Impacts of non-petroleum and petroleum-based microfibers on aquatic organisms: a meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Contamination of aquatic ecosystems with microfibres (fibres < 5 mm in size) shed from textiles and other consumer items is a global conservation concern. While generally considered to be less persistent compared to petroleum-based materials, the relative ecotoxicological impact of non-petroleum microfibres is understudied. Here, we present the first meta-analysis to compare the ecotoxicity of petroleum-based and non-petroleum based microfibre classes on aquatic organisms. Data were extracted from 38 eligible microfibre ecotoxicological studies (472 suitable endpoints) and both non-petroleum and petroleum-based microfibre classes had overall significant biological effects on organisms. Many polymers had significant negative biological impacts including cotton, viscose, asbestos, polyester and polypropylene exposures although non-petroleum exposures were underrepresented within the literature (non-petroleum = 89, petroleum-based = 383 endpoints). Mixed effects models comparing effect sizes within polymer classes for different microfibre (response, concentration, size etc) and organism subgroup levels (taxonomic grouping and environment) found mostly non-significant with fewer negative biological responses for non-petroleum (2/30; 3/27 when excluding glass and asbestos exposures) compared to petroleum-based exposures (27/48). Additionally, positive biological effects were observed for non-petroleum microfibre exposures within Plantae, for microfibres 501-2000 µm in length as well as at microfibre doses of 101-103 µg L-1 when excluding glass and asbestos exposures. Considering the observed ecotoxicological impacts of both microfibre classes, we suggest complementary better-by-design approaches combined with best management practices to reduce the shedding, accumulation and residence time of microfibres of all categories within aquatic ecosystems.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.