Would you buy a GMO houseplant that could really scrub your air of pollutants?

Happy to clear up issues: We are presently proposing only one gene in hous= eplants: the mammalian cytochrome P450 2E1, which attacks and degrades ben= zene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, dichlorobenzene, and several other = volatile organic compounds that frequently exceed health standards in home = air. Formaldehyde is a desirable target of course, but 2E1 does not degrade= formaldehyde. We are looking at other formaldehyde degrading genes for fu= ture work, but so are other groups in China and Japan, especially. =20

Of course we don't propose to use transgenic tobacco as a houseplant, that = would be impractical for a variety of reasons. But since tobacco is easily = transformed we transformed it as a proof -of-concept. Tobacco transformed = with 2E1 degraded benzene and the other pollutants more than 20x faster tha= n untransformed tobacco in small scale experiments. We expect that transfor= med pothos ivy will have the same increased pollutant destroying capability= . We think we are already close to having a 2E1 transformed pothos and will= have confirming data this week.

As for the pollutant levels that are present in homes, the little review I = wrote gives a good summary of the current literature.=20 =20

formatting link
don't think it is too difficult to read, but to summarize, most US homes = have levels of benzene (2ug/m3) that are close to or exceed maximum health = standards for chronic exposures (0.3 ug/m3). the same applies to dichlorob= enzene (2 and 0.9 ug/m3 respectively) and carbon tetrachloride (0.6 and 0.2=

4 respectively). Chloroform levels in showering typically exceed the one h= our acute exposure standards (150 ug/m3). =20

As far as getting rid of sources, that is certainly the best mitigation act= ion, but it is not easy. Benzene is emitted from fuel storage in attached = garages, so you would need to find another place to park your car and store= your lawn mover, no smoking, no indoor fires, including perhaps cooking. C= hloroform is present in all chlorinated water, so, unless you use your own = well, you will need a whole house activated carbon filtration, with frequen= t and costly switching out of the filter. Carbon tet comes from outside (as= does a lot of benzene), so that is a problem. We think our superpothos wo= uld make a good alternative and could result in a decrease in the levels of= these carcinogens, which even if the reduction is only partial would decre= ase cancers in the US.

Reply to
Stuart Strand
Loading thread data ...

So, David, I have posted a detailed and quantitative reply. Have you no comment on the data?

Reply to
Stuart Strand

thanks, still digesting it.

D
Reply to
David Hare-Scott

David, No problem, I don't think Superpothos is going to take off on Indiegogo anyway. I see from reading recent posts on the list that you are near Sidney and probably a little preoccupied right now. Best luck.

Reply to
Stuart Strand

Thanks for the information. How long would it take a SuperPothos (at STP) with a surface area of 1 square meter to clear a room completely of, say, 1 microgram of benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, or dichlorobenzene?

Reply to
Billy

Since uptake and degradation of trace pollutants is first-order (i.e., the = degradation rate is proportional to the concentration remaining), this ques= tion should be restated as "How long would it take for 99% of the pollutant= to be degraded". If we assume that the degradation rates we measured with= the 2E1 transformed tobacco plants in 40 mL bottles also applies to the Su= perPothos plants in a room, and we adjust for the difference leaf areas, th= en 1 m2 of plant leaf should take up 99% of the benzene in the room in abou= t 1.6 hours. Similar times for chloroform and the other pollutants attacked= by 2E1. =20

Of course, this question is best answered by experimentation.

Reply to
Stuart Strand

I presume that is 99% of 2.04 micrograms of benzene.

Thank you.

It seems that you make a good case, and I would think that there are many who would jump at your product. Personally, I prefer to reflect on it for awhile, and see if there aren't any unintended consequences. In a world where scalawags seem intent on poisoning the biosphere, your plants may be needed by the entire world.

Reply to
Billy

Yes 99% of any concentration. Of course transfer of the pollutant from the= bulk air of the room to the surface of the leaves is different from that t= ransfer in a small vial (our experiments so far), so we need better, bigger= experiments with a real houseplant (not tobacco). But we can't do that wi= thout funding.

Should we turn our backs on a promising method for removal of known and ser= ious pollutants because of fear of unstated unintended consequences. Compa= red to the ongoing and unacceptably high exposure of our children to these = indoor air pollutants? When a cheap and efficient method for removal looks= to be close at hand?=20

Part of our proposal for crowd sourced funding was to test the transformed = pothos for increased invasiveness or fitness in the environment (which woul= d be bad) so we planned tests for increased resistance to cold, resistance = to a range of herbicides. Without funding, it will be hard to run all of th= ese tests, but we will try.

But we can't test for the unimagined. If you or other list readers have sp= ecific fears about harm that would caused by the release of pothos (Epiprem= num aureum) transformed with cytochrome P450 2E1, hygromycin resistance, an= d the GUS genes, please contact me so that we can design experiments to tes= t.

We will do these experiments as part of our diligence, but we don't expect = to find any increase in fitness because the genes have known function, and = they do not help the plant to our knowledge (and experience in the case of = the hygromycin resistance and GUS reporter gene). The 2E1 gene has been stu= died for 20 years or more and its function is well described. It is a detox= ifying protein, one of the most powerful and important detoxifying enzymes = known. But plants expressing 2E1 (and the other 2) grow just like the untra= nsformed plants, no worse and no better.

Here is a question for those who consider transgenes to be pollutants: Can= a gene that codes for the degradation of important environmental pollutant= s be considered a pollutant itself? When there are no plausible negative e= ffect scenarios? The definition of pollution requires that the pollutant ca= uses harm. Our plants do the opposite, they reduce harm.

I do wish to thank the list, especially David and Billy, for teaching me th= at most people are ignorant of the seriousness of the risk of indoor air po= llutants, especially benzene and chloroform. I had assumed that the risk of= these pollutants would be an easy sell, but I was wrong. =20

Stuart=20

Reply to
Stuart Strand

And here I thought you were a man of science, but what to my wondrous eyes appear, but another Willy Loman.

It would have been an easier sell, if you would have attributed the health costs of these toxics in terms of financial costs, quality of life, or in terms of decreased mortality. You offered to solve a problem whose dimensions were never illustrated. Are we talking about major injuries to our metabolisms, or the loss of years, days, hours, minutes from our lives? What is the cost of this ill defined cure? Will the existence of your environmentally cleansing plants encourage industry to release more pollutants into the environment? Did you mention any financial gain that you might accrue from the sales of this product. Do you have a prospectus for investors? When is your IPO?

In an age when our leaders tell us that to feed the poor, we must cut the taxes of the rich, can anyone be above suspicion?

Oh yeah, thanks for pissing me off. I'm sure you know what you can do with your plants.

Reply to
Billy

Most people in the USA are not sure that evolution is responsible for the existence of those potted plants, that pests might evolve to become resitant to sprays or that human activity is the cause of climate change. There is a sizable number who believe in astrology and moonplanting, that Fox News is giving them good information and that Osama Bin Laden is at this moment having a beer with Elvis in a little bar in Tupelo. You should get out more.

D
Reply to
David Hare-Scott

My, for a person who name calls and casts aspersions so easily, you have a = very thin skin. I'll guess that your feelings were hurt when I noted your = ignorance about the risks of indoor air pollutants. But there is nothing w= rong with ignorance about a particular field of knowledge. Recognizing our = ignorance and doing something about it with study and experimentation is wh= at scientists do all the time. Of course, if one persists in ignorance desp= ite the evidence, then we call that person stupid.

Reply to
Stuart Strand

David, Glad you escaped the fires long enough to post a nasty little comment. Name calling is an unpleasant habit, and so is disparagement of an entire nation. Is it just me and most Yanks you dislike, or mankind in general?

I am still waiting for a response to my detailed and quantitative reply to your ill-informed and insulting request for the levels of the air pollutants that threaten our families. I provided the documentation you requested. What's your problem?

Reply to
Stuart Strand

I am not disparaging a nation buts its general lack of understanding of and trust in science and the ready acceptance of the lies of vested interest and plain* mumbo jumbo. You will find there is supporting evidence for all my examples. Maybe not for the bar in Tupelo.

I wanted to see if you were a marketdroid or a researcher and I asked for some way to distinguish between the options, why is that insulting? Stuart you are just a name on a message here, we get all manner of liars, conmen and good people who are the same. It now appears that you are genuine. Would you have it that all strangers are accepted on face value or just you and your project?

David

  • I accidentally typed "palin" here but the spell checker caught it. Get thee behind me satin (slip).
D
Reply to
David Hare-Scott

Uh-Huh Billy 1/1/13 It seems that you make a good case, and I would think that there are many who would jump at your product. Personally, I prefer to reflect on it for awhile, and see if there aren't any unintended consequences. In a world where scalawags seem intent on poisoning the biosphere, your plants may be needed by the entire world.

Stewart 1/1/13 I do wish to thank the list, especially David and Billy, for teaching me that most people are ignorant of the seriousness of the risk of indoor air pollutants, especially benzene and chloroform. I had assumed that the risk of these pollutants would be an easy sell, but I was wrong.

Billy 1/13/13 And here I thought you were a man of science, but what to my wondrous eyes appear, but another Willy Loman.

It would have been an easier sell, if you would have attributed the health costs of these toxics in terms of financial costs, quality of life, or in terms of decreased mortality. You offered to solve a problem whose dimensions were never illustrated.

------

Speaking of which, you seem to be having a tough time selling this product to ANYBODY.

faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/Assets/FAQ.pdf Why not try to get a research grant from NSF, EPA or NIH (for your Superpothos)? We have tried, but without success. The reviewers had several problems with the proposals: they thought that the levels of chloroform and benzene in household air were too low to pose a significant risk, that too many plants would be needed to be practical, that limited air circulation would limit the effectiveness of the removal, that the topic was too applied and would not advance scientific knowledge significantly, and that the project should be funded privately. One of the reviewers expressed a personal philosophical opposition to genetically modified plants and another worried about negative outcomes of using genetically modified houseplants, without suggesting any specific negative scenarios.

-----

The NSF, EPA, nor NIH won't fund your work, but you call people who have doubt about your work, ignorant? That's a lot of chutzpah, Stewie-boy.

Intimidating prospective buyers puts you in the Willy Loman group by doing anything to sell your widget.

Meanwhile back at the ranch,

Improving Air Quality in Your Home

Breathe Easy: 5 Ways To Improve Indoor Air Quality WebMD Feature provided in collaboration with Healthy Child Healthy World

formatting link
of Toxic Air Pollution

Control Toxic Fumes from Household Products

don't even mention benzene or chloroform. Is this where you ran into trouble with your argument with the NSF, EPA, and NIH?

It seems the best solution to benzene, and chloroform is to open your windows once and awhile. As YOU said in YOUR FAQ, " Once in the air chloroform persists in the atmosphere of the home, until it is degraded or it leaks out of the home. "

Oh, and tell me again how these plants will protect me from chloroform that comes from the shower head, while I shower.

Idiot!

Reply to
Billy

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.