0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Detection Methods Environmental Sources Gut & Microbiome Sign in to save

Evaluation of microplastic pollution using bee colonies: An exploration of various sampling methodologies

Environmental Pollution 2024 8 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 45 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Laura Cortés-Corrales, Laura Cortés-Corrales, Jose Javier Flores, María Jesús Martínez Bueno, Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, Laura Cortés-Corrales, Jose Javier Flores, Adrian Rosa, María Jesús Martínez Bueno, Ivo Roessink Flemming Vejsnæs, Adrian Rosa, J.J.M. van der Steen, María Jesús Martínez Bueno, J.J.M. van der Steen, J.J.M. van der Steen, Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, Ivo Roessink María Jesús Martínez Bueno, Flemming Vejsnæs, Flemming Vejsnæs, Ivo Roessink Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, Ivo Roessink Ivo Roessink Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, María Jesús Martínez Bueno, Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, María Jesús Martínez Bueno, Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, María Jesús Martínez Bueno, Amadeo R. Fernández‐Alba, Ivo Roessink Flemming Vejsnæs, Ivo Roessink

Summary

This study evaluated honeybees, pollen, and a novel in-hive passive sampler called the APITrap as biological and passive monitors for microplastic pollution, finding that honeybees and pollen effectively captured particles from the surrounding environment.

Recent research has highlighted the potential of honeybees and bee products as biological samplers for monitoring xenobiotic pollutants. However, the effectiveness of these biological samplers in tracking microplastics (MPs) has not yet been explored. This study evaluates several methods of sampling MPs, using honeybees, pollen, and a novel in-hive passive sampler named the APITrap. The collected samples were characterized using a stereomicroscopy to count and categorise MPs by morphology, colour, and type. To chemical identification, a micro-Fourier transform-infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy was employed to determine the polymer types. The study was conducted across four consecutive surveillance programmes, in five different apiaries in Denmark. Our findings indicated that APITrap demonstrated better reproducibility, with a lower variation in results of 39%, compared to 111% for honeybee samples and 97% for pollen samples. Furthermore, the use of APITrap has no negative impact on bees and can be easily applied in successive samplings. The average number of MPs detected in the four monitoring studies ranged from 39 to 67 in the APITrap, 6 to 9 in honeybee samples, and 6 to 11 in pollen samples. Fibres were the most frequently found, accounting for an average of 91% of the total MPs detected in the APITrap, and similar values for fragments (5%) and films (4%). The MPs were predominantly coloured black, blue, green and red. Spectroscopy analysis confirmed the presence of up to five different synthetic polymers. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was the most common in case of fibres and similarly to polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) and polyamide (PA) in non fibrous MPs. This study, based on citizen science and supported by beekeepers, highlights the potential of MPs to accumulate in beehives. It also shows that the APITrap provides a highly reliable and comprehensive approach for sampling in large-scale monitoring studies.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper