MADRID (Reuters) – The largest permanent lagoon in southern Spain’s Donana national park has completely dried out for the second summer in a row due to a prolonged drought and the overexploitation of aquifers, the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) said on Thursday.
The drying out of the lagoon comes as Spain grapples with the third heatwave of the summer, while emptying reservoirs have forced water restrictions in parts of the country.
“Since we began collecting data on the area half a century ago, this has never happened in two consecutive years, which shows the seriousness of the situation facing the Donana lagoon system and, with it, all the biodiversity that depends on it,” the CSIC said in a statement.
The Donana wetlands harbour many endemic and threatened species, such as freshwater eels and turtles.
Most lagoons in Donana are temporary, meaning their basins fill when flooded by rainwater from aquifers in the winter and then dry out in the hotter months. But a few also contain water during the summer, providing an important refuge for migratory birds heading southward after breeding in northern Europe.
According to the researchers, Donana has seen in the past two years the lowest precipitation levels in a decade and the highest average annual temperature ever recorded, at 18.53 Celsius (65.35 Fahrenheit).
Donana’s lagoons are not only threatened by the drought and heat. They are also surrounded by a sea of greenhouses and a complex system of pipes that take water from illegally drilled wells for use by farmers growing red berries.
Andalusia’s conservative regional government plans an amnesty that would legalise additional irrigation around Donana, prompting an outcry from environmentalists.
There are some things in life that we want to last forever, but there are other things that we’d rather not have sticking with us. Toxic chemicals are one of the latter.
A group of chemicals known as PFAS are so-called “forever chemicals.” They are indestructible, man-made compounds that can build up in our environment. They can be found in our foods, our clothing and even our body. In fact, a review of 2011-2012 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that PFAS are present in the blood of 97% of Americans.
While it’s hard to avoid PFAS completely, there are certain steps you can take to lower exposure and mitigate risks.
What Are PFAS?
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known simply as PFAS, are a group of man-made chemical compounds often used to coat products to repel oil, water and other liquids that cause wear and tear from daily use. Introduced by DuPont Chemical in the 1940s, various PFAS chemicals were the secret weapon behind successful cookware brands like Teflon and Scotchgard, which were known for their long-lasting and anti-stick qualities. Soon after, competitors began to follow suit.
However, this durability comes at a price.
“All of those same properties that make them really resistant to water, it also makes them pretty indestructible in the environment,” explains Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst at the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C. “They are almost impossible to break down.”
While scientists are researching ways to degrade and destroy PFAS, there is no widespread, safe method in practice yet.
When the long-term health consequences of PFAS exposure started to come to light, many companies in the United States voluntarily stopped producing products with PFAS. However, many simply replaced the two original variations of PFAS – PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanoic sulfonic acid) – with slightly different chemical compounds that have pretty much the same risk.
“There are relatively minor chemical differences between many of these compounds, which is why they sort of behave similarly,” says Scott Bartell, professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of California, Irvine. “They’re all difficult to break down in the environment because they have a carbon fluorine bond, (which) is one of the strongest bonds known to man.”
Over the past seven decades, experts have identified more than 12,000 different types of PFAS.
Health Consequences of PFAS Exposure
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal public health agency run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, PFAS are linked to an increased risk of the following health conditions:
Experts are unclear how much PFAS exposure leads to negative health effects.
“That’s literally the trillion dollar question: Is there a safe level (of) exposure?” Scott says. “I think that’s very much still a matter of some debate amongst scientists.”
There’s a growing consensus among scientists that any level of exposure could put people at risk for certain health conditions, like cancer and decreased vaccination response.
However, David Nadler, a research faculty member at the New York Institute of Technology in Old Westbury, New York, and former director within the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, points out that PFAS are often found with other pollutants and toxins, so it’s hard to solely blame PFAS for causing these negative health effects.
“(PFAS) just might be one of the ingredients in the recipe of all of these other chemical mixtures that we’re inhaling, or that may be in small quantities, in our water supply and with clothing, as well,” Nadler says.
What Products Contain PFAS?
If you’re looking to cut down on your salt intake, you can read the nutrition label that comes with your food to see how much sodium is inside. But when it comes to determining the amount of PFAS in a certain product, the answer can be difficult to discern.
“It’s kind of hard to say what the worst offender is because there’s so much that we don’t know,” Evans says. “These manufacturers are not required to disclose what they’re using, and how much they’re using. Then there’s, of course, the issue of what’s being intentionally added, and what’s happening as a byproduct.”
Even products touted as “organic” and “nontoxic” have been busted for the presence of PFAS. In late 2022, the feminine hygiene company Thinx shelled out a $5 million settlement after customers who tested the underwear filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for its use of PFAS in the products.
Since then, studies have revealed that products like school uniforms and firefighter gear also contain PFAS – as do marine life and food sources, like types of salmon and trout. Long-term exposure to these chemicals has been linked to negative health outcomes, including increased cancer risks and some researchers are still figuring out.
The safest bet is avoiding products that are known to traditionally carry PFAS. Evans recommends avoiding anything with a “stain-resistant” or “water-resistant” label. These include:
Food packaging, especially those with grease-resistant paper, like microwave popcorn, fast-food wrappers, take-out containers or pizza boxes.
Cleaning products, like dishwashers and laundry detergent.
Cosmetics. These include concealers, foundations, shampoo and coated dental floss. Waterproof makeup contains particularly high chemical levels.
Outdoor or exercise gear, particularly water-resistant raincoats and sweat-resistant workout gear.
Uniforms, including firefighter gear and school uniforms – which a recent study found to have similar levels of PFAS contamination to outdoor gear.
Nonstick cookware. Even if your pan boasts a “PFOA-free” label, that likely means that the manufacturers replaced the PFOA with one of the thousands of other PFAS. Instead, opt for a dish made of stainless steel or cast iron material.
Plastic containers, particularly those that are fluorinated, which means they have gone through a process to prevent paneling and distortion.
Clothes and household products aren’t the only way of getting exposed to PFAS. Since these chemicals don’t break down, there’s a large amount of PFAS in the soil and water supply.
PFAS in the Water
As a result of the mounting evidence linking PFAS exposure to serious health effects, federal health agencies have updated their health advisories of acceptable PFAS limits in drinking water to virtually zero.
Until recently, the Environmental Protection Agency’s advisory levels of PFAS in drinking water were 70 parts per trillion. However, in June 2022, the EPA lowered the number to .004 parts per trillion for PFOA and .02 parts per trillion for PFOS.
“The updated advisory levels, which are based on new science and consider lifetime exposure, indicate that some negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero,” according to the EPA report.
The best way to find out how much PFAS you’re exposed to in your tap water is to check your annual water quality report issued by your local government.
“If you really look at it, you get to see everything that’s been tested for,” Nadler says. “You see the number of times a certain chemical came up higher than what, let’s say, the state health department might allow for.”
Missed yours this year? Fear not. Most, if not all, water suppliers will have this copy online.
You can also check the EWG’s tap water database, where you can search by zip code to see what contaminants are found in your area’s water.
Do water filters remove PFAS?
Although a water filter won’t get rid of all chemicals in your drinking water, it will significantly cut down your exposure.
“The good news is that even your basic countertop-pitcher style filters will reduce the level of PFAS in drinking water, as long as you use it correctly and change out the filter,” Evans says.
Bartell recommends a granular activated carbon filter or reverse osmosis filter that has been officially certified to remove PFOA and PFOS.
PFAS in marine life
In addition to lurking in the water, PFAS can contaminate marine animals, like fish. A recent study showed that PFAS can accumulate inside fish, particularly salmonids, which includes fish like salmon, trout and char.
Graham Peaslee, the researcher behind the initial Thinx discovery and co-author of the study on PFAS and fish, and others, says that the findings may have implications for how humans can come in contact to PFAS through their diet, which is “an important route of exposure.”
PFAS Testing
You may want to find out how much PFAS is in your blood after reading this, but PFAS testing has its limits.
You’ll have to seek out a specialty lab to perform the test, and health insurance probably won’t cover the cost. According to the scientific research organization Silent Spring Institute, testing is only available for 40 of the thousands of different PFAS. Additionally, the test will not be able to tell you the source of your exposure or for how long you’ve been exposed.
Even if you do get tested, it’s important to note that not all blood tests will tell you the same thing. Some blood tests look at blood sera, which is a fluid or serum in the blood, to test for PFAS. This can detect some but not all chemicals in the family.
According to Peaslee, who is also a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Notre Dame, one common PFAS that does not accumulate in blood sera is PFHxA. PFHxA is a breakdown of PFAS often from consumer products like stain-resistant fabric. Instead of using a blood sera test, checking for PFHxA can require a whole-blood test. In places where these have been conducted, “PFHxA is about the third most abundant PFAS found in blood,” Peaslee says.
In contrast, some PFAS accumulate at higher concentrations in the blood sera. These chemicals may appear less prevalent on a whole-blood test due to differences in proportions.
If the test results show that you have elevated levels of PFAS in your blood, there could be preventive measures, such as more frequent screenings for the conditions related to high PFAS exposure. For example, if you have a blood concentration above 20 nanograms per milliliter for seven types of PFAS, then physicians can perform additional health screenings similar to those for people with a close family history of certain cancers.
Reducing Your Exposure
There isn’t really a way to live without PFAS, as hard as you may try. But there are ways to reduce risks of exposure.
Avoiding clothes or furniture labeled water- or stain-resistant, using cast-iron instead of nonstick cookware and filtering your water is a great place to start.
“Don’t panic, but do read the labels and ask the questions,” Peaslee says.
Some questions to ask yourself before using or purchasing a product:
Does this product contain properties that have been associated with PFAS? Examples include waterproof, long-lasting or fast-drying labeling.
Does anything on the label mention PFAS? Look for a product that says “Contains no intentional PFAS.”
Remember that even products that do not contain intentionalPFAS may contain unexpected sources, so determine how much risk you are personally willing to take.
By not purchasing a product that contains PFAS, if this information is clear, consumers may be able to put pressure on manufacturers to make better products, Peaslee says.
“The power of the consumer is significant,” he adds. But unfortunately, an individual approach isn’t going to solve a systematic problem nor change the PFAS landscape overnight. So, researchers like Peaslee are keeping at it, with “lots of papers to come until public pressure changes manufacturing patterns.”
Peaslee adds that in the last few years alone, research on PFAS has “exploded.”
“As little as ten years ago there were six peer-reviewed articles a month published on PFAS and health (human health, public health, ecological health) from around the world, while last year there were more than 54 publications a month on PFAS and health,” Peaslee says. “There is so much research occurring on this topic that we are finding out new things every day.”
While discovering new sources of PFAS exposure may not seem like a reason to celebrate, the fact that researchers are committed to studying PFAS can be viewed as a good thing. The more information available, the more tools we have to build a healthier future.
Through advocacy work, you can also pressure lawmakers to set regulations to include PFAS testing requirements for products, and for consumers to be transparent about the materials they use in their manufacturing processes.
“(If) we all sit back and wait for somebody else to do it, nobody’s going to do it,” Evans says. “But if we each take it upon ourselves to write that letter, to send that email, over time, as a group, we can have a huge impact.”
Microscopic plastic particles have been found in the fats and lungs of two-thirds of the marine mammals in a graduate student’s study of ocean microplastics. The presence of polymer particles and fibers in these animals suggests that microplastics can travel out of the digestive tract and lodge in the tissues.
The study, slated for the Oct. 15 edition of Environmental Pollution, appeared online this week.
Harms that embedded microplastics might cause to marine mammals are yet to be determined, but plastics have been implicated by other studies as possible hormone mimics and endocrine disruptors.
“This is an extra burden on top of everything else they face: climate change, pollution, noise, and now they’re not only ingesting plastic and contending with the big pieces in their stomachs, they’re also being internalized,” said Greg Merrill Jr., a fifth-year graduate student at the Duke University Marine Lab. “Some proportion of their mass is now plastic.”
The samples in this study were acquired from 32 stranded or subsistence-harvested animals between 2000 and 2021 in Alaska, California and North Carolina. Twelve species are represented in the data, including one bearded seal, which also had plastic in its tissues.
Plastics are attracted to fats — they’re lipophilic — and so believed to be easily attracted to blubber, the sound-producing melon on a toothed whale’s forehead, and the fat pads along the lower jaw that focus sound to the whales’ internal ears. The study sampled those three kinds of fats plus the lungs and found plastics in all four tissues.
Plastic particles identified in tissues ranged on average from 198 microns to 537 microns — a human hair is about 100 microns in diameter. Merrill points out that, in addition to whatever chemical threat the plastics pose, plastic pieces also can tear and abrade tissues.
“Now that we know plastic is in these tissues, we’re looking at what the metabolic impact might be,” Merrill said. For the next stage of his dissertation research, Merrill will use cell lines grown from biopsied whale tissue to run toxicology tests of plastic particles.
Polyester fibers, a common byproduct of laundry machines, were the most common in tissue samples, as was polyethylene, which is a component of beverage containers. Blue plastic was the most common color found in all four kinds of tissue.
A 2022 paper in Nature Communications estimated, based on known concentrations of microplastics off the Pacific Coast of California, that a filter-feeding blue whale might be gulping down 95 pounds of plastic waste per day as it catches tiny creatures in the water column. Whales and dolphins that prey on fish and other larger organisms also might be acquiring accumulated plastic in the animals they eat, Merrill said.
“We haven’t done the math, but most of the microplastics probably do pass through the gut and get defecated. But some proportion of it is ending up in the animals’ tissues,” Merrill said.
“For me, this just underscores the ubiquity of ocean plastics and the scale of this problem,” Merrill said. “Some of these samples date back to 2001. Like, this has been happening for at least 20 years.”
Pouring flecks of rust into water usually makes it dirtier. But researchers have developed special iron oxide nanoparticles they call “smart rust” that actually makes it cleaner. Smart rust can attract many substances, including oil, nano- and microplastics, as well as the herbicide glyphosate, depending on the particles’ coating. And because the nanoparticles are magnetic, they can easily be removed from water with a magnet along with the pollutants. Now, the team is reporting that they’ve tweaked the particles to trap estrogen hormones that are potentially harmful to aquatic life.
The researchers will present their results today at the fall meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).
“Our ‘smart rust’ is cheap, nontoxic and recyclable,” says Marcus Halik, Ph.D., the project’s principal investigator. “And we have demonstrated its use for all kinds of contaminants, showing the potential for this technique to improve water treatment dramatically.”
For many years, Halik’s research team has been investigating environmentally friendly ways to remove pollutants from water. The base materials they use are iron oxide nanoparticles in a superparamagnetic form, which means they are drawn to magnets, but not to each other, so the particles don’t clump.
To make them “smart,” the team developed a technique to attach phosphonic acid molecules onto the nanometer-sized spheres. “After we add a layer of the molecules to the iron oxide cores, they look like hairs sticking out of these particles’ surfaces,” says Halik, who is at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Then, by changing what is bound to the other side of the phosphonic acids, the researchers can tune the properties of the nanoparticles’ surfaces to strongly adsorb different types of pollutants.
Early versions of smart rust trapped crude oil from water collected from the Mediterranean Sea and glyphosate from pond water collected near the researchers’ university. Additionally, the team demonstrated that smart rust could remove nano- and microplastics added to lab and river water samples.
So far, the team has targeted pollutants present in mostly large amounts. Lukas Müller, a graduate student who’s presenting new work at the meeting, wanted to know if he could modify the rust nanoparticles to attract trace contaminants, such as hormones. When some of our body’s hormones are excreted, they are flushed into wastewater and eventually enter waterways. Natural and synthetic estrogens are one such group of hormones, and the main sources of these contaminants include waste from humans and livestock. The amounts of estrogens are very low in the environment, says Müller, so they are difficult to remove. Yet even these levels have been shown to affect the metabolism and reproduction of some plants and animals, although the effects of low levels of these compounds on humans over long periods aren’t fully known.
“I started with the most common estrogen, estradiol, and then four other derivatives that share similar molecular structures,” says Müller. Estrogen molecules have a bulky steroid body and parts with slight negative charges. To exploit both characteristics, he coated iron oxide nanoparticles with two sets of compounds: one that’s long and another that’s positively charged. The two molecules organized themselves on the nanoparticles’ surface, and the researchers hypothesize that together, they build many billions of “pockets” that draw in the estradiol and trap it in place.
Because these pockets are invisible to the naked eye, Müller has been using high-tech instruments to verify that these estrogen-trapping pockets exist. Preliminary results show efficient extraction of the hormones from lab samples, but the researchers need to look at additional experiments from solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and small-angle neutron scattering to verify the pocket hypothesis. “We are trying to use different puzzle pieces to understand how the molecules actually assemble on the nanoparticles’ surface,” explains Müller.
In the future, the team will test these particles on real-world water samples and determine the number of times that they can be reused. Because each nanoparticle has a high surface area with lots of pockets, the researchers say that they should be able to remove estrogens from multiple water samples, thereby reducing the cost per cleaning. “By repeatedly recycling these particles, the material impact from this water treatment method could become very small,” concludes Halik.
Nearly half of U.S. drinking water supplies likely contain at least one form of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), according to a recently published study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Commonly known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment, PFAS comprise a class of thousands of synthetic compounds that are frequently found in many different consumer, commercial, and industrial products. In recent years, PFAS have been detected at varying levels in a growing number of water supplies across the United States.
Exposure to certain levels of some PFAS could lead to adverse health outcomes in humans and animals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), though additional research is needed to understand such outcomes in more detail.
Sampling water directly from the taps of consumers is part of what makes the recent study unique, says Kelly Smalling, a research hydrologist for the USGS and the lead author of the article.
“Most state and federal monitoring programs typically measure exposure to PFAS and other pollutants at water treatment plants or in the surface water or groundwater wells that supply them,” Smalling says. “The USGS study specifically focused on collecting water directly from a homeowner’s tap where exposure actually occurs. This study also emphasized the importance of collecting data on PFAS from private wells which are not regulated by the EPA and monitored at the discretion of homeowners.”
Results vary
Tap water samples were collected from a range of areas that have experienced low, medium, and high levels of human impacts. “The low category includes protected lands; medium includes residential and rural areas with no known PFAS sources; and high includes urban areas and locations with reported PFAS sources such as industry or waste sites,” according to a July 5 news release from the USGS announcing the results of the study.
Three laboratories were used to assess the concentrations of 32 PFAS in the samples. At least one PFAS was detected in 20 percent of samples from private wells and 40 percent of samples from public water supplies, according to the article.
In samples containing PFAS, the number of individual PFAS compounds ranged from 1 to 9, though the median was 2. Seventeen different types of PFAS were observed in the samples. The most frequent of these were perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), at 16 percent; perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), at 15 percent; and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), at 14 percent.
Detected concentrations for individual PFAS ranged from 0.025 to 319 ng/L, while the median was 2.88 ng/L. Cumulative PFAS concentrations in samples ranged from 0.348 to 346 ng/L, with a median of 7.00 ng/L.
This past March the EPA proposed maximum contaminant limits of 4.0 ng/L for PFOA and 4.0 ng/L for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). These proposed limits for PFOA and PFOS were exceeded in 6.7 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively, of all tap water samples collected, according to the article. However, the PFOA and PFOS limits were exceeded in 48 percent and 70 percent, respectively, of tap water samples when detected.
PFAS in 45 percent of U.S. drinking water
The USGS used its data to model and estimate PFAS contamination nationwide. “Modeled results indicate that on average at least one PFAS is detected in about 45% of U.S. drinking-water samples,” according to the article.
“Most of the exposure was observed near urban areas and potential PFAS sources,” according to the July 5 news release. “This included the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard, and Central/Southern California regions. The study’s results are in line with previous research concluding that people in urban areas have a higher likelihood of PFAS exposure. USGS scientists estimate that the probability of PFAS not being observed in tap water is about 75% in rural areas and around 25% in urban areas.”
“We were not especially surprised by any of the findings,” Smalling says. “This study is important because not only does it provide information on exposure to PFAS broadly across the U.S. in tap water, but it also gives private well users information that they did not have previously. What we did find interesting is that exposure to PFAS was similar in samples collected from unregulated private wells and regulated public supply.”
The study “can help members of the public to understand their risk of exposure and inform policy and management decisions regarding testing and treatment options for drinking water, including drinking water providers,” Smalling says. “Results further indicate potential hotspots for PFAS exposure, which should provide drinking water providers with more information in their respective areas.”
New York City is in the midst of a herculean effort to reduce its combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges by billions of gallons annually by 2045. But the city does not intend to stop there. As part of a recently released strategic climate plan, New York pledged to essentially eliminate untreated sewer overflows by 2060, an ambitious goal that will require the deployment of green and gray infrastructure on an even grander scale than is already planned.
Before 1990, New York City released more than 100 billion gallons of CSOs annually. By 2022, however, the city had decreased CSO discharges by roughly 85 percent, according to PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done. Released by New York City Mayor Eric Adams on April 20, the plan focuses on the city’s efforts to protect its residents from climate threats, improve their quality of life, and build the green economy. Among its goals, the plan aims to address extreme heat and flooding, increase the use of clean and reliable energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, transportation, and food.
PlaNYC “will increase resilience, protect our infrastructure, and save lives,” Adams said in an April 20 news release. “We have so much to be proud of and so much to protect, and PlaNYC will create a cleaner, greener, more just city for all,” he said.
By 2045, New York City expects to reduce its CSOs by more than 4 billion gal/yr, following implementation of 11 ongoing long-term control plans designed to decrease the harmful effects of such discharges. Under the terms of a 2012 agreement entered into with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) agreed to conduct the 11 long-term control plans. Ten of the plans address efforts to achieve water quality standards for individual water bodies, while the 11th concerns the entire city and the open waters around it.
All told, the DEP expects to spend $6.3 billion to implement the 11 long-term control plans, according to PlaNYC. Projects associated with the plans will reduce the release of untreated CSOs by an estimated 2 billion gal/yr and treat and release another 0.5 billion gal/yr of CSOs.
Examples of such projects include the construction of storage tunnels to capture CSOs that otherwise would enter Flushing Bay and Newton Creek. Expected to cost $3.9 billion, the two tunnels alone will decrease CSOs by 1.4 billion gal/yr.
In parallel with the long-term control plans, New York will continue to expand its ongoing green infrastructure program. To date, the city has installed approximately 13,000 rain gardens and other green infrastructure assets. Additional efforts will include the installation of 300,000 feet of porous parking lanes in the boroughs of the Bronx and Brooklyn, according to PlaNYC. The DEP also will work with other city agencies “to retrofit impervious surfaces on public properties to capture stormwater at the source,” the plan states.
At the same time, New York City also has mandated that private developers do more to reduce stormwater runoff. In February 2022, the city enacted its Unified Stormwater Rule, which “requires a retention-first approach to on-site stormwater management for all new construction and redevelopment sites” and “sets new thresholds for compliance with post-construction stormwater management practices,” according to PlaNYC. All told, the city estimates that the rule’s requirements will reduce CSOs by about 360 million gal/yr by 2030.
Looking beyond 2045, New York City will develop a “strategy to end the discharge of untreated sewage into the New York Harbor by 2060,” the plan notes. To be crafted during the “next few years,” the integrated strategy will “further [drive] down CSOs and [achieve] applicable water quality standards in the harbor by 2060,” according to the plan.
That said, the city acknowledges that CSOs may never be eliminated entirely. New York’s “physical space constraints, topography, geology, and feasible funding mean that very extreme storms could continue to overwhelm even the largest investments in the stormwater system,” according to PlaNYC.
The plan also calls for increased efforts to restore and expand wetlands and green spaces in New York. For example, the city intends to plant 30,000 native trees and shrubs across 10 sites to “restore the health of forested areas, which contributes to reduced flooding and higher quality soil, water, and air,” according to PlaNYC. “This effort, combined with maintenance of existing trees and the formation of public-private partnerships to encourage tree planting on private land, will also support our goal to achieve a 30% tree canopy cover and cool our public realm.”
The language is stark: People in torched areas of Maui should not try to filter their own drinking water because there is no “way to make it safe,” Maui County posted on its Instagram account this week.
The message reached Anne Rillero and her husband Arnie in Kula, who were eating yet another meal of frozen pizza. The couple feels incredibly lucky they and their home survived the fires that raced across Maui in recent days, wiping most of Lahaina off the map. The number of confirmed fatalities was raised on Friday to 114 people.
When a neighborhood organization alerted them not to drink their water and to air out the house even if they run the tap, the couple decided to eat off paper plates to avoid exposure. No washing dishes.
“It’s alarming that it may be in the water system for awhile,” said Rillero, a retired conservation communication specialist who has lived on the island for 22 years.
Brita filters, devices connected to refrigerators or sinks and even robust, whole-home systems are unlikely to address the “extreme contamination” that can happen after a fire.
“They will remove some of it, but levels that will be acutely and immediately toxic will get through,” said Andrew Whelton, a Purdue University researcher and expert in water contamination after wildfires in urban areas.
The Maui fires damaged hundreds of drinking water pipes, resulting in a loss of pressure that can allow toxic chemicals along with metals and bacteria into water lines.
“You can pull in contaminated or dirty water from the outside, even when those lines are underground,” said David Cwiertny, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Iowa.
Hundreds of families could be in the same situation as the Rilleros in the Lahaina and Upper Kula areas, where people have been told to minimize any contact with county water including showers. In Lahaina alone, aerial imagery and damage assessment data generated by Vexcel Data show 460 buildings apparently undamaged by the fires. These are places where people are returning.
For now, the county has told people to use bottled water for all their needs or to fill jugs at tankers called water buffalos, which have been brought in near the burns.
The state health department’s environmental health division told Maui County, which operates water delivery systems for most residents, to test for 23 chemicals. Those are just the ones for which the federal government has set limits for drinking water.
These warnings reflect new science and are intended to avoid the whiplash of conflicting information received by people impacted by the 2018 Camp Fire in California, who received messages from four different agencies.
Until a few years ago, wildfire was only known to contaminate drinking water at the source, such as when ash runs into a river or reservoir. California’s Tubbs Fire in 2017 and the Camp Fire “are the first known wildfires where widespread drinking water chemical contamination was discovered in the water distribution network,” according to a recent study published by several researchers including Whelton with the American Water Works Association.
After the Camp Fire destroyed Paradise, California, officials didn’t initially understand that smoke and chemicals had leached into the water through broken and melted water pipes. So they did what was standard after other fires: they told people to boil water before use.
Concerned about benzene contamination, the Paradise Irrigation District water utility then changed the order and told people to avoid the water, district Assistant District Manager Mickey Rich said.
Four days later, the California State Water Resources Control Board announced people could drink it as long as it didn’t smell. Two and a half weeks later, that agency announced there was benzene in the water.
Two months after that, a third agency, a county health department, told the public the water was unsafe and not to attempt to treat it on their own.
“There were a lot of unknowns,” Rich said. “When the scientists came six months into the recovery, they really answered a lot of questions that we wish we would have had at the beginning.”
New contaminants also have been discovered recently. The chemicals that Hawaii’s state government told Maui County to test for are called volatile because they tend to become airborne, like gasoline that turns to vapor when it drips from the pump onto your car.
But Whelton’s new research on the Marshall Fire in Boulder County Colorado, shows a group of heavier compounds, called “semi-volatile,” can contaminate damaged water lines as well, even when benzene and other better-known chemicals are not there.
“We found SVOCs leaching from damaged water meters into drinking water,” Whelton said. “You can’t use VOCs to predict whether SVOCs are present.”
For people on Maui who get their water from private wells, now would be a good time to get it tested, said Steve Wilson, a groundwater hydrologist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
If fire burns near a well, it can damage the cap, which keeps out debris. Plastic in the lining can even melt, releasing hazardous fumes into the well.
“In the case of a fire, it may look fine, but it’s hard to know,” Wilson said. “It might have affected something on the inside.”
Experts caution complete restoration of safe water will take a long time.
“I would implore anybody not to make a decision about lifting the water safety order until you have repeated validation that there is no contamination that poses a health risk,” Whelton said.
This USGS research marks the first time anyone has tested for and compared PFAS in tap water from both private and government-regulated public water supplies on a broad scale throughout the country. Those data were used to model and estimate PFAS contamination nationwide. This USGS study can help members of the public to understand their risk of exposure and inform policy and management decisions regarding testing and treatment options for drinking water.
PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications, from the linings of fast-food boxes and non-stick cookware to fire-fighting foams and other purposes. High concentrations of some PFAS may lead to adverse health risks in people, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research is still ongoing to better understand the potential health effects of PFAS exposure over long periods of time. Because they break down very slowly, PFAS are commonly called “forever chemicals.” Their persistence in the environment and prevalence across the country make them a unique water-quality concern.
“USGS scientists tested water collected directly from people’s kitchen sinks across the nation, providing the most comprehensive study to date on PFAS in tap water from both private wells and public supplies,” said USGS research hydrologist Kelly Smalling, the study’s lead author. “The study estimates that at least one type of PFAS – of those that were monitored – could be present in nearly half of the tap water in the U.S. Furthermore, PFAS concentrations were similar between public supplies and private wells.”
The EPA regulates public water supplies, and homeowners are responsible for the maintenance, testing and treatment of private water supplies. Those interested in testing and treating private wells should contact their local and state officials for guidance. Testing is the only way to confirm the presence of these contaminants in wells. For more information about PFAS regulations, visit the EPA’s website on addressing PFAS.
The study tested for 32 individual PFAS compounds using a method developed by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory. The most frequently detected compounds in this study were PFBS, PFHxS and PFOA. The interim health advisories released by the EPA in 2022 for PFOS and PFOA were exceeded in every sample in which they were detected in this study.
Scientists collected tap water samples from 716 locations representing a range of low, medium and high human-impacted areas. The low category includes protected lands; medium includes residential and rural areas with no known PFAS sources; and high includes urban areas and locations with reported PFAS sources such as industry or waste sites.
Most of the exposure was observed near urban areas and potential PFAS sources. This included the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard, and Central/Southern California regions. The study’s results are in line with previous research concluding that people in urban areas have a higher likelihood of PFAS exposure. USGS scientists estimate that the probability of PFAS not being observed in tap water is about 75% in rural areas and around 25% in urban areas.
Lakes worldwide are grappling with the effects of eutrophication, such as algal blooms, primarily due to excessive nitrogen and phosphorus. The detrimental environmental effects of anthropogenic activities and climate change further aggravate the situation, thereby necessitating improved and effective measures.
Inter-basin water diversion has emerged as a prominent solution, with projects like the South-North Water Diversion Project and the Niulan River–Dianchi Water Diversion Project in China. These projects aim to enhance the lake water quality by augmenting available water resources and accelerating water circulation. However, traditional water diversion measures have struggled with the conundrum of enhancing water quality while minimizing the volume of diverted water.
In a new study published in the journal Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, researchers from Peking University developed an innovative strategy, called Dynamic Water Diversion Optimization (DWDO), to underscore the pressing need to address the persistent challenge of improving water quality in eutrophic lakes.
This innovative strategy, which couples deep reinforcement learning with a complex water quality model, was tested in Lake Dianchi, China’s largest eutrophic freshwater lake. The DWDO model significantly reduced total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations by 7% and 6%, respectively, while annual water diversion saw a staggering drop of 75%.
DWDO integrates deep reinforcement learning into a comprehensive water quality model. This ground-breaking method identifies the impacts of various factors, such as meteorological indicators and the water quality of both the source and the lake, on optimal water diversion. It demonstrates the adaptability of water diversion in response to a single input variable’s specific value and multiple factors influencing real-time adjustment of water diversion.
DWDO’s efficacy lies in its robustness under different uncertainties and shorter theoretical training time compared to traditional simulation-optimization algorithms. This robustness allows it to support effective decision-making in water quality management, thereby expanding its potential for broader application. The researchers were also able to extract key insights from DWDO through interpretable machine learning. They uncovered the significant drivers behind the optimal diversion decisions and their contributions to water quality improvement.
DWDO was also rigorously tested under diverse sets of hyperparameters, confirming its robustness and flexibility.
Overall, the DWDO strategy provides a promising tool for eutrophication control. By ensuring a dynamic balance between water quality improvement and operational costs, DWDO could become an essential part of future water quality management and restoration strategies.
This innovative approach marks a significant advance in tackling the global challenge of improving water quality in eutrophic lakes. As we continue to face the twin threats of increasing anthropogenic activities and climate change, the demand for such adaptive and robust solutions will only intensify.
Today is a good day to be Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek. UNESCO, the United Nations body expected to vote on whether to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger,” instead deferred the decision for another year. This, an insider told French newspaper Le Monde, was largely due to the change in approach between the former Coalition government and Labor.
“It’s a bit like night and day,” the insider said—which was promptly included in Plibersek’s media release.
So, it’s a good day for the government. But is it a good day for the reef? No. The longstanding threats to the world’s largest coral ecosystem are still there, from agricultural runoff, to shipping pollution, to fisheries, although we have seen improvement in areas such as water quality.
But any incremental improvement will be for naught if we don’t respond to the big one—climate change—with the necessary urgency. This year has seen record-breaking heat and extreme weather, with intense heating of the oceans during the northern summer. These intense marine heatwaves have devastated efforts to regrow or protect coral in places like Florida. And our own summer is just around the corner.
It is not hyperbole to say the next two years are likely to be very bad for the Great Barrier Reef. It’s already enduring a winter marine heat wave. Background warming primes the reef for mass coral bleaching and death. We’ve already experienced this in 2016–17, which brought back-to-back global mass coral bleaching and mortality events including on the Great Barrier Reef. We can expect more as global temperatures continue to soar.
While the government may congratulate itself on not being the previous one, it’s nowhere near enough. We’re facing D-Day for the reef, as for many other ecosystems. Incrementalism and politics as usual are simply not going to be enough.
What has the government done for the reef to date?
To its credit, Labor has made some marginal improvements to the Great Barrier Reef’s prospects. The list includes: legislating net zero greenhouse emissions, with a 43% cut within seven years; improving water quality with revegetation projects and work to reduce soil erosion; and ending gillnet use in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by 2027.
For at least a century, cattle, sugarcane and other farmers have relied on rivers to take animal waste and fertilizer runoff away from their properties. In much of Queensland, that means the runoff heads for the Great Barrier Reef instead. We did see some improvement under the Coalition government, which put A$443 million into trying to solve the issue. Labor has put in a further $150 million. But the water quality problem is still not solved.
Ending gillnet use in the marine park is also welcome, given these nets can and do catch and kill sharks, dugongs and turtles. But challenging though these issues are, they pale in comparison to climate change.
Tinkering while the reef burns
When coral is exposed to warmer water than it has evolved to tolerate, it turns white (bleaches)—expelling its symbiotic algae. If the water stays too hot for too long, the corals simply die en masse.
You might have seen the positive reports on coral regrowth during the three recent cooler La Niña years and wonder what the issue is. Isn’t the reef resilient?
Yes—to a point. But after that point, the coral communities collapse. The world is having its hottest days on record. Coupled with a likely El Niño, the reef will likely face the hottest waters yet.
That’s because we still haven’t tackled the root cause. Greenhouse gas emissions are still going up. Year on year, we’re trapping more heat, of which 90% goes into the oceans. Antarctic sea ice is not reforming as it should after last summer. Coral restoration efforts in the United States had to literally pull their baby corals out of the sea to try to keep them alive, as the water was too hot to live in.
The North Atlantic Ocean is far warmer than it should be, amid a record-breaking northern summer. After the equinox next month, it will be our turn to face the summer sun once more.
Is the Great Barrier Reef in danger? Of course it is. We should not pretend things are normal and can be handled routinely. This year, we’re beginning to see the full force of what the climate crisis will bring. We have clearly underestimated the climate’s sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide levels, and the gloomy predictions I made more than 20 years ago are looking positively optimistic.
And still we fail to face up to the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. We thought we might have had decades but it may be just years. Before 1980, no mass bleaching had ever been recorded. Since then it has only become more common.
Incremental efforts to save the reef, such as looking for heat-tolerant “supercorals”, or replanting baby coral, now look unlikely to work. We don’t have decades or the capacity to find and cultivate resilient corals at scale. And we certainly do not have the massive funding required to replant even a small coral reef.
For people like us who work in the field, it is a devastating time. I now know the feeling of having a broken heart. The pace and intensity of climate change risks rendering all our efforts over the years null and void. It’s almost impossible to look directly at what this will mean for this immense living assemblage, which first began growing more than 600,000 years ago along the Australian east coast.
Giving the government more time to show the reef is improving seems like a fool’s errand. Time is precisely what we don’t have.
