Minimization and management of wastes from biomedical research.

Several committees were established by the National Association of Physicians for the Environment to investigate and report on various topics at the National Leadership Conference on Biomedical Research and the Environment held at the 1--2 November 1999 at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. This is the report of the Committee on Minimization and Management of Wastes from Biomedical Research. Biomedical research facilities contribute a small fraction of the total amount of wastes generated in the United States, and the rate of generation appears to be decreasing. Significant reductions in generation of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes have recently been reported, even at facilities with rapidly expanding research programs. Changes in the focus of research, improvements in laboratory techniques, and greater emphasis on waste minimization (volume and toxicity reduction) explain the declining trend in generation. The potential for uncontrolled releases of wastes from biomedical research facilities and adverse impacts on the general environment from these wastes appears to be low. Wastes are subject to numerous regulatory requirements and are contained and managed in a manner protective of the environment. Most biohazardous agents, chemicals, and radionuclides that find significant use in research are not likely to be persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic if they are released. Today, the primary motivations for the ongoing efforts by facilities to improve minimization and management of wastes are regulatory compliance and avoidance of the high disposal costs and liabilities associated with generation of regulated wastes. The committee concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that the anticipated increases in biomedical research will significantly increase generation of hazardous wastes or have adverse impacts on the general environment. This conclusion assumes the positive, countervailing trends of enhanced pollution prevention efforts by facilities and reductions in waste generation resulting from improvements in research methods will continue

Over-the-Counter Monocyclic Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Environment—Sources, Risks, Biodegradation

Recently, the increased use of monocyclic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has resulted in their presence in the environment. This may have potential negative effects on living organisms. The biotransformation mechanisms of monocyclic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the human body and in other mammals occur by hydroxylation and conjugation with glycine or glucuronic acid. Biotransformation/biodegradation of monocyclic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the environment may be caused by fungal or bacterial microorganisms. Salicylic acid derivatives are degraded by catechol or gentisate as intermediates which are cleaved by dioxygenases. The key intermediate of the paracetamol degradation pathways is hydroquinone. Sometimes, after hydrolysis of this drug, 4- aminophenol is formed, which is a dead-end metabolite. Ibuprofen is metabolized by hydroxylation or activation with CoA, resulting in the formation of isobutylocatechol. The aim of this work is to attempt to summarize the knowledge about environmental risk connected with the presence of over-the-counter antiinflammatory drugs, their sources and the biotransformation and/or biodegradation pathways of these drugs

Unused Pharmaceutical Disposal Model

Supporting Information for research article "Life cycle comparison of environmental emissions from three disposal options for unused pharmaceutical". This spreadsheet provides the calculations and values used for this study; please refer to the manuscript and supporting information (as text) available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203987b for details about how to use this spreadsheet. We use life cycle assessment methodology to compare three disposal options for unused pharmaceuticals: (i) incineration after take-back to a pharmacy, (ii) wastewater treatment after toilet disposal, and (iii) landfilling or incineration after trash disposal. For each option, emissions of active pharmaceutical ingredients to the environment (API emissions) are estimated along with nine other types of emissions to air and water (non-API emissions). Under a scenario with 50% take-back to a pharmacy and 50% trash disposal, current API emissions are expected to be reduced by 93%. This is within 6% of a 100% trash disposal scenario, which achieves an 88% reduction. The 50% take-back scenario achieves a modest reduction in API emissions over a 100% trash scenario while increasing most non-API emissions by over 300%. If the 50% of unused pharmaceuticals not taken-back are toileted instead of trashed, all emissions increase relative to 100% trash disposal. Evidence suggests that 50% participation in take-back programs could be an upper bound. As a result, we recommend trash disposal for unused pharmaceuticals. A 100% trash disposal program would have similar API emissions to a take-back program with 50% participation, while also having significantly lower non-API emissions, lower financial costs, higher convenience, and higher compliance rates.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91619/1/Unused_Pharmaceutical_Disposal_v-Apr-8-2012.xlsx2