Individuals relying on shallow groundwater or natural springs for drinking water have a higher risk of contamination from these insecticides compared to those getting their drinking water from deep groundwater wells. They also found that these insecticides could affect organisms in the streams that are fed by those springs.

The research was recently published in Science of the Total Environment, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

With the increased use of insecticides for agriculture and insect control in the past few decades, research has shown that consistent application of them can lead to contamination in water. This can have a negative impact on human health and pollinator insect species, such as bees and butterflies.

A large portion of Minnesota’s drinking water comes from groundwater. Looking at the levels of these specific insecticides can help water treatment plants determine what to monitor and filter.

In this study, researchers looked at the levels of neonicotinoids in surface and groundwater across Minnesota, identifying factors that may affect the extent of contamination. The DNR was able to collect water samples from 15 springs and 75 unique wells from 13 counties in Minnesota over four years (2019-2022) allowing comparisons between urban and rural areas.

The researchers not only collected an extensive amount of geographic locations, they also looked at the chemical levels at various depths. In testing the water samples, they found that natural springs are very susceptible to contamination from neonicotinoid insecticides.

“Oftentimes people think a natural spring has water that is safe to drink,” said Bill Arnold, Distinguished McKnight University Professor & Joseph T. and Rose S. Ling Professor in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering. “That’s not necessarily true, it depends on how deep that water is sourced.”

There are multiple ways these types of chemicals can get into the environment. In addition to direct application, stormwater runoff and snow melt can contribute to these chemicals in ground and surface water. The researchers were able to map different classes of the insecticides across the state.

“This study is a key first step in identifying pollutants in the water, even in some unexpected places like natural springs,” said Arnold. “We use so many of these insecticides in Minnesota — basically every corn and soybean seed is treated before planting — and many of these chemicals can be purchased at a local hardware store for spraying fruit trees, flea and tick control for your pets, and eliminating bedbugs.”

While the researchers knew they would find traces of the insecticide in water, some of their study results were unexpected.

“We were surprised by the high levels of the chemical detected in the natural springs and in some cases the chemicals were observed at much deeper levels in wells than we expected going into this project,” Arnold added.

As a follow-up to the study, researchers are collaborating with county and state agencies to include these chemicals on water treatment monitoring lists and want to continue to educate watershed districts about these insecticides. The researchers will also work with the University of Minnesota’s St. Anthony Falls Laboratory to improve stormwater treatment methods for urban environments, including the use of biofiltration to remove pollutants.

In addition to Arnold, the team included University of Minnesota Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering retired adjunct associate professor Paul Capel, former research assistant Grant Goedjen, and John Barry from the DNR’s Division of Ecological and Water Resources.

This work was funded by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENTRF) as recommended by the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). The ENRTF is a permanent fund in Minnesota that provides funding for the protection and conservation of Minnesota’s natural resources.

Such are te findings of a study published in the Journal of Marketing Research co-authored by UC Riverside marketing professor Hai Che that examined policies to curtail the use of single-use plastic bags in grocery stores and other retail outlets in Austin and Dallas, Texas — policies that were later repealed.

Significantly, the behaviors spurred by the plastic bag rules continued after the rules were no longer in place. And some impacts were not beneficial to the environment.

Che and his coauthors found an increase in sales of plastic bags after the cities prohibited stores from giving away free plastic bags for carrying home groceries. They quantified plastic bag sales by analyzing barcode scanner data on consumer purchases.

“We were hoping for positive spillover effects, like customers will be more environmentally conscious and consume less one-time use plastic or paper products,” said Che, an associate professor at UCR’s School of Business. “But that’s not what happened in the data. People wound up buying more plastic.”

Che added store customer had been repurposing the free grocery bags al as liners for household trash bins.”

The bag rules, however, most likely changed consumer behavior in positive ways as well, such as people getting in the habit of using reusable canvas or burlap bags for everyday shopping, although such data wasn’t available to the researchers, Che said.

The study found that the longer a policy is in place, the longer the behaviors spurred by the policy lingered on.

The Dallas City Council had imposed a 5-cent fee for single-use bags for five months in 2015 before repealing the fee when the city faced lawsuits from plastic bag manufacturers. When free bags became available again, plastic bag sales initially declined sharply and returned to pre-policy levels after 13 months.

The Austin City Council banned single-use carryout bags in 2013, and the policy remained in place for five years until 2018 when the Texas Supreme Court struck down such bans statewide when it ruled on a case about a similar bag ban in Lerado. After the repeal, the carryover effect of plastic bag purchases declined gradually and did not revert to the pre-policy baseline after 18 months, which was the end of the researchers’ analysis time frame. In fact, the carryover effect remained 38.6% above the baseline even at the end of the analysis

To assess the net environmental impact, the research team conducted a “break-even analysis” to determine if the plastic bag policy, despite the negative spillover effects, ultimately reduced plastic waste. They calculated how many fewer single-use grocery bags consumers would need to use to offset the additional trash bags purchased due to the policy. In Dallas, consumers would need to use one less grocery bag every seven trips, while in Austin, it would be one less bag every five trips to break even in terms of environmental impact.

The study contributes to a growing body of knowledge on the unintended consequences of environmental policies and offers insights applicable beyond plastic bag usage, Che said.

“While our study focused on plastic bags, similar spillover effects have been documented in policies targeting sugary drinks, energy efficiency, and health incentives,” Che said. “In each case, behaviors that weren’t directly targeted by the policy — like purchasing more sugary snacks when soda is taxed — can offset or even undermine the policy’s primary goals.”

Remembering a code for long enough to type it in; holding a conversation and reacting appropriately to what is being said: in everyday situations like these, we use our working memory. It allows a memory to be actively retained for a few seconds. Certain conditions, such as schizophrenia or depression, as well as ADHD, impair working memory. Those affected lose track in conversations and struggle to organize their thoughts.

Fampridine is a drug that could help in such cases, as researchers led by Professor Andreas Papassotiropoulos and Professor Dominique de Quervain at the University of Basel have shown. The team has reported their findings in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

Effective only if working memory is poor

In their study, the researchers tested the effectiveness of fampridine on working memory in 43 healthy adults. It was in those participants whose baseline working memory was at a low level that fampridine showed a more pronounced effect: after taking the active substance for three days, they scored better in the relevant tests than those who took the placebo. In contrast, in people who already had good baseline working memory, the drug showed no effect.

The researchers also observed that fampridine increased brain excitability in all participants, thus enabling faster processing of stimuli. The study was randomized and double-blind.

Established drug, new application

“Fampridine doesn’t improve working memory in everyone. But it could be a treatment option for those with reduced working memory,” explains Andreas Papassotiropoulos. Dominique de Quervain adds: “That’s why, together with researchers from the University Psychiatric Clinics Basel (UPK), we’re planning studies to test the efficacy of fampridine in schizophrenia and depression.”

The drug is currently used to improve walking ability in multiple sclerosis (MS). Particularly in capsule form, which releases the active ingredient slowly in the body, fampridine has shown effects on cognitive performance in MS patients: for some, it alleviates the mental fatigue that can accompany MS.

The researchers did not select the drug at random: this study followed comprehensive analyses of genome data in order to find starting points for repurposing established drugs. Fampridine acts on specific ion channels in nerve cells that, according to the researchers’ analyses, also play a role in mental disorders such as schizophrenia.