Cape Verde (West Africa) Successful Water Reuse Pilot Project: A Sustainable Way for Increasing Food Production in a Climate Change Scenario

Naegleria australiensis isolated from a wastewater treatment station in Santiago Island, Cape Verde

Despite the Naegleria genus being isolated from different natural environments such as water, soil, and air, not all Naegleria species are capable of causing infections in humans, and they are capable of completing their life cycle in environmental niches. However, the presence of this genus may suggest the existence of one of the highly pathogenic free-living amoeba (FLA) species: Naegleria fowleri or the brain-eating amoeba. This facultative parasitic protozoon represents a risk to public health, mainly related to domestic and agricultural waters. In this research, our main objective was to determine the existence of pathogenic protozoa in the Santa Cruz wastewater treatment plant, Santiago Island. Using 5 L of water we confirmed the presence of potentially pathogenic Naegleria australiensis, being the first report on Naegleria species in Cape Verde. This fact demonstrates the low efficiency in the treatment of wastewater and, consequently, a potential threat to public health. Nevertheless, more studies will be needed for the prevention and control of possible infections in this Macaronesian country.

Soil and Water Management Factors That Affect Plant Uptake of Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study

Water and food security are of global concern. Improving knowledge on crops’ potential uptake of pharmaceutical compounds (PhCs) is necessary to guarantee consumer health and improve the public’s perception of reclaimed water reuse. This study aimed to determine how water management (bottom-up applied for being supplied by Subsurface Drip Irrigation) and the plant rhizosphere effect on the uptake of PhCs. Five PhCs were mixed: atenolol, carbamazepine, dicoflenac, ibuprofen and valsartan. A total of 5 treatments were considered: 3 concentrations of PhCs in agricultural volcanic soil: 0.1, 10 and 100 µg·L−1; 0.1 µg·L−1 in sterilized soil; and a blank with three plant replications at 30, 45, and 60 days after emerging. The maximum quantity of the added PhCs was 100 µg·kg soil−1. A variant of the QuEChERS method was followed to extract PhCs from samples. The limits of quantification were between 10 ng·L−1 and 100 ng·L−1 in extracts. No PhCs over the limits of detection were detected (0.06–0.6 µg·kg−1 of dry plant sample). Hence, the described water reuse methodology poses a negligible consumer risk, which contrasts with hydroponic systems in which this risk has been shown. The results are discussed in terms of the effects of irrigation system, water management and the soil-plant barrier.

Assessing the carbon footprint across the supply chain: Cow milk vs soy drink

Since livestock product consumption could have a significant effect on tackling climate change, in the few last years, there has been an increasing consumer demand for non-dairy alternatives. Despite plant-based beverages being considered crucial to foster the transition towards sustainable diet models, no studies have yet compared the level of emissions of plant-based beverages with animal-based ones. The present study aims at computing the carbon footprint of cow milk and that of soy drink and evaluating the carbon footprint results in the light of the substitutability of cow's milk with soy drink, analyzing the potential environmental, economic and nutritional trade-offs between the two products. Results highlight that, considering the environmental perspective, soy drink could be a valid substitute of cow milk: its production has a lower carbon footprint, allowing for the achievement of food security objectives. However, focusing on the economic and nutritional perspectives, the high average consumer price of soy drink is associated with an overall lower nutritional level. In order to reach the same nutritional value as 1 L of cow milk in terms of protein intake, the consumption of soy drink should be increased by 13%. Furthermore, soy drink consumption implies paying 66% more than for cow milk, when considering the same protein content.