are macro and micro are macro and micro-plastics plastics
TRANSCRIPT
1
Are macro and microAre macro and micro‐‐plastics plastics impacting marine organisms impacting marine organisms in thein the PelagosPelagos Sanctuary?Sanctuary?in the in the PelagosPelagos Sanctuary?Sanctuary?
M. Cristina Fossi ‐ University of Siena ‐ [email protected]
2
l i ffl i ffCan Plastic Affect Can Plastic Affect
Mediterranean Biodiversity?Mediterranean Biodiversity?Mediterranean Biodiversity?Mediterranean Biodiversity?
3
Marine Litter: a Global ChallengeMarine Litter: a Global ChallengeThe main legal and institutional frameworks affecting The main legal and institutional frameworks affecting the Mediterranean on this topic are:the Mediterranean on this topic are:
(1) Local Agendas 21; (2) national legislation on waste management and environmental protection; (3) the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols;(4) the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD); (5) MEDPOL of UNEP; (6) the EU Environmental Strategy for the Mediterranean and Horizon 2020;(7) the EU Marine Strategy Directive; (8) the EU Thematic strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste;(9) the IMO MARPOL 73/78 Convention – Annex V; (10) the GPA and the Regional Seas Programme of UNEP; (11) the Basel Convention
GAPGAPThere is a general lack of available There is a general lack of available d t i ildlif ff t d bd t i ildlif ff t d bdata on marine wildlife affected by data on marine wildlife affected by marine litter in the Mediterranean.marine litter in the Mediterranean.
UNEP/MAP Barcelona ConventionUNEP/MAP Barcelona Conventioni li i dii li i diRAP on Marine litter in Mediterranean RAP on Marine litter in Mediterranean (Istanbul 2013) (Istanbul 2013)
4
GapInformation are required about macro‐plastic and micro plastic inputs Mediterranean distribution
Gapmicro‐plastic inputs, Mediterranean distribution (Pelagos Sanctuary) and the potential effects on
marine organisms.marine organisms.
? BEST INDICATOR SPECIES ?? BEST INDICATOR SPECIES ?
5
Do Do microplasticsmicroplastics threatthreatll ??PelagosPelagos Sanctuary?Sanctuary?
The Pelagos Agreement establishing the Sanctuaryg g g yfor marine mammals in the Mediterranean Sea, isan international governmental agreement between
France, Italy and the Principality of Monaco entered into force in 2002 to insure a favorableentered into force in 2002, to insure a favorableconservation status ofmarine mammals by
protecting them and their habitat from direct and indirect negative impacts of human activities, in
li ith t lcompliance with a management plan. With about 87,500 sq. km, most of which lie in high
Seas, the Pelagos Sanctuary is registered asa Specially Protected Area of Mediterraneanp y
Importance (SPAMI).
6
Aim of the ProjectAim of the ProjectAim of the ProjectAim of the Project
Do microplastics threatDo microplastics threatppThe The PelagosPelagos Sanctuary?Sanctuary?
Are baleen whalesAre baleen whalesAre baleen whales Are baleen whales exposed to microplastic exposed to microplastic threat?threat?threat? threat?
7
Marine organisms as sentinel Marine organisms as sentinel
Case studies: Mediterranean fin whale and basking shark
species: microspecies: micro‐‐plasticplasticCase studies: Mediterranean fin whale and basking sharkAim: exploring the toxicological effects of micro‐plastics in large filter feeders speciesFurther implication: indicators of micro plastics in the pelagicFurther implication: indicators of micro‐plastics in the pelagic environment in the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Descriptor 10)
9
300 liters of water daily300 liters of water daily
70,000 liters of water 70,000 liters of water with each mouthful
10
Microplastics and contaminantsMicroplastics and contaminants
Adsorption of POPs on
Plastic additives released in
Adsorption of POPs on microplastics surface
the environment
11
Experimental workExperimental workThe work is implemented through four steps:
Step 1 collection/count ofmicroplastics in PelagosStep 1‐ collection/count of microplastics in PelagosSanctuary (Mediterranean Sea); Step 2‐ detection of phthalates in superficial neustonic/planktonic samples; Step 3 ‐ detection of phthalates in stranded Mediterranean fin whale;Mediterranean fin whale;Step 4 ‐ detection of phthalates and biomarkers responses (CYP1A1, CYP2B, lipid peroxidation) in skin biopsies of fin whales collected in the Pelagosbiopsies of fin whales collected in the PelagosSanctuary (n=18) and Sea of Cortez (n=7).
12
Do Microplastics threatDo Microplastics threat Yes!Yes!ppthe the PelagosPelagos Sanctuary?Sanctuary? Yes!Yes!
Microplastics(Items/m3)
0-0.1
0 11-1
MPM14 MPM15
MPM16MPM12
MPM13
Ligurian Sea
LIGURIA
Microplastic particles insuperficial neustonic/planktonicsamples (items/m3) collected in0.11 1
1.01-5
5.01-10
Sardinian Sea
MPM18
MPM4
MPM3MPM6
MPM5MPM8
MPM7MPM9
MPM10
MPM12MPM11
Ligurian Sea samples (items/m ) collected inthe Pelagos Sanctuary (LigurianSea and Sardinian Sea) and meanDEPH and MEPH concentrations(ng/g).
Sardinian Sea
SARDINIAMPM21
MPM25
MPM26
MPM24
MPM17
MPM19
MPM20
MPM23
Phthalates concentration in superficial neustonic/planktonic samples
AREADEHP (ng/g) MEHP (ng/g)
n mean s d n mean s dn mean s.d. n mean s.d.
Ligurian Sea 14 18.38 44.39 14 61.93 124.26
Sardinian Sea 9 23.42 32.46 9 40.30 41.55
13
Microplastics inMicroplastics in LigurianLigurian SeaSeaMicroplastics in Microplastics in LigurianLigurian SeaSea
15
Microplastics and MEPH Microplastics and MEPH –– DEPHDEPHii P lP l S tS tin in PelagosPelagos SanctuarySanctuary
17
Are baleen whales exposed Are baleen whales exposed ll h ?h ? Yes!Yes!to to microplasticsmicroplastics threat?threat? Yes!Yes!
DEHP concentrations (ng/g) in blubber samples of five stranded fin whales collected along the Italian coasts during the period
MEHP concentration in stranded fin whales
SPECIES TISSUE MeanMEHP (ng/g)
Balaenoptera physalus Blubber 57 9757 97 July 2007 – June 2011 in five different locations.
San Rossore PI (Male)MEPH 53.98 ng/g
Balaenoptera physalus Blubber 57.9757.97
g/gOrbetello GR (Male)MEPH 51.84 ng/g
Castelsardo SS (nd)MEPH 1.00 ng/g
lf ( l )Amalfi SA (Female)MEPH 99.93 ng/g
Palinuro SA (nd)MEPH 83.12 ng/g
18
Presence and effects of Presence and effects of t i t i fi h l ki bi it i t i fi h l ki bi icontaminants in fin whale skin biopsiescontaminants in fin whale skin biopsies
20
Contaminants in fin whaleContaminants in fin whalek bk bskin biopsiesskin biopsies
80
90 MEHP25000
30000OCs
40
50
60
70
g/g d.w.
15000
20000
ng/g d.w.
0
10
20
30
ng
5000
10000
n
0
Pelagos Sanctuary Sea of Cortez 0
Pelagos Sanctuary Sea of Cortez
21
Endocrine interference Endocrine interference i fi h l ki bi ii fi h l ki bi i
10
12ssion
**
in fin whale skin biopsiesin fin whale skin biopsies
8
fold expres
EstrogenEstrogen ReceptorReceptor αα MalesF l
4
6
ormalize
d f Females
((** ** = p< 0.05= p< 0.05))
2
No **
0Pelagos Sanctuary Gulf of California
Undesirable Biological EffectUndesirable Biological EffectUndesirable Biological EffectUndesirable Biological Effect
22
Differences between areasDifferences between arease e ces bet ee a ease e ces bet ee a easCluster dendrogram: phthalates, Ocs and biomarkers responses in skin bi i f fi h l ll d i h P l S d S fbiopsies of fin whales collected in the Pelagos Sanctuary and Sea of Cortez
Cluster DendrogramCluster Dendrogram
3
012
0000
1400
00
Messico
3
012
0000
1400
00
Messico
000
8000
010
0000
Hei
ght
000
8000
010
0000
Hei
ght
1 2
2000
040
000
600
Sardegna Liguria
1 2
2000
040
000
600
Sardegna Liguria2 g g2 g g
24
Are otherAre otherAre other Are other large filter feederslarge filter feederslarge filter feeders large filter feeders
exposed toexposed toppmicroplastics threat? microplastics threat?
25
BASKINGBASKING SHARKSHARKBASKINGBASKING SHARK SHARK
A 12600 i /d !A 12600 i /d !Approx. 12600 items/day!Approx. 12600 items/day!
26
MEHP concentration in basking sharks
SPECIES TISSUE M MEHP ( / )SPECIES TISSUE MeanMEHP (ng/g)
Basking sharks muscle 12.9712.97
h h l l ih h l l iPhthalate as plastic tracer Phthalate as plastic tracer
27
Marine organisms as sentinel Marine organisms as sentinel species: macrospecies: macro‐‐plasticplastic
Case study: the Mediterranean Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) Aim: exploring the toxicological effects of macro‐plasticsFurther implication: indicators of macro‐plastics in the marine p penvironment in the implementation of the Descriptor 10 of MSFD
28
found 483 pieces of i litt ithmarine litter with a
total mass of 62.37g
22 loggerhead 145 plastic items in the stomach145 plastic items in the stomachturtles out of 31 animals had
ingested marineingested marine debris (71%)
29
MSFD objective: to achieve the Good Environmental status for MSFD objective: to achieve the Good Environmental status for the marine environment for 2020the marine environment for 2020
Caretta caretta has been proposed as a target species in theMediterranean sea inthe MSFD (Descriptor 10) to evaluate indicator IV of GES: trends in the amount
d iti f litt i t d b i i l ( t h l i )and composition of litter ingested by marine animals (e.g stomach analysis)
Stomach content in sea turtles in 2013
Stomach content in
20202020Plastic items = ?
sea turtles in 2013 sea turtles in 20XX
Time scale
30
EffectsEffects ofof litterlitter in in freefree‐‐rangingranging turtlesturtles??Comet assay (Frenzilli et al., 1999) ENA assay (Pacheco & Santos 1997)Diffusion assay (Singh et al., 1988)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Marsili et al., 1997)Organochlorines (Marsili & Focardi, 1996)
EXCRETAEXCRETA
WHOLE BLOODWHOLE BLOOD
EXCRETAEXCRETAPorphyryns (Grandchamp et al., 1980)
Plastic fragments
PLASMAPLASMALPO, Lipid peroxidation (Bird & Draper, 1984)γGT, ALT, AST (commercial kits, Polymed)VTG, Vitellogenin (Goksoyr et al., 1991)
EST E di l (Ab h 1969)
PLASMAPLASMA
CARAPACECARAPACETrace elements (Hg, Pb, Cd) (Stoeppler & Backhaus 1978)
EST, Estradiol (Abraham, 1969)BChE, Butyrylcholinesterase (Ellman et al., 1961)AChE, Acetylcholinesterase (Ellman et al., 1961)
SKIN BIOPSYSKIN BIOPSYProtein expression of CYP1A (Fossi et al., 2008, modified)
Biopsy slices treated with PAHs and PBDEs (Fossi et al., 2009)
(Stoeppler & Backhaus, 1978)
32
Th k h d d th t b l h l dThe workshop recommended that baleen whales andother large filter feeders should be considered in nationaland international marine debris strategies (e g Descriptorand international marine debris strategies (e.g. Descriptor10 (marine litter) in the EU Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective) as critical indicators of the presence andimpact of microplastics in the marine environment.
34
MSFD: Descriptor 10 MSFD: Descriptor 10 Marine LitterMarine LitterMarine LitterMarine Litter
The potential use of these species in the implementation of the Descriptor 10(marine litter) in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), assentinel of the presence and impact of micro‐litter in the pelagicp p p genvironment
35
Marselle
BarcelonaLeghorn
Venice
Barcelona
Naples Dubrovnik
LarnacaLa Valletta Athens
AntalyaAlgiers
Tunis
Gibraltar
Heraklion
Tel AvivTripoli
Beirut
Alexandria
36
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsgg
This project was partially supported by the Italian Ministry for Environment and Territory
37
Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!