Multi-molecular markers and metals as tracers of organic matter inputs and contamination status from an Environmental Protection Area in the SW Atlantic (Laranjeiras Bay, Brazil)

The sources and concentrations of aliphatic hydrocarbons (AHs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), faecal and biogenic sterols, and trace metals at 10 sampling sites located in Laranjeiras Bay, a large Environmental Protection Area in the southern Atlantic region of Brazil, were determined to assess the sources of organic matter and the contamination status of estuarine sediments. Organic compounds were determined by GC-FID and GC-MS, and ICP-OES was used to evaluate trace metals. The total AHs concentration ranged from 0.28 to 8.19 mu g g(-1), and n-C-29 and n-C-31 alkanes were predominant, indicating significant inputs from higher terrestrial plants. Unresolved complex mixtures (UCM) were not detected at any site, suggesting that the study area was not significantly contaminated by fossil fuels. The total PAH concentration varied from 3.85 to 89.2 ng g(-1). The ratio between selected PAH isomers showed that combustion of biomass, coal, and petroleum is the rnain source of PAHs in the study area. The concentrations of the faecal sterols coprostanol and epicoprostanol were below the detection limits, suggesting that sewage was not a significant contributor to sedimentary organic matter. The concentrations of the trace metals (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn) were low, except near sites located at the mouths of rivers that discharge into the study area and near urbanised regions (Paranagua city and the adjoining harbour). In general, the concentrations of PAHs were below the threshold effect concentrations (TEL) levels. Although the As, Cr and Ni concentrations were above the TEL levels, the study area can be considered as preserved from human activities.

Appreciation of nature and appreciation of environmental protection: How stable are these attitudes and which comes first?

Introduction. – Attitude toward nature and attitude toward environmental protection are two separate but correlated attitudes. Little is known about the two attitudes’ stability/volatility over time, despite the practical value of such knowledge. Objectives & method. – Using longitudinal survey data from 251 adults in a cross-lagged structural equation model, we assessed the degree of spontaneous (i.e., unprompted) change in the two attitudes. We also considered whether such change could provide evidence regarding causal direction; causation could go in either of two directions between the two attitudes, or it could even be bi-directional. Results. – We corroborated the substantive connection between attitude toward nature and attitude toward environmental protection; however, the absence of change in the attitudes despite the passage of two years disallows reliable statements about causal direction. Conclusion. – It is possible to protect the environment by encouraging appreciation of nature, but change in attitude toward nature and attitude toward environmental protection may be difficult to achieve with mature individuals.

Assessing the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines for cumulative risk assessment: Are they suitable for state agencies and EPA regional offices?

In the field of health risk analysis, cumulative risk assessment (CRA) is a necessary, although undeniably more complex approach to understanding the mixture of stressors, whether chemical or psychosocial, that exist in our environment, in all the pathways through which the chemicals may evolve—air, soil, or water, as well as the accumulation of these exposures over time. Related, or attached to the developing awareness of scientists understanding this mix of combined health effects is the burgeoning of the environmental justice movement, in which educated community advocates and even affected community members have called attention to evidence of a higher pollution burden in minority and/or lower SES communities. The intention of this paper is to 1) examine the development and understanding of CRA, primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2) to assess several states agencies and some EPA regional offices' interpretation of CRA, again based primarily on EPA guidance, and 3) to analyze how CRA might be refined in its implementation—giving some cues as to how the EPA may more effectively interact with communities interested in CRA.^