Effects Of Organic Waste Pollution On The Natural Environment - Essay Example

?Water pollution Introduction Water is a chemical compound that is formed by bonds between oxygen and water molecules. Its property as a universal solvent however leads to many dissolves matter in it and this defines its pollution when the dissolved matter is harmful. Water cycle that consist of material flow on earth’s surface to water masses are some of the causes of water pollution as the flows collect materials into water bodies and are vulnerable to intentional pollution through domestic and industrial waste disposal. This paper discusses environmental effects of organic waste pollution and reviews an article that uses toxicology to investigate the impacts of water pollution on the natural environment. Effects of organic waste pollution on the natural environment Organic discharge into water bodies has varying effects on the environment. One of the effects of organic pollution is the disintegration of organic matter to changed odour and taste of water. Effects of continuous degradation are accumulation of compounds such as hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans and this leads to gradual increase in changed odour and taste of water that may not be suitable for sensitive flora and fauna. Organic pollutants also destabilize oxygen concentration in water masses. Many factors lead to this shift from equilibrium of water concentration. Processes of organic components of water such as photosynthesis and respiration uses oxygen and may change oxygen concentration in water. Photosynthesis may increase concentration beyond its equilibrium while respiration may reduce the level of concentration. Anaerobic respiration and oxidation of organic pollutants are other factors that can reduce oxygen concentration in water. The change in oxygen concentration may be a result of aquatic plants and animals but is moderated by existence of water pollutants such as organic wastes. Natural processes of aeration and de-aeration also regulate oxygen concentration in water but such processes are slow because of low solubility rate of oxygen in air. Organic waste into low oxygen concentration also has secondary effects on the aquatic environment. Plants that exist below the water surface, especially in large and stagnant water bodies, may malfunction and even die because of limited oxygen supply. Insufficient oxygen in water may also cause death of aquatic animals. Such deaths further leads to accumulation of organic compounds in water and worsen the problem with oxygen concentration. Death of plants and animals in the water bodies also generate aesthetic effect besides increasing water turbidity (Goel 2006, p 116- 120). Organic pollution also affects levels of production of aquatic plants and animals. As the pollutants begin to invade water bodies, aquatic plants and animals benefits from nutrients that the organic pollutants may contain and this leads to high rates of photosynthesis and respiration among other processes. Increased concentration of organic pollutants however have adverse effects on aquatic lives as respiration rates increase and this leads to aesthetic effect and instability in oxygen concentration. Accumulation of organic pollutants also increases concentration of chemical compounds such as hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, chemicals that have adverse effects on some plant and animal species such as phytoplankton. High levels of organic pollution are also a threat to biodiversity. At normal water conditions, without organic pollutants, all aquatic plants, and animals are able to survive and their populations are constant. High levels of pollution however threaten the lives and less tolerant plants and animals die. Some plants and animals may however be tolerant and survive the harsh conditions due to the pollution. Consequently, aquatic life will consist of the tolerant species that may only be few. Loss of biodiversity from the pollution can also be permanent, unless artificial measures such as reintroduction of the extinct species upon resumption of normal condition in the polluted aquatic environment. Organic pollution can also change an ecosystem’s biodiversity by introducing new species of plants and animals. The new entrants into the ecosystem may arrive as components of the organic pollutants. The natural law of survival for the fittest also explains the role of organic pollutants in change in an ecosystem’s biodiversity. Some plants and animals may be more tolerant to organically polluted water but lack survival potentials under normal conditions. Such plants and animals may die as pray or from starvation but elimination of their competitors or predators grants them advantage to survive in a polluted environment (Goel 2006, 120- 123). Another important aspect of organic pollution of water is its biological aspects. The organic matter that is introduced into water may have microorganisms such as “pathogenic bacteria, cetain fungi, pathogenic protozoa, viruses, and parasitic worms” (Thakur 2006, p. 79). Organic wastes from both domestic and industrial set ups contribute to the microorganisms’ presence in water. Effects of the biological components have direct effects on biodiversity in the infested aquatic environment. Even in the absence of other toxics in an organically polluted water body, the microorganisms are able to cause diseases and disorders in aquatic plants and animals and this could lead to extinction of affected species. Some of the microorganisms that can exist outside plants or animals will also continue to exist in their new environment and this will lead to a new biodiversity mix in the polluted environment. Chemical elements of organic pollutants also explain potential effects on the aquatic environment that can be transferred to other environments through food chains. Organic pollutants may be rich in organic acids and change pH level of the subject aquatic environment. Such a change has direct effects on physiological processes in plants and animals and therefore affects rates at which the processes occur. Organic acids may also dissolve organic matter that aquatic plants and animals can then consume and transfer to their predators. Continuous accumulation of such dissolve matter may have adverse effects on plants and animals in aquatic environment and other environments that rely on aquatic plants and animals for food (Thakur 2006, p. 78, 79). Critical article review Behrens et. al. (2001). “Toxicological and ecotoxicological assessment of water tracers,” Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 2001, No. 9, pp. 321-325. The study sought to investigate negative effects of water tracers, used in underground or surface water, on the environment and on people. It was motivated by the uncertainty that existed over usage of the tracers that are a source of water pollution. A team from the German Federal Environmental Agency conducted the study that reviewed 17 water tracers. The study reported significant adverse effects of some tracers on the environment and on people and recommended that tracers that have been associated with such adverse effects should not be used. Safer traces should however be alternatives. The study’s problem was clearly stated as lack of information on available tracers despite potential threats that the tracers could offer to the environment and to people. Existing data on different tracers is for example limited and even though regulations have existed that approve or disapprove of proposed use of traces, such regulations have relied on factors such as concentrations of tracers and not potential toxicology of the tracers. This identifies inefficiency in regulating water pollution from applied traces and the inefficiency offers a high probability of adverse effect of tracers on the aquatic environment. The study lacks a theoretical framework for predicting relationship between variables and for predicting possible outcomes. Even though applied literature is not properly cited, most of the literature were current, relative to the article’s publication date. The literature also focused on the article’s objective and variables and the authors appear unbiased in selection. No research question or hypothesis was stated in the study but can be inferred (Behrens et. al. 2001, p. 321, 322). A review of other peer reviewed articles also identify these weakness and this means that absence of research hypothesis and research questions do not compromise quality of a scientific research, otherwise this and the other articles would not have been approved for publication (Getahun and Selessie 22, 23; Ritcher and Pecharova 1269, 1270). Commercial tracers were the study’s participants and the researchers succeeded in describing them. Sample and the sampling technique and process are however not defined and this makes it difficult to ascertain representativeness of the used sample. This further means uncertainty on whether the sample ensures statistical power. The study also failed to discuss its preliminary measures to achieving ethical approval and status of ethical approval, whether researchers obtained approval or not. Procedures for ensuring protection of research participants from harm are also not discussed in the study’s methodology section. Procedure for implementing the research towards collection of data was also not discussed and the non-trivial scope of the study means that an audience is not able to replicate the study without assistance from one of the researchers who participated from development and implementation of the study’s methodology. Other elements of the methodology section such as the role of the researcher, validity and reliability concerns, and research design are also not discussed in the article. Even though the applied instrument, tests, is known for validity and reliability, its specific application in measuring the study’s variables indicates possible deviation from the general validity and reliability perceptions. The instrument is consistent with the population because of its universal applicability but a justification for its specific application was necessary and yet the researchers failed to explore this (Behrens et. al. 2001, p. 322). Richter and Pecharova’s methodology section also fails to discuss most of these elements and discussion of research methods, design, participants, and procedures are some of the elements that the authors fail to communicate (Ritcher and Pecharova 1270, 1271). Getahun and selassie’s article hoverver identifies most of the methodology’s elements such as sampling and sample selection strategies as well as data collection process and this allows for easy replication of their study (Getahun and Selessie 23). Communication of the article’s results did not state or explain characteristics of the research participants. Results from the tests are described in a systematic way with a table of raw data on results of each of the tests that were conducted on the different water tracers. Explanations of the results followed and a member of the audience can clearly understand information that the researchers generated. It is for example easy to identify traces that did not identify effects, based on genotoxicity or ecotoxicity and examples include “uranine, sodium naphthionate, and pyranine” (Behrens et. al. 2001, p. 323). The type of presented data, quantitative and ordinal data that distinguishes levels of involved risk in a water tracer element, is sufficient and clear for responding to the study’s objective. This is because the study only sought to determine possibility of adverse effects of different tracers and not the level of toxicity of the tracers, an objective that would require data on a higher measurement scale such as ratio scale. The study used two tables in its results section and the application is effective as it aids understanding of the data. A look at the two tables is able to identify to a reader the tracers that have adverse effects on the environment and people and those tracers that are safe to the environment. Safety of tracers such as uranine, eosin yellow, pyranine, and tinopal ABP liquid can for example be identified from the tables. The tables also communicate adverse toxicity effects of tracers such as rhodamine WT (Behrens et. al. 2001, p. 322- 324). Features of the results section also vary across articles and create the impression that authors can select elements to include as long as communication of results is achieved in an effective manner. Application of tables appears a fundamental element in the section as it is common in other articles (Getahun and Selessie 24- 27; Ritcher and Pecharova 1272, 1274). The article’s discussion was consistent with the knowledge gap that the researchers established in the study’s literature review. The identified gap was uncertainty over toxicity of tracers and lack of knowledge towards the uncertainty and the discussion section explains those tracers that are toxic to the environment and rationale for their toxicity. Weaknesses in the methodology section in failure to discuss related issues to validity and reliability issues are also evident in the discussion section as the researchers failed to address state and address possible limitations to the study. The study did not discuss implications that could necessitate further research but its comprehensiveness in addressing its objectives suggests that there was no need for further research. The contribution, identification of safe and unsafe water tracers, is significant to environmental studies because water tracers pollute aquatic environments and their effects can extend to other environments (Behrens et. al. 2001, p. 322- 324). Variation, based on comparison of the article with others, is again realized but some critical elements to results section are common. Interpretation of results and expectation, based on literature review, together with implication of studies are examples of common factors (Getahun and Selessie 24- 27; Ritcher and Pecharova 1274, 1275). The article identifies many weaknesses in its structure. Its literature review does not state sources of information in a clear and formal way and its methodology lacks theoretical framework besides its failure to communicate research design, sampling strategy, reliability and validity measures, and ethical approval. Results and discussion sections are however effective. The many weaknesses illustrate limitations of the study and lack of confidence in using it as a source of literature for a scientific study. These weaknesses are however common in other articles as identified from randomly selected articles in the same area of study. The review concludes that tradition does not focus on all elements of a scientific research paper and this means that results from the primary article can be used to inform other studies on effects of water pollution on the environment. Works cited Behrens et. al. (2001). “Toxicological and ecotoxicological assessment of water tracers,” Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 2001, No. 9, pp. 321-325. Getahun, Mekonnen, and Selessie, Yihenew. “Pollution of water, soil and vegetables: Challenges to growing cities of Bahir Dar and Komblcha, Amhara region, Ethiopia.” Journal of Agricultural Science (2013) 5.9; 22-28. Print. Goel, P 2006, Water pollution: Causes, effects and control, New Age International, New Delhi. Ritcher, Pavel, and Pecharova, Emilie. “Effects of mining activities on river water quality.” Polish Journal of Environmental Studies (3013) 22.4; 1269-1276. Print. Thakur, I 2006, Environmental biotechnology: Basic concepts and applications, I. K. International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. Read More