Transfer of Additive Chemicals From Marine Plastic Debris to the Stomach Oil of Northern Fulmars

Abstract

For this study, the transfer of plastic additives to stomach oil of northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) has been investigated. Procellariiform seabirds retain oily components of their prey in theirs stomach as a means to store energy. A marine litterderived microplastic reference mixture and separately a marine litter-derived polystyrene sample were added to stomach oils in an experiment. A total of 15 additives, including plasticizers, antioxidants, UV stabilizers, flame retardants, and preservatives, were identified in the original plastic mixtures and monitored in the leachates. These substances include those known for endocrine disruptive, carcinogenic, and/or other negative effects on organisms. Stomach oil was exposed to these plastic materials and was sampled during a long-term experiment (0, 14, and 90 days' exposure of plastic particles in stomach oil) and a subsequent short-term detailed study (8 h and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 21 days). Five of the monitored substances were shown to strongly leach from the microplastic reference mixture into the stomach oil during the experiment. Four substances were identified in a marine litter-derived polystyrene foam, of which two leached into stomach oil. Leaching of harmful plastic additives to the stomach oil of fulmars may be of concern, as fulmars regularly ingest plastics that are retained and gradually ground in the gizzard before passage to the intestines and excretion.

Fulmar Litter EcoQO monitoring in the Netherlands - update 2019

“…Plastics gradually break down to microscopically small particles, but these may pose an even more serious problem (Thompson et al 2004;Bergmann et al 2015). Leaching of toxic additives from ingested plastics to seabirds has been shown by Tanaka et al (2013Tanaka et al ( , 2015Tanaka et al ( , 2019Tanaka et al ( , 2020; Yamashita et al (2018); and Kühn et al (2020a). Microplastics can also adsorb and concentrate organic pollutants from the surrounding water, but experimental results and model predictions are not all in agreement concerning release of such chemicals into marine organisms or associated negative effects (Arthur et al 2009;Browne et al 2008Browne et al , 2013Endo et al 2005Endo et al , 2013Gouin et al 2011;Koelmans et al 2013aKoelmans et al ,b, 2014Koelmans et al , 2016Moore 2008;Teuten et al 2007Teuten et al , 2009Chua et al 2014;Rochman et al 2013Rochman et al , 2014aTanaka et al 2013;Thompson et al 2009;Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen 2014;Cole et al 2015;Watts et al 2015;CBD 2016;Beaman & Bergeron 2016;Peda et al 2016;Besseling et al 2017;Heindler et al 2017;Hermabessiere et al 2017;Ribeiro et al 2017).…”

Weight of Evidence for the Microplastic Vector Effect in the Context of Chemical Risk Assessment

“…This may result in an overestimation of the amount leached from plastic. Kühn et al (2020) used natural contaminated stomach oil and indeed only found limited transfer for five and no transfer for the other ten chemicals studied. Only few studies relate experimental observations with the chemical and sorbent characteristics.…”

“…Furthermore, besides exchange fluxes between MP and gut fluid, the fluxes from food should be assessed in order to assure that the role of ingested MP is not negligible as compared to the parallel exposure pathways. For instance, Kühn et al (2020) observed leaching of five chemicals from MP into stomach oil sampled from seabirds. However, the uptake of chemicals from normal food and the concentrations of background chemicals in the oil were not measured or modelled, nor were kinetic parameters estimated, precluding conclusions regarding the relevance of the vector effect under environmentally realistic conditions.…”

“…This limits the applicability of the findings as they cannot be extrapolated to the actual environment. All studies except two (Mohamed Nor and Koelmans 2019; Kühn et al 2020) had used a clean gut Chemical transfer from the oil to the plastic was not considered. It was acknowledged that the experimental data should not be compared with models simulating natural conditions General approach, type of evidence and environmental realism are summarized system, which is unrealistic.…”

“…Most of them address a part of the exposure conditions that are relevant to the occurrence of MP vector effects and their possible implications for effects on risks in the environment (e.g. Rochman et al 2013;Chua et al 2014;Wardrop et al 2016;Granby et al 2018;Kühn et al 2020). Only few studies use theoretical frameworks to add greater depth to the interpretation of study outcomes.…”