Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Start

[edit]

I'm writing this article as part of a class project. It is an ongoing piece of work. I will be continuing to add to this article and I appreciate the input of others. My apologies for the scanty article, but please don't delete it yet! Daydreambeliever (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class assessments

[edit]
  • This looks like a good start for your article – The organization is logical and will make the information flow well and be very useful. It also looks like you plan to include really relevant topics about PPCPs that will provide extensive information and research for the reader.

Great introduction! You clearly define the topic while providing examples and a lead into the rest of the article, but don’t forget citations!

It looks like you may be having trouble finding resources. I would suggest checking out the UNC library catalog – I think you could find a lot of useful information in many different types of resources. I would look for books about types of PPCPs and how they enter the environment as well as how they are regulated and maybe some journal articles about their effects and current research.

Pharma-ecology : the occurrence and fate of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment (Call # WA 671 J61p 2008 in the Health Sciences Library) looks like it would be an excellent resources for you. It discusses all of the different types of PPCPs, their detection and occurrence in the environment, ways to remove them, and future needs. I think you will find a great deal of useful information in this book.

I found this article, “Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in biosolids/sewage sludge: the interface between analytical chemistry and regulation” through the UNC library catalog as well. I think it could be useful for both the effects and regulation sections of your article. The article discusses ways of measuring the presence of PPCPs and current regulation. (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=5&sid=7776d15d-4fc9-4cf2-b24d-a2d48b08762f@sessionmgr8)

I also found this article (through Google Scholar) about PPCPs in water, how they are measured, and how water treatment effectively removes them. I think this article could be useful in either your research or effects section. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V78-48CFSHJ-D&_user=130907&_coverDate=07/20/2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=b5fe4edcce3077c152e884b9a8894cc5)

Your “entry into the environment” section contains good information so far, but I think it could be expanded a little more and I think the book I mentioned above would be very helpful. I also think your “See also” is a great section to include because it will be very useful to readers looking for related information.

This is a very interesting topic and it looks like you are off to a great start and you know what you are looking for. This is a challenging topic to find information on, but I think the library catalogs will really help. Great job so far! -Lauren Passarella Prlauren (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your article looks really interesting and seems like it is something that an average person could understand. The topic could presented in a complicated matter with a lot of jargon, but you've managed to present it an easy-to-understand context. You did a good job explaining pharmaceutical products in the beginning as an introduction. Your use of ‘PPCP’ throughout the rest of the article was helpful because it stopped the redundancy that would happen if you repeated "pharmaceuticals and personal care products" over and over. Separating the different topics eased the navigation of the subject and allowed you to explain each part in further detail instead of throwing it all together.

This is the first draft, so I understand that all of your sub sections aren't fully developed yet. When discussing the effects on humans and the environment, be sure to look at both the positives (if any) and negative effects since chemicals and the environment usually have a negative connotation. When talking about research,i.e “Research has shown PPCPs are present in water bodies throughout the world,” it might be helpful to list within the article one of the research studies that show the particular research you are referring to.

In terms of your sources, while the EPA is a credible source and nationally known agency, listing other sources would add to the credibility of the article. The UNC library database might be helpful if you scan a scientific journal or scholarly articles for scientific research done on pharmaceutical and personal care products.

Other than that, good job so far, and good luck with the rest of the article. Dfheathe (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a good start to your page. I can't really complain about the sections you have already completed,but I am curious about what you are going to add to the section called humans. If these PPCP really have no effect on humans what sort of discussion you will you put in this section. I have a quesiton, does DDT count as a PPCP?

As far as research goes you should probably look to the EPA's website for a listing of the possible PPCPs out there. I found a study on the site that listed the 100 most common chemicals found in everyone's bodies. I am not sure if this will help. Other good sources could be the BIOSIS Preview. This a database found on the UNC's library website. I have used it before in the past and found it vary helpful when writing papers for my biology class. One section that I think would be interesting to your article would be a section on how PPCPs effect the environment. Researching this should be really easy and I am sure you could just go to the EPA's website to find any necessary information. Also please make sure to list what types of PPCPs there are in the world and also list their prevalence and origin. Otherwise good start. Deichman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • The layout and organization of this page looks very good and I can tell that it will flow well when completed. I have heard about PPCPs before and without having a chemistry or biology background I think your page will be very easy for readers like me to understand the reason for studying PPCPs and their effects on humans and the environment. Like others have stated before, it seems that you have had trouble finding other sources of information whether it be on PPCPs or their effects. Just searching PPCPs on Google yielded probably the same results you saw but here may be a source that you haven't used yet: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/PPCP/PPCPTox.cfm.

Also searching Google scholar and UNC library databases can give some journal aricles of research performed by scientists on the effects of PPCPs. Although you say that no evidence has been discovered yet of detrimental effects of PPCPs I think that listing hypothesis, studies, and theories would be perfectly legitimate to add bulk to your article. What do you plan to add for current research? I know when I have to do current event articles dealing with similar topics filing through the Science and Technology section of The Economist is surprisingly helpful with several varying articles. I assume there are different regulations for PPCPs depending on the wealth of a nation so breaking the regulations into prosperous nations (USA, GB, France, Australia, etc.), developing nations (India, China) and third world maybe an easy way to categorize such regulations.

Overall this looks good and I look forward to seeing it when you have finished. Mpeebles (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

The title isn't a good summary of the contents of the article. A better title would be Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment. I'm moving it. Fences&Windows 14:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Environmental impact of pharmaceutical packaging

[edit]

This student project has issues with stand-alone notability, but a merger here may solve those issues. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: you proposed the merge here and on that article's talk page and @Graeme Bartlett: you executed it. I looked things over and I agree with this merge. The problem with the "pharmaceutical packaging" article was that it did not obviously meet notability requirements. There were some mentions in the sources of pharma packaging, but I was unable to see multiple deep discussions. Also, many of the sources were focused on general concerns about packaging or plastics, and not pharma packaging specifically. I agree that a merge is the best choice until and unless someone wants to do sources checking to verify notability and then if it passes rewrite the article at Environmental impact of pharmaceutical packaging. Thanks both of you for managing this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need citation(s) for following

[edit]

"Pharmaceutical residues that have been conjugated (bound to a bile acid) before being excreted from the patients may undergo de-conjugation in the STP, yielding higher levels of free pharmaceutical substance in the outlet from the STP than in its incoming water. Some pharmaceuticals with large sales（？？） volumes have not been detected in the incoming water to the STP, indicating that complete metabolism and degradation must have occurred already in the patient or during the transport of sewage from the household to the STP." I'm now translating this article into traditional Chinese. Thank you for you kind attention. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_pharmaceuticals_and_personal_care_products&oldid=1207121868"