One of the major sources of water pollution is from human waste water. In addition to fecal matter, cosmetic products and cleaning supplies, pharmaceuticals pass into waste water through urine. Though many chemicals are metabolized to inactive forms before excretion, some chemicals in urine pose a threat to marine life. One such chemical is
A recent study in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B examined the direct and indirect effect of EE2 on the ecosystem. The study was a long-term, whole-lake experiment that used a before-after-control impact design. With this setup, the researchers could study a natural environment and monitor multiple species and interactions. Significant direct effects of EE2 included a near extinction of fathead minnows, and a decline in body condition of male lake trout and both male and female white sucker. Indirect effects of EE2 included increases in zooplankton and emerging insect populations, most likely due to a decline in small-fish populations that would feed on them. Additionally, the study found a 23 - 42% decline in lake trout biomass, most likely from a loss of prey species. The image below summarizes the findings. These finding are important because they examine previously unresearched effects of EE2 on the environment. Though the possibility of species extinction is clearly a concern, other issues could arise from high EE2 levels in water. One potential impact could be increased spread of malaria. If EE2 decreases small fish populations near warmer cities, then the mosquito levels could dramatically increase. Mosquito-borne diseases would also likely increase.
Solid arrows represent direct effects, hatched arrows represent likely indirect effects and white arrows represent potential direct effects. The relative magnitudes of the responses are indicated by percentage changes in abundance or biomass.
I thought that the study design, in particular, was very impressive. The fact that this study was conducted on a natural environment makes the findings directly applicable to real-world situations. Additionally, though the direct effects of EE2 are not revolutionary, the indirect effects present previously unconfirmed issues. I found the news article to be particularly interesting. Despite the political agenda of the website, the article did a fine job conveying the information from the study. It was only after all of the research details were presented that the article incorporated the findings into a political argument. I would rate the article 7.5 out of 10.
News Article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/contraceptive-chemicals-in-the-water-supply-nearly-made-the-minnow-extinct
The article definitely takes a quick turn when it begins talking about politics. The only link between human infertility and EE2 pollution in water was from the vatican. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900033.htm
ReplyDeleteAre the levels of EE2 released into the aquatic environment analogous to the amount measured in water treatment facilities?
Is it also plausible that estrogen pollution in our waterways can also come from beef production?
The methods section of the study directs to a previous study in which the lakes are "treated with environmentally relevant concentrations" of EE2. This study focuses on municipal wastewaters, but there is no reason why cattle containing high levels of EE2 couldn't also be a source of pollution. I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with bovine hormones or the beef industry.
DeleteVery interesting article. I wonder about the energy requirements (and thus pollution) to remove hormones from water and if it outweighs the concerns of hormones in water.
ReplyDeleteI find the study very interesting. I am curious to see any follow up studies on the bioaccumulation of EE2 in fish tissues and the potential health effects associated with consuming fish from EE2 contaminated water bodies.
ReplyDeleteInteresting topic! It attracted my attention when I first saw the title! It makes sense to me if thinking deeply about the food chain. Also, like Yundi said, I think people's activities and metabolites will eventually impact people themselves in terms of health.
ReplyDeleteWow, I had no idea that through women who take birth control are unknowingly ejecting endocrine-disrupting chemical through urine into the water system! I previously knew that triclosan, an antibacterial chemical widely used in hand soaps hinders muscle contractions at a cellular level which slows swimming in fish. This research reminded me of that, but the research seems to be very in depth with thorough research. I found it interesting that they wanted to tax women who take birth control, very eye opening. I wonder what the countermeasure to this could be? Is there possibly a chemical that reacts with EE2 to make it unreactive?
ReplyDeleteThere is a very clear agenda to the news article, and I actually find the bias distracting. I think that a better message would be to encourage research into filtration and treatment methods for EE2 and other pharmaceuticals that enter our waste-water treatment facilities.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting read, but just as others have said before me, the bias of the article was definitely more than a little distracting. What I find most interesting, however, is the lack of regulation placed on EE2 by the EPA. Currently, there are no regulations for EE2 levels in our drinking water, despite knowledge that it readily contaminates supplies after incomplete waste water treatment. It's going to be interesting to see if the focus shifts to this compound in the coming years as it pertains to environmental regulations, and what technologies are released in order to combat further contamination with EDCs.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been nice if the lifesite article presented the science in a more simple, summarized manner and let the readers decide for themselves how the politics should address the issue. I understand it's a pro-life website, but it would be refreshing to see a website like this present the facts and let the readers think of the possible solutions on their own. I'd also be interested to see if any biochemical follow-up studies are done to study how EE2 affects these fish populations.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking through some of the referenced literature in the paper. I was disappointed to see the article state that the levels of EE2 put into the lakes are consistent with waste water after treatment. However, mean levels in North American streams and lakes appear to be at or under 1ppt nomrally not the 6ppt level used in the study, so they are testing an extreme range of concentration in these test lakes. I feel this should have been expressed more clearly in the news article, but may have been left out to make their case stronger.
ReplyDelete