Department of Biology, School of Science, Pennsylvania State University, The Behrend College, Erie, PA, 16563, USA.
Department of Biology, School of Science, Pennsylvania State University, The Behrend College, Erie, PA, 16563, USA.
Environ Pollut. 2019 Mar;246:408-413. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.12.033. Epub 2018 Dec 12.
An influx of chloride ions from road de-icing solutions can result in toxicological effects to organisms in terrestrial and aquatic environments. As such, "eco-friendly" de-icing alternatives are sought to mitigate environmental impacts of de-icing impervious surfaces, while maintaining human safety. While many alternative de-icers are economically impractical for municipal use, the residential commercial market is flooded with de-icing formulations claiming to be "eco-friendly". Given the little regulation and guidance that surrounds eco-labeling, the meaning of "eco-friendly" remains unclear in the context of biological systems. The objective of the current study was to determine the toxicity of three "eco-friendly" de-icing formulations to Chironomus dilutus using 10 d toxicity tests. The toxicity of these three formulations was compared to a traditional formulation composed entirely of chloride salts. Two of the "eco-friendly" de-icers demonstrated LCs of 6.61 and 6.32 g/L, which were similar in toxicity to the traditional sodium chloride formulation with a LC 6.29 g/L. The comparable toxicities of these formulations is likely due to the presence of chloride salts in each of the "eco-friendly" de-icers. The third "eco-friendly" formulation, a urea-based de-icer, demonstrated toxicity an order of magnitude higher than that of the traditional formulation with an LC of 0.63 g/L. While C. dilutus may not have been the intended endpoint in consideration when marketing these products as "eco-friendly", consideration of how eco-labeling is utilized and the role of environmental scientists in determining the meaning of such claims must be considered to ensure continued and future protection of the environment.
道路融雪剂中的氯离子涌入会对陆地和水生环境中的生物产生毒理学影响。因此，人们寻求“环保”的融雪替代品来减轻融雪对不渗透表面的环境影响，同时确保人类的安全。虽然许多替代融雪剂在市政用途方面不切实际，但住宅商业市场充斥着声称“环保”的融雪配方。考虑到围绕生态标签的规定和指导很少，“环保”在生物系统方面的含义仍不清楚。本研究的目的是使用 10d 毒性试验确定三种“环保”融雪配方对摇蚊的毒性。将这三种配方的毒性与完全由氯化物盐组成的传统配方进行了比较。两种“环保”融雪剂的 LC 分别为 6.61 和 6.32g/L，其毒性与 LC 为 6.29g/L 的传统氯化钠配方相似。这些配方的毒性相似，可能是因为每种“环保”融雪剂中都含有氯化物盐。第三种“环保”配方，一种基于尿素的融雪剂，其毒性比传统配方高一个数量级，LC 为 0.63g/L。虽然在将这些产品宣传为“环保”时，摇蚊可能不是考虑的预期终点，但必须考虑生态标签的使用方式以及环境科学家在确定此类声明含义方面的作用，以确保环境的持续和未来保护。
