Are Fragrance Encapsulates Taken Up by Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrate Species?

Abstract

The uptake potential of Fragrance Encapsulates (FEs) by aquatic or terrestrial organisms was investigated. Due to their size of below 5 mm and their This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Accepted Articlepolymeric nature, FEs fall under the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) definition of microplastics (MPs).After use, FEs enter the sewer system and reach the sewage treatment plant (STP) where >90% of the FEs are likely to be removed by sorption to the sludge. When the STP-generated sludge is used as fertilizer for agricultural soils, this may lead to potential exposure of terrestrial invertebrates to FEs and especially those feeding on particles of a similar size as the FEs. Two aquatic (Corbicula fluminea (water exposure) and Hyalella azteca (water and dietary exposure)) and one terrestrial invertebrate (Eisenia andrei (soil exposure)) species were exposed to 50 mg/L (or mg/kg) double fluorescence labelled FEs (ø 5-50 µm). The results showed that FEs are available to aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates but species specific differences regarding the ability to ingest FEs may exist. The benthic grazer H. azteca showed no ingestion of FEs, whereas the capsules were readily ingested and egested by the unselective freshwater filter-feeder C. fluminea, as well as the terrestrial decomposer E. andrei. No signs of bioaccumulation of FEs were indicated by microscopic assessment.This article includes online-only Supporting Information.

Invertebrate Species for the Bioavailability and Accumulation Assessment of Manufactured Polymer‐Based Nano‐ and Microplastics

“…Furthermore, exposure via the soil poses another challenge because it significantly complicates the analysis. For instance, the advantage of using fluorescent material which cannot be accurately measured in soil matrix is lost (see Kuehr et al, 2022). Alternatively, much more complex and expensive analytical methods, such as the use of radiolabeled particles, would need to be applied.…”

“…Again, nano‐polystyrene (47 nm) and micro‐polystyrene (100 nm) were used as test particles. Animals were exposed as described by Kuehr et al (2022) with minor modifications. In brief, per test setup, 300 amphipods were exposed in 5 L tap water in a 15‐L glass aquarium with daily water exchange.…”

“…Several publications deal with the examination of samples (mostly fish) from the marine environment to determine the uptake and accumulation of microplastics in aquatic species (Akhbarizadeh et al, 2019; Goswami et al, 2020; Miller et al, 2020; Zhu et al, 2020). Only a few bioaccumulation studies deal with freshwater species, and even fewer studies were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions investigating the uptake, depuration, and bioaccumulation of manufactured microplastics in fish (Assas et al, 2020; Liu et al, 2021) or terrestrial organisms (Huerta Lwanga et al, 2016; Kuehr, Windisch, et al, 2021; Lwanga et al, 2017).…”

“…A promising approach seems to be the use of fluorescent material. Fluorescent microplastics and nanoparticles have been used in many studies investigating the fate of the material during exposure and bioaccumulation studies (Assas et al, 2020; Bhargava et al, 2018; Elizalde‐Velázquez et al, 2020; Kuehr, Diehle, et al, 2021; Kuehr et al, 2022; Liu et al, 2021). Nevertheless, in most cases, fluorescence was used to localize the particles or to count the number of particles (Assas et al, 2020; Liu et al, 2021).…”

Relevant and Realistic Assessments of Micro‐ and Nanoplastics in the Environment

“…Within the group of micro‐ and nanoplastics, fragrance encapsulates are a specific group consisting of thermoset polymers which differ in properties from the thermoplast polymers often found in the environment (de Haan et al, 2019). Kuehr et al (2022) found limited species‐specific effects of fragrance encapsulates on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. In terms of exposure assessment and risk assessment, Cai et al (2022) derived both predicted‐environmental concentration and predicted‐no‐effect concentration values and suggest no environmental risk based on the present data.…”