EDCs (Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals) in Water
Threads - EDCs in Water,
Chemicals of Concern in Water
On 21/5/2003,
Toby Fiander posted:
Some time ago,
Forbzy raised some matters about endocrine disruptor chemicals. It
was of interest to me due to the concern
in wastewater
streams discharged to the environment; the evidence is equivocal.
Actually, there
was not much discussion on the list, I was rather hoping to learn a bit
more, but no one volunteered to give expert information, except a
certain loud-mouth engineer (hereon) who quickly displayed how little he
actually knew.
Anyway, I think
I mentioned at the time that the International Water Association and the
Australian mob are organising a conference on
Chemicals of Concern in Water:
http://www.awa.asn.au/events/coc/
The list of
chemicals presented in the program outline is:
EDCs
Chlorine byproducts (THMs etc).
MtBE
Dioxin-like PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs
Blue-green algae and cyanobacterial toxins
Various pesticides.
The behaviour of
these in water, aquifers, streams and in relation to various species is
to be examined. Naturally, as the matters are live
ones, and many of the implications are simply unknown, the papers appear
to be situation specific.
The conference
is on in about two weeks and m'colleague, Leanne McDonald, is to
attend. I am hoping she will distill some interesting bits from
it ... or at least bring back the papers.
Meanwhile,
apparently I get to go to Albury in mid-June to the Runoff Water Quality
Guideline Conference. [Thinks: I wonder what second
prize is. ... two trips to Albury in June?]
Ray responded:
Toby, it would
be interesting just to perform a few broad spectrum HPLC on samples of
groundwater, just to see how many peaks the chromatograph
displayed. The tricky bit would be selecting the appropriate mixed
mobile phase of polar and nonpolar solvents at the right flow rate, and
an appropriate column as stationary phase, to provide sufficient
differentiation between multiple peaks.....
Then to
determine the standard solutions for specific analytes of interest.
Looks like at least 2 years full-time work to me. :)
Toby replied:
I am a result
user rather than a lab rat, but I think there are standard approaches
for organic contaminants in groundwater depending on what is
suspected to be in it.
I am not aware
that anyone has done what you describe on a broad scale or indeed any
scale. There is a paper at this conference which suggests that it
would be better not to chlorinate reclaimed wastewater before
re-injection to an aquifer because of the trihalomethanes that are
formed with the (naturally occurring) organic matter of the aquifer.
Perhaps Leanne
will tell all in a couple of weeks.... OTOH, if you have the two
years to spend, it might be an interesting study. 8=))
Jim
Edwards commented:
I
am currently reading "Our Stolen Future" by Colborn, Dumanoski and
Myers (a bit belatedly, it was first published in 1996) which deals with
the effects of man-made chemicals in the environment on our fertility,
intelligence and survival. It makes some grim reading and the
blurb says it ". . . could turn out to be the most significant
publication since Silent Spring".
I
remember reading some references to it a while back in relation to
oestrogen mimics feminising males, but the subject does not seem to have
aroused public concern in the way that a much less important issue like
GM crops has done.
I
would be interested to hear your (or your colleague's) opinion of this
book. Is it oversensationalising the problem or are we simply
hoping that, if we ignore it, the problem will go away?
David Maddern
responded:
I think the
eostrogen mimics in the water have been overshadowed by the effect of
these (shall I call them here alloeostrogens)has been overshadowed by
the alloeostrogens in food, like platiciser leachate on heating of
foostuffs in plastic
Toby Fiander answered:
>
I think the eostrogen mimics in the water have been overshadowed by the
> effect of these (shall I call them here alloeostrogens)has been
overshadowed
> by the alloeostrogens in food, like platiciser leachate on heating
of
> foostuffs in plastic
I think you need
to be careful about whether the effect exists or not, and if so, to what
extent and in what circumstances.
In my answer to
the original post on this subject (which I can probably still find, if
necessary) I pointed to two papers which provided conflicting opinions
as to whether there was any biological effect or not from discharge of
treated sewage. I think the jury is still out, at least as far as
treated sewage is concerned. It does not mean that care should
abandoned, but it does not mean there should be acceptance that some
evil is being perpetrated either.
I am interested
to read the book that Jim has suggested and the papers which Leanne will
bring back with her in 10 days' time, I hope... we will have an
in-house seminar shortly after that. I think lunch may be
involved....
David Maddern
replied:
Sorry, I was
responding to the near final question in the post about has the public
gone denial.
I was trying to
say (and I had a reaching baby on my lap) that I think the issue of
senescence-altered oestrogen in groundwater, and estuarine fish all one
sex and breast cancer cells proliferating in a petri dish...
perhaps moved from an academic concern to an issue of personal safety
(e.g. breast cancer.. and here's one of mine, sperm counts (they were
quoted as numbering 3b per ejaculate when I was at uni, now are quoted
as less than 1bn)) and personal safety will take the cake nearly every
time.
So I think the
issue was personalised, and the purposeful ingestion of phytooestrogens,
including soy products became one way of supposed protection from the
effects.
This is of
course away from sewerage, and I am not claiming anything there.
As far as the
food side goes there is little question that the effect occurs, it is a
matter of when and where.
(I see industry
has reacted, the plasticiser in polycarbonate has been changed, but who
is still using old polycarbonate in the kitchen? and pours hot oily
foods into them?)
Toby
Fiander responded:
I
don't think any of this is as settled as you think. The jury is
still out as to whether there is any connection between EDCs and
environmental effects. Have a look here:
http://www.awa.asn.au/events/coc/program.pdf
Also,
at the end of this email I have reproduced the abstract to the paper
from Environmental Health Perspectives, which I quoted previously.
The paper cautiously avoids saying there is no problem, merely that
there does not seem to be any information showing one at the moment
with respect to human sperm counts, human cancer and some indicators of
animal feminisation.
As
to cooking with plastics, there has been hundreds of plasticisers used
over the years. While microwaving plastic in contact with a nice
oily solvent is definitely a test for any material, establishing that
there was some link with endocrine disruption in humans eating the oil
is difficult at best. I am prepared to believe that a cautious
approach has been adopted. Changes to plasticisers for one reason
or another have occurred as frequently that changes to the weather over
the past three decades.
I
don't really mean to press a man with a child on his knee, but if you
have a reference you could push my way for the matters you are
discussing, I would be grateful.
ARTICLE
FROM EHP
Endocrine
Disruptors and Human Health--Is There a Problem? An Update
Stephen
H. Safe
Department
of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M
University,
College Station, Texas, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
It
has been hypothesized that environmental exposure to synthetic
estrogenic chemicals and related endocrine-active compounds may be
responsible for a global decrease in sperm counts, decreased male
reproductive capacity, and breast cancer in women. Results of recent
studies show that there are large demographic variations in sperm counts
within countries or regions, and analyses
of North American data show that sperm counts have not decreased over
the last 60 years. Analyses of records for hypospadias and
cryptorchidism also show demographic differences in these disorders
before 1985; however, since 1985 rates of hypospadias have not changed
and cryptorchidism has actually declined. Temporal changes in sex ratios
and fertility are minimal, whereas testicular cancer is increasing in
most countries; however, in Scandinavia, the difference between high
(Denmark) and low (Finland) incidence areas are not well understood and
are unlikely to be correlated with differences in exposure to synthetic
industrial chemicals. Results from studies on organochlorine
contaminants (DDE/PCB) show that levels were not significantly
different in breast cancer patients versus controls. Thus, many of the
male and female reproductive tract problems linked to the
endocrine-disruptor hypothesis have not increased and are not
correlated with synthetic industrial contaminants. This does not exclude
an endocrine-etiology for some adverse environmental effects or human
problems associated with high exposures to some chemicals.
Key
words:
endocrine
disruptors, human health, sperm counts, xenoestrogens.
Environ
Health Perspect 108:487-493 (2000). [Online 12 April 2000]
[ends]
Dacid Maddern
responded:
I could not get
your link to work even shaving off the subdirectories to expose the
default page of the server, couldn't load it
The effect
happened with human breast cancer cells in a petri dish. So in my
book the effect happens
But I hope it is
not as common as it could be, and I hope it has no effect at all on
health out there
When new cars
can have 10 or 20 grams of xylene, hexane, and other lovelies in each
cubic metre of 'air' then one wonders what other field of human
endeavour, mucking around with plastics, can be presenting nasties into
us.
So I dont
microwave plastics (does microwave safe mean doesn't melt in the
microwave, or has no nasty effect when heated in a microwave?.. cos I
can't find the Australian Standard)
Toby
Fiander answered:
I
understand that the appropriate Australian Standard is AS2070-1999,
Plastics Materials for Food Contact Use, but it squibs it and refers to
other foreign standards. Here is what is says (I have left out the
quotes - typos are mine obviously):
4.1.1
New Plastics Materials New plastics materials used in the
manufacture of plastics items for food contact use shall comply with
either of the following:
(a)
The relevant regulations of the United States of America Food and Drugs
Administration as set out in the Code of Federal Regulations 21CFR Parts
170 to 199 and any subsequent amendments or revisions.
(b) The relevant European Commission directives for materials and
articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs as set out by
Commission Directives 89/109/EEC (framework Directive) and 90/128/EEC
and their subsequent amendments or revisions, including 82/711/EEC and
85/572/EEC.
In
addition, the use of plastics materials for food contact shall be in
accordance with any relevant requirements set out in the Australian New
Zealand Food Standards Code developed by ANZFA.
[ends]
I
don't have access to these documents, although I have heard the US standard
for this stuff discussed previously - in relation to water. I wonder
if someone else has access to them.
Hey,
Forbzy........
On 6/6/2003,
Toby Fiander wrote:
The two or three
sentence summary of the conference attended by my colleague is simply
this. There seems to be some consensus among Australian
researchers that:
- the effect of byproducts of chlorination of water supply is about
ten times as important as any human effect from endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDCs), if indeed there is any effect at all; study of
chlorine byproducts is not as sexy as that of EDCs; the effect of
both appears small,
- there are measurable changes in sex balances in fish and some
other wildlife, which may have some link with EDCs, but we are still at
the stage of gathering data about what the effects are and what
chemicals are likely to contribute to these effects,
- no one has any real idea about what to do about EDCs, because
there is so little data about what the effects are and which chemicals
cause them, but there are viable strategies for minimising chlorine
byproducts, which will probably be adopted in water supply in the long
term,
- not surprisingly, preliminary data shows some of the worst
effects from EDCs appears to be associated with stores of them, like the
waterways near Olympic Park, Homebush Bay - there is a possibility that
the conclusion is related to sampling strategies (ie. more data
gathered where the stuff is in the soil) and this needs to be
investigated.
... I will
report at least once more after I wade through the materials supplied to
participants. These are only poor man's papers (software
projected slides compiled on to a disk with a hardcopy of the
abstracts). I suppose they have to do this or it would not be possible
to put on frequent cheap workshops, but the informality can be annoying
afterwards, even for participants.
Jim Edwards wrote:
A quote from
"Our Stolen Future" by Colborn, Dumanoski and Myers p.253:
"Chemicals known
to disrupt the endocrine system include: DDT and its degradation
products, DEHP (di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), dicofol, HCB
(hexachlorobenzene), kelthane, kepone, lindane and other
hexachlorocyclohexane congeners, methoxychlor, octachlorostyrene,
synthetic pyrethroids, triazine herbicides, EBDC fungicides, certain PCB
congeners, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxins, 2,3,7,8-TCDF and other
furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, tributyltin and other organo-tin
compounds, alkyl phenols (non-biodegradable detergents and anti-oxidants
present in modified polystyrene and PVCs), styrene dimers and trimers,
soy products, and laboratory animal and pet food products."
This was a
footnote to a consensus statement issued by a multidisciplinary group of
experts gathered in a retreat at Wingspread, Racine, Wisconsin, 26-28
July 1991. Participants included experts in the fields of
anthropology, ecology, comparative endocrinology, histopathology,
immunology, mammalogy, medicine, law, psychiatry,
psychoneuroendocrinology, reproductive physiology, toxicology, wildlife
management, tumor biology, and zoology.
Is it just in
North America, then, that EDCs have become such a serious threat to
human biology? Or are we in Australia confining our studies to
stormwater and ignoring all other parts of the environment? I
would hate to think that there was some sort of cover-up, but after the
Pan scandal one wonders how far the chemical/pharmaceutical industries
can be trusted.
Certainly, the
information in the above book seems to give the lie to the statement:
>...
no one has any real idea about what to do about EDCs, because
>there is so little data about what the effects are and which
>chemicals cause them
I
know it takes time for information to trickle down to the 'arse-end of
the world', as Keating called it, but surely 12 years is enough time for
our scientists to catch up on what is happening in the rest of the
world.
Toby Fiander
replied:
The consensus
you quote is not shared by all, or indeed the majority, of the world's
scientists. I have quoted papers previously which are of recent
date, which indicate the situation I have described.
>
Is it just in North America, then, that EDCs have become such a serious
> threat to human biology?
The research
canvassed at the recent conference is not just Australian
research. One of the keynote speakers was from the USA, two of the
other papers were about data collected for the world and all papers
referred to the published literature.
The list of
chemicals you provide is the list at which the conference commenced, and
there seems to be little and ambiguous data to support the idea that
there are human effects from these chemicals here or anywhere
else. While it is nice that you enjoyed the book, there are other
points of view and the matter is not settled.
BTW, I don't
share Keating's cultural cringe - there is internationally significant
work on this matter occurring in Australia.
and in response
to a further comment from Jim:
> >The list of chemicals you
provide is the list at which the conference
> >commenced, and there seems to be little and ambiguous data to
support the
> >idea that there are human effects from these chemicals here or
anywhere
> >else.
>
> Oh well, that's all right then.
Your point is
well made, as usual...
As I wrote my
reply in the middle of the night, I now wish to apologise for failing
the point that the conclusion is not thatare no human effects,
merely there is not enough data yet to say. The trouble may be
that by the time there is enough data, it might be quite
difficult to do anything about it - like the Greenhouse effect in this
respect.
Two of the most
interesting papers are studies of the sex organs of mosquito fish:
- in Parramatta River, which receives the seepage from Homebush
Bay, which concludes that there is an effect,
- in South Creek below two sewage treatment plants; there are
effects from the first one, but not by the addition of more water at the
second - in other words, I suppose, once it is stuffed it apparently
doesn't get any more stuffed.
Since almost all
the flow in the driest times in the Hawkesbury is from sewage treatment
plants, one supposes that the entire river system is
affected. The next logical question is what sorts of dilutions are
required to have an effect. There are a couple of papers that
have a go at this sort of thing, although there is obviously not much of
an answer for anywhere... yet.
But I have a
couple of questions that will need answering soon. Katoomba used
to dispose of the outflow of water from its sewage treatment plant into
a tributary of the Warragamba River, and probably still does.
There are also a number of other places I can think of where sewage is
eventually disposed to rivers which are (much further downstream) used
for water supply.
If there is a
measurable effect on mosquito fish, then strategies need to put in place
to measure any effect on humans, rather than hide behind the idea
that there is no data. Delegates said that there are data being
collected in Europe, USA and here and that firmer conclusions
will eventually be possible... this may, of course, be like the
Greenhouse effect: once data are available, it is too late to do
much about it.
However, there
is preliminary work on using membrane technology to remove some of the
nominated chemicals, but that more or less misses the point. What
do you do with the concentrated solution from a membrane removal process
that you do not wish to have in the environment? ... to say
nothing of who supplies the large energy requirement to get to this
point. No one yet suggests any answer, although the economics
might work a bit better if the other ("clean") stream from the membrane
process can be resold as a potable supply, perhaps.
The most obvious
way to handle a pollution problem is at source. However, since the
list of EDCs is incomplete and knowledge of the extent of the effect,
if indeed there IS a direct causal effect, it is a bit hard to start
restricting the list, except for the most obvious
candidate materials.
BTW, there was a
paper on the sorts of residue of "pharmaceutically-active" material you
find in sewage. It was a calibration of a model. Perhaps
next conference, the model will get used. The matter is still
frustratingly live.
On
3/7/2003, Ray posted:
Toby Fiander
replied to a further question from Zero Sum on 11/7/2003
> Not
being a member of the "micrograms of anything are harmless"
> crew,
I am not sure what an EDC is.
EDC - Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals
Try listening to
the two ABC programs we have talked about here in the last few days or
reading the transcripts:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/
I am not a
member of any crew that I know of.
Zero
replied:
This
has been an appropriate dicussion. I was (strongly) advised by my
doctor this morning to buy a water filter as bottled water was
expensive.
It
seems he feels I should be drinking only bottled or filtered water due
to contaminants and added chemicals. After some of the things
mentioned in this thread, I'm damned confused.
Even
with out dam water levels at 40%, it would seem (from posts here) that
I would be consuming biologically and chemically purer water by
drinking it straight from the tap (as against bottled) and that
filtering is unecessary. Am I correct in those conclusions?
If so, how can I demonstrate this to my doctor?
Toby answered:
>
This has been an appropriate dicussion. I was (strongly)
> advised by my doctor this morning to buy a water filter
> as bottled water was expensive.
Unless it is
more carefully controlled from source than the average, the available
data comparing it to Sydney Water shows
that bottled
water is not as biologically clean on the average than the reticulated
stuff. Nothing perfect and I will deal with
this below, but
to compared a reticulated water with bottled water does not seem
sensible to me.
>
It seems he feels I should be drinking only bottled or filtered
> water due to contaminants and added chemicals. After
> some of the things mentioned in this thread, I'm damned
> confused.
There certainly
are contaminants, but on the whole the reticulated stuff is excellent
and tested regularly and widely enough to offer some
certainty that the quality meets conservative published guidelines.
The chemicals
added are barely measurable, but there certainly area some. It is
a bit hard to know what the criticism is of them. If there
is a chlorine residual at the tap, which you would hope there might be,
then it would be possible to remove this. Most
other things that are added either occur in natural waters anyway or
are removed by the processing before they leave the filtration
plant. Tiny amounts that remain are mostly not detectable - I say
mostly because nothing is perfect and this is a product that is
produced and delivered in large quantities.
I reckon, if you
were going to do anything - which has never attracted me - you might
run the water through an activated carbon filter.
This ought to knock the chlorine down a bit as well as removing active
organics (of which there should almost none anyway).
But you would need to replace the activated carbon periodically, which
is relatively expensive. I am suspicious about the use of the
term "chemicals" - it sounds data-free.
>
Even with out dam water levels at 40%, it would seem
> (from posts here) that I would be consuming biologically
> and chemically purer water by drinking it straight from
> the tap (as against bottled) and that filtering is
unnecessary.
> Am I correct in those conclusions? If so, how can I
> demonstrate this to my doctor?
I have asked the
AWA to point me to the Sydney Water data and I will make some further
inquiries. The comparison with bottled water is bollocks, unless
the doctor is running his own company with particularly good quality
control. And (sic?) comparison with water from a filter system is
also strange unless there is something very specific in mind. I
have never been tempted to have a filter. I don't think I am in
any respect brave.
David
Maddern commented:
Filters
are not just physical to take out clays, they are also (to my
knowledge) activated carbon which binds numerous compounds. They
are cheap in WW
The
tank our kitchen gets from has the odd black bit I assume to be a
colloid when no rain, but after rain there is plenty of circulating
colloids, the filter gets them all. It would also take out
chlorine if it were there.
We
are out in the country though, without a lead painted roof
