School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT Birmingham, United Kingdom.
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT Birmingham, United Kingdom; LEHNA- Laboratoire d'ecologie des hydrosystemes naturels et anthropises, University of Lyon, Darwin C & Forel, 3-6 Rue Raphaël Dubois, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; Institute of Global Innovation, University of Birmingham, B15 2SA Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Environ Int. 2021 Jul;152:106504. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106504. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
Current understanding of nano- and microplastic movement, propagation and potential effects on biota in freshwater environments is developing rapidly. Still, there are significant disconnects in the integration of knowledge derived from laboratory and field studies. This review synthesises the current understanding of nano- and microplastic impacts on freshwater biota from field studies and combines it with the more mechanistic insights derived from laboratory studies. Several discrepancies between the field and laboratory studies, impacting progress in process understanding, were identified including that the most prevalent plastic morphologies found in the field (fibres) are not those used in most of the laboratory studies (particles). Solutions to overcome these disparities are proposed to aid comparability of future studies. For example, environmental sampling and separation of biota into its constituents is encouraged when conducting field studies to map microplastic uptake preferences. In laboratory studies, recommendations include performing toxicity studies to systematically test possible factors affecting toxicity of nano- and microplastics, including morphology, chemical makeup (e.g., additives) and effects of plastic size. Consideration should be given to environmentally relevant exposure factors in laboratory studies, such as realistic exposure medium and effects of plastic ageing. Furthermore, based on this comprehensive review recommendations of principal toxicity endpoints for each of the main trophic levels (microbes, primary producers, primary consumers and secondary consumers) that should be reported to make toxicity studies more comparable in the future are given.
目前,人们对淡水环境中纳米塑料和微塑料的迁移、传播及其对生物群的潜在影响的理解正在迅速发展。然而,从实验室和野外研究中得出的知识的整合仍然存在很大的脱节。本综述综合了野外研究中关于纳米塑料和微塑料对淡水生物群影响的现有认识,并结合了实验室研究中更具机制性的见解。确定了野外和实验室研究之间存在几个差异,这些差异影响了对过程理解的进展,包括在野外发现的最普遍的塑料形态(纤维)与大多数实验室研究中使用的形态(颗粒)不同。提出了一些解决这些差异的方法,以帮助未来研究的可比性。例如,在进行野外研究以绘制微塑料摄取偏好图时,建议对生物群进行环境采样并将其分离成其组成部分。在实验室研究中,建议进行毒性研究,以系统地测试可能影响纳米塑料和微塑料毒性的因素,包括形态、化学成分(如添加剂)和塑料尺寸的影响。应考虑在实验室研究中考虑环境相关的暴露因素,例如现实的暴露介质和塑料老化的影响。此外,基于这项全面的综述,针对每个主要营养级(微生物、初级生产者、初级消费者和次级消费者)提出了应报告的主要毒性终点的建议,以提高未来毒性研究的可比性。