Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts blog

Vera Thoss tells Elinor Richards about her bluebell business and research, using her car in her experiments and analysing whale vomit

Vera Thoss is an environmental chemistry lecturer at Bangor University, UK. Her research is based on ecological chemistry, which addresses processes mediated through specific compounds within ecosystems and environmental chemistry, which is concerned with the impact of human activities on the environment.

What inspired you to become a scientist?

It all started when I was 13 and I had my first chemistry lesson. I instantly took to the subject and from then my mind was made up. I was also curious and wanted to ‘understand the world’.

What attracted you to environmental science?

As a chemist, the choice was between synthetic and analytical chemistry. I chose analytical chemistry because it allows you to follow the environmental fate of natural or man-made compounds. Being allowed to spend time in the woods was a big bonus!

What projects are you working on?

Currently, my group is working on oil pollution, composting and plant-derived products. It seems a bit of a stretch but it is all part of carbon cycling: plants build precious molecules, most of the time these remain intact but may transfer into air, water or soil. Crude oil is the remnants of sunken forests. So in the end, all the chemistry comes from plants photosynthesising and creating complex fragrances, tastes and colours. It is fascinating.

What will be the next big breakthrough in your field?

To chemically separate plant material into multiple useable compounds, with environmentally benign techniques, using as little energy as possible and ideally producing no waste at all.

Which achievements are you most proud of?

My beautiful daughter.  Last year I organised the first ‘Plants as Providers of Fine Chemicals’ conference, which was very successful.  I also managed to measure picogram amounts of monoterpenes in three-week-old Scots pine seedlings before they were eaten by slugs.

You own a farm from which you run a business selling bluebells called Vera Bluebell. How did this come about?

I was always concerned about the availability of clean drinking water, and moving to a mountain farm near Snowdon in Wales was a strategic choice (it does rain a lot!). Realising that there was abundance of bluebells on the land was a chance discovery after a fire. I was aware of their unusual chemistry though and that was the starting point for Vera Bluebell. Bluebells are protected, which means a license is needed to work with them. There was a demand for wild bluebells as well. We have now been sustainably managing a wild bluebell population for over six years and it has been an interesting journey. I would love to see a bluebell derived extract being used in a commercial product.

What discoveries have you made during your research on bluebells?

Bluebell seeds have a high oil content and the oil has an unusual composition. Even though this is the first chemical assessment of Hyacinthoides non-scripta oil, the chemistry is not earth-shattering. The ecology aspects gave room for more discoveries, for example we found seed stores on the site, meaning that possibly voles or shrew have collected the seeds for storage. This has never been reported before.

Tell us about your bluebell conservation efforts and how your research can help.

We are hoping to show that bluebell seeds can be a source of fine chemicals. We obtain an oil of unusual composition from the seeds. The residue contains iminosugars, which may be of use in future medicines. I am hoping that the compounds isolated from bluebell seeds will be of commercial value, which in turn means that the conservation of bluebells pays for itself. We are hoping to paint the mountains and woodlands blue again.

You’re involved with projects called BEACON and PROBECO. What are these and what is your role in both projects?

BEACON is all about biorefining, obtaining different compounds from the same plant feedstock. There are different feedstocks investigated in BEACON ranging from perennial rye grass to ivy. My role is to analyse whole plant composition and organise the ‘ Plants as Providers of Fine Chemicals ‘  conference. The PROBECO project was about the influence of monoterpenes on ecosystem processes in Caledonian Scots pine forests. These are very rare ecosystems. Individual pine trees smell different and the forest served as a study site to investigate the role of specific monoterpenes. I was the scientist analysing the smell of thousands of pine trees and we came up with the chemodiversity hypothesis.

In 2007, you worked with Welsh company Used Tyre Distillation Research to produce novel products from used tyres, in particular oil for fuelling cars. What was your role in the research? I read that your car was used to test the fuel. What was the result?

Again my role was to analyse the products. The oil was a complex mixture and we did see some interesting compounds in it. The tyre oil was noticeably energy dense, giving faster acceleration to the car, which has survived the experiment well!

In 2008, you had an odd request to analyse what was thought to be whale vomit (ambergris) on a North Wales beach. Why is whale vomit so important and what did you find?

I’ve had a few requests for the analysis of beach finds. Ambergris is sought after in the perfume industry, but we have yet to get our hands on some. Most samples were waxes or plastic, which possibly fell overboard, just aged in the sea.

What other odd things have you been asked to analyse?

Another nice in-house example for analysis was to trace a smell in the corridor back to its origin: we sampled air in the corridor outside my office and the terrible smell was found to be due to demolition work going on next door. If it stinks don’t automatically blame the chemists!

What do you do in your spare time?

I love gardening, farming and generally just being outdoors. I am an amateur bee keeper and enjoy spending time with my family.

Read the original article at Chemistry World, or Vera’s recent paper in the journal RSC Advances:

Triacylglycerol composition of British bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) seed oil
Vera Thoss, P J Murphy, Ray John Marriott and Thomas Wilson
DOI: 10.1039/C2RA20090B

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its non-cancer science assessment for dioxins after nearly three decades of delays – to a mixture of responses from stakeholders. This report establishes for the first time a reference dose for dioxin exposure in the US, which could be used for regulation.

The EPA has set its threshold for safe dioxin exposure at a toxicity equivalence (TEQ) of 0.7 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. That limit could result in tougher cleanup standards for hazardous waste sites, and more stringent limits on the amount of dioxins permitted in drinking water as well as the air.

In several international incidents, dioxins have accumulated in pork products via animal feed

The non-cancer risk of exposure to dioxins – toxic chemicals that occur naturally in the environment but can also be released through forest fires, burning your trash in the backyard and certain industrial activities-was last reviewed in the US in the 1980s.

‘Today’s findings show that generally, over a person’s lifetime, current exposure to dioxins does not pose a significant health risk,’ the EPA said. Its actions to reduce emissions from all of the major industrial sources of dioxins, combined with the efforts of state governments and industry, have decreased known and measurable air emissions of dioxins in the US by 90% from 1987 levels, it added.

Although the agency concluded that most Americans have low-level exposure to dioxins, it noted that non-cancer effects of exposure to large amounts of dioxin include developmental and reproductive effects, immune system damage, hormone interference, skin disorders and possibly mild liver damage.

While many in the research and environmental communities praised EPA for finally releasing this crucial part of its dioxin reassessment, the chemical industry was less welcoming. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) called the agency’s final assessment ‘scientifically flawed,’ and insisted that it ‘provides no defined public health benefit.’ The organisation further stated that it remains unclear why EPA would set a dioxin exposure level that is three times more stringent than other countries and the World Health Organisation (WHO) when the agency contends that current levels of dioxin do not pose a health concern.

‘We are concerned that their flawed reassessment has led to an overly restrictive standard, and it is going to cause problems down the road because it will be referenced for regulatory action,’ ACC spokesperson Scott Jensen tells Chemistry World.

Judging WHO?

But others such as Stephen Lester, science director for the non-profit Center for Health Environment & Justice in Washington, DC, point out that the WHO has set a dioxin exposure level of 1-4 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is not remarkably different from the EPA level. In addition, Lester notes that the WHO developed its standard in 1998, and a great deal of science has moved forward since that time. He says the EPA dioxin reference dose is based on more recent data.

‘This is another example of how industry will never be happy with what the EPA has done, and this is why it has been delayed by 30 years,’ Lester states.

Arnold Schecter, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Texas in Dallas, agrees that there was very strong opposition from the chemical industry to the EPA dioxin reassessment for decades. ‘That slowed things down repeatedly,’ he says.

But even supporters of the dioxin reassessment, like Lester and Schecter, express concern that the agency has failed to address the increased vulnerability to dioxin exposure of the unborn, as well as breast-feeding infants and adults with immune system problems.

They emphasise that sensitivity varies across the population, and fetuses and nursing children are at greater risk because their organs are still forming. Breastfed infants in particular receive a very large dose of dioxins in the fatty part of the mother’s milk, they argue.

Regarding the concerns of industry and others, the EPA says it is confident. ‘EPA’s dioxin assessment was extensively peer reviewed by outside experts,’ the agency tells Chemistry World. ‘This rigorously peer-reviewed non-cancer assessment updates the science and provides important new information to the public.’

The agency is expected to release the rest of its science assessment for dioxins later this year.

Read the original Chemistry World article here