Study Shows Eating Organic Produce (Pesticide Free) Reduces Exposure To Pesticides After One Week?

Source: Food Revolution

The food revolution is steering people toward purchasing food from locally sourced food which is typically labeled as "organic."  Implied in the purchase is that the "organic" label means that the produce was grown without using pesticides.  Activists have long since been shouting about pesticide exposure due to eating non-organic produce.  A new study out of the Journal "Environment Research" provides evidence of exposure in question.



I ran across the study (linked) in an article from the website "Friends of the Earth" titled "New study: Pesticide levels in children and adults drop dramatically after one week of eating organic" briefly explaining the finding:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study published today in the journal Environmental Research found that switching to an organic diet significantly reduced the levels of synthetic pesticides found in all participants – after less than one week. On average, the pesticide and pesticide metabolite levels detected dropped by 60.5% after just six days of eating an all-organic diet.

The study, Organic Diet Intervention Significantly Reduces Urinary Pesticide Levels in U.S. Children and Adults, found significant reductions in pesticides that have been associated with increased risk of autism, cancers, autoimmune disorders, infertility, hormone disruption, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. The most significant declines involved organophosphates, a class of highly neurotoxic pesticides linked to brain damage in children: the study found a 95% drop in levels of malathion and a nearly two thirds reduction in chlorpyrifos. Organophosphates are so toxic to children’s developing brains that scientists have recommended a full ban.

 The participants of the study were four families from diverse areas across the United States.  Study participants were given a controlled diet of organic food for six days straight while being monitored by urinalysis.  The key findings of the study are shown below:

(1) A 61% drop in chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide known to damage children’s developing brains. Exposure is associated with increased risk of autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, and IQ loss.

(2) A 95% drop in malathion, another neurotoxic organophosphate pesticide and a probable human carcinogen according to the World Health Organization.

(3) A 83% drop in clothianidin, a neonicotinoid pesticide. Neonicotinoids are associated with endocrine disruption and changes in behavior and attention, including an association with autism spectrum disorder. Neonicotinoids are also a main driver of massive pollinator and insect losses, leading scientist to warn of a “second silent spring.”

(4) A 43-57% drop in pyrethroids, a class of pesticides associated with endocrine disruption and adverse neurodevelopmental, immunological and reproductive effects.

(5) A 37% drop in 2,4-D, one of two ingredients in Agent Orange. 2,4-D is among the top five most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. and is associated with endocrine disruption, thyroid disorders, increased risk of Parkinson’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, developmental and reproductive toxicity and other health issues.

Here is a short video from the article describing the study (less than 2 minutes in length:

What should citizens take home from this study?


The study above is fascinating, but not all that surprising.  Why?  First, the chemical structures of pesticides are designed to 'adversely impact' the biochemical pathways of insects/bugs not humans.  The proteins to which the pesticide chemicals bind to are not present in humans.  Does that mean that pesticides are totally alright to eat -- not necessarily.  Second, pesticides are mostly water soluble and can be washed off prior to using in food preparation.  More will be written about pesticide and the mechanisms behind them inside both the human and insect body.   Meaning -- I will look into this and get back to you.



For the time being, eating an organic diet which is pesticide free shows a significant drop in pesticide levels.  Although, the fact that pesticide concentration drops off significantly in such a short period of time implies that the our bodies are great at removing the pesticides quickly (breaking them down into metabolites in urine).  What would be interesting to see out of this study is the concentration of pesticides in the bloodstream over time within the participants.  That would be an interesting parameter to observe to comment on selective/non-selective binding.  The longer the pesticide circulates, the greater opportunity for non-selective binding exists.



The study suggests that each of us should immediately switch to an organic based diet.  I would be careful in switching to purchasing just organic produce.  Just because the label says that the produce is 'pesticide free' does not mean that the produce was grown without the use of pesticides.  Be sure (as a cautionary note) to wash all produce before using the items in food preparation.  Nevertheless, the study shows direct correlation of urine concentration and the use of pesticides in agriculture.



Related Blog Posts:


Coca Cola Tries To Shape Nutritional Value Within The CDC?

Parameters: Role of 'Stress Gene' revealed in relation to Chronic Pain


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


One Unknown Fact Which Should Cause Consumers To Be Careful About Handling Meat Before Cooking!


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

What is a typical day like for a systems engineer at JPL?

Source: Phys.Org

Hollywood gives us a picture (one example) of a typical day in the life of a systems engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  What does that picture look like?  An example might be shown below:

Source: RareHistoricPhotos.com

Now compare that with the written description from an interview of a true systems engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena as highlighted on the 'Science & Entertainment Exchange' website shown below:

What is a typical day like for a systems engineer at JPL?

The one thing I love about my job as a systems engineer is that there really is no such thing as a typical day. It changes dramatically over the lifecycle of a project, which goes like this. In the early phases of a project, the scientist community and NASA decide what it is that needs further study. Take Jupiter, for example. How was Jupiter really formed? Related to that question are things like: Does Jupiter have a core? How big is the core? What is the water vapor content of the atmosphere?

Next, a call for proposals is sent out and engineers work with scientists to figure out how to go about finding the answers. Can we use a telescope on Earth? Or do we need to send a spacecraft all the way to Jupiter? Can it just fly by the planet or does it need to go into orbit? Then, we come up with a specific design for the spacecraft and instruments. For the instruments: they are often selected through a parallel proposal process. For the spacecraft side: if a spacecraft is going all the way to Jupiter, we work through big design questions like: Does it need nuclear power? Or can we use solar power? If we use solar power, how big would the arrays need to be? Over time, we mature the design to a very high level of detail, then build parts, and assemble them. There are many points throughout the design process for testing things, performing analyses, etc., to ensure everything is going to come together smoothly and perform the way we expect. Eventually, we launch the spacecraft. Once we are in this operations phase, we are getting the data back from the instruments, but also managing the health of the spacecraft.

So far, I have worked on projects starting from the middle of the design phase through the final assembly, testing, launch, and operations phases. My job focuses a lot on troubleshooting and resolving design disconnects. For example, early in the design phase a telecom engineer might want 100 watts of power to make sure the signal back to Earth is very strong and easy to lock onto, but the power system may be providing only 500 watts for the entire spacecraft. The systems engineer’s job is to work with engineers from both of those areas (and the rest of the spacecraft too) to explore the trade space and figure out the best approach.

The description above implies the images below:

Source:JPL

Laboratories like the one above and below house teams of scientists who work collaboratively to think about all of the considerations for a given mission.  A team which appears like the picture below:

Source: JPL/NASA

The laboratory above (spacecraft factory) is a result of years of work by NASA engineers.  Over the course of decades, space scientists have worked to optimize (perfect) the process of design, construction, testing, and launching/mission.  According to the description above by the systems engineer, a day can take on many different forms.  Which highlights a very important observation which frequently arises when non-scientists visit laboratories.  The scientific process has many components which range from constantly sourcing out funding for various research projects to solving unexpected problems encountered during research and development.


Conclusion...


The traditional (old image) of a scientist or systems engineer is one that is not only outdated but has changed over the last few decades.  What image do I speak of?  The image of men chalking up the boards with equations has been replaced largely by computational methods.  A scientist working alone in his/her laboratory day after day has been replaced by a more collaborative working environment -- diverse with different genders, race, and ethnic backgrounds.  Which spurs different angles of creativity and ideas in solving a project at hand.  Since funding is getting more hard to find, more consideration into each part of the process from planning to finalizing construction of a spacecraft is considered in more detail. The result is a more diverse and inclusive interdisciplinary research and design group of scientists who are more concerned about living in a better world and beyond. 



Related Blog Posts:


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection


What Is Going On Inside That Cell?


How Do Scientists Think?

Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Chemistry Reactions Are Amazing - See For Yourself

A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?

New Chemistry Could Reduce Plastic Waste In Landfills

Chemists Learn To Build Up Nanoparticles -- One Atom At A Time!

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!

Why Should You Study Chemistry?

Teach Science To The Public And The Result Is: A Citizen Scientist!

Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches

Source: Chemical Safety

Storms are inevitable in the world.  How various countries and nations prepare for them is a unique trait.  Here in the United States the main agency is Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  The United States is a 'reactionary' nation rather than a 'proactive' nation.  Instead of preparing for a disaster, the disaster occurs and then an evaluation happens after which a political sparring match occurs and finally funding arrives.  Yes, I am being negative.



On top of all of that negativity is that there are dangers posed by corporations which have chemicals that need to be regulated and inspected before a storm occurs.  That agency is is the Environmental Protection Agency which has been lacking to say the least.  Therefore, the 'reactionary' method will employ the Chemical Safety Board.   Recently, the head of which has resigned leaving the direction uncertain -- which is not good -- while entering storm season.

Chemical Safety Board

In order to understand the importance of the Chemical Safety Board, here is a short introduction from Wikipedia:

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, generally referred to[1] as the Chemical Safety Board or CSB, is an independent U.S. federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate. The CSB conducts root cause investigations of chemical accidents at fixed industrial facilities.[2] 

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and became operational in January 1998. The Senate legislative history states: "The principal role of the new chemical safety board is to investigate accidents to determine the conditions and circumstances which led up to the event and to identify the cause or causes so that similar events might be prevented." Congress gave the CSB a unique statutory mission and provided in law that no other agency or executive branch official may direct the activities of the Board. Following the successful model of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation, Congress directed that the CSB's investigative function be completely independent of the rulemaking, inspection, and enforcement authorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Congress recognized that Board investigations would identify chemical hazards that were not addressed by those agencies.[3]

As I mentioned above, the Chemical Safety Board is a 'reactionary' step in the process of solving problems.  The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with implementing regulations for keeping safe track (including storage) of chemicals used in industry.  Although, over the last year and a half, EPA director Scott Pruitt has carried out 'historical' cuts as discussed in a previous post on this site.  The dismissals at the EPA has put the safety of the citizens of this nation at greater risk due to the inability to regulate industries and their safe keeping of chemicals along with dangerous practices in the pursuit of saving money for shareholders.  This should be concerning.



Now, according to recent reporting by Politico Energy, heading into hurricane season (or storm season), the nation is in greater danger as shown below:

CSB FAULTS HURRICANE PREP AT CHEMICAL PLANTS: The U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Thursday that chemical plants need to better prepare for hurricanes and potential floods after releasing findings from its investigation into an explosion at the Arkema chemical plant during Hurricane Harvey last summer. "Our investigation found that there is a significant lack of guidance in planning for flooding or other severe weather events," CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said. "... As we prepare for this year's hurricane season, it is critical that industry better understand the safety hazards posed by extreme weather events."

— Speaking of hurricane season: This year's hurricane season is not expected to be quite as bad as last year, Pro's Ben Lefebvre reports. NOAA forecast a 75 percent chance that this year's hurricane season will be at-or-above normal levels for major storms. The likelihood is that 10-16 named storms will form, with up to four of those liable to become major hurricanes. Read more.

That reporting was over a week ago.  Last Tuesday, reporting from "The Scientist" followed up with more bad news regarding the last safety net -- Chemical Safety Board:

Vanessa Allen Sutherland will resign next month as chair of the US Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board. With the vacancy, the board will drop to having only three members—two short of the standard five, C&EN reported earlier this week (May 22).

“The remaining board members will be required to vote on an interim executive, unless and until the White House nominates and the Senate confirms a new Chairperson,” the board, usually referred to as the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), says in a statement. However, that nomination is in doubt, C&EN notes, as the Trump administration has twice tried to shut down the CSB altogether.

This is not great news for the fate of the Chemical Safety Board.  Especially, heading into hurricane season.  The Chemical Safety Board is an agency which each of us should watch closely since the fate of the organization directly impacts our well-being.  Below, a video and excerpt will serve as evidence of the importance of the last chance (reactionary) organization for ensuring safety among industries.

Hurricane Season Approaches

Hurricane season is upon us according to some accounts.  The question naturally arise as to whether we (as a nation) have improved our disaster preparedness from last Hurricane Season -- when Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Maria ripped through some states.  According to Politico Energy, Hurricane season is not going to go well for FEMA as shown below:

THE STORY OF THE HURRICANES: With just days until the June 1st start to hurricane season, a POLITICO investigation into FEMA found numerous low-income families were denied funding from the agency because they lived within a flood zone and failed to carry flood insurance — a legal requirement that many of them were unaware of.

POLITICO’s Danny Vinik reports this morning from Texas’ Kashmere Gardens — a historically African-American neighborhood in Houston that is still trying to recover from Hurricane Harvey — and the hodgepodge of programs that help middle-class neighborhoods bounce back, but leave many poor and minority areas behind. He found that many families struggle with language issues and are inexperienced in dealing with the federal bureaucracy, leaving them to navigate a system that even FEMA officials agree is overly complicated.

And while more federal money is on the way to Texas, it may take a year or more after Harvey struck to reach communities like Kashmere Gardens, which are desperately trying to rebuild, Danny writes. Yet, the problems in Houston aren’t surprising to FEMA experts and others familiar with the complicated quilt of programs designed to help those in need of disaster assistance. “This is a recurring and systemic problem that we find with the delivery of federal recovery dollars,” said Fred Tombar, the senior adviser for disaster recovery at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from 2009 to 2013. Read more here.

AND IN PUERTO RICO: The mayor of one of the island's largest cities worried about the upcoming storm season and how another hit to its fragile power grid could throw the U.S. territory back into the dark. “I’m afraid we are not prepared to receive another [hurricane],” Ponce Mayor Maria Meléndez told Pro’s David Beavers during a visit to Washington last week. “The electricity system will fall down again if we don’t manage it more rapidly.” Read that story here.

Hurricane Harvey ripped through the Houston area to produce massive problems for the area.  People have the impression that the area has recovered completely - which is anything but the truth.  Although, even during a good economic time in Houston, problems were widespread within the real estate industry.  News accounts after the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey detailed house buyers experience and the added costs of 'flood insurance.'  Here is the page (index) for the coverage of Hurricane Harvey by NPR.



On top of the damage done to the housing sector was damage done to the corporations.  In particular, a chemical corporation by the name of Arkama in Houston suffered catastrophic losses due to chemicals which were destroyed while being stored in unstable conditions.  This resulted in a giant explosion and the release of toxic chemicals into the air for the residents of the surrounding community to suffer health problems from breathing the air in their houses and communities.  The chemical Safety Board was charged to carry out an investigation.  Here is a 13 minute video produced to explain the findings of the investigation of Arkama in Houston (Texas):

Wow.  The video above drives home the importance of the Chemical Safety Board.  Investigating a disaster after the occurrence is super important for the prevention of future disasters.  If the government is short on resources, then who is going to investigate the problem?  Furthermore, who is going to make recommendations on future practices which can be funded by Congress and passed on to regulatory agencies for future prevention of such disasters?



The importance of chemical safety regulation cannot be overstated.  Chemical safety is saddled on each of us.  Which sounds rather discouraging.  Although, the safety of the public is at risk.  Therefore, if you encounter a dangerous situation in any industry which handles chemicals, say something.  Here is a minute long video which demonstrates the simplicity of chemical safety:

Chemical safety impacts all of us at some fundamental level.

Conclusion...

The uncertainty surrounding the Chemical Safety Board should be unsettling to each of us.  Any attempt to dismantle this extremely important organization is a threat to each of us.  Therefore, the status of the organization is important to track.  If the government attempts to shut this down, as the public, we should ensure that there is an equivalent resource in place to investigate disasters and generate future reports on prevention of future disasters.



Related Blog Posts:



Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums


Puerto Rico Crops Devastated By Hurricane Maria

Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts


What Does An Official Letter From The White House Requesting Funds For Hurricane Harvey Look Like?


Wasteful Water Use Tied To 'Education and Poverty' - Really?


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

What Is Dimensional Analysis?

Source: Singularity Hub

What is dimensional analysis?  Have you ever used dimensional analysis in your everyday life?  Here is the introductory description which is located on the Wikipedia page for "Dimensional Analysis":

In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their base quantities (such as length, mass, time, and electric charge) and units of measure (such as miles vs. kilometers, or pounds vs. kilograms vs. grams) and tracking these dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. Converting from one dimensional unit to another is often somewhat complex. Dimensional analysis, or more specifically the factor-label method, also known as the unit-factor method, is a widely used technique for such conversions using the rules of algebra.[1][2][3]

The concept of physical dimension was introduced by Joseph Fourier in 1822.[4] Physical quantities that are of the same kind (also called commensurable) have the same dimension (length, time, mass) and can be directly compared to each other, even if they are originally expressed in differing units of measure (such as inches and meters, or pounds and newtons). If physical quantities have different dimensions (such as length vs. mass), they cannot be expressed in terms of similar units and cannot be compared in quantity (also called incommensurable). For example, asking whether a kilogram is greater than, equal to, or less than an hour is meaningless.

Any physically meaningful equation (and likewise any inequality and inequation) will have the same dimensions on its left and right sides, a property known as dimensional homogeneity. Checking for dimensional homogeneity is a common application of dimensional analysis, serving as a plausibility check on derived equations and computations. It also serves as a guide and constraint in deriving equations that may describe a physical system in the absence of a more rigorous derivation.

Wow!  Does that sound complicated?  Basically, what the description says above is that if you are comparing the mass of two oranges, both the units of measurement (weight) in this case have to be in the same 'units' - grams, pounds, kilograms, etc.  If you weight orange number #1 and report a weight of 70 grams, then try to compare a second orange's weight reported as 0.400 kg (kilograms) - then the comparison cannot be completed.



At least until you convert the weight of orange #1 to units of kilograms or weight #2 to units of grams.  If both weights were expressed in the same units -- say grams, then orange #1 weighing = 70 grams -- would be much smaller than orange #1 weighing = 400 grams.  The same logic applies to base quantities (dimensions) -- like length, mass, volume, height, speed, etc.



How about trying another route to clarify the description in the excerpt above.  If you have ever tried to follow a recipe while cooking, then chances are you have engaged in 'dimensional analysis' without knowing that you were doing so.  Don't believe me? Follow the quick cooking example below.

Example: Cooking

Here is a quick example of using 'dimensional analysis' in your kitchen.  Take the recipe shown below as an example:

The recipe above calls for 100 mL of milk.  That is 100 milliliters of milk.   What if the kitchen in which you are preparing the shake does not contain a 'measuring cup' shown below which is extremely useful in converting between different units of measurement:

Source: HomeDepot

Upon closer inspection of the image of a 'measuring cup' above, one can easily see a series of markings at different heights with different labels.  These labels indicate different volumes of measurement in different units.  According to the image of the recipe shown earlier, the amount of milk called for in creating the shake was 100 mL -- Which could easily be converted using the instrument above -- i.e. measuring cup.



Although, what would you do if you did not have a measuring cup within the kitchen in which preparation of the shake was taking place?  How would a person find the conversion factor to convert between units of 'milliliters' and units of 'cups'?  One easy method with the advent of the internet has been to resort to to a 'search engine' like 'Google' or 'Bing'.



Proceed to bring up a web browser and bring up Google.com and type in the search space: "How Many Milliliters In A Cup?" and the web page with the conversion (interactive) columns should appear as shown below:

Note: The conversion shown above is 'interactive' - which means that the labels are 'drop down' menus which can serve to change either 'units of measurement' or 'dimensions' (i.e. length, area, volume, time, speed, etc.).  Feel free to play with the web page to convert between units of various dimensions.



Next, with the conversion factor known which will assist us in converting between units of 'cups' and units of 'milliliters', the remaining step in the conversion is to carryout a mathematical operation as shown below:

The result indicates that in order to follow the recipe (approximately -- not precisely), roughly 1/2 cup of milk will correspond to 100 milliliters of milk.  Note that the conversion is approximate -- since 1/2 = 0.5 not 1/2 = 0.423 !!!



Is the method of carrying out a dimensional analysis problem is clear?  If the answer is yes, then you are ready to read past blog posts which mainly use 'dimensional analysis' to cast statistics reported in the news into perspective -- click here to access the index of past blog posts.  If you are not comfortable with carrying out 'dimensional analysis' problems, see the tutorial below.

Dimensional Analysis Tutorial

A Tutorial on Dimensional Analysis is shown below:

After watching the video above along with reading the content of the blog post so far, you may be wondering where to get conversion values if not from the internet.  Science textbooks have conversion tables.  After a quick search of conversion tables, the 'Accidental Scientist' appeared with a host of information.  Here is a screenshot of an example of a table of conversions below.  Note: if you click on the source, you will be directed to the site:

As you can see, there is no need to memorize conversions -- at least all of the conversions.  That is what reference materials are for when needed.

Conclusion...

In the paragraphs above, the useful (and fun) method of carrying out calculations using 'dimensional analysis' was shown.  Armed with the power to carry out comparisons with conversion factors allows you to verify a large portion of statistics which are reported in the popular news on a day-to-day basis.  Is this useful?  Depends on how much energy that you choose to exert in understanding the process of using it to live a better life.


Understanding the power of comparison with conversion factors will add extra dimensions of happiness to your life.  How do I know?  When a person can visualize or comprehend the magnitude of a reported statistic by putting the value into perspective using dimensional analysis, the problem or subject matter of the news article becomes that much more useful to the reader.  Again, thank you for visiting the website and check out the dimensional analysis blog posts by clicking here.



Related Blog Index:


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

The Concept Of Sound Made Simple!

I have said this in the past and I will say it again -- I love simple explanations.  I love searching online for simple explanations of complex phenomena.  In the paragraphs below, I show an example of science made simple from the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science.

Science Communication Made Simple

The actor Alan Alda -- better known for his role of 'hawkeye pierce' (a doctor) in the military show "M.A.S.H.".  He went onto to have a super successful acting career.  While narrating a show about science, he started to think about incorporating 'improv' into science communication.  Out of that original thought process emerged the Alan Alda School for Science Communication.

There are classes and conferences offered on campus along with conference tours (around the U.S.) throughout the year.  In addition, there are challenges that emerge to inspire creativity and simplicity in explaining difficult concepts.  One such concept is 'Sound'.  The challenge is called "The Flame Challenge."  A variety of topics are chosen.  Here is the video for "The Flame Challenge: What Is Sound" below:

Physics Of Sound

The video above describing sound as the movement of pressure waves through air is consistent with the 'Wikipedia' page for "Sound":

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a transmission medium such as air or water. In physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.[1] Humans can hear sound waves with frequencies between about 20 Hz and 20 kHz. Other animals have different hearing ranges.

The physics of sound can be represented as a wave on a string.  The University of Sydney, Australia -- School of Physics hosts a webpage which is filled with examples.  One example is the representation shown below of a wave on a string:

In the illustration above, there are 4 graphical representations of the transmission of sound.  Starting from the top, the simplest representation of sound is a 'sound wave' represented by wave motion induced on a rope.  Starting from the left and working our way to the right, a single complete 'wavelength' is represented by the greek letter 'lambda'.  Waves are the most common representation of sound.  Usually, waves are represented in a pattern of waves shown on an electrical oscilloscope -- which measures wavelength and frequency.



The second illustration down is of 'atoms' or 'molecules' on the x-axis.  At first glance, the spacing is not repetitive and can be misunderstood.  In order to make sense of the spacing of the 'molecules' on the x-axis, we need to look at the graph #3 just underneath #2.  In the 3rd graph, the wave-like pattern is a graph of 'density' of sound distributed over the x-axis to form a 'sound wave'.  At the crest (the highest point) of the wave, the spacing is the smallest and compressed to represent a region of 'high density', whereas the 'trough' or low point is represented by larger spaces between 'molecules' on the x-axis.  This representation is more difficult to understand to most people at first sight.



Although, the common definition in physics of 'sound' is the transmission or propagation of sound through a 'medium' such as air or water.  In order to carry the sound wave through the air, the molecules of air will have to move like those in the 2nd graph above.  In the video above, the author did a wonderful job of representing the transmission of sound through air.  Lets take a look at a few of his slides to drive the point home.



In the first slide below, there are vertical columns of air molecules all lined up:

Notice on the left side of the illustration (along the wall) the word "speaker" is written.  This is to illustrate the point from which the sound wave will be generated -- similar to the speaker in your electronic devices.  At this point, there is no sound wave emerging from the speaker.



The slide below shows the emergence of a sound wave starting from the speaker:

The brown box (or dark orange) shows the emergence of a sound wave by the compression (smaller spacing of air molecules) starting at the left hand side.  As the wave propagates through a medium, the spacing will move from left to right as shown in the next three slides below:

and without the box, the wave continues to move as compressed molecules as shown below:

And ...

By now, the wave has traveled just under half-way across the medium in the illustration above.




The take home message is that sound can move through a medium such as air as a series of 'changes in pressure' as represented in the 4th graph in the first illustration above.  Now that you are educated in the transmission of sound, you can tackle an age old question regarding a tree in the forest.

Tree Falling In The Forest

Whenever science students encounter the section on sound in physics, the inevitable philosophical experiment is brought up.  The philosophical experiment is a test 'of observations and the knowledge of reality.'  According to the 'Wikipedia' page for the philosophical experiment, the question is stated as follows:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The earliest mention of the problem was from the philosopher George Berkeley in the excerpt below:

Philosopher George Berkeley, in his work, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), proposes, "But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park [...] and nobody by to perceive them.[1] [...] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden [...] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them."[2] (It is worth noting that the quote from section 45 is arguably a statement of an objection to Berkeley's view, and not a proclamation of it.) Nevertheless, Berkeley never actually wrote about the question.[3]

The question is simple.  Science students love to argue about this.  Of course, if you are not present, then the question really becomes simple if you stick with the rules of sound illustrated in the graphs above.  The statements can be made regarding the tree falling:



1) As the tree falls the sound that is generated is generated as compression of molecules in the medium (air) between the tree and the surrounding area.


2) Noise is perceived by the human ear or a sensor (such as a microphone) which has a moving part that reacts to the compressed molecules transmitting the sound wave propagating through the air.



Returning to the 'Wikipedia' page for the philosophical experiment, an excerpt from the magazine 'Scientific American' elegantly states a solution to the problem shown below:

 The magazine Scientific American corroborated the technical aspect of this question, while leaving out the philosophic side, a year later when they asked the question slightly reworded, "If a tree were to fall on an uninhabited island, would there be any sound?" And gave a more technical answer, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."[5]

Therefore, no sensor present (human ear, microphone, sensor) then the tree did not make a 'sound' as we perceive sound.  The pressure wave was generated but no sensor was present to transform that pressure wave into an audible sound!!!

Conclusion...

In the paragraphs above, we learned that sound is generated as a change in pressure or density in the air or other medium (water, etc.).  Further, that if there is no sensor or human ear present, then no sound can be heard.  A more difficult problem is when you are standing in a crowd and cannot hear a speaker who is located far ahead (far away) from you.  Why can't you hear them?



The reason is that the amplification of the noise is not strong enough to transmit a wave to where you are standing.  That is why there are speakers lining up along a large crowd.  Noise will die out as the compresseion wave loses energy! When the volume is turned up on a sound system, the noise is amplified further to transmit the wave further.



Alan Alda is delivering a great service for the community along with the Kavli institute to educate the public about science.  Additionally, getting scientists on board with better (and simpler) communication is critical to the transmission of ideas and important concepts that affect science and society.  With videos like the one above produced by enthusiastic scientist, we are closer to educating the public about the importance of science and science communication.



Until next time, Have a great day!!!

How Much Would The Sun Weigh If Filled With Water?

Recently, I was listening to a radio show called "StarTalk" with the physicist Prof. Neil deGrass Tyson.  The episode was a panel of astrophysicists talking about the study of 'black holes' in our universe -- which was completely fascinating I might add.  During the discussion, there was a large amount of dimensional analysis going on in order to drive home the relevance and complexity associated with studying 'black holes' from Earth.  One statistic popped up out of nowhere:



If the Sun was filled with water, it would weigh nearly as much as it does now!



At the time, I was riding the train back home from vacation and did not have my laptop handy to look up a few values to explore the stated statistic further.  Since then, the statement has been lingering in the back of my head.  Today, I decided to perform a couple of calculations to either verify or debunk that statement.  Below are the result of those calculations.

How Much Does The Sun Weigh?

In order to tackle such a calculation, a few values need to be known.  First, the weight of the Sun needs to be obtained.  If the weight of the Sun is not known, then a comparison based on an analysis is useless.  Second, the Sun will be approximated as a perfect sphere for calculation purposes.  Third, since the sphere is going to be used as the shape of the Sun, then a formula for the volume needs to be obtained.  Finally, the density of water needs to be known to use as a correlation factor of volume to weight.  Right about now you are probably thinking the following:



How do all of these values and formula come together to confirm the statement above?



I will show you in the paragraphs below.  In order fully grasp the nature of the analysis that is about to unfold, lets cast the Sun into a better perspective.  The weight of the Sun can be obtained from the resourceful "wikipedia" page along with other useful facts such as the description shown below:

The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is a nearly perfect sphere of hot plasma,[13][14] with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process.[15] It is by far the most important source of energy for life on Earth. Its diameter is about 109 times that of Earth, and its mass is about 330,000 times that of Earth, accounting for about 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.[16] About three quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen (~73%); the rest is mostly helium (~25%), with much smaller quantities of heavier elements, including oxygen, carbon, neon, and iron.[17]

Wow!  The description above sets the tone for the following analysis. First, the numbers involved are going to be VERY large (many zeroes before the decimal place).   The Sun is enormous and dwarfs the Earth easily in its description.  The weight of the Sun is listed on the 'wikipedia' page as the following:

The mass of the Sun above is expressed in 'Scientific Notation' to abbreviate the enormous number.  Typically, scientist use this 'abbreviated notation' to express huge numbers more easily.  At the same time, scientific notation can also be used to express very small numbers (i.e., a billionth of a meter, a nanometer = 1/1,000,000,000 meter).  If the mass of the Sun expressed in scientific notation was written out in long form, the mass would appear as shown below:

Alright.  After viewing the mass of the Sun in long form, the ease of using 'Scientific Notation' is completely understandable.



To start the calculation, the volume of a sphere needs to be known.  Below is the volume of a sphere in equation form:

In order to calculate the weight of the Sun filled with water the following steps need to be taken:


1) Obtain the radius (denoted as 'r') of the Sun


2) Calculate the volume of the Sun


3) Calculate the mass of the Sun from the volume (with the density of water)


4) Compare the calculated mass of the Sun to the stated mass (above) from 'wikipedia'



The steps are quite simple.  Keep in mind though, that in order to compare or calculate values, wthe values need to be in correct 'units' (i.e., 'kilogram,' 'gram,' 'milliLiter,' 'Liter,' or 'cubic meters').  Otherwise, completing calculations and comparing calculated volumes is impossible -- like 'comparing apples with oranges.'



With this in mind, lets start calculating the mass of the Sun filled with water following the steps above.  First, the radius of the Sun needs to be known.  From the 'wikipedia' page, the radius of the Sun is stated to be either 695,700 kilometers or 109 times the radius of the Earth.  Expressed  in long form for the calculation, the radius of the Sun is shown below:

The radius of the Sun can be directly plugged into the equation for the volume of a sphere above to yield the following:

The volume of the Sun is shown above.  In order to calculate the mass from the volume, we need the density of water.  Density is the amount of mass contained in a given volume.  For water, the value of the density is 1.00 gram/milliLiter.  Since there are 1000 milliLiters in a single Liter, then the density for water can be expressed as 1000 gram/Liter.



The expression for density of a given molecular compound can be expressed as the 'mass' per 'volume' as shown below:

The first line shows the equation for the density of a given molecular compound.  In the second line, the equation is re-arranged to yield the 'mass' from the two parameters 'density' and 'volume'.  Plugging in the values from the calculation and reference (density) value, the 'mass' of the Sun can be calculated as shown below:

The calculated mass of the Sun is shown above.  Of course, the value of the mass is enormous as expected -- which is good.  Returning to the statement above -- which motivated the article:



If the Sun was filled with water, it would weigh nearly as much as it does now!



The following question can be asked regarding the calculated mass and the reference mass listed from 'wikipedia':



How do the two masses (theoretical and calculated) compare to each other?



The easiest way to compare two value (in the same units -- i.e. 'kilogram') is to express them as a ratio of each other as shown below:

The result shows that the two values have the same "order of magnitude" -- that is 10 raised to the power of 30.  But the two values are NOT nearly the same -- Why Not?   Read onto find out.

Plasma Is Denser Than Water

In carrying out the calculation above, there are a number of assumptions listed below:



1) The Sun is shaped as a sphere


2) Density of water at 25 degrees Celsius was used in the calculation



What was not figured in was that the density of an mass can change with temperature.  The Sun has a reaction going on in the core of the sphere.  There are four states of matter: Gas, Liquid, Solid, and Plasma.  In the calculation above, the state of matter used for water was a liquid -- 1.00 gram/milliLiter at 25 degrees Celsius.



According to the 'wikipedia' page for 'plasma,' the density can change significantly with temperature as shown in the image taken below:

Source: Jafet.vixle at English Wikipedia

What does this mean in the overall calculation?



Why should I (you -- the reader) care?



Understanding the accuracy of an approximation is crucial to the words that are used to describe the comparison of two values.  In the situation of comparing two masses -- the result of the calculation and the theoretical mass from 'wikipedia' -- you can easily see that the two are not comparable.  In order to understand the reason why that is the case or might be -- look toward the density of the molecule in question -- in this case water.



The density inside plasma can vary up to 7 orders of magnitude different from that in room temperature.  Meaning, you can pack more mass into a given space.

Conclusion...

The above calculation is a great opportunity to illustrate the methodology of carrying out a 'dimensional analysis' problem.  Based on the result of the calculation, the statement above regarding the mass of the Sun filled with water nearly being equal to that of the current weight is not necessarily true.  Although, the two values did have the same 'order of magnitude' -- 10 raised to the power of 30.



Nevertheless, the exercise was fun and displayed the power of 'dimensional analysis.'  Now, you have the ability to carry out the same calculations on your own.  The next time that you are listening to the radio or reading the paper and find an interesting fact, you can verify the two values on your own.



Until next time, Have a great day!

Why Doesn't Pre-Regulation Of Consumer Products Exist?

Consumer products flood the marketplace and the screens on the devices that we carry with us on a daily basis.  This begs the following question regarding safety of consumer products released on the market:



But why are there more regulations regarding the safety of such products?



I really do not know the answer to this question.  If you are a reader who does know the answer or can shed some light on information (websites, books, journals, etc.) on the subject, please leave a comment.  At this point you might be asking yourself the following question:



Why is he concerned with the regulation of consumer products?



The reason is due to an article I read today about the efficacy of 'supplements' in 'The New York Times' article titled "Studies Show Little Benefit in Supplements".  Specifically, the excerpt that produced the thought was the following regarding regulation stated below:

The passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 opened the floodgates to an industry that can bring these products to market without submitting any evidence to the Food and Drug Administration that they are safe and effective in people. The law allows the products to be promoted as “supporting” the health of various parts of the body if no claim is made that they can prevent, treat or cure any ailment. The wording appears not to stop many people from assuming that “support” translates to a proven benefit.

After 1994, sales of a very wide range of supplements skyrocketed, and because the law allowed it, many continued to be sold even after high-quality research showed they were no better than a placebo at supporting health. The government can halt sales of an individual product only after it is on the market and shown to be mislabeled or dangerous.

 The law seems to open up the door to the 'wild west' of supplements to which the world is exposed to.  A few years ago, I remember listening to a radio show where the regulator said of this law that the consumer is exposed to literally "whatever the manufacturer decides to put into the product.  The consumer could be buying dirt in a gel coating."  I was appalled to say the least.



This puts the safety and efficacy of a consumer product on the consumer.  Which, if the last sentence of each paragraph in the excerpt are picked out for the stand alone inspection below translates to:

The wording appears not to stop many people from assuming that “support” translates to a proven benefit.

And ...

The government can halt sales of an individual product only after it is on the market and shown to be mislabeled or dangerous.

I don't know about you, but I get a tingly feeling running down my spine when I read either sentence.  I can say that I as a consumer have confidence in the manufacturer that they would operate on 'good faith' to make a reliable product.



As I study more, I become more aware of how gullible I have been.  Although, the solution to such a matter involves the following question:


What alternative is there?



Education to start with.   In the case of supplements or vitamins, many consumers do not realize that the important active compounds (vitamins) in a supplement (some of which) are not digestible in the human body.  Therefore, you take a pill or drink a drink and pee the minerals and vitamins right out the other end.



Understanding that you can get the same nutrition from different fruits and vegetables along with with other food is crucial to the safety and health of yourself and your family.  Many manufacturers play on the inability of the consumer not to pay attention or ask questions about the efficacy of their product.



I will leave you with this thought.  Education can take you only so far.  At some point, you do have to live with the understanding that toxicity is a spectrum.  Every compound is a degree (a data point) on the spectrum of toxicity.  Although, the more education that you put forward toward understanding the consumer products and their effectiveness versus adverse effects, the better off you will be!



So, go educate thyself!



Have a great day!

Unraveling The Resistance Of Antibiotics!

Stories seem to emerge daily regarding the threat to the human race regarding the rise in resistance of antibiotics toward common diseases.  One side of the spectrum, the pro-antibiotic sector are dispersing antibiotics like candy to farm animals and patients without caution.  Whereas on the other side of the spectrum, there is a growing community of researchers, advocates, and concerned citizens -- yelling at the top of their voices to stop administering antibiotics needlessly.  With both sides of the spectrum known, the following question emerges naturally:



Where is scientific research at on the issue?



Are advancements in discovery being made to deal with the potential threat?



The short answer is that the discovery process takes time and is complicated.  Which is no answer at all.  Whereas the long term solution involves research being done.  As I explained in a previous post on drug discovery, research advances are arduous and take time.  Recently, though, progress has been reported in the scientific community and worth giving a "shout out" about.  Below is the short post regarding the advance.

Antibiotic Resistance?

Yes, whenever I hear about antibiotic resistance, I stop and pause for a moment of scare.  Then I think about the progress that is being made (hopefully).  I cannot have myself worry too much about the issue since I do not perform research directly toward a solution.  Although, I can support students who are biochemistry undergraduates and graduate students while educating them on the need and importance of such research.  Couple that with a proper training on the scientific instrument needed to perform the research and my job ends there.



Sounds scary right?



Well, not all is held in limbo with regard to antibiotic resistance.



First, what is antibiotic resistance?  In order to understand the issue, what is the problem?



Here is an excerpt taken from the 'Wikipedia' page for "Antibiotic Resistance" is shown below:

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is the ability of a microbe to resist the effects of medication previously used to treat them.[2][3][4] This broader term also covers antibiotic resistance, which applies to bacteria and antibiotics.[3] Resistance arises through one of three ways: natural resistance in certain types of bacteria; genetic mutation; or by one species acquiring resistance from another.[5] Resistance can appear spontaneously because of random mutations; or more commonly following gradual buildup over time, and because of misuse of antibiotics or antimicrobials.[6] Resistant microbes are increasingly difficult to treat, requiring alternative medications or higher doses—which may be more costly or more toxic. Microbes resistant to multiple antimicrobials are called multidrug resistant (MDR); or sometimes superbugs.[7] Antimicrobial resistance is on the rise with millions of deaths every year.[8] A few infections are now completely untreatable because of resistance. All classes of microbes develop resistance (fungi, antifungal resistance; viruses, antiviral resistance; protozoa, antiprotozoal resistance; bacteria, antibiotic resistance).

Antibiotics should only be used when needed as prescribed by health professionals.[9] The prescriber should closely adhere to the five rights of drug administration: the right patient, the right drug, the right dose, the right route, and the right time.[10] Narrow-spectrum antibiotics are preferred over broad-spectrum antibiotics when possible, as effectively and accurately targeting specific organisms is less likely to cause resistance.[11] Cultures should be taken before treatment when indicated and treatment potentially changed based on the susceptibility report.[12][13] For people who take these medications at home, education about proper use is essential. Health care providers can minimize spread of resistant infections by use of proper sanitation: including handwashing and disinfecting between patients; and should encourage the same of the patient, visitors, and family members.[12]

Rising drug resistance can be attributed to three causes use of antibiotics: in the human population; in the animal population; and spread of resistant strains between human or non-human sources.[6] Antibiotics increase selective pressure in bacterial populations, causing vulnerable bacteria to die—this increases the percentage of resistant bacteria which continue growing. With resistance to antibiotics becoming more common there is greater need for alternative treatments. Calls for new antibiotic therapies have been issued, but new drug-development is becoming rarer.[14] There are multiple national and international monitoring programs for drug-resistant threats. Examples of drug-resistant bacteria included in this program are: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA), extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), multidrug-resistant A. baumannii (MRAB).[15]

A World Health Organization (WHO) report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance—when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections—is now a major threat to public health."[16] Increasing public calls for global collective action to address the threat include proposals for international treaties on antimicrobial resistance.[17] Worldwide antibiotic resistance is not fully mapped, but poorer countries with weak healthcare systems are more affected.[9] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections." [18]

Is that a comprehensive definition?



Instead, why not start with a simple pictorial representation of what antimicrobial resistance is.  In a previous post on the need for greater science communication, Dr. Tyler Dewitt gave a great explanation of the modes of how virus's and bacteria invade a host organism like the human body.  I suggest taking a look at the post.  Once the invader (virus or bacteria) enters the system, the invader takes hold (control) of your system.  The control allows the invader to make several copies of itself to proliferate and grow to become a problem (onset of disease).



What can be done about such a state?



One methodology that has become increasingly common if the invader is a microbe or bacteria is to administer antibiotics which wipe out the infection.  Shown below is a picture taken from the 'Wikipedia' page again for clarity to illustrate the point of action of antibiotics:

Source:By NIAID – NIH

The image above is very simple to understand the action of an antibiotic.

Advances In Antibiotic Resistance

Recently, there has been advances in research surrounding antibiotic resistance that may speed up the ability to deal with the looming threat.  In an article from the website 'Sciencedaily.com' titled "Mystery of bacteria's antibiotic resistance unravelled" new developments have been made in unraveling the mode of disabling the effect of antibiotics by researchers.  Here is an excerpt discussing the advancement:

One of the mechanisms leading to rifampicin's resistance is the action of the enzyme Rifampicin monooxygenase.

Pablo Sobrado, a professor of biochemistry in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and his team used a special technique called X-ray crystallography to describe the structure of this enzyme. They also reported the biochemical studies that allow them to determine the mechanisms by which the enzyme deactivates this important antibiotic.

The results were published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry and PLOS One, respectively.

"In collaboration with Professor Jack Tanner at the University of Missouri and his postdoc, Dr. Li-Kai Liu, we have solved the structure of the enzyme bound to the antibiotic," said Sobrado, who is affiliated with the Fralin Life Science Institute and the Virginia Tech Center for Drug Discovery. "The work by Heba, a visiting graduate student from Egypt, has provided detailed information about the mechanism of action and about the family of enzymes that this enzyme belongs to. This is all-important for drug design."

 Before I make a few comments on the success of the discovery in the pipeline to a marketable drug or treatment, I would like to add another excerpt from the same article highlighting the importance of the antibiotic rifampicin is to an array of diseases:

Rifampicin, also known as Rifampin, has been used to treat bacterial infections for more than 40 years. It works by preventing the bacteria from making RNA, a step necessary for growth.

The enzyme, Rifampicin monooxygenase, is a flavoenzyme -- a family of enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions that are essential for microbial survival. These latest findings represent the first detailed biochemical characterization of a flavoenzyme involved in antibiotic resistance, according to the authors.

Tuberculosis, leprosy, and Legionnaire's disease are infections caused by different species of bacteria. While treatable, the diseases pose a threat to children, the elderly, people in developing countries without access to adequate health care, and people with compromised immune systems.

As you can see, the ability of the antibiotic rifampicin to knock out an array of important diseases cannot be overstated.  Therefore, any advancement in understanding modes of action or in this case 'inaction' are critical to drug designers for the future.  At this point, you might be wondering what the structure of rifampicin looks like?  Shown below is the chemical structure of rifampicin take from 'Wikipedia':

Rifampicin

Source of image: By Vaccinationist - Rifampicin on PubChem

With the discovery of the mechanism by which Rifampicin Monooxygenase deactivates rifampicin's ability to act as an antibiotic, should we all throw our hands up and celebrate?



The discovery of the deactivation mechanism of rifampicin is a major step for drug makers in producing new lines of antibiotics in the future.  As I mentioned in a previous blog on drug discovery, the flow of patentable drug includes discoveries made at the university level.  This discovery certainly qualifies as one -- certainly.  Although, more studies will have to be followed up in order to realize the discovery into a better antibiotic in the future.



I should mention one major point of contention about the discovery of the mechanism.  The spectroscopic technique that was used was x-ray crystallography.   X-ray crystallography as a technique just celebrated it't 100th year since the discovery of the technique.  Here is an excerpt from the 'Wikipedia' page describing the technique of 'x-ray crystallography':

X-ray crystallography is a tool used for identifying the atomic and molecular structure of a crystal, in which the crystalline atoms cause a beam of incident X-rays to diffract into many specific directions. By measuring the angles and intensities of these diffracted beams, a crystallographer can produce a three-dimensional picture of the density of electrons within the crystal. From this electron density, the mean positions of the atoms in the crystal can be determined, as well as their chemical bonds, their disorder and various other information.

Since many materials can form crystals—such as salts, metals, minerals, semiconductors, as well as various inorganic, organic and biological molecules—X-ray crystallography has been fundamental in the development of many scientific fields. In its first decades of use, this method determined the size of atoms, the lengths and types of chemical bonds, and the atomic-scale differences among various materials, especially minerals and alloys. The method also revealed the structure and function of many biological molecules, including vitamins, drugs, proteins and nucleic acids such as DNA. X-ray crystallography is still the chief method for characterizing the atomic structure of new materials and in discerning materials that appear similar by other experiments. X-ray crystal structures can also account for unusual electronic or elastic properties of a material, shed light on chemical interactions and processes, or serve as the basis for designing pharmaceuticals against diseases.

The spectroscopic technique is very powerful and is commonly used in a wide range of areas of research for structural determination.  One drawback is the constraint of having to grow a crystal -- a rather large crystal to subject the x-rays to in order to obtain a diffraction pattern.



Why does this matter?



One commonly held belief among spectroscopists is that x-ray crystallography is extremely useful in a range of areas as a first step or a confirmation step.  The constraint of having to grow a crystal is also a large point of contention regarding the usefulness of the information obtained by the diffraction pattern.  Why?



The reason is centered around the fact that processes in the body (i.e., at physiological conditions) are performed in a 'liquid-state' rather than a 'crystalline-state' (i.e., solid state).  Scientists argue about the true degree of accuracy of a structure obtained by x-ray crystallography rather than say a structure obtained by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in the liquid state.  The structure obtained by NMR is believed to be more representative of the actual conditions (liquid state, pH, temperature, etc.).



Nevertheless, the discovery above is extremely important.  The realization of a site of deactivation for rifampicin monooxygenase can now be further explored and compared to other antibiotics.  Scientists in industry and academia (university settings) will use incorporate this mechanism into their current understanding and models to produce a better antibiotic.



Further, understanding 'antimicrobial resistance' is a hot topic.  Just today, the 'Los Angeles Times' published an editorial discussing two bills that are hitting legislature for consideration.  Lets hope the combined efforts of all of these actions, leads to fewer cases of deaths in hospitals along with safer and better antibiotics.

Conclusion...

Should we be celebrating?


The advancement discussed above is cause to celebrate momentarily. Although, as I mentioned in the previous post regarding the drug discovery process, the path is long and arduous. Advancements such as these improve the ability of researchers to add another piece to the puzzle. Given more information, further advances can be pushed even further. Of course, that goes without being said (i.e., thank you captain obvious). Research is a long process and needs a lot of funding and time to test and retest procedures to make sure that scientists get the process right -- to eliminate the problem the first time around. Adjustments often have to be made due to inefficiencies of a given treatment or terrible side effects. Although, with a better understanding of the mode of action and inaction, drug manufacturers create more accurate drugs and research is one step further in understanding how nature operates to take control over our immune systems or subject us to terrible diseases.



Last but not least, the overall importance of writing a post like this is to convey the excitement and importance of such research. To demystify the meaning of "antibiotic resistance" or "antimicrobial resistance." Raising awareness of the magnitude of the issue will hopefully rally support on part of the public (your support) to elevate the need for funding and research into such issues. Do your part. Advocate for science and educate yourself on the successes and challenges (failures, obstacles). Give us some feedback.


Until next time, have a wonderful day!