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.

Ingesting, digesting, and egesting oh my: nanoparticles and water fleas

Years ago when I first met my husband, I am ashamed to say, I may have belittled the importance of his research project. He was studying larval fish, and observing what they ate, how much they pooped and how quickly they grew. Who cared I wondered? I was a toxicologist I’d thought at least my work was somewhat applicable to….to something! That was almost twenty years ago and now he’s out saving wild fish populations, and I’m here typing at my desk! But recently I came across an article entitled “In Vivo Biomodification of Lipid Coated Carbon Nanotubes by Daphnia Magnia” by Aaron Roberts, et al., published in Environmental Science and Technology, which highlights the importance of ingesting and egesting (or eating and pooping) in an environmental context that even a toxicologist can appreciate.

Turns out that what little critters eat, digest and poop may have some important implications for nanomaterials. Roberts et al. reports on the fate (and to some extent toxicity) of single-walled carbon nanotubes or, SWNTs, in aquatic creatures known as Daphnia magnia, or better known as water fleas.

Alone, SWNTs are not water soluble, which apparently limits their utility. In this case, the authors first combined SWNTs with an amphiphilic coating, (that means it goes both way water loving and fat loving,) to render them soluble in water. Rendering SWNTs more water soluble, according to the authors will:

“..not only enable biological studies of cellular responses but also empower the development of next generation single-molucule chemical and biosensors and self-assembled nanodevices,.”

But, they noted, this new and improved water soluble nanomaterial comes with a caveat,

“Because of the large number of applications there may be great potential for discharge of coated, solubilized nanomaterials into the environment.”

Enter, the fleas.

Since solubilized nanomaterials might end up in watery environments, the authors exposed Daphnia to concentrations of coated SWNTs. They reported that up to a point, the Daphnia not only tolerated but (under conditions of starvation) may have even benefited from the coated materials. Daphia ingested the materials, stripped the coatings, and apparently used them as a food source (those in SWNT water survived to a greater extent than those without), and egested (pooped out) uncoated and now insoluble SWNTs. But we all know what happens when we over indulge. When exposed to higher concentrations, the Daphnia didn’t fare so well, and survival was reduced. Additionally the authors noted that coated SWNTs also accumulated on the outer surfaces of Daphnia (also not good.) I would also suggest that all food sources are not created equal. For example what keeps one generation going, might not be sufficient for producing the next, so that further studies of such materials might include life-cycle tests and more intensive investigation into the quality of "food" provided by similarly coated nanomaterials.

In conclusion, the authors note that:

“Our data show that biomodification of lysophospholipid-coated carbon nanotubes in vivo can occur and have dramatic effects on the physical properties of the nanomaterial. These modifications may result in unanticipated effects both on the materials properties as well as the organisms exposed to the nanomaterial. Biomodification is an important phenomenon that should be considered in studies on the biological applications, environmental fate, and toxicity of convalently and noncovalently functionalized nanomaterials.”

You can find the full article, by Aaron P. Roberts, et al., In Vivo Biomodification of Lipid Coated Carbon Nanotubes by Daphnia Magnia in Environmental Science and Technology, ASAP Articles, March 7, 2007.

More on Sunscreens

This morning I finally came across the science article I’d been dreading. With the kids off to school and the dog walked, I settled in to my morning routine, coffee, bagel and Science Magazine. After skimming articles on ancient towers marking the solar calendar in Peru, brain evolution, and African penguins, I came across a News Focus article entitled “A Healthy Tan?” written by Ingrid Wickelgren. Over the past ten years as I’ve coated the kids with sunscreen I’ve been waiting for the inevitable. As a scientist I know that science is always on the move, particularly when it comes to understanding how the body responds to chemical or physical (as in the sun’s ultraviolet rays) insults. As scientists learn more, things change. So I’ve been waiting for the down side of sunscreens. The, “If we only knew then, what we know now.”

Though the news isn’t all that bad, it is worth considering that scientists and those in the health fields are still figuring out the best way to protect those of us who insist on playing in the sun (besides the obvious – just cover up!)

According to Wickelgren:

“Anyone who relies on sunscreen knows it is sticky, inconvenient, and easy to forget. But sunscreen has a lesser known, and more serious, downside: It doesn't adequately protect against the deadliest form of skin cancer.

Although ultraviolet (UV)-blocking sprays and creams protect people against sunburn and the milder forms of skin cancer--squamous cell and basal cell carcinoma--they do not form an effective shield against melanoma, which doctors diagnose in 132,000 people worldwide each year. Ironically, says a growing cadre of skin biologists, what seems to protect best against melanoma is something that sunscreens efficiently thwart: a deep, dark tan.

Dark-skinned people, who also tend to tan well, are up to 500 times less likely to get melanoma and other skin cancers than are fair-skinned individuals. The ability to tan confers protection, researchers say, regardless of the skin's background level of pigmentation. This is due in part to the UV-shielding effect of melanin, the pigment that makes skin cells dark, and perhaps in part to an acceleration of DNA repair that some believe accompanies tanning. But tanning in the sun is a fool's wager, dermatologists say, because it causes dangerous DNA damage, which may lead to cancer before it can be fixed. To provide a sun-independent alternative, scientists are now developing compounds that trigger tanning and DNA repair by acting on molecules that control the melanin production pathway.”

The complete story can be found in Science, March 2, Vol 315 pages 1214-12166.

So, should I order the fish?

Much to my embarrassment, shortly after graduating with my Ph.D. and directing my attention to PCBs and other toxics in fish, whenever we stood by the fish counter at the local seafood restaurant, my father would announce that I was an expert on contaminants in fish. “So, should I get the fish?” he’d ask.

I’d turn red and shrug my shoulders, muttering something like, “I don’t know, depends where it comes from, I guess.” Truth was that I studied the impacts of chemicals on reproduction in fish not humans, so really, I could only answer as an expert for fish concerned about their reproductive health.

But even for those who study the human health impacts of chemicals, the issue of evaluating the risk associated with contaminants in seafood has always been tricky. Risk from contaminant exposure depends on the contaminant, the particular health effects associated with the contaminant, the species of fish (some fattier than others), the age of the fish, where it was caught (if wild), if farmed, what it was fed, how much one eats fish how often, and even on who’s eating the fish!

An recent analysis by Sam Luoma and Ragnar Lofstedt titled "Contaminated Salmon and the Public's Trust" published in Environmental Science and Technology addressed the complexity of that simple question “Should I get the fish?” and “If so, what kind?” They refer to a study published in Science several years back, which reported on concentrations of PCBs and similar chemicals in farmed and wild salmon, and which reported that farmed salmon were, in general, more highly contaminated than wild-caught salmon.

According to Luoma and Ragnar, this set off a “contentious dialogue….mostly because the risk analysis for salmon did not consider a balance of risks,” the end result (at least for a time) was a drop in consumer confidence for farmed salmon resulting in a heavy burden on wild salmon populations.

While the authors don't answer the question "to eat or not to eat", they do provide an interesting discussion about communicating and evaluating risk for complex scientific issues, even ones that seem simple, check out it.

More on Nanotech

Nanotechnology is an interesting field for a toxicologist because of the very public discussion about toxicity, regulation and the future of nanotechnology. Unlike other major technological advances in the past with the potential for health and environmental impacts, nanotechnology is developing under the virtual microscope of the internet – where citizens, researchers, regulators are able to access a great deal of information and can organize via the internet.

Below are a few new articles on the toxicology of nanomaterials and a link to a podcast "The Implications for Health, Safety and the Environment of the Nanotech Revolution."

This interesting and informative podcast sponsored by Nanotechnology Victoria (Austrailia), considers the ethics, toxicology, risk assessment, worker heath and safety. While those interviewed agree that there are data gaps in the toxicology and potential for environmental impacts of nanotechnology, they also note the potential benefits of future nanotechnology products. Views range from a moratorium on nanotechnology development, to greater government and industry resources to improve worker standards to avoid another potential “asbestos-like” disaster for workers in the field, to a call for all involved to recognize the broad range of materials to which the term nanotechnology refers.

For those interested in more technical articles on nanomaterials, below are three articles recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives describing recent toxicological research on nanoparticles.

Cardiovascular Effects of Pulmonary Exposure to Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes by Zheng Li,¹ Tracy Hulderman,¹ Rebecca Salmen,¹ Rebecca Chapman,¹ Stephen S. Leonard,² Shih-Houng Young,² Anna Shvedova,² Michael I. Luster,¹ and Petia P. Simeonova concludes:

“Taken together, the findings are of sufficient significance to warrant further studies to evaluate the systemic effects of SWCNTs [Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes] under inhalation exposure paradigms more likely to occur in the workplace or environment, such as low-level chronic inhalation exposure.”

Inhalation Exposure Study of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles with a Primary Particle Size of 2 to 5 nm by Vicki H. Grassian,^1,2,3, Patrick T. O'Shaughnessy,³ Andrea Adamcakova-Dodd,³ John M. Pettibone,² and Peter S. Thorne concludes:

“Mice subacutely exposed to 2–5 nm TiO₂ nanoparticles showed a significant but moderate inflammatory response among animals at week 0, 1, or 2 after exposure that resolved by week 3 postexposure.”

Finally, an interesting article entitled Effects of Aqueous C₆₀ Nano-Aggregates to Tetrahydrofuran Decomposition Products in Larval Zebrafish by Assessment of Gene Expression by Theodore B. Henry, Fu-Min Menn, James T. Fleming, John Wilgus, Robert N. Compton and Gary S. Sayler suggests that toxicity in this case was caused by chemicals used in the preparation of the nanomaterials, rather than the nanomaterials themselves.

Could you reheat that please, but hold the plasticizers

Yesterday my mother asked about using plastic wrap in the microwave. She uses it when reheating or warming food, and her reheated food is moist and her oven clean. I don’t, and my oven is encrusted with splatter and my food dry. I don’t know how important covering food is for reheating (other than the splatter) but I just don’t like to use more plastic in my daily life than is needed. I muttered something about probably not a problem, since reheated plastic wrapped microwave food items are not part of her main diet, but then thought maybe I ought to give it a bit more thought.

I know this is one of those questions that has been around for years, and there were lots of websites with titles like “Truth or Fiction” and “Big hoaxes”, and “Plastic Myths” that popped up when I asked Google about it. But the most informative site was one form the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (see excerpt below.) Basically, the FDA acknowledges that substances like diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA), a chemical used to make plastics more flexible, can and do transfer from plastic to foods during reheating. The controversy (if there is one) is over how much and how toxic.

But most seem to agree that it if one wants to avoid or minimize their ingestion of contaminants from plastic, they heed the following advice:

According to the LSU article on “What’s Safe for Microwaving”:

"• Use only cookware that is specially manufactured for use in the microwave oven. Glass, ceramic containers and all plastics should be labeled for microwave oven use.

• Don’t use margarine tubs, take-out containers, whipped topping bowls and other one-time use containers in microwave ovens. These containers can warp or melt, possibly causing harmful chemicals to migrate into the food.

• Use safe items like plastic wraps, wax paper, cooking bags, parchment paper and white microwave-safe paper towels. Do not, however, let plastic wrap touch foods during microwaving.

• Never use thin plastic storage bags, brown paper or plastic grocery bags, newspapers or aluminum foil in the microwave oven.

In addition, the American Plastics Council recommends that carryout containers from restaurants should not be used in the microwave. These containers may melt or warp, which can increase the likelihood of spills and burns."

Yesterday NPR had an interesting story on mercury in those compact fluorescent lightbulbs (you know those odd shaped spiral bulbs that promise to reduce energy use.)

Who knew, unless they read the not-so-fine-print that says : LAMP CONTAINS MERCURY; Manage in Accord with Disposal Laws; See www.lamprecycle.org. But really, who has time to read when they're struggling just to open the plastic packaging without breaking the bulb?!

Anyway, there's lots of good information on the NPR site on amounts of mercury (small - according to the Energy Star site, which says that if a bulb breaks getting cut by a shard of glass poses a greater risk than the potential for exposure to mercury), and what to do to dispose of the bulbs (check out earth911.org), which shouldn't be an immediate problem since they're supposed to last for five years or 8,000 hours. That's right - five years, and if they don't, all you have to do is send in your receipt and UPC (UP-what? And, where are those receipts?!)

But the bottom line, as noted by the EPA is that in the end, using these bulbs (in addition to other measures reducing electricity use) could help reduce overall emissions of mercury, since coal, one of the most common fuels for electricity production, is one of the major sources of mercury released into the environment.

So What’s in Your Hometown: The Toxic Release Inventory and Citizen’s Right-to-know

A news article published today in Environmental Science and Technology reports on the recent changes to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. Below is an article I wrote a while back (and just updated), when the EPA was considering changes to the TRI.

What's In Your Hometown?

“So why doesn’t everybody know about these web sites?” demanded Belle, my student. She had just completed the “hometown” assignment for class. The assignment required that they use several websites including the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory and Envirofacts websites and the Environmental Defense Fund’s Scorecard website to research their home town. The results, as always are eye-opening, and sometimes distressing.

Together, the three sites listed above, provide location specific information on toxic waste releasers and handlers, Superfund sites, currently operating landfills, the potential health impacts of chemicals in one’s neighborhood. Best of all, their primary purpose is to serve the public, so they are fairly user friendly. In fact, the Toxics Release Inventory is an outcome of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, passed in 1986 after the Bhopal, India catastrophe. The Right to Know act requires that the EPA collect information on the handling and release of toxic chemicals from companies around the country, and that they make it open and accessible to all.

While the site is informative, it can be difficult at times to make sense of some of the chemical release information. Fortunately the Environmental Defense Fund’s Scorecard does this for us. Scorecard draws from over 400 databases including the Toxic Release Inventory, and combines these data with other useful information such as health effects data for individual chemicals, and geography, presenting a huge amount of information into “what this means for you.”

And finally, the EPA’s Envirofacts website provides a wealth of information on chemical releases to air, water, and land, and will overlay these data on a map of your town (the other sites map facilities also, but this site includes other information like the location of schools, roads and rivers.)

Using these sites, Belle, who grew up in suburban Pennsylvania, found that in 2002 the SPS Corporation, a supplier of fasteners and metal products to the aerospace and automotive industries, released 1,400 pounds of trichloroethylene into the air, along with smaller amounts of various other pollutants. The plant is just down the street from her home.

Belle also found that her county, Montgomery, PA, ranked number one in the state for superfund sites (there were 16). Fortunately, she also discovered that over the past decade, SPS has reduced their toxic releases by approximately 98%.

But Belle’s revelation paled in comparison to Jaime’s, who reported who reported on the 50 million pounds of toxic chemicals released into the air and waters of her home community of Harris County, TX, which is home to 22 superfund sites. Granted it’s not a fair comparison, one large industrial area verses suburban, PA, but when it’s your own hometown you might want to know about that nearby factory or superfund site, or that well groomed industrial campus down the block. As my students have found, these sites provide a powerful tool for investigating chemical releases in your own community, or in a community you might be considering relocating to.

So why doesn’t the public know about them, my students wanted know. “Someone should write about this,” they said. Hmmmm, had I only been quick enough to turn around and give them an impromptu writing assignment. The next day as I skimmed through New York Time headlines online, an article in the business section caught my eye, “Location, Location, Location, Research, Research, Research,” aha, I thought, here it is, now I won’t have to write about it.

Wishful thinking, though the article listed several sites that might help a future property owner research their location, none of the sites discussed above were included in their list. After some more searching, I managed to find one article on Scorecard, but that was in Realtor Magazine Online, not one that’d I would have just found skimming through the news, and I’m not sure many others would either.

So, I decided, I should write about them. But before I could, I had to fully explore the sites myself (yes, yes, I admit it, after giving this “Hometown” assignment to students for the past five years, I had yet to investigate my own hometown.) Although I didn’t expect our community to turn out anything like Belle’s or Jaime’s, you never know.

Researching my own hometown and surrounding towns, I found dramatic reductions in chemical wastes released, which they attributed to either changing processes or through increased recycling. These reductions or changes in chemical processes are reflected graphically using the “Release Trends Graphs,” a useful feature of the Toxics Release Inventory, and are in part the result of Massachusetts’ Toxic Use Reduction Act, which encouraged facilities to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals they use by increasing efficiency and/or using less toxic alternatives.

There is one small limitation of the Release Inventory that I need to mention. Reporting limits. A facility must report only those chemicals that require reporting (currently EPA a total of 666 chemical and chemical categories) and must only report quantities of those chemicals that are treated, recycled or released, which up ‘til now, were quantities in excess of 500 pounds, or the “annual reportable amount.” So if a facility releaseed 500 pounds or less of a particular chemical release inventory chemical they are not required to report specific amounts. (Although chemicals categorized as “persistent and/or bioaccumulative” have lower reportable amounts.)

Depending on the chemical, 500 pounds may not be much if we’re talking just one or two industries in a community, but here’s the problem, recently, the EPA increased the “annual reportable amounts,” from 500 pounds to over 2,000 pounds. Effectively reducing what we have a right to know about. While a 4-fold change in the amount of chemical reported might not make a huge difference in Jaime's hometown, it would in ours or other small communities who depend upon the Release Inventory to keep tabs on local businesses, or in those communities which may have several smaller releasers.