|
Discussion |
School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham , Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
* Corresponding author (e-mail: M.O.Rivett{at}bham.ac.uk)
M.O. Rivett replies: The aim of Rivett & Clark (2007) was to locate the anonymous sites described in the world's first publication on trichloroethene (TCE) contamination of groundwater, by Lyne & McLachlan (1949). It was concluded that ‘Although some candidate sites were found, unfortunately none could be conclusively identified as Lyne & McLachlan's sites’. The discussion of Amter & Ross does not disagree with this finding; rather, it takes issue with overlooked literature, noting ‘because groundwater contamination by TCE is an operational industrial problem as well as a topic of scientific research, a search of scientific literature is insufficient to establish either the full influence of the paper by Lyne & McLachlan, or what was known by all relevant parties in past times’. It is pointed out that establishing the influence of Lyne & McLachlan (1949) was not the remit of Rivett & Clark (2007), but rather the aim of the related paper by Rivett et al. (2006), to which the reader is duly referred as background to this discussion.
The focus upon Lyne & McLachlan is indicated in the papers by Rivett & Clark (2007) and Rivett et al. (2006), and the conclusions drawn reflect that focus. Neither paper sought to generally conclude on the historical knowledge base or potential liabilities, etc. associated with historic solvent-contaminated sites, as undertaken by others (Colten 1998; Travis 1998, 2002a,b; Jackson 1999, 2003, 2004; Amter & Ross 2001; Shifrin 2005). Elements of the discussion by Amter & Ross migrate toward such wider aspects. The Aerojet example (a third of their discussion), although it provides unpublished evidence suggesting ‘early industry knowledge that chlorinated solvents such as TCE could contaminate groundwater’, fails to demonstrate that this case was directly influenced by Lyne & McLachlan's work (the remit here), other than briefly making a tenuous link to the analytical method of Lyne & McLachlan (their suggestion that the ‘organic chloride’ method used by Aerojet was ‘probably’ the Fujiwara method described by Lyne & McLachlan). Whether any of the Aerojet documents cited Lyne & McLachlan is a key question here (it is assumed not). This reply remains focused on Lyne & McLachlan. It does not respond more generally on the historical status of knowledge and associated liability issues to which our Lyne & McLachlan analysis will certainly contribute, but amongst other factors as suggested by Amter & Ross.
Rivett et al. (2006) concluded (and Rivett & Clark paraphrase) that the publication by ‘Lyne and McLachlan did not trigger any general recognition of this [solvents-in-groundwater] problem in the scientific, engineering or regulatory communities over the 30 years previous’. The latter period refers to the time over which it is critical to establish if there was significant influence by Lyne & McLachlan; that is, from around 1949 until the mid- to late 1970s, when contamination of groundwater by TCE and other chlorinated solvents was generally recognized as an important and widespread problem. The conclusions of Rivett and co-authors were based on: few (six) citations to the Lyne & McLachlan paper found from a specific literature review and exposure to volumes of relevant literature over many years (all authors have been significantly involved with solvent contamination and associated literature since the 1970s–1980s) that covers both published and ‘grey’ or unpublished literature, including a range of chemical manufacturer and industry documents from the UK and North America (contrary to the suggestion by Amter & Ross) and encompassing fields of groundwater, environmental and sanitary engineering, public health related to drinking water, and environmental regulation; and evaluation of development in awareness of the TCE contamination in groundwater at local, national (UK) and international levels.
The literature contribution by Amter & Ross is welcomed. Although it is regrettable that such literature was missed, the critical question nevertheless becomes: does the additional literature alter, or invalidate conclusions drawn by Rivett & Clark (2007) or the related paper by Rivett et al. (2006)?
Additional citations of Lyne & McLachlan in published literature and their influence
The efforts of Amter & Ross have uncovered five direct and two indirect citations of Lyne & McLachlan (1949) in the period 1957–1980. These additions may not be exhaustive, in that non-mainline historical ‘grey’ literature and books, reports or publishers not covered by bibliographic search engines or electronic availability may still gradually emerge. Five of the above citations occur in books or reports, with the other two in a German-language journal and a journal supplement. Bibliographic tools (Web of Science, SciFinder Scholar, Google Scholar, etc.) searching for Lyne & McLachlan citations invariably fail to find these works, other key citations (Jettmar 1957; Stanley & Eliassen 1961) and the modern citing works indicated by Amter & Ross (Colten & Skinner 1994, 1996). To conclude on the influence of Lyne & McLachlan and increase in early knowledge of environmental risks posed, however, it is necessary not only to recognize that citations exist, but also to establish their nature and relevance.
The book by Klein (1957) dealt with the examination of pollution in rivers. Klein cited the Lyne & McLachlan paper for its colorimetric analytical method in a section that provided a ‘list of methods for the determination of additional substances occasionally encountered in sewage, trade wastes and river waters’. Bibliographic tools occasionally find the updated text (Klein 1962) as a citation of Lyne & McLachlan.
The paper by Schollmeyer (1960) cited Lyne & McLachlan (spelt McLachland) for the colorimetric analytical method for analysis of biological samples. This paper is occasionally found by bibliographic searches.
The text by USPHS (1964) is an annotated bibliography of documents related to pesticides in soil and water, which gave an indirect citation to Lyne & McLachlan. This report cited Jettmar (1957) (a German-language Austrian journal review that provided a brief factual précis of Lyne & McLachlan, cited by Rivett & Clark and Rivett et al.), which in turn cited Lyne & McLachlan in its bibliography. The principal focus of the USPHS citation of Jettmar related to contamination of a well in Basel (Swizerland) by the pesticide BHC (benzene hexachloride or (gamma-)hexachlorocyclohexane, also known as lindane). TCE has been seldom used as a pesticide but Jettmar also noted the cases of TCE contamination of groundwater of Lyne & McLachlan immediately prior. Reliance on the précis by Jettmar is problematic, as it is not an error-free, second-hand account of the Lyne & McLachlan paper. TCE was translated as ‘Trichloraethan’; that is, trichloroethane, the main isomer of which, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, was not used by industry to any degree in the UK until the mid-1960s onwards (Rivett et al. 1990). As written, the Jettmar account partially merged the detail of Lyne & McLachlan's first case (4 year duration of contamination) with their second case. This misrepresentation is reinforced by the bibliography by USPHS (1964), where both cases were completely merged within a now third-hand phrasing: ‘In one case contamination of a well by seepage from a waste pit at a distance of 150 m persisted for at least 4 years.’ The pesticide context, misrepresentation and the fact that the Lyne & McLachlan paper was not cited in the 1949 part of the bibliography suggest that USPHS (1964) had an incidental interest in the case, was unlikely to have accessed the original text, and failed to appreciate its significance.
The paper by Cope (1966) dealt with contamination of freshwater ecosystems by pesticides. This paper also indirectly cited Lyne & McLachlan via Jettmar (1957). The entirety of the discussion by Cope related to TCE is: ‘Water under the ground has been found to contain pesticides. Jettmar (1957) reported on the contamination by benzene hexachloride and trichloroethylene of the shallow-well water supply of Basel, Switzerland.’ It is noted here that the reference to Lyne & McLachlan is barely recognizable as referring to their work and is a misrepresentation. Cope has incorrectly added TCE as a potential pesticide to the Jettmar reported case of benzene hexachloride pesticide contamination of a Basel supply that immediately followed in Jettmar's review. Comparison of the texts of Jettmar (1957), USPHS (1964) and Cope (1966) suggests that Cope's error has arisen by his linking of the text-adjacent Basel case and the merged Lyne & McLachlan cases in USPHS (1964) to manufacture a pesticide case study in Switzerland involving Lyne & McLachlan's TCE, a very distorted fourth-hand account of their work based on an interpretation of USPHS (1964). It is reasonable to assert that Cope did not read or translate Jettmar, or even recognize Lyne & McLachlan's involvement. The citation serves little to exemplify the influence of Lyne & McLachlan's work; rather the opposite.
The Mancy & Weber (1971) text is a chapter on analysis of industrial wastewaters within a series of books on analytical chemistry. The Lyne & McLachlan paper was cited for its colorimetric analytical method for use on chemical wastewater in an appendix of the chapter entitled ‘Miscellaneous Organic Matter’. In this chapter, TCE was not listed as a parameter for water-quality characterization of domestic water supplies.
The publication by the National Academy of Sciences (1975) was a report assessing potential ocean pollutants prepared by the National Research Council for the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. The Lyne & McLachlan paper was cited as an example of how production plant chemical losses to the environment of low molecular-weight chlorinated hydrocarbons may cause well contamination. The significance of this was not explored further. In fact, solvent user industries, rather than production plants, were responsible for the Lyne & McLachlan cases.
None of the above-mentioned documents, although they cited the Lyne & McLachlan paper (directly or indirectly), support a conclusion that Lyne & McLachlan triggered recognition of the problem of groundwater contamination by TCE or other solvents at a local, national or international level during the 1950s–1970s. Although additional citations indicate more awareness of Lyne & McLachlan than previously reported, this interest is peripheral, with citing authors concerned with the analysis method for other water or sample types, pesticide contamination and ocean pollution. The additional citations failed to significantly enhance early knowledge of environmental risks posed by solvents in groundwater (and may actually have detracted from this knowledge, based on the pesticide categorizations and misrepresentations). Beyond the immediate 1950–1951 abstract citations, there are only five citations (three direct, two indirect citing Jettmar (1957)) that presented the groundwater pollution finding of Lyne & McLachlan to any degree. All were very factual, none developed significantly on the import of the paper, and some were misrepresenting. Three of these (Stanley & Eliassen 1961; USPHS 1964; Cope 1996) categorized the work within the emerging pesticide literature of the 1960s, one was a rather inaccessible German-language review (Jettmar 1957) and the other ocean science literature (NAS 1975). Neither Jettmar (1957) nor Stanley & Eliassen (1961), the most relevant groundwater citations to Lyne & McLachlan, have been cited significantly in the literature amenable to bibliographic searching. There appears only one further citation to Jettmar, again concerning the BHC pesticide incident in Basel (Eye 1968) but not Lyne & McLachlan's work, and four citations to Stanley & Eliassen, three by Eliassen and one by Oltman (1966), all related to viral transport. The groundwater pollution import of Lyne & McLachlan was hence insignificantly recognized over the crucial 1950s–1970s period based on the published literature.
The publication by Ali (1980) was a consultant's report submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Region) describing a literature review on the fate of TCE and other pollutants in soil and water. This report was prepared as it was becoming generally recognized that TCE could cause important and widespread contamination problems. It cited Lyne & McLachlan amongst numerous cases of groundwater contamination by TCE discovered in the late 1970s; that is, it is beyond the critical period of influence of Lyne & McLachlan highlighted above. This report in any case stated that ‘one may conclude that groundwater contamination with TCE has been very recently recognized’.
Recent development in awareness of Lyne & McLachlan
Amter & Ross are correct in noting that Colten & Skinner (1994, 1996) cited the Lyne & McLachlan paper (Rivett et al. (2006) indicated that their own awareness was from 1996). However, the existence of these citations, in addition to those given by Rivett & Clark (2007) (Colten 1998; Travis 1998, 2002a,b; Jackson 1999, 2003, 2004; Amter & Ross 2001; Shifrin 2005), fails to alter the conclusion that Lyne & McLachlan (1949) ‘emerged from obscurity toward the late 1990s’. Amter & Ross also question that UK knowledge of Lyne & McLachlan lagged behind North America, based on the published work of Travis (1998, 2002b) and a reported reference made to that work by Travis in a paper presented at a Royal Society conference in London in 2000 (this refers to: ‘From the test-tube to the autoanalyzer: The development of chemical instrumentation in the twentieth century’ (Imperial College, London), which was not a Royal Society event (volume preamble to Travis 2002b)). Amter & Ross note that Travis ‘is a British born and trained chemist who works in both the UK and Israel’ and hence contest the claim that ‘the earliest citings by UK researchers ... of Lyne & McLachlan ... are by Rivett et al. (2005, 2006)’.
It is largely inconsequential if the first writing by UK researchers on Lyne & McLachlan was in 1998 or 2005. Nevertheless, our claim for the latter is reasonably based upon Travis’ literature-declared affiliation to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) since 1986 as a researcher in the history of technology. This is the sole affiliation indicated by Travis (1998, 2002a,b) and in the citation provided on the American Chemical Society (Division of the History of Chemistry) webpage for the Edelstein award (referred to by Amter & Ross) (a UK-based affiliation is indicated there, but post-2005). Likewise, the view that North American knowledge of Lyne & McLachlan significantly expanded in the 1990s prior to that in the UK still stands. All of the publications (other than those by Travis) citing Lyne & McLachlan over the 1990s until Rivett et al. (2005) were by authors based at North American institutions. It is reaffirmed from continuing consultation that there was negligible knowledge of Lyne & McLachlan prior to 2004 across the breadth of the UK practising (and retired) professional and research communities involved in contaminated land and groundwater.
Role of unpublished literature in development of recognition of groundwater contamination by TCE
The examinations of the influence of the Lyne & McLachlan paper by Rivett & Clark (2007) and previously by Rivett et al. (2006) were predominantly based on examination of published scientific, engineering and regulatory literature to determine whether the paper triggered ‘any recognition of the problem of groundwater contamination by TCE (or other chlorinated solvents) at a local, national or international level’. As indicated above, however, this did not preclude consideration of significant unpublished grey-literature material (including that from chemical manufacturers and other industrial companies) over many years of author activity in the field in which a 1949 solvent pollution reference would be notable if present. Although Amter & Ross express concern that chemical manufacturers and other industrial companies were not analysed, they still fail to cite any reports or activity that could be shown to be directly attributable to the influence of Lyne & McLachlan's paper. This is in accordance with the findings of Rivett and co-authors (and other colleagues), who have encountered an absence of evidence of Lyne & McLachlan's influence within the sector of unpublished literature available to them.
Information contained in unpublished documents of the type cited by Amter & Ross from the Aerojet-General Rocket Plant in Sacramento, California may provide some insights into the nature of the understanding of groundwater contamination by TCE that site owners, operators and employees, or regulators, may have held at that place and time. Such case-specific understanding could be deficient, consistent, or advanced with respect to the more general understanding of the problem as reflected in published literature. Although such case-specific unpublished information may be relevant in litigation matters, if it had any influence on advancing general recognition of the problem this should be reflected in the published literature.
With regard to the unpublished documents from the Aerojet site during the 1950s and early 1960s, Amter & Ross imply that staff at Aerojet and the California state regulators had considerable understanding of the potential for contamination of groundwater by TCE. Any detailed examination and response regarding these selected unpublished documents is beyond the purview of this reply; however, the following brief comments are appropriate here. A requirement of the state Water Pollution Control Board was that waste discharges containing TCE not be permitted to enter the groundwater. However, the state decided to approve disposal of such wastes to the ground and was apprised of continuing groundwater monitoring. As subsequent emissions to groundwater were huge and the chemical analysis method used to diagnose the problem was withdrawn, it would suggest that in this instance both industry and regulators still failed to recognize the true significance of the solvents-in-groundwater problem.
Conclusions
Although I recognize that the additional citations provided by Amter & Ross demonstrate additional awareness of Lyne & McLachlan's 1949 paper, that awareness is shown to be essentially peripheral. Analysis of the documents uncovered by Amter & Ross demonstrates that the additional citations failed to significantly exemplify or expand any development of early knowledge of solvent risks to groundwater, contrary to Amter & Ross’ claim. Rather, misrepresentation and categorization within the pesticide literature served to detract from Lyne & McLachlan's findings and appropriate recognition of the solvents-in-groundwater issue. Amter & Ross (2001), Rivett et al. (2006) and Rivett & Clark (2007) all fail to provide any ‘grey’ or unpublished literature from industry, etc. (i.e. beyond the published scientific literature) confirming that Lyne & McLachlan had any direct influence. The principal conclusion drawn by Rivett et al. (2006) and echoed by Rivett & Clark (2007), that the paper by Lyne & McLachlan failed to trigger any general recognition of the solvents-in-groundwater problem across scientific, engineering (i.e. industry) or regulatory communities, still stands.
 |
Author's note |
|---|
 TOP Author's note AcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
TOPAuthor's noteAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAuthor's noteAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Ali, S.M. 1980. Fate of trichloroethylene and other pollutants in soil and water Report to California Central Valley Water Quality Control Board
Amter, S. & Ross, B. 2001. Was contamination of southern California groundwater by chlorinated solvents foreseen? Environmental Forensics 2, 179–184.[Web of Science]
Colten, C.E. 1998. Groundwater contamination—Reconstructing historical knowledge for the courts, Applied Geography 18, 259–273.[CrossRef][GeoRef]
Colten, C.E. & Skinner, P.N. 1994. Wiping aside the dust: historical perspectives on industrial waste management, Hazmat World May: 68–78.
Colten, C.E. & Skinner, P.N. 1996. In: The Road to Love Canal. University of Texas Press, Austin
Cope, O.B. 1966. Contamination of the freshwater ecosystem by pesticides, Journal of Applied Ecology, 3, Supplement: Pesticides in the Environment and Their Effects on Wildlife June: 33–44.
Eye, J.D. 1968. Aqueous transport of dieldrin residues in soils, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 40, R316–R332.
Jackson, R.E. 1999. Anticipating ground-water contamination by new technologies and chemicals: The case of chlorinated solvents in California, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 5, 331–338.[Abstract][GeoRef]
Jackson, R.E. 2003. Chlorinated solvents and the historical record: A response to Amter and Ross, Environmental Forensics 4, 3–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Jackson, R.E. 2004. Recognizing emerging environmental problems—the case of chlorinated solvents in groundwater, Technology & Culture 45, 55–79.[CrossRef]
Jettmar, H.M. 1957. Uber Verunreinigungen des Grundwassers durch schwer abbaufahige Substanzen, Osterreichische Wasserwirtschaft 9, 56–62.
Klein, L. 1957. In: Aspects of River Pollution. Academic Press, New York
Klein, L. 1962. In: River Pollution. II. Causes and Effects. Butterworth, London
Lyne, F.A. & Mclachlan, T. 1949. Contamination of water by trichloroethylene, Analyst 74, 513[CrossRef]
Mancy, K.H. & Weber, W.J. Analysis of industrial wastewaters. In: Kolthoff, I.M., Elving, P.J. & Stross, F.H. 1971. In: Treatise on Analytical Chemistry, Part III: Analytical Chemistry in Industry. Section 8, p. 544. Wiley–Interscience, New York, 2
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1975. In: Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Oltman, R.E. Research under PL 88-379 in quality aspects of water, 1966. In: Ground Water. 4:5–10.[GeoRef]
Rivett, M.O. & Clark, L. A quest to locate sites described in the world's first publication on trichloroethene contamination of groundwater, 2007. In: Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrologeology. 40:241–249.
Rivett, M.O., Lerner, D.N., Lloyd, J.W. & Clark, L. 1990. Organic contamination of the Birmingham aquifer, U.K, Journal of Hydrology 113, 307–323.[CrossRef][Web of Science][GeoRef]
Rivett, M.O., Shepherd, K.A., Keeys, L. & Brennan, A.E. 2005. Chlorinated Solvents in the Birmingham Aquifer, UK: 1986–2001, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38, 337–350.
Rivett, M.O., Feenstra, S. & Clark, L. Lyne and McLachlan (1949): Influence of the first publication on groundwater contamination by trichloroethene, 2006. In: Environmental Forensics. 7:313–323.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Schollmeyer, W. 1960. Plötzlicher Tod durch Trichloräthylen—Vergiftung bei Einwirkung dieses Giftes über längere Zeit, Archiv für Toxikologie 18, 229–235.[Medline]
Shifrin, N.S. 2005. Pollution management in the twentieth century, Journal of Environmental Engineering 131, 676–691.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Stanley, W.E. & Eliassen, R. 1961. Status of knowledge of ground water contaminants.Published Technical Studies Program report (March 1961) of the US Federal Housing Administration.
Travis, A.S. 1998. The early history of groundwater pollution by TCE and other refractory toxic organic pollutants, Mealey's Emerging Toxic Torts 7, 41–47.
Travis, A.S. 2002a. Contaminated earth and water: a legacy of the synthetic dyestuffs industry, Ambix 49, 21–50.[Medline]
Travis, A.S. Instrumentation in environmental analysis, 1935–1975. In: Morris, P.J.T. 2002b. In: From Classical to Modern Chemistry. Royal Society of Chemistry, London; 285–308.
USPHS. 1964. In: Pesticides in Soil and Water: an Annotated Bibliography. US Public Health Service, (PHS) Publications Office, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, PHS Publ. no. 999-WP-17
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
