The Effects of Plastics in our Aquatic Environment...Microplastic contamination in the Great Lakes >800 species >220 species Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

Chelsea M. Rochman, Assistant Professor Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

www.rochmanlab.comchelsea.rochman@utoronto.ca

The Effects of Plastics in our Aquatic Environment

Web of Science All Databases “plastic debris” OR “microplastic”

Contamination

Macroplastics(>5 mm)

Microplastics (< 5mm)

Rochman, 2018 Science

Microplastics

Primary vs. Secondary (broken down bits of larger plastic products)

Categories (shape) – fragments, fibers, foam, sphere, pellet, film

Polymer Type – PP, PE, PVC, PET, PS, acrylic, styrene butadiene, PC, nylon…

Chemical Additives – UV Stabilizers, Flame Retardants, Plasticizers, etc…

Size – nm to µm to mm

Geyer et al., 2017 Science Advances

Photo Credit: Tim Kelly Photo Credit: earthknight

Law, Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2017

What are the most significant sources of plastic debris?

Jelena Grbic

Measuring the sources and sinks of microplastics in urban watersheds

Lake Ontario Sneak Peek

Grbic et al., in prep

Agricultural

Runoff

WWTP Stormwater

Runoff

L Ontario

L Ontario Sneak Peek

Grbic et al., in prep

90%

2…0.2%

4%4%0.2%

0.2%

Wastewater Effluent

30%

15%26%

26%

3%

Agricultural Runoff

1%

28%

2%

25%2%

20%

22%

Urban Runoff

22%

2%

21%28%

1%

20%

6%Reference

Category Summary

L Ontario Sneak Peek

Grbic et al., in prep

L Ontario Sneak Peek

Grbic et al., in prep

L Ontario Sneak Peek

Grbic et al., in prep

18

Microplastic contamination in the Great Lakes

(litter, commercial processes)

(personal care products)

(rope, line/net, clothing, cig butts)

(packing, food containers, insulation)

(plastic bags, wrapping)

Categories (potential sources)

/ “Nurdles”

Helm et al., unpublished data

Pla

stic

Par

ticl

es

(#)

/ kg

>27,000

Ballent, Corcoran et al., Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016

201220142015

19

Microplastic contamination in the Great Lakes

>800 species

>220 species

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2016

FAO Report 2017

Nfish = 266

Me

an #

Mic

rop

last

ics

/ fi

sh

Keenan MunnoU of T; MECP

Microplastics in Lake Ontario nearshore fish

Munno et al., unpublished data

Lake ErieLake Ontario

Mohawk IslandPier 27 Centre Island

Brookson et al., 2019 CJFAS

Microplastics in Great Lakes cormorants

Impacts can be physical or chemical

Plas cDebris

styrenes

PCBs

PBDEs

BPA

phthalates

PAHs

Ni

Pb

ChemicalIngredients

ChemicalByproducts

SorbedContaminants

CocktailofToxicants

Rochman 2015 Chapter in Marine Anthropogenic Litter

Mussels: Browne et al., 2008 ES&T

Fish: Collard et al., 2017 Environ Pollut

Fate of microplastic and nanoplastics in the body

Mice: Deng et al., 2017 Scientific Reports

Image by Rolf Halden, Professor at Arizona State University

Chemical Impact

Rochman et al., 2014 Science of the Total Environment

Jang et al., 2016 ES&T

Tanaka et al., 2015 ES&T; Tanaka et al., 2013 Mar Pollut Bull

Chemicals from microplastics can transfer to wildlife.

Law, Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2017,

adapted from Rochman et al. Ecology 2015

Assemblage

Population

Organism

Level

of

bio

log

ical o

rgan

izati

on

Size of debris

nm μm mm cm m km

Organ System

Organ

Tissue

Cell

Organelle

Molecular Assemblies

Macromolecules

Small molecules

Atoms

Subatomic Particles

0

1- 5

6- 10

11- 20

21- 30

#ofEffects

Ecosystem

The Evidence Demonstrating Impacts to aquatic biota is Growing

Bucci, Rochman, et al. unpublished

Assemblage

Population

Organism

Level

of

bio

log

ical o

rgan

izati

on

Size of debris

nm μm mm cm m km

Organ System

Organ

Tissue

Cell

Organelle

Molecular Assemblies

Macromolecules

Small molecules

Atoms

Subatomic Particles

0

1- 5

6- 10

11- 20

21- 30

#ofEffects

Ecosystem

EffectwasTestedAndDemonstrated

Assemblage

Population

Organism

Le

ve

l o

f b

iolo

gic

al o

rga

niz

ati

on

Size of debris

nm μm mm cm m km

Organ System

Organ

Tissue

Cell

Organelle

Molecular Assemblies

Macromolecules

Small molecules

Atoms

Subatomic Particles

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

# of Null EffectsEcosystem

Effect was Tested And Not Demonstrated

> 30

Effect Detected vs Not Detected

Bucci, Rochman, et al. unpublished

What makes an effect detected vs not detected?- type of microplastic- size of microplastic- shape of microplastic- taxa- dose of microplastic- length of exposure

Beached plasticClean polyethylene

2 mm

Effects of microplastics on Fathead minnows?

Consistent size, colour, concentration, shape

Clean polypropylene

Kennedy Bucci

Control

1. Physical interaction 2. Chemical interaction

Low(140 particles/L)

n =5Treatments

Microplastic

fragments

(100-500 µm)

High(1400 particles/L)

No plastic

Low(140 particles/L)

High(1400 particles/L)

Bucci et al., unpublished

MortalityPhysical

Chemical

Exposure scenario

Polyethylene Beached plastic

*

p<0.005

Physical Chemical

Treatment

% M

ort

alit

y

Physical Chemical

Treatment

Bucci et al., unpublished

500 µm

Developmental deformities

1 mm

Ocular enlargement

500 µm

1 mm200 µm

Severe spinal deformities

500 µm

200 µm

14

Other

Bucci et al., unpublished

Impacts to Humans

Ecological ImpactsPhysical or Particle

ToxicityAlter Nutritional

Value

Karami et al., 2018

hernia mesh

prosthetic hip

What does the medical literature tell us?

Physical Impact of the Particle

FAO Report 2017; Data from Rochman et al., 2016 Ecology

Widespread Contamination in habitats and animals – incl. seafood and drinking water.

Evidence of effects to wildlife – particularly macroplastics – including to populations and communities.

Evidence of effects of microplastics in lab animals, populations and communities.

Continue to aim toward a better understanding of sources, fate and impacts to humans and wildlife populations.

• Identify local entry points for microplastics into the Great Lakes

• Understand the fate of microplastics and associated chemicals in the environment

• Determine ecologically relevant impacts of microplastics:

• Environmentally relevant laboratory studies, laboratory ecosystem study (mesocosm), field studies, multi-stressor

• Identify impacts to human health and food security

• Improve methods for quantifying and characterizing microplastics in complex matrices.

Next Big Questions and Research Needs for Microplastics:

Science

Solutions

In the meantime, we have enough science to begin to mitigate now and prevent future sources of plastic pollution.

Hayley McIlwraith

Jack Lin

Testing microfiber mitigation

2 strategies: both reduce microfibers in washing machine effluent

↓ 26%

↓ 87%

Photos: coraball.com / www.environmentalenhancements.com

Cora ball Lint LUV-R

McIlwraith, et al. in review

1,179,057 households

(Statistics Canada, 2017)

48

219 wash loads per household per

year

(NRC, 2011)

City of Toronto example

90,700 to 138,000 microfibers per wash load

(our study)

23 to 36 trillion microfibers emitted per year

x x =

1,179,057 households

(Statistics Canada, 2017)

49

219 wash loads per household per

year

(NRC, 2011)

City of Toronto example

90,700 to 138,000 microfibers per wash load

(our study)

23 to 36 trillion microfibers emitted per year

x x =Cora ball

Lint LUV-R

↓ 6 to 9 trillion microfibers

↓ 20 to 31 trillion microfibers

Bioretention Rain Garden

Treatment Efficiency

249

41

316

257 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Jan. 3 Feb. 9 Mar. 24

# p

arti

cle

s/1

00

L

INLET

• Mean 92% reduction (n=3)

OUTLET

Community Outreach

Thank you!

chelsea.rochman@utoronto.cawww.rochmanlab.com

L Ontario Sneak Peek

Grbic et al., in prep

- In 100% of fish sampled

- 96.9% of microplastics in fish are fibers

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Great Lakes (n = 21) Tributaries (n = 107) x Fish (n = 70)

Sample

valu

e

Type

Beads

Fibers

Films

Fragments

Foams

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Great Lakes (n = 21) Tributaries (n = 107) x Fish (n = 70)

Sample

valu

e

Type

Beads

Fibers

Films

Fragments

Foams

Rel

ativ

e ab

un

dan

ce

0

1.0

0.5

0.25

0.75

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Great Lakes (n = 21) Tributaries (n = 107) x Fish (n = 70)

Sample

valu

e

Type

Beads

Fibers

Films

Fragments

Foams

Fibers 96.9%

Fragments 2.5%

Films <1%

Beads <1%

Foams 0%

Microplastics in Lake Ontario pelagic fish

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

Erdle et al., unpublished data

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1N

um

ber

of

part

icle

s (

per

litre

of

wate

r)

Station

Fragment

Fibre

Data Reporting

Calibration standards & recovery reporting

LOD/LOQ reporting (when applicable)

Blank subtraction

Sample Analysis

Chemical Identification of Material

Sample Preparation

Clean laboratory practices Laboratory blanksReduction of plastic

supplies, clothing, etc. used

Sample Collection

Clean surfaces & containers Field blanksKeep samples covered to

mitigate contamination

Method Development to better quantify and characterize microplastics