On 3 October 2007, 40 participants with diverse expertise attended the workshop Tamiflu and the Environment: Implications of Use under Pandemic Conditions to assess the potential human health impact and environmental hazards associated with use of Tamiflu during an influenza pandemic. Based on the identification and risk-ranking of knowledge gaps, the consensus was that oseltamivir ethylester-phosphate (OE-P) and oseltamivir carboxylate (OC) were unlikely to pose an ecotoxicologic hazard to freshwater organisms. OC in river water might hasten the generation of OC-resistance in wildfowl, but this possibility seems less likely than the potential disruption that could be posed by OC and other pharmaceuticals to the operation of sewage treatment plants. The work-group members agreed on the following research priorities: a) available data on the ecotoxicology of OE-P and OC should be published; b) risk should be assessed for OC-contaminated river water generating OC-resistant viruses in wildfowl; c) sewage treatment plant functioning due to microbial inhibition by neuraminidase inhibitors and other antimicrobials used during a pandemic should be investigated; and d) realistic worst-case exposure scenarios should be developed. Additional modeling would be useful to identify localized areas within river catchments that might be prone to high pharmaceutical concentrations in sewage treatment plant effluent. Ongoing seasonal use of Tamiflu in Japan offers opportunities for researchers to assess how much OC enters and persists in the aquatic environment.

No abstract

No abstract

Using a growth medium based on cane blackstrap molasses, we compared ethanol production by two strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that were immobilized in polyurethane foam cubes in a fluidised-bed fermenter. One strain (NCYC 1119) was adhesive and extremely flocculent, whilst the other strain was not adhesive and only weakly flocculent. The strong flocs of NCYC 1119 caused blockage of the bed, so that stable operation could not be achieved beyond 15 days. Nevertheless, it was able to produce 40 g L −1 ethanol at a rate up to 16 g L −1 h −1 (D = 0.4 h −1 ), although this production period was limited to 192 h. In contrast, the non-adhesive strain was only capable of producing 28 g L −1 ethanol at a rate of 11 g Lat the same dilution rate, even though production continued for 576 h. Despite the conversion of sugars to ethanol not being complete during these trials (up to 47 g L −1 was expected), it was clearly demonstrated that the productivity of the adhesive strain was higher than that of the non-adhesive one. However, further work is required to develop this process into a robust, industrial system.

No abstract