Share thisFor years the impact of water contamination was the subject of movies, best sellers, editorials and speculation. Today, thanks to persistence and rigorous research, we know: what’s in the water influences a living system’s biochemistry and bio-behavioral response.
Still, water quality standards for lab animal research are spare. Consider Australia’s Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes1 water quality standard: clean, fresh drinking water should be available at all times as suitable for the species. The water quality standard specified in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is similarly straightforward: provide clean, potable water. That’s all they and most other animal care guidelines prescribe and it is clear cut, yet some scientists say these simple statements raise a raft of complex questions. What do clean, fresh and potable mean in a research setting? Since water quality standards vary from locale to locale, what is the impact of difference on concurrent studies or ability to replicate a study? What are the interactions among new molecules and micronutrients in water that might inhibit or decrease uptake?
Furthermore, does water deemed suitable for human consumption necessarily meet research needs? Many scientists say the answer is decidedly no. In addition to the sometimes subtle and often conspicuous differences setting to setting, there is runoff residue that includes medicines, growth hormones, industrial waste, pesticides, and perilous organisms that mostly aren’t regulated for humans and could dramatically influence research findings.
It would seem that for now, despite some downsides, the answer for lab animal research is to set a baseline by purifying the water. Professor Joseph L. Taraba, a University of Kentucky, USA specialist on groundwater quality and health2, says that depleting water of needed nutrients could be the other side of the impure water coin, yet even so, for now we must purify. “Minimising error in testing health impacts in living systems is quite a challenge. There are so many feedback mechanisms in complex organisms, and so many micronutrients that can be important to any living organism’s health; if it lacks something unknown it becomes an uncontrolled variable and may affect the quality of results. And, when it comes to water, there are so many differences area to area in water quality–differences such as presence of metals, calcium, phosphorous, cations and anions, trace organics—that might influence an organic system’s feedback mechanisms. Yet, despite all the unknowns, I suggest we should err on the side of caution. The practical way ahead right now is to purify the water as much as possible and hope that the food used in a testing protocol will make up for the nutritional discrepancies or deficiencies.”
So, are the guidelines adequate? Are clean, fresh, and potable as specific as one could reasonably be given the infinite variables for which anything more exact would have to account? And if that’s so, how might facility managers and investigators work together to standardise water at least for short term requirements? - HK
References
1. Australian Code of Practice
2. Professor Joseph L. Taraba is a University of Kentucky specialist in Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering for animal production impacts on the environment, surface, and groundwater quality impacts on human and animal health.
Helen Kelly is a Contributing Editor for ALN World™. She is an experienced management consultant, manager and business journalist. Helen divides her time between Boston, MA and Sheffield UK.