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