4.7 Article

Leaching behavior and evaluation of zebrafish embryo toxicity of microplastics and phthalates in take-away plastic containers

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 21104-21114

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-23675-5

关键词

Food contact materials (FCMs); Phthalic acid esters (PAEs); Microplastics; Zebrafish embryo toxicity; Take-away containers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the pollution characteristics of microplastics from food containers and the toxic effects of leached chemical substances. Results showed that PS containers in fatty environments had the highest abundance of microplastics, likely due to the rough surface of PS. Organic solvents appeared to facilitate substance migration. Furthermore, PP and PS extracts in an alcohol and fatty environment significantly impacted zebrafish embryo development.
Take-away containers are the common food contact materials (FCMs) that are widely used in daily life. However, little is known regarding the effects of different food simulants on the pollution characteristics of microplastics derived from food containers, as well as the toxic effects of the chemical substances that are leached from them. Extracts were obtained by adding organic solvents into plastic containers (polypropylene, PP; polystyrene, PS) to simulate aqueous, alcoholic, and fatty environments. The extracted substances and their toxic effects were then assessed by counting and characterizing the resulting microplastics and performing bio-acute toxicity assays. The results demonstrated that the highest abundance of microplastics occurred in PS containers in fatty environments, which was likely due to the rough surface of the PS. In contrast, organic solvents seemed more conducive to the migration of substances. Furthermore, the PP and PS extracts in an alcohol and fatty environment have significant impacts on zebrafish embryo development, including arrhythmia, pericardial cysts, and spinal curvature.

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