Geographical variation in total and inorganic arsenic content of polished (white) rice

An extensive data set of total arsenic analysis for 901 polished (white) grain samples, originating from 10 countries from 4 continents, was compiled. The samples represented the baseline (i.e., not specifically collected from arsenic contaminated areas), and all were for market sale in major conurbations. Median total arsenic contents of rice varied 7-fold, with Egypt (0.04 mg/kg) and India (0.07 mg/kg) having the lowest arsenic content while the U.S. (0.25 mg/kg) and France (0.28 mg/kg) had the highest content. Global distribution of total arsenic in rice was modeled by weighting each country’s arsenic distribution by that country’s contribution to global production. A subset of 63 samples from Bangladesh, China, India, Italy, and the U.S. was analyzed for arsenic species. The relationship between inorganic arsenic content versus total arsenic content significantly differed among countries, with Bangladesh and India having the steepest slope in linear regression, and the U.S. having the shallowest slope. Using country-specific rice consumption data, daily intake of inorganic arsenic was estimated and the associated internal cancer risk was calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cancer slope. Median excess internal cancer risks posed by inorganic arsenic ranged 30-fold for the 5 countries examined, being 0.7 per 10,000 for Italians to 22 per 10,000 for Bangladeshis, when a 60 kg person was considered.

Global change pressures on soils from land use and management

Soils are subject to varying degrees of direct or indirect human disturbance, constituting a major global change driver. Factoring out natural from direct and indirect human influence is not always straightforward, but some human activities have clear impacts. These include land use change, land management, and land degradation (erosion, compaction, sealing and salinization). The intensity of land use also exerts a great impact on soils, and soils are also subject to indirect impacts arising from human activity, such as acid deposition (sulphur and nitrogen) and heavy metal pollution. In this critical review, we report the state-of-the-art understanding of these global change pressures on soils, identify knowledge gaps and research challenges, and highlight actions and policies to minimise adverse environmental impacts arising from these global change drivers. Soils are central to considerations of what constitutes sustainable intensification. Therefore, ensuring that vulnerable and high environmental value soils are considered when protecting important habitats and ecosystems, will help to reduce the pressure on land from global change drivers. To ensure that soils are protected as part of wider environmental efforts, a global soil resilience programme should be considered, to monitor, recover or sustain soil fertility and function, and to enhance the ecosystem services provided by soils. Soils cannot, and should not, be considered in isolation of the ecosystems that they underpin and vice versa. The role of soils in supporting ecosystems and natural capital needs greater recognition. The lasting legacy of the International Year of Soils in 2015 should be to put soils at the centre of policy supporting environmental protection and sustainable development.

Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management—assessment of quantification methods

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities’ corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities- Partners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of −53 kt CO2e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.