Registration Dossier

Diss Factsheets

Environmental fate & pathways

Endpoint summary

Administrative data

Description of key information

Additional information

1 Environmental measurements of D4

The following is a summary of environmental monitoring data on D4, including studies with samples taken from 2004 to 2020. The monitoring results are summarised in the sections below:

1.1 D4 measurements in WWTP influent, effluent, sludge and air

1.2 D4 measurements in surface water

1.3 D4 measurements in air

1.4 D4 measurements in sediment

1.5 D4 measurements in biota

The studies include some remote locations, as well as locations close to urban populations.

Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) is a cyclic volatile methyl siloxane (cVMS) that is present as an impurity in consumer products (e.g., personal care products). Cyclic VMS are highly volatile and of extremely low solubility in water. The main route of entry into the aquatic environment is via wastewater treatment plant effluents. Cyclic VMS do volatilise to air, but their properties dictate low potential for back-deposition to land or water.

Analytical measurement of trace levels of cVMS in environmental samples is difficult due to their physical properties and uses, which can inadvertently lead to significant background contamination. Cyclic VMS are used in personal care products including lotions, creams, deodorants, shampoos, insect repellents, and sunscreen (hereafter referred to generally as personal care products). Environmental samples can become compromised during all stages of field and laboratory work including sample collection, processing, extraction, and analysis. Since about 2008, environmental monitoring programs have incorporated the use of rigorous protocols strictly prohibiting the use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel involved, as well as avoiding equipment containing silicone-based materials. This has led to lower analytical backgrounds, reduced potential for contamination, and thus greater confidence in the environmental monitoring results.cVMS contamination may occur in the analytical process through impurities introduced during the sample preparation or the generation of cVMS from the stationary phase of widely used siloxane-based gas-chromatographiccolumns. With improvements in analytical technology allowing for lower method detection limits for cVMS, controlling for potential sources of contamination is even more critical, especially when attempting to measure concentrations of cVMS at the lower ppb-range.

1.1      

Data on the presence of D4 in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) influent, effluent, sludge and air collected above the WWTP are available from peer-reviewed literature (Table 1.1). Most of the studies reported used specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel in order to reduce potential for contamination of the samples.

A recent study reported on the WWTP influent D4 concentrations to monitor the efficacy of the EU restriction of D4 in wash-off personal care products (ERM, 2020). During the initial period of the study (2017-2018), statistically significant differences in D4 concentrations were observed between some of the WWTPs, indicating that the selected WWTPs captured a good spread of conditions throughout the EU and the UK. Also, no statistically significant differences were observed in per capita mass loadings between days of the week (i.e., weekdays and weekend) and season. During the transitional period (2019-2020), differences in D4 concentrations were still observed. No statistically significant differences in the per capita mass loadings were observed between days of the week and season during this period. During the initial and the transitional periods, the estimated mass loadings of D4 (in t/y) were lower compared to the pre-restriction level as well as the post-restriction goals stated by ECHA.

Table1.1Measured concentrations of D4 in WWTP influent, effluent, sludge and air

Location – WWTP

Sampling year

Sample type

N (number of sample locations)

D41

(ug/L, mg/kg dw, ng/m3)

Comment

Reference

Boradholme,

UK

2010

Influent

 

Effluent

8

 

8

<LOQ – 0.3

 

<LOQ

Values are reported as µg/L; LOQ infl 0.2 µg/L; LOQ effl 0.01 µg/L; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

van Egmond et al. (2013)

Athens, Greece

2012

Influent

 

Effluent

7

 

7

0.099−0.187

 

0.103−0.197

Concentration in µg/L. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ = 0.0001 µg/L

Bletsou et al. (2013)

Athens, Greece

2012

Sludge

7

0.09−0.13

Concentration in mg/kg dw. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ = 0.015 µg/kg

Bletsou et al. (2013)

Harbin, China

2012

Influent

 

Effluent

4

 

4

0.017 – 0.062

0.010 - 0.026

Concentration in µg/L. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ = 0.002 µg/L

Li et al. (2016)

Harbin, China

2012

Sludge

8

0.4 – 0.9

Concentration in ug/g dw. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ = 0.2 µg/g dw

Li et al. (2016)

Harbin, China

2012

Air

36

<LOQ - 125

Concentration in ng/m3. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ = 0.009 ng/m3

Li et al. (2016)

Ontario, Canada

Urban

Background

Rural

2013

Air

 

 

3

3

2

 

141 - 393

43 - 55

31 -56

Concentration in ng/m3. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOD = 0.72 ng/m3

Shoeib et al. (2016)

Ontario, Canada

Urban

Background

Rural

2014

Air

 

 

3

3

2

 

290 - 373

223 - 348

104 - 387

Concentration in ng/m3. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOD = 0.72 ng/m3

Shoeib et al. (2016)

VEAS, Slemmestad

 

HIAS, Hamar

Norway

 

2017

 

Water

Sludge

Water

Sludge

 

3

3

3

3

 

0.052-12

0.038-0.063

0.120-9.1

0.022-0.036

LOQ not reported for water or sludge samples; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency and COWI (2018)

Breivika, Norway

2017

Effluent

6

0.128-0.408

Values are reported as µg/L; LOD not provided. No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2018)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2017

Effluent

 

sludge

2

 

2

0.0173

 

0.0172

Values are reported as µg/L or mg/kg dw; LOD not provided. No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2018)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2018

Effluent

 

sludge

2

 

2

<LOD

 

0.057

Values are reported as µg/L or mg/kg dw; LOD not provided. No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2019)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2019

Effluent

 

sludge

2

 

2

0.047

 

0.105

Values are reported as µg/L or mg/kg dw; LOD not provided. No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2020)

Japan

2017

Influent

 

Effluent

2

 

2

0.37-0.38

 

<MDL

all values given in µg/L; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded.MDL = 0.016 µg/L

ECCC (2017a)

Tama River, Japan

2017

Influent

 

Effluent

3, 2 surveys per location

3, 2 surveys per location

0.39-1.2

 

<MDL

MDL = 0.054 µg/L; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded; all values are in µg/L wet weight

ECCC (2017b)

Halle, Germany

Wolfsburg, Germany

Lleida, Spain

Stalowa Wola, Poland

Norrkoping, Sweden

Bury, UK

2017

Influent

10

 

10

 

10

10

 

10

10

0.20-0.36

 

0.33-0.43

 

0.14-0.24

0.26-0.34

 

0.26-1.24

0.17-0.31

Concentration in ug/L. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. MDL= 0.0076 µg/L

ERM (2020)

Halle, Germany

Wolfsburg, Germany

Lleida, Spain

Stalowa Wola, Poland

Norrkoping, Sweden

Bury, UK

2018

Influent

30

 

30

 

30

30

 

30

30

0.12-0.52

 

0.15-0.55

 

0.10-0.50

0.18-0.49

 

0.29-1.22

0.019-0.28

Concentration in µg/L. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. MDL= 0.0076 µg/L

ERM (2020)

Halle, Germany

Wolfsburg, Germany

Lleida, Spain

Stalowa Wola, Poland

Norrkoping, Sweden

Bury, UK

2019

Influent

30

 

30

 

30

30

 

30

33

0.17-0.76

 

0.22-0.53

 

0.18-0.39

0.17-0.51

 

0.12-2.35

0.028-0.47

Concentration in ug/L. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. MDL= 0.0076 uµ/L

ERM (2020)

Halle, Germany

Wolfsburg, Germany

Lleida, Spain

Stalowa Wola, Poland

Norrkoping, Sweden

Bury, UK

2020

Influent

10

 

10

 

10

10

 

10

10

0.29-0.52

 

0.23-1.20

 

0.26-0.34

0.13-0.34

 

0.22-0.51

0.011-0.22

Concentration in ug/L. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. MDL= 0.0076 µg/L

ERM (2020)

Oslofjord, Norway

2019

Effluent

Sludge

2

2

6.2

1260

Concentrations are in ng/L or ng/g. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ is not provided

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) & Norwegian Environment Agency (2020)

1 'Not detected' indicates that no peak discernible from baseline was observed in the analysis.

1.2      

Data on the presence of D4 in surface water are available from institutional reports (Table 1.2). These studies didnotreport on specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel in order to reduce potential for contamination of the samples. D4 was not detected in any of the samples analysed in these studies.

Table1.2Measured concentrations of D4 in surface water

Location

Sampling year

N (number of sample locations)

D41

(ng/L)

Comment

Reference

Sweden – Industrial areas, chemical plants

2004, 2005

4

<30 ng/L

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Kaj et al. (2005)

Scandinavia – six countries, freshwater and marine

2004, 2005

13

all <MDL (varying MDL)

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

TemaNord (2005)

Oslofjord, Norway

2006

4

<30 ng/L

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Schlabach (2007)

Tama River, Japan

2017

5 locations and four surveys per location

<MDL

MDL = 0.054 for D4 in µg/L; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded

ECC (2017b)

Lake Mjøsa, Norway

2018

5

<LOD

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom. LOD = 2.72 ng/L

Norwegian Environment Agency, Nowegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norwegian Environment and Life Sciences University (NMBU) (2018)

1 'Not detected' indicates that no peak discernible from baseline was observed in the analysis.

1.3      

Data on the presence of D4 in air are available from institutional reports and peer-reviewed literature (Table 1.3). Most of the studies reported on specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel in order to reduce potential for contamination of the samples.

Samples were collected from urban areas, background areas as well as from remote areas. In recent years (2015-2017), D4 concentrations in air samples collected from urban areas in Europe (Spain and France) ranged between 33 and 696 ng/m3. These concentrations are generally higher compared to the air PEC at the Regional scale of 7.06 ng/m3(see Section 10.2.2); this could be due to high population density in these urban areas. D4 concentrations in air samples collected from other areas in Europe such as Scandinavia or Ireland were generally below 14 ng/m3. These concentrations are comparable to the air PEC at the continental scale estimated by EUSES 2.1.2 (2.56E-06 mg/m3or 2.56 ng/m3), which includes contributions from EU, EEA and UK sites.

D4 was monitored in air collected from remote areas, with the sampling site of Ny Alesund in Norwegian Arctic most reported on between 2011 and 2017. D4 was detected at concentrations generally in the range of 0.040 and 2.3 ng/m3. Concentrations reported in some of these studies were greater than the PEC for Arctic air estimated by EUSES 2.1.2 (1.39E-07 mg/m3or 0.139 ng/m3), which is likely due to the fact that there is a permanent population in Ny Alesund of approximately 150 people and it is also a popular stop for cruise ships.

Table1.3Measured concentrations of D4 in air

Location – Air

Sampling year

N (number of sample locations)

D41

(ng/m3)

Comment

Reference

Sweden

background locations

Industrial areas, chemical plants, regional locations

2004, 2005

 

3

8

 

35 to 300

18 to 230

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Kaj et al. (2005)

Sweden, background locations

2004, 2005

24

800 to 4000

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

TemaNord (2005)

Tystberga, Sweden

2011

41

1.8 – 8.0

Values are reported as ng/m3; LOQ = 0.21 for D4; One site sampled repeatedly over 6-week period. Special precaution used during sample collection and analysis. Method was validated and QC was used to monitor contamination/breakthrough.

Kierkegaard et al. (2013)

Zeppelin, Norway

2011

25

nd – 2.13

Values are reported as ng/m3; LOQ = 0.09 Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded

Krogseth et al (2013)

Oslo, Norway

2016

3

<LOD-910

Lowest concentration above the LOD was 296

 

 

Values are reported as ng/PUF; LOD not reported; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2017)

Zeppelin, Norway

2016

One location, 13 samples taken over the year

Not detected – 2.13

Concentrations are reported as ng/m3; Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded.

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2017)

Oslo, Norway

2017

5

203-980

Values are reported as ng/PUF; LOD not reported; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2018)

Zeppelin, Norway

 

 

Tromsø (urban)

2017

 

6 samples

4 samples

 

 

0.040-1.43

 

6.59-19.6

Concentrations are reported as ng/m3; LOD unstated ; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2018)

Kosetice, Czech

Republic

Canada (multiple

locations)

USA (multiple

locations)

Tudor Hill, Bermuda

Ny Alesund, Norway

Storhofdi, Iceland

Malin Head, Ireland

Paris, France

Cape Grim, Australia

2009

1

 

8

 

5

 

1

1

1

1

1

1

9.3

 

0.54-45

 

0.66-24

 

3.9

16

0.94

6.2

50

1.2

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom. MDL = 2.5 ng/m3

Genualdi et al. (2011)

Kosetice, Czech

Republic

Canada (multiple

locations)

USA (multiple

locations)

Tudor Hill, Bermuda

Ny Alesund, Norway

Storhofdi, Iceland

Malin Head, Ireland

Cape Grim, Australia

2013

4

 

26

 

12

 

4

2

3

4

4

22 – 61

 

6.4 - 131

 

3.7 – 145

 

17 – 76

32 – 76

9.1 – 14

5.7 – 21

6.2 - 59

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom. MDL = 0.0005 ng/m3

Rauert et al. (2018)

Kosetice, Czech

Republic

Canada (multiple

locations)

USA (multiple

locations)

Tudor Hill, Bermuda

Ny Alesund, Norway

Storhofdi, Iceland

Malin Head, Ireland

Paris, France

Cape Grim, Australia

2015

 

1

 

8

 

3

 

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.81

 

<LOQ – 55

 

<LOQ – 38

 

6.8

18

11

14

33

11

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom. MDL = 0.0005 ng/m3

Rauert et al. (2018)

Toronto, Canada

2010-2011

82

2.8−77

Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. Blank samples were analysed. LOQ = 1.7 ng/m3

Ahrens et al. (2014)

Catalunya, Spain

2013 -2015

271

9 - 676

Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. Blank samples were analysed.

Gallego et al. (2017)

Japan

2016 - 2017

53

17.5 - 300

Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. Blank samples were analysed. MDL = 0.06 ng/m3

Horrii et al (2021)

 

1.4      

Data on the presence of D4 in sediment are available from studies performed by Reconsile members, institutional reports and peer-reviewed literature (Table 1.4). Most of the studies reported on specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel in order to reduce potential for contamination of the samples.

The presence of D4 in sediment has been monitored in freshwater system by Reconsile members and includes Lake Pepin, USA, Lake Ontario, Canada, Oslofjord, Norway and Tokyo Bay, Japan. In Lake Pepin, organic carbon normalized concentrations (ng/g OC) of D4 in the surface 0-3 cm of sediment, which represented about 1 year of sediment accumulation, were different between the five core sites (p=0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with significant year-core interactions detected (p<0.01). Organic carbon normalized concentrations of D4 in the surface 0-3 cm of sediment showed net changes ranging from –13% to +111% over the 5-year sample collection period, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p>0.27) except at TR-1 (p=0.02). In Lake Ontario, organic carbon normalized concentrations (ng/g OC) of D4 in the surface sediment (0-1 cm for Lake Ontario and 0-3 cm for Hamilton Harbor), which represented about 1 year of sediment accumulation, were different between the five core sites (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with significant year-core interactions detected (p<0.01). Organic carbon normalized concentrations of D4 in the surface sediment showed net changes ranging from –29% to +42% over the 5-year sample collection period, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p>0.17). In the Oslofjord, organic carbon normalized concentrations (ng/g OC) of D4 in the surface 0-1 cm of sediment, which represented about 1 year of sediment accumulation, were different between the five core sites (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with significant year-core interactions detected (p=0.01). Organic carbon normalized concentrations of D4 in the surface 0-1 cm of sediment showed net changes ranging from –27% to +133% over the 5-year sample collection period, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p>0.39) except at CS-4 (p=0.03). In Tokyo Bay, organic carbon normalized concentrations (ng/g OC) of D4 in the surface 0-1 cm of sediment, which represented about 1 year of sediment accumulation, were different between the four sections (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with weak significant year-section interactions detected (p=0.19). Organic carbon normalized concentrations of D4 in the surface 0-1 cm of sediment showed net changes ranging from -26% to +164% over the 5-year sample collection period, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p>0.13) except Section 4 (p=0.04).

The sediment PEC at the regional scale was estimated as 7.9E-03 mg/kg dw (7.9 ng/g dw) (see Section 10.2.2). D4 concentrations in sediment collected from European urban areas are below this PEC. At the continental scale (which includes contributions from EU, EEA and UK sites), the freshwater sediment PEC was estimated by EUSES 2.1.2 at 3.98E-04 mg/kg dw (or 0.398 ng/g dw). D4 concentrations in sediment collected from urban areas in Scandinavia were comparable relative to PEC at the continental scale. Sediment samples collected from the Norwegian Arctic (Svalbard) in 2016 contained up to 0.85 ng/g ww of D4. At the Arctic scale, the sediment PEC was estimated by EUSES 2.1.2 at 4.18E-10 mg/kg dw (or 4.18E-07 ng/g dw).


 

Table1.4Measured concentrations of D4 in sediment

Location

Sediment

Sampling year

N (number of sample locations)

D41

(ng/g dw)

Comment

Reference

Norway, Sweden background locations

2004

5

all <MDL

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

TemaNord (2005)

 

Six countries, urban and industrial areas

2004, 2005

19

n=18, <MDL

n=1, 84

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

TemaNord (2005)

 

Sweden, background locations

2004, 2005

3

all <MDL

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Kaj et al. (2005)

Sweden, Industrial areas, chemical plants, regional locations

2004, 2005

24

all <MDL

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Kaj et al. (2005)

Oslofjord, Norway

2006

6

all <MDL

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Schlabach (2007)

Barents Sea, Norway

2007

11

n=10, <MDL

n=1, 40

Secondary citation, protocols not available

Bakke et al. (2008)

Svalbard (Liefdefjorden, Kongsfjorden), Norway

2008

4

all <MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Evenset et al. (2009)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2008

8

7

0.95 to 2.67

<MDL to 5.07

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010a)

Outer Oslofjord, Norway

2008

6

5

<0.02 to 0.04

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010a)

Svalbard (Adventfjorden, Kongsfjorden), Norway

2009

10

all <MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010b)

Oslofjord, Norway

2011

25

1.52 (0-1 cm)

 

Surface sediment (0-1cm) (ng/g OC)

Site 1: 22.7

Site 2: 54.1

Site 3: 148

Site 4: 293

Site 5: 290

Samples were collected at five locations in a deep water channel. Two collection points were close to a WWTP outlet (sites 4 and 5). The reported value (0-1cm) is the arithmetic mean of all samples collected. Evaluation indicated significant differences between sites. Organic carbon normalised concentrations at each site are reported for the surface sediment (0-1cm) stratum, representing approx. 2 years or more of sediment accumulation.

Results reported as wet weight (ng/g ww); moisture content approx. 65%.

MDL 1.50 ng/g ww, MDL 156 ng/g OC

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

 

Oslofjord, Norway

2012

25

1.90 (0-1 cm)

 

Surface sediment (0-1cm) (ng/g OC)

Site 1: 4.85

Site 2: 33.2

Site 3: 118

Site 4: 298

Site 5: 273

Samples were collected at five locations in a deep water channel. Two collection points were close to a WWTP outlet (sites 4 and 5). The reported value (0-5cm) is the arithmetic mean of all samples collected. Evaluation indicated significant differences between sites. Concentrations at each site are reported for the surface sediment (0-1cm) stratum, representing approx. 2 years or more of sediment accumulation.

Results reported as wet weight (ng/g ww); moisture content approx. 65%.

MDL 1.32 ng/g ww, MDL 111 ng/g OC

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

 

Oslofjord, Norway

2013

25

2.64 (0-1 cm)

 

Surface sediment (0-1cm) (ng/g OC)

Site 1: 100

Site 2: 170

Site 3: 156

Site 4: 297

Site 5: 173

Samples were collected at five locations in a deep water channel. Two collection points were close to a WWTP outlet (sites 4 and 5). Evaluation indicated significant differences between sites. Concentrations at each site are reported for the surface sediment (0-1cm) stratum, representing approx. 2 years or more of sediment accumulation.

MDL 1.90 ng/g ww, MDL 136 ng/g OC

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

 

Oslofjord, Norway

2014

25

1.31 (0-1 cm)

 

Surface sediment (0-1cm) (ng/g OC)

Site 1: 14.1

Site 2: 15.0

Site 3: 67.8

Site 4: 234

Site 5: 201

Samples were collected at five locations in a deep water channel. Two collection points were close to a WWTP outlet (sites 4 and 5). Evaluation indicated significant differences between sites. Concentrations at each site are reported for the surface sediment (0-1cm) stratum, representing approx. 2 years or more of sediment accumulation.

MDL 1.35 ng/g ww, MDL 115 ng/g OC

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

 

 

Oslofjord, Norway

2015

10

1.43 (0-1 cm)

 

Surface sediment (0-1cm) (ng/g OC)

Site 1: 18.1

Site 2: 10.6

Site 3: 64.3

Site 4: 283

Site 5: 211

Samples were collected at five locations in a deep water channel. Two collection points were close to a WWTP outlet (sites 4 and 5). Evaluation indicated significant differences between sites. Concentrations at each site are reported for the surface sediment (0-1cm) stratum, representing approx. 2 years or more of sediment accumulation.

MDL 0.99 ng/g ww, MDL 96.8 ng/g OC

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Oslofjord, Norway

2016

10

3.56 (0-1 cm)

 

Surface sediment (0-1cm)(ng/g OC)

Site 1: 117

Site 2: 232

Site 3: 630

Site 4: 164

Site 5: 254

Samples were collected at five locations in a deep water channel. Two collection points were close to a WWTP outlet (sites 4 and 5). Evaluation indicated significant differences between sites. Concentrations at each site are reported for the surface sediment (0-1cm) stratum, representing approx. 2 years or more of sediment accumulation.

MDL 1.35 ng/g ww, MDL 102 ng/g OC

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2013

9

0.96 – 4.52

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2014)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2014

(3 locations)

2.1 – 8.5

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2015)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2015

1

2.05

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2016)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2017

1

2.15

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2018)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2018

1

<LOD

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2019)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

2019

1

2.66

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2020)

Oslo, Norway

2016

5

<LOD

Values are reported as ng/g dw; LOD not reported; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2017)

Oslo, Norway

2017

5 – all pooled samples

0.38-2.32

Values are reported as ng/g dw; LOD not reported; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2018)

Indre Oslofjord

 

Lake Mjøsa

Norway

 

2017

 

1

 

1

 

<20

 

<20

 

 

Values are reported as ng/g dw; LOQ assumed to be 20ng/g; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency and COWI (2018).

Lake Mjøsa, Norway

2018

5

<LOD-2.31

LOD for D4 = 0.30

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Nowegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norwegian Environment and Life Sciences University (NMBU) (2018)

Oslofjord, Norway

2019

1

 

Results reported as ng/g dry weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. LOQ is not provided.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) & Norwegian Environment Agency (2020)

Lake Opeongo, Ontario, Canada

2007

9

all <LOD

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010c)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2007

6

n=5, <LOD; n=1, 286.5

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2007)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2011

2 (Lake)

3

(Harbour)

0.25 (0 – 5 cm)

3.02 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

LOD 1.0 ng, MDL 0.25 ng/g ww

 

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2014a)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2012

2 (Lake)

3 (Harbour)

<MDL (0 – 5 cm)

2.25 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

LOD 0.70 ng, MDL 0.59 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2014b)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2013

2 (Lake)

3 (Harbour)

0.24 (0 – 5 cm)

2.42 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

LOD 0.90 ng, MDL 0.21 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2016a)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2014

1 (Lake)

 

3 (Harbour)

<MDL (0 – 5 cm)

 

1.39 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

LOD 7.4 ng, MDL 0.49 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2017a)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2015

1 (Lake)

 

3 (Harbour)

<MDL (0 – 5 cm)

 

1.98 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

For D4: LOD 0.2 ng, MDL 0.63 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2017b)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2016

2 (Lake)

 

3 (Harbour)

<MDL (0 – 5 cm)

 

2.48 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

For D4: LOD 4.3 ng, MDL 0.86 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2017c)

Lake Ontario, Canada

2019

2 (Lake)

 

3 (Harbour)

<MDL (0 – 5 cm)

 

1.73 (0 – 5 cm)

Sediment collected from locations within Hamilton Harbour (which receives WWTP effluent) and the main deep-water basin.

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content approx. 75%.

For D4: MDL 0.60 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2021)

Lake Pepin, USA

2006

11

all <MDL

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010d)

Lake Pepin, USA

2008

30

all <MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2009)

Lake Pepin, USA

2011

7 (June)

 

5 (Oct)

 

0.23 (0-5 cm)

 

<MDL (0-5 cm)

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. For D4: LOD 0.70 ng, MDL 0.19 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2015a)

Lake Pepin, USA

2012

13

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. For D4: LOD 0.70 ng, MDL 0.59 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2015b)

Lake Pepin, USA

2013

13

0.21

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. For D4: LOD 0.90 ng, MDL 0.21 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2016b)

Lake Pepin, USA

2014

13

0.21

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. For D4: LOD 7.4 ng, MDL 0.49 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2017d)

Lake Pepin, USA

2015

13

<MDL (0-5 cm)

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. For D4: LOD 2.0 ng, MDL 0.63 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2017e)

Lake Pepin, USA

2016

13

<MDL (0-5 cm)

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. For D4: MDL 0.86 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2018b)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

2011

20

1.6

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content differed between sample points. Concentration with depth was also determined. (MDL 0.24 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

2012

20

5.1

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content differed between sample points. Concentration with depth was also determined. (MDL 0.24 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

2013

20

4.0

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content differed between sample points. (MDL 0.24 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

2014

20

3.7

Results reported as wet weight; moisture content differed between sample points.

(MDL 0.24 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

2015

20

4.1

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 0.24 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

2016

20

4.2

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 0.24 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tama River. Japan,

2017

5 locations, 4 surveys per location

<MDL-17

MDL = for D4 is 0.24; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded; all values are in ng/g wet weight

Environmental Control Centre Co. Ltd. (2017b).

Svalbard, Norway

Canada, Archipelago

Greenland

2016

2014-2015

2016

5

14

 

10

<LOQ-0.85

<LOQ-2.7

 

1.5-10

Measured concentrations of D4 are in ng/g ww. During collection, processing, or analysis of samples reported

Abrahamsson et al. (2020)

1 'Not detected' indicates that no peak discernible from baseline was observed in the analysis.

1.5      

Data on the presence of D4 in biota are available from studies performed by Reconsile members, institutional reports and peer-reviewed literature (Table 1.5). Most of the studies reported on specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel in order to reduce potential for contamination of the samples.

The presence of D4 in biota has been monitored in freshwater system by Reconsile members and includes Lake Pepin, USA, Lake Ontario, Canada, Oslofjord, Norway and Tokyo Bay, Japan. For Lake Pepin, based on the existing data over the 5-year period (or 6 years of sample collection), lipid normalized concentrations (ng/g lw) of D4 were different between species (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with significant year-species interactions detected (p<0.01). Lipid normalized concentrations of D4 in biota showed net changes ranging from –75% to +60, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p≥0.19). For Lake Ontario, based on the existing data over the 5-year period (or 6 years of sample collection), lipid normalized concentrations (ng/g lw) of D4 were different between species (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with significant year-species interactions detected (p<0.01). Lipid normalized concentrations of D4 in biota showed net changes ranging from –61% to –0.4% over the 5-year sample collection period, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p>0.21).For the Oslofjord, based on the existing data over the 5-year period (or 6 years of sample collection), lipid normalized concentrations (ng/g lw) of D4 were different between species (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with significant year-species interactions detected (p<0.01). Lipid normalized concentrations of D4 in biota showed net changes ranging from –61% to –23% over the 5-year sample collection period. Significant temporal trends were detected for Atlantic cod (p=0.02), but not for Atlantic herring or northern shrimp (p>0.31). In Tokyo Bay, based on the existing data over the 5-year period (or 6 years of sample collection), lipid normalized concentrations (ng/g lw) of D4 were different between species (p<0.01) and between years (p<0.01), with slightly weak significant year-species interactions detected (p=0.08). Lipid normalized concentrations of D4 in biota showed net changes ranging from -16% to 17% over the 5-year sample collection period, but significant temporal trends were not detected (p>0.51).

The concentrations cannot be compared to predictions from EUSES 2.1.2 because that model is very simplistic in respect to its approach to trophic magnification. The detailed study of bioaccumulation in the field is considered elsewhere as part of the bioaccumulation discussion (CSR Section 4.5).

Table1.5Measured concentrations of D4 in biota

Location

Biota

Sampling year

N (number of samples analysed)

D41

(ng/g ww)

Comment

Reference

Six countries:

fish livers,

seal blubber,

seabird eggs

2002, 2004

 

21

7

17

 

<LOQ-70

<LOQ

<LOQ

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

TemaNord (2005)

Sweden, fish muscle

Background locations

industrial areas, chemical plants, regional locations

2004, 2005

 

3

16

 

<5

<5

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Kajet al.(2005)

Lake Pepin, Minnesota, USA (benthos)

2008

7

mean 7.44

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2009)

Lake Pepin, USA

Mayfly larvae

Gizzard shad

Sauger

2011

 

4

5#

11#

20#

 

<MDL

2.26

1.62

0.79

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 14 ng, MDL 3.5 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2015a)

Lake Pepin, USA

Mayfly larvae

Gizzard shad

Sauger

Walleye

2012

5

11

21

20

3.09

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 1.9 ng, MDL 1.2 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2015b)

Lake Pepin, USA

Zooplankton

Mayfly larvae

Gizzard shad

Sauger

2013

 

8

8

10

20

5.90

3.40

5.06

1.28

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 1.0 ng, MDL 0.43 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2016b)

Lake Pepin, USA

Mayfly larvae

Gizzard shad

Sauger

2014

 

8

10

20

 

1.77

2.50

0.86

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 1.0 ng, MDL 0.43 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2017d)

Lake Pepin, USA

Zooplankton

Mayfly larvae

Gizzard shad

Sauger

2015

 

8

8

10

20

 

1.14

1.98

2.61

1.01

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 2.8 ng, MDL 0.54 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2017e)

Lake Pepin, USA

Zooplankton

Mayfly larvae

Gizzard shad

Sauger

2016

 

6

7

10

24

 

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL1.6ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018b)

Lake Opeongo, Ontario, Canada (zooplankton)

2007

3

<LOD

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010c)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Mysid shrimp

Round goby-small

Round goby-moderate

Rainbow smelt

Alewife

Lake trout

2011

 

4

6

6

9

5

19

4.60

1.00

1.67

1.73

1.64

8.03

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 1.5 ng, MDL 0.67 ng/g ww

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2014a)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Mysid shrimp

Round goby-small

Round goby-moderate

Rainbow smelt

Alewife

Lake trout

2012

 

5

6

6

3

7

20

 

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

1.20

<MDL

7.89

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

D4: LOD 1.90 ng, MDL 1.19 ng/g ww

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2014b)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Mysid shrimp

Round goby-small

Round goby-moderate

Rainbow smelt

Alewife

Lake trout

2013

 

3

5

6

5

7

15

 

0.73

1.16

1.89

1.34

3.93

9.57

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

D4: LOD 1.00 ng, MDL 0.43 ng/g ww

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2016a)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Round goby-small

Round goby-moderate

Rainbow smelt

Alewife

Lake trout

2014

 

3

1

5

5

20

 

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

0.85

8.83

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

D4: LOD 1.3 ng, MDL 0.81 ng/g ww

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017a)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Lake trout

2015

 

15

 

8.20

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

D4: LOD 2.8 ng, MDL 0.54 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2017b)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Mysid shrimp

Round goby-small

Round goby-moderate

Rainbow smelt

Alewife

Lake trout

2016

 

4

6

3

5

5

16

 

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

<MDL

6.19

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

D4: LOD 2.3 ng, MDL 1.6 ng/g ww

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017c)

Lake Ontario, Canada

Mysid shrimp

Rainbow smelt

Lake trout

2019

 

5

5

20

 

<MDL

2.56

10.9

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

D4: LOD 11.9 ng, MDL 2.4 ng/g ww

Dow Corning Corporation (2021)

Oslofjord, Norway

 fish livers,

stomach contents, mussels

2004, 2006

 

9

3

 

1.9 to 121.4

1.3 to 2.3

Protocols did not specifically prohibit the use of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Schlabach (2007)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway (benthos)

 

2008

14

 

4

<MDL to 8.60

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010a)

Outer Oslofjord, Norway(benthos)

2008

12

 

6

<MDL to 0.60

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010a)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway(fish)

2008

33

35

1.34 to 39

<MDL to 40

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010b)

Outer Oslofjord, Norway(fish)

2008

24

27

<MDL to 3.79

<MDL to 4.8

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2010b)

Svalbard, Norway – fish livers, whole fish

1. Liefdefjorden

2. Kongsfjorden

3.Billefjorden

4. Moffen

2008

16

n=1, <3.4

n=15, 2.6 to 9.2

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Evensetet al.(2009)

Svalbard, Norway fish livers, 2 species:

1. Liefdefjorden,

2. Kongsfjorden

3. Adventfjorden

2009

 

 

1. 18

2. 19

3. 27

1. n=17, <MDL

n=1, 0.35

2. n=12, <MDL

n=7, 0.506 to 1.37

3. n=12, <MDL

n=15, 0.445 to 9.2

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation(2010b)

Norway, Sweden

Herring gull, Glaucous gull, Black Guillemot liver and tissue

2008

38

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation(2010b)

Norway, Sweden

Kittiwake

Black Guillemot blood

2008

33

<MDL

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation(2010b)

Oslofjord, Norway

Cod

Herring

Shrimp

2011

 

16

5

5

 

3.36

7.02

1.07

For D4: LOD 5.4 ng, MDL 0.77 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Oslofjord, Norway

Cod

Herring

Shrimp

2012

 

20

20

6

 

2.29  

11.06

1.6

For D4: LOD 4.0 ng, MDL 1.66 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Oslofjord, Norway

Cod

Herring

Shrimp

2013

 

11

21

11

 

1.35  

8.65  

1.20

For D4: MDL 1.56 ng/g ww,

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Oslofjord, Norway

Cod

Herring

Shrimp

2014

 

12

21

10

 

0.694

4.47   

0.306

For D4: MDL 0.62 ng/g ww

Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples.

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Oslofjord, Norway

Cod

Herring

Shrimp

2015

 

12

21

10

 

0.671

6.81

0.836

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.27 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Oslofjord, Norway

Cod

Herring

Shrimp

2016

 

12

22

10

 

1.18

6.68

0.959

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.59 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Plankton

Prawns

Fish

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2013

 

 

3

3

3

3

15

15

15

 

 

1.3 – 2.8

1.9 – 5.9

4.6 – 17.8

<0.65 – 0.66

3.1 - 27

<0.65

1.18 - 32

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2014)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Plankton

Prawns

Fish

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2014

 

 

3

3

3

3

15

16

14

 

 

3.8 – 5.0

<1.5 – 1.91

7.9 – 8.9

3.06 - 3.10

13.2 - 247

0.97 - 75

0.60 – 2.98

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2015)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Plankton

Prawns

Herring

Cod

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2015

 

 

3

3

3

3

3

15

15

15

 

 

2.8 – 6.2

<1.2

6.38 – 7.67

2.25 – 2.8

2.57 – 18.4

17.2 – 82.5

<2.26 – 3.13

1.35 – 6.40

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2016)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Plankton

Prawns

Herring

Cod

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2016

 

 

3

3

3

3

3

15

15

15

 

 

6.07

<LOQ

<LOQ

5.48

3.67

10.3 – 155.6

<2.0 – 3.04

<2.6 – 13.5

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2017)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Krill

Prawns

Herring

Cod

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

 

Outer Oslofjord, Norway

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2017

 

 

3

3

3

3

3

15

15

15

 

 

 

15

15

 

 

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

2.35

29.6 – 1335

<0.17 – 1.75

<0.52 – 6.83

 

 

 

<1.31

<3.90

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2018)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Krill

Prawns

Herring

Cod

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2018

 

 

3

3

3

3

3

15

15

15

 

 

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

16.2 - 130

<3.8

<1.0 – 6.45

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2019)

Inner Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussel

Krill

Prawns

Herring

Cod

Herring gull blood

Herring gull eggs

2019

 

 

3

3

3

3

3

15

15

15

 

 

6.06

<LOD

4.67

1.09

3.75

33.9 – 2709

<0.31 – 0.8

<1.09 – 3.19

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2020a)

Norway

Cod

Inner Oslofjord

Bergen

Tromso

Svalbard

 

2017

 

 

12

15

14

12

 

 

40.2

36.4

18.5

<LOD

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2021)

Norway

Cod

Inner Oslofjord

Bergen

Tromso

Outer Varangerfjord

Svalbard

 

Eider, Svalbard

Blood

Egg

2018

 

 

10

12

15

8

15

 

 

15

15

 

 

60.1

65.3

<LOD

2.4

1.0

 

 

2.0

3.1

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2021)

Norway

Cod

Inner Oslofjord

Bergen

Tromso

Svalbard

 

Eider, Svalbard

Blood

Egg

2019

 

 

15

15

15

15

 

 

14

15

 

 

56.8

106

7.03

2.17

 

 

1.44

1.34

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

NIVA (2020)

Oslo, Norway

Fox liver

2015

4

<LOD

Values are reported as ng/g dw; LOD=0.9 ; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2015).

Oslo, Norway

Earthworm

 

Fieldfare egg

 

Red fox liver

 

Sparrow hawk egg

 

Tawny owl egg

 

Brown rat liver

 

Field vole liver

 

2016

 

5

 

10

 

10

 

13

 

13

 

13

 

1 – pooled data

 

<LOD and 3.1

 

<LOD and 1.2

 

0, <LOD

 

0, 1.0-1.5

 

0, <LOD

 

0, <LOD, 4.7-7.8

 

8.6

Values are reported as ng/g dw; LOD not reported; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom. One fieldfare egg dataset was lost.

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2017)

Norway

RAT liver: Lindum landfill

Oslo city

ROAF landfill

 

COD liver: Indre Oslofjorden (I.O.)

 

Perch fillet, Lake Mjøsa

Roach fillet, Lake Mjøsa

Small fish whole, Lake Mjøsa (L.M.)

 

Blue mussel (I.O.)

Snails (I.O.)

Shrimps (I.O.)

Krill (I.O.)

Crayfish (L.M.)

 

 

2017

 

2017

2016

 

2017



2017

 

2017

 

2017

 

2017

2017

2017

2017

2017

 

1

 

9

1

 

15



5

 

5

 

3

 

2

2

2

2

1

 

 

<50

 

<50-80

75

 

<20-65

 

 

<20-64

 

<20-32

<20

 

<20

<20

<20

<20

<50

LOQ assumed to be (all as ng/g dw):

 

50

 

 

20

 

 

20

 

 

 

20 for all invertebrate samples

Values are reported as ng/g dw; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency and COWI (2018).

Oslo, Norway

Earthworm

 

Fieldfare egg

 

Tawny owl egg

 

Sparrowhawk egg

 

Fox liver

 

Badger liver

2017

 

5

 

10

 

7

 

10

 

10

 

3

 

<LOD

 

<LOD

 

0 and <LOD

 

<LOD

 

0.20-1.77

 

8.6

 

Values are reported as ng/g dw; LOD not reported; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2018).

Norway, Gadus morhua

liver all samples

Inner Oslofjord

Bergen Harbour

Tromsø harbour

Isfjorden Svalbard

2017



 

12

15

14

12

 

 

 

40.2

36.4

18.5

0

 

Values are reported as µg/Kg wet weight. No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency, Nowegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) (2018).

Norway

Common eider

European shag

Kittiwake

Glaucous gull

Polar bear

Mink

Common gull

2017

 

5

5

5

5

10

5

5

 

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

Values are reported as ng/g wet weight; LOD ???; No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom.

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2017)

Norway

Brown trout Mjøsa

Smelt Mjøsa

Vendace Mjøsa

Brown trout Femunden

Zooplankton Mjøsa

Mysis Mjøsa

2018

 

15

10

10

10

3

3

 

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

<LOD

 

 

LOD for D4 =

1.21    

2.94    

2.94

0.96

2.94

2.94                       

No specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded, however analytical work was carried out in accordance with accredited methods in a cleanroom; reported as ng/g ww

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norwegian Environment and Life Sciences University (NMBU) (2018)

Oslofjord, Norway

Polychaetes

Mussels

Krill

Prawns

Mussels

Herring

Cod liver

 

Herring gull

 

Herring gull

2019

 

3 pools

3 pools

3 pools

3 pools

3 pools

3 pools

15

 

15 egg

 

15 blood

 

Results reported as mean in ng/g wet weight (min-max); Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples. LOQ is not provided

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) & Norwegian Environment Agency (2020)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2011

 

2 individual

3 pool (13/pool)

3 pool (48/pool)

1 pool (5pool)

3 pool (55/pool)

 

24

11

 

22

 

16

 

8.9

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

 

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2012

 

13 individual

8 pool (13/pool)

4 pool (32/pool)

1 pool (5pool)

5 pool (60/pool)

 

63

 

11

16

16

27

 

12

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

 

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2013

 

8 pool (3/pool)

9 pool (13/pool)

4 pool (32/pool)

4 pool (3/pool)

5 pool (60/pool)

 

39

 

6

 

17

24

 

29

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

 

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2014

 

8 pool (3/pool)

9 pool (13/pool)

4 pool (35/pool)

4 pool (3/pool)

5 pool (60/pool)

 

24

 

27

 

12

 

12

 

15

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

 

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2015

 

8 pool (3/pool)

9 pool (13/pool)

4 pool (35/pool)

4 pool (3/pool)

5 pool (60/pool)

 

24

 

27

 

12

 

12

 

15

 

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

 

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2016

 

8 pool (3/pool)

9 pool (13/pool)

4 pool (35/pool)

4 pool (3/pool)

5 pool (60/pool)

 

72.8

 

7.68

 

25.6

 

32.6

 

11.7

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww)

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c)

Tokyo Bay, Japan

Japanese sea bass

 

White croaker

 

Japanese scaled sardine

 

Red barracuda

 

Japanese anchovy

2018

 

8 pool (3/pool)

9 pool (3/pool)

4 pool (3/pool)

4 pool (3/pool)

5 pool (3/pool)

 

8.7-24

 

<LOQ-7.3

 

<LOQ-9.5

 

15-44

 

<LOQ

Results reported as ng/g wet weight; Specific prohibition of PCP during collection, processing, or analysis of samples (MDL 1.6 ng/g ww; LOQ 4.9 ng/g ww)      

ECCC (2019)

1'Not detected' indicates that no peak discernable from baseline was observed in the analysis.


 

 

References

Abrahamsson D.P., Warner N.A., Jantunen L., Jahnke A., Wong F., MacLeod M. (2020) Investigating the presence and persistence of volatile methylsiloxanes in Arctic sediments. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 22, 908-917.

 

Ahrens L., Harner T., Shoeib M. (2014) Temporal variations of cyclic and linear volatile methylsiloxanes in the atmosphere using passive samplers and high-volume air samplers. Environmental Science and Technology 48, 9374−9381.

 

Bakke, T., Boitsov, S., Brevik, E. M., Gabrielsen, G. W., Green, N., Helgason, L. B., Klungsøyr, J., Leknes, H., Miljeteig, C., Måge, A., Rolfsnes, B. E., Savinova, T., Schlabach, M., Skaare, B. B. and Valdersnes, S. (2008). Mapping selected organic contaminants in the Barents Sea 2007. SPFO-report:1021/2008, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority.

 

Bletsou A.A., Asimakopoulos A.G., Stasinakis A.S., Thomaidis N.S., Kannan K. (2013) Mass Loading and Fate of Linear and Cyclic Siloxanes in a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Greece. Environmental Science and Technology 47, 1824-1832.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2007). Cyclic Methylsiloxane (cVMS) Materials in Surface Sediments and Cores for Lake Ontario. Final Report to Centre Europeen des Silicones (CES), Dow Corning Corporation Study No.10724-108.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2009). Trophic dilution of cyclic volatile methylsiloxane (cVMS) materials in a temperate freshwater lake. Report of the Dow Corning Corporation. Report #2009-I0000-60988. HES Study No. 10771-108.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2010a). Bioaccumulation and Trophic Transfer of Cyclic Volatile Methylsiloxane (cVMS) Materials in the Aquatic Marine Food Webs of the Inner and Outer Oslofjord, Norway. Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 11060-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: 22-01-2010.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2010b). A Collaborative Assessment of Cyclic Volatile Methylsiloxanes (D4, D5, D6) Concentrations in the Norwegian Environment. Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 11061-108, Auburn, MI, USA.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2010c). Preliminary Assessment of Cyclic Volatile Methylsiloxane (cVMS) materials in Surface Sediments, Cores, Zooplankton and Fish of Lake Opeongo, Ontario, Canada. Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 10806-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: 12-01-2010.

 

Dow Corning Corporation 2010d. Deposition of Cyclic Volatile Methylsiloxane (cVMS) Materials to Sediment in a Temperate Freshwater Lake: A Historical Perspective. Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 10725-108, Auburn, MI, USA

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2014a). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2011). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 11937-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date:09April 2014.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2014b). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2012). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 12268-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date:28 October2014.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2015a). Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Lake Pepin, MN (2011). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No. 11935-108, Auburn, MI, USA.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2015b) Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Lake Pepin, MN (2012). Dow Corning Corporation. HES Study No: 12234-108. Auburn, MI, USA.

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2016a). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2013). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No.12445-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date:26 April2016

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2016b) Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Lake Pepin, MN (2013). Dow Corning Corporation. HES Study No: 12447-108. Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: 11 April 2016

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017a). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2014). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No.12581-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: 31 January 2017

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017b). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2015). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No.17263-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: 19 June 2017

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017c). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2016). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No.17520-108, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: October 10, 2017

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017d) Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Lake Pepin, MN (2014). Dow Corning Corporation. HES Study No: 12574-108. Auburn, MI, USA. Date report: January 2017

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2017e) Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Lake Pepin, MN (2015). Dow Corning Corporation. HES Study No: 17269-108. Auburn, MI, USA. Date report: 17 April 2017

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2018a). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in the Inner Oslofjord. Trend Analyses for Sample Collection Years 2011-2016 Performing Laboratory: Toxicology and Environmental Research and Consulting, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 48674. STUDY ID: NS000317. Report date: 12 June 2018

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2018b) Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Lake Pepin, MN (2016). Dow Corning Corporation. HES Study No:17514-108. Auburn, MI, USA. Date report: June 8th 2018

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2018c) Long-Term Research Monitoring of Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) in Tokyo Bay. Trend Analyses for Sample Collection Years 2011-2016. Performing Laboratory: Toxicology and Environmental Research and Consulting, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 48674. STUDY ID: NS000314. Auburn, MI, USA. Date report: 5/18/2018

 

Dow Corning Corporation (2021). Long-Term Research Monitoring ofOctamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)in Lake Ontario (2019). Dow Corning Corporation, HES Study No.190045, Auburn, MI, USA. Report date: 03 June 2021

 

van Egmond, R., Sparham, C., Hastie, C., Gore, D., Chowdhury, N. (2013) Monitoring and modelling of siloxanes in a sewage treatment plant in the UK. Chemosphere 93, 757– 765.

 

Environmental Control Centre Co. Ltd. (2017a). Survey of cVMS in Indoor and Outdoor Air and in Influent and Effluent from a Sewage Treatment Plant. Testing laboratory: Environmental Control Center Co., Ltd, Project Planning and Technical Services Department, 3-7-23 Sanda-machi, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo, Japan. Study No. H08612901DB Report date: 2017.

 

Environmental Control Centre Co. Ltd. (2017b). Monitoring survey for cyclic volatile methylsiloxane materials in the Tama River system. Testing laboratory: Environmental Control Center Co., Ltd, Project Planning and Technical Services Department, 3-7-23 Sanda-machi, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo, Japan. Study No. P001513102A Report date: 2017.

 

ECCC (2019). Monitoring survey for cyclic volatile methylsiloxane (cVMS) materials in sediment and aquatic biota of the Inner Tokyo Bay (2018) Environmental Control Center Co., Ltd. Project Planning Division 3-7-23 Sanda-machi, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo, Japan, 193-0832. Report number H002727701A. Report date: September, 2019.

 

ERM (2020) Transitional Report. cVMS (D4, D5 & D6) Restriction Monitoring in EU Program. Project No.: 0383878. Date report October 23, 2020.

 

Evenset A, Leknes H, Christensen GN, Warner N, Remberger M and Gabrielsen GW (2009). Screening of new contaminants in samples from the Norwegian Arctic. Report 1049/2009, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority.

 

Gallego E, Perales JF, Roca FJ, Guardino X, Gadea E (2017) Volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS) concentrations in outdoor air of several Catalan urban areas. Atmos Environ 155, 108–118.

 

Genualdi S., Harner T. Cheng Y., MacLeod M., Hansen K.M., van Egmond R., Shoeib M. Lee S.C. (2011) Global Distribution of Linear and Cyclic Volatile Methyl Siloxanes in Air. Environmetnal Science and Technology 45, 3349-3354.

 

Horii Y., Ohtsuka N., Minomo K., Takemine S., Motegi M., Hara M. (2021) Distribution characteristics of methylsiloxanes in atmospheric environment of Saitama, Japan: Diurnal and seasonal variations and emission source apportionment. Science of the Total Environment 754, 142399.

 

Kaj, L. et al., 2004. Results from the Swedish National Screening Programme 2004. Subreport 4: Siloxanes. Swedish Environmental Research Institute. (http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/02_tillstandet_i_miljon/Miljoovervakning/rapporter/miljogift/B1643.pdf

 

Kierkegaard A., McLachlan M.S. (2013) Determination of linear and cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes in air at a regional background site in Sweden. Atmospheric Environment 80, 322-329.

 

Krogseth, I.S., Kierkegaard, A., McLachlan, M.S., Breivik,K., Hansen, K.M., Schlabach, M. (2013) Occurrence and Seasonality of Cyclic Volatile Methyl Siloxanes in Arctic Air. Environmental Science and Technology 47, 502-509.

 

Li B, Li WL, Sun SJ, Qi H, Ma WL, Liu LY, Zhang ZF, Zhu NZ, Li YF (2016) The occurrence and fate of siloxanes in wastewater treatment plant in Harbin, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23, 13200–13209.

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2015). Environmental pollutants in the terrestrial and urban environment. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-354. Report date: 2015

 

Norwegian Environment Agency and COWI (2017). Screening programme 2017 Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-1063. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2016). Environmental pollutants in the terrestrial and urban environment. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-752. Report date: 2017

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2017). Environmental pollutants in the terrestrial and urban environment. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-1076. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Nowegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) (2017). Contaminants in coastal waters of Norway 2017. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. Not reported. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2016). Monitoring of environmental contaminants in air and precipitation. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-757. Report date: 2017

 

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2017). Screening Programme 2017. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-1080. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Environment Agency and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (2017). Screening Programme 2017. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-1080. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2016). Environmental pollutants in the terrestrial and urban environment. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-752. Report date: 2017

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2017). Environmental pollutants in the terrestrial and urban environment. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-1076. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Environment Agency, Nowegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norwegian Environment and Life Sciences University (NMBU) (2018). Monitoring of environmental contaminants in freshwater ecosystems. Testing laboratory: Not reported. Study No. M-1106. Report date: 2018

 

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) & Norwegian Environment Agency (2020) Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2019. NIVA-report ISSN 1894-7948. Report date: 23.11.2020

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord. Study No. M-205-2014. Report date: 2014.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2014. Study No. M-375. Report date: 2015.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2015. Study No. M-601. Report date: 2016.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2016. Study No. M-812. Report date: 2017.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2017. Study No. M-1131. Report date: 2018.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2018. Study No. M-1441. Report date: 2019.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Environmental Contaminants in an Urban Fjord, 2019. Study No. M-1766. Report date: 2020.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Contaminants in coastal waters of Norway 2017. Study No. M-1936. Report date: 2021.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Contaminants in coastal waters of Norway 2018. Study No. M-1937. Report date: 2021.

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Contaminants in coastal waters of Norway 2019. Study No. M-1894. Report date: 2020.

Rauert C., Shoieb M., Schuster J.K., Eng A., Harner T. (2018) Atmospheric concentrations and trends of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS) over 7 years of sampling in the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) network. Environmental Pollution 238, 94-102.

 

Schlabach M, Andersen MS, Green N, Schøyen M and Kaj L (2007). Siloxanes in the environment of the Inner Oslofjord. Report 986/2007, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo.

 

Shoeib M., Schuster J., Rauert C., Su K., Smyth S.-A., Harner T. (2016) Emission of poly and perfluoroalkyl substances, UV-filters and siloxanes to air from wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Pollution 218, 595-604.

 

TemaNord (2005). Siloxanes in the Nordic Environment. TemaNord 2005:593 Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.