ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
I find there is an even greater problem in addition to the complications cited by Elizabeth Wilson in the article “Toledo Water Danger Unclear” (C&EN, Aug. 11, page 9). The problem is that the state’s guidance either misinterpreted or overinterpreted the World Health Organization guideline of 1 ppb, which was the basis for the do-not-drink order.
The WHO guideline (2011) was derived from a tolerable daily intake (TDI) calculation for lifetime exposure to microcystin-LR for a 60-kg (132 lb) person consuming 2 L of water per day. The guideline was derived from a 13-week study in mice (a sensitive species), and a 1,000 factor was applied to the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL).
The state treated it as an acute or subacute exposure risk issue rather than a chronic one. So the health-based rationale for the do-not-drink order is questionable, at best. The order was extremely conservative and led to significant impacts to the population and the city.
I am a member of the WHO Guidelines Committee.
Joseph A. Cotruvo
Washington DC
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X