This unit’s assigned reading focuses on chemical-induced mutagens. As you are aware from the reading, not all carcinogens are mutagens. For this assignment, compare and contrast a carcinogen that is a mutagen to a carcinogen that is not a mutagen. Find at least four peer-reviewed journal articles published within the last 7 years that discuss the carcinogens and the cancer that each causes.

Compare the means of exposure of each chemical and the type of cancer each causes. Be sure to integrate the perspective and information gathered from each article into a discussion in your own words.

Your literature review must include the following components:

• an introduction of your topic of choice (include some background information on the origins of exposure and cancer),

• the methods used to search for the articles,

• the results of the articles,

• a discussion and conclusion with your own opinion, and

• APA references and in-text citations for the article.

The literature review must be three to four pages in length and follow APA formatting

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? Order now!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

HSV364—Human Behavior in Social Environment

 

Genogram Assignment: Martin Family Case Study

 

Marshall, a 32 year old Caucasian male, and Cynthia, a 30 year old Hispanic female, have been together for over 13 years and married for 9 years. Marshall and Cynthia have three children together: Sylvia, age 11, Jonathan, age 7 and Torrence, age 5. The two met as children as they lived in the same neighborhood. Marshall is an only child and his parents, Judith (age 61) and Randy (age 66) are still married, living in his childhood home. Marshall has a half-brother, Stephen (age 35), the only child from Randy’s previous marriage (name and age of previous partner unknown). Stephen spent weekends with the family until he moved in full time to have a shorter commute to the local community college. After graduation, Stephen moved out of state to begin his career. Judith and Randy allowed Marshall much freedom as a child and often took weekend trips away from home during Marshall’s teenage years, leaving Stephen in charge. Marshall also often spent time at his maternal grandparents’ (Vivian and George, both deceased) home during the summer to visit with his extended family.

Cynthia comes from a very strict Puerto Rican home and is the middle child, having an older sister, Marissa (age 35) and a younger sister, Sophia (age 29). Marissa’s father, William (age 58) is a pastor in the family’s local church and her mother, Patricia (age 56) works with the women’s ministry in the parish. They have been married for 36 years and had moved to the United States shortly after they were married so that William could find better work opportunities. William previously worked as an HVAC laborer and retired at a young age after sustaining an injury on the job.

Cynthia grew up in a household with very traditional gender roles and the expectation that she would be married before living with a partner, given the family’s Christian beliefs and values. Cynthia’s paternal grandmother, Carmen (age 80) still lives with her parents and Patricia has been her primary caretaker for the past several years. Carmen moved in with the family after her husband Julian passed away. Cynthia threw her family for a loop when she announced her pregnancy with Sylvia, considering that she and Marshall were not yet married. There was quite a bit of pressure for Cynthia and Marshall to marry, however, they chose to buy a home before saving for a wedding. As a result, William and Marshall have a very strained relationship because he blames Marshall for challenging Cynthia’s faith and getting his daughter pregnant and not marrying her right away.

Now that Sylvia is approaching her teenage years, Cynthia and Marshall have been disagreeing about their parenting choices. Marshall believes that Sylvia should be allowed to have a cell phone and a later curfew since she is at an age where social connections are most important. Marshall believes that they have instilled moral principles and responsibility in Sylvia and that she can be trusted to make good choices.

Cynthia believes that Sylvia should still be closely monitored and wants to send her away to an all-girls, Christian camp for the entire summer. Cynthia worries that she will make choices that will impact her future. Since Cynthia was only 19 when she had Sylvia, she had dropped out of college to be a stay-at-home mom. Cynthia has worked hard to raise her children in the church and pushes Sylvia to help out with household chores so that she has an understanding of what adult life is like. Cynthia constantly reminds Sylvia that making the choice to engage in behaviors that may result in her becoming a parent at a young age will increase responsibilities on her shoulders. Sylvia has begun to act out since she feels it is unfair that her brothers are not held to the same expectations and do not need to participate in household chores. Sylvia often feels jealous of her brothers and has begun to argue with her mom about her responsibilities around the house.

Marshall was also in school at the time of Sylvia’s birth and continued his schooling with his parents’ help. Marshall completed his degree and has been working in a very successful accounting firm for 10 years. Cynthia did not return to complete her Associates Degree to become an RN (registered nurse) until she was 25 and has been working in the local hospital for 3 years. With Cynthia’s contribution to the household, the family has been doing quite well financially and is considering moving to a smaller town, about 25 minutes away from where they currently live in their childhood hometown. Marshall and Cynthia have decided that they want to make this move before Sylvia transitions into high school.

After learning of the move, William and Patricia are very upset and have asked that Marshall and Cynthia reconsider and stay close by the rest of the family. Marshall has become very angry and feels like William will never let go of his daughter and that Cynthia makes her decisions based on her father’s approval. As a result, Cynthia and Marshall have been arguing even more. Marshall has also blamed much of their arguing about parenting choices on William since he knows that Cynthia always asks for her father’s input. At this point, Marshall has given Cynthia an ultimatum to choose between their family or her own family. Cynthia is beside herself and cannot understand why Marshall would put her in this position.

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? Order now!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

This worksheet will help you to summarize the most important information from a peer-reviewed journal article. The article will be provided to you by your instructor. You should summarize the information and put it into your own words – do not use quotations or copy text directly from the article. It is recommend that you complete the worksheet in the order it is written: bibliography, abstract, introduction, discussion, methods and results.

Worksheet is modified from https://resources.jjay.cuny.edu/erc/tutoring/worksheets.php

Bibliographic Information

• ●  Title of Article:
• ●  Author(s):
• ●  Journal Title:
• ●  Journal Volume, Issue, and Date:
  Abstract
• ●  Objective: this study was conducted in order to:
• ●  Methods: the data for this study was collected and analyzed in this way:
• ●  Results: the study found that:
• ●  Discussion: what is important about the study and the results?

 

Introduction

• ●  Why is this study needed? What new information does it provide?
• ●  What are the findings of previous studies? o 1)
  o 2) o 3)
• ●  What is the goal of this study?
  Discussion
• ●  What do the results mean?
• ●  Do the results answer the question(s) that the research intended to answer?
• ●  What recommendations are made for further research in this area?
  Methods and Results
• ●  Summarize the methods. How was the study conducted?
• ●  Summarize the results. What were the primary findings?

THIS IS THE ARCTICLE

Spatial patterns of pharmaceuticals and wastewater tracers in the Hudson River Estuary

Mark G. Cantwell a, *, David R. Katz a, Julia C. Sullivan b, Daniel Shapley c, John Lipscomb c, Jennifer Epstein c, Andrew R. Juhl d, Carol Knudson d, Gregory D. O’Mullan e

a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA b Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA
c Riverkeeper Inc., 20 Secor Road, Ossining, NY 10562, USA
d Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA

e School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11367, USA

articleinfo abstract

 

Article history:

Received 5 September 2017 Received in revised form
7 December 2017
Accepted 19 December 2017 Available online 22 December 2017

Keywords:

Pharmaceuticals Wastewater tracers Hudson river
Emerging contaminants

The widespread use of pharmaceuticals by human populations results in their sustained discharge to surface waters via wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). In this study, 16 highly prescribed pharma- ceuticals were quantified along a 250 km transect of the Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor to describe their sources and spatial patterns. Sampling was conducted over two dry weather periods in May and July 2016, at 72 sites which included mid-channel and nearshore sites, as well as locations influenced by tributaries and WWTP outfalls. The detection frequency of the study pharmaceuticals was almost identical between the May and July sampling periods at 55% and 52%, respectively. Six phar- maceuticals were measurable at 92% or more of the sites during both sampling periods, illustrating their ubiquitous presence throughout the study area. Individual pharmaceutical concentrations were highly variable spatially, ranging from non-detect to 3810ng/L during the study. Major factors controlling concentrations were proximity and magnitude of WWTP discharges, inputs from tributaries and tidal mixing. Two compounds, sucralose and caffeine, were evaluated as tracers to identify wastewater sources and assess pharmaceutical behavior. Sucralose was useful in identifying wastewater inputs to the river and concentrations showed excellent correlations with numerous pharmaceuticals in the study. Caffeine-sucralose ratios showed potential in identifying discharges of untreated wastewater occurring during a combined sewage overflow event. Many of the study pharmaceuticals were present throughout the Hudson River Estuary as a consequence of sustained wastewater discharge. Whereas some con- centrations were above published effects levels, a more complete risk assessment is needed to under- stand the potential for ecological impacts due to pharmaceuticals in the Hudson River Estuary.

  

1. Introduction

Pharmaceuticals comprise a large and growing class of chemical compounds present at elevated levels in water bodies of developed nations, primarily entering the environment following human use via wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges (Gaw et al., 2016). Pharmaceutical compounds including prescription, nonprescription and illegal drugs may number in the hundreds in WWTP effluents. Many pharmaceuticals are highly prescribed and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cantwell.mark@epa.gov (M.G. Cantwell).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.044

0043-1354/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

as a result enter the waste stream at high concentrations. Removal efficiency of pharmaceuticals during wastewater treatment is var- iable and often poor, resulting in their continuous release into the aquatic environment (Kolpin et al., 2002; Verlicchi et al., 2012). Under certain conditions, such as when combined sewage overflow (CSO) events occur, treatment systems are bypassed, resulting in the release of untreated sewage, further increasing the levels of some wastewater contaminants present (Kay et al., 2017). Conse- quently, many pharmaceuticals in receiving waters may be present in the ng/L to mg/L range (Roig and D’Aco, 2016).

In rivers, estuaries and coastal ecosystems that are urbanized or near densely-populated cities, the high volume and continuous discharge of WWTP effluents is a significant concern. In many such

336 M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343

locations episodic releases of untreated wastewater via CSOs and undocumented discharges are also a factor in water quality degradation (Launay et al., 2016). It is thought that most pharma- ceutical compounds remain biologically active in aquatic systems with the potential to exert adverse effects on aquatic life if present at levels above known effects thresholds (Seiler, 2002). The sus- tained discharge of pharmaceuticals may result in receiving waters with areas of pseudo-persistence (Daughton, 2001), resulting in chronic exposure and possible ecological effects. Pharmaceuticals are a class of pollutants that have been identified as “contaminants of emerging concern” (CECs). In the United States, there are currently no regulatory standards associated with them and there is limited information on their occurrence and potential to impart adverse effects (USEPA, 2017). Most CECs, including pharmaceuti- cals, are not included in current monitoring protocols, but may be candidates for future regulation based on their toxicity and other adverse effects. To ascertain the risk of CECs such as pharmaceu- ticals, information on contaminant sources (e.g., domestic waste- water (WW) discharges), individual CEC loadings, and their potential for adverse effects is needed. This information can be used to inform recently developed monitoring criteria that employs a risk based framework which focuses on whether concentrations of CECs measured in the environment exceed already established thresholds for biological effects (Sengupta et al., 2014). Further, these risk based methods enable a tiered approach to monitoring and could potentially provide support for future regulation of CECs (Maruya et al., 2014).

The Hudson River Estuary (HRE) is an estuary of vital ecological and economic importance that has been understudied with regard to WW derived CECs, particularly pharmaceuticals. The HRE sup- ports many activities, providing critical services to >15 million residents, as well as millions of visitors annually and others who indirectly benefit from economic activity within the watershed. Major uses include transportation, commerce, industrial, and as a drinking water source. The entire length of the HRE is a receiving water for numerous WWTP discharges, along with CSO releases, of untreated WW. New York City alone discharges over 4.9 106 m3/ d of treated WW (NYCDEP, 2012), and over 7 107 m3 of CSO dis- charges annually (NYCDEP, 2016). The large-scale, sustained discharge of WW results in numerous sewage-related contami- nants being released to the HRE, including pharmaceuticals. Bac- terial fecal indicators in the HRE show high spatial and temporal variability, though with recognizable patterns related to untreated sewage inputs and precipitation (Young et al., 2013). Although long-term trends in most water quality indicators show consider- able improvement in the HRE in recent decades (Steinberg et al., 2004; Brosnan et al., 2006), ongoing discharges combined with legacy pollutants (e.g., PCBs, PAHs) continue to present widespread water quality issues with potential impacts on human health, ecosystem function and economic activity.

In this study, the behavior and fate of 16 high-volume-use pharmaceutical compounds, caffeine and the artificial sweetener sucralose were investigated. These pharmaceuticals were selected using a conceptual approach which prioritized highly prescribed drugs based on their potential to cause biological effects in wastewater (Batt et al., 2016; Kostich et al., 2014). This approach is similar to others used to identify CECs for monitoring and further investigation (Maruya et al., 2014). The compounds were measured during dry weather along a 250-km (155-mile) transect of the HRE. Sites within a heavily CSO impacted New York Harbor (NYH) embayment were also sampled during both wet and dry weather conditions to begin to assess urban CSO influence at the mouth of the river. The objectives were to: (1) measure the study pharma- ceuticals in the water column at high spatial resolution to develop an understanding of the factors controlling their occurrence and

spatial patterns during dry weather; and (2) evaluate two potential tracers, caffeine (Benotti and Brownawell, 2009) and sucralose (Buerge et al., 2003; Oppenheimer et al., 2012), for tracking WW impacts in tidal rivers and estuaries such as the Hudson River.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study location

The morphology of the HRE is best described as a drowned river valley with little vertical rise (0.006 m/km) over a 250 km distance between the Battery (NYH) and the dam at Troy, NY and drains a watershed area of 13,750 km2 (USGS, 2017). The path of the HRE main channel runs in a relatively straight line from New York City to Albany (Fig. 1). It is ~1.3 km in width at river kilometer (RK) 0 and widens, reaching its widest point of ~5.6kmat RK 63. Further north, widths taper to and remain at approximately 0.5 km from RK 188 to RK 241. River depths are highly variable, with navigable channel depths averaging 12 m and a maximum depth of 61 m. The HRE is classified as a partially mixed estuary with a moderate salinity gradient and vertical stratification (Geyer and Chant, 2006). The river is tidally influenced up to the Federal Dam at Troy (RK 245) with a tidal magnitude of approximately 1.5 m. Tidal cycles are semidiurnal, with an average tidal current of 0.7 m/s, and play an important role in salinity gradients and stratification within the river, as does the volume of fresh water (Geyer and Chant, 2006). Approximately 80% of the fresh water entering the HRE at Troy annually originates from the upper Hudson and the Mohawk Rivers, with the balance entering from tributaries (Cooper et al., 1988) (Fig. 1, Table S1). Within the HRE, the position of the

Fig. 1. Map of the study area (sites identified by circles).

salinity front can be highly variable over time, with the volume of fresh water being the primary regulator (Geyer and Chant, 2006). Information on the residence time of water within the HRE is very limited, with estimates of 1e4 days for the haline part (Howarth et al., 2006), and from 25 to 100 days for the freshwater section (Cooper et al., 1988), varying with freshwater flows and tidal cycles.

The locations of sampling sites along the river transect are re- ported in RKs, starting at the New York City Battery where the Hudson enters NYH (RK 0) continuing up to RK 250. There were 65 sites along the transect, 63 of which were in the tidal estuary (Fig. 1, Table S2). There were two sites at the mouths of the Mohawk and upper Hudson Rivers, just above the Troy Dam, which flow into the HRE and account for >99% of the drainage above the dam (Wall et al., 2008). Finally, seven sites in the interconnected waterways of upper NYH were sampled, as were CSO discharges during a wet weather event.

2.2. Sampling

Water samples were collected May 19e23 and July 12e16, 2016, off the Riverkeeper vessel R. Ian Fletcher. Sampling of the transect started at RK 0 and progressed to RK 249.6. Over a period of 5 days, a single grab sample was collected from 0.25 m below the water surface at each site (Table S2). Samples were kept on ice until returned to the laboratory, and stored in the dark at 4C until processed. Extraction and analysis of samples was performed within 7 days of sample collection. Surface water conditions (e.g., salinity, temperature) were also recorded at each station during sampling with a Hydrolab data sonde. Samples from Flushing Bay within the East River were also collected from July 29 to August 6, 2016 to begin assessing urban CSO impacts on NYH.

2.3. Water extractions

Before extraction, 250 mL of water was passed through a 0.7 mm glass fiber filter (Whatman GFF) and stored in amber glass bottles. Extraction protocols followed EPA Method 1694 with slight modi- fications using Oasis HLB solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridges (6 cc, 500 mg, Waters Corporation). For the extractions, 250-mL samples were adjusted to pH 2 using hydrochloric acid (6 N) and spiked with 100 ng of isotopically labeled internal standards (IS) (Table S3). Cartridges were conditioned with 6 mL of methanol, followed by 6 mL of pH 2 Milli-Q water, and 6 mL of pH 2 filtered artificial seawater. Samples were loaded onto SPEs using a vacuum manifold at a rate of 5e10 mL/min. After loading, the SPEs were rinsed with 12 mL of pH 2 Milli-Q water, dried for 15 min under vacuum and eluted with 12 mL of methanol. Extracts were then evaporated to dryness, reconstituted with 1mL mobile phase (Milli-Q:methanol, 80:20), vortexed, transferred to vials and stored at 4C until analysis. Each set of extractions included a blank, for- tified blank, duplicate, and matrix evaluation.

2.4. Analysis

The 16 pharmaceuticals in the present study were antihyper- tensives (acebutolol (ACB), atenolol (ATE), diltiazem (DIL), labetalol (LAB), losartan (LOS), metoprolol (MET), propranolol (PRO), val- sartan (VAL), and verapamil (VER)); antibiotics (sulfamethoxazole (SUL) and trimethoprim (TRI)); an analgesic (acetaminophen (ACE)); an anticonvulsant (carbamazepine (CAR)); a diuretic (furosemide (FUR)); an antilipemic (gemfibrozil (GEM)); and an antiulcerative (ranitidine (RAN)). Caffeine (CAF) and sucralose (SUC) were measured because of their potential as WW tracers. The compounds were quantified using high purity standards (Sigma Aldrich) with isotopically enriched surrogates (deuterated and/or

13C) as an IS (CDN Isotope) (Table S4). Analysis was performed on a Waters Acquity UPLC using a Waters Xevo TQD MS/MS operated in electrospray ionization (ESI) mode. Compounds were detected by MS/MS with ionization conditions of the capillary set to 0.5 kV in ESIþ and 3.5 kV in ESI- (Table S5). Compound specific settings were also used for quantification and confirmation multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions (Table S3). Compounds were cali- brated using a 10-point curve ranging from 0.25 ng/mL to 300 ng/ mL. Calibration curves consistently had an r2 1⁄4 0.99 or better for all compounds. Calibration verification standards were also analyzed every 10 samples to confirm instrumental performance over the course of the analytical run. Recoveries for each compound were generally within 10% of reference values. Study compounds were not detected in the blanks (n 1⁄4 17), with the exception of CAF. One blank had a value of 3ng/L, with all others near or below the detection limit of 0.3 ng/L. Since the minimum and mean concen- trations of CAF during this study were approximately 22 ng/L and 109 ng/L, respectively, this was not regarded as a substantial issue and a blank correction was not performed. The method detection limits (MDLs) for the study compounds ranged from a high of 10 ng/ L to a low of 0.01 ng/L. Because of the potential for bias in the fre- quency of detection based on the range of individual compound MDLs, we statistically examined all data using histogram frequency distribution analysis. No patterns indicating MDL bias were found for any of the study compounds. Method detection limits were determined for each of the compounds using instrument detection limits defined as a signal to noise ratio >10 and are reported in Supplemental Data, Table S6, along with further information on quality assurance.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. River conditions

During the May and July sampling periods, average daily freshwater flows entering the HRE above the dam at Troy were 1.9 107 m3/d and 1.4 107 m3/d, respectively (USGS, 2017) (Table S1), with a 26% decline in freshwater flow to the river in July. These levels are lower than 5-year monthly flow averages of 4.8 107 m3/d and 2.9 107 m3/d for May and July, respectively, reflecting the dry conditions during this study. Currently, at least 90 municipal WWTPs discharge effluent directly or into tributaries entering the HRE (Table S7). Estimates of daily discharge indicate approximately 1.7 106 m3/d of effluent entering the HRE from locations above NYH (USEPA, 2016). This is approximately 7.5 and 11% of the fresh water input from the Upper Hudson and major tributaries during the May and July sample periods, respectively (Table S1).

Surface water temperatures ranged considerably between sampling periods (Fig. S1). In May temperatures ranged from 12.7 to 19.4 C while July temperatures ranged from 22.7 to 28.3 C. Temperatures during both periods were coolest at the mouth of the river and rose steadily up the transect, which is mostly explained by cooler, seawater entering the river during incoming tides.

Surface salinities were highest at the river mouth (RK 0), registering values of 14.6 and 20.8 for May and July, respectively, declining with distance upriver (Fig. S2). Measurable surface salinity (0.3 psu) extended as far north as RK 74 in May and RK 98 in July, with decreased freshwater flow explaining the salinity front extension in July. Strong horizontal salinity gradients have previ- ously been reported between RK 40 and 66, with salinity fronts as far north as Poughkeepsie (RK 124). Overall, salinity and temper- ature observations are consistent with historical seasonal trends, which are largely driven by the variability of freshwater flow (Geyer and Chant, 2006).

M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343 337

338 M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343

3.2. Pharmaceutical occurrence and distribution

The frequency of occurrence and spatial patterns of the study pharmaceuticals were determined to provide information on their sources, distribution and behavior (Fig. 2). The frequency of occurrence (expressed as %) across the whole study area were almost identical in the two months, with an average of 55% of pharmaceuticals occurring at each site during the May sampling and 52% in July. Results are presented by sites within the river and those within NYH. The absence of significant precipitation throughout the watershed resulted in low freshwater flow volumes during both sampling events and the expectation for little to no CSO input.

3.2.1. River transect

The occurrence frequencies of pharmaceuticals were somewhat variable over the length of the river, with slightly lower frequencies observed in July (Fig. 2). The largest increases in occurrence were associated with sites at WWTP discharges, especially at RKs 28.2, 41.8, and 148.2 where the number of compounds present exceeded 90%. Above the Troy Dam, fresh water enters the HRE originating from the Mohawk and Upper Hudson River watersheds. Here, the percent of study pharmaceuticals present averaged between 56 and 63%, reflecting their widespread presence in these major tributaries as a result of 4.0105m3/d of WW effluents discharged daily (Table S7). The occurrence frequencies at sites just below the dam (e.g., RKs 245.4e197.1), influenced by the cities of Troy and Albany, were similar to those above the dam ranging between 50% and 81%. The percentage of compounds present declined from RKs 188.3 through 156.1, dropping to 44e56%, due in part to dilution from major tributaries (e.g., Stockport/Kinderhook, Esopus, Catskill) entering this reach of the river. Because of the low population densities in this region, these tributaries receive smaller volumes of WW discharges (8.1 103 m3/d) than those above the dam (Table S7). Combined, all of these tributaries provide significant quantities of freshwater based on recent flow data (Table S1). From RKs 141.6 through 45.1, the occurrence of pharmaceuticals ranged between 38 and 56%. One exception is at RK 84.5 (located by the WWTP outfall at the military academy at West Point), where the frequency of occurrence dropped from 81% during the May sam- pling to 44% in July, which likely reflects the population drop be- tween academic sessions. Below RK 45.1, the percentage of study pharmaceuticals present increased, with well-defined spikes at RKs 41.8 and 28.2, sites with major WW inputs. The trend from RKs 43.5

Fig. 2. Frequency of occurrence (in percent) of pharmaceuticals along the river transect.

through 0 is complex and suggests a number of factors influenced the percentage of pharmaceuticals present. The proximity of New York and New Jersey urban areas, with an estimated population of >12M, along with numerous large-volume WWTP discharges clearly exerted their influence, with an average of 58% of pharma- ceuticals measurable for both sampling periods. The sustained, high volume of effluent entering the river, combined with harbor water reentering the river on incoming tides, resulted in conditions with numerous pharmaceuticals present.

During the May sampling, 7 of the 16 pharmaceuticals (ATE, CAR, LOS, MET, SUL, TRI, and VAL) were present at !98% of the 65 river sites. This compared closely to July, where the same com- pounds (excepting TRI at 77%) were present at !92% of the river sites (Fig. 2, Table 1). The similarity in trends between compounds along the transect and between sampling periods indicates the ubiquitous nature of these compounds under similar environ- mental conditions (e.g., precipitation, river flow).

Concentrations of individual pharmaceuticals varied along the river transect, with many trending in a similar manner from the start of the estuary (RK 245.4) to the Battery (RK 0) (Fig. 3, Table 1, Table S8). Four pharmaceuticals present throughout the river were all antihypertensive medications and can be credited for some of the highest concentrations recorded in this study. Although median concentrations for these compounds were fairly consistent be- tween sampling periods, the maximum concentrations recorded were much higher in May, with values as high as 1070 ng/L for ATE, 1700ng/L for LOS, 2020ng/L for MET, and 3810ng/L for VAL. It should be noted that for most compounds, the maximum concen- trations reported in this study were recorded at RK 148.2da site which is in direct proximity to a WW outfall. The other three frequently detected-compoundsdCAR, SUL, and TRIdfollowed the same pattern, with higher maximum concentrations in May and nearly identical median values between sampling periods.

Three other pharmaceuticals (ACE, DIL, and GEM) were present at less than 50% of the sites along the transect, but were generally present at sites near WWTPs. In particular, ACE and GEM were more abundant in May and exhibited greater variability between sampling periods. The occurrence of ACE dropped from 49% in May to 11% in July, and GEM experienced a similar magnitude in decline, occurring at 37% of the sites in May and 18% in July. Aside from a few prominent peaks, concentrations generally remained below 18 ng/L for both compounds. DIL was present near WWTP outfalls along with a few sites in the lower and upper reaches of the river at low levels. Finally, ACB, FUR, LAB, PRO, RAN and VER were present 25% of the time during both sampling periods (Table 1). These com- pounds were present almost exclusively by WWTP outfalls. LAB and PRO were present at 6 and 8% of the sites during May, occurring slightly more frequently in July at 11 and 18%, respectively. VER was present at 6% of sites in May, compared to 22% in July. RAN was found at 8% of the sites in May and 5% in July when it was present exclusively near large WWTP outfalls. ACB was detected at 6% of sites in May and 5% in July. Concentrations of these compounds were generally higher in May than in July.

Spatial patterns identified major tributaries and WWTPs along the transect as key factors influencing pharmaceutical concentra- tions. Trends between sampling periods provided insight into behavior of individual pharmaceuticals. Decreased river flow dur- ing July likely increased residence time to an undetermined extent as evidenced by the salinity profiles. However, only two com- pounds, CAR and SUL, were generally higher along the transect in July (Fig. 3). Conversely, GEM, TRI and VAL were slightly lower in July.

A number of processes may explain the behavior of some of the pharmaceuticals in the river. The sorption potential of individual pharmaceuticals gives an indication of their likelihood to be

Compound May
Min. Med.

River Transect

Acebutolol (ACB) n.d. 8.2 Acetaminophen (ACE) n.d. 8.0 Atenolol (ATE) 1.5 8.1 Caffeine (CAF) 23.5 70.3 Carbamazepine (CAR) 0.9 3.9 Diltiazem (DIL) n.d. 0.7 Furosemide (FUR) n.d. 130.0 Gemfibrozil (GEM) n.d. 19.9 Labetalol (LAB) n.d. 122.7 Losartan (LOS) 4.2 14.8 Metoprolol (MET) 8.0 16.2 Propranolol (PRO) n.d. 8.9 Ranitidine (RAN) n.d. 30.1 Sucralose (SUC) 588.4 870.2 Sulfamethoxazole (SUL) n.d. 12.3 Trimethoprim (TRI) n.d. 2.7 Valsartan (VAL) 11.4 28.1 Verapamil (VER) n.d. 8.7

New York Harbora
Acebutolol (ACB) n.d. 0.6 Acetaminophen (ACE) 4.9 13.0 Atenolol (ATE) 14.7 18.2 Caffeine (CAF) 111.9 141.7 Carbamazepine (CAR) 3.6 8.3 Diltiazem (DIL) n.d. n.d. Furosemide (FUR) n.d. 8.8 Gemfibrozil (GEM) n.d. 26.9 Labetalol (LAB) n.d. 2.4 Losartan (LOS) 23.2 33.0 Metoprolol (MET) 24.4 27.6 Propranolol (PRO) n.d. 0.5 Ranitidine (RAN) n.d. 1.8 Sucralose (SUC) 708.3 887.0 Sulfamethoxazole (SUL) 15.6 22.3 Trimethoprim (TRI) 4.3 7.7 Valsartan (VAL) 60.2 77.9 Verapamil (VER) n.d. 2.0

July
Max. Freq. Min. Med.

22.0 6 n.d. 5.1 327.7 49 n.d. 17.5 1074.3 100 n.d. 7.6 2056.7 100 22.2 49.1 542.6 100 2.6 5.6 73.5 20 n.d. 1.2 1234.8 8 n.d. 137.4 1440.4 37 n.d. 17.4 304.8 6 n.d. 4.7 1699.8 100 8.3 16.9 2020.6 100 7.7 14.1 134.1 8 n.d. 0.8 1002.1 9 n.d. 29.1 16,203.0 100 498.2 1181.2 616.6 98 n.d. 19.1 350.0 98 n.d. 2.7 3811.9 100 2.7 21.9 51.4 6 n.d. 0.8

0.8 43 n.d. n.d. 138.3 100 n.d. 92.3 31.8 100 16.5 24.5 589.5 100 78.0 142.6 25.1 100 4.3 6.5 n.d. 0 2.1 2.4
8.8 14 n.d. n.d. 43.1 86 n.d. 20.5 2.4 14 n.d. 2.2 48.6 100 34.2 48.2 47.6 100 31.1 40.4 1.2 43 n.d. 0.4
1.8 14 n.d. n.d. 1251.9 100 1204.2 1386.0 32.7 100 n.d. 50.0 10.4 100 7.1 10.5 117.4 100 82.4 94.9 2.4 57 n.d. 0.5

Max. Freq.

7.7 5 170.6 11 326.7 92 2265.1 100 105.7 100 77.0 46 291.2 5 457.4 18 136.7 11 584.6 100 612.2 100 30.3 18 202.0 5 10,107.9 100 336.8 98 230.9 77 1852.2 100 18.8 22

n.d. 0 161.7 43 30.9 100 520.2 100 12.4 100 5.6 100 n.d. 0 43.6 86 4.1 57 65.9 100 66.8 100 0.6 71 n.d. 0 1472.8 100 69.0 29 13.7 100 110.7 100 0.6 71

M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343

339

Table 1

Minimum (Min), median (Med) and maximum (Max) concentrations of study compounds (ng/L) along with their frequency of occurrence in percent (Freq).

   

a NY Harbor sites are sites that are not located on the main Hudson River transect: East River (2), Harlem

River (2), Newtown Creek (2) and Gowanus Canal.

removed from the water column. The Log Kows of the pharmaceu- ticals in this study are low, with five having Log Kows less than 1 and only four above 3.0, indicating little potential for solid phase partitioning (Table S9). Examination of the data based on the compounds’ respective Kows did not reveal any consistent patterns of behavior. Similarly, distribution coefficients (Kds) provide direct evidence of partitioning behavior in the water column. Cantwell et al. (2016a) determined field-derived Kds for eight of the com- pounds (Table S9), with four other compounds exhibiting insuffi- cient solid-phase concentrations to determine Kds (e.g., ACE, GEM, SUL, and VAL). Median Kd values for six of the eight pharmaceuti- cals were below 2.5, with the other two below 4.0. Ternes et al. (2004) observed that compounds with Log Kd values of 2.7 or less were shown to have minimal removal from the dissolved phase (<10%) by sorption processes.

The acid dissociation constant (or pKa) is an important factor controlling the therapeutic behavior of pharmaceuticals as the degree of ionization is strongly influenced by pH, which can also have implications when pharmaceutical residues are present in aquatic systems (Cunningham, 2008). The study compounds have a broad range of pKa values, from 4.8 to 17.3 (Table S9). The pH of the receiving water could affect the degree of ionization of indi- vidual pharmaceuticals to some extent, as ionized compounds will be more soluble in contrast to their respective neutral species. This would make them less likely to partition to solid phases and

potentially affect their distribution in the water column. While pH was not measured in this study, long-term values in the Hudson range from 6.4 to 8.2, with most above 7.0 (Cooper et al., 1988), which could potentially affect the behavior of some of the phar- maceuticals. Recent work, however, has not shown a relationship between pKa and solubility with a similar suite of compounds in estuarine conditions (Zhao et al., 2015).

Overall, sorption does not appear to be an important mechanism of removal for most of the compounds examined during this study, suggesting that many of the declines observed may be due to degradation by abiotic and biotic processes. A decrease in abun- dance and concentrations of some compounds in July suggests that degradation may have been a factor for more labile pharmaceuti- cals. Reduced freshwater inputs (Table S1) to the HRE (which would increase residence time) and elevated water temperatures (Fig. S1) in July may create enhanced conditions supporting degradation.

3.2.2. New York harbor

The New York Harbor sites are located in East River, Harlem River, Newtown Creek and Gowanus Canal. The occurrence of pharmaceuticals present in NYH was relatively high, ranging from 56 to 83% and usually at slightly higher concentrations in Newtown Creek and East River. Six compoundsdATE, CAR, LOS, MET, TRI, and VALdwere present at all seven sites during both sampling periods. Additionally, ACE and SUL were present at all sites in May, while DIL

340 M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343

Fig. 3. Concentrations (ng/L) of frequently detected pharmaceuticals along the river transect.

had 100% occurrence in July but was not detected at all in May. PRO and VER occurred at 43% and 57%, respectively, of sites in May, while each had occurrence rates of 71% in July. LAB occurred at 14% of sites in May and 57% of sites in July. ACB was only detected in May, with an occurrence rate of 43%. RAN was detected only once in May, and FUR was not detected during either sampling period.

Median concentrations of ACE, ATE, GEM, LOS, MET, SUL, TRI, and VAL in NYH were mostly higher than in the transect. These compounds, with the exception of GEM, were higher during July, with median values ranging 7.7e78 ng/L in May and 10e95 ng/L in July. Median values remained below 9 ng/L for CAR and did not exceed 2.4 ng/L for ACB, DIL, LAB, PRO and VER.

New York Harbor has numerous large WWTPs in both the Hudson and East River tributaries that contribute approximately 3.8 106 m3/d of effluent to this area (Table S7). The large volume of water entering from both the Hudson and East Rivers, already elevated in pharmaceuticals, is subjected to the Harbor’s complex hydrodynamics and additional WW inputs. Here, successive tidal cycles advect large volumes of water from the harbor up the river. However, no decrease in percent occurrence of pharmaceuticals was observed. Tidal cycling in the lower river and harbor here can cause equivalent flow in both directions. The complex hydrody- namics and dynamic mixing of water combined with the location and volume of WW discharged daily into the harbor explain the spatial patterns of pharmaceuticals observed in this area. These findings highlight the importance of hydrodynamics along with input levels and source locations in regulating contaminant con- centrations in coastal rivers and embayments.

3.3. Environmental perspective

Comparing pharmaceutical responses in this study to other river systems provides some context to the levels observed. Recently, Batt et al. (2016) conducted a national survey of phar- maceuticals in 182 US rivers and streams that included 13 of the 16

compounds (except ACB, LAB, and LOS) examined in this study. Between the two studies, the mean frequency of detection across our sites was greater in this study (Table S10). Comparison of concentrations from both studies also revealed that with the exception of VER, numerous compounds in this study (e.g., ACE, ATE, DIL, FUR, GEM, MET, RAN, TRI, and VAL) were higher and the others (CAR, PRO, and SUL) were nearly equal. Similar trends were found in the Garonne River estuary of France with mean con- centrations of CAR and PRO nearly equal to those in this study, but with lower mean levels of ATE, GEM, LOS, MET, and RAN (Aminot et al., 2016). Combined, the high frequency of occurrence and elevated concentrations of many of the study pharmaceuticals illustrates the impact WWTP discharges have on the HRE relative to other rivers (Table S10), which raises questions regarding the possibility of ecological effects.

Pharmaceutical compounds are frequently detected in fresh- water and marine environments, though they are rarely found at levels high enough to cause acute toxicity (Brausch et al., 2012). However, since many pharmaceuticals (particularly highly pre- scribed ones) are constantly entering the environment, there is interest regarding the potential for chronic effects. At some sites in this study, particularly those situated by WWTP outfalls, several pharmaceuticals were measured at concentrations reported to cause chronic effects to aquatic organisms: SUL (Yu et al., 2011), CAR (De Lange et al., 2006), PRO (Franzellitti et al., 2011), and ACE (Parolini et al., 2013). At RK 148.2, which is situated at a WWTP outfall and at low tide is essentially undiluted effluent, five other compounds were measured at concentrations reported to cause chronic effects: TRI (Parolini et al., 2013), RAN (Rocco et al., 2010), FUR (Rocco et al., 2010), GEM (Rocco et al., 2012), and MET (Dietrich et al., 2010). Although these compounds were not found at levels this high throughout the entirety of HRE, their high concentrations at several sites indicate that minimum effect concentrations for a number of pharmaceuticals may be exceeded near WW point sources (e.g., WWTP outfalls, CSOs).

3.4. Tracer evaluation

Two compounds, CAF and SUC, were evaluated to assess their efficacy as tracers of sanitary wastewater in the HRE and NYH. Previously, CAF has been used to identify WW in surface waters (Buerge et al., 2003), and track CSO and undocumented sanitary discharges to estuarine waters (Buerge et al., 2006; Cantwell et al., 2016b). Caffeine is efficiently removed (>95%) by most sanitary WWTP processes (Buerge et al., 2003) making it well suited to identify untreated WW sources (e.g., CSOs) (Benotti and Brownawell, 2009). Sucralose is used extensively as a food and beverage sweetener and has also been evaluated as a WW tracer in aquatic systems. (Oppenheimer et al., 2011, 2012). As opposed to CAF, SUC is highly resistant to degradation as it is mostly inert to metabolic and environmental processes (Soh et al., 2011), resulting in negligible removal by WWTPs (Yang et al., 2017). The differential behavior of SUC and CAF along with their elevated levels in receiving waters indicates that combined, they may discriminate between sources of treated and untreated sanitary wastewater (e.g., WWTP effluents and CSOs).

Both SUC and CAF were present at all sites and sampling periods at high concentrations, reflecting their extensive use in foods and beverages as well as excipient ingredients in pharmaceutical for- mulations. Along the transect, SUC concentrations ranged from 498 to 16,200 ng/L, with median values of 876 and 1180 ng/L for the May and July sampling periods, respectively. This increase is likely due to the 26% decline in freshwater flow during July, which increased the proportion of WW effluent in the river. Compared to SUC, CAF was an order of magnitude lower along the transect, ranging from 22 to 2260 ng/L with median values of 70 and 49 ng/L for May and July, respectively. For perspective, SUC and CAF concentrations measured by Bernot et al. (2016) in rivers and streams throughout the US were lower than in this study, with sucralose ranging from nondetect to 12,000 ng/L and caffeine ranging from nondetect to 420 ng/L.

Along the transect, SUC showed similar trends during both sampling periods with several discrete differences. SUC concen- trations entering the HRE at RK 249.6 were 700 and 498 ng/L in May and July, respectively (Fig. 4). Concentrations spike slightly at RK 249.4 due to its close proximity to a WWTP. In May from RKs

Fig. 4. Caffeine and sucralose concentrations (ng/L) along the river transect.

245 through 86.9, concentrations stayed within the range of 700e1200 ng/L, excepting one large peak near a WWTP. Below RK 86.9 in May, concentrations only rose over 950 ng/L at discrete lo- cations along the transect. In July from RKs 245.4 through RK 148.2, concentrations rarely fell below 1300 ng/L. At the sites below that point, values generally remain in the range of 800e1300 ng/L, again with the exception of a few discrete peaks. Generally, large spikes in SUC concentrations coincided with high volume WWTP discharges (e.g., RKs 148.2 and 41.8). In May there were several prominent SUC peaks at RKs 19.3e12.7 that were absent in July. The sources of these peaks are unknown, but may be from episodic, undocu- mented WW discharges.

Maximum levels of CAF for both sampling periods occurred at RK 41.8, which is near two major WWTP discharges (Table S7). Spatial trends for CAF were also similar between sampling periods with exception of RKs 28.2e0.2 during May. In May, CAF is twice the July levels from RKs 28.2 through 0.2, a generalized increase that suggests discharge of untreated WW. In May below RK 19.3, there were several well-defined peaks of SUC present, suggesting too that there may be unidentified WW discharge in the lower segment of the river. The enhanced responses of SUC throughout the river at locations with known WW outfalls combined with its inert behavior supports its potential as a WW tracer in large systems such as the HRE.

Another objective was to examine whether tracers can explain the behavior and fate of WW associated contaminants. Concen- trations of SUC were compared against the study compounds from the river transect. Concentrations of pharmaceuticals present >75% of the time were regressed against SUC and CAF to examine their relationships (Table S11). Coefficients of determination (r2) for SUC were uniformly higher, with r2 values ranging 0.77e0.97 for both May and July, exhibiting strong linear relationships. In contrast, r2s for CAF were much lower, ranging from 0.01 to 0.59. CAF also showed greater variability between sampling periods with a lower r2 in May. The weak relationship between CAF and the study compounds likely reflects CAF’s non-conservative behavior (lability) in the water column (Benotti and Brownawell, 2009). SUC showed less variability between sampling periods and slightly higher r2s for July. With SUC’s well documented resistance to degradation (Soh et al., 2011), the strong linear relationships with these pharmaceuticals (i.e., conservative behavior) further in- dicates that degradation or sorption processes are not a significant factor controlling their fate in the HRE during our sampling period, but may vary over longer time scales. Consequently, the concen- trations of these compounds are controlled primarily by the vol- ume of effluent and dilution from tributaries and tidal processes. The strong spatial correlation also demonstrates the potential of SUC as a tracer for recalcitrant contaminants in receiving waters emanating from WWTPs.

Finally, the differential behavior of SUC and CAF was examined as a potential tool for discriminating between WW sources in surface waters using the ratio of CAF to SUC (C/S) concentrations. For example, a high C/S ratio would indicate that the relative amount of untreated WW was elevated relative to treated WW, while a lower ratio would indicate a lower proportion or absence of untreated WW. To test this concept, sampling was conducted in Flushing Bay, a CSO impacted urbanized tidal embayment on the East River of NYH during wet and dry weather conditions in JulyeAugust 2016. Water samples were collected from sites in close proximity to CSOs during a release event triggered by heavy pre- cipitation and 5 days later under dry conditions. Samples collected during the CSO event all showed C/S ratios >1 (1.1e3.0), indicating a high proportion of untreated WW (Fig. 5). The samples collected during dry weather had C/S ratios between 0.12 and 0.2. The de- clines in CAF between wet and dry conditions were as much as 2

M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343 341

342 M.G. Cantwell et al. / Water Research 137 (2018) 335e343
sustained discharge of pharmaceutical residues associated with

Fig. 5. Caffeine-sucralose (C/S) ratios in Flushing Bay of NYH under wet and dry conditions.

orders of magnitude and clearly showed the impact of CSO dis- charges. Ratios were also calculated for the river transect to examine how C/S ratios responded in the river. Ratios along the transect ranged from a high of 0.31 (RK 41.8) to a low of 0.0033 at RK 148.1, indicating an absence of untreated WW discharges during both river sampling events (Fig. S3), which is supported by the lack of significant precipitation during both sampling events and no weather triggered CSO events in the HRE.

4. Conclusions

In this study we investigated the occurrence and fate of sixteen highly prescribed pharmaceuticals and two potential wastewater tracers in the Hudson River, a large urbanized estuary. Conducting sampling at high spatial resolution permitted evaluation of the variables controlling pharmaceutical behavior in the study area. The main conclusions were:

•  The sustained discharge of WWTP effluents along with their location and magnitude were important factors for sites both in New York Harbor and the river transect, controlling both the presence and abundance of pharmaceuticals to the overall study area. Tributary inputs, river flows and tides played an important role by controlling dilution and, consequently, pharmaceutical concentrations. Because both sampling events in this study occurred under dry weather conditions, future work should include sampling under wet weather conditions to understand how the combination of CSO events and increased river flows affect the overall concentrations of pharmaceuticals.
•  Sucralose was found to be ubiquitously present throughout the HRE and NYH, and exhibited a strong relationship with many of the study compounds. Since this demonstrates its potential as a tracer of wastewater derived pharmaceutical residues in the HRE, further research should examine whether this holds true for other large estuarine systems.
•  The use of caffeine/sucralose (C/S) ratios accurately identified the presence of untreated sanitary water discharged during a wet weather CSO event, showing potential for detecting and locating unidentified sources of untreated sanitary wastewater released to receiving waters. The utilization of C/S ratios war- rants further examination under a range of conditions, partic- ularly in areas highly impacted by CSOs and other discharges of untreated sanitary wastewater.
•  Further research is needed to reduce uncertainties and better understand the overall magnitude of risk resulting from the

WW discharges into effluent dominated estuaries. Acknowledgments

The authors thank Drs. Abigail Joyce, James Lake, and Mr. Steven Rego for their technical reviews. This is NHEERL Contribution ORD- 022066. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Government or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.044.

References

Aminot, Y., Le Menach, K., Pardon, P., Etcheber, H., Budzinski, H., 2016. Inputs and seasonal removal of pharmaceuticals in the estuarine Garonne River. Mar. Chem. 185, 3e11.

Batt, A.L., Kincaid, T.M., Kostich, M.S., Lazorchak, J.M., Olsen, A.R., 2016. Evaluating the extent of pharmaceuticals in surface waters of the United States using a national-scale rivers and streams assessment survey. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (4), 874e881.

Benotti, M.J., Brownawell, B.J., 2009. Microbial degradation of pharmaceuticals in estuarine and coastal seawater. Environ. Pollut. 157 (3), 994e1002.

Bernot, M.J., Becker, J.C., Doll, J., Lauer, T.E., 2016. A national reconnaissance of trace organic compounds (TOCs) in United States lotic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 572, 422e433.

Brausch, J.M., Connors, K.A., Brooks, B.W., Rand, G.M., 2012. Human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: a review of recent toxicological studies and con- siderations for toxicity testing. In: Whitacre, D.M. (Ed.), Reviews of Environ- mental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 218. Springer, New York, pp. 1e99.

Brosnan, T.M., Stoddard, A., Hetling, L.J., 2006. Hudson River sewage inputs and impacts: past and present. In: Levinton, J.S., Waldman, J.R. (Eds.), The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 335e348.

Buerge, I.J., Poiger, T., Müller, M.D., Buser, H.R., 2003. Caffeine, an anthropogenic marker for wastewater contamination of surface waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (4), 691e700.

Buerge, I.J., Poiger, T., Müller, M.D., Buser, H.R., 2006. Combined sewer overflows to surface waters detected by the anthropogenic marker caffeine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (13), 4096e4102.

Cantwell, M.G., Katz, D.R., Sullivan, J.C., Ho, K., Burgess, R.M., Cashman, M., 2016a. Selected pharmaceuticals entering an estuary: concentrations, temporal trends, partitioning, and fluxes. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (11), 2665e2673.

Cantwell, M.G., Katz, D.R., Sullivan, J.C., Borci, T., Chen, R.F., 2016b. Caffeine in Boston Harbor past and present, assessing its utility as a tracer of wastewater contamination in an urban estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 108 (1), 321e324.

Cooper, J.C., Cantelmo, F.R., Newton, C.E., 1988. Overview of the Hudson River es- tuary. In: Barnthouse, L.W., Klauda, R.J., Vaughan, D.S., Kendall, R.L. (Eds.), Sci- ence, Law and Hudson River Power Plants: a Case Study in Environmental Impact Assessment. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 11e24.

Cunningham, V.L., 2008. Special characteristics of pharmaceuticals related to environmental fate. In: Kummerer, K. (Ed.), Pharmaceuticals in the Environ- ment: Sources, Fate and Risk. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 23e34.

Daughton, C.G., 2001. Pharmaceuticals and care products in the environment: overarching issues and overview. In: Daughton, C.G., Jones-Lepp, T.L. (Eds.), ACS Symposium Series, vol. 791. American Chemical Society, pp. 2e38.

De Lange, H.J., Noordoven, W., Murk, A.J., Lürling, M., Peeters, E.T.H.M., 2006. Behavioural responses of Gammarus pulex (Crustacea, Amphipoda) to low concentrations of pharmaceuticals. Aquat. Toxicol. 78, 209e216.

Dietrich, S., Ploessl, F., Bracher, F., Laforsch, C., 2010. Single and combined toxicity of pharmaceuticals at environmentally relevant concentrations in Daphnia magna e a multigenerational study. Chemosphere 79 (1), 60e66.

Franzellitti, S., Buratti, S., Valbonesi, P., Capuzzo, A., Fabbri, E., 2011. The b-blocker propranolol affects cAMP-dependent signaling and induces the stress response in Mediterranean mussels, Mytilus galloprovincialis. Aquat. Toxicol. 101, 299e308.

Gaw, S., Thomas, K., Hutchinson, T.H., 2016. Pharmaceuticals in the marine envi- ronment. Issues Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 70e91.

Geyer, W.R., Chant, R., 2006. The physical oceanography processes in the Hudson River estuary. In: Levinton, J.S., Waldman, J.R. (Eds.), The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 24e38.

Howarth, R.W., Marino, R., Swaney, D.P., Boyer, E.W., 2006. Wastewater and

watershed influences on primary productivity and oxygen dynamics in the lower Hudson River estuary. In: Levinton, J.S., Waldman, J.R. (Eds.), The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 121e139.

Kay, P., Hughes, S.R., Ault, J.R., Ashcroft, A.E., Brown, L.E., 2017. Widespread, routine occurrence of pharmaceuticals in sewage effluent, combined sewer overflows and receiving waters. Environ. Pollut. 220, 1447e1455.

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., Buxton, H.T., 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (6), 1202e1211.

Kostich, M.S., Batt, A.L., Lazorchak, J.M., 2014. Concentrations of prioritized phar- maceuticals in effluents from 50 large wastewater treatment plants in the US and implications for risk estimation. Environ. Pollut. 184, 354e359. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.09.013.

Launay, M.A., Dittmer, U., Steinmetz, H., 2016. Organic micropollutants discharged by combined sewer overflows e characterisation of pollutant sources and stormwater-related processes. Water Res. 104, 82e92.

Maruya, K.A., Schlenk, D., Anderson, P.D., Denslow, N.D., Drewes, J.E., Olivieri, A.W., Snyder, S.A., et al., 2014. An adaptive, comprehensive monitoring strategy for chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) in California’s aquatic ecosystems. In- tegrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 10 (1), 69e77.

NYCDEP, 2012. The state of the harbor. Retrieved from. http://www.nyc.gov/html/ dep/pdf/hwqs2012.pdf.

NYCDEP, 2016. Green infrastructure performance metrics report. Retrieved from.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/gi-performance-

metrics-report-2016.pdf.
Oppenheimer, J.A., Badruzzaman, M., Jacangelo, J.G., 2012. Differentiating sources of

anthropogenic loading to impaired water bodies utilizing ratios of sucralose

and other microconstituents. Water Res. 46 (18), 5904e5916.
Oppenheimer, J., Eaton, A., Badruzzaman, M., Haghani, A.W., Jacangelo, J.G., 2011. Occurrence and suitability of sucralose as an indicator compound of wastewater loading to surface waters in urbanized regions. Water Res. 45 (13), 4019e4027. Parolini, M., Pedriali, A., Binelli, A., 2013. Application of a biomarker response index for ranking the toxicity of five pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) to the bivalve Dreissena polymorpha. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

64 (3), 439e447.
Rocco, L., Frenzilli, G., Fusco, D., Peluso, C., Stingo, V., 2010. Evaluation of zebrafish

DNA integrity after exposure to pharmacological agents present in aquatic

environments. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 73 (7), 1530e1536.
Rocco, L., Frenzilli, G., Zito, G., Archimandritis, A., Peluso, C., Stingo, V., 2012. Gen- otoxic effects in fish induced by pharmacological agents present in the sewage

of some Italian water-treatment plants. Environ. Toxicol. 27 (1), 18e25.
Roig, B., D’Aco, V., 2016. Distribution of pharmaceutical residues in the

environment. Issues Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 34e69.
Seiler, J.P., 2002. Pharmacodynamic activity of drugs and ecotoxicologydcan the

two be connected? Toxicol. Lett. 131 (1), 105e115.
Sengupta, A., Lyons, J.M., Smith, D.J., Drewes, J.E., Snyder, S.A., Heil, A., Maruya, K.A.,

2014. The occurrence and fate of chemicals of emerging concern in coastal urban rivers receiving discharge of treated municipal wastewater effluent. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 33 (2), 350e358.

Soh, L., Connors, K.A., Brooks, B.W., Zimmerman, J., 2011. Fate of sucralose through environmental and water treatment processes and impact on plant indicator species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (4), 1363e1369.

Steinberg, N., Suszkowski, D., Clark, L., Way, J., 2004. Health of the Harbor Report. Hudson River Foundation, p. 81.

Ternes, T.A., Herrmann, N., Bonerz, M., Knacker, T., Siegrist, H., Joss, A., 2004. A rapid method to measure the solidewater distribution coefficient (Kd) for pharma- ceuticals and musk fragrances in sewage sludge. Water Res. 38 (19), 4075e4084.

USEPA, 2016. Enforcement and compliance history online. https://echo.epa.gov/ (Accessed 2 December 2016).

USEPA, 2017. Contaminants of emerging concern including pharmaceuticals and personal care products. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/contaminants-emerging- concern-including-pharmaceuticals-and-personal-care-products (Accessed 30 June 2017).

USGS, 2017. National water information system. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis (Accessed 30 June 2017).

Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., Zambello, E., 2012. Occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds in urban wastewater: removal, mass load and environmental risk after a secondary treatmentda review. Sci. Total Environ. 429, 123e155.

Wall, G.R., Nystrom, E.A., Litten, S., 2008. Suspended sediment transport in the freshwater reach of the Hudson River estuary in eastern New York. Estuar. Coast 31 (3), 542e553.

Yang, Y.Y., Liu, W.R., Liu, Y.S., Zhao, J.L., Zhang, Q.Q., Zhang, M., Zhang, J.N., Jiang, Y.X., Zhang, L.J., Ying, G.G., 2017. Suitability of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) and artificial sweeteners (ASs) as wastewater indicators in the Pearl River Delta. South China. Sci. Tot. Environ 590, 611e619.

Young, S., Juhl, A., O’Mullan, G.D., 2013. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the Hudson River Estuary linked to wet weather sewage contamination. J. Water Health 11 (2), 297e310.

Yu, Z., Jiang, L., Yin, D., 2011. Behavior toxicity to Caenorhabditis elegans transferred to the progeny after exposure to sulfamethoxazole at environmentally relevant concentrations. J. Environ. Sci. 23, 294e300.

Zhao, H., Zhou, J.L., Zhang, J., 2015. Tidal impact on the dynamic behavior of dis- solved pharmaceuticals in the Yangtze Estuary, China. Sci. Total Environ. 536, 946e954.

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? Order now!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

Syllabus

Introduction to Environmental Science Lab

1185-FIU01-EVR-1001L-SECRVAA-55679

General Information | Important Information | Course Detail | Course Calendar

General Information

Professor Information

Instructor:

Seema Sah

Phone:

305-348-3877

Office:

OE 234 (MMC)

Office Hours:

By Appointment

E-mail:

Please use Canvas Inbox

Course Description And Purpose

Global climate change is a unique issue in that it is biospheric in nature, meaning it will impact all people, all societies and all ecosystems. It also provides arguably the greatest challenge currently facing humanity over the coming decades. That challenge also represents unique opportunities for involving many individuals, groups and nations in coming up with innovative solutions that can help mitigate some of the most severe impacts climate change will impose upon humanity. This online laboratory course will use at-home investigations, Internet-based applications, data sets, and employ a variety of technology enabling features associated with Canvas learning management system.

Global Climate Change is a complex issue that blurs disciplinary boundaries in showing the interconnected relationship between humans and the structures/systems we have created and our natural environment and the structures/systems that underlie it.  Although this is a lab course, it will be different from others in covering and combining a number of disciplines including earth sciences, chemistry, physics, ecology, economics, biogeochemistry, environmental science as well as social science aspects.

This one credit laboratory course is an introduction to environmental science and sustainability. Students will have hands-on experience in identifying and analyzing different environmental problems related with air, water pollution and environmental degradation. Furthermore, students will learn about the interdependence of ecosystems such as the impacts of excessive fertilizer or nutrient usage in agricultural systems, which can result in both surface and ground water pollution. Students will also learn how individual consumption patterns can make a difference in energy use, diminishing waste and market influence, to differentiate between indoor and outdoor polution, and how to reduce these.

Course Objectives

Students will be able to:

· demonstrate knowledge of the interrelatedness of local, global, international, and intercultural issues, trends, and systems;

· understand the scientific information and key concepts that underlie climate change, and incorporate current events and new scientific information into what they have learned to foster critical thinking on future global climate change;

· develop a multi-perspective analysis of local, global, international, and intercultural problems;

· analyze climate change from multiple perspectives (different people, nations, cultures) including analysis of responsible parties and how impacts will affect both the natural and global systems; and

· demonstrate a willingness to analyze their own personal connection and responsibility regarding global climate change including exploring the range of possible solutions and take action.

Course Awards

Affordability Counts

This course has been awarded the Affordability Counts Medallion. The Affordability Counts initiative at FIU seeks to make learning more affordable by reducing the cost of course materials to $60 or less. Find out more by visiting the Affordability Counts website at lowcost.fiu.edu.

Important Information

Policies

Please review the FIU’s Policies webpage. The policies webpage contains essential information regarding guidelines relevant to all courses at FIU, as well as additional information about acceptable netiquette for online courses.

Grading for this course will be based on lab reports, two exams, environmental shopping, campus audit project paper and discussions. Be sure to follow the schedule of events in order to stay current in the course.

FIU Code of Academic Integrity

This Code of Academic Integrity was adopted by the Student Government Association on November 28, 2001 and reflects the values articulated in the Student Code of Standards.

Florida International University is a community dedicated to generating and imparting knowledge through excellent teaching and research, the rigorous and respectful exchange of ideas, and community service. All students should respect the right of others to have an equitable opportunity to learn and honestly to demonstrate the quality of their learning. Therefore, all students are expected to adhere to a standard of academic conduct, which demonstrates respect for themselves, their fellow students, and the educational mission of Florida International University. http://www2.fiu.edu/~oabp/misconductweb/1acmisconductproc.htm

Statement for Access

The Disability Resource Center collaborates with students, faculty, staff, and community members to create diverse learning environments that are usable, equitable, inclusive and sustainable. The DRC provides FIU students with disabilities the necessary support to successfully complete their education and participate in activities available to all students. If you have a diagnosed disability and plan to utilize academic accommodations, please contact the Center at 305-348-3532 or visit them at the Graham Center GC 190. http://drc.fiu.edu/.   It is the responsibility of each student to work with the Center and Instructor to make arrangements as needed for their accommodations.

Course Late Assignment Policy

All assignments submitted after the assignment due date are subject to the following deductions.

# of Days Late	Deduction
1 – 2	10%
3 – 5	15%
7 – 10	20%
10 – 14	25%
> 14	Cannot be submitted

You must contact your instructor before attempting late assignments.

Online Assessment Issues Policy

If you encounter a problem when conducting an assessment (e.g., exam, quiz, discussion, etc.) and/or have problems uploading documents to the assignment dropbox, then you must contact FIU online for assistance.  They will contact me with additional instructions at which point a determination will be made regarding the next course of action.  There is no exception to this policy.

Technical Requirements and Skills

One of the greatest barriers to taking an online course is a lack of basic computer literacy. By computer literacy we mean being able to manage and organize computer files efficiently, and learning to use your computer’s operating system and software quickly and easily. Keep in mind that this is not a computer literacy course; but students enrolled in online courses are expected to have moderate proficiency using a computer. Please go to the “What’s Required” webpage to find out more information on this subject.

Please visit our Technical Requirements webpage for additional information.

Accessibility and Accommodation

Please visit our ADA Compliance webpage for information about accessibility involving the tools used in this course. Please visit Accessibility within Canvas webpage for more information.  For additional assistance please contact FIU’s Disability Resource Center.

Academic Misconduct Statement

Florida International University is a community dedicated to generating and imparting knowledge through excellent teaching and research, the rigorous and respectful exchange of ideas and community service. All students should respect the right of others to have an equitable opportunity to learn and honestly to demonstrate the quality of their learning. Therefore, all students are expected to adhere to a standard of academic conduct, which demonstrates respect for themselves, their fellow students, and the educational mission of the University. All students are deemed by the University to understand that if they are found responsible for academic misconduct, they will be subject to the Academic Misconduct procedures and sanctions, as outlined in the Student Handbook.

Academic Misconduct includes: Cheating – The unauthorized use of books, notes, aids, electronic sources; or assistance from another person with respect to examinations, course assignments, field service reports, class recitations; or the unauthorized possession of examination papers or course materials, whether originally authorized or not. Plagiarism – The use and appropriation of another’s work without any indication of the source and the representation of such work as the student’s own. Any student who fails to give credit for ideas, expressions or materials taken from another source, including internet sources, is responsible for plagiarism.

Learn more about the academic integrity policies and procedures as well as student resources that can help you prepare for a successful semester.

Course Prerequisites

This course has a co-requisite(s). Review the Course Catalog webpage for prerequisites information.

This course serves as the lab for the companion lecture course and must be taken with it to fulfill the “Physical Sciences” category of natural sciences requirement for the University Core Curriculum.  The objectives of the lab are similar to those of the lecture course but in the lab students are offered laboratory based experiences with many of the topics covered in the lecture.

Life Science Core Curriculum Course Competencies:The lab course will help satisfy the UCC science core competency with respect to helping students apply the scientific method by conducting experiments to test scientific hypotheses.  Students will be assessed in this competency by answering embedded questions within their lab reports.

Proctored Exam Policy

This online section does not require an on-campus exam.

Textbook

There is no textbook required for this course.

All lab manuals, class lectures, and background information will be posted in Canvas under each week’s tab. It is your responsibility to read the assigned material beforehand.

An Open Educational Resource (OER) is provided for reference.  It was created for an AP Environmental Science course; however, most of the concepts are covered in the appropriate chapters. Be advised, the course was not developed using this book.

1. AP Environmental Science, by University of California, University of California College Prep

Expectations of this Course

This is an online course, which means most (if not all) of the course work will be conducted online. Expectations for performance in an online course are the same for a traditional course. In fact, online courses require a degree of self-motivation, self-discipline, and technology skills which can make these courses more demanding for some students.

Students are expected to:

. Review the how to get started information located in the course content

. Introduce yourself to the class during the first week by posting a self introduction video in the appropriate blog

. Take the practice quiz to ensure that your computer is compatible with Canvas

. Interact online with instructor/s and peers

. Review and follow the course calendar

. Log in to the course at least five (5) times per week

. Respond to discussion boards, blogs and journal postings within: Introduction, Procedures, and Hypothesis in three (3) days and hypothesis analysis by the seventh (7) day.

. Respond to messages within no more than two (2) days

. Submit assignments by the corresponding deadline

The instructor will:

. Log in to the course at least five (5) times per week

. Respond to discussion boards within two (2) days

. Respond to messages within 2 days (48 hours)

. Grade assignments within ten (10) days of the assignment deadline.

Course Detail

Course Communication

Communication in this course will take place via Canvas Inbox.

Visit our Writing Resources webpage for more information on professional writing and technical communication skills.

Course Labs (6 Total)

Individual Lab Report – Dropbox Assignment

Each student is required to compile data and summarize the results in a template. Each report will consist of a graph (e.g., pie chart, x-y scatter plot, histogram, etc.) and a written summary of any observable trends. The procedures for collection data and web content are provided in each weekly module.  All reports will be submitted to a dropbox in Canvas.

Individual Lab Quiz – Assessment

Each student is required complete a lab quiz that covers all material posted and/or collected during the lab activities.  The lab assessment will be completed in Canvas.

Discussion Forums

Keep in mind that your discussion forum postings will likely be seen by other members of the course. Care should be taken when determining what to post.

Assessments

In order to mitigate any issues with your computer and online assessments, it is very important that you take the “Practice Quiz” from each computer you will be using to take your graded quizzes and exams. It is your responsibility to make sure your computer meets the minimum hardware requirements. Assessments in this course are not compatible with mobile devices and should not be taken through a mobile phone or a tablet. If you need further assistance please contact FIU Online Support Services.

Assignments

. Community Assignment

Each student is required to participate in an off-campus activity during the semester. Each student will identify an Open Space Resource (i.e., local park) and a shopping development (i.e., mall, corner shopping center, etc.) in the community and compare the land use practices.  The report shall focus on the vegetation coverage, uses of concrete asphalt, drainage, and the use of resources to maintain the properties. The goal of the project is to become familiar with the different land use practices in an urban setting.

. Environmental Shopping Assignment

This exercise is worth 10% of your final grade. The student(s) will be required to analyze products at a “typical” grocery store and discuss the environmental significance of different sizes, packaging styles, and/or alternative products.  Instructions for this exercise will be given beforehand.

Exams and Quizzes

1. Exams (2) – Midterm and Final

1. Quizzes (8) – 6 Lab Quizzes, Safety/International Measurements, and Data Analysis/Graphs

In order to mitigate any issues with your computer and online assessments, it is very important that you take the “Practice Quiz” from each computer you will be using to take your graded quizzes and exams. It is your responsibility to make sure your computer meets the minimum hardware requirements. Assessments in this course are not compatible with mobile devices and should not be taken through a mobile phone or a tablet. If you need further assistance please contact FIU Online Support Services.

All exams are completed online. No make-ups will be allowed for exams without a written excuse from a doctor, parent, or legal guardian. For more information contact me.

Adobe Connect Pro Meeting

Adobe Connect is an online meeting room where you can interact with your professor and fellow students by sharing screens, sharing files, chatting, broadcasting live audio, and taking part in other interactive online activities. We will be utilizing this tool to conduct online office hours.

Meetings will be available on Wednesdays from 1pm – 3pm

Requirements for using Adobe Connect:

. Disable any window pop-up blocker.

. Adobe Flash Player is required to successfully run your Adobe Connect meeting. You can test your computer to make sure your computer and network connections are properly configured to provide you with the best possible Adobe Connect meeting experience.

. Use of a combination headset and microphone with USB connection is recommended to ensure quality sound and reduce technical difficulties.

Reference Adobe Connect (Tutorials & Help) to learn about the tool, how to access your meeting rooms and recordings.

Grading

COURSE REQUIREMENTS	# of Items	Weight
Introduce Yourself Video Blog	1	5%
Assessments (6 Lab Quizzes, Safety/Measurements & Data Analysis/Graphs)	8	25%
Lab Reports	6	30%
Exams	2	20%
Community Assignment	1	10%
Environmental Shopping	1	10%
Extra Credit	1 (Optional)	Up to 5%
Total	13	100%

 

LETTER	RANGE	LETTER	RANGE	LETTER	RANGE
A	93% – 100%	B	83% – 86%	C	70% – 76%
A-	90% – 92%	B-	80% – 82%	D	60% – 69%
B+	87% – 89%	C+	77% – 79%	F	< 60%

 

Course Calendar

Module Weekly Schedule

Unit 1 – Lab Orientation
	Introduction/Practice Quiz Read/Review: . Course Syllabus . Unit 1 Course Overview Videos Assignments: 1. Upload Introduce Yourself Video 1. Complete Course Practice Quiz
Week 1 May 7 – May 13	Safety & International Systems of Measurement Read/Review: . Safety Videos . Introduction to OSHA . EVR 1001L Laboratory Safety and Conduct Form Assignments: 1. Safety & International Systems of Measurement Assessment
	Data Analysis and Graphs Read/Review: . Data collection and analysis module Assignments: 1. Data Analysis Assessment
	Group and Lab Preparation Material Read/Review: . Read all information posted and review sample report.

 

Unit 2 – Local Awareness
Week 2​May 14 – May 20	Panther Lab Read/Review: . Contact Lab Partners (See EVR 1001L Lab Groups) . Read laboratory information. . Get familiar with the location of Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest . Watch Weekly YouTube Videos Suggested Readings: Chapter 9 (Population Ecology) and Chapter 10 (Community Ecology) of the text. Assignments: 1. Individual Lab Report  (Dropbox Assignment) – Due by Monday of following week 1. Individual Lab Quiz  (Assessment) – Due by Monday of following week
	Domestic Water Use Lab Read/Review: . Read laboratory information. . Watch Weekly YouTube videos . Contact Group Members Suggested Readings: Chapter 14 (Freshwater Resources and Chapter 15 (Water Pollution) of lecture text. Assignments: 1. Individual Lab Report  (Dropbox Assignment) – Due by Monday of following week 1. Individual Lab Quiz  (Assessment) – Due by Monday of following week

 

 

MidTerm

Week 3 May 21 – May 27

Midterm Exam Assignments: 1. Complete Midterm Exam. Exam is individually completed.   Community Assignment – Due in Week 6 Read/Review . Read Laboratory Information . Watch all unit videos (if applicable) . Contact Group Members (if applicable)   Environmental Shopping Assignment – Due in Week 6 Read/Review . Read Laboratory Information . Watch all unit videos (if applicable) . Contact Group Members (if applicable)

 

 

Unit 3 – Air Pollution
Week 4 May 28 – June 3	Air Quality and Pollution Lab Read/Review: . Read laboratory information. . Watch Weekly YouTube Videos . Contact Group Members Suggested Readings: Chapter 20 (Air Pollution) of the text. Assignments: 1. Individual Lab Report  (Dropbox Assignment) – Due by Monday of following week 1. Individual Lab Quiz  (Assessment) – Due by Monday of following week
	Acid Rain Lab Read/Review: . Read laboratory information. . Watch Weekly YouTube Videos . Contact Group Members ​Suggested Readings: Chapter 20 (Air Pollution) of the text. Assignments: 1. Individual Lab Report  (Dropbox Assignment) – Due by Monday of following week 1. Individual Lab Quiz  (Assessment) – Due by Monday of following week

 

 

Unit 4 – Energy
Week 5 June 4 – June 10	Renewable Energy Lab Read/Review: . Read laboratory information. . Watch Weekly YouTube Videos . Contact Group Members Suggested Readings: Chapter 23 (Sustainable Energy for Stationary Sources) Assignments: 1. Individual Lab Report  (Dropbox Assignment) – Due by Monday of following week 1. Individual Lab Quiz  (Assessment) – Due by Monday of following week
	Batteries Lab Read/Review: . Read laboratory information. . Watch Weekly YouTube Videos . Contact Group Members Assignments: 1. Individual Lab Report  (Dropbox Assignment) – Due by Monday of following week 1. Individual Lab Quiz  (Assessment) – Due by Monday of following week

 

 

Unit 5 – Practical Experience

Week 6 June 11 – June 17

Community Assignment – Posted in Week 3 Read/Review . Read Laboratory Information . Watch all unit videos (if applicable) . Contact Group Members (if applicable) Assignment . Submit completed assignment to Dropbox   Environmental Shopping Assignment – Posted in Week 3 Read/Review . Read Laboratory Information . Watch all unit videos (if applicable) . Contact Group Members (if applicable) Assignments: 1. Go to the Supermarket 1. Complete Lab Activity in groups or individually   Final Exam Read/Review . All previous coures content Assignment . Final Exam

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? Order now!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!