Review of Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds and Pharmaceuticals - Coursework Example

1) Why the paper is of interest The paper reviews a broad range of water pollutants categorized as endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDC), pharmaceuticals, and personal care products (PPCP), the mechanisms of their effects on human health, and the latest water treatment aimed at removing these compounds. These chemicals contaminate and pollute bodies of water, and therefore pose grave threat to all life forms, humans included. The contamination of drinking water by these compounds is a major concern, and has led to the development of water treatment strategies aimed at their removal. The threat that endocrine disrupters pose is perceived to be real (Acerini and Hughes 2006; Science and Environmental Health Network 1997). Many studies are reported in the literature, most pointing to the relationship between water pollutants and human diseases of the endocrine systems, or those that are controlled by hormones. The EDCs have been implicated in disorders of the neuroendocrine system, specifically on the hypothalamic neurotransmitter system, size of specific hypothalamic region, and the numbers of cells expressing the estrogen receptor β (Gore 2008). Certain chemical groups can disrupt and mimic reproductive hormones of fish, resulting in feminisation and premature egg yolk production in fish (Parrett n.d.). Aside from effects on the reproductive system, these disrupters of hormonal activity have also been related to the prevalence of obesity (Newbold, et al. 2007; Elobeid and Allison 2008), and lately, schizophrenia (Brown 2009). In 1997, the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency came out with an effects assessment analysis of environmental endocrine disruption (US Environmental Protection Agency 1997). The analysis focused on human health and ecological effects, and after studying the data, it was recommended that risk assessment should be improved by conducting more studies on absorption, metabolism, and elimination of these compounds. This paper summarized the results of newer studies, and give conclusions and recommendations where sustained and new directions should go. In general, due to the amounts of toxicants causing life-altering effects, the paper is important in promoting the health interests of a large segment of the population of regions where water pollution is a problem. 2) The adequacy of the approach, method, and analyses The paper presents its analysis of the risks, effects, and treatment of EDCs and PPCPs in a methodical manner. The type of presentation made it easy even for non-technical individuals to understand the breadth of the topic. The authors introduced the problem first, then goes on to describe the chemical nature of the more known EDCs and PPCPs, how these reach the rivers and other bodies of water, and most importantly, a mechanism for their effect on hormonal action is presented. Tables and illustrations were very useful in showing the types of the different EDCs and PPCPs that have been identified. The compounds are pharmaceuticals like antibiotics, pesticides, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, and steroid analogs. However, it was also obvious that only a few research groups were working on the identification and quantification of the compounds, and that most of the samples were taken from a few countries in Europe, UK, and the US. Nevertheless, the table listing the selected EDCs and PPCPs is very useful because it also showed where the contaminating elements originated. Knowing the original sources of these chemicals will help in identifying the activities that contribute to the accumulation of the compounds and in the formulation of policies to regulate the source compounds (e.g. pesticides or herbicides). Another important feature of the article was the table on the health effects of EDCs and PPCPs. However, this was limited to effects on selected wildlife, in contrast to the discussion in the text, which included human hormonal effects. The analysis of the problem has more impact if the table emphasized human health effects. As it is, despite the results of the studies that were cited, the article was more careful in declaring a direct effect of the EDCs and PPCP on human health. However, this is quite contrary in relation to the other main issue presented, which is the clearing up of contamination in drinking water, a major contributor to the health of humans and certainly not wildlife. The article pointed out that some scientists refute the hazards arising from drinking water contamination are minimal because of the smaller concentrations of these chemicals compared to other food sources. Apparently, the authors of the paper refute this view and thus proceed to present the several methods for decontamination of drinking water. Conventional and advanced water treatment methods were discussed and compared, and the advantages and limitations of using these were presented. Much was said on the use of ozone-based advanced oxidation treatment of water. The method utilizes the ability of ozone to form free radicals that can attack organic compounds (or EDCs and PPCPs) and reduce them to simpler, more biodegradable compounds that are easier to remove. Adequate data and proof are presented to show that ozonation works better than conventional treatment especially for large organic molecules. Critical limitations of the technology are also presented like the formation of possible toxic by-products, and the identification of compounds that are not degraded by ozone. Thus, the paper also gives the view that a large amount of information is lacking on interaction effects, by-products and other factors that influence the success of ozone-based water treatment. 3) How far the data, evidence quoted and arguments presented justify the conclusions drawn There are several conclusions presented in the paper. First, the article concludes that the amount of EDCs and PPCP from drinking water is not enough to cause adverse impact on human health but it also recommends that, as a precautionary measure, further research is warranted to study the elimination of these compounds from drinking water. This conclusion is valid because the large amount of data and evidence from many studies show that these chemical contaminants affect hormonal function in marine animals, wildlife (Ortiz-Zarragoitia and Cajaraville 2006; Porte, et al. 2006, (Hotchkiss, et al. 2008)), and humans (Hotchkiss, et al. 2008; Patisaul and Adewale 2009), and that the contamination could easily accumulate in sources of drinking water (Wenzel, Muller and Ternes 2003, Raloff 1998). The EDCs coming from drinking water could also originate from plastic packaging material from which xenoestrogens leach out (Wagner and Oehlmann 2009). The second conclusion drawn was that multiple water treatment systems are necessary to remove the contaminants from drinking water. Methods for the removal of EDCs and PCPPs are available at the point of entry of the source into the drinking water supply and are based on the identified contaminants (US Environmental Protection Agency 2001). The second conclusion is valid because the contaminants have diverse natures and therefore, chemical structures and interactions (Broseus, et al. 2009). All of these would affect how they respond to different degradation and chemical reactions. Of several endocrine disrupters studied, pesticides were shown to be the most recalcitrant to oxidize by ozone treatment (Broseus, et al. 2009). Thus, different water treatment processes are used to remove EDCs and PCPP, individually or as a class of chemicals (US Environmental Protection Agency 2001). Another conclusion was that studies are necessary to measure contamination in developing countries. It was observed that the evidence cited all came from studies in the developed nations like the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In the less developed and developing countries, environmental protection and regulation is more problematic compared to industrialized nations (Kathuria 2006). The most important conclusion and recommendation given was that a holistic and international approach is necessary to fight water pollution. This is very true, since water pollution comes from a wide array of compounds, is very widespread, and has the capacity to spread inland or farther out to other aquatic bodies. Therefore, the problem is very complex, and requires concerted efforts (International Human Dimensions Programme 2009). Global research on water pollution should also include waste water, contamination of toxic chemicals and effect of land use on water pollution (International Human Dimensions Programme 2009). At the national level, the US Commission on Ocean Policy has moved for the regulation and significant reduction in non-point source pollution, which occurs when pollutants like pesticides, animal waste, chemicals are transported by rainfall and melting snow into groundwater, streams, rivers and the sea (US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004). The recommendation necessitates tight control of non-point sources, under the coordination by the US Environmental Protection Agency, of the different local and state agencies for agriculture, health, and environmental protection with the attendant programs, funds, technical assistance, and management. This initiative sets an example that governments can follow in their own countries. 4) The significance of the conclusions for management of pollution in the North Sea The conclusion that an international and holistic approach is necessary in the fight against water pollution is very significant in relation to the management of pollution in the North Sea. A biologically productive area, it is host to a diverse wildlife and fisheries and is one of the busiest shipping international areas in the world. The North Sea is surrounded by several countries, thus rivers from highly populated, industrialized, and intensely farmed areas flow into the North Sea. In addition, ships plying the sea contribute to the pollution coming from domestic activity (Parrett n.d.). Members of the North Sea states are Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, European Community countries, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and France. It has been recommended that the effectiveness of the pollution management should highly depend on the actions of domestic and international institutions, especially the national elements that contribute to the problem in the first place (Skjærseth 2003, US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004)). Similar to the recommendations made in the article under review, on October 7-9, 2009, all North Sea states and the European Community agreed to combat pollution by jointly strengthening prevention, preparedness and response to aquatic pollution in what is known as the Bonn Agreement of 2009 (Bonn Agreement 2009). This agreement was signed forty years after these same states agreed to fight sea pollution in 1969, implying that the North Sea nations have been slow in consolidating their efforts. Since the threat of water contaminants on life are real, the North Sea states should act in a concerted manner under a much shorter period. Regional agreements on sea conservation are nothing new. In European countries, agreements to protect the seas abound including the Joint Declaration of the Protection of the Wadden Sea, Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans on the Baltic and North Seas, and International Convention for the Protection of the Rhine (Gobal International Waters Assessment 2006). Documents on regional and international agreements can be viewed on the website of the International Water Law Project (2009). A more global initiative commenced in 2004; this was the United Nations Environment Protection (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme, a global programme implemented at the regional level. Although this covered a much bigger area (140 coastal states and 3 seas), it demonstrates that a regional approach can be used to protect the environment and manage natural resources (United Nations Environment Programme 2009). Thus, a smaller international effort like the Bonn Agreement is ideal because regulation and monitoring are tighter, which can result in more rapid results and faster action on the recommendations. An assessment of the scientific evidences on the chemical nature of the EDCs and PPCPs, their prevalence in aquatic environments and their actions on metabolism of animals lead to the conclusion that indeed these compounds are hazardous to health. Governments in Europe and other developed nations have formulated laws, guidelines, and treaties that aim to reduce the level of pollution in seas and waterways, but apparently, pollution continues to rise. The rise can be attributed to more human activity, but also to ineffective means of controlling waste and pollutants. Water treatment aims to remedy the damage. More effort must be exerted to control the pollution from non-point sources. Thus, the effective control of water pollution means holistically reducing it at all levels of the environment: land, sea and air. References 1. ACERINI, C, AND I. HUGHES. 2006. Endocrine disrupting chemicals: a new and emerging public health problem? Archives of Disease in Childhood. 91, pp. 633-641. 2. Bonn Agreement. October 9, 2009. http://www.bonnagreement.org/eng/html/welcome.html (accessed November 21, 2009). 3. BROSEUS, R., S. ABOULFADL, K. VINCENT, A. DANESHVAR, S. SAUVÉ, B. BARBEAU, and M. PREVOS. 2009.Ozone oxidation of pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and pesticides during drinking water treatment. Water Research. 43 (18), pp. 4707-4717. 4. BROWN, J.S. 2009. Effects of bisphenol- A and other endocrine disruptors compared with abnormalities of schizophrenia: an endocrine-disruption theory of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 35(1), pp.256-278. 5. ELOBEID, M. and D. ALLISON. 2008. Putative environmental-endocrine disruptors and obesity: a review. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity. 15(5), pp. 403-408. 6. GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL WATERS ASSESSMENT. 2006. Sub-Region 18: North Sea. Retrieved November 24, 2009. Available from: http://www.unep.org/dewa/giwa/areas/area18.asp 7. GORE, A.C. 2008. Neuroendocrine systems as targets for environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Fertility and Sterility[online]. 89(2): e101–e102. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.039. Accessed November 21, 2009. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753451/ 8. HOTCHKISS, A., et al. 2008. Fifteen years after ‘‘wingspread’’—environmental endocrine disrupters and human and wildlife health: where we are today and where we need to go. Toxicological Sciences. 105 (2), pp. 235–259. 9. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN DIMENSIONS PROGRAMME. 2009. Water pollution and its implication on human health: challenges ahead. 7th International Science Conference on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Bonn: IHDP Secretariat. pp. 1-4. 10. International Water Law Project. 2009. Retrieved November 24, 2009. Available from: http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/intldocs/ 11. KATHURIA, V. 2006. Controlling water pollution in developing and transition countries—lessons from three successful cases. Journal of Environmental Management. 78 (4), pp. 405-426. 12. NEWBOLD, R., E. PADILLA-BANKS, R. SNYDER, T. PHILLIPS and W. JEFFERSON. 2007. Developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors and the obesity epidemic. Reproductive Toxicology. 23 (3),pp. 290-296. 13. ORTIZ-ZARRAGOITIA, M. and M. CAJARAVILLE. 2006. Biomarkers of exposure and reproduction-related effects in mussels exposed toendocrine disruptors.Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 50, pp. 361–369. 14. PARRETT, A. Fisheries. European Commission. Accessed November 21, 2009. Available from: http://www.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/bio/1309R03B96083.pdf. 15. PATISAUL, H. and H. ADEWALE. 2009. Long-term effects of environmental endocrine disruptors on reproductive physiology and behavior. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience [online]. 3, doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.010.2009. 16. PORTE, C. et al. 2006. Endocrine disruptors in marine organisms: approaches and perspectives. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part C 143, pp. 303–315. 17. RALOFF, J. 1998. Drugged waters: does it matter that pharmaceuticals are turning up in water supplies? Science News, 153, pp.187-189. 18. SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK. 1997. Precaution and endocrine disruption. The Networker. Accessed November 21, 2009. Available from: http://www.sehn.org/Volume_2-4.html#a3 19. SKJÆRSETH, J.B. 2003. Managing North Sea pollution effectively:linking international and domestic institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 3 (2), pp. 167-190. 20. United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Retrieved on November 24, 2009. Available from: http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/ 21. US COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY. 2004. Chapter 14. Addressing Coastal Water Pollution. Preliminary Report, Washington: US Commission on Ocean Policy. 22. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 1997. Special Report on Environmentla Endocrine Disruption:An Effects Assessment and Analysis. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 23. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 2001. Removal of endocrine disruptor chemicals using drinking water treatment processes. Technology Transfer, Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency. 27 pages 24. WAGNER, W. and J. OEHLMANN. 2009. Endocrine disruptors in bottled mineral water: total estrogenic burden and migration from plastic bottles. Environmental Science and Pollution Research [online]. DOI 10.1007/s11356-009-0107-7. 25. WENZEL, A., J. MULLER and T. TERNES. 2003. Study on endocrine disrupters in drinking water. Schmallenberg and Wiesbaden: Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology and ESWE Institute for Water Research and Water Technology, pp. 1-166. Read More