Abstract
Microplastic particles (MPs) are ubiquitous across a wide range of aquatic habitats but determining an appropriate level of risk management is hindered by a poor understanding of environmental risk. Here, we introduce a risk management framework for aquatic ecosystems that identifies four critical management thresholds, ranging from low regulatory concern to the highest level of concern where pollution control measures could be introduced to mitigate environmental emissions. The four thresholds were derived using a species sensitivity distribution (SSD) approach and the best available data from the peer-reviewed literature. This included a total of 290 data points extracted from 21 peer-reviewed microplastic toxicity studies meeting a minimal set of pre-defined quality criteria. The meta-analysis resulted in the development of critical thresholds for two effects mechanisms: food dilution with thresholds ranging from ~ 0.5 to 35 particles/L, and tissue translocation with thresholds ranging from ~ 60 to 4100 particles/L. This project was completed within an expert working group, which assigned high confidence to the management framework and associated analytical approach for developing thresholds, and very low to high confidence in the numerical thresholds. Consequently, several research recommendations are presented, which would strengthen confidence in quantifying threshold values for use in risk assessment and management. These recommendations include a need for high quality toxicity tests, and for an improved understanding of the mechanisms of action to better establish links to ecologically relevant adverse effects.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, Costa Mesa, USA (GRID:grid.419399.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 0057 0239)
2 California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, USA (GRID:grid.419399.f)
3 Wageningen University, Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.4818.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0791 5666)
4 Oregon State University, Department Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station, Newport, USA (GRID:grid.4391.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2112 1969)
5 Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Biology, Trondheim, Norway (GRID:grid.5947.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 1516 2393)
6 University of Michigan, School for Environment and Sustainability, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000000086837370)
7 San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, USA (GRID:grid.511787.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 9834 0943)
8 TG Environmental Research, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, UK (GRID:grid.511787.d)
9 University of Toronto, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Toronto, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)




