21 22 2016 in berlin european conference on plastics in ... · for revision of the waste...

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


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


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


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).


7

Abstracts:

Oral Presentations


8

EU activities and plans to address plastics and microplastics in the aquatic environment

Helen Clayton

DG Environment, European Commission, Brussels


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.


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


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


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‐


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).


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


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


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


15

How concerned should we be about plastic litter in freshwater systems?

Richard Thompson

School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, United Kingdom


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


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.


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


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


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)


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


28

Quick scan and Prioritization of Microplastic Sources and Emissions

Anja Verschoor

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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


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).


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.


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)


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:


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:

[email protected].

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).


41

Citizen science for riverine monitoring

Jean‐Baptiste Dussaussois

Surfrider Foundation Europe, HQ, Biarritz


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…).


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).


43

Trashbusters H2O – Crash the Trash! A youth Project for Clean Waters

Elena Lange

Youth Association for the Protection of Nature (NAJU), Berlin


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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:


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.


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.


51

The New Plastics Economy ‒ Rethinking the future of plastics

Michiel De Smet

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom


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.


52

Figure 1: Plastic production increased twenty‐fold over the last 50 years

Figure 2: Today, plastic packaging material flows are largely linear


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.


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)


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


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


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%).


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

[%]


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

[%]


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


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


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.


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.


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.


64

Regional Action Plans to combat marine litter including inputs from rivers

Stefanie Werner

Federal Environment Agency, Department Protection of the Marine Environment


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.


65

Chances and limitations of standardisation for managing plastics in the environment

Rüdiger Baunemann

PlasticsEurope Deutschland, Frankfurt


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:


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.


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


68


69

Abstracts:

Panel discussion on monitoring


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


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).


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.


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


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


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.


Microplasticparticlesareubiquitousalsoinfreshwaterenvironments.Contaminationinriversurfacesamplesishigherthaninwatersurfacesamplesoflakes.Finesedimentaccumulationsitesare“long‐termsampler”forMPalsoinlowcontaminatedareas.Thisincludesnotonlyhighlydensepolymersbutalsopolymerswhichareexpectedtofloatonthewatersurface.Freshwatersamplesaremoredif‐ficulttoprocessthanmarinesamplesduetoahighloadoforganicmaterials(leaveparts,algae,organ‐simsetc.)

Contaminationhotspotsexist,whileotherriversarenotorlesscontaminated.


Monitoringapproachesworkwelltoacertainsize(~300–500µm)althoughstillahigheffortisnec‐essary.Ifsmallersizeclassesareofinterest,thedevelopmentofimprovedmethodsisnecessary,espe‐ciallyforthedevelopmentofroutinemonitoringprotocols.

AvisualcharacterizationofMPisnotpossibleandshouldnotbeperformed.Visualsortingcanbeap‐plieddowntoasizeof~500µmbuttheeffortisveryhigh.

Developmentofmethodsforsampling,processingandidentificationofparticlesdownto1µmandbelow.


74


Microplasticparticlesareubiquitousbutstudiescannotbecomparedduetodifferentmethodsused.

Microplasticsampling,processingandidentificationfromenvironmentalsamplesisnottrivialandmanyaspectshavetobeincludedinmonitoringstrategies.

Watersurfacesamplesespeciallyinriversareonlyasnapshotsintime.

Furthermethoddevelopmentisneeded.Performing“real”monitoringwithinefficientmethodsisnotrecommended.


75

Monitoring of plastics in freshwater environments in Switzerland

Florian Faure

Central Environmental Laboratory (GR‐CEL), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

(EPFL)



Afirststageofthestudyaimedatobtainingafirstpictureofmicroplasticpollutioninvariousenvi‐ronmentalcompartmentsinafewlakesaroundSwitzerland(watersurface,banksediments,biota).TheinvestigationsthenfocusedonthemicroplasticspathwaysinandoutofLakeGeneva,tryingtogetascloseaspossibletothesources.


Sampling


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.)


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


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)


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.


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.


Ithasbeenshownthatmicroplasticsareubiquitous,andthatbiotaisexposedtotheseparticlesaswellastotheassociatedpotentiallytoxicadditivesandadsorbedhydrophobiccontaminants.Thefluxesofplasticsbetweencompartmentsarenotquantifiedsofar,anddataistoofragmentaryregardingthesources,pathwaysandsinksofplasticlitterandmicroplastics.Mostofthestudiesareexploratory,andneeddevelopmentstobecomesystematicandmorerepresentativewithholisticapproaches.Sofar,modellingapproacheshavebeenirrelevantduetotheshortageofenvironmentaldataastothenatureandextentofthispollution‐moremonitoringstudiesareprobablynecessary.Althoughthesearenotlikelytobringafullunderstandingoftheproblem,especiallyregardingtheplasticflowsintoandwith‐


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.


78

Monitoring of plastics in German federal waterways

Georg Reifferscheid

Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)/Department Biochemistry, Ecotoxicology, Koblenz



TheBfGresearchproject“Microplasticsininlandandcoastalwaterways–origin,fate,andimpact”aimsatestablishingascientificbasisforassessment,monitoringandregulationofmicroplasticsintheaquaticenvironment.Thereforedataontheoccurrenceofmicroplastics(MP)andthecharacterizationofitsquantitativeandqualitativeinputintoinlandwaterwaysandcoastalwatersisessential.Apre‐liminarysurveyin2014(sediment)aswellastwosamplingcampaignsattheriversElbeandSaarin2015(sedimentandwater)havebeenconductedsofar.Additionally,initialfieldinvestigationsonbiotahavebeencarriedout.Ageneraloverviewontheappliedmethodsisshownintable1.


Sampling


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


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)


79


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.


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.


80


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


81

Abstracts: Poster

Monitoring


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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)


In2014thePublicWasteAgencyofFlanderscommissionedanassessmentstudyonplasticdebrisintheriverDeLeie.Thereportentitled‘Monitoringandinterventionsforriverinelitter(caseDeLeie)’containsquantitativeandqualitativedataoffloatingplasticdebris,aswellasplasticdebrisfromtheupperpartofthewatercolumn.ThestudyfocusedonthetouristicpartoftheLysriverandtakesintoaccountoccurringcurrents,interferinghydrologicalinfluencesandseasonalvariations.Italsoincludesmicroplasticanalysesfromsamplestakenalongthewatercolumnandsediment.Sampledmicroplas‐ticsarecategorizedinsphericalbeads,amorphousfragmentsandfibresasapreliminaryindicationofthesourceofthemicroplastics.Managementmeasuresaresuggested.


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


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.


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.


88

An initial study of microplastics in Irish freshwater and wastewaters

Anna Cedro, John Cleary

Institute of Technology Carlow, Carlow, Ireland


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.


89

Monitoring beach macro litter utilizing MARLIN beach litter monitoring method and crowdsourcing

Jenny Gustafsson

Keep the Archipelago Tidy Association, Turku, Finland


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.


90


91

Abstracts: Poster

Sources and risk characterization


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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.


104


105

Abstracts: Poster

Management options


106

Innovative approaches to reduce fibres discharged in textile washing processes

Jasmin Haap, Edith Claßen

Hohenstein Institute for Textile Innovation gGmbH, Bönnigheim


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.


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],

[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.


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.


109

Abstracts: Poster

Analytics


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)


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


111

ofallapproachesfromsamplingtoidentificationofmicroplastics.BASEMAN’sprojectoutcomeswillequippolicymakerswiththetoolsandoperationalmeasuresrequiredtodescribetheabundanceanddistributionofmicroplasticsintheenvironment.Suchtoolswillpermitevaluationofmemberstatecompliancewithexistingandfuturemonitoringrequirements.BASEMANisoneoffourprojectsfund‐edintheframeworkoftheJPI‐Opilotaction“EcologicalAspectsofMicroplastics”.


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).


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


117

Microplastics from personal care products – Potential detection bias in visual sorting

Clemens Engelke

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Holytown


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.


118

21 22 2016 in berlin european conference on plastics in ... · for revision of the waste...

Documents