Difference between revisions of "Team:UC Davis/Practices"

Because triclosan is predominantly found in consumer products, it makes its way into the environment mainly through waste-water effluent. Since waste water treatment plants are the primary interface between chemicals and the environment, we started exploring our problem space by better understanding how triclosan, and other chemicals, are regulated and monitored at the waste-water treatment plant level.

We talked to Michael Fan, Senior Environmental Engineer at the waste-water management facility on campus, who has been operating the facility for the past 25 years.

He told us how, in lieu of regulatory mandated permissible levels for triclosan, there is little incentive for waste-water treatment plants to test for triclosan specifically in addition to the monitoring already conducted on waste water effluent.

Because campus waste-water discharges into Putah Creek and eventually makes its way into the Delta region, the effluent is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as per the Clean Water Act (CWA). [1]

The NPDES permit lists around 120 pollutants and contaminants and hard numerical values that effluent levels must comply with. Testing is conducted every three years to ensure that the effluent abides by these levels.

Additionally, bioassay tests are conducted quarterly to determine whole effluent chronic toxicity levels. These tests consist of placing organisms like water fleas or minnow head fish in samples of effluent water, and analyzing short term and long-term effects (to determine acute and chronic toxicity)

If the effluent is found to adversely affect organism health, the treatment facility enters a 8 week long “accelerated testing” phase, which consists of 4 bioassay tests amounting to a total of $12,000.

In talking to Dr. Jay Davis and Meg Sedlak, researchers from the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), one of California’s premier aquatic and ecosystem science institutes, however, we learned that even though there are no legislative limits on levels of triclosan that gets released into the environment, triclosan is having a negative impact on the environment.

- Aquatic organisms are particularly at risk because they are constantly subjected to triclosan (in addition to other toxic chemicals) in wastewater effluent, thereby making their exposure more chronic in nature.
- However, the current body of knowledge is disproportionally focused on the acute toxicity of triclosan.
- And there is a need to better understand these long-term effects on aquatic organism health
- But that this is difficult because the effects of the parent compound as well as the transformation products are often insidious and slow acting
- To manage the risk of triclosan SFEI is pursuing source control measures

San Francisco Estuary Institutes researchers collect data to assess and improve the health of the waters, wetlands, wildlife, and landscapes of the San Francisco Bay and the California Delta.

In 2011, SFEI named triclosan a contaminant of emerging concern and identified the following key information gaps [1]:
- the potential chronic effects on algae and microbes due to long term exposure to concentrations of triclosan and other antimicrobials that are typically found in aquatic organisms
- the occurrence of degradation and transformation products
- the identity, extent of use, and potential environmental health impacts of chemicals used as replacements for triclosan

In particular, researchers expressed concern over how most of the toxicity threshold data currently available are from acute effect studies, which are not indicative of the potential effects due to long-term, chronic exposure to concentrations that are typically found in aquatic environments.

For example, Veldhoen et al. 2006; Wilson et al. 2003 have observed effects on the endocrine system in amphibians and the structure and function of algal communities as a result of environmental concentrations of triclosan [3] emphasizing the need for more studies to be conducted on chronic effects.

Because triclosan is commonly found in consumer products, SFEI’s approach to managing triclosan’s risks is, “encouraging less consumer usage of triclosan-containing antimicrobial hand soaps and other consumer products.”[4]

Blum highlighted the incongruity in evaluating chemical toxicity/risks on an individual basis when chemicals interact with other chemicals – oftentimes synergistically – in the environment. To that end, Green Science Policy Institute categorizes and evaluates chemicals in 6 main classes: highly fluorinated chemicals, flame retardants, bisphenols & phthalates, organic solvents, metals, and antimicrobials. .

To expound further on the utility of a ‘class’ approach, Blum explained how when chemicals are removed from use, manufacturers look for a replacement; but because these chemicals need to serve similar functions, they often have similar structures, and thus similar consequences. What results is a cycle whereby one toxic chemical is replaced by another toxic chemical.

Blum aims to stop this cycle and reduce the overall use of toxic chemicals in consumer products by targeting the elimination of these classes of chemicals where their use has no proven benefit. To do so Green Science Policy Institute works to inform manufacturers, retailers and consumers about where these classes of chemicals can be found, how they can be avoided, and what alternatives might be available. Blum targets industry because by electing to phase a chemical out of their products, industry can have an enormous influence on the types and amount of chemicals that are released into our environment.

This approach has proven effective: Green Science Policy Institute provided much of the data that was instrumental in persuading furniture manufacturers to reduce their use of flame-retardants and in persuading policy makers to revise state furniture flammability standards.

1. UC Berkeley Professor Greg Niemeyer’s Black Cloud initiative effectively bridged the mental disconnect between human behavior and air pollution by inviting students to connect data on local air quality with the human behavior and uses of space that would generate those conditions.

The initiative was also successful in producing behavioral change by showing students how their actions actually changed conditions in their local environment, thereby empowering them with a sense of agency that extended beyond the classroom.

For his project, “Black Cloud,” Professor Greg Niemeyer partnered with Andy Garcia, a high school teacher in LA to install twelve air quality sensors in the neighborhood around the school. The sensors transmitted data on levels of carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds to a website that plots this data on air quality conditions in real time.

Neimeyer made a point not to geotag the sensors. Instead, he invited students to connect the data on local air quality to the human behavior and uses of space that caused them – an exercise to bridge the mental disconnect between human behavior and local air quality.

The data galvanized students into action. At 600 parts per million carbon dioxide, LA is almost twice as polluted as the average place. But shockingly the sensors logged 3000 parts per million inside the classroom!

Because the sensors logged data in real time, students saw how CO2 levels decreased when their classroom had better ventilation and decided to keep windows and doors open during the day.

Being able to directly see their impact on their local environment encouraged the students to change their behavior and also empowered students with a sense of agency that extended beyond the classroom.

Niemeyer noted that, "At the end of two months, [the students] are now pretty avid environmentalists, and more than that, they're really interested in protecting their health and making changes… in their neighborhood."[1]

Code for America’s “Adopt a Fire Hydrant” initiative highlights the role technology can play in forging a beneficial relationship between citizens and government, and effectively uses gamification to motivate user behavior.

Code for America is an organization established in 2009 by Jennifer Pahlka to, “enlist technology and design professional to work with city government to create open source apps to promote openness, participation, and efficiency in government.”[1]

Pahlka asserts that government is doing the best they can, but that government bodies are so large and fragmented that action is often delayed. [2] Code for America’s mission is to enlist the help of citizens and leverage social media and technology to allow government to work “for the people, by the people, in the 21st century” [1]

To illustrate the power of civic engagement, Phalua gives an example of a map based web app called “Adopt-a-Hydrant.” The app was borne from the mind of Erik Michaels-Ober, a Code for America fellow based in Boston, who observed how in the winter-time, residents would shovel their own driveways, but neglect to shovel out fire hydrants.

This is a problem because, “buried hydrants cause dangerous delays for fire fighters. But having City of Boston employees check and clear thousands of hydrants would be a timely, costly and burdensome process.

‘Adopt-a-hydrant’ lets governments look to community members for help.”[3] Its a map-based web app that allows individuals, small businesses and community organizations to claim responsibility for shoveling out specific fire hydrants. And if they fell short of their promise someone else can “steal” the fire hydrant away from them.

This initiative was so successful in Boston that it has spawned similar initiatives in other states. Honolulu re-appropriated the idea to enlist the help of citizens to check on tsunami sirens, and similar initiatives were rolled out in Seattle for clearing out clogged storm drains, and in Chicago for shoveling out snow covered sidewalks. [2]

Calculate your carbon footprint apps, while good intentioned, could be more effective. This carbon footprint app case study highlighted the misconception that if people know what their carbon footprint is, they will be motivated to make lifestyle changes. It also further emphasized the need for us to think critically about how our proposed solution could actually inspire change.

In her article, “Why you’ve never measured your carbon footprint,” sustainable business consultant Mia Overall, listed the following shortcomings of carbon footprint apps:
- the final score is abstract: what does a ton of CO2 mean?
- “the questions are usually too general to detect most behavioral changes that can lower our environmental impact, such as changing light bulbs. This means that we miss getting the satisfaction of seeing our score improve.” In other words, these apps do not demonstrate to the user how changing their behavior would make an appreciable difference, so users are not encouraged to change behavior.
- “carbon footprint calculators generally fail to show us how we should be doing. What would a sustainable carbon footprint be and how does one get there? [carbon footprint apps] say surprisingly little about the behaviors needed to achieve a sustainable level.”

Overall then goes on to suggest some improvements that could be made.
“People respond to metrics that seem relevant to us. We need specific targets and goals. We react to competition, want to be recognized for our accomplishments and need to be held accountable. The next sustainability apps should harness our ability to capture accurate personal data, our curiosity about how we are doing compared to others, and leverage social media to provide positive recognition, drive competition and offer rewards.”