Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

2  Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

O U T L I N E 2.1 Environmental Impacts 57 2.1.1 Entanglement58 2.1.1.1 Marine Mammals 58 2.1.1.2 Fish/Sharks 59 2.1.1.3 Turtles 59 2.1.1.4 Crustaceans 59 2.1.1.5 Echinoderms and Mollusks 59 2.1.1.6 Marine Birds 59 2.1.2 Ingestion60 2.1.2.1 Color 60 2.1.2.2 Smell 61 2.1.2.3 Shape 61 2.1.2.4 Marine Mammals 62 2.1.2.5 Fish 62 2.1.2.6 Turtles 63 2.1.2.7 Crustaceans 63 2.1.2.8 Mollusks 63 2.1.2.9 Echinoderms 64 2.1.2.10 Polychaetes 64 2.1.2.11 Marine Birds 64

This is the most studied subject of the marine plastic debris (MPD) issue. MPD gives rise to a wide range of negative environmental, social, and economic impacts causing direct or indirect damage to marine ecosystems and human activities such as fishing and aquaculture, shipping, recreational activities, and tourism [1].

2.1  Environmental Impacts There are a vast number of studies and reports on the environmental effects of MPD. Most of the research has been concentrated on the effects of MPD on sea life, in particular on marine mammals, turtles, fishes, seabirds, corals, plankton, etc. The environmental impacts of MPD on sea life refer to increased levels of mortality or sublethal effects on biodiversity caused by (1) entanglement of marine

2.1.3 Rafting65 2.1.4 Loss of Biodiversity and Habitat 65 2.1.5 Coral Reefs 67 2.1.6 Toxicity67 2.1.6.1 Additives 68 2.1.6.2 Solvents 69 2.1.6.3 Monomers and Oligomers 69 2.1.6.4 Persistent Organic Pollutants 70 2.2 Social–Economic Impacts 75 2.2.1 Economic Impacts 75 2.2.1.1 Fishing Industry 75 2.2.1.2 Shipping 76 2.2.1.3 Tourism 76 2.2.1.4 Aesthetics 77 2.2.2 Human Health 77 References77 Appendix94 Appendix 1—Entanglements 94 Appendix 2—Ingestion 110

animals in various types of MPD such as derelict fishing nets (also referred to as “ghost” nets) and plastic fragments; (2) ingestion of small pieces of MPD by marine (micro)organisms; (3) dispersal via rafting of many invasive species to distant places; (4) creation of new habitats of marine species; and (5) effect on existing habitats [2]. In the United Nations report of 2012, the environmental impacts of MPD accounted for more than 80% of all marine debris, whereas paper, glass, and metal accounted for less than 2% [2]. A United Nations report, “Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Signi­ ficant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity” of 2016 found that the number of spe­ cies affected by marine debris has increased from 663 to 817 since 2012 [3]. There are a total of 154 new species records since the 2012 review, representing a 23% increase in the total number of species affected.

Management of Marine Plastic Debris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-44354-8.00002-1 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

57

58

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Most of the MPD found in the stomachs or on the skins of marine animals or in the aquatic ecosystem are characterized by shape (e.g., plastic fragments, pellets, pieces of films, threads, or nets), size, and/or color, but rarely by chemical nature, although many of the plastics may have different effects.

the marine environment, monofilament line and other derelict fishing gear continue to catch fish, unin­ tentionally entangling marine life. The problem of derelict fishing gear (or “ghost” fishing) was first rec­ ognized in gillnet fisheries at a Food and Agriculture Organization meeting in Rome in 1960 [8]. Ghost fishing has been defined as the ability of fishing gear to continue to fish after all control of that gear is lost by the fisher. This definition does not take into account the mortality rate of marine animals trapped in the fishing gear. The presence of derelict fishing gear and the entry of marine organisms into that gear is not substantial enough evidence to prove that the gear was “ghost fishing” [9]. An extensive literature review by Gall and Thompson [10] on the effects of marine debris (92% MPD) on marine organisms found that reports of entanglement were made for 30,896 (out of 44,006) individuals from 243 (out of 395) species. Reports of entanglement in marine debris by species were most numerous for the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) (n = 38), the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (n = 19), and hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Species with the greatest number of indi­ viduals becoming entangled in debris were the north­ ern fur seal (C. ursinus) (n = 3835), Californian sea lion (Zalophus californianus) (n = 3587), and Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) (n = 674).

2.1.1 Entanglement Entanglement is an interaction between marine life and entanglement material whereby the loops and openings of various types of man-made debris entangle animal appendages or entrap animals [4]. Entanglements can result in death or injury of the animal. Animals that become entangled may drown, have their ability to catch food or avoid predators impaired, or incur wounds from abrasive or cut­ ting action of attached debris [4–6]. Entanglement can greatly reduce fitness, as it leads to a significant increase in energetic costs of travel; for instance, for the northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) net frag­ ments over 200 g could result in fourfold increase in the demand of food consumption to maintain body condition [7]. The number of marine animals found entangled in MPD is listed in Table 2.1. The types of MPD most commonly associated with entanglement are fishing nets, monofilament lines, lost crab traps and fish pots, rope, strapping bands, plastic bands, balloons, and six-pack drink holders. Entanglement in MPD, especially in derelict fish­ ing gear, is a very serious threat to marine animals. Monofilament line and commercial fishing gear are designed to be strong, durable, and nearly invisible in the water. These qualities make the materials well suited to catching fish. Unfortunately, when left in

2.1.1.1  Marine Mammals It is estimated that 45%–46% (52–53 of 115) of all marine mammals have been entangled in MPD (see Table 2.1). A list of mammals found entangled in MPD is given in Appendix 1, Table A1.1. Baulch and Perry [11] listed 15 species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) involved in entanglement in

Table 2.1  Number of Species Found Entangled in Plastics (Compiled by the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2016) [3]

Species Group

Total Number of Known Species

Gall and Thompson [10]

SCBD [3]

Number

%

Number

%

115

52

45

53

46

Fish

16,754

66

0.39

129

0.77

Marine reptiles (+brackish turtles)

70 (+6)

7

10

8 (+1)

11.4 (+0.4)

312

79

25

80

26

Marine mammals

Marine birds SCBD, convention on biological diversity.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

MPD. Bottlenose dolphins were the most commonly entangled odontocete, with most entanglements involving monofilament line, net fragments, and rope attached commonly to the appendages. Nearly all (98%) marine debris entanglements of cetaceans were with derelict fishing gear. A study by McFee and Hopkins-Murphy [12] of all bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) found stranded in South Carolina observed an overall entan­ glement rate of 10.8% in marine debris from 1992 to 1996, primarily from monofilament line and rope fragments. That rate increased over the next 7 years (1997–2003) [13] to 12.3%. DeGange and Newby (1980) reported the case of three dead and two living sea otters (Enhydra lutris) recovered from a 3500-m lost monofilament gillnet [14]. Barco et al. [15] documented the first case of a fatal entanglement of a common bottlenose dolphin in a Spectra fishing twine that ended up as debris. Spectra fishing twine is a new type of fishing gear made of Spectra fibers. Spectra/Honeywell is a made of ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene, and it is claimed to be one of the world’s strongest and light­ est fibers. The pinniped with the most references to MPD entanglement in the US waters is the northern fur seal (C. ursinus) followed by the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), the California sea lion, and the northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Pinnipeds were generally observed to be entangled around the head and appendages in net fragments, monofilament line, packing straps, rope, and rubber products [16]. The decline in the populations of the northern sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), endangered Hawaiian monk seal [17,18], and northern fur seal [19] seems at least aggravated by entanglement of young animals in derelict fishing nets and packing bands. Page et al. [20] report that New Zealand fur seals were commonly entangled in loops of packing tape and trawl net fragments sus­ pected to be from rock lobster and trawl fisheries.

2.1.1.2 Fish/Sharks According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [16] the earliest report of any fish found entangled in marine debris was in 1928 from Gudger [21] of a mackerel (Scomber scombrus) caught off Block Island near Connecticut, which was wrapped with a rubber band. Gudger and Hoffman

59

(1931) also reported a shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) found dead with a rubber car tire around its neck in Cuba. Fish is found often entangled in derelict fishing gear. Sharks have been found with plastic collars or polypropylene strapping bands round their necks [22–24], while a large number have been found entangled in derelict fishing gear [25–27]. A list of fish and sharks found entangled in MPD is given in Appendix 1, Table A1.2.

2.1.1.3 Turtles Sea turtles tend to align themselves with oce­ anic fronts, convergences, rip, and driftlines where marine debris often occur [28]. As such, sea turtles are susceptible to entanglement in marine debris that can form loops and openings that could catch on and appendages such as fishing gear [16]. Hawksbill tur­ tles show a tendency to entangle in plastic bags and sacks [29]. Leatherback turtles have been commonly entangled in monofilament line [30]. Entanglement accounts for 10%–11.8% of all turtle species (includ­ ing brackish turtles) (see Table 2.1). Bjorndal and Bolton [31] reported that 5% of 1500 observed sea turtles worldwide were entangled in marine debris. A list of turtles found entangled in MPD is given in Appendix 1, Table A1.3.

2.1.1.4 Crustaceans Crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters are fre­ quently trapped in derelict fishing gear. Crab mortality from derelict gillnets is small relative to the tens of thousands of crabs killed annually by crab pots [32]. A list of crustaceans found entangled in MPD is given in Appendix 1, Table A1.4.

2.1.1.5  Echinoderms and Mollusks Most derelict fishing gear (fishing nets, pots, and traps) is populated with echinoderms and mollusks. Good et al. [32] provide an extensive list of echino­ derms and mollusks found in derelict fishing gear in the inland marine waters of Washington during the period 2002–2008; see also Appendix 1, Tables A1.5 and A1.6.

2.1.1.6  Marine Birds It is estimated that 25%–26% (79–80 of 312) of all marine birds have been entangled in MPD (see Table 2.1). However, these results shall be treated

60

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

with caution because of the difficulty in distinguish­ ing between entanglement in actively fished gear and marine debris [33]. Marine birds have also been found dead in der­ elict fishing nets. Diving birds appear to be suscep­ tible to entanglement in nets while pursuing fish underwater [34]. A list of marine birds found entangled in MPD is given in Appendix 1, Table A1.7.

2.1.1.6.1 Nesting Besides the risk of entanglement from derelict nets and fishing gear, marine birds are also susceptible to entanglement from plastics and other synthetic mate­ rials that they may gather for making nests [16]. Podolsky and Kress [35] observed cormorants in Maine making nests from MPD including net frag­ ments and fishing line. In their opinion the biggest threat of entanglement was to the chicks, although no entanglements were observed. A list of MPD used as nesting materials used by marine birds is given in Appendix 1, Table A1.8.

2.1.2 Ingestion The negative effects of ingested MPD can be divided into three categories [31]: physical damage to the digestive system [32,33]; impairment of diges­ tive and foraging efficiency [34]; and the release of toxic chemicals [35–37]. Most of plastics found in the stomachs of marine animals are characterized by shape (e.g., plastic frag­ ments, pellets, pieces of films, threads, or nets) and/ or color. An extensive literature review by Gall and Thompson [10] on the effects of marine debris (92% MPD) on marine organisms found that reports of

ingestion were made for 13,110 (out of 44,006) indi­ viduals from 208 (out of 395) species (Table 2.2). Reports of the incidence of ingestion of MPD by species were most numerous for the green sea tur­ tle (C. mydas) (n = 20), northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) (n = 20), and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) (n = 18). Species with the greatest number of individuals ingesting debris were the northern fulmar (F. glacialis) (n = 3444), Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) (n = 971), and greater shearwater (Puffinus gravis) (n = 895).

2.1.2.1 Color There are two predominant hypotheses as to why marine animals ingest plastic: (1) they are opportu­ nistic feeders, eating plastic when they encounter it, and (2) they eat plastic because it is visually mistaken for prey [36]. Carpenter et al. [37] examined various species of fish with MPD in their guts and found that only white plastic spherules had been ingested, indicating that they feed selectively. Plastics found in the stomach of common plank­ tivorous fish in the North Pacific Central gyre were white (58.2%), clear (16.7%), and blue (11.9%). These colors are similar to those of the area’s plank­ ton, a primary food source for surface feeding fish. This similarity may explain a propensity for inges­ tion by fish [38]. There is also some evidence that blue or yellow MPD is attracted more frequently by marine fish and sharks [39]. A study done on 1033 seabirds collected off the coast of North Carolina in the United States from 1975 to 1989 found that individuals from 55% of the 38 seabird species recorded had plastic particles in their guts, the contents of which showed that some

Table 2.2  Number of Species Having Ingested Plastics (Compiled by the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2016) [3]

Species Group

Total Number of Known Species

Gall and Thompson [10]

SCBD [3]

Number

%

Number

%

115

30

26

46

40

16,754

50

0.30

62

0.37

Marine reptiles

70

6

8.6

6

8.6

Seabirds

312

122

39

131

44

Marine mammals Fish

SCBD, convention on biological diversity.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

seabirds select specific plastic shapes and colors, mistaking them for potential prey items [40]. Shaw and Day [41] came to the same conclusions, as they studied the presence of floating plastic particles of different forms, colors, and sizes in the North Pacific Ocean in 1987 and 1988. Schuyler et al. [36] showed that turtles preferred more flexible and translucent items to what was available in the environment, lending support to the hypothesis that they prefer debris that resemble prey, particularly jellyfish. They also ate fewer blue items, suggesting that such items may be less conspicuous against the background of open water where they forage. Santos et al. [42] contested the “jellyfish” hypoth­ esis arguing that this hypothesis is not compatible with the diversity of ingested plastic [43] and with the main items found in green turtles’ diet [44]. Additionally, Lutz [45] conducted an experiment where different colors of latex and flexible plastic fragments were offered to green turtles and found that clear plastic, which may be considered the most jellyfish similar fragment, has the lowest acceptance rate. Color is not the only visual factor employed in food selection. Contrast has been found to be as important as, or even more influential than, color in selecting food sources by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) [46]. Santos et al. [42] assessed differences in the con­ spicuousness of MPD related to their color using Thayer’s law1 to infer the likelihood that visual for­ agers detect plastic fragments. It was hypothesized that marine animals that perceive floating plastic from below (e.g., turtles) should preferentially ingest dark plastic fragments, whereas animals that perceive floating plastic from above (e.g., seabirds) should select for paler plastic fragments. This prediction is based on the fact that light plastic debris are less conspicuous than dark marine debris when viewed from below and explained by the generalized prin­ ciple of background matching. Using visual model­ ing, Schuyler et al. [36] studied debris selectivity in sea turtles and found a similar pattern: although dark objects were positively selected by sea turtles, a pref­ erence for more flexible and translucent items was

1. Thayer’s Law states that animals display darker coloring along their topline and paler coloring on their undersides as a means of camouflage because it counters the shadow cast by the sun.

61

also observed. On the other hand, seabirds ingested more light plastic than dark plastic. Furthermore, the few studies that contrast light and dark plastics availability in the environment and ingested plastic by marine birds found that 93% of the ingested plastics were light in color or shade and that there was some selection for the light brown colors (white, yellow, tan, and brown) (79.0% of the plastic in the ocean and 85.0% of the ingested plastic) [47,48], which supports Santos et al.’s hypothesis. However, even Santos’ hypothesis does not explain the diversity of plastic items found in the stomachs of other marine animals such as fishes and mammals.

2.1.2.2 Smell Savoca et al. [49] demonstrated that the smell of marine-seasoned microplastics, when fouled by algae, is attractive to some seabirds. Floating MPD is easily fouled by biota that produces an infochemical called dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which is produced by the enzymatic breakdown of dimethylsulfoniopropio­ nate (DMSP) in marine phytoplankton (usually when it is being eaten). MPD fouled by DSM-producing biota acquires a chemical profile that attracts DMSresponsive species, eventually leading them to con­ sume it. DMS serves as a foraging cue for many pelagic marine organisms, including the highly olfac­ tory procellariiform seabirds. Among procellariiform seabirds, a variety of experimental evidence suggests that DMS tracking is limited to a subset of species that specialize on phytoplankton grazers (for exam­ ple, krill). Only 8% of birds that do not respond to DMS ate plastic in contrast to 48% of birds that use it as a feeding signal. Chemical analyses suggest that it takes less than a month for some types of plastics [high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene] to pick up the telltale scent.

2.1.2.3 Shape Marine microplastics occur in a variety of shapes from fibers to irregular fragments to spheres and rods, and there is potential for the physical adverse effects of polymers to alter depending on form [50]. Fibers are the most common shape of microplas­ tics in the marine benthic habitats [51]. Benthic holothurians (sea cucumbers) were found to selec­ tively ingest microplastics, showing a preference for fibrous shapes. The nonselective benthic scavenger and predatory crustacean Nephrops norvegicus was

62

found to contain nylon fibers in the gut. This implies their habitat is a sink for fibers. Because shape may play a role in the toxicity of ingested microplas­ tics—long, rod-shaped nanoparticles are considered more toxic than spherules—these organisms can be considered sensitive to the potential toxicity of microplastics [50]. However, there are presently no conclusive reports on the effect of shape of ingested microplastics on marine organisms.

2.1.2.4  Marine Mammals Baulch and Perry [52] listed 48 cetacean species (56% of all) having ingested marine debris with rates of ingestion as high as 31% in some populations. Items ingested by cetaceans were most commonly plastic (47%), with fishing gear (e.g., nets, hooks, lines etc.) (25%) and miscellaneous items (28%) con­ stituting the remainder [11]. MPD ingestion was examined in 106 Franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) incidentally cap­ tured in artisanal fisheries of the northern coast of Argentina. 28% of the dolphins presented MPD in their stomach, but no ulcerations or obstructions were recorded in the digestive tracts. MPD inges­ tion was more frequent in estuarine (34.6%) than in marine (19.2%) environments, but the type of debris was similar. Packaging debris (cellophane, bags, and bands) was found in 64.3% of the dol­ phins, with a lesser proportion (35.7%) ingest­ ing fishery gear fragments (monofilament lines, ropes, and nets) or of unknown sources (25.0%). MPD ingestion correlated with changes in feed­ ing regimes, reaching maximum values in recently weaned dolphins [31]. Large filter-feeding cetaceans appear to be sus­ ceptible to contamination by microplastics. The pres­ ence of phthalates in the blubber of Mediterranean fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) has been linked to the intake of microplastics by water filtering and plankton ingestion [53]. Small particles were detected in the stomachs of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from the North Sea [54] and in the scats of fur seals (Arctocephalus spp.) from Macquarie Island, Australia [55]. Microplastics were also found in the digestive tract of a True’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) from the north and west coasts of Ireland. It has been suggested that marine mammals are exposed to microplastic via trophic transfer from prey species.

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

A list of mammals having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.1.

2.1.2.5 Fish Occurrence of microplastics in the stomachs of fish poses several environmental concerns. Ingested microplastics are passed through in the feces, retained in the digestive tract, or translocated from the gut into body tissues via the epithelial lining [56,57]. Negative effects on fish health are due to the plastic itself and to other pollutants in the marine environ­ ment absorbed by MPD. Davison and Asch [58] reported that at least 9.2% of fish in and below the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1) had plastic debris in their stomachs, and the researchers estimated that fish in the North Pacific are ingesting 12,000–24,000 t of plastic every year (see Fig. 2.1). Percent occurrences of plastics in the stomach contents of marine fishes range from 2.6% in the North Sea [60] to 36.5% in the English Channel [61]. The 184 fish that had ingested plastic (including 10 species of fish, 5 pelagic species and 5 demersal spe­ cies) from the English Channel were found to contain polyamide (35.6%) and rayon (57.8%) as the most common plastics [61]. Freshwater wild gudgeons, Gobio gobio, inhabit­ ing French rivers were found to ingest microplastics. Microplastics were also detected in the gastrointes­ tinal tracts of Lake Victoria Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [62]. Microplastics were confirmed in 20% of both species.

Figure 2.1 “Trash fish”; dubbed term suggesting fish ingesting plastics in the “Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch” [59]. Courtesy of Conservation Magazine, 2011.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

A list of fish having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.2.

2.1.2.6 Turtles Marine turtles are an iconic group of endangered animals threatened by MPD ingestion. Small pieces of latex, such as condoms or balloons, and plastic films, such as plastic bags, can be retained in the digestive tract of normally feeding sea turtles for up to 4 months, and the latex appeared to have deteri­ orated during this time [45]. Although natural rub­ ber latex is biodegradable, it is not digestible (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1.3). The absorption of plasti­ cizers by sea turtles is also a source of concern [63]. Marine turtles are also noted for consuming plastic bags at sea. It is assumed that these neutrally buoyant bags are mistaken by the turtles for food items such as salps and medusae, the major food items of leath­ erback turtles [64,65]. Mrosovsky et al. [66] studied the autopsy records of 408 leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), spanning 123 years (1885–2007). The first men­ tion of plastic in the gastrointestinal tract was for 1968. Of the 371 autopsies performed from that year onward, 37.1% revealed the presence of plas­ tics. Blockage of the gut by plastic was mentioned in some accounts [7]. Balazs [28] listed 79 cases of turtles whose guts were full of various sorts of plastic debris. Plotkin and Amos [29] necropsied 111 turtles found stranded on the South Texas coast from 1986 through 1988. MPD was found in the stomachs or intestinal tracts of 60 (54.1%) of the turtles. MPD was present in 52.3% of the loggerhead turtles (C. caretta), 46.7% of the green turtles (C. mydas), and 87.5% of the hawksbill turtles. Lazar et al. [67] analyzed the gastrointestinal tract of 54 loggerhead sea turtles found stranded or inci­ dentally captured dead by fisheries in the Adriatic Sea. MPD was present in 35.2% of turtles and included soft plastic, ropes, expanded polystyrene (EPS), and monofilament lines found in 68.4%, 42.1%, 15.8%, and 5.3% of loggerheads that have ingested debris, respectively. Santos et al. [43] analyzed the impact of MPD ingestion in 265 green turtles (C. mydas) over a large geographical area and different habitats along the Brazilian coast. It was found that a sur­ prisingly small amount of debris (about 0.5 g for

63

juveniles and about 47% for adults) was sufficient to block the digestive tract and cause death of juvenile green turtles. A large part of the ingested debris might come from disposable and short-lived plastic products. A list of turtles having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.3.

2.1.2.7 Crustaceans Norway lobsters (N. norvegicus) are known to extensively ingest MPD. Norway lobsters sampled in the Clyde Sea, United Kingdom, have been found to ingest microplastics as 83% of the individuals sam­ pled had plastics (predominately filaments) in their stomachs [68]. Most of these microparticles were tightly tangled balls of plastic strands originating from fishing waste. The fishery for Norway lobster is the most valuable in Scotland, and the high preva­ lence of plastics in Nephrops may have implications for the health of the stock [69]. Another study clearly indicated that shrimps (Crangon crangon) in the Channel area and southern part of the North Sea are also able to ingest micro­ plastics, as an opportunistic feeder. Synthetic fibers ranging from 200 μm up to 1000 μm were detected in 63% of the assessed shrimp [70]. A list of crustaceans (lobsters, crayfish, shrimp, krill, and barnacles) having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 1, Table A2.4.

2.1.2.8 Mollusks Microplastics have been found in mussels and oysters. Like other marine organisms, microplastics can transfer contaminants to mollusks. A study showed that the microplastics remained inside mussels (Mytilus edulis) for 48 days. The persistence of microplastics in the hemolymph of M. edulis for over 48 days has implications for predators, including birds, crabs, starfish, predatory whelks, and humans [57]. The presence of microplastics in seafood is an indication that microplastics are entering the marine food chain. Taking into consideration that the global food supply of seafood, from both capture and aqua­ culture production, was over 125 × 106 t in 2009 [71], consequences for human food safety need to be con­ sidered [72]. A list of mollusks (mussels, oysters) having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.5.

64

2.1.2.9 Echinoderms Microplastic ingestion has also been docu­ mented in the benthic holothurians Thyonella gemmate, Holothuria floridana, Holothuria grisea, and Cucumaria frondosa. These organisms feed on debris in the benthic zone of the ocean and adopt a nonselective feeding strategy whereby large volumes of sediment are ingested—the associated organic debris and microorganisms of which are retained [50]. Graham and Thompson [73] found benthic holothurians belonging to four species of two orders ingested significantly more plastic (0.25–15 mm) than expected, between 2and 20-fold more poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) frag­ ments and between 2- and 138-fold more nylon line fragments (up to 517 fibers per individual), based on plastic to sand grain ratios from each sed­ iment treatment. This suggests individuals were selectively ingesting microplastics, which may be attributed to the feeding techniques adopted by each order. In a laboratory study investigating particle capture and suspension feeding methods, sea urchin, sea star, sand dollar, brittle star, and sea cucumber larvae cap­ tured and ingested 10–20 μm divinylbenzene micro­ spheres [50]. A list of echinoderms having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.6.

2.1.2.10 Polychaetes An important sediment-associated marine micro­ organism that has been the subject of several micro­ plastic effect assessments is the deposit-feeding marine lugworm Arenicola marina. A laboratory study showed that the exposure of lugworms to sediment spiked with 10 μm, 30 μm, and 90 μm poly­ styrene microspheres (total concentration of 100 particles/sediment) for 14 days did not have a sig­ nificant effect on the energy metabolism [74]. In another study, a 28-day exposure of the lugworms to unplasticized PVC (UPVC) microparticles showed a decrease in the energy reserves of worms [75]. Lugworms chronically exposed to 5 wt% UPVC mic­ roparticles (mean diameter 130 μm) displayed signif­ icantly reduced feeding activity compared to control and 1 wt% UPVC-exposed lugworms. Suppressed feeding activity may decrease energy assimilation, compromising fitness. The total available energy reserves in worms chronically exposed to 1 wt% and 5 wt% UPVC were significantly reduced compared to preexposure and control animals [75].

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

A list of polychaetes (annelid worms) having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.7.

2.1.2.11  Marine Birds Ingestion of MPD by seabirds was first noted in the 1960s [76–79]. For a large number of seabirds, the ingestion of plastics is directly correlated to for­ aging strategies and technique, and diet [40,80,81]. There is evidence that some birds mistake plastic particles waste for potential prey items and select specific plastic shapes and colors [40,82]. On the other hand, a number of bird species such as loon and sea ducks appear to be at very low risk of ingesting plastics. This is likely because of the diving foraging strategy employed by these species (i.e., plastics are likely to be encountered at the water surface because of buoyancy, specific gravity, or entanglement in debris along tidal rips and upwellings) [40,83]. The known effects of ingestion of MPD by birds include reducing the absorption of nutrients in the gut, reducing the amount of space for food in the gizzard and stomach, uptake of toxic substances that comprise the MPD or have been adsorbed onto the MPD, ulceration of tissues, and mechanical block­ age of digestive processes [80,81,84–86]. Spear et al. [86] provided probably the first solid evidence for a negative relationship between number of plastic par­ ticles ingested and physical condition (body weight) in seabirds from the tropical Pacific. Other harmful effects from the ingestion of plastics include blockage of gastric enzyme secretion, dimin­ ished feeding stimulus, lowered steroid hormone lev­ els, delayed ovulation, and reproductive failure [81]. The extent of the harm, however, will vary among species. Procellariiformes, for example, are more vulnerable because of their inability to regurgitate ingested plastics [81,87]. Birds either consume the plastic particles directly [40,88] or gather it for provisioning to dependent chicks [5,53,84]. In 2015, a case was recorded in the East Aegean Sea of an Eleonora’s falcon parent attempting to feed a plastic wrapper to its chicks, seemingly mistaken it for prey [89]. The chicks of Laysan albatrosses (Diomedea immutabilis) in the Hawaiian Islands are unable to regurgitate plastic debris, which accumulate in their stomachs, becom­ ing a significant source of mortality, as 90% of the chicks surveyed had some sort of plastic debris in their upper digestive tract [84]. Fulmars (F. glacialis) in the North Atlantic have been monitors for plastic ingestion for the last 30

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

years and are sued as bioindicators of plastic pol­ lution by OSPAR and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4). A recent projection model concluded that more than 99% of all seabirds (n > 300) species, from pen­ guins to petrels, will have ingested MPD by 2050 [90]. A list of marine birds having ingested MPD is given in Appendix 2, Table A2.8.

2.1.3 Rafting MPD is an ideal medium not only for sorbing and concentrating persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (see Section 2.1.6.4) but also for fouling organisms. Both POPs and organisms can be distributed widely to new locations over time. Floating and submerged MPD were reported to act as rafts for the transport of alien and invasive species to distant or remote areas. Some types of MPD, such as plastic bags and films, are completely submerged and remain just below the surface where they are transported by currents. Others (EPS buoys and plastic bottles) are floating and are transported more by the wind than by currents. As a result, the two types of MPD rafts have different directions and velocities of dispersal [91]. The dispersal of marine and terrestrial organisms on MPD has bio­ geographical and ecological consequences. Barnes and Milner [92] reported that up to 7% of litter stranded at beaches of the Kongsfjord in Finnmark, Norway, was colonized with organisms such as the exotic invasive barnacle Elminius modestus and the “most extreme latitude organism hitchhiker,” Membranipora membranacea (Bryozoa). Over long, long-distance “rafting” of biota on floating MPD may increase the risk of alien invasion and successful establishment, particularly in areas of currently rapid environmental changes such as the Arctic. Gall and Thompson [10] estimated that the materials comprising the rafting debris, intact plastic items, and packaging accounted for 40% of all reported encounters with species, followed by plastic fragments (36%), ropes and netting (17%), other fishing material (1.50%), and microplastics (1.50%). Although there is no evidence that the polymer type is relevant for the composition of the rafting macrobiota, it was shown that it influ­ ences the composition of microorganisms [93]. Carson [39] found significantly more bacteria on

65

polystyrene than on polyethylene and polypro­ pylene, probably because of the surface charac­ teristics of the material. Zettler et al. [94] found distinct bacterial assemblages on polypropylene and polyethylene with a compositional overlap of less than 50%. Among the identified species found on rafting MPD, there were (micro)organisms from sponges, cnidaria, marine worms (polychaetes), sea spiders, crustaceans, bryozoans, echinoderms, ascidians, seagrass and algae, mollusks, nonmarine, and other nonidentified taxonomic groups [2,10]. Large fishes were found commonly below large plastic bags. Kiessling et al. [93] compiled a list of 387 taxa that have been found rafting on floating debris. Most taxa (335) were associated with plastic substrata (domestic waste, plastic fragments, or buoys made of plastic), which constitute the large majority of anthropogenic floating litter in the oceans. A repre­ sentative list of rafting (micro)organisms of MPD is given in Table 2.3.

2.1.4  Loss of Biodiversity and Habitat Global in its distribution and pervading all levels of the water column, MPD poses a serious threat to marine habitats and wildlife. When settled on the seafloor, marine debris alters the habitat, either by introducing hard substrates where none was available before or by overlaying the sediment, inhibiting gas exchange and interfering with life on the seabed. If relatively static on the seabed, or buoyant but retained in oceanic gyres, MPD will still become colonized providing additional habitat having the potential to influence, the relative abundance of organisms within local assemblages [2]. Ecosystem impacts can also occur in the intertidal. For example, microplastics and debris fragments on beaches have been reported to alter the porosity of the sediment and its heat transfer capacity. It has been suggested that increased debris loads could lead to reduced subsurface temperatures, potentially affecting organisms such as sea turtles whose sex determination relies on temperature [103]. Nesting beaches for sea turtles are frequently sinks for MPD. As a result, nesting females may have diffi­ culty ascending to lay their eggs, or debris could act as obstacles for emerging hatchlings. Moreover, the physical properties of nesting beaches, particularly the permeability and temperature of sediments, are

66

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Table 2.3  Examples of (Micro)organisms Rafting on Marine Plastic Debris Type and Shape of Plastic

Study Period

References

Washed ashore on Adelaide Island, Antarctic Peninsula (68°S)

2003

[95]

N. New Zealand

Early 1970’s

[96]

Atlantic coast of Florida, Fort Pierce

<1982

[97]

Florida

<1997

[98]

Attached Species

Location

Plastic packaging band

Cheilostomatid bryozoans (Aimulosia antarctica, Arachnopusia inchoata, Ellisina antarctica, Fenestrulina rugula, and Micropora brevissima); gastropod (Mollusca) (Laevilitorina antarctica); demosponges (Porifera); hydroid (Cnidaria); and polychaetes (Annelida)

Virgin plastic pellets

Bryozoan: Membranipora tuberculata

Plastic debris

Plastic items Synthetic rope

Derelict trawl net

Plastic fish buckets Plastic bags, EPS, plastic debris, plastic bottles; fishing gear

Flake of plastic sheeting

Fish crate EPS, expanded polystyrene.

Bryozoan: Membranipora tuberculate, Electra tenella Bryozoan: Thalamoporella evelinae Oyster: Lopha cristagalli

SW New Zealand, Fiordland

<1997

[98]

Sea anemone: Diadumene lineata

Lagoon at Pearl and Hermes Reef, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

2000

[99]

Barnacle: Perforatus perforatus

UK, N Wales

2003–2004

[100]

Lepadomorph barnacle: Lepas pectinata; Isopod: Idotea metallica Mollusks, polychaetes and Bryozoans; Polychaetes: Spirobranchus polytrema and Nereis falsa; Nudibranch mollusk: Doto sp.; Hydroid: Obelia dichotoma

W. Mediterranean Sea, Ligurian Sea

1997

[91]

Celeporid bryozoan: Galeopsis mimicus

New Zealand, eastern South Island, South Canterbury Bight, 60 km offshore at a water depth of 393 m

<2005

[101]

Mollusk: Pinctada sp

Bermuda

1990

[102]

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

known to be altered by the presence of plastic frag­ ments. Such alterations could ultimately have impli­ cations for sex ratios, which are influenced by nest conditions, and for nest success rates when pollu­ tion is severe [104].

2.1.5  Coral Reefs Derelict fishing gear physically damages coral reef ecosystems by abrading and scouring living coral polyps and altering reef structure by destroy­ ing the reef’s skeleton foundation, while they entangle and kill reef animals [105]. Damage to coral reefs by abandoned gillnets varied from tis­ sue loss affecting a few coral colonies to the mor­ tality of entire reefs. Attempts by fishermen to retrieve entangled nets by force often cause sig­ nificant damage, tearing up, and breaking coral colonies. Nets lying passively over a reef provide a substrate for colonizing algae, which subsequently reduces the amount of available light to the under­ lying corals through shading effects and reduces water exchange. Algae then begin to colonize and quickly outcompete coral and prevent coral larval settlement. The action of waves, currents and tidal ebb, and flow causes the movement of nets, result­ ing in tissue loss through abrasion and breakage of entangled corals [106]. Cast-fishing lines are likely to abrade polyps and the upper tissue layers of corals. Shore-fishing tackle also damages corals with lead sinkers and steel hooks. When lines become entangled in corals or catch cor­ als by their sinkers and hooks, they are often cut off at the reel and left on the reef. Cut lines are swept by surge action and become entangled in and abrade corals. A high incidence of damage by monofilament fishing lines on cauliflower coral (Pocillopora meandrina) colonies was reported in Hawaii Islands at the major fishing sites on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii [107,108]. Between 1996 and 2006, NOAA recovered a total of 511 Mt of fishing gear from the reefs of the Northwest Hawaiian Island Marine National Monument, one of the largest marine areas in the world [109]. Coral reefs in Oman have suffered significant damage and widespread degradation from human activities including fishery, tourism, and recreation. Abandoned nets may result in the complete destruc­ tion of whole coral reef areas. Lost or abandoned gillnets were found to affect coral reefs at 49% of

67

sites throughout Oman and accounted for 70% of all severe human impacts. Lost gillnets were also found to have a negative effect on fisheries resources and other marine wildlife. A recent study [110] showed that corals ingest microplastics (<5 mm) about the same rate as their standard food, such as zooplankton. Corals may be exposed to plastics in a variety of ways, particularly at low tide when floating plastics are likely to come into contact with corals on shallow reef crests and flats. Analysis of samples from subsurface plank­ ton tows conducted in close proximity to inshore reefs on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef revealed that microplastics are present in reef waters, with up to two plastic fragments found (size 100–500 μm) per 11,000 L seawater. Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectra identified these fragments as polystyrene, polyure­ thane, and polyester [e.g., poly(ethylene terephthal­ ate) (PET)] plastics that are commonly found in marine paints and fishing floats. The majority of microplastics found were <1 mm and often fibrous. Experimental feeding trials with shavings of blue polypropylene (10 μm–2 mm) showed that some scleractinian corals (Dipsastrea pallida) mistake microplastics for prey and can consume up to 50 μg plastic/cm2/h and retain these plastics within their gut cavity for at least 24 h.

2.1.6 Toxicity The plastic polymers are considered to be bio­ chemically inert because of their large molecular weight and are, therefore, not considered to be hazardous for the marine environment. However, unreacted monomers, oligomers, residual cata­ lysts, and solvents can be found in the plastic products as a result of incomplete polymeriza­ tion [111]. Plastics also contain several additives that have been added to endow the plastics with certain desirable properties. While at sea, several of these chemical compounds and additives can be released from the MPD in the marine environ­ ment as a result of degradation and/or incomplete polymerization. Furthermore, plastics because of their hydropho­ bic nature act as “sponges” and absorb a wide range of inorganic and organic compounds from the marine environment [112]. In this way, MPD may act as transport vector of chemical pollutants to marine organisms [113,114].

68

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

2.1.6.1 Additives

surface compared with DMP [116]. Because of their hydrophobicity and octanol–seawater partition coef­ ficients ranging between 101.80 for DMP and 1010.0 for diisodecyl phthalate, dialkyl phthalates have the tendency to sorb strongly to particulate matter and bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms in aquatic envi­ ronments. The dispersion of dialkyl phthalates in the marine environment has important implications on the aquatic organisms such as fish, filter feeders, and sediment-dwelling organisms [117].

Additives are used to improve or modify mechan­ ical properties (fillers and reinforcements), modify the color (pigments and dyestuffs), provide resis­ tance to heat, aging (antioxidants and stabilizers) and light degradation (UV stabilizers), improve flame resistance (flame retardants) and processing characteristics (recycling additive), and the perfor­ mance (antistatic/conductive additives, plasticizers, blowing agents, lubricants, mold release agents, surfactants, and preservatives) of the polymer [115]. The extensive use of additive chemicals in plastic production leads to their wide distribution in the marine environment (see Table 2.4).

2.1.6.1.2  Flame Retardants Brominated flame retardants are a structurally diverse group of chemicals that are added to poly­ mers used in plastics, textiles, electronic circuitry, and other materials to reduce the risk of fire [118]. Some of them are ubiquitous, and many have been detected in biota, sediments, air, water, and marine mammals [119]. To date, at least 75 different brominated flame retardants have been commercially produced [120]. So far, studies have been primarily focused on three groups: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and biphenyls, hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs), and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP-A). These brominated flame retardants are persistent and can accumulate in the environment [119,121]. Strict bans have been imposed on the worldwide use of penta-brominated diphenyl ether (penta-BDE) and octa-brominated diphenyl ether (octa-BDE) formulations. The use of deca-brominated diphenyl ether in the European Union has been banned in electrical and electronic applications since July 1, 2008 [122]. Components of the penta-BDE and octa-BDE commercial mixtures have been added to the POPs list of the Stockholm Convention [123] (see also Chapter 7, Section 7.1).

2.1.6.1.1 Plasticizers Plasticizers are the largest group of additives in polymers. They are mainly used to enhance the flexi­ bility of polymers. The most common plasticizers are phthalates or phthalic acid esters (diesters of phthalic anhydride), which could be used up to 60 wt% in PVC. The phthalates are not covalently bound to the plastic matrix but are present as mobile components of the plastic matrix and leach out of PVC by sur­ face contact, especially where mechanical pressure is applied. In addition, they are released directly into the environment during production and use and after dis­ posal of PVC and other phthalate-containing plastic products. Lower molecular weight phthalates, such as dimethyl phthalate (DMP), are easily released from the plastic surface, as soon as the DMP-containing product is disposed. In contrast, the higher molecu­ lar weight phthalates, such as diethylhexyl phthalate, are more resistant to migration owing to their hydro­ phobicity, which causes less release from the plastic Table 2.4  Additives Leached From Marine Plastic Debris Additive

Name

References

Plasticizers

Phthalates (alkyl/aryl esters of 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid) di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; alkylphenols

[117] [128] [116]

Stabilizers

Organotin compounds (mono- and dialkyltin carboxylates, mercaptides, sulfides; alkylphenols

[116] [116]

Penta- and octabromodiphenyl ether; hexabromocyclododecane

[87]

Benzotriazoles

[126]

Flame retardants UV stabilizers, filters

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Despite the ban, BDE (BDE-47), PBDE, and HBCD flame retardants were detected in the eggs of five marine bird species (thick-billed murres, northern fulmars, black guillemots, glaucous gulls, and black-legged kittiwakes) breeding at a colony in the Canadian Arctic in 1993, 2008, and 2013 [124]; however, there was a general decline in concentra­ tions of PBDE–HBCD from 2003 to 2014 consis­ tent with the phaseout of penta- and octa-BDE from the market.

2.1.6.1.3  UV Stabilizers and Filters UV stabilizers are used in plastics, paints, and textiles to prevent degradation of the polymeric materials. UV stabilizers and UV filters (UV-Fs) are also used in cosmetics (sunscreen, skin creams, hair sprays, body lotion, and the like) to protect the skin and hair from the harmful effects of sunlight [125]. Benzotriazole-type UV stabilizers have attracted increasing public and scientific concern because of their occurrence and contamination of rivers, lakes, sediments, and aquatic organisms [126]. Residues of more polar organic UV-Fs have been found in all kinds of water. Like brominated flame retardants, more lipophilic compounds tend to accu­ mulate in sediments and bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. UV-Fs are considered as environmen­ tal contaminants of increasing concern because the most commonly used are known to cause endocrinedisrupting effects, to interfere with the thyroid axis and with the development of reproductive organs and brain in both aquatic and terrestrial organisms [127].

2.1.6.2 Solvents Many polymers are produced by dispersion and solution polymerization, which involve the use of organic solvents. The solvents are removed by the end of the polymerization by evaporation and pre­ cipitation. However, the recycling and disposal of the removed solvents present many problems. Furthermore, it is very difficult to remove traces of solvents left in the polymer.

69

According to Lithner [111], solvents that are very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects are • methanol for some types of LDPE and Nylon 6.6; • cyclohexane for linear LDPE and HDPE; • heptane for HDPE and polypropylene; • isooctane for HDPE; and • 1,2-dichlorobenzene for thermoplastic polyure­ thane and polyphenylene ether.

2.1.6.3  Monomers and Oligomers Some of the major plastics (for example, poly­ styrene, polycarbonate, and epoxy resins) have been found to release toxic monomers linked to cancer and reproductive problems [129] (see Table 2.5). Often, during plastic production, polymerization reactions are not complete and the unreacted monomers can be found in the final material. Polymers can also be broken up into monomers by heat, UV radiation, mechanical action, and chemicals [130]. Bisphenol A (BPA) is used as a monomer in the production of polycarbonate and as a major com­ ponent of epoxy resin (e.g., for lining of food cans) [131]. BPA is also used as additive in PVC, printer ink, and some other products [116]. It is well known that BPA causes a strong estrogenic endocrine-dis­ rupting effect and cancer [132]. BPA has an acute toxicity in the range of 1–10 mg/L for a number of fresh water and marine species [133]. BPA, which decomposed from polycarbonate or epoxy resin, is well known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, same as phthalate ester generated from PVC or PET. BPA has been classified as an endo­ crine disruptor because of its estrogenic action and has an acute toxicity in the range of 1–10 μg/mL for freshwater and marine species [134]. Styrene oligomers, a possible indicator of poly­ styrene pollution in the marine environment, are found globally at concentrations that are higher than those expected based on the stability of polysty­ rene. Styrene oligomers have been detected in sandy

Table 2.5  Monomers and/or Oligomers Leached From Marine Plastic Debris Monomer Bisphenol A Styrene monomer and oligomers

Polymer

References

Polycarbonate, epoxy resin

[116]

Polystyrene

[135]

70

beaches and seawater. The elution of styrene oligo­ mers is initiated by the exposure of polystyrene in the marine environment. The weathering of polystyrene on beaches can result in continuous (micro)cracking by wind, wave action, and solar radiation, producing and accelerating styrene oligomers elution. Styrene oligomers are leached from discarded polystyrene as a result of incomplete polymerization. The most persistent forms of eluted styrene oligomers are sty­ rene monomer, styrene dimer, and styrene trimer. Sand samples from beaches, which are commonly recreation sites, are particularly polluted with these high-styrene oligomer concentrations [135] (see also Chapter 3, Section 3.7).

2.1.6.4  Persistent Organic Pollutants MPD has the tendency to adsorb contaminants that are present in water, particularly those that are hydrophobic. Many of the hydrophobic contaminants are concentrated at the sea surface and their levels are up to 500 times greater than in the underlying water column [136]. The MPD can either transport the contaminants to other areas and, if washed up, the contaminants could be transferred to shoreline sedi­ ment or could be ingested by marine organisms and potentially transferred to their tissues and further up the food chain. MPD could be subject to fouling and then sink to the bottom where it becomes part of the sediment or is eaten by benthic organisms that live on the sea bottom [130]. A wide variety of POPs can sorb from the marine environment (i.e., seawater and sediment) on/in the plastic matrix (Table 2.6). The presence of such POPs on MPD has been demonstrated for a wide variety of chemicals and for different geographic areas [113,137]. These contaminants have a greater affinity for the plastic matrix than the surrounding seawater, leading to an accumulation onto the plastic particle. Polymer type plays an important role in this contamination accumulation: under identical sorption conditions, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aro­ matic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are consistently found in a higher concentration on HDPE, LDPE, and polypro­ pylene, compared to PET and PVC, whereas phenan­ threne sorbs more to polyethylene than polypropylene or PVC [112,138]. As a result, possible effects of both the polymer and associated contaminants have to be considered when assessing the potential risks of MPD. PAHs are a group of over 100 different chemi­ cal compounds that are formed mainly from the

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, such as petro­ leum, coal, and gas. PAHs are also generated from the burning of garbage or other organic substances such as tobacco or charbroiled meat. These pure PAHs usually exist as colorless, white, or pale yel­ low–green solids. PAHs are found also in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing tar. A few are used in medicines or to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides. These compounds are produced in many cases by anthropogenic activities. PAHs can be separated into three nonexclusive categories based on their source: biogenic (PAHs formed by from natural processes such as diagenesis), petrogenic (PAHs derived from petroleum), and pyrogenic (PAHs formed as a result of incomplete combustion of fuel) [139]. Although PAH contamination originates from land, they arrive and accumulate in marine sediments via rainfall, stream discharge, etc. Many PAHs are toxic and tend to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. Large levels of PAHs were found on EPS packaging materials as on EPS debris recovered from beaches, suggesting that PAHs are associated with MPD via absorption and manufacturing [140]. PCBs are a class of chlorinated aromatic com­ pounds with 209 possible structural arrangements (congeners), of which 113 are known to be pres­ ent in the environment. Commercial formulations of PCBs, such as Aroclor mixtures, were widely used in the past in transformers, capacitors, hydrau­ lic fluids, and as plasticizers in paints, plastics, and sealants. Historically, the main sources of PCBs in the marine environment include energy production, combustion industries, production processes, and waste (landfill, incineration, waste treatment, and disposal). Because of PCBs’ environmental toxic­ ity and classification as a POP, PCB production was banned in Western Europe and the United States in the later 1970s and by the Stockholm Convention on POPs in 2001 [141]. At least half of the PCBs pro­ duced are still in use, especially in older electrical equipment, or in storage. Thus, there remains a huge reservoir of PCBs with the potential to be released into the environment either through spills or leakage from transformers and other devices. Additionally, the migration of these chemicals from sediments that are known to contain high concentrations of PCBs to water provides an ongoing supply of the materials to the water phase [142,143]. PCBs have been found in the seabirds’ tissues [144]. There are indications that great shearwaters (P. gravis) can assimilate PCBs and other toxic

Table 2.6  Types of Persistent Organic Pollutants Adsorbed in Marine Plastic Debris Contaminant/ Pollutant Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Name

Polymer

Location

References

Phenanthrene (Fluka)

Polyethylene, polypropylene

Lesvos, Greece

[114]

Pyrene, fluoranthene, acenaphthene, naphthalene

Polyethylene, polypropylene

North Pacific gyre, California, Hawaii, Guadalupe Island, Mexico

[142]

Fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene

Pellets of HDPE, LDPE; polypropylene, PVC, PET

California, San Diego bay

[112]

Polystyrene spherules

US, Southern New England, Niantic Bay

[37]

Polyethylene and polypropylene

JP coast

[113,149]

Polychlorinated biphenyls

North Pacific gyre, California, Hawaii, Guadalupe Island, Mexico

[142]

Pellets

Canary Islands, (Spain), Saint Helena (British territory), Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia), Island of Hawaii (US), Island of Oahu (US), and Barbados

[166]

Pellets and plastic fragments

Southern Brazil

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

Polypropylene pellets

JP coast

[113]

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, chlordanes, mirex

Polyethylene, polypropylene

North Pacific gyre, California, Hawaii, Guadalupe Island, Mexico

[142]

Pellets and plastic fragments

Southern Brazil

[166]

Polypropylene pellets Cigarette butts

JP coast, Malaysian coast Laboratory

[113,149]

Polyethylene, polypropylene

Organochlorine pesticides

Alkylphenols

Nonylphenol Ethylphenol

HDPE, high-density polyethylene; LDPE, low-density polyethylene; PET, poly(ethylene terephthalate); PVC, poly(vinyl chloride).

[150]

72

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

HDPE, High density polyethylene

PP, Polypropylene

LDPE, Low density polyethylene

PVC, Poly(vinyl chloride)

PET, Poly(ethylene terephthalate)

Figure 2.2  Sorption of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to the five most common types of mass-produced plastic. Rochman CM, Hoh E, Hentschel BT, Kaye S. Long-term field Measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: implications for plastic marine debris. Environmental Science & Technology 2013;47(3):1646–54; Courtesy of American Chemical Society, 2012.

chemicals from ingested plastic particles [145]. Although their adverse effects may not always be apparent, PCBs lead to reproductive disorders or death and they increase risk of diseases and alter hor­ mone levels [145,146]. These chemicals have a det­ rimental effect on marine organisms even at very low levels, and microplastics could be a route for PCBs into marine food chains [144]. Concentrations of PCBs on polypropylene pel­ lets collected in Japan were up to 106 times that of the surrounding seawater [113]. Fotopoulou and Karapanagioti [147] attribute the increased affin­ ity for pollutants of pellets to the surface alterations in marine-seasoned beached pellets, resulting from environmental erosion. While virgin pellets have smooth and uniform surfaces, eroded pellets exhib­ ited an uneven surface with an increased surface area and polarity, affecting the efficiency of sorption. Rochman et al. [112] measured sorption of PCBs and PAHs throughout a 12-month period to the five most common types of mass-produced plastics: HDPE, LDPE, polypropylene, PVC, and PET (see Fig. 2.2). For PAHs and PCBs, PET and PVC reach equilibrium in the marine environment much faster than HDPE, LDPE, and polypropylene. Most impor­ tantly, concentrations of PAHs and PCBs sorbed to HDPE, LDPE, and polypropylene were consistently much greater than concentrations sorbed to PET and PVC. These data imply that products made from HDPE, LDPE, and polypropylene pose a greater risk

than products made from PET and PVC of concen­ trating these hazardous chemicals onto fragmented plastic debris ingested by marine animals. A recent study found elevated concentrations of PCBs, including flame retardants (PBDEs), in the fatty issue of amphipods living in the Mariana (western Pacific), and Kermadec (off New Zealand), trenches, two of the deepest ocean places on the planet, which are over 10 km deep and separated from each other by 7000 km. It is suggested that the PCBs and PBDEs made their way to Pacific Ocean trenches through contaminated MPD and via dead animals sinking to the seafloor, where they were con­ sumed by amphipods and other deep sea creatures. PCB levels in the crustaceans from the Mariana Trench were up to 50 times greater than in crabs from the Liaohe River, one of the most polluted waterways in China. While not as common as PCB pollution, the level of flame retardants in the deep ocean was comparable to or higher than levels in coastal waters off New Zealand [147a].

2.1.6.4.1 Alkylphenols Alkylphenols (APs) can be used as plasticizing additives or as stabilizers when added as derivatives of phosphites (e.g., trisnonylphenolphosphites, TNP) to plastics. On oxidation and hydrolysis, alkylphe­ nol phosphites are hydrolyzed to the correspond­ ing alkylphenol and phosphate; for example, TNP

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

is readily oxidized and hydrolyzed to nonylphenol under ambient conditions [148]. Nonylphenol was detected in plastic pellets collected from 12 Japanese and Malaysian coasts. polypropylene pellets tended to have higher amounts of nonylphenol than polyeth­ ylene pellets [149]. Ethylphenol is one of the most toxic components found in cigarette butts [150]. Ethylphenol is used in the tobacco industry as a flavoring agent, and it has been shown to be capable of bioconcentration in aquatic organisms [150]. Thompson et al. iden­ tified a relatively high Lethal Concentration (LC) 502 for ethylphenol at 150 mg/L [151]. According to Novotny [152], this toxicity might occur because cellulose acetate, the major component of cigarette filters, has been shown to effectively remove phenols from cigarette smoke [153,154]. Consequently, ethylphenol may be present in the discarded cigarette filter at much higher concentra­ tions than in cigarette smoke and may leach into the environment [152].

2.1.6.4.2  Other Chemicals Cigarette butts (smoked cigarette filters and tobacco) contain a plurality of chemicals including cadmium, arsenic, formaldehyde, lead, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, ammo­ nia, ethylphenol, nicotine, etc. [155]. Cigarette tar, technically the material deposited on a filter when the smoke is passed through, is used as a catchall term for the particulate inorganic and organic components of cigarette smoke, except for alkaloid compounds such as nicotine. Nicotine is an anti­ herbivore chemical derived from the tobacco plant Nicotiana sp. and it has commonly been used as an insecticide [155]. In a laboratory study, Micevska et al. [150] found that leachates from various brands of smoked ciga­ rette butts were toxic to Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia at concentrations between 8.9 and 25.9 mg butts/L (which corresponds to 0.03–0.08 butts/L) [48-h EC50 (immobilization)] and to Vibrio fischeri at concentrations between 104 and 832 mg butts/L (which corresponds to 0.3–2.7 butts/L) [30-min EC50 (bioluminescence)]. In another laboratory study, Slaughter et al. [156] showed that leachates from smoked cigarette butts were significantly more toxic to fish than the smoked filters alone, but even unsmoked filters exhibited a small level of toxicity. 2. The concentration at which there is 50% lethality in a bioassay.

73

In particular, the LC50 for leachate from smoked cigarette butts was approximately one cigarette butt/L for both the marine topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) and the freshwater fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). These harmful chemicals are leached into the water systems along the shores and present a hazard to the marine environment. Cigarette butts can poison and even kill marine wildlife if ingested. However, there is criticism of extrapolating laboratory evidence on the toxic effects of cigarette butts obtained under controlled circumstances to the real-world conse­ quences of exposure [157]. Novotny et al. [158] and Barnes [159] noted that there is neither conclusive evidence of the actual toxic impact of cigarette buds in the environment nor well-documented reports of cigarette butts ingestion by wildlife.

2.1.6.4.3  Organochlorine Pesticides Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) are synthetic compounds that are chemically stable and hydropho­ bic. Among the OCPs, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroeth­ ane (DDT) and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) have been listed as the topmost persistent POPs because of their remarkable toxic properties and acute poi­ soning with antiestrogenic (androgenic) activity [160,161]. DDT is a pesticide used in agriculture and as an insecticide. This pesticide was used in the late 1940s, greatly restricted in the 1970s, and now banned for general use in the United States and Canada. Chlordane and dieldrin are other chlorinated pesticides used in agriculture [142]. OCPs are pres­ ent in aquatic systems worldwide as a consequence of their widespread usage, long-range transport, and persistence.

2.1.6.4.4 n-Alkanes n-Alkanes or higher alkanes are alkanes having nine or more carbon atoms. These aliphatic hydro­ carbons are microbially degraded relatively rapidly compared to PAHs and organochlorine pesticides [162]. However, biodegradation is more difficult in some n-alkanes, namely those in the C28–C40 group [163,164]. n-Alkanes have not been found to affect the biota; however, they can help to differentiate between biogenic (marine or terrestrial) and petro­ genic sources of organic matter [142]. A case study of sediment and plastic debris accu­ mulation in the Tijuana Estuary of the Border Field State Park in Imperial Beach (San Diego County, California) revealed that the chemical concentrations

74

of chemical contaminants, such as PCBs, pesticides, PBDE, and PAHs, were similar to those found in plastic particles in the open ocean. While the sedi­ ment itself contained very low to nondetectable con­ centrations of the chemicals, the plastic particles exhibited levels of the chemical contaminants, such as PCBs, pesticides, PBDE, and PAHs, 100–100,000 times higher than the surrounding sediment [165].

2.1.6.4.5  Trace Metals Compounds of many metals and metalloids are used as catalysts, biocides, pigments, and UV and heat stabilizers in many plastics and paints. While many of the more hazardous compounds, including those of cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), and lead (Pb), have been banned or phased out, they are still likely to be found at elevated concentrations in MPD derived from older plastic products. Most metal­ lic compounds are added to plastics as finely divided solids that are compounded into the polymer while in a liquid phase, meaning that dispersed particles are retained physically within the matrix and have little tendency to migrate. With aging (wear, tear, or abra­ sion) in the marine environment, particles may be released [167]. Turner [167] analyzed plastics, foams, and ropes collected from five beaches in South West England with a field-portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer for various hazardous elements. Concentrations of Pb up to 17,500 μg/g were found in plastics and foams because of its historical use in stabilizers, colorants, and catalysts in the plastics industry. Concentrations of Pb in excess of 1000 μg/g were usually rigid poly­ urethanes. Detectable Cd was restricted to plastics, where its concentration often exceeded 1000 μg/g; its occurrence is attributed to the use of both Cd-based stabilizers and colorants in a variety of products. Antifouling paints are one of the major sources of heavy metals into the marine environment, especially in harbors and marinas, through paint deterioration and consequent diffusion. Heavy metals such as zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and others are leached from these antifouling paints to seawater. Brennecke et al. showed that Zn and Cu leached from an antifoul­ ing paint were adsorbed by virgin polystyrene beads and aged PVC fragments in seawater. In this con­ text, microplastics may act as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment [168]. The contaminated microplastics can be ingested by marine biota causing potential problems.

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Plastic fragments (∼10 mm) collected from the open ocean and from remote and urban beaches were analyzed for organic micropollutants. PCBs, PAHs, DDE and its metabolites (DDTs), PBDEs, alkyl­ phenols, and BPA were detected in the fragments at concentrations from 1 to 10,000 ng/g. Concentrations showed large piece-to-piece variability. Hydrophobic organic compounds such as PCBs and PAHs were sorbed from seawater to the plastic fragments. PCBs are most probably derived from legacy pollution. Nonylphenol, BPA, and PBDEs came mainly from additives and were detected at high concentrations in some fragments, both from remote and urban beaches and the open ocean [137]. Microplastics pose a threat to marine environments because of their capacity to adsorb POPs. These par­ ticles (less than 5 mm in size) are potentially danger­ ous to marine species because of magnification risk over the food chain. Samples were collected from two Portuguese beaches and sorted in four classes to relate the adsorption capacity of pollutants with color and age. PAHs, PCBs, and DDTs were analyzed on pellets through gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GCMS), and types of plastic were identified using Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (micro-FTIR). Microplastics were mostly polyethylene and polypro­ pylene. Regarding sizes, some fibers ranged from 1 to 5 μm in diameter and were 500 μm in length. The majority of samples collected had sizes above 200 μm. Black pellets, unlike aged pellets, had the highest con­ centrations of POPs except for PAHs in Fonte da Telha beach. PAHs with higher concentrations were pyrene, phenanthrene, chrysene, and fluoranthene. Higher concentrations of PCBs were found for congeners 18, 31, 138, and 187 [169]. Equilibrium distribution coefficients for sorption of phenanthrene from seawater onto the plastics varied by more than an order of magnitude (polyethylene >> poly­ propylene > PVC) [136]. In all cases, sorption to plas­ tics greatly exceeded sorption to two natural sediments. Desorption rates of phenanthrene from the plastics or sediments back into solution spanned several orders of magnitude. As expected, desorption occurred more rapidly from the sediments than from the plastics. Using the equilibrium partitioning method, the effects of adding very small quantities of plastic with sorbed phenanthrene to sediment inhabited by the lugworm (A. marina) were evaluated. It is estimated that the addi­ tion of as little as 1 μg of contaminated polyethylene to a gram of sediment would give a significant increase in phenanthrene accumulation by A. marina. Thus, plastics

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

may be important agents in the transport of hydropho­ bic contaminants to sediment-dwelling organisms. Plastic pellets collected from remote islands in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans and the Caribbean Sea were analyzed for PCBs, DDE and its degradation products (DDTs), and HCHs. Concentrations of PCBs (sum of 13 congeners) in the pellets were 0.1–9.9  ng/g-pellet. These were 1–3 orders of magnitude smaller than those observed in pellets from industrialized coastal shores. Concentrations of DDTs in the pellets were 0.8–4.1 ng/g-pellet. HCH concentrations were 0.6– 1.7 ng/g-pellet, except for 19.3 ng/g-pellet on St. Helena, where the current use of lindane is likely influenced. This study provides background levels of POPs (PCBs < 10 ng/g-pellet, DDTs < 4 ng/g-pellet, and HCHs < 2 ng/g-pellet) for International Pellet Watch. Sporadic large concentrations of POPs were found in some pellet samples from remote islands and should be considered in future assessments of pollutants on plastic debris [170].

2.2  Social–Economic Impacts The social impacts of marine litter include dete­ rioration in the quality of human life, reduced rec­ reational opportunities, loss of aesthetic value, and loss of nonuse or vicarious value3 [1]. Socially, the garbage patches affect the health and lives of people living along coasts that border the ocean gyres [171]. Most of the social and economic impacts of MPD are intertwined, and it is not always easy to distinguish one from another [172].

2.2.1  Economic Impacts Economic impacts relate to the reduction of opportunities to exploit the marine environment, for pleasure or profit [173]. The appearance of pol­ lution and hazardous materials reduce the value of human activity. Fishing, transportation, and tour­ ism sectors, as well as governments and local com­ munities, are affected from the negative economic impacts of marine debris [174,175]. Of particular concern, the costs associated with MPD are often borne by those affected by, rather than those caus­ ing, the problem.

3. Knowledge that quality coastal ecosystems exist.

75

The economic impacts can have either direct or indirect costs. McIlgorm et al. [176,177] distinguish the following categories of economic costs in the marine debris: •  Direct economic costs: costs that arise from damage to an industry or an economic activ­ ity, for example, the costs of vessel downtime because of marine debris entanglement on a ves­ sel propeller. These costs are readily measured. • Indirect economic impacts: costs that arise indi­ rectly, for example, from marine life ingesting MPD and contaminating the food chain, there­ fore impacting on marine animals and even humans. These costs are not easily measured. • Nonmarket values: costs that arise when marine debris compromises nonmarket values such as scenic values, or the values placed on the marine environment, or marine activities by people who do not necessarily access them. For example, the levels and value of recreational activities in the marine environment are reduced by marine debris. Beach visitors finding a variety of marine wastes on beaches will reduce their visits, or length of stay, with losses to tourism in the local economy. Measuring such nonmarket losses is not straightforward. On the other hand, some nonmarket values such as the impacts of plastics on marine animals can be measured. This would require specific nonmarket valuation studies of the costs of harm to and reduction of popula­ tions of various marine species. It has been estimated that the damage from marine debris on fishing, shipping, and tourism industries in the APEC (Asian Pacific Economic Community) region is $1.265 billion per year in 2008 terms [176,177]. Globally, plastic waste causes financial damage of $13 billion to marine ecosystems each year [178].

2.2.1.1  Fishing Industry The fishing industry is the most vulnerable indus­ try to the negative economic impacts of MPD. Fishermen all over the world face high costs because of time spent cleaning MPD from nets, propellers, and blocked water intakes4 [179] and replacing nets that were torn or tightly wrapped around fragments 4. Refrigeration systems of fishing boats may be affected by the debris that may block their water inlet.

76

of floating MPD. In Britain, Shetland fishermen reported that 92% of them had recurring problems with debris in nets, with each boat losing between $10,500 and $53,300 per year as a result of marine litter [172]. The cost to the local industry could be as high as $4,300,000 [175]. Derelict fishing gear con­ stitutes a considerable portion of MPD that contami­ nates the catch sustainably; it reduces the fish stock and, therefore, the potential harvestable catch [180]. There are also consequences, although to a lesser degree, for aquaculture. Marine litter can result in costs to the aquaculture industry, through entangling propel­ lers and blocking intake pipes, and time spent removing debris from and around fish farm operations [175,180].

2.2.1.2 Shipping Ships and submersibles can be trapped by the fouling of derelict fishing nets and lines in propellers or damaged by collision with bulky floating debris, incurring high repair and labor. Marine debris is also a significant ongoing naviga­ tional hazard for shipping, as reflected in the increas­ ing number of coast guard rescues to vessels with fouled propellers. In the United Kingdom, for exam­ ple, there were 286 such rescues in 2008, at a cost of up to $2.8 million [172].

2.2.1.3 Tourism There are few studies in the literature to consider the economic effects of marine debris on tourism. Ofiara and Brown [181,182] found that marine debris washups in New Jersey, United States, decreased beach attendance by 8.9%–18.7% in 1987 and by 7.9%–32.9% in 1988. A study in South Africa found that a decrease in beach cleanliness could decrease tourism spending by up to 52% [183]. It is further estimated that the tourism on the Skagerrak coast of Bohuslän in West Sweden decreases by 1%–5% as a result of beach litter, resulting in a calculated annual loss of $23.4 million [184]. In the Geoje Island of South Korea, marine debris led to lost revenue from tourism of €29–€37 in 2011. The number of people visiting the island decreased from 2010 to 2011 by 63% of which about 70%–100% were probably because of the marine debris pollution [185]. Cleanups of beaches and waterways can be expen­ sive. The cost for cleaning the beaches in Bohuslän in just 1 year was reportedly at least $1,550,200 (or 10 million SEK). In the Netherlands and Belgium, about $13.65 million per year is spent on removing beach

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

litter. The annual cleanup costs for municipalities in the United Kingdom amounted to $23.62 million in 2011 [172]. The municipality of Ventanillas in Peru has cal­ culated that it would have to invest around $400,000 a year to clean its coastline, while its annual budget for cleaning all public areas is only half that amount [186]. A cost analysis on a hypothetical cleanup scenario was developed by NOAA based on the following assumptions [187]: • cleaning up less than 1% of the North Pacific Ocean (a 3-degree swath between 30° and 35°N and 150° and 180°W), which would be about 1,000,000 km2; • using nets or netlike devices to collect the MPD; and • hiring a boat with an 18-ft (5.5-m) beam and sur­ veying an area within 100 m off of each side of the ship. If the ship travels at 11 knots (20 km/h) and surveys during daylight hours (∼10 h a day), it would take 67 ships 1 year to cover that area. At a cost of $5000–$20,000 per day, it would cost between $122 million and $489 million per year only for boat time, without taking into account equipment or labor costs; yet, not all debris can be swept up with a net [187]. The costs for cleaning the seafloor of the coasts are also especially expensive; for example, the cost of cutting fishing nets by hand from reefs is estimated in millions of dollars annually in the United States alone [109]. The deposit of macro- and microplastics along beaches, aside from having an ecological impact, has a significant economic impact on local businesses and property owners there along. Ocean resorts and hotels must maintain their property for guests, keep­ ing up the appearance of the beach for continued use and for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, the burden of cleanup of these microplastic deposits shifts to the local businesses and property owners, which can be both incredibly costly and time-consuming. Tourism and recreational usage of beaches can be a significant source of litter to the marine environ­ ment, especially during summer when seaside resorts receive their greatest number of visitors. A study cor­ related debris levels with visitor density on beaches in Brazil and found that the daily litter input to the beach was significantly higher in the regions frequented by people with lower annual income and literacy [188].

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

2.2.1.4 Aesthetics Aesthetics is defined as a set of principles con­ cerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty5. Recreational waters should be free from substances attributable to wastewater or other discharges in amounts that would interfere with the existence of life forms of aesthetic value [189]:



• materials that will settle to form objectionable deposits; • floating debris; • substances producing objectionable color, odor, taste, and turbidity; and • substances and conditions (or combinations) in concentration that produce undesirable aquatic life. The social cost of MPD is not known, but it seems likely that the largest component of this cost is reduced aesthetic value of fouled shorelines. The presence of floating, submerged, and stranded MPD can nega­ tively affect the aesthetic appeal of beaches, reduce its recreational value [190], and lead to serious economic problems for regions that are dependent on tourism and marine activities [181]. The degradation of the aesthetic appeal of beaches has a serious effect on many user groups, such as recreational fishers and boaters, sport divers, and tourists, who visit and enjoy these areas and value the coastal scenery and landscape [191]. Floating debris is an aesthetic issue for swimmers, mariners, and coastal and inland water body dwellers, and submerged debris is an aesthetic issue for divers [192]. The absence of marine litter has been identified as a desirable beach quality in beach users’ priorities [193,194]. A survey assessing the value of clean beaches to users and the social economic impacts of beach litter on South Africa beaches found that 85% of both tourists and residents would not visit beaches if they had more than two items of debris per meter [183]. Although it is difficult to convert aesthetic value into a monetary equivalent, coastal litter causes economic losses including decline of tourism and generation of cleanup costs; furthermore, this may be translated into a social issue such as distrust of governments [1]. The effects of aesthetic issues on the amenity value of marine and riverine environments have been 5. Oxford Dictionaries. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries. com/.

77

defined by the World Health Organization as loss of tourist days; resultant damage to leisure/tourism infra­ structure; damage to commercial activities dependent on tourism; damage to fishery activities and fisherydependent activities; and damage to the local, national, and international standards of a resort [195].

2.2.2  Human Health MPD can be a navigational hazard to boats and can threaten the safety of the occupants. Entanglement of propellers in MPD such as derelict fishing nets and ropes may cause ship accidents, which could lead to sinking and even further to human casualty [1]. Swimmers and divers can also become entangled in submerged derelict fishing nets and put their lives in danger [196,197]. Microplastics carrying or adsorbing toxic com­ pounds such as PCBs or pathogenic pollutants and being ingested by fishes and shellfishes can enter the human food chain and may (might) affect the health of the food consumers [198] (see also Section 2.1.6.4). The microplastics pollution of mussels [72,199], which are consumed entirely without removing the intestinal tract, as well as the recently reported presence of microplastics in table salt [200], shows the potential threat for food safety and human health [201]. Discarded medical and personal hygiene wastes such as syringes, diapers, and con­ doms in the marine environment constitute a health hazard through direct contact.

References [1]  NOWPAP MERRAC. Negative impacts of marine litter in the NOWPAP region: case studies; 2013. Republic of Korea. [2] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel—GEF. Impacts of marine debris on biodiversity: current status and potential solutions. CBD Technical Series No 67. Montreal; 2012. p. 61. [3] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Marine debris: understanding, pre­ venting and mitigating the significant adverse impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity, Technical Series No.83; 2016. 78 pp. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ cbd-ts-83-en.pdf.

78

[4] Laist DW. Impacts of marine debris: entangle­ ment of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entangle­ ment and ingestion records. In: Marine debris. Springer; 1997. p. 99–139. [5] Laist DW. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1987;18(6, Suppl. B):319–26. [6] Jones MM. Fishing debris in the Australian marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1995;30(1):25–33. [7] Feldkamp SD, Costa DP, DeKrey GK. Energetic and behavioral effects of net entanglement on juvenile northern fur seals, Callorhinus ursinus. Fishery Bulletin 1989;87(1):85–94. [8] Smolowitz RJ. Lobster, Homarus americanus, trap design and ghost fishing. Marine Fisheries Review 1978;40(5–6):2–8. [9] Stelfox M, Hudgins J, Sweet M. A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2016;111(1–2):6–17. [10] Gall SC, Thompson RC. The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;92(1–2):170–9. [11] Baulch S, Perry C. A sea of plastic: evaluat­ ing the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Marine Mammal Commission Report SC/64/ E10; 2012. 24 pp. [12] McFee WE, Hopkins-Murphy SR. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) strandings in South Carolina, 1992–1996. South Carolina State Documents Depository; 2002. [13] McFee WE, Hopkins-Murphy SR, Schwacke LH. Trends in bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) strandings in South Carolina, USA, 1997–2003: implications for the southern North Carolina and South Carolina manage­ ment units. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2006;8(2):195–201. [14] DGgange AR, Newby TC. Mortality of sea­ birds and fish in a lost salmon driftnet. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1980;11(11):322–3. [15] Barco SG, D’Eri LR, Woodward BL, Winn JP, Rotstein DS. Spectra® fishing twine entangle­ ment of a bottlenose dolphin: a case study and experimental modeling. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010;60(9):1477–81. [16]  NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Marine Debris Program. Report on the entanglement of marine species

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

















in marine debris with an emphasis on species in the United States; 2014. Silver Spring, MD. Available from: https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/ sites/default/files/mdp_entanglement.pdf. [17] Henderson JR. A pre- and post-MARPOL Annex V Summary of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements and marine debris accumula­ tion in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1982–1998. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001;42(7):584–9. [18] Henderson JR. Recent entanglements of Hawaiian monk seals in marine debris. In: Shomura R, Godfrey M, editors. Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, April 2, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154, April 2–7, 1989; 1990. p. 540–53. [19] Fowler CW. Marine debris and northern fur seals: a case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1987;18(6):326–35. [20] Page B, McKenzie J, McIntosh R, Baylis A, Morrissey A, Calvert N, et al. Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after Government and industry attempts to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2004;49(1–2):33–42. [21] Gudger EW. A mackerel (Scomber scombrus) with a rubber band rove through its body. American Museum Novitates 1928;310. [22] Sazima I, Gadig OBF, Namora RC, Motta FS. Plastic debris collars on juvenile carcha­ rhinid sharks (Rhizoprionodon lalandii) in southwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2002;44(10):1149–51. [23] Cliff G, Dudley SFJ, Ryan PG, Singleton N. Large sharks and plastic debris in KwaZuluNatal, South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 2002;53(2):575–81. [24] Bird PM. Tissue regeneration in three carcha­ rhinid sharks encircled by embedded straps. Copeia 1978;1978(2):345–9. [25] Large PA, Graham NG, Hareide N-R, Misund R, Rihan DJ, Mulligan MC, et al. Lost and abandoned nets in deep-water gillnet fish­ eries in the Northeast Atlantic: retrieval exercises and outcomes. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2009;66(2):323–33.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

[26] Cawthorn M. Entanglement in, and inges­ tion of, plastic litter by marine mammals, sharks, and turtles in New Zealand waters. In: Shomura RS, Yoshida HO, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, November 27–29, 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu Laboratory. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Honolulu, Hawaii 96812: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-54; 1985. p. 336–43. [27] Jones LL, Ferrero RC. Observations of net debris and associated entanglements in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, 1978– 1984. In: Shomura RS, Yoshida HO, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, November 27–29, 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54, Washington, DC; 1984. p. 344–86. [28] Balazs GH. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and inges­ tion. In: Shomura RS, Yoshida HO, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, November 27–29, 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu Laboratory. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Honolulu, Hawaii 96812: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-54; 1985. p. 387–429. [29] Plotkin PT, Amos AF. Effects of anthropo­ genic debris on sea turtles in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Shomura R, Godfrey M, editors. Proceedings of the second interna­ tional conference on marine debris, April 2, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154, April 2–7, 1989; 1990. p. 540–53. [30] Innis C, Merigo C, Dodge K, Tlusty M, Dodge M, Sharp B, et al. Health evaluation of leath­ erback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Northwestern Atlantic during direct capture and fisheries gear disentanglement. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2010;9(2):205–22. [31] Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB, Lagueux CJ. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1994;28(3):154–8.

79

[32] Good TP, June JA, Etnier MA, Broadhurst G. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010;60(1):39–50. [33] Moore E, Lyday S, Roletto J, Litle K, Parrish JK, Nevins H, et al. Entanglements of marine mammals and seabirds in central California and the north-west coast of the United States 2001–2005. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2009;58(7):1045–51. [34] Good TP, June JA, Etnier MA, Broadhurst G. Ghosts of the salish sea: threats to marine birds in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits from derelict fishing gear. Marine Ornithology 2009;37(1):67–76. [35] Richard HP, Kress SW. Plastic Debris Incorporated into Double-Crested Cormorant Nests in the Gulf of Maine (Desperdicios Plásticos Incorporados en Nidos de Phalacrocorax auritus Estudiados en el Golfo de Maine). Journal of Field Ornithology 1989;60(2):248–50. [36] Schuyler QA, Wilcox C, Townsend K, Hardesty BD, Marshall NJ. Mistaken identity? Visual similarities of marine debris to natu­ ral prey items of sea turtles. BMC Ecology 2014;14(1):14. [37] Carpenter EJ, Anderson SJ, Harvey GR, Miklas HP, Peck BB. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 1972;178(4062): 749–50. [38] Boerger CM, Lattin GL, Moore SL, Moore CJ. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010;60(12):2275–8. [39] Carson HS. The incidence of plastic inges­ tion by fishes: from the prey’s perspec­ tive. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;74(1): 170–4. [40] Moser ML, Lee DS. A fourteen-year sur­ vey of plastic ingestion by western North Atlantic seabirds. Colonial Waterbirds 1992; 15(1):83–94. [41] Shaw DG, Day RH. Colour- and formdependent loss of plastic micro-debris from the North Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1994;28(1):39–43. [42] Santos RG, Andrades R, Fardim LM, Martins AS. Marine debris ingestion and Thayer’s law – the importance of plastic color. Environmental Pollution 2016;214:585–8.

80

[43] Santos RG, Andrades R, Boldrini MA, Martins AS. Debris ingestion by juvenile marine turtles: an underestimated problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;93(1–2): 37–43. [44] Santos RG, Martins AS, Batista MB, Horta PA. Regional and local factors determining green turtle Chelonia mydas foraging relation­ ships with the environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2015;529:265–77. [45] Lutz PL. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, Honolulu; 1990. p. 719–35. [46] Ginetz RM, Larkin PA. Choice of colors of food items by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1973;30(2):229–34. [47] Day RH, Wehle DH, Coleman FC. Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In: Shomura RS, Yoshida HO, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, November 27–29, 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFC-54, Washington, DC; 1984. p. 344–86. [48] Day RH, Shaw DG, Ignell SE. The quantita­ tive distribution and characteristics of neuston plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, 1985– 88. In: Shomura RS, Godfrey ML, editors. Proceedings of the second international con­ ference on marine debris. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOM-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154; 1990. p. 247–66. [49] Savoca MS, Wohlfeil ME, Ebeler SE, Nevitt GA. Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. Science Advances 2016;2(11). [50] Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environmental Pollution 2013;178:483–92. [51] Woodall LC, Sanchez-Vidal A, Canals M, Paterson GLJ, Coppock R, Sleight V, et al. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science 2014;1(4). [52] Baulch S, Perry C. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014;80(1–2):210–21.

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

[53] Rodríguez A, Rodríguez B, Nazaret Carrasco M. High prevalence of parental deliv­ ery of plastic debris in Cory’s shearwaters (Calonectris diomedea). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012;64(10):2219–23. [54]  Bravo Rebolledo EL, Van Franeker JA, Jansen OE, Brasseur SMJM. Plastic inges­ tion by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in The Netherlands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;67(1–2):200–2. [55] Eriksson C, Burton H. Origins and biologi­ cal accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquarie Island. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 2003;32(6):380–4. [56] Browne MA, Galloway TS, Thompson RC. Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estua­ rine shorelines. Environmental Science & Technology 2010;44(9):3404–9. [57] Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. Ingested micro­ scopic plastic translocates to the circula­ tory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science & Technology 2008;42(13):5026–31. [58] Davison P, Asch RG. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2011;432:173–80. [59] Malakoff D. Trash fish. Conservation Magazine. Available from: http://www.conservationmag­ azine.org/2011/07/trash-fish/#comments. [60] Foekema EM, De Gruijter C, Mergia MT, van Franeker JA, Murk AJ, Koelmans AA. Plastic in North Sea fish. Environmental Science & Technology 2013;47(15):8818–24. [61] Lusher AL, McHugh M, Thompson RC. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastro­ intestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;67(1–2):94–9. [62] Sanchez W, Bender C, Porcher J-M. Wild gudgeons (Gobio gobio) from French rivers are contaminated by microplastics: prelimi­ nary study and first evidence. Environmental Research 2014;128:98–100. [63] Hutchinson J, Simmonds M. Escalation of threats to marine turtles. Oryx 1992; 26(02):95–102. [64] Wehle D, Coleman FC. A naturalis at largeplastics at sea. Natural History 1983;92(2):20.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

[65] Fritts TH. Plastic bags in the intestinal tracts of leatherback marine turtles. Herpetological Review 1982;13(3):72–3. [66] Mrosovsky N, Ryan GD, James MC. Leatherback turtles: the menace of plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2009;58(2):287–9. [67] Lazar B, Gračan R. Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(1):43–7. [68] Murray F, Cowie PR. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(6):1207–17. [69] Nagelkerken I, Wiltjer GAMT, Debrot AO, Pors LPJJ. Baseline study of submerged marine debris at beaches in Curaçao, West Indies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001;42(9):786–9. [70] Devriese LI, van der Meulen MD, Maes T, Bekaert K, Paul-Pont I, Frère L, et al. Microplastic contamination in brown shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel area. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;98(1–2):179–87. [71] FAO. Statistics and information service of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2010. Rome; 2012. [72] Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental Pollution 2014;193:65–70. [73] Graham ER, Thompson JT. Depositand suspension-feeding sea cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 2009;368(1):22–9. [74]  Van Cauwenberghe L, Claessens M, Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen CR. Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lug­ worms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habi­ tats. Environmental Pollution 2015;199:10–7. [75] Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS. Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Current Biology 2013;23(23):R1031–3. [76] Kenyon KW, Kridler E. Laysan alba­ trosses swallow indigestible matter. The Auk 1969;86(2):339–43. [77] Rothstein SI. Plastic particle pollution of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean: evidence from a seabird. Condor 1973;75(344):5.

81

[78]  Harper P, Fowler J. Plastic pellets in New Zealand storm-killed prions (Pachyptila spp.). 1987. [79] Bennett G. Rubber bands in a puffin’s stom­ ach. British Birds 1960;53:222. [80] Ryan PG, Jackson S. The lifespan of ingested plastic particles in seabirds and their effect on digestive efficiency. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1987;18(5):217–9. [81] Azzarello MY, Van Vleet ES. Marine birds and plastic pollution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1987;37:295–303. [82] Lavers JL, Bond AL, Hutton I. Plastic inges­ tion by Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemi­ cals. Environmental Pollution 2014;187:124–9. [83] Avery-Gomm S, Provencher JF, Morgan KH, Bertram DF. Plastic ingestion in marineassociated bird species from the Eastern North Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;72(1):257–9. [84] Fry DM, Fefer SI, Sileo L. Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan albatrosses and wedge-tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1987;18(6):339–43. [85] Ryan PG. Intraspecific variation in plastic Ingestion by seabirds and the flux of plas­ tic through seabird populations. The Condor 1988;90(2):446–52. [86] Spear LB, Ainley DG, Ribic CA. Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the Tropical Pacific, 1984–1991: relation with distribu­ tion of species, sex, age, season, year and body weight. Marine Environmental Research 1995;40(2):123–46. [87] Furness RW. Ingestion of plastic particles by seabirds at Gough Island, South Atlantic Ocean. Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological 1985;38(3):261–72. [88] Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka M-a, Watanuki Y. Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;69(1–2):219–22. [89] Steen R, Torjussen CS, Jones DW, Tsimpidis T, Miliou A. Plastic mistaken for prey by a colony-breeding Eleonora’s falcon (Falco eleonorae) in the Mediterranean Sea, revealed by camera-trap. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2016;106(1–2):200–1.

82

[90] Wilcox C, Van Sebille E, Hardesty BD. Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015;112(38):11899–904. [91] Aliani S, Molcard A. Hitch-hiking on float­ ing marine debris: macrobenthic species in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Hydrobiologia 2003;503(1):59–67. [92] Barnes DKA, Milner P. Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism disper­ sal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 2005;146(4):815–25. [93] Kiessling T, Gutow L, Thiel M. Marine litter as habitat and dispersal vector. Marine anthro­ pogenic litter. Springer; 2015. p. 141–81. [94] Zettler ER, Mincer TJ, Amaral-Zettler LA. Life in the “Plastisphere”: micro­ bial communities on plastic marine debris. Environmental Science & Technology 2013;47(13):7137–46. [95] Barnes DK, Fraser KP. Rafting by five phyla on man-made flotsam in the Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2003;262:289–91. [96] Gregory MR. Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on New Zealand beaches. New Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater Research 1978;12(4):399–414. [97] Winston JE. Drift plastic—an expanding niche for a marine invertebrate? Marine Pollution Bulletin 1982;13(10):348–51. [98] Winston JE, Gregory MR, Stevens LM. Encrusters, epibionts, and other biota asso­ ciated with pelagic plastics: a review of biogeographical, environmental, and conser­ vation issues. In: Coe JM, Rogers AD, editors. Marine debris: sources, impacts and solutions. Springer; 1997. p. 81–97. [99] Zabin C, Carlton J, Godwin L. First report of the Asian sea anemone Diadumene lineata from the Hawaiian islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 2004;79:54–8. [100] Rees E, Southward A. Plastic flotsam as an agent for dispersal of Perforatus perforatus (Cirripedia: Balanidae). Marine Biodiversity Records 2009;2. [101] Carter R, Gregory MR. Bryozoan encrusted plastic from the continental slope: eastern South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Natural Sciences 2005;30:49–55.

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

[102] Gregory MR. Marine debris: hangers-on and hitch-hiking aliens. In: Derelict fishing gear and related marine debris: an educational outreach seminar among APEC partners seminar proc; 2004. p. 13–6. Available from: http://www. wpcouncil.org/documents/APECSeminar/ Panel%201-%20Science%20and%20Policy/ Presentation%20by%20Dr.%20Murray%20 Gregory.pdf. [103] Carson HS, Colbert SL, Kaylor MJ, McDermid KJ. Small plastic debris changes water move­ ment and heat transfer through beach sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(8):1708–13. [104] Duncan E. Turtles and plastic. SWOT Report XI; 2015. p. 6–7. [105] Donohue MJ, Boland RC, Sramek CM, Antonelis GA. Derelict fishing gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: diving sur­ veys and debris removal in 1999 confirm threat to coral reef ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001;42(12):1301–12. [106] Al-Jufaili S, Al-Jabri M, Al-Baluchi A, Baldwin RM, Wilson SC, West F, et al. Human impacts on coral reefs in the Sultanate of Oman. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 1999;49:65–74. [107] Asoh K, Yoshikawa T, Kosaki R, Marschall EA. Damage to cauliflower coral by mono­ filament fishing lines in Hawaii. Conservation Biology 2004;18(6):1645–50. [108] Yoshikawa T, Asoh K. Entanglement of monofilament fishing lines and coral death. Biological Conservation 2004;117(5):557–60. [109] Pichel WG, Churnside JH, Veenstra TS, Foley DG, Friedman KS, Brainard RE, et al. Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical convergence zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2007;54(8):1207–11. [110] Hall NM, Berry KLE, Rintoul L, Hoogenboom MO. Microplastic ingestion by scleractinian corals. Marine Biology 2015;162(3):725–32. [111] Lithner D, Larsson Å, Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical com­ position. Science of the Total Environment 2011;409(18):3309–24. [112] Rochman CM, Hoh E, Hentschel BT, Kaye S. Long-term field measurement of sorp­ tion of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: implications for plastic marine debris. Environmental Science & Technology 2013;47(3):1646–54.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

[113] Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science & Technology 2001;35(2):318–24. [114] Karapanagioti HK, Klontza I. Testing phen­ anthrene distribution properties of virgin plastic pellets and plastic eroded pellets found on Lesvos island beaches (Greece). Marine Environmental Research 2008;65(4): 283–90. [115] Fries E, Dekiff JH, Willmeyer J, Nuelle M-T, Ebert M, Remy D. Identification of polymer types and additives in marine microplastic particles using pyrolysis-GC/ MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2013;15(10):1949–56. [116] Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DR, Barlaz MA, Jonsson S, Björn A, et al. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009;364(1526):2027–45. [117] Mackintosh CE, Maldonado JA, Ikonomou MG, Gobas FAPC. Sorption of phthalate esters and PCBs in a marine ecosystem. Environmental Science & Technology 2006;40(11):3481–8. [118] Barón E, Gago-Ferrero P, Gorga M, Rudolph I, Mendoza G, Zapata AM, et al. Occurrence of hydrophobic organic pollutants (BFRs and UV-filters) in sediments from South America. Chemosphere 2013;92(3):309–16. [119] Law RJ, Allchin CR, de Boer J, Covaci A, Herzke D, Lepom P, et al. Levels and trends of bromi­ nated flame retardants in the European environ­ ment. Chemosphere 2006;64(2):187–208. [120] Law RJ, Alaee M, Allchin CR, Boon JP, Lebeuf M, Lepom P, et al. Levels and trends of poly­ brominated diphenylethers and other bromi­ nated flame retardants in wildlife. Environment International 2003;29(6):757–70. [121] Covaci A, Voorspoels S, Abdallah MA-E, Geens T, Harrad S, Law RJ. Analytical and environmental aspects of the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol-A and its derivatives. Journal of Chromatography A 2009;1216(3):346–63. [122] European Court of Justice. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of April 1, 2008. European Parliament (C-14/06) and Kingdom

83

of Denmark (C-295/06) v Commission of the European communities. Joined cases C-14/06 and C-295/06; April 4, 2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?qid=1485333038333&uri=CELEX:62 006CJ0014. [123] Stockholm Convention. The new POPs under the Stockholm Convention. Available from: http://chm.pops.int/Convention/ThePOPs/ TheNewPOPs/tabid/2511/Default.aspx. [124] Braune BM, Letcher RJ, Gaston AJ, Mallory ML. Trends of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in eggs of Canadian Arctic seabirds reflect chang­ ing use patterns. Environmental Research 2015;142:651–61. [125] Sun Q, Lv M, Li M, Yu C-P. Personal care products in the aquatic environment in China. In: Díaz-Cruz MS, Barceló D, Kostianoy A, editors. Personal care products in the aquatic environment (the Handbook of Environmental Chemistry). Springer; 2015. [126] Rani M, Shim WJ, Han GM, Jang M, Song YK, Hong SH. Benzotriazole-type ultraviolet stabilizers and antioxidants in plastic marine debris and their new products. Science of the Total Environment 2017;579:745–54. [127] Brausch JM, Rand GM. A review of personal care products in the aquatic environment: environmental concentrations and toxicity. Chemosphere 2011;82(11):1518–32. [128] Fossi MC, Panti C, Guerranti C, Coppola D, Giannetti M, Marsili L, et al. Are baleen whales exposed to the threat of microplastics? A case study of the Mediterranean fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012;64(11):2374–9. [129] Garrigós MC, Marín ML, Cantó A, Sánchez A. Determination of residual styrene mono­ mer in polystyrene granules by gas chro­ matography–mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 2004;1061(2):211–6. [130] European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment. Science for environment policy | in-depth reports | plastic waste: ecological and human health impacts. DG Environment News Alert Service; November 2011. [131] Staples CA, Dome PB, Klecka GM, Oblock ST, Harris LR. A review of the environmen­ tal fate, effects, and exposures of bisphenol A. Chemosphere 1998;36(10):2149–73.

84

[132] Suarez S, Sueiro RA, Garrido J. Genotoxicity of the coating lacquer on food cans, bisphe­ nol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE), its hydrolysis products and a chlorohydrin of BADGE. Mutation Research, Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 2000;470(1):221–8. [133] Alexander HC, Dill DC, Smith LW, Guiney PD, Dorn P. Bisphenol A: acute aquatic toxic­ ity. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1988;7(1):19–26. [134] Kang J-H, Katayama Y, Kondo F. Biodegradation or metabolism of bisphe­ nol A: from microorganisms to mammals. Toxicology 2006;217(2–3):81–90. [135] Kwon BG, Koizumi K, Chung S-Y, Kodera Y, Kim J-O, Saido K. Global styrene oligo­ mers monitoring as new chemical con­ tamination from polystyrene plastic marine pollution. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2015;300:359–67. [136] Teuten EL, Rowland SJ, Galloway TS, Thompson RC. Potential for plastics to transport hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science & Technology 2007;41(22):7759–64. [137] Hirai H, Takada H, Ogata Y, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Saha M, et al. Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011; 62(8):1683–92. [138] Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC. Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated physiological conditions. Environmental Pollution 2014;185:16–23. [139] Zeng EY, Vista CL. Organic pollutants in the coastal environment off San Diego, California. 1. Source identification and assessment by compositional indices of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1997;16(2):179–88. [140] Van A, Rochman CM, Flores EM, Hill KL, Vargas E, Vargas SA, et al. Persistent organic pollutants in plastic marine debris found on beaches in San Diego, California. Chemosphere 2012;86(3):258–63. [141] Webster L, Roose P, Bersuder B, Kotterman M, Haarich M, Vorkamp K. Determination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sedi­ ment and biota. ICES Techniques in Marine

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Environmental Sciences No. 53. 18 pp. In: Keizer PD, editor; 2013. Denmark. Available from: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20 Reports/Techniques%20in%20Marine%20 Environmental%20Sciences%20(TIMES)/ times53/PCBs%20TIMES%2053%20for%20 print.pdf. [142] Rios LM, Moore C, Jones PR. Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic poly­ mers in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2007;54(8):1230–7. [143] Brasher AMD, Wolff RH. Relations between land use and organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and semi-volatile organic compounds in streambed sediment and fish on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2004;46(3): 385–98. [144] Derraik JGB. The pollution of the marine envi­ ronment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2002;44(9):842–52. [145] Ryan PG, Connell AD, Gardner BD. Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: is there a relationship? Marine Pollution Bulletin 1988;19(4):174–6. [146] Lee K-T, Tanabe S, Koh C-H. Contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sedi­ ments from Kyeonggi Bay and Nearby areas, Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001;42(4): 273–9. [147] Fotopoulou KN, Karapanagioti HK. Surface properties of beached plastic pellets. Marine Environmental Research 2012;81:70–7. [147a] Jamieson A.J., Malkocs T, Piertney S.B., Fujii T, Zhang Z. Bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants in the deepest ocean fauna. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2017;1:0051. [148] Murata T. The endocrine disruptors con­ tained in the plastics. Chemical Engineering 1999;63:305–9. [149] Mato Y, Takada H, Zakaria M, Kuriyama Y, Kanehiro H. Toxic chemicals con­ tained in plastic resin pellets in the marine environment: spatial difference in pollut­ ant concentrations and the effects of resin type. Environmental Science (Kankyo Kagakukaishi) 2002;15:415–23. [150] Micevska T, Warne MSJ, Pablo F, Patra R. Variation in, and causes of, toxicity of cig­ arette butts to a cladoceran and microtox. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2006;50(2):205–12.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

[151] Thompson DC, Perera K, London R. Quinone methide formation from para isomers of meth­ ylphenol (cresol), ethylphenol, and isopro­ pylphenol: relationship to toxicity. Chemical Research in Toxicology 1995;8(1):55–60. [152] Novotny TE, Slaughter E. Tobacco product waste: an environmental approach to reduce tobacco consumption. Current Environmental Health Reports 2014;1(3):208–16. [153] Hoffmann D, Wynder EL. Filtration of phenols from cigarette smoke. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1963;30(1):67–84. [154] Baggett MS, Morie GP. Quantitative determi­ nation of phenol and alkylphenols in cigarette smoke and their removal by various filters. Tobacco Science 1973;17:30–2. [155] Rodgman A, Perfetti TA. The chemical com­ ponents of tobacco and tobacco smoke. 2nd ed. CRC Press; 2013. [156] Slaughter E, Gersberg RM, Watanabe K, Rudolph J, Stransky C, Novotny TE. Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical compo­ nents, to marine and freshwater fish. Tobacco Control 2011;20(Suppl. 1):i25–9. [157] Bayer R, Bachynski KE. Banning smoking in parks and on beaches: science, policy, and the politics of denormalization. Health Affairs 2013;32(7):1291–8. [158] Novotny TE, Hardin SN, Hovda LR, Novotny DJ, McLean MK, Khan S. Tobacco and ciga­ rette butt consumption in humans and animals. Tobacco Control 2011;20(Suppl. 1):i17–20. [159] Barnes RL. Regulating the disposal of ciga­ rette butts as toxic hazardous waste. Tobacco Control 2011;20(Suppl. 1):i45–8. [160] Tang Z, Huang Q, Yang Y, Zhu X, Fu H. Organochlorine pesticides in the lower reaches of Yangtze River: occurrence, ecological risk and temporal trends. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2013;87:89–97. [161] Ogata Y, Takada H, Mizukawa K, Hirai H, Iwasa S, Endo S, et al. International Pellet Watch: global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in coastal waters. 1. Initial phase data on PCBs, DDTs, and HCHs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2009;58(10):1437–46. [162] Webster L, Twigg M, Megginson C, Walsham P, Packer G, Moffat C. Aliphatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments collected from the 110 mile hole and along a transect from 58[degree]58.32[prime or minute]N 1[degree]10.38[prime or minute]

85

W to the inner Moray Firth, Scotland. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2003;5(3): 395–403. [163] Okoh AI. Biodegradation alternative in the cleanup of petroleum hydrocarbon pollut­ ants. Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Reviews 2006;1(2):38–50. [164] Brakstad OG, Bonaunet K. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in seawater at low temperatures (0–5°C) and bacterial communities associated with degradation. Biodegradation 2006;17(1):71–82. [165] EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Preventing trash at the source. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/trashfree-waters/preventing-trash-source-0. [166] Colabuono FI, Taniguchi S, Montone RC. Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlo­ rine pesticides in plastics ingested by seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010;60(4):630–4. [167] Turner A. Heavy metals, metalloids and other hazardous elements in marine plastic litter. MarinePollutionBulletin2016;111(1–2):136–42. [168] Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Caçador I, Canning-Clode J. Microplastics as vec­ tor for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 2016;178:189–95. [169] Frias JPGL, Sobral P, Ferreira AM. Organic pollutants in microplastics from two beaches of the Portuguese coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010;60(11):1988–92. [170] Heskett M, Takada H, Yamashita R, Yuyama M, Ito M, Geok YB, et al. Measurement of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in plastic resin pellets from remote islands: toward establishment of background con­ centrations for International Pellet Watch. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012;64(2): 445–8. [171] Leous JP, Parry NB. Who is responsible for marine debris? The international politics of cleaning our oceans. Journal of International Affairs 2005;59(1):257–69. [172] Thompson R, La Belle B, Bouwman H, Neretin L. Marine debris: Defining a global environmental challenge. UNEP Science and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP); 2011. Advisory Document. Available from: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/ public_comment/20110909_MCaldwell_ att1.pdf.

86

[173] Faris J, Hart K. Seas of debris: a summary of the Third International Conference on marine debris. North Carolina Sea Grant. UNC-SG-95-01; 1995. 54 pp. [174]  Ten Brink P, Lutchman I, Bassi S, Speck S, Sheavly S, Register K, et al. Guidelines on the use of market-based instruments to address the problem of marine litter: institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). Sheavly Consultants; 2009. [175] Mouat J, Lozano RL, Bateson H. Economic impacts of marine litter: KIMO – Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon; 2010. Available from: https://www.noordzeeloket. nl/images/Economic%20impacts%20of%20 marine%20litter_1290.pdf. [176] McIlgorm A, Campbell HF, Rule MJ. The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean & Coastal Management 2011;54(9):643–51. [177] McIlgorm A, Campbell HF, Rule MJ. Understanding the economic benefits and costs of controlling marine debris in the APEC region (MRC 02/2007). A report to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Marine Resource Conservation Working group by the National Marine Science Centre (University of New England and Southern Cross University), Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia, December; 2009. Available from: http://www.nowpap. org/data/ML%20ref/APEC’ML-control... Cost-vs-Benefit.pdf. [178]  UNEP - United Nations Environmental Programme. Plastic waste causes financial damage of US$13 billion to marine ecosys­ tems each year as concern grows over micro­ plastics. Nairobi; June 23, 2014. Available from: http://www.unep.org/newscentre/ default.aspx?DocumentID=2791&Articl eID=10903. [179] Spengler A, Costa MF. Methods applied in studies of benthic marine debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2008;56(2):226–30. [180] Newman S, Watkins E, Farmer A, Brink P, Schweitzer J-P. The economics of marine litter. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, editors. Marine anthropogenic litter. Cham. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 367–94. [181] Ofiara DD, Brown B. Assessment of eco­ nomic losses to recreational activities from 1988 marine pollution events and assessment

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

of Economic Losses from long-term con­ tamination of fish within the New York Bight to New Jersey. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1999;38(11):990–1004. [182] Ofiara D, Brown B. Marine pollution events of 1988 and their effect on travel, tourism, and recreational activities in New Jersey. In: Conference of floatable wastes in the ocean: social, economic, and public health implica­ tions; March 1989. p. 21–2. [183] Ballance A, Ryan PG, Turpie JK. How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 2000;96(5):210–30. [184]  Marine Litter Task Team (MaLiTT). The impacts of marine litter – marine pollution mon­ itoring management group. In: Fanshawe T, Everard M, editors; May 2002. Available from: http://www.gov.scot/Uploads/Documents/ Impacts%20of%20Marine%20Litter.pdf. [185] Jang YC, Hong S, Lee J, Lee MJ, Shim WJ. Estimation of lost tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollu­ tion event in South Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014;81(1):49–54. [186]  UNEP – United Nations Environmental Programme. Report brings to the surface the growing global problem of marine litter; June 08, 2009. Nairobi. Available from: http://www. unep.org/climatechange/News/PressRelease/ tabid/416/language/en-US/Default.aspx?Doc umentId=589&ArticleId=6214. [187]  Office of Response and Restoration | NOAA’s Ocean Service | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | U.S. Department of Commerce | USA.gov. How much would it cost to clean up the Pacific garbage patches? Available from: http:// response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/ how-much-would-it-cost-clean-pacific-gar­ bage-patches.html. [188] Santos IR, Friedrich AC, Wallner-Kersanach M, Fillmann G. Influence of socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter gen­ eration. Ocean & Coastal Management 2005;48(9–10):742–52. [189]  Federal-Provincial Working Group on Recreational Water Quality of the FederalProvincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Guidelines for Canadian recreational water quality. Health and Welfare Canada; 1992. Available from: http://www.shuswapwatershed. ca/teacherguide/D-Reports/recreational%20 water%20quality%20guidelines.pdf. [190] Pendleton L, Martin N, Webster DG. Public perceptions of environmental quality: a sur­ vey study of beach use and perceptions in Los Angeles County. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001;42(11):1155–60. [191] Debrot AO, Nagelkerken I. User percep­ tions on coastal resource state and manage­ ment options in Curaçao. Revista de Biología Tropical 2000;48(Suppl. 1):95–106. [192] Moore CJ. Synthetic polymers in the marine envi­ ronment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research 2008;108(2):131–9. [193] Morgan R, Jones TC, Williams AT. Opinions and perceptions of England and Wales Heritage coast beach users: some management implications from the Glamorgan Heritage coast, Wales. Journal of Coastal Research 1993;9(4):1083–93. [194] Oldridge S. Bathing water quality: a local author­ ity perspective. In: Kay D, editor. Recreational water quality management. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.; 1992. p. 33–47. [195] Williams AT, Pond K, Pablo R. Chapter 12: Aesthetic aspects. In: Bartram J, Rees G, edi­ tors. Monitoring bathing waters – a practi­ cal guide to the design and implementation of assessments and monitoring programmes. WHO – World Health Organization; 2000. Available from: http://www.who.int/water_ sanitation_health/bathing/monbathwat.pdf. [196] Cheshire AC, Adler E, Barbière J, Cohen Y, Evans S, Jarayabhand S, et al. UNEP/IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC; 2009. Available from: http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelit­ ter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_Survey_ and_Monitoring_Guidelines.pdf. [197]  Commission E. Commission Staff Working Document - overview of EU policies, legis­ lation and initiatives related to marine litter. Brussels; October 31, 2012. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/ SWD_2012_365.pdf. [198] Bouwmeester H, Hollman PCH, Peters RJB. Potential health impact of environmentally

87

released micro- and nanoplastics in the human food production chain: experiences from nanotoxicology. Environmental Science & Technology 2015;49(15):8932–47. [199] De Witte B, Devriese L, Bekaert K, Hoffman S, Vandermeersch G, Cooreman K, et al. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): comparison between commercial and wild types. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014;85(1):146–55. [200] Yang D, Shi H, Li L, Li J, Jabeen K, Kolandhasamy P. Microplastic pollution in table salts from China. Environmental Science & Technology 2015;49(22):13622–7. [201] Käppler A, Fischer D, Oberbeckmann S, Schernewski G, Labrenz M, Eichhorn K-J, et al. Analysis of environmental microplas­ tics by vibrational microspectroscopy: FTIR, Raman or both? Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2016:1–15. [202] Bonner W, McCann T. Neck collars on fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, at South Georgia. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 1982;57:73–7. [203] Waluda CM, Staniland IJ. Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;74(1):244–52. [204] Hofmeyr GJG, Bester MN. Entanglement of pinnipeds at Marion Island. South African Journal of Marine Science 2002;24(1): 383–6. [205] Hofmeyr GJG, De MM, Beste M, Kirkman S, Pistorius P, Makhado A. Entanglement of pinnipeds at Marion Island, Southern Ocean: 1991–2001. Australian Mammalogy 2002;24(1):141–6. [206] Hofmeyr GJG, Bester MN, Kirkman SP, Lydersen C, Kovacs KM. Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bouvetøya, Southern Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2006;52(9):1077–80. [207] Pemberton D, Brothers NP, Kirkwood R. Entanglement of Australian fur seals in manmade debris in Tasmanian waters. Wildlife Research 1992;19(2):151–9. [208] Pemberton D. Ecology of fur seals. Status and management of seals in Tasmania. Project No. 4273. Canberra: Department of Environment and Land Management. Report for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service; 1993.

88

[209] Lawson TJ, Wilcox C, Johns K, Dann P, Hardesty BD. Characteristics of marine debris that entangle Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) in south­ ern Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;98(1–2):354–7. [210] Shaughnessy PD. Entanglement of Cape fur seals with man-made objects. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1980;11(11):332–6. [211] Zavadil P, Robson B, Lestenkof A, Holser R, Malavansky A. Northern fur seal entanglement studies on the Pribilof Islands in 2006; 2007. [212] Scordino J, Fisher R. Investigations on fur seal entanglement in net fragments, plastic bands and other debris in 1981 and 1982, St. Paul Island, Alaska. Unpubl Manuscr, US-8. Background paper submitted to the 26th annual meeting standing Scientific Committee of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, March 28–April 8, 1983. Washington, DC: Available Natl. Mar. Mammal Lab., Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle WA 98115-6349; 1983. [213] Kuzin AE. A study of the effects of commer­ cial fishing debris on Callorhinus ursinus from breeding islands in the Western Pacific. In: Shomura R, Godfrey M, editors. Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, April 2–7, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154; 1990. p. 475–82. [214] Kuzin AE. Injuring of fur seals with the com­ mercial fishing waste in the northern Pacific. Issledovanie i ratsionalnoe ispolzovanie bio­ resursov dalnevostochnykh i severnykh morey Tez Vses Soveshch (In Russ); 1985. p. 92–3. Valdivostok. [215] Fowler CW. Interactions of northern fur seals and commercial fisheries. In: Sabol K, edi­ tor. Transactions of the forty-seventh North American wildlife and natural resources conference. Washington, DC: Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce; 1982. p. 52. [216] Croxall JP, Rodwell S, Boyd IL. Entanglement in man-made debris of antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Mammal Science 1990;6(3):221–33. [217] Arnould JPY, Croxall JP. Trends in entangle­ ment of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

gazella) in man-made debris at South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1995; 30(11):707–12. [218] Arnould JPY, Croxall JP. Trends in entangle­ ment of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in man-made debris at South Georgia. Oceanographic Literature Review 1996;43(6):627. [219] Boren LJ, Morrissey M, Muller CG, Gemmell NJ. Entanglement of New Zealand fur seals in man-made debris at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2006;52(4):442–6. [220] Cardenas JC, Cattan PE. Administration of Chlorohydrate to Xilacina to seals in the wild, using a blowgun. In: Abstract of pre­ sentation to first conference on the work of ‘Efforts on marine mammals of South America, June 25–29, 1984, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 1984. [221] Zavala-Gonzalez A, Mellink E. Entanglement of California sea lions, Zalophus californianus californianus, in fishing gear in the cen­ tral-northern part of the Gulf of California, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 1997;95(1):180–4. [222] Harcourt R, Aurioles D, Sanchez J. Entanglement of California sea lions at Los Islotes, Baja California Sur, México. Marine Mammal Science 1994;10(1):122–5. [223] Hanni KD, Pyle P. Entanglement of pinnipeds in synthetic materials at South-East Farallon Island, California, 1976–1998. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2000;40(12):1076–81. [224] Stewart BS, Yochem PK. Entanglement of pin­ nipeds in synthetic debris and fishing net and line fragments at San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands, California, 1978–1986. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1987;18(6):336–9. [225] Stewart BS, Yochem PK. Entanglement of pin­ nipeds in net and line fragments and other debris in the southern California Bight. In: Shomura RS, Yoshida HO, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, Novemeber 27–29, 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-154; 1985. p. 315– 25. Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa. gov/tm/swfc/swfc054.pdf. [226] Ramirez GD. Rescue of entangled South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens). Washington, DC: Report for the Center for Environmental Education; 1986.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

[227] Raum-Suryan KL, Jemison LA, Pitcher KW. Entanglement of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in marine debris: identifying causes and finding solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2009;58(10):1487–95. [228] Allen R, Jarvis D, Sayer S, Mills C. Entanglement of grey seals Halichoerus grypus at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012;64(12):2815–9. [229] Henderson JR. Encounters of Hawaiian monk seals with fishing gear at Lisianski Island, 1982. Marine Fisheries Review 1984;46(3):59–61. [230] Andre J, Ittner R. Hawaiian monk seal entan­ gled in fishing net. Elepaio 1980;41(6):51. [231] Boland RC, Donohue MJ. Marine debris accu­ mulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi 1999–2001. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003;46(11):1385–94. [232] Slater J. Leopard seal entanglement in Tasmania, Australia. Marine Mammal Science 1991;7(3):323. [233] Anselin A, van der Elst, editors. Monk seal bul­ letin 7. Brussels: Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique; 1988. p. 1–5. [234] Campagna C, Falabella V, Lewis M. Entanglement of southern elephant seals in squid fishing gear. Marine Mammal Science 2007;23(2):414–8. [235] Perkins JS, Beamish PC. Net entanglements of baleen whales in the inshore fishery of Newfoundland. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1979;36(5):521–8. [236] Volgenau L, Kraus SD, Lien J. The impact of entanglements on two substocks of the western North Atlantic humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1995;73(9):1689–98. [237] Gudger E, Hoffmann W. A shark encircled with a rubber automobile tire. Scientific Monthly 1931;46:281–5. [238] Sancho G, Puente E, Bilbao A, Gomez E, Arregi L. Catch rates of monkfish (Lophius spp.) by lost tangle nets in the Cantabrian Sea (northern Spain). Fisheries Research 2003;64(2–3):129–39. [239] Humborstad O-B, Løkkeborg S, Hareide NR, Furevik DM. Catches of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in deepwa­ ter ghost-fishing gillnets on the Norwegian continental slope. Fisheries Research 2003;64(2–3):163–70.

89

[240] Seitz JC, Poulakis GR. Anthropogenic effects on the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United States. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2006;52(11):1533–40. [241] Al-Masroori H, Al-Oufi H, McIlwain JL, McLean E. Catches of lost fish traps (ghost fishing) from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fisheries Research 2004; 69(3):407–14. [242] López-Jurado L, Varo-Cruz N, LópezSuárez P. Incidental capture of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) on Boa Vista (Cape Verde Islands). Marine Turtle Newsletter 2003;101:14–6. [243] Galil BS. BOX 3: the impact of marine debris on marine ecosystems, p. 34. In: Kamizoulis G, editor. Assessment of the status of marine litter in the Mediterranean. Meeting of MED POL focal Points, Rhodes (Greece), May 25–27, 2011: UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.357/ Inf.4 April 12, 2011; 2006. [244] Long WC, Cummiskey PA, Munk JE. Effects of ghost fishing on the population of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Womens Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 2014;112(2–3):101–12. [245] Carr HA, Amaral EH, Hulbert AW, Cooper R. Underwater survey of simulated lost demersal and lost commercial gill nets off New England. In: Proceedings of the work­ shop on the fate and impact of marine debris, 1984. p. 29. [246] Carr H, Cooper R. Manned submersible and ROV assessment of ghost gillnets in the Gulf of Maine. In: OCEANS’87. IEEE; 1987. p. 622–4. [247] Stevens BG, Vining I, Donaldson W. Ghost fishing by Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) pots off Kodiak, Alaska: pot density and catch per trap as determined from sidescan sonar and pot recovery data. Fishery Bulletin 2000;98(2):389–99. [248] Rodríguez B, Bécares J, Rodríguez A, Arcos JM. Incidence of entanglements with marine debris by northern gannets (Morus bassanus) in the non-breeding grounds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;75(1–2):259–63. [249] Schrey E, Vauk GJM. Records of entan­ gled gannets (Sula bassana) at Helgoland, German Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1987;18(6):350–2.

90

[250] Hartwig E, Clemens T, Heckroth M. Plastic debris as nesting material in a Kittiwake(Rissa tridactyla)-colony at the Jammerbugt, northwest Denmark. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2007;54(5):595–7. [251] Montevecchi WA. Incidence and types of plastic in gannets’ nests in the northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1991;69(2):295–7. [252] Votier SC, Archibald K, Morgan G, Morgan L. The use of plastic debris as nesting material by a colonial seabird and associated entangle­ ment mortality. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(1):168–72. [253] Bond AL, Montevecchi WA, Guse N, Regular PM, Garthe S, Rail J-F. Prevalence and com­ position of fishing gear debris in the nests of northern gannets (Morus bassanus) are related to fishing effort. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012;64(5):907–11. [254] Lee K, Jang YC, Hong S, Lee J, Kwon IK. Plastic marine debris used as nesting materials of the endangered species black-faced spoon­ bill Platalea minor decreases by conservation activities. Journal of the Korean Society for Marine Environment and Energy (한국해양 환경· 에너지학회지) 2015;18(1):45–9. [255] Barros N, Odell D, Patton G. Ingestion of plastic debris by stranded marine mammals from Florida. In: Shomura RS, Godfrey ML, editors. Proceedings of the second interna­ tional conference on marine debris, April 2–7, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154; 1990. p. 746. [256] Denuncio P, Bastida R, Dassis M, Giardino G, Gerpe M, Rodríguez D. Plastic inges­ tion in franciscana dolphins, Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais and d’Orbigny, 1844), from Argentina. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(8):1836–41. [257] de Meirelles ACO, do Rego Barros HMD. Plastic debris ingested by a rough-toothed dol­ phin, Steno bredanensis, stranded alive in north­ eastern Brazil. Biotemas 2007;20(1):127–31. [258] Baird RW, Hooker SK. Ingestion of plastic and unusual prey by a juvenile harbour porpoise. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2000;40(8):719–20. [259] Tarpley RJ. Plastic ingestion in a pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps. In: Shomura RS, Godfey ML, editors. Proceedings of the second international conference on marine

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

debris, April 2–7, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-154; 1990. p. 745. [260] Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Frantzis A. Sperm whale. Journal of the American Cetacean Society 2012. Available from: http://www. pelagosinstitute.gr/gr/erevnitika_programmata/ pdfs/whalewatcher_%20sperm_whale.pdf. [261] Secchi ER, Zarzur S. Plastic debris ingested by a Blainville’s beaked whale, Mesoplodon densirostris, washed ashore in Brazil. Aquatic Mammals 1999;25(1):21–4. [262] Jantz LA. Ingestion of plastic marine debris by longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) in the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa; May 2012. Available from: http://scholarspace. manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/101302. [263] Possatto FE, Barletta M, Costa MF, Ivar do Sul JA, Dantas DV. Plastic debris inges­ tion by marine catfish: an unexpected fish­ eries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(5):1098–102. [264] Biginagwa FJ, Mayoma BS, Shashoua Y, Syberg K, Khan FR. First evidence of micro­ plastics in the African great lakes: recov­ ery from Lake Victoria nile perch and nile tilapia. Journal of Great Lakes Research 2016;42(1):146–9. [265] Hjelmeland K, Pedersen BH, Nilssen EM. Trypsin content in intestines of herring larvae, Clupea harengus, ingesting inert polystyrene spheres or live crustacea prey. Marine Biology 1988;98(3):331–5. [266] Lu Y, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Jiang W, Zhao Y, Geng J, et al. Uptake and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) and toxic effects in liver. Environmental Science & Technology 2016; 50(7):4054–60. [267] Mattsson K, Ekvall MT, Hansson L-A, Linse S, Malmendal A, Cedervall T. Altered behavior, physiology, and metabolism in fish exposed to polystyrene nanoparticles. Environmental Science & Technology 2015; 49(1):553–61. [268] Anastasopoulou A, Mytilineou C, Smith CJ, Papadopoulou KN. Plastic debris ingested by deep-water fish of the Ionian Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 2013;74:11–3.

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

[269] Jackson GD, Buxton NG, George MJ. Diet of the southern opah Lampris immaculatus on the Patagonian Shelf; the significance of the squid Moroteuthis ingens and anthropo­ genic plastic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2000;206:261–71. [270] Kartar S, Abou-Seedo F, Sainsbury M. Polystyrene spherules in the Severn Estuary—a progress report. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1976;7(3):52. [271] Kartar S, Milne R, Sainsbury M. Polystyrene waste in the Severn Estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1973;4(9):144. [272] Bellas J, Martínez-Armental J, MartínezCámara A, Besada V, Martínez-Gómez C. Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2016;109(1):55–60. [273] Shosaku K. Distribution of nanoparti­ cles in the see-through medaka (Oryzias latipes). Environmental Health Perspectives 2006;114(11):1697–702. [274] Manabe M, Tatarazako N, Kinoshita M. Uptake, excretion and toxicity of nano-sized latex particles on medaka (Oryzias latipes) embryos and larvae. Aquatic Toxicology 2011;105(3–4):576–81. [275] Lönnstedt OM, Eklöv P. Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic par­ ticles influence larval fish ecology. Science 2016;352(6290):1213–6. [276] Romeo T, Pietro B, Pedà C, Consoli P, Andaloro F, Fossi MC. First evidence of pres­ ence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;95(1):358–61. [277] Gramentz D. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal, and hydrocarbon pol­ lution in the central Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1988;19(1):11–3. [278] Plotkin PT, Wicksten MK, Amos AF. Feeding ecology of the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Biology 1993;115(1):1–5. [279] Uchida I. On the synthetic materials found in the digestive systems of, and discharged by, sea turtles collected in waters adjacent to Japan. In: Shomura RS, Godfey ML, edi­ tors. Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, April 2–7, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of

91

Commerce, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154; 1989. p. 744. [280] Witherington B. Ecology of neonate logger­ head turtles inhabiting lines of downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 2002;140(4):843–53. [281] Bugoni L, Krause L, Virgı́nia Petry M. Marine debris and human impacts on sea turtles in Southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001;42(12):1330–4. [282] Tomás J, Guitart R, Mateo R, Raga JA. Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2002;44(3):211–6. [283] Campani T, Baini M, Giannetti M, Cancelli F, Mancusi C, Serena F, et al. Presence of plastic debris in loggerhead turtle stranded along the Tuscany coasts of the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mam­ mals (Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;74(1):225–30. [284] Nicolau L, Marçalo A, Ferreira M, Sá S, Vingada J, Eira C. Ingestion of marine lit­ ter by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in Portuguese continental waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2016;103(1–2): 179–85. [285] Seminoff JA, Resendiz A, Nichols WJ. Diet of East Pacific green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Central Gulf of California, México. Journal of Herpetology 2002;36(3): 447–53. [286] Carr A, Stancyk S. Observations on the ecol­ ogy and survival outlook of the hawksbill turtle. Biological Conservation 1975;8(3): 161–72. [287] Shaver DJ. Feeding ecology of wild and head-started Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in South Texas waters. Journal of Herpetology 1991:327–34. [288] Mascarenhas R, Santos R, Zeppelini D. Plastic debris ingestion by sea turtle in Paraı́ba, Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2004;49(4): 354–5. [289] Chatto R, Guinea M, Conway S. Sea turtles killed by flotsam in Northern Australia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 1995;69(-):17–8. [290] Bailey N, Howard F, Chapman C. Clyde Nephrops: biology and fisheries. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section B Biological Sciences 1986;90:501–18.

92

[291] Wieczorek SK, Moore PG, Atkinson RJA, Froglia C, Campagnuolo S, Gramitto EM, et al. EC study Project N° 96/092: the com­ position and fate of discards from nephrops trawling in Scottish and Italian waters; 1999. Available from: https://ec.europa. eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/ body/1309r03b96092.pdf. [292] Cartes JE. A comparative study of the feeding ecology of Nephrops norvegicus L. (Decapoda: Nephropidae) in the bathyal Mediterranean and the adjacent Atlantic. Scientia Marina 1998;62(S1):81–90. Available from: http:// hdlhandlenet/10261/23387. [293] Brennecke D, Ferreira EC, Costa TMM, Appel D, da Gama BAP, Lenz M. Ingested micro­ plastics (>100 μm) are translocated to organs of the tropical fiddler crab Uca rapax. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;96(1–2):491–5. [294] Watts AJR, Urbina MA, Corr S, Lewis C, Galloway TS. Ingestion of plastic micro­ fibers by the crab Carcinus maenas and its effect on food consumption and energy bal­ ance. Environmental Science & Technology 2015;49(24):14597–604. [295] Watts AJR, Lewis C, Goodhead RM, Beckett SJ, Moger J, Tyler CR, et al. Uptake and retention of microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environmental Science & Technology 2014;48(15):8823–30. [296] Wójcik-Fudalewska D, Normant-Saremba M, Anastácio P. Occurrence of plastic debris in the stomach of the invasive crab Eriocheir sinensis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2016;113. [297] Bergami E, Bocci E, Vannuccini ML, Monopoli M, Salvati A, Dawson KA, et al. Nano-sized polystyrene affects feeding, behavior and physiology of brine shrimp Artemia franciscana larvae. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2016;123:18–25. [298] Goldstein MC, Goodwin DS. Gooseneck bar­ nacles (Lepas spp.) ingest microplastic debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. PeerJ 2013;1:e184. [299] Ugolini A, Ungherese G, Ciofini M, Lapucci A, Camaiti M. Microplastic debris in sand­ hoppers. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 2013;129:19–22. [300] Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AW, et al. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 2004;304(5672):838.

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

[301] Wilson DS. Food size selection among cope­ pods. Ecology 1973;54(4):909–14. [302] Powell MD, Berry AJ. Ingestion and regurgi­ tation of living and inert materials by the estu­ arine copepod Eurytemora affinis (Poppe) and the influence of salinity. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 1990;31(6):763–73. [302a] Hämer J, Gutow L, Köhler A, Saborowski R. Fate of microplastics in the marine isopod Idotea emarginata. Environmental Science & Technology 2014;48(22):13451–8. [303] Mathalon A, Hill P. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax har­ bor, Nova Scotia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014;81(1):69–79. [304] Canesi L, Ciacci C, Bergami E, Monopoli MP, Dawson KA, Papa S, et al. Evidence for immunomodulation and apoptotic processes induced by cationic polystyrene nanopar­ ticles in the hemocytes of the marine bivalve Mytilus. Marine Environmental Research 2015;111:34–40. [305] Cole M, Galloway TS. Ingestion of nanoplas­ tics and microplastics by Pacific oyster lar­ vae. Environmental Science & Technology 2015;49(24):14625–32. [306] Ward JE, Kach DJ. Marine aggregates facili­ tate ingestion of nanoparticles by suspen­ sion-feeding bivalves. Marine Environmental Research 2009;68(3):137–42. [307] Della Torre C, Bergami E, Salvati A, Faleri C, Cirino P, Dawson KA, et al. Accumulation and embryotoxicity of polystyrene nanopar­ ticles at early stage of development of sea urchin embryos Paracentrotus lividus. Environmental Science & Technology 2014;48(20):12302–11. [308] Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Koelmans AA. Effects of microplastic on fitness and PCB bioaccu­ mulation by the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.). Environmental Science & Technology 2013;47(1):593–600. [309] Fife DT, Robertson GJ, Shutler D, Braune BM, Mallory ML. Trace elements and ingested plastic debris in wintering dove­ kies (Alle alle). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015;91(1):368–71. [310] Sievert PR, Sileo L. The effects of ingested plastic on growth and survival of albatross chicks. In: Vermeer K, Briggs KT, Morgan

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

KH, Siegel-Causey D, editors. The status, ecology, and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific. Otawa: Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication; 1993. p. 212–7. [311] Auman HJ, Ludwig JP, Giesy JP, Colborn T. Plastic ingestion by Laysan albatross chicks on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995. Albatross Biology and Conservation 1997:239–44. [312] Gray H, Lattin GL, Moore CJ. Incidence, mass and variety of plastics ingested by Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis) and black-footed albatrosses (P. nigripes) recovered as by-catch in the north Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012;64(10):2190–2. [313] Petry MV, d Silva Fonseca VS, Scherer AL. Analysis of stomach contents from the black-browed albatross, Thalassarche melanophris, on the Coast of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Polar Biology 2007;30(3):321–5. [314] van Franeker JA, Bell PJ. Plastic ingestion by petrels breeding in Antarctica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1988;19(12):672–4. [315] Copello S, Quintana F. Marine debris inges­ tion by southern giant petrels and its potential relationships with fisheries in the Southern Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003;46(11):1513–5. [316] Provencher JF, Gaston AJ, Mallory ML. Evidence for increased ingestion of plastics by northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) in the Canadian Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2009;58(7):1092–5. [317] Mallory ML, Roberston GJ, Moenting A. Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2006;52(7):813–5.

93

[318] Mallory ML. Marine plastic debris in north­ ern fulmars from the Canadian high Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2008;56(8):1501–4. [319] Franeker JA. Plastic ingestion in the North Atlantic fulmar. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1985;16(9):367–9. [320] Zonfrillo B. Petrels eating contraceptives, polythene and plastic beads. British Birds 1985;78(7):350–1. [321] Vlietstra LS, Parga JA. Long-term changes in the type, but not amount, of ingested plas­ tic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern Bering Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2002;44(9):945–55. [322] Carey MJ. Intergenerational transfer of plastic debris by Short-tailed Shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris). Emu 2011;111(3):229–34. [323] Verlis KM, Campbell ML, Wilson SP. Ingestion of marine debris plastic by the wedge-tailed shearwater Ardenna pacifica in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013;72(1):244–9. [324] Sileo L, Sievert PR, Samuel MD, Fefer SI. Prevalence and characteristics of plastic ingested by Hawaiian seabirds. In: Shomura RS, Godfey ML, editors. Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, April 2–7, 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-154; 1989. p. 645–81. [325] Gilbert JM, Reichelt-Brushett AJ, Bowling AC, Christidis L. Plastic ingestion in marine and coastal bird species of southeastern Australia. Marine Ornithology 2016;44:21–6. [326] Brandão ML, Braga KM, Luque JL. Marine debris ingestion by Magellanic penguins, Spheniscus magellanicus (Aves: Sphenisciformes), from the Brazilian coastal zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62(10):2246–9.

Appendix Appendix 1—Entanglements Table A1.1  List of Entangled Mammals Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Study Period

References

Antarctic fur seal

Arctocephalus gazella

Polypropylene ropes

Scotia Sea, S. Georgia, Bird Island

<1982

[202]

1989–2013

[203]

Southern Ocean, South Africa, Marion Island

1991–1996 1996–2001

[204,205]

Fishing nets (48.1%); polypropylene packaging straps (17.9%); ropes or strings (14.2%); plastic bags (0.9%); rubber O-ring (0.9%)

Southern Ocean, subantarctic island, Bouvetøya

1996–2002

[206]

Polyethylene trawl net (40%); polypropylene strapping bands (30%); monofilament nets (gillnets) (15%); and nylon rope (15%)

Australia, Tasmania

1989–1993

[207,208]

Polyethylene trawl nets, monofilaments, bait box packaging bands, ropes

Australia, Bass Strait and off S Tasmania

1989–1993

[6]

Twine or rope (50%); other plastics (plastic bags, packing straps, and balloon ribbon) (20%); monofilament lines or gillnets (17%); rubber (8%); metal (3%); cotton (2%)

Australia, Southern Victoria

1997–2012

[209]

Strings; monofilament lines; fishing nets; ropes; plastic straps; rubber O-rings; wire

Namibia, Cape Cross

1977–1979

[210]

Seals, Sea Lions Otariidae

Packaging strapping bands (43%); monofilament line (25%); fishing nets (17%) Polypropylene strapping bands (39.5%–46%); synthetic string (<10 mm) (10.5%); synthetic rope (>10 mm) (13.2%); trawl net (21.1.%); elastic strap (2.6%); cloth strip (2.6%); plastic bags (5.4%); unknown(10.5%)

Brown fur seal or Cape fur seal or Australian fur seal

Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus

Northern fur seal

New Zealand fur seal or southern fur seal or long-nosed fur seal

Callorhinus ursinus

Arctocephalus forsteri

Trawl net; fishing line (loops of twine, string and rope); plastic packing bands

US, Alaska, Pribilof Islands (St. Paul and St. George Islands)

1998–2006

[211]

Fragments of trawl netting and plastic packing bands

N. Pacific, Bering Sea, Pribilof Islands St. Paul and St. George Islands)

1981–1985

[19]

Fishing net fragments

US, Alaska, St. Paul Island

1983

[212]

Fishing net fragments (66%), ropes (20%), fishing line (8%), packing bands (6%)

Tyuleniy (Robben) Island; Russian Bearing Sea, Komandorskie (Commander) Islands

1976–1986

[213,214]

Fragments of trawl nets; plastic bands

US, Alaska, Pribilof Islands

1960–1982

[215]

Polypropylene trawl nets

US, Alaska, St. Paul Island AK Laboratory

<1989

[7]

Neck-collars: polypropylene packaging straps (59%); nylon strings (16%); fishing nets (13%); other materials (12%)

Antarctica, S. Georgia, Bird Island

1988–1989

[216]

Polypropylene strapping bands, fragments of fishing nets, plastic bags

Antarctica, S. Georgia, Bird Island

1988–1989, 1993–1994

[217,218]

Polypropylene strapping bands (46%)

New Zealand

1975–1984

[26]

Polypropylene strapping bands

New Zealand, Pallisser Bay

1978, 1980

[26]

Fishing net

New Zealand, Cambell Island

1979

[26]

Polypropylene strapping bands

New Zealand, Wanganui

1980

[26]

Fishing net

At sea latitude 42° 30′ S, longitude 178° 08′ E

1982

[26] Continued

Table A1.1  List of Entangled Mammals—cont’d Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Study Period

References

Rope

New Zealand, Wellington

1982

[26]

Polypropylene strapping bands

New Zealand, Stewart Island

1983

[26]

Polypropylene strapping bands

New Zealand, Palliser Bay

1984

[26]

Green trawl nets (42%) and plastic strapping bands (31%)

New Zealand, Kaikoura region

1995–2005

[219]

Trawl net fragments; loops of packing tape (30%); trawl netting (28%); rock lobster float rope (13%); other rope (10%); plastic bags (7%); fishing line (1%); other (string of burst balloons, rubber o-ring, beachwashed rock lobster pot) (8%)

Australia, Kangaroo Island

1988–2002

[20]

Juan Fernández fur seal

Arctocephalus phillippi

Packing bands

Chile, Juan Fernández Islands

<1984

[220]

Australian sea lion

Neophoca cinerea

Monofilament netting (>15 cm diameter mesh) (55%); trawl nets, (11%); packing tape (11%); rope (14%); fishing line with hooks (6%); and strip of a car tire inner tube (3%)

Australia, Kangaroo Island

1988–2002

[20]

California sea lion

Zalophus californianus

Nylon monofilament, nets and ropes

Central-northern part of the Gulf of California, Mexico

1991–1995

[221]

Monofilament lines, nets, packing strapping bands

Mexico, Baja California Sur, Los Islotes

1992

[222]

Monofilament net; fishnet; ropes

Northern California, SE Farallon Island

1976–1998

[223]

Central California

2001–2005

[33]

Lines, gillnets, packing bands

California, San Nicholas and San Miguel Islands

1978–1986

[224,225]

Polypropylene strapping bands

Peninsula Valdes, Argentine coast

<1986

[226]

Fishing line, fishing net, packing strap, salmon flasher, other marine debris

Otaria flavescens or Otaria byronia

Phocidae

New Zealand or Hooker’s sea lion, and whakahao (in Māori)

Phocarctos hookeri

Fishing net

New Zealand, Auckland Island

1981

[26]

Steller sea lion or northern sea lion

Eumetopias jubatus

Packing bands (54%); rubber bands (30%); fishing nets (7%); monofilament line (2%)

SE Alaska and Northern British Columbia

2000–2007

[227]

Salmon flashers

Central California

2001–2005

[33]

Grey seal

Halichoerus grypus

Monofilament line; monofilament net; multifilament net; rope; rubber collar; tassles

UK, Cornwall

2004–2008

[228]

Harbor seal

Phoca vitulina

Fishing lines, ropes, plastic rings

Central California

2001–2005

[33]

Fishing lines, packing strapping bands

California, San Nicholas and San Miguel Islands

1978–1986

[224,225]

Fragments of fishing nets, lines, strapping bands, plastic rings

NW Hawaiian Islands, Lisianski Island and Laysan Island

1982–1998

[17,26]

Fragments of fishing nets; tangles of rope; line (mooring line), plastic floats

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Lisianski Island

1982

[229]

Fragments of fishing nets, plastic rings

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

1985–1988

[18]

Fragments of polypropylene net

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

<1980

[230]

Trawl nets (83.5%), monnofilaments (6.6%), seine nets (6.1%)

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

1999–2001

[231]

Hawaiian monk seal

Neomonachus schauinslandi or Monachus schauinslandi

Leopard seal

Hydrurga leptonyx

Black monofilament longline with hooks attached

Australia, East coast of Tasmania

1990

[232]

Mediterranean monk seal

Monachus monachus

Derelict nets

Desartas Islands, Madeira, Portugal

<1988

[233]

Mirounga angustirostris

Fishing lines, gillnets, polypropylene trawl nets, packing strapping bands

California, San Nicholas and San Miguel Islands

1978–1986

[224,225]

Packing straps (22%), monofilaments, rubber bands, miscellaneous MPD (automotive fan belt, man’s shirt, ropes) (37%)

Northern California, SE Farallon Island

1976–1998

[223]

Northern elephant seal

Continued

Table A1.1  List of Entangled Mammals—cont’d Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Study Period

References

Southern elephant seal

Mirounga leonina

Monofilament line

Argentina, coastal Patagonia

1995–2005

[234]

Monofilament line, rope, net

US, South Carolina

1992–1996, 1997–2003

[12]

UHMWPE (Spectra) twine

US, Virginia

2009

[15]

Polypropylene rope with a small polystyrene buoy attached

New Zealand, East coast of Banks Peninsula of the South Island

1984

[26]

Rope and floats

New Zealand, Chrischurch

1984

[26]

1973–1977

[235]

1976

[26]

1973–1977

[235]

Dolphins Delphinidae

Common bottlenose dolphin or Atlantic bottlenose dolphin

Tursiops truncatus

Whales Balaenidae

Balaenopteridae

Southern right whale

Northern minke whale

Eubalaena australis

Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Antarctic minke whale; or southern minke whale Humpback whale

Delphinidae

Megaptera novaeangliae

Fishing nets, ropes

Inshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador

Polyethylene bags

New Zealand, Palliser Bay

Fishing nets, ropes

Inshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador

Cod traps, gillnets

WN Atlantic, Gulf of Maine

1979–1992

[236]

Killer whale; or orca

Orcinus orca

Rope and floats

New Zealand, Bay of Plenty

1979

[26]

Sea otter

Enhydra lutris

3500 m monofilament gillnet

WN Pacific Ocean

1978

[14]

Otter Mustelidae

UHMWPE, ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene.

Table A1.2  List of Entangled Fish/Sharks Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Study Period

References

Cottidae

Cabezon

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Longfin sculpin

Jordania zonope

Pacific staghorn Sculpin

Leptocottus armatus

Red Irish lord or bullhead

Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus

Sailfin sculpin

Nautichthys oculofasciatus

Sculpin spp. or great sculpin

Myoxocephalus Polyacanthocephalus Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Chimaeridae

Spotted ratfish

Hydrolagus colliei

Lingcod

Ophiodon elongates

Kelp greenling

Hexagrammos decagrammus

Lamnidae

Shortfin mako shark

Isurus oxyrinchus

Rubber car tire

Cuba

1931

[237]

Lophiidae

Blackbellied angler

Lophius budegassa

[238]

Lophius piscatorius

Spain N, Cantabrian Sea, Bay of Biscay

2000–2001

Angler(fish)

Derelict static tangle nets (“rasco nets”) Derelict fishing gillnets

Atlantic, Rosemary Bank and Porcupine Bank

2005–2006

[25]

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Hexagrammidae

Pleuronectidae

English sole

Parophrys vetulus

Derelict fishing gillnets

Flatfish or starry flounder

Platichthys stellatus

Derelict fishing gillnets

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides

Derelict fishing gillnets

Off the coast of mid-Norway

2000–2001

[239]

Lyopsetta exilis

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Greenland halibut or Greenland turbot Slender sole

Continued

Table A1.2  List of Entangled Fish/Sharks—cont’d Family

Common Name

Species

Small tooth sawfish or wide sawfish

Pristis pectinata

Salmonidae

Salmonid spp.; Sockeye salmon; Chinook salmon

Scombridae

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Study Period

References

Monofilament line; flexible elastic band; rope; PVC pipe; multibraid line; crab trap line; lobster trap line; fishing line

S and SW Florida

1980–2005a

[240]

Oncorhynchus spp.; Oncorhynchus nerka; Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Atlantic mackerel

Scomber scombrus

Rubber band

US, off Block Island near Connecticut

1928

[21]

Scorpaenidae

Black rockfish; Rockfish spp.; Quillback rockfish; Puget Sound rockfish; Copper rockfish

Sebastes melanops; Sebastes spp.; Sebastes maliger; Sebastes emphaeus Sebastes caurinus

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Sepiidae

Pharaoh cuttlefish

Sepia pharaonis

“Lost” fish traps (wire mesh and plastic types)

Sultanate of Oman, Muscat and Mutrah

2000–2001

[241]

Rhizoprionodon lalandii

Plastic collar

SW Atlantic (SE Brazil)

1999

[22]

1978–2000

[23]

Pristidae

Sharks Carcharhinidae

Centrophoridae

Brazilian sharpnose shark (juvenile) Dusky shark

Carcharhinus obscurus

Bull shark

Carcharhinus leucas

Tiger shark

Galeocerdo cuvier

Leafscale gulper shark

Centrophorus squamosus

Polypropylene strapping bands

South Africa, beaches of KwaZulu-Natal

Strapping bands

US, W Florida

1975

[24]

Derelict fishing net

Atlantic, Rosemary Bank, and Porcupine Bank

2005–2006

[25]

Ginglymostomatidae

Nurse shark

Ginglymostoma cirratum

Derelict trawl net

West Africa, off the coast of Senegal, Boa Vista (Cape Verde Islands)

2001

[242]

Hexanchidae

Sixgill shark

Hexanchus griseus

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Salmon shark

Lamna ditropis

Derelict fishing gillnets

N Pacific and Bering Sea

1978–1984

[27]

Derelict fishing gillnets

Atlantic, Rosemary Bank and Porcupine Bank

2005

[25]

Lamnidae Somniosidae

Greenland shark

Somniosus microcephalus

Squalidae

Spiny dogfish shark or purdog or mud shark or piked dogfish

Squalus acanthias

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Triakidae

School (tope) shark

Galeorhinus galeus

Derelict trawl net

West Africa, off the coast of Senegal, Boa Vista (Cape Verde Islands)

2001

[242]

Gummy shark, rig or spotted smoothhound

Mustelus lenticulatus

Sausage plastic tags

New Zealand, Porirua harbor

1979

[26]

aThrough

interviews.

Family Chelonidae

102

Table A1.3  List of Entangled Turtles Turtle

Species

Olive ridley turtle

Lepidochelys olivacea

Leatherback turtle

Dermochelys coriacea

Caretta caretta

Leatherback turtle; Loggerhead turtle; Kemp’s ridley turtle; Hawkbill turtle; Green turtle

Dermochelys coriacea; C. caretta; Lepidochelys kempi; Eretmochelys imbricata; Chelonia mydas

EPS, expanded polystyrene.

Location

Study Period

References

Monofilament line; ropes; trawl net; gillnet

Hawaiian Islands

1970–1983

[28]

Fishing line

US, Central California

2001–2005

[33]

Polyethylene bag

New Zealand, Whakatane

1980

[26]

Monofilament mesh

N. Pacific (lat. 35°–45°N)

1970–1983

[28]

Plastic film

Maltese islands

<2006

[243]

Derelict trawl net

West Africa, off the coast of Senegal, Boa Vista (Cape Verde Islands)

2001

[242]

Plastic woven produce (onion) sacks, net, rope, fishing line, shrimp trawl, trotline, crab pot

NW Gulf of Mexico

1986–1988

[29]

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Loggerhead turtle (juvenile)

Type and Shape of Plastic

Table A1.4  List of Entangled Crustaceans Family

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Common Name

Species

Signal crayfish

Pacifastacus leniusculus

Balanidae

Giant acron barnacle

Balanus nubilus

Cancridae

Dungeness crab

Metacarcinus magister (formerly Cancer magister)

Pygmy rock crab or hairy cancer crab

Cancer oregonensis

Graceful rock crab or slender crab

Metacarcinus gracilis (formerly Cancer gracilis)

Red rock crab

Cancer productus

Helmet crab

Telmessus cheiragonus

Longhorn decorator crab

Chorilia longipes

Slender kelp crab

Pugettia gracilis

Northern lame crab or shieldbacked kelp crab

Pugettia productus

Cryptic kelp crab

Pugettia richii

Galatheidae

Squat lobster

Munida quadrispina

Geryonidae

Red crab

Chaceon affinis

Derelict fishing gillnets

Red fur crab

Acantholithodes hispidus

Granular claw crab

Oedignathus inermis

Derelict fishing gillnets

Hairy lithodid

Hapalogaster mertensii

Scaled crab

Placetron wosnessenskii

Box crab

Paramola cuvieri

Derelict fishing gillnets

Astacida

Cheiragonidae Epialtidae

Hapalogastridae

Homolidae

Derelict fishing gillnets

Location

Study Period

References

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

2005–2006

[25]

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Atlantic, Rosemary Bank and Porcupine Bank

2005–2006

[25]

NE Atlantic, Rockall Bank and Porcupine Bank

Continued

Table A1.4  List of Entangled Crustaceans—cont’d Family

Study Period

References

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Paralithodes camtschaticus

Derelict fishing gear

Alaska, Kodiak Island, Womens Bay

1991–2008

[244]

Rhinoceros crab or golf-ball crab

Rhinolithodes wosnessenskii

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Majidae

Sharp-nosed crab

Scyra acutofrons

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Nephropidae

American lobster

Homarus americanus

Derelict fishing gillnets

N Atlantic, new England; Cape Cod Bay

1984, 1986

[245,246]

Oregoniidae

Tanner crab

Chionoecetes spp.

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Tanner crab

Chionoecetes bairdi

Lost crab pots

Alaska, NE shire of Kodiak Island, Chiminak Bay

<2000

[247]

Pandalus platyceros

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Pandalidae

Paguridae

Species

Butterfly crab

Cryptolithodes typicus

Brown box crab

Lopholithodes foraminatus

Puget Sound King crab

Lopholithodes mandtii

Heart crab

Phyllolithodes papillosus

Red king crab

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Lithodidae

Common Name

California spot prawn (shrimp) or Santa Barbara spot prawn or Monterey Bay spot prawn or Alaskan prawn Armed hermit crab or blackeyed hermit crab

Pagurus armatus

Hairy hermit crab

Pagurus hirsutiusculus

Pleocyemata

Hermit crab

Pagurus spp.

Porcellanidae

Porcelain crab

Petrolisthes spp.

Purple shore crab

Hemigrapsus nudus

Varunidae

Table A1.5  List of Entangled Mollusks (Mussels, Oysters, Octopus) Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Gumboot chiton or giant Pacifc citon

Cryptochiton stelleri

Derelict fishing gear

Anomiidae

Jingle Shell

Pododesmus machrochisma

Cardiidae

Yellow-edged cadlina or yellow margin dorid

Cadlina luteomarginata

Nuttall’s cockle or basket cockle or Heart cockle

Clinocardium nuttalli

Haliotidae

Northern abalone or pinto abalone

Haliotis kamtschatkana

Hiatellidae

Pacific geoduck clam

Panopea abrupta

Muricidae

Leafy hornmouth

Ceratostoma foliatum

Blunt gaper or truncate softshell

Mya truncata

Mytilidae

Bay mussel or foolish mussel or blue mussel

Mytilus trossulus

Naticidae

Lewis’s moon snail or moon snail

Polinices lewisii

Ostreidae

Pacific oyster or Japanese oyster or Miyagi oyster

Crassostrea gigas

Family Acanthochitonidae

Myidae

Octopodidae Onchidorididae

Common Pacific octopus

Octopus dolfleini or Enteroctopus dofleini

Hudson’s dorid

Acanthodoris hudsoni

Smooth pink scallop

Chlamys rubida

Rock scallop

Crassedoma giganteum

Polyceridae

Sea clown triopha or clown dorid

Triopha catalinae

Ranellidae

Oregon hairy triton

Fusitriton oregonensis

Oregon hairy triton

Fusitriton oregonensis

Bent-nosed clam or Bent-nose macoma

Macoma nasuta

Bivalve mollusks

Tellina spp.

Transverse lampshell

Terebratalia transversa

Butter clam

Saxidomus giganteus

Common littleneck clam

Protothaca staminea

Japanese carpet shell or manila clam

Ruditapes philippinarum

Pectinidae

Tellinidae

Terebrataliidae Venerida

Location Inland marine waters of Washington

Study Period

References

2002–2008

[32]

Family

106

Table A1.6  List of Entangled Echinoderms

Species

Mottled star

Evasterias troschelii

Painted star

Orthasterias koehleri

Spiny pink star

Pisaster brevispinus

Sunflower seastar

Pyncnopodia helianthoides

Long ray star

Stylasterias forreri

Cucumariidae

Orange sea cucumber or red sea cucumber

Cucumaria miniata

Echinasteridae

Blood star

Henricia leviuscula

Fat Henricia

Henricia sanguinolenta

Vermilion sea star

Mediaster aequialis

Sand star

Luidia foliolata

Ophiactidae

Daisy brittle star

Ophiopholis aculeata

Ophiuroidea

Brittle star or ophiuroid

Ophiuroidea spp.

Pseudarchasteridae

Gunpowder star

Gephyreaster swifti

Solasteridae

Striped sunstar

Solaster stimpsoni

Common sunstar or rose star

Crossaster papposus

Giant California sea cucumber

Parastichopus californicus

Purple sea urchin

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

Green sea urchin

Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis

Asteriidae

Goniasteridae Luidiidae

Stichopodidae Strongylocentrotidae

Derelict fishing gear

Location

Study Period

References

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002–2008

[32]

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Common name

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Table A1.7  List of Entangled Marine Birds Type and Shape of Entanglement

Common Name

Species

Alcidae

Common murre; Pigeon guillemot

Uria aalge; Cepphus columba

Derelict fishing nets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002– 2008

[32]

Uria aalge

Balloon; fishing line; fishing net; plastic; salmon gear

Central California

2001– 2005

[33]

Mergus merganser

Fishing line

Central California

2001– 2005

[33]

Surf scoter; Scoter (unid.); Velvet scoter or velvet duck White-winged scoter; Greater scaup; Merganser spp.

Melanitta perspicillata; Melanitta spp.; Melanitta fusca; Melanitta deglandi; Aythya marila; Mergus spp.

Derelict fishing nets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002– 2008

[32]

Surf scoter

Melanitta perspicillata

Fishing line

Central California

[33]

Black-crowned night heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

2001– 2005

Great egret or common egret large egret

Ardea alba

Great blue heron (Pacific)

Ardea herodias fannini

Derelict fishing nets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002– 2008

[32]

Black-footed Albatross

Phoebastria nigripes

Rope

Central California

2001– 2005

[33]

Common loon

Gavia immer

Fishing line

Central California

2001– 2005

[33]

Loon (unid.); Common loon; Pacific loon; Red-throated loon

Gavia spp.; Gavia immer; Gavia pacifica; Gavia stellata

Derelict fishing nets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002– 2008

[32]

Anatidae

Ardeidae

Diomedeidae Gaviidae

Common (North American) merganser;

Location

Study Period

Family

References

Continued

Table A1.7  List of Entangled Marine Birds—cont’d Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location

Laridae

California gull

Larus californicus

Fishing line

Central California

[33]

Glaucous-winged gull

Larus glaucescens

Fishing line, fishing net

2001– 2005

Western x glaucouswinged gull hybrid

Larus glaucescens x occidentalis

Fishing line

Heerman’s gull

Larus heermanni

Fishing line

Western gull

Larus occidentalis

Fishing line

Brown Pelican

Pelecanus occidentalis

Fishing line

Pelagic cormorant

Phalacrocorax pelagicus

Fishing line

Brandt’s Cormorant

Phalacrocorax penicillatus

Fishing line; rope

Double-crested cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus

Fishing line

Cormorant (unid.); Brandt’s cormorant; Pelagic cormorant; Double-crested cormorant

Phalacrocorax spp.; Phalacrocorax penicillatus; Phalacrocorax Pelagicus; Phalacrocorax auritis

Derelict fishing gillnets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002– 2008

[32]

Clark’s grebe

Aechmophorus clarkii

Fishing line

Central California

[33]

Western Grebe

Aechmophorus occidentalis

Fishing line; string

2001– 2005

Northern fulmar

Fulmarus glacialis

Balloon and string; fishing line

Short-tailed shearwater or slender-billed shearwater

Ardenna tenuirostris; formerly Puffinus tenuirostris

Fishing line

Sooty shearwater

Ardenna grisea

Fishing line

Western/Clark’s grebe; Grebe (unid.); Red-necked grebe

Aechmophorus spp.; Podiceps spp.; Podiceps grisegena

Derelict fishing nets

Inland marine waters of Washington

2002– 2008

[32]

Red plastics

Off coast of Mauritania

2007– 2010

[248]

Fragments of fishing gear

Germany, German Bight, Isle of Helgoland

1976– 1985

[249]

Pelecanidae Phalacrocoracidae

Podicipedidae

Scolopacidae

Shorebird (unid.)

Sulidae

Northern gannet

Study Period

References

Derelict fishing nets Morus bassanus or Sula bassana

Family

Bird

Laridae

Black-legged kittiwake

Rissa tridactyla

Sulidae

Northern gannet

Morus bassanus (Sula bassana)

Australasian gannet

Threskiornithidae

Black-faced spoonbill

Species

Morus serrator

Platalea minor

Type and Shape of Entanglement

Location NW Denmark, Jammerbugt, Bulbjerg

Fishing gear (rope, line, netting); strapping; plastic bags or films; hard plastic (shotgun shell, lobster’ tag, misc.)

Canada, Eastern Newfoundland, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Funk Island and Cape St. Mary

Study Period

References

2005

[250]

1989

[251]

Synthetic rope

UK, Wales, Grassholm

1996–1997, 2005–2010

[252]

Net, rope, line, bailing twine, packaging tape, plastic bag, straw, onion bag

Australia, Victoria, Lawrence Rocks, Port Phillip Bay

2007

[253]

Plastic fragments

Western coast of South Korea, islet Suhaam

2010–2012

[254]

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Table A1.8  List of Nesting Materials Used by Birds

109

Appendix 2—Ingestion .

Table A2.1  List of Identified Mammals Having Ingested Plastics Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

References

Bottlenose dolphin

Tursiops truncatus

Plastic jugs, disposable surgeon, gloves, plastic bags, and monofilament lines

US, Florida coast

<1990

[255]

La Plata dolphin or Franciscana

Pontoporia blainvillei

Packaging debris (cellophane, bags, and rubber bands) and fishery gear fragments (monofilament lines, ropes, and nets)

N coast of Argentina

2,007–20,100

[256]

Dolphins Delphinidae

Rough-toothed dolphin

Steno bredanensis

2 plastic bags

NE Brazil, Ceará state, Fortaleza, Poço da Draga beach

2001

[257]

False killer whale

Pseudorca crassidens

Plastic jugs, disposable surgeon, gloves, plastic bags, and monofilament lines

US, Florida coast

<1990

[255]

Fur seal (juvenile harbor porpoise)

Phocoena phocoena

Balled up piece of black plastic

Canada, Nova Scotia, beach near Pictou

1997

[258]

Polypropylene strapping band

New Zealand, Open Bay Island

1975

[26]

Dutch coast, Texel Island

2002, 2009, 2010

[54]

New Zealand, E. Wellington, Palliser Bay

1976

[26]

Seals Phocoenidae

Fur seal Harbor seal

Phoca vitulina

Plastic particles (average number 0.26 per individual)

Balaenopteridae

Minke whale (juvenile)

Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Polyethylene bags

Kogiidae

Pygmy sperm whale

Kogia breviceps

Plastic garbage can liner; bread wrapper; corn chip bag; pieces of plastic film

Texas Gulf, Galveston Island

1984

[259]

Physeteridae

Sperm whale

100 plastic bags

Mykonos Island, Aegean Sea

2011

[260]

Whales

Ziphiidae

Physeter macrocephalus

Blainville’s beaked whale

Mesoplodon densirostris

Plastic threads

Southern Brazil, São José do Norte, Mar Grosso Beach

1993

[261]

True’s beaked whale

Mesoplodon mirus

Macro- and microplastics (<5 mm)

N and W coasts of Ireland

2013

[64]

Table A2.2  List of Fishes Having Ingested Plastics Name

Species

Long-snouted lancetfish or longnose lancetfish or cannibal fish

Alepisaurus ferox

Ariidae

Sea catfish; Madamango sea catfish;

Cathorops agassizii; Cathorops spixii; Sciades herzbergii

Atherinopsidae

Atlantic silverside

Menidia menidia

Callionymidae

Common dragonet

Callionymus lyra

Carangidae

Atlantic horse mackerel

Trachurus trachurus

Cepolidae

Redband fish

Cichlidae

Nile tilapia

Alepisauridae

Cepola macrophthalma Oreochromis niloticus

Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

Reference

Fragments hard plastics (51.9%); ropes (21.3%); fishing nets (20.4%); plastic strapping bands (3.7%); fragments of plastic bags (1.9%)

Hawaii, shallow-set longline fishery

2010–2011

[262]

Nylon fragments from cables used for fishery activities

SW Atlantic estuaries; NE Brazil

2006–2008

[263]

Polystyrene spherules (<16 mm)

US, New England coast

1971

[37]

Microplastics: rayon  >  nylon  > polyester

English Channel, average depth of 55 m

2010–2011

[61]

Tanzania, Mwanza region, S shore Lake Victoria

2015

[264]

Microplastic: rayon > nylon  > polyester  >  acrylic

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Family

Microplastics: rayon  >  nylon  > polyester  >  polystyrene

111

Poly(ethylene-copolypropylene) packaging carrier bags; polyethylene carrier bags, food wrappers, beverage bottles; PET beverage bottles, textile (clothing, carpets, curtains); polyurethane insulation, sealants, packaging; silicone rubber industrial sealants, O-rings, molds, food storage; cellulose acetate cigarette butts, tissues

Continued

Table A2.2  List of Fishes Having Ingested Plastics—cont’d Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

Reference

Clupeidae

Atlantic herring

Clupea harengus

Polystyrene pellets

Laboratory

1986

[265]

Cyprinidae

Zebrafish

Danio rerio

Polystyrene microplastics

Laboratory

[266]

Gudgeon

Gobio gobio

Microplastics

French rivers

[62]

Crucian carp

Carassius carassius

Polystyrene nanoparticles (24 and 27 nm)

Laboratory

[267]

Pelagic stingray

Pteroplatytrygon violacea

Plastic bag fragments

Greece, E Ionian Sea, Cephalonia, 300–850 m depth

2010

[268]

Blue whiting

Micromesistius poutassou

Microplastics: rayon  >  nylon  > polyester

English Channel, average depth of 55 m

2010–2011

[61]

Poor cod

Trisopterus minutus

Microplastics; rayon  >  nylon  > polyester

English Channel, average depth of 55 m

2010–2011

[61]

Cod; Haddock; Whiting or merling

Gadus morhua; Melanogrammus aeglefinus; Merlangius merlangus

Southern N Sea

2010–2011

[60]

Southern opah or southern moonfish

Lampris immaculatus

Food, napkin and cigarette wrappers; various pieces of plastic line and straps used in securing boxes

SW Atlantic Ocean, Patagonian Shelf

19,931,994

[269]

Nile perch

Lates niloticus

Poly(ethylene-copolypropylene) packaging carrier bags; polyethylene carrier bags, food wrappers, beverage bottles; PET beverage bottles, textile (clothing, carpets, curtains); polyurethane insulation, sealants, packaging; silicone rubber industrial sealants, O-rings, molds, food storage; cellulose acetate cigarette butts, tissues

Tanzania, Mwanza region, S shore Lake Victoria

2015

[264]

Dasyatidae

Gadidae

Lampridae

Latidae

Microplastics (0.04– 4.8 mm) of polyethylene; polypropylene; PΕΤ

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Species

112

Name

Family

Snailfish or seasnail

Liparis liparis

Polystyrene fragments (1 mm)

UK, Bristol, Severn Estuary

Early 1970s

[270,271]

Lotidae

Five-beard rockling

Ciliata mustela

Polystyrene particles

UK, Bristol, Severn Estuary

Early 1970s

[270,271]

European hake

Merluccius merluccius

Microplastics: fibers (71%), films (3.2%) and fragments (1.6%); color: black (51%), red (13%), and gray (12.7%)

Mediterranean (Barcelona, Cartagena, Málaga, Mahón and Ciutadella) coasts

2014

[272]

Moronidae

White perch

Roccus americanus

Polystyrene spherules (<16 mm)

US, New England coast

1971

[37]

Mullidae

Red mullet

Mullus barbatus

Microplastics: fibers (71%), spheres (24%), films (3.2%) and fragments (1.6%); color: black (51%),red (13%), and gray (12.7%)

Mediterranean (Barcelona, Cartagena, Málaga, Mahón and Ciutadella) coasts

2014

[272]

N. Pacific Central gyre

2008

[38]

2009

[58]

Merlucciidae

Myctophidae

Golden lanternfish; Bigfin lanternfish Andersen’s lantern fish; Bolin’s lantern fish; Cocco’s lantern fish; Pearly lanternfish

Oryziinae

Plastic fragments

Diaphus anderseni; Diaphus fulgens; Diaphus phillipsi; Lobianchia gemellarii; Myctophum nitidulum

Microplastics

Between the California Current and the North Pacific subtropical gyre

Japanese rice fish or medaka and Japanese killifish (embryos and larvae)

Oryzias latipes

Monodispersed nonionized fluorescent latex polystyrene microspheres (39.4 to 42,000 nm)

Laboratory

[273]

Fluorescent nonfunctionalized and carboxyl-group functionalized latex particles (50 and 500 nm)

Laboratory

[274]

European perch larvae

Perca fluviatilis

Polystyrene particles (90 μm)

Laboratory

[275]

113

Percidae

Myctophum aurolanternatum; Symbolophorus californiensi

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Liparidae

114

Table A2.2  List of Fishes Having Ingested Plastics—cont’d Location

Study Period

Reference

Myoxocephalusaenus

Polystyrene spherules (<16 mm)

US, New England coast

1971

[37]

European flounder; Winter flounder

Platichthys flesus; Pseudopleuronectes americanus

Polystyrene particles (20–50 μm; 1 mm)

UK, Bristol, Severn Estuary

Early 1970s

[271]

Albacore

Thunnus alalunga

Blue microplastics (<5 mm)

Central Mediterranean Sea (Eolian Island, Strait of Messina)

2012–2013

[276]

Bluefin tuna

Thunnus thynnus

Blue and yellowish macroplastics (>25 mm) and mesoplastics (5–25 mm)

Central Mediterranean Sea (Eolian Island, Strait of Messina)

2012–2013

[276]

Soleidae

Solenette or yellow sole; Thickback sole

Buglossidium luteum; Microchirus variegatus

Microplastics: rayon  >  nylon  >  polyester

English Channel, average depth of 55 m

2010–2011

[61]

Sparidae

Blackspot seabream

Pagellus bogaraveo

Fragments of hard plastics

Greece, E Ionian Sea, Cephalonia Island, 300–850 m depth

2010

[268]

Diaphanous hatchetfish; Highlight hatchetfish

Sternoptyx diaphana; Sternoptyx pseudobscura

Microplastics

Between the California Current and the North Pacific subtropical gyre

2009

[58]

Microplastics

Between the California Current and the North Pacific subtropical gyre

2009

[58]

Microplastics: rayon  >  nylon  > polyester

English Channel, average depth of 55 m

2010–2011

[61]

Pleuronectidae

Scombridae

Sternoptychidae

Stomiidae

Triglidae

Name Golden lanternfish

Pacific blackdragon

Red gurnard

Species

Idiacanthus antrostomus

Aspitrigla cuculus or Chelidonichthys cuculus

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Type and Shape of Plastic

Family

Sword fish or broadbills

Xiphias gladius

Yellowish mesoplastics (5–25 mm)

Central Mediterranean Sea (Eolian Island, Strait of Messina)

2012–2013

[276]

Zeidae

John Dory, St Pierre or Peter’s fish

Zeus faber

Microplastics: rayon  >  nylon  > polyester > LDPE > acrylic

English Channel, average depth of 55 m

2010–2011

[61]

Tiger shark

Galeocerdo cuvier

Fragments of plastic packets and sheets

South Africa, beaches of KwaZulu-Natal

1978–2000

[23]

Sharks Carcharhinidae Etmopteridae

Velvet belly lanternshark or simply velvet belly

Etmopterus spinax

Fragments of hard plastics

Greece, E Ionian Sea, Cephalonia Island, 300–850 m depth

2010

[268]

Scyliorhinidae

Blackmouth catshark

Galeus melastomus

Fragments of hard plastics (56.0%), plastic bag fragments (22.0%), fragments of fishing gears (19.0%) and textile fibers (3.0%)

Greece, E Ionian Sea, Cephalonia Island, 300–850 m depth

2010

[268]

Small-spotted catshark or lesser-spotted dogfish, Rough-hound, or Morgay (in Scotland and Cornwall)

Scyliorhinus canicula

Microplastics: fibers (71%), films (3.2%) and fragments (1.6%); color: black (51%), red (13%), and gray (12.7%)

Spanish Atlantic (Galician, Cantabrian and Gulf of Cádiz) coasts

2014

[272]

Longnose spurdog

Squalus blainville

Plastic bag fragments

Greece, E Ionian Sea, Cephalonia Island, 300–850 m depth

2010

[268]

Squalidae

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Xiphiidae

115

Family Chelonioidea

116

Table A2.3  List of Turtles Having Ingested Plastics Species

Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

References

Loggerhead turtle

Caretta caretta

Pieces of plastic

C Mediterranean, Malta

1986

[277]

1986–1988

[278]

C and S Japan

<1989

[279]

US, E C Florida

1997

[280]

S Brazil, coast of Rio Grande do Sul state

1997–1998

[281]

Plastics (75.0%); EPS (16.7%); net fragments (11.1); hooks and fishing line (5.6%)

W Mediterranean, NA Spain

<1999

[282]

Transparent, milky white or light blue plastic; EPS; nylon debris

C Mediterranean, Malta

<2006

[243]

Film, thread and, foamed plastic fragments

Italy, Tuscany coast, Pelagos Sanctuary

2010–2011

[283]

Film (45.3%)

Portugal, continental coast

2010–2013

[284]

Small pieces of latex and plastic sheeting

Laboratory

Pieces of plastic bag (major component); pieces of plastics; fishing line, pieces of latex balloon, EPS, plastic beads, rubber, etc. Transparent plastic bags; film; monofilament fishing line; rope parts Plastic fragments Plastic bags (50%); plastic ropes (39.5%); hard plastic pieces (10.5%); EPS (7.9%)

USA, S Texas coast, Mustang Island, North Padre Island and South Padre Island

[45]

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Common Name

Hawksbill sea turtle

Chelonia mydas

Eretmochelys imbricata

Plastic fragments (71%); monofilament fishing line (38%); purple rubber (4%)

USA, Florida

1988

[31]

Transparent plastic bags; film; monofilament fishing line; rope parts

Central and southern Japan

<1989

[279]

Plastic bags (50%); plastic ropes (39.5%); hard plastic pieces (10.5%); EPS (7.9%)

S Brazil, coast of Rio Grande do Sul state

1997–1998

[281]

Plastic bags; nylon chord; tarpaulin fragments

Mexico, Gulf of California, Bahía de los Angeles

1997–2000

[285]

Compacted ball of wellchewed film

Caribbean coast, Costa Rica

1970–1972

[286]

C and S Japan

<1989

[279]

US, S Texas coast

<1991

[287]

Transparent plastic bags; film; monofilament fishing line; rope parts

C and S Japan

<1989

[285]

Pieces of hard plastic Resembling parts of a bottleneck thread, and a piece of plastic bag

Brazil, Paraíba

2004

[288]

Woven plastic bag

N Australia, Darwin Harbour

1994

[289]

Transparent plastic bags; film; monofilament fishing line; rope parts Kemp’s ridley sea turtle

Lepidochelys kempi

Olive ridley sea turtle or Pacific ridley sea turtle

Lepidochelys olivacea

Flatback sea turtle

Natator depressus

Pieces of plastic

117

Continued

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Green sea turtle

Family

Common Name

Species

Dermochelyidae

Leatherback turtle

Dermochelys coriacea

118

Table A2.3  List of Turtles Having Ingested Plastics—cont’d Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

References

Plastic bag

N Peru

1980

[65]

Transparent plastic bags; film; monofilament fishing line; rope parts

C and S Japan

<1989

[279]

Plastic bags (50%); plastic ropes (39.5%); hard plastic pieces (10.5%); EPS (7.9%)

S Brazil, coast of Rio Grande do Sul State

1997–1998

[281]

Transparent plastic bags; film; monofilament fishing line; rope parts

C and S Japan

<1989

[279]

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Table A2.4  List of Crustaceans (Lobsters, Crabs, Crayfish, Shrimp, Krill and Barnacles) Having Ingested Plastics

Nephropidae

Name Norway lobster or Dublin Bay prawn or langoustine or scampi

Species Nephrops norvegicus

Type, Shape and Size of Plastic

Location

Study Period

References

Tightly tangled balls of plastic strands of polypropylene rope and nets (<5 mm)

Scotland, Clyde Sea, Isles of Crumbrae

2009

[68]

‘Rubber’ materials (1%) and ‘elastic’ materials (0.2%)

Scotland, Clyde Sea, S. of the Little Cumbrae at north end of the east Arran Basin

1979–1985

[290]

Nylon threads from fishing debris

Central Adriatic Sea

<1999

[291]

Nylon threads

Bathyal E. and W. Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic

1994–1995

[292]

Ocypodidae

Mudflat fiddler crab

Uca (Minuca) rapax

Polystyrene pellets (180–250 μm)

Brazil, Niterói/ Laboratory

[293]

Portunidae

Common littoral crab

Carcinus maenas

Polypropylene microfibers (1–5 mm) (0.3–1.0 wt% of ingested food)

Laboratory. Male crabs collected from the river Exe estuary, Devon, UK

[294]

Polystyrene microspheres (8–10 μm)

Laboratory

[295]

Varunidae

Chinese mitten crab

Eriocheir sinensis

Transparent micro-strands and balls originated from fishing gear

Baltic coastal waters (Poland) and the Tagus Estuary (Portugal)

<2016

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Family

[296]

Continued

119

Table A2.4  List of Crustaceans (Lobsters, Crabs, Crayfish, Shrimp, Krill and Barnacles) Having Ingested Plastics—cont’d

Artemiidae

Crangonidae

Type, Shape and Size of Plastic

Name

Species

Location

Study Period

References

Brine shrimp

Artemia franciscana larvae

Anionic carboxylated polystyrene (PS–COOH) nanoparticles (40 nm) and cationic amino polystyrene (PS–NH2) nanoparticles

Laboratory

Caridean shrimp

Crangon crangon

Synthetic fibers (200–1000 μm)

Channel area and south part of North Sea

2013–2014

[70]

Lepas anatifera

Polyethylene microplastics (0.5 mm); minor amounts polypropylene and polystyrene microplastics

North Pacific subtropical gyre

2009, 2012

[298]

120

Family

[297]

Pelagic goose barnacle or smooth gooseneck barnacle

Talitridae

Sand hopper amphibod

Talitrus saltatory or Talitrus locusta

Polyethylene microspheres (10–45 μm)

Laboratory

[299]

Omnivorous amphipod

Orchestia gammarellus

Microplastics (20–2000 μm)

Laboratory

[300]

Acartiidae

Copepod

Acartia tonsa

Microplastics (7–70 μm)

Laboratory (collected from Buzards Bay, Mass)

[301]

Temoridae

Estuarine copepod

Eurytemora affinis

Latex beads

Laboratory

[302]

Idoteidae



Idotea emarginata

Polystyrene microbeads, fragments (1–100 μm) and polyacrylic fibers (20−2500 μm)

Laboratory

[302a]

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Lepadidae

Family Mytilidae

Ostreidae

Name

Species

Common mussel or blue mussel

Mytilus edulis

Mediterranean mussel

Mytilus galloprovincialis

Pacific oyster or Japanese oyster or Miyagi oyster

Crassostrea gigas

Eastern oyster or Wellfleet oyster or Atlantic oyster or Virginia oyster or American oyster

Crassostrea virginica

Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

References

Polystyrene particles (3.0–9.6 μm)

UK, Cornwall, Port Quinn

2008

[57]

Orange microfibers originating from polyethylene dolly ropes at fishing nets (>20 μm)

Belgian department stores and Belgian groynes and quayside

2013

[199]

Microplastics (5–10 μm, 50%)

Laboratory

Microfibers (0.8 μm)

Eastern Passage of Nova Scotia, Canada

Amino-modified polystyrene nanoparticles (50 nm)

Laboratory

[304]

Microplastics (11–15 μm, 29.6%; 16–20 μm, 33.3%)

Laboratory

[72]

Polystyrene particles (70 nm–20 μm)

Laboratory

[305]

Polystyrene beads (100 nm, aggregated 100 nm, 10 μm)

Laboratory

[306]

[72] 2012

[303]

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Table A2.5  List of Mollusks (Mussels, Oysters) Having Ingested Plastics

121

122

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Table A2.6  List of Echinoderms or Echinodermata (Starfish, Sea Urchins, Sand Dollars and Sea Cucumbers) Having Ingested Plastics Family

Common Name

Species

Holothuriidae; Cucumariidae

Florida sea cucumber; gray sea cucumber; orangefooted sea cucumber; Striped sea cucumber or green sea cucumber

Holothuria floridana, Holothuria grisea, Cucumaria frondosa; Thyonella gemmata

Parechinidae

Purple sea urchin embryos

Paracentrotus lividus

Type, Shape and Shape of Plastic

Study Period

Location

References

Mesoplastic (plastic fragments) 025 mm <  maximum dimension<15 mm) nylon, PVC

Laboratory

[73]

Anionic carboxylated polystyrene (PS–COOH) nanoparticles and cationic amino polystyrene (PS– NH2) nanoparticles (89 ± 2 nm)

Laboratory

[307]

Table A2.7  List of Polychaetes Having Ingested Plastics Family

Common Name

Arenicolidae

Lugworm

Species

Type, Size, and Shape of Plastic

Arenicola marina

230 μm PVC (egested)

Location Laboratory

Study Period

References [300]

Unplasticised PVC particles (130 μm)

[50,75]

Polystyrene microspheres

[308]

Polystyrene microspheres (>5 μm)

[74]

Study Period

References

Canada, Newfoundland

2013

[309]

Pellets, filaments

South Africa, Inaccessible Island, Gough Island and the Prince Edward Islands

1979–1985

[85]

Plastic bags, straps

Hawaii Islands, Southeast Island, Pearl and Hermes reef

1966

[76]

Polyethylene pellets

Hawaii, Sand Island, Midway Atoll

1986, 1987

[310]

N. Pacific Ocean, Midway Atoll

1994–1995

[311]

Family

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Plastic

Alcidae

Dovekie (little auk)

Alle alle

Small, unidentifiable fragments, or bits of nylon fishing line

Wandering albatross

Diomedea exulans

Diomedeidae

Laysan albatross

Laysan albatross (juvenile)

Diomedea immutabilis (Phoebastria immutabilis)

D. immutabilis (Phoebastria immutabilis); Diomedea exulans

Plastic chips and shards, EPS, beads, fishing line, buttons, disposable cigarette lighter,; toys, PVC pipe and other PVC fragments, golf tees, dish-washing gloves, magic markers and caylume light sticks

Location

Polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene microplastics (1–5 mm); Plastic fragments; toys; bottle caps; cigarette lighters

Hawaii Islands: Midway and Oahu

1982–1983

[84]

Plastic bags, straps

Hawaii Islands, Southeast Island. Pearl and Hermes reef

1966

[76]

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Table A2.8  List of Birds Having Ingested Plastics

Continued

123

124

Table A2.8  List of Birds Having Ingested Plastics—cont’d Species

Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Study Period

References

Black-footed albatross (juvenile)

Diomedea nigripes (Phoebastria nigripes)

Plastic fragments, line (monofilament, braided polyline, synthetic yarn, and string), pellets, EPS

Hawaiian Islands

2006–2008

[312]

Black-browed albatross

Thalassarche melanophris

Thermoplastic fragments, nylon line, rubber

S Brazil, Coast of Rio Grande do Sul

1997–1998

[313]

Hydrobatidae

Wilson’s storm petrel

Oceanites oceanicus

Plastic pellets

Antarctic

<1988

[314]

Procellariidae

Cape petrel or Cape pigeon or pintado petrel or Cape fulmar

Daption capense

Plastic pellets

Antarctic

<1988

[314]

Macronectes giganteus

Plastics bags; caps; fishing lines

S. Atlantic Ocean; Argentina; Patagonian coast

2002

[315]

Polyethylene pellets

Artificial feeding

1979–1985

[80]

Pieces from bottle caps; EPS; industrial pellets; plastic fragments from unidentified sources. Debris came in many colors: brown, black, gray, green, white, off-white, yellow and transparent

Canadian Arctic

2008

[316]

Hard plastic pieces in a wide range of colors (red, green, beige, blue, white, yellow, orange, brown, and gray)

Canada, Nunavut, Davis Strait

2002

[317]

Colored bottle cap liners; fragment of plastic containers; adhesive bandage; heavy bandage; snack food wrapper

Canada, Nunavut, northern Devon Island

2003, 2004

[318]

Southern giant petrel White chinned petrels Northern fulmar

Procellaria aequinoctialis Fulmarus glacialis

Management of Marine Plastic Debris

Common Name

Family

Short-tailed shearwaters

Wedge-tailed shearwater

Wedge-tailed shearwater; Short-tailed shearwater; Hutton’s shearwater

Dutch coast

1982–1984

[319]

Condoms; carrier bags; foams; disclike colored beads (5 mm); rubber; polyethylene; EPS

Scotland, firths of Forth and Clyde

<1985

[320]

Puffinus puffin

Disklike colored polyethylene beads (5 mm)

Wales

<1985

[320]

Ardenna tenuirostris (Puffinus tenuirostris)

Colored pellets

SE Bering Sea

1997–1999, 2001

[321]

Plastic fragments: pellets; plastic bags

Victoria, Phillip Island

2010

[322]

Plastic fragments, possibly polypropylene or polyethylene (mean size of 10.17 ± 4.55 mm; off-white (37.5%) and green (31.3%)

Australia, southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Heron Island

<2013

[323]

Plastic fragment including fiber, pellet, EPS, fragment, bottle cap, bag, sponge (1–3 mm)

Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Atoll

1986–1987

[324]

SE Australia

2011–2012

[325]

Ardenna pacifica (Puffinus pacificus)

Ardenna pacifica (Puffinus pacificus); Ardenna tenuirostris (Puffinus tenuirostris); Puffinus huttoni

Dark- or black-colored plastics fragments (incl. nylon fishing remnants) (60%); dark- or black-colored pellets (35%)

2: Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts

Manx shearwater

Pieces of films; foams; threads; fragments of molded plastics; others (e.g., cigarette filters, rubbers)

Continued

125

Family

126

Table A2.8  List of Birds Having Ingested Plastics—cont’d Study Period

References

US, off the N Carolina coast

1975–1989

[40]

Dark-colored plastic particles

SA, southern ocean

1979–1985

[80]

Pieces of plastic bags and candy wrappers

Brazilian coastal line

2008–2010

[326]

Snack wrapper to dependent nestlings

Greece, E Aegean Sea, Anidro islet

2015

[89]

Common Name

Species

Type and Shape of Plastic

Location

Scolopacidae

Red Phalarope

Phalaropus fulicaria

Plastic particles

Spheniscidae

African penguin or jackass penguin or black-footed penguin

Spheniscus demersus

Magellanic penguins Falconidae

Eleonora’s falcon

Spheniscus magellanicus Falco eleonorae

Management of Marine Plastic Debris