Management practice for small hive beetle as a source of microplastic contamination in honey and honeybee colonies.

Honeybees Invasive species Microfibers Microplastic pollution Plastic pollution

Journal

Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)
ISSN: 1873-6424
Titre abrégé: Environ Pollut
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8804476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 21 05 2023
revised: 30 06 2023
accepted: 04 07 2023
medline: 11 9 2023
pubmed: 13 7 2023
entrez: 12 7 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Microplastics (MP) have emerged as a widespread environmental contaminant affecting bee health. In this study we report on the impact of one of the cultural practices used to control the small hive beetle (SBH, Aethina tumida). Management of the beetle often includes the use of in-hive traps of different kinds, such as non-woven microfiber wipes. When placed inside the hive, bees chew on these wipes, which then become fuzzy and fray to the point where beetles become entangled in their fibers. The current study aimed to examine the composition of these microfiber sheets and to evaluate whether their use resulted in unintended MP contamination of bees and honey. We treated hives with one blue microfiber sheet placed on top of the frames for at least three months. After that time, we collected adult bees and honey samples from treated hives, control hives in the same apiary (control near), and control hives in an apiary 7.5 km away (control far). Honey from treated hives had a significantly greater number of blue MF than honey from the control hives (mean ± SD, treatment 11.83 ± 3.76, control near 2.25 ± 0.92 and control far 0.25 ± 0.5 MF/20 gr honey). Also, hives treated with the microfiber sheets had a significantly greater number of blue microfibers in the gut and cuticle of bees, than the control hives located in a different apiary. However, the control and treated bees located in the same apiary had a similar number of blue microfibers (mean ± SD, treatment 4.7 ± 2.28, control near 3 ± 1.63 and control far 0.5 ± 0.58 MF in 20 bees). Thus, the current study raises concerns of the use of microfibers sheets to trap the SBH as it results in the incorporation of microfibers into the ecosystem and the food chain.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37437762
pii: S0269-7491(23)01153-3
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122151
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Plastics 0
Microplastics 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

122151

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Micaela Buteler (M)

Instituto de Investigaciones en Medio Ambiente y Biodiversidad (INIBIOMA)-CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Bariloche, Argentina. Electronic address: butelermica@gmail.com.

Ethel Villalobos (E)

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA.

Andrea Marina Alma (AM)

Instituto de Investigaciones en Medio Ambiente y Biodiversidad (INIBIOMA)-CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Bariloche, Argentina.

Leonel Silva (L)

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencia y Tecnología de Materiales CONICET, Mar del Plata, Argentina.

Juan Pablo Tomba (JP)

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencia y Tecnología de Materiales CONICET, Mar del Plata, Argentina.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH