Greenversations

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

Conducting health assessments for chemicals at EPA involves synthesizing the available scientific literature on a particular chemical and determining the health risks that the chemical poses to humans. Personally, I find it fulfilling to be involved in this type of career because the information is useful to the public.

Being a health assessor is rewarding but there are also several challenges in determining how a chemical might act in the human body. One challenge is determining the effect of a chemical in the body when you don’t know much about the toxicological data. There are sophisticated tools, such as microarray analysis and structure-activity analysis, to study compounds with limited information. In microarray analysis, scientists treat particular genes with a chemical and then monitor the results. So if a data-poor chemical has a similar gene profile to an endocrine disrupting chemical, then we hypothesize that this chemical could be a potential endocrine disruptor. Structure-activity analysis helps classify a compound based on its chemical structure. Both of these types of analyses can be completed quite quickly to understand how these data-poor chemicals could act when humans are exposed.

It is also quite challenging when a chemical has been studied extensively. When there is a lot of research on a chemical, arguments sometimes arise about the validity of the research or if a chemical is actually responsible for a resulting health effect. To add to the confusion, although there could be several studies on a chemical, they might not necessarily indicate a clear health effect. In some cases, chemicals have many studies showing health effects in animals but no evident effects in humans.

As health assessors, we generally assume that humans are more sensitive to health effects than animals. Therefore, if a chemical causes toxic effects in animals, then humans should be more susceptible. To reduce this uncertainty, it is important to understand the difference in a chemical’s effect between animals and humans.

Even though there are challenges in evaluating the health risks of chemicals to humans, it is rewarding to know that this information can be used to help keep people healthy. Overall, my job is to understand the potential health risks that could arise from exposures to chemicals in the environment.

About the author: Ambuja Bale works as a risk assessor in EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment. She has a PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology.

While I was in graduate school, I ran into someone collecting signatures in protest of the nearby construction of a hazardous waste incinerator. When I asked him what should be done with the hazardous waste, he said “They just shouldn’t make it.” I dismissed him as oversimplifying a complex situation—that chemicals are a vital part of our lives and we just can’t not have the industry. I suspected his real motives were that he didn’t want it near to where he lived. However, after I began working at EPA and learned about green chemistry, I realized that, whatever his motives, he was essentially right. To an ever-increasing extent, we’re discovering that we can have a vital, innovative, competitive chemicals industry with less—or even no hazardous waste.

This year marks my 12th year working with EPA’s Green Chemistry Program and those dozen years have clearly shown me how effective green chemistry can be in preventing pollution.

Green chemistry is “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances.” It applies to what chemists make, what they make it from, and how they make it. It encourages scientists to think as broadly as possible about the potential impacts of the chemistry choices they make and to minimize the hazard associated with those choices. It’s a significant departure from traditional environmental protection, which focused on protecting people and the environment by minimizing exposure to hazardous substances. Instead, green chemistry protects by focusing on minimizing the intrinsic hazard of chemicals.

Fortunately, we can have the high-performing chemical products that our economy depends on—stuff used in health care, safety, building, transportation, electronics, food and agriculture, entertainment, and nearly every other industry—at a competitive price AND with a lower environmental footprint. There is no fundamental scientific reason that the chemistry has to be hazardous. The fact is that much of the chemistry that the industry currently uses is decades old and from a time that environmental protection was an afterthought, if it was a thought at all. What green chemistry espouses, and the winners of the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge demonstrate, is that you can have “cleaner, cheaper, smarter chemistry” if you include reduced hazard as one of the design criteria.

My dream is that one day, we won’t need a Green Chemistry Program—it will be as natural a part of the way that chemists practice their science as the Periodic Table of the Elements. You can read more at www.epa.gov/greenchemistry.

About the author: Rich Engler is a chemist in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and is currently the Program Manager for EPA’s Green Chemistry Program. Before he joined EPA, he taught Organic Chemistry at the University of San Diego.

About the author: Jeff Maurer manages Web content and does communications work for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

When my mom first starting teaching in 1971, duck-and-cover drills – in which students were taught to curl up underneath their desks in the event of a nuclear attack – were still in vogue. Apparently, desks were much sturdier back then – strong enough to withstand a nuclear blast.

When we lived in Kentucky, Mom taught at a school that practiced regular tornado drills. By the 1990s, teachers were being taught how to treat cuts in ways that prevent the spread of hepatitis and HIV, and “lockdown” drills became common after the Columbine shootings. By the time Mom retired last year, school safety training had been expanded to include managing students’ gluten, seafood, and peanut allergies.

Clearly, student safety in schools came a long way during Mom’s career. But in all of her years as a teacher, my mom was never once taught how to safely manage chemicals that are commonly found in schools.

That needs to change. School science labs, trade shops, and janitorial areas – any area of a school – can contain hazardous chemicals that can be harmful to students and teachers if improperly managed. Beyond the obvious health hazards, chemical spills can result in lost school days, cleanup costs, and liability.

Chemical management should be part of every school’s safety routine. Thankfully, EPA’s Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3) is making it easy for schools to clear out unneeded chemicals and make sure that needed chemicals are properly managed. The SC3 provides a wealth of resources – including a promotional video and a tool kit for starting a chemical management campaign – to teachers, parents, school administrators, community groups, and just about anyone concerned with safe chemical management in schools.

It works, too; schools across the country are implementing successful chemical management campaigns. In my area, the Arlington Public Schools system removed 600 pounds of chemicals from its secondary schools. That hits home for me because my sister – following in Mom’s footsteps – works in the public school system here in Northern Virginia.

For my sister’s safety and for everyone’s safety, I’m glad that safe chemical management in schools is catching on. This week is Teacher Appreciation Week; I think that a good way to celebrate might be to see if the schools in your area are practicing safe chemical management. After all, the danger posed by hazardous chemicals, unlike certain other safety concerns, can’t be neutralized by simply hiding beneath a desk.

More information about healthy school environments is available online.

About the author: Jeffery Robichaud is a second generation scientist with EPA who started in 1998. He serves as Chief of the Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Branch in Kansas City.

Movies require you to suspend your disbelief, but when you watch a film that hits close to home it can be tough. I have a friend in federal law enforcement who squirms when cardboard cutout agents run across the screen. Action flicks don’t do his profession justice, but at least his job is sometimes glorified on celluloid. The only two movies I can remember featuring a prominent EPA employee are Ghostbusters and the Simpsons Movie, neither of which ever made a kid say, “Man, when I grow up I want to work for the EPA.” On the off-chance your youngster was inspired to seek out public service please let them know we don’t inspect unlicensed nuclear storage facilities, nor do we have a fleet of helicopters. We do however, have one cool plane.

EPA’s Airborne Spectral Photometric Collection Technology, known as ASPECT, is an aircraft equipped with sensors that allow for surveillance of gaseous chemical releases from a safe distance. ASPECT gives emergency responders information regarding the shape, composition and concentration of gas plumes from disasters such as a derailed train, factory explosion or terrorist attack.

This was the scene in Kansas City outside our office windows in 2007 when a chemical facility went up in flames. ASPECT deployed and was instrumental in verifying that while ominous, the fire did not present a significant health threat to the community (the white signature you see below is the fire).

Since its inception ASPECT has flown over several fires, provided support during the Olympics and Columbia shuttle recovery, and supplied some of the first aerial images of the devastation along the coast during Katrina.

Most of the technology you see in movies is sheer fantasy, but EPA’s high-tech plane and the scientists who operate it are worthy of a spot in the next summer blockbuster. Here’s hoping for the appearance of an EPA scientist who isn’t a bad guy (although with my face the best I could hope for is Thug #4 in the next straight to DVD clunker).