4.7 Article

Marine pollution from pyroplastics

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 694, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133610

关键词

Pyroplastic; Plastiglomerates; Marine litter; Weathering; XRF; Lead

资金

  1. Plymouth Marine Institute HEIF grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Items of marine plastic litter are conventionally classified as primary or secondary, depending on whether they are distinct objects or angular fragments, respectively. Pyroplastic is an additional type of plastic litter that is described here, based on observations made on beached samples from south west England. Pyroplastics are derived from the informal or more organised burning of manufactured plastics and may be angular plastiglomerates, comprising pieces of plastic debris within a matrix, or rounded plastic pebbles, where agglomerated material has been weathered and smoothed into more brittle and neutrally-coloured geogenic-looking clasts. Beached pyroplastics are usually positively buoyant because of a polyethylene or polypropylene matrix, and exhibit a bimodal mass distribution attributed to the breakage of larger clasts (>20 mm) into smaller fragments (<5 mm). XRF analysis reveals variable quantities of Pb in the matrix (up to 7500 mu g g(-1)), often in the presence of Cr, implying that material in many samples pre-dates restrictions on the use of lead chromate. Low concentrations of Br and Sb relative to pieces of manufactured plastics in the marine environment suggest that pyroplastics are not directly or indirectly derived from electronic plastic. Calcareous worm tubes on the surfaces of pyroplastics dense enough to be temporarily submerged in the circalittoral zone are enriched in Pb, suggesting that constituents within the matrix are partly bioavailable. Evading ready detection due to their striking visual similarity to geogenic material, pyroplastics may contribute to an underestimation of the stock of beached plastics in many cases. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据