Microplastics and urban water - ENPC
Transcription
Microplastics and urban water - ENPC
Microplastics and urban water Rachid Dris, Johnny Gasperi, Vincent Rocher, Mohamed Saad, Bruno Tassin To cite this version: Rachid Dris, Johnny Gasperi, Vincent Rocher, Mohamed Saad, Bruno Tassin. Microplastics and urban water. Colloque 2016 de l’ARET :Plastiques : quels enjeux pour demain ? Pollution physico-chimique & Impacts environnementaux et sanitaires, Jun 2016, Valence TGV, France. <hal-01333692> HAL Id: hal-01333692 https://hal-enpc.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01333692 Submitted on 18 Jun 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés. Introduction Macroplastics (>5mm) In rivers In oceans Microplastics and urban water Microplastics (<5mm) Rachid Dris, Johnny Gasperi, Vincent Rocher, Mohamed Saad, Bruno Tassin Fibers Fragments/Spheres 700 µm 500 µm 1 En milieu urbain : une approche systémique HCMC Autres voies de transfert potentielles, y compris éolienne ?? ?? Ecosystèmes terrestres Ruissellement ?? ?? Centres d’enfouissement technique Décharges sauvages Incinération Déchets solides VILLE Eaux Surverses Eaux usées unitaires AGROSYSTEMES Ruissellement drainage Déchets solides VILLE Eaux compost Surverses unitaires Eaux usées Boue s STEP Boue Rejets séparatifs s STEP Rejets séparatifs Eaux traitées Eaux traitées Transfert vers l’estuaire et le milieu marin Transfert vers l’estuaire et le milieu marin Materials and methods Materials and methods Atmospheric fallout Sampling Sampling Samples treatment Samples treatment Observation Observation Characterization Characterization 5 Rainwater Washing machine WWTP effluents Surface water 6 Materials and methods Atmospheric fallout Materials and methods Rainwater Washing machine WWTP effluents Surface water Atmospheric fallout Sampling Rainwater Washing machine WWTP effluents Surface water Sampling Remove natural organic fraction SDS Remove mineral fraction H 2 O2 Remove natural organic fraction SDS ZnCl2 Samples treatment Samples treatment Density = 1.6 g/cm3 Lipase, Protéase, Amylase Remove mineral fraction H 2 O2 Lipase, Protéase, Amylase Observation Observation Characterization Characterization ZnCl2 Density = 1.6 g/cm3 7 8 Surface water Sampling Remove natural organic fraction SDS Remove mineral fraction H 2 O2 ZnCl2 Samples treatment Density = 1.6 g/cm3 Lipase, Protéase, Amylase Observation Suburban site: significantly less fibers 400 Characterization Between 2 and 355 fibers/day/m2 300 200 100 0 03 Transform infrared (FT-IR) micro spectroscopy (Microscope LUMOS FT-IR – Brucker) Urban and suburban sites 500 01 4 ‐O ct ‐2 01 06 4 ‐N ov ‐2 0 14 12 ‐D ec ‐2 01 07 4 ‐Ja n‐ 20 15 27 ‐Ja n‐ 20 15 05 ‐F eb ‐2 01 26 5 ‐F eb ‐2 01 05 5 ‐M ar ‐2 01 5 WWTP effluents 15 Rainwater Washing machine ‐O ct ‐2 Atmospheric fallout Results – Atmospheric fallout Atmospheric fallout (particles/m2/day) Materials and methods Urban site Suburban site 9 10 Results – Atmospheric fallout Results – Rainwater 0 Between 28 and 60 fibers/L 10 20 30 300 40 200 50 60 100 70 b Fe 0 -2 14 r Ap -2 4 01 Ju 2 n- 4 01 2 gAu 4 01 O 4 01 -2 ct Atmospheric fallout (particles/m2/day] • Microplastics in rainwater? 20 cDe 14 bFe 60 50 40 30 80 0 70 Fibers/L 400 Daily rainfall (mm) Atmospheric fallout (fibers/day/m2) 500 Stormwater at the outlet of an urban catchment 20 15 20 10 0 Daily rainfall (mm) Rain event 1 Rain event 2 Rain event 3 • The fibers either come from the runoff or are directly washed down by rain 11 12 Results – Washing machine effluents Results – Wastewater treatment plants Four volunteers participated in this study Fibers in wastewater Between 8000 and 35000 fibers/L Between 70 and 450 fibers/L 500 40000 450 400 30000 350 25000 300 Fibers/L Fibers/L 35000 20000 15000 SAM MAV SEC SAV 250 200 150 10000 100 5000 50 0 0 Participant 1 Water Participant 2 Water + laundry product Participant 3 Participant 4 SAV Water + laundry product + clothes • Clothes are a major source of the fibers SAV SAV SAV SEC SAM MAV • Very high number of fibers probably coming mainly from washing machines 13 14 Results – Wastewater treatment plants Results - Wastewater treatment plants 350 300 260 to 320 fibers/L SAM MAV SEC SAV Fibers/L 250 200 150 100 50 to 120 fibers/L 50 14 to 50 fibers/L 0 Raw water Settled water Treated water 15 Characterization 16 Results – surface water Plankton net vs Manta net Which proportion corresponds to microplastics? 30 fibers randomly selected – Atmospheric fallout Petrochemicals 80 µm mesh size 300 µm mesh size High fiber concentrations Fibers pass more easily through the net “Only” up to 2,500 L sampled Up to 200,000 L sampled Polyamide Polyester (100%) Polyethylene Blend of Polyester and Polyurethane Natural material Cellulose (Mainly Rayon or cotton) Rarely wool • More fibers from natural material than from petrochemicals • Mainly polymers used in the textile industry Concentration levels of fragments are too low Better for fibers 17 The more “rare” particles can be collected Better for fragments 18 Results – surface water Results – surface water 80 µm net samples Plankton net vs Manta net 1000 n = 96 n=7 Particles/m3 100 Chemical characterization in progress 10 So far: 2 Rayon fibers (among 19 particles) 1 Polyester mainly 0.1 1000 µm Plankton net samples Manta net samples Polyamide and Polypropylene Only fibers 19 20 Synthèse Results – surface water 300 µm net samples Chemical characterization in progress Retombées atmosphériques 102/m2/jour Eaux de ruissellement 101/L Lave linge 104/L Station d’épuration (entrée) 102/L Station d’épuration (sortie) 101/L Rivière 10-2 – 100/L So far: Only plastic particles Only Polyethylene and Polypropylene Fragments, films and spheres 21 Conclusions et perspectives { { { { Présence ubiquiste en milieu urbain Bilans encore très lacunaires Méthodes d’analyse non stabilisées Cas des fibres z z { Difficiles à caractériser Très présentes, (contamination) Question de l’impact écologique Microplastics in various compartments of the urban water cycle [email protected] {Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., Tassin, B., 2016. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006 {Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., Tassin, B., 2015a. Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in Greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 12, 592–599. {Dris, R., Imhof, H., Sanchez, W., Gasperi, J., Galgani, F., Tassin, B., Laforsch, C., 2015b. Beyond the ocean: Contamination of freshwater ecosystems with (micro-) plastic particles. Environ. Chem. 12, 539–550. {Gasperi, J., Dris, R, Bonin, T., Rocher,V., Tassin, B., 2014 Assessment of floating plastic debris in surface water along the Seine River. Environ. Poll. 195, 163166. Introduction Previous investigations in the Seine River Fibers Fragments/Spheres 500 µm Less than 2 fragments/m3 700 µm Up to 400 fibers/m3