Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane

Endpoint summary

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)

D4^1 (ug/L, mg/kg dw, ng/m^3)

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/m^3. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOQ = 0.009 ng/m^3

Li et al. (2016)

Ontario, Canada Urban Background Rural

2013

Air

3 3 2

141 - 393 43 - 55 31 -56

Concentration in ng/m^3. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOD = 0.72 ng/m^3

Shoeib et al. (2016)

Ontario, Canada Urban Background Rural

2014

Air

3 3 2

290 - 373 223 - 348 104 - 387

Concentration in ng/m^3. Specific prohibition on use of personal care products by all field and laboratory personnel is recorded. LOD = 0.72 ng/m^3

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)		D4^1 (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)		D4^1 (ng/m^3)		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/m^3; 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/m^3; 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/m^3; 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/m^3		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/m^3		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/m^3		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/m^3		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)		D4^1 (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)		D4^1 (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.