Search

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

Abstract The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The northeastern Pacific northern and southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) populations are listed as threatened and endangered in Canada, respectively, with persistent, bioaccumulative contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), posing threats to their recovery. Concentrations of PCBs and PBDEs in subtidal surface sediments collected from 97 sites along the British Columbia (BC) coast were used to identify their distribution and profiles, and to assess killer whale habitat quality. Victoria Harbour (VH3(site ID: 1)) sediments exhibited the highest PCB and PBDE concentrations. For PCBs, PCB‐138 was found at the highest concentration, followed by PCB‐153, PCB‐110, PCB‐149, PCB‐101, and PCB‐118. For PBDEs, individual congeners were ranked as follows: BDE‐209 > BDE‐207 > BDE‐206 > BDE‐208 > BDE‐47 > BDE‐99. Principal component analyses (PCA) illustrated the variations in contaminant profiles, with PC1 for PCBs and PBDEs correlated with the octanol‐water partition coefficient (log KOW, p < 0.003). Based on the PCA, sediment particle size, total organic carbon (TOC), and water depth at collection were other factors associated with the distribution of PBDEs, while PCB profiles were associated with TOC. Total PCB and PBDE concentrations at 100% and 34% of the sites, respectively, exceeded the recently adopted British Columbia's Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Working Sediment Quality Guidelines (PCBs 3.7 pg/g dry wt and PBDEs 1000 pg/g dry wt), considered protective of killer whales. Our findings suggest that the legacy of banned PCBs and PBDEs has the potential to constrain the recovery of killer whales as a result of their mobilization from sediments and consequent uptake by marine food webs. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2139–2151. © 2022 SETAC [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small populations of cetaceans with restricted ranges are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbances. The assessment of demographic parameters for these populations can provide meaningful insight into the ways in which they are being impacted by different threats. The Taiwanese white dolphin (TWD), Sousa chinensis taiwanensis, is a subspecies endemic to Taiwan and is classified as Critically Endangered.Multistate robust design mark–recapture models were fitted under a Bayesian framework to estimate demographic parameters and trends for the population from 2010 to 2018. Differences in these parameters by age category and the dolphins' use of their habitat were also explored. Abundance estimates varied from a maximum of 72 in 2010 (95% credible interval (CI) [65, 78]) to a minimum of 61 (95% CI [58, 64]) in 2017. In the oldest age category, abundance estimates varied from 10 (95% CI [10, 11]) in 2013 to 13 (95% CI [10, 13]) in 2016.Modelling showed that, over time, the abundance of dolphins in the oldest age group remained stable, while the remainder of the population, which includes reproductive individuals, experienced a steady decline. This decline is bound to affect the demographic recovery of TWD.Spatial heterogeneity indicated that some areas (i.e. with consistent high occurrences) likely represent important areas for biological functions of the TWD. This suggests that the recovery of the population may be enhanced with immediate and focused actions (such as the ban of gillnet fisheries) in these areas. However, with a small and declining population, reducing threats throughout their entire range is needed, including the new offshore windfarm development being constructed in and adjacent to the dolphin's range.Concerted actions to address known threats, continued monitoring of the population, and education of stakeholders are needed to prevent the extinction of the TWDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Long-lived and high trophic level marine mammals are vulnerable to accumulating often very high Concentrations of persistent chemicals, including pesticides, industrial by-products, and flame retardants. In the case of [...]

Synthetic fibers are increasingly seen to dominate microplastic pollution profiles in aquatic environments, with evidence pointing to textiles as a potentially important source. However, the loss of microfibers from textiles during laundry is poorly understood. We evaluated microfiber release from a variety of synthetic and natural consumer apparel textile samples (n = 37), with different material types, constructions, and treatments during five consecutive domestic laundry cycles. Microfiber loss ranged from 9.6 mg to 1,240 mg kg-1 of textile per wash, or an estimated 8,809 to > 6,877,000 microfibers. Mechanically-treated polyester samples, dominated by fleeces and jerseys, released six times more microfibers (161 ± 173 mg kg-1 per wash) than did nylon samples with woven construction and filamentous yarns (27 ± 14 mg kg-1 per wash). Fiber shedding was positively correlated with fabric thickness for nylon and polyester. Interestingly, cotton and wool textiles also shed large amounts of microfibers (165 ± 44 mg kg-1 per wash). The similarity between the average width of textile fibers here (12.4 ± 4.5 μm) and those found in ocean samples provides support for the notion that home laundry is an important source of microfiber pollution. Evaluation of two marketed laundry lint traps provided insight into intervention options for the home, with retention of up to 90% for polyester fibers and 46% for nylon fibers. Our observation of a > 850-fold difference in the number of microfibers lost between low and high shedding textiles illustrates the strong potential for intervention, including more sustainable clothing design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interlaboratory comparison exercise was conducted to assess the consistency of microplastic quantification across several laboratories. The test samples were prepared by mixing one liter seawater free of plastics, microplastics made from polypropylene, high- and low-density polyethylene, and artificial particles in two plastic bottles, and analyzed concurrently in 12 experienced laboratories around the world. The minimum requirements to quantify microplastics were examined by comparing actual numbers of microplastics in these sample bottles with numbers measured in each laboratory. The uncertainty was due to pervasive errors derived from inaccuracies in measuring sizes and/or misidentification of microplastics, including both false recognition and overlooking. The size distribution of microplastics should be smoothed using a running mean with a length of >0.5 mm to reduce uncertainty to less than ±20%. The number of microplastics <1 mm was underestimated by 20% even when using the best practice for measuring microplastics in laboratories. • An interlaboratory comparison exercise was conducted across 12 laboratories. • Samples were prepared by mixing seawater, man-made microplastics, and particles. • The minimum requirements to quantify microplastics were examined. • The number of microplastics <1 mm was underestimated by 20%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]