21 22 2016 in berlin european conference on plastics in ... · for revision of the waste...
TRANSCRIPT
DOKUMENTATION 08/2016
Environmental Research of the
Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety
Project number: 3715 22 20 20
21‐22 June 2016 in Berlin European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments Abstracts
On behalf of the German Environment Agency
June 2016
Imprint
Publisher: German Environment Agency Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Phone: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de
/umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt
Study performed by: Federal Institute of Hydrology Am Mainzer Tor 1, 56068 Koblenz, Germany
Department G3 Biochemistry, Ecotoxicology Dr. Georg Reifferscheid Dr. Beate Bänsch-Baltruschat Dr. Nicole Brennholt Esther Breuninger Stefanie Hatzky Yvonne Strunck Study completed in: June 2016 Edited by: Section II 2.4 Inland Surface Waters Jan Koschorreck ISSN 2199-6571 Dessau-Roßlau, 21 June 2016 The project underlying this report was supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety under project number FKZ 3715222020. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
3
Table of Contents
Information about the conference ................................................................................................................... 6
Abstracts: Oral Presentations ..................................................................................................... 7
EU activities and plans to address plastics and microplastics in the aquatic environment
H. Clayton ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Plastics in Freshwater Environments: From monitoring to management options ‒ how can we get
there?
L. Busse, J. Koschorreck ................................................................................................................................. 9
How concerned should we be about plastic litter in freshwater systems?
R. Thompson ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Overview on plastics in European freshwater environments ‒ Results of a survey
G. Reifferscheid, B. Bänsch‐Baltruschat, N. Brennholt, E. Breuninger, S. Hatzky ....................................................... 17
Monitoring activities for plastics in rivers and lakes in Germany
J. Schwaiger, P. Diehl, M. Heß, K. Kreimes, J. Mayer, H. Rahm, W. Reifenhäuser, J. Koschorreck .................................. 22
Quick scan and Prioritization of Microplastic Sources and Emissions
A. Verschoor ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Conceptual considerations on the environmental risk assessment of microplastics
K. Duis, A. Coors ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Monitoring of Riverine Litter ‒ Options and Recommendations
G. Hanke, D. González‐Fernández, L. Oosterbaan, M. Holzhauer, B. Bellert, G. Tweehuysen, A. Palatinus,
R. Thompson, P. Hohenblum ........................................................................................................................ 36
Plastics and the Society
A. L. Andrady ............................................................................................................................................. 38
RIMMEL: the RIverine and Marine floating macro litter Monitoring and Modelling of
Environmental Loading
D. González‐Fernández, G. Hanke .................................................................................................................. 39
Citizen science for riverine monitoring
J.‐B. Dussaussois ........................................................................................................................................ 41
Trashbusters H2O – Crash the Trash! A youth Project for Clean Waters
E. Lange ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Plastics as a systemic risk of social‐ecological supply systems
J. Kramm, C. Völker ..................................................................................................................................... 46
The New Plastics Economy ‒ Rethinking the future of plastics
M. De Smet ............................................................................................................................................... 51
European overview on management options and measures in place for plastics in freshwater
environments
P. Hohenblum, A. Verschoor, B. Bänsch‐Baltruschat, E. Breuninger, G. Reifferscheid, J. Koschorreck ............................ 55
Regional Action Plans to combat marine litter including inputs from rivers
S. Werner ................................................................................................................................................. 64
Chances and limitations of standardisation for managing plastics in the environment
R. Baunemann ........................................................................................................................................... 65
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
4
Abstracts: Panel discussion on monitoring ............................................................................................. 69
Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in the Netherlands
M. van der Meulen, D. Vethaak, C. Chrzanowski ............................................................................................... 70
Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in German federal states
C. Laforsch ................................................................................................................................................ 73
Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in Switzerland
F. Faure .................................................................................................................................................... 75
Monitoring of plastics in German federal waterways
G. Reifferscheid ......................................................................................................................................... 78
Abstracts: Poster Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 81
Microplastics in an urban environment: sources and receiving water .......................................................... 82
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of microplastic and pigment particles in freshwater .......................... 83
A ’living laboratory’ for the microplastic pollution research in the Finnish Lake District: Lake
Kallavesi and the City of Kuopio ........................................................................................................... 84
Monitoring and interventions for riverine litter (case the Lys, Flanders) ...................................................... 85
Microplastics in inland waterways and coastal waters – origin, fate, and impact ........................................ 86
Waste in German rivers Input‐ and Output‐pathways, Amount, Key Figures and Avoidance
Measures .............................................................................................................................................. 87
An initial study of microplastics in Irish freshwater and wastewaters ........................................................... 88
Monitoring beach macro litter utilizing MARLIN beach litter monitoring method and
crowdsourcing ...................................................................................................................................... 89
Abstracts: Poster Sources and risk characterization ................................................................................................... 91
From Land to Sea – a model for recording land‐based plastic waste ............................................................ 92
Growing threat in a throwaway society Pathways and physico‐chemical properties of river‐
relevant plastics and microplastics ....................................................................................................... 93
Understanding the fragmentation pattern of microplastics from the North Atlantic Gyre ........................... 94
Marine plastic litter: the missing nano‐fraction ............................................................................................. 95
Microbial colonization of microplastics and other particles from commercial cosmetic products ............... 96
Biofilm on plastic is a low‐quality food resource for the grazer Radix balthica (Gastropoda) ...................... 97
Analysis of microplastic particles in bivalves samples .................................................................................... 98
Uptake and elimination of HD‐PE microplastics in the digestive system of M. edulis ................................... 99
Delicious plastic? Do freshwater mussels ingest microplastic under field conditions? ............................... 100
PET microplastics have no long‐term effects on the freshwater amphipod Gammarus pulex ................... 101
Effects of pristine microplastic particles on the water flea Daphnia magna: A laboratory approach
as basis for more complex scenarios .................................................................................................. 102
Size‐dependent uptake of microplastics in Daphnia magna ........................................................................ 103
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
5
Abstracts: Poster Management options ..................................................................................................................... 105
Innovative approaches to reduce fibres discharged in textile washing processes ...................................... 106
Test to assess and prevent the emission of primary synthetic microplastics (primary microplastics) ........ 107
Optimized materials and processes for the separation of microplastic from the water cycle ‒ OEMP ...... 108
Abstracts: Poster Analytics ............................................................................................................................................ 109
Defining the baselines and standards for microplastics analyses in European waters
(JPI‐O BASEMAN) ................................................................................................................................ 110
Microplastic content in freshwater – an easy and cost‐efficient analysis approach ................................... 112
Identification of Small Microplastic Particles (<500 µm) in Water Samples by FT‐IR Micro‐
Spectroscopy and Imaging – Possibilities & Challenges ..................................................................... 113
Development of Standard Operating Procedures for Sampling of Microplastic in Waste Water
Treatment Plants ................................................................................................................................ 114
A simple and effective method for the detection of microplastics in fish stomachs and larvae ................. 115
Analytical studies on the formation of biofilms on plastic film in freshwater systems ............................... 116
Microplastics from personal care products – Potential detection bias in visual sorting ............................. 117
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
6
Information about the conference
Conference coordination:
Jan Koschorreck
German Environment Agency (UBA), Berlin
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Conference organisation and contact for inquiries:
Beate Bänsch‐Baltruschat
German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)
E‐mail contact: Baensch‐[email protected]
21‐22 June 2016
Venue:
Federal Press Office/Bundespresseamt (BPA)
Reichstagufer 14
10117 Berlin
Germany
TheobjectiveofthisconferenceistoexchangeknowledgeonplasticsinEuropeanfreshwaterenvi‐ronmentsandtodiscussitsenvironmentalandsocietalimplications.
Stakeholdersfromregulation,non‐governmentalorganisations,industry,waterresourcesmanage‐ment,wastemanagementandsciencewillpresentlecturesandposters.
Invitedspeakerswillpresentlecturesonvarioustopics,includingsourcesandsinks,environmentalconcern,riskperceptionandmanagementoptions.
TheconferenceisorganisedbytheGermanEnvironmentAgency(UBA)andtheGermanFederalInsti‐tuteofHydrology(BfG)onbehalfoftheFederalMinistryfortheEnvironment,NatureConservation,BuildingandNuclearSafety(BMUB).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
7
Abstracts:
Oral Presentations
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
8
EU activities and plans to address plastics and microplastics in the aquatic environment
Helen Clayton
DG Environment, European Commission, Brussels
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Abstract
AbroadandsystematicapproachatEuropeanUnionleveltoaddressingtheissueofplastics–includ‐ingmicroplastics‒intheenvironmentcamewiththeadoptionin2013oftheCommission'sGreenPaperonaEuropeanStrategyonPlasticWasteintheEnvironment.ThisandtheconsultationonitfedintothedevelopmentoftheCircularEconomyPackageadoptedbytheCommissionin2015.ThispackageincludesaCircularEconomyActionPlanforeseeingtheadoptionofastrategyonplasticinacirculareconomy,andincludingatargettoreducemarinelitterby30%by2020,aswellasproposalsforrevisionofthewastelegislation,i.e.arevisedLandfillDirective,WasteFrameworkDirectiveandPackagingandPackagingWasteDirective,allwitharoletoplayinreducingthequantityofplasticwastereachingtheenvironment.ADirectiveaimedatreducingtheconsumptionanddisposaloflightweightplasticbagswasagreedin2015.Inthecontextofthe2008MarineStrategyFrameworkDirective,whichrequiresthatforGoodEnvironmentalStatusthepropertiesandquantitiesofmarinelitterdonotcauseharmtothecoastalandmarineenvironment,theCommissionhassponsoredre‐searchandcommissionedstudieslookingatrelevantsourcesofmarinelitterandatmeasuresthatcouldaddressthem.TheplasticsthatconstituteamajorproportionofthelitterinEuropeanseascomemostlyfromland‐basedsources;meaningthatfreshwatersareofcoursealsoaffected.Theextenttowhichriversarebeingpollutedbyplastics,andthemeasuresbeingtakentotackletheproblem,couldsoonbecomeclearerasaresultofinformationnowbeingrequestedfromMemberStatesundertheWaterFrameworkDirective.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
9
Plastics in Freshwater Environments: From monitoring to management options ‒ how can we get there?
Lilian Busse, Jan Koschorreck
Umweltbundesamt, Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau‐Roßlau
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction ‒ State of play
Plasticshavebecomeanintegralpartofmodernsocietyandeverydaylife.Thefirstplasticpolymerswerecommerciallydevelopedinthe1940s.Numerousnewtypeshavebeeninventedoverthelastdecades.Theworldwideannualproductionofplasticpolymershasincreasedexponentiallyfrom1.5milliontonsin1950toaround300milliontonstoday.
Researchersfirstreporteddetectingsmallpiecesofplasticinthemarineenvironmentintheearly1970s,whenworldwideplasticproductionwasat50milliontonsperyear(Carpenteretal.,1972).Sincethenplasticshavebeenfoundglobally,includingremoteregionsandarenowrecognizedasaseriousissueofconcernformarineecosystems(UBA,2013).In2004,scientistsidentifiedmicroscopicplasticfragmentsandfibresinsedimentsamplesfromtheUK(Thompson,2004).Thesefindingsledtothedistinctionoflargeandsmallplasticparticlesaccordingtotheirsize.Today,plasticparticlesarecategorisedintonano‐(<0.1mm),micro‐(0.1‐5mm),meso‐(5‐25mm)andmacroplastics(>25mm).
Plastichasbecomeanestablishedissueinmarineecosystemhealthandissubjecttoscientificandregulatoryinterest.Bycomparison,monitoringeffortsofplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsweregivenlessattention.Firstresultswerereportedin2012(Faure,2012)andsincethenseveralriversandlakeshavebeeninvestigatedinelevenEuropeancountries(UBA,2016).MostoftheavailabledataontheoccurrenceoffreshwaterplasticpollutionisfromCentralEuropeandScandinaviawhereasdataarelargelymissingforSouthernandEasternEurope.Ingeneral,monitoringstudiesfocusedmoreonmicroplastics,andlessdataarepresentformeso‐andmacroplasticparticles.Therearenotemporaltrendsavailableonplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments.Samplesfromenvironmentalspecimenbanksmaybeanoptionforretrospectivetrendanalysis.
Sofar,thereareonlyfeweffectsdataavailableonmeso‐andmacroplasticitemsandfreshwaterspe‐cies.Incontrast,arangeofstudieshaveinvestigatedtheeffectsoflargeplasticparticlesone.g.marineseabirds,musselsandcoastalfish.Atleast690specieswerereportedtohaveencounteredmarinedebrisand92%oftheindividualencounterswithmarinedebriswererelatedtoplastic(Gall,2015).Recently,theMarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveestablishedplasticparticlesinfulmars’stomachsasanenvironmentalindicatortotakeaccountoftheirpotentialhazards(Galgani,2013).Thereislike‐wisemuchmoreinformationavailableonthepotentialeffectsofmicroplasticsinthemarineenviron‐mentthanitisforfreshwaterecosystems.
Inadditiontothelackofmonitoringdata,thedatathatareavailableareoftennotcomparablebecauseastandardisationismissingofcollecting,processing,analysingandreportingofplasticparticlesofdifferentsizesinenvironmentalsamples.Atthemoment,fundingagenciesarereluctanttosupportfurtherinvestigationsuntilharmonisedapproachesareavailable.
Allmacroplasticandallprimarymicroplasticsareproducedonshorewhilefragmentationfromlargertosmallersecondaryplasticparticlesmayoccurinallenvironmentalcompartments.Itisestimated
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
10
thatupto80%oftheplasticwastefoundinthemarineenvironmentoriginatedfromlandsources(UNEP,2005).Plasticwasteinputsfromcoastalareasintotheoceanswereestimatedtobecloseto9.1millionmetrictonsin2015(Jambeck,2015).TheauthorsoftheEUstudy‘IdentificationandAs‐sessmentofRiverineInputof(Marine)Litter’anticipatethatintheabsenceofmitigationmeasures,anyregionwithlargeriverscanbeconsideredtosubstantiallycontributetomarinepollution(vanderWal,2015).Thisassumptioncanbeextendedtolakesandsedimentbeds,astheyarealsosinksofriv‐erinepollution.Itisthereforesurprisingthatonlyveryfewspatialandtemporaldataareavailableformicro‐,meso‐andmacroplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsandthatonlyverylittleisknownabouttheriverineinputintothemarinecompartment.
Tosummarisethemonitoringsituationformicro‐,meso‐andmacroplasticsinEuropeanriversandlakes:
dataqualityisambiguoussincestandardsaremissingforsampling,processingandanalysis,
consistentspatialdatafromrepresentativesamplingsitesandtemporaltrendsaremissing,
monitoringismostlydirectedatmicroplastics,meso‐andmacroparticlesareoftenignored,
verylittleisknownontheeffectsofmicroplasticsinfreshwaterorganismsandnodataareavaila‐bleformeso‐andmacroplastics,
scaleandsizedistributionofplasticriverineinputislargelyunknown.
2 What is the way forward?
TherecentSpecialEurobarometer(EU,2014)showedthatairpollution,waterpollution,healthimpactofchemicalsinproductsandthegrowingamountofwastearesprimaryconcernsofEuropeanciti‐zens.Alloftheseconcernscanbelinkedtoplastics.Itisthereforenosurprisethatplasticsinfreshwa‐terenvironmentsquicklybecameanissueinthepublicandthemediaafterscientistshadpublishedfirstresults.Non‐governmentalorganisationsstarteddiscussingtheplasticissueintheircampaignsforcleanriversandlakesandinitiatedcleanupcampaignsincludingcitizenscienceprojectstoquanti‐fyplasticpollution.SeveralwaterandenvironmentagenciesinEuropeancountrieshaveinitiatedin‐dividualscreeningstudiesonplasticsinselectedfreshwaterbodies.Itisencouragingtoseetheseini‐tiatives.However,sofaraconsistentapproachismissingtogiveacompletepictureofthesituationinEurope.
Regulatoryagencieshavethepotentialtoactjointlyandprovideconsistencybymakinguseoftheex‐istingwatermanagementinfrastructureinEurope.EnvironmentandWateragenciesshouldworkonarepresentativemonitoringoverviewonthespatialandtemporalplasticpollutioninfreshwaterenvi‐ronments,identifythepotentialecologicalrisksandhazards,andinitiatediscussionsonpotentialmanagementoptionstoreducetheplasticinput.
3 How can we achieve a representative overview on plastics in European freshwater environments?
Fromaregulatoryperspective,therearethreemainincentivestogeneratespatio‐temporalmonitor‐ingdataforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments.
1. Currently,therearenotenoughdatainEuropetocharacterizethespatialsituationforevaluatingthepotentialrisksandhazardsofplasticsinriverineandlakeecosystems.Dataaremissingatallscales:fortheEUasawhole,forindividualMemberStatesaswellasfortransboundaryandfornationalfreshwatersystems.Thefewavailableandtheupcomingmonitoringdataareatrisktobeflawedsincestandardoperatingproceduresaremissing.Withinenvironmentandwatermanage‐
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
11
mentagenciesthereisagreatpotentialtofocus,prioritizeandapplyexistingmonitoringexpertise.Thisexpertisewasestablishedoverthelastdecadesinregulatorymonitoringprogrammesfore.g.chemicalsandnutrients(EU,2000;EU,2008a).Astartingpointmaybetoagreeonsizeclassesforplasticparticlesandprotocolsforsampling,processingandanalysingtheseparticlesinacon‐sistentmanner.Itwouldalsobehelpfultosetupacentraliseddatabaseforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsandprovidetemplatesfordatacollection.Theexistinginfrastructurecouldthenbeusedtoprioritisefurtherstudiesandgatherarepresentativeoverviewonplasticpollutioninfreshwaterecosystems.
2. TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD;EU,2008b)requirestheidentificationandquantificationofsourcesofmarinelitter.Reportingofriverineinputincludesinformationonthepattern,sizesandamountsofplasticparticlesinriversandlakes,intherivermouthsandestua‐rineregions(EC,2010).Extensivestudiesareneededtounderstandtheseasonaldifferencesinamountsandpatternsofriverineplasticinput.Theseinvestigationsshouldcovermicro‐,meso‐andmacroplastics,includingplasticlitter.Mostlikely,moredatawillbeneededfromtheupstreamriverbasinstofullyunderstandtheprocessesintheriver/seaconnection.Itisthereforecrucialthatthemonitoringcommunitiesforfreshwaterandthemarinecompartmentfindcommontermsanddefinitionsforplasticsintheenvironmentandagreeonappropriatestandardsformonitoringandanalysingplasticparticlesinenvironmentalsamples.
3. Monitoringplasticsintheenvironmentshouldbelinkedtotheidentificationofrelevantsources,exposureroutesandtransformationpathways.Asanexample,somedataareavailableonplasticineffluentsofsewagetreatmentplants(e.g.Gerdts,2014)andofpolymerprocessingindustry(Lechner,2014).Localauthorities,watercompaniesandplasticindustryhavestarteddiscussingpotentialmeasuresandprogrammestoreducethereleaseofplasticparticlesintofreshwatercompartments,e.g.inAustria(BMLFUW,2015a,b).Anyresultingvoluntaryorregulatoryactionneedstobeaccompaniedbymonitoringprogrammestocontroltheefficiencyofsuchmeasures.Likewise,anyenvironmentalstandardorlimitforplasticsinfreshwaterbodiesneedstobecom‐paredagainstsoundmonitoringresultsincompliancemonitoringprogrammes.Tobeconsistentandeffective,suchmonitoringprogrammesshouldbeframedintheregulatoryconceptsofEuro‐peanwatermanagement.
4 How can we identify potential risks and hazards?
Atpresent,riskevaluationofplasticsinthefreshwatercompartmentishamperedbyboth,insufficientexposureandeffectsdata.Theproblemforregulationisobvious,sincetheconceptofsimpleriskchar‐acterisation,whichisusedinchemicalandwatermanagement,dependsonanexposureassessmentwithamodelledormeasuredenvironmentalconcentrationforachemicalsubstance(EC,2003).Thenthisnumberiscomparedagainstaconcentrationatwhichnoeffectsareexpectedtooccurandwhichhasbeenderivedforasetofrepresentativeorganismsfortheecosystemofconcern.Otherapproach‐es,likethehazardbasedconceptforpersistent,bioaccumulativeandtoxic(PBT)chemicalsalsorelyondetailedinformationfromlaboratorytestsonthefate,behaviourandeffectsofasubstanceintheenvironmentsubstance.
Awealthofplasticpolymersandtheirenvironmentaltransformationproductscanbeexpectedintheenvironment.Discussionsareneededinordertoshowhowthepotentialtoxicandbioaccumulativepropertiesofthesecompoundscanbeadequatelyaddressed.Sofar,effectsdataforriskassessmentofplasticsinriversandlakesaremissing.Ithasbeenquestionedwhetherthestandardtestguidelinescurrentlyusedinriskassessmentareappropriateformicro‐,meso‐ormacroplasticparticles.Anewtoolboxofsubstancetailoredtestsmaybeneededforriskassessmentsinceexistingguidelineshavebeendevelopedfortheriskcharacterisationofinorganicandorganicpollutantsbutnotforplasticmono‐andpolymers(Duis,2016).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
12
Atpresent,thebroadlyacceptedenvironmentalconcernforplasticsarethepersistentpropertiesofmostpolymersonthemarket.Plasticmaymechanicallybefragmentedfromlargerintosmallerparti‐cles.However,fragmentationonlyresultsinalargeramountofsmallerparticlesanddoesnotreducetheoverallamountintheenvironment.Environmentaldegradation,i.e.mineralisationofplasticpoly‐merstocompletelyoxidizedmetabolitesisaverylongprocessfromtenstohundredsofyearswhichisstillnotfullyunderstood.Ithasthereforebeenassumedthatmostplastic,whichhasenteredtheenvi‐ronment,isstillpresentintheenvironment,eitherasunfragmentedorasfragmentedparticles(Thompson,2005).
StartingwithacollaborativeEuropeanactivityitmaywellbepossibletogeneratearepresentativeoverviewonplasticfreshwaterpollutioninthenextyears.However,itwillremainamuchbiggerchal‐lengetocharacterisetheshortandlongtermeffectsofplasticsintheaquaticenvironment.Thecom‐munitiesinvolvedineffectsassessmentofplasticsinthemarineandfreshwatercompartmentshouldworkcloselytogether.Discussionsareneededontherelevantparametersandendpointsfortoxicitytestingandonthepotentialreadacrossofeffectsdatafrommarinetofreshwaterorganisms,andviceversa.
5 How can we bridge the gap to management options?
Tosumupthesituationforplasticsintheenvironment:Plasticconsumptionisgrowingataglobalscaleandtheplasticentertheterrestrial,freshwaterandmarineenvironment,includingremotere‐gions.Inaddition,mostplasticpolymersareverypersistentintheenvironment.Largerplasticparti‐clescanmechanicallyfragmenttosmallerplasticparticlesbutcompletebiologicaldegradationisex‐pectedtotakemanydecades.Weneedtoimproveourunderstandingoftheexposuresituationsignifi‐cantlyoverthenextfewyearsbymakinguseofexistingmonitoringinfrastructure.However,itisex‐pectedtotakemuchlongertosufficientlycharacterisetheeffectsofplasticsintheenvironmentanditsfoodwebs.Currently,noestablishedtechnologycanremoveplasticsfromtheaquaticecosystemsoncetheyhaveenteredtheenvironment.Consequently,plasticparticleswillcontinuetoaccumulateinma‐rineandfreshwaterenvironments.Finally,theecologicalconsequencesofplasticsintheenvironmentareuncertain.
Theuseoftheprecautionaryprinciplepromotespreventiveactioninthefaceofuncertainty.Com‐monsenseaphorismssuchas‘anounceofpreventionisworthapoundofcure’or‘bettersafethansorry’capturetheessenceoftheprinciple.Theprecautionaryapproachbecomesparticularlyim‐portantwhendealingwithproblemsoflargetemporalorspatialscales,whereuncertaintiesinvolvedinpredictionofriskarenecessarilyhighandwillremainsoevenwithcontinuingresearch(Cairns,2003).TheLisbonTreaty(EU,2007)statesthat‘TheCommunitypolicyontheenvironment...shallbebasedontheprecautionaryprincipleandontheprinciplesthatpreventativeactionshouldbetak‐en,thatenvironmentaldamageshouldasapriorityberectifiedatsourceandthatthepollutershouldpay.’Itrecognizesthatdelayingactionuntilthereiscompellingevidenceofharmwilloftenmeanthatitisthentoocostlyorimpossibletoavertthethreat.
Raffensperger(1999)listedfourcentralcomponentsoftheprecautionaryprinciplewhichmayserveastheleitmotifforthemanagementsessioninthisconference:
1. Takingpreventiveactioninthefaceofuncertainty;2. Shiftingtheburdenofprooftotheproponentsoftheactivity;3. Exploringawiderangeofalternatives…;and4. Increasingpublicparticipationindecision‐making.
Inpreparationoftheconferenceonplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments,aquestionnairewassenttoEuropeanwateragencies.Answerscoveredmonitoringstudies,riskawarenessandmanagement
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
13
options.Overviewsontheregulatorystateofplaywillbepresentedatthisconference.Professionalsfromoutsidethefreshwaterregulatorycommunitywilladdexperiencesfromenvironmentalmonitor‐ingandriskassessment(includingthemarinecompartment).Expertsonriskcommunicationandmanagementwillreportfromcitizenscienceprojects,environmentalcampaigning,wastedisposalandplasticcirculareconomy,andfromstandardisation.Discussionsbetweenthecommunitiesshouldbe‐comeaspringboardforfutureexchangesregardingappropriatemeasuresforplasticsintheenviron‐ment.
6 Literature Andrady AL (2011): Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 1596‐1605
BMLFUW (2015a): 10 Punkte ‐ Maßnahmenprogramm für die Qualität der Donau
BMLFUW (2015b): Pakt „Zero Pellet Loss“
Cairns, (2003): Interrelationships between the precautionary principle, prediction strategies, and sustainable use of the planet.
Environ Health Perspect 111:877–880 (2003)
Carpenter EJ, Smith KL Jr wet al. (1972): Plastics on the Sargasso sea surface. Science 175(4027):1240–1241
Duis K, Coors A (2016): Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: sources (with a specific focus on personal care
products), fate and effects. Environ Sci Eur 28, 2
European Commission (2014): Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment—Special Eurobarometer 416 Brussels:
European Commission; Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf. Accessed 2016 May 26.
European Commission (2003): "Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for
new notified substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances and Commission
Directive (EC) 98/8 on biocides. 2nd Edition."
European Commission (2010): 2010/477/EU: Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards
on good environmental status of marine waters (notified under document C(2010) 5956)
European Union (2000): Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000 P. 0001 ‐ 0073
European Union (2007): Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Com‐
munity, 13 December 2007, 2007/C 306/01
European Union, (2008a): Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Environ‐
mental Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy, as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU
European Union (2008b): Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
Faure F et al. (2012): Pollution due to plastics and microplastics in Lake Geneva and in the Mediterranean Sea. Arch. Sci. 65, 157‐
164,
Galgani, F. et al. (2013): Marine litter within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. – ICES Journal of Marine Science,
70: 1055–1064
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C (2015): The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 92, Issues 1–2, 15 March
2015, Pages 170–179
Gerdts, G. (2015): Mikroplastik in ausgewählten Kläranlagen des Oldenburgisch‐Ostfriesischen Wasserverbandes (OOWV) in Nie‐
dersachsen , 27. Hamburger Kolloquium zur Abwasserwirtschaft, Hamburg, 29 September 2015 ‐ 30 September 2015
Jambeck, J.R. et al. (2015): Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Vol. 347, Issue 6223, pp. 768‐771
Lechner A. et al. (2014): The Danube so colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe's second largest
river. Environmental Pollution. Volume 188, May 2014, Pages 177–181
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
14
Plastics Europe (2013): Plastics ‐ the Facts An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data. . Plastics
Europe, Association of Plastic Manufacturers, Brussels, p40
Raffensberger, Carolyn and Joel Tickner, eds. (1999): Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precaution‐
ary Principle. Washington, D.C.: Island Press
Science for Environment Policy (2016) Identifying emerging risks for environmental policies. Future Brief 13. Produced for the Euro‐
pean Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol
Thompson R, et al. (2004) Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 304(5672):838.
Thompson R, et al. (2005) New directions in plastic debris. Science 310:1117
UBA (2013): Issue Paper to the "International Conference on Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in European Seas".
http://www.marine‐litter‐conference‐berlin.info/userfiles/file/Issue%20Paper_Final%20Version.pdf, accessed 27.05.2016.
UNEP (2005): Marine Litter ‐ An Analytical Overview
van der Wal et al. (2015): SFRA0025: Identification and Assessment of Riverine Input of (Marine) Litter. Final Report for the Europe‐
an Commission DG Environment under Framework Contract No ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0025
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
15
How concerned should we be about plastic litter in freshwater systems?
Richard Thompson
School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, United Kingdom
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Plasticlitterpresentsaglobalenvironmentalproblemwithconsequencesforhumanhealth,theecon‐omyandwildlife.Inthemarineenvironmentlitterispervasivethroughoutouroceansfromthepolestotheequatorandfromseasurfaceandshorelinetothedeepsea.Itishazardoustoseafarersresultinginunnecessarycoastguardandrescuecalloutsandhassubstantialeconomicconsequencesforthelocalauthoritiesresponsibleforclean‐up.Perhapsmostwidelydocumentedareencounterswithwild‐lifewhichcanresultindirectharmanddeath.Wellover600speciesoforganismsarereportedtoen‐countermarinelitterandthemajorityoftheseencountersarewithplasticitems.Freshwatersystemsareconsideredtorepresentimportantpathwaysfortheinputofdebristotheoceans(Figure1).Yetourunderstandingabouttheaccumulation,transportandimpactsoflitterinfreshwatersystemslagsbehindthatofthemarineenvironment.Thispresentationwillsummarisecurrentscientificunder‐standingabouttheaccumulationandpotentialenvironmentalconsequencesofmicroplasticdebris.Exampleswillbedrawnfrombothmarineandfreshwaterhabitats.
Figure 1: Diagram showing potential transfer pathways of microplastics in freshwater. Source (with permission) Eerkes‐Medrano et al., 2015
Inthelongertermtheaccumulationoflitterinterrestrial,freshwaterandmarinehabitats,isanenvi‐ronmentalproblemthatcanbesolved.Inthemarineenvironment,themajorityoftheitemsthatbe‐comelitteraresingleusedisposableitemsincludingpackagingandsewagerelateddebris.Suchitemscanbringconsiderablesocietalbenefit,forexampleintermsoffoodsecurityandlightweightingtoreducefuelusage,howeverthesebenefitscanallberealisedwithouttheneedforanyemissionsof
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
16
littertotheocean.Hencethelongtermsolutionslieinrecognisingthatifdesigned,usedanddisposedofappropriately,thenend‐of‐lifeitemsthatcurrentlyaccumulateinwastemanagementfacilitiesandaslitterinthenaturalenvironmentcanbeusedasaresourceforproductionofnewproducts.Workingtowardacirculareconomyofthiskindwillhelpreduceourrelianceonnon‐renewableresourcesandsimultaneouslyreducethequantityofwasterequiringdisposal.
References Eerkes‐Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C. & Aldridge, D. C. 2015 Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats,
identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research 75, 63‐82.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
17
Overview on plastics in European freshwater environments ‒ Results of a survey
Georg Reifferscheid, Beate Bänsch‐Baltruschat, Nicole Brennholt,
Esther Breuninger, Stefanie Hatzky
German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
Theaccumulationofplasticinaquaticenvironmentsisoneofthemajorchallengesforriskassessmentandmanagementoptions.Sofar,riskawarenessaswellasresearchhasbeenmainlyfocusedonplas‐ticsinthemarineenvironment.Whilenumerousstudiesandreportsonplasticsinthemarineenvi‐ronmenthavebeenpublishedmuchlessisknownaboutoccurrenceandecologicalrisksofthesema‐terialsinriversandlakes.
However,thenumberofmonitoringstudiesonplasticsinEuropeanfreshwaterenvironmentsisgrad‐uallygrowing.Severalscientificshort‐termstudieswerereportedreferringtotheoccurrenceofmi‐croplasticsinvariousEuropeanfreshwaters.ThesestudiescoveredamongothersfreshwatersinAus‐tria(DanubeRiver),France(e.g.RiversMarneandSeine),Germany(RiverRhineandtributaries,Riv‐ersWeser,Main,Elbe),Italy(e.g.LakeGarda),theNetherlands(e.g.RiversMeuseandRhine,andLakeIjssel),Switzerland(e.g.RhineRiverandLakeGeneva),andUnitedKingdom(e.g.RiverThames)1.Measurementscomprisedvariouscompartmentslikewatersurfaceandcolumn,sedimentsandbiota.Thereportedinvestigationsdifferedintheappliedmethodsofsampling,sampletreatmentandanaly‐sis.
InordertoprepareanoverviewonmonitoringandeffectstudiesaswellasonriskperceptionandmanagementoptionsreferringtoplasticsinEuropeanfreshwatersasurveyonthecurrentstatusofEuropeanactivitieswasconducted.
2 Methods
Thequestionnaire,consistingofoverall11questions,wassenttotherepresentativesoftheEuropeancountriesintheStrategicCoordinationGroup(SCG).TheSCGcoordinatesandgivesadvicetotheCommonImplementationStrategy(CIS)oftheEuropeanWaterFrameworkDirective.Besidesthe28EUmemberstherepresentativesofsixotherEuropeancountriesincludingIceland,Montenegro,Norway,Serbia,SwitzerlandandTurkeywereaddressed.41%ofthesecountries(totalof14)partici‐patedinthesurvey.Thereceivedresponsesandreferencesweresupplementedwithaliteraturere‐search.InitiatedbytheGermanEnvironmentAgency(UBA),theGermantranslationofthequestion‐nairewassenttoallfederalstatesofGermanyinthescopeofaseparatenationalsurvey.TheresultsweresummarizedinagreementwithUBAtoonerepresentativeresponsewhichwasalsoconsideredinthepresentEuropeansurvey.Apartfrombothsurveys,areportwassubmittedbytheFinnishnon‐profitorganisation“KeeptheArchipelagoTidyAssociation”(KAT).TheoutcomesofthisreportwerealsoincludedintotheresultsoftheEuropeansurvey.
1Hohenblumetal.,2015,Gasperietal.,2014,Wagneretal,2014,Kleinetal.,2015,Laforschetal.,2015,Imhofetal.,2013,Brandsmaetal.,2015,Manietal.,2015,Faureetal.,2012,Morrittetal.,2014
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
18
Thequestionnairecomprisedtencontentquestionsofwhichthefirstsevenrelatedtomonitoringstudies,riverineloadsandriverineinputsintothemarinecompartment,mainsourcesandpathwaysofplastics,andeffectstudies.Questions8to10referredtotheissuesofriskperceptionandmanage‐mentoptions.Thecorrespondinganswersaresummarizedintheabstract“EuropeanOverviewonManagementOptionsandmeasuresinplaceforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments”byHohenblumetal.
3 Results
Theresultsofthesurveyasfarastheytouchquestions1to7wereassignedtothefourtopics:monitoringstudies(3.1),riverineloadsandriverineinputsintothemarinecompartment(3.2),mainsourcesandpathways(3.3),andeffectandbiotamonitoringstudies(3.4).
3.1 Completed, ongoing and planned monitoring studies on plastics in freshwater environments
Question1:Areinvestigationsperformedinyourcountryonplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments?
Question2:Aredetailsavailableoncompletedandongoingmonitoringstudies?
Question6:Aretherefurtherplansformonitoringactivitiesonanationallevelforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments?
Completedstudies
CompletedstudieswerereportedbythesurveyparticipantsofAustria(RiverDanube),Belgium(RiverLeie),Germany(RiverRhineandfourtributaries,RiverWeser),andtheNetherlands(RiverRhineestuaries)(Hohenblumetal.(2015),Craenenbroecketal.(2014),Laforsch(2015),Leslieetal.(2013).Inaddition,theNetherlandssurveyparticipantreferredtovarioustransboundarymonitoringstudiesincludingNetherlandsfreshwatersliketheRiversRhineandMeuseandtheLakeIjssel(Manietal.(2015),Urgert(2015),Brandsmaetal.(2015)).AstudybyvanderWaletal.(2014)coveredriv‐ersintheNetherlands(Rhine),Italy(Po),Romania(Danube)andSweden(Dalålven).InFinlandmoni‐toringoflitterinfreshwaterswasperformedinacitizenscienceproject.
Ongoingandplannedstudies
Beyondthealreadyconductedstudies,severalfurthermonitoringprogrammesonplasticsinfreshwa‐terenvironmentsareongoing,currentlyscheduledorunderdiscussion.57%ofthesurveypartici‐pants,whorepresentedAustria,Belgium,Denmark,Germany,Lithuania,Luxembourg,theNetherlandsandPortugal,statedfurtherplansformonitoringstudies.
3.2 Riverine loads of plastics and riverine inputs into the marine compartment
Question4:Aretheredataonriverineloadsofplastics?
Question5:Aretheredataonriverineinputsintothemarinecompartment?
Theavailabilityofdataonriverineloadsofplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentswasreportedbyfourofthe14surveyedEuropeancountriesincludingAustria,Belgium,Germany,andtheNetherlands.TheparticipantsfromDenmark,Germany,LatviaandtheNetherlandsstatedthatdataexistsonriverineinputsintothemarineenvironment.
Hohenblumetal.(2015)estimatedtheriverineloadoftheAustrianDanubeaslessthan17t/yearformicroplastics(<5mm)andlessthan41t/aforthetotalplasticload1.Inthecontextofthemicroplastic
1NospecificationofsizerangefortotalplasticloadinHohenblumetal.(2015)
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
19
profilealongtheRiverRhine,Manietal.(2015)extrapolatedadailydischargeof192Mioparticles(atandbeneaththesurface)intotheNorthSeabasedonconcentrationmeasurementsofaone‐daysam‐plingatRees(LowerRhine,Germany).TheamountofriverinelitterinputsoffourselectedEuropeanriversdischargedintotheconnectingseaswasassessedbyvanderWaletal.(2014).Table1showstheresultsoftheseestimationsfortheRiverDalålven(BalticSea),RiverRhine(NorthSea),RiverPo(MediterraneanSea),andRiverDanube(BlackSea).
Table 1: Estimates of riverine inputs of plastics to the marine environment
Manta net
(micro particles < 5 mm) Waste Free Water Sampler (meso particles > 5 mm)
particles/year t/year particles/year
Dalålven 5 * 1010
Rhine I 30 * 1010 20 3 * 108
Rhine II 10 * 1010 31 0.8 * 108
Po 70 * 1010 120 7 * 108
Danube 200* 1010 530 100 * 108
Remark: For the River Dalålven no WFW samples were collected since the location was not suited for this equipment set up. Sampling at the Rhine River was conducted two times (Data source: van der Wal et al. (2014)).
3.3 Main sources and pathways for plastics in the freshwater environments
Question3:Whatarethemainsourcesandpathwaysforplasticsinthefreshwaterenvironmentofyourcountry?
Theresultsshowasignificantperceptionoflandscapelitteringasthemainsourceofplasticinfresh‐waterenvironments,about70%ofsurveyparticipantsselectedthisoption.Additionally,theoption“Unknown”waschosenin50%oftheansweredquestionnaires.Theremainingselectionsofmainsourcesandpathwayswereselectedinfewerthan50%ofthequestionnairesincluding‘StormWater’,‘TireAbrasions’,‘Others’,‘WasteWater’and‘IndustrialEmissions’(inthatorder).
Fortwocountries,DenmarkandtheNetherlands,comprehensiveinventoriesofthesourcesofpri‐maryandsecondarymicroplasticsreleasedintotheaquaticenvironmentwereestimated(Lassenetal.(2015),Verschooretal.(2015)).Inaddition,Verschoorelaboratedaprioritisationlistoflandbasedsourcesofmicroplasticswhichcanfacilitatefuturemanagementoptionstoreducetheinputsofplas‐ticsintotheenvironment.
3.4 Effect and biota monitoring studies
Question7:Aretherestudiesoneffectsofplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments?
TwostudiesonthemicroplasticcontaminationoffishfromtheRiverDanubewerereportedbytheAustriansurveyparticipant.InthestudybyHohenblumetal.(2015)nofindingsofmicroplasticsintheintestinesof30organismsfishindividuals(species:BarbusbarbusandLeuciscuscephalus)wererecorded.Lumesberger‐LoislandGumpinger(2015)statedthatinthedigestivetractsofonlytwoof840fishindividualsmicroplasticswerefound(oneparticleineachindividual).InDenmark,Germany,Ireland,andtheNetherlands(researchprojectTRAMP)studiesoneffectsofmicroplasticsonaquaticorganismsareongoingorplanned,resp.FurtherstudieswereconductedinFranceandSwitzerland,whichdidnotparticipateintheEuropeansurvey.InFrance186wildgudgeonsfromtendifferentstreamswereinvestigated.12%oftheorganismscontainedmicroplastics(Sanchezetal.2013).Faureetal.(2012)analysed41fishindividualsandablack‐neckedgrebefromtheLakeGeneva.Noevidenceofcontaminationwasfound.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
20
Strictly,thesestudiesdonotrefertoeffectsofplasticcontaminationonfreshwaterorganisms,butcanberegardedasbiotamonitoringstudies.Onlyfeweffectstudiesonfreshwaterspeciesinthenarrowersensehavebeenperformedsofar.Forinstance,Oliveiraetal.(2013)determinedifmicroplasticsmodulateshort‐termtoxicityofcontaminants(pyrene)onPomatoschistusmicrops.Severaleffectstud‐iesdescribethetoxicityofmicroplasticsinmarineorganisms(Eerkes‐Medranoetal.2015).Itisanopenquestionwhethertheresultsofthesestudiescanbetransferredtotheeffectsofmicroplasticsonfreshwaterspecies.
4 Discussion
TheresultsoftheEuropeansurveyandtheliteratureresearchrevealthattheknowledgeofthedistri‐bution,abundanceandrisksofmicro‐,meso‐andmacroplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsisfarfromcompleteandrequiresfurtherevaluation.Differencesexistinthesizerangesofthemicroplasticparticlesdetected.Inmoststudies,particleswithasize<5mmwereinvestigatedrelatingtothegen‐erallyaccepteddefinitionoftheuppersizeboundaryofmicroplastics.However,noagreementhasbeenfoundonascientificdefinitionofthelowersizeboundarysofar.Therefore,thelowerlimitofthesizerangeconsideredvariesfromstudytostudydependingonthetypeofsamplingmethodsandthesensitivityoftheanalyticalmethodsapplied.Forinstance,byuseofaplanktonnetthemeshwidthdeterminesthesizeoftheparticlesthatarecollected.Visualinspectionofpurifiedsamplesismoresubjectivethanidentificationbyphysico‐chemicaldetectionmethodslikeFT‐IR,RamanspectroscopyorpyrolysisGC‐MS.Likewisemonitoringresultsarereportedindifferentmetricsincludingdataonthenumberofdetectedparticlesormassconcentrationswhichcanrefertowatersurfaceareaorwatervolumeorunitoftimeifwatersamplesareanalysed.Duetotheparticledensitythesamplinglocation‐watersurfaceorwatercolumn–willinfluencetheresultsofaninvestigation.Regardingthesediffer‐encesitishardlypossibletocomparethedatafromdifferentstudies.Therefore,aquantitativeevalua‐tionhowstronglyEuropeanfreshwatersarecontaminatedwithplasticscancurrentlynotbemade.
Thereareneedsforharmonizationandfurtherinvestigationsparticularlywithregardtothefollowingissues:
Sofar,agenerallyaccepteddefinitionofthelowerboundaryoftheparticlesizeismissingformicroplastics.Therefore,thesizerangeofparticles,onwhichthevariousmonitoringstudiesonfreshwaterrefer,isquitedifferentparticularlydependingonthelowerlimitofsamplingandanalyticalmethods.
Toenablethecomparisonofmonitoringdatastandardizedmethodsforsampling,sampletreatmentandparticleidentificationhavetobedeveloped.Sinceespeciallythesmallestmicro‐plasticparticlesaresuspectedtobeofspecialinterestinstudiesonorganismsitisimportanttobecapableofgatheringanddetectingparticlesmuchsmallerthan300µm.
ThecompletedandongoingmonitoringstudiesonriversandlakescoveronlyapartoftheEu‐ropeancountries.Occurrenceandloadsofplasticsinnumerousfreshwaters,amongthemma‐jorriversprobablycontributingtorelevantinputsintotheconnectingseas,havenotbeenin‐vestigatedsofar.
Furthermore,knowledgeofaccumulation,sources,sinksandenvironmentalimpactsofmicro‐,meso‐andmacroplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsiscurrentlylimited.Furtherinvestiga‐tionsarerequiredtoevaluatethepotentialphysicalandchemicalimpacts.
Incontrasttoresearchoncontaminationofmarineorganismsandeffectsonthesespeciesonlyfewstudieshavefocusedontherisksofmicro‐,meso‐andmacroplasticstofreshwaterorgan‐isms.Furtherresearchisrequiredtoanswerthequestionswhetherplasticsaretakenupbyfreshwaterspeciestoaconsiderableextent,whethertheparticlesreleasechemicals,irritateorharm.Especiallywithregardtomicroplasticsitshouldbeinvestigatediftheparticlespassmembranesandaccumulateintissues,andwhetherenrichmentinaquaticfoodwebsoccurs.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
21
Acknowledgement:ThesurveywasperformedinaprojectfundedbytheGermanEnvironmentAgency(projectnumber:3715222020).
5 Literature Brandsma SH, van Velzen MJM, Leslie HA (2015): Microplastics in North Sea marine sediment and Dutch river suspended particle matter, IVM Institut for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Craenenbroeck KV, Faasse iM, Van Cauwenberghe dL (2014): Monitoring en ingrepen op zwerfvuil in rivieren (case De Leie) Eindrapport, OVAM
Eerkes‐Medrano D, Thompson RC, Aldridge DC (2015): Microplastics in freshwater systems: a review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Researchhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135415000858
Faure F, Corbaz M, Baecher H, de Alencastro L (2012): Pollution due to plastics and microplastics in Lake Geneva and in the Mediterranean Sea. Arch. Sci. 65, 157‐164, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/186320
Gasperi J, Dris R, Bonin T, Rocher V, Tassin B (2014): Assessment of floating plastic debris in surface water along the Seine River. Environmental Pollution 195, 163‐166, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749114003807
Hohenblum P, Frischenschlager H, Reisinger H, Konecny R, Uhl M, Mühlegger S, Habersack H, Liedermann M, Gmeiner P, Weidenhiller B, Fischer N, Rindler R (2015): Plastik in der Donau ‐ Untersuchung zum Vorkommen von Kunststoffen in der Donau in Österreich. Umweltbundesamt ‐ BOKU Report REP‐0547, 1‐120,
Imhof HK, Ivleva NP, Schmid J, Niessner R, Laforsch C (2013): Contamination of beach sediments of a subalpine lake with microplastic particles. Current Biology 23, R867‐R868, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213011081
Klein S, Worch E, Knepper TP (2015): Occurrence and Spatial Distribution of Microplastics in River Shore Sediments of the Rhine‐Main Area in Germany. Environmental Science & Technologyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00492
Laforsch C (2015): Mikroplastik Analyse Nordrhein‐Westfalen, Universität Bayreuth
Lassen C, Foss Hansen S, Magnusson K, Norén F, Bloch Hartmann NI, Rehne Jensen P, Gissel Nielsen T, Brinch A (2015): Microplastics ‐ Occurrence, effects and sources of releases to the environment in Denmark. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental project No. 1793, 2015
Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Vethaak AD (2013): Microplastics survey of the Dutch environment: Novel data set of microplastics in North Sea sediments, treated wastewater effluents and marine biota, IVM Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Lumesberger‐Loisl F, Gumpinger C (2015): Mikroplastik in Fischen: Pilotstudie in der oberösterreichischen Donau, Blattfisch, Technisches Büro für Gewässerökologie DI Clemens Gumpinger, Wels,
Mani T, Hauk A, Walter U, Burkhardt‐Holm P (2015): Microplastics profile along the Rhine River. Scientific Reports 5, 17988, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17988
Morritt D, Stefanoudis PV, Pearce D, Crimmen OA, Clark PF (2014): Plastic in the Thames: A river runs through it. Marine Pollution Bulletin 78, 196‐200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.035
Urgert W (2015): Microplastics in the rivers Meuse and Rhine ‐ Developing guidance for a possible future monitoring program. Master’s thesis Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen
van der Wal M, van der Meulen M, Tweehuijsen G, Peterlin M, Palatinus A, Kovač Viršek M, Coscia L, Kržan A (2014): SFRA0025: Identification and Assessment of Riverine Input of (Marine) Litter. Final Report for the European Commission DG Environment under Framework Contract No ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0025 – Consultation Draft, 1‐172,
Verschoor A, de Poorter L, Roex E, Bellert B (2015): Quick scan and Prioritization of Microplastic Sources and Emissions. RIVM Letter report 2014‐0156, 48 p.,
Wagner M, Scherer C, Alvarez‐Muñoz D, Brennholt N, Bourrain X, Buchinger S, Fries E, Grosbois C, Klasmeier J, Marti T, Rodriguez‐Mozaz S, Urbatzka R, Vethaak AD, Winther‐Nielsen M, Reifferscheid G (2014): Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know. Environ Sci Eur 26, 1‐9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302‐014‐0012‐7
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
22
Monitoring activities for plastics in rivers and lakes in Germany
Julia Schwaiger
Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU), Wielenbach
Peter Diehl
State Environment Agency Rhineland‐Palatinate (LfU), Mainz
Maren Heß
North Rhine‐Westphalian State Agency for Nature, Environment and Consumer Protection
(LANUV NRW), Düsseldorf
Kurt Kreimes
State Institute for Environment, Measurements and Nature Conservation Baden‐
Württemberg (LUBW), Karlsruhe
Jens Mayer
Hessian Agency for Nature Conservation, Environment and Geology (HLNUG), Wiesbaden
Harald Rahm
North Rhine‐Westphalian Agency for Nature, Environment and Consumer Protection
(LANUV NRW), Düsseldorf
Werner Reifenhäuser
Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU), Augsburg
Jan Koschorreck
German Environment Agency (UBA), Berlin
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
Plasticshavebecomeanindispensablepartofourdailylifeduetoitsflexiblematerialpropertiesanddiverseapplications.In2012,worldproductionwasaround288milliontonnes.Thisiscomparedto1989analmostthreefoldincrease,andafurtherelevationofproductionratesispredicted.Germanyisalargemarketforplastics.Theannualdemandof13milliontonsinGermanyisequivalentto23%oftheEuropeanmarketand4%oftheglobalmarket,respectively(PlasticEurope,2013).
Ithasbeenaconcernforsometwodecadesthatduetoimproperhandlingorlitteringplasticwastecanenterthemarineenvironmentwhereitremainsforalongtimeduetoitslowdegradability(Barnesetal.,2009).Formarineecosystems,thehighloadofplasticparticlesiswelldocumented.
Mostofmarineplasticwasteisconsideredtobeofterrestrialorigin(UNEP,2009).Riversandwastewaterdischargescontributesubstantiallytotheplasticcontaminationofmarineenvironments(Rechetal.,2014;Morritetal.,2014).Althoughacausalrelationshipbetweenplasticlitteraswellasmicroplasticloadofinlandwaterwaysandmarineecosystemsisobvious,onlyafewstudiesonthepossiblesourcesandthedegreeofmicroplasticcontaminationofriversandlakeshavebeenpublishedsofar.ThisalsoholdstrueforGermany.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
23
Onlyrecently,researchersbegantoinvestigateEuropeanriversandstreamsformicroplasticparticlesofvarioussize,shapeandpolymercomposition,e.g.theriversDanube(Lechneretal.,2014),Elbe,Moselle,Neckar,Rhine(Wagneretal.,2014;Kleinetal.,2015;Manietal.,2015),aswellasseveralSwisslakesandtheriverRhone(Faureetal.,2015).Investigationofthebeachsedimentsofthesubal‐pineLakeGarda(Imhofetal.,2013)revealedamicroplasticcontaminationinthesameorderofmag‐nitudeashasbeendescribedfürmarinesediments.AlsoinLakeGenevaandotherSwisslakes,micro‐plasticparticleshavebeendetectedinsamplesofboth,beachsedimentsandwatersurface(Faureetal.,2012;Faureetal.,2015).
However,studyresultsforEuropeaninlandwatersarenotalwayscomparablewitheachother.Inthefirstplace,technicalinconsistenciesinparticularwithregardtosamplingmethods,sampleprepara‐tionaswellasthedetectionmethoditselfhampertheinterpretationofdata(Drisetal.,2015;Eerkes‐Medranoetal.,2015).Apartfrommethodologicalvariations,alsothechoiceoftherelevantaquaticcompartmentforthedetectionofmicroplasticisunderdiscussion.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatuntilnowonlyafewinvestigationshavebeenconductedwithregardtothepotentialimpactofmicro‐plasticonfreshwaterspecies.Therearenodataavailablewhichenableariskassessmentofmicro‐plasticconcentrationsdetectedinfreshwaterecosystems.
Plastics in rivers and lakes – a new issue in Germany
Germanyisorganisedaccordingtofederalprinciples,andgovernmenttasksaresplitbetweentheFederalGovernmentandthestates.Enforcementoftheprovisionsrelatingtowater,includingwaterresourcesmanagementfallsunderthecontrolandadministrationofthestates(UBA,2014).
GermanyisadenselypopulatedcountryinthecentreofEuropewithahighlevelofindustrialisation,muchofwhichisconcentratedinparticulargeographicalregions.Overfourfifthsofthetotalareaisfarm‐andwoodland.13.4%oftheareaareusedforsettlementsandtraffic.Wateraccountsforonlyasmallproportionofland(2.4%).
TenriverbasinsaredefinedinGermany,i.e.theDanube,Rhine,Maas,Ems,Weser,Oder,Elbe,Eider,Warnow‐PeeneandSchlei‐Trave.Theriversandstreamshaveacombinedlengthofmorethan400,000kmandflowintothecoastalregions.TheRhine,Elbe,Weser,Ems,MaasandEiderriverba‐sinsdrainintotheNorthSea;theOderandtheSchlei‐TraveandWarnow‐PeeneriverbasinsflowintotheBalticSea;andtheDanubeflowsintotheBlackSea.Largenaturallakes,whicharepartlyintercon‐nectedareasarefoundintheNorthGermanLowlandsandtheSouthGermanAlpinefoothills.
DiscussionsonplasticsinGermanfreshwaterenvironmentstookoffaround2013.OneofthestartingpointswasthestudybyImhofetal.(2013)atLakeGardaintheNorthofItaly,whichraisedconsidera‐bleattentionamongthepublicandmedia.Inthesameyear,anumberofquestionswereraisedinsev‐eralStateParliamentsregardingmicroplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments,e.g. Whatarethedangersforflora,faunaandhumansdirectlyorindirectlyarisingfrommicroplastic
particles? Whatresultshaveinvestigationsprovidedsofarandwhatrepercussionscanbeconcludedfor
humansandwildlife? Isthereanincreaseofmicroplasticconcentrationsexpectedinrivers,groundwater,lakesandwa‐
terreservoirs? Whatpreventivepossibilitiesareconsideredtobeappropriate,necessaryandproportionateto
avoidriskscausedbytheentryofmicroplasticparticlesintothewaters?
InJune2014,theBavarianEnvironmentAgencyorganisedafirstnationalworkshoponmicroplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments(Augsburg,June2014).Attheendoftheconferenceamemorandumcap‐turedthestateofknowledge: Accumulationofmicroplasticinthemarineecosystemhasbeendemonstrated. Accumulationofmicroplasticinriversandlakesisindicatedbyfewinvestigationsandhastobe
acceptedasanationwidephenomenon.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
24
Therearenostandardisedanalyticalmethods.Therefore,theresultsofthecurrentstudiesarenotmutuallycomparable.
Microplasticsaretakenupbyorganisms‐verylittleisknownabouttheireffects. Mediareportsonmicroplasticinfoodarenotconsideredtobescientificallyreliable.
Sincethen,projectshavestartedatdifferentscalesinBavaria,Baden‐Wurttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland‐PalatinateandNorthRhine‐Westphalia.InMarch2016,theGermanEnvironmentAgencyandtheBa‐varianEnvironmentAgencyorganisedaformaldiscussionontheleveloftheFederalGovernmentandfederalstatesonplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentstodiscusstheneweststateofknowledge.Theagendacovereddiscussionsontheanalyticalmethodsandfirstanalyticaldataprovidedbythefederalstates,thefuturecoordinationandharmonisationofdifferentfederalactivities,theidentificationofknowledgegaps,andthepossibilitiesforcooperation.
Inpreparationoftheworkshop,aquestionnaireonresearchandwatermanagementactivitiesrelatedtoplasticsinriversandlakeswassendtoallfederalstates.Theresultsofthesurveyaresummarisedbelow.Furthermore,anoverviewonthecurrentmonitoringactivitiesformicroplasticperformedbythefederalstateswillbegiven.
2 Monitoring activities for plastics in rivers and lakes in Germany
2.1 Outcome of the nation‐wide survey
Atotalof14outof16federalstateshaverespondedtothequestionnaire.However,ithastobecon‐sideredthatnotallquestionshavebeenansweredconsistentlybythedifferentstates.
Theresultsofthesurveycanbrieflybesummarisedasfollows:
QuestionsonMonitoring
Sofar,onlyBavaria,Baden‐Wurttemberg,NorthRhine‐Westphalia,andtoasmallerextent,Rhineland‐PalatinateandHesseinvestigatemicroplasticinfreshwaterenvironments.Hence,someinformationisavailablefortheriverbasinsRhineandDanubebutnotfore.g.theElbe.
Currently,thereisnoreliableevidenceondiffusesourcesandpathwaysforplasticsininlandwatersystemsaswellasontheriverineloadofplastics.
Twofederalstates(LowerSaxonyandNorthRhine‐Westphalia)havefundedinvestigationsonpotentialmicroplasticdischargeviasewagetreatmentplants,sofar.
Therearenodataontheriverineinputsintomarineenvironments. Threefederalstates(Bavaria,NorthRhine‐Westphalia,Saarland)intendtocarryoutfurther
studiesontheoccurrenceofplasticininlandwaters.Twoofthesestates(Bavaria,NorthRhine‐Westphalia)arealreadyactiveininvestigatingplasticsinrivers,lakes,orsewagetreat‐mentplants,respectively.
Onlyonestate(Bavaria)performssystematicstudiesonthepossibleeffectsofmicroplasticinbiota.
Questionsonriskperceptionandmanagementoptions
Overall,thepublicperceptionoftheissue“plasticsinfreshwaterenvironment”variesconsid‐erablybetweenthefederalstateswithSchleswig‐Holsteinshowingthehighestattention.
Possiblemeasurestoreduceplasticsininlandwatersarediscussedinmostofthestates.Thisrelatesprimarilytogovernmentalauthorities,media,andnon‐governmentalorganizations,butalsoinparttothepublic.
Around50%ofthefederalstatesareplanningorevenimplementmeasuresinordertoreducetheinputofplasticsintoinlandwaters.
Significantlylessstatesareplanningorhavealreadyimplementedmeasurestoremoveplasticwastefrominlandwaters.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
25
2.2 Current monitoring activities in German inland waters ‒ similarities and differences
FivefederalstatesinGermanyhaveinitialisedmonitoringprogrammestoassessthemicroplasticloadofinlandwatersystems:Bavaria,Baden‐Wurttemberg,NorthRhine‐Westphalia,Rhineland‐PalatinateandHesse(Figure1).Eveniftheindividualprojectsmighthavedifferentregimes,themainrequire‐mentsaregiventocomparethestudyresults.Themostimportantconformitiesofthestudiesrefertothemethodsapplied.TheDepartmentofAnimalEcologyI,UniversityofBayreuth,isthecontractpart‐nerforallfivestatemonitoringprogrammesandperformstheenvironmentalsampling,preparationofsamplesaswellasmicroplasticanalysisbymeansofFTIR‐Spectroscopy.Allmonitoringpro‐grammesincludetheinvestigationofriverswhiletwostates,BavariaandBaden‐Wurttemberg,alsomonitormicroplasticsinlakes.
Besidessimilarities,alsodifferencesareobviouswithregardtotheprioritizationwithinthemonitor‐ingprogrammes.Somestudiesalreadyconsideredemissionaspects(e.g.possibleinfluenceofsewagetreatmentplanteffluents)orpotential“hot‐spots”(e.g.plasticsprocessingindustrycompanies).Incontrast,otherstudiesfocusedonafirstoverviewonthemicroplasticloadinvariousriversandlakesdifferinginsize,landuse,orwastewaterpercentage.Allmonitoringprogrammesincludesamplesfromthewatersurfacebutadditionallyeachprogrammefocusedonindividualfurtheraquaticcom‐partments(Table1and2).OnlytheBavarianprojectsofarinvestigatesthepotentialaccumulationofmicroplasticinbiotasuchasbivalvesandfishunderfieldaswellasunderstandardizedlaboratoryconditions.Atalaterstageofthisprojectstudieswillbeperformedonthepossibleeffectsofmicro‐plasticonaquaticorganisms.
Table 1: Monitoring activities in rivers of Germany and aquatic compartments under investiga‐tion
Federal state Number of rivers
Water sur‐face
Water column
Shore sedi‐ment
Soil drift STP Efflu‐ent
Bavaria 5 X X X
Baden‐Wurttemberg
11 X (X) river sediment
North Rhine‐Westphalia
7 X X X
Rhineland‐Palatinate
2 X (X) river sediment
Hesse 1 x (X) river sediment
Table 2: Monitoring activities in lakes of Germany and aquatic compartments under investigation
Federal state Number of lakes
Water surface Water column
Shore sediment
Ground Sediment
Bavaria 5 X X X X
Baden‐Wurttemberg 1
X X X
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
26
Figure 1: Monitoring activities for microplastics in rivers and lakes of Germany
Map of Germany with states highlighted, where regulatory agencies investigate plastics in freshwater environments: 1 ‐ Bavaria, 2 ‐ Baden Wurttemberg , 3 ‐ Rhineland‐Palatinate, 4 ‐ Hesse, 5 ‐ North Rhine‐Westphalia
3 Summary and Outlook
OneaimoftheworkpresentedwastogetanoverviewonmonitoringactivitiesrelatedtoplasticsinriversandlakesinGermany.Anation‐widesurveyrevealedaheterogeneouspictureinrelationtohowthefederalstatesaredealingwiththeissueofmicroplasticpollution.Thepublicperceptionoftheis‐sue“plasticsinfreshwaterenvironment”variesalotwithinGermany.Sofar,onlyfivefederalstatesareactivelyinvolvedinamonitoringformicroplastic.Threestatesintendtocarryoutfurtherinvesti‐gationsontheoccurrenceofplasticininlandwaters.Onlyonestateperformssystematicstudiesonthepossibleeffectsofmicroplasticinbiota.
Itisimportanttogetanoverviewonthisnewissue.Weneedtocharacterisetheexposureofplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments.TheformaldiscussiononFederalGovernmentandfederalstateslevelonplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsledtothefollowingresults:
1. Analyticalcapabilities:arecurrentlyinsufficient.Furtheroptimisationandstandardisationofsamplingandanalyticalmethodshavehighestpriority.Sofar,onlyanalyticresultsofspectro‐scopicinvestigations(FTIRandRamanspectroscopy)areconsidered.Developmentofcom‐plementaryanalyticalapproachessuchasthermogravimetricanalysis(PyrolysisGC/MS)isstillinaninitialphase.However,bothmethodsneedtoimproveandtoacceleratelaboratoryprocedurestobecomereasonabletoolsforfuturestudies.
2. Identificationofrelevantpathways(e.g.littering,treatedwastewater,stormwater,tireabra‐sion):ispromising;‘hotspots’shouldbeinvestigatedmoreindetail.Tosomeextendexposuremayberelatedtoemissionfromindustrialcompanies,whichproduceorprocessprimaryplas‐ticparticles(pellets).
3. Modellingofplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments:shouldbeinvestigatedregardingapossibleadaptationofexistingmodelstocoverthefateofmicroplasticparticlesinfreshwatersystemsandthedemandonqualityandquantityofinputdata.
4. Riskassessmentofenvironmentaldata:studiesonpossibleeffectsofmicroplasticparticlesonfreshwaterorganismsareurgentlyrequired.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
27
5. Wastemanagement:TheFreshwatercommunityshouldinitiatediscussionsonsourceswithcolleaguesresponsibleforplasticwastemanagementandcirculareconomy.
6. Furtheropportunitiesforcooperationandthepossibleuseofsynergies:shouldbecheckedandestablished.
4 Literature Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009): Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environ‐
ments. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biol. Sci., 364(1526), 1985‐98. Epub 2009/06/17
Dris, R., Imhof, H., Sanchez, W., Gasperi, J., Galgani, F., Tassin, B., Laforsch, C. (2015): Beyond the ocean: Contamination of freshwa‐
ter ecosystems with (micro‐) plastic particles. Environ. Chem., pp.32, <hal‐01136690>
Faure, F., Corbaz, M., Baecher, H., De Alencastro, L. (2012): Pollution due to plastics and microplastics in Lake Geneva and in the
Mediterranean Sea. Arch Sci., 65, 157‐164.
Faure, F., Demars, C., Wieser, O., Kunz, M., de Alencastro, L.F. (2015): Plastic pollution in Swiss surface waters: nature and concen‐
trations, interactions with pollutants. Environ. Chem., http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EN14218
Eerkes‐Medrano, D., Thompson, R.C., Aldrige, D.C. (2015): Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats,
identification of knowledge gaps and priorisation of research needs. Wat. Res., 75, 63‐82
Imhof, H.K., Ivleva, N.P., Schmid J., Niessner, R., Laforsch, C. (2013): Contamination of beach sediments of a subalpine lake with
microplastic particles. Current. Biol., 23(19), R867‐8. Epub 2013/10/12
Klein, S., Worch, E., Knepper, T. (2015): Occurrence and spatial distribution of microplastics in river shore sediments of the Rhine‐
Main area in Germany. Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 6070‐6076
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger‐Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M., Glas, M., Schludermann, E. (2014): The Danube so
colourful: a potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe's second largest river. Environ. Poll., 188, 177‐181. Epub
2014/03/08.; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.006
Mani, T., Hauk, A., Walter, U., Burkhardt‐Holm, P. (2015): Microplastics profile along the Rhine River. Sci. Reports, 5:17988, doi:
10.1038/srep17988
Morritt, D., Stefanoudis, P.V., Pearce, D., Crimmen, O.A., Clark, P.F. (2014): Plastic in the Thames: a river runs through it. Mar. Pol‐
lut. Bull., 78(1‐2), 196‐200. Epub 2013/11/19
PlasticEurope (2013): Plastics ‐ the Facts 2013. An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data. Plastics
Europe, Association of Plastic Manufactures, Brussles. 2013.
Rech, S., Macaya‐Caquilpan, V., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., Jofre Madariaga, D., Thiel M. (2014): Rivers as a source of marine
litter ‐ a study from the SE Pacific. Mar Pollut Bull. 82(1‐2), 66‐75. Epub 2014/04/15.
Umweltbundesamt,, Water Resource Management in Germany, Dessau‐Rosslau (2014)
(http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/water‐resource‐management‐in‐germany‐part‐1)
UNEP, (2009). Marine litter ‐ a global challenge, United Nations Environment Programme, 232pp.
Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez‐Muñoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S., Fries, E., Grosbois, C., Klasmeier, J., Marti, T.,
Rodriguez‐Mozaz, S., Urbatzka, R., Vethaak, A.D., Winther‐Nielsen, M., Reifferscheid, G. (2014):. Microplastics in freshwater ecosys‐
tems: what we know and what we need to know. Environmental Sciences Europe. 26(12). doi: 10.1186/s12302‐014‐0012‐7
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
28
Quick scan and Prioritization of Microplastic Sources and Emissions
Anja Verschoor
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
Nowadays,plastichaspenetratedvirtuallyeverysingleaspectofeverydaylife:fromclothingtoelec‐tronicsandfrombuildingmaterialstocleaningproducts.Thedevelopmentofplastichasskyrocketedsincethe1950s.Globalplasticproductionin2014reached311milliontonnesandcontinuestoin‐creasebyroughly3%everyyear.Plasticischeap,durable(littletonodecomposition),ischemicallyinert(rarelyreactswithothersubstances)andisrelativelylightweightandmalleable,resultinginapracticallyunlimitednumberofpossibleapplications[1].
However,thedisadvantagesofplasticsaregraduallybecomingapparent[2].Largequantitiesofplasticpollutetheoceans,seasandrivers,andbackondryland,plasticlitterisaneverydaysightinourtownsandcities[3‐5].Thereareconcernsabouttheconsequencesofplasticforsealifesuchasfish,seabirds,sealsandturtles.Themostcommonproblemsofplasticforanimalsareobstruction(resultinginstarvation),injuryorsuffocation[6‐9].Theseeffectsplayoutattheindividuallevel.
Theeffectsofsmallerplasticparticlesarelessclear,althoughtheycouldwellhavefar‐reachingconse‐quences.Smallerparticlesmaybeabsorbedbythetissueofaquaticorganismssuchasmusselsandfish,resultingintheplasticsenteringthefoodchain[10].Viatheseplasticparticles,animalscanalsobeexposedtootheragentsaddedtotheplasticssuchasplasticizers,whichcancauseamongstothershormonedisruption[11].Furthermore,manywaterbornecontaminantshaveatendencytoadheretoplastics.Anumberofstudiesindicatethatexposuretothesecontaminantsisenhancedduetointakeviaplastics[12],althoughtherearealsoclaimsthatcontradictthis[11].Althoughthefullimpactofmicroplasticsonhumansandtheenvironmentisnotyetknown,thepersistenceofplasticsisbeyonddispute.Forthisreason,thereductionofplasticwasteisoneofthekeyissuesofbothDutchandEuro‐peanenvironmentalpolicy.
Ourstudy[13]presentsaninventoryandprioritizationofland‐bornesourcesofmicroplasticstosup‐portthedevelopmentofeffectiveandefficientactionplansbythegovernment.
2 Methods
Theplasticsunderconsiderationarelimitedtosolid,polymericmaterialsofpetrochemicalorigin.Thisreportincludesprimaryaswellassecondarymicroplastics.Forasystematicinventoryofmicroplasticsources,theDutchPollutantReleaseandTransferRegister(www.prtr.nl), wasusedasatemplate.Sourceswerefurthersupplementedwithliteraturedataandresultsofapreviousexpert‐meeting.
Amulticriteriaanalysis(MCA)wasperformedinordertoassignapriorityformicroplasticsources.TheMCAincludedrelevance(volumeofemission),feasibilityofmeasures(alternatives,quickwin)andperceivedurgency(mediaattention,optionsforconsumerschoiceoractionperspective).AgroupofexpertsrepresentingtheNationalInstituteforPublicHealthandtheEnvironment(RIVM),Rijkswa‐terstaatandDeltaresassignedqualitativescorestothecriteriathatreflectthevolume,extentorlikeli‐hoodofthecriteriabasedontheDutchsituation.Thescoreswerecombinedtoatotalscore,whichdeterminesthepriority.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
29
3 Results
Table 1: Priority scores for sources of microplastics based on five criteria. C1: Scale of emissions, C2: Indispensability, C3: Opportunities for quick wins, C4: Risk perception, C5: Alterna‐tives for the consumer
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
30
4 Discussion
Atotalof56sourceswereidentifiedandsubjectedtothemulticriteriaanalysis.InTable1thescoresandoverallpriorityareshown.Thelargestsourceofplasticandsecondarymicroplasticemissionsisplasticdebris,whichconsistslargelyofpackagingmaterialsanddisposableproducts.Thiswascon‐firmedbythehighscoresinthisreport(8‐9onascaleof1‐10).Othersourcesofsecondarymicroplas‐ticswitharelativelyhighscore(6‐7)werefibresandtextiles,roadwayrunoff(includingtyredust),dustfromconstructionplaces,agriculturalplasticandinputfromabroadviarivers.Wastewater,sew‐agesludgeandcompost(score6)containprimaryaswellassecondarymicroplastics,fromsourceswithemissionstothesewersystem,suchashouseholdsthatemitfibresthroughthewashingmachineandmicrobeadsusedforpersonalcareandcosmeticpurposes.
Theestimationofmicroplasticquantities,technicalpossibilitiesforemissionreductionandalterna‐tivesofmicroplasticshadanexploratorynature.Thisstudyprovidesaprioritizationthatsupportsdecisionsaboutthecontinuationofanumberofcurrentpolicymeasuresandtheeventualintroduc‐tionofadditionalmeasures.Refinementandcorroborationoftechnicaldetails,costsandbenefitsarenecessarybeforenewmeasurescanbeenforced.Recentlyafollow‐upstudyisfinalizedtoquantifyemissionsfromabrasivecleaningagents,paintsandtyresandtoidentifypotentialmeasuresandin‐struments[14].Anotherstudyhasbeenstartedtoexplorethecostsandbenefitsofthesemeasures.
5 Literature 1. Plastics Europe, 2013, Plastics ‐ The facts 2013. An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data. Brus‐
sels, 40 pages.
2. Hammer, J., M.S. Kraak and J. Parsons, Plastics in the Marine Environment: The Dark Side of a Modern Gift, in Reviews of Envi‐
ronmental Contamination and Toxicology, D.M. Whitacre, Editor 2012, Springer New York. p. 1‐44.
3. Law, K.L., et al., 2010, Plastic Accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science, 329(5996): p. 1185‐1188.
4. Law, K.L., et al., 2014, Distribution of Surface Plastic Debris in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11‐Year Data Set. Environmental
Science & Technology, 48(9): p. 4732‐4738.
5. Ryan, P.G., 2014, Litter survey detects the South Atlantic ‘garbage patch’. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1–2): p. 220‐224.
6. Hoarau, L., et al., 2014, Ingestion and defecation of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from by‐catches in
the South‐West Indian Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 84(1–2): p. 90‐96.
7. Waluda, C.M. and I.J. Staniland, 2013, Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
74(1): p. 244‐252.
8. Choy, C. and J. Drazen, 2013, Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the
central North Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 485: p. 155‐163.
9. Provencher, J.F., et al., 2014, Prevalence of marine debris in marine birds from the North Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
84(1–2): p. 411‐417.
10. Farrell, P. and K. Nelson, 2013, Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ. Pollut.,
177: p. 1‐3.
11. Koelmans, A.A., E. Besseling and E.M. Foekema, 2014, Leaching of plastic additives to marine organisms. Environ. Pollut., 187: p.
49‐54.
12. Bakir, A., S.J. Rowland and R.C. Thompson, 2014, Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under
simulated physiological conditions. Environ. Pollut., 185: p.16‐23.
13. Verschoor, A. et al, 2014, Quick scan and prioritization of microplastic sources and emissions, RIVM advisory letter
20140156,available from www.rivm.nl, 41 pages.
14. Verschoor A. et al, 2016, Emission of microplastics and potential mitigation measures. Abrasive cleaning agents, paints and tyre
wear. RIVM report 2016‐0026, available from www.rivm.nl, 75 pages.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
31
Conceptual considerations on the environmental risk assessment of microplastics
Karen Duis & Anja Coors
ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH, Flörsheim/Main, Germany
E‐mail contact: k‐[email protected]
1 Introduction
Althoughtheoccurrenceofsmallplasticparticlesintheenvironmentwasalreadydescribedmorethan40yearsago(Carpenteretal.1972),publicattentionhasuntilrecentlylargelyfocusedonmacro‐plastics.However,thishaschangedinthelastfewyearsandpotentialriskscausedbymicroplasticsintheenvironmentarenowcontroversiallydiscussed.Microplasticsfoundintheenvironmentareaveryheterogeneousgroupofparticles.Theydifferinsize,shape,surfacetexture,chemicalcomposition(includingpolymercompositionandadditivessuchasplasticisers,stabilizers,flameretardants,pig‐mentsandantimicrobials)andspecificdensity(Teutenetal.2009,Andrady2011,2015).Allthesepropertiesmayinfluencefateandeffectsofmicroplasticsintheenvironment.Disintegrationand,es‐pecially,degradationofplasticmaterialsintheenvironmentisaveryslowprocess(Shahetal.2008,Andrady2011).
Microplasticshavebeenshowntobeingestedbyavarietyofspecies(Hollmanetal.2013,Wrightetal.2013a).Inlaboratoryexperimentswithmarineorganisms,highconcentrationsofmicroplasticscausephysicaleffects,particularlyareducedfooduptakeduetothepresenceofplasticintheintestinaltract.This,inturn,leadstolowerenergyreservesandrelatedeffectsonotherphysiologicalfunctions(Leeetal.2013,Wrightetal.2013b,Coleetal.2015,Duis&Coors2016).Effectsmayalsobecausedbyplasticadditives(e.g.Oehlmannetal.2009).Moreover,potentialeffectsonsedimentproperties(Car‐sonetal.2011)andthefunctionofmicroplasticsasvectorsforthetransportofhydrophobicpollu‐tants(Teutenetal.2009),invasivespeciesandpathogensarediscussed(Barnes2002,Goldsteinetal.2012,DeTenderetal.2015).
2 Current environmental risk assessment procedures
Incurrentenvironmentalriskassessmentproceduresforchemicalsubstances,measuredenviron‐mentalconcentrations(MECs)or,usually,predictedenvironmentalconcentrations(PECs)ofasub‐stancearecomparedtopredictednoeffectconcentrations(PNECs)(vanLeeuwen2007,Traas&vanLeeuwen2007).Predictedenvironmentalconcentrationsareestimatedusingmodelsdevelopedfortherespectivesubstancegroupanditsmostrelevantentryroute(s)intotheenvironment.Predictednoeffectconcentrationsarederivedfromlaboratorytoxicitytestsbymultiplyingthehighestsub‐stanceconcentration,whichdidnotcausesignificantadverseeffectsinthemostsensitivespecies,withanassessmentfactor.Thelattershallaccountforintra‐andinter‐laboratoryvariationintoxicitydata,interspeciesvariationintoxicity,aswellastheextrapolationfromshort‐tolong‐termtoxicity(whererelevant)andfromthelaboratorytothefield(e.g.EC2003,ECHA2008,Celanderetal.2011).IftheratioofthePECtothePNECisbelow1,theriskcausedbythesubstanceintherespectiveenviron‐mentalcompartmentisdeemedacceptable.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
32
Sincetheenvironmentalimpactofsubstancesthatarepersistent,bioaccumulativeandtoxic(PBT)orverypersistentandverybioaccumulative(vPvB)maybeunderestimatedusingtheapproachde‐scribedabove(EC2003,vanWijketal.2009,Moermondetal.2012),PBTandvPvBsubstancesareidentifiedinacomplementaryapproach.Theirpersistence,bioaccumulationpotentialandtoxicityarecomparedtotriggervaluesasdefinedinEC(2011).TheconsequencesofaclassificationofasubstanceasPBTorvPvB(e.g.restrictionorimplementationofriskmitigationmeasures)dependontheregula‐toryframework.
Theapproachesmentionedintheprevioustwoparagraphsareusedtoassesstheenvironmentalriskofindustrialchemicals,pesticides,biocides,humanandveterinarypharmaceuticals.InthiscontextitisofnotethatwithinREACH,polymermoleculesare–inviewoftheirhighmolecularweight–consid‐eredasbeingoflowconcern.Therefore,theyareexemptedfromregistrationandevaluation,unlesstheircontentof(unreacted)monomersexceedscertainlimitsortheycontaincertainadditivestrigger‐ingregistrationandevaluation(ECHA2012).
3 Approaches to assess potential environmental risks caused by microplastics
Toobtainafirstimpressionofthepossibleimpactofmicroplasticsontheenvironment,wehavere‐viewedandcomparedmeasuredenvironmentalconcentrationsofmicroplasticsandthelowestmicro‐plasticlevelscausingsignificantphysicaleffectsinlaboratorytests(LOECs;Duis&Coors2016),i.e.appliedasimpleMEC/LOECcomparisonwithouttakinganassessmentfactorintoaccount.Duetothemuchbetterdatabaseavailable,wehaveuseddataforthemarineenvironmentandmarinetestor‐ganisms.Thelowestmicroplasticconcentrationsfoundtocauseadverseeffectsinmarineorganisms(Leeetal.2013,Kaposietal.2014)arebyafactorofabout10,000higherthantheupperrangeofmi‐croplasticconcentrationsinmarinewater(Hidalgo‐Ruzetal.2012,Desforgesetal.2014).Theeffectconcentrationobtainedinawater/sedimenttestwithlugworms(Wrightetal.2013b)isbyafactorofabout500higherthanhighestmicroplasticlevelsinmarinesediments(Vianelloetal.2013).However,thehighestmicroplasticlevelsdetectedinbeachsediments(Carsonetal.2011,Baztanetal.2014)arehigherthantheaforementionedeffectconcentrationinthewater/sedimenttest(theimpactofmicro‐plasticsonorganismsinhabitingbeachsedimentsorsoilshassofarnotbeeninvestigated).
Giventhatestimatesofthelifetimeofplasticsintheenvironmentaremuchhigherthanthresholdsfortheclassificationofchemicalsubstancesasverypersistent(half‐lifetimesof>60daysinwateror>180daysinsedimentorsoil;EC2011),microplasticscanbeconsideredasvP.Yet,sofartherearetoourknowledgenodataprovidingclearevidencefortheirbioaccumulation(i.e.foranincreaseofin‐ternalconcentrationsinrelationtoconcentrationsintheenvironment)orbiomagnification(i.e.anincreaseofconcentrationsathighertrophiclevel).
Furthermore,anumberofotherknowledgegapshavetobepointedout.Withregardtotheecotoxicityofmicroplastics,dataarescarceforfreshwaterorganismsandlackingforterrestrialorganisms.Evenformarineorganisms,theavailabledatabaseisrelativelylimited(Rillig2012,Wagneretal.2014,Duis&Coors2016).Sofar,weknowlittleontheinfluenceofthecharacteristicsofmicroplastics(e.g.size,shape,chemicalcomposition)ontheirecotoxicity(Sybergetal.2015).Similarly,ourknowledgeonfateandoccurrenceofmicro‐andmacroplasticsintheenvironmentislimited,forinstanceregardingfragmentationanddegradationrates,andsizedistributionsintheenvironment(Hidalgo‐Ruzetal.2011,GESAMP2015,Sybergetal.2015).Todate,onlyfewstudieshaveaddressedtheoccurrenceofmicroplasticsinthefreshwaterand,especially,terrestrialenvironment(Wagneretal.2014,Rillig2012,Duis&Coors2016).
Theenvironmentalriskassessmentproceduresdescribedinsection0havebeendevelopedtoevalu‐atefate,effectsandresultantrisksofchemicalsubstances.Thus,theydonotcoverseveralaspectsthat
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
33
arerelevantwhenassessingtheriskscausedbymicroplastics(i.e.particles),suchasthefragmenta‐tionintheenvironmentthatleadstoanincreaseinparticleabundanceovertimewithpossibleimpli‐cationsontoxicity.Moreover,differenttypesofeffectshavetobeconsideredformicroplasticsinclud‐ingchemicaleffectsofmonomersandadditives,physicaleffectsoftheparticles,effectsonsedimentproperties,andthefunctionasavectorforpollutants,invasivespeciesorpathogens.Assessmentfac‐torsandtriggervaluesusedintheriskassessmentofchemicalsmaynotbeappropriateformicroplas‐tics.Forasufficientlycomprehensiveassessmentofpotentialenvironmentalriskscausedbymicro‐plastics,anapproachisneededthatcoversallrelevantaspects(Teutenetal.2009,Wagneretal.2014).
Thereareanumberofsimilaritiesbetweennanomaterialsandmicroplastics.Forinstance,theirsizeandshapearelikelytoinfluencefateandeffects,theycanhavephysicaleffectsonorganismsintheenvironment,andtheymayactasvectorsforsorbedcontaminants(Baunetal.2008,Craneetal.2008,Sybergetal.2015).Hence,insightsobtainedinthefieldofnanoecotoxicologyandconceptsdiscussedfortheenvironmentalriskassessmentofnanomaterialsmightprovetobeusefulwhendevelopinganapproachfortheriskassessmentofmicroplastics(Sybergetal.2015).Thisincludesstrategiestostudybioaccumulationandecotoxicity(Kühnel&Nickel2014,Oomenetal.2014).
4 Conclusions
Withregardtopossibleenvironmentalrisksofmicroplastics,ithastobeemphasisedthatplasticsareextremelypersistent.Duetothefragmentationofmacroplastics,concentrationsofmicroplasticsintheenvironmentwillcontinuetoincreaseevenifthereleaseofplasticsintotheenvironmentisstopped(Andrady2011,GESAMP2015).Inviewofthesefactsandthealreadyconsiderableenvironmentalconcentrationsrecordede.g.insomecoastalsediments,developmentandeffectiveimplementationofstrategiestoreducethereleaseofmacro‐andmicroplasticsintotheenvironmentareurgentlyre‐quired–despitethelackofacomprehensiveregulatoryframeworktoassesstheenvironmentalriskscausedbymicroplastics.
5 Literature Andrady AL (2011): Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 62, 1596‐605.
Andrady AL (2015): Plastics and environmental sustainability. Wiley, Hoboken, USA.
Mikroplastikdiskussion. KW Korrespondenz Wasserwirtschaft 8(1):49‐53.
Barnes DKA (2002): Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416, 808‐809.
Baun A, Hartmann NB, Grieger K, Kusk KO (2008): Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates: a brief review
and recommendations for future toxicity testing. Ecotoxicology 17, 387‐395.
Baztan J, Carrasco A, Chouinard O, Cleaud M, Gabaldon JE, Huck T, Jaffrès L, Jorgensen B, Miguelez A, Paillard C, Vanderlinden JP
(2014): Protected areas in the Atlantic facing the hazards of micro‐plastic pollution: first diagnosis of three islands in the Canary
Current. Mar Pollut Bull 80, 302‐311.
Carpenter EJ, Anderson SJ, Harvey GR, Miklas HP, Beck BB (1972): Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178, 749‐750.
Carson HS, Colbert SL, Kaylor MJ, McDermid KJ (2011): Small plastic debris changes water movement and heat transfer through
beach sediments. Mar Pollut Bull. 62, 1708‐1713.
Celander MC, Goldstone JV, Denslow ND, Iguchi T, Kille P, Meyerhoff RD, Smith BA, Hutchinson TH, Wheeler JR (2011): Species
extrapolation for the 21st century. Environ Toxicol Chem 30, 52‐63.
Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2015): The impact of polystyrene microplastics on feeding, function and
fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ Sci Technol 49,1130‐1137.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
34
Crane M, Handy RD, Garrod J, Owen R (2008): Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered na‐
noparticles. Ecotoxicology 17, 421‐437.
Desforges JP, Galbraith M, Dangerfield N, Ross PS (2014): Widespread distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE
Pacific Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull. 79, 94‐99.
De Tender CA, Devriese LI, Haegeman A, Maes S, Ruttink T, Dawyndt P (2015): Bacterial community profiling of plastic litter in the
Belgian part of the North Sea. Environ Sci Technol 49, 9629‐9638.
Duis, K., Coors, A. (2016). Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: sources (with a specific focus on personal care
products), fate and effects. Environ Sci Europe 28:2.
EC (2003): Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for
new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. European Commission,
European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
ECHA (2008): Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.10: Characterisation of dose [con‐
centration]‐response for environment. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland.
ECHA (2012): Guidance for monomers and polymers. Version 2.0. Guidance for the implementation of REACH. European Chemicals
Agency, Helsinki, Finland.
EC (2011): Commission regulation (EU) No 253/2011 of 15 March 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex
XIII. Official J Eur Union L 69/7.
GESAMP (2015): Source, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment. IMO/FAO/ UNESCO‐
IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection,
London, UK.
Goldstein MC, Rosenberg M, Cheng L (2012): Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic
insect. Biol Lett 8, 817‐820.
Hidalgo‐Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M (2012): Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for
identification and quantification. Environ Sci Technol 46, 3060‐3075.
Hollman PCH, Bouwmeester H, Peters RJB (2013): Microplastics in aquatic food chain: sources, measurement, occurrence and
potential health risks. RIKILT report 2013.003. RIKILT, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Kaposi KL, Mos B, Kelaher BP, Dworjanyn SA (2014): Ingestion of microplastic has limited impact on a marine larva. Environ Sci
Technol 48, 1638‐1645.
Kühnel D, Nickel C (2014): The OECD expert meeting on ecotoxicology and environmental fate – towards the development of im‐
proved OECD guidelines for the testing of nanomaterials. Sci Total Environ 472, 347‐353.
Lee KW, Shim WJ, Kwon OY, Kang JH (2013): Size‐dependent effects of micro polystyrene particles in the marine copepod Tigriopus
japonicus. Environ Sci Technol 47, 11278‐1183.
Moermond CT, Janssen MP, de Knecht JA, Montforts MH, Peijnenburg WJ, Zweers PG, Sijm DT (2012): PBT assessment using the
revised annex XIII of REACH: a comparison with other regulatory frameworks. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8, 359‐371.
Oehlmann J, Schulte‐Oehlmann U, Kloas W, Jagnytsch O, Lutz I, Kusk KO, Wollenberger L, Santos EM, Paull GC, Van Look KJW, Tyler
CR (2009): A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 364, 2047‐2062.
Oomen AG, Bos PM, Fernandes TF, Hund‐Rinke K, Boraschi D, Byrne HJ, Aschberger K, Gottardo S, von der Kammer F, Kühnel D,
Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Migliore L, Scott‐Fordsmand J, Wick P, Landsiedel R (2014): Concern‐driven integrated approaches to
nanomaterial testing and assessment – report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10. Nanotoxicology 8, 334‐348.
Rillig MC (2012): Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ Sci Technol. 46, 6453‐6454.
Shah AA, Hasan F, Hameed A, Ahmed S (2008): Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv 26, 246‐
265.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
35
Syberg K, Khan FR, Selck H, Palmqvist A, Banta GT, Daley J, Sano L, Duhaime MB (2015): Microplastics: addressing ecological risk
through lessons learned. Environ Toxicol Chem 34, 945‐963.
Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DR, Barlaz MA, Jonsson S, Björn A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC, Galloway TS, Yamashita R, Ochi D,
Watanuki Y, Moore C, Viet PH, Tana TS, Prudente M, Boonyatumanond R, Zakaria MP, Akkhavong K, Ogata Y, Hirai H, Iwasa S, Mizu‐
kawa K, Hagino Y, Imamura A, Saha M, Takada H (2009): Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and
to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364, 2027‐2045.
Traas TP, van Leeuwen CJ (2007): Ecotoxicological effects. In: Risk assessment of chemicals – an introduction (van Leeuwen CJ,
Vermeire TG, eds.), pp. 281‐356. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
van Leeuwen CJ (2007): General introduction. In: Risk assessment of chemicals – an introduction (van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG,
eds.), pp. 1‐36. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
van Wijk D, Chénier R, Henry T, Hernando MD, Schulte C (2009): Integrated approach to PBT and POP prioritization and risk assess‐
ment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 697‐711.
Vianello A, Boldrin A., Guerriero P, Moschino V, Rella R, Sturaro A, Da Ros L (2013): Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of
Venice, Italy: First observations on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 130, 54‐61.
Wagner M, Scherer C, Alvarez‐Muñoz D, Brennholt N, Bourrain X, Buchinger S, Fries E, Grosbois C, Klasmeier J, Marti T, Rodriguez‐
Mozaz S, Urbatzka R, Vethaak AD, Winther‐Nielsen M, Reifferscheid G (2014): Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we
know and what we need to know. Environ Sci Europe 26:12.
Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013a): The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut
178, 483‐4892.
Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013b): Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Curr
Biol 23, R1031‐R1033.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
36
Monitoring of Riverine Litter ‒ Options and Recommendations
MSFD Technical Group on Marine Litter:
Georg Hanke, Daniel González‐Fernández
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission, Joint Research Centre
Ispra, (Italy)
Lex Oosterbaan, Marloes Holzhauer, Bert Bellert
Rijkswaterstaat, Rotterdam and Lelystad (The Netherlands)
Gijsbert Tweehuysen
Waste Free Waters foundation, Klimmen (The Netherlands)
Andreja Palatinus
Inštituta za vode Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana (Slovenia)
Richard Thompson
School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth (United Kingdom)
Philipp Hohenblum
Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna (Austria)
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
MarinelitterisanissueofglobalconcernasrecognizedbytheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD)(EuropeanCommission,2008).TheMSFDrequiresMemberStates(MS)todevelopstrategiesthatshouldleadtoprogrammesofmeasurestoachieveormaintainGoodEnvironmentalStatusin(GES)inEuropeanSeas.Furthermore,marinelitterhasbeenidentifiedasahighpriorityattheG7Sci‐enceMinistersMeeting(Berlin,2015),highlightingtheconcernaboutplasticsandrelatedriskstoma‐rinelife.Inordertodevelopeffectivestrategiesfortheestablishmentofprogrammesofmeasuresaim‐ingtoreduceplasticsanditspossibleimpacts,itisnecessarytoidentifyandquantifysourcesoflitterandtheirpathwaystothemarineenvironment.
Literaturereviewindicatesthatknowledgeofmarinelittersourcesandquantitiesisstillverylimited.AtEUscale,thereisnocomprehensivecomparableinformationabouttheamountoflitterbeingtransportedthroughriversintothesea.Itcanbeexpectedthatriverineinputstotheseaarehighlyvariablebetweendifferentrivercatchmentareasandperiods.Therefore,itistheriver‐seaboundarywhereresearcheffortsareneededinordertogathersolidknowledgeanddataonriverinelitterin‐puts.
WithintheMSFDImplementationStrategy,andinagreementwiththeWFDchemicalsworkinggroup,theMSFDTechnicalGrouponMarineLitterhasbeenmandatedtoprepareareportonthecurrentlyavailabletechniquesforthequantificationofmarinelitterfluxesintotheEuropeanSeas.Acompre‐hensiveoverviewisneededinordertoprepareharmonizationofapproaches.
Thistechnicalreportcompilestheoptionsforquantificationofriverinelitterfluxes,focusingonthemonitoringofanthropogenicdebristhatenterstheseasviarivers.Italsopresentsthescientificandtechnicalbackgroundregardinglitterinriversystems,theirflowregimeandbasicproperties.The
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
37
purposeistoallowthebuildingofdatasetswhichenablethecomparisonoflitterflowsfromdifferentriversintothemarineenvironment.ItalsoelaboratesonthetypeofdatawhichisneededwithrespecttotheimplementationoftheMSFD.Themaintopicis:possiblewaysofsamplingandmethodstoes‐tablishtrendsintheoccurrenceofriverinelitter.
Thescopeislimitedtomonitoringoflitterobjectsandfragmentswithpositivebuoyancy,i.e.thoseonthewatersurfaceandinthewatercolumn.Thisreportdoesnotallowfinalrecommendationsonthebestmethodologytobeused,butpresentsbestpractices,asfaraspossible.
2 Methodologies for the quantification of riverine litter fluxes
Anextensiveliteraturereviewhasbeenperformedinordertoidentifytheexistingoptionsforthemonitoringoflitteritemsinrivers.Monitoringofriverinelittercanbebasedonobservationandcol‐lectionmethods.Bothapproacheshavebeenappliedinriverbankandriverwatermonitoring.Meth‐odologiesaredescribedandtechnicaldetailsarereportedwheneveravailable.
Observationmethods(visualobservationsoracquisitionofsurfaceimages)canbeusedonriverbanksandriverwatersurfaceformonitoringofmeso(0.5‐2.5cm)andmacro(>2.5cm)litter.Observationonriverbankshasbeenmainlyusedonmobilityandtransportstudies,butitdoesnotdirectlyreflectriverinelitterinputstothesea.Incontrast,observationonriverwatersurface,combinedwithriverflowmeasures,canprovideestimatesonfloatinglitterfluxestothesea.
Regardingcollectionmethods,whichinvolvephysicalcollectionoflitter,therearedifferentoptionsthatcanbeusedinriverbankandriverwater(surface/column).Collectionmethodscancoveralllit‐tersizecategories:micro(<0.5cm),mesoandmacro.Collectioninriverbankscanprovideabundanceandcompositioninformation;andhavebeenusedinaccumulation/mobilitystudies.Unfortunately,asmentionedfortheobservationmethods,riverbankmonitoringdonotdirectlyretrievedataonlitterfluxestothesea.Ontheotherhand,collectionmethodsforlitterinriverwatercanbetargetedtoalldifferentsizesoffloating(watersurface)orsuspended(watercolumn)litter.Methodologiesaremost‐lybasedontrappingitems/particlesbyusingnetsorcage‐likestructures,althoughcollectionoffloat‐ingmesoandmacrolittercanalsobedonebymeansofskimmingwatersurface(e.g.floatingbooms).Netmeshsizewilldeterminethefractionoflittercollected.Aparticularcaseiscollectionofmicrolit‐terinriverwater,wheredynamicandstationarysamplingstrategiesareusedbymeansofneustonnets(e.g.mantatrawlsorconicaldriftnets),followingmethodologiesevolvedfromclassicplanktonsamplinginthemarineenvironment.Withappropriatemeasurementsofriverflowdata,resultsfromcollectionoffloating/suspendedlittercanbeexpressedasriverinelitterfluxestothesea.
Monitoringisexpectedtobeperformedintheriver/seaboundary,meaningestuarineareas,inordertogatherdataonriverineinputstothesea.Riversurfaceobservationandriversurface/columnlittercollectionarefeasibleapproachesforquantificationoflitterfluxestothemarineenvironment.Bothfloatingandsuspendedlittercompartmentsarerecommendedformonitoringinordertoobtaincom‐plementaryinformation,allowingbetterestimationsoflitterfluxes.Riversurfacewaterspeedand/orflowdataareneededparameterstoallowcalculationoflitterfluxes.Characteristicsofriversflowre‐gime,seasonalvariabilityandenvironmentalfactors(e.g.stormevents,wind,tidesandothers)havetobetakenintoaccountinthedesignofmonitoringprogramsforanadequatecoverageofvariabilityinlitterquantities.Someimportantfeaturesaretheselectionofmonitoringsites,samplingcompartment,frequency,timingandsamplesize(surfaceand/orvolume).
3 Literature European Commission (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, establishing a
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
38
Plastics and the Society
Anthony L. Andrady
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC (USA)
E‐mail contact: [email protected] : [email protected]
Abstract
Plasticswithacurrentworldproductionofnearly300MMT,annuallyhasenjoyedthefastestgrowthrateofanymaterial,especiallyinsectorssuchaspackaging,buildingconstructionandtransportation.Itspopularityandsuccessasamaterialisattributedtoasetofuniquematerialpropertiescoupledwithlowcost.Plasticsdeliverexceptionalmechanicalproperties,easeofformability,bio‐inertness,recyclabilityandgivenitsrelativelylowdensityallowslight‐weightproductsmakingitaauniquema‐terial.Societalbenefitsofplastics,acheivedatalowcosthasensureditsgrowthasamaterialindi‐verseapplications.
Thispresentationwilldiscussplasticsandtheirroleinthesocietyinthecontextofthreebroadareas:energy,resourcesandexternalities(oremissions.)Ineacharea,thevaluetothesocietyandanypo‐tentialadverseimpactswillbeconsidereddrawingexamplesfrompackaging,buildingandtransporta‐tionapplications.Thediscussionwillfocusonsustainabilityconsiderationsandthereforealsolookatfuturesocietalbenefitsfromthematerial.
Inthebroadareaofenergytheroleofplasticsinconservationaswellasenergyproductionwillbedescribed.Conservationoffossil‐fuelbasedmaterialsisacriticalelementinsustainability.Anaspectofconservationistodecoupleplasticsfromfossil‐fuelrawmaterialstoobtainbio‐basedplastics.Re‐coveryofpost‐wasteplasticstoconserveenergyandmaterialsisthereforeanimportantfocusinmov‐ingtheindustrytowardssustainability.Aparticularlysalientareainrecentdiscussionsonplasticsandsocietyhasbeenthepotentialadverseimpactsofplasticsintermsofcontaminatingtheenvironment.Sustainableglobalgrowthofplasticsinthefuturewouldrequirethesetobeminimized.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
39
RIMMEL: the RIverine and Marine floating macro litter Monitoring and Modelling of Environmental Loading
Daniel González‐Fernández, Georg Hanke
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission, Joint Research Centre
Ispra, (Italy)
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD)(EuropeanCommission,2008)isthekeypolicyframeworkfortheprotectionofthemarineenvironmentacrossEurope.ItisaimedtoachieveGoodEnvironmentalStatus(GES)oftheEU'smarinewatersby2020.TheMSFDisdividedinto11thematicdescriptors,beingDescriptor10theonededicatedtotheassessmentofMarineLitter:“Propertiesandquantitiesofmarinelitterdonotcauseharmtothecoastalandmarineenvironment”.
MarinelitterisanissueatgloballevelandithasbeenidentifiedasahighpriorityattheG7ScienceMinistersMeeting(Berlin,2015),highlightingtheconcernaboutplasticsandrelatedriskstomarinelife.Ontheotherhand,literaturereferstoriverineandfreshwaterinputsasmainsourcesoflittertotheseas,butlittleresearchhasbeendoneonthissubjectsofar.ThislackofscientificdataandknowledgecallsforinitiativesthatcanbuildcapacityforquantificationandmonitoringinEuropeanriversforenvironmentalassessmentoflitterinputstothemarineenvironment.Inthisregard,theJRChaslaunchedanexploratoryresearchproject:
TheRIMMELprojectaimstoquantifyfloatingmacro‐litterloadsthroughriverstomarinewaters,bycollectingexistingdataanddevelopingaEuropeanobservationnetworkforacquisitionofnewdata.Eventually,resultswillbeusedtobuildastatisticalinversemodeloflitterloadingbasedontheup‐streamcatchmentscharacteristics.Thisisthefirst‐everEuropean‐scaleattemptforquantificationofloadsoffloatinglittertotheEuropeanseas.
Additionally,theprojectwilldeveloptheRiverLitterCammethodologyforcontinuousrecordingoffloatinglitterinrivers,providinganewtoolforobservationandassessmentoflitterinfreshwater/estuarineenvironments.
Resultswillbringabetterunderstandingonlitterdynamicsfromfreshwatertomarineenvironments,contributingtosourceidentificationandquantification,thussupportingpolicymakersforimprove‐mentofmanagementoptions.
2 Join the RIMMEL network
RIMMELlaunchesacallforexpressionofinteresttojointheFloatingLitterObservationMonitoringNetwork.TheprojectwillprovideamonitoringprotocolforobservationoffloatinglitteralongwithatabletcomputerapplicationbasedonMSFDlittercategorylist(softwaredevelopedbyJRC),allowingharmonizationoftheapproachatinternationallevel.
WewilluseVisualObservationasasimplemethodtomonitorfluxesoffloatinglitterfromriverstothesea.Ourapproachconsidersthefollowing:
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
40
• Contributionfromresearchers,MSauthorities,RiverCommissions,NGOs...
• Visualobservationsoffloatingmacrolitter(>2.5cm)onriverwatersurface
• Monitoringatriver/seaboundary(e.g.estuaries)fromaelevatedposition(e.g.bridges)
• HarmonizedapproachusingtheJRCFloatingLitterMonitoringApp.
• Regularmonitoringbasedshortindividualsurveys(e.g.1/2hoursurveyperweek)
InterestedpartiesareencouragedtocontactRIMMELinordertoreceivefurtherinfo:
3 Literature European Commission (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, establishing a
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
41
Citizen science for riverine monitoring
Jean‐Baptiste Dussaussois
Surfrider Foundation Europe, HQ, Biarritz
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
BecauseofthelittertakenintoaccountbytheMSFDbutnotbytheWFDinordertoreachtheGES,andbecauseofthelackofprotocoltoassessthequantityandtypologyoflitterinriver(Rechetal.,2014.Lechneretal.,2014)wedecidedtolaunchtheRiverineInputprojectin2013.Themainpurposeoftheprojectwastocollectdataaboutthequantityandtypologyoflitterthroughsettingupaprotocolwiththehelpofvolunteers.Oncecollectedwedecidedtosetupaspecificlittercategorisationlistdedicatedtorivers.Thedatabaseallowedustohaveanoverviewoftheproblems,toidentifythetypologiesofactivitieswhicharelikelytoberesponsibleofthispollutionandlaterwillallowustopreparerecom‐mendationsinordertostoplitterenteringintoaquaticecosystems.
2 Methods
Weconductedmonthlysamplingonour7spotscorrespondingtothedifferentpressuresthatcanim‐pacttheriver(urban,agricultural,industrial,touristic,sewagetreatmentplants).Thesameareaswerecollectedfromonthebankseachtime.Hydro‐morphologicalandhydraulicparametersweremeas‐uredinordertoassesstheinfluenceofenvironmentalparametersonlitteraccumulation.Weconduct‐edsamplingeverymonthonthebanksoftheriverandtributaries.ThefirstsamplingwasdoneinFeb‐ruary2014.Furthermore,thefirstimpactedbeachbytheriver’splumewasmonitoredaccordingtoOSPARmethodology.Monitoringofmacro‐litter(morethan0.5cm)wascompletedwithvolunteersundertheSurfriderFoundationEurope’ssupervision.Thetotalsurfaceareaoftheriverbankscollect‐edfromwas1683m².Wetrainedvolunteerstoexecutethecharacterisationandcountingoflitterfollowingthelistwehadsetup.ThelistwasestablishedinordertoobtaincomparabledatawiththeOSPARmonitoring.Thislistcontainsspecificitemswhicharemorelikelypresentinriverbanksandomitssomeotheritemswhicharenotpresentinrivers.
3 Results
84817itemswerecollectedduringthetwoyearssurvey.46299itemswerecollectedontheriverbanks.37918itemsonthefirstimpactedbeachbytheplumeoftheriver(OSPARmonitoring).Plas‐tics‐Polystyrenerepresents88.3%ofcollecteditemsthefirstyearand85.1%forthesecondyear.Onthebeachitrepresents89.6%oftheamountoflittercollectedthefirstyearand90.9%thesecondyear.Thisproportionrangedfrom62%to96.8%accordingtothedifferentspotsinriver.
Statisticalanalysisareongoingandarenotpresentedhere,yet(May6th,2016).(Wewillconductcomparisonanalysistestofproportionofmaterialbetweenthedifferentspots,influenceofhydrologicparametersonlitteraccumulation,influenceofrainfallonthisaccumulation…).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
42
4 Discussion
Oncestatisticalanalysiswillbeconductedwewillprovidecompletediscussion.
5 Literature Lechner, A., et al., The Danube so colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter out numbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river,
Environmental Pollution (2014)
Rech, S., et al. Rivers as a source of marine litter – A study from the SE Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
43
Trashbusters H2O – Crash the Trash! A youth Project for Clean Waters
Elena Lange
Youth Association for the Protection of Nature (NAJU), Berlin
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Youth Association for the Protection of Nature
TheNAJU(YouthAssociationfortheProtectionofNature)istheindependentyouthdivisionoftheNABU(NatureAndBiodiversityConservationUnion)andisGermany’slargestyoungpeople’sorgani‐zationfortheprotectionofnatureandtheenvironment.Foundedin1982,itsgoalistoprotectandsafeguardenvironmentalintegrity,biodiversityandthustoconservethenaturalfoundationsofhu‐manlifethrougharangeofconservationmeasures.
TheNAJUreachesouttoitsmorethan80,000membersthroughextra‐curricularenvironmentaledu‐cation,environmentalprotectionprojectsandpracticalconservationwork.NAJUisactivethroughoutGermanybasedonits16stateassociationsandover1,000localgroups.NAJUalsocollaborateswithnumerouspartnersofanextensivenetworkinGermanyandabroad.
Oneofourmorerecentprojectsisthe“TrashbustersH2O”project,whichisbeingsupportedbytheGermanEnvironmentAgency(UBA)onbehalfoftheFederalMinistryfortheEnvironment,NatureConservation,BuildingandNuclearSafety(BMUB).
2 A worldwide challenge addressed on a local scale
Around70%oftheworld’ssurfaceiscoveredbywater.Thelargestcomponentoftheglobalhydro‐sphereiscomprisedbytheworldoceans.Shockingly,morethan10milliontonsoftrashfindsitswayintotheoceans,around75%ofwhichisplasticwaste.Scientistssofardiscoveredfiveextensivesurfi‐cialaccumulationsofplasticwaste,someofwhichoccupyinganareaasbigasGermany,AustriaandSwitzerlandtogether.ThePacificbetweenCaliforniaandHawaiicontainsplasticwasteamountingtomorethansixtimestheabundanceofplankton.Theimpactsofthisvastaccumulationofwasteonma‐rineecosystemsarealreadyclearlydiscernibleandareexpectedtoincreasesignificantlyinthefore‐seeablefuture.
TheseobservationshavebeenthemajormotivationforNAJU’sTrashbustersH2Oproject.Theprojectaimstoprovideeducationtochildrenandyoungadultsaboutplasticwasteinmarineandinlandwa‐ters.Theprojectstrivestomotivateyoungpeopletostarttheirownprojectsandactionsandtoavoidandremovelitteringinlakes,riversandoceans.Thisincludespossibly/preferablythemodificationoftheirownconsumptionbehaviourandtheiruseofresources.Theprojecttargetschildrenandyouthsbetweentheageof6to19yearsoldandcompriseseitherextra‐curricular‐oractivitieswithinschools.Thankstoawide‐rangingdisseminationthroughnation‐widepublications,newsreleasesandsocialmediacampaigns,theyouth’seffortsandengagementarebeingrecognizedandpublicized.Inthatway,theirworkattractsmoreattentionandanincreasingnumberofyoungstersarebeinginformedabouttheissuesaddressed.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
44
3 Components of the project
3.1 Actions
Sincethe“InternationalCoastalCleanUpDay”takesplaceonceayearinSeptember,thisdayhasbeenpickedtobethestartoftheTrashbustersH2OActionWeeksthatarecarriedoutbyyoungstersdedi‐catedtotheproject(Figure2).Alloverthecountry,youngpeopleteamuptocleanupbeachesandcoastalenvironmentsduringtwoweeks.Tohavetheirworkincludedintheinternationalstatistics,participantsarebeingaskedtoweighthecollectedtrashandreporttheirresultstotheprojectcoordi‐nators.DuringtheActionWeeks,anonlinemapontrashbusters.de(Figure1),theofficialprojectweb‐siteandtheTrashbustersH2Oappformobilephoneshelpstoraiseinterestinpeopletoidentifytheirownlocalclean‐uparea.Activitiesarenotonlyrestrictedtowaterbodies.Itisalsousefultocleaninguptheotherareasinordertopreventtrashfindingitswayintowaters.Tosupportgroups,whichareinterestedinorganizingtheirownclean‐upproject,TrashbustersH2Oprovideseducationalmaterialsaimedtomotivateandinformpotentialparticipants.Inaddition,thereisthechancetowinacompeti‐tion,calledthe“TrashbustersAquaAward”,whichisbeinggiventoaprojectthatacommitteeofNAJUboardmembersandexpertsofpublicrelationsoftheNAJUofficefindextraordinarilycreativeandappealing.
Figure 1: Map of cleanups during the action Figure 2: Active youth group during the action weeks 2015 in Germany (www.trashbusters.de) weeks 2015
Kartendaten © 2016 GeoBasis DE/BKG (© 2009),
Google, Inst. Geogr. Nacional
3.2Educationalmaterials
Aspartoftheproject,brochures(Figure3)fortwodifferentages(youthandkids)havebeencreatedtopresentinformationaroundthetopicofplasticwasteinmarineandinlandwatersandtosuggestideasforself‐organizedprojects.
Thebrochurefortheyouthisdesignedinanactivatingway.Groupsofyoungpeoplearecalledtousethebrochuretolearnaboutthetopicandarebeingaccompaniedthroughthebrochureontheirwaytoorganizetheirownproject.Thespecialdesignmotivatesthegroupstopaint,draw,cutandgluethingsontothebrochureanddocumenttheirprocessoflearningandplanning.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
45
Thebrochureforkidsprovidesideasforlearningstationsaboutwaterandplasticpollutionthathavetobeaccom‐plishedbyenvironmentaleducatorsorteachers.
Theconceptsaimtonotonlyprovideauniqueeducationalexperience,buttoencourageyoungpeopletobecomeactive.ThisispartoftheUnitedNationsprogramofEducationforSustainableDevelopment(ESD).
3.3Youtheco‐festival
Anotherpartoftheprojectistheenvironmentalyouthfestival„CrashtheTrash”(Figure4).YouthfestivalsareorganizedbytheNAJUbi‐annuallyinsummer.Thisyear’sfestivalisdedicatedtotheworld’spollutedwatersandtopromotingthegoalsoftheTrashbustersH2Oproject.Youngadultsabovetheageof14willtakepartinworkshopsonwater‐andresource‐saving.Theywillalsoparticipateinhands‐onenvironmentalactivitiesandwillbeencouragedtoidentifycreativewaysfortherecyclingandre‐useoftrash.Theworkshopswillinspiregroupworkinordertofindsolutionsandtocollectideasforsolvingmajorenvironmentalproblems.
3.4Educationalapproach
Plasticwasteinwatersrepresentsaproblemwhichresultsineconomicandsocialimpactsontheglobalscalethatarecausedbyourownactionsandbehaviour.ThroughTrashbustersH2O,childrenandyoungadultsarebeingguidedtodealwiththeseissues.Bysupplyingeducationalmaterials,awebsiteandanappformobilephones,theprojectaimstohelpyoungpeopletodevelopawell‐foundedopinion,toenableadvocacyforbehaviouralchangesrelatedtoenvironmentalissuesandtoparticipateactively.Asideoftheeducationalvalue,theprojectalsoaimstoconveyafeelingofbeingpartofabiggermovement.Itisintendedtouniteyoungpeoplewhostrivetoenableenvironmentalchangeswithoutyetknowingwheretostartfromorwhototurnto.
4 Resources Youth Association for the Protection of Nature (NAJU): Trashbusters. www.trashbusters.de. Access on 21.03.2016.
Youth Association for the Protection of Nature (NAJU): Discover NAJU. www.naju.de/english. Access on 21.03.2016.
Figure 4: Logo of the youth eco‐festival
Figure 3: Cover of the youth brochure
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
46
Plastics as a systemic risk of social‐ecological supply systems
Johanna Kramm, Carolin Völker
Institute for Social‐Ecological Research, Frankfurt am Main (ISOE)
E‐mail contact: [email protected], [email protected]
1 Introduction
Plasticisanambivalentmaterial.Ithasbecometheubiquitousmaterialwithmultiplefunctionalprop‐ertiesandabroadvarietyofapplicationslikeinpackaging–thelargestapplication–,buildingandconstruction,automotive,electronicsorintheagriculturesector.Plasticisconsideredtheworkhorseofmoderneconomy(WEF2016).Itsproductionhasincreasedtwentyfoldinthelast50yearsfrom15milliontonnesin1964to311milliontonnesin2014(WEF2016,PlasticsEurope2013).Thoughplas‐ticisdeliveringmanybenefits,drawbacksarebecomingmoreapparent.Thesingle‐usementalityes‐peciallyofplasticpackagingmaterialcontrastswiththedurabilityofthematerialintheenvironment.Whileplastichasbeenknownasafactorforenvironmentalpollution–symbolizedbytheplasticbag–foralongtime,recentscientificevidenceonthemassiveaccumulationintheoceansandthenewrisksassociatedwithmicroplasticsandchemicaladditiveshasledtoanupswingofthedebateonenviron‐mentalimpactsofplastic.Thereisahighinsecurityconcerningtheadverseeffectsonhumanhealthandtheenvironment(Oehlmannetal.2009;Talsnessetal.2009).Tounderstandtherisksandtheirproductionassociatedwithplasticasystemicapproachisneeded.
InournewlystartedjuniorresearchgroupPlastX,whichisfundedbytheBMBFwithintheframeworkofSocial‐EcologicalResearch(SÖF),weareaimingtopursuesuchasystemicapproach.Accordingtoourresearchprogramforthenextfiveyearswewillanalyzeplasticasasystemicriskforsocial‐ecologicalsupplysystemsinaninter‐andtransdisciplinarymanner.Therefore,ourinterdisciplinaryresearchteamcomprisesresearchersfrombiology,chemistry,geographyandsociology.Inthefollow‐ing,ourresearchprogramwillbeoutlined.
2 Research approach
2.1 Systemic risk perspective
Theproductionofplasticanditsleakageintheecosystemhassofarbeenpartofthenormalmodeofoperationofthesocial‐ecologicalsupplysystem(Keiletal.2008).Theadverseeffectsonecosystemssuchastheoceansmayinturnhavefeedbackeffectsonthesocialsystemsandhumanhealth(Berg‐mann,Gutow&Klages2015).Whileclassicalriskanalysisfocusonhazardouseventsandtheireffectsonasinglesector,systemicriskanalysisisbroadeningtheperspectiveandtakesintoaccountthattherisksmightaffectentiresystemsandtheirlinkedsystemsasitmightforexamplebethecaseinafoodsupplysystem(Renn&Keil2008).Thus,asKeiletal.(2008:357)putit“Itisnotjusteventssuchasconstructionalfaults,operatingerrors,malfunctionsofsystemcomponents,ordisastrousexternaleventsthatmustbetakenintoaccount,butalsotheprocessesofself‐endangermentbroughtaboutbymodern,highlyinterconnectedsocieties.”Plasticproductionandtheconsumptionofplasticproductsisaglobalphenomenon,thustheriskproductionisequallyglobal,ambiguousandcomplexaswell.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
47
Differentconstellationsofactorsfromvarioussystemsareinvolved,whocanberiskproducingandriskaffectedatthesametime.Theconceptofindividualresponsibilityisimportantwhenitcomestowastedisposal.Still,relyingontheindividualresponsibilityalonewillnotsolvetheproblemasleak‐agesintotheenvironmentwillnonethelessmostlikelycontinue(OceanConservancy2015).Thus,inordertotackleandgovernsystemicrisksasystemicapproachisneeded.FirstapproachestowardsasystemicriskgovernancehavebeenelaboratedbyRennetal.(2007)orBeisheim,Rudloff&Ulmer(2012).Theystressthatinthecaseofscientificuncertaintytheprecautionaryprincipleasalegalin‐strumenttodealwithpossiblehazardoussituationscomesintoplay.Further,theroleofcollectiveactionandtheinclusionofthedifferentactorsareemphasizedwiththeaimtoreorganizethesystemandsotominimizerisks.Buildingonthis,wewilltackleissueslikeprevention,alternativestothepre‐sentsituationandthemanagementofplasticwithindifferentareasoftheplasticlifecycle(Fig.1)whichcomprisesconsumptionandpackaging,plasticgovernanceandecotoxicologicaleffects.Guidingquestionsare:
Canwereplaceconventionalplasticfoodpackagingwithsustainablematerials?
Whatcanbedonetoreducetheusageofplastic?
Howdowecopewithplasticwasteintheenvironment?
Whileworkingonthesequestionswewanttocollaborativelyanalyzehowrisksassociatedwithplas‐ticsaresharedbydifferentactors,whichwillbefurtheroutlinedinsection3.
Figure 1: Plastic life cycle and research areas of PlastX
© own source
2.2 Transdisciplinary approach
Thereasonswearefollowingatransdisciplinaryapproachisthat,wearedealingwith“realworld”problemsandnotsolelyscientificallyorientedresearchquestions.Weareworkingwithstakeholdersfromthefoodsector,publicauthoritiesandinternationalorganisations.Theintegrationofknowledgefromdifferentdisciplinesandfromsocietalstakeholdersiscentral,butcaneasilyfailifnotdesignedandpursuedproperly.Therefore,wedrawonthemodelconceptualisedattheISOE–InstituteforSo‐cial‐EcologicalResearchforthetransdisciplinaryresearchprocess(Figure2)(Jahn,Bergmann&Keil2012;Bergmannetal.2012).Asharedproblemunderstandingisjointlyestablishedintegratingsocie‐talknowledge.Fromthisjointunderstanding,researchquestionsforeachofthedisciplinaryworkpackages(consumptionandpackaging,plasticgovernanceandecotoxicologicaleffectsofmicroplastic)arederived.Throughsocial,communicativeandcognitiveintegrationofthedisciplinaryresearchandbytakingtheknowledgeofsocietalstakeholdersintoaccount,weareaimingtodevelopadequateso‐lutionsandknowledgeforchange.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
48
Figure 2: Transdisciplinary Research Process
© Jahn et al. (2012)
3 Research program
Theidentifiedresearchareaswillbeinvestigatedbyaninterdisciplinaryteamandcomprisethedisci‐plinaryworkingpackagesandanintegratedmodule.
3.1 Disciplinary perspectives
Whatcanbedonetoreduceusageofplastic?
ThelargestapplicationforplasticispackagingwithincreasingnumbersinGermany(UBA2015).Atthesametimetherearetrendsofincreasedconsumerawarenessregardingenvironment‐friendlypackaging(consumerstudiesofpwc2015,Ipsos2009.).Againstthisbackgroundweseektounder‐standconsumerandproducerbehaviorandtheirlinkages.Therefore,wewillanalyzeeverydaycon‐sumptionpractices,life‐stylespecificvalorizationand(risk)perceptionsofconsumersregardingplas‐ticpackagingontheonehandandmarketingandsustainabilitystrategiesofproducersanddistribu‐torsinthefoodsectorontheother.Onthebasisofconsumerandproducersurveys,demands,trendsandrequirementsprofilesofpackagingwillbeidentifiedtosupportfoodretailers’strategiestoreducepackagingmaterial.
Canwereplaceconventionalplasticfoodpackagingwithsustainablematerials?
Wewillfurtherexaminesustainablepackagingalternativessuchasbioplastics.Mostofthecurrentlyproducedbioplasticshavetobeoptimizedregardingtheirenvironmentalbenefitscomparedtocon‐ventionalplastics(UBA2012).Furthermore,thereisademandthatfuturestudiesshouldfocusonthepracticalimplementationofbioplasticsaspackagingalternatives(Kumaretal.2014).Therefore,sus‐tainablebiopolymerswillbeidentifiedregardingtheirapplicationpotentialasfoodpackagingmateri‐alincollaborationwithpartnersfromthefoodsector.Wewillconsiderthechemicalpropertiesre‐quiredforpackagingaswellasthedegradabilityunderenvironmentalconditions.Wewillfurthercon‐sidereconomicaspectsregardingtheproductionandapplicationofthealternativematerialonalarg‐erscale.
Howdowecopewithplasticwasteintheenvironment?
Wewilllookataspectsofmanagingplasticwasteintheenvironmentintwodifferentways:
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
49
First,weareplanningtodevelopanecotoxicologicalriskassessmentconceptformicroplasticsinriv‐erssincepreviousresearchonmicroplasticshasdealtalmostexclusivelywitheffectsonmarineeco‐systems(Coleetal.2011,Wrightetal.2013).Byexamininghowfreshwaterorganismsareexposedtoandaffectedbymicroplastics,wewillcontributetoabetterunderstandingoftheactualhazardmicro‐plasticsposetoaquaticecosystems.Incollaborationwithstakeholdersfromafederalagencyrespon‐sibleforwaters,theriskassessmentconceptwillsupportpolicyrecommendationsandsolutionstrat‐egiesconcerningtheregulationofthereleaseofmicroplasticsintotheenvironment.
Second,wewillanalyzethegovernanceofplasticwasteintheocean.Weareaimingtounderstandhowglobalenvironmentalrisksaredealtwith,whichgoverningmechanismsandregulationsareap‐pliedordeveloped.Amulti‐levelperspective(Brunnengräber&Walker2007)istakentounderstandhowglobalpoliciesregardingthe“plasticproblem”aredeployedandhowtheyareimplementedonthelocallevelandatthesametimeshapedbylocalaction.Thesescaleinterplaysoftheriskgovern‐ancewillbescrutinizedinseveralcasestudiesinclosecollaborationwithstakeholderstoidentifyandtestmanagementstrategiesanddevelopbestpractices.
3.2 Integrative perspective: Shared risks
Inourintegrativemoduleweoperationalisesystemicrisksassharedrisks,whichwewillscrutinizeviaastakeholderanalysis.Theideaof“sharedrisks”ispromotedasapolicyandmanagementinstru‐mentinthewatersectorbyWWF(WWFundHSBC2009,WWF2013)aswellasbytheCEOWaterMandateoftheGlobalCompactoftheUnitedNations.Theapproachstartswiththedisaggregationofrisksintophysical,regulatoryandreputationalrisksthatactorslikeacorporationorpublicauthori‐tiesarefacing.Itthenpointstothefactthatinterdependenciesexistandrisksareshared,whichtosomedegreecallsforcollectiveaction(Comfort2008).Takingallthisintoaccountanddrawingonthesystemiccharacteroftherisks,wewilldepicttheinterdependenciesbetweentheactors.Bringingin‐ter‐andtransdisciplinaryexpertisefromthedifferentareas(consumptionandpackaging,plasticgov‐ernanceandecotoxicologicaleffectsofmicroplastics)togetherallowstounderstandtheunderlyinglogicsatworkaswellasperceptionsandpracticesregardingthesesharedrisks.
4 Conclusion
BytheendoftheprojectPlastX,theoutcomesofthetransdisciplinaryworkwillcontributetoboth,societalaswellasscientificissuesrelatedtoplastics.Thesystemicapproachaimstogenerateacom‐prehensiveunderstandingoftheassociatedrisksandstrengthenstheawarenessoftheimpactsofplasticusage.Byintegratingdifferentdisciplinaryperspectives,theprojectteamwilldeveloppracticalsolutionstomanage,reduce,andsubstituteplastics.
5 Literature Beisheim, M., Rudloff, B., Ulmer, K. (2012): Risiko‐Governance. Umgang mit globalen und vernetzten Risiken. Arbeitspapier For‐
schungsgruppe Globale Fragen 8. Berlin.
Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (eds.) (2015): Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer Open. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht,
London.
Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., Schramm, E. (2012): Methods for transdisciplinary research. A primer for
practice. Campus Verlag. Frankfurt am Main.
Brunnengräber, A., Walker, H. (eds.) (2007): Multi‐Level‐Governance. Klima‐, Umwelt‐ und Sozialpolitik in einer interdependenten
Welt. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Baden‐Baden.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
50
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S. (2011): Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment. A review.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 62. 2588‐2597.
Comfort, L. (2008): Shared Risk. Complex systems in seismic response. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bingley.
Ipsos (2009): Global@dvisor – Reputation Risk Identifier: Frisch, gesund und umweltfreundlich verpackt müssen Lebensmittel sein.
http://www.ipsos.de/assets/files/presse/2009/pressemitteilungen/PI‐Prioritaeten%20bei%20Lebensmitteln
%20global_Juli2009.pdf. access on 03.03.2016.
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., Keil, F. (2012): Transdisciplinarity. Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics 79. 1‐
10.
Keil, F., Bechmann, G., Kümmerer, K., Schramm, E. (2008): Systemic risk governance for pharmaceutical residues in drinking water.
GAIA 17. 349–354.
Kumar, Y., Shukla, P., Singh, P., Prabhakaran, P.P., Tanwar, V.K. (2014): Bio‐plastics. A perfect tool for eco‐friendly food packaging: A
Review. Journal of Food Product Development and Packaging 1, 1‐6.
Ocean Conservancy, McKinsey Center for Business and Environment (2015): Stemming the Tide. Land‐based strategies for a plastic‐
free ocean. http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our‐work/marine‐debris/stop‐plastic‐trash‐2015.html.access on 05.03.2016.
Oehlmann, J., Schulte‐Oehlmann, U., Kloas, W., Jagnytsch, O., Lutz, I., Kusk, K. O., Wollenberger, L., Santos, E., Paull, G. C., Van Look,
K. J. W., Tyler, C. R. (2009): A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions B Biolog‐
ical Science 364. 2047‐2062.
PlasticsEurope (2013): Plastics – the Facts 2013. An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data.
http://www.plasticseurope.org/Document/plastics‐the‐facts‐2013.aspx. access on 02.09.2015.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (pwc) (2015): Verpackungsfreie Lebensmittel – Nische oder Trend? Verbraucherbefragung
Januar 2015. https://www.pwc‐wissen.de/pwc/de/shop/publikationen/Verpackungsfreie+Lebensmittel/?card=12755. access on
29.10.2015.
Renn, O., Dreyer, M., Klinke, A., Schweizer, P.‐J. (2007): Systemische Risiken. Charakterisierung, Management und Integration in
eine aktive Nachhaltigkeit. Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik 5 (Soziale Nachhaltigkeit). Marburg. 157‐188.
Renn, O., Keil, F. (2008): Systemische Risiken. Versuch einer Charakterisierung. GAIA 17(4). 329‐408.
Talsness, C. E., Andrade, A. J. M., Kuriyama, S. N., Taylor, J. A., vom Saal, F. S. (2009): Components of plastic. Experimental studies in
animals and relevance for human health. Philosophical Transactions B Biological Science 364. 2079‐2096.
UBA (2012): Biokunststoffe nicht besser. Verpackungen aus bioabbaubaren Kunststoffen sind denen aus herkömmlichen Kunststof‐
fen nicht überlegen. Presseinformation Nr. 37/2012. Umweltbundesamt. Dessau.
UBA (2015): Aufkommen und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfällen in Deutschland im Jahr 2012. Texte 50/2015. Umweltbun‐
desamt. Dessau.
World Economic Forum (WEF) (2016): The new plastics economy. Rethinking the future of plastics. Industry agenda.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf. access on 05.03.2016.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S. (2013): The physical impact of microplastics on marine organisms. A review. Environ‐
mental Pollution 178. 483‐492.
WWF, HSBC (2009): Investigating shared risk in water – Corporate engagement with the public policy process.
http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=2836. access on 24.04.2015.
WWF (2013): Water Stewardship. Shared risk and opportunity at the water´s edge. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/
how_we_work/conservation/freshwater/water_management/. access on 24.04.2015.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
51
The New Plastics Economy ‒ Rethinking the future of plastics
Michiel De Smet
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Summary
ThetalkstartsbypresentingthemainfindingsandconclusionsofthereportTheNewPlasticsEcono‐my‒Rethinkingthefutureofplastics,launchedinJanuary2016inDavos,bytheWorldEconomicFo‐rumandtheEllenMacArthurFoundation,withanalyticalsupportfromMcKinsey&Company.Afterdiscussingthecurrent,largelylinearplasticssystem–withaquaticlitterasjustonesymptomofthecurrentineffectivesystem–anewvision,alignedwiththeprinciplesofthecirculareconomy,ispre‐sented–theNewPlasticsEconomy.Thetalkcontinuesbydescribingthesystemicandcollaborativeapproachrequiredtocapturetheopportunitiesofthisnewplasticssystem,andendsbyexplaininghowtheEllenMacArthurFoundationwillmobilisethereport’srecommendationsthroughtheirNewPlasticsEconomyinitiative–aconcerted,globalcollaborationinitiativethatmatchesthescaleofthechallengeandtheopportunity.
2 Findings and conclusions of The New Plastics Economy ‒ Rethinking the future of plastics
2.1 The case for rethinking plastics, starting with packaging
Plasticshavebecometheubiquitousworkhorsematerialofthemoderneconomy‒combiningunri‐valledfunctionalpropertieswithlowcost.Theirusehasincreasedtwenty‐foldinthepasthalf‐centuryandisexpectedtodoubleagaininthenext20years.Todaynearlyeveryone,everywhere,everydaycomesintocontactwithplastics‒especiallyplasticpackaging,thefocusofthistalk.
Whileplasticsandplasticpackagingareanintegralpartoftheglobaleconomyanddelivermanybene‐fits,theirvaluechainscurrentlyentailsignificantdrawbacks.Mostplasticpackagingisusedonlyonce;95%ofthevalueofplasticpackagingmaterial,worth$80‐120billionannually,islosttotheeconomy.Additionally,plasticpackaginggeneratessignificantnegativeexternalities.Astaggering32%ofplasticpackagingescapescollectionsystems,generatingsignificanteconomiccostsbyreducingtheproduc‐tivityofvitalnaturalsystemssuchasaquaticenvironmentsandcloggingurbaninfrastructure.Thecostofsuchafter‐useexternalitiesforplasticpackaging,plusthecostassociatedwithgreenhousegasemissionsfromitsproduction,isconservativelyestimatedatUSD40billionannually‒exceedingtheplasticpackagingindustry’sprofitpool.Givenprojectedgrowthinconsumption,inabusiness‐as‐usualscenario,by2050oceanscouldcontainmoreplasticsthanfish(byweight),andtheentireplasticsin‐dustrycouldconsume20%oftotaloilproduction,and15%oftheannualcarbonbudget.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
52
Figure 1: Plastic production increased twenty‐fold over the last 50 years
Figure 2: Today, plastic packaging material flows are largely linear
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
53
2.2 The New Plastics Economy: Capturing the opportunity
Inovercomingthedrawbacksofthecurrentsystem,anopportunitybeckons:enhancingsystemeffec‐tivenesstoachievebettereconomicandenvironmentaloutcomeswhilecontinuingtoharnessthemanybenefitsofplasticpackaging.The‘NewPlasticsEconomy’offersanewvision,alignedwiththeprinciplesofthecirculareconomy,tocapturetheseopportunities.
Figure 3: The New Plastics Economy
2.3 The New Plastics Economy demands a new approach
Withanexplicitlysystemicandcollaborativeapproach,theNewPlasticsEconomyaimstoovercomethelimitationsoftoday’sincrementalimprovementsandfragmentedinitiatives,tocreateasharedsenseofdirection,tosparkawaveofinnovationandtomovetheplasticsvaluechainintoapositivespiralofvaluecapture,strongereconomics,andbetterenvironmentaloutcomes.Thereportoutlinesafundamentalrethinkforplasticpackagingandplasticsingeneral;itoffersanewapproachwiththepotentialtotransformglobalplasticpackagingmaterialsflowsandtherebyusherintheNewPlasticsEconomy.
3 The New Plastics Economy initiative
InJanuary2016,theWorldEconomicForumandtheEllenMacArthurFoundation,withanalyticalsupportfromMcKinsey&Company,launchedthereport“TheNewPlasticsEconomy–Rethinkingthefutureofplastics”attheWorldEconomicForuminDavos,comprehensivelylayingout,fortheveryfirsttime,thematerialflowsinanddrawbacksoftoday’splasticseconomydescribedaboveaswellastheoutlineofasystemwithfundamentallybettereconomicandenvironmentaloutcomes:theNewPlasticsEconomy.Theground‐breakingreportbecameaglobalheadline,reachedawideglobalaudi‐ence,andisalreadyshapingpolicymakerandbusinessaction.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
54
Buildingonthesuccessofthereport,theEllenMacArthurFoundationhaslaunchedinMaytheNewPlasticsEconomyinitiative,abold,ambitious,3‐yearinitiativetomobilisethereport’srecommenda‐tions,workingwithstakeholdersacrosstheglobalplasticsvaluechain,includingconsumergoodscompanies,retailers,plasticpackagingproducersandplasticsmanufacturers,businessesinvolvedincollection,sortingandreprocessing,cities,policymakersandNGOs.
Initialareasoffocusare:
1. Setupaglobalcross‐valuechaindialoguemechanism
2. Convergeandre‐designplasticpackagingmaterials/formatsandafter‐usesystemsthroughaGlobalPlasticsProtocol
3. Mobilisetargeted‘moonshot’innovationswiththepotentialtoscaleglobally
4. Developinsightsandbuildabaseofeconomicandscientificevidence
5. Engagepolicymakers
4 Literature World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, The New Plastics Economy ‒ Rethinking the future
of plastics (2016, http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications)
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
55
European overview on management options and measures in place for plastics in freshwater environments
Philipp Hohenblum
Environment Agency Austria, Vienna
Anja Verschoor
RIVM ‐ Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Beate Bänsch‐Baltruschat, Esther Breuninger, Georg Reifferscheid
German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)
Jan Koschorreck
Umweltbundesamt, Dessau‐Roßlau
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
Beginninginthelate70soflastcenturyreportsemergedthatoceansareasinkforplasticwaste.Plas‐ticpiecesthesizesoflessthan5mmarereferredtoasmicroplastics,whichreachhighdensitiesinwaterandsedimentsandinteractwithorganismsandtheenvironmentinavarietyofways(Thomp‐son2015).Theyconsistofsyntheticpolymerparticleswithlowsolubilityinwaterandalowdegrada‐tionrate.Agreatdealofmicroplasticsisformedintheenvironmentbyweatheringprocessesoflargerparticles(secondarymicroplastics)whereasprimarymicroplasticsareaddedtocosmeticsand(clean‐ing)productsororiginatefromindustrialemissionsduringproduction,manufacturingortransport(Verschoor2015).Oncebeingdispersedintheenvironment,itisnotfeasibletoremovethementirelyduetotheirsmallsizeandcontinuousbreakdownoflargeritems.Therefore,preventivelytacklingtheproblematsourceiswidelyrecognizedasbeingtheoptimalapproach,butmicroplasticsarecurrentlynotsubjecttodirectregulation.
Correspondingwithatremendousincreaseoftheworldwideproductionofplasticssincetheseven‐ties,scientificsurveysdescribetheincreaseofplasticscontaminationinthemarineenvironment(An‐drady2011,Moore2008).Severalinvestigationsdescribetheamountsofplasticsfloatingatseaandestimatethatapprox.80%oftheinputisofterrestrialsources(UNEP2009).Riversandfreshwatersystemshavetobeconsideredascontributorsofplasticsbutsoundstudiesinfreshwatersystemsstillarescarce(Faure2014,Hohenblum2015,Imhof2013,Moore2005,Zbyszewski2011).
Thosefreshwaterstudies,however,whichhavebeencarriedoutinrecentyears,showedthatplasticoccursinsomepartsinconcentrationscomparabletomarineenvironments.Anumberofcountriesassignedfreshwaterstudiestospecificallyaddressplasticsinnationalriversandlakes.ReportsfromAustria(DanubeRiver),Switzerland(LakesandRhoneRiver)aswellasfromnon‐coastalregionsinGermanyunderlinetheimportanceofthetopic.Resultsarebarelycomparablesinceavarietyofmeth‐odsiscurrentlyappliedforsamplingandanalysis:someresultsrelatetothesurfaceofthesampledwaterbody(anddisregardspatialdistributionofplasticswithinthewaterbody),othersrelatetothesampledvolume.Atthesametime,somestudiesinvestigateplasticconcentrationswhileothersexam‐ineparticlenumbers,especiallyofplasticsinthelowerµmrange.Alongwithabindingdefinitionof
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
56
theoverallproblem,harmonizationandstandardisationofmethodsareneededtoacquireknowledgeontheenvironmentaldistributionofplastics.Onlyaharmonizedapproachwillbeabletoidentifyrel‐evantsources,todeductappropriatemeasuresandtomonitortheirefficacy.
2 Methods
2.2 Questionnaire survey on plastics in freshwater environments among EU coun‐tries
Currently,asystematicoverviewismissingonmanagementoptionsforplasticsinfreshwaterenvi‐ronments.Similartomonitoringactivities,freshwatermanagementlagsbehindthemarinecommunitywhereconcretemeasureshavebeenproposedandimplementedtoreduceplasticpollutionintheseas,e.g.RegionalActionPlanforMarineLitterintheBalticSea(HELCOM2015).
TheGermanEnvironmentalAgency(UBA)andtheFederalInstituteofHydrology(BfG)initiatedavol‐untaryquestionnairetoelaborateacoherentpictureofactivitiesandactionsrelatedtoplasticsinEu‐ropeanfreshwaterenvironments.ThequestionnairewasinformallymailedtotherepresentativesoftheEuropeancountriesintheStrategicCoordinationGroup(SCG).TheSCGcoordinatesandgivesad‐vicetotheCommonImplementationStrategy(CIS)oftheEuropeanWaterFrameworkDirective.Intotal,28memberstatesoftheEuropeanUnionplus6non‐EUcountrieswereaddressedandaskedtocompletethequestionnaire.
Thefirstsevenquestionsofthequestionnairedealtwithmonitoringeffortsforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments(seeabstractReifferscheidetal.,‘OverviewonplasticsinEuropeanfreshwaterenvi‐ronments–Resultsofasurvey’).Questions8‐10soughtforinformationandexamplesrelatedtoper‐ceptionandmanagementofplasticsinriversandlakes:
Q8:Howareplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsperceivedinyourcountry?
Q9:Aretherediscussionsinyourcountryonreductionmeasuresforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments?
Q10:Arethereexistingorplannedactionsinyourcountrytoreduceinputsofplasticsand/ortoremoveexistinglitterfromfreshwaterenvironments?
2.2 Specific examples from two EU countries
TwoMemberStates,AustriaandtheNetherlandshaveinvestigatedindetailexposurescenariosforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments.Discussionswithstakeholdersresultedinrecommendationstocontrolthepollutionoffreshwatersystemswithplastics.ThesemanagementoptionswillbeanalysedinrelationtotheoutcomeofthequestionnairesurveyamongEuropeancountries.
3 Results
Questionnairesurvey:feedback
14countries(Austria,Belgium,Denmark,Germany,Iceland,Ireland,Latvia,Lithuania,Luxembourg,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia,andUnitedKingdom)returnedacompletedquestionnaire(41%).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
57
3.1 How are plastics in freshwater environments perceived in European countries?
Question8ofthequestionnairesurveyaddressedriskperception:“Howareplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsperceivedinyourcountrye.g.,withregardtomediareports,socialnetworks,campaignsofnon‐governmentalorganisations?”
Publicperceptionwithregardtomediareports,socialnetworksorcampaignsofnon‐governmentalorganisationsratedinthemajorityoftheresponses(57%)asaverage(3)onascalebetween(1)and(5,indicatingmaximumattention).Inthreecountries(21%)publicperceptionwasratedlow(1,2)andinthreecountries(21%)itwasperceivedasanincreased(4)concern.Nocountryevaluatedpub‐licperceptionashigh(5),whereasthosecountries,whichcarriedoutfreshwaterstudies,oftenevalu‐atedpublicperceptionofthetopicintheircountryasincreased(4).
Theaveragevalueofpositiveresponseswas2.9withinarangeof1‐5.Higherthanaverageratingscorrelatewithexistingmonitoringprogramsandundertakenmeasuresinconcerningcountries(e.g.Austria,Belgium,GermanyandtheNetherlands).
Itisinterestingtoseethatalotofresearchonplasticinfreshwatersystemshasbeenpromotedbylandlockedcountries(Austria,Switzerland,landlockedregionsinGermanyandtheNetherlands).Incontrast,lessattentiontoplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsisapparentlypaidbycountrieswithextendedcoastalregions.
3.2 Are reduction measures for plastics in freshwater environments discussed in European countries?
Question9ofthequestionnairesurveyaddressedwatermanagement:“Aretherediscussionsinyourcountryonreductionmeasuresforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments?”
Overall,almostallparticipantsofthesurveystatedon‐goingdiscussionsonreductionmeasuresintheircountries.ThesurveyrevealedthatNGOs(almost80%)andmedia(64%)discussreductionmeasuresquiteintensively,followedbydiscussionsinthepublicandregulatorysectors(both50%).Almost40%ofthequestionnaires(36%)mentioneddiscussionsintheindustrialsector.
Figure 1: Discussion on reduction measures in the surveyed European countries
The columns present the percentage of the selected answer option. Label of the stacked columns: green‐yes; dark
grey‐no; light grey‐not stated. Multiple answers were possible without specific ranking. Data source: Results of the
European survey.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Public Media Regulation NGO Industry
[%]
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
58
Theuseofmicroplasticsinconsumerproducts(especiallycosmeticsanddetergents)isahottopic.Atpresenttime,producershavealreadyphasedouttheuseofmicro‐plasticsinsomeproductsonavol‐untarybasis.Thereare,however,stillproductsonthemarket.AttheEUEnvironmentCouncilinDe‐cember2014,Austria,Belgium,theNetherlands,LuxembourgandSwedenjointlycalledontheEUMemberStatestobanmicroplasticaddedtoproductsinordertoprotecttheaquaticenvironmentfrompollution(2014).
Additionalresponsesfromothermemberstatearesummarizedbelow:
IrelandenvisagedthepotentialimpactofriverbasinmanagementplansundertheWaterFrameworkDirective,andalsomentionedconcreteactionsinplace,i.e.toreducelitterinputfromlandbasedsourcesundertheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveProgrammeofMeasuresandtheOSPARRe‐gionalActionPlanforMarinelitter.
TheUnitedKingdomconsultstwoScottishstrategiesthatmanagelitterinterrestrial,coastalandmarineenvironments.Inathreefoldapproach,theseprogrammesaddresstheresponsibilityofindi‐vidualstoactinanenvironmentallyfriendlymanner(communication,educationandsupportforbusiness),infrastructure(providing/servicingbins,productdesign,guidanceandfuturefunding)andenforcement(improvingtheeffectivenessoflegislationandtraining).Theoverallobjectivesaremoni‐toringplasticsintheScottishenvironmentandsubsequentlyreducingriverineplasticinputintothemarinecompartment(EnvironmentalAssessmentTeamPlanningandArchitectureDivisionDirec‐torateforLocalGovernmentandCommunities,2013).
3.3 Do European countries reduce plastic inputs and/or remove plastic pollution from freshwater environments?
Question10:“Arethereexistingorplannedactionsinyourcountrytoreduceinputsofplastics?‐and/ortoremoveexistinglitterinfreshwaterenvironment?”
Plannedandexistingactionsconcerningthereductionofplastic‐inputandremovalofexistinglitterinfreshwaterenvironmentswereassessedinrelationtoregulatoryagencies,NGOsandindustry.ThesummarizedresultsaredisplayedinFigure3.Overall,themajorityofEuropeancountries,whichre‐sponded,areplanningorhavealreadyimplementedmeasurestoreducetheplasticwastefrominlandwaters.
Figure 2: Existing and planned actions to reduce plastic inputs and to remove existing litter from freshwater environments
The columns present the percentage of the selected answer option. Label reduce: measures to reduce plastic inputs
into freshwater environments; label remove: measures to remove existing litter from freshwater environments; label
stacked column: green‐yes; dark grey‐no; light grey‐not stated. Multiple answers were possible without specific rank‐
ing. Data source: Results of the European survey
0
20
40
60
80
100
reduce remove reduce remove reduce remove
Regulation NGO Industry
[%]
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
59
Whatistheroleofregulatorybodies?
71%oftheresponsesreportedregulatorymeasurestoreduceplasticinputinEuropeancountries.
Moregeneralwastemanagementschemeswerementionedbyseveralcountries.Theseprogrammesareoperatedbylocalauthoritiesandmunicipalitiestoavoidlitteringinteralia.Additionally,nationaldepositandtakebackschemeshaveashareinreducingplastic‐inputintofreshwaterenvironments,e.g.theDanskRetursystemA/Sand“Repak”inIrelandcollectdisposedplasticsfollowedbyrecyclingandreuseaspackagingmaterial.
Specificregulationstopreventanykindoflittering,werereportedfortheFlemishRegionofBelgium(frameworkoftheFlemishWasteRegulation)andintheUnitedKingdom(frameworkof“TheLitter(FixedPenalties)(Scotland)Order2013”).TheLuxembourgishWasteManagementPlan(2010)in‐troducedaqualitycertificateforbusinessoperatorswhosupportwasteprevention,reuseand(ifuna‐voidable)disposalofwasteinanenvironmentallysafeway.
Measuresaddressingtheuseofplasticsbagshavebeenreportedfromthefollowingcountries:Ice‐land,Latvia,PortugalandLuxembourg.Withaconsumptionofabout18lightweightcarrierbagsperpersonperyear,Luxembourgnowadaysalreadymeetsthereductiontargetsforeseenbythedi‐rective2015/720/EU.
HowdoNGOsrespondtoplasticpollutioninfreshwaterenvironments?
EuropeanNGOsworkonstrategiestoreduceplastic‐inputintoriversandlakes.Theyarealsoactivelyremovingexistinglitterfromthere.Theresponsestothequestionnairelistedanumberofexamplesrangingfromcampaignsonprimarymicroplasticsincosmetics(anddetergents)tomonitoringofplas‐ticsintheenvironmentandcleanupcampaignsinfreshwater.
AustriaandPortugalmentionedtwospecificNGOinitiativesonprimarymicroplasticsincosmetics:AsAustriareports,theinternational“PlasticSoupFoundation”hasinitiatedtheinternationalcampaign“BeattheMicrobead1”.Oneoftheoutcomesisasmartphoneapplication,whichsupportsconsumerdecisionstopurchasemicroplasticfreeproducts.Scanningthebarcodeofpersonalcareproductspro‐videsforaquickandeasyinformationiftheparticularproductisfreeofmicroplastics,ornot.
ThePortugueseAssociationonMarineLitter(AssociaçãoPortuguesadoLixoMarinho:APLM)andtheAquamuseumofVilaNovadeCerveira(Minhoregion,NorthofPortugal)organisedtheinteractiveexhibition“LitterfromtheRivertotheSea”withaspecialfocusonsanitaryproducts(e.g.scrubs)andcosmeticsasasourceofpollution.Asafirststep,theexhibitiondiscussesconsumerismandcitizensaswastemakers.Theactivistsarenowplanningaknowledgebasetoderiveincentivesforenvironmentaleducationandtoinvolveinformedcitizensasmultipliersinthecampaigns.
TherepliestothequestionnaireshowthatitisoftenNGOswhomakeeffortstoremoveexistinglitterfromfreshwaterenvironments(57%).Variouscleaning‐campaignshavebeenconductedinAustria,Iceland,Latvia,UnitedKingdom(NorthernIreland,EnglandandWales)andtheSlovakRepub‐lic.
Whatistheroleofplasticcompanies?
Insixofthesurveyedcountries(43%),actionsonreductionofplastic‐inputareimplementedbytheindustrialsector.Litterremovalactionsbyindustryarereportedfromtwocountries(Austria,Germa‐ny).
1http://www.beatthemicrobead.org/;internationalwebsite
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
60
In2012,theAustrianeconomystartedthenationalinitiative“ReinwerfenstattWegwerfen1”(“throw‐in,don’tthrowaway”).Voluntarycommitmentssupportvariousmeasures,e.g.reducingplasticwasteandlitteringingeneral,wasteseparationforpackaging,increasingwasterecyclingrates.Furthermore,awarenessraisingandenvironmentaleducationgoalongwithclean‐upcampaignsinfreshwaterenvi‐ronmentsandpromoting“ReinwerfenstattWegwerfen"atenvironmentaleventsandfestivalsacrossAustria(ReinwerfenstattWegwerfen,2016).
3.4 Concrete examples of management options for plastics
Intwocountries,AustriaandtheNetherlands,extensivediscussionsonplasticsinfreshwaterenvi‐ronmentshaveledtospecificrecommendationsbynationalregulatoryagencies.
AustriaThetopicofplasticsandmicroplasticsinfreshwatersystemsemergedinAustriawhenscientistsin‐vestigatedfishlarvaeintheAustriansectionoftheDanubeRiverandreportedanappreciableamountofplasticparticlesintheirdriftnets.Thissecondaryresultwaspublishedandenjoyedhighmediaat‐tention(Lechner2014).Consequently,aconsortiumledbytheEnvironmentAgencyAustria2wasas‐signedbytheAustrianMinistryfortheEnvironmenttogetherwiththreeFederalProvincestocarryoutmeasurementsspecificallyfocussingonplasticstransportandplasticloadintheDanubeRiver.Althoughresultssuggestasignificantlylowerloadofplasticsthanassumedintheprecedingstudy,theDanubeRiverstilltransportsanoticeableamountofplasticsis(Hohenblumetal.2015).
Inresponsetothestudyresults,theFederalMinisterfortheEnvironmentinitiateda10‐pointactionplantocombatplasticsintheaquaticenvironment.Thisinitiativeaimsataddressingboth,thenation‐alandEuropeanleveltoreduceplasticsinputintorivers(seeTable1).
Table 1: 10‐Points of Measures for the quality of the Danube River, Austria
European Level
Uniform methods and measurement standards for plastic particles in rivers
Regulation of EU thresholds
Voluntary withdraw of the European cosmetic industry
Conference on microplastics in Brussels and inclusion in the environmental report 2020 of the European Environment Agency
Implementation of the Plastic Bag Directive
National Level
Stakeholder dialogue on the study of the Danube river
Implementation of the 10 Point Programme “Zero Pellet‐Pact” with the association of the Austrian chemical industry
Continuation of the monitoring study on the Danube river and other selected rivers in cooperation with the Austrian federal states
Awareness‐raising‐measures in cooperation with the federal states and waste manage‐ment and waste water associa‐tions
Raising awareness in the environmental department by e.g. supporting Green Events like the Eurovision Songcontest 20153
10‐Points of Measures fort the quality of the Danube River in Austria on European and national level (Translation of original docu‐
ment in German (original source: BMLFUW 2015a))
1http://www.reinwerfen.at;websiteinGermanlanguage2EnvironmentAgencyAustria(lead),UniversityofNaturalResourcesandLifeSciencesVienna,ViaDonau3https://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press‐downloads/2015/SC15_Folder_GreenEvent_E.pdf
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
61
In2015,AustriainitiatedadialoguewithrelevantstakeholderstodiscusstheresultsoftheDanubeRiverstudy.Theconference“EliminatingPlasticandMicroplasticPollution‐anurgentneed”encour‐agedEuropeanstakeholdersincludingthenetworkoftheEuropeanEnvironmentAgencies(EPANet‐work)tocooperate.InthesameyeartheAustrianMinisterforAgriculture,Forestry,EnvironmentandWaterManagementandtheAssociationoftheAustrianChemicalsIndustry(FCIO)adoptedthe“ZeroPelletLoss”initiative.Thisinitiativeaimsatreducingplasticpelletlossesintotheenvironmentduringproductionandconversion.Itwasdevelopedbyinternationalplasticcompaniesandalsobecamepartofthe10‐Point‐Programme‐of‐MeasuresfortheAustriansectionoftheDanubeRiver(seeTable2).AustriasubjectedthephaseoutofmicrobeadsincosmeticsintheEuropeanCouncil(Council2014).
Table 2: Zero Pellet Loss: 10‐Point‐Plan‐of‐Measurement
No. Measures
1 Securing that all loading stations are provided with collecting baskets
2 Strategic positioning of pellet containers for on‐site disposal
3 Inspection of all drains regarding correctly installed screens
4 Safe sealing of bulk containers pre‐shipment
5 Inspection of bulk containers regarding clean emptying
6 Assurance that the roofs of silo trucks are free of granulates after loading
7 Installation of central extraction systems, where practicable
8 Careful disposal of loose granulates
9 Training employees
10 Information of logistics partners
Austrian industrial initiative ‐ Zero Pellet Loss (Translation of the original document prepared in German (original
source: BMLFUW 2015b))
Netherlands
Managementoptionsforthreesources,TheNetherlands,(RIVM2016)
Cartyrewear,paintsandabrasivecleaningagentswereselectedforastudytomicroplasticemissionsandmitigatingmeasuresafteraquickscanofpotentialmicroplasticsources(RIVM2014).Theprioritiesfollowingfromthequickscantookintoaccounttheextentoftheemissions,thefeasibilityofmeasuresandthelackofactionperspectivesofconsumers.Thiswasdoneinaqualitativeway.Otherrelevantsourceswerenotincludedinthecurrentstudybecausetheyarestudiedinotherprojects(i.e.laundryfibers),orbecausesomevoluntarymeasureswerealreadyinitiated(e.g.cosmetics,pellets).Theaimofthefollow‐upstudywas1)toquantifythereleaseofmicroplasticsfromthesesources,2)determinethedistributionpathwaystosoil,waterandairand3)indicatepotentialmeasurestoreducetheexposureoftheaquaticenvironmenttomicroplasticscomingfromthesesources.
Tyres,paintsandabrasivecleaningagentscanreleasemicroplasticparticles,whicharedistributedinsoil,waterandair.Tyrewearisthelargestofthesethreesources,withatotalemissionintheNether‐landsof17,300tonsperyear,followedbypaintparticlesatapproximately690tonsperyear.Theabrasivecleaningagentsareamuchsmallersource,atapproximately3tonsperyear.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
62
Themostlikelymeasurestoreduceemissionsofprimarymicroplastics,suchasinabrasivecleaningagentsandcosmetics,issubstitutionofmicroplastic.Thiscanbeachievedbylegal,financialorpersua‐siveinstruments.Thereductionofsecondarymicroplasticssuchasparticlesfromthewearoftyresandpaintedsurfacesismorecomplicated.Foreachsource,itisessentialtocreateawarenessamongstconsumersandprofessionalsinordertoinduceachangeinbehaviour.Inadditiontothis,thereleaseofmicroplasticscouldbereducedthroughinnovation.Anotheroptionistotakemeasuresthatpreventthedistributionofwearparticlestotheenvironment.
Agenericmeasurecouldbetheimprovementofsewagetreatmentplant.Ingeneral,thisend‐of‐pipemeasureislessfavourablethanpreventivesourcemeasuresandmeasuresthataddresstheproducer’sresponsibility.Furthermore,thecurrentdistributionofmicroplasticstowardssewagetreatmentplantsandremovalefficiencyoftheseplantsarehighlyuncertain.Theseuncertaintiesmustbere‐ducedbyspecificresearchbeforeend‐of‐pipemeasuresareintroduced.
Themeasuresproposedinthisstudyarecurrentlysubjectedtofurthersocio‐economicanalysistodeterminetheeffectiveness,viability,sustainabilityandthecostsandbenefitsofthemeasures.
4 Discussion
Anumberofstudieshavedemonstratedtherelevanceoffreshwatersystemsascontributorstothemarineplasticpollution.Thisgoesalongwiththelikelyexposureatfullscaleofriversandlakestoplasticsandpotentialharmfulconsequencesforlimnicecosystems.
Sofar,wedonotfullyunderstandthedistributionofplasticsandmicroplasticsinenvironmentalcom‐partmentsandmanydataareeithermissingorarenotcomparable.Itisgenerallyacceptedthataho‐listicunderstandingofenvironmentalprocessesanddistributionisaninevitableprerequisitetore‐spondappropriatelytoplasticsintheenvironments,includingriversandlakes.Sofar,specificlight‐houseinitiativeshavebeenestablishedthatdemonstratehowmonitoringandmitigatingactivitiescanacttogether.
Untilnow,thosecountrieshaveagreaterawarenessforplasticsinfreshwaterenvironmentsthathaveconductedrespectivemonitoringstudies.Furthermore,untilnowlandlockedcountries/regionsarepromotingmoreresearchonplasticinfreshwatersystemsthancountrieswithlargecoastalregions.Allcountries,whichparticipatedinthesurveyreportedon‐goingdiscussionsonreductionmeasuresintheircountry.ThesediscussionsinvolveNGOs,media,publicandtheyarecloselyinterrelatingregu‐latoryprocesses.SpecificactionstoreduceortoremoveplasticsfromfreshwaterenvironmentsaretriggeredbyNGOsorlegislationandlessbyindustry.
SpecificpracticalexamplesofmanagementoptionsareinteraliareportedfromAustriaandtheNeth‐erlands.Austriadevelopeda10‐pointmeasureplantoimprovethequalityoftheDanubeRiver.More‐over,a10‐pointplansignedbytheAustrianMinisterfortheEnvironmentandtheAssociationoftheAustrianChemicalsIndustryaimsatreducingindustrialplasticemissions.Theseactionsadvocatetheexistingdialoguebetweenthestakeholders.IntheNetherlands,managementoptionsweresuggestedforthreespecificplasticsources:tyres,paintsandabrasivecleaningagents.Bothcountriesaddressedreductionmeasuresatthepollutionsource.Asasecondpillar,AustriaandtheNetherlandscreatedawarenessamongstconsumersandprofessionalstostimulatebehaviouralchanges.Athirdpillarismaterialinnovation,whichisalsoregardedasapromisingmeasure,e.g.toreducewearandtearofproductsbyinnovativedesign.
AquestionnairesurveyshowedthatEuropeancountriesareawareofplasticsinfreshwaterenviron‐ments.Measuresarediscussedtoreducetheexposureofriversandlakestoplasticsfromwasteandproduction.Thereisavarietyofmeasuresinplaceatlocal,regionalandalsothenationallevel.Thereislittleknowledgeabouttheefficiencyofthemeasuressincespatialandtemporalmonitoringdataisstillscarce.WerecommendtoreworkandrefinethequestionnairebasedontheresultsofthissurveyandtocomebacktotheEuropeancountriesinduetimetocollatemoreinformationonthisissue.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
63
UndertheumbrellaoftheEuropeanEnvironmentAgencyEEAandinclosecooperationwiththeEuro‐peanCommission,anInterestGrouponPlasticisgoingtolinktechnicalissueswiththepoliticallevelbyaddressinggaps,needsandbykeepingthepresentmomentum.TheInterestGroupischairedbyGermanyandsupportedbyanincreasingnumberofinterestedEPAs.TheInterestGroupalsodemon‐stratesthattheEuropeanUnionisadrivingforceinthisissueandbestpracticeintermsofeliminatingplasticpollution.
5 Literature Andrady, A. (2011): Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62 (2011): 1596‐1605.
Council 2014: Council of the European Union, Note from the General Secretariat of the Council to Delegations: Elimination of micro‐
plastics in products – an urgent need. 16263/14.
Faure, F., de Alencastro, F. (2014): Evaluation de la pollution par les plastiques dans les eaux de surface en Suisse. Bericht für das
Bundesamt für Umwelt.
Hohenblum, P., Liedermann, M., Gmeiner, P., Habersack, H., Frischenschlager, H., Reisinger, H., Konecny, R. et al. (2015): Plastik in
der Donau. Untersuchungen zum Vorkommen von Kunststoffen in der Donau in Österreich. Umweltbundesamt REPORT REP‐0547.
HELCOM (2015), Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter in the Baltic Sea. 20 pp.
Imhof, Ivleva, N., Schmid, J., Niessner, R., Laforsch, C. (2013): Contamination of beach sediments of a subalpine lake with micro‐
plastic particles. Current Biol. 23(19): R867‐8.
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger‐Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M., Glas, M., Schludermann, E. (2014): The Danube so
colourful: a potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environ. Poll. 188: 177‐181.
Moore, C., Lattin, G, Zellers, A. (2004): Density of plasic particles found in zooplankton trawls from coastal waters of California to
the North Pacific central Gyre. Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 148N. Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803, USA.
Moore, C. (2008): Synthetic Polmers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long term threat. Environmental Research 108
(2008): 131‐139.
Thompson, R., Eerkes‐Medrano, D., Aldrige, D. (2015): Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, iden‐
tification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research 75 (2015), 63‐82.
UNEP (2009): Marine Litter – a global challenge. United Nations Environmental Programme, 232pp.
Verschoor, A, de Poorter, Roex, E., Bellert, B. (2014): Quick scan and prioritization of microplastic sources and emissions. RIVM
2014.
Verschoor, A. (2015): Towards a definition of microplastics. Consideration for the specification of physic‐chemical properties. RIVM
Letter Report 2015‐0116.
Verschoor, A, de Poorter, L., Dröge, R. Kuenen, J., de Valk, E. (2016): Emission of microplastics and potential mitigation measures.
Abrasive cleaning agents, paints and tyre wear. RIVM 2016
Zbyszewski, M., Corcoran, L. (2011): Distribution and Degradation of Fresh Water Particles along the Beaches of Lake Huron, Cana‐
da. Water Air Soil Pollut (2011) 220: 365‐372.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
64
Regional Action Plans to combat marine litter including inputs from rivers
Stefanie Werner
Federal Environment Agency, Department Protection of the Marine Environment
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Assessmentsofthepervasivepollutionoftheworld`soceanswithlittershowthatplasticsdominatethefindingsalmosteverywhere.Accordingtoscientificestimatessixtotenpercentoftheglobalannu‐alproductionofplasticsofcurrentlyaround310milliontonssoonerorlaterendupinthemarineen‐vironment.TheConventionofBiologicalDiversityrecordedfrequentnegativeinteractionswithma‐rinelitterforaround800marinespecies.Inmorethanhalfofthesereportsingestionoforentangle‐mentinmarinelitterweredocumented.
TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD)cameintoforcein2008constitutingtheenviron‐mentalpillaroftheIntegratedMaritimePolicyoftheEuropeanUnion.InAnnexIoftheDirectiveelev‐endescriptorstodetermineaso‐calledgoodenvironmentalstatusarelisted.Descriptor10demandsthat“Propertiesandquantitiesofmarinelitterdonotcauseharmtothecoastalandmarineenviron‐ment.”Both,thefinaldeclarationoftheRio+20UnitedNationsConferenceonSustainableDevelop‐mentin2012aswellastheUnitedNationsSustainableDevelopmentGoal14.1of2015callforasignif‐icantreductionofmarinelitteruntil2025.
Knowledgeaboutthemajorsea‐andland‐basedsourcesandpathwaysisessentialtodefineefficientmeasurestopreventfurtherinputsoflitterintothemarineenvironment.TofulfilltherequirementsoftheMSDFandtogainabetterunderstandingaboutthestatusquoEuropeanMemberStateshadtosetupcomprehensivemonitoringapproaches.Whileforlitteronbeachesandingestionoflitteritemsbyseabirdsdatasetswerealreadyavailableatleastregionally,correspondingresultsforothermarinecompartmentsnamelytheseasurfaceandtheseafloor,formicroparticlesandthesecondmainbiolog‐icalimpactofentanglementarecurrentlybeingderivedandvalidated.
In2011theUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)andtheNationalOceanicandAtmos‐phericAdministration(NOAA)initiatedthefifth“InternationalMarineDebrisConference”whichledtothethematicbreakthrough.Theso‐calledHonolulu‐Strategycanberegardedasthefirststepto‐wardsaglobalActionPlantocombatmarinelitter.TheRegionalSeasConventionsfortheprotectionoftheMediterranean(UNEP/MAP),theNorth‐East‐Atlantic(OSPAR)andtheBalticSea(HELCOM)meanwhiledevelopedRegionalActionPlansonMarineLitter(RAPsML),thelattertwoundertheleadofGermany.Thesetupofactionswithintheseplansfollowasimilarstructureaddressingmajorsea‐andland‐basedsources,removalaswellaseducationandoutreachmeasures.TheOSPARRAPMLfollowsaleadcountryapproach.TheRAPMLaction41aimsatexchangingexperienceonbestpracticetopreventlitterenteringintowatersystemsandhighlightthesetoRiverandRiverbasinCommission.Belgium,GermanyandtheNetherlandsleadonthisaction.ThetaskmanageroftheseContractingPar‐tiesattempttoconnectthemarineandriverinecommunitiesconcerningtheissueoflitterandfacili‐tatealearningprocessespeciallyconcerningbestpractices.Asafirststepaquestionnairewassendtotheriverbasincommissionstoestablishaninventoryconcerningthestateofknowledge,datacollec‐tionandexamplesofinspirationalprojectsandbestpracticestopreventlitterenteringthewatersys‐tems.Otheractionswithspecialrelevanceforriverineinputsconcerne.g.thereductionofsewageandstormwaterrelatedwasteorthedevelopmentofenvironmentalfriendlytechnologiesandmethodsforthecleaningofriverbanks.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
65
Chances and limitations of standardisation for managing plastics in the environment
Rüdiger Baunemann
PlasticsEurope Deutschland, Frankfurt
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 Introduction
Plasticsaretheimportantmaterialofthe21stcentury.Meanwhile,theycanbefoundinalmosteveryproductareaandinverydifferentapplicationdomains.Thisisduetothefactthatplasticsareuniver‐sallyapplicableand,thankstotheirspecificmaterialproperties,canbeeasilytargetedforaspecificuse.
Asustainablemanagementandexploitationofproductsdoesnotonlyincludeasafeandefficientmanufacturingprocessandanenvironmental‐friendlyuseandhandlingofthelatter,butalsothehigh‐qualityrecyclinganddisposalofend‐of‐liveproducts.
Theuseofplastics,however,hasalsohadtheadverseeffectofend‐of‐lifeproductsgainingentryintotheenvironment.Inappropriatehandlingofproductsortheirwasteortheinadequateorinefficientwastewaterdisposalorthedegradationandfragmentationoflitteritemsaresomeofthepossibleen‐trypaths.Thus,plasticparticlesarereleasedintorivers,oceansandcanbefoundinthecoastalzones.Oceansarethemajorsinkwheretheseparticlescanaccumulate.
Alreadytodayitisapparentthattheentryofplasticproductsandtheirwasteintotheenvironmentisinfluencedbyanumberoffactors.Itdepends,amongothers,ontheconsumerbehaviour,therespec‐tiveregionortheexistinginfrastructure.Therearevarioustypesofentriesandtheircompositionisdiverse.Theymayconsistofdifferentkindsofwasteorproductssuchasbottles,plasticfilms,netsandtextiles,timber,tyres,rubberetc.Thisiswhyentriescannotexclusivelybeattributedtoonespecificmaterialorproduct.
Forthesereasons,itisofutmostimportancetopreparestandardswhichprovideabasisforareliableandverifiableevaluationoftheimpactofplasticsintheenvironment.Inordertoachievethisgoal,itisnecessarytocollectsuitabledata,toidentifythecauseforandtheoriginsofsuchentriesandthentoidentifysuitableandefficientmeasuresforprevention.Validatedstandardsthatarequalityassured,suchasthestandardspreparedbytheInternationalOrganizationofStandardization(ISO),formanindispensableprerequisiteinthiscontext.
2 Methods ‒ where Standardisation can help
Standardisationisaneffectiveinstrumentofself‐regulationthatservestheinterestsofsocietyasawhole,andnottheeconomicinterestsofindividualparties.Thenational,Europeanandglobalstand‐ardisationbodiesensurethatallstakeholdershaveaccesstostandardswork.StandardshelprelievethelegislativeburdenontheStatesandinternationalorganisations:Legislatorscanconcentrateonoverallissuesandprotectionobjectives,referringtostandardsfortechnicaldetails.
Thefollowingapproachesforstandardisationregardingplasticsintheenvironmenthavebeenidenti‐fied:
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
66
Theterms“plasticmicroparticles”,“microplastics”or“solidmicroparticle”arenotdefinedinaconsistentwayandare,especiallyinaninternationalcontext,beinguseddifferently.
Notonlyqualitativebutespeciallyquantitativestatementsbasedonreliabledataareneededtodeterminetherelevancefortheenvironment.Inprinciple,thereisanumberoftestmethodsavailableforthedeterminationofplastics.However,standardisedandharmonisedmethodsforthedetection,analysisandassessmentofsmallparticlespresentintheenvironment,suchasmarinelitter,arenotyetavailable.Thisincludes,inparticular,thesamplingandpreparationofsamples.Atthemoment,onlyqualitativestatementscanbemade.However,onlywithastandardisedand,aboveall,reproducibleandverifiablesamplingandsamplingpreparationmethodandananalysiswhichwillhavetobedevelopedespeciallyfordifferentenvironmentalcompartmentsandmaterials,itwillbepossibletoproducevaliddatabyusingthedifferentde‐tectionmethods.
Notonlysamplingbutalsosamplepreparationanddetectionof(micro‐)plasticsinaqueousmediaaretobedefinedinstandards.Simplevisualtests,inparticular,haveprovedinsufficientinthiscontext.Therefore,theharmonisationofexistingandscientificallyrecognizedmethodsofsampling,samplepreparationanddetectionisparamount.
Moreover,thereisastatisticalparticularitywithregardtomarinelitter:Itsdistributionishighlyvariablewithhotspotsformingwherethelitteraccumulates.Marinelitterdistributionanddensityisthereforetobeconsideredastronglyvariableheterogeneoussystem.Forthisreason,harmonisationisneededwithregardtotheevaluationofresults,especiallyforthesta‐tisticalestimationsofmeasuredresults.Numerousresearchactivitieshavealreadybeeniniti‐atedwhichwouldhighlyprofitfromaharmonisedmeasurementtechnologyandmeasurementevaluationsystem.
3 Results – DIN and ISO Activities
BasedontheassessmentabovetheGermanplasticsstandardisationcommitteewithinDIN(FNK)hasstartedtodevelopanactivityaroundmicroplastics.Firststepwastheorganisationofastakeholderworkshopwithrepresentativesfromindustry,academia,NGOsandauthoritiestocompiledifferentexperiencesandexpectationsregardingafuturehandlingofthattopicinastandardisationprocess.
Nextstepwastobringthelearningsfromtheworkshopintoaformatthatfulfillstherequirementsofaninternationalstandardisationprocess.ThereforaresolutionontheplatformofISOTC61“Plastics”hadbeenpreparedforthemeetinginNewDelhiwiththeintentiononcreationofanad‐hocgrouptodevelopascopeofapotentialworkinggroupinthefieldofmicroplastics.FirstrapporteurwillbeDrBannickfromGermanUBA;firstsecretarywillbeDrStoelzelfromGermanDIN.ThisdevelopmentwillbepartofareorganisationofISOTC61structurewiththeaimtoestablishanewsubcommitteethatcoversallenvironmentaltopicregardingplastics(e.g.bioplastics,LCA,recycling,microplastics,carbonfootprint,etc.).NextcrucialstepwillbetosetallthesepreparatorystepsontrackduringtheISOTC61meetinginSeptember2016inBerlin.
4 Discussion
Withthatconceptmicroplasticswouldbecoveredinthecontextofotherenvironmentalissuesinaholisticapproachandfromtheverybeginningonagloballevel.Allinterestedstakeholdersareinvitedtojoinandtosupport.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
67
PlasticsindustryandotherinterestedpartieswithintheGermanstandardisationbodyDINdevelopedandimplementedthisconceptasoneactivity–amongstothers–tocoverquestionsaroundplasticsinthemarineenvironment.
PlasticsEuropeisconvincedthatonlyabunchofdifferentmeasureswillhelptoovercomethecriticalsituationregardingMarineLitter:
o Properwastemanagement
o Contributionsandcollaborationofdifferentstakeholdersongloballevel
o Increaseawarenessandbettereducationlocally
o Researchforevidencebasedsolution
Standardisationcanhelptomakesomeofthesemeasuresmoreeffectiveandefficient.
5 Literature Sartorius, Lühr, Schambach, Bannick: “Mikrokunststoffe – ein aktuelles Thema für die Normung“, DIN‐Mitteilungen, Juni 2015,
S. 21 ‐ 23
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
68
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
69
Abstracts:
Panel discussion on monitoring
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
70
Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in the Netherlands
Myra van der Meulen, in cooperation with Dick Vethaak & Clara Chrzanowski
Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 What methods have you applied?
Deltaresisinvolvedinbothmarineandfreshwatermonitoringofplasticlitter.Wefocusmainlyonthesmalleritems,themicroplasticfraction.
Samplingmethods thatweare familiarwithare theuseof theManta trawl, but alsoother typesofplasticcapturingdevicessuchastheWasteFreeWatersamplerandpumps.Weareawareofmethodsrelatedtosedimentgrabs(marine),butalsonets,volumesamplesincontainers(suspendedmatter)andsamplingofbiota(marine)buthavenotpersonallyappliedthemyet.
Togetherwithpartners,wearealsoinvolvedintheanalysisof(micro)plasticsinfieldsamples.Fur‐thermore, in amore experimental stage,we have gained experience onmonitoring of plasticswithhyperspectralsensors.
Table 1: Overview on applied methods
Sampling
Type of samples Water
x
Suspended matter
x
Sediment
x
Biota
x
Which type of biota:
Marine: mussels, brittle stars, shrimp.
Freshwater: mus‐sels and other invertebrates
Sampling site
e.g. water surface, water column, riverbank etc.
Water surface (freshwater & marine), water column (freshwater & marine), sea floor (marine), beach (marine)
Methods of sam‐pling
e.g. manta trawl, plankton net, grab etc.
Manta trawl (freshwater & marine), pump (freshwater & marine), samplers (de‐signed by a Dutch NGO, freshwater), Van Veen grab (marine), shrimp net (ma‐rine), manual collection (marine).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
71
Sample preparation
e.g. enzymatic diges‐tion, acid digestion etc.
This work is not lead by Deltares itself, but we do work together with other insti‐tutes (i.e. IVM‐VU), are aware of methods used by partners (density separation, enzymatic digestion), and advice the Dutch government on suitable methods for microplastics to be implemented in the MSFD and freshwater environment.
Analytical methods
e.g. visual inspec‐tion, FTIR, RAMAN, pyrolysis GCMS etc.
This work is not lead by Deltares itself, but we do work together with other insti‐tutes (i.e. IVM‐VU), are aware of methods used by partners (visual inspection, Raman, gas chromatography) and advice the Dutch government on suitable methods for microplastics to be implemented in the MSFD and freshwater envi‐ronment.
Table caption, e.g. for sources and remarks
2 What are your results and experiences regarding monitoring of plastics in freshwaters?
‐ Wesuggest thatmonitoringshouldtakeplace inacross‐sectionofriverstohaveacompleteoverviewofvariancesindifferentareasoftheriver.Therefore,amobileplatformforsamplingismoresuitablethanastationaryplatform.
‐ Finemeshednets,suchastheMantatrawl,areeasilycloggedinfreshwaterenvironmentsduetothehighconcentrationofsuspendedmatter.
‐ Riverinetransportofplasticsfrominundatedfloodplainstowardstheseaincreasesremarka‐blyduringperiodsofhighdischarges.
‐ ManyDutchvoluntaryinitiativesandindividualsareinvolvedinlitterpickingriverbanksbutthereisnodatasetnor(meta‐)datastandardtoreportthesefindings.
‐ Itisessentialtolinkthefreshwatermonitoringofplasticlittertothatalreadyinplaceforthemarineenvironment(OSPAR,MSFD)asmuchaspossibletocoverthecompletepathwayfromsourcetosink.
3 What current challenges and needs do you see for future monitoring?
‐ There isaneed forcalibrated, standardizedmethods forsamplingofplastics in freshwaters.SinceplasticsarenotincludedintheEuropeanWaterFrameworkDirective,thereislackofapolicyinstrumenttostimulatethisharmonization.Thisshouldthusbedonethroughotherin‐struments.Furthermore,thereisneedforastandardizedmannerofreportingthefindings.
‐ Contaminationofsamples isabigchallenge.Oncesamplesare inthe laboratory, there is theopportunitytoworkfromacleanbench,however,inthefieldtheriskofcontaminationishigh.
‐ There is aneed formore insights inmassbalancesand transportprocessesofplastics fromfreshwaterenvironmentstoseasandoceans,butalsotoidentifyplasticshotspotsinthewatersystem and the main sources. In the Netherlands, we still lack knowledge about fate andtransportofplasticsinfreshwaterenvironments,especiallyinlakes.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
72
4 What lessons can we learn from the monitoring studies on microplastics and plastic litter performed up to now?
Itseemsthatmonitoringinstrumentsandmethodsfromthemarineenvironmentcannotbeappliedone‐to‐oneinthefreshwaterenvironment.Furthermore,fromliteratureitisknownthatthereareseveralprocessesresponsibleforthetransportofplasticsalongrivers,whichgobeyondthevisibletransportviathewatersurface.Thesematricesshouldbetakenintoaccountandinvestigated.Plasticlittercanbefoundeveninthemostpristinelookingrivers.
5 Literature Van der Wal, M., van der Meulen, M.D., Tweehuijsen, G., Peterlin, M., Palatinus, A., Kovac Virsek, M., Coscia, L. and Krzan, A. (2015)
SFRA0025: Identification and Assessment of Riverine Input of (Marine) litter, p. 208
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
73
Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in German federal states
Christian Laforsch
University of Bayreuth, Germany
E‐mail contact: christian.laforsch@uni‐bayreuth.de
1 What methods have you applied?
Wesampledmacro‐andmicroplasticfrombeachsedimentsofriversandlakesusingacombinedap‐proachusingtransectsandsedimentcores.Additionallywesampledfinesedimentfromthelakebot‐tombutalsofromaccumulationzonesinrivers.Watersurfacesamplesweretakenwithanadopted“MiniManta”‐Trawl(300µm)equippedwithaflowmeterinlakesandrivers.
Sedimentsampleswereprocessedusingdensityseparationbasedonzincchloride(1.6–1.8kg/L)usingtheMPSS.Bothsedimentandwatersurfacesampleswerepurifiedusinganenzymaticdigestionprotocol.
Particles>500µmwereidentifiedusingATR‐FTIRandparticles500–50µmareidentifiedusingmicroFT‐IRequippedwithaFocalPlaneDetector.Particles<50µmwereidentifiedusingRamanMicrospec‐troscopy.InthestudyofImhofetal.2016allplasticparticleswereidentifiedusingRamanMicrospec‐troscopy.
2 What are your results and experiences regarding monitoring of plastics in freshwaters?
Microplasticparticlesareubiquitousalsoinfreshwaterenvironments.Contaminationinriversurfacesamplesishigherthaninwatersurfacesamplesoflakes.Finesedimentaccumulationsitesare“long‐termsampler”forMPalsoinlowcontaminatedareas.Thisincludesnotonlyhighlydensepolymersbutalsopolymerswhichareexpectedtofloatonthewatersurface.Freshwatersamplesaremoredif‐ficulttoprocessthanmarinesamplesduetoahighloadoforganicmaterials(leaveparts,algae,organ‐simsetc.)
Contaminationhotspotsexist,whileotherriversarenotorlesscontaminated.
3 What current challenges and needs do you see for future monitoring?
Monitoringapproachesworkwelltoacertainsize(~300–500µm)althoughstillahigheffortisnec‐essary.Ifsmallersizeclassesareofinterest,thedevelopmentofimprovedmethodsisnecessary,espe‐ciallyforthedevelopmentofroutinemonitoringprotocols.
AvisualcharacterizationofMPisnotpossibleandshouldnotbeperformed.Visualsortingcanbeap‐plieddowntoasizeof~500µmbuttheeffortisveryhigh.
Developmentofmethodsforsampling,processingandidentificationofparticlesdownto1µmandbelow.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
74
4 What lessons can we learn from the monitoring studies on microplastics and plastic litter performed up to now?
Microplasticparticlesareubiquitousbutstudiescannotbecomparedduetodifferentmethodsused.
Microplasticsampling,processingandidentificationfromenvironmentalsamplesisnottrivialandmanyaspectshavetobeincludedinmonitoringstrategies.
Watersurfacesamplesespeciallyinriversareonlyasnapshotsintime.
Furthermethoddevelopmentisneeded.Performing“real”monitoringwithinefficientmethodsisnotrecommended.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
75
Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in Switzerland
Florian Faure
Central Environmental Laboratory (GR‐CEL), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL)
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 What methods have you applied?
Afirststageofthestudyaimedatobtainingafirstpictureofmicroplasticpollutioninvariousenvi‐ronmentalcompartmentsinafewlakesaroundSwitzerland(watersurface,banksediments,biota).TheinvestigationsthenfocusedonthemicroplasticspathwaysinandoutofLakeGeneva,tryingtogetascloseaspossibletothesources.
Table 2: Overview on applied methods
Sampling
Type of samples Water
Suspended matter
□
Sediment
Biota
Which type of biota:
Birds, fish, mus‐sels
Sampling site
e.g. water surface, water column, riverbank etc.
Lakes and rivers water surface + bank sediments
Lake benthic sediments
Rivers water column
Urban runoff water, WWTP outflows
Others (e.g. composts, construction or industrial sites, etc.)
Methods of sam‐pling
e.g. manta trawl, plankton net, grab etc.
Manta trawl for water surface
Cod end for smaller flows
Van Veen grab for benthic sediments
Sample preparation
e.g. enzymatic diges‐tion, acid digestion etc.
Sieving (> 5 mm, 1 mm < < 5mm, 0.3 mm < < 1 mm)
Sediments: gravity separation in water saturated with NaCl (banks) or NaI (ben‐thic)
Biota: dissection, drying and enzymatic digestion followed by filtration (.45 μm or larger) – except for rejection pellets
H2O2 oxidation after drying, for smaller fractions (< 1 mm) in the first stage of the study
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
76
Analytical methods
e.g. visual inspec‐tion, FTIR, RAMAN, pyrolysis GCMS etc.
Mostly visual identification and sorting in types according to probable source
FTIR for representative part of the particles, mostly > 1 mm
GC‐MS/MS and LC‐MS/MS for quantification of additives and sorbed pollutants
Most of the method details can be found in (Faure et al. 2015)
2 What are your results and experiences regarding monitoring of plastics in freshwaters?
Microplasticswerefoundinsignificantconcentrationsinallthesampledlakesandrivers,bothonthewatersurface,beachsedimentsandbenthicsediments,aswellasinbiota.Theywereshowntocontainpotentiallytoxicadditives,aswellasadsorbinghydrophobiccontaminantsfromthewater.Alltestedsuspectedsourceswereconfirmed,theirrespectivecontributionyetneedingtobemorepreciselyde‐fined,andnotexcludingotherpotentialsources.Resultsoverallshowhighvariabilityevenwithinthesame sites, suggesting selectedmethods could lack robustness.Data is scarce so far, therefore evensuchexploratoryresultsarevaluable,butthemethodsshouldbeadaptedformorerepeatabilityandeasieranalysisofthesamples.Samplingaswellassamplepreparationandanalysisisstilltoomanualandtime‐consuming,notallowingforenoughrepetitionsandreliability.Weourselvestriedtotacklevarious environmental compartments andmatrices, requestinga continuousadaptationof the sam‐plingandanalysismethodsdependingonthesamplestypesandthedesiredresults.
3 What current challenges and needs do you see for future monitoring?
Morecomprehensivedataforvarioussitesandintimeneedtobeobtainedincludingtheassessmentofsourcesandfluxes.Impactsonfreshwaterorganismsneedtobeassessedbutnotonlyin‐vitro,asthereisstillagreatgapbetweenlabtrialsandenvironmentalconditions(thisisalsothecaseforma‐rineorganisms).Forstudiestocome,prioritiesshouldbesetastowhichmatricesneedthemoreat‐tention,aswellastowhichparticlesizeortypeneedtobefocusedon.Harmonizationofthestudiedparticlesizeiscritical,aswellasthedetection/identificationmethods.Theseneedtobecomparablebetweenstudies,aswellasmoreefficientandmoreovermucheasierandlightertoapply.Finally,thelinkbetweenthedifferentsizeclasses,i.e.fromplasticparticlesbiggerthan5mmtowardsmicro‐orevennano‐plasticsneedtobeclarifiedasdegradationprocessesarenotyetwellunderstoodortrans‐posableintheenvironment.Overall,themainchallengesmostlyincludecoordinationbetweenre‐searchprogramsandfinancialsupportfrompublicinstitutions.
4 What lessons can we learn from the monitoring studies on microplastics and plastic litter performed up to now?
Ithasbeenshownthatmicroplasticsareubiquitous,andthatbiotaisexposedtotheseparticlesaswellastotheassociatedpotentiallytoxicadditivesandadsorbedhydrophobiccontaminants.Thefluxesofplasticsbetweencompartmentsarenotquantifiedsofar,anddataistoofragmentaryregardingthesources,pathwaysandsinksofplasticlitterandmicroplastics.Mostofthestudiesareexploratory,andneeddevelopmentstobecomesystematicandmorerepresentativewithholisticapproaches.Sofar,modellingapproacheshavebeenirrelevantduetotheshortageofenvironmentaldataastothenatureandextentofthispollution‐moremonitoringstudiesareprobablynecessary.Althoughthesearenotlikelytobringafullunderstandingoftheproblem,especiallyregardingtheplasticflowsintoandwith‐
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
77
intheenvironment,theyarecriticaltofeedmaterialflowmodels.Monitoringstudiesonplasticinfreshwaterenvironmentshaveshownthistopicisstillmisunderstoodandneedtobedevelopedandcontinued.
5 Literature Faure, Florian, Colin Demars, Olivier Wieser, Manuel Kunz, and Luiz Felippe de Alencastro. 2015. “Plastic Pollution in Swiss Surface
Waters: Nature and Concentrations, Interaction with Pollutants.” Environmental Chemistry 12 (5): 582–91.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
78
Monitoring of plastics in German federal waterways
Georg Reifferscheid
Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)/Department Biochemistry, Ecotoxicology, Koblenz
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
1 What methods have you applied?
TheBfGresearchproject“Microplasticsininlandandcoastalwaterways–origin,fate,andimpact”aimsatestablishingascientificbasisforassessment,monitoringandregulationofmicroplasticsintheaquaticenvironment.Thereforedataontheoccurrenceofmicroplastics(MP)andthecharacterizationofitsquantitativeandqualitativeinputintoinlandwaterwaysandcoastalwatersisessential.Apre‐liminarysurveyin2014(sediment)aswellastwosamplingcampaignsattheriversElbeandSaarin2015(sedimentandwater)havebeenconductedsofar.Additionally,initialfieldinvestigationsonbiotahavebeencarriedout.Ageneraloverviewontheappliedmethodsisshownintable1.
Table 3: Overview on applied methods
Sampling
Type of samples Water
x
Suspended matter
x
Sediment
x
Biota
x
(Mussels, Crusta‐cean, Fish)
Sampling site
Water samples (incl. suspended matter (SM)): approx. 20 cm to 50 cm below the water surface; sediment and biota samples: river bed
Methods of sam‐pling
Water samples (incl. SM): plankton net acc. to Apstein (mesh size 150 µm), con‐tinuously working centrifuge; Sediment samples: Van‐Veen‐grab; biota samples: collecting, electrofishing
Sample preparation
Water samples (incl. SM): freeze‐drying, electro‐separation, acidic digestion with HCl, density separation with sodium poly tungstate, pressure filtration
Sediment samples: wet sieving, density separation (ZnCl2) in Munich Plastic Sedi‐ment Separator (MPSS) (Imhof et al. 2012), removal of organic material with en‐zymatic or hydrolytic digestion
Biota samples: digestion (acidic or enzymatic)
Analytical methods
particles > 500 µm => visual inspection, ATR‐FTIR
particles < 500 µm => Py‐GC‐MS, µFTIR (planned)
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
79
2 What are your results and experiences regarding monitoring of plastics in freshwaters?
Results:
Thepreliminarysurveyin2014showedthatsedimentsoftheriversElbe,Moselle,Neckar,andRhinecontained32to64MPparticlesperkg.Hence,theamountofMPinfreshwatersedimentsiscompara‐bletomarinesediments,where(acc.toliteraturedata)0.3‐165MPparticlesperkghavebeenfound.ThesedimentandwatersamplesfromtheriversElbeandSaar(samplingcampaign2015)aswellasbiotasamplesarecurrentlybeinginvestigated.
Experiences:
ItbecameapparentthatcurrentmethodsarerestrictedlysuitabletomonitorMPinfreshwaterenvi‐ronments.Oftenonlyonecompartmentisinvestigated,eitherthewatersurfaceorsediments.Byusinganetforsamplingithastobenotedthatthesizerangeoftheparticlesislimitedbythemeshsize.
Currentmethodsofsampletreatmenthaveitslimits.OnemajordifficultyiscausedbyorganicmatterwhichmayinterferewithMPduringprocessingandidentification.Ownvalidationexperimentscon‐cerningdensityseparationintheMPSSrevealedthattherecoveryinsandysedimentsis96‐100%dependingonparticlesize.Butwithanincreaseoforganicmaterial,therecoveryofsmallerparticles(100‐500μm)decreasedrapidlytoonly13%.Hence,aremovaloforganicmaterialduringsampleprocessingisadvisable.Thereforemanymethodsrequiretheuseofeitherenzymesorhydrogenper‐oxide.Whileenzymaticdigestionincludesuptoseveralweeksofshaking,whichispotentiallycapableofdamagingporousparticles,sometypesofplasticscanbeoxidizedbyH2O2.Therefore,differentacidsandoxidizingagentsweretested.HClprovedasthebestagentfororganicdegradation.
Atpresentnomethod,whichcaneasilybehandled,meetsallrequirementsforacompleteseparationofMPfromanyothermaterial.Recoveryexperimentsrepeatedlyshowedthathighlossesaswellascontaminationshavetobeexpected.WithoutastandardizedmethodcapableofdetectingallsizesandtypesofMPdiscussionsonmonitoringresultsareimpeded.
3 What current challenges and needs do you see for future monitoring?
Allmonitoringstudiesdescribedinliteraturesofardifferedintheappliedmethodsofsampling,sam‐pletreatmentandanalysis.DifferencesalsoexistinthesizerangesoftheMPparticlesdetected.Inmoststudies,particleswithasize<5mmwereinvestigatedrelatingtothegenerallyaccepteddefini‐tionoftheuppersizeboundaryofMP.However,noagreementhasbeenfoundonascientificdefini‐tionofthelowersizeboundarysofar.Therefore,thelowerlimitofthesizerangeconsideredvariesfromstudytostudydependingonthetypeofsamplingmethodsandthesensitivityoftheanalyticalmethodsapplied.Likewisemonitoringresultsarereportedindifferentmetricsincludingdataonthenumberofdetectedparticlesormassconcentrationswhichcanrefertowatersurfaceareaorwatervolumeifwatersamplesareanalysed.Duetotheparticledensitythesamplinglocation‒watersur‐faceorwatercolumn–andalsothehydrologicalsituationwillinfluencetheresultsofaninvestigation.Duetothesedifferencesitishardlypossibletocomparethedatafromdifferentstudies.Toenablethecomparisonofmonitoringdatastandardizedmethodsforsampling,sampletreatmentandparticleidentificationhavetobedeveloped.SinceespeciallythesmallestMPparticlesaresuspectedtobeofspecialinterestinstudiesonorganisms,itisveryimportanttobecapableofgathering,detecting,andidentifyingparticlesmuchsmallerthan300µm.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
80
4 What lessons can we learn from the monitoring studies on microplastics and plastic litter performed up to now?
Theresultsofthemonitoringstudiesperformeduptonowrevealthattheknowledgeofthedistribu‐tion,abundanceandrisksofMPinfreshwaterenvironmentsisfarfromcompleteandrequiresfurtherevaluation.Thereareurgentneedsformethoddevelopment,methodharmonization,consistentriskassessmentandfurtherinvestigations.ThepreviousmonitoringstudiesonriversandlakescoveronlyapartoftheEuropeancountries.OccurrenceandloadsofplasticsandMPinnumerousfreshwaters,amongthemmajorriversprobablycontributingtorelevantinputsintotheconnectingseas,havenotbeeninvestigatedsofar.Furthermore,theknowledgeofaccumulation,sources,pathways,persistencyandenvironmentalimpactsofMPinfreshwaterenvironmentsarecurrentlylimited.Uptonow,onlyfewstudieshavefocusedontherisksofMPtofreshwaterorganisms.FurtherresearchisrequiredtoanswerthequestionswhetherMParetakenupbylimnicspeciestoaconsiderableextent,whethertheparticlespassmembranesandaccumulateintissues,andwhetherenrichmentinaquaticfoodwebsoccurs.Thereforethisproblemshouldalsobeaddressedinfuturemonitoringstudies.
5 Literature Imhof, H. K., Schmid, J., Niessner, R., Ivleva, N. P., Laforsch C. (2012): A novel, highly efficient method for the separation and quanti‐
fication of plastic particles in sediments of aquatic environments. Limnology and Oceanography Methods, 10, 524‐537
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
81
Abstracts: Poster
Monitoring
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
82
Microplastics in an urban environment: sources and receiving water
Rachid Dris, Johnny Gasperi, Bruno Tassin
Université Paris‐Est, LEESU, UMR MA 102 ‐ AgroParisTech, 61 avenue du Général de
Gaulle, 94010 Créteil Cedex, France
Vincent Rocher
SIAAP (syndicat interdépartemental pour l’assainissement de l’agglomération
parisienne), Direction du Développement et de la Prospective, 82 avenue Kléber,
92700 Colombes, France
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Microplasticsareparticleswithasizesmallerthan5mm.Theyhavebeenwidelyreportedinmarineenvironments.Whiletheiroccurrenceinbothmarineandcontinentalenvironmentshavebeenstud‐ied,theirinputsarestillverypoorlyidentifiedandonlyfewworksfocusedontheirsources.Moreoveronlyfewstudiesconcentratedontheoccurrenceandspatiotemproaldistributionofmicroplasticsonrivers.Thisworkaimsatassessingthemicroplasticcontaminationindifferentcompartmentsoftheurbanwatercycleandestimatingthespatiotemporalvariabilityofmicroplasticsinariver.
Theatmosphericfalloutofmicroplasticswascollectedduringoneyearonanurbansiteand6monthsonasuburbansite.Throughoutthemonitoring,anaverageatmosphericfalloutof11096parti‐cles/m2/day(meanSD)wasencounteredintheurbansitewhileitwasaround5338parti‐cles/m2/dayonthesuburbansite.Asignificantdifferencebetweentheurbanandthesub‐urbansitewasfound.Greywaterandwastewaterwerealsostudied.Inwashingmachineeffluents,concentra‐tionsbetween8,850,000and18,700,000particles/m3wereencountered,confirmingthelargecontri‐butionoftheclothesasasourceoffibers.Microplasticsinawastewatertreatmentplantwerealsoanalyzedexhibitinghighlevelsoffibrousplasticstheintheinfluents(260,000–320,000parti‐cles/m3)whiletheconcentrationsintheeffluentsareinthe14,000–50,000particles/m3range.Amicroplasticremovalratebetween83and95%hasbeenestimated.
TheMarneriverwasalsoconsidered.Duringshort‐termtemporalvariabilitytests,concentrationsrangedbetween38and102particles/m3inthefirstcampaignwithacoefficientofvariationaround45%andbetween19and39particles/m3duringthesecondwithacoefficientofvariationof26%.Ayearlymonitoringwasalsocarriedout.ConcentrationsthroughtheyearoscillatedintheMarneRiverfrom6particles/m3to398particles/m3correspondingtoameanconcentrationof104128parti‐cles/m3.Thecoefficientofvariationisof122%whichissuperiortotheshorttermvariability.Thevariationsthroughtheyearareprobablyduetochangesintheinputofmicroplastics,eitherpunctualsourceslikethewastewatertreatmentplants,ordiffusivesourcesliketherunoff,theatmosphericfalloutortheresuspensionofthemicroplasticsfromthesediments.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
83
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of microplastic and pigment particles in freshwater
Alexandra C. Wiesheu, Philipp M. Anger, Reinhard Niessner, Natalia P. Ivleva
Institute of Hydrochemistry, Chair of Analytical Chemistry/Technical University of Munich
Hannes K. Imhof, Christian Laforsch
Department of Animal Ecology I and BayCEER/ University of Bayreuth
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Plasticbecameaubiquitousmaterialwithapplicationsinmanyfieldsinthelastdecades.Especiallypropertiesliketheinertness,formabilityandlowcostscontributedtotheincreaseduse.Onelargedisadvantageofplasticisthatitdecadesslowly,thereforeanenrichmentinnotonlymarinesystemsbutalsoinfreshwaterbodieshastobeexpected.Therisksforhumansandenvironmentprovokedespeciallysmallplasticparticles,socalledmicroplastics(MP)attractednoticeinthescientificcommu‐nityaswellasthepublicmedia.MPiscurrentlynotclearlydefined,butitisgenerallyappliedforpar‐ticlesandfibersfrom1µmto5mm.[1,2]
Inrecentbroadstudies[3,4]wecharacterizedmicroplasticparticlesfromsedimentsamplesinthesubalpineLakeGarda,Italy.Weseparatedandidentifiedabout450microplasticparticleswithadiam‐eterdownto9µmbymeansoftheMunichPlasticSedimentSeparator(MPSS)[5]andRamanmicro‐spectroscopy.Mostcommonfoundplastictypeswerepolystyrene,polyethyleneandpolypropylene.Wefoundarelationbetweenplastictypeandparticlesizes.Forverysmallmicroplastics(definedas1µm‐50µm)[6]mostlypolyamideswerefound.Additionally,toplasticparticlesahighnumberofpigmented(non)plasticparticleswereidentified.Weshowwithinductivelycoupledplasmamassspectrometricanalysisthatpigmentedparticlescancontainhighlevelsof(toxic)heavymetals.Thesizedistributionoftheseparticlesshowsanincreasewithdecreasingsize,whichsuggestthatevensmallerpigmentparticlesmightbepresent(downtothenm‐range).
Literature:
[1] V. Hidalgo‐Ruz, L. Gutow, R.C. Thompson, M. Thiel, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060‐3075.
[2] C. M. Rochman, M. A. Browne, Nature 2013, 494, 169‐171.
[3] H.K. Imhof, C. Laforsch; A. C. Wiesheu, J. Schmid, P.M. Anger; R. Niessner; N. P. Ivleva, Water Res. 2016, 98, 64‐74.
[4] H. K. Imhof, N.P. Ivleva, J. Schmid, R. Niessner, C. Laforsch, Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, R867‐R868.
[5] H. K. Imhof, J. Schmid, R. Niessner, N. P. Ivleva & C. Laforsch, Limnol. Oceanog. 2012, 10, 524‐537.
[6] N. P. Ivleva, R. Nießner, Nachrichten aus der Chemie 2015, 63, 46‐ 50.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
84
A ’living laboratory’ for the microplastic pollution research in the Finnish Lake District: Lake Kallavesi and the City of Kuopio
Samuel Hartikainen, Tine Bizjak, Tamara Gajst, Pertti Pasanen, Jouni Sorvari
Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences/University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio,
Finland
Jari Leskinen, Arto Koistinen
SIB Labs infrastructure unit/University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Thereare187888lakesinFinland.ThemajorityoflakesinFinlandarelocatedintheFinnishLakeDistrictintheeasternpartofFinland,wheretheterminalmorainestrapnetworksofthousandsoflakesseparatedbyhillsandforestedcountryside.Withanareaof473km²,LakeKallavesiisthetenthlargestlakeinFinland,locatedintheregionofNorthernSavoinEasternFinland.ItbelongstotheFin‐land’slargestfreshwaterdrainagebasincalledtheVuoksimaindrainagebasin,whichcoversanareaof16270km².LakeKallavesisurroundstheCityofKuopio,whichistheeightbiggestcityinFinlandwithpopulationof112000.ThemainaimofthisresearchistoturntheCityofKuopiointoa‘livinglaboratory’,focusingonhowplasticlitterandmicroplasticsindrainagewatersaffectfreshwatereco‐systemssuchasLakeKallavesi.The’LivingLaboratoryofKuopio’togetherwiththestate‐of‐the‐artanalyticallaboratoriesattheUniversityofEasternFinlandprovidesopportunitiestocarryouton‐siteresearchofsources,transport,fateandeffectsofmacro‐andmicroplasticsinfreshwaterecosystemsinLakeKallavesi.Furthermore,theresearchaimstoassesstheeffectofthestarkcontrastsoffoursea‐sonsontheabundanceanddistributionofmicroplasticinLakeKallavesi.ForalmostfivemonthstheLakeKallavesiiscoveredwithicewhichcouldretaintheotherwisefloatingparticlesonthesurface.OurpreliminaryresultsoftheicesamplesconfirmthepresenceofmicroplasticinLakeKallavesiwithasubstantialamountoffibres.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
85
Monitoring and interventions for riverine litter (case the Lys, Flanders)
Eva Gijsegom; Peter Van den Dries
OVAM, public waste agency of Flanders
Sandrine de Biourge; Ward Mertens
Fostplus, Green Dot producer responsibility coordinator
Thomas Vanagt; Karel Van Craenenbroeck; Marco Faasse
eCoast Marine Research
Jannes Heusinkveld; Remco de Nooij; Piet‐Wim van Leeuwen
The fieldwork company
Colin Janssen; Lisbeth Van Cauwenberghe, Nancy De Saeyer
Ghent University Environmental Toxicology unit (GhenToxLab)
Bart Dobbelaere; Nathalie Devaere; Humbert Vervaeke; Bart Antheunis
Waterwegen & Zeekanaal NV (waterway managment)
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
In2014thePublicWasteAgencyofFlanderscommissionedanassessmentstudyonplasticdebrisintheriverDeLeie.Thereportentitled‘Monitoringandinterventionsforriverinelitter(caseDeLeie)’containsquantitativeandqualitativedataoffloatingplasticdebris,aswellasplasticdebrisfromtheupperpartofthewatercolumn.ThestudyfocusedonthetouristicpartoftheLysriverandtakesintoaccountoccurringcurrents,interferinghydrologicalinfluencesandseasonalvariations.Italsoincludesmicroplasticanalysesfromsamplestakenalongthewatercolumnandsediment.Sampledmicroplas‐ticsarecategorizedinsphericalbeads,amorphousfragmentsandfibresasapreliminaryindicationofthesourceofthemicroplastics.Managementmeasuresaresuggested.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
86
Microplastics in inland waterways and coastal waters – origin, fate, and impact
Nicole Brennholt, Stefanie Hatzky, Christian Kochleus, Georg Reifferscheid
Department Biochemistry and Ecotoxicology/Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz
Christian Scherer, Martin Wagner, Annkatrin Weber
Department Aquatic Ecotoxicology/Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Theaccumulationofplasticdebrisinaquaticenvironmentsisoneofthemajorbutleaststudiedhu‐manpressuresonaquaticecosystems.Underenvironmentalconditions,largerplasticitemsdegradeintosmallerparticles,so‐calledmicroplastics(MP)(<5mmindiameter).MPresultingfromdegrada‐tionprocessesareclassifiedassecondaryMP,whileprimaryMPareproducedassuchforindustrialpurposes.MPparticlesrepresentfreshwatercontaminantsofemergingconcern.However,toassesstheenvironmentalrisksassociatedwithMPparticlesinfreshwaterecosystems,comprehensivedataontheirabundance,fate,sources,andbiologicaleffectsareneeded.
Thereforetheresearchproject“Microplasticsininlandwaterwaysandcoastalwaters–origin,fate,impact”bytheFederalInstituteofHydrology(BfG)aimsatestablishingscientificprinciplesforas‐sessment,monitoringandregulationofMPinfreshwateraquaticenvironments(waterandsediment).Withinthisprojectthefollowingtaskswillbeaddressed:(1)occurrence(qualityandquantity)ofMPininlandwaterways,(2)characterizationofquantitativeandqualitativeinputinwaterwaysandcoastalwaters(massbalancestudy),(3)bioaccumulationpotentialofMP,(4)investigationofbiologi‐caleffectsofMPonaquaticorganisms,and(5)riskassessmentforaquaticorganismsandaquaticen‐vironments.Onthisaccounttheresearchprojectconsistsof5workpackages:(I)samplepreparationandqualitativedescription,(II)developmentandvalidationofquantificationmethods,(III)biologicaleffects,(IV)modelingandmonitoring,and(V)leaching,impact,andriskassessment;ofthesethefirstresultswillbepresentedhere.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
87
Waste in German rivers Input‐ and Output‐pathways, Amount, Key Figures
and Avoidance Measures
Marco Breitbarth, M.Sc.
Department of Waste Management/University of Kassel
E‐mail contact: breitbarth@uni‐kassel.de
Introduction:Litteringofseasandoceansinparticularcausedbyplasticwasteisagrowingproblemwithsubstantialenvironmentalimpacts.Globalland‐basedsourcesforentryofwastearecoastalareaswithtourismordisorderlylandfillsaswellasrivers,whicharecarryingwastefrominlandareas.ItisexpectedthatGermanriversarealsosourcesforentryofwasteintoseasandoceans.
Aim:Thepurposeofthisstudyistodeterminewastetypes,inputandoutputpathwaysandtheamountforbothmacrowaste(>5mm)andmicrowaste(1‐5mm)inGermanrivers.Onbasisofthisinformationavoidancemeasureswillbedeveloped.
Researchmethods:Wastetypes,inputandoutputpathwaysandmass‐basedamountaswellasquan‐titiesofwastearedeterminedbysamplingscreeningsofhydroelectricpowerplants,flotsaminthewaterandinriparianzonesaswellascollectingwasteatriverbanksandthesurroundingareas.Thecollectedwastewillbeclassifiedintoproduct,materialandsizeclassesbymeansofsorting‐analyzes.Toidentifyinputandoutputpathwayssite‐inspectionsandacomparisonofwasteproductsinallana‐lyzedareasaredone.
Results:ItwasgeneratedthatLitteringisthemajorinputpathwayformacrowaste.Theentryofpri‐marymicrowastetakesplacebydischargesfromDrainandSewerSystems.Theremovalofscreeningsofhydroelectricpowerplantsisthemajoroutputpathwayformacrowasteandduetoadhesionsformicrowasteaswell.
TakingtheexampleoftheSaaleRivertheamountofmacrowastehasbeendetectedwithanannualfreightofapprox.673kgorapprox.269,000wasteparticles.MicrowastewasfoundintheWerraRiv‐erwithatotalannualamountofapprox.25.6kgandapprox.10millionparticles.Additionallythespe‐cificpollutionofmicrowasteattheriparianzonesoftheWerraRiverwasdeterminedwithspecificloadsofapprox.1,400pcs./kmandapprox.20g/km.
Themass‐basedwastecompositionofmacrowasteisdominatedbypackagingmaterials(52%Saale).Basedonthequantitiestheproductclass"foils,bagsandsacks"isthemostcommonwastefractionduetoarapidfragmentation(51%Saale).Thedominatingwastetypesamongmicrowasteareplasticpelletsconsideringmasspercentage(64%Werra)andplasticfoilfragmentsbasedonquantities(62%Werra).
Conclusion:Germanriversarecontaminatedwithmacro‐andmicro‐wastethatultimatelyentertheseasandoceans.Thus,Germanycontributestolitteringofseasandoceans.ConsideringthatGermanyisahighlydevelopedcountrywithafunctionalwastedisposalinfrastructure,waterpollutionbywastecannotbeacceptable.Onbasisoftheacquiredknowledgeabouttypicalwasteproductsandtheirpathways,severalavoidancemeasuresarederived.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
88
An initial study of microplastics in Irish freshwater and wastewaters
Anna Cedro, John Cleary
Institute of Technology Carlow, Carlow, Ireland
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Microplasticsinthemarineenvironmenthavebeenrecognizedasanissueofconcerninrecentdec‐ades,duetotheiringestionby,andpotentialharmfuleffectson,aquaticorganisms.Microplasticscanalsoreleasetoxicmaterialssuchasplasticizersandotheradditivesbyleachingandduetofurtherbreakdownofthemicroplasticparticles.Untilrecentlyhowever,therehasbeenrelativelylittlefocusonmicroplasticsinfreshwatersystems,despitetheirobviousimportanceasinputstothemarineenvi‐ronment,aswellastheirpotentialtonegativelyimpactfreshwaterecosystems.Inthispreliminarystudywehavevalidatedmethodsforthedetection,characterizationandquantificationofmicroplas‐ticsinwaterandsedimentsamplesfromthemidlandsregionofIreland.Sampleswerecollectedfromlakeandriverinelocationsandthemicroplasticscontentwasanalyzedusingvariousphysico‐chemicaltestsandbyFTIRspectroscopy.Samplesfromwastewatertreatmentplantswerealsocollectedandanalyzedinordertoassessthesignificanceoftheseplantsasinputsofmicroplasticcontamination.
Whilenomicroplasticswererecoveredfromthemajorityoffreshwatersamplesexamined,thereissufficientevidenceofmicroplasticscontaminationtosuggestthatfurtherworkisjustifiedinordertoobtainamorerepresentativepictureofmicroplasticspollutioninIrishriversandlakes.Polystyreneandpolyethylenewerethepredominantpolymersdetectedinfreshwatersamples.Significantnum‐bersofmicroplasticparticlesweredetectedinsamplescollectedfromthreewastewatertreatmentplants.Analysisofsamplestakenfromdifferentpointsinthewastewatertreatmentprocessesindicat‐edthatthemajorityofmicroplasticswereremovedduringtreatment;howeverthereisclearevidencethatthereisasignificantmicroplasticscontentinIrishmunicipalwastewaters.Furtherinvestigationofthesourcesandfateofthesematerialsissuggested.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
89
Monitoring beach macro litter utilizing MARLIN beach litter monitoring method and crowdsourcing
Jenny Gustafsson
Keep the Archipelago Tidy Association, Turku, Finland
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
TheAssociationparticipatedintheBalticMarineLitter(MARLIN)projectin2011‐2013.MARLINwasanEUfundedprojectwithpartnersfromSweden,EstoniaandLatvia.TheaimofMARLINwastoincreaseawarenessamongthepublicandpolicymakersinregardtomarinelitterintheBalticSeabyintroducingamonitoringmethodincombinationwithopinionbuildingactivities.
ThemonitoringmethodisbasedonUNEP/IOCmonitoringguidelinesthathavebeenadaptedfortheBalticSea.Themethodhasafewgroundrules.Theremustbeatleastthreedifferentbeachtypes:ur‐ban,peri‐urbanandrural.Beacheshavetobemonitoredthreetimesperyear:spring,summerandautumn.Themonitoredareamustfallwithintheminimumandmaximumsize.Litteriscalculatedperitem.
Atthefirstmonitoringtheruralbeacheshadmorelitterthanurbansorperi‐urbanbeaches.Thefol‐lowingmonitoringshowedthattheruralbeacheslitteramountdecreasedandthenthemostlitteredbeacheswereurbanones.Thelittercategoriesamount2012‐2013were75%plastic,foamedplasticandcigarettebutts,7%metal,5%paperandcardboard,5%wood,4%glassandceramics,2%cloth,1%organicand1%rubber.
TheCleanBeachcampaignisabeachclean‐upcampaigncoordinatedbytheKeeptheArchipelagoTidyAssociation(KAT).Theaimistocleanthebeachesduringspringtime,butalsotoraiseawarenessandcollectdataaboutmarinelitter.
CleanBeachwasinspiredbytheMARLINproject.Anyonecancreatetheirownclean‐upeventatabeachalongtheBalticSea,alakeorariver.
Thefirstcampaignwasheldin2014.In2014and2015,clean‐upgroupsreportedallmarinelittercol‐lectedtoKAT.ThereportformismorebasicthantheMARLINorUNEPforms.Theideaistogaingen‐eralinformationaboutdifferentmaterials.Thelittercategoriesincludeplastic,paperandcardboard,metal,glassandceramics,cloth,wood,organicwaste,hazardouswaste,rubber,cigarettebuttsandother.
Beachesareonlycaterogisedbyitslocationbywaterbodytype:alake,ariveroraseabeach.Inyears2014‐2015,mostofthefoundlitterinallbeachesisplastic,foamedplasticandcigarettebutts.Beachesofseaandlakeshadplasticlitternearly70%.Noticeablytheriverbankshadonly49,8%plasticandmorepaperandcardboardandglassandceramicsthanseaorlakebeaches.OtherwiselakeandseabeachlitteramountswereinthelinewiththeMARLINresults.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
90
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
91
Abstracts: Poster
Sources and risk characterization
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
92
From Land to Sea – a model for recording land‐based plastic waste
Stephanie Cieplik
BKV Gmbh, Frankfurt am Main
E‐mail contact: stephanie.cieplik@bkv‐gmbh.de
WhataretherelevantinputpathscontributingtoMarineLitter?Uptonowtherearenoapproachesknowndescribingthesepathwaysinageneralcontext.
Aquantitativemodelfortheestimationoftotalamountsofland‐sourcedplasticslitterenteringtheseahasbeendeveloped.
Thetotalamountsarebrokendownbyinputpaths(rivers,rivernavigation,coastlines,portsandland‐fills)aswellasbyparticlesize(microversusmacroplastics).Themodelservestoimproveestimatesoftheorigins,quantitiesandcompositionoftheplasticwasteenteringtheNorthSea.Itpresentsindetailthepossibleinputpathsofplasticwaste(micro‐andmacroplastics)endingupinthesea.Inthefirstinstance,onlytheland‐basedinputofsynthetics(land‐sourcedlitter)intotheNorthSea1iscon‐sidered.Themodeldoesnotincludewastefrommaritimeshipping,cruiseshipsandthefishingindus‐try(sea‐sourcedlitter),norinputsintootherseas.
Inthefirststep,theinputpathswereidentifiedandadatamodelsetup.Adatabasewascreatedonthebasisofthismodel.Initially,therepresentationoftheinputpathswasintendedtotakeplaceinde‐pendentlyofthecurrentdataavailability;whenstructuringthecharacteristics,however,attentionwasalreadypaidtothesubsequentdatageneration.
Inthesecondstep,theinputquantitieswereanalysedonthebasisofprimaryandsecondarydata.Tobeginwith,dataselectionwaslimitedtothepublicationsofOSPAR2andtheBerlinConferenceonMa‐rineLitter3.Subsequently,primarydataintheformofexpertdiscussionswerealsogenerated.
Themodelcanbeappliedtoanyseaorregionworldwide.Themodeliscurrentlybeingvalidatedwithstakeholders.
Theposterwouldpresentanddescribethemodelanditsmainresults,additionallyanoutlookregard‐ingthefurtherproceedings.
1GeographicdefinitionoftheNorthSeaaccordingtoOSPAR:“TheGreaterNorthSeaissituatedonthecontinentalshelfofnorth‐westEurope.ItopensintotheAtlanticOceantothenorth,viatheEnglishChanneltothesouth‐west,andintotheBalticseatotheeast.“[Source:http://www.ospar.org/convention/the‐north‐east‐atlantic/ii]
2IssuePapertotheOSPARWorkshop“DevelopmentofaRegionalActionPlanonMarineLitter”,October2013.3IssuePapertothe“InternationalConferenceonPreventionandManagementofMarineLitterinEuropeanSeas”,May2013.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
93
Growing threat in a throwaway society Pathways and physico‐chemical properties of river‐relevant plastics
and microplastics
Joscha Moritz
RWTH Aachen
Jan Echterhoff
Research Institute for Water and Waste Management at the RWTH Aachen
E‐mail contact: [email protected]‐aachen.de
Sincewearelivingintheageofplasticandsincetherearealmostnoopportunitiesanymoretoevadetheuseofplasticsinoureverydaylife,weurgentlyneedtoknowthepathways,impactsandbehaviorofplasticinterrestrialandwaterenvironment.Thegrowingthreatduetomicroplasticisheavilyrelatedwithitssizeandalmostinvisibility.Therefore‐andbecausenoplasticthathasbeenproducedinthelastcenturyhasmineral‐izedsofar,wearecurrentlyfocusingontheiroriginanddegradationprocess.Bydoingso,wewanttofindnewwaystoavoidthespreadingofmicroplasticparticlestofreshwaterenvironmentsandfinallyintomarineenvironment.
Theformandtypeofmicroplasticdegradedfrompackagingandotherapplicationareasdodifferalot,asshownbyrecentstudiesfromfreshwaterenvironments.WhenPlasticproductsarelittered,theyareusuallyexposedtoamixofmechanicalabrasion,UV‐Sunlight‐Radiation,Oxo‐thermalinfluencesandhydrolysis.Theseimpactsslowlydecreasethesizeoftheformermacro‐ormeso‐plasticsintomicro‐ornanomagnitude.MechanicalabrasionandUV‐degradationplaythemostimportantroleofenvironmentalfactors,neverthelesstherearesomeotherfactors:
Bylookingatthedegradationprocesses,itisobviousthattherangeofplastictypesgetsmallerinadifferentwayandrate.Thereisalackofknowledgeaboutthedifferentplastictypesdegradationprocesses.Asthedensityofplasticisobviouslysignificant,therearesomeotherimportantproperties,suchascrystallinity,specificheat,lighttransmissionandmoistureabsorption,whichallhaveanimportantinfluenceonthedeg‐radationprocessofmicroplastic.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
94
Understanding the fragmentation pattern of micro‐plastics from the North Atlantic Gyre
Alexandra ter Halle, Lucie Ladirat, Marion Martignac, Emile Perez
Laboratoire des IMRCP / Université de Toulouse, CNRS UMR 5623, UPS
Xavier Gendre
Institut de mathématique de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier‐UPS, 118, route de Nar‐
bonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex 09, France
Dominique Goudouneche
CMEAB, Faculté de médecine Rangueil, Bât. A5, 133 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse
Corinne Routaboul
CNRS, LCC, 205 route de Narbonne, BP 44099, F‐31077 Toulouse Cedex 4, France
Julien Gigault
CNRS, EPOC, 351 cours de la libération, 33405 Talence Cedex, France
E‐mail contact: ter‐[email protected]‐tlse.fr
Morethan260milliontonnesofplasticareusedeachyear.Basedonpopulationdensityandeconomicstatusofcostalcountries,themassoflandbasedplasticwasteenteringtheoceanwasrecentlyestimatedbetween4.8to12.7millionmetrictonsperyear1.Moststrikingistheestimationfor2025:thisamountwillincreasebyanorderofmagnitudeifwastemanagementinfrastructuresarenotimproved[1].
Plasticdebrisisabundantandwidespreadintheenvironment.Marineplasticpollutionhasbeenrecentlyrecognizedasaglobalenvironmentalthreat[2,3].Thereisaneedforbetterestimatingtheglobalscaleofplasticinputs,betterunderstandingfateofplasticdebrisintheenvironmentandbetterstudyingthebiologi‐calresponsestoplasticexposureinavarietyoforganisms.
Inthiscontext,thepresentstudyaimedatgivingadetailedphysicochemicalcharacterizationofmicroplastics(300µm–5mm)collectedatthesurfaceoftheNorthAtlanticaccumulationzone.Thecharacterizationofthemicroplasticsisgivenintermsofsize,width,density,weighttogetherwithamicroscopic,microtomographicandinfraredspectroscopyanalysis.Afragmentationmechanismbasedonamathematicalmodelandonthephysicochemicaldatagatheredisproposed.
Therearestillfundamentalknowledgegapsinthetransformationandfateofplasticdebrisintheaquaticenvironment.Understandingthefragmentationpatternofmicroplasticsisanessentialstepinordertoun‐derstandtowhatextentsmallerparticlesareformed(micrometricandnanometric).Theresultspresentedsuggestthatsmallerfragmentsareformedandunderlinetheneedtodevelopreliablesamplinganddetectionmethodsforsmallplasticparticlesinenvironmentalsamples.
[1] Jambeck, J. R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T. R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K. L., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, (6223), 768‐771.
[2] Moore, C. J., Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long‐term threat. Environmental Research 2008, 108, (2), 131‐139.
[3] Rochman, C. M.; Browne, M. A.; Halpern, B. S.; Hentschel, B. T.; Hoh, E.; Karapanagioti, H. K.; Rios‐Mendoza, L. M.; Takada, H.; Teh, S.; Thompson, R. C., Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 2013, 494, (7436), 169‐171.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
95
Marine plastic litter: the missing nano‐fraction
Julien Gigault
Laboratoire EPOC / CNRS UMR 5805 Université de Bordeaux
Boris Pedrono, Benoit Maxit
Cordouan Technologies, Pessac
Marion Martignac, Alexandra ter Halle
Laboratoire des IMRCP / Université de Toulouse, CNRS UMR 5623, UPS
E‐mail contact: julien.gigault@u‐bordeaux.fr
Wearenotawareofanystudiesreportingtheoccurrenceofnano‐plasticsinmarinewater,andonlymillime‐terscalematerialsarereferenced[1,2].Thislackofevidenceisdueto(i)thedilutionofnano‐plasticsontheoceansurfaceand(ii)thelackofappropriatemethodologiesforcharacterizingnanoscalematerialsintheenvironment[3,4].Inarecentreview,someauthorsreportedthatthereisadoubtthatnanoscaleparticlescouldbeproducedbytheweatheringofplasticdebrisandindicatedalackofanalyticalmethodsforquantify‐ingtheseparticles[3,5,6].Cózaretal.identifiedadeficiencyofmarineplasticparticlesatthelowerendofthesizedistribution(<1mm)intheabundancediagramandarguedthatfastnano‐fragmentationfrommillime‐terscaledebrismightbeaplausibleexplanationforthisdeficiency[7].
Inourrecentwork,publishedinEnvironmentalSciencenano[8],wepresentforthefirsttimeundeniableevidenceofnano‐plasticoccurrenceduetosolarlightdegradationofmarinemicro‐plasticsundercontrolledandenvironmentallyrepresentativeconditions.Asobservedduringourrecentexpedition(Expedition7thContinent),plasticpollutionwillbeoneofthemostchallengingecologicalthreatsforthenextgeneration.
Wedevelopedforthefirsttimeanewsolarreactorequippedwithananoparticledetectortoinvestigatethepossibilityoftheformationofnano‐plasticsfrommillimeterscaleplastics.Withthissystem,correlatedwithelectronicmicroscopyobservations,weidentifiedforthefirsttimethepresenceofplasticsatthenanoscaleinwaterduetoUVdegradation.Basedonourobservations,largefractalnano‐plasticparticles(i.e.,>100nm)areproducedbyUVlightaftertheinitialformationofthesmallestnano‐plasticparticles(i.e.,<100nm).Thesenewresultsshowthepotentialhazardsofplasticwasteatthenanoscale,whichhadnotbeentakenintoac‐countpreviously.
[1] Morét‐Ferguson S, Law KL, Proskurowski G, et al (2010) The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western
North Atlantic Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull 60:1873–1878. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.07.020
[2] Hidalgo‐Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M (2012) Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ Sci Technol 46:3060–3075. doi: 10.1021/es2031505
[3] Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Shim WJ (2015) Nanoplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Critical Review. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Mar. Anthropog. Litter. Springer International Publishing, pp 325–340
[4] Filella M (2015) Questions of size and numbers in environmental research on microplastics: methodological and concep‐tual aspects. Environ Chem 12:527–538.
[5] Andrady AL (2015) Persistence of Plastic Litter in the Oceans. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Mar. Anthropog. Litter. Springer International Publishing, pp 57–72
[6] Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 62:1596–1605. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030
[7] Cózar A, Echevarría F, González‐Gordillo JI, et al (2014) Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:10239–10244. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314705111
[8] Gigault J, Pedrono B, Maxit B, Halle AT (2016) Marine plastic litter: the unanalyzed nano‐fraction. Environ Sci Nano. doi: 10.1039/C6EN00008H
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
96
Microbial colonization of microplastics and other particles from commercial cosmetic products
Katrin Wendt‐Potthoff, Ute Kuhlicke, Matthias Koschorreck, Thomas R. Neu
UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department Lake Research, Magdeburg
Erik Dümichen
Bundesanstalt für Materialfoschung und –prüfung (BAM), Berlin
E‐mail contact: katrin.wendt‐[email protected]
Microplasticparticlesfromcosmeticpeelingsmayenterriversandlakesviawastewateriftheyarenotremovedintreatmentplants.Asignificantfractionofthoseparticleswillfinallyendupinthesea,buttransportandretentionprocessesarenotwellunderstoodsofar.Microbialcolonizationwhichmightinfluencethespecificdensityoftheparticlesandtheiruptakebyorganismsisbelievedtobeanim‐portantfactor.Asanexamplewechoseparticlesfromacommercialshowerpeeling(polyethyleneandjojobaesterbeads)andafootpeeling(pumiceandpolyethylene).Particleswereisolatedfromthematrixandcleanedbywashingwithethanolandwater.Theyvariedinsizeandhadanirregularshapewhichimpairedmicroscopicquantificationofbiofilms.ParticleswereincubatedwithwaterfromtheriverBodeinglassbottlesonarollingincubatorfor4weeksinthedarkatroomtemperature.BiofilmstructurewasthenstudiedbySyto9nucleicacidstainandconfocallaserscanningmicroscopy.Inad‐dition,viablebiomassinthebiofilmswasquantifiedafterextractingphospholipidphosphate,aproxyforintactcellmembranes.Particlesfrombothpeelingswerecolonizedbymicrocoloniesofcoccalpro‐karyotesandsomefilamentousmicrobes.Footpeelingparticlespossessedlowerbiomassconcentra‐tions,andbiofilm‐coveredpumiceandpolyethylenecouldnolongerbedistinguishedwiththeavaila‐blemicroscopicmethods.Regardingtheshowerpeeling,thebluejojobaesterbeadsweremorein‐tenselycolonizedcomparedtothecolourlesspolyethyleneparticles.Pre‐testswithrinsedparticlesshowedthatestimationofviablemicrobialbiomassasphospholipidphosphatewaspossiblewithoutbackgroundsignals.Thismethodthereforeappearstobesuitableforroutinebiomassquantificationfromavarietyofanthropogenicparticlescollectedfromaquaticenvironments.Incubationsofanthro‐pogenicparticlesinmorenaturalsettingsordirectlyinariverorlakewillhelptoimproveourunder‐standingofbiofilmformationandsubsequentfateofthematerialinaquaticecosystems.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
97
Biofilm on plastic is a low‐quality food resource for the grazer Radix balthica (Gastropoda)
Alexander T. L. Vosshage, Friederike Gabel
Institute of Landscape Ecology/Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Münster
Thomas R. Neu
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research ‐ UFZ, Magdeburg
E‐mail contact: A.Vosshage@uni‐muenster.de
Plasticcontaminationofrunningwatersandlakesposeapotentialthreattofreshwaterorganisms.Theeffectsofplasticonfoodchainsinfreshwatersareofparticularinterestconcerningenvironmentalfunctionsandstability.But,investigationsofplasticaffectingmorethanonetrophiclevelhavenotbeencarriedoutsofar.
Inthisstudyeffectsofplasticonprimaryproduction,i.e.biofilms,andprimaryconsumers,i.e.anin‐vertebrategrazer,coveringtwotrophiclevelsoftheaquaticfoodwebwereinvestigated.Twoplastictypes,Perspex(PMMA)andPolycarbonate(PC),andglass(control)wereusedassubstratumfornatu‐ralbiofilmestablishment.ThesebiofilmswerefedtothefreshwatergastropodRadixbalthicainala‐boratorygrazingexperiment.Biofilmstructureandcompositionwereobservedwithconfocallaserscanningmicroscopy.SublethaleffectsonR.balthicawereobservedmeasuringconsumptionofbio‐film(asfaecesdrymass)andgrowthrates.
BiofilmstructureandcompositionweresimilaroncontrolandPCsubstratum,butbiofilmonPMMAsubstratumshowedsignificantdifferences.Afterthegrazingexperimentpatchesofremainedbiofilmwerefoundonbothplasticsubstrata.Oncontrolsubstratum,theentirebiofilmwasconsumedbyR.balthica.TheconsumptionofbiofilmwassignificantlylowerinthePCtreatment,comparedtothecon‐trolandthePMMAtreatment.Growthratesweresignificantlylowerinbothplastictreatments,com‐paredtothecontroltreatment.
ThelowgrowthratesinthePCtreatmentmayresultfromthelowerconsumptionofbiofilminthistreatment.InthePMMAtreatment,thealteredcompositionofbiofilmcouldhavereducedgrowthrates.Furthermore,bothplasticsmighthaveleachedorcarriedadheredpollutants,whichmayhavereducedgrowthratesdirectly,orindirectlythroughlowergrazingactivity.
Concluding,itwasshownthatplasticasasubstratumaffectsthecompositionoffreshwaterbiofilmsresultinginlowergrowthratesofagrazingbenthicinvertebrate.Thus,plasticinfreshwatershasadirecteffectontheprimaryproductionandanindirecteffectonhighertrophiclevels.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
98
Analysis of microplastic particles in bivalves samples
Philipp M. Anger, Alexandra C. Wiesheu, Reinhard Niessner, Natalia P. Ivleva
Institute of Hydrochemistry, Chair of Analytical Chemistry/Technical University of Munich
Janina Domogalla‐Urbansky, Florian Rager, Hermann Ferling, Julia Schwaiger
LfU Bavarian Environment Agency (Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, LfU), Wielenbach
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Theaccumulationofmicroplastic(MP,1μm–5mm)inmarineecosystemsisofincreasingscientificandpublicconcern[1‐6].Recently,MPhasalsobeenfoundinfreshwaterecosystems[2‐5].TheimpactofMPonaquaticecosystemsisnotyetfullyunderstood,butthereisanincreasingnumberofstudiesreportingthatMPparticlesarehazardoustoaquaticorganisms[6].
WeinvestigatetheaccumulationofMPbyfreshwaterorganisms,e.g.indigenousbivalves(Uniosp.).ThebivalveswereexposedtoMPeitherinthefieldorunderstandardizedlaboratoryconditions.Inthelatter,organismswereexposedtovariousconcentrationsandparticlesizesofpolyvinylchloride(PVC)underflowthroughconditions.FortheanalysisofMPinbivalvesweestablishedamethodin‐cludingsampleprocessing,aswellasidentificationandquantificationofMPdownto1μmbymeansofRamanmicrospectroscopy(RM).
Thestabilityofthemostabundantplastics(polyethylene;PE,polypropylene;PP,PVC,polystyrene;PS,polyethyleneterephthalate;PET)inthistreatmentwasverified.FurtherRMstudieswillfocusontheMPaccumulationinfishexposedtoMPcontainingfood(e.g.PVC)underlaboratoryconditions.Inpar‐allel,possibleadverseeffectsonfishhealthduetoMPexposurewillbeinvestigated.
Literature:
[1] M. Cole, P. Lindeque, C. Halsband, T. S. Galloway, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588‐2597.
[2] M. Wagner, C. Scherer, D. Alvarez‐Munoz, N. Brennholt, et al., Env. Sci. Eur. 2014, 26, 12.
[3] R. Dris, H. Imhof, W. Sanchez, J. Gasperi, F. Galgani, B. Tassin, C. Laforsch, Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 539‐550.
[4] H.K. Imhof, C. Laforsch; A. C. Wiesheu, J. Schmid, P.M. Anger; R. Niessner; N. P. Ivleva, Water Res. 2016, 98, 64‐74.
[5] T. Mani, A. Hauk, U. Walter, P. Burkhardt‐Holm, Sci Rep. 2015, DOI: 10.1038/srep17988
[6] M. A. Browne, A. Dissanayake, T. S. Galloway, D. M. Lowe, R. C. Thompson, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5026‐5031.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
99
Uptake and elimination of HD‐PE microplastics in the digestive system of M. edulis
Sarah Zwicker, Angela Köhler
AWI, Bremerhaven
E‐mail contact: [email protected], [email protected]
Thedatabaseonthepotentialingestionofmicroplastics(MP)byseveralspeciesisgrowingcontinu‐ously,whileinformationonparticlesfateintissuesandcellsissparse.However,thisinformationiscrucialfortheevaluationofthetoxicologicalimpactonorganismhealth,bioaccumulationandfoodsafety.
Manyfilterfeedingspeciesdevelopedstrategiestoseparatevaluelessmaterialsfromvaluablenutri‐tiousparticulatematterafteringestion.ThemolluskM.edulisseparatesparticlesi.a.bymeansofden‐sity.Denseparticlesfallintorejectiongrooveswhereaslightparticles,suchasmicroalgae,aredirectedintothedigestivegland,themainsiteofintracellulardigestion.TheaimofthepresentstudywastoidentifyhowM.edulisdealswiththeexposuretoMPastheseparticlesarelightbutindigestibleandvalueless.
AsthemodelplasticweusedHD‐PE(0.96g/cm³,irregularshaped,0‐80µm),oneofthemostim‐portantconsumerplasticsandprevalentlyfoundintheenvironment.Toanalyzeuptakeprocesses,musselswereexperimentallyexposedtoaparticleconcentrationof2000p/mlfor3h,6h,12h.Tofollowupapotentialelimination,musselswereexposedfor12handthereaftertransferredtoplastic‐freewaterwheretheyremainedfor3h,6h,12h,48h,96h,7dand14duntilsampling.Thedigestivesystemwasdissectedandprocessedforhistopathologicalanalysis.
Theparticleloadinfourcompartmentsofmussels’digestivesystemwasvisualizedbyanovelap‐proachcombiningpolarizedlightmicroscopyandquantificationbymeansofdigitalimageanalysis.ParticlespresentsintissueswasfurtherverifiedbyIR‐spectroscopy.
OurstudyindicatesthatmusselsareunabletoidentifyMPasmaterialoflowvalueduringpost‐ingestionparticleselection.MusselsingestedMPandtransferredlargeamountsintotheirdigestivegland.EspeciallyduringtimesofstronggutpassageslargequantitiesofMPwerefoundintheconnec‐tive‐storagetissue(CST)ofthedigestiveglandaroundthestomachandintestine.ParticlespersistednotablylonginthetubulesandtheCSTofthedigestivegland.Finally,allparticleswereeliminatedfromthedigestivesystemafter96hinplastic‐freewater.
ToinvestigateiftheexposuretoMPexertedharmfuleffects,thedigestiveglandwillbediagnosedforcellpathologicalchangesincludingindicatorsforscartissueformation.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
100
Delicious plastic? Do freshwater mussels ingest microplastic under field conditions?
Maike Wissing, Friederike Gabel
Institut für Landschaftsökologie, Universität Münster
Oliver Schmidt‐Formann
Umweltamt, Hamm (Westf.)
E‐mail contact: maike.wissing@uni‐muenster.de
Alargeamountofmicroplastic(plasticparticles<5mm)canbefoundinmarineandfreshwatersys‐tems.Apartfromindirecteffects,organismscanbedirectlyinjuredduetoingestion.Microplasticin‐gestionisalreadyverifiedforseveralspecies,butonlyforafewfreshwaterspecies.Furthermoremostofthesestudieswereperformedunderlaboratoryconditionswitharelativelyhighmicroplasticcon‐centrationcomparedto“natural”concentrationsinfreshwatersystems.
Thisraisesthequestionofwhetherspecies,forexamplethemusselCorbiculafluminea,ingestmicro‐plasticparticlesunderfieldconditions.Weexposed90individualsofC.flumineaforthreeweekstodifferentamountsofinsitumicroplasticintheRiverLippe,alowlandriverinnorthwestGermany.Forty‐fiveindividualswereplacedintotheoutletofawastewatertreatmentplant(expectinghighconcentrationsofmicroplasticinthewater),theother45individualsupstreamofthewastewatertreatmentplant(expectinglowermicroplasticconcentrations).Microplasticconcentrationswerede‐tectedinbothreacheswithdriftnets.Resultsshowedthat,musselsexposedtohigherconcentrationsoffloatingmicroplastic(12.7±8.3microplasticparticlesperm³floatingintheoutletofthewastewa‐tertreatmentplantversus7.1±6.2microplasticparticlesperm³floatinginthewaterupstreamtheoutlet)ingestedsignificantlymoremicroplasticparticles(0.61±0.30particlespermgmusseldrymassversus0.27±0.14particlespermgmusseldrymass).Hence,alsofreshwatermusselsingestmi‐croplasticparticlesandtheamountofingestedparticlesincreaseswithincreasingplasticconcentra‐tionsinthewater.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
101
PET microplastics have no long‐term effects on the freshwater amphipod Gammarus pulex
Annkatrin Weber, Christian Scherer, Martin Wagner
Department Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Nicole Brennholt, Georg Reifferscheid
Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany
E‐mail contact: [email protected]‐frankfurt.de
Microplastics(MP)areabundantinmostoftheglobalmarineandfreshwaterecosystemsandcanin‐terferewithitsbiota.Potentialadverseeffectshavealreadybeenstudiedinsituaswellasinlaborato‐rystudiesforseveralmarinespecieswhileeffectsonfreshwaterorganismsremainsofarlargelyun‐studied.
Thepresentstudyprovidesfirstresultsontheshort‐termuptakeandthelong‐termeffectsofPETMPonthefreshwateramphipodGammaruspulex.Aspartofanuptakestudy(24hours)aswellasanef‐fectstudy(48days)juvenile(6‐8mm)andadult(12‐17mm)individualswereexposedtofluorescentPETMPwithasizerangeof10‐150µm.BothstudiescoveredMPconcentrationsfrom0.4‐4,000parti‐clesmL‐1.TherateofMPuptakethroughout24hourswasdeterminedbyenzymaticallylysingtheex‐posedindividualsandanalyzingtheingestedparticleswithafluorescentmicroscope.Feedingactivity,energyreserves(glycogen,lipids),moltperiodlengthandmortalitywereinvestigatedasendpointsinthe48‐dayschronictoxicitystudy.
Theresultsoftheshort‐termuptakestudyindicatethatMPingestionbyG.pulexisnotsize‐selectiveandincreaseswithparticleconcentration.Comparingtheparticleuptakeofadultsandjuvenilesatsameparticleexposureconcentrations,juvenilesingestedmoreparticlesthanadultindividuals.Inthechronictoxicitystudynosignificantchangesinfeedingactivity,energyreserves,moltperioddurationandmortalitywereobservedinanyofthetreatmentgroups.
Inconclusion,thisstudydemonstratesthatacommonfreshwateramphipodreadilyingestsMP.How‐ever,theuptakedoesnotresultinadverseeffectsonbehavioral,physiologicalanddevelopmentalpa‐rameters.Theabsenceoflong‐termeffectsmightbetheresultofthemainfeedingstrategyofamphi‐pods.G.pulexshreddersdetritusandplantmaterialsandisadaptedtoafrequentuptakeandegestionofnon‐digestibleparticles.FuturestudieswillprovideinsightonwhetherMPadverselyaffectfresh‐waterspecieswithotherfeedingstrategies(e.g.filterfeeders).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
102
Effects of pristine microplastic particles on the water flea Daphnia magna: A laboratory approach as basis for more complex scenarios
Saskia Rehse
Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin;
Freie Universität Berlin
Werner Kloas
Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin;
Humboldt‐Universität Berlin
Christiane Zarfl
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
E‐mail contact: rehse@igb‐berlin.de
Plasticpollutionhasalreadybeenobservedinmarineenvironmentsforseveraldecades.Nevertheless,ourunderstandingofbothextentandconsequencesforourecosystemsisstillverylimited.Thisalsoincludesfateandeffectsofespeciallysmallplasticparticles(microplastics),whichhavebeenover‐lookedinthepast.Recentstudiesfocusontheirabundance,distributionandfateingeneralandinfreshwatersinparticularbutalsoontheirpotentialeffectsonorganismswithfocusonlaboratorystudies(e.g.Coleetal.2015,Imhofetal.2016).Assessingtherisksofmicroplasticsintheenvironmentischallengingespeciallybecauseofthesimultaneouspresenceofotherstressorslikechemicalsub‐stancesthatsorbtotheplasticmatrix.Althoughsomestudiesalreadyshowedthatmicroplasticscanbeavectorforpollutantstoaquaticanimals(e.g.Rochmanetal.2013),therelevanceofmicroplasticstotheoverallpollutionisstillunderdiscussion.Separatingandtestingsingleeffectfactorssystemati‐callyinafirststepcanhelptounderstandrisksofmicroplasticsandtheirunderlyingprocesses.Therefore,weanalysedinlabexperiments,ifpristineplasticmaterialitselfcaninducenegativeeffectsonaquaticorganismsbeforeaddressingresearchquestionsincludingmorecomplexinteractionswithotherstressors.Followingestablishedecotoxicologicalmethodsweaimedatidentifyingthresholdconcentrationsof1‐µmand100‐µmPEparticlesforimmobilisationeffectsonthewaterfleaDaphniamagnaathighconcentrations(25‐400mgL‐1).While100‐µmparticleswerenotingestedanddidnotcauseimmobilisation,1‐µmparticleswereingestedandcausedimmobilisationincreasingwithdose(upto200mgL‐1)andtime(upto96h)withEC50of57.43mgL‐1after96h.PreliminaryresultsonPA‐particleswithanaveragediameterof25‐30µmindicate,thattheseparticlesjustcauseimmobilisa‐tionatthehighesttestedconcentrationsbetween200‐400mgL‐1.Inconclusionnotonlysizeandcon‐centrationofmicroplastics,butalsoexposuretimeandthetypeofpolymercaninfluencenegativeeffectsonlimniczooplankton.Ourresultscanbeafirstbasisforstudiesincludingcombinedeffectsofmicroplasticsandpollutantsandfutureriskassessment.
References:
Cole et al. 2015, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49.2: 1130‐1137.
Imhof et al. 2016, Water Res. 98: 64‐74.
Rochman et al. 2013, Sci. Rep. 3.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
103
Size‐dependent uptake of microplastics in Daphnia magna
Sinja Rist, Ann Sofie Møberg, Anders Baun, Nanna Hartmann
Technical University of Denmark, DTU Environment, Kgs. Lyngby
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Aquaticecosystemsworldwidearepollutedbyplasticwaste.Thisalsoincludesthepresenceofmicro‐plasticsthat,duetotheirsmallsize(<5mm),havethepotentialtoaffectawidevarietyofaquaticor‐ganisms.Thenumberofaquaticspecies,forwhichactiveorpassiveingestionofmicroplasticshasbeenobserved,issteadilyincreasing.Althoughmicroplasticpollutionoccursinmarineaswellasfreshwaterecosystems,moststudiesonmicroplasticuptakesofarfocusedonmarinebiota.Addition‐ally,currentapproachesaremostlyqualitativesincequantitativemeasuresofingestedparticlesareanalyticallychallenging.Theaimofthisstudywasthereforetouseaquantitativeapproachfordeter‐miningthemicroplasticsbodyburdenofthefreshwatercrustaceanDaphniamagnaduringashortterm(48h)uptakeanddepurationtest.Theexperimentswereconductedwithtwodifferentsizesoffluorescentlylabelledpolystyrenebeads(0.01µmand2µm),basedontheunderlyinghypothesisthatuptakemechanismsareparticlesize‐dependent.Animalswereexposedtoaparticlesuspension(2mg/l)for24hours(uptakephase),afterwhichtheyweretransferredtocleanmediumforanother24hours(depurationphase).Duringuptakeanddepuration,animalsweresampledatdifferenttimepoints(0.5h,1h,2h,4h,8hand24hrespectively),thetissueswereenzymaticallydigestedandthefluorescencewasmeasuredtodeterminetheparticleloadoftheanimals.Additionallythefluorescenceoftheexposuremediumwasmonitoredduringtheuptakephase.Bothparticlesizeswerereadilytak‐enupbytheanimalsandbodyburdensincreasedwithexposuretime.Size‐dependentdifferencesinuptakearediscussedaswellasthepotentialcompetitionbetweenfood(algae)andparticleuptake.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
104
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
105
Abstracts: Poster
Management options
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
106
Innovative approaches to reduce fibres discharged in textile washing processes
Jasmin Haap, Edith Claßen
Hohenstein Institute for Textile Innovation gGmbH, Bönnigheim
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Contaminationoftheaquaticecosystemsbyplasticdebris,socalledmicroplastic,isagrowingworld‐wideproblem.Theabundanceinthefreshwaterandmarinehabitatsaswellasthesourcesandpath‐waysofmicroplasticsarenotfullyknowntodate,howeversewagewastewaterfromtextilelaundryprocessesappearstobeoneoriginofsyntheticfragments.Examinationsdemonstratethatwashingclothsandtextilesismostlikelytocontributetothemicroplasticproblem[1].Nowadays,syntheticpolymerslikepolyester,polyamideorpolypropylenedominatethefibreindustryandarepreferablyusedintextilesduetotheirdurabilityandlowprice.Incleaningprocessesthegarmentsareexposedtodifferentstrainse.g.mechanicalstrain,detergentsandtemperaturewhichmaycausedamagestothefibresandtextilesurfaces.Thesedamagescanleadtothelossofparticlesandfibreswithdifferentsizesandshapes.
Todate,therearenoinformationabouttheimpactofdomesticandindustriallaundrytothemicro‐plasticpollution.Theaimoftheresearchprojectistocharacterizeandquantifytheamountofdis‐chargedparticlesandfibresfromgarmentsfordifferentlaundryprocesses(domesticandindustriallaundry)anddifferentconditions.Firstexperimentsindicatedareleaseoffibresfrompolyestertex‐tilesintumbledryprocesses[2].
Inthescopeofthisstudythewashingprocessesareoptimizedtoreducetheabrasionofparticlesandfibresontheonehandandabrasion‐resistanttextiletreatmentsaretestedontheotherhand.Thisresearchworkunderscorestherelevanceoftextilewashingprocessestothemicroplasticaccumula‐tioninaquaticenvironmentsandprovidesapproachestowardspreventativemeasures.
[1] M. A. Browne, P. Crump, S. J. Niven, et al., "Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks", Environmen‐
tal Science & Technology 2011
[2] E. Claßen, J. Beringer, "BMBF‐Project (03X0091B), UMSICHT", final report Hohenstein Institute for Textile Innovation gGmbH, 2012.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
107
Test to assess and prevent the emission of primary synthetic microplastics (primary microplastics)
Marina Lukovnikova, Brecht Stechele
Federal Public Service for Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium, Brussels
E‐mail contact: [email protected],
Manyproductsandindustrialprocessareknowntobeasourceofmicroplastics(<5mm)pollution.Syntheticmicroparticlesareeitherreleasedduringtheuseofproductsassuchascosmetics,from(in‐dustrial)processes(bothprimaryandsecondarymicroparticles)oraretheresultfromdegradationoflargerplasticitems(secondarymicroplastics).Mostsyntheticmicroparticleswillnotdegradenatu‐rally,hencetheyareaccumulatingintheenvironment.Thereisbuildingevidencethatthesemicroparticlesmayhaveanegativeeffectonindividualanimalsandcanaccumulateinthefoodchain.
Inordertocreateafutureinwhichthereleaseofsyntheticmicroparticlestotheenvironmentismin‐imized,theBelgianfederalgovernmenthasorderedthedesignofatesttoassessandpreventtheemissionofprimarysyntheticmicroplastics,totheenvironmentalconsultancyagencyTAUW.Thistesthasbeendevelopedtoassistcompaniesinassessingtheiruseofsyntheticmicroparticlesandintak‐ingmeasurestopreventtheemissionofsyntheticmicroparticlestotheenvironment.
Usingthetest,thecompanycanattaincomprehensionontheuseofsyntheticmicroparticlesandtheresultingemissionsoftheseparticles.Sectorstowhomthisself‐testappliesare:producersofplasticgranulates,rubbergranulates,cosmetics,paint,glue,varnish,food,medicine;sectorswhouseabrasivecleaningorblastingwithplastic,orsectorswhouseoneoftheaboveproductsthatcontainmicroplas‐ticsorusemicroplasticsastracersintheproductionprocess.
Thistestissetupasaseriesofstepsthatacompanyshouldfollow.Thetestgeneratesinsightonallprimarysyntheticmicroparticlesusedbythecompany(identification),allemissionpathwaysandquantifiestheemission(analysis).Italsooffersainaseriesofpossiblesourcemeasures(alternatives)andmeasurestostoptheseemissions(improvement).
Thetestcanbeusedforotherpurposesthancontrollingmicroplasticsemissionsofacompany.Thetestcanbeeasilyadaptedinordertomonitoremissionsina(watershed)area,withinabranchofin‐dustry,withinanenvironmentalmanagementsystemsuchasISO14001,orasamethodtomakeemissionreductionobligatorybylaw.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
108
Optimized materials and processes for the separa‐tion of microplastic from the water cycle ‒ OEMP
Matthias Barjenbruch, Daniel Venghaus
TU Berlin, Faculty VI – Planning Building Environment, Institute of Civil Engineering,
Department of Urban Water Management , Gustav‐Meyer‐Allee 25, 13355 Berlin
E‐mail contact: daniel.venghaus@tu‐berlin.de
Theincreasingapplicationofplasticproductsduringthelast60years,entailedanundesirableplasticinputtotheenvironment.
Smallplasticparticles(microplastic)areabletoreachthewatercyclebyhousholdsandurbanareas.Microplasticsaredefinedasparticlessmallerthan5mmandcouldbesubdividedintotwogroups:Primarymicroplasticsareengineeredmaterialsusedasproductadditivesforcosmetics,peelingsandcleaningagents.
Secondarymicroplasticsareproducedfromtheembrittlementofcommonplasticproducts,duetophysical,chemicalorbiologicaldegradationprocesses.
Thisprojectintendsthedevelopmentofnewrestrainingmaterialsandprocessesfortheseparationofvariousmicroplasticparticles(differentinsize,shape,typeofplastic).Differententrypathwaysoftheurbanwatercycleincityareas(effluentfromwastewatertreatmentplants,combinedsewerover‐flows,streetdrainage)areinvestigatedforthepurposesofoptimizedtechnicalapproaches,toensureasustainablewatereconomywithhighclassstandardsthatachievetheprotectionofthesurfacewa‐ters.Therefore,ahighclassassuranceisneeded,thatexaminesthedifferenttechnicalandnaturalsystemswithregardtotheirretentionqualities.Anintegrantisanevaluablemethodologyoftheseinvestiga‐tions,aswellasafirstbenchmarkofthepurificationprocesses,whicharedevelopedduringthepro‐ject.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
109
Abstracts: Poster
Analytics
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
110
Defining the baselines and standards for microplas‐tics analyses in European waters (JPI‐O BASEMAN)
Gunnar Gerdts (Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), Helgoland, Germany), Kevin Thomas (Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway), Dorte Herzke (Norwegian Institute of Air Research (NILU), Tromso, Norway), Matthias Haeckel (GEOMAR Helmholtz‐Zentrum für Ozean‐forschung, Kiel, Germany), Barbara Scholz‐Böttcher (University of Oldenburg, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Oldenburg, Germany), Christian Laforsch (University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany), Fabienne Lagarde (University of Maine, Le Mans, France), Anne Marie Mahon (Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland), Maria Luiza Pedrotti (CNRS‐LOV, Villefranche sur Mer, France), Giuseppe Andrea de Lucia (CNR‐IAMC, Oristano, Italy), Paula Sobral (NOVA.ID FCT, Caparica, Portugal), Jesus Gago (Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO), Vigo, Spain), Soledad Muniategui Lorenzo (Universidade da Coruña (UDC)‐Instituto, A Coruña, Spain), Fredrik Noren (IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Fiskebäckskil, Sweden), Martin Hassellöv (University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden), Tanja Kögel (The National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES), Bergen, Nor‐way), Valentina Tirelli (National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geo‐physics, Trieste, Italy), Miguel Caetano (Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Lisbon, Portugal), Amandine Collignon (University of Liege, Liège, Belgium), Inga Lips (Marine Systems Institute at Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia), Ole Mallow (Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria), Outi Seatala (Finnish Envi‐ronment Institute, Helsinki, Finland), Karsten Goede (Rap.ID Particle Systems GmbH, Berlin, Germany), Priscilla Licandro (Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS), Plymouth, United Kingdom)
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Sincethemiddleoflastcenturyrapidlyincreasingglobalproductionofplasticshasbeenaccompaniedbyanaccumulationofplasticlitterinthemarineenvironment.Dispersalbycurrentsandwindsdoesnotdiminishthepersistenceofplasticitemswhichdegradeandbecomefragmentedovertime.To‐getherwithmicro‐sizedprimaryplasticlitterfromconsumerproductsthesedegradedsecondarymi‐cro‐fragmentsleadtoanincreasingamountofsmallplasticparticles(smallerthan5mm),socalled“microplastics”.Theubiquitouspresenceandmassiveaccumulationofmicroplasticsinmarinehabi‐tatsandtheuptakeofmicroplasticsbyvariousmarinebiotaisnowwellrecognizedbyscientistsandauthoritiesworldwide.Althoughawarenessofthepotentialrisksisemerging,theimpactofplasticparticlesonaquaticecosystemsisfarfromunderstood.Afundamentalissueprecludingassessmentoftheenvironmentalrisksarisingfrommicroplasticsisthelackofstandardoperationprotocols(SOP)formicroplasticssamplinganddetection.Consequentlythereisalackofreliabledataonconcentra‐tionsofmicroplasticsandthecompositionofpolymerswithinthemarineenvironment.Comparabilityofdataonmicroplasticsconcentrationsiscurrentlyhamperedbyahugevarietyofdifferentmethods,eachgeneratingdataofextremelydifferentqualityandresolution.Althoughmicroplasticsarerecog‐nizedasanemergingcontaminantintheenvironment,currentlyneithersampling,extraction,purifica‐tionnoridentificationapproachesarestandardised,makingtheincreasingnumbersofmicroplasticsstudieshardly‐ifatall‐comparable.BASEMANisaninterdisciplinaryandinternationalcollaborativeresearchprojectthataimstoovercomethisproblem.BASEMANteamsexperiencedscientists(fromdifferentdisciplinesandcountries)toundertakeaprofoundanddetailedcomparisonandevaluation
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
111
ofallapproachesfromsamplingtoidentificationofmicroplastics.BASEMAN’sprojectoutcomeswillequippolicymakerswiththetoolsandoperationalmeasuresrequiredtodescribetheabundanceanddistributionofmicroplasticsintheenvironment.Suchtoolswillpermitevaluationofmemberstatecompliancewithexistingandfuturemonitoringrequirements.BASEMANisoneoffourprojectsfund‐edintheframeworkoftheJPI‐Opilotaction“EcologicalAspectsofMicroplastics”.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
112
Microplastic content in freshwater – an easy and cost‐efficient analysis approach
Stefan Spacek, Johann Fellner
Christian Doppler Laboratory „Anthropogenic Resources“, Institute for Water Quality, Re‐
source & Waste Management, Karlsplatz 13, 1040 Vienna
Ole Mallow, Therese Schwarzböck, Helmut Rechberger
TU Wien, Institute for Water Quality, Resource & Waste Management, Karlsplatz 13/226,
1040 Vienna
E‐mail contact: [email protected]; [email protected]
Incontrasttomacroplasticanalysis,thereisnoacceptedstandardforthecharacterizationandquanti‐ficationofmicroplastics.Themostcommonlyusedtechniquesincludedensity‐gradient‐separationandmicroscopesortingfollowedbyIR‐analysisorPyrolysis‐GC.Thesetechniquesareerror‐prone,timeconsuming,expensiveandaresomewhatrestrictedwhentakingmicroplasticparticlesofagrainsizebelow100µmintoaccount.
Inthelastyears,amethod(thesocalledBalanceMethod)forthedeterminationoffossilmatterinmixedwastehasbeendevelopedattheTUWien(Fellneretal.2007/2011).TheBalanceMethodisbasedonthedistinctlydifferentchemicalcompositionofmoisture‐andash‐freebiogenicandfossilorganicmatter.Atlaboratoryscale,anelementalanalysisisusedtodeterminethecontentoftheele‐mentsC,H,N,SandOinthedriedsampleaswellastheignitionresidue.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Basedondifferentmathematicalbalances,asystemofequationscanbecreated,whichisdefinedbytheindividualcontributionsoftheelements(X=C,H,N,S,O),theircorrespondingmaterialdataandthemeasurablevaluesTXsampleandTXi(b=biogenic,f=fossilandi=inert).Adatareconciliationalgo‐rithmisappliedtorevealthequantityoftheunknownmassfractions(biogenicmb,fossilmfandinertmattermi)includingtheiruncertainties.
Currently,thismethodismodifiedinordertobeappliedtowaterandwastewatersamples.Inafirsttestseriesthemicroplasticcontentindifferentsamplestakenfromawastewaterstreamhasbeensuccessfullyquantified.Themethoddemonstratedgoodresultsbyeithermakinguseofanoxidationbeforetheelementalanalysis(utilizinghydrogenperoxidetoreducetheorganicparttoahardlyoxi‐disableligninmatrix)orbyanalysingtheunalteredsampleforitsC,H,N,S,andOcontent.Eitherwayused,asamplevolumeof2–3gwasenoughtopreciselyquantifythecontainedfossilmatter(micro‐plastic)bymeansoftheadaptedBalanceMethod.
Incontrasttotheabove‐mentionedmethods,whicharelimitedtocertaingrainsizes,thedescribedtechniqueoffersthepossibilitytocharacterizesolidsamplesindependentfromthesizeofthemicro‐plasticparticles.HoweveraroutineapplicationoftheadaptedBalanceMethodultimatelyrequiresdetailedknowledgeabouttheelementalcompositionofboth,theorganic(biogenic)andthefossilpart(plastics).
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
113
Identification of Small Microplastic Particles (<500 µm) in Water Samples by FT‐IR Micro‐Spectroscopy and Imaging – Possibilities & Challenges
Bettina Liebmann
Environmental Analysis/Environment Agency Austria, Vienna
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Largemicroplasticparticles(largerthan500µm)areoftensortedbyhand,andcategorizedaccordingtotheirshapebythenakedeye,e.g.industrialgranules,flakes,foam,foilsorfibres.Theidentificationofaplasticmaterialbasedonpropertiessuchascolour,stabilityandtextureispossible,butoftenmis‐leading.Amorereliablewaytoconfirmplasticmaterialisinfrared(IR)spectroscopy,forexamplein‐contactmeasurementswithanATR(attenuatedtotalreflection)accessory.
Smallmicroplasticparticles(smallerthan500µm)requiredifferentapproachesfordetectionandidentification,especiallyforwatersampleswithconsiderablecontentofsolids.Again,infraredspec‐troscopyisasuitabletechnique,whichcanbeupgradedbythefeaturesofmicroscopyandimaging.
Forthemeasurementofplasticssmallerthan500µmitisimportanttoremoveasmuchinterferingnon‐plasticmatteraspossiblebyphysicalandchemicalmethods.Usually,onlyasmallportionoftheoriginalwatersamplecanbemeasuredinoneanalyticalrun.Thus,itiscrucialtoprovidearepre‐sentativealiquotfromthebulksample,inparticularwithhighersolidscontent.
WeshowapplicationsofFT‐IRmicro‐spectroscopyandimagingtowatersamples,andaddressthepossibilitiesaswellaschallengesinidentifyingmicroplasticsfromapproximately25µmto500µmsizeonparticleloadedfiltermaterial.
Asemi‐automatedprocedurefordataanalysisofFT‐IRimagesispresented;theresultisthenumberofidentifiedplasticitemssmallerthan500µm.Inaddition,wecriticallydiscussamethodtoestimatetheweightofidentifiedplasticparticles.Forcomparisonofenvironmentaldataonmicroplasticsindifferentenvironmentalcompartments,themeasurementaswellasdataanalysisprocedureshavetobeharmonizedonaninternationallevel.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
114
Development of Standard Operating Procedures for Sampling of Microplastic in Waste Water Treatment Plants
André Lerch, Gerold Bönisch
Institute of Urban and Industrial Water Management, Chair of Hydro Process Engineering/
Technische Universität Dresden
E‐mail contact: andre.lerch@tu‐dresden.de
StudiesontheoccurenceofMicroplastic(MP)infreshwatersystemsandtheirbehaviorintechnicalsystems,suchaswastewatertreatmentplants,gainedmoreandmoreinterestofthepublicandscien‐tificcommunities.Sofar,onlyafewstudiesonMPinwastewatertreatmentplantswereperformed.Thepublishedresultsdifferandmainlyfocusedonmeasurementsoftheplanteffluent.Theusedsam‐plingproceduresoftenremainunclearandlackofconfirmability.Thepublishedstudiesvaryinsamplenumber,sizeandvolumeatwhichusuallygrabsamplesweretaken.Evenstorageofthesamplesvaryandsometimesplasticjarswereused.Particlesizesmainlyweredeterminedbytheuseofscreensofdifferentmeshsizes,deliveringoftenjustcoarsesubdivisionsbutnorealsizedistributions.ThetypeofMPwereusuallydeterminedbyFT‐IRorRaman‐spectroscopy,whereaspretreatmentvarystrong‐ly.Hence,nogeneralstandardoperatingprocedures(SOP)forsamplingandanalyticsareestablishedyetandthereisaneedforstandardization.
WastewaterplantoperatorsarespecificallyinterestedinstudiesonthebehaviorofMP,e.g.possiblesourcesandsinkswithinthetreatmentplants.Therefore,massbalancesneedstobeperformedandcouldbeusedforcomparisonofdifferenttreatmentstepsandentireplants.However,thesemassbal‐ancesrequireSOPforsamplingandanalyticstoo.
TheposterisintendedtoinitiatediscussionandwillpresentourattemptforthedevelopmentofSOPforsamplingatdifferentplacestoachievequalifiedmeasurestobeusedformassbalances.TheaimedSOPthusneedtobeideallyadaptedtothelocalconditions,e.g.samplepointssuchasplantinfluent,clarifiereffluentandexcesssludge,takingdifferentrepresentativesamples,suchasgrabsamples,2or24hoursmixedsamples,andrepresentativesamplevolumes.Thelatteronemightbecrucialforlocal‐lyperformedanalyticsandshipmenttowaterlaboratoriesforfurtherinvestigations.Furthermore,thesamplesshouldbepossiblytakenbythelocaloperators.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
115
A simple and effective method for the detection of microplastics in fish stomachs and larvae
Samuel Roch, Alexander Brinker
Landwirtschaftliches Zentrum Baden‐Württemberg (LAZBW)‐ Fischereiforschungsstelle,
Langenargen
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Theburdenofmicroplasticsintheenvironmentisarisingthreat,affectingaquaticecosystemsworld‐wide.Toincreasethechancesofidentifyingallkindsofplastictypesandsizesingestedbywateror‐ganisms,thedigestionofthisorganicmatterisnecessary.Inthelastfewyears,severaldigestiontech‐niquesandprotocolsweredeveloped.However,thesemethodsareofteneithertimeconsumingordetrimentaltoplasticsbecauseofchemicaldegradation.Additionally,withahighnumberofdigestionsteps,theprobabilityofcontaminationandlossofmaterialisincreasing.Themainaimofthisworkwastodevelopareliablemethodtocompletelydigestorganictissue,whileminimizingchemicalde‐structionandexposure.Themethodshouldmeetthefollowingrequirements:(i)usingasetofchemi‐calsthatdigestorganicmatterefficientlyandcauseminimaldamagetoplastics,(ii)keepingthenum‐berofdigestionstepslowand(iii)reducingthenumberofinorganicmaterials,likeminerals,toim‐provetheidentificationofmicroplastics.
Thefinalmethodconsistsoftwoconjoineddigestionstepsusingsodiumhydroxide(NaOH)andnitricacid(HNO3).Furthermoreanoptionaldensityseparationstep,usingsodiumiodid(NaI)toreducemineralresiduesinthesample,canbeconducted.Thismethodallowedcompletedissolutionofwholestomachsoffishesupto20cm,aswellasfishlarvaeupto5cm.
Themethodwastestedforefficacyandtheremainingdetrimentaleffectsoncommonpolymertypes(PE,PP,PVC,PET,PA,andPS).Withtheexceptionofpolyamide,onlyminorchangesinsurfaceareaandweightofthetestparticleswereobserved.Polyamidehoweverwascompletelydissolvedduringthetreatment.TheFTIRspectraoftheindividualtypesofplasticwerenotchangedbytheprocedure.Stomachsof6whitefish(Coregonuswartmanni)werespikedwithfluorescentpolystyreneparticlesofthreesizeclasses(900‐550μm,549‐300μmand299‐100μm).Aftertheindividualdigestionsteps,theremainingparticleswerecountedandledtoanaveragerecoveryrateof95%andabove.
Inconclusion,thisnewmethodprovidesaneffectivewaytodetectandquantifymicroplasticsinfishtissues.Withthisproceduretheidentificationofparticlesandfibreswasfacilitatedconsiderably,whileconcurrentlyreducingthenumberofworkingsteps,theexposuretodissolvingchemicalsandtheoverallreactiontime.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
116
Analytical studies on the formation of biofilms on plastic film in freshwater systems
Svenja Göttermann, Christian Bonten
Institut für Kunststofftechnik/Universität Stuttgart
Katharina Eckert, Franz Brümmer
Institut für Biomaterialien und biomolekulare Systeme/ Universität Stuttgart
E‐mail contact: [email protected]‐stuttgart.de
Litteringofplasticsintheenvironmentisaseriousproblem.Firstreportsonplasticlitterinthema‐rineenvironmentwerepublishedinthe1970s,butabout80%ofthewastepresentintheseaisorigi‐natedfromtheterrestrialenvironment.Plasticpollutioninmarinesystemshasbeenreceivingatten‐tionintherecentyears.Whiletheresearchonmarinelitterismoreadvancedalready,thereareim‐mensegapsofknowledgeregardingtheterrestrialsystemsorfreshwatersystems.Butplasticlitterinfreshwatersystemshasbecomeanewtopicofinterestattractingtheattentionofthepublic.Untilnowverylittleisknownandtheresearchisinanearlystage.Therearesomeimportantgapsthatneedtobefilled.Thereisalackofstandardizedsamplingandanalyticalmethodstodeterminetheoccurrenceofmicroplasticparticlesinfreshwatersystems,sedimentsandcomplexbiologicalmatrices.Therele‐vantsourcesandtheenvironmentaleffectsalsohavetobeinvestigated.Thereisalsoalackonthebiologicaleffectsofmicroparticlesonfreshwaterspecies.Theaimofthisworkistoinvestigatetheformationofbiofilmsonplasticfilmsinfreshwatersystems.
Inordertoestimatetheimpactofplasticwasteonfreshwatersystems,areliableandstandardizedseparationoftheparticlesisnecessary.Currentlytheseparationprocessisbasedonadensitysepara‐tion.Theplasticparticlesorfragmentsaredetectedafterwardsbyachemicalidentificationofthepol‐ymer,e.g.withfouriertransforminfraredspectroscopy(FTIRspectroscopy).Thisprocedureworkswithoutanyproblemsonthestartingmaterials.Butdoesthisalsoworkwithsamplesthatwereex‐posedtoagingprocessinnatureandformingabiofilm?
Inthisstudytheformationofbiofilmsonplasticfilmsindifferentfreshwaterssystems(aquarium,pondandcompostsuspension)wereinvestigated.Theaimwastoinvestigateinfluenceofthebiofilmonthesinking/floatingbehaviorandthecharacterizationbyFTIRspectroscopy.Withincreasingex‐posuretimethebiofilmsconsistmainlyofgreenalgaeanddiatomsisgrowing.Thesinkingandfloat‐ingbehaviourchangedalreadyafteroneweek.Furthermore,thecharacterizationofthepolymerbymeansofFTIRspectroscopywasnotpossiblethroughthebiofilm.Techniquestoremovethebiofilmbydigestionwithacids,basesorenzymesarerequired.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
117
Microplastics from personal care products – Potential detection bias in visual sorting
Clemens Engelke
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Holytown
E‐mail contact: [email protected]
Manymethodologiesfordetectingandenumeratingmicroplasticsrelyonastepofvisualsorting,i.e.pickingparticlesoffilters,netsorsievesbeforefurtheridentificationwork(FT‐IRorRamanspectros‐copy)iscarriedout.Ourworkonmicroplasticsfrompersonalcareproductsaspartofourpublicen‐gagementshowedthatinmanyproductsirregularlyshaped,transparent‐whiteparticlesdominateover‘classical’roundbeads.Inenvironmentalsamples,theseparticleswillnotbeapparent,astheyneitherexhibitunusualcolournorartificialshape,andmightbeeasilybemistakenformineralmateri‐al.
SEPAengageswithpartnerorganisationsandacademicresearchgroupsinScotlandtoensuredatawillbesuitableforanationalbaselineofmicroplasticprevalence.Thisincludestheestablishmentofcommonsizeclassboundaries,samplingmethodologiesandqualitycontrols.TheScottishMicroplasticResearchGroupundertheMarineAllianceforScienceandTechnologyScotland(MASTS)isthemainconduitforthis.Issuesunderinvestigationcoverthefullrangeofaquaticmedia,fromsewagetofreshwaterandthemarineenvironment.
European Conference on Plastics in Freshwater Environments 2016 – Abstracts
118