Should we drink an drive tea?

Research on biofuels recently suggested compounds that are already known as solvents or flavors to be alternatives for fossil fuels. We investigated the three candidate substances ethyl levulinate, methyltetrahydrofuran, and 2-methylfuran regarding their embryotoxic effectiveness using zebrafish.

Especially ethyl levulinate gave considerable toxicity. Very specifically it tended to reduce head length of zebrafish larvae. As a consequence, we recommended to not further continue developing this substance into a potential biofuel. Moreover, use of ethyl levulinate in, e.g., flavored tea should be critically revised. Read the full story on "Acute embryo toxicity and teratogenicity of three potential biofuels also used as flavor or solvent" (fulltext only with a subscription to the journal, sorry...).

Fish behaviour trajectories converted to usefulness

Zebrafish behaviour is a novel and upcoming endpoint in toxicity assessment of - at large - neuromodulating substances. This includes direct neurotoxicity as well as repellency and any other type of avoidance. Since zebrafish react to contaminants in the water at low nanograms per liter, behaviour measurement has the potential to be used for biological early warning systems.

However, usefulness of such data can be hampered by the independence of the distance moved (as one of the most common endpoints) from the trajectory's shape. A parameter is hence required to identify directed movement as an indication of avoidance behaviour.

In the W3-Hydro project we tested permethrin and cadmium as model substances using a Noldus DanioVision system. Obtained trajectories were converted to polar coordiantes and parametrized. Results showed that by this procedure pure distance-moved-data can be used to identify impact of contamination on zebrafish larvae behaviour. Read more on early detecting water contaminants Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety (fulltext temporarily free, then limited to subscribers, sorry...).

Why we do not just talk about our science

It is not easy to communicate science, and it is especially difficult from environmental research. Most findings we make are rather directly connected to every day lifes and thus human wellbeing. As a consequence, people tend to assess such research based on their personal feelings, desires, and - in particular - concerns. This can lead to misunderstandings that produce even stronger opinions and are hence even more difficult to solve.

We environmental researchers seem to react with avoidance: before we do something wrong, we do not do anything at all in terms of communicating our science. Thomas Backhaus and I wrote an Editorial in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management on "Communicating environmental science to the general public", where we shortly analyse this situation and the associated problems and try to encourage our colleagues to anyway take on the challenge.