Could wastewater analysis be a useful tool for China? — A review

Analysingwastewater samples is an innovative approach that overcomesmany limitations of traditional surveys to identify and measure a range of chemicals that were consumed by or exposed to people living in a sewer catchment area. First conceptualised in 2001, much progress has been made to make wastewater analysis (WWA) a reliable and robust tool for measuring chemical consumption and/or exposure. At the moment, the most popular application of WWA, sometimes referred as sewage epidemiology, is to monitor the consumption of illicit drugs in communities around the globe, including China. The approach has been largely adopted by lawenforcement agencies as a device tomonitor the temporal and geographical patterns of drug consumption. In the future, themethodology can be extended to other chemicals including biomarkers of population health (e.g. environmental or oxidative stress biomarkers, lifestyle indicators or medications that are taken by different demographic groups) and pollutants that people are exposed to (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, perfluorinated chemicals, and toxic pesticides). The extension of WWA to a huge range of chemicals may give rise to a field called sewage chemical-information mining (SCIM) with unexplored potentials. China has many densely populated cities with thousands of sewage treatment plants which are favourable for applying WWA/SCIM in order to help relevant authorities gather information about illicit drug consumption and population health status. However, there are some prerequisites and uncertainties of the methodology that should be addressed for SCIM to reach its full potential in China.     

Measuring bioavailability: from a scientific approach to standard methods

Biological effects are not related to the total concentration of a contaminant in the soil and soil-like materials. Organisms respond only to the fraction that is biologically available. The bioavailable fractions of contaminants are dependent on soil properties and various processes varying with time and on the behavior or the target organism. Bioavailability may be assessed in two complementary ways: (i) by chemical methods (e.g., extraction methods), which determine a defined available fraction of a well defined class of contaminants; and (ii) by biological methods, which expose organisms to soil or soil eluates to monitor effects. Although there is scientific discussion on the concept of bioavailability, the literature gives enough evidence to recognize bioavailability as a promising tool in risk assessment. A large number of methods are available. Under regulatory aspects of soil protection, a risk assessment should be based on the same common concept of determination and assessment of exposure and measuring and assessment of effects. A harmonized framework on bioavailability is necessary to promote the development and introduction of workable (international) standard methods to be used in soil and site assessment. The working group 'Bioavailability' of ISO/TC190-Soil Quality has developed a guidance document for development and selection of methods to assess bioavailability for different target species with regard to several classes of contaminants. The way to this standard, on the border of science and regulation, is described in this article.     

On the relationship between set-out rates and participation ratios as a tool for enhancement of kerbside household waste recycling

Although the use of kerbside recycling facilities by householders is often key to the reduction of materials disposed of to landfill, the quantitative assessment of householders' recycling behaviour is problematic. This study introduces a method to diagnose recycling behaviour by assessing kerbside scheme use in terms of the set-out of recyclate containers compared to the proportion of households participating in recycling (participation ratio). Application of numerical behaviour models demonstrated that kerbside recycling in sampled regions of the UK tends to be consistent with householders using kerbside schemes more frequently than would be observed with random patterns of use that are uniform amongst all householders. When aggregated to collection rounds, householders' modal recycling behaviour tended towards either non-participation or frequent participation. We propose that initiatives to enhance kerbside recycling should employ such quantitative assessments of recycling behavioural modes to inform and guide promotional and educational strategies. A conceptual model for prioritizing campaigns to promote recycling at the kerbside on the basis of identifiable and quantifiable patterns of householder recycling behaviour is presented.     

Reducing the healthcare costs of urban air pollution: the South African experience

Air pollutants often have adverse effects on human health. This paper investigates and ranks a set of policy and technological interventions intended to reduce such health costs in the high population density areas of South Africa. It initially uses a simple benefit-cost rule, later extended to capture sectoral employment impacts. Although the focus of state air quality legislation is on industrial pollutants, the most efficient interventions were found to be at household level. These included such low-cost interventions as training householders to place kindling above rather than below the coal in a fireplace and insulating roofs. The first non-household policies to emerge involved vehicle fuels and technologies. Most proposed industrial interventions failed a simple cost-benefit test. The paper's policy messages are that interventions should begin with households and that further industry controls are not yet justifiable in their present forms as these relate to the health care costs of such interventions.     

Evaluating farm performance using agri-environmental indicators: recent experiences for nitrogen management in The Netherlands

Intensive agriculture, characterized by high inputs, has serious implications on the environment. Monitoring and evaluation of projects aiming at designing, testing and applying more sustainable practices require instruments to asses agronomic as well as environmental performance. Guidelines for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) or Good Farming Practice (GFP) define sustainable practices but give limited insight into their environmental performance. Agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) provide information on environmental as well as agronomic performance, which allows them to serve as analytical instruments in research and provide thresholds for legislation purposes. Effective AEIs are quantifiable and scientifically sound, relevant, acceptable to target groups, easy to interpret and cost-effective. This paper discusses application of four AEIs for nitrogen (N) management in three Dutch research projects: 'De Marke', 'Cows and Opportunities' and 'Farming with a future'. 'De Marke' applied Nitrogen Surplus and Groundwater Nitrate Concentration in the design and testing of environmentally sound dairy systems. 'Cows and Opportunities', testing and disseminating dairy systems designed at 'De Marke', mainly applied Nitrogen Surplus, while 'Farming with a future' used Nitrogen Surplus, Groundwater Nitrate Concentration and Residual Mineral Soil Nitrogen to support arable farmers in complying with Dutch legislation (MINAS). Nitrogen Surplus is quantifiable, appealing and easy to interpret, but lacks scientific soundness or a good relationship with groundwater quality. Nitrogen Use Efficiency is sensitive to changes in management, while Residual Mineral Soil Nitrogen is appealing and cheap, but has difficulties in scaling. Groundwater Nitrate Concentration lacks clear rules for sampling, is labor consuming, expensive and mainly used in combination with other indicators. AEIs enhanced improvements in N management by facilitating (i) definition of project goals, (ii) design of desired systems, (iii) evaluation of applied systems and (iv) improving effective communication. AEI applications in other countries show a similar pattern as found in The Netherlands. Limitations to AEI application relate to inconsistencies between different indicators, heterogeneity of soil characteristics and linkages of N, carbon and water management. AEIs should be applied in an integrated evaluation, at a scale that reflects the farm's spatial variability. Simple AEIs like Nitrogen Surplus should be supported by other indicators and/or model calculations. The paper concludes that AEIs proved their value in design, implementation and testing of farming systems, but they should be used with care, always keeping in mind that indicators are simplifications of complex and variable processes.