ArticlePDF Available

The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans

  • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)

Abstract and Figures

Purpose This white paper reviews the literature and synthesizes the various topics that will be discussed at the workshop to be held September 9-10, 2008. Topics include (1) the occurrence of microplastics in the environment; (2) the documented effects of microplastics on marine fauna; (3) the potential interactions between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and microplastics; and (4) the global fate of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The workshop is a joint venture between the University of Washington Tacoma and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program. The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) leads efforts within the United States to address marine debris, especially as it affects living marine resources. This document is the initial draft of the synthesis paper resulting from the workshop.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 1 of 16
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans
Courtney Arthur1, Holly Bamford1 and Joel Baker2
1National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Debris Program, Silver Spring, Maryland USA
2The Center for Urban Waters, University of Washington Tacoma
This white paper reviews the literature and synthesizes the various topics that will be discussed at the
workshop to be held September 9-10, 2008. Topics include (1) the occurrence of microplastics in the
environment; (2) the documented effects of microplastics on marine fauna; (3) the potential interactions
between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and microplastics; and (4) the global fate of persistent
organic pollutants (POPs). The workshop is a joint venture between the University of Washington Tacoma
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program. The NOAA
Marine Debris Program (MDP) leads efforts within the United States to address marine debris, especially
as it affects living marine resources. This document is the initial draft of the synthesis paper resulting from
the workshop.
Definition: Marine Debris. Any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and
directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine
environment or the Great Lakes.
Definition: Microplastic (or ‘microdebris’ or ‘small plastics’). Marine debris composed primarily of
plastic materials smaller than 10 cm in the longest dimension.
Carpenter et al. (1972) first described small bits of plastic floating in the surface waters of the Northwest
Atlantic more than 35 years ago. These microplastics are also routinely found in seabirds and, less
frequently, in marine turtles and mammals. Despite increasing interest in ‘macro’ marine debris,
especially plastics concentrated within convergence zones and gyres, there is no systematic monitoring
or evaluation of marine microplastics. In the past year, the increased attention to small plastic debris in
the marine environment has highlighted the limited information and research on the amount, location, and
environmental impacts of marine microplastics. The purpose of this review is to summarize what is
known about the occurrence and distribution of microplastics in the oceans, the effects of these plastics
on marine organisms, and the role these plastics may play in the global cycling and marine exposure of
persistent organic pollutants. Specific goals are:
1. To summarize our current understanding of the spatial and temporal distribution of
microplastics in the world’s oceans.
2. To review what is known about the effects of microplastics on marine organisms
3. To evaluate the predictive capabilities to model microplastic fate and transport in the
4. To explore linkages between marine microplastics and the cycling and exposure of
persistent organic pollutants.
5. To identify gaps in understanding and to describe potential research and monitoring
I. Occurrence of small plastic debris in the marine environment
Small plastic debris has been found in surface seawater and along coastlines, with an increasing number
of reported observations in many of the world’s oceans. While there has been some speculation about
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 2 of 16
potential impact of marine microplastics, the details of this issue have not been systematically studied and
are not well-documented in peer-reviewed literature. Small particles of plastic may be ingested by filter-
feeders while in the water column and by benthic organisms after settling. Microplastics also accumulate
in marine surface layers, where they may be ingested by birds and other consumers who rely on these
food-rich environments. This leads to a concern that small plastics, and their associated chemical
contaminants, may become incorporated into the marine food webs. The consequences of this are
largely unknown.
Sources of small plastic debris to the oceans are difficult to determine, but fall into three categories: (1)
larger pieces of plastic debris undergo a slow weathering process in the ocean, and may break apart into
increasingly smaller bits; (2) inadvertent or accidental release of small, unweathered industrial plastic bits
called nurdles during production, shipping, and storage; and (3) discharge of wastewater that contains
microplastics purposefully added to consumer products. Nurdles have been documented in the oceans
since the 1970s (Carpenter et al. 1972, Colton et al. 1974), and may be a source of leachable
components into seawater. Smaller polyethylene, polypropylene or polystyrene particles on the order of
0.5 mm are increasingly being used by the cosmetics industry as exfoliants in soaps and scrubs as well
as for microabrasion cleaning of mechanical parts (Gregory 1996). Microplastics in consumer products
are designed to be used once and then enter domestic wastewater, and it is unclear whether wastewater
treatment plants are able to collect these particles before they enter rivers and oceans (Gregory 1996).
The absolute and relative importance of these three sources (breakdown of larger plastic items, industrial
plastic bits, and plastic additives to cosmetics) of microplastics are unknown, but likely vary spatially
throughout the world’s oceans and temporally as manufacturing, marine transportation, and consumer
products change.
Small plastics have been found across the world in the open ocean, on beaches, and in sediments.
However, most surveys of marine debris in the open ocean focus on large plastics and on derelict fishing
gear. Recently there has been an increased interest in plastic bags as debris, and surveys of marine
debris are more and more often including plastic bags as a debris category. While plastic bags (and
pieces of plastic bags) are a type of marine debris, they are not considered microplastics in this paper as
dimensions of bags are generally not given.
The scarcity of microplastics data is due to the difficulty of quantifying microplastics in the world’s oceans
(Table 1). Large sampling efforts and tedious sorting and enumeration methods are required. Carpenter
et al. (1972) made perhaps the first such effort by conducting plankton tows in the waters of southern
New England. Clear and opaque spheres, measuring 0.5 mm in diameter, were observed with a
maximum concentration of 14 spheres per cubic meter and a mean concentration of one sphere per cubic
meter. Based on the description in Carpenter et al. (1972), these spheres were most likely industrial
plastic pellets (nurdles). Importantly, these spheres were found in white perch, winter flounder,
silversides, and one chaetognath sampled from those same waters.
Colton et al. (1974) performed a major sampling effort in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean, from Cape
Cod to the Caribbean, during a summer 1972 MArine Resources Monitoring Assessment and Prediction
(MARMAP) cruise. During this cruise, they conducted plankton tows that retained opaque and clear
polystyrene spheres, opaque polyethylene cylinders, Styrofoam, sheets of flexible plastic, and fragments.
There were geographical differences in plastic abundance along transects, with fewer particles present
around the Caribbean than near Cape Cod, which the authors attributed to greater plastic use and
production in the United States.
Day and Shaw (1987) provided an in-depth survey of the North Pacific Ocean for small debris, and found
the highest density in the subtropical North Pacific (96,100 objects km-2) when compared with the
subarctic North Pacific (mean density 3370 objects km-2 ) and Bering Sea (mean density 80 objects km-2)
during towed neuston samples collected in 1985. More recently, Moore et al. (2001) sampled in the
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 3 of 16
subtropical North Pacific during August 1999 and found a mean density of 334,271 plastic pieces km-2
with a mean mass of 5114 g plastic km-2. Moore et al. (2001) encountered thin plastic films,
polypropylene and monofilament line, and unidentified plastic fragments most often. This is an increase
of approximately 350% in plastic density for that area of the Pacific in a little over one decade (Day and
Shaw 1987, Moore et al. 2001).
Thompson et al. (2004) investigated historic continuous plankton recorder samples routinely collected
since the 1960s from Aberdeen, Scotland to the Shetlands, and from Skule Skerry, Scotland to Iceland.
Thompson et al. (2004) found a significant increase in small plastics along these transects from the 1960s
to 1990s (Figure 1).
P"<'0.05).”''Reproduced'from'Thompson'e t"al.'2004.
One of the first beach surveys that examined accumulation and distribution of industrial pellets was
published by Gregory (1978) for New Zealand beaches. Most pellets were virgin polyolefins, and were
clustered near cities but they were also found in remote areas (Gregory 1978). Beach surveys have
become more prevalent in the last forty years, with efforts to quantify beach debris spanning the globe.
However, most beach surveys are not structured to methodically sample sediments for microplastics,
instead focusing on larger debris items. Quantitative information on microplastics is generally not
collected or published. There are several possible explanations for this. Often the smaller debris particles
are not a priority for clean ups, the surveyors must be apprised of the potential for microplastics to occur
in sand and sediments, and collecting sediment samples to analyze for plastics can be labor- and time-
Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar (2004) found more than 50% of the litter they surveyed from 1994-1995 on the
shores of Jordan was small plastic pieces or bags, mostly from local sources. Recently, Ng and Obbard
(2006) detailed the presence and abundance of microplastics (defined as >1.6 µm) in Singapore. They
found microplastics in four of seven beaches surveyed in the top centimeter of sediment and in the sea
surface microlayer, likely due to poor waste disposal practices and ship discharges. A similar study of
microplastics in sediment from the Alang-Sosiya shipyard in India identified polyurethane, nylon,
polystyrene, polyester and glass wool fragments with Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy
(Reddy et al. 2006). These polymers are all used in ship construction, and thus it is not surprising to find
these types of fragments in one of the largest ship-breaking zones in the world. In a field investigation to
complement data from historic open ocean samples, Thompson et al. (2004) showed significantly higher
amounts of synthetic polymers in subtidal sediment than on sandy beaches around Plymouth, UK (Figure
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 4 of 16
Monitoring of plastics in seabirds
Ingestion of plastic by seabirds has been monitored over the past forty years, providing evidence of not
only the occurrence of plastics over large foraging areas but also the ability of small plastics to effect the
biological environment (Kenyon and Kridler 1969, Baltz and Morejohn 1976, Fry et al. 1987, Pettit et al.
1981, Ryan 1988, Auman et al. 1997, van Franeker et al. 2004, 2005). Documentation of microplastics in
some of the most remote regions of the marine environment stem from surveys of seabird regurgitations
or stomach contents. Baltz and Morejohn (1976) confirm that six species of seabird ingest polyethylene
cylinders off central California: short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris), sooty shearwater (Puffinus
griseus), pink-footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus), northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), black-legged
kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) and Heermann’s gull (Larus heermanni). Plankton tows in Monterey Bay did
not collect these pellets, which perhaps points to a land source of the polyethylene cylinders (Baltz and
Morejohn 1976).
Quite a bit of research has investigated ingestion of plastic debris by the Laysan albatross, Phoebastria
immutabilis. Kenyon and Kridler (1969) provided one of the very first published reports of plastic
ingestion in Laysan albatross. Seventy-four of one hundred dead fledglings had swallowed plastic,
mostly as caps and miscellaneous fragments, and it was assumed these were picked up from the local
beaches of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. In 1981, Pettit et al. suggested adult albatross
may offload plastic via regurgitations to chicks; however, chicks are not able to regurgitate the plastic until
just prior to fledging. Reports agree that the most likely venue for plastic ingestion in adult albatross is
offshore feeding, namely inadvertent consumption of floating plastic while surface-skimming for fish egg
casings (Pettit et al. 1981, Fry et al. 1987, Kinan and Cousins 2000). Forty-five of fifty albatross chicks
sampled in the Hawaiian Islands during the mid-1980s had ingested plastic. Twelve of twenty wedge-
tailed shearwaters had ingested plastics, most of which were industrial pellets (Fry et al. 1987). Though
obstruction of the digestive tract was not common, Fry et al. (1987) believe chicks are at greater risk
because they can pick up plastics from parental regurgitations and from their own inexperienced foraging
This greater threat to chicks is augmented by an increasing trend for plastic ingestion in the Laysan
albatross, with only 6 of 251 albatross chicks sampled on Midway Atoll devoid of plastics in their gut
according to a survey from the mid-1990s (Auman et al. 1997). High incidence of plastic ingestion is also
documented by Kinan and Cousins (2000), who noted all of the 43 black-footed and Laysan albatross
examined on Kure Atoll had ingested plastics. Plastic pellets were observed in Laysan albatross
samples; coupled with the high incidence of cigarette lighters and glowsticks on this beach but lack
thereof in stomach content samples (Kinan and Cousins 2000), these data point to offshore sources of
plastics that albatross carry as a burden until regurgitation or death.
Auman et al. (2004) cataloged the first incidence of plastic ingestion by seabirds at sub-Antarctic Heard
Island. Two Antarctic prions, Pachyptila desolata, contained plastics in their digestive tracts. Plastic was
not thought to be the cause of mortality. Out of 396 sub-Antarctic skua (Catharacta antarctica)
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 5 of 16
regurgitated pellets, 2 contained small plastics that were on the order of less than one centimeter.
However, this area is far from any anthropogenic inputs and the plastic debris must have been
transported over long distances.
Plastics were sampled in 15 of 24 species of seabird from 1988-1990 in the sub-Arctic North Pacific,
another location far from anthropogenic inputs of plastic debris (Robards et al. 1995). Surface feeders
and planktivorous divers ingested more plastic debris than birds that use other foraging methods, and
approximately 76% of ingested plastic was composed of industrial pellets (Robards et al. 1995). Data
were compared with a similar study in the same area conducted from 1969-1977, and the comparison
(increasing number of species that ingested plastics, increasing frequency of occurrence, and increasing
mean number of plastics per individual) demonstrates an increasing presence of plastics in seabirds from
the sub-Arctic North Pacific (Robards et al. 1995).
This historic use of seabirds to document occurrence of plastic debris in marine ecosystems has been
lately augmented with a new strategy of using seabirds as indicators of plastic pollution in the North Sea
and North Pacific Ocean (Nevins et al. 2005; van Franeker et al. 2004, 2005). Van Franeker et al. (2004,
2005) tracked plastic pollution in the North Sea via northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) stomach contents
from 1982 to 2003 as part of a Save the North Sea initiative. This study has effectively shown a
decreasing occurrence of industrial plastics and increasing occurrence of user plastics in northern fulmars
across the North Sea during the twenty year study period; overall abundance of plastics has not changed.
Northern fulmars show a gradient of pollution, with the most plastics present in the southeast and fewest
in the northwest North Sea; this points to a smaller fulmar range than was expected, and also points to
the importance of local sources of debris in determining fulmar plastic levels (van Franeker et al. 2004,
Nevins et al. (2005) investigated the use of pelagic seabirds as indicators of plastic pollution in the North
Pacific Ocean, but warn that seabirds’ utility as indicators will depend on species ecology and life history
characteristics, such as foraging method, lifespan, habitat use, body size and ability to regurgitate. These
authors conclude that when used correctly, seabirds give valuable information about the extent of small
plastic debris distribution across the North Pacific because they routinely traverse large spatial scales
(Nevins et al. 2005).
Modeling the Sources, Transport and Spatial Distribution of Marine Microplastics
The above studies highlight both local and global sources of microplastic pollution. The findings
demonstrate spatial gradients, with generally higher microplastic concentrations closer to populated
areas. However, marine microplastic debris also occurs in extremely remote areas far away from
possible point-sources. These plastics likely travel long distances via surface ocean currents to arrive on
islands with no human settlement, implying that microplastics are quite persistent in marine surface
waters. Convey et al. (2002) noted that synthetic plastic and polystyrene debris accounted for greater
than 70% of the debris littering the shores of Scotia Arc, Antarctica from 1990 to 2002. This area
encompasses several beaches in the Southern Ocean, including South Georgia, the South Sandwich
archipelago and Adelaide Island, all of which are far from any anthropogenic inputs.
Deterministic models could predict the spatial and temporal distribution of microplastics in the oceans if
we adequately understood the (1) the magnitude and locations of their sources, (2) their persistence and
behavior in seawater, and (3) the general surface water circulation patterns in the world’s oceans. In fact,
observations of marine debris have been used to calibrate and verify ocean surface circulation models.
To date, there is no systematic inventory of microplastic releases into the marine environment, which
greatly limits the ability to model global distributions. Microplastic debris washes from the land to the sea
directly, and is released into the marine environment as ship-generated discharge (Pruter 1987). It is
nearly impossible to predict debris inputs to the oceans from ships. According to regulations in Annex V
of MARPOL 1973/78 from the International Maritime Organization, discharge of any plastics is strictly
prohibited under all circumstances. These regulations are difficult to enforce and it is certain that some
microplastics enter the marine environment in this manner. Thus sources of microplastics are difficult to
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 6 of 16
ascertain, and the growing trend is to rely on models to predict where debris will accumulate in lieu of
surveying marine plastic debris.
Ocean current models are generally employed to explain distribution of debris to remote areas. For
example, Kubota (1994) studied a series of climatological data to evaluate the relative contribution of
north of Hawaii. In addition, they examined the movement of floating buoys in the North Pacific to test the
apparent convergence of debris in a zone near the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Another study using
debris to study ocean currents employed an Ocean Surface Current Simulator (OSCURS) model
(Ingraham and Ebbesmeyer 2001). The authors placed floaters in the North Pacific and tracked
movement from 1965 to 1977, and developed numerical models from these data. Models developed from
these data predict approximately 86% of debris released into the North Pacific Ocean would accumulate
in the mid-latitudes within six years of release (Ingraham and Ebbesmeyer 2001). Recently, a Debris
Estimated Likelihood Index (DELI) was developed using aerial flyover surveys in the North Pacific that
documented debris accumulations just north of the North Pacific Transition Zone Chlorophyll Front
(TZCF) (Pichel et al. 2007). DELI maps were created based on significant correlations among presence
of debris, sea surface temperature, chlorophyll a content, and chlorophyll a gradient in the assumption
that these maps will be useful for tracking conditions in which marine debris is likely to aggregate (Pichel
et al. 2007).
Weathering of plastic in seawater will affect its properties (density, size) and, therefore, its persistence
and transport distance. In general, marine plastic debris degrades very slowly (Pruter 1987). Weathering
of plastics creates smaller pieces of microplastic, but the essential polymer remains intact. Weathering
rates, including photodegradation, are lower in seawater than on land (Andrady et al. 1998). Degradation
rates depend on the amount of processing and the addition of pigments, extenders, photo-stabilizers and
thermal-stabilizers; the purity of the resin is directly related to its decomposition time (Andrady et al.
1998). The effects of partially-degraded plastic polymers on marine ecosystems are largely unknown. If
microplastic particles are more dense than seawater (or become incorporated in dense aggregates), they
will settle through the water column and be sequestered in marine sediments. Plastic incorporation into
sediments could be detrimental if these plastic particles enter the benthic food web.
II. Impact of small plastic debris on the natural environment
Microplastics may impact the marine environment in several ways: (1) direct impacts on marine
organisms by ingestion of microplastic particles, such as irritation of the gastrointestional tract or blockage
of feeding structures (2) indirect impacts through disruption of feeding behavior and nutrition, and (3)
altered exposure to chemical contaminants associated with microplastics. Several studies have
examined the direct interactions between small plastics and marine organisms, typically species that are
threatened or endangered. Most of this research has focused on ingestion of small plastics by pelagic
seabirds and the effects of mistaking plastic for prey items. This section highlights pertinent studies,
mainly from the wealth of literature on seabird–small plastic interactions, which have investigated the
direct effects of small plastic ingestion on biota. Entanglement is mentioned here for completeness only,
as no research has yet focused on the potential for small plastics to entangle marine organisms.
One paper that focuses on the interactions between microorganisms and microplastics compares plastic
and zooplankton in the Pacific Ocean, close to the California coast in an area of high productivity and
expansive human development (Moore et al. 2002). This study showed an increase in abundance of
plastic debris after a runoff event compared to plastic levels during a dry spell; plastics were collected
along with plankton samples. Moore et al. (2002) collected a higher plastic density but lower mass than
was found in a high pressure convergence zone in the North Pacific subtropical gyre, though many
factors could have affected this comparison (Moore et al. 2001).
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 7 of 16
It is important to note the rarity of studies focusing on the impact of plastic debris on invertebrate
organisms. Two studies are available on this topic. One shows that microplastics in dosed aquaria
sediment were ingested by amphipods, lugworms and barnacles despite their differences in feeding
method (detritivore, deposit feeder and filter feeder, respectively; Thompson et al. 2004). The second
shows that microplastics were taken up by the mussel Mydilus edulis in aquaria dosed with microplastics;
these plastics persisted in the circulatory system for more than 48 d and greater numbers of smaller
plastics were found embedded in circulatory tissue (Browne et al. 2008). Thus interactions between
microplastics and small invertebrate sediment fauna have been demonstrated, and this type of interaction
is likely happening in sediments contaminated with microplastics. Thompson et al. (2005) suggest more
research focusing on toxicity of microplastic ingestion and bioaccumulation in food chains, in order to
better understand the effects of interactions on the level of the organism before extrapolating to
ecosystem-level effects of microplastics.
Vertebrates - Seabirds
A wealth of information on plastic ingestion in seabirds exists in scientific literature. Most is useful to
document occurrence of plastics that have been incorporated from the marine environment into marine
food webs (see “Occurrences” section above). Few studies have determined the effects of ingestion on
elements of seabird health, such as survival and reproductive potential.
Some studies have integrated temporal trends in seabird plastic ingestion as an assessment of continued
impact to populations. Ryan (1988) published results on intraspecific variation in plastic ingestion among
seabirds in the Southern Ocean, focusing on long-term variation, which showed an increase in plastic
ingestion over time; geographic variation, which presented more incidences of plastic ingestion in the
northern part of the Southern Ocean than in the southern; sex-related variation, which showed no
differences between male and female plastic ingestion; and age-related variation, which is likely due to
gradual accumulation in time for Procellarid birds that are unable to regurgitate indigestible items as a
bolus. Age-related variation in which chicks have larger plastic loads than parents is explained by the
hypothesis of an intergenerational transfer in species that can regurgitate to chicks. Ryan (1988)
concludes that plastic ingestion is a phenomenon that has the most dramatic effect on young of the
Spear et al. (1995) completed a comprehensive review of plastic ingestion in 36 species of seabirds of
the tropical Pacific Ocean from 1984 to 1991. Two main findings emerged from this study: (1) birds that
weigh more (given life history characteristics) were more likely to have plastic in their gut; (2) plastic-
containing individuals had a negative correlation between number of plastic particles and body weight
(Spear et al. 1995).
At Midway Atoll, Auman et al. (1997) found an increasing number of Laysan albatross chicks were
ingesting plastic. This study compared anthropogenic mortality chicks (e.g., chicks that died as a result of
car-induced injuries) and natural mortality chicks (e.g., found dead without probable cause of death).
Natural mortality chicks had more plastic in their proventriculus and gizzard than did chicks killed by cars
and also had lower mass and fat indices, which serve as indicators of health (Auman et al. 1997).
Van Franeker et al. (2004, 2005) noted an increasing trend of plastic ingestion in the North Sea, using
northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) as an ecological indicator of plastic pollution in the Netherlands.
One major difference between this study and many of the studies mentioned above is that the North Sea
is a heavily polluted area near dense European populations. Another difference is that this effort is
international in scope to better understand and integrate temporal and spatial trends in northern fulmar
debris ingestion (Van Franeker et al. 2005). Results from a study spanning 1982 to 2003 show a trend of
shifting ingested plastic particles in F. glacialis, with increasing consumer (also termed “user”) plastics
and a smaller contribution (but not number) of industrial pellets to debris composition in northern fulmar
digestive tracts (Van Franeker et al. 2005).
Another study that addresses the topic of temporal changes in ingestion and does not find an increase in
frequency of ingestion is Vlietstra and Parga (2002). There has been a change in the type of plastic
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 8 of 16
particles found in short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) in the Southeast Bering Sea, but not in
the frequency of occurrence or amount per individual. Type of plastic has shifted from industrial plastic
pellets to consumer plastics when comparing birds from the 1970s to 2001.
It is interesting to note that Moser and Lee (1992) found industrial pellets in 92% of northern fulmars (F.
glacialis) and 91% of greater shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) located off the Atlantic coast of North
Carolina, USA, during a fourteen-year study spanning 1975 to 1989. Very recently, Mallory et al. (2006)
observed plastic debris in Northern fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada. Out of a total sample
size of 42 fulmars, no industrial pellets were observed; consumer plastics were found in 15 samples, most
of which were less than one centimeter along the longest dimension (Mallory et al. 2006). These
temporal trends in fewer industrial pellets suggest that management controls may have been put in place
to reduce the accidental loss of pellets to the environment. Although this is a promising sign, Pierce et al.
(2004) argue that plastic ingestion is very likely underestimated as a direct cause of mortality, as dead
seabirds sink or are scavenged. Even if a necropsy is performed, it can be difficult to prove the cause of
death (Pierce et al. 2004) or directly connect plastic ingestion with mortality.
Vertebrates – Sea turtles
Quite a few studies have documented plastic ingestion in sea turtles, though as with seabirds it is very
difficult to bridge the gap between presence of foreign debris and cause of mortality. Carr (1987) wrote
that juvenile sea turtles are often drawn to convergence zones, as these zones tend to collect prey
organisms. Unfortunately, convergence zones also collect anthropogenic debris. Small plastic pieces
could be confused with the tiny floats present on Sargassum, and Carr (1987) observes that early life
stages are at higher risk than adults. After surveying loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) off the east
coast of Florida, Carr (1987) observed “ubiquitous plastic beads that are delivered to the sea by the
millions in industrial waste water” that floated in the same habitat as juvenile loggerhead sea turtles.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of plastic ingestion in sea turtles is the paper George Balazs
(1985) presented at the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984 in
Honolulu, Hawaii. Balazs compiled 79 reports of debris ingestion and suggested that obstruction of the
digestive pathway and chemical release by plastics were the two major threats of marine debris to these
threatened and endangered reptiles. Plastic particles were seen in green (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead
(C. caretta) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles and not in leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)
or olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles. Plastic and Styrofoam particles comprised 18.9% of
ingested debris from the compiled records of ingestion.
Balazs (1985) also infers some possible impacts of eating plastic, including blocked intestines, loss of
nutrition, reduced nutrient absorption in the gut, possible absorption of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
from plastics, engulfment of microscopic particles in the intestines, and effects on buoyancy if too much
low-density plastic is ingested. The following explanations for the palatability of plastics are explored:
small plastic debris could be encrusted with other wildlife; prey could have ingested the plastic, thus
causing bioaccumulation through the food chain; or possibly habitat could lack nutritious food sources
(Balazs 1985).
More recently, Tomas et al. (2002) documented plastic debris ingested by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles
illegally caught for consumption in the western Mediterranean. Plastics accounted for the highest
percentage of anthropogenic debris recovered from the digestive tracts of 41 of 54 turtles surveyed.
Mascarenhas et al. (2004) documented plastic ingestion in two sea turtles in Brazil, one female C. mydas
that defecated 10 small pieces of hard plastic and plastic bags, and one adult male L. olivacea with 9
small pieces of hard plastic. Tomas et al. (2002) are in agreement with Bjorndal et al. (1994) that sea
turtles are resistant to mortality from ingesting small foreign debris, though with the increasing number of
turtles containing plastics, small plastics can be a major concern if they occlude the digestive tract.
Barreiros and Barcelos (2001) observed several pieces of soft plastic and a hard plastic cap in one
leatherback sea turtle (D. coriacea) intestine. This particular turtle was by-caught in a long-line fishery
near the Azores; the plastic did not cause the turtle apparent harm. Bugoni et al. (2001) identified marine
debris and human impacts to green sea turtles in Brazil. Plastics were the most frequently encountered
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 9 of 16
form of debris in the digestive tract, though hard plastics were present in only four turtles and plastic bags
and ropes were the most prevalent forms of plastic debris, at 50% and 39.5%, respectively (Bugoni et al.
2001). There are very few, if any, published records of small plastics as the direct cause of mortality in
sea turtles.
Vertebrates – Marine mammals
Marine mammals are also at risk for ingestion of small marine plastic debris due to possible occlusion of
the digestive tract and subsequent starvation. However, there are very few reports of small plastics in
marine mammals. This is likely because most marine debris research centering on marine mammals
focuses on the more visual problem of entanglement in floating and submerged debris.
However, two recent papers highlight the small plastics problem. Baird and Hooker (2000) published
what they state is the third record of plastic ingestion for harbor porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. One
juvenile harbor porpoise was found dead on a beach in Nova Scotia, with no net markings or obvious
cause of death. A small piece of black plastic, 5x7 cm2, occluded the esophageal connection to the
stomach in this individual; incidentally, unusual prey items were also found in the digestive tract, thus
perhaps the porpoise ingested plastic due to inexperienced foraging (Baird and Hooker 2000).
Eriksson and Burton (2003) examined fur seal (Arctocephalus spp.) scat on Macquarie Island. They
recovered 164 plastic pieces from 145 scats with plastic present. No industrial plastic pellets were found.
The authors assume transfer of plastics from fish prey to fur seals must have been the source of plastics
in fur seal diet (Eriksson and Burton 2003).
In a seminal review article of the biological effects of plastic debris on marine ecosystems, Laist (1987)
describes the two main issues as mechanical, those being entanglement and ingestion of plastics. As
entanglement generally does not refer to microplastics, ingestion is the only effect that fits in this overview
paper. Hence it makes sense that none of the above studies have noted entanglement in small plastics;
as stated previously, this could be possible but on such small scales that it is not probable to encounter
microplastic entanglement in the open ocean. Laist (1987) cautions persistent plastic debris should be
considered a major form of ocean pollution, as it is long-lasting, buoyant and increasingly ubiquitous in
the marine environment. This sentiment was echoed many years later by Derraik (2002).
A breadth of information exists on microplastics in seabirds. While marine mammals and sea turtles may
be impacted by entanglement as well as ingestion, seabirds are most likely affected by plastic ingestion,
especially chicks fed via regurgitation (Laist 1987). Seabirds can also be more accessible for study than
sea turtles and marine mammals. Thus, serious research gaps exist on the effects of microplastic debris
on the majority of marine organisms. In some cases, as with Laysan albatross, it is easier to see the
cause-and-effect relationship of plastic ingestion, occlusion of digestive tract, and eventual death. With
most other marine organisms, such direct links may be difficult to make in enough cases to be
scientifically convincing. Finally, the subtle effects of microplastics, such as the possibility of unloading
bound toxic chemicals to the organism, have yet to be thoroughly investigated. The next section of this
paper elaborates on the chemistry of microplastics and the potential to adsorb and desorb contaminants,
namely persistent organic pollutants, to the marine environment.
III. Impacts of small plastic debris exposure to persistent organic pollutants
This section highlights the current and expanding literature on plastic pollution in marine environments,
and the indirect effect this may be having on dispersal of lipophilic chemicals that are able to adsorb to
plastics. The chemistry of small plastic debris is an advancing field of research, as is evidenced by the
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 10 of 16
growing number of peer-reviewed publications that investigate the very specific connection between
persistent organic pollutants and small plastic debris in the oceans.
The first report of chemicals sorbed to small plastic marine debris was Carpenter et al. (1972). Aroclor
1254 (a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixture) was extracted at 5 parts per million from plastics
spherules found floating in Niantic Bay, Long Island Sound. The authors infer that small plastics are able
to adsorb these particles from the marine environment because unlike some PCBs that served as plastics
additives, the mixture Aroclor 1254 was never added to virgin plastics and must have sorbed to spherules
in the environment (Carpenter et al. 1972). In the western Sargasso Sea, Carpenter and Smith (1972)
found many brittle industrial plastic pellets and suggest that the PCB-containing plasticizers could have
been lost to the marine environment, which would account for the loss of elasticity in the pellets.
Small ingested plastics and organic contaminants were examined in tandem for the first time in great
shearwaters, Puffinus gravis, from Gough Island (Ryan et al. 1988). Nineteen of twenty breeding females
had ingested plastics. Total organic contaminant load was highly correlated with amount of fatty tissue
present in females, and variation in PCB load was explained via a significant, positive correlation with
plastic load. Positive correlations with other organic contaminants were not significant; thus Ryan et al.
(1988) surmise that ingested plastics are the source of PCBs in P. gravis tissues. Thirty years later, this
study is still one of the only direct field comparisons of plastics and contaminants in marine organisms.
More recently, studies have focused on the uptake potential of organic contaminants from the marine
environment to plastic debris. Mato et al. (2001) present data that define industrial plastic pellets
(nurdles) as a transport medium for organic contaminants in seawater. Polychlorinated bi-phenyls, DDE,
and nonylphenols were all detected in polypropylene pellets collected from the Japanese coast. An
apparent adsorption coefficient of 105106 was determined for polypropylene pellets, based on a field
experiment with virgin pellets placed in seawater for six days (Mato et al. 2001). Adsorption during this
six-day experiment was two orders of magnitude lower than chemical concentrations found in nurdles
from the Japanese coast; thus equilibrium with oceanic waters was not reached after six days (Mato et al.
An in-depth analysis of PCBs in industrial plastic pellets shows high variability among regions sampled in
Japan, ranging from a concentration of <28 to 2300 ng/g (Endo et al. 2005; reproduced in Figure 3).
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 11 of 16
Concentrations in pellets were comparable to mussel tissue PCBs and Endo et al. (2005) propose pellets
as monitors of organic chemicals in the marine environment. High concentrations of PCBs were found in
remote areas with no localized source; thus, the authors suggest pellets could be a major route of PCB
exposure for organisms in remote areas.
A similar study collected small plastics from the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, coastal waters of Hawaii
and southern California, and from Laysan albatross regurgitations on Guadalupe Island, Mexico (Rios et
al. 2007). Of the PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), DDTs and aliphatic hydrocarbons
detected on pellets, PCBs were the most frequently encountered organic contaminant, and total PCBs on
plastic pieces ranged from 27 to 980 ng/g (Rios et al. 2007). Concentrations were not mapped by
location or plastic type, and trends based on these two parameters were not assessed (Rios et al. 2007).
Teuten et al. (2007) reach the same conclusion as Mato et al. (2001) that plastics can transport organic
contaminants in the oceans. Phenanthrene, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), was noted to bind
to three types of plastic (polyethylene, polypropylene and polyvinyl chloride). Compared to uptake of
phenanthrene by natural sediments, uptake and binding by plastics was much higher. Teuten et al. (2007)
show that addition of virgin plastics decreases phenanthrene availability in sediments, with a dramatic
effect on sediments low in organic carbon. It was estimated that 1 ng/g contaminated polyethylene or 14
ng/g contaminated polypropylene added to sediments would cause an 80% increase in lugworm
(Arenicola marina) tissue phenanthrene concentrations (Teuten et al. 2007). These exposure estimates
were derived from partition coefficient calculations and not actual experiments. Data from a study in
Greece are in agreement that of the plastics tested, polyethylene has the highest apparent distribution
coefficient (a measure of how much contaminant binds to a surface) for phenanthrene (Karapanagioti and
Klontza 2008).
Plastic debris can serve as a sorbent for contaminants in the natural environment with different effects
based on the type of plastic and properties of the contaminant. Plastics may also serve the reverse role
as a source of contaminants to organisms upon ingestion. Based on the potential for plastics to adsorb
contaminants, Takada (2006) put out a call for beached pellets from around the world to aid in mapping
global distributions of persistent organic pollutants. It remains to be seen whether enough useful
information can be gleaned from floating bits of plastic to be useful in determining global cycles of
persistent organic pollutants. But it is certain that plastics have the potential to both adsorb organic
contaminants from the marine environment and desorb these contaminants to biota that ingest plastics.
IV. Effect of small plastic debris on biogeochemical cycling of POPs
No research has yet taken plastic debris into account in determining global POP distribution and
contribution to global cycles. Due to the complex nature of biogeochemical research, integrating plastics
into the most up-to-date models will be a challenge. Yet it is crucial to determine if plastics can be
accurately described as sources or sinks of POPs to the marine environment. If plastics are playing a
source or sink role it is necessary to factor plastic debris into global models of persistent organic pollutant
cycling in the oceans.
The so-called “Dirty Dozen” or legacy persistent organic pollutants, named and controlled by the
Stockholm Convention in 1995, are as follows: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor,
hexachlorobenzene, mirex, polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated
dibenzofurans, toxaphene. This list has been expanded to include the carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, brominated flame retardants, and some organometallics. These pollutants are set as the
highest priority compounds for environmental removal and remediation efforts.
While persistent organic pollutants are composed of similar molecules (e.g., a carbon-hydrogen
backbone), specific structures and functional groups largely determine differences in POP movement and
behavior in the environment. Wania and Daly (2002) estimate global lifetimes of PCBs to be on the order
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 12 of 16
of decades, but even within this class of compounds there is quite a bit of variability in degradation and
environmental transfer that depends on the specific compound, or PCB congener. Binding to organic
particles in the deep sea is the dominant loss process (or sink) of highly chlorinated PCB congeners
(Wania and Daly, 2002). Determining presence of POPs in remote locations such as the deep sea is a
major difficulty to overcome in developing a global mass balance model for persistent organic pollutants
(Lohmann et al. 2007). The manner in which persistent organic pollutants interact with plankton in the
water column and with the oceanic microbial loop is largely unknown, making it difficult to assess
persistent organic pollutants in the deep sea (Lohmann et al. 2007).
Global biogeochemical POPs models include cycling of organic contaminants through every compartment
of the ecosystem, including both abiotic (e.g., air and water columns, sediments, and soils) and biotic
(e.g., the flora and fauna that comprise the ecosystem) compartments. Chemicals are “recycled” on a
global scale. However, environmental sinks have a tendency to efficiently bind and transport a chemical
or compound out of the system, so that it is removed from the recycling process. It is important to know
the specifics of environmental sinks to accurately model the movement of chemicals on a global scale.
Global biogeochemical models include bioaccumulation of contaminants in tissues of plants and animals,
and biomagnification of those contaminants in a food web structure. Thus, obtaining accurate
biogeochemical models requires knowledge of how chemicals move on a small scale between particles,
how chemicals are moved through the environment via geologic and meteorological forces, how
chemicals are incorporated into tissues of biota, and how chemicals and compounds are degraded over
Links between POPS and microplastics.
Several studies have demonstrated that persistent organic pollutants, due to their hydrophobic nature,
have strong affinities for microplastic particles. This is not surprising, as the standard analytical method
to isolate POPs from natural waters employs passing the water through beds of polymeric resin, trapping
the POP analytes. What is less clear is (1) whether the quantity and composition of microplastics in the
oceans are sufficient to alter the global cycling of POPs, (2) whether leaching of chemicals from
weathering microplastics is an important source of POPs to the world’s oceans, and (3) whether
microplastics play a role of accumulating POPs to high concentrations in a form that is ingested by marine
V. Conclusions
The main sources of microplastic marine debris likely include: (1) larger pieces of plastic debris breaking
into smaller bits during weathering; (2) inadvertent or accidental release of small, unweathered industrial
plastic bits (“nurdles”) during production, shipping, and storage; and (3) discharge of wastewater that
contains microplastics purposefully added to consumer products. Effects of these types of microplastic
debris on marine organisms are not easily determined, and have not been systematically investigated.
Microplastics have the potential to adsorb persistent organic pollutants, which may account in part for
observed POP concentrations in seawater and marine organisms that contain microplastics.
Microplastics also may serve as a transport mechanism for contaminants, not only as a vector for
contaminants into organisms, but also as a transport medium for contaminants to move around the globe.
Often POPs reach remote locations through atmospheric transport and adversely effect ecosystems that
are far from the source of the contaminant. The ubiquity of plastic coupled with its ability to adsorb
hydrophobic contaminants could be another major introductory route for contaminants into marine
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 13 of 16
Table 1. Occurrences of microplastic debris in the marine environment.
Year (s)
Mean Abundance
50 - 12,000
Carpenter and Smith
0 - 140,000,000*
Carpenter et al. 1972
Carpenter et al. 1972
Carpenter et al. 1972
Carpenter et al. 1972
0 - 166,991
Colton et al. 1974
Colton et al. 1974
Colton et al. 1974
Day and Shaw 1987
Day and Shaw 1987
Day and Shaw 1987
31,982 - 969,777
Moore et al. 2001
Moore et al. 2002
0-2 particles L-1 seawater
Ng and Obbard 2006
Thompson et al. 2004
Thompson et al. 2004
10-100 m-1*
0 - 100,000 m-1*
Gregory 1978
5 items m-2**
0.35-0.81 items m-2
Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar
3 items m-2**
0.15-0.62 items m-2
Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar
0-0.3 items m-1**
Convey et al. 2002
.001 fibers cm-3*
Thompson et al. 2004
.05 fibers cm-3*
Thompson et al. 2004
0.11 fibers cm-3*
Thompson et al. 2004
0-4 particles 250g-1
Ng and Obbard 2006
81.43 +/- 4.03 mg kg- 1
Reddy et al. 2006
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 14 of 16
Abu-Hilal, A. H. and T. Al-Najjar (2004). "Litter pollution on the Jordanian shores of the Gulf of
Aqaba (Red Sea)." Marine Environmental Research 58(1): 39-63.
Andrady, A. L., S. H. Hamid, X. Hu and A. Torikai (1998). "Effects of increased solar ultraviolet
radiation on materials." Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 46(1-3):
Auman, H. J., J. P. Ludwid, J. P. Giesy and T. Colborn (1997). Plastic ingestion by Laysan
Albatross chicks on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995. Albatross Biology and
Conservation. G. R. a. d. Gales, Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Auman, H. J., E. J. Woehler, M. J. Riddle and H. Burton (2004). "First evidence of ingestion of
plastic debris by seabirds at sub-Antarctic Heard Island." Marine Ornithology 32: 105-106.
Baird, R. W. and S. K. Hooker (2000). "Ingestion of Plastic and Unusual Prey by a Juvenile
Harbour Porpoise." Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(8): 719-720.
Balazs, G. H. (1985). "Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion." In
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November,
1984, Honolulu, Hawaii (R. S. Shomura & H. O. Yoshida, eds), pp. 387-429. US Dept.
Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54.
Baltz, D. M. and G. V. Morejohn (1976). "Evidence from seabirds of plastic particle pollution off
central California." Western Birds 7: 111-112.
Barreiros, J. P. and J. Barcelos (2001). "Plastic Ingestion by a Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys
coriacea from the Azores (NE Atlantic)." Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(11): 1196-1197.
Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten and C. J. Lagueux (1994). "Ingestion of Marine Debris by Juvenile Sea
Turtles in Coastal Florida Habitats." Marine Pollution Bulletin 28(3): 154-158.
Browne, M. A., A. Dissanayake, T. S. Galloway, D. M. Lowe and R. C. Thompson (2008).
"Ingested Microscopic Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus
edulis (L)." Environmental Science and Technology in press.
Bugoni, L., L. Krause and M. Virginia Petry (2001). "Marine Debris and Human Impacts on Sea
Turtles in Southern Brazil." Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(12): 1330-1334.
Carpenter, E. J. and K. L. Smith, Jr (1972). "Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface." Science
175(4027): 1240-1241.
Carpenter, E. J., S. J. Anderson, G. R. Harvey, H. P. Miklas and B. B. Peck (1972). "Polystyrene
Spherules in Coastal Waters." Science 178(4062): 749-750.
Carr, A. (1987). "Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea
turtles." Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6, Supplement 2): 352-356.
Colton, J. B., Jr., F. D. Knapp and B. R. Burns (1974). "Plastic Particles in Surface Waters of the
Northwestern Atlantic." Science 185(4150): 491-497.
Convey, P., D. Barnes and A. Morton (2002). "Debris accumulation on oceanic island shores of the
Scotia Arc, Antarctica." Polar Biology 25(8): 612-617.
Day, R. H. and D. G. Shaw (1987). "Patterns in the Abundance of Pelagic Plastic and Tar in the
North Pacific Ocean, 1976-1985." Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B): 311-316.
Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). "The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review."
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(9): 842-852.
Endo, S., R. Takizawa, K. Okuda, H. Takada, K. Chiba, H. Kanehiro, H. Ogi, R. Yamashita and T.
Date (2005). "Concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in beached resin pellets:
Variability among individual particles and regional differences." Marine Pollution Bulletin
50(10): 1103-1114.
Eriksson, C. and H. Burton (2003). "Origins and Biological Accumulation of Small Plastic Particles
in Fur Seals from Macquarie Island." Ambio 32(6): 380-384.
Fry, D. M., S. I. Fefer and L. Sileo (1987). "Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan Albatrosses and
Wedge-tailed Shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands." Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6,
Supplement 2): 339-343.
Gregory, M. (1978). "Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on New Zealand
beaches." New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 12(4): 399-414.
Gregory, M. R. (1996). "Plastic `scrubbers' in hand cleansers: a further (and minor) source for
marine pollution identified." Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(12): 867-871.
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 15 of 16
Ingraham, J. and C. C. Ebbesmeyer (2001). "Surface current concentration of floating marine
debris in theN orth Pacific Ocean: 12-year OSCURS model experiments." In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Derelict Fishing Gear and the Ocean Environment,
2001, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary publication.
Karapanagioti, H. K. and I. Klontza (2008). "Testing phenanthrene distribution properties of virgin
plastic pellets and plastic eroded pellets found on Lesvos island beaches (Greece)."
Marine Environmental Research 65(4): 283-290.
Kenyon, K. W. and E. Kridler (1969). "Laysan Albatrosses Swallow Indigestible Matter." The Auk
86(2): 339-343.
Kinan, I. T. and K. L. Cousins (2000). "Abundance of plastic debris and ingestion by albatross on
Kure Atoll, North-western Hawaiian Islands " Marine Ornithology 28(2): 125-152.
Kubota, M. (1994). "A Mechanism for the Accumulation of Floating Marine Debris North of Hawaii."
Journal of Physical Oceanography 24(5): 1059-1064.
Laist, D. W. (1987). "Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the
marine environment." Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6, Supplement 2): 319-326.
Lohmann, R., K. Breivik, J. Dachs and D. Muir (2007). "Global fate of POPs: Current and future
research directions." Environmental Pollution 150(1): 150-165.
Mallory, M. L., G. J. Roberston and A. Moenting (2006). "Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars
from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada." Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(7): 813-815.
Mascarenhas, R., R. Santos and D. Zeppelini (2004). "Plastic debris ingestion by sea turtle in
Paraiba, Brazil." Marine Pollution Bulletin 49(4): 354-355.
Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake and T. Kaminuma (2001). "Plastic Resin
Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic Chemicals in the Marine Environment."
Environmental Science and Technology 35(2): 318-324.
Moore, C. J., S. L. Moore, M. K. Leecaster and S. B. Weisberg (2001). "A Comparison of Plastic
and Plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre." Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(12): 1297-
Moore, C. J., S. L. Moore, S. B. Weisberg, G. L. Lattin and A. F. Zellers (2002). "A comparison of
neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern California's coastal waters."
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(10): 1035-1038.
Moser, M. L. and D. S. Lee (1992). "A Fourteen-Year Survey of Plastic Ingestion by Western North
Atlantic Seabirds." Colonial Waterbirds 15(1): 83-94.
Nevins, H., D. Hyrenbach, C. Keiper, J. Stock, M. Hester and J. Harvey (2005). Seabirds as
indicators of plastic pollution in the North Pacific. Plastic Debris Rivers to the Sea
Conference, Redondo Beach, CA.
Ng, K. L. and J. P. Obbard (2006). "Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore's coastal marine
environment." Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(7): 761-767.
Pettit, T. N., G. S. Grant and G. C. Whittow (1981). "Ingestion of Plastics by Laysan Albatross." The
Auk 98(4): 839-841.
Pichel, W. G., J. H. Churnside, T. S. Veenstra, D. G. Foley, K. S. Friedman, R. E. Brainard, J. B.
Nicoll, Q. Zheng and P. Clemente-Colon (2007). "Marine debris collects within the North
Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone." Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(8): 1207-1211.
Pierce, K. E., R. J. Harris, L. S. Larned and M. A. Pokras (2004). "Obstruction and starvation
associated with plastic ingestion in a northern gannet Morus bassanus and a greater
shearwater Puffinus gravis " Marine Ornithology 32: 187-189.
Pruter, A. T. (1987). "Sources, quantities and distribution of persistent plastics in the marine
environment." Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6, Supplement 2): 305-310.
Reddy, M. S., B. Shaik, S. Adimurthy and G. Ramachandraiah (2006). "Description of the small
plastics fragments in marine sediments along the Alang-Sosiya ship-breaking yard, India."
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68(3-4): 656-660.
Rios, L. M., C. Moore and P. R. Jones (2007). "Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic
polymers in the ocean environment." Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(8): 1230-1237.
Robards, M. D., J. F. Piatt and K. D. Wohl (1995). "Increasing frequency of plastic particles
ingested by seabirds in the subarctic North Pacific." Marine Pollution Bulletin 30(2): 151-
The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 3 September 2008, Page 16 of 16
Ryan, P. G. (1988). "Intraspecific Variation in Plastic Ingestion by Seabirds and the Flux of Plastic
Through Seabird Populations." The Condor 90(2): 446-452.
Ryan, P. G., A. D. Connell and B. D. Gardner (1988). "Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is
there a relationship?" Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(4): 174-176.
Spear, L. B., D. G. Ainley and C. A. Ribic (1995). "Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the tropical
pacific, 1984-1991: Relation with distribution of species, sex, age, season, year and body
weight." Marine Environmental Research 40(2): 123-146.
Takada, H. (2006). "Call for pellets! International Pellet Watch Global Monitoring of POPs using
beached plastic resin pellets." Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(12): 1547-1548.
Teuten, E. L., S. J. Rowland, T. S. Galloway and R. C. Thompson (2007). "Potential for Plastics to
Transport Hydrophobic Contaminants." Environmental Science & Technology 41(22):
Thompson, R., C. Moore, A. Andrady, M. Gregory, H. Takada and S. Weisberg (2005). "New
Directions in Plastic Debris." Science 310(5751): 1117b-.
Thompson, R. C., Y. Olsen, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle
and A. E. Russell (2004). "Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?" Science 304(5672): 838-.
Tomas, J., R. Guitart, R. Mateo and J. A. Raga (2002). "Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead sea
turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean." Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(3):
Van Franeker, J. A., M. Heubeck, K. Fairclough, D. M. Turner, E. W. M. Stienen, N. Guse, J.
Pedersen, K. O. Olsen, P. J. Andersson and B. Olsen (2005). 'Save the North Sea' Fulmar
Study 2002-2004: a regional pilot project for the Fulmar-Litter-EcoQO in the OSPAR area.
Den Berg (Texel), The Netherlands, ALTERRA.
Van Franeker, J. A., A. Meijboom and M. L. de Jong (2004). Marine litter monitoring by Northern
Fulmars in the Netherlands 1982-2003. W. Alterra. Den Burg (Texel), The Netherlands,
Vlietstra, L. S. and J. A. Parga (2002). "Long-term changes in the type, but not amount, of ingested
plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern Bering Sea." Marine
Pollution Bulletin 44(9): 945-955.
Wania, F. and G. L. Daly (2002). "Estimating the contribution of degradation in air and deposition to
the deep sea to the global loss of PCBs." Atmospheric Environment 36: 5581-5593.
... Concerning plastic size (Figure 10), most authors followed the threshold of 0.5 cm, considering all other than microplastics are macroplastics (MP < 0.5 cm, see Arthur et al., 2018;Barnes et al., 2009;Thompson et al., 2009;Gasperi et al., 2014;Faure FIGURE 9 Land use metadata occurring in studies (%) on macroplastics in rivers. N.A. (not assessed) indicated that the data were not reported for the specific study. ...
... In addition, few authors used the >2.5 cm standard, also indicated by European large project on riverine MA monitoring, such as the RIMMEL project (see Lippiatt et al., 2013;Cheshire 2009; EC JRC (2016a); GESAMP 2016; Wagner et al., 2014;Blettler et al., 2017;Blettler et al., 2018;Moss et al., 2021). Moreover, some literature call mesoplastics (0.5 cm < ME < 2.5 cm, sensu Lippiatt et al., 2013) which instead is considered macroplastics by other authors (MA > 0.5 cm, sensu Arthur et al., 2018;Barnes et al., 2009;Thompson et al., 2009;Liro et al., 2020;. For this reason, these results do not allow a common and international standardization, and thus do not provide valuable comparison among studies, useful for plastic monitoring. ...
... Thus, the terms ME and MG would be replaced as they were completely understudied and not often used. In detail, literature reported mainly MA as greater than 0.5 cm (sensu Arthur et al., 2018;Barnes et al., 2009;Thompson et al., 2009;Eriksen et al., 2014;van Emmerik et al., 2020a;Liro et al., 2020) (see Figure 10). We should also consider that macroplastic litter was classified into several sizes (i.e., 2.5-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-50 cm, >50 cm) when monitoring floating MA (González-Fernández and Hanke 2017). ...
Full-text available
Nowadays, plastics represent growing concern in aquatic habitats, harming more and more both ecosystem and human health. Since rivers are the main carriers of plastics to the sea, some studies were conducted on the transport of overall small plastics, but observations on big plastics (i.e., macroplastics) in rivers are poorly reported in the literature. Although most studies focused on plastic transport in the lower part of the rivers, research on the upper and middle zones are completely lacking. In this regard, this could influence the transport of plastics to the sea, with insights into the source and origin of macroplastics. Here, we aimed at overviewing macroplastic distribution along rivers, emphasizing on the global riverine plastic hotspot areas. First, 1) we analyzed and discussed the bibliometric analysis on macroplastics in rivers providing a framework for plastic pollution management. second, 2) we provided geographical insights into macroplastics by mapping global riverine plastic hotspot areas. Then, 3) we analyzed the main factors affecting macroplastic distribution and accumulation in rivers. Furthermore, 4) we assessed crucial gaps in riverine macroplastic accumulation, highlighting the importance of a plastic gradient in the horizontal transport along the entire river course (i.e., three river zones). Then, 5) we highlighted the lack of standardization regarding macroplastic size, concentration, and polymers that does not allow valuable comparisons among studies. At the end, 6) we concluded by providing future perspectives and conclusions on macroplastic distribution and accumulation in rivers worldwide. Our results might provide new insights into a comprehensive framework of macroplastic distribution along global rivers, suggesting the river rod approach as a way for future monitoring as all the complete course of a river plays a pivotal role in accumulating macroplastics.
... Eurytemora affinis copepods also ingested microplastics within a 12 h exposure period [32]. Particles can be ingested by filter feeders directly from the water column or by benthic organisms after the particles have settled on the sediments [36]. ...
... The size class of the synthetic particles found this study ranged from 0.12 to 5.02 mm with an average of 1.50 ± 1.23 mm (n = 114). The largest particle was found in P. senegalensis belonging to size class [35][36][37][38][39] ...
... cm.In this study, 372 E. fimbriata and Pseudotolithus sp were grouped into size classes of four and six respectively (Figs. 2 & 3). We found a majority abundance of 12 particles of microplastics in four size classes[18][19][20][21] cm for E. fimbriata, and 20 and 23 particles of microplastics in six size classes[40][41][42][43][44][45] cm and[35][36][37][38][39] cm for P. senegalensis and P. typus respectively. ...
Full-text available
The study was designed to provide evidence of microplastic ingestion, abundance and composition in the catches of Pseudotolithus senegalensis, Pseudotolithus typus and Ethmalosa fimbriata in the dockyard of Londji and Mboa-manga on the Southern Coastline of Cameroon. The methodology involved visual observation and identification of anthropogenic particles in the stomach content (SC) and an extraction procedure involving hypochlorite digestion and isolation. In this study 45(18.37%) of a total 372 of the E. fimbriata and Pseudotolithus sp had ingested microplastics. We also found a majority abundance of 12 microplastic particle in four size classes [18-21] cm for E. fimbriata, and 20 and 23 microplastic particles in six size classes [40-45] cm and [35-39] cm for P. senegalensis and P. typus respectively. The average percentage composition of the microplastics included rope filaments (23%), fishing lines (47%), strings (13 %), pieces of plastic cloth (9%) and others (8%) with a colour diversity of white, red, yellow, grey and light blue. The results provided an improved evidence base to support policy and management decisions on measures to develop adaptation and mitigation strategies for plastic debris in the Southern coastline of Cameroon.
... These fragments can undergo further degradation (e.g., biological) where carbon in the matrix is converted to carbon dioxide and incorporated into biomass (Andrady, 2011). However, UV degradation of plastic floating in water is impeded by lower temperatures and oxygen levels relative to on-land, making conversion of macroplastic to microplastic much more rapid on beaches than in the water (Arthur et al., 2008b;Andrady, 2011;Corcoran et al., 2009). As a result, microplastics are considered relatively recalcitrant in aquatic environments, and degradation of plastic and leaching of additives is more likely along the shoreline than in open waters (Andrady, 2011;Cole et al., 2011). ...
... Microplastics have been found in sediments, throughout the water column, and in digestive systems, respiratory structures, and tissues of marine organisms (Andrady, 2011;Depledge et al., 2013). Quantitative reporting of global abundances of microplastics has been limited by time-and labour-intensive sampling, remoteness of sites, and fine-scale analytical processes required (Arthur et al., 2008b;Ballent et al., 2013;Driedger et al., 2015). Microplastics will accumulate in coastal sediments, on the ocean floor, and at the sea surface. ...
... Particles can be ingested by filter feeders directly from the water column or by benthic organisms after the particles have settled to the sediment (Arthur et al., 2008b). Filter feeders might have greater exposure to microplastics than organisms employing other feeding strategies (Leslie et al., 2013). ...
Full-text available
Microplastics have been increasingly detected and quantified in marine and freshwater environments, and there are growing concerns about potential effects in biota. A literature review was conducted to summarize the current state of knowledge of microplastics in Canadian aquatic environments; specifically, the sources, environmental fate, behaviour, abundance, and toxicological effects in aquatic organisms. While we found that research and publications on these topics have increased dramatically since 2010, relatively few studies have assessed the presence, fate, and effects of microplastics in Canadian water bodies. We suggest that efforts to determine aquatic receptors at greatest risk of detrimental effects due to microplastic exposure, and their associated contaminants, are particularly warranted. There is also a need to address the gaps identified, with a particular focus on the species and conditions found in Canadian aquatic systems. These gaps include characterization of the presence of microplastics in Canadian freshwater ecosystems, identifying key sources of microplastics to these systems, and evaluating the presence of microplastics in Arctic waters and biota.
... This mechanical fragmentation is accelerated by prior material degradation. In water, plastics are effectively protected from solar UV radiation, winds, high temperatures and frost, etc., so material degradation becomes much slower (Gregory and Andrady, 2003;Barnes and Milner, 2005;Arthur et al., 2008;Corcoran et al., 2009;Ryan et al., 2009;Andrady, 2011;Anderson et al., 2016). Thus, understanding of mechanical fragmentation processes becomes important. ...
Mechanical fragmentation of four commonly used plastics, from 2-cm squares or cubes to microplastics (MPs, <5 mm), is experimentally investigated using a rotating laboratory mixer mimicking the sea swash zone with natural beach sediments (large and small pebbles, granules, sand). Macro-samples were prepared from brittle not-buoyant PS (disposable plates), flexible thin film of LDPE (garbage bags), highly buoyant foamed PS (building insulation sheets), and hard buoyant PP (single-use beverage cups). With a great variety of behaviors of plastics while mixing, coarser sediments (pebbles) have higher fragmentation efficiency than sands (measured as the mass of generated MPs), disregarding sinking/floating or mechanical properties of the samples. It is confirmed that, under swash-like mixing with coarse sediments, the MPs tend to burry below the sediment surface. The obtained relationship between the mass of MPs and the number of items is similar to that for MPs floating at the ocean surface.
... Despite the intervention of the government in Nigeria, on proper waste disposal methods, solid waste still find their way into the Lagos lagoon at an alarming rate [13][14]. Unlike other substances, majority of plastic waste materials are not easily biodegradable, but instead photodegradable into smaller fragment [15] from macroplastic, >5 mm into microplastics<5 mm that has increased conspicuously [16][17] in the aquatic environment. Several articles reported the ability of microplastics particles to adsorbed and absorbed hydrophobic endocrine disrupting chemicals (HEDCs) at a several magnitude higher than their surrounding water [12,18]. ...
Introduction: The occurrence of plastic waste materials in the aquatic environment is receiving enormous attention all over the world due to its negative impacts on aquatic organisms. Micropellet litters have been found to adsorb and absorbs persistent organic endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Endocrine disrupting chemicals are recognized toxic chemicals to human and organisms. Aim: This study quantifies occurrence of micropellet particles in Lagos Lagoon and their EDCs contents. Methodology: The sampling was conducted from 2016 to 2018 at eight sampling locations with three points established in each of the sampling station. The chemical analysis of EDCs was conducted by gas chromatography coupled with electron capture detector and flame ionization detector. Results: Micropellet particles occurrence was highest in surface water (67%) compared to (33%) in sediment during the period of sampling. EDCs contents reflect contamination of PCBs and PAHs in the extracted micropellet particles. Some sampling stations contained relatively higher PAHs concentrations but very low concentration of PCBs. Conclusion: Since, micropellet particles and EDCs cannot be removed completely from the aquatic environment; reduction of impending hazards ought to rely on curtailing disposal of plastic materials and sensitizing the populace on general disposal methods in order to minimize interaction of plastic particles with EDCs which are likely to pose significant effects on aquatic fauna.
Full-text available
Microplastic pollution is a global issue that has a detrimental effect on the food chain in the marine ecosystem. They are found in their highest concentrations along coastal lines and within mid-ocean gyres. In marine environments, microplastics are a threat to marine organisms, as they are often in the same size range as prey and are mistaken as food. When ingested can have a deleterious range of effects on marine organisms, a process which may facilitate the transfer of chemical additives or hydro-phobic waterborne pollutants to aquatic lives. In this chapter, we looked at the risk of microplastic pollution and its impact on marine organisms and humankind. The study shows that consumption of microplastics has led to ingestion of chemical toxins in aquatic fish, which leads to damage of digestive organs, choking of marine organisms, channel for the spread of microbes, and a reduction in growth and reproductive output. These threats increase the risk to aquatic fishes and human survival. Hence, the need to educate the public on the dangers of using products that pose an immediate and long-term threat to the marine ecosystem and the health of its organism, and the food we eat by marine scientists.
The use of plastic products is common in our day-to-day life due to its unique properties. But its mishandling and poor waste management lead to its accumulation in the environment. In the environment, it may degrade by different environmental factors such as photo-oxidation and thermal and biological degradation, resulting in particles with a size less than 5 mm called microplastics (MP). These particles are of major concern because they have been detected through different environmental compartments and pose a serious threat to the organism’s as well as to human health. MPs are highly persistent and stable in the environment and have long residence time. The environmental pollutants may also adsorb on its surface, that may leach or desorb once into the living body. Furthermore, the presence of these particles in the environment leads to bio-accumulation and bio-magnification in different trophic levels causing adverse human health impacts. The main aim of this study is to highlight the sources, occurrence, and behavior of microplastics in the terrestrial environment. Additionally, this chapter focuses on the impacts of microplastics on human health.KeywordsPlastic pollutionMicroplasticsTerrestrial EnvironmentHuman health impacts
Full-text available
Small plastic particles (microplastics, < 5 mm) are found in the World Ocean everywhere, from the surface to the bottom, from the ice of the Arctic to the waters of the Antarctic. Their properties differ from the properties of natural particles and at the same time change noticeably with time in the environment, so the description of the transfer of microplastics in the ocean and the patterns of its accumulation require additional, targeted, and deeply interdisciplinary efforts. This book touches on only a small part of the issues on which some understanding has been achieved so far. Moreover, due to the scientific specialization of the authors, the clear preference is given to the problems of physical oceanography. According to the logic of presentation, the material is divided into five parts: from general questions and a review of publications - through analytical models and a laboratory experiment - to field observations and research methods. The Introduction and Part I provide an overview of the general information on the problem of plastic pollution in the oceans. Potential threats to the environment and humans are discussed. Basic information about plastic as a material is given. Chapters 2 and 3 summarize information about the properties of microplastic particles actually observed in the marine environment, as well as the mechanisms for changing these properties over time. Part II presents simple analytical models for describing the properties of microplastic particles. They include both simple balance and geometric models of a single particle (Chapter 4) and options for taking into account distributions of particle properties in terms of size, shape, and density (Chapter 5). Chapter 6 presents the results of modeling the probabilistic distribution of the terminal settling/rising velocity of microplastic particles, obtained on the basis of distributions of particle properties by size, density, and shape. Part III is devoted to the results of laboratory experiments. Settling of microplastic particles of various forms, including synthetic fibers, is described (Chapter 7). The approaches and available experimental data on the resuspension of microplastic particles of various shapes from the bottom covered with natural sediment are discussed (Chapter 8). The results of a series of experiments on the fragmentation of various types of plastic in the surf zone are presented in detail (Chapter 9). Field observations of microplastic and marine debris pollution in the Baltic Sea region – on its beaches, in the water column, and bottom sediments – are presented in Part IV. Part V summarizes information on current sampling methods for microplastics in water, bottom sediment, and beach sediments, sample preparation techniques, extraction steps, and identification methods. The requirements for the control of external pollution, options for presenting the results in various units, and other "little things" that determine the quality of the final result and the possibility of its comparison with other studies are given. The book is intended for ocean scientists, as well as undergraduate and graduate students of relevant specialties, but it will also be useful to the widest range of readers, showing the incredible vulnerability of the natural environment of our small planet. The authors express their sincere gratitude to the colleagues with whom the results presented in the book were obtained and published: Dr. Andrey Bagaev and Dr. Artem Mizyuk (Marine Hydrophysical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences), Dr. Mikhail Zobkov (Northern Water Problems Institute, Karelian Research Center of the RAS), Dr. Andrey Zyubin (Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University), Irina Efimova, Anastasiya Kupriyanova, as well as to many colleagues who participated in expeditions and sample processing. Great help in preparing the manuscript for publication was provided by Nataliya Martynyuk. The book represents some results obtained by the authors while working on projects of the Russian Science Foundation (15-17-10020, 19-17-00041), Russian Foundation for Basic Research (18-55-76001, 18-55-76002, 18-35-00553, 19-35-50028; 19-45-393006), the Swedish Institute project 22805/2019 (MOTION), and within SCOR WG 153 (FLOTSAM).
Full-text available
Earlier studies on litter contents in stomachs of Fulmars have shown that this seabird species can be used as a suitable monitor of levels of marine litter pollution in the North Sea off the Dutch coast. This report updates the earlier data with monitoring results for the years 2002 and 2003 and discusses trends in the light of shipping regulations and the EU inititiative to reduce littering by ships through improvements in systems for Port Reception Facilities. The Dutch research is closely linked to the European Fulmar study conducted in the 'Save the North Sea (SNS)' project 2002-2004 which is co-funded by the EU Interreg IIIB program. Dutch and SNS Fulmar studies form the basis for the development of an Ecological Quality Objective on marine litter as requested by OSPAR.
Full-text available
Patterns of intraspecific variability of ingested plastic loads in seabirds were examined for species collected off southern Africa. The incidence of plastic pollution was shown to be increasing during the 1980s. Both large-and small-scale geographic variation in plastic loads occurred as a function of variable plastic density in the environment. In-tergenerational transfer of plastic particles was identified as an important pathway for plastic flow in those species that accumulate plastic particles and feed their chicks by regurgitation. This pathway can account for higher plastic loads in nonbreeders and failed breeders than in birds that breed successfully, and such results need not indicate adverse effects from plastic ingestion. Intergenerational transfer resulted in annual cycling of plastic loads in successfully breeding birds. In species that do not regurgitate indigestible stomach contents, immature birds have the largest plastic loads and are most likely to exhibit adverse effects from plastic ingestion.
To evaluate the incidence of ocean-borne plastic particle ingestion by western North Atlantic seabirds, we analyzed the gut contents of 1033 birds collected off the coast of North Carolina from 1975-1989. Twenty-one of 38 seabird species (55%) contained plastic particles. Procellariiform birds contained the most plastic and the presence of plastic was clearly correlated with feeding mode and diet. Plastic ingestion by procellariiforms increased over the 14 year study period, probably as a result of increasing plastic particle availability. Some seabirds showed a tendency to select specific plastic shapes and colors, indicating that they may be mistaking plastics for potential prey items. We found no evidence that seabird health was affected by the presence of plastic, even in species containing the largest quantities: Northern Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), Red Phalaropes (Phalaropus fulicaria) and Greater Shearwaters (Puffinus gravis).