Chelsea M. Rochman, Assistant Professor Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology www.rochmanlab.com [email protected] The Effects of Plastics in our Aquatic Environment
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Chelsea M. Rochman, Assistant Professor Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
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Helm et al., unpublished data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Munno et al., unpublished data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
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
Related Documents
