Characterisation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in a terrestrial ecosystem near a fluorochemical plant in Flanders, Belgium

Abstract

Bioaccumulation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in a restricted terrestrial food chain was investigated with the omnivorous wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) on top of the studied food chain. The levels detected are very high compared with literature as a result of the presence of fluorochemical plant in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Soil, surface water, fruits of European elder and common blackberry, invertebrates, bank vole and wood mouse were collected at two sites, e.g. Blokkersdijk, adjacent to the fluorochemical plant, and Galgenweel, a reference site 2 km further away. In wood mouse, the highest PFOS concentrations were found in the liver followed by the pancreas, lungs and kidneys, with the spleen having the lowest levels. In the liver, the concentrations ranged from 787 to 22,355 ng/g ww at Blokkersdijk and these were significantly correlated with those detected in the kidneys (13.7-4,226 ng/g ww). If current results are compared to the findings of a previous study conducted in 2002 at the same sites, a significant decrease of PFOS in livers of wood mouse is observed. To the best of our knowledge, so far no studies reported levels of PFOS in terrestrial invertebrates under field conditions. At Blokkersdijk, PFOS was detected in all invertebrate species ranging from 28 to 9,000 ng/g. Soil and water were also contaminated with levels of respectively 68 ng/g and 22 ng/L. Biota-to-soil accumulation factors ranged from 0.11 to 68 for earthworms. Biomagnification factors (BMFs) of liver wood mouse/berries were as high as 302. BMFs for invertebrates were remarkably lower (up to 2).

Pathways and factors for food safety and food security at PFOS contaminated sites within a problem based learning approach

“…In general, eggs from free range hens have in average a higher level of several Persistent Organic Pollutants present in the environment due to the strong interaction of such animals with the environmental food webs and soil (Waegeneers et al, 2009). Here, the intake of soils and earthworms can also lead to a progressive biomagnifications of PFOS in a contaminated area (D'Hollander et al, 2014). Practicable risk management options for hens/eggs may be oriented in the clustering of flocks in ''clean areas'' not impacted e.g.…”

“…The PFOS worst-case scenario have been built up by merging the available informations about contamination linked to hot spot areas (D'Hollander et al, 2011(D'Hollander et al, , 2014Stahl et al, 2012;Oliaei et al, 2013;Polesello and Valsecchi, 2013). An organo-fluorochemical industry with a longer history with Electro Chemical Fluorination (since 1980) for the synthesis of PFOS and other PFAS is settled in a critical geological area for the presence of an undifferentiated aquifer with its recharge area.…”

“…Here, sludge application is beneficial both for the organic carbon input and to reduce water need, but may result in a higher pollution affecting food safety and food security. For pigs and broilers, the soil intake rate at 20% and 50%, was chosen for a conservative approach, considering also the contribution from worms and insects, where PFOS concentration are expected to be higher due to bioaccumulation than those of only soil intake (D'Hollander et al, 2014).…”

How reliable are field‐derived biomagnification factors and trophic magnification factors as indicators of bioaccumulation potential? Conclusions from a case study on per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances

“…In many studies, the changing basis for expressing concentrations, with increasing trophic level, leads to the BMF being expressed as a ratio of the concentration in a specific organ, tissue, or fluid of the predator to that in its entire assumed diet. Some examples, among many, of this mode of calculation (expressed as predator vs prey) are: glaucous gull (liver) versus cod (whole) (Tomy et al ); cod (liver) versus pelagic amphipod (whole) (Tomy et al ); caribou (liver) versus lichen (whole) (Müller et al ); alligator (serum) versus common carp (whole) (Wang et al ); wood mouse (kidney) versus berries (whole) (D'Hollander et al ). Some authors have made useful attempts to correct for this disparity by recalculating whole‐body concentrations for larger organisms, knowing the relative masses of the various component organs and tissues, as well as the contaminant levels for each of them (e.g., Houde et al ; Müller et al ).…”

“…References (see Supplemental Data for complete citations): (a) Tomy et al ; (b) Butt et al ; (c) Tomy et al ; (d) Wang et al ; (e) Houde et al ; (f) Müller et al ; (g) D'Hollander et al .…”