This snapshot, taken on
04/01/2012
, shows web content acquired for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search may not work in archived websites and contact details are likely to be out of date.
 
 
The UK Government Web Archive does not use cookies but some may be left in your browser from archived websites.
Skip to main content
Main content

News

Fertiliser pollution lives on in the River Thames

20 December 2011, by Tamera Jones

The rapid rise in intensive agriculture since the Second World War together with the use of fertilisers has led to severe nitrate pollution in the River Thames, report scientists.

London skyline

London skyline.

They say nitrate levels are now so high that a clean-up would mean massive changes to land use and management, which would compromise food security and take decades to implement.

The UK researchers used a 140-year record of water quality in the river Thames to reach their conclusions. This is the longest continuous record of river water chemistry anywhere in the world.

They found that nitrate levels in the river have trebled since the 1930s. Major land-use changes after the Second World War led nitrate levels to double and then rise even higher in the 1970s.

'Our results suggest it could take several decades for nitrate levels to drop even with significant changes to land management practices,' says Dr Nicholas Howden from the University of Bristol, lead author of the report.

Intensive agricultural practices developed over the last century have undoubtedly improved food security, but this has come at a cost. Greater food production has led to intractable environmental problems like soil erosion and water pollution.

Nitrates are harmful to newborn babies and prevent our blood from carrying oxygen, so they have to be removed from the water before it's safe to drink. Nutrients from agricultural fertilisers also trigger the rapid growth of algae in rivers and watercourses. This darkens the water and reduces its oxygen content, killing fish and choking plants.

'Our results suggest it could take several decades for nitrate levels to drop even with significant changes to land management practices.'
Dr Nicholas Howden from the University of Bristol

Howden and colleagues from the universities of Durham and Cranfield wanted to know how nitrates move through the land, eventually turning up in our water supplies. They were also interested in how long it takes for them to leach into rivers and other water sources, like springs and boreholes.

Aquifers in the Thames river basin supply around five million people with drinking water, but another six million rely on water taken from the river.

'We were keen to find out what level of nitrogen input into agricultural land is safe such that groundwater remains sustainable over the long term,' Howden says.

They found that it can take a surprising amount of time for nitrates to find their way from farmland to the River Thames.

'We found a 30-year time delay – our net nitrate inputs don't get to our aquifers, springs and boreholes for decades,' explains Howden.

And even though the amount of nitrate from agriculture has fallen since the 70s, levels remain high. Crucially, they found that it can take around 30 years for nitrate concentrations to drop off.

It seems that these agricultural pollutants arrived in two stages. In the first, surface run-off took half of the nitrates to the River Thames, while the second delayed stage comes as the rest of the chemicals work their way through to the aquifers.

'A policy to embrace long-term management should now be an urgent priority,' says Howden.

'What's challenging is feeding our rapidly growing population, but at the same time providing safe and secure drinking water, and maintaining a healthy ecosystem,' he adds.

The study is published in Water Resources Research.


Nicholas J. K. Howden, Tim P. Burt, Fred Worrall, Simon Mathias, Mick J. Whelan, Nitrate pollution in intensively farmed regions: What are the prospects for sustaining high-quality groundwater?, WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH VOL. 47, W00L02, 13 PP., 2011, doi:10.1029/2011WR010843


Interesting? Spread the word using the 'tools' menu on the right.


Your comments

I wouldn't complain, we've had to put up with it for years as the water here in eastern England and supplied by Anglian Water is akin to concrete it's that hard. It makes a mess of taps, baths, kettles, shower heads etc etc.

Ron Ibbotson, Broughton, UK
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 - 12:39

Don't forget the lack treatment of nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste in sewage, as this waste in many countries is not required to be treated. Mainly due to the incorrect application of the BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) test.

While test test takes 30 days, most countries only use its 5-day value and as one of its many negative consequences ignores 60% of the pollution that exerts an oxygen demand, but more important also ignores the fact that this waste is a fertilizer for algae, causing eutrophication now witnessed in nearly all open waters in the world, often in the form of dead zones.

In the US some claim that the reason only the 5-day reading was used, because in the UK, when this test was developed around 1920, it would not take more than 5 days before any water in rivers would reach the open seas.

Obvious not the case in many other countries and clearly not a real excuse for the fact that nitrogenous waste (now called a nutrient) was and still in many countries is ignored.

Peter. Maier, United States
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 - 20:53

In my previous comment I failed to explain that by using the 5-day reading of the BOD test, instead of the 30-day (or total) reading, we not only ignored 60% of the pollution in sewage that causes oxygen exertion, but more important ignores all nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste in sewage, which besides exerting an oxygen demand (like fecal waste) also is a fertilizer for algae, thus contributes to eutrophication, often resulting in dead zones, red tides and the destruction of coral reefs.

Only by correcting this test will we know how sewage is really treated and what the effluent waste loading is on receiving water bodies. This should not be too much to ask!

Peter Maier, United States
Wednesday, 21 December 2011 - 23:32