Using Bacteriophages in Recycled Water Exposure Assessment Studies

Bacteriophages MS-2 and PRD-1 were used as indicators of human viral behaviour in a series of turf-grass irrigation and washing machine experiments to provide information about the level of human exposure to potential residual enteric viruses in recycled water that can affect health. Results provided evidence to support a potential inadvertent exposure volume of 0.01 ml for recycled water used for machine clothes washing. Results for irrigation experiments showed that a one log reduction in bacteriophage numbers on turf-grass was not achieved under exposure to high solar conditions after 4 h. Experimentation showed that bacteriophages may be usefully employed in exposure assessment studies based on the ease of their enumeration and logistical and cost considerations. In terms of future studies, observed differences in individual bacteriophage characteristics provide a rationale for using multiple viral indicators. However, limitations on the utility of bacteriophage also need to be considered.     

Ethics and biodiversity offsetting

Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly applied tool aiming to compensate for environmental damage caused by exploitation projects. Critics, however, raise concerns over the purported effectiveness of offsetting and question the ethical underpinnings and implications of offsetting. These ethical dimensions have largely been overlooked in research, which may lead to offsetting systems that fail to respect the values intended to be safeguarded. To address these dimensions, 5 ethical objections in the scientific literature were identified: offsetting violates nature's intrinsic value; losses of nature cannot be compensated for by human interventions; too little is known to make adequate trades; offsetting impedes virtuous dispositions toward nature; and offsetting has negative justice implications. We examined these objections and arguments against them based on the ethical concepts of intrinsic and instrumental values, anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism, and deontological, consequentialist, and virtue-ethical paradigms. Both nonanthropocentric and anthropocentric concerns were expressed in deontological, consequential, and virtue-ethical framings. Objections mostly had a deontological or virtue-ethical basis, whereas counterarguments were based on consequential reasoning, but common ground in practice is often conceivable. Based on our findings, we formulated 10 recommendations for policy makers and 5 questions for practitioners to consider. We propose, for example, that policy makers clarify aims, legislate on no-go areas, and govern the use of multipliers. We suggest that practitioners consider, for instance, how to improve case-specific knowledge and promote learning and stakeholder engagement. We hope these recommendations and questions will encourage further discussion of the ethics of biodiversity offsets and ultimately strengthen the respect for biodiversity and human-welfare values at stake in offsetting projects.