Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Accumulation by Earthworms (<i>Eisenia fetida</i>) Exposed to Biosolids‑, Polyurethane Foam Microparticle‑, and Penta-BDE-Amended Soils

Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants have been used in consumer polymers at up to percent levels. While long viewed as biologically inaccessible therein, PBDEs may become bioaccessible following volatilization or polymer deterioration. PBDEs may then enter soils via polymer fragmentation or following land application of sewage sludge-derived biosolids. Studies of direct PBDE uptake from these materials by soil organisms are scarce. We thus exposed earthworms (Eisenia fetida) to artificial soil amended with a Class B anaerobically digested biosolid (ADB), an exceptional quality composted biosolid (CB), PBDE-containing polyurethane foam (PUF) microparticles, and Penta-BDE-spiked artificial soil (SAS). Worms accumulated mg/kg (lipid) ∑Penta-PBDE burdens from all substrates. Biota-soil accumulation factors (BSAFs) for worms exposed to ADB- and CB-amended soils were comparable after 28 d. BSAFs generally decreased with increasing congener <i>K</i>_OW and substrate dosage. Biosolids-associated PBDE bioavailability was lower than spiked PBDEs. BSAFs for worms exposed to PUF microparticles ranged from 3.9 to 33.4, with ∑Penta-PBDE tissue burdens reaching 3740 mg/kg lipid. Congener accumulation patterns were similar in worms and polyethylene passive sampling devices immersed in ADB-amended soil coincident with exposed worms. However, passive sampler accumulation factors were lower than BSAFs. Our results demonstrate that PBDEs may accumulate in organisms ingesting soils containing biosolids or waste plastics. Such organisms may then transfer their burdens to predators or translocate them from the site of application/disposal

Brominated Flame-Retardants in Sub-Saharan Africa: Burdens in Inland and Coastal Sediments in the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, South Africa

Brominated flame-retardant (BFR) additives are present in many polymeric consumer products at percent levels. High environmental concentrations have been observed near cities and polymer, textile, and electronics manufacturing centers. Most studies have focused on European, North American, and Asian locales. Releases are likely rising most dramatically in countries with weak environmental and human health regulation and enforcement, demand for electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is escalating, and importation of waste EEE occurs. Several African countries meet these criteria, but little data are available on burdens or sources. To better understand the extent of BFR environmental dissemination in a southern African urban community, inland and coastal sediments were collected in the eThekwini metropolitan municipality, South Africa, and analyzed for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB), 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tretabromophalate (TBPH), 1,2-bis (2,4,6-tribromophenoxy) ethane (BTBPE), and decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE). BFRs were detected in all samples (<i>n</i> = 45). Concentration data are presented on total organic carbon (TOC) normalized basis. ΣBFR ranged from 114 to 47 100 ng g^–1. Decabromodiphenyl ether was detected in 93% of samples (mean concentration 3208 ng g^–1) followed by TBB at 91% (mean conc. 545 ng g^–1). Durban Bay is strongly influenced by urban runoff and tidal hydrology, and sediments therein exhibited ΣPBDE concentrations ranging from 1850 to 25 400 ng g^–1 (median conc. 3240 ng g^–1). These levels rival those in the heavily impacted Pearl River Delta, China. BFRs likely enter the South African environment during manufacture of BFR-containing products, during and following product use (i.e., after disposal and as a result of materials recycling activities), and from nonpoint sources such as atmospheric fallout and urban runoff. These results underline the need to investigate further the environmental burdens and risks associated with BFRs in developing countries

In Situ Accumulation of HBCD, PBDEs, and Several Alternative Flame-Retardants in the Bivalve (<i>Corbicula fluminea)</i> and Gastropod <i>(Elimia proxima</i>)

Alternative brominated flame-retardants (BFRs), 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB), 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH), 1,2-<i>bis</i>(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy) ethane (BTBPE) and decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), are now being detected in the environment. However, contaminant bioavailability is influenced by the organisms’ ecology (i.e., route of uptake) and in situ environmental factors. We observed that the filter-feeding bivalve (<i>Corbicula fluminea)</i> and grazing gastropod (<i>Elimia proxima</i>), collected downstream from a textile manufacturing outfall, exhibited TBB, TBPH, and BTBPE concentrations from 152 to 2230 ng g^–1 lipid weight (lw). These species also contained additional BFRs. Maximum levels of total hexabromocyclododecane diastereomers (∑HBCDs) in these species were 363 000 and 151 000 ng g^–1 lw, and those of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (∑PBDEs) were 64 900 and 47 200 ng g^–1 lw, respectively. These concentrations are among the highest reported to date worldwide. While BDE-209 was once thought to be nonbioavailable and resistant to degradation, it was the dominant BFR present and likely debromination products were detected. Contributions of α- and β-HBCD were higher in tissues than sediments, consistent with γ-HBCD bioisomerization. Mollusk bioaccumulation factors were similar between HBCD and PBDEs with 4 to 6 bromines, but factors for TBB, TBPH, and BTBPE were lower. Despite different feeding strategies, the bivalves and gastropods exhibited similar BFR water and sediment accumulation factors

Addressing the Issue of Microplastics in the Wake of the Microbead-Free Waters ActA New Standard Can Facilitate Improved Policy

The United States Microbead-Free Waters Act was signed into law in December 2015. It is a bipartisan agreement that will eliminate one preventable source of microplastic pollution in the United States. Still, the bill is criticized for being too limited in scope, and also for discouraging the development of biodegradable alternatives that ultimately are needed to solve the bigger issue of plastics in the environment. Due to a lack of an acknowledged, appropriate standard for environmentally safe microplastics, the bill banned all plastic microbeads in selected cosmetic products. Here, we review the history of the legislation and how it relates to the issue of microplastic pollution in general, and we suggest a framework for a standard (which we call “Ecocyclable”) that includes relative requirements related to toxicity, bioaccumulation, and degradation/assimilation into the natural carbon cycle. We suggest that such a standard will facilitate future regulation and legislation to reduce pollution while also encouraging innovation of sustainable technologies