Product  Chemicals  in  Minnesota  Waters    Widespread  use  of  toxic  chemicals  in  consumer  products  is  a  public  health  concern,  but  it’s  also  an  environmental  problem.      Chemicals  in  Our  Homes  Hundreds  of  harmful  chemicals  end  up  in  the  products  we  buy  and  use  ever  day,  including  hormone  disrupting  chemicals  in  cleaning  products  and  cosmetics  and  brain  damaging  chemicals  in  children’s  clothing,  personal  care  products,  and  toys.  Of  the  over  84,000  chemicals  registered  for  commercial  use  in  the  United  States,  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  has  only  required  safety  testing  on  200.      The  Minnesota  Department  of  Health  (MDH)  has  designated  nine  priority  chemicals  as  particularly  harmful  and  likely  to  expose  children,  because  of  their  toxicity  and  wide  use,  including  hormone-­‐disrupting  phthalates,  bisphenol-­‐A  (BPA)  and  flame-­‐retardants,  carcinogenic  formaldehyde  and  the  brain  toxins,  cadmium  and  lead.1      Household  Chemicals  in  Our  Environment  While  people  routinely  experience  personal  exposures  to  household  product  chemicals,  either  directly  or  via  house  dust,  these  chemicals  are  also  released  into  the  broader  environment  along  the  product  life  cycle,  from  manufacturing,  to  consumer  use,  to  disposal.    Chemicals  in  everyday  household  products  can  end  up  in  landfills,  wastewater,  incinerator  emissions,  surface  water,  groundwater,  soil,  and  from  there,  build  up  in  wildlife  and  humans.      For  example,  BPA  is  released  in  landfills  and  significant  levels  have  been  found  in  water  leaching  from  landfills.  It  then  ends  up  in  groundwater,  wastewater  and  ultimately  surface  water.  Although  BPA  breaks  down  over  a  few  days,  it  is  so  widely  used  that  it  is  continuously  released  again  into  the  environment.  Another  example  is  the  antibacterial  triclosan  used  in  personal  care  products  which  washes  down  the  drain  and  into  the  environment  through  wastewater.  Most  wastewater  treatment  fails  to  remove  all  of  the  triclosan,  so  it  is  found  in  lakes  and  streams.  While  it  degrades  rapidly  in  surface  water,  ongoing  wastewater  discharges  assure  that  triclosan  will  continue  to  be  present  in  surface  water.  Unlike  BPA,  triclosan  bio-­‐accumulates  in  the  aquatic  food  chain  and  can  break  down  in  sunlight  into  toxic  dioxins.      

A  U.S.  Geological  Service  (USGS)  study2  found  that  bio-­‐solids  (sludge)  from  wastewater  treatment  plants  retain  relatively  high  quantities  of  household  chemicals,  including  fragrance  compounds,  detergent  metabolites,  flame-­‐retardants,  disinfectant  chemicals,  plasticizers  and  preservatives.  Bio-­‐solids  are  routinely  used  as  fertilizer  for  agriculture  crops,  home  gardens  and  landscapers.  However,  little  is  known  about  the  fate  and  transport  of  chemicals  of  concern  in  bio-­‐solids  and  their  potential  ecological  effects.      Chemicals  in  Minnesota  Waters  and  the  Great  Lakes  A  large  Minnesota  study3  4  found  hormone-­‐active  chemicals  present  upstream  and  downstream  of  25  wastewater  treatment  sites  across  the  state  of  Minnesota.  The  study  detected  triclosan,  nonylphenol  (NP),  BPA  and  other  chemicals,  as  well  as  pharmaceuticals  in  wastewater,  surface  water  and  sediments.  BPA  and  NP  and  several  other  substances  were  detected  in  upstream  locations,  indicating  that  wastewater  is  not  the  only  source  of  contamination.5    The  mix  of  endocrine  active  chemicals  in  Minnesota  water  has  been  found  to  be  biologically  active,  causing  genetic  changes  in  fish,  even  at  the  low  concentrations  detected  in  the  study.      The  Minnesota  Department  of  Health’s  Contaminants  of  Emerging  Concern  program6  has  also  identified  numerous  household  chemicals  that  have  found  their  way  into  Minnesota  groundwater,  surface  water  and  drinking  water.  Examples  of  chemicals  detected  in  Minnesota  waters  and  in  the  Great  Lakes  include:  • Flame  retardants  TCEP7  and  TDCPP8  in  drinking  water,  surface  water  and  

wastewater;  and  TBBPA  and  TBBPS  in  herring  gull  eggs  in  the  Great  Lakes  region.9    • The  antibacterials  triclosan10  and  triclocarban11  in  surface  water  and  wastewater,  as  

well  as  in  Great  Lakes  sediments.12      • The  personal  care  product  chemical,  1,4-­‐dioxane  in  drinking  water  and  groundwater  

in  Minnesota.13    • Hormone  disrupting  chemicals,  BPA  and  three  phthalates  in  drinking  water  and  

wastewater.14  15  BPA  in  lakes  and  streams  and  groundwater  monitoring  wells,16  as  well  as  in  the  Lake  Superior17  and  in  lake  trout.  Phthalates  in  Great  Lakes  surface  water18  and  sediment.19  

• Nonylphenol  ethoxylates  (surfactants  used  in  pesticides,  cleaning  and  personal  care  products)  and  their  breakdown  products  nonylphenols  in  drinking  water,  wastewater20  and  in  the  Great  Lakes.21  

• Brominated  flame  retardants,22  23  short  chain  paraffins,24  and  perfluorinated  chemicals25  in  Minnesota  waters  and  fish26  and  in  the  Great  Lakes  food  web.27  

 Harm  to  Aquatic  Life  According  to  MDH,  exposure  to  these  chemical  contaminants  in  Minnesota  drinking  water  does  not  pose  a  health  risk  for  people,  as  levels  in  most  places  are  very  low.    However,  chemicals  in  our  waters  are  placing  the  reproductive  health  of  fish  and  other  aquatic  organisms  at  risk.  Many  aquatic  species  are  extremely  sensitive  to  chemical  exposure,  especially  chemicals  that  disrupt  hormones.  Triclosan  interferes  with  

hormones  and  can  adversely  impact  survival  and  reproduction  in  fish.  Phthalates,  BPA  and  the  flame  retardant  TDCPP  are  hormone  disrupters  that  can  also  harm  the  reproduction  and  development  of  fish  and  other  aquatic  life.      Evidence  of  effects  on  the  reproductive  system  in  fish  is  very  troubling.  Male  fathead  minnows  exposed  to  nonylphenol  ethoxylates  similar  to  those  in  wastewater  effluent  had  female  egg  laying  markers.28  29  Similar  feminization  of  male  fish  or  “intersex”  characteristics  has  also  been  found  in  walleye30  and  other  fish  species  downstream  of  sewage  treatment  plants.31          Solutions  In  the  long  run,  the  health  and  vitality  of  fish  populations  and  other  aquatic  organisms  could  be  placed  at  risk  from  chemical  contaminants.  While  improvements  in  wastewater  treatment  technology  are  needed,  preventing  toxic  chemicals  from  entering  the  waste  stream  and  the  environment  is  the  best  strategy.  We  need  to  find  and  use  safer  alternatives  to  toxic  chemicals  in  our  products,  our  homes,  our  communities  and  our  factories  both  through  regulation  and  business  leadership.        Reduction  in  the  use  of  coal  tar  sealants  is  an  example  of  effectively  using  both  approaches.  Coal  tar  sealants  are  products  that  are  effective  at  sealcoating  asphalt.  Unfortunately,  they  have  high  levels  of  toxic  PAHs  (polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons),  which  can  cause  tumors  and  reproductive  problems  in  fish  and  increase  human  cancer  risk  from  exposure  to  its  vapors  or  sediments.  PAHs  from  the  sealcoat  over  time  wash  into  stormwater  ponds,  streams  and  lakes.  “An  MPCA  study  found  that  about  67%  of  total  PAHs  in  the  sediments  of  15  metro-­‐area  stormwater  ponds  were  from  coal  tar-­‐based  sealants.  “32  Built-­‐up  sediments  must  be  periodically  removed,  but  high  levels  of  PAH  contamination  mandates  disposal  in  lined  landfills,  significantly  increasing  disposal  costs  for  cities.      Because  of  widespread  contamination,  the  Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency  (MPCA)  worked  with  businesses  to  reduce  use  of  coal  tar  sealants,  helped  enact  a  ban  on  their  use  by  state  agencies  and  educated  consumers  on  safer  alternatives.  Home  improvement  retailers,  Lowe’s  and  Home  Depot  pulled  these  products  off  their  shelves,  and  75  sealcoat  contractors  signed  a  pledge  not  to  apply  coal  tar  in  Minnesota.  These  voluntary  and  education  initiatives  were  followed  by  a  Minnesota  ban  on  the  sale  and  use  of  coal  tar  sealants  for  asphalt  driveways,  trails  and  parking  lots  effective  January  1,  2014.  Information  on  safer  alternatives  is  available  on  the  MPCA  web  site.  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/h8udqd6      This  combination  of  regulation  and  business  leadership  can  be  applied  to  other  chemicals  of  concern.  For  example,  Minnesota  recently  passed  a  ban  on  four  toxic  flame  retardants  in  upholstered  furniture  and  children’s  products.  At  the  same  time,  major  furniture  manufacturers  are  phasing  them  out  of  their  products.  http://www.ceh.org/residential-­‐furniture/    Minnesota  also  banned  triclosan  in  personal  

care  products  for  consumer  cleansing  uses,  which  will  help  reduce  future  levels  of  this  contaminant  in  Minnesota  waters.      Every  toxic  chemical  we  use  and  dispose  of  puts  the  health  of  our  environment,  its  wildlife  and  our  own  health  at  risk.  To  assure  a  healthy  environment  we  must  examine  the  entire  product  life  cycle  for  opportunities  to  prevent  toxic  chemical  uses  and  releases.  Fortunately,  better  regulation  and  substituting  safer  alternatives  provide  effective  solutions  for  addressing  these  problems.        Contact:  Kathleen  Schuler,  Healthy  Kids  and  Families  Program  Director,  Kathleen@conservationminnesota.org,  612-­‐767-­‐1570  August,  2015                                                                                                                  1  MDH  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/toxfreekids/    2  Kinney  CA,  Furlong  ET,  Zaugg  SD,  Burkhardt  MR  et  al.  Survey  of  organic  wastewater  contaminants  in  biosolids  destined  for  land  application.  Environ  Sci  Technol.  2006;40(23):7207-­‐15.  3  Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency,  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-­‐document.html?gid=15610  4  Lee  KE,  Langer  SK,  Barber  LB,  Writer  JH  et  al.  2011,  Endocrine  active  chemicals,  pharmaceuticals,  and  other  chemicals  of  concern  in  surface  water,  wastewater-­‐  treatment  plant  effluent,  and  bed  sediment,  and  biological  characteristics  in  selected  streams,  Minnesota—design,  methods,  and  data,  2009:  U.S.  Geological  Survey  Data  Series  575,  54  p.,  with  appendixes.    5  Ferrey  M,  Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency,  Wastewater  Treatment  Plant  Endocrine  Disrupting  Chemical  Monitoring  Study,  February  2011.  6  http://www.health.state.mn.us/cec    7  MDH  TCEP  in  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/tcepinfo.pdf    8  MDH  TDCPP  and  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/tdcppinfo.pdf    9  Letcher  RJ,  Chui  S.  l.  High  sensitivity  method  for  determination  of  tetrabromobisphenol-­‐S  and  tetrabromobisphenol-­‐A  derivative  flame  retardants  in  Great  Lakes  herring  gull  eggs  by  liquid  chromatography-­‐atmospheric  pressure  photoionization-­‐tandem  mass  spectrometry.  Envrion  Sci  Technol.  2010;44(22):8615-­‐21.    10  MDH  Triclosan  and  Drinking  Water  information  sheet    http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/triclosaninfo.pdf    11  MDH  Triclocarban  and  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/triclocarbaninfo.pdf    12  Anger  CT,  Sueper  C,  Blumentritt  DJ,  McNeill  K  et  al.  Quantification  of  triclosan,  chlorinated  triclosan  derivatives,  and  their  dioxin  photoproducts  in  lacustrine  sediment  cores.  Environ  Sci  Technol.  2013;47(4):1833-­‐43.  13  MDH  1,4-­‐Dioxane  in  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/dwec/dioxaneinfo.pdf    14  MDH  Bisphenol  A  in  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/gw/bpainfosheet.pdf    15  MDH  Phthalates  in  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/gw/phthalateinosheet.pdf    16  Erickson  ML,  Langer  SK,  Roth  JL,  Kroening  SE.  Contaminants  of  emerging  concern  in  ambient  groundwater  in  urbanized  areas  of  Minnesota,  2009-­‐12:U.S.  Geological  Survey  Scientific  Investigations  Report  2014-­‐5096,  2014.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         17  MDH  Bisphenol  A  in  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/gw/bpainfosheet.pdf  18  Lyandres  O.  Keeping  Great  Lakes  Water  Safe:  Priorities  for  Protecting  against  Emerging  Chemical  Pollutants.  2012,  Alliance  for  the  Great  Lakes  www.greatlakes.org.    19  McDowell  DC,  Metcalfe  CD.  Phthalate  esters  in  sediments  near  a  sewage  treatment  plant  outflow  in  Hamilton  Harbor,  Ontario:  SFE  extraction  and  environmental  distribution.  Journal  of  Great  Lakes  Research.  2002;27(1):3-­‐9.  20  MDH  Nonylphenols  and  Drinking  Water  information  sheet  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/gw/nonylphinfo.pdf    21  Klecka  G,  Persoon  C,  Currie  R.  Chemicals  od  emerging  concern  in  the  Great  Lakes  Basin:  an  analysis  of  environmental  exposures.  Rev  Environ  Contam  Toxicol.  2010;207:1-­‐93.  22    Li  A,  Rockne  KJ,  Sturchioo  N,  Song  W  et  al.  Polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers  in  the  sediments  of  the  Great  Lakes:  influencing  factors,  trends,  and  implications.  Environ  Sci  Technol.  2006;40(24):7528-­‐34.  23  Hale  R,  Alaee  M,  Manchester-­‐Neesvig  J,  Stapleton  H,  Ikonomou  M.  Polybrominated  diphenyl  ether  flame  retardants  in  the  North  American  environment.  Environment  International.  2003;29(6):771-­‐79.  24  Houde  M,  Muir  DC,  Tomy  GT,  Whittle  DM  et  al.  Bioaccumulation  and  trophic  magnification  of  short-­‐  and  medium-­‐chain  chlorinated  paraffins  in  food  webs  from  Lake  Ontario  and  Lake  Michigan.  Environ  Sci  Technol.  2008;42(10):3893-­‐99.  25  MDH  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcs/water.html  26  MDH  http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/fish/faq.html#whatcontam    27  Alliance  for  the  Great  Lakes,  Emerging  Contaminant  Threats  and  the  Great  Lakes:  Existing  Science,  Estimating  Relative  Risk  and  Determining  Policies,  2011.  http://www.greatlakes.org/Document.Doc?id=1072    28  Jasinska  EJ,  Goss  GG,  Gillis  PL,  Van  Der  Kraak  GJ  et  al.  Assessment  of  biomarkers  for  contaminants  of  emerging  concern  on  aquatic  organisms  downstream  of  a  municipal  wastewater  discharge.  Sci  Total  Environ  2015;15:530-­‐31  29  Barber  LB,  Lee  KE,  Swackhamer  DL,  Schoenfuss  HL.    Reproductive  responses  of  male  fathead  minnows  exposed  to  wastewater  treatment  plant  effluent,  effluent  treated  with  XAD8  resin,  and  an  environmentally  relevant  mixture  of  alkylphenol  compounds.  Aquat  Toxicol  2007;82(1):36-­‐46.  30  Miller  LM,  Bartell  SE,  Schoenfuss  HL.  Assessing  the  effects  of  historical  exposure  to  endocrine-­‐active  compounds  on  reproductive  health  and  genetic  diversity  in  walleye,  a  native  apex  predator,  in  a  large  riverine  system.  Arch  Environ  Contam  Toxicol.  2012;62(4):657-­‐71.  31  Tetreault  GR,  Bennett  CJ,  Shires  K,  Knight  B  et  al.  Intersex  and  reproductive  impairment  of  wild  fish  exposed  to  multiple  municipal  wastewater  discharges.  Aquat  Toxicol.  2011;104(3-­‐4):278-­‐90.  32  Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-­‐types-­‐and-­‐programs/stormwater/municipal-­‐stormwater/restriction-­‐on-­‐coal-­‐tar-­‐based-­‐sealants.html