Wastewater treatment plants are still not effectively removing dangerous microplastics
Source:University of Texas at Arlington
Summary:Despite advances in wastewater treatment, tiny plastic particles called microplastics are still slipping through, posing potential health and environmental hazards, according to new research.Share:
FULL STORY
Despite advances in wastewater treatment, tiny plastic particles called microplastics are still slipping through, posing potential health and environmental hazards, according to new research from The University of Texas at Arlington.
Because plastic is inexpensive to produce yet lightweight and sturdy, manufacturers have found it ideal for use in nearly every consumer good, from food and beverage packaging to clothing and beauty products. The downside is that when a plastic item reaches the end of its useful life, it never truly disappears. Instead, it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics — particles five millimeters or less, about the width of a pencil eraser — that end up in our soil and water.
“What our systematic literature review found is that while most wastewater treatment facilities significantly reduce microplastics loads, complete removal remains unattainable with current technologies,” said Un-Jung Kim, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at UT Arlington and senior author of the study published in Science of the Total Environment.
“As a result, many microplastics are being reintroduced into the environment, likely transporting other residual harmful pollutants in wastewater, such the chemicals Bisphenols, PFAS and antibiotics,” Dr. Kim added. “These microplastics and organic pollutants would exist in trace level, but we can get exposure through simple actions like drinking water, doing laundry or watering plants, leading to potential long-term serious human health impacts such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.”
According to the study, one of the main challenges in detecting and mitigating microplastics is the lack of standardized testing methods. The researchers also call for a unified approach to define what size particle qualifies as a microplastic.
“We found that the effectiveness of treatments varies depending on the technology communities use and how microplastics are measured to calculate the removal rates,” said the study’s lead author, Jenny Kim Nguyen. “One way to better address the growing microplastics issue is to develop standardized testing methods that provide a clearer understanding of the issue.”
Nguyen began this research as an undergraduate student in Kim’s Environmental Chemistry Lab. She is now pursuing a master’s degree in earth and environmental sciences at UTA, where she is working to develop standardized experimental protocols for studying microplastics in air and water.
“This work helps us understand the current microplastics problem, so we can address its long-term health impacts and establish better mitigation efforts,” said Karthikraj Rajendiran, a co-author of the study and assistant professor of research from UTA’s Bone Muscle Research Center within the College of Nursing and Health Innovations.
The team also emphasizes the need for greater public awareness of microplastics to help consumers make more eco-friendly choices.
“While communities must take steps to improve microplastic detection and screening at the wastewater and water quality monitoring, consumers can already make a difference by choosing to buy clothing and textiles with less plastics whenever feasible, knowing that microfibers are the most common microplastic continually released through wastewater,” Kim added.
Funding for the project was provided by UTA’s Research Enhancement Program, which supports multidisciplinary researchers in launching new projects.
Using CRISPR to dial down enzyme helps to understand the isotope signatures of methane from different environments
Source:University of California – Berkeley
Summary:Roughly two-thirds of all atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas, comes from methanogens. Tracking down which methanogens in which environment produce methane with a specific isotope signature is difficult, however. UC Berkeley researchers have for the first time CRISPRed the key enzyme involved in microbial methane production to understand the unique isotopic fingerprints of different environments to better understand Earth’s methane budget.Share:
FULL STORY
An electron microscope image of single-celled methanogens, members of the archaea domain. They are ubiquitous in oxygen-free environments, turning simple foods into methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Credit: Alienor Baskevitch/UC Berkeley
Roughly two-thirds of all emissions of atmospheric methane — a highly potent greenhouse gas that is warming planet Earth — come from microbes that live in oxygen-free environments like wetlands, rice fields, landfills and the guts of cows.
Tracking atmospheric methane to its specific sources and quantifying their importance remains a challenge, however. Scientists are pretty good at tracing the sources of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, to focus on mitigating these emissions. But to trace methane’s origins, scientists often have to measure the isotopic composition of methane’s component atoms, carbon and hydrogen, to use as a fingerprint of various environmental sources.
A new paper by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, reveals how the activity of one of the main microbial enzymes involved in producing methane affects this isotope composition. The finding could change how scientists calculate the contributions of different environmental sources to Earth’s total methane budget.
“When we integrate all the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we kind of get the number that we’re expecting from direct measurement in the atmosphere. But for methane, large uncertainties in fluxes exist — within tens of percents for some of the fluxes — that challenge our ability to precisely quantify the relative importance and changes in time of the sources,” said UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow Jonathan Gropp, who is first author of the paper. “To quantify the actual sources of methane, you need to really understand the isotopic processes that are used to constrain these fluxes.”
Gropp teamed up with a molecular biologist and a geochemist at UC Berkeley to, for the first time, employ CRISPR to manipulate the activity of this key enzyme to reveal how these methanogens interact with their food supply to produce methane.
“It is well understood that methane levels are rising, but there is a lot of disagreement on the underlying cause,” said co-author Dipti Nayak, UC Berkeley assistant professor of molecular and cell biology. “This study is the first time the disciplines of molecular biology and isotope biogeochemistry have been fused to provide better constraints on how the biology of methanogens controls the isotopic composition of methane.”
Many elements have heavier or lighter versions, called isotopes, that are found in small proportions in nature. Humans are about 99% carbon-12 and 1% carbon-13, which is slightly heavier because it has an extra neutron in its nucleus. The hydrogen in water is 99.985% hydrogen-1 and 0.015% deuterium or hydrogen-2, which is twice as heavy because it has a neutron in its nucleus.
The natural abundances of isotopes are reflected in all biologically produced molecules and variations can be used to study and fingerprint various biological metabolisms.
“Over the last 70 years, people have shown that methane produced by different organisms and other processes can have distinctive isotopic fingerprints,” said geochemist and co-author Daniel Stolper, UC Berkeley associate professor of earth and planetary science. “Natural gas from oil deposits often looks one way. Methane made by the methanogens within cow guts looks another way. Methane made in deep sea sediments by microorganisms has a different fingerprint. Methanogens can consume or ‘eat’, if you will, a variety of compounds including methanol, acetate or hydrogen; make methane; and generate energy from the process. Scientists have commonly assumed that the isotopic fingerprint depends on what the organisms are eating, which often varies from environment to environment, creating our ability to link isotopes to methane origins.”
“I think what’s unique about the paper is, we learned that the isotopic composition of microbial methane isn’t just based on what methanogens eat,” Nayak said. “What you ‘eat’ matters, of course, but the amount of these substrates and the environmental conditions matter too, and perhaps more importantly, how microbes react to those changes.”
“Microbes respond to the environment by manipulating their gene expression, and then the isotopic compositions change as well,” Gropp said. “This should cause us to think more carefully when we analyze data from the environment.”
The paper will appear Aug. 14 in the journal Science.
Vinegar- and alcohol-eating microbes
Methanogens — microorganisms that are archaea, which are on an entirely separate branch of the tree of life from bacteria — are essential to ridding the world of dead and decaying matter. They ingest simple molecules — molecular hydrogen, acetate or methanol, for example — excreted by other organisms and produce methane gas as waste. This natural methane can be observed in the pale Will-o’-the-wisps seen around swamps and marshes at night, but it’s also released invisibly in cow burps, bubbles up from rice paddies and natural wetlands and leaks out of landfills. While most of the methane in the natural gas we burn formed in association with hydrocarbon generation, some deposits were originally produced by methanogens eating buried organic matter.
The isotopic fingerprint of methane produced by methanogens growing on different “food” sources has been well established in laboratory studies, but scientists have found that in the complexity of the real world, methanogens don’t always produce methane with the same isotopic fingerprint as seen in the lab. For example, when grown in the lab, species of methanogens that eat acetate (essentially vinegar), methanol (the simplest alcohol), or molecular hydrogen (H2) produce methane, CH4, with a ratio of hydrogen and carbon isotopes different from the ratios observed in the environment.
Gropp had earlier created a computer model of the metabolic network in methanogens to understand better how the isotope composition of methane is determined. When he got a fellowship to come to UC Berkeley, Stolper and Nayak proposed that he experimentally test his model. Stolper’s laboratory specializes in measuring isotope compositions to explore Earth’s history. Nayak studies methanogens and, as a postdoctoral fellow, found a way to use CRISPR gene editing in methanogens. Her group recently altered the expression of the key enzyme in methanogens that produces the methane — methyl-coenzyme M reductase (MCR) — so that its activity can be dialed down. Enzymes are proteins that catalyze chemical reactions.
Experimenting with these CRISPR-edited microbes — in a common methanogen called Methanosarcina acetivorans growing on acetate and methanol — the researchers looked at how the isotopic composition of methane changed when the enzyme activity was reduced, mimicking what is thought to happen when the microbes are starved for their preferred food.
They found that when MCR is at low concentrations, cells respond by altering the activity of many other enzymes in the cell, causing their inputs and outputs to accumulate and the rate of methane generation to slow so much that enzymes begin running both backwards and forwards. In reverse, these other enzymes remove a hydrogen from carbon atoms; running forward, they add a hydrogen. Together with MCR, they ultimately produce methane (CH4). Each forward and reverse cycle requires one of these enzymes to pull a hydrogen off of the carbon and add a new one ultimately sourced from water. As a result, the isotopic composition of methane’s four hydrogen molecules gradually comes to reflect that of the water, and not just their food source, which starts with three hydrogens.
This is different from typical assumptions for growth on acetate and methanol that assume no exchange between hydrogen derived from water and that from the food source.
“This isotope exchange we found changes the fingerprint of methane generated by acetate and methanol consuming methanogens vs. that typically assumed. Given this, it might be that we have underestimated the contribution of the acetate-consuming microbes, and they might be even more dominant than we have thought,” Gropp said. “We’re proposing that we at least should consider the cellular response of methanogens to their environment when studying isotopic composition of methane.”
Beyond this study, the CRISPR technique for tuning production of enzymes in methanogens could be used to manipulate and study isotope effects in other enzyme networks broadly, which could help researchers answer questions about geobiology and the Earth’s environment today and in the past.
“This opens up a pathway where modern molecular biology is married with isotope-geochemistry to answer environmental problems,” Stolper said. “There are an enormous number of isotopic systems associated with biology and biochemistry that are studied in the environment; I hope we can start looking at them in the way molecular biologists now are looking at these problems in people and other organisms — by controlling gene expression and looking at how the stable isotopes respond.”
For Nayak, the experiments are also a big step in discovering how to alter methanogens to derail production of methane and redirect their energy to producing useful products instead of an environmentally destructive gas.
“By reducing the amount of this enzyme that makes methane and by putting in alternate pathways that the cell can use, we can essentially give them another release valve, if you will, to put those electrons, which they were otherwise putting in carbon to make methane, into something else that would be more useful,” she said.
Other co-authors of the paper are Markus Bill of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and former UC Berkeley postdoc Rebekah Stein, and Max Lloyd, who is a professor at Penn State University. Gropp was supported by a fellowship from the European Molecular Biology Organization. Nayak and Stolper were funded, in part, by Alfred B. Sloan Research Fellowships. Nayak also is an investigator with the Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub.
Summary:Millions of tons of plastic in the ocean aren’t floating in plain sight—they’re invisible. Scientists have now confirmed that the most abundant form of plastic in the Atlantic is in the form of nanoplastics, smaller than a micrometer. These particles are everywhere: in rain, rivers, and even the air. They may already be infiltrating entire ecosystems, including the human brain, and researchers say prevention—not cleanup—is our only hope.
“This estimate shows that there is more plastic in the form of nanoparticles floating in the this part of the ocean, than there is in larger micro- or macroplastics floating in the Atlantic or even all the world’s oceans!,” said Helge Niemann, researcher at NIOZ and professor of geochemistry at Utrecht University. Mid-June, he received a grant of 3.5 million euros to conduct more research into nanoplastics in the sea and their fate.
Ocean expedition For this research, Utrecht master student Sophie ten Hietbrink worked for four weeks aboard the research vessel RV Pelagia. On a trip from the Azores to the continental shelf of Europe, she took water samples at 12 locations where she filtered out anything larger than one micrometer. “By drying and heating the remaining material, we were able to measure the characteristic molecules of different types of plastics in the Utrecht laboratory, using mass spectrometry,” Ten Hietbrink says.
First real estimate The research by NIOZ and Utrecht University provides the first estimate of the amount of nanoplastics in the oceans. Niemann: “There were a few publications that showed that there were nanoplastics in the ocean water, but until now no estimate of the amount could ever be made.” This first estimate was made possible, according to Niemann, by the joining of forces of ocean scientists and the knowledge of atmospheric scientist Dusân Materic of Utrecht University.
Shocking amount Extrapolating the results from different locations to the whole of the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers arrived at the immense amount of 27 million tons of nanoplastics. “A shocking amount,” Ten Hietbrink believes. “But with this we do have an important answer to the paradox of the missing plastic.” Until now, not all the plastic that was ever produced in the world could be recovered. So, it turns out that a large portion is now floating in the water as tiny particles.
Sun, rivers and rain The nanoplastics can reach water by various routes. In part, this happens because larger particles disintegrate under the influence of sunlight. Another part probably flows along with river water. It also appears that nanoplastics reach the oceans through the air, as suspended particles fall down with rainwater or fall from the air onto the water surface as ‘dry deposition’.
Consequences The consequences of all those nanoplastics in the water could be fundamental, Niemann emphasizes. “It is already known that nanoplastics can penetrate deep into our bodies. They are even found in brain tissue. Now that we know they are so ubiquitous in the oceans, it’s also obvious that they penetrate the entire ecosystem; from bacteria and other microorganisms to fish and top predators like humans. How that pollution affects the ecosystem needs further investigation.”
Other oceans In the future, Niemann and colleagues also want to do further research on, for example, the different types of plastics that have not yet been found in the fraction of 1 micrometer or smaller. “For example, we have not found polyethylene or polypropylene among the nanoplastics. It may well be that those were masked by other molecules in the study. We also want to know if nanoplastics are as abundant in the other oceans. It is to be feared that they do, but that remains to be proven.
Not cleaning up but preventing Niemann emphasizes that the amount of nanoplastics in ocean water was an important missing piece of the puzzle, but now there is nothing to do about it. “The nanoplastics that are there, can never be cleaned up. So an important message from this research is that we should at least prevent the further pollution of our environment with plastics.”
Optimal water intake is without a doubt one of the most vital factors in good health. In essence, we need the proper amount of water in our bodies for every cellular function. Even mild dehydration leads to fatigue, brain fog, headaches and dizziness. However, the subject of water and hydration also happens to be one of the most confusing topics – how much water we should drink? What’s the best type of water to drink; distilled, alkaline, spring, sparkling, still, or some other type? In this article, we will seek to answer these questions and then some. As we evolve this topic, there is something key to keep in mind; it’s not just about how much water you consume. More importantly in the world of hydration is that your cells actually utilize that water efficiently.
Cellular Hydration: Beyond Water Deficiency
While not drinking enough water is the easiest way to become dehydrated, it’s not the only way. The truth is, just like food, water needs to be metabolized. Many people eat enough, but still end up nutritionally deficient due to poor digestion and a sluggish metabolism. Similarly, many people drink more than enough water, yet their bodies are starved for water. How can this be? First, understand that the amount of water a person needs is extremely variable; it depends on various things such as metabolic rate, physical activity, and even the temperature and humidity of the air. For example, working out hard in hot, dry weather, it’s possible to drink more than two quarts and not produce any urine because that water is lost by evaporation or “burned up” by the increased metabolic rate of that active person. On the other hand, a person with a sluggish metabolism, even in hot, humid conditions can be endangered by too much water. These are only two examples, but in reality, anything that affects the physiology of a person can potentially create a stress and therefore affect cellular hydration and the way the body uses water.
Stress & Hydration
Any stress on the body, and stress being defined as anything that may interfere with energy production, can potentially disturb the interactions between water and the cell. Stress causes “excitation” and this causes a cell to take up extra water. In fact, it is well known that the tissues of people with hypothyroid (a stress condition) tend to hold more water; this is referred to as edema, a common symptom of hypothyroid. 1 There are other ways that stress can cause dehydration. Under a stress response, the body secretes an excess of the stress hormone cortisol. Cortisol has a feedback loop with estrogen, so as cortisol increases, estrogen also increases. It is well known that estrogen causes sodium loss, and has a high affinity to water. In other words, when the cell is stressed, under the influence of estrogen, it tends to uptake more water and swell (edema), causing both a loss of sodium and water. Additionally, stress causes the increase of hormones like aldosterone, which cause the kidneys to secrete excess sodium in the urine and sweat and the cells to hold water. This loss of sodium causes a vicious cycle to occur because when there isn’t enough sodium, more aldosterone is synthesized, which leads to the increased loss of electrolytes like potassium, magnesium, and calcium. The loss of potassium leads to something called vasoconstriction, which means vascular motility is decreased, contributing to heart and kidney failure and high blood pressure. In these ways, stress of any sort can cause the increase of stress hormones that alter the cells’ ability to interact with water. This can lead to the loss of sodium and the excess uptake of water into the cells causing not only dehydration but edema. To conclude, “stress” is the true cause of dehydration because it interferes with the proper cellular interaction with water. However, because stress can occur in endless ways, here are some other probable causes of dehydration to keep in mind:
A sodium-deficient diet: salt has been demonized in this society; however, it is necessary for proper kidney function, mineral/fluid balance and therefore the cellular regulation of water.
Drinking only still water: Most of our water today is either contaminated with fluoride, heavy metals and other toxins, or it is so filtered that it is lacking in necessary minerals like sodium, potassium, and magnesium. So if you suspect you suffer from dehydration yet drink enough water, it might not be enough to drink “filtered water”, you might need to enhance it with minerals, mineral-rich salt or purchase mineralized waters like Gerolsteiner.
Vigorous exercise: During times of increased physical activity or exercise, the body undergoes an acute stress response, resulting in the loss electrolytes. The best ways to offset this process is to avoid over-exercising, keep cool (avoid exercising in too intense of heat), increase your intake of sodium and consume more water than usual. Be sure to drink 16 ounces of mineralized (add TraceMinerals or Real Salt) to your water before a workout, one during and one immediately after.
Chronic Alcohol Consumption: Alcohol is a stress on the liver for a few reasons but most trace back to its estrogenic effects. Estrogen interferes with metabolic function (including water metabolism), and estrogen causes the loss of sodium in the cell. In one study, the ingestion of alcohol is known to negatively affect the hypothalamo-neurohypophysial system resulting in increased diuresis, dehydration and hyperosmolality. 2
Symptoms of Dehydration
Feeling incredibly thirsty is only one symptom of dehydration. As mentioned, water is essential for all physiological functions, therefore, the signs of dehydration can also include:
Considering the roles water plays in digestion, metabolism, immunity and detoxification, and the consequences of destination, it is vital to know how to stay hydrated properly.
Secrets to Healthy Hydration
By now, it is clear to see that hydration is not merely a game of “drinking enough” but also entails stress management (of all sorts), and keeping a proper balance of minerals and water in the body. If you’re wondering how to achieve these goals, here are some tips that you may not have considered before…
Lower Stress Hormones: As we learned, it is estrogen and aldosterone which ultimately lead to cellular dehydration. These hormones cause the loss of sodium, interfering with the proper interactions between our cells and water. Therefore, as strange as it seems, keeping stress to a minimum is an essential part in proper hydration. Here are some ways to lower these stress hormones;
Consume Healthy Salt: When it comes to proper hydration, one of the most important things to consider is the balance between minerals and water. Sodium, potassium and magnesium play an equally important role in hydration as water. However, in our culture, the extra water consumption, combined with a low salt diet is perhaps the worst hydration advice one could get – especially for an already stressed person, let’s say with hypothyroidism. The truth is, salt has an anti-stress effect, capable of mitigating the secretion of stress hormones like cortisol and aldosterone. Also, it’s well known that when the body is stressed, it loses sodium. With that being said, a smarter piece of advice would be to cautiously avoid the overconsumption of still (mineral-deficient) water and underconsumption of salt. Instead, consume healthy amounts of salt (we like Redmond’s Real Salt and Himalayan), and be sure to choose quality water.
Avoid Over Drinking Water: Despite what most of us have learned in America, when our bodies are healthy, we don’t need as much water as we are told. As we have discussed, too much water accompanied by the lack of sodium and stress can lead to edema, swelling and tension. So, if you are the type of person to “chug” copious amounts of water (especially still, plain water) you may want to make a few adjustments. In regards to water intake, this is a matter of quality over quantity. If you’re generally healthy, not overly stressed and you eat a whole-foods diet, it’s likely you do not need as much water as you think. Whole foods contain a generous supply of water, especially fruits, vegetables, broths, etc.
Tap Water Toxicity: For some, tap water toxicity seems like a conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is there is a known presence of toxins in our water supply. In fact, one study by the Environmental Working Group has discovered 316 chemicals in tap water throughout the country, including dangerous chemicals, compounds and metals. 4, 5
Choosing the Best Water
Not all water is created equally; some water contains harmful toxins, others simply lack the precious minerals or electrolytes needed for the proper cellular utilization of water. With this in mind, the water you choose to drink can play a large role in how well your body is hydrated. Here are some of our top picks for water:Sparkling Mineral Water: Sparkling water may be an acquired taste. However, if you have been dehydrated for some time and haven’t known it, once you start, it will be difficult to go back. Not only is sparkling mineral water rich in the exact minerals we need for the cellular utilization of water, but it also contains CO2(carbon dioxide), which has many helpful benefits. For thousands of years, the therapeutic value of carbonated mineral springs has been acknowledged. In fact, the theory that ‘living water’s’ gas content had therapeutic benefits led researcher Joseph Priestley to investigate ways to make carbonated water, and in the process he discovered oxygen. Carbonated water had its medical vogue in the 19th century, but the modern medical establishment has mostly chosen to ignore these effects. However, if we consider that CO2 is the basic metabolic byproduct of healthy cellular respiration, it would make sense that the ingestion of even small amounts of CO2 is beneficial on overall metabolism. Not to mention, sparkling water has a better mouth feel and is also typically rich in important minerals like sodium. Our favorite picks for sparkling are Pellegrino and Gerolsteiner. Both waters are premium, mineral-rich, carbonated waters. However, Pellegrino appears to be much richer in sulfates. Sulfates (sulfur) are a necessary part of a healthy diet. Sulfur is the 8th most common element in the human body and while it is not FDA recommended, the fact is, sulfur is necessary for many important physiological functions including collagen formation, detoxification (especially of cysteine and methionine, two harmful amino acids when in excess), the production of master antioxidant glutathione, and the regulation of inflammation prostaglandins, amongst others. So in our understanding and research, the consumption of these sparkling mineral waters is highly therapeutic! 6Distilled: Distillation is a simple water purification process where water is brought to a boil and converted to steam. The steam flows through cooling tubes and condenses back into water for drinking. The major benefit of this process is that it removes all potentially harmful contaminants, additives, organisms and other toxins. The downside to distilled water is that it lacks any beneficial minerals; however, these can be easily added with a mineral supplement or a pinch of high-mineral salt. One last thing to keep in mind with distilled water is the possibility of serious contamination. If the pre-distilled water contained any volatile organic compounds like chlorine, as the water is vaporized it can actually become concentrated in the finished distilled water. This would create a final product that contains even more dangerous contaminants than it was prior to distilling. Spring Water:True spring water might make for a good choice for water consumption. First, spring water usually contains an ideal pH. Where distilled water is likely too acidic and alkaline water is too alkaline for drinking, mountain spring water is usually in an ideal neutral range. Some also consider wild spring water to be the healthiest water simply because it is in its most natural state, the way nature intended. Like raw food, living spring water contains “biophotons”, small units of light stored which activate the mitochondria. Also, let’s not forget that spring water is free! There’s a very helpful website you can utilize called FindaSpring.com where you can find local, safe springs.
Conclusion
Staying properly hydrated is not just beneficial for plumper, moisturized skin, it goes way beyond that to affect every single cellular process in your body. So tell us… What are your secrets to staying hydrated? Have you experienced any benefits when addressing your water and electrolyte intake? Leave us a comment below!
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has issued a report that there are “significant deficiencies” in the management of Wyandotte’s water system.
But the city says the water is safe, adding “it consistently meets or exceeds all state and federal water quality standards.”
“There is no known current risk to public health from the City’s drinking water, and we are fully committed to maintaining that record,” the city said on its website.
The respective statements spin out of a notice that Michigan EGLE issued April 30, citing “significant deficiencies” in the areas of treatment, distribution system, finished water storage and management/operations. The letter was also sent to the Wayne County Health Department.
“The most significant observations during the Survey are the need for adequate investment in capital improvement projects, completion of maintenance activities, and adequate investment in staffing,” EGLE said in its letter. “There are several indications the City is not keeping up with capital investments, especially in the distribution system and future operational and maintenance needs may overwhelm the available budget and resources.”
The four matters listed as significant deficiencies were:
Failure to keep up with an inspection schedule for backflow prevention and cross-connections.
Damage to the vents at one reservoir.
Assorted debris, such as tennis balls and beverage containers, was found at another reservoir.
A water treatment process that didn’t include a specified method of mixing the treatment chemical into the raw water.
The city was given 120 days to either correct the significant deficiencies noted or submit a “corrective action plan” that EGLE will review.
There were also other matters noted as deficiencies, such as an inspection report that showed zebra mussels found near an entrance to a water intake pipe, and routine maintenance schedules, such as hydrant flushing that was not implemented “due to inadequate staffing.”
In addition, the city of Wyandotte has not included fluoride treatment for several years. “If fluoride treatment is not continued, the appropriate local procedures need to be followed,” the letter says. “It is imperative for the water supply to notify the public so residents can make informed decisions about their oral health.”
On that detail, the city has replied, “Fluoridation of drinking water is not required by law. The City discontinued fluoride treatment in 2015 during a treatment plant rehabilitation project. Fluoride levels are monitored and disclosed in the City’s annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and residents are encouraged to consult with their dental professionals about supplemental fluoride needs.”
Wyandotte officials say after the April report was issued, the city’s Municipal Services took steps toward “actively addressing all recommendations.” This includes a series of repairs at the reservoirs and evaluation of its filtration method.
In the meantime, the EGLE staff noted that during the three years before its report was issued, the city had taken a number of steps to address water facility operations and improvements.
Water makes up about 60-percent of your body, so why is it when we need to fix an ailment we automatically reach for an artificial cream or some other commercial remedy?
Water is essential to life, as it is to maintain life and help us repair ourselves. It doesn’t have to be consumed to reap the benefits, either. Here are six ways water can encourage natural healing…
Soothing Pain from Arthritis
If you have a backyard pool or are close to a recreational facility that allows public swimming, then you have a great tool in warding off pain from arthritis and even soreness from exercising.
The Arthritis Foundation notes that gentle movement in water is easy on the joints, even though it provides 12-times the resistance of air. For the latter reason, you can still build muscle in the process. Heated pools (82-Fahrenheit to 88-Fahrenheit) can take healing to the next level, helping to soothe pain, adds the source.
Faster Wound Healing
AdvancedTissue.com says staying properly hydrated can step up the pace of the wound healing stages. It adds that a lack of moisture reaching the surface of the wound “will halt cellular migration, decrease oxygenation of the blood and vastly delay the wound treatment process.”
Because of the high content of water in your body, maintaining a “positive level of hydration” that can add in repairing wounds requires 64-ounces or more of water per day (around 8-glasses). Drinking more than this can further help cells to travel to the wound site to supply more oxygen and nutrients, adds the source.
Promoting Mental Health
While we often only think of the physical benefits of drinking water, Healthy Holistic Living says on its website that water is important in improving mental health. “Water also works to improve your mental health, making it easier to keep you going throughout the day,” notes the source.
It explains that water has an “interesting effect” on mood levels, and claims you can actually get “high” just by consuming water (not recommended to try, says the site). However, water helps keep you energized, which helps you generate more “feel good” hormones that impact mood, it adds.
Healing Debilitating Conditions?
Perhaps take this one with a grain of salt; but a website called Watercure.com explains how a man that had crippling spinal arthritis (ankylosing spondylitis) was reportedly cured with a water/salt treatment, after other treatments failed for three decades.
However, the site explains its about “more to it than simply drinking water.” Rehydration must be done gradually when it’s severe, it adds. “You must learn what can happen to your own body when it becomes dehydrated. Not everybody registers drought in the same way,” explains the source.
Enhancing Weakening Eyesight
At some point, everyone will experience some loss of their young hawk-eye vision—whether it’s due to near-sightedness or far-sightedness or both—but there are natural ways to help reverse this process, according to NaturalSociety.com.
“Pure water” is one of 4-steps to sharper sight, explains the source. “Drinking an adequate amount of pure filtered water will prevent total-body dehydration, and subsequently dry eyes,” it offers. Water intake should be complemented with antioxidants (beta-carotene), as well as fatty acids like fish oil.
Reducing Skin Blemishes
The jury is still out on whether drinking more water can make your skin look more youthful, as your body only uses so much of it before eliminating the excess (use a good moisturizer if you want anti-aging properties, suggest experts).
However, Greatist.com notes that inflammation in the skin that causes acne can be treated to some degree with some quality H2O. Water can help flush out the toxins that lead to the inflammation to begin with, adds the source. If water doesn’t work, see your doctor for any possible allergies causing skin blemishes.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill banning fluoride, saying at a signing event that “forcing it into the water supply is basically forced medication on people.”
The ban takes effect on July 1.
Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in water, soil and air that has been demonstrated to prevent dental cavities and tooth decay. For decades, it has been added to community water supplies and dental products such as toothpaste.
DeSantis, a Republican, was one of the most outspoken political leaders who pushed back against public health mandates during the pandemic, when he opposed forced masking, school closures and pressuring people to get the COVID vaccine.
“Some of these people, they think that they know better for you than you do for yourself,” DeSantis said just before signing the bill. “They think because they have medical training … that they should just be able to decree how we live our lives. That proved disastrous during COVID.”
Utah, also led by a Republican governor, became in March the first U.S. state to ban fluoride in public water systems, a law that took effect this month. At the federal level, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said this week it was starting a process to remove fluoride supplements for children from the market.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has opposed adding the mineral to tap water.
Kennedy and others opposed to the use of fluoride in water say it is associated with numerous health issues, including certain cancers and lower cognitive ability among children.
The American Cancer Society on its website says the general consensus among scientific reviews examining possible links between fluoride and cancer shows no strong evidence connecting the two. However, the society says more studies are needed.
About 63% of all Americans have fluoride in their community water systems, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics as of 2022, the most recent data available.
The American Dental Association strongly opposes the push to ban fluoride from water and in supplements, saying it greatly benefits dental health and has not conclusively been shown to have harmful effects.
“More than ever, at this critical time in American health care policy, it is vital that we slow down to properly study the full implications of actions like this on the health of the nation,” Brett Kessler, president of the association, wrote earlier this week in response to the FDA targeting ingestible fluoride supplements.
(Reporting by Brad Brooks in ColoradoEditing by Rod Nickel)
As an industry largely based on paper, the industry produces around 400 million tons of paper per year (Environmental Paper Network, 2018). Additionally, take into account the ink and water that goes along with the processing of said paper in factories, offices, and even our own homes. The use of such a volume of natural resources, combined with the energy needed to process it makes the printing industry “the fourth largest user of industrial energy worldwide” (Laurijssen, 2013). Naturally, these processes are bound to affect the environment.
One result of this energy usage from printing plants and paper mills are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are chemicals that evaporate at room temperature. VOCs in small amounts may be found in our homes, which can “irritate the eyes, throat, and nose, as well as cause headaches, dizziness, and potentially lead to memory loss or visual impairment” (Lafond, n.d). However, VOCs emitted at larger amounts have an effect not just us, but our environment as well. According to the Government of Canada, VOCs from the printing industry are “one of the principal stationary sources of volatile organic compound”, which stems from the use of solvents in ink and cleaning (Environment Canada, 2016). VOCs on this scale are detrimental to our environment, contributing to acid rain and the formation of ozone. Acid rain can cause damage to ecosystems, seeping into the ground destroying nutrients, and releasing aluminum into water streams, making them toxic. Ozone is a pollutant that when at ground level, is hazardous to our health and can cause smog.
Another byproduct of the printing industry is effluent, also known as wastewater. Water is essential to printing, as ink is oil-based and water repels ink, which is how offset lithographic printing, the most common form of large scale printing today works. This water comes in contact with the ink, contaminating it. Water is also required to clean printing presses. Disposal of the wastewater and various solvents and cleansers is a procedure where the utmost care must be taken, as the pollutants from the effluent can quickly seep in and harm the surrounding environment. Waste management is necessary to safely dispose of the various chemicals used in printing processes. Recycling these chemicals instead of disposing of it saves the environmental and financial costs of producing these chemicals.
Having up to date technology is a crucial aspect of being sustainable in the print industry. For example, a printer that still uses traditional inks when vegetable-based inks are available, or printers that dispose of their solvents instead of recovering and recycling it are leaving behind a larger carbon footprint. Understanding and applying the latest tactics are key when it comes to reducing pollution and being sustainable in the printing industry.
We have used scents from nature to mask their body odour throughout the entirety of human history.
Perfume comes from the Latin “per” meaning “through” and “fumum,” or “smoke.” Many ancient perfumes were made by extracting natural oils from plants through pressing and steaming. The oil was then burned to scent the air.
The early Egyptians also perfumed their dead and often assigned specific fragrances to deities. Their word for perfume has been translated as “fragrance of the gods.”
It is said that the prophet Mohammed wrote, “Perfumes are foods that reawaken the spirit.”
The art of perfumery spread to Europe when 13th-century Crusaders brought back samples from Palestine to England, France, and Italy.
France’s King Louis the 14th used it so much that he was called the “perfume king.” His court contained a floral pavilion filled with fragrances, and dried flowers were placed in bowls throughout the palace to freshen the air.
It was at this time that Grasse, a region of southern France where many flowering plant varieties grow, became a leading producer of perfumes.
It was not until the late 1800s, when synthetic chemicals were used, that perfumes could be mass-marketed. The first synthetic perfume was nitrobenzene, made from nitric acid and benzene. This synthetic mixture gave off an almond smell and was often used to scent soaps.
Today, The United States is the world’s largest perfume market with annual sales totalling several billions of dollars.
Perfume contains natural ingredients like flowers, grasses, spices, fruit, wood, roots, resins, balsams, leaves, gums, and animal secretions. The oils from these ingredients are extracted and that’s where the scents are. These natural compounds are mixed with alcohol, petrochemicals, coal and coal tars. Some plants used in many perfumes, like Lily of the Valley, do not produce any oils naturally. It’s only about 2000 of the 250.000 flowering plants on earth that contain oil naturally. As such, those scents are not obtained through harvesting the flowers, those scents are created synthetically.
Synthetic ingredients are used more widely today because it makes the perfumers less dependent on harvest quality, weather and crop yield. Previously, perfumery was a very unstable craft because it was very hard to make several identical batches of essential oil. With synthetic ingredients made in a lab, perfumers can control the quality, thus wasting less product and using less natural materials. Today even scents that could be extracted from natural resources are recreated synthetically, to standardize the products.
Many perfumes also contain a fair amount of animal-derived products, some of which are pretty grim. Castor and vanillin are derived from beavers. Musk from male deer. Ambergris from the sperm whale. They enable the perfume to evaporate more slowly and emit the odour for longer. This can also be done using fossil fuel-derived compounds like tar, coal, resin and petrochemicals. But yeah, just know that if you’re smelling “natural vanilla aroma” it is probably extracted from the anal glands of a beaver.
Alcohol and water are used to dilute ingredients in perfumes, and it is the ratio of alcohol to scent that determines whether the perfume is “eau de toilette” (toilet water) or cologne.
Most full perfumes are made of about 10-20% perfume oils dissolved in alcohol and a trace of water. Colognes contain approximately 3-5% oil diluted in 80-90% alcohol, with water making up about 10%. Toilet water has the least amount—2% oil in 60-80% alcohol and 20% water.
To make a perfume, you must first extract the ingredients, several methods are depending on what subject the scent is extracted from.
A “nose”, which is a master perfumer blends the scents and develops the formula. It can take more than 800 different ingredients to make a perfume.
A perfume consists of three notes, “notes de tete”, “notes de Coeur” and notes de fond”. The top notes are typically tangy or citrus-like, the central tones provide body to the scent and tend to be based on aromatic flowers, and the base tones create woody fragrances. But more notes and tones are used to create a unique formula, but that’s the gist of it
When the perfume is blended it has to age, which can take months or years. [1]
So there are two aspects of perfume we need to look at, first the natural ingredients, and then the synthetic ingredients. Now first of all, I am always sceptical if a product is heavily advertised as “natural”, because “natural” is not synonymous with “sustainable”, not at all actually. It is easy to fall into the trap of demonising everything synthetic while believing that everything natural is perfectly healthy. We need a little bit more nuanced than that.
The natural ingredients in perfumes are essential oils, extracted from flowers, herbs, grass, wood and yeah, animals. But let’s zoom in on essential oils, the crack of 2016 zero waste households and almonds moms.
The amount of plant material required to produce a single bottle of essential oil can vary greatly depending on the plant type and the specific oil being produced as well as the method of extraction.
Essential oil production comes with various impact factors. Firstly, some oil is difficult to extract from the plant if the plant only provides small yields. Constantly planting vast amounts of the same plant, which is just a good-smelling mono-crop at this point, deprives the soil of nutrients, some farmers also use pesticides and insecticides, and essential oils derived from sap often means that the trees have to be cut down to extract enough, so we also have deforestation as a factor. This is not always the case, but when we’re looking at the industrial production.
Another issue is that many essential oils come from plants that are listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. For instance, rosewood and atlas cedarwood, two popular essential oils, are listed as endangered species. Listed as vulnerable, sandalwood’s population is also decreasing mainly because of illegal harvesting and overexploitation. In India and Indonesia, sandalwood has been so overharvested that it nearly went extinct.[7] While it remains a heavily used ingredient in many perfumes and fragrances.
Deforestation and mono-cultures make the environment and local ecosystems vulnerable and decrease biodiversity. I don’t think I have made one impact video where mono-crops have not been mentioned tbh. But that’s what happens when we mass produce anything. Even products marketed as natural and eco-friendly.
Using synthetic ingredients means that we won’t need millions and millions of flowers and herbs to produce a few drops of oil, so this much be better for the planet on all parameters, right? Right??.
Perfumes, colognes, deodorants, candles, air fresheners, cleaning products, soaps, shampoo, paints and detergents are the most frequently used scented products. And while I’ll try to close in on perfumes as much as possible, most of the studies about fragrances include the impact of all these scented products, so we’ll keep that in mind.
Perfumes and these products contain thousands of chemical compounds and the thing is, it is impossible to know which and how many. That’s because the composition of fragrances is usually kept secret to avoid other brands using the same formula, but it also means that consumers have virtually no idea what they are putting on their bodies. A fragrance or scented product contains thousands of different synthetic fragrance compounds of unknown origins, completely protected by intellectual property law.
The majority of fragrances today are made with synthetic chemicals with 4000 to 7000 compounds. On average, perfumed soaps contain between 30 and 150 fragrance ingredients, whereas scented cosmetics can contain between 200 and 500 fragrance ingredients, making it impossible to determine individual product impact.[8]
Water pollution
The synthetic compounds from fragrances and scented products are washed into our water systems every single day, and wastewater treatment plants cannot effectively remove those substances from our water. So it is inevitable that those compounds end up in aquatic ecosystems, and in our bodies as well.
And the thing is when we release, even somewhat harmless synthetic ingredients into the environment they don’t go away – they bioaccumulate. This means that they build up in the environments, and react with other synthetic compounds causing unpredictable reactions.
Musks, which is a family of ingredients often used in perfumes have been especially bad because they do not degrade when they are released into the environment but instead, they attach themselves to the fatty tissue of aquatic organisms.
The unknown composition of harmful chemical scents is just the beginning of the problem. According to Lenntech, phosphates in some of these chemical mixes can cause algae to bloom uncontrollably in waterways, thereby depleting oxygen levels. Other chemicals can even reduce the surface tension of water, making it easier for pesticides and other toxins to enter the water and be absorbed by the plants and animals that live there. [9]
Of course, not only synthetic compounds can pose a threat to water systems. In this study from 2021 essential oils and extract toxicity levels are observed: “While some essential oils and extracts have been described to have no toxic effects to the selected organisms or the toxic effects were only observable at high concentrations, others were reported to be toxic at concentrations below the limit set by international regulations, some of them at very low concentrations. Generally, essential oils exhibit higher toxicity than extracts. However, when the extracts are obtained from plants that are known to produce toxic metabolites, the extracts can be more toxic than essential oils. Overall, and despite being generally considered “eco-friendly” products and safer than their synthetic counterparts, some essential oils and plant extracts are toxic towards non-target organisms. Given the increasing interest from the industry on these plant-based products further research using international standardized protocols is mandatory.” [10]
Air pollution and emissions
Our air is also impacted – both indoors and outdoors. Most fragrances are classified as volatile compounds, which means they break down into other compounds when released into the air; very often these compounds can have more serious environmental and health implications compared to the actual fragrance compound. But that’s not the worst part.
About 5% of raw oil is processed into ingredients for household products whereas 95% is processed into fuel, but these 5 % are doing some serious damage.
According to a 2018 study from NOAA, the greenhouse gas emissions released from scented consumer products and the chemical vapours they emit are roughly the same as the greenhouse gasses emitted from burning fuel for transportation. Even though there are 15 times more petroleum used for fuel than as ingredients in industrial and consumer products.
These chemical vapours as known as VOCs (volatile chemical vapours), and when they react with sunlight they form ozone pollution and react with other particles in the air. The head of the study explains that: “as the transportation sector gets cleaner, these other sources of VOCs become more and more important”. Furthermore, fuel systems minimize the loss of gasoline to evaporation to maximize energy generated by combustion, but common products like paints and perfumes are engineered to evaporate. Again this doesn’t mean that perfumes alone emit as many greenhouse gasses as fuel, but perfume belongs to a larger category of consumer products where that is the case. [11]
Reducing environmental damage
The biggest game changer here would be legislation that demands greater transparency from corporations and manufacturers. Demanding greater transparency would mean that consumers and distributors would know which chemical compounds are used. Moreover, we could also demand stricter requirements and bans on certain ingredients that are most likely to bioaccumulate etc. Politically, there are several measures we can take, and demand to reduce the impact of these products.
But of course, there are also tons of ways consumers can minimize the impact of these compounds. For instance, avoid scented products and fragrances whenever possible, or at the very least in products that do not need them.
Instead of air fresheners, ventilate your home, and remove smells with vinegar
Avoid scented candles and soaps and go for more neutral alternatives
Avoid scented cleaning products and detergents, fabric softeners are simply unnecessary and “clean” is the absence of scents and smells, so cleaning products without scents are better. [12]
Replacing all synthetic fragrances with essential oil is not the solution, but reducing consumption and being mindful of how much we use is the way to go.
Before you buy new essential oils, research whether the plant species are on the Red List of Threatened Species (you can do a quick search on the website). If they are endangered or even vulnerable, refrain from purchasing them. This includes ingredients like sandalwood, rosewood, and cedarwood.
Store your perfumes in a dark place, away from the sunlight to extend the shelf-life and keep the bottle closed.
Do not store perfumes in the bathroom, the humidity can alter both the colour and the scent of the perfume
Look for organic, or wild-harvested essential oils from plants native to the environment they are grown in.
To make your essential oils last longer, dilute them in carrier oils, like coconut or jojoba oil. It is always recommended to do so!
Many “sustainable” perfume brands only focus on recycled/refillable packaging, and while that’s nice we should be looking for brands that reduce the impact of their ingredients, and are cruelty-free of course.
If you want to know more about the ingredients in your products, look them up at the EWG Skin Deep Index: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/
So are there even sustainable perfumes? Well, there are more or less sustainable options and more or less sustainable ways of using perfume. While the impacts of synthetic and natural ingredients are often different, and thus somewhat difficult to compare 1/1; the most important thing consumers can do is not overconsume perfumes and essential oils, and store them correctly to extend shelf life. Avoiding certain polluting or extinction-threatened ingredients is also a good idea. But, I did a little digging to come up with some recommendations for more sustainable brands or options, I have left that list down below.
These brands both improve their supply chains, as well as ingredients (and packaging, but we’re not spending too much time on that, or I guess we are spending the amount of time on packaging that is equivalent to how much of the product impact packaging accounts for).
Plastics are a part of our everyday lives, and plastic pollution is a growing concern. When plastics break down over time, they can form smaller particles called microplastics, which are 5 mm or less in length—smaller than a sesame seed. Microplastics, in turn, can break down into even smaller pieces called nanoplastics, which are less than 1 μm in size. Unable to be seen with the naked eye, these are small enough to enter the body’s cells and tissues.
Previous research has found evidence of plastic particles in human blood, lungs, gut, feces, and reproductive tissues like the placenta and testes. But the potential health effects of these tiny plastic bits are still unproven and unknown. The small size of nanoparticles has made them especially difficult to detect and study.
To gain more insight into nanoplastics, a research team led by Drs. Wei Min and Beizhan Yan of Columbia University modified a powerful imaging technique that Min co-invented 15 years ago with NIH support. The technique, called stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) microscopy, is now widely used to visualize small molecules in living cells. The method works by focusing two laser beams on samples to stimulate certain molecules to emit unique detectable light signals. Unlike many other methods, SRS microscopy does not depend on labeling specific molecules to find them.
For the new study, which was supported by NIH, the researchers developed a new SRS approach to detect micro- and nanoplastics at the single-particle level. After confirming that the technique could rapidly spot plastic particles smaller than 1 μm, they developed an algorithm based on machine learning to detect seven common types of plastic.
To test their new high-throughput imaging platform, the team analyzed the micro- and nanoplastics in three popular brands of bottled water. Results were reported on January 8, 2024, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers found that, on average, a liter of bottled water included about 240,000 tiny pieces of plastic. About 90% of these plastic fragments were nanoplastics. This total was 10 to 100 times more plastic particles than seen in earlier studies, which mostly focused on larger microplastics.
The water contained particles of all seven types of plastic. The most common was polyamide, a type of nylon that’s often used to help filter and purify water. An abundance of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was also detected. This might be expected, since PET is used to make bottles for water, soda, and many other drinks and foods. Other identified plastics included polyvinyl chloride, polymethyl methacrylate, and polystyrene, which is also used in water purification. The method identified millions of additional particles that did not match the seven categories of plastic. It’s not yet clear if these tiny particles are nanoplastics or other substances.
The researchers say that this new technique will help to advance our understanding of human exposure to nanoplastics. “This opens a window where we can look into a plastic world that was not exposed to us before,” Yan says.
In the future, the researchers will apply this approach to analyze more environmental samples, such as tap water, indoor and outdoor air samples, and biological tissues. They are also developing filters that can reduce plastic pollution from laundry wastewater, since many fabrics include nylon, PET, and other plastics.
Funding: NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); Research Initiatives in Science and Engineering of Columbia University; Hudson River Foundation.
GET WET! 