A blog set out to explore, archive & relate plastic pollution happening world-wide, while learning about on-going efforts and solutions to help break free of our addiction to single-use plastics & sharing this awareness with a community of clean water lovers everywhere!

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Ninety-nine percent of the ocean's plastic is missing

On the hunt. The RV Hesperides tows along a net designed to skim the ocean surface, catching floating plastic particles (inset).
Joan Costa
On the hunt. The RV Hesperides tows along a net designed to skim the ocean surface, catching floating plastic particles (inset).

Millions of tons. That’s how much plastic should be floating in the world’s oceans, given our ubiquitous use of the stuff. But a new study finds that 99% of this plastic is missing. One disturbing possibility: Fish are eating it.

If that’s the case, “there is potential for this plastic to enter the global ocean food web,” says Carlos Duarte, an oceanographer at the University of Western Australia, Crawley. “And we are part of this food web.”

Humans produce almost 300 million tons of plastic each year. Most of this ends up in landfills or waste pits, but a 1970s National Academy of Sciences study estimated that 0.1% of all plastic washes into the oceans from land, carried by rivers, floods, or storms, or dumped by maritime vessels.

Some of this material becomes trapped in Arctic ice and some, landing on beaches, can even turn into rocks made of plastic. But the vast majority should still be floating out there in the sea, trapped in midocean gyres—large eddies in the center of oceans, like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

To figure out how much refuse is floating in those garbage patches, four ships of the Malaspina expedition, a global research project studying the oceans, fished for plastic across all five major ocean gyres in 2010 and 2011.

After months of trailing fine mesh nets around the world, the vessels came up light—by a lot. Instead of the millions of tons scientists had expected, the researchers calculated the global load of ocean plastic to be about only 40,000 tons at the most, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“We can’t account for 99% of the plastic that we have in the ocean,” says Duarte, the team’s leader.

He suspects that a lot of the missing plastic has been eaten by marine animals. When plastic is floating out on the open ocean, waves and radiation from the sun can fragment it into smaller and smaller particles, until it gets so small it begins to look like fish food—especially to small lanternfish, a widespread small marine fish known to ingest plastic.

“Yes, animals are eating it,” says oceanographer Peter Davison of the Farallon Institute for Advanced Ecosystem Research in Petaluma, California, who was not involved in the study.

“That much is indisputable.” But, he says, it’s hard to know at this time what the biological consequences are. Toxic ocean pollutants like DDT, PCBs, or mercury cling to the surface of plastics, causing them to “suck up all the pollutants in the water and concentrate them.”

When animals eat the plastic, that poison could be going into the fish and traveling up the food chain to market species like tuna or swordfish. Or, Davison says, toxins in the fish “may dissolve back into the water … or for all we know they’re puking [the plastic] or pooping it out, and there’s no long-term damage. We don’t know.”

It’s impossible to know how much the animals are eating, says Kara Law, a physical oceanographer at the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, who was not involved in the work.

The estimated amount of plastic entering the ocean that the study uses is almost half a century old, and “we’re desperately in need of a better estimate of how much plastic is entering the ocean annually.”

What’s more, both Davison and Law say there are a number of other potential places the plastic could be ending up. It could be washing ashore, and a lot of it could be degrading into pieces too small to be detected.

Another possibility is that organisms sticking to and growing on the plastic are dragging the junk beneath the ocean’s surface, either suspending it in the water column or sinking it all the way to the sea floor. Microbes may even be eating the stuff.

Best-case scenario for the fate of the missing plastic? It’s sinking from the weight of organisms sticking to it or in animal feces and getting buried on the ocean floor, Law says. “I don’t think we can conceive of the worst-case scenario, quite frankly. We really don’t know what this plastic is doing.”

Posted in Environment Plastic Pollution

16 Comments

Marine microbes 'eat' plastic pollution

Published June 30, 2014 in the Herald Sun by 


COLONIES of microbes seem to be "eating" plastic pollution floating on the surface of the ocean, according to researchers from the University of Western Australia. 
 Microbes.
 Plastic eating marine microbes could provide better solutions for waste disposal practices on land.

THE research by PhD candidate Julia Reisser and colleagues was the first to document biological communities living on sand-sized pieces of plastic in Australian waters. It has been published in the international science journal PLOS One.

Using a scanning electron microscope, researchers examined the samples - tiny broken down discarded items such as food packaging and fishing gear - and could see microbes "eating" the plastic.

"The good news is that some of the plastic inhabitants may decrease plastic pollution at the sea surface, where major environmental impacts occur," the university said in a statement.

Study co-author Jeremy Shaw said large numbers of silica-forming algae weighed down their plastic host, potentially causing tiny pieces to sink to the bottom of the ocean. "Plastic biodegredation seems to happen at sea," Ms Reisser said.

 "I am excited about this because the `plastic eating' microbes could provide better solutions for waste disposal practices on land." Originally published as Marine microbes 'eat' plastic pollution

Teacher discovers discarded plastic Twinkie crate from KC on remote island beach in Australia



Published in the Fox4KC June 24, 2014, by Matt Stewart

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — You may not immediately connect the Missouri River with Marine Biology, but after a day on the river approximately 20 students will be able to tell you – what we do locally can affect marine wildlife an ocean away.

Students collected trash along the Missouri River on Tuesday. If not intercepted, the trash would most likely make its way down river and possibly out to the ocean. The cleanup and learning day comes in connection with the Missouri Department of Conservation and the Healthy Rivers Partnership.

Instructor Leslie Mallinson told FOX 4′s Matt Stewart she found a plastic Twinkie crate from Kansas City while cleaning a remote tropical island beach in Australia.

See more of their interviews below.

Chemical found in plastics – and now in our water – makes male turtles develop more like females

Published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, June 30, 2014 by Blythe Bernhard
The turtles are in trouble.

A chemical found in Missouri’s rivers and streams can influence the sex organs of developing turtles, making males more like females, researchers say.

A pilot study conducted at the University of Missouri showed that the synthetic chemical bisphenol A — or BPA, which is known to mimic estrogen and disrupt hormone levels in animals — can alter a turtle’s reproductive system after exposure in the egg.

Turtles are perfect creatures for this type of study, because their sex is determined by the temperature of the environment during their development in the egg.

“Cool dudes or hot babes,” explained Sharon Deem, director of the St. Louis Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Medicine and a lead investigator on the study.

The researchers dropped a liquid form of the chemical onto hundreds of eggs that were incubated at cooler temperatures required to produce male turtles. A few months after they hatched, the turtles’ sex organs were removed and studied. The male turtles had developed gonads that were closer to ovaries than testicles.

The BPA essentially overrides the temperature in determining the sex of the turtle, creating an animal that is probably unable to reproduce, Deem said.

The researchers used the same levels of BPA that were found in samples from Missouri waterways including Peruque Creek in St. Charles County, James River in Nixa and Perche Creek in Columbia. The estrogen-like chemical is found in plastics and is thought to contaminate more than 40 percent of U.S. rivers.

Estrogen also enters the waterways through the urine of men and women, especially pregnant women and those taking birth control pills. Waste water treatment plants cannot fully remove hormones, sending them back into the natural water system.

The study on turtles is a good indicator of the overall health of the ecosystem because the reptiles live in oceans, rivers and on land, scavenging food from decaying plants and animals.

“We have some environmental issues that are impacting wildlife,” Deem said.

The researchers from the university, the zoo, Westminster College and the U.S. Geological Survey recently received a $250,000 grant from the Mizzou Advantage research project to continue the study and compare results among fish, mice and turtles.

They also hope to learn whether the introduction of synthetic and natural hormones alters the animals’ DNA, which could create problems in future generations.

The changes already seen in animals’ reproductive systems indicate the potential for the same effects in humans, the researchers said. Urinalysis has shown that 93 percent of people have detectable BPA levels in their bodies from exposures to plastics or industrial fumes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bisphenol A is found in certain food and drink packages including plastic containers, water bottles, baby bottles and cans. The chemical can leech into food or liquid, especially when the packaging is heated.

The chemical is believed to pose higher risks to fetuses, infants and children and can potentially affect brain and reproductive development, according to the National Institutes of Health. Earlier this year, University of Missouri researchers showed that pregnant monkeys exposed to very low levels of BPA produced offspring with birth defects.

“If that’s happening in (animals), that would suggest it could be happening in humans and babies as well,” said Cheryl Rosenfeld, associate professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Missouri.

The Food and Drug Administration has rejected efforts to ban BPA from food packaging, although several manufacturers of baby bottles and canned foods have voluntarily stopped using the chemical.

The researchers hope to eventually take the lab study into the field, where they would take blood samples from turtles to determine their level of contamination, said Dawn Holliday, assistant professor of biology and environmental science at Westminster College.

The concern is that chemicals in the waterways could already be altering the natural sex selection of turtles, leading to extinction.

“Changing reproductive rates is not something you would be able to walk out to a creek and observe,” she said.

Blythe Bernhard covers health and medicine for the Post-Dispatch. Follow her on twitter @blythebernhard

Monday, June 23, 2014

Buying Local and Organic? You're Still Eating Plastic Chemicals

 
Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates are what's known as "endocrine disruptors"—that is, at very small doses they interfere with our hormonal systems, giving rise to all manner of health trouble.

In peer-reviewed research, BPA has been linked to asthma, anxiety, obesity, kidney and heart disease, and more. The rap sheet for phthalates, meanwhile, includes lower hormones in men, brain development problems, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and, possibly, breast cancer.

So, ingesting these industrial chemicals is a bad idea, especially if you're a kid or a pregnant woman. But avoiding them is very difficult, since they're widely used in plastics, and are ubiquitous in the food supply.

The federal government has not seen fit to ban them generally—although the FDA did outlaw BPA from baby bottles last year (only after the industry had voluntarily removed them) and Congress pushed phthalates out of kids' toys back in 2008. Otherwise, consumers are on their own to figure out how to avoid ingesting them.

Unfortunately, that's a really hard task—and eating fresh, local, and organic might not be sufficient, as new research (abstract), published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, shows.

A team led by Sheela Sathyanarayana of University of Washington's Seattle Children's Research Institute performed a "dietary intervention" on two sets of five local families.

After using urine tests to establish baseline BPA and phthalate levels for each group, they subjected one set of families to five days of eating meals from a catering company that avoids plastics and uses fresh and, when possible, local and organic ingredients.

The other set was given "handouts describing best practice recommendations to reduce phthalate and BPA exposures" and asked to follow them as well as possible as they prepared their meals over the course of the five days. Levels of the chemicals were then again measured after the five-day period.

"I'm a pediatrician, and people are always asking me, 'What can we do in the home to reduce our exposure to these chemicals?'" Sathyanarayana told me.

The idea was to figure out whether merely giving people common sense tips—reduce consumption of canned foods, avoid contact between food and heated plastic, etc.—was sufficient for achieving significant exposure reductions.

They assumed that the catered diet, with its fresh, plastic-free foods, would see their levels of these chemicals drop, and that the families merely following good-practices guidelines wouldn't see much of a change.

The takeaway would be: The guidelines aren't enough, and we need to do more to protect people from these chemicals, because switching to completely scratch-cooked meals isn't an option for most families.

But what they discovered, Sathyanarayana said, was "completely unexpected": The handout-receiving group  indeed showed no change, but for the catered local and organic diet group, BPA levels doubled and levels of the highly toxic phthalate DEHP jumped a stunning 2,377 percent.

In other words, the researchers were right that following guidelines wouldn't do much to decrease exposure, but were surprised to find that eating mainly fresh, local, organic food, cooked and stored without plastics, seemed to dramatically boost levels of these endocrine disruptors.

The researchers were surprised for good reason. Sathyanarayana told me that the team went to great lengths to ensure that the food prepared for the catered-diet group had no exposure to plastic in preparation, cooking, or storage of the ingredients used, to the point that the caterer asked its local farm suppliers to deliver produce in crates instead of plastic bags.

And in a 2011 study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a different set of researchers had subjected five families to a similar catered diet, and got the expected result: BPA levels fell by 66 percent and levels of DEHP dropped by 53 percent to 56 percent.

DEHP is a phthalate. Note the dairy products at the top of the chart, and the spices, especially coriander, toward the bottom. Study by Sathyanarayana, et al, 2013.
 
Stunned by their outlier results, Sathyanarayana and her team went back to the caterer and tested a range of ingredients for phthalates (they didn't test the food for BPA).

The researchers found high levels of DEHP in two kinds of foods: dairy, which had come in glass bottles from a local farm, and spices, which were certified organic but imported. All of the rest of the ingredients showed very low levels. (See table, right).

Sathyanarayana said that phthalate levels for children in the study spiked even higher than those of the adults—probably because they may have consumed more dairy products than the adults, and because of their lower body weights.

Sathyanarayana told me that spices and dairy are well established as carriers of phthalates. She pointed me to this 2006 European study (PDF) on a range of foods (see table IV) that also found high levels in those foodstuffs.

She added that the levels found in the milk and spices used by the caterer were much higher than levels found in previous studies.

I asked Sathyanarayana how phthalates could be getting into glass-bottled milk from a Washington dairy that sells into the Seattle market. She stressed that the group had no specific information on the dairy itself and had only tested its retail milk, cream, and butter.

But she pointed out that that even in relatively small commercial dairies, milk is collected by from cows' udders through soft, flexible plastic tubing—the very kind that often contains phthalates, which are used to make plastic flexible. "It's warm milk going through soft plastic, and we know that when phthalates in plastic are heated, there's leaching," Sathyanarayana said. She stressed that her analysis of possible pathways for exposure was purely conjectural.

As for the organic spices—check out ground coriander in the chart above—she noted that organic standards say nothing about chemicals that might leach into foods through processing. Virtually all spices consumed in the United States are imported, and it's extremely difficult to get information on processing practices, which might be where endocrine disruptors are sneaking in.

I should note, as the study itself does, that these results require much more research before firm conclusions can be made about, say, dairy and spices. The sample size is extremely small, and the results could stem from a problem at a particular dairy or a spice processor. It would be foolhardy to draw conclusion about the BPA or phthalate levels of any particular food, organic, local, or not, from this study alone.

But the findings illustrate a larger point: Independent of choices we make as consumers—whether we buy milk in glass bottles or microwave food in plastic containers—processing is taking place beyond our view that can contaminate our food with endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

I ran the study by Kim Harley, associate director for health effects at University of California-Berkeley's Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health, who has done epidemiological studies on BPA and other endocrine disruptors.

"The lesson is that you can try to reduce exposure, but there are unknown sources of phthalates that could be very large lurking in the food chain," she said. She added that if the best efforts of well-resourced scientists can't always come up with food that's untainted by these chemicals, then consumers acting on their own are in a tight spot.

In my view, when individual consumers can't protect themselves through reasonable means, collective action—i.e., regulation—is the only remedy. These results add to a weight of evidence that should push the FDA to take action on the role of plastic conditioners in food processing and packaging.

I asked Sathyanarayana how she is advising families to minimize exposure to BPA and phthalates. "I'm advising that they not use plastic in cooking storage, and preparation, and to focus on fresh foods and low-fat foods," she said. If only that were enough.

Notes From the Plasticene Epoch

From Ocean to Beach, Tons of Plastic Pollution


Like diamonds, plastics are forever. The tons dumped into the ocean float around, swirling on currents, breaking into smaller bits, never going away. Scientists have identified huge gyres of plastic in the Pacific. There is an Eastern Garbage Patch, between Hawaii and California; a Western Garbage Patch, off Japan, and a patch between them called the Subtropical Convergence Zone, north of Hawaii.

The patches are misunderstood to be visible islands of debris; you can’t actually see them from a boat or plane. They are more like vast, soupy concentrations of flotsam, some of it large, some tiny, all indigestible, sickening and killing fish, birds, whales and turtles.

What you can see is what washes ashore, as countless tons of plastic do on the Hawaiian Islands, which stick up like the teeth of a comb in the middle of the northern Pacific, snagging what drifts by.

On the southern tip of the Big Island of Hawaii, deep ocean currents rub against the remote and rocky shoreline. Volunteers regularly make a long, hot trip to clean the beaches, hauling away fishing nets, lines and traps, toys, shoes, buckets and bottles. Some of the fishing debris is shipped to a Honolulu power plant and incinerated. Some is left on the beach, and more always appears.

The Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which organizes the cleanups, estimates that they have removed about 169 tons of garbage in the last 11 years from a 10-mile stretch of Hawaii Island alone, and that about 15 tons to 20 tons of new trash comes ashore each year. On May 24, two dozen people went out again.

They collected 1,312 pounds of trash, including:

191,739 plastic fragments
562 bottle or container caps
93 toothbrushes
64 beverage bottles
48 hagfish traps
35 buoys and floats
3 refrigerator doors
3 G.I. Joe Real American Hero toys

On a nearby beach at Kamilo Point, geologists have identified a new kind of plastic-infused rock, in areas where the plastic is so abundant in the sand and soil you can’t avoid burning it in campfires. A paper published this month by the Geological Society of America suggests that “plastiglomerate” will someday be part of the fossil record, marking the geological era that some call the Anthropocene, for the human influence.

On Monday in Washington, the State Department will be holding an ocean conference. The topics are ocean acidification, sustainable fishing and marine pollution. The nations represented include the Seychelles, St. Lucia, Kiribati, Palau, Chile, Togo, Norway and New Zealand. Significant progress on healing the oceans is not expected.

The next cleanup is July 13 at Kamilo Point. The effort may seem futile, but at least people are doing something, like the volunteers working along shorelines in the Northeast, Texas, the Pacific Northwest and the Great Lakes.

World leaders, meanwhile? The nations of an increasingly plasticized planet? They are drifting in circles.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Seabirds Continue to Warn about Plastic Pollution in the Oceans

 

Plight of the flesh-footed shearwater in Australia illustrates how widespread the problem is

 

A special report ahead of World Oceans Day

It’s a late May night on Lord Howe Island, and the moon gleams across the volcanic mountains and white sand beaches of this six-mile long isle off the east coast of Australia. While most people are tucked inside their houses or hotels, conservation biologist Dr. Jennifer Lavers and her colleague, naturalist Ian Hutton, don headlamps and bike to the flesh-footed shearwater colony on the northeast side of the island. Lord Howe Island is one of the two main breeding areas for this seabird in the southwest Pacific Ocean (the other is in northern New Zealand). Tonight the colony bustles with 90-day-old chicks flapping their wings as they prepare for their first 6,500-mile flight north to the Bering Sea.
photo of a draggled, dead bird on a beach 
Silke Stuckenbrock / Two Hands Project Even though many seabirds are affected by plastic pollution, the plight flesh-footed shearwater illustrates how widespread the problem is.

Lavers and Hutton set up a makeshift research station in the colony, and handpick chicks to weigh, measure, and take feather samples. They also undertake a lavage process, guiding a tube down each bird’s throat to flush out its stomach contents. This part may seem gruesome, but the lavage provides important information about shearwater diet and nutrition. If a fledgling’s parents fed it well, it will regurgitate natural food sources like squid and fish. But more often than not, chicks will cough up something that does not belong in their stomachs – plastic.

Seabirds ingesting plastic debris that they mistake for food isn’t exactly breaking news. Scientists first discovered plastic debris in the Laysan Albatross in the 1960s. By the mid-1990s, over 111 seabird species were reported to have plastic in their stomachs, pointing to an escalating problem of plastic pollution in our oceans. “Seventy years on, these birds are still saying the same thing,” Lavers says. “They’re telling us that ocean condition is deteriorating, and we need to act now to improve manufacturing processes and management.”

Even though many seabirds are affected by plastic pollution, the flesh-footed shearwater illustrates how widespread the problem is. The species has been listed as “near threatened” in Australia and “nationally vulnerable” in New Zealand.
photo of two people doing a medical procedure on a bird 
Silke Stuckenbrock / Two Hands ProjectJennifer Lavers and Paul Sharp of the Two Hands Project guide a tube down a shearwater chick’s throat to flush out its stomach contents. More often than not, chicks will cough up something that does not belong in their stomachs – plastic.

For years, scientists believed the majority of plastic congregated in the North Pacific gyre, commonly known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” However, there are actually five main gyres that circulate plastic across the oceans. “A large percentage of the plastic that arrives on Lord Howe Island comes from Australia and New Zealand,” Hutton reports, “But plastic also comes from the Northern Hemisphere. We pick up a lot with Asian writing.”

Both shearwater adults and fledglings ingest plastic, but Lavers and Hutton surmise that adults have the instinct to cough it up. However, when the parents forage for their chicks plastic is inadvertently served for supper. “Fledglings sit in their burrows for about 90 days, getting fed food and plastic,” Hutton explains. “They tend not to cough up in the burrow, so the chicks retain that plastic for the entire 90 days.”

Plastic can puncture a chick’s stomach, leading to ulcerations, infection, and death. Lavers and Hutton also recently discovered that shearwaters are suffering from significant heavy metal contamination, most likely because of their plastic-rich diet. Plastic leaches toxic chemicals like chromium and cadmium into a bird’s bloodstream, causing permanent physiological and neurological damage. “Having just one piece of plastic in a seabird can potentially be detrimental,” Lavers says. “There is no safe threshold.”

Lavers studies seabirds around the world, but some of her most shocking finds have been with flesh-footed shearwaters. She once dissected a shearwater chick that contained 276 pieces of plastic, which was 14 percent of the bird’s body weight. While this case was extreme, the quantity of plastic found in shearwaters has increased nearly every year. In 2011, Lavers and Hutton found plastic in 96 percent of the flesh-footed shearwaters they studied. In 2012, 100 percent of the chicks contained plastic.  

Despite this linear trend, 2014 is proving to be an anomalous year. The chicks seem to have less plastic inside them, but more pumice. As Lavers explains, the increase in pumice is probably due to the Kermadec Volcano eruption in 2012, which littered the Tasman Sea with volcanic rock. “It’s sad to say that plastic is the norm now,” Lavers says, “but I have to say that plastic is the norm. And yet we’re seeing a significant reduction in the proportion of birds containing plastic, and also the total number of pieces in each individual bird has gone down.” While this development could be viewed as a positive shift for the species, Lavers notes that most of the shearwater chicks were severely underweight this year, which points to a larger problem.

“It’s important to do studies over many years,” Hutton explains. “If someone had come in this year, and said, ‘okay, let’s see how the birds are being impacted by plastic,’ they might not think it’s a problem.” Lavers and Hutton have yet to publish their latest findings, but their next paper will examine the patterns and trends in flesh-footed shearwaters over the past 15 years, which could provide valuable information about ocean health. (Long-term studies like the one Lavers and Hutton are conducting are rare and underfunded.  They rely on private donors, crowd-funding, and spend a lot of personal money to fund their research)

In the meantime, we need to listen more carefully to what flesh-footed shearwaters – and other seabird sentinels – are telling us. Hutton stresses the importance of public education, and the need for governments to work with corporations to reduce plastic waste. Lavers also believes that plastic pollution needs to be struck at the roots, placing responsibility with the industries that produce it. “Ocean plastic is the modern day Trojan horse, little toxic bullets in sheep’s clothing,” she says, “Exposing the enemy is a monumental task, but we may solve the problem if we find a way to prevent plastic from reaching the ocean in the first place.”

Help fund Lavers and Hutton’s research by donating here.