got to be better than ditching them down the tube – and some, they actually suggest you do flush), but it will be interesting to monitor the impact of this program.

New Journal, Nanotoxicology

For those interested in nanotoxicology, there is a new journal called Nanotoxicology, published by Informa Healthcare. It’s a quarterly and you can review the first issue (just published March 2007) for free, which allows you to access to the first issue. The first article, Toxicology of nanoparticles: A Historical Perspective, by Gunter Oberdorster, Vicki Stone and Ken Donaldson, provides an excellent review. They include some early studies of particles such as viruses and combustion particles that were around well before the age of intentionally manufactured nanomaterials but which fit the nano description, and provided scientists with insights into the movement and fate of very small particles in living systems.

I’d expect an explosive growth in our understanding of how nanoparticles interact with the environment and with living bodies, but it seems there is a long ways to got and an urgency to get there quickly. Notes Oberdorster and others, “There have been many conferences, meetings, and workshops….with as many calls for developing testing strategies, with only few proposals, followed through by far less action.”

This first sample issue is worth a read and the few moments it takes to register for your month-long free access. Other articles include: “Assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials: Current abilities and future requirements” by Andrew D. Maynard; Robert J. Aitken; Characterization of the size, shape, and state of dispersion of nanoparticles for toxicological studies by Kevin W. Powers; Maria Palazuelos; Brij M. Moudgil; Stephen M. Roberts; and Cellular responses to nanoparticles: Target structures and mechanisms by Klaus Unfried; Catrin Albrecht; Lars-Oliver Klotz; Anna Von Mikecz; Susanne Grether-Beck; Roel P. F. Schins.

Stumbling Through Nanoparticle Definitions

I am still trying to understand the nano-world. It’s a big world and there are many different kinds of very small particles. But I’ve had some trouble finding good definitions of the inhabitants of this new world. What, for example, are quatum dots? And what makes metallic
nanoparticles different from other kinds of nanoparticles?

As discussed earlier down in Whoville, we know that not all nanoparticles (particles smaller than 100 nanometers) are created equally, and, even better -- or worse, depending on your viewpoint and the material -- many nanoparticles aren’t even equal to their larger counter parts. And that really, is just the point, or one of the points at least, of all this technology.

Fortunately for me, the EPA, in their recent Nanotechnology White Paper, organizes nanoparticles into four categories, and though there may be other ways to categorize nanomaterials I found these groupings helpful in understanding the different kinds of nanoparticles that might one day enter our world – if they haven’t already.

Below are EPA's catagorizes for nanomaterials along with some brief examples.

Carbon Based:

Carbon-based nanomaterials include things like fullerenes (cage-like carbon structures) which make up the single walled carbon nanotubes (those are the SWNTs I’ve referred to before) and buckyballs. All are made carbon. Just carbon. When there are 60 carbons involved, a sphere is formed, its a Buckyball. When there are more, the structure is tube – or cage-like, and is made of a single layer of carbons, almost like a tube of chicken wire, it’s a SWNT.

Metal Based:

Metal-base nanomaterials include quantum dots, metal oxides and pure metal nanoparticles. Quantum dots are structures so small that their properties are susceptible to the removal of a single electron. Every living creature depends on a kind of quantum dot for energy production, as electrons are moved around by proteins so the cell can store or use energy.

Manufactured quantum dots can contain a small number of atoms, for example, from tens of atoms to a few hundred. Some manufactured quantum dots are nanosized crystals of various elements (silicon and germanium or cadmium and selenium are a couple of examples), and emit light when excited. What most interesting is that the color of the light, which is based on wavelength, will vary with the size of the crystal or the type of crystal, with smaller particles of a particular crystal emitting light of shorter wavelengths (towards the blue end of the visible light spectrum) and larger particles emitting light of longer wavelengths (towards the red end.)

Titanium dioxide, which you can find in your sunblock lotion, is an example of a metal oxide that is now manufactured as a nano-metal oxide. As explained in an earlier article, it's the nano formulation of this material that allows us to smear the sunblock but avoid looking like a clown.

Metals can also exist as single ions, or larger bulkier structures think gold, or silver. But, as with many nanomaterials, it seems that when metals occur as nanoparticles they may exhibit different properties than their larger counterparts. Nanoized silver (or silver ions), for example, is a potent antimicrobial, but apparently aggregates of silver particles tend to loose their antimicrobial ability.

Dendrimers:

Dendrimers are branched polymers (a polymer is made up of repeating units or monomers. Monomers are molecules that can combine – or polymerize - with similar or identical molecules.) These can be manufactured so that they can carry other molecules within them, such as certain drugs.

Composites:

Composites refer to combinations of nanomaterials with other materials, for example DNA molecules may be combined with various nanomaterials to make a nanosized biocomposite.

These examples just scratch the surface of the world of nanomaterials. But this revolutionary technology is sure to present those charged with protecting human health and the environment a future filled with both opportunity, (providing new materials to clean up and reduce distribution and use of hazardous materials, and new drug formulations) and challenges as health and environmental scientists race to understand the impact of materials that play by new rules.

Length Matters: Nanotoxicity

Obviously size matters for nanoparticles, or the world wouldn’t be making such a big deal of them. Size also matters when it comes to toxicity of nanoparticles. A recent study published in Advanced Materials (Length-Dependent Uptake of DNA-Wrapped Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes) by Matthew Becker and others, emphasizes that size (such as length and diameter of particles) matters particularly when deciphering toxicity studies. One source of size variation suggests the authors is dispersion of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNT) used in toxicity testing.

According to the article:

“Given a constant dosage, differences in dispersion ranging from macroscopic aggregates to micrometer-scale clusters bundles of multiple nanotubes or individually dispersed nanotubes will dramatically affect the absolute size and amount of nanotube surface area to which the cells will be exposed.”

Surfactants are materials used to increase water solubility and in some cases dispersion of a material, and are commonly used in studies of nanoparticle toxcity. Becker’s group used DNA as a surfactant, because they noted,

“These dispersions, in the case of DNA, are even stable enough to allow for the separation of the dispersed material into well-defined subpopulations of the SWNTs.”

Using this method to test the toxicity of SWNTs of varying length to muscle cells, the authors concluded that, “The assays determined an approximate uptake threshold of approximately (189+17) nm. Indicating that nanotubes shorter than this are consumed and likely induce more toxicity.”

Though they note that identifying an upper threshold for toxicity of nanoparticles is nothing earth-shattering or new, they do suggest that such behavior is likely to be a “general phenomenon,” though the actual size threshold is likely to vary depending on the type of cell.

For more information check out: Length-Dependent Uptake of DNA-Wrapped Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes, by Becker et al, Vol 19:939-945.

Waterproofing the Ocean: the consequence of keeping dry

“Must keep water out” was my mantra. The old red backpack, my faithful traveling companion for over twenty years, cross country, up mountains, at sea, and across the ocean had sprung a leak. Wet through completely when a drenching rain followed my husband and I down the Madison Gulf trail. Socks, underwear, warm clothes – sopping. But rather than purchase a new frame pack, I reached for the Scotchgard™, and methodically sprayed each crack, crevice and seam, confident in that by “renewing” my old pack, I was doing the right thing.

What I didn’t know then, shames me now. What I didn’t know then, apparently the 3M Company and the Dupont Corpration had known for years. That the use of, and manufacturing process for products like Scotchgard™, my Gore-Tex Coat, and the surface on my favorite fry-pan, leave behind more than just consumer goods. What we know now, according to a review recently published by Magali Houde and others from the Unversity of Guelph in the journal Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T), is that the perfluorinated polymers, the most notorious being PFOA and PFOS, used to resist, protect, and repel, have infiltrated almost every living system on earth, from Great Lakes algae to polar bears in Svalbard, from the green-lipped mussel to Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, the bald eagle and the common loon. And, unless you consider yourself separate from life on earth, these chemicals have infiltrated you, me and your next-door neighbor.

By now, this is old news. Many of us are familiar with the stories. Parrots dropping dead, 3M voluntarily “outing” PFOS, reports of PFOA and PFOS in our blood. It is old news that these chemicals persist in the environment and are found from the North Pole to the South Pole and everywhere in-between.

But how did this happen? These chemicals have been around for over fifty years. Where was the US EPA? Where were our environmental protections? Turns out, that these chemicals slipped through, legally, at least one process that would have identified their current role as the environmental contaminants de jour. That is, the Premanufacture Notification process.

Ever since Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act back in 1976, the EPA has had the authority to review and regulate each new chemical based on its potential threat to us, and the environment prior its use in commerce. But there’s a catch. According to the EPA, “chemicals in commerce prior to the effective date of the Toxic Substances Control Act were placed on the inventory without going through the premanufacture notice.” And, some classes of chemicals were specifically granted exemptions. These included some of the perfluorinated chemicals involved in the production of PFOA and PFOS. The idea being, according to the agency, that “certain chemical health and safety information [would] be submitted to the Agency…when companies learn of it.”

But in 2004, the US EPA charged that Dupont had violated that bit about providing “certain health and safety” information. Apparently they forgot to report that not only was PFOA persistent, but that it might be toxic to humans and the environment. Oops.

Dupont settled for over $10 million, EPA initiated a voluntary phase-out of the chemical by 2015 (a program in which Dupont along with several other manufacturers, is a participant) and back in 2000, the 3M Company voluntarily phased their use of PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals.

Phew. Glad that’s over.

Or is it?

What about those polar bears, eagles, and loons? What about the starfish, green-lipped mussels, tuna, sea-turtles and otters? Konstantinos Prevedouros and others from Stockholm UniversityE. I. duPont de Nemours, in a study published in ES&T, estimated that over the years, thousands of tons of PFOA or PFOA precursors were released to the environment, with much of it discharged into our waters. and In one case, 61% of the chemical used was released to the environment, most going right into the water, without violating a single law. Well, excepting those companies that knew, but didn’t tell. And this is only part of the legacy bequeathed upon us not just by industry but by our own desire for eggs to slide, fabric to repel, and carpets to gleam. There is no accounting of the tons of PFOS used or released over the years.

“Water is the main vector for exposure in wildlife,” says Frank Gobas, a researcher at Simon Fraser University who studies chemicals that accumulate in wildlife. In the environment, according to Gobas, perfluorinated chemicals exist in a relatively water soluble form. “Marine mammals are likely the most exposed, due to water to fish to mammal transport, which the perfluorinated chemicals tend to favor.”

The big “so what” comes from my son. Each time I begin to write, he knows it’s bad news.

“So what do those kill?” he asks peering over my shoulder.

I explain that aside from killing the occasional parrot - though Dupont and others suggest that birds are sensitive not only to fumes from overheated Teflon but from overheated butter and oils - the effects on wildlife are unknown

And although there may be ample evidence of a chemical’s toxicity in the laboratory (one form of PFOA causes neurotoxicity, liver toxicity, immuno toxicity and developmental toxicity), and ample evidence of the chemicals presence in the tissues of wild animals, one of the more challenging problems in environmental toxicology is linking the presence of that chemical in the environment with harmful effects on wildlife.

For example, Kurunthachalam Kannan, of the New York State Department of Heath, and SUNY Albany, and others, recently reported on the relationship between PFOA and PFOS concentrations in sea otters found dead or dying along the California coast and disease status. The group found more PFOA and PFOS in sea otters determined to be diseased at the time of their death, compared with those classified as non-diseased, However, according to their study, reported in ES&T, they were unable to determine if the higher levels of perfluorinated chemicals were “a cause of the disease, a consequence,or coincidental.”

Kannan’s group also reported a decline in PFOS in the otters over time, following 3M’s phase-out. Was that a surprise? “I expect that it would take much longer for the environment to respond,” says Kannan. “Maybe what we found was circumstantial, but a few other researchers have found a similar decline in seals from the Arctic.”

James Armitage, a PhD candidate at Stockholm University, studies the fate of PFOA in the environment. He agrees that once the release of these chemicals and their precursors is halted, depending on the location, environmental concentrations may decline quite swiftly.

“Given the lifespan of most creatures in the environment,” says Armitage, “I would expect to see a response to declining environmental concentrations fairly rapidly.”

“But,” he adds referring to a modeling study soon to be published, “we observed that concentrations in the North Temperate Zone, the source area, decline almost immediately, while concentrations in the North Polar Zone continue to increase.” The declines he notes are due mainly to redistribution to other ocean areas. In other words, even if phased out, the perfluorinated chemicals aren’t likely to go away soon, they’ll just go somewhere else.

According to those in the industry, there really is no replacement for perfluorinated chemicals. It is the combination of fluoride and carbon that provides the repellent properties that make these chemicals so useful and durable. The 3M Company has already developed a new polyfluorinated chemical to replace PFOA, PFOS and PFOS-related products. Their website, asserts that the reformulated products have been tested for toxicity and bioaccumulation, and have apparently passed with flying colors. But, what the site doesn’t say is that they are persistent in the environment. And though no one expects them to accumulate in the sediments, they are expected to hang around in water.

When asked about the replacement products Enesta Jones of the EPA, says “The new chemical replacements have been subject to considerable scrutiny. The Agency is requiring robust fate and toxicity testing, and will retain regulatory authority over these chemicals until we can be assured they do not present unreasonable risk.”

I hover over my daughter’s leather boots, and ponder my desire to keep her feet dry, a can of Sno-Seal silicon (non-polyfluorinated) water-guard in my hand, and begin to spray.

Monopoly Boards and Polar Fleece, Mysteries of Curbside Recycling Revealed

I shouldn’t admit this, but I get an odd thrill on trash collection day. Maybe it’s because our two trashcans are packed so full that it’s a relief to have the stuff carted away. Or maybe it’s because waking up to empty barrels means I’ve actually remembered to pick up some stickers from the Mini-Mart and put them on the barrels. I don’t mind paying the $2.50 a barrel, in fact, I think it’s more than fair. After all, thanks to the incredible recycling program in town, it’s only once or twice a month we even drag the barrels to the curb.

For years I’ve ignored that nagging question, does recycling really reduce the amount of waste we toss from our homes? Am I justified in bragging to friends and family that we generate only two barrels or so of trash a month? Years ago (in another town) there were rumors that our carefully sorted bottles and paper ended up with the rest of the trash – in the landfill. Some part of me wanted to be content in my ignorance, in my faith that unethical recyclers were a thing of the past or something that only happened in big cities.

But, one afternoon while listening to an National Public Radio story on recycling those new compact fluorescent bulbs, the spiral energy saving bulbs you have to wrestle from all that energy intensive plastic packaging, the commentator noted how few consumers are even aware the new bulbs contain mercury, although each package clearly states that: LAMP CONTAINS MERCURY; Manage in Accord with Disposal Laws; See www.lamprecycle.org.

Listening to the story and aware that I limit her tuna fish consumption to a can a week because of my concern about mercury, my daughter Sophie asked, “What do they do with the mercury, and how do they get it out?”

Good question. In fact, what happens to all the stuff we leave curbside? The yogurt containers, juice cartons, milk jugs, tin cans, and cereal boxes. And why can’t we leave eggs cartons, pizza boxes and plant pots?

According to our local expert, Jan Ameen, Executive Director of the Franklin County Solid Waste Management District, there truly is an afterlife for our milk jugs, soda bottles and computer paper, though disposal is the end of the road for the lowly egg carton.

“Egg cartons use the shortest paper fiber,” Ameen explained. “Basically, they are the end of the paper recycling line. The fiber cannot be used again, so when they go to the paper mill for recycling, they dissolve and end up in the wastewater.

“Pizza boxes can be recycled if they’re not greasy. Most recycling paper mills don’t use chemicals, just warm water to dissolve the paper. There isn’t a good way to get rid of the grease from this process.”

In contrast, all the used and reused printing and computer paper, all the old bills, envelopes, and technical reports on obscure topics I finally cleared from my filing cabinet fared better than the egg cartons and pizza boxes.

“All of the paper from western Massachusetts,” said Ameen, “ends up at a paper recycling mill in Fitchburg, North Shore Fibers. They make Monopoly boards and book covers, mostly, and other paper products.”

It was good news to find my old paper might be hosting games of Monopoly, or protecting someone’s storybook, but I wasn’t really worried about paper recycling. It’s been around for decades, and it seems these days all sorts of paper products are recycled including my Seventh Generation toilet paper, which proudly proclaims the “post-consumer” content (post-consumer meaning made from the stuff we leave curbside) as 80%. Not bad. Neither did I worry about recycling cans. Tin and steel are valuable, so it makes sense we’ve been recycling them for years.

But what about plastics and their array of letters and symbols: PETE, HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS? Why do we no longer sort them, and why can’t we recycle all those plastic plant pots?

It’s a big world, and there’s lots of plastic. The American Chemistry Council reports that in 2005, 922 million pounds of HDPE bottles (those thick plastic bottles like milk jugs and laundry detergent bottles) were recycled, as were over 2 billion pounds of PET and PP bottles (PET are things like coke and juice bottles, and PP are polypropylene – those “next generation” bottles that don’t add a plastic taste to your drinking water.) This represents only about 25 - 30% of all recyclable bottles out there. Sadly, many still end up in the trash. Still, that’s a lot of recycled plastic. And those plastic plant pots? Says Ameen, “Plant pots aren't recyclable because of the dirt and because they are often black (no black plastic is recyclable.)” Though a web search led me to a couple of programs specifically for plant pot recycling, one in New Jersey and one in Missouri, it seems that gardeners nationwide are stymied by the inability to recycle these items locally!

In our town, the first stop for all of our bottles, boxes and papers is the Springfield Materials Recycling Facility, where plastic recyclables are sorted according to type and then sent off for further processing, depending on the item. For plastics, that means recycling them into anything from fiberfill to polyester-like fibers, to those blue recycling bins, to plastic lumber furniture. Ever have a cinder land on your new fleece jacket and watch it melt its way through the fabric? That’s because fleece is plastic! And while some companies still rely on “virgin” polyester to produce fleece, there is now EcoSpun, ECO-Fleece, and EcoPile products made primarily or entirely from our recycled bottles. Even large corporations like Malden Mills, which produces Polartec, are touting their recycled fleece products.

But, I wondered what happens then, when the fleece eventually becomes too ratty to donate to the Salvation Army? Patagonia, the mega-outdoor retail store now recycles old fleece into new products, though they note that their process is currently limited to Polartec, and their own capilene and cotton products from Patagonia. On their website, they say they hope other companies begin taking advantage of old fleece as well.

Ah, but what about those mercury containing fluorescent bulbs? The good news is, according to the EPA, the new bulbs help decrease mercury emissions by reducing the demand for electricity. Primary sources of electricity are coal-fired plants, which still routinely emit mercury into the atmosphere.

The bad news is there is no curbside service for the bulbs, and many distributors don’t have a program in place to recycle the bulbs. Fortunately, this shouldn’t be too much of a problem, since the new bulbs are supposed to last for five years, or 8,000 hours. That’s right - five years, and if they don’t last that long, all you have to do is send in your receipt and UPC (hah!) and get a refund. But when the time does come, and it certainly came sooner than five years for a few of our bulbs (unfortunately, those UPCs were recycled long ago), we can take them to the Montague Transfer Station where they are sent off to Veolia Environmental Services in Stoughton, MA, for recycling. Although at the moment it costs fifty cents a bulb, maybe in five years when we all recycle our bulbs en masse, there will be more recycling options.

Veolia specializes in recycling lighting and electronic wastes. On their website they note that an “estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste.” That’s a lot of mercury.

Using an enclosed process Veolia crushes the bulbs, and then extracts mercury and other components. In the end, the company’s website declares that all parts, including glass, metal end-caps, powder, and mercury, can be reused.

So next time you flip on your compact fluorescent, and pull on your favorite fleece for a game of Monopoly, who knows, you could be enjoying the fruits of your recycling efforts!

For more information on recycling in your county check out:

Earth 911: A site that provides you with disposal and recycling information for any zip code in the country.