Emerging Contaminants in the

Great LakesChristina Pfouts

Objective: To discuss emerging contaminants in the Great Lakes and possible solutions

How to identify emerging contaminants

Current emerging contaminants

Sources

Problems

Research

Solutions

Conclusion

Identifying Emerging Contaminants

"a chemical or material that is characterized by a perceived, potential or real threat to human health or the environment " (EPA)

"any synthetic or naturally occurring chemical or any microorganism that is not commonly monitored in the environment but has the potential to enter the environment and cause known or suspected adverse ecological and (or) human health effects”(U.S. Geological Survey)

Current Emerging Contaminants

Flame retardants (PBDEs) Fabrics, electronics, foams and fills that slow the progression of a

fire Toxic to crustaceans at concentrations available in the

environment (Wollenberger et al. 2000 ) Endocrine disruptor, effect metabolism in the liver, and increase

liver weight (McDonald 2002)

Endocrine disruptor: a synthetic chemical that when absorbed into the body can either mimic or block hormones and disrupts the body’s normal functions

+ Pharmaceuticals Including hormones, pain relievers, antibiotics,

psychopharmaceuticals Effects have a wide range

Triclosan and triclocarban Antibacterial used in numerous personal care products Endocrine disruptor (Witorsch and Thomas 2010)

Current Emerging Contaminants cont.

Synthetic musks Found in fragrances such as shampoos, soaps,

candles and other personal care products Not acutely toxic since concentration in the

environment are a low levels, still have possible effects

Bisphenol A (BPA) Additive to plastics, used in plastic bottles and

metal cans to prevent corrosion Endocrine disruptor

Sources

Non-point and point sources From industries and storm water

Wastewater from households Many emerging contaminants are

found in personal care products

Water treatment facilities When overflowing occurs

Problems

Commonly found in low levels, multiple sources and can cause long-term effects which may require long-term solutions

Concern for human and wildlife health effects

EPA does not have approved chemical methods to detect chemicals

Long-term effects are not known

Research

The EPA conducted a pilot study for pharmaceuticals and personal care products in fish tissue in 2006

Sampled from five streams near wastewater treatment plants in Chicago, Dallas, Orlando, Phoenix, and suburban Philadelphia for 24 commonly-used pharmaceuticals and 12 personal care products

These areas were suspected of heavy use of pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Results

7 of the 24 pharmaceuticals tested were found positive in the fillet and liver samples

In positive samples, all tested positive for the liver samples while 5 were positive in the fillet

Only 2 out of the 12 chemicals for personal care product tested were found, both fragrances

A more extensive study will be conducted of 150 urban river sites and will test for an expanded list of chemicals

Solutions

Eliminate all chemicals of concern until research can provide evidence of safe use

Place a heavy tax for use of these chemicals to deter companies from their use and use tax for remediation and research

Education of proper waste disposal and educate consumers

Continuation of research on best methods for testing and long-term effects

Conclusion

We have little information about emerging contaminants and their impacts

Impacts can be long-term and widespread

Identifying and understanding their impacts are the first steps to regulating their use

Education and research are essential to beginning to decrease the impact of emerging contaminants

Resources

Keehner, D. (2009, March). Pilot study of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in fish tissue. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/ppcp/fish-tissue.cfm

Hemmett, R. (2008, January). Emerging contaminants. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms//Emerging Contaminants of Concern web - EPA.pdf

Murphy, B. (2009, March). Binational toxic strategy. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/bns/reports/march2009/Murphy03310

Wollenberger L, Dinan L, Breitholtz M. 2005. Brominated flame retardants – effects on the larval development of the marine copepod Acartia tonsa and on the ecdysteroid- sensitive Drosophila melanogaster BII-cell-line. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24: 400–407.

McDonald TA. 2002. A perspective on the potential health risks of PBDEs. Chemosphere 46: 745–755.

Witorsch RJ, Thomas JA. 2010. Personal care products and endocrine disruption: A critical review of the literature. Crit Rev Toxicol. 40 Suppl 3:1-30.

Questions?