Bottled water information│BPA facts.

BY David Case | February 1, 2009 / Fast Company featured article.

The real story behind Bisphenol A

How a handful of consultants used Big Tobacco’s tactics to sow doubt about science and hold off regulation of BPA, a chemical in hundreds of products that could be harming an entire generation.

Surely you’ve heard about BPA by now. It’s everywhere. Some 7 billion pounds of it were produced in 2007. It’s in adhesives, dental fillings, and the linings of food and drink cans. It’s a building block for polycarbonate, a near-shatterproof plastic used in cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, drinking bottles, medical devices, and CDs and DVDs. It’s also in infant-formula cans and many clear plastic baby bottles. Studies have shown that it can leach into food and drink, especially when containers are heated or damaged. More than 90% of Americans have some in their bodies.

BPA is dangerous to human health. Or it is not. That’s according to two government reports in recent months that came to opposite conclusions. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, reported in September 2008 “some concern” that BPA harms the human brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses. Yet less than a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that “at current levels of exposure” BPA is safe. Even after the FDA’s own science board questioned the rigor of this analysis in late October, the agency didn’t change its position.

Let’s take a moment to ponder this absurd dichotomy. How could our nation’s health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?

We went on a journey to find out. What we learned was shocking. To some degree, the BPA controversy is a story about a scientific dispute. But even more, it’s about a battle to protect a multibillion-dollar market from regulation. In the United States, industrial chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise. As a result, the vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals registered to be used in products have never undergone a government safety review. Companies are left largely to police themselves.

Just five companies make BPA in the United States: Bayer, Dow, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), and Sunoco. Together, they bring in more than $6 billion a year from the compound. Each of them referred questions about BPA’s safety to their Arlington, Virginia — based trade association, the American Chemistry Council. “Our view would be, Well, no, there isn’t anything to be concerned about,” says Steve Hentges, the council’s point person on BPA. “In a sense, you could have ‘some concern’ about just about anything.”

Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects.

It is the industry-funded studies that have held sway among regulators. This is thanks largely to a small group of “product defense” consultants — also funded by the chemical industry — who have worked to sow doubt about negative effects of BPA by using a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies. A secretive Beltway public-relations consultant. A government contractor funded by the industries it was hired to assess. A Harvard research center with a history of conflicts of interest. These have been the key actors in how the science of BPA has been interpreted by the government. And it is their work, as much as the science itself, that has stymied regulation.

Raging Hormones

There are a few facts about BPA that everyone agrees on. One is that people are constantly exposed to the compound. Babies — particularly those fed canned formula via polycarbonate bottles — are at the highest risk from BPA; their undeveloped digestive systems metabolize it poorly. It’s also undisputed that BPA mimics the female sex hormone estrogen, and that some synthetic estrogens can cause infertility and cancer.

What is in dispute is whether the tiny doses of BPA we’re exposed to are enough to trigger such hormonal effects. For decades, the assumption was that they didn’t. This was based on traditional toxicology, which holds that “the dose makes the poison.” In other words, a threshold exists below which a compound is harmless. This makes intuitive sense. Consider alcohol: The more you drink, the drunker you get; but if you drink just a little — below the threshold — you may not feel anything. In the 1970s and 1980s, government scientists used standard toxicology to test BPA. They concluded that, at doses far higher than those found in humans, it may cause organ failure, leukemia, and severe weight loss. Yet as BPA products have made their way into every part of our lives, biologists have discovered evidence that very low doses may have a completely different set of effects — on the endocrine system, which influences human development, metabolism, and behavior.

At first, these discoveries emerged by accident, when test tubes and petri dishes in laboratories were switched from glass to plastic. A group of Stanford researchers in 1993 found that breast-cancer cells it was studying reacted with a mysterious estrogen, which it traced to polycarbonate lab flasks. A few years later, Patricia Hunt, a geneticist at Case Western Reserve University, discovered abnormalities in the chromosomes of her lab mice. She eventually concluded that damaged polycarbonate cages were at fault.

In 1995, a developmental biologist named Frederick vom Saal stepped into the picture. A tenured professor at the University of Missouri — Columbia, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, vom Saal tested BPA to see how it interacted with samples of human blood. He found that, because it bypassed mechanisms that control the dose of hormones in the body, its estrogenic effects were magnified. “We said, ‘Wow, that’s bad. This stuff should be considered a lot more potent than it is,’ ” vom Saal recalls. He then fed small amounts of BPA — 25,000 times lower than the EPA’s toxic threshold — to pregnant mice. He discovered that the compound enlarged the prostates of the male offspring, signaling potentially serious developmental disorders. His study was published in 1997 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

In the years since, more than 100 experiments have shown BPA to cause permanent harm in lab animals at the low exposure levels found in humans. In 2000, Chandra Gupta, a biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, replicated vom Saal’s prostate study. Hunt, the geneticist, replicated under controlled conditions her findings of damage to mouse chromosomes. Others have found impacts on sperm production, testes development, and mammary-gland tissue, as well as behavioral disorders including hyperactivity, aggressiveness, and impaired learning. Most recently, scientists found a correlation (though it’s impossible to determine causation) between BPA levels and heart disease and diabetes in humans.

If these low-dose findings were counterintuitive to toxicologists, they made perfect sense to developmental biologists. After all, BPA is a synthetic hormone. Any physician knows that at small doses, most hormones are extremely powerful in stimulating their target organs, while at higher doses — above a certain threshold — they can paralyze these same organs. (Testosterone powers the male sex drive, for instance, but at high doses causes impotence.)

What’s more, BPA is hardly the only chemical to be identified as an “endocrine disrupter.” To date, more than 50 such compounds have been identified. Dioxins, PCBs, and DDT are some of the more infamous examples. Some cosmetics and soft plastic toys contain one or more phthalates — a group of chemicals that interfere with testosterone and have been shown to lead to infertility and cancer. But because BPA is used in so many common products and has shown effects at such low doses, Hunt says, it quickly became the “poster-child chemical for these endocrine disrupters.”

Rats in the Lab

As the evidence against BPA has mounted, some 29 studies have found the opposite: that the compound is safe. While these experiments have been fewer in number, many of them have the advantage of being far larger in sample size — and thus, their backers say, more statistically significant. Yet the largest of these studies also have another thing in common: They have been funded by BPA’s manufacturers. Sample size, of course, isn’t the only criterion for judging a study. There’s also methodology, lab procedures, and interpretation of data. And a close look at the big industry-funded studies indicates significant flaws.

One of the first such studies, paid for by the trade group Society of the Plastics Industry, was directed by Stuart Cagen of Shell Chemical Co.; another was conducted by John Ashby, at the AstraZeneca lab in the U.K. Both were attempts to replicate vom Saal’s experiment. Published in 1999, the Cagen and Ashby studies gave BPA a clean bill of health. Independent scientists, though, questioned the findings. In addition to testing BPA, Cagen and Ashby had tested the chemical DES as a “positive control” — a lab procedure to determine if a study is conducted properly. Although DES is known to harm mice, neither study found any effects from it. By the definition of a positive control, this indicates the experiments were flawed. (Cagen declined comment; Ashby has retired and could not be reached.)

The largest and most influential industry studies have been conducted by Rochelle Tyl of the Research Triangle Institute, a private lab in North Carolina. Tyl’s first BPA study, published in 2002 at a cost that Tyl puts at around $2 million (also funded by the Society of the Plastics Industry), examined three generations of rats and found no adverse effects at low doses. Yet here, too, there are questions of protocol. The study used a rat strain called the CD Sprague-Dawley, which has been shown to be insensitive to synthetic estrogens like BPA. (A Japanese study found that the CD Sprague-Dawley rat can withstand a dose of synthetic estrogen more than 100 times greater than what a female human can tolerate.) As of early 2007, of the 29 studies that have shown no harm due to BPA, 13 have used the CD Sprague-Dawley rat. Nonetheless, when the FDA declared BPA “safe” this fall, it relied almost exclusively on Tyl’s work — a shortcoming that the agency’s science board publicly criticized in October.

To address criticisms of her first study, Tyl recently completed a follow-up, this time with funding from the American Chemistry Council. “It doesn’t matter who pays for my studies,” says Tyl, who denies there has been any industry influence over her experiments. “It offends the living bejesus out of me, that I’m going to alter a study design or a result.” The follow-up used mice instead of the CD Sprague-Dawley rat and also found no adverse effects from low-dose BPA. However, the study’s details indicate that the mice were fed a type of animal chow that has been shown to mask the effects of estrogens like BPA. Moreover, according to Tyl’s own data, the prostates in both her experimental and her control mice were enormous, suggesting that her study had, in fact, shown effects from BPA, or that there were significant flaws in her team’s lab practices.

Harvard to the Rescue

With two pools of warring studies, BPA regulation has hinged on scientific reviews that assess and pass judgment on the overall body of research. In April 2001, a select group of scientists received a letter emblazoned with the Harvard University crest inviting them to sit on the first such BPA panel. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA), a program under the Harvard School of Public Health, would assume “much of the technical writing responsibilities,” the letter explained. In exchange for attending three two-day meetings and reviewing drafts of the panel’s report, the scientists would be paid $12,000 apiece plus expenses. The letter noted that the Society of the Plastics Industry had commissioned the study and that the panel’s deliberations would be private. The letter concluded, “I assure you it will be a stimulating and productive experience.”

“I said, ‘Great! This is a Harvard center. They’re obviously an honorable bunch,’ ” recalls one accomplished biologist on the panel, who spoke on condition of anonymity. What he didn’t know at the time, he says, was that the center has a history of conflicts of interest. Under founder John D. Graham, a Harvard professor and later administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the George W. Bush White House, the center had solicited funding from companies whose business might be affected by its research. HCRA’s donors have included more than 100 corporations, including BPA producers Dow, Shell, and Germany-based BASF, as well as industry associations such as the American Chemistry Council.

“In the past, HCRA has acted very much like a product-defense group,” says David Michaels, a Clinton-era Energy Department official and author of the book Doubt Is Their Product. “In a 2000 study, paid for by AT&T Wireless, HCRA justified letting motorists talk on their cell phones by arguing that the added productivity outweighs the cost of accidents. Three years later, in a Harvard-funded study, the same researchers found that not to be true.” A more recent example: In 2005, the center published a study concluding that “government advisories on fish consumption and mercury may do more harm than good”; the lead researcher didn’t disclose that most of the study’s $500,000 in funding was underwritten by the United States Tuna Foundation.

Back in October 1991, in a letter to Philip Morris (obtained through the archives of tobacco-industry files released during litigation and maintained by the University of California, San Francisco), Graham demonstrated how HCRA could recast opposition to regulation as concern for the greater good. In the D.C. debate on fuel-efficiency standards, he noted, “We have urged consideration of the safety risks associated with smaller vehicles.” The letter concluded with an appeal for money and an offer of assistance. In an internal memo, a Philip Morris executive noted, “Depending on the ‘vibes’ you guys get when you meet Graham, I would also be in favor of PM becoming a contributor to the center.”

When it came to its BPA review, the Harvard center held several meetings of its panel between summer 2001 and 2002. But then the report languished for two years, during which time dozens of studies were released that strengthened the case against BPA, including a human study that linked the compound to ovarian cysts (a cause of infertility). None of those findings made it into the final report. Instead, the review, published in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment in 2004, focused on Tyl’s research and a few other industry studies that downplayed BPA’s health concerns. The review concluded that there is “no consistent affirmative evidence of low-dose BPA effects.”

Several members of the 12-person panel didn’t feel comfortable with the conclusions. Four removed their names from the study. One of those scientists, Marvin Meistrich, says, “I disagreed with the way the final report was prepared.” After the panel’s last meeting, the Harvard center selected additional studies to include in its review — “ones that tended to demonstrate no effects,” says Meistrich. One panel member who did sign the report, Claude Hughes, turned around and less than a year later published a paper with vom Saal in Environmental Health Perspectives (the NIH’s premier journal) that refuted the Harvard center’s conclusions.

In the end, HCRA paid even the scientists who pulled their names from the review. The published paper’s acknowledgments thank them by name for their “helpful comments and guidance.” That, in itself, is a score for BPA’s defenders: These scientists have rare specialties that would be vitally important if BPA were to wind up in court. A judge could rule that they had a conflict of interest. “It’s fairly commonplace for companies facing tort suits to corner the market on experts, making it more difficult for the plaintiff to hire witnesses,” says Peter Nordberg, a toxic-tort lawyer at Berger & Montague in Philadelphia.

Through a spokesperson, George Gray, the acting director of the Harvard center at the time, declined to comment on the study. (Shortly after the HCRA review appeared, President George W. Bush appointed him assistant administrator of the EPA.) For its part, the Harvard School of Public Health distances itself from the center’s controversial past. “HCRA is a much different place since John Graham left [in 2001],” says assistant dean Robin Herman. Graham says that industry-funded studies at the center have always been subject to “rigorous quality-control procedures.”

You might expect that a compromised review like this would wither away. Yet the opposite is true. The plastics industry still uses it as evidence that BPA is safe. Journalists and consumers who visit bisphenol-a.org, a site created by the American Chemistry Council, can see that none other than Harvard University has weighed in and pronounced BPA harmless.

For a Few Dollars More

In December 2005, another review of BPA began, this one spurred by the federal government, not industry. The National Institutes of Health had started the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), an arm of the National Toxicology Program, in 1998 to study chemicals that might be contributing to alarming trends in the developmental health of Americans. Infertility and birth defects are up. Sperm counts are down. Girls reach puberty earlier. Breast cancer, prostate cancer, and neurobehavioral conditions such as attention-deficit disorder are mounting. Soon after the center’s inception, however, its operations were outsourced to a Beltway consultancy called Sciences International. For a fee of about $1 million a year, Sciences ran the evaluation of roughly 20 chemicals in an eight-year period.

On the surface, Sciences International appeared highly qualified for the task. Its president and founder was Dr. Elizabeth Anderson, a former government toxicologist who had helped establish the EPA. She conducted the EPA’s first studies on carcinogens and later spearheaded its Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. A 10-person firm, launched in 1993, Sciences had analyzed the toxicity of dozens of chemicals for the EPA, the FDA, and other government agencies.

Sciences had also built a robust practice helping corporations grapple with lawsuits and regulation. Among its clients were law firms, trade associations, and oil-, tobacco-, and chemical-industry giants. Until 2006, Sciences reported on its Web site that it had defended MTBE (a gasoline additive since banned in 25 states), TCE (an industrial solvent in drinking water found highly likely to cause childhood cancer and birth defects), and perchlorate (another toxin in drinking water that California has deemed “a serious threat to human health”). Tools of the trade included providing expert testimony in lawsuits and producing scientific papers for publication.

A 2005 investigation in Environmental Health Perspectives raised questions about the boundaries that Anderson and her firm were willing to cross in service of their clients. The journal focused on Sciences’ defense of the pesticide phosphine. In the late 1990s, the EPA proposed stricter standards for phosphine after several people died near fumigated warehouses. The tobacco industry determined that the restrictions would cost millions and turned to Sciences for help. Correspondence between Anderson and R.J. Reynolds, obtained from the UC San Francisco tobacco archives, reveals that Anderson lobbied her former colleagues at the EPA to reconsider. Then, with input from her clients, she drafted a report arguing for the old standards and offered to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. “My experience is that consultant reports funded by those being regulated, and written expressly for the EPA, are easily and frequently ignored,” she wrote in a memo to Joel Seckar, a toxicologist at R.J. Reynolds. “Since I am currently editor-in-chief of the international journal Risk Analysis, perhaps the peer-review process could be expedited.” For this, “Sciences would need an additional $35,000 over and above the $50,000 provided by the original contract,” the letter concluded. When the EPA eventually decided not to change the exposure standard for phosphine, the agency cited the review by Sciences International as justification. (Risk Analysis‘s board — which included HCRA’s George Gray — later tightened its conflict-of-interest standards, after examining the Sciences-phospine episode, but allowed Anderson to remain editor. Anderson declined to talk with Fast Company about the matter.)

Among the first tasks in Sciences’ examination of BPA was to draft a review of previous studies. That draft would serve as a foundation for a panel of scientists who would judge the compound. According to biologist Pete Myers, chief scientist of the nonprofit Environmental Health Sciences, who analyzed the 330-page report, it shared flaws with the discredited Harvard review. “They contained similar biases, both giving undue weight to flawed industry studies and dismissing a wealth of research funded by the National Institutes of Health,” he says. In its own investigation, the Environmental Working Group, a D.C.-based consumer advocate, found that the Sciences draft failed to note which studies were industry funded and ignored details such as Tyl’s use of the estrogen-resistant CD Sprague-Dawley rat.

A further complication was that the panel of experts brought in to conduct the review itself — while all highly accomplished in their own specialties — included only one person with any experience in BPA research. Unfamiliar with the thousands of pages of literature, the panel was heavily dependent on the Sciences draft review, says Myers. In November 2007, the panel issued a weak warning on BPA: that the research merits “minimal concern” for most of the effects studied.

The fact that the National Toxicology Program eventually overruled the panel — strengthening the warning to “some concern” — has much to do with outrage in Congress over revelations that Sciences International had a significant conflict of interest. In February 2007, another investigation by the Environmental Working Group had revealed that Anthony Scialli, a top Sciences employee whose title was “principal investigator” under the 2005 CERHR contract, had coauthored a 2004 study on birth defects from chemicals with a toxicologist from Dow, a manufacturer of BPA. In response, Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Henry Waxman, both of California, wrote letters upbraiding NIH brass and vowing to keep a close eye on the BPA panel. The NIH requested an explanation from Sciences, which denied that any conflicts had “impaired its judgment or objectivity.”

But Fast Company has learned that Sciences’ conflicts of interest went even deeper. The firm had passed its verdict on BPA, under oath, even before it began the government review. In 2003, Sciences provided expert testimony for the defense in a lawsuit over BPA. On an archived page of the firm’s Web site, the company bragged that, for a private client, it had acted as an expert witness “challenging the validity” of the science on BPA’s health risks. “The case was decided in favor of the defendants,” the site said. (Anderson, who sold Sciences for $5.1 million in 2001 and left for rival Exponent in 2006, confirmed by email that the testimony happened but declined to provide details. Herman Gibb, who took over as president of Sciences, says the staff working on the CERHR contract was not aware of the testimony.)

The NIH terminated the Sciences contract in April 2007, and the firm is now down to four employees. The Environmental Working Group has since reported that Sciences had client relationships with the makers of nearly every chemical it reviewed under the CERHR contract.

Echoes of Agent Orange

As the Sciences International scandal broke, John D. Dingell, Michigan congressman and then-chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, launched an investigation into the product-defense industry. “I have grave concerns that science may be for sale at these consulting firms,” Dingell told Fast Company. “If supposedly reputable scientists are paid to cast doubt on valid scientific data that raise public-health concerns about everyday products, then the public’s health and safety are being endangered.”

“Science may be for sale at these consulting firms,” says Congressman Dingell. “If supposedly reputable scientists are paid to cast doubt on valid data, the public’s health and safety are being endangered.”

Dingell’s probe zeroed in on a 75-employee Beltway firm called the Weinberg Group (tagline: “Science minds over business matters”). The firm got started in the 1980s defending the carcinogenic defoliant Agent Orange. According to documents from the tobacco archives, founder Myron Weinberg was a major player in Philip Morris’s infamous “whitecoat” project, under which the company secretly paid dozens of PhDs to challenge the findings that secondhand smoke caused cancer. More recently, the firm has fought restrictions on drugs such as ephedra and Fen-phen — both since pulled from the market. On its site, it has noted that when the FDA proposed canceling an unspecified client’s drug, the Weinberg Group launched a lengthy appeal process that led “to 10 additional years of sales prior to the ultimate cancellation.”

An April 2003 marketing letter written by Weinberg vice president P. Terrence Gaffney provides insight into the services the firm offers. The letter offered DuPont help in defending PFOA, a component of Teflon that has been the subject of lawsuits and EPA enforcement costing the company more than $100 million. “Manufacturers must be the aggressors,” the letter urged. “We must implement a strategy at the outset which discourages government agencies, the plaintiff’s bar, and misguided environmental groups from pursuing this matter.” Specifically, Gaffney offered to facilitate “the publication of papers and articles dispelling the alleged … harm.” He promised, “We will harness, focus, and involve the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind — creating the outcome our client desires.”

According to Dingell’s investigation, Sunoco is among the manufacturers that hired the Weinberg Group to defend its BPA business. A spokesperson for Sunoco confirms the company hired Weinberg but says it was only to analyze BPA science. Weinberg also downplays its role. “The Weinberg Group certainly has been involved,” says spokesman John Kyte, managing director of PR giant Burson-Marsteller. “But critics want to attribute to the Weinberg Group this exorbitant influence and this cloak-and-dagger kind of thing. In the big picture, it’s not the reason the product is in widespread use.”

James Lamb, a lawyer and toxicologist, has been a prominent advocate for BPA’s safety, both as a Weinberg vice president and an independent contractor. In 1998, when BPA became a major issue at a scientific conference in Kyoto, Japan, Lamb led press conferences attacking vom Saal’s studies. In a 2001 press release publicizing Tyl’s study using the CD Sprague-Dawley rats, Lamb — identified only as a former NIH scientist, not a consultant to BPA manufacturers — declared that “the concerns raised by sketchy or incomplete data have now been conclusively addressed. The results indicate very clearly that there is no risk to human health from these low-dose exposures.”

The Weinberg Group also sponsors the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which has published much of the industry-backed science on BPA. It published one of Cagen’s BPA studies, as well as the Ashby experiment that cast doubt on vom Saal’s prostate findings. George Gray, formerly of HCRA, is a regular contributor, and many of the studies the Harvard center sent to its expert panel were published here.

Reg Tox Pharm, as the journal is known, is published by the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. That may sound like a weighty organization, but its annual budget is about $50,000, according to its nonprofit tax return. The society was headed by its founder, C. Jelleff Carr, until he passed away in 2005 at age 94. It is now managed by his wife from her suburban Columbia, Maryland, home.

Every year, the society presents an International Achievement Award, for which “there are no specific criteria … however, international scientific developments in toxicology are of special interest,” according to the society’s Web site. The 2004 award went to Dr. Lester M. Crawford, who later was appointed FDA commissioner by President Bush but resigned after two months. The following year, he pleaded guilty to conflict-of-interest charges. In 2005, the award went to Jerome H. Heckman, general counsel to the Society of the Plastics Industry since 1954. And the 2006 honoree was Elizabeth Anderson of Sciences International.

Watchdogs and Canaries

Where the BPA saga goes from here is unclear.

The dueling government reports’ effect on business began rippling out as early as last April, when a draft version of the National Toxicology Program decision was made public. Outraged activists accused the chemical industry of poisoning infants for profit. Trial lawyers filed class-action suits against bottle manufacturers. Senator Charles Schumer of New York proposed banning the suspect baby bottles outright. Wal-Mart, Toys “R” Us, and CVS all announced plans to phase out polycarbonate bottles. Some companies, such as bottle maker Nalgene, have adopted BPA-free plastic. Yet most businesses stuck with BPA products — at least partly because they don’t have a good substitute. Nearly all of the 130 billion food and beverage cans made in the United States each year are still lined with a BPA resin, for example. There is an alternative called Oleoresin, but it’s more expensive, has a shorter shelf life, and can’t be used for acidic foods like tomatoes.

You might expect the government to start controlling the use of BPA, but the track record suggests otherwise. The United States has a long tradition of keeping harmful substances — lead, DDT, tobacco, PCBs — on the market for decades after scientists find adverse effects. The National Toxicology Program report citing “some concern” has no regulatory impact, and the FDA has repeatedly deemed BPA “safe,” even in the face of criticism. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, who has launched numerous investigations into the agency, contends, “The FDA has got to be a watchdog, not a business partner with industry.” (The agency owes a substantial portion of its budget to fees it collects from companies registering new products.) What’s more, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the outside scientist supervising the FDA’s latest review, Martin Philbert of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, failed to disclose a $5 million donation from a man named Charles Gelman — a retired medical-device executive and an opponent of BPA regulation.

The government is unlikely to start controlling the use of BPA. The United States has a long tradition of keeping harmful substances — lead, DDT, tobacco, PCBs — on the market for decades after scientists find adverse effects.

The EPA could theoretically step in, but that’s unlikely too. The agency “has no real program to regulate industrial chemicals, as a result of deep flaws in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act,” says Andy Igrejas, environmental-health campaign director for the Pew Charitable Trusts. Under the act, the EPA needs to show “substantial evidence” that a chemical is harmful, and must weigh the costs of restrictions against the economic benefits of keeping the chemical in commerce. That’s a byzantine chore and helps explain why the agency has managed to restrict only five chemicals in the law’s 33-year history. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, Congress ordered the agency to screen industrial chemicals to determine if they interfere with the endocrine system, a program that might have flagged BPA. Nine years after the 1999 deadline, the agency has yet to screen a single chemical.

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has proposed an overhaul of the whole system. In May, he introduced the Kid-Safe Chemical Act of 2008, which would reverse the burden of proof on chemicals, requiring manufacturers to demonstrate their safety in order to keep them in commerce. The E.U. passed a similar law in 2006, as did Canada in 1999. (Canada has banned BPA in baby bottles.) Still, even if Lautenberg’s bill passes, the question remains whether it would be any less vulnerable to product-defense firms gaming the science.

In the meantime, consumers and concerned producers and retailers of BPA products are left with two options: Trust that the chemical industry has their best interests at heart, or take precautions. In its report, the NIH’s National Toxicology Program advised “concerned parents” to reduce their use of canned foods; use BPA-free baby bottles; and opt for glass, porcelain, or stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot foods and liquids. Independent scientists applauded, though many of them contend that the advice should have been even more strongly worded — and would have been, were the agency not constrained by the industry-funded science.

“The U.S. has this disjointed approach to chemicals management that doesn’t focus on the inherent hazard of the chemical,” says Joel Tickner, project director at the Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. BPA is far from the only modern-age substance whose effects we don’t fully understand, and isn’t the only product whose safety record has been twisted. In that way, perhaps, it may be the canary in the coal mine. And so the question looms: In our quest for progress — and profit — are we putting our future at risk?

David Case interviewed unlikely wind-power tycoon T. Boone Pickens in the June 2008 issue. He is an editor of the Global

FDA Chair’s Donor was Michigan’s “First Polluter”

FDA Chair Studying BPA Took $5 Million Donation From BPA Supporter

Final Report on Bisphenol A: It May Harm Kids

FDA Says BPA Is Safe For Babies

Bisphenol A: How Wal-Mart Became the New FDA

Quotes of the Day: Opinions on the FDA Declaring BPA Safe

Don’t Buy A Nalgene Water Bottle Until You Read This Nalgene Dumps Bisphenol A Like Hot Potato :

Possible Effects of BPA

More Bad News About Bisphenol A: It Interferes with Chemotherapy Treatments

Yet Another Bisphenol A Pile-on: Linked to Heart Disease, Diabetes and Liver Problems

New Study: BPA May Make You Stupid and Depressed

Sources of BPA:

Bisphenol A Is In Your Tomato Sauce

Bisphenol A Could Be In Your Teeth

BPA Danger may be greater from Tin Cans than Water Bottles

Polycarbonate Water bottles:

Canada Calls Bisphenol A “Dangerous” Time to Pack In the Polycarbonates Bottled Water – Lifting the Lid :

MEC Nixes Nalgenes

On Phthalates :

Congress Will Do USEPA’s Job: Reduce Childhood Exposure to Phthalates in Toys

Ask Treehugger: What Is An Endocrine Distruptor?

Are Boys Disappearing Because of Gender Bender Chemicals?

Bisphenol A (BPA): Use in Food Contact Application

Update on Bisphenol A (BPA) for Use in Food Contact Applications

January 2010; Updated March 30, 2012

• Overview
• Background
• FDA’s Current Perspective on BPA
• Additional Studies
• Public Comment and Next Steps for FDA’s Assessment of BPA
• Interim Public Health Recommendations
• The Regulatory Framework for BPA
• Collaboration with International Partners
• Original January 2010 update available in PDF (52KB).

Overview

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical that has been present in many hard plastic bottles and metal-based food and beverage cans since the 1960s.

Studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA. However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.

In the interim:

• FDA is taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. These steps include:
  • supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market;
  • facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans; and
  • supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels in other food can linings.
• FDA is supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA.
• FDA is seeking further public comment and external input on the science surrounding BPA.

FDA is also supporting recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services for infant feeding and food preparation to reduce exposure to BPA.

FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.

Background

BPA is an industrial chemical used to make a hard, clear plastic known as polycarbonate, which has been used in many consumer products, including reusable water bottles. BPA is also found in epoxy resins, which act as a protective lining on the inside of metal-based food and beverage cans. These uses of BPA are subject to premarket approval by FDA as indirect food additives or food contact substances. The original approvals were issued under FDA’s food additive regulations and date from the 1960s.

Studies employing standardized toxicity tests used globally for regulatory decision making thus far have supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.[1] However, results of recent studies using novel approaches and different endpoints describe BPA effects in laboratory animals at very low doses corresponding to some estimated human exposures.[2] Many of these new studies evaluated developmental or behavioral effects that are not typically assessed in standardized tests.

The National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, part of the National Institutes of Health, completed a review of BPA in September 2008.[3] The National Toxicology Program uses five different terms to describe its level of concern about the different effects of chemicals: negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, and serious concern.[4]

In its report on BPA, the National Toxicology Program expressed “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.”[5] The Program also expressed “minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A” and “negligible concern” for other outcomes.[6]

The National Toxicology Program does not make regulatory recommendations. With respect to neurological and developmental outcomes of BPA, the Program stated that “additional research is needed to more fully assess the functional, long-term impacts of exposures to bisphenol A on the developing brain and behavior.”[7] The Program also stated:

Overall, the current literature cannot yet be fully interpreted for biological or experimental consistency or for relevance to human health. Part of the difficulty for evaluating consistency lies in reconciling findings of different studies that use different experimental designs and different specific behavioral tests to measure the same dimension of behavior.[8]

In August 2008, prior to the release of the final National Toxicology Program report, FDA released a document entitled Draft Assessment of Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications.[9] This draft assessment was then reviewed by a Subcommittee of FDA’s Science Board, which released its report at the end of October 2008.[10]

Since that time, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) within FDA has reviewed additional studies of low-dose toxicity cited by the National Toxicology Program and the Science Board Subcommittee as well as other such studies that have become available. The Center then prepared a document entitled Bisphenol A (CAS RN. 80-05): Review of Low Dose Studies,dated August 31, 2009. In the fall of 2009, FDA’s Acting Chief Scientist asked five expert scientists from across the federal government to provide independent scientific evaluations of this document. In April 2010, FDA made the CFSAN documents available for public comment, and also made public the independent scientific evaluations.

FDA is continuing to consider the low dose toxicity studies of BPA as well as other recent peer-reviewed studies related to BPA. At this stage, FDA is explaining its current perspective on BPA, its support for further studies, its establishment of a public docket for its assessment of BPA use in food contact applications, its interim public health recommendations, its view of the appropriate regulatory framework for BPA use in food contact applications, and our collaborations with international partners.

FDA’s Current Perspective on BPA

At this interim stage, FDA shares the perspective of the National Toxicology Program that recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. FDA also recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure. These uncertainties relate to issues such as the routes of exposure employed, the lack of consistency among some of the measured endpoints or results between studies, the relevance of some animal models to human health, differences in the metabolism (and detoxification) of and responses to BPA both at different ages and in different species, and limited or absent dose response information for some studies.

FDA is pursuing additional studies to address the uncertainties in the findings, seeking public input and input from other expert agencies, and supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA to be able to respond quickly, if necessary, to protect the public.

In addition, FDA is supporting reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA, including actions by industry and recommendations to consumers on food preparation. At this time, FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.

Additional Studies

FDA supports additional studies, by both governmental and non-governmental entities, to provide additional information and address uncertainties about the safety of BPA.

FDA’s Studies. FDA’s CFSAN and FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research has been and continues to pursue a set of studies on the exposure to dietary BPA and the safety of low doses of BPA, including assessment of the novel endpoints where concerns have been raised. These include studies pursued in collaboration with the National Toxicology Program and with support and input from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

Recent evaluation by the FDA’s CFSAN has:

• Determined that exposure to dietary BPA for infants, the population of most potential concern, is less than previously estimated. The initial FDA exposure estimates were 0.185 micrograms/kg-bw/day for adults and 2.42 micrograms/kg bw/day for infants. The new estimate of average dietary exposure, based on increased data collection, is 0.2-0.4 micrograms/kw-bw/day for infants and 0.1-0.2 micrograms/kg-bw/day for children and adults.

Recent research studies pursued by FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research have[11-17]:

• Found evidence in rodent studies that the level of the active form of BPA passed from expectant mothers to their unborn offspring, following oral exposure, is so low it could not be measured. The study orally dosed pregnant rodents with 100-1000 times more BPA than people are exposed to through food, and could not detect the active form of BPA in the fetus 8 hours after the mother’s exposure.
• Demonstrated that oral BPA administration results in rapid metabolism of BPA to an inactive form. This results in much lower internal exposure of aglycone BPA (i.e., the active form) than what occurs from other routes of exposure such as injection. Primates of all ages were also found to effectively metabolize BPA to its inactive form and excrete it much more rapidly and efficiently than rodents, thus reducing concerns about results from some rodent studies using oral and, particularly, non-oral exposures which result in higher actual internal exposures of rodents than of primates, including humans, exposed to the same dose.
• Developed a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model which can be used to predict the level of internal exposure to the active and inactive forms of BPA. This model allows comparisons of internal exposure across different ages and routes of exposure (e.g., oral and intravenous routes). Based on the effects of metabolism, internal exposures to aglycone BPA following oral administration are predicted to be below 1% or less of the total BPA level administered.

The FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is continuing with additional studies, including:

• Rodent subchronic studies which are in progress to characterize potential effects, and, where observed, the dose-response relationship in the prostate and mammary glands for orally administered BPA. In addition, these studies will explore other issues including potential effects of BPA on metabolic changes and cardiovascular endpoints. These studies will include an in utero phase, mimic bottle feeding in neonates, and employ a dose range that will cover the low doses where effects have been previously reported in some animal studies, as well as higher doses where estrogenic effects have been measured in guideline oral studies. Results from this study are expected to be available to FDA to inform the agency’s decision making starting in 2012.

• Rodent behavioral/neuroanatomical pilot studies which are also already in progress as part of the sub-chronic study to characterize dose levels at which behavioral, neuroanatomical, neurochemical and hormonal endpoints may be affected by developmental exposure to BPA. These data are intended to evaluate possible effects of exposure to BPA during development that have been reported in some published studies on sexually dimorphic behavioral endpoints such as anxiety, as well as on standard developmental neurotoxicity tests. Results from these studies are expected to be available to FDA to inform the agency’s decision making starting in 2012.

Other Studies. Other studies on the safety of BPA are also underway. For example, the National Toxicology Program/Food and Drug Administration (NTP/FDA) will conduct a long-term toxicity study of BPA in rodents to assess a variety of endpoints including novel endpoints where concerns have been raised. NTP/FDA will collaborate with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences by providing animals and tissues to a consortium of researchers with interest in studying a variety of additional toxicological areas.

Public Comment and Next Steps for FDA’s Assessment of BPA

On April 5, 2010 the FDA opened a public docket (FDA-2010-N-0100) for comment on BPA. The docket contains the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s review of the low dose toxicity studies and recently published studies, the five expert reviews, other relevant material, and public comments.

FDA will also continue to consult with other expert agencies in the federal government, including the National Institutes of Health (and National Toxicology Program), Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Based on this outside input and the results of new studies, FDA will update its assessment of BPA and will be prepared to take additional action if warranted. As the scientific field is evolving rapidly, FDA anticipates providing further updates on BPA to the public as significant new information becomes available.

Interim Public Health Recommendations

At this interim stage, FDA supports reasonable steps to reduce exposure of infants to BPA in the food supply. In addition, FDA will work with industry to support and evaluate manufacturing practices and alternative substances that could reduce exposure to other populations.

Infants. Infants are a potentially sensitive population for BPA because (1) their neurological and endocrine systems are developing; and (2) their hepatic system for detoxification and elimination of such substances as BPA may be immature.

• FDA is supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market. FDA understands that the major manufacturers of these products have stopped selling new BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market. Glass and polypropylene bottles and plastic disposable “bag” liners have long been alternatives to polycarbonate nursing bottles.

• FDA is facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans. FDA has already noted increased interest on the part of infant formula manufacturers to explore alternatives to BPA-containing can linings, and has received notifications for alternative packaging. The agency is supporting efforts to develop and use alternatives by (1) working with manufacturers regarding the regulatory status and safety of alternative liners; (2) giving technical assistance to those wishing to prepare applications for approval of alternatives; and (3) expeditiously reviewing any such new applications for alternatives. Because reliable can lining materials are a critical factor in ensuring the quality of heat processed liquid infant formula, safe replacement of such materials requires not only that they both be safe for food contact but also allow for processing that is fully functional in protecting the safety and quality of the infant formula itself.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and other health authorities recommend breastfeeding as the optimal nutrition for infants. Infant formula, including infant formula packaged in cans, is a safe and acceptable alternative that provides known nutritional benefits and prevents life-threatening nutritional deficiencies.

FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.

Other Advice. FDA is supporting recommendations by the Department of Health and Human Services for infant feeding and food preparation to reduce exposure to BPA.

The Regulatory Framework for BPA

Current BPA food contact uses were approved under food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago. This regulatory structure limits the oversight and flexibility of FDA. Once a food additive is approved, any manufacturer of food or food packaging may use the food additive in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement to notify FDA of that use. For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics. As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations. Furthermore, if FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal.

Since 2000, FDA has regulated new food contact substances through the Food Contact Notification Program. Under this program:

• FDA receives notification from each manufacturer of the basis for the safe use of a food contact substance, detailing the conditions of the substance’s use, allowing the agency and public to know how much is being used, and for what applications;
• FDA can work with individual manufacturers to minimize exposure if a potential or actual safety concern is identified after approval;
• FDA can require the submission of additional safety and exposure data from individual manufacturers to address a significant safety concern;
• FDA can require additional studies by individual manufacturers to address a significant safety concern; and
• If FDA were to reach a conclusion that revocation of one or more approved uses is justified, FDA could quickly protect the public by revoking the use through a notice published in the Federal Register.

Given concern about BPA, and the ongoing evaluation of and studies on its safety, FDA believes that the more modern framework is more robust and appropriate for oversight of BPA than the current one.

FDA will encourage manufacturers to voluntarily submit a food contact notification for their currently marketed uses of BPA-containing materials.

In addition, FDA will explore additional options to regulate BPA under the more modern framework.

Collaboration with International Partners

FDA will continue to participate in discussions with our international regulatory and public health counterparts who have also been engaged in assessing the safety of BPA.

For example, FDA has participated with Health Canada in encouraging industry efforts to refine their manufacturing methods for the production of infant formula can linings to minimize migration of BPA into the formula.

In addition, FDA actively supported and participated in the Expert Consultation on BPA convened by World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on November 2-5, 2010, in Ottawa, Canada. Information about this expert consultation and the report of the meeting is available from the WHO web site .

[1]See, e.g., European Food Safety Authority. Toxicokinetics of Bisphenol A, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food additives, Flavourings, Processing aids and Materials in Contact with Food, Adopted 9 July 2008 , The EFSA Journal 2008.

[2]See, e.g. vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Belcher SM et al. Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure, Reproductive Toxicology 2007;24:131-8.

[3]NTP-CERHR Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A, NIH Publication No. 08-5994, September 2008.

[4]Ibid, page 6.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Ibid, page 20.

[8]Ibid.

[9]U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Draft Assessment of Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications, 14 August 2008.

[10]FDA Science Board Subcommittee on Bisphenol A. Scientific Peer-Review of the Draft Assessment of Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications, 31 October 2008.

[11]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Woodling K.A., Fisher J.W. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in neonatal and adult rhesus monkeys, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2010; 248: 1–11.

[12]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Fisher J.W. Pharmacokinetics of Bisphenol A in neonatal and adult CD-1 mice: Inter-species comparisons with Sprague-Dawley rats and rhesus monkeys, Toxicology Letters 2011; 207: 298– 305.

[13]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Brown R.P., Fisher J.W. Distribution of bisphenol A into tissues of adult, neonatal, and fetal Sprague–Dawley rats, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2011; 255: 261–270.

[14]Doerge D.R., Vanlandingham M., Twaddle N.C., Delclos K.B. Lactational transfer of bisphenol A in Sprague–Dawley rats, Toxicology Letters 2010; 199: 372–376.

[15]Twaddle N.C., Churchwell M.I., Vanlandingham M., Doerge D.R. Quantification of deuterated bisphenol A in serum, tissues, and excreta from adult Sprague Dawley rats using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 2010; 24: 3011–3020.

[16]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Fisher J.W. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in neonatal and adult Sprague-Dawley rats, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2010; 247: 158–165.

[17]Fisher J.W., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Doerge D.R. Pharmacokinetic Modeling: Prediction and Evaluation of Route Dependent Dosimetry of Bisphenol A in Monkeys with Extrapolation to Humans, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2011; 257; 122-136.

Bisphenol A (BPA) Action plan summary

• What chemical is addressed in the Action Plan?
• Why is EPA concerned about this chemical?
• What action is EPA taking?

What chemical is addressed in the action plan?

This action plan addresses EPA’s review of Bisphenol A (BPA), CASRN 80-05-7.

Why is EPA concerned about this chemical?

BPA is a high production volume (HPV) chemical widely used in manufacturing polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins used in nearly every industry. Humans appear to be exposed primarily through food packaging manufactured using BPA, although those products account for less than 5 percent of the BPA used in this country. Food packaging is under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not EPA. FDA recently explained the steps it is taking to address BPA. Releases of BPA to the environment exceed 1 million pounds per year.

Because BPA is a reproductive, developmental, and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic, there are questions about its potential impact particularly on children’s health and the environment. Studies employing standardized toxicity tests used globally for regulatory decision-making indicate that the levels of BPA in humans and the environment are below levels of potential concern for adverse effects. However, results of some recent studies using novel low-dose approaches and examining different endpoints describe subtle effects in laboratory animals at very low concentrations. Some of these low-dose studies are potentially of concern for the environment because the concentration levels identified with effects are similar to some current environmental levels to which sensitive aquatic organisms may be exposed.

Regulatory authorities around the world reviewing these low-dose studies have generally concluded that they are insufficient for use in risk assessment because of a variety of flaws in some of the study designs, scientific uncertainty concerning the relevance to health of the reported effects, and the inability of other researchers to reproduce the effects in standardized studies. However, since the low-dose studies do raise questions and concerns, some authorities have taken action to protect sensitive populations, particularly infants and young children. For example, while acknowledging that science indicates exposure levels are below potential health effects levels, Canada is taking steps to ban BPA in baby bottles as a precautionary measure. On January 15, 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided interim recommendations on how parents and families can reduce exposures to BPA while additional studies are underway.

What action is EPA taking?

Based on EPA’s screening-level review of hazard and exposure information, including the uncertainties surrounding the low-dose studies, EPA’s action plan called for EPA to:

1. Consider initiating rulemaking under section 5(b)(4) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to identify BPA on the Concern List as a substance that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment on the basis of its potential for long-term adverse effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic species at concentrations similar to those found in the environment. A notice of proposed rulemaking is currently pending interagency review at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

1. Consider initiating rulemaking under section 4(a) of TSCA to develop data with respect to environmental effects relevant to a further determination that BPA either does or does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment. This may include testing or monitoring data in the vicinity of landfills, manufacturing facilities, or similar locations to determine the potential for BPA to enter the environment, including surface water, ground water, and drinking water, at levels of potential concern particularly for environmental organisms, pregnant women, and children. EPA released this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)(PDF) (13 pp. 266 kb, About PDF) on July 26, 2011. Read more about the ANPRM on environmental testing of BPA.

1. Initiate collaborative alternatives assessment activities under its Design for the Environment (DfE) program to encourage reductions in BPA releases and exposures. One of these activities, initiated in April 2010, will address thermal paper coatings used in such applications as cash register receipts, a use where preferable alternatives to BPA may be readily available. This DfE environmental and health assessment is expected to be completed in the latter half of 2011. Additionally, EPA intends to initiate alternatives analyses for BPA used in foundry castings since foundries are accountable for large releases of BPA as reported under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and for BPA-based materials lining water and waste water pipes since this application may have a potential for human and environmental exposure.
   • July 31, 2012 – Through its DfE program, EPA has released for comment the draft alternatives assessment “Bisphenol A (BPA) Alternatives in Thermal Paper” (PDF) (492 pp., 6.1 mb.) About PDF). Read more about the BPA alternative partnership. The draft report is available for comment until October 1, 2012.

EPA does not intend to initiate regulatory action under TSCA at this time on the basis of risks to human health. EPA remains committed to protecting human health and will continue to consult and coordinate closely with FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to better determine and evaluate the potential health consequences of BPA. The results of this assessment work will factor significantly in any future EPA decisions to address potential risks to human health resulting from uses within EPA’s jurisdiction.

As part of the Agency’s efforts to address BPA, EPA also intends to evaluate the potential for disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure from TSCA uses.

Download the complete Bisphenol A (BPA) Action Plan (PDF), (22 pp., 202 KB, About PDF)

Access the public comment docket for the Bisphenol A (BPA) Action Plan (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0348) on Regulations.gov.

Access the American Chemistry Council’s request for correction of the BPA Action Plan and the EPA responses to that request.

Access information on the Design for the Environment (DfE) BPA Alternatives In Thermal Paper Partnership.

Track the progress of the TSCA section 4 test rule development activity on the EPA’s Rulemaking Gateway.

Access information on the Environmental Testing of Bisphenol A.

Access the public comment docket for the Testing of Bisphenol A Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0812) at regulations.gov.

Bisphenol A

Bisphenol A
IUPAC name 4,4′-(propane-2,2-diyl)diphenol
Other names BPA, p,p’-isopropylidenebisphenol, 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane.
Identifiers
CAS number	80-05-7
PubChem	6623
ChemSpider	6371
UNII	MLT3645I99
EC number	201-245-8
UN number	2430
DrugBank	DB06973
KEGG	C13624
ChEBI	CHEBI:33216
ChEMBL	CHEMBL418971
RTECS number	SL6300000
Jmol-3D images	Image 1 Image 2
Properties
Molecular formula	C15H16O2
Molar mass	228.29 g mol−1
Appearance	White solid
Density	1.20 g/cm³
Melting point	158-159 °C, 431-432 K, 316-318 °F
Boiling point	220 °C, 493 K, 428 °F (4 mmHg)
Solubility in water	120–300 ppm (21.5 °C)
Hazards
R-phrases	R36 R37 R38 R43
S-phrases	S24 S26 S37
NFPA 704	0 3 0
Flash point	227 °C (441 °F)
Related compounds
Related compounds	phenols Bisphenol S
(verify) (what is: /?) Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa)
Infobox references

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an organic compound with the chemical formula (CH₃)₂C(C₆H₄OH)₂. It is a colorless solid that is soluble in organic solvents, but poorly soluble in water. Having two phenol functional groups, it is used to make polycarbonate polymers and epoxy resins, along with other materials used to make plastics. Bisphenol A has a vapor pressure of 5*10^-6 Pa.^[1]

BPA is controversial because it exerts detectable hormone-like properties, raising concerns about its presence in consumer products and foods contained in such products. Starting in 2008, several governments questioned its safety, prompting some retailers to withdraw polycarbonate products. A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised further concerns regarding exposure to fetuses, infants, and young children.^[2] In September 2010, Canada became the first country to declare BPA a toxic substance.^[3][4] The European Union, Canada, and recently the United States have banned BPA use in baby bottles.^[5][6]

Production:

World production capacity of this compound was 1 million tons in the 80s,^[7] and more than 2.2 million tons in 2009.^[8] In 2003, U.S. consumption was 856,000 tons, 72% of which was used to make polycarbonate plastic and 21% going into epoxy resins.^[9] In the U.S., less than 5% of the BPA produced is used in food contact applications,^[10] but remains in the canned food industry and printing applications such as sales receipts.^[11][12]

Bisphenol A was first synthesized by the Russian chemist A.P. Dianin in 1891.^[13][14] This compound is synthesized by the condensation of acetone (hence the suffix A in the name)^[15] with two equivalents of phenol. The reaction is catalyzed by a strong acid, such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) or a sulfonated polystyrene resin. Industrially, a large excess of phenol is used to ensure full condensation; the product mixture of the cumene process (acetone and phenol) may also be used as starting material:^[7]

A large number of ketones undergo analogous condensation reactions. Commercial production of BPA requires distillation – either extraction of BPA from many resinous byproducts under high vacuum, or solvent-based extraction using additional phenol followed by distillation.^[7]

Use:

Bisphenol A is used primarily to make plastics, and products using bisphenol A-based plastics have been in commercial use since 1957.^[16] At least 3.6 million tonnes (8 billion pounds) of BPA are used by manufacturers yearly.^[17] It is a key monomer in production of epoxy resins^[18][19] and in the most common form of polycarbonate plastic.^[7][20][21] Bisphenol A and phosgene react to give polycarbonate under biphasic conditions; the hydrochloric acid is scavenged with aqueous base:

Diphenyl carbonate may be used in place of phosgene. Phenol is eliminated instead of hydrochloric acid. This transesterification process avoids the toxicity and handling of phosgene.^[22]

Polycarbonate plastic, which is clear and nearly shatter-proof, is used to make a variety of common products including baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical and dental devices, dental fillings and sealants, CDs and DVDs, household electronics, and eyeglass lenses.^[7] BPA is also used in the synthesis of polysulfones and polyether ketones, as an antioxidant in some plasticizers, and as a polymerization inhibitor in PVC. Epoxy resins containing bisphenol A are used as coatings on the inside of almost all food and beverage cans,^[23] however, due to BPA health concerns, in Japan epoxy coating was mostly replaced by PET film.^[24]

Bisphenol A is also a precursor to the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A, and formerly was used as a fungicide.^[25] Bisphenol A is a preferred color developer in carbonless copy paper and thermal paper,^[26] with the most common public exposure coming from some^[27] thermal point of sale receipt paper.^[28][29] BPA-based products are also used in foundry castings and for lining water pipes.^[10]

Identification in plastics:

Some flexible type 3 plastics may leak bisphenol A

Some type 7 plastics may leak bisphenol A

There are seven classes of plastics used in packaging applications. Currently there are no BPA labeling requirements for plastics.

“In general, plastics that are marked with recycle codes 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are very unlikely to contain BPA. Some, but not all, plastics that are marked with recycle codes 3 or 7 may be made with BPA.”^[30]

Type 7 is the catch-all “other” class, and some type 7 plastics, such as polycarbonate (sometimes identified with the letters “PC” near the recycling symbol) and epoxy resins, are made from bisphenol A monomer.^[7][31]

Type 3 (PVC) also may contain bisphenol A as an antioxidant in plasticizers.^[7] This refers to “flexible PVC”, but not for rigids such as pipe, windows, and siding.

History:

Bisphenol A was discovered in 1891 by Russian chemist Aleksandr Dianin. In the early 1930s the British chemist Charles Edward Dodds recognized BPA as an artificial estrogen.^[32] During that time BPA had two initial uses. The first use of BPA was to enhance the growth of cattle and poultry. The second use of BPA in the mid 1930s was as an estrogen replacement for women. BPA was only briefly used as an estrogen replacement and was replaced by diethylstilbestrol (DES).^[33] Based on research by chemists at Bayer and General Electric, BPA has been used since the 1950s to harden polycarbonate plastics and make epoxy resin, and in the lining of food and beverage containers.^[34][35] The first evidence of the estrogenicity of bisphenol A came from experiments on rats conducted in the 1930s,^[36][37] but it was not until 1997 that adverse effects of low-dose exposure on laboratory animals were first proposed (hormesis).^[23] Modern studies began finding possible connections to health issues caused by exposure to BPA during pregnancy and during development. See Government and industry response. Research is ongoing and the debate continues as to whether BPA should be banned or not, and to what extent, all over the world. In 2010 Canada’s department of the environment declared BPA to be a “toxic substance”.^[38]

Health effects:

Bisphenol A is a weak endocrine disruptor, which can mimic estrogen and may lead to negative health effects.^{[39][40][41][42]} Early developmental stages appear to be the period of greatest sensitivity to its effects,^[43] and some studies have linked prenatal exposure to later physical and neurological difficulties. Regulatory bodies have determined safety levels for humans, but those safety levels are currently being questioned or are under review as a result of new scientific studies.^[44][45] A 2011 study that investigated the number of chemicals pregnant women are exposed to in the U.S. found BPA in 96% of women.^[46]

In 2009, The Endocrine Society released a statement citing the adverse effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and the controversy surrounding BPA.^[47]

In 2011, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency commented on a study on dietary exposure of adult humans to BPA performed by the EPA,^[48] saying, “This corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern.”^[49] In the study 20 subjects were tested for BPA every hour for twenty-four hours while consuming three meals consisting of canned food.^[48]

In 2012 a paper was written in response to this study, however, criticizing the study as lacking data and having flawed assumptions.^[50]

Overall, empirical evidence supporting the negative health effects of BPA varies significantly across studies. Opinions vary greatly about the health effects of BPA. Some studies conclude that BPA poses no health risks while others state that BPA causes a number of adverse health effects. In general, the European’s Scientific Committee on Food, the EUs European Chemicals Bureau, the European Food Safety Authority, and the US Food and Drug Administration have concluded that current levels of BPA present no risk to the general population. However, experts in the field of endocrine disruptors have stated that the entire population may suffer adverse health effects from current BPA levels.^[51] Experts advise readers of scientific studies to consider who conducted the study, what their affiliations are, and what the purpose of the study was.

Expert panel conclusions:

In 2006, the US Government sponsored an assessment of the scientific literature on BPA. 38 opponents of bisphenol A gathered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina to review several hundred studies on BPA, many conducted by members of the group. At the end of the meeting, the group issued the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement, which stated “BPA at concentrations found in the human body is associated with organizational changes in the prostate, breast, testis, mammary glands, body size, brain structure and chemistry, and behavior of laboratory animals.”^[52]

The Chapel Hill Consensus Statement claimed that average levels in people are above those that cause harm to many animals in laboratory experiments. They noted that while BPA is not persistent in the environment or in humans, biomonitoring surveys indicate that exposure is continuous, however, which is problematic because acute animal exposure studies are used to estimate daily human exposure to BPA, and no studies that had examined BPA pharmacokinetics in animal models had followed continuous low-level exposures. They added that measurement of BPA levels in serum and other body fluids suggests the possibilities that BPA intake is much higher than accounted for, and/or that BPA can bioaccumulate in some conditions (such as pregnancy).^[53] A 2011 study, the first to examine BPA in a continuous low-level exposure throughout the day, did find an increased absorption and accumulation of BPA in the blood of mice.^[54]

In 2007 studies indicating harm reported a variety of deleterious effects in rodent offspring exposed in the uterus: abnormal weight gain, insulin resistance, prostate cancer, and excessive mammary gland development.^[55]

A panel convened by the U.S. National Institutes of Health in 2007 noted that many of the studies referenced by the Chapel Hill group had methodological problems. This panel could not rule out “some concern” about BPA’s effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior.^[9] The concern over the effect of BPA on infants was also heightened by the fact that infants and children are estimated to have the highest daily intake of BPA.^[56] A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) later agreed with the panel, expressing “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A,” and “minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.” The NTP had “negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring.”^[57]

External links:

Look up bisphenol a in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Fate of bisphenol a during treatment with the litter-decomposing fungi Stropharia rugosoannulata and Stropharia coronilla. Chemosphere. 2011;83(3):226–32. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.12.094. PMID 21295326.
• Plastic Not Fantastic with Bisphenol A (www.scientificamerican.com)
• US FDA statement on bisphenol A from 2008
• Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives. March 2009;117(3):309–315. doi:10.1289/ehp.0800173. PMID 19337501. PMC 2661896.
• EHP Collection: Bisphenol A
• Hazard in a bottle Attempt to regulate BPA in California defeated (from The Economist)
• How to Protect Your Baby from BPA (Bisphenol A)
• Alternatives to BPA containers not easy for U.S. foodmakers to find Layton, Lyndsey. 23 February 2010. Washington Post
• ChemSub Online : Bisphenol A.
• Is It Time to End Concerns over the Estrogenic Effects of Bisphenol A?
• • This page was last modified on 4 August 2012 at 22:33.
  • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
    Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

  References

  1. ^ speclab.com – Chemical Fact Sheet – Cas #80057 CASRN 80-05-7, 2012-04-01
  2. ^ ^{a b} U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications: January 2010; 15 January 2010 [cited 15 January 2010].
  3. ^ [1]. Canada Gazette Part II. 13 October 2010;144(21):1806–18.
  4. ^ Martin Mittelstaedt. Canada first to declare bisphenol A toxic. Globe and Mail (Canada). 13 October 2010.
  5. ^ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/07/17/156916616/fda-bans-chemical-bpa-in-sippy-cups-and-baby-bottles
  6. ^ ^{a b} EU to ban Bisphenol A in baby bottles in 2011; 25 November 2010 [cited 2 February 2012].
  7. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Phenol Derivatives. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2002. (Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry). doi:10.1002/14356007.a19_313.
  8. ^ Experts demand European action on plastics chemical. 22 June 2010. Reuters.
  9. ^ ^{a b c} National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CERHR Expert Panel Report for Bisphenol A [PDF].. 26 November 2007 [archived 18 February 2008; cited 18 April 2008].
  10. ^ ^{a b c d e} U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Bisphenol A Action Plan; 29 March 2010 [cited 12 April 2010].
  11. ^ ^{a b} Concern over canned foods. Consumer Reports. December 2009 [cited 2 February 2012].
  12. ^ Soaring BPA Levels Found in People Who Eat Canned Foods. 23 November 2011. Fox News.
  13. ^ Dianin. Zhurnal russkogo fiziko-khimicheskogo obshchestva. 1891;23: 492–.
  14. ^ Ueber die Einwirkung von Brom und von Chlor auf Phenole: Substitutionsprodukte, Pseudobromide und Pseudochloride. Justus Liebigs Annalen der Chemie. 1905;343:75–99. doi:10.1002/jlac.19053430106.
  15. ^ Synthesis and Characterization of Oligomers. CRC Press; 1991. ISBN 0-8493-4954-0. p. 103.
  16. ^ Bisphenol A Global Industry Group. Bisphenol A Information Sheet; October 2002 [cited 7 December 2010].
  17. ^ Studies Report More Harmful Effects From BPA. U.S. News & World Report. 10 June 2009 [cited 28 October 2010].
  18. ^ California Progress Report. Lawmakers to press for BPA regulation; 17 July 2009 [cited 31 January 2012].
  19. ^ Ridding life of bisphenol A a challenge. Toronto Star. 16 April 2008 [cited 2 August 2009].
  20. ^ Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology. 5 ed. Vol. 5. ISBN 0-471-52695-9. p. 8.
  21. ^ Alliance Polymers, Inc. Polycarbonate (PC) Polymer Resin [cited 2 August 2009].
  22. ^ Wittcoff, Harold; Reuben, B. G.; Plotkin, Jeffrey S. (2004). Industrial Organic Chemicals. Wiley-IEEE. pp. 278. ISBN 978-0-471-44385-8. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
  23. ^ ^{a b c} Bisphenol A under scrutiny. Chemical and Engineering News. 2 June 2008;86(22):36–39.
  24. ^ Consumers fear the packaging – a BPA alternative is needed now; 22 September 2008 [cited 5 January 2010].
  25. ^ Pesticideinfo.org. Bisphenol A [cited 23 October 2011].
  26. ^ US 6562755, “Thermal paper with security features”
  27. ^ Raloff, Janet. Science News. More evidence that BPA laces store receipts; 27 July 2001 [cited 3 August 2010]. “Bill Van Den Brandt of Appleton Papers says that the receipts paper made by his company (which bills itself as the nation’s leading producer of carbonless and thermal papers) is BPA-free.”
  28. ^ Raloff, Janet. Science News. Concerned about BPA: Check your receipts; 7 October 2009 [cited 3 August 2010].
  29. ^ ^{a b} Fukazawa, H.; Hoshino, K.; Shiozawa, T.; Matsushita, H.; Terao, Y. (2001). “Identification and quantification of chlorinated bisphenol a in wastewater from wastepaper recycling plants”. Chemosphere 44 (5): 973–979. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(00)00507-5. PMID 11513431.edit
  30. ^ Hhs.gov. Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents; 15 January 2010 [cited 23 October 2011].
  31. ^ Biello D. Plastic (not) fantastic: Food containers leach a potentially harmful chemical. Scientific American. 19 February 2008 [cited 9 April 2008];2.
  32. ^ ^{a b} Erler, C. & Novak, J. Bisphenol A Exposure: Human Risk and Health Policy. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2010. Volume 25:400-407. Accessed online March 1, 2012.
  33. ^ Erler, C. & Novak, J. Bisphenol A Exposure: Human Risk and Health Policy. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2010. Volume 25:400-407. Accessed online March 1, 2012.
  34. ^ ^{a b} The Perils of Plastic – Environmental Toxins – TIME. TIME. Thursday, 1 Apr. 2010 [cited 2 July 2010].
  35. ^ Vogel, S. The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A “Safety”. American Journal of Public Health. 2009. Vol 99: S3. Accessed online March 1, 2012.
  36. ^ Dodds E. C., Lawson Wilfrid. Synthetic Œstrogenic Agents without the Phenanthrene Nucleus. Nature. 1936;137(3476):996. doi:10.1038/137996a0. Bibcode:1936Natur.137..996D.
  37. ^ ^{a b} E. C. Dodds and W. Lawson, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 125, No. 839 (27-IV-1938), pp. 222–232.
  38. ^ ^{a b} Order Adding a Toxic Substance to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; 23 September 2010 [cited 2 February 2012].
  39. ^ Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: From Basic Research to Clinical Practice. Humana Press; 8 June 2007. (Contemporary Endocrinology). ISBN 978-1-58829-830-0.
  40. ^ Critical evaluation of observed adverse effects of endocrine active substances on reproduction and development, the immune system, and the nervous system [Full Article]. Pure Appl. Chem. 2003 [cited 28 February 2007];75(11–12):2099–2123. doi:10.1351/pac200375112099.
  41. ^ Okada H, Tokunaga T, Liu X, Takayanagi S, Matsushima A, Shimohigashi Y. Direct evidence revealing structural elements essential for the high binding ability of bisphenol A to human estrogen-related receptor-gamma. Environ. Health Perspect.. 2008;116(1):32–8. doi:10.1289/ehp.10587. PMID 18197296.
  42. ^ ^{a b c} vom Saal FS, Myers JP. Bisphenol A and Risk of Metabolic Disorders. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1353–5. doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1353. PMID 18799451.
  43. ^ ^{a b} Draft Screening Assessment for The Challenge Phenol, 4,4′ -(1-methylethylidene)bis- (Bisphenol A)Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 80-05-7. Health Canada, 2008.
  44. ^ Ginsberg G, Rice DC. Does Rapid Metabolism Ensure Negligible Risk from Bisphenol A?. EPH. 2009;117(11):1639–1643. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901010. PMID 20049111. PMC 2801165.
  45. ^ Beronius, A.; Rudén, C.; Håkansson, H.; Hanberg, A. (2009). “Risk to all or none?-A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A”. Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) 29 (2): 132–146. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2009.11.007. PMID 19931376. edit
  46. ^ ScienceDaily. 99% of pregnant women in US test positive for multiple chemicals including banned ones, study suggests; 14 January 2011 [cited 1 February 2012].
  47. ^ Endocrine Society. Endocrine Society Position Statement Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals; 11 June 2009 [cited 6 April 2012].
  48. ^ ^{a b} Teeguarden JG, Calafat AM, Ye X, Doerge DR, Churchwell MI, Gunawan R, Graham MK.. Twenty-four hour human urine and serum profiles of bisphenol a during high-dietary exposure. Toxicological Sciences – an official journal of the Society for Toxicology. 2011;125:318–20.
  49. ^ FSA. Small pond, same big issues; 27 July 2011 [cited 3 August 2011].
  50. ^ Vom Saal FS, Prins GS, Welshons WV. (2012). “Report of very low real-world exposure to bisphenol A is unwarranted based on a lack of data and flawed assumptions. Toxicol Sci. 2012 Jan;125(1):318-20″. Toxicological Sciences – an official journal of the Society for Toxicology 125 (1): 321–5. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr273. PMID 22020768.
  51. ^ [Breonius, A. Rudén, C. Håkansson, H, & Hanberg, A. (2010) "Risk to all or none? A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A" Reproductive Toxicology 29. 132-146
  52. ^ Vogel, S. (2009). "The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A ‘Safety’". American Journal of Public Health 99 (S3): 559-566.
  53. ^ vom Saal FS. Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure. Reprod. Toxicol.. 2007;24(2):131–8. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.07.005. PMID 17768031.
  54. ^ Sciencedaily.com. Bisphenol A (BPA) accumulates more rapidly within the body than previously thought; 6 June 2011 [cited 1 February 2012].
  55. ^ Pubs.acs.org. Chemical & Engineering News: Government & Policy – Bisphenol A On Trial [cited 23 October 2011].
  56. ^ Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Paul Brown, BS, and Laura Walls, BA. National Research Center for Women & Families. Are Bisphenol A (BPA) Plastic Products Safe for Infants and Children?; November 2009 [cited 2 February 2012].
  57. ^ ^{a b c} John Bucher, PhD, Mike Shelby, PhD. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Since you asked – Bisphenol A (BPA): Questions and Answers about Bisphenol A [cited 2 February 2012].

“Richard Branson – Water crisis – How do we save the water?”

WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide.
We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson

www.wholeworldwater.co

Top of page

“You Get More Toxic Exposure From Taking A Shower Than From
Drinking The Same Water.”

This article is courtesy of Citizens Concerned About Chloramine (CCAC), a nonprofit organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.

…. Summary statement from a recent study at a major U.S. University and as reported in Science News, vol. 130.

Diagram adapted from the Weekly Newsmagazine of Science, SCIENCE NEWS.Chemistry VOL 130 no. 12 Pages 177-192

In a new study, researcher Julian Andelman, of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, the National Academy of Sciences has shown that volatile chemicals present in many municipal drinking water supplies are especially toxic to people when they are exposed to them when bathing or showering. “. . .the major health threat posed by these water pollutants is far more likely to be from their inhalation as air pollutants in the home, according to preliminary data from a study Andelman and his colleagues have just reported.”

“In the past, he says, inhalation exposure to water pollutants has largely been ignored.” His data indicates that hot showers can liberate between 50 to 80 percent of the dissolved chemicals into the air. Emissions from hot baths are half as high. “(One reason, explains Andelman, is that because water droplets dispersed by a shower head have a larger surface-to volume ratio than water streaming into a bath, more of the volatiles can vaporize out).”

It is interesting to note that chloramine actually exists in three forms: monochloramine, dichloramine, and trichloramine. The three forms constantly and rapidly shift from one form to another. “The different volatilities of the chloramines result in substantial differences in the rates of release from water: di- and tri-chloramine are released ~3 and 300 times faster than monochloramine, respectively.” (See page 3 of Chemicals in Drinking Water: Chloramine (PDF, 178 KB), by Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health. Alternate source: click here.) These chemicals vaporize easily out of the water that is heated and aerosolized. All three forms are respiratory irritants, with trichloramine being the most toxic.

Andelman points out that.. . “Although showering can be an intense source of residential exposure to water pollutants, . . . it is far from the only important source. Andelman notes that only about 5 of the 50 to 70 gallons of water used daily by the average American goes for showers. Much of the rest is used by dishwashing and laundering. “

“Though actual doses will depend on many factors–especially the level of water contamination–the study does offer clues for limiting exposure. Cold showers can reduce the vaporization of dissolved volatile chemicals by 50 percent, Andelman says. And short showers help, since each doubling in shower time quadruples the dose from accumulating gases. Finally, to limit the spread of released gases into the rest of the home, he suggests closing the bathroom door while bathing and exhausting the room air outdoors.

“Science News, Vol. 130 no. 12, pgs. 177-192, cited by CCAC in this report.

More information about your drinking water

EPA strongly encourages people to learn more about their drinking water. Your water bill or telephone book’s government listings are a good starting point for local information. Water systems have several different choices when it comes to disinfection. To find out if chloramines are used in your community, contact your local water system.

EPA requires all community water systems to prepare an annual consumer confidence report (CCR) (sometimes called a water quality report) for their customers. The CCR lists the level of contaminants that have been detected over a certain period of time and shows how these levels compare with EPA’s drinking water regulations. Some water suppliers have posted their annual reports on EPA’s Website. If you have not received this annual report, and it is not posted on EPA’s Website, you may request it by calling your water system.

• Consumer Confidence Reports Web site
• Find out if your water systems has their CCR listed online

More information about chloramines and disinfection byproducts

More information about health effects and drinking water disinfection from EPA is available in the following locations:

• EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Web site.
  IRIS includes updated information up to 2005 for the oral and carcinogenicity assessments for chloramine (assessment found under heading monochloramine).
• Drinking Water Health Criteria Document for Chloramines, (155pp, 2M, About PDF)
  Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, EPA, 1994. [Note: This document is currently being revised]
• Stage 1 Rule page has further information on exposure and occurrence and summarizes of health information used to set the current chloramine standard.
• Stage 2 Rule Web site has further information on disinfection practices and explains risk-risk tradeoffs associated with disinfection byproducts and pathogen control.

2007 Version of Chloramines Q&A’s

EPA has updated the previous version of the Chloramines Q&A’s in order to better communicate complex issues to a wider audience. EPA expects to continue to review and possiblyupdate the Q&A’s on a periodic basis or as new information becomes available

• 2007 Version of Chloramines Q&A’s PDF. (7pp, 236K)

Top of page

“Richard Branson – Water crisis – How do we save the water?”

WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide.
We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson

www.wholeworldwater.co

Top of page

WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide.
We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson

www.wholeworldwater.co

Top of page

“We could drop the boat right there to go fishing. It was just like a paradise,” said former Bayou Corne resident Jamie Weber. Weber decided to move hear family out last fall. A sign on her old home says “Evaucated: Thank you Texas Brine.” She had no idea that she was putting her mobile home on land on top of an underground salt dome. The Napoleon Salt Dome is full of caverns that have been mined to make brine, or salt water. Other caverns on the dome have been used to store hazardous, potentially explosive gasses, like Butane.

Geophyisicists now say the western side of one of the brine caverns is collapsing, filling in from deep in the Earth, causing the sinkhole at the surface to expand and contract. “On Oct. 25, we moved out of our home when we finally found a rent house because they had put a vent well a hundred yards from my house,” Weber told a joint legislative committee at a hearing on the sinkhole at the State Capitol last week.

She and some of the 350 evacuated Bayou Corne residents packed the Baton Rouge hearing looking for answers. Many of the ones they keep getting are conflicting and confusing, especially from the state and the company that once mined the collapsing salt cavern Texas Brine. “The cause of the sinkhole is the subject of pending litigation. At this point, I don’t think it’s proper to have any discussion about what the cause is and whether we accept what anyone has said regarding the cause of the sinkhole,” Troy Charpentier, an attorney for Texas Brine, told the committee.

The secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources flat-out testified at the same hearing, “The cavern collapse led to the sinkhole and created a path for the natural gas to come to the surface.” But Secretary Stephen Chustz slipped out a backdoor, with his press secretary only offering an interview with himself after the hearing without giving us the chance to ask him any questions.

One of those questions: What caused the cavern to collapse?

“The sinkhole is constantly changing. It changes every time we go out there. Not just on the surface, but in the sub-surface,” said Gary Hecox, a hydrogeologist with CB&I, formerly the Shaw Group, who is a consultant for the state about how to best handle the sinkhole. He said it’s uncharted territory.

“The cavern was 3,400 feet deep, which is deeper than any known cavern failure impacting the surface in the international record,” Hecox said. Nowhere in the world has a brine cavern this large collapsed, and Hecox said the data shows it’s not finished yet. “We still have 450 feet to fill. How long is it gonna take to fill this up? At one foot per day, we’re still looking at an event that’s gonna run over a year,” he said.

Every time it shifts, recently installed seismic monitors pick up tremors like little earthquakes. When it does, big bubbles of natural gas, vegetation and crude oil are released to the surface. They call it a “burp”. “It appears that the sand and gravel that’s in the bottom of the sinkhole breaks up a large gas bubble into many small bubbles just like an aquarium,” Hecox continued, “That is a good thing. Because if you get a single bubble up and have an ignition source you can have a flash over.”

A flash over is an explosion, like the kind you can see if you leave the gas on too long before lighting a propane grill. But Hecox said a large natural gas bubble from the sinkhole lit by any ignition source could mean major damage on the surface. Instead those little bubbles are coming out all around the actual sinkhole site in the form of bubble sites in the bayou. Twenty new bubble sites have been spotted in the last month.

Nine months after the first ones surfaced, Texas Brine started installing vent wells to alleviate the pressure underground. A drive down Hwy. 70 will show you several of them burning around Bayou Corne. “We continue to install relief wells as fast as we can and will continue to do so as they continue to be effective,” said Bruce Martin, vice president of Texas Brine. But in recent weeks, some of the residents who stayed behind, and are living in the area at their own risk, noticed some problems that are typically invisible to the naked eye.

Bubble sites popped up in neighborhoods that are typically dry during flooding after a recent rain storm. It caused Wilma Subra, a chemist with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, to raise a red flag with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. “A house acts like a tent. So, if it’s migrating up through the soil, and it’s being caught in the house, it’s building up concentrations in the house. And then if it reaches explosive level, then one little spark in the house would set it off,” Subra said.

One of the residents who has stayed behind, Nick Romero, also testified before the legislative committee. He now has five DEQ monitors installed in his house to measure natural gas and other chemicals. “We have had our grand kids and now we can’t. I love to fish. And now I don’t want to,” he told the committee members, choking back tears. The residents are struggling not just with the instability underground, but in their lives.

“Once they told us that they wanted to put monitors in our house and that we’d have to live like, to me, like lab rats, to me, that was no way for my kids to grow,” Weber said. Many feel forgotten, Weber said. Especially by Gov. Bobby Jindal. The governor has yet to visit the sinkhole site or publicly talk about it.

“He’s promoting plants around the area, chemical plants. And he was in the area and he wouldn’t, still to this day does not acknowledge it,” Weber said. In October and November of 2012, Jindal announced two chemical plant expansions a few miles from Bayou Corne, one in nearby Geismar and one in Donaldsonville.

But in six months, he’s made no visit to the sinkhole site.

“Where is he? Where is Jindal? He’s all over the United States, but he can’t come forty minutes south of Baton Rouge and visit,” Weber asked. As photos from the Louisiana Environmental Action Network show, when the sinkhole first appeared, it was just 400 feet in diameter. As of mid-February, it had swallowed nine acres. Scientists say the worst-case scenario is it could swallow 40 acres.

Even if it does, many, like Weber, are now just hoping Texas Brine will buy them out so they can move on. The company told residents that they are working to stabilize the area before tackling buy outs because some residents are still hoping to return. Lawmakers are planning another joint hearing on the sinkhole March 18. Katie Moore / Email: kmoore@wwltv.com / Twitter: @katiecmoore

Top of page

WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide.
We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson

www.wholeworldwater.co

Top of page

abandoned water right

a water right which was not put to beneficial use for a number of years, generally five to seven years.

abandoned well

a well which is no longer used. In many places, abandoned wells must be filled with cement or concrete grout to prevent pollution of ground water bodies.

absorption

the uptake of water, other fluids, or dissolved chemicals by a cell or an organism (as tree roots absorb dissolved nutrients in soil).

accretion

a gradual increase in land area adjacent to a river.

acid rain

the acidic rainfall which results when rain combines with sulfur oxides emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.

acidic

the condition of water or soil that contains a sufficient amount of acid substances to lower the pH below 7.0.

acre-foot

the amount of water required to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. An acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, or 43,560 cubic feet. A flow of 1 cubic feet per second produces 1.98 acre-feet per day.

activated carbon adsorption

the process of pollutants moving out of water and attaching on to activated carbon.

adhesion

the molecular attraction asserted between the surfaces of bodies in contact. Compare cohesion.

adjudication

a court proceeding to determine all rights to the use of water on a particular stream system or ground water basin.

abandoned well

a well which is no longer used. In many places, abandoned wells must be filled with cement or concrete grout to prevent pollution of ground water bodies.

administrative order

a legal document signed by U.S. EPA directing an individual, business, or other entity to take corrective action or refrain from an activity. It describes the violations and actions to be taken, and can be enforced in court. Such orders may be issued, for example, as a result of an administrative complaint ordering the respondent to pay a penalty for violations of the Clean Water Act.

administrative order on consent

a legal agreement signed by U.S. EPA and an individual, business, or other entity through which the violator agrees to pay for correction of Clean Water Act violations, take the required corrective or cleanup actions, or refrain from an activity. It describes the actions to be taken, may be subject to a comment period, applies to civil actions, and can be enforced in court.

adsorption

the adhesion of a substance to the surface of a solid or liquid. Adsorption is often used to extract pollutants by causing them to be attached to such adsorbents as activated carbon or silica gel. Hydrophobic, or water-repulsing adsorbents, are used to extract oil from waterways in oil spills.

advanced wastewater treatment

any treatment of sewage that goes beyond the secondary or biological water treatment stage and includes the removal of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen and a high percentage of suspended solids.

aerated lagoon

a holding and/or treatment pond that speeds up the natural process of biological decomposition of organic waste by stimulating the growth and activity of bacteria that degrade organic waste.

aeration

the mixing or turbulent exposure of water to air and oxygen to dissipate volatile contaminants and other pollutants into the air.

aeration tank

a chamber used to inject air into water.

aerobic treatment

process by which microbes decompose complex organic compounds in the presence of oxygen and use the liberated energy for reproduction and growth. Such processes include extended aeration, trickling filtration, and rotating biological contactors.

aerobic

life or processes that require, or are not destroyed by, the presence of oxygen.

aggradation

a progressive build up of a channel bed with sediment over several years due to a normal sequence of scour and deposition, as distinguished from the rise and fall of the channel bed during a single flood.

aggressive water

water which is soft and acidic and can corrode plumbing, piping, and appliances.

algae

simple rootless plants that grow in sunlit waters in proportion to the amount of available nutrients. They can affect water quality adversely by lowering the dissolved oxygen in the water. They are food for fish and small aquatic animals.

algal bloom

a phenomenon whereby excessive nutrients within a river, stream or lake cause an explosion of plant life which results in the depletion of the oxygen in the water needed by fish and other aquatic life. Algae bloom is usually the result of urban runoff (of lawn fertilizers, etc.). The potential tragedy is that of a “fish kill,” where the stream life dies in one mass extinction.

algicide

substance or chemical used specifically to kill or control algae.

alkaline

the condition of water or soil that contains a sufficient amount of alkali substance to raise the pH above 7.0.

alkalinity

the measurement of constituents in a water supply which determine alkaline conditions. The alkalinity of water is a measure of its capacity to neutralize acids. 

allogenic recharge

recharge that occurs in a sinking stream, entering an aquifer through sinkholes or fault planes. 

alluvial

relating to, composed of, or found in alluvium.

alluvium

sediments deposited by erosional processes, usually by streams.

alvusion

a sudden or perceptible change in a river’s margin, such as a change in course or loss of banks due to flooding.

ambient background concentration

a representative concentration of the water quality in a receiving water body, determined from monitoring. The statistic or data used to determine the value from the range of data is dependent on the purpose of the monitoring and the application of the data.

ambient medium

material surrounding or contacting an organism (e.g., outdoor air, indoor air, water, or soil through which chemicals or pollutants can reach the organism.

amprometric titration

a way of measuring concentrations of certain substances in water using the electric current that flows during a chemical reaction.

anabranch

a secondary channel of a stream which leaves and then rejoins the main channel. The two channels are separated by stable, vegetated lands.

anaerobic

a life or process that occurs in, or is not destroyed by, the absence of oxygen.

anistropic aquifer

an aquifer in which permeability varies with direction of flow. The Edwards is a highly anistropic aquifer. Modeling flow in such aquifers is very problematic.

annular space

the space between two concentric cylindrical objects, one of which surrounds the other, such as the space between the walls of a drilled hole and a casing.

anti-degradation clause

part of federal and water quality requirements prohibiting deterioration where pollution levels are above the legal limit.

appropriative rights

“first in time, first in right” principle of allocating water rights based. Usually involves a user being allowed to take water from a particular source without regard to the contiguity of the land to the source.

aquatic

growing in, living in, or frequenting water.

aquatic life use

a beneficial use designation in which the water body provides suitable habitat for survival and reproduction of desirable fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms.

aquiclude

a formation which, although porous and capable of absorbing water slowly, will not transmit water fast enough to furnish an appreciable supply for a well or a spring.

aqueous

something made up of water.

aqueous solubility

the maximum concentration of a chemical that will dissolve in pure water at a reference temperature.

aquiculture

the raising or fattening of fish in enclosed ponds.

aquifer

a geologic formation that will yield water to a well in sufficient quantities to make the production of water from this formation feasible for beneficial use; permeable layers of underground rock or sand that hold or transmit groundwater below the water table.

aquitard

geological formation that may contain groundwater but is not capable of transmitting significant quantities of it under normal hydraulic gradients. May function as confining bed.

armoring

the formation of an erosion-resistant layer of relatively large particles on a streambed or bank resulting from removal of finer particles by erosion.

artesian aquifer

a geologic formation in which water is under sufficient hydrostatic pressure to rise above the top of the aquifer in the subsurface. Artesian aquifers are confined aquifers.

artesian well

a water well drilled into a confined aquifer where enough hydraulic pressure exists for water rise in the well to a height above the top of the aquifer in the subsurface. 

artesian zone

a zone where water is confined in an aquifer under pressure so that the water will rise in the well casing or drilled hole above the bottom of the confining layer overlying the aquifer.

assay

a test for a specific chemical, microbe, or effect.

assemblage

an organism group of interacting species in a given ecosystem, for example, a fish assemblage or a benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage.

assimilation

the ability of a water body to purify itself of pollutants.

assimilative capacity

the capacity of a natural body of water to receive and dilute wastewaters or toxic materials without damage to aquatic life or humans who consume the water.

attenuation

the process whereby the magnitude of a flood event is reduced by slowing, modifying, or diverting the flow of water.

autogenic recharge

recharge that occurs by falling directly on an aquifer’s outcrop at the surface.

average annual recharge

amount of water entering the aquifer on an average annual basis. Averages mean very little for the Edwards because the climate of the region and structure of the aquifer produce a situation in which the area is usually water rich or water poor.

Top of page

B

background level

the concentration of a substance in an environmental media (water or soil) that occurs naturally or is not the result of human activities.

backpressure

a pressure that can cause water to backflow into the water supply when a user’s wastewater system is at a higher pressure than the public system.

backsiphonage

reverse seepage of water in a distribution system.

backwashing

reversing the flow of water through a home treatment device filter or membrane to clean and remove deposits.

bank

the sloping land bordering a stream channel that forms the usual boundaries of a channel. The bank has a steeper slope than the bottom of the channel and is usually steeper than the land surrounding the channel. Right and left banks are named facing downstream.

bank-full capacity

the rate of water flow that completely fills a channel; the flow rate at which the water surface is level with the flood plain.

bank stability

occurs when the channel bank configuration does not change significantly over time.

bar screen

in wastewater treatment, a device used to remove large solids from the incoming wastewater stream.

barrage

any artificial obstruction placed in water to increase water level or divert it. Usually the idea is to control peak flow for later release.

base flows

the component of a flow regime that represents normal flow conditions between precipitation events. Base flows provide a range of suitable habitat conditions that support the natural biological community of a specific river sub-basin.

bathymetric

related to the measurement of water depth within a water body.

bed forms

three-dimensional configurations of bed material, which are formed in streambeds by the action of flowing water.

bed load

the particles in a stream channel that mainly move by bouncing, sliding, or rolling on or near the bottom of the stream.

bed stability

occurs when the average elevation of the streambed does not change significantly over time. Aggradation and degradation are the two forms of bed instability.

beneficial use

the amount of water necessary when reasonable intelligence and diligence are used for a stated purpose; Texas law recognizes the following uses as beneficial: (1) domestic and municipal uses, (2) industrial uses, (3) irrigation, (4) mining, (5) hydroelectric power, (6) navigation, (7) recreation, (8) stock raising, (9) public parks, and (10) game preserves.

benthic

pertaining to the bottom of a body of water, on or within the bottom substrate material.

Best Management Practice (BMP)

methods or measures designed and selected to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants from point and nonpoint source discharges. As used in the stormwater context, BMPs are a schedule of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintains procedures and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spills or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.

bioaccumulation

uptake and retention of substances by an organism from its surrounding medium (usually water) and from food.

bioassay

a test to determine the relative strength of a substance by comparing its effect on a test organism with that of a standard preparation.

bioassessment

monitoring the aquatic environment to determine the health of a stream.

biodiversity

the variety of plant, animal, and microorganism species present in the ecosystem and the community structures the form.

biogeochemical cycling

the flow of chemical substances to and from the major environmental reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere).

biological integrity

the ability to support and maintain balanced, integrated functionality in the natural habitat of a given region. The concept is applied primarily in drinking water management.

biological oxidation

decomposition of complex organic materials by microorganisms. Occurs in self-purification of water bodies and in activated sludge wastewater treatment.

biomonitoring

a test used to evaluate the relative potency of a chemical by comparing its effect on a living organism with the effect of a standard population on the same type of organism.

bioremediation

a process that uses living organisms to remove pollutants.

biosolids

a nutrient-rich organic material resulting from the treatment of wastewater. Biosolids contain nitrogen and phosphorus along with other supplementary nutrients in smaller doses, such as potassium, sulfur, magnesium, calcium, copper and zinc. Soil that is lacking in these substances can be reclaimed with biosolids use. The application of biosolids to land improves soil properties and plant productivity, and reduces dependence on inorganic fertilizers.

biosphere

the earth and all its ecosystems.

biota

the plant (flora) and animal life (fauna) of a region or ecosystem.

blackwater

wastewater from toilet, latrine, and agua privy flushing and sinks used for food preparation or disposal of chemical or chemical-biological ingredients.

blinds

water samples containing a chemical of known concentration given a fictitious company name and slipped into the sample flow of the lab to test the impartiality of the lab staff.

bloom

a proliferation of algae and/or higher aquatic plants in a body of water; often related to pollution or excessive nutrients, especially when they accelerate growth.

blowdown

the water drawn from boiler systems and cold water basins of cooling towers to prevent the buildup of solids.

bog

a type of wetland that accumulates appreciable peat deposits. They depend primarily on precipitation for their water source, and are usually acidic and rich in plant matter with a conspicuous mat or living green moss.

boiling point

the temperature at which a liquid boils. It is the temperature at which the vapor pressure of a liquid equals the pressure on its surface. If the pressure of the liquid varies, the actual boiling point varies. For water it is 212 degrees Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Celsius.

BOD

Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen required to neutralize organic wastes.  The BOD of a wastewater is a characteristic reflecting treatability or stage of decomposition.  Compare COD and CBOD.

boundary conditions

definition or statement of conditions or phenomena at the boundaries of a model; water levels, flows, and concentrations that are specified at the boundaries of the area being modeled.

brackish

mixed fresh and salt water.

breakpoint chlorination

addition of chlorine to the point where all organic matter and ammonia compounds have been destroyed and any additional chlorine becomes a free chlorine residual available for disinfection.

brine

highly salty and heavily mineralized water containing heavy metal and organic contaminants.

buoyancy

the tendency of a body to float or rise when immersed in a fluid; the power of a fluid to exert an upward force on a body placed in it.

Top of page

C

calcium carbonate

CACO3 – a white precipitate that forms in water lines, water heaters and boilers in hard water areas; also known as scale.

calorie

amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

calibration

to check, adjust, or determine by comparison that a computer model will produce results that meet or exceed some defined criteria within a specified degree of confidence.

canopy

the overhanging cover formed by branches and foliage.

capillary action

movement of water through very small spaces due to molecular forces called capillary forces.

capillary forces

forces that cause ground water to rise above the surface of the saturated zone into the spaces between soil particles in the unsaturated zone.

capillary zone

soil area above the water table where water can rise up slightly through the cohesive force of capillary action. 

carbamates

a class of new-age pesticides that attack the nervous system of organisms.

carbon adsorption

a treatment system that removes contaminants from ground water or surface water by forcing it through tanks containing activated carbon treated to attract the contaminants.

carbonates

the collective term for the natural inorganic chemical compounds related to carbon dioxide that exist in natural waterways.

casing

a tubular structure intended to be watertight installed in the excavated or drilled hole to maintain the well opening and, along with cementing, to confine the ground waters to their zones of origin and prevent the entrance of surface pollutants.

cavern

a large underground opening in rock (usually limestone) which occurred when some of the rock was dissolved by water. In some igneous rocks, caverns can be formed by large gas bubbles.

CBOD

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand.  A BOD test in which a nitrification inhibitor is added, so that only the carbonaceous oxygen demanding compounds are measured. 

cement grout

a mixture of water and cement in the ratio of not more than 5-6 gallons of water to a 94 pound sack of portland cement which is fluid enough to be pumped through a small diameter pipe.

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Also known as SUPERFUND. The Act gave EPA the authority to clean up abandoned, leaky hazardous waste sites.

certificate of water right

an official document which serves as court evidence of a perfected water right.

CFU

colony forming units.  Concentrations of water quality indicator organisms such as fecal coliform bacteria are measured in cfu/100 ml.

channel

a natural or artificial watercourse that continuously or intermittently contains water, with definite bed and banks that confine all but overbanking streamflows.

channelization

natural or intentional straightening and/or deepening of streams so water moves faster and causes less flooding.  Channelization can sometimes exacerbate flooding in other downstream areas.

check dam

a small dam constructed in a gully or other small water course to decrease the streamflow velocity, minimize channel erosion, promote deposition of sediment and to divert water from a channel.

chemical weathering

attack and dissolving of parent rock by exposure to rainwater, surface water, oxygen, and other gases in the atmosphere, and compounds secreted by organisms. 

Chezy’s equation

the empirical equation used to estimate the hydraulic conditions of flow within a channel cross section. Alternative to Manning’s equation.

Chezy’s roughness

a coefficient in Chezy’s equation that accounts for energy loss due to the friction between the channel and the water.

chlorination

the adding of chlorine to water or sewage for the purpose of disinfection or other biological or chemical results.

chlorine contact chamber

the part of a wastewater treatment plant where treated water is disinfected by chlorine.

chlorine demand

the difference between the amount of chlorine added to water, sewage, or industrial wastes and the amount of residual chlorine remaining at the end of a specific contact period.

chute spillway

the overall structure which allows water to drop rapidly through an open channel without causing erosion. Usually constructed near the edge of dams.

circulate

to move in a circle, circuit or orbit; to flow without obstruction; to follow a course that returns to the starting point.

cistern

a tank used to collect rainwater runoff from the roof of a house or building.

clarification

the clearing action that occurs during wastewater treatment when solids settle out. Clarification is often aided by centrifugal action or chemically induced coagulation.

clarifier

a tank in which solids settle to the bottom and are subsequently removed as sludge.

Clean Water Act

federal legislation enacted in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the surface waters of the United States. The stated goals of the Act are that all waters be fishable and swimmable.

climatic cycle

the periodic changes climate displays, such as a series of dry years following a series of years with heavy rainfall.

climatic year

a period used in meteorological measurements. The climatic year in the U.S. begins on October 1.

climate

generalized weather at a given place on earth over a fairly long period; a long term average of weather. 

cloudburst

a torrential downpour of rain, which by it spottiness and relatively high intensity suggests the bursting and discharge of water from a cloud all at once.

coagulation

in water treatment, the use of chemicals to make suspended solids gather or group together into small flocs.

COD

Chemical Oxygen Demand.  A measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content of a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidation.  Differs from the BOD test in that COD uses oxygen derived from chemicals, while BOD uses oxygen derived from air dissolved in water. 

cohesion

a molecular attraction by which the particles of a body are united throughout the mass whether like or unlike. 

cold vapor

method to test water for the presence of mercury.

coliform bacteria

non-pathogenic microorganisms used in testing water to indicate the presence of pathogenic bacteria.

collector well

a well located near a surface water supply used to lower the water table and thereby induce infiltration of surface water through the bed of the water body to the well.

colloids

finely divided solids which will not settle but which may be removed by coagulation or biochemical action.

combined sewer

a sewer system that carries both sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff. When sewers are constructed this way, wastewater treatment plants have to be sized to deal with stormwater flows and oftentimes some of the water receives little or no treatment.

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)

the discharge of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste when the flow capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during rainstorms.

community water system

In Texas, a public water system which has a potential to serve at least 15 residential service connections on a year-round basis or serves at least 25 residents on a year-round basis.

completion

sealing off access of undesireable water to the well bore by proper casing and/or cementing procedures.

composite sample, weighted

a sample composed of two or more portions collected at specific times and added together in volumes related to the flow at time of collection. 

concentration

amount of a chemical or pollutant in a particular volume or weight of air, water, soil, or other medium.

condensation

the change of state from a gas to a liquid. 

conduit

a natural or artificial channel through which fluids may be conveyed.

cone of depression

natural depression in the water table around a well during pumping.

confined aquifer

an aquifer that lies between two rock layers of very low permeability. Most confined aquifers also are artesian aquifers. 

confining bed or unit

a body of impermeable or distinctly less permeable material stratigraphically adjacent to one or more aquifers.

confluent growth

in coliform testing, abundant or overflowing bacterial growth which makes accurate measurement difficult or impossible.

conjunctive management

integrated management and use of two or more water resources, such as an aquifer and a surface water body.

connate water

water trapped in the pore spaces of a sedimentary rock at the time it was deposited. It is usually highly mineralized.

connectivity

refers to the movement and exchange of water, nutrients, sediments, organic matter, and organisms within a riverine ecosystem. Connectivity occurs laterally (between the stream and its floodplain), longitudinally (along the stream), vertically (between the stream and groundwater), and temporally.

conservation

to protect from loss and waste. Conservation of water may mean to save or store water for later use.

constituent

an informal term used to describe a detectable element or component or attribute of waste or effluent.>

consolidated formation

naturally occurring geologic formations that have been lithified (turned to stone). The term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term “bedrock.” Commonly, these formations will stand at the edges of a bore hole without caving.

consumptive use

the quantity of water not available for reuse. Evapotranspiration, evaporation, incorporation into plant tissue, and infiltration into groundwater are some of the reasons water may not be available for reuse.

contact recreation

activities involving a significant risk of ingestion of water, such as wading by children, swimming, water skiing, diving and surfing.

contamination

the introduction into water of sewage or other foreign matter that will render the water unfit for its intended use.

control variables

large-scale environmental factors that control patterns found in local geomorphic features. For example, geology, soils, land use, hydrology, channel features, and valley characteristics.

conveyance loss

water loss in pipes, channels, conduits, and ditches by leakage or evaporation.

cooling tower

large tower used to transfer the heat in cooling water from a power or industrial plant to the atmosphere either by direct evaporation or by convection and conduction.

correlative rights

rights that are coequal or that relate to one another, so that any one owner cannot take more than his share.

creek

a small stream of water which serves as the natural drainage course for a drainage basin. The term is relative according to size. Some creeks in a humid region would be called rivers if they occurred in an arid area.

crest

the top of a dam, dike, or spillway, which water must reach before passing over the structure; the summit or highest point of a wave; the highest elevation reached by flood waters flowing in a channel.

critical low flow

low flow conditions below which some standards do not apply. The impacts of permitted discharges are analyzed at critical low-flow.

cross-connection

any actual or potential connection between a drinking water system and an unapproved water supply or other source of contamination.

cross-contamination

a condition created when a drill hole, boring, or improperly constructed well forms a pathway for fluid movement between a saturated zone which contains pollutants and a formerly separated saturated zone containing uncontaminated groundwater. Also, where potable water supplies and sanitary services are interconnected.

cubic foot per second (CFS)

the rate of discharge representing a volume of one cubic foot passing a given point during 1 second. This rate is equivalent to approximately 7.48 gallons per second, or 1.98 acre-feet per day.

current

the portion of a stream or body of water which is moving with a velocity much greater than the average of the rest of the water. The progress of the water is principally concentrated in the current.

current velocity

the velocity of water flow in a stream, measured in units of length per unit of time, such as feet per second (fps).

cutoff

where the stream cuts through the neck of a meander bend.

Top of page 

dam

a structure of earth, rock, or concrete designed to form a basin and hold water back to make a pond, lake, or reservoir.

dead end

the end of a water main that is not connected to other parts of the distribution system.

decomposable waste

waste that under suitable natural conditions can be transformed through biological and chemical processes into compounds that do not impair water quality.

deionized water

water free of inorganic chemicals.

delta

an alluvial deposit made of rock particles (sediment, and debris) dropped by a stream as it enters a body of water.

demand

the number of units of something that will be purchased at various prices at a point in time. 

dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)

non-aqueous phase liquids, such as chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents or petroleum fractions, with a specific gravity greater than 1.0 that sink through the water column until they reach a confining layer. Because they are at the bottom of aquifers instead of floating on the water table, typical monitoring wells do not indicate their presence.

density

a measure of how heavy a specific volume of a solid, liquid, or gas is in comparison to water.

dental fluorosis

disorder caused by excessive absorption of fluorine and characterized by brown staining of teeth.

depletion curve

in hydraulics, a graphical representation of water depletion from storage stream channels, surface soil, and groundwater. A depletion curve can be drawn for base flow, direct runoff, or total flow.

deposit

something dropped or left behind by moving water, as sand or mud.

deposition

the laying down of material by erosion or transport by water or air.

desalination

the process of salt removal from sea or brackish water.

detection limit

the lowest level that can be determined by a specific analytical procedure or test method.

detention time

the time required for a volume of water to pass through a tank at a given rate of flow; in storage reservoirs, the length of time water will be held before being used.

detergent

synthetic washing agent that helps remove dirt and oil. Some contain compounds toxic to bacteria that are useful in the wastewater treatment process; other contain nutrients such as phosphorous that may encourage algae growth when they are in wastewater that reaches receiving waters.

detritus

decaying organic matter (mostly leaves and other matter from vegetation).

dewater

remove or separate a portion of the water in a sludge or slurry to dry the sludge so it can be handled and disposed; remove or drain the water from a tank, trench, or aquifer.

diatomaceous

consisting of or abounding in diatoms, a class of unicellular or colonial algae having a silicified cell wall that persists as a skeleton after death.

digester

in wastewater treatment, a unit in which anaerobic bacterial action is induced and accelerated in order to break down and stabilize organic matter removed from the treatment process.

diluting water

distilled water that has been stabilized, buffered, and aerated. Used in the BOD test.

dilution ratio

the critical low flow of the receiving water at the point of recycled water discharge divided by the flow of the discharge.  Is used in the biomonitoring test to simulate in-stream conditions that organisms will be exposed to during critical low-flow times.

discharge

the volume of water that passes a given point within a given period of time. It is an all-inclusive outflow term, describing a variety of flows such as from a pipe to a stream, or from a stream to a lake or ocean.