UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH

The Identification of Microplastic Fibres on North Devon Beaches

Angelo Massos 10365453

4/23/2015

I

Abstract

Microplastics are less than 5mm in size and are categorised as by either

fragments, nurdles or fibres. This project found microplastic fibres on two North

Devon Beaches, Woolacombe Bay and Wildersmouth. 11 samples were taken

along a transect from the low water mark up to the strandline to identify for the

presence of microplastics, to determine particle size, and to see whether the

particle size correlated with the number of microplastics. In addition, a survey of

the beach profile was conducted, recording the elevation using a (Garmin eTrex

Legend H Handheld) GPS System to see if the microplastics correlated with the

beach elevation. Microplastic fibres were individually analysed using Bruker IFs66

FT-IR, and then analysed against the two Bruker libraries spectra, BPAD.SO1 and

Synthetic Fibres ATR Library. Particle size was analysed using the Malvern 2000,

which uses laser defraction. The results show that there was no correlation

between microplastic fibres and particle size and no correlation between the

elevation of the beach profile and the distribution of microplastic fibres. The

microplastic fibres present in the samples consisted of polyester, polyamide,

acrylic and cellulosic, indicating the potential sources were a waste water

treatment plant and an outfall pipe. Microplastic pollution on North Devon beaches

has been proven by this project, therefore raising concerns about microplastic

contamination from metals and persistent organic pesticides, with the associated

implications for the marine environment and human health.

II

Acknowledgements

Without the collaboration of North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (ANOB) and Plymouth University, this project would not have been

possible. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr John Martin for his guidance throughout

the project. Many thanks to the North Devon AONB team, in particular Elaine

Hayes for helping with the project design and Natalie Gibb for helping with

sampling in the field.

Thanks also go to the laboratory technicians Andrew Tonkin and Richard Hartley

for their help and guidance during the laboratory processing and analytical phases

of the project.

My gratitude goes to Prof Richard Thompson, who helped with his inspirational

guidance and knowledge during the design of the project and the processing of

results.

Many thanks to my parents Jacky and Theo Massos, and Jane Richardson, for

their continuous support and encouragement throughout this project.

III

Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements II

List of Figures V

List of Appendices VI

Chapter 1 1

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Aims 2

1.2 Objectives 2

1.3 Hypothesis 2

Chapter 2 2

2.0 Literature Review 2

2.1 Global, international and national legislation and policy on the prevention of marine

litter 2

2.2 Environment impacts of marine litter 4

2.2.1 Ingestion 4

2.2.2 Impact of litter on benthic habitat 4

2.2.3 Transportation of non- native invasive species 5

2.3 Sources of Marine Litter 5

2.4 Microplastics in the marine environment 6

2.4.1 Microplastics and sources 6

2.4.2 Pathways 9

2.4.2.1 Environment 9

2.4.2.2 Food chain 9

2.4.2.3 Sinks 9

2.5 Socio-Economic Impacts of microplastics 10

2.6 Microplastics properties 11

2.6.1 Polymers 12

2.6.2 Density 12

2.6.3 Abundance 13

2.6.4 Colour 13

2.6.5 Biological interactions 14

2.6.6 Physical impacts of microplastics 14

2.7 Indirect Impacts from microplastics contaminates 14

IV

2.7.1 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) 14

2.7.2 Trace metals 17

2.8 Data monitoring 17

2.8.1 Data Gap 21

Chapter 3 22

3.0 Methodology 22

3.1 Site description 22

3.2. Field Work 25

3.3 Laboratory work 27

3.3.1 Stage 1: Equipment list: 27

3.3.1.1 Method Process 27

3.3. 2 Stage 2: Removing fibres 28

3.3.3 Stage 3: Fibre analysis 29

3.4 Particle size analysis 32

Chapter 4 33

4.0 Results 33

4.1 Microplastic results 33

4.2 Particle size results 42

Chapter 5 45

5.0 Discussion 45

5.1 Discussion of results 45

5.2 Receptors to microplastics 50

5.3 Global content of microplastics 51

6.0 Conclusion 55

7.0 Recommendations 56

8.0 References 57

9.0 Appendices 66

V

List of Figures

Figure 2: List of commonly produced plastic polymers (Anon, 2011). 11

Figure 2.1: Potential pathways for the transport of microplastics and its biological

interactions (Wright et al., 2013) 13

Figure 2.2: Partitioning of chemicals between plastics, biota and seawater (Leslie

et al., 2011). 15

Figure 2.3: Sources of marine microplastics and the various physical, chemical

and biological processes affecting microplastics in the marine environment (Leslie

et al., 2011). 16

Figure 2.4: MCS Great British Beach Clean weekend annual average data for

North Devon for small plastics < 2.5cm. 18

Figure 2.5: MCS seasonal average data for North Devon for small plastics < 2.5

cm. 20

Figure 3: OS Map of sampling sites located in North Devon (University of

Edinburgh, 2015) 22

Figure 3.1: OS map of Woolacombe Bay (University of Edinburgh, 2015). 23

Figure 3.2: Picture of Woolacombe Bay 23

Figure 3.3: OS map of Wildersmouth Beach (University of Edinburgh, 2015). 24

Figure 3.4: Picture of Wildersmouth Beach. 25

Figure 3.5: Microplastic sampling at Woolacombe Bay. 25

Figure 3.6: Bulk sediment sampling for particle size analysis at Wildersmouth

Beach. 26

Figure 3.7: Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS System. 26

Figure: 3.8 Acid rinsing of 500ml glass jars 27

Figure: 3.9 Mini pore filtration unit 28

Figure: 3.10 Picking potential microplastics for FT-IR analysis 28

Figure 3.11: Bruker FT-IR 29

Figure: 3.12 Cellulosic rayon fibre wave spectra 30

Figure: 3.13 Polyamide nylon fibre wave spectra 30

Figure 3.14: Polyester fibre spectra 31

Figure 3.15: Acrylic fibre spectra 31

Figure 3.16: sieve shaker 32

Figure 3.17: Malvern 2000 33

Figure: 4 Rayon fibre from samples 34

Figure: 4.1 Woolacombe Bay microplastic and average % particle size. 35

Figure 4.2: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of microplastic

fibres present at Woolacombe Bay. 36

Figure: 4.3 Wildersmouth microplastic and average % particle size 37

Figure 4.4: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of microplastic

fibres and the total number present at Wildersmouth. 38

Figure: 4.5 Scatter graph of average particle size µm against total fibres for

Woolacombe Bay. 38

Figure: 4.6 Scatter graph of average particle size µm against total fibres for

Wildersmouth. 39

VI

Figure 4.7 Woolacombe Bay beach profile, plotted against the microplastic fibres.

41

Figure 4.8 Wildersmouth beach profile, plotted against the microplastic fibres. 42

Figure: 4.9 Sediment classification triangle (Blott and Pye, 2012). 43

Figure 4.10 Particle size accumulative curves for Woolacombe Bay. 44

Figure 4.11 Particle size accumulative curves for Wildersmouth. 45

List of Tables

Table 2: Legislation and policy, global, international and national 3

Table 2.1: Ingested marine litter reported in marine organisms 4

Table 2.2: Sources of Marine Litter from MCS annual Beachwatch report UK (MCS

2013). 6

Table 2.3: Microplastics types and sources. 8

Table 2.4: MCS number of Beachwatch seasonal surveys from 2002 - 2013 in

North Devon for plastic < 2.5 cm 19

Table: 4 raw data from Woolacombe Bay sample at 0m. 34

Table: 4.1 Calculated confidence intervals at 60% and 70% for each category of

fibre. 35

Table 4.2: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Woolacombe Bay 36

Table 4.3: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Wildersmouth 37

Table: 4.4 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using Tukey

method for Woolacombe Bay. 39

Table: 4.5 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using Tukey

method for Wildersmouth. 40

List of Appendices

1.0 Risk Assessment

2.0 COSH Forms

1

Chapter 1

1.0 Introduction

Marine litter poses a growing threat to the marine and coastal environment; more

than 1 million birds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year from becoming

entangled in or ingesting marine litter (KIMO, 2013). World production of plastics

was 265 million tonnes in 2010, of which 57 million tonnes were produced in

Europe (The Plastic Industry, 2011). The consequence of the increasing demand

for plastics has led to an annual production increase of 5% for the past 20 years in

Europe (The Plastic Industry, 2011). The relatively low cost of production, and

single-use items means that end of life plastics are accumulating in the

environment; plastic is not valued, which has led to it being disposed of incorrectly

(Thompson et al., 2009b).

The environment is vulnerable to litter which causes damaging ecological impacts,

such as entanglement, ingestion, smothering, disturbance and removal of habitat,

the transportation of invasive species and the degradation of poisonous

substances (Everard et al., 2002). Marine litter consists of material such as plastic

which has slow degradation rates, resulting in fragments known as

microplastics >5mm (Bakir et al., 2012); continuous input of large quantities of

these items is resulting in litter accumulating in marine and coastal environments

(UNEP n.d). Litter waste from the shipping industry, as well as lack of land based

infrastructure to receive litter, poor education and a lack of awareness among

main stakeholders and the general public, are the main contributing factors for

marine litter increase worldwide (UNEP, n.d).

2

1.1 Aims

The aim of this study is to investigate North Devon beaches for the

presence of microplastics.

To compare the concentrations of microplastics against particle size of the

beach sediments.

To determine whether microplastics show a distribution along the beach

profile.

1.2 Objectives

Collect samples of sediment for analysis of microplastics and collect

sediment samples to determine particle size.

Carry out preparation and laboratory analysis of samples collected.

Collate and interpret the data.

Report on the North Devon beaches to understand environmental problems

associated with microplastics.

1.3 Hypothesis

To identify the presence of microplastics on North Devon Beaches.

To identify a positive correlation between microplastics and fine particle size.

To identify a positive correlation between microplastic concentrations and

the elevation along beaches profiles.

Chapter 2

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Global, international and national legislation and policy on the

prevention of marine litter

Impacts on the environment from marine litter have been identified and have

started to be addressed by legislation and policy. To control marine debris there is

a need for a legal framework to be implemented, to ensure that polluters become

accountable for their actions. There is legislation, both internationally and

nationally, to deal with sources of marine pollution, shown in Table 2.

3

Table 1: Legislation and policy, global, international and national

International Action Reference

London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, 1972

Prohibits dumping of persistent plastics and non-biodegradable materials under Annex 1

(UN, 1977).

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (MARPOL 73/78).

Annex V ban disposal in to the sea of any forms of plastic under IMO (International Maritime Organization) Conventions

(IMO, 2011).

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment, North East Atlantic -OSPAR Convention.

Annex I prevents and eliminates of pollution from land-based sources; Annex III eliminates of pollution from offshore sources; Annex IV assess the quality of the marine environment

(EC, 1998).

European Action Reference

EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC).

To achieve ‘good environmental status’ (GES) by 2020 across Europe’s marine environment.

(EU, 2008).

EU Directive on packaging and packaging waste (2004/12/EC).

To harmonize national measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste, enhancing environmental protection.

(EU, 2004).

EU Waste Directive 2008/98/EC

To encourage recycling of waste within EU member states

(EU, 2008).

EU Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC).

To prevent or minimize possible negative effects on the environment from the landfilling of waste, by introducing stringent technical requirements for waste and landfills.

(EU, 1999).

EU Directive on port reception facilities for ship federated waste and cargo residues (2000/59/EC December 2002)

To enhance the availability and use of port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues

(EU, 2000a).

Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)

To preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and to protect human health.

(EU, 2006).

EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).

To ensure that all aquatic ecosystems and wetlands in the EU have achieved 'good chemical and ecological status' by 2015.

(EU, 2000b).

4

2.2 Environment impacts of marine litter

The current legislation is not preventing litter entering the marine environment and

causing the death of marine organisms, directly or indirectly.

2.2.1 Ingestion

Ingestion of litter by animals occurs when litter items are mistaken for food, or

consumed by a higher trophic level species (Everard et al., 2002). The ingestion of

marine litter has been reported to date and is shown in Table 2.1. Seabirds are

particularly susceptible to ingesting marine litter as they are surface feeders (Day,

1985), which is also problematic as consumed items are regurgitated to feed their

young (Fry et al., 1987).

Table 2.1: Ingested marine litter reported in marine organisms

Species Number of reported species

References

Seabirds 111 (Allsopp et al., 2006)

Marine mammals 31 (Allsopp et al., 2006)

Cetaceans 26 (Derraik 2002).

Ingestion of plastics leads to a less acute effect than entanglement due to the slow

accumulation of plastic items in the animals’ gut (Faris and Hart, 1995). Litter can

consequently lead to physical damage, mechanical blockage, damage of foraging

ability (Laist, 1987), feeding capacity and malnutrition. Contaminated plastic can

lead to reproductive disorders, hormonal inbalance, an increased risk of diseases

and possible death (Azzarello and Van-Vleet, 1987).

2.2.2 Impact of litter on benthic habitat

70% of marine litter is estimated to accumulate on the seafloor (OSPAR, 1995).

Litter accumulation can prevent gas exchange between overlying waters and the

National Action Reference

Environmental Protection Act - 1990 (HMSO, 1990).

Section 87 is an offence to drop litter in a public place including land covered by water.

(UK Government, 1990).

5

pore waters of sediment, leading to reduced oxygen in sediments (Mouat et al.,

2010). An additional impact on the functioning of the ecosystem is by smothering

of benthic organisms and changes to the composition of biota on the seafloor

(Derraik, 2002). Marine litter can also cause physical damage to benthic habitats

through abrasion, scouring, breaking and smothering (Sheavly and Register 2007).

Benthic organisms are also at risk from entanglement by and of ingestion marine

litter (Derraik 2002).

2.2.3 Transportation of non- native invasive species

Floating litter can facilitate transportation for organisms to travel long distances,

creating a problem of introducing invasive species. Dispersal by plastic debris is

most likely to affect adjacent coastal regions; litter can be rapidly dispersed along

a shoreline by currents (Everard et al., 2001). Fouling organisms are transported

by vessels successfully carrying organisms through environments that are often

hostile due to temperature and salinity (Everard et al., 2001). However, floating

plastic poses a bigger problem as there is an increased likelihood for encrusting

biota to be transported due to the slow movement of plastic which increases their

chances of survival; therefore invasive species are a threat from transboundary

pollution and may have a significant biological impact (Winston et al., 1997).

The circulation of the ocean can cause litter items to be anchored, which provides

a surface for attachment; this allows invasive species the chance to colonise

habitats and therefore creates competition for native organisms (Everard et al.,

2001).

2.3 Sources of Marine Litter

Plastic debris originates from either intentional or accidental mishandling (Sheavly

& Register 2007). The sources of marine litter are from land-based sources which

are transported by rivers and estuaries, and from offshore sources. The major

sources include: sewage treatment works; combined sewer overflows; other

industrial discharges; urban runoff; shipping; oil rigs; ministry of defence munitions;

dereliction (piers, wrecks, etc); agricultural waste; the fishing industry; fly tipping;

aquaculture; municipal waste; recreational and leisure usage (MCS, 2010).

6

Public littering from tourists and recreational visitors are key sources of litter, with

public littering accounting for 42% of all debris found during the 2009 UK

Beachwatch (MCS, 2010). Poor waste management practices can result in debris

from waste collection and transportation, and disposal sites entering the marine

environment.

On a global scale, nearly 80% of the world's marine debris is thought to have

originated from land sources (Faris and Hart, 1994). The Marine Conservation

Society (MCS) annual Beachwatch report shows that in recent years tourism,

fishing and sewage related debris have consistently been identified as causing the

highest volume of litter (Table 2.2). 38% of litter cannot be sourced (MCS, 2013)

(Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Sources of Marine Litter from MCS annual Beachwatch report UK (MCS 2013).

Sources of Marine Litter Percentage (%) of total litter

Tourism 39.4

Fishing 12.6

Sewage 4.3

Unknown source 38

2.4 Microplastics in the marine environment

2.4.1 Microplastics and sources

Microplastics are defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) as items less than 5 mm in size; microplastics can be primary,

manufactured to be of microscopic size, or secondary, coming from the

fragmentation of plastic items (Arthur et al., 2009). Microplastics heavily

contaminate the sediments in coastal areas; over the past 24 years in the North

Atlantic there has been a decrease in the average particle size from 10.66mm in

1990 to 5.05mm in 2000; 69% of fragments were 2-6mm, indicating higher

concentrations of microplastics (Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2013).

Microplastics are associated with fine sediment particles and behave in a similar to

other contaminates (Vianello et al., 2013).

Primary microplastics sources are from industry or from cosmetic products

containing microbeads (Frendall and Sewell, 2009). Microbeads and are not

7

removed in sewage treatment process as the microplastics are often too small to

be filtered out and therefore enter the marine environment (MCS, 2012) (Table

2.3). The sandblasting industry now uses primary microplastics because they stay

sharper and effective for longer than sand particles, causing concerns for their

emission into the atmosphere and subsequent atmospheric deposition at sea

(Leslie et al., 2011) (Table 2.3).

Industrial cleaning products release the microplastics they contain, which can be

contaminated with materials from the surfaces they were used to clean, such as

machinery parts (Gregory, 1996).

Microplastics can come from the transportation of pre-production pellets, termed

‘nurdles’, which are transported to factories but spillages are commonly known to

occur, releasing billons of nurdles into the environment (US EPA, 1992) (Table

2.3). Nurdles have been reported floating in coastal surface waters and in the

oceans as well as on beaches around the world and in sediments (Derraik 2002).

Other sources of microplastics in seawater are paint, and the operation of ships

(JRC, 2011); offshore installations could also be a source of microplastics, as are

oil spills (JRC, 2011).

Secondary microplastics consist of fragments of macroplastic litter emitted from

sea or land (Gregory, 1996). Another source of microplastics is synthetic fibres

from abrasion of washing clothing, and other materials which shed fibres from both

the textile industry and domestic use (Browne et al., 2011) (Table 2.3). In excess

of 1900 microplastic fibres from clothing can be released into domestic wastewater

by laundering a single garment (Browne et al., 2011).

8

Table 2.3: Microplastics types and sources.

Type of microplastics

Source Images

Microbeads Cosmetic and house products (Eriksen et al., 2013)

Microbeads in cosmetics (Lupkin,

2014).

Microbeads Sandblasting using microplastics which are transported through the air and their subsequent atmospheric deposition at sea (Leslie et al., 2011).

Sandblasting.

Pre-production pellets ‘Nurdles’

Plastic pellets and powders which are transported by container ships may be lost during cargo handling in harbours (JRC, 2011).

Nurdles (Campbell, 2012).

Synthetic fibres

Washing clothes and the textile industry are sources of artificial fibres from abrasion of clothing and other materials (JRC, 2011).

Microplastic fibre.

Fragments <5mm

Large macroplastic items are degraded by UVB and abrasion. Sources are from land and fisheries (Moore, 2008).

Fragment pieces of microplastic.

9

2.4.2 Pathways

2.4.2.1 Environment

Once in the sea, the pathways through which litter items circulate depends upon

the type of the litter item, and the features such as buoyancy, shape and size; the

environmental influence of wind, tide and current controls the pathway force

(Eriksen et al., 2013). Marine litter can accumulates in gyres; gyres are formed by

surface currents that are primarily a combination of Ekman currents driven by local

wind and geostrophic currents sustained by the equilibrium between sea level

gradients and the Coriolis force (Eriksen et al., 2013).

2.4.2.2 Food chain

Microplastics inhabit the same size fraction as sediments and some planktonic

organisms, and can be ingested by low trophic suspension, filter and deposit

feeders, detritivores and planktivores (Thompson et al., 2004). Microplastics are

potentially bioavailable to a wide range of organisms and can bioaccumulate

across trophic levels (Wright et al., 2013). Filter and deposit feeders are a potential

source of microplastic intake into humans, but current exposure concentrations

cannot be estimated due to toxicity data not being available (Hollman et al., 2013).

2.4.2.3 Sinks

Sinks are beaches which include sand dunes and deposits of material commonly

on the sea bed (Williams et al., 1993). These sinks may or may not be permanent

due to coastal processes. Consequently, beach clearance operations, such as the

removal of litter at a temporary sink, may in the long term be ineffective as the

beach is replenished periodically from offshore sinks (Everard et al., 2002).

Litter can circulate for a long time in the marine environment due to the

persistence of the litter items; for example, the impact of plastic on the

environment is highly persistent and it accumulates in sinks (Everard et al., 2002).

A plastic bottle is estimated to persist for 450 years in the marine environment

(UNEP,1990); however, this estimated persistent figure does not take into account

environmental processes of the sea, therefore the persistent time may be less.

Plastic litter undergoes degradation into smaller fragments such as microplastics,

10

which may leach chemicals such as plasticisers and other polymer constituents

and particulates into the sea (Everard et al., 2002). These substances may be

persistent, and others are known to exert adverse biological effects at very low

concentrations (Everard et al., 2002).

The water column is a temporary sink for marine litter; depending on the buoyancy

of litter items, litter can be stratified (Galgani et al., 2010). Shallow coastal areas

can act as a litter sink; due to their geomorphological features, marine litter is in

higher concentrations in coastal areas compared with continental shelves and the

deep seafloor (Katsanevakis, 2008). Deep water is another sink as the majority of

macro-debris, which is predominantly plastic, eventually settles to the seabed.

Litter aggregation on the seabed is localised, dependent on nearby source inputs

and seabed topography (Galgani et al., 2010).

2.5 Socio-Economic Impacts of microplastics

The global fishing industry’s total output is $235 billion worldwide (UNEP, 2011).

The world’s fisheries deliver annual profits to fishing enterprises worldwide of

approximately US $8 billion and supports, directly and indirectly, 170 million jobs,

providing some US $35 billion in household income per year (UNEP, 2011).

North Devon has four ports; in 2013, landings in North Devon were 1,350 tonnes

of fish with a total value of £2.1 million (FLAG, 2013). The implications of

microplastics polluting the marine environment and accumulating in the marine

food chain are unknown. A potential problem is that marine organisms become too

contaminated for human consumption, leading to huge impacts on the fishing

industry and global and regional economies. The risks to human health are not

fully understood; therefore more research is required to understand whether there

are long term health problems. In addition, there is a cost to cleaning beaches,

which is especially relevant in the southwest of England because of the tourist

industry; the North Devon beaches attract tourists and generate £376m annually,

supporting 10,633 jobs (AONB, 2014).

11

2.6 Microplastics properties

Microplastics are made from synthetic polymer(s), as shown in Figure 2 (Anon,

2011). High production volumes originate from petroleum-based raw materials:

about 8% of global oil production goes towards the production of plastics (Andrady

& Neal 2009). The high production volumes supply 75% of the demand for plastics

in Europe (Anon, 2011). Polymers are synthesized either by joining monomer units

to form a polymer or by producing a free radical monomer, leading to a chain

reaction that quickly produces a long chain polymer (Bolgar et al., 2008).

Polyethylene or polypropylene are usually cylindrical-shaped and may be

colourless, coloured or translucent and are used in cosmetic products (Mato et al.,

2001; Endo et al., 2005). Polyethylene is a potential transporter of hydrophobic

organic contaminants, such as phenanthrene which is derived from fossil fuel

burning and poses dangerous pollution to the ocean (Teuten et al., 2007).

Figure 2: List of commonly produced plastic polymers (Anon, 2011).

Plastics are generally resilient to biodegradation but will break down slowly

through mechanical action; plastics absorb ultraviolet radiation which causes

plastics to fragment but this only affects floating plastics near the surface

(European Commission, 2011; Thompson et al., 2004). Due to the plastics

durability and resilience to biodegradation, plastic material can persist for

hundreds or thousands of years (Anthony & Andrady, 2011). Older microplastic

pellets are usually associated with discolouration into yellow, abrasion, cracking,

fouling, tarring and encrustation by precipitates (Endo et al., 2005).

12

2.6.1 Polymers

Polymers in plastics contain a combination of additives which include: plasticizers

that make plastics flexible and durable; flame retardants; surfactants; additives

that enhance resistance to oxidation, UV radiation and high temperatures;

modifiers to improve resistance to breakage; pigments; dispergents; lubricants;

antistatics; nanoparticles or nanofibers; inert fillers; biocides; and fragrances

(Leslie et al., 2011). Additives need to be considered a part of the potential

ecological impact of microplastics and there has been an increase in global plastic

additives, estimated at 11.1 million tonnes in 2009 (Leslie et al., 2011).

Microplastics have been accumulating in oceans worldwide over the last four

decades (Carpenter et al., 1972); microplastics are bioavailable because their

small size make them available to lower trophic organisms (suspension, filter and

deposit feeders and detritivores), which are only able to identify particles by size

therefore mistakenly ingesting microplastics (Moore, 2008). Higher trophic

planktivores could passively ingest microplastics during normal feeding behaviour

as they mistake particles for natural prey (Thompson et al., 2004; Wright et al.,

2013. This leads to potential accumulation within organisms, resulting in physical

harm, such as by internal abrasions and blockages (Wright et al., 2013).

2.6.2 Density

Plankton filter feeders and suspension feeders inhabit the upper water column and

are more likely to encounter positively buoyant low density plastics (Wright et al.,

2013). Figure 2.1 shows buoyancy is influenced by biofouling, the rate of

biofouling; is dependent on surface energy and hardness of the polymer and also

the water conditions (Muthukumar et al., 2011). This process may make

microplastics available to organisms at different depths of the water column,

including benthic suspension feeders, deposit feeders and detritivores (Wright et

al., 2013). De-fouling in the water column by foraging organisms is a potential

pathway for microplastics to return to the sea-air interface (Anthony and Andrady,

2011) (Figure 2.1).

13

Figure 2.1: Potential pathways for the transport of microplastics and its

biological interactions (Wright et al., 2013)

2.6.3 Abundance

Increasing the abundance of microplastics in the marine environment will increase

the chances of organisms encountering it and therefore affect its bioavailability

(Wright et al., 2013). Continual fragmentation of macroplastics increases the

amount of microplastics available for ingestion (Wright et al., 2013).

2.6.4 Colour

The colouration of microplastics may contribute to the likelihood of ingestion

(Wright et al., 2013). Commercially important fish are visual predators, preying on

zooplankton, and may feed on microplastics which bear a resemblance to their

prey (Shaw and Day, 1994). An experiment on fish from the Niantic Bay area, New

England, showed that fish selectively only ingested opaque white polystyrene

spherules (Carpenter et al., 1972).

14

2.6.5 Biological interactions

Seasonal flocculation of particulates into sinking aggregates is an important

pathway for energy transfer between pelagic and benthic habitats (Ward and Kach,

2009). Subsequently, microplastics can become incorporated into marine

aggregates and transferred in to the food chain (Wright et al., 2013). Ingested

microplastics could be excreted within faecal matter, which suspension feeder and

detritivores may ingest (Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1). Benthic organisms

undertake bioturbation; microplastics in the sediment are therefore potentially

ingested or resuspended into the water column, becoming available to infrauna

(Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1).

2.6.6 Physical impacts of microplastics

The ingestion of microplastics by vertebrates causes internal and external

abrasion and ulcers because of blockages in the digestive tract which may result

in satiation, starvation, physical deterioration, reduced predator avoidance,

weakening of feeding ability, the potential transfer of damaging toxicants from

seawater, and death (Gregory, 2009). There is potential for microplastics to clog

and block the feeding appendages of marine invertebrates or even to become

embedded in tissues (Derraik, 2002). Figure 2.2 illustrates numerous types of

physical, chemical and biological processes involved in the transport and

destination of microplastics in the marine environment, the leaching and

absorption of environmental chemical contaminants, and interactions with biota.

2.7 Indirect Impacts from microplastics contaminates

2.7.1 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

The sea surface microlayer is enriched with pollutants from atmospheric

deposition; these chemicals interact with both floating microplastics and plankton

(Booij and Van Drooge 2001; Wurl & Obbard 2004) (Figure 2.3). Further to the

potential physical impacts of ingested microplastics, toxicity could additionally

come from leaching constituent contaminants, such as monomers and plastic

additives, which are capable of causing carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption

(Oehlmann et al., 2009; Talsness et al., 2009). A study of ultrafine polystyrene

15

particles on rats showed lung inflammation and enzyme activity were affected

depending on the dose (Leslie et al., 2011). When humans ingest microplastics

<150 µm they have been shown to be absorbed from the gut to the lymph and

circulatory systems and can be linked with tumours (Hussain et al., 2001; Pauly et

al., 1998). Nano-sized particles up to 240 µm in diameter have been shown to

cross into the human placenta (Wick et al., 2010).

Microplastics are liable to concentrate to hydrophobic POPs from seawater by

partitioning (Anthony & Andrady 2011) (Figure 2.2). Hydrophobicity of POPs is

how they facilitate their concentrations on microplastics, up to six times the order

of magnitude higher than seawater (Anthony & Andrady 2011; Wright et al., 2013).

When contaminated plastics are ingested they provide a pathway for POPs into

the food web, as organisms take up and store POPs in their tissues and cells;

additionally there is the potential to biomagnify across trophic levels (Anthony &

Andrady 2011; Browne et al., 2011) (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Partitioning of chemicals between plastics, biota and seawater

(Leslie et al., 2011).

The long residence and possible storage in sediments of microplastics results in

ingestion, retention, egestion and possible re-ingestion, which may present

potential mechanisms for the transport of POPs, and for the release of chemical

additives from plastics to organisms (Bakir et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 1988 and

Tanaka et al., 2013) (Figure 2.3).

16

Figure 2.3: Sources of marine microplastics and the various physical, chemical and biological processes affecting

microplastics in the marine environment (Leslie et al., 2011).

17

2.7.2 Trace metals

Various metals are found on plastic debris; metals associate with microplastic by

the adsorption of ions to polymers and coatings attaching to the microplastic

surface (Holmes et al., 2012) or, associated with hydrogeneous or biogenic

phases, they frequently occur in a moderately bioaccessible form to fauna that

mistakenly ingest them (Ashton et al., 2010). Accumulation of metals on plastic

debris may not differ greatly by polymer type as they do for organic chemical

pollutants (Rockman et al., 2013). Microplastics accumulate metals directly in the

surface microlayer; the buoyancy of microplastics leads to exposure to high

concentrations of metals and other contaminates in the sea surface microlayer

(Wurl and Obbard, 2004). Contaminated plastics can be transported considerable

distances because of the buoyancy, causing implications for transfer into the food

chain (Holmes et al., 2013). Organisms mistake plastic for food (Teuten et al.,

2009), leading to metals potentially being mobilised in organisms’ acidic digestive

systems (Holmes et al., 2013). Metals may bioaccumulate or be released back into

seawater in a more soluble and biologically available form (Holmes et al., 2013).

2.8 Data monitoring

Marine litter has been monitored on North Devon beaches; unpublished data is

available from the MCS since 2002. Currently there is no specific data monitoring

microplastics, only data for small plastics < 2.5cm, which includes macro, meso

and micro plastics visible to the naked eye.

Figure 2.4 shows data collected in North Devon from the Great British Beach

Clean weekend which has been an annual event held in September since 2002.

The Great British Beach Clean is a national beach cleaning programme, designed

to support communities in caring for their local beaches. Carrying out beach litter

surveys improves knowledge and understanding of the problems, enables

resources to be targeted effectively and builds a better understanding of where

beach litter is coming from and therefore how to reduce it at source.

Over the 11 year survey period there has been annual fluctuation of plastic < 2.5

cm marine litter. The lowest number of items was in 2003 when 31 items were

recorded; the highest number of items was 163 recorded in 2011. Between 2005

18

and 2009 there was a decrease in the amount of plastic < 2.5 cm and then in 2010

it increased to 158 items. Figure 2.4 shows that there are a lot of influencing

factors causing variation in the amount of plastics < 2.5 cm recorded. A factor

influencing the results is that the number of beach surveys conducted varied,

which affected the average and gave an inaccurate representation of the problem.

Figure 2.4: MCS Great British Beach Clean weekend annual average data for

North Devon for small plastics < 2.5cm.

Table 2.4 shows the number of seasonal surveys for North Devon for plastic <

2.5cm. This table highlights the variation in the number of surveys carried out

annually, with 2005 having the highest number, 34 surveys, and in 2003 the lowest

number of surveys was 2. Over the 11 year period most of the beach surveys were

carried out in the winter season, and surveys during the autumn had the lowest

number. During the winter of 2005, there were the largest number of surveys, but

in more recent years winter surveys have declined. Table 2.4 shows that the

results in Figure 2.5 are influenced by the number of beach cleans conducted; the

seasonal average of plastics < 2.5cm varies because the number of beach

surveys for each season varies from 0 to 20. The seasonal variation is due to the

survey’s reliance on volunteers and can only therefore be done when volunteers

are available .

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Item

s o

f p

lasti

c <

2.5

cm

Year of sampling

19

Table 2.4: MCS number of Beachwatch seasonal surveys from 2002 - 2013 in North Devon for plastic < 2.5 cm

Figure 2.5 shows the seasonal average data for North Devon for small plastics <

2.5 cm. In 2002 there was no data collected for spring and in 2003 there was no

data collected for spring or autumn, the volumes of litter over the 2 years were

relatively low. In autumn 2004 the number of items reached 443 which shows an

increase compared to the rest of the year. In the years 2005 to 2007 there was no

litter data collected in the autumn; between 2006 and 2007 the number of items

recorded was highest in winter. In the 2008 spring data there were 537 items

recorded, which is the highest recorded over the 11 year time period. In this year

there was also the highest number of items recorded for summer, 117. During the

summer of 2008 the weather was recorded as being unseasonal, therefore

creating higher inputs on beaches due to weather’s influence on the distribution of

litter. In 2009 data was only collected in the spring and autumn; the autumn data

was 384 items which is considerably higher than data collected in the spring. In

2010 there was no data recorded for winter or autumn but from the data collected

in the spring and summer the number of items was low. In 2011 there was no data

recorded for the autumn and the highest number of items collected was in winter.

In 2012 data was collected only in the spring and summer, with the data for spring

Year Winter surveys

Spring surveys

Summer surveys

Autumn surveys

Total annual surveys

2002 1 1 1 1 4

2003 1 0 1 0 2

2004 3 2 2 2 9

2005 20 9 5 0 34

2006 6 4 6 0 16

2007 3 5 5 0 13

2008 4 5 8 1 18

2009 2 3 2 2 9

2010 0 1 1 1 3

2011 2 1 1 0 4

2012 0 2 3 0 5

2013 1 1 0 2 4

Total seasonal surveys 43 34 35 9 121

20

being higher than for the summer. In 2013 data was not collected during the

summer and in the winter there was the highest number of items.

Figure 2.5: MCS seasonal average data for North Devon for small plastics <

2.5 cm.

A possible influencing factor on the variability of the data was the weather

conditions, such as wind strength and direction and other weather events which

control the impacts and distribution of litter (JRC, 2011).Tide times would also

affect the amount of litter surveyed, because high tides would deposit more litter

onto the beach. A possible reason for litter items to be higher in number in autumn

could be due to the seasonal influx of beach users from tourism increasing the

volume of litter left on beaches. In the spring surveys a possible reason for high

amounts of litter items could be due to stormy winter and spring tides potentially

transporting more litter.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Item

s o

f p

lasti

c <

2.5

cm

Year of sampling

winter average of plastic items< 2.5 cm

spring average of plastic items< 2.5 cm

summer average of plasticitems < 2.5 cm

Autumn average of plasticitems < 2.5 cm

21

Overall the surveying of beaches for both the Great British Beach Clean and the

Beachwatch seasonal surveys over this time period have been subject to

constraints, such as lack of funding for organising and disposing of waste from

beaches. The weather conditions varied over the time period of data collection,

which prevented surveys being conducted due to health and safety risks. The

weather and time of year may have influenced the numbers of volunteers, which

fluctuated from 0 to 45 people in both surveys.

There are a combination of factors which led to inconsistent surveys being carried

out. The sampling locations where not consistent during this time period making it

difficult to identify trends and patterns. Variations in the number of volunteers

reduced the quantity and accuracy of data. As conducting surveys on North Devon

beaches requires a low tide for safety reasons, the variation in tide times affected

the possibility of planning regular surveys throughout the year and annually for

both the Great British Beach Clean and the Beachwatch.

2.8.1 Data Gap

Data from beach cleaning surveys only provides data on plastic debris < 2.5cm. In

practical terms identifying plastic < 5mm is not possible without analytical

equipment and trained personnel and is therefore not reflected in the data from

beach cleaning surveys. There are no current surveys monitoring microplastics on

North Devon beaches. The literature demonstrates the problems associated with

microplastics in the marine environment; therefore an investigation into the

presence of microplastics on North Devon beaches is essential.

22

Chapter 3

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Site description

Sampling sites are located within the North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty (AONB) (Figure 3). The sites were chosen based on their sediment

types and characteristics.

Figure 3: OS Map of sampling sites located in North Devon (University of

Edinburgh, 2015)

Woolacombe Bay (SS 457439) is a sandy beach (Figure 3.2) 2.37km in width and

with a depth profile of 400m (Figure 3.1), which experiences an influx in

population during the summer months from tourism; the residual population of

Woolacombe is 857 (UK National Statistics, 2012). Woolacombe has an urban

settlement; behind the beach are sand dunes and improved grassland. Behind the

sand dune is a waste water treatment works which is a potential source of

microplastics (Figure 3.1).

23

Figure 3.1: OS map of Woolacombe Bay (University of Edinburgh, 2015).

Figure 3.2: Picture of Woolacombe Bay

24

Wildersmouth beach (SS 511476) is situated within the an old Victorian town of

Ilfracombe, and has a sand and shingle beach (Figure 3.4) 60m in width and with

a depth profile of 100m (Figure 3.3). The surrounding land cover is urban and

suburban (Figure 3.3), with a residual population of 10,717 (UK National Statistics,

2012); in addition Ilfracombe experiences a population influx during the summer

months from tourism, which may increase the volume of microplastics.

Figure 3.3: OS map of Wildersmouth Beach (University of Edinburgh, 2015).

25

3.2. Field Work

Bulk samples were taken from the low water mark to the strandline to test for

microplastics and for particle size. At Woolacombe Bay 11 samples were collected

at 40m intervals along a 400m transect (Figure 3.5). At Wildersmouth 11 samples

were collected at 10m intervals along a 100m transect (Figure 3.6). Samples were

removed from the top 5cm of sediment (Liebezeit and Dubaish, 2012) within the

50x50cm quadrat using a metal trowel. Cotton clothing was worn to reduce the risk

of contamination from microplastic fibres from the researcher’s clothing. The

elevations were recorded using a Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS System

to survey the profile of the beaches at both sampling sites (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.5: Microplastic sampling at Woolacombe Bay.

Figure 3.4: Picture of

Wildersmouth Beach.

26

Figure 3.6: Bulk sediment sampling for particle size analysis at

Wildersmouth Beach.

Figure 3.7: Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS System.

Prior to conducting the field work, 22 x 500ml glass jars were acid rinsed with

Acetone and Dichloromethane to avoid contamination from potential plastic

contaminants in the production and packaging of the sampling jars (Figure: 3.8).

Any contamination makes the data collected unreliable.

27

Figure: 3.8 Acid rinsing of 500ml glass jars

3.3 Laboratory work

To determine the presence of microplastics, there are three stages to the process:

the separation of microplastics from sediment; hand picking of microplastics;

identifying the microplastics using the Fourier transform-infrared (FT-IR).

3.3.1 Stage 1: Equipment list:

500ml conical, 500ml and 150ml beakers, sodium chloride 300ml, teaspoon

(metal), glass funnel, Whatman filters GFF, Bucher flasks 1L, hose (vacuum tube),

and clamp.

3.3.1.1 Method Process

100g of sample was removed and placed into 500ml conical

300ml of sodium chloride was added

The sample was inverted for 1 minute and left to stand for 5 minutes

The sample was poured through a mini pore filtration unit, which used a

vacuum to aid the filtration process (Figure 3.9)

Potential microplastics were removed from the sample by Whatman filter

GFF.

Whatman filters were left in a 40oC oven for 24 hours.

28

Figure: 3.9 Mini pore filtration unit

3.3. 2 Stage 2: Removing fibres

From each sample, individual fibres were picked using a microscope and metal

tweezers, placing potential microplastic fibres into a second pertre dish lined a with

Whatman filter (Figure 3.10).

Figure: 3.10 Picking potential microplastics for FT-IR analysis

29

3.3.3 Stage 3: Fibre analysis

FT-IR analysis using Bruker IFs66 (Figure 3.11) was used to identify each

individual fibre, which was then analysed against the two Bruker libraries spectra,

BPAD.SO1 and Synthetic Fibres ATR Library. The matches with a quality index

greater than or equal to 0.7 were accepted. Matches with a quality index less than

0.7 but greater than or equal to 0.6 were individually inspected and interpreted

based on the closeness of their absorption frequencies to those of chemical bonds

in the known polymers. Matches with a quality index less than 0.6 were rejected

(Woodall et al., 2014).

Figure 3.11: Bruker FT-IR

Figures 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, shows spectra matches for cellulosic, polyamide,

polyester and acrylic fibres from samples.

30

Figure: 3.12 Cellulosic rayon fibre wave spectra

Figure: 3.13 Polyamide nylon fibre wave spectra

31

Figure 3.14: Polyester fibre spectra

Figure 3.15: Acrylic fibre spectra

32

3.4 Particle size analysis

Sediment particle size was determined to see if microplastic fibres were in higher

concentrations in samples with a finer particle size. For determining particle size

two stages were required as the particle sizes ranged from 16mm to > 1mm.

Stage 1 was used sieves: 16mm, 11.2mm 8mm, 5.6mm, 4mm 2.8mm, 2mm,

1.6mm, 1.4mm, 1.18mm and 1mm and a sieve shaker (Figure 3.16); the sieve

shaker was only used for Wildersmouth samples as samples taken from

Woolacombe Bay were fine sand and could therefore be analysed using the

Malvern 2000.

Figure 3.16: sieve shaker

Stage 2 was used the Malven 2000 (Figure 3.17) for laser defraction to determine

the particle size <1mm; this was used for samples from both sites.

33

Figure 3.17: Malvern 2000

Chapter 4

4.0 Results

In this chapter the results are presented on the different type and number of

microplastics found at each sampling site. The particle size results are correlated

with the number of microplastics. Classification of the sediment type of each

sampling site was determined as well all calculating a correlation between

microplastics and their distribution along the beach.

4.1 Microplastic results

Samples collected at Woolacombe Bay and Wildersmouth are illustrated in

Figures 4.1 and 4.3. In the samples microplastic fibres were the only type of

microplastic present. The most abundant fibres present are cellulosic (Figure 4.2

and Figure 4.4) consisting predominately of rayon, which indicates a sewage-

derived source from toiletry products such as nappies and tampons (Lusher et al.,

2013). Cellulosic fibres are not true microplastics, which is problematic when

analysing samples as the FT-IR is unable to determine whether fibres are

synthetic or natural due to their similar chemical structure (Lusher et al., 2014).

However, when viewing the fibres under a microscope they appeared to be of a

synthetic colour, either blue or red, rather than a typical cellulosic green colour,

which is shown in Figure 4.

34

Figure: 4 Rayon fibre from samples

An example of the raw data analysed from the FT-IR is shown in Table 4, which

displays the identity of the fibre type and the Euclidean score. The Euclidean

scores ranges from 0-1, with 0 being a 100% match and 1 being unidentifiable.

Table: 4 raw data from Woolacombe Bay sample at 0m.

Sample 0m Identity

Hit Numbe

r

Hit Qualit

y Library Entry

Euclidean Score

1 North American Rayon Corp fine 300-50 Br Rayon white 8 440 220 0.529

2 North American Rayon Corp fine 300-50 Br Rayon white 8 356 220 0.57

3 Rayon Staple AVTEX 13.5 microns 1.5 denier brighter clear 3 598 302 0.605

4 50% Polyester 30% Cotton green 3 351 33 0.654

5 Polyester staple 2.25 denier with Ge Crystal 1 681 291 0.204

6 North American Rayon Corp fine 300-50 Br Rayon white 2 436 220 0.547

7 Rayon Staple AVTEX 13.5 microns 1.5 denier brighter clear 4 339 302 0.618

8 North American Rayon Corp fine 300-50 Br Rayon white 7 366 220 0.522

9 North American Rayon Corp fine denier 100/42 XDL Rayon white 1 390 323 0.47

10 Courtaulds North American Inc black solution dyed Rayon black 5 422 121 0.479

11 Rayon Staple AVTEX 13.5 microns 1.5 denier brighter clear 9 343 302 0.6104

12 North American Rayon Corp finer denier 300-50 Br Rayon 4 457 220 0.666

13 Viscose Rayon Continuous filament Dupont white 6 303 323 0.681

35

To assess the quality of the raw data matches, confidence intervals at 60% and 70%

are calculated (Table 4.1) to determine whether the Euclidean score is accepted or

rejected, in order to have confidence in the data.

Table: 4.1 Calculated confidence intervals at 60% and 70% for each category of fibre.

Microplastic fibres in the sample at Woolacombe Bay are displayed in Figure 4.1,

showing the average percentage particle size plotted against the total number of

microplastic fibres. Statistical analysis using a correlation test was undertaken

using Minitab 16 which generated a P-value of 0.221; this shows no statistically

significate correlation between the average percentage particle size and total

amount of fibres. The total number of accepted microplastic fibres matches

analysed is 149 (Table 4.2). The most abundant microplastic fibre is cellulosic

which represents 90% of the sample, followed by polyester fibres which represent

6% of the sample (Figure 4.2).

Figure: 4.1 Woolacombe Bay microplastic and average % particle size.

Fibre type Confidence interval 60% Confidence interval 70 %

Polyester 0.2 0.4 0.35

Acrylic 0.3 0.5 0.45

Polyamide 0.4 0.6 0.55

cellulosic 0.6 0.8 0.75

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Avera

ge p

art

icle

siz

e %

(µ

m)

Num

ber

of

mic

ropla

stic f

ibre

s

Distance along the beach

cellulosic

Polyamide

Arylic

Polyester

36

Table 4.2: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Woolacombe Bay

Microplastic fibre type

0m

40m

80m

120m

160m

200m

240m

280m

320m

360m

400m

Total number of microplastic fibres

Polyester 1 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 9

Acrylic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Polyamide 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 4

Cellulosic 12 5 5 2 2 9 35 10 22 10 22 134

Figure 4.2: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of

microplastic fibres present at Woolacombe Bay.

Microplastic fibres in the samples at Wildersmouth are shown in Figure 4.3. The

average percentage particle size was plotted against the total amount of

microplastic fibres. Statistical analysis using a correlation test in Minitab 16

generated a P-value of 0.272, which shows no statistically significant correlation

between the average percentage particle size and total number of fibres. The total

number of accepted microplastic fibre matches analysed is 87 (Table 4.3). The

most abundant microplastic fibre at Wildersmouth is cellulosic which makes up 97%

of the sample (Figure 4.4).

6% 1%

3%

90%

Polyester

Arylic

Polyamide

Cellulosic

37

Figure: 4.3 Wildersmouth microplastic and average % particle size

Table 4.3: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Wildersmouth

Microplastic fibre type

0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

70m

80m

90m

100m

Total number of microplastic fibres

Polyester 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Arylic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polyamide 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Cellulosic 11 5 7 7 7 6 10 13 5 4 9 84

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Avera

ge p

art

icle

siz

e %

(µ

m)

Num

ber

of

mic

ropla

stic f

ibre

s

Distance along the beach

Cellulosic

Polyamide

Arylic

Polyester

Amount ofFibres

38

Figure 4.4: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of

microplastic fibres and the total number present at Wildersmouth.

Scatter graphs created in Minitab 16 display both sampling sites with regression

giving a visual representation of the correlation test, which shows a wide spread of

data points (Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6).

403020100

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

Total number of fibres

Av

era

ge

pa

rtilc

e s

ize

µm

Figure: 4.5 Scatter graph of average particle size µm against total fibres for

Woolacombe Bay.

1%

2%

97%

Polyester

Polyamide

Cellulosic

39

15.012.510.07.55.0

45

40

35

30

25

20

Total amount of fibres

Av

era

ge

Pa

rtic

le s

ize

µ

m

Figure: 4.6 Scatter graph of average particle size µm against total fibres for

Wildersmouth.

Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show distribution results of microplastics along both beaches.

The sampling sites were paired together to create sections of the beaches, the

samples at the low water mark was excluded to have 10 samples paired together.

A one way ANOVA using Tukey test was used to determine whether there was a

statistical significance. Tables 4 and 4.1 show there is no statistical significance for

microplastic distribution at either sampling site. In the grouping section of the

tables the letters are the same which shows no statistical significance.

Table: 4.4 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using Tukey method for Woolacombe Bay.

Sampling sites grouped (m)

N Mean Grouping

200&240 4 12 A

280&320 4 9 A

360&400 4 8.25 A

40&80 4 2.5 A

120&160 4 2 A

40

Table: 4.5 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using Tukey method for Wildersmouth.

Sampling sites grouped (m)

N Mean Grouping

70&80 4 4.75 A

50&60 4 4 A

30&40 4 3.75 A

10&20 4 3.5 A

90&100 4 3.25 A .

Following the distribution results of microplastic along the beach, the elevation of

the profile was recorded to determine if the distribution of microplastic fibres is

associated with different heights of the beach. Figure 4.7 shows the elevations for

Woolacombe Bay and the number of microplastic fibres. At 0m to 80m the

elevation is -2m, which is the closest to the low water mark that samples were

taken. At 0m the beach has been in contact with the seawater for the longest

period of time, potentially increasing the number of microplastic fibres deposited.

Between 40m to 160m the number of microplastic fibres does not increase with

the elevation. At 240m there is an increase in the number of microplastic fibres

with the increasing elevation. Between 240m and 400m the number of fibres

fluctuates, however the majority of the fibres are distributed where the elevation is

above 5m and closer to the strandline. However, when undertaking a correlation

test between the amount of fibres and the elevation using Minitab 16, a P- value of

0.052 was produced which shows no statistically significant correlation between

the elevation and the number of microplastic fibres.

41

Figure 4.7 Woolacombe Bay beach profile, plotted against the microplastic

fibres.

The distribution of microplastic fibres against the elevation for Wildersmouth is

displayed in Figure 4.8. The overall distribution of the microplastics shows small

variation in relation to the elevation. Minitab 16 was used to carry out a correlation

test and produced a P-Value of 0.871, which shows no statistically significant

correlation.

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Ele

vati

on

in

(m

)

Nu

mb

er

of

Mic

rop

lasti

c F

bre

s

Samples taken from Woolacombe (m)

Total amount offibres

Elevation (m)

42

Figure 4.8 Wildersmouth beach profile, plotted against the microplastic

fibres.

4.2 Particle size results

The results of the particle size test, as determined by the classification of the

beach sediment, are represented in Figure 4.9. In addition, results for the

distribution of the different particle sizes of the beach sediment are displayed in

Figures 4.10 and 4.11.

The classification of the sediment type for both sampling sites is illustrated in

Figure 4.9. The sediment type for Woolacombe Bay is sandy, whereas

Wildersmouth has a variety of different sediment types ranging from sandy to

sandy gravel.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

Nu

mb

er

of

Mir

co

pla

sti

c F

ibre

s

Samples taken from Wildersmouth (m)

Total amount offibres

Elevation (m)

43

Figure: 4.9 Sediment classification triangle (Blott and Pye, 2012).

The distribution of the sediment for both sampling sites is illustrated by the particle

size accumulative curves (Figure 4.10 and 4.11). Figure 4.10 shows Woolacombe

Bay is a sandy beach with an expected decrease in particle size along the beach,

but there is no trend in particle size change along the profile of the beach.

Wildersmouth

Woolacombe Bay

% mud

30

20

10

0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

(s)mG (m)sG

(s)gM (m)gS

smG

gsM gmS

(vg)(m)S (vg)mS (vg)sM (vg)(s)M

(g)(s)M (g)sM (g)mS (g)(m)S

gS gM

S M (vm)S

(vg)(vm)S

(vg)S

(m)S mS

(g)M

(vg)(vs)M

(vg)M

(vs)M (s)M sM

G

(s)(m)G

sG mG

(m)G (s)G

(vs)G

(vm)G (vs)(vm)G

G S M

gravel sand mud

gravelly sandy muddy

g s m

(g) (s) (m)

slightly gravelly slightly sandy slightly muddy

(vg) (vs) (vm)

very slightly gravelly very slightly sandy very slightly muddy

44

Figure 4.10 Particle size accumulative curves for Woolacombe Bay.

Figure 4.11 displays Wildersmouth particle sizes, showing a wide variation of

particle size but with no trend along the beach profile. However, this was

anticipated due to the geographical features of the beach which influence change

in the particle size along the beach profile.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

100 300 500 700 900

400m

360m

320m

280m

240m

200m

160m

120m

80m

40m

0m

Sand µm

Pa

rtic

le s

ize

%

45

Figure 4.11 Particle size accumulative curves for Wildersmouth.

Chapter 5

5.0 Discussion

This chapter discusses the results of the investigation into microplastic fibres on

North Devon beaches and their possible sources. It also reviews the literature

results and the limitations and constraints of the project. The implications of

microplastics to potential receptors are also discussed, in addition to proposing

possible remediation and solutions.

5.1 Discussion of results

The results show that microplastics are present in North Devon beaches, which is

of concern for the environment and human health. In the samples, the only

microplastics found were microplastic fibres, which were acrylic, polyester,

polyamide or cellulosic. According to Lusher et al., (2013), microplastic fibres are

removed from the water column more quickly than lighter more buoyant

microplastics, such are polystyrene and acrylic, due to the density of the fibres.

This could explain why only microplastic fibres are deposited into sediment.

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

100 1000 10000 100000

0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

70m

80m

90m

100m

Sand- sandy gravel µm

Pa

rtic

le s

ize

%

46

The most abundant type of fibres was cellulosic, predominantly rayon, for both

sampling sites; however, as rayon is a semisynthetic polymer, the FT-IR could not

determine if the fibre was synthetic or natural (Lusher et al., 2013). Rayon is used

in clothing, cigarette filters and personal hygiene products (Woodall et al., 2014).

The possible source of rayon is waste water from sewage treatment plant inputs:

from abrasion of clothing from washing, female toiletries and nappies (Lusher et al.,

2013).

At Woolacombe Bay, Figure 3.1 shows that behind the sand dunes there is a

waste water treatment plant, which is therefore a potential source of pollution as

microplastic fibres are not removed by treatment works (Browne et al., 2011).

From the distribution results in Table 4.4 there is no statistically significant

evidence to show that microplastics show any trend in regard to their distribution

along the beach profile. However, from looking at Figure 4.1 there is a higher

number of fibres present in the samples towards to the strandline of the beach.

Further to the distribution results above, Figure 4.7 shows the distribution of

microplastic fibres in relation to the elevation of the beach profile. The distribution

of microplastic fibres does not correlate with the elevation, however the P- value of

0.052 shows that it is close to representing a correlation. The elevation may be

influenced by tidal movement; on the day of surveying the tide was 9m, therefore a

larger area of the beach was covered in water. At the low water mark, the

elevation was -2m, and this area of the beach had been in contact with the water

for the longest period of time; therefore, there was more time for less dense

microplastic fibres to be deposited. Between 40m and 160m microplastic fibres do

not increase with the elevation. The highest number of microplastic fibres is

between 5m elevation and the strandline; this could be due to the land-based

source, the waste water treatment plant, from which microplastic fibres are

transported and deposited, via the river (Figure 3.1), onto the beach. In addition

this could be due to the buoyancy and density of the microplastic fibres which are

known to be denser than fragmented pieces (Woodall et al., 2014); therefore the

fibres are deposited more quickly from the water column which may be a possible

reason for the increase in the distribution towards the strandline. The sample

taken from 240m has the highest number of microplastic fibres, which may be due

47

to the river as it disperses near the sampling area. During the river processes, the

river water disperses onto the beach above the mean high tide mark (Figure 3.1)

with subsequent loss in flow rate. In addition, the gravitational force of an outgoing

tide may contribute to the dispersal of microplastic fibres as the river water

disperses along the beach profile. This may explain why the number of

microplastic fibres is high in the 240m sample. The sample at 240m is in contact

with the sea irrespective of the height of the tide, unlike the sample at the

strandline, which on the day of sampling was 400m. As the strandline varies

dependent on the tidal cycle (Browne et al., 2011), this could explain why the

deposits of microplastic fibres are lower at the strandline than at 240m.

Research by Vianello et al. (2013) indicates that microplastics behave in a similar

why to ‘other contaminants associated with finer sediment fractions’; therefore the

average percentage particle size at Woolacombe Bay was plotted (Figure 4.1) to

see whether microplastics correlate with a fine particle size. Woolacombe Bay

sediment type is 100% sand, shown in Figure 4.9, which is a fine sediment; the

larger surface area would suggest more microplastics would be present. However,

a correlation test using Minitab 16 generated P-value of 0.221, showing no

statistical correlation between particle size and microplastic concentrations.

Despite no statistical correlation, the total number fibres in the samples from

Woolacombe Bay, 149 (Figure 4.1) of which 90% are cellulosic (Figure 4.2), is

greater than the number from Wildersmouth, which had 87 microplastic fibres

(Figure 4.3). The particle size distribution along Woolacombe Bay is of sand

classification, but does not show any distinctive trend along the profile (Figure

4.10).

At Wildersmouth the surrounding land use is urban (Figure 3.3) therefore there is

an increase in surface run off. Wildersmouth has an outfall pipe which is a

probable point source of microplastics onto the beach. The town of Ilfracombe,

which encompasses Wildersmouth beach, has a Victorian infrastructure with a

degrading sewage system; Wildersmouth is known to fail bathing water quality

standards (DEFRA, n.d). The distribution results show that microplastic fibres are

not statistically distributed along the beach, a possible reason being the

geographical features of the beach. Figure 3.4 shows the challenges of taking

48

samples, due to the obstructions caused by large boulders and wave cut platforms

within the transect line of sampling. At Wildersmouth the overall distribution of

microplastic fibres along the beach profile has small variation in relation to the

elevation (Figure 4.8); using Minitab 16, a correlation test produced a P-Value of

0.871, which shows no statistically significant correlation between the elevation

and the number of microplastic fibres. The total number microplastic fibres do not

show much variation between the samples, therefore elevation at Wildersmouth

does not statistically influence the distribution of microplastic fibres. However the

geographical features and high energy environment of the beach influences the

particle size of Wildersmouth, which shows a wide variation in sediment type from

sandy gravel to gravel (Figure 4.9) but with no trend along the beach profile

(Figure 4.11); this could explain the distribution of microplastic fibres which are

relatively evenly distributed along the beach profile and do not show a correlation

with elevation.

Microplastic fibres in the samples collected were tested for a correlation with the

average percentage particle size; using Minitab 16, a P-value of 0.272 was

generated. The P-value of 0.272 shows there is no statistically significant

correlation between the concentration of microplastic fibres and particle size. The

microplastic fibres found in the samples were 97% cellulosic and, as previously

discussed, cellulosic fibres are not true microplastics. The high percentages of

cellulosic fibres found at both sampling sites dominate the results and may mask

the statistics for true microplastic fibres.

Within the cellulosic fibres, rayon is in particularly high proportions at both

sampling sites. Both sites are susceptible to waste water which is the predominant

source of microplastic fibres (Browne et al., 2011) including cellulosic fibres. The

sources of rayon are from toiletries, including nappies and wipes, and cigarette

filters (Lusher et al., 2013) often transported within waste water. The chemistry of

rayon causes it to disintegrate quickly, therefore suggesting a potential reason for

rayon’s high concentrations in the samples (Park et al., 2004).

The particle size results show no trends or patterns along the beach profiles at

either sampling sites. At Woolacombe Bay, which has finer sandy sediment, there

were more microplastic fibres compared to Wildersmouth, which is sandy gravel

49

and gravel, but there is no statistically significant difference. Hence it is not

possible to prove the hypothesis of a positive correlation between fine particle size

and the concentration of microplastic fibres.

There were limitations to the study. The time constraints of the project, in

conjunction with the time consuming methodologies, hindered the ability to

produce replicates of samples for microplastic fibre identification. Therefore the

accuracy and precision of the results are not present, due to means and standard

deviations not being possible from a single analysis of each sample. The standard

deviations would have been represented by error bars. Another limitation was that

when undertaking the beach surveys the Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS

System (Figure 3.7) varied in accuracy from 6m to 2m. Therefore the elevation

results may have an error of up to 6m. This is more significant for the samples

taken at Wildersmouth, where the distance between samples was only 10m,

compared to Woolacombe Bay where the samples were 40m apart. The elevation

results may therefore not represent the most accurate record of beach elevations

and may have been more accurate using surveying canes.

In the density separation of the microplastics, the technique is based on the

difference between the density of plastic particles and the higher density of the

sediment (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2004). The density of plastic

polymers can differ significantly depending on the type of polymer; the density

values can range from 0.9 to 1.6 g cm3 (Claessens et al., 2011). The separation

technique used sodium chloride (NaCl) solution which is most commonly used in

other studies; however, the plastics with a density higher than 1.2 g cm3 were not

extracted from the sediment sample. Therefore important high density plastic

types such as Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and Polyethylene terephalate (PET) went

unnoticed, resulting in an underestimation of the total microplastic concentration

present in a sample (Claessens et al., 2011). A potential option is sodium iodide

solution (NaI) with a density of 1.6 g cm3, however this is expensive and therefore

not available for this project (Claessens et al., 2011).

50

5.2 Receptors to microplastics

Both sampling sites represent the different types of beaches and the presence of

microplastics in North Devon. The receptors to the microplastic fibres are

particularly benthic suspension feeders, deposit feeders and detritivores (Wright et

al., 2013). This is due to various factors, such as the natural process of sinking

aggregates as marine snow for energy transfer between pelagic and benthic

habitats (Ward and Kach, 2009), which incorporate microplastics and therefore

create the possibility of transference in to the food chain.

The buoyant microplastics in the surface layers of the water column are mistakenly

ingested by plankton and other organisms; in addition higher trophic planktivores

passively ingest microplastics as they mistake particles for natural prey

(Thompson et al., 2004; Wright et al., 2013), leading to potential bioaccumulation

within organisms and resulting in physical harm, such as internal abrasions and

blockages (Wright et al., 2013). The ingested microplastics are excreted within

faecal matter and may be deposited in marine snow, and suspension feeders and

detritivores may ingest the excreted microplastics (Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1).

Benthic organisms undertake the process of bioturbation whereby sediment is

ingested therefore settled microplastics in the sediment are bioaccumulating as

well as being re-suspended into the water column (Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1).

Another biological process is de-fouling in the water column by foraging organisms

providing a pathway for microplastics to return to the sea-air interface (Anthony &

Andrady, 2011) (Figure 2.1). The processes of re-suspension of microplastics

cause indirect impacts to mobile pelagic organisms.

Biofouling is dependent on surface energy, hardness of the polymer and the water

conditions (Muthukumar et al., 2011). Polyester fibres from discarded fishing lines

and nets are potentially subjected to biofouling, as their source is from sea rather

than land. Biofouling increases the density of the microplastics, therefore exposing

more layers of the water column to microplastics when sinking (Wright et al., 2013)

(Figure 2.1). This process leads to microplastics being available to organisms at

different depths of the water column, including benthic suspension feeders,

deposit feeders and detritivores (Wright et al., 2013).

51

In addition to the physical impacts of ingested microplastics, toxicity from leaching

constituent contaminants, such as monomers and plastic additives, are capable of

causing carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption (Oehlmann et al., 2009;

Talsness et al., 2009). This raises concern regarding human health, especially for

people consuming marine organisms, particularly benthic organisms. There are

current studies observing the effect of ultrafine polystyrene particles on rats; the

results showed lung inflammation and enzyme activity where affected depending

on the dose (Leslie et al., 2011). Inhaled microplastic fibres taken up into lung

tissues can be linked to tumours in humans (Pauly et al., 1998). Other studies

show when humans ingest microplastics <150 µm they have been shown to

absorb from the gut to the lymph and circulatory systems, and cross into the

human placenta (Hussain et al., 2001; Wick et al., 2010).

5.3 Global content of microplastics

From the study by Woodall et al. (2014), microplastic fibres represent the greatest

amount of microplastic which is estimated at 4 billion fibres per km2. Rayon is

associated with microplastics; in Woodall et al.’s (2014) study rayon represents

56.9% of the samples compared to the results for North Devon which are > 90%,

with rayon more than twice the abundance of polyester. However, Woodall et al.

(2014) examined samples taken from deep sea sediment rather than along the

beach profile. In Woodall et al.’s (2014) paper, the most abundant true microplastic

was polyester; the results in Figures 4.1 and 4.3 show polyester as the most

abundant true microplastic, therefore showing a possible trend. However, the

percentage of fibres in the samples from North Devon was different from those in

the samples from Woodall et al. (2014).

A study by Browne et al. (2011) only observed the samples from the strandline of

beaches, where the results showed that the proportions of microplastic fibres were:

polyester 78%, polyamide 9%, and acrylic 5%. In addition 7% of microplastics

were from polypropylene sourced from cosmetic products (Browne et al., 2011);

polypropylene was not present in North Devon samples. The main source of the

microplastics in Browne et al.’s (2011) study were from discharged effluent from

waste water treatment plants, which is the same for North Devon.

52

Saeed and Thompson (2014) observed microplastics in samples taken from the

water column, which showed more types of microplastic present in the

environment. This is due to their density as they are lighter and therefore

suspended in the water column rather than deposited into sediments. Saeed and

Thompson (2014) show microplastic fibres, such as polyester and nylon, are

present in the water column; the research on North Devon beach showed that

microplastic fibres are also in the sediments, which therefore indicates the

circulation of microplastic from the surface water to the benthos (Figure 2.1).

Anthony and Andrady (2011) indicate that microplastics are liable to concentrate to

hydrophobic POPs from seawater by partitioning (Figure 2.2). The concentrations

of POPs on microplastics can be up to six times the order of magnitude higher

than seawater (Anthony & Andrady 2011; Wright et al., 2013). Therefore when

microplastics are ingested they provide a pathway for POPs into the food web;

organisms take up and store POPs in their tissues and cells and there is the

concern about biomagnification across trophic levels (Anthony & Andrady 2011;

Browne et al., 2011) (Figure 2.2). In North Devon the samples were not analysed

for POPs, but there is concern that microplastics in the samples are potentially

contaminated with POPs from the agricultural industry.

Marine organisms are able to ingest, retain, egest and possibly re-ingest

microplastics, due to the long residence and possible storage microplastics in

sediments; this could present an opportunity for the transportation of POPs, and

for the release of chemical additives from plastics into organisms (Bakir et al.,

2014; Ryan et al., 1988 and Tanaka et al., 2013) (Figure 2.3).

Holmes et al., (2012) research into metals which associate with microplastics by

the adsorption of ions to polymers and coatings. The metals attach to the

microplastic surface, or are associated with hydrogenous or biogenic phases. The

metals commonly occur in a moderately bioaccessible form to fauna that

mistakenly ingest them (Ashton et al., 2010). Microplastics accumulate metals

directly in the surface microlayer; positive buoyancy of microplastics exacerbates

the exposure to high concentrations of metals and other contaminants in the sea

surface microlayer (Wurl and Obbard, 2004). The microplastics present in North

Devon have a reduced likelihood of being contaminated by metal, due to the

53

microplastics being fibres and therefore negatively buoyant and found in the

sediment (Holmes et al., 2012). Therefore the contact with metal contaminants is

lessened due to higher concentrations occurring in the surface layers of the water

column (Holmes et al., 2012).

5.4 Remediation and Solutions

Currently there are no possible methods of remediation of microplastic fibres.

There have been studies by Talvitie and Heinonenand (2014) to monitor waste

water from waste water treatment plants in Russia, whereby research shows that

96.57% of microplastic fibres are removed from waste water by settling or being

captured into the sludge during the treatment processes. After the purification

process therefore, only 3.43% of microplastic fibres are released into the

environment. Leslie et al. (2013) detected microplastic in treated waste water

from three Dutch plants, one of which had installed a membrane bioreactor, but

this had no influence on quantity of microplastic removed from waste water.

Mintenig et al. (2014) examined waste water and sewage sludge and found that

microplastics were present; this study was able to classify the sources of

microplastics, such as from toothpaste, cosmetics, clothing and packaging.

These pilot studies prove the sources of microplastics are from waste water

treatment plants but a high percentage of microplastics are removed during the

treatment processes. However, on a global scale, and within Europe, the waste

water is not always treated to a tertiary level. Therefore primary and secondary

treatment works alone would remove fewer microplastics, therefore increasing the

amount discharged into the environment. Efforts are being made to reduce the

amount of microplastics entering the treatment works by the European Life +

Mermaids project which was launched on the 22nd of January (Vethaak, 2015).

The project aims to reduce the amount of microplastics entering the sewage

system in waste water by a minimum of 70% by developing a filter that can be

installed in any washing machine (Vethaak, 2015).

Current legislation does not prevent microplastics from entering the environment

(Table 2). However, current legislation does prohibit the dumping of plastic into the

54

environment under The London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution

by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, 1972. Amendments to legislation could

play a role in removing microplastics from waste water, by declaring microplastics

as hazardous waste. Amended or new legislation would provide environmental

standards, and monitoring and regulation of waste water would ensure minimal or

no microplastics were discharged into the environment.

5.5 Underlining issues of microplastic

Current beach litter surveys do not take into account microplastics. The focus of

litter surveys is macroplastics as it poses a visible problem. However, it is possible

to remediate nurdles (Table 2.3) from beaches because they are visible to the

human eye; The Great Nurdle Hunt project cleans beaches of nurdles and maps

their abundance across the UK and Europe (FIDRA, n.d.a). In 2011, a declaration

was made by the Global Plastic Association for the Solutions on Marine Litter,

whereby members of the plastic industry signed up to prevent further nurdle loss;

this has been endorsed by The British Plastic Federation and Plastics Europe

(FIDRA, n.d.b). Remediation of microplastic fibres on beaches is currently not

possible and therefore no surveys are undertaken.

The current perception of marine litter, as witnessed during participation on beach

cleans and surveys whilst working with North Devon Coast AONB on a summer

placement, is concerned with the visible problem from macroplastics, as they

create a source of visual pollution. However, small non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) do not have the resources to survey or remediate for

microplastics, therefore when beach cleans and surveys are undertaken the

education about the problem of microplastics is overlooked due to the emphasis

on macroplastics. The size of microplastics makes it a hidden problem and it

therefore goes unnoticed, so once beaches have been cleaned for macroplastics,

this creates a false sense that the beaches as microplastics are generally not

visible to the naked eye.

Microplastic pollution in the marine environment poses potential problems, within

the food chain: if marine organisms become too contaminated for human

55

consumption, this would have a catastrophic impact on the fishing industry and

global and regional economies, such as North Devon which has an annual total

value of £2.1 million from landings (FLAG, 2013). The potential threat would not

only be financially damaging but would also contribute to social decline for the

region.

6.0 Conclusion

Microplastics are present on North Devon Beaches in the form of microplastic

fibres. The identification of microplastic fibres shows that the composition of the

microplastic fibres is predominantly cellulosic; the cellulosic fibres consisted of

mainly rayon which is a semisynthetic microplastic, compared to polyester, the

second most commonly found fibre, which is a true microplastic. The main source

of microplastic fibres is waste water. Woolacombe Bay has a waste water

treatment plant behind the sand dunes which discharges into the river before

dispersion onto the beach. At Wildersmouth the surrounding urban environment is

known to have a degrading sewage system. Wildersmouth is known to fail bathing

water quality standards; a possible direct point source of microplastics is the outfall

pipe.

There was no positive correlation between the number of microplastics fibres and

the particle size at either sampling site. However, there were more microplastic

fibres found in the samples taken from Woolacome Bay, which is a sandy beach,

compared to Wildersmouth, which is gravelly.

There was no positive correlation between the number of microplastic fibres and

the elevation along the beach profile. However, at Woolacombe Bay the

correlation produced a P-value of 0.052 which is close to being statistically

significant. The elevation between 5m up to the strandline showed the area where

most of the microplastics were distributed. At Wildersmouth, the microplastics did

not show any variation with elevation, which may be due to geographical features

and the high energy intense environment which mixes the sediment.

The presence of microplastics, in particular microplastic fibres, is of concern

regarding the possible toxicity effects on the marine environment. In addition there

is a potential threat from bioaccumulation through trophic levels, which may have a

56

consequential impact on environmental, economic and social factors and raises

concerns for human health.

7.0 Recommendations

1. To increase the efficiency of the removal of microplastics in the density

separation. There is an alternative to the conventional saturated sodium

chloride (NaCl) solution, which is to use sodium iodide solution (NaI) with a

density of 1.6 g cm3. If more dense microplastics were present the NaI

solution would enable them to be removed for analysis.

2. To research into possible seasonal variation by taking samples over

different seasons to see whether weather patterns affect the distribution of

different types of microplastic, and to see if population influxes during the

tourist season affect the number of microplastics.

3. To research into rayon characteristics and behaviour and interaction in the

marine environment, as results showed that rayon was in high abundance

in the samples from both beaches.

4. To examine the potential contamination of microplastics from metals and

POPs. The presence of microplastics has been confirmed by this project;

with the problems with the agricultural industry within North Devon

catchments, contamination from POPs is likely. Therefore analysis of

microplastics for POPs contamination is needed.

5. To research whether the general public’s attitude to marine litter is

determined by the size of debris and to provide education about

microplastic problems and sources.

57

8.0 References

Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santi llo, D., & Johnston, P. (2006). Plastic debris in the

world’s oceans. GreenPeace.

Andrady, A., & Neal, M. (2009). Applications and societal benefits of plastics.

Philos T Roy Soc B , 364, 1977-1984.

Anon. (2011). Plastics – the Facts: An analysis of European plastics production,

demand and recovery for 2010. Joint publication of PlasticsEurope, EuPC,

EuPR and EPRO., 31 .

Anthony, L., & Andrady. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine

Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1596-1605.

Arthur, C., Baker, J., & Bamford, H. (2009). Proceedings of the International

Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic

Marine Debris. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical

Memorandum .

Ashton, K., Holmes, L., & Turner, A. (2010). Association of metals with plastic

production pellets in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60,

2050-2055.

Azzarello, & Van-Vleet. (1987). Marine birds and plastic pollution. Marine Ecology

Progress Series, 37, 295–303.

Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, C. R. (2012). Competitive sorption of

persistent organic pollutants onto microplastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin,

64, 2782–2789.

Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2014). Transport of persistent

organic pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions. Estuarine,

Coastal and Shelf Science, 140(1), 14-21.

Blott, S. and Pye, K. (2012). Particle size scales and classification of sediment

types based on particle size distributions: Review and recommended

procedures. Sedimentology, 59, 2071-2096.

Bolgar, M., Hubball, J., Groeger, J., & Meronek, S. (2008). Handbook for the

chemical analysis of plastic and polymer additives. CRC Press, Boca Raton,

FL, USA., 481.

Booij, K., & Van Drooge, B. (2001). Polychlorinated biphenyls and

hexachlorobenzene in atmosphere, sea-surface microlayer, and water

measured with semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs).

Chemosphere, 44, 91-98.

58

Browne, M., Crump, P., Niven, S., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A. & Galloway, T. (2011).

Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks.

Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9175-9179.

Carpenter, E., Anderson, S., Harvey, G., Miklas, H., & Peck, B. (1972).

Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science , 178(4062), 749-750.

Day, R. (1985). Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In: Proceedings of a

Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 184,

Honolulu, Hawaii (R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds), U.S. Dept. of

Comm., NOAA, Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. 198-212.

DEFRA, (n.d). Environment Agency Bathing Water Quality. [online]

Environment.data.gov.uk. Available at:

http://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/explorer/info.html?_search=wilde&site=

ukk4304-34500 [Last Accessed 2 April. 2015].

Derraik, J. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a

review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.

Dixon, T. R., & Dixon, T. J. (1981). Marine litter surveillance. Marine Pollution

Bulletin. 12, 9, 289-295.

Endo, S., Takizawa, R., Okuda, K., Takada, H., Chiba, K. & Kanehiro, H. (2005).

Concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 50, 1103-1114.

Eriksen, M., Maximenko, N., Thiel, M., Cummins, A., Lattin, G. & Wilson, S. (2013).

Plastic pollution in the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 68(1-2), 71-76.

European Commission. (2011). Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health

Impacts. Sciennce from Environment Policy .

European Communities, (EC) (1998). OSPAR Convention: Convention for the

protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. On the

Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of

the Martime Area Article 3 1(ii). 28.

European Union (EU). (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament

and the council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community

action in the field of marine environment environmental policy (Marine

Strategy Framework Directive); Official Journal of the European Union L

164/19

European Union (EU), (2006). Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of

59

bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC; Official Journal

of the European Union L 64/37.

European Union, (EU). (2004). Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on

packaging and packaging waste - Statement by the Council, the

Commission and the European Parliament; Official Journal L 047

European Union (EU). (2000a). Directive 2000/59/ EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 27 Novemeber on port reception facilities for ship

generated waste and cargo residues; Official Journal of the European

Union L 332/28/12/2000.

European Union (EU), (2000b). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy; Official Journal L 327.

Everard, M., Colcomb, K., Boyes, G., Holmes, P., Vincent, C., & Fanshawe, T.

(2002). The Impacts of Marine Litter. Marine Pollution Monitoring

Management Group.

Faris, J., & Hart, K. (1994). Seas of Debris: A Summary of the Third International

Conference on Marine Debris. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 54.

Faris, J., & Hart, K. (1995). Seas of debris: A summary of the Third International

Conference on Marine Debris. UNC-SG-95-01. North Carolina Sea Grant

College Program. Raleigh, N.C

FIDRA, (n.d.a). Global Response. [online] Nurdlehunt.org.uk. Available at:

http://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/whats-the-solution/global-response.html [Last

Accessed 21 Apr. 2015].

FIDRA, (n.d.b). Nurdle Map. [online] Nurdlehunt.org.uk. Available at:

http://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/take-part/nurdle-map.html [Last Accessed 21

Apr. 2015].

Fendall, L., & Sewell, M. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing

yourface: microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58,

1225–1228.

Fry, Feefer, & Sileo. (1987). Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan, albatrosses and

wedge tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin,

18 (6B), 339-343.

Galgani, F., Fleet, D., van Franeker, J., Katsanevakis, S., Maes, T. & Mouat, L.

(2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 10 Report.

Marine litter. EUR 24340 EN - 2010.

60

Gregory, M. (1996). Plastic “scrubbers” in hand cleansers: a further (and minor)

source for marine pollution identified. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 867-871.

Gregory, M. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings

e entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological,

364(1526), 2013- 2025.

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R., & Thiel, M. (2012). Microplastics in the

marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and

quantification. Environ. Sei. Technol, 46, 3060-3075.

Hirai, H., Takada, H., Ogata, Y., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K.& Saha, M.(2011).

Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin,

62(8), 1683-1692.

Hollman, P., Bouwmeester, H., & Peters, R. (2013). Microplastics in the aquatic

food chain sources, measurement, occurrence and potential health risks.

Wageningen, RIKLT Wageningen UR (University and Research Centre).

Holmes, L. A., Turner, A., & Thompson, R. C. (2012). Adsorption of trace metals to

plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution, 160,

42-48.

Hussain, N., Jaitley, V., & Florence, A. (2001). Recent advances in the

understanding of uptake of microparticulates across the gastrointestinal

lymphatics. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 50, 107-142.

International Maritime Organisation, (IMO), (2011). International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). [online] Available at:

http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Internation

al-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-

%28MARPOL%29.aspx [Last Accessed 4 Mar. 2015].

Jones, M. M. (1995). Fishing Debris in the Australian Marine Environment. Marine

Pollution Bulletin. 30, 1, 25-33.

Joint Research Centre (JRC) MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter.

(2011). Marine Litter Technical Recommendations for the Implementation of

MSFD Requirements. Luxembourg: European Union.

Katsanevakis, S. (2008). Marine debris, a growing problem: Sources,

distribution,composition, and impacts. In: Hofer TN (ed) Marine Pollution:

New Research. Nova Science Publishers, New York. 53–100.

61

KIMO. (2013). Marine Litter. Available:

http://www.kimointernational.org/MarineLitter.aspx (Last Acessed on 10

June 2014).

Laist, D. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic

debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18, 319-326.

Lart, B. (1995). Marine Litter Impacts on Fisheries. (In) Earll, R.C. (ed.), Coastal

and Riverine Litter: Problems and Effective Solutions. Coastal Management

for Sustainability,Candle Cottage, Kempley, Glos. UK. 4-5.

Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., (2013). Microplastic Survey of the

Dutch Environment. Novel Data Set of Microplastics in North Sea

Sediments, Treated Wastewater Effluents and Marine Biota. Amsterdam:

Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University.

Leslie, H., van der Meulen, M., Kleissen, F., & Vethaak, A. (2011). Microplastic

Litter in the Dutch Marine Environment Providing facts and analysis for

concerned with marine microplastic litter. Deltares.

Liebezeit, G., & Dubaish, F. (2012). Microplastics in beaches of East Frisian

Islands Spiekeroog and Kachelotplate. Bulletin Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology, 89, 213-217.

Lusher, A., Burke, A., O’Connor, I. and Officer, R. (2014). Microplastic pollution in

the Northeast Atlantic Ocean: Validated and opportunistic sampling. Marine

Pollution Bulletin, 88, (1-2), 325-333.

Lusher, A., McHugh, M. and Thompson, R. (2013). Occurrence of microplastics in

the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English

Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67 (1-2), 94-99.

Macfadyen, G., Hunti ngton, T., & Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or

otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and

Studies No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523.

Marine Conservation Society (MSC). (2013). Beachwatch Nationwide Beach-

Clean & Survey Report.

Marine Conservation Society (MCS). (2000). Beachwatch '99 - Nationwide Beach

Clean and survey report.

Marine Conservation Society (MCS). (2010). 2. Method 2.1 litter suvey . Marine

Conservation Society.

Marine Conversation Society (MCS). (2012). Micro plastics in personal care

products. Available:

62

http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/pollution/positionpaper-microplastics-

august2012.pdf (Last Acessed 11 June 2014).

Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kenehiro, H., Ohtake, C., & Kaminuma, T. (2001).

Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine

environment. Environmental Science and Technology, 35, 318- 324.

Mintenig, S., Int-Veen, I., Löder, D. and Gerdts, D. (2014). Mikroplastik in

ausgewählten Kläranlagen des Oldenburgisch- Ostfriesischen

Wasserverbandes (OOWV) in Niedersachsen. Alfred-Wegener-Institut,

Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) Biologische

Anstalt Helgoland.

Minitab 16 Statistical Software (2010). [Computer software]. State College, PA:

Minitab, Inc. (www.minitab.com)

Moore, C. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly

increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research , 108(2), 131-139.

Morét-Ferguson, S., Law, K., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E., Peacock, E., & Reddy,

C. (2010). The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western

North Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60 (10), 1873 - 1878.

Mouat, J., Lopez-Lozano, R., & Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts of marine

Litter . KIMO.

Muthukumar, T., Aravinthan, A., Lakshmi, K., Venkatesan, R., Vedaprakash, L., &

Doble, M. (2011). Fouling and stability of polymers and composites in

marine environment. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation,

65(2), 276-284.

North Devon Coast Areas of Natural Outstanding Beauty AONB. (2014). 2014-

2019 AONB Management Plan.

Northern Devon Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG). (2013). Understanding the

Market and Supply Chain for Fish Caught and Landed in Northern Devon.

Oehlmann, J., Schulte-Oehlmann, U., Kloas, W., Jagnytsch, O., Lutz, I., Kusk, K.,

et al. ( 2009). A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on

wildlife. Philosophical. sophical Transactions of Royal Society of London B:

Biological science 364 (1526) 2047-2062.

OSPAR. (1995). Summary Record of the Oslo and Paris Conventions for the

Prevention of Marine Pollution Working Group on Impacts on the Marine

Environment (IMPACT) Group, IMPACT 95/14/1-E.

63

Park, C., Kang, Y. and Im, S. (2004). Biodegradability of cellulose fabrics. Journal

of Applied Polymer Science, 94(1), 248-253.

Parker, P. (1990). Cleaning the oceans of the plastics threat. Sea Frontiers, 36,

18-27.

Pauly, J., Stegmeier, S., Allaart, H., Cheney, R., Zhang, P., Mayer, A. and Streck,

R. (1998). Inhaled Cellulosic and Plastic Fibers Found in Human Lung

Tissue. Cancer Epidemiol., Biomarkers Prev.7, 419- 428.

Potts, T., & Hastings, E. (2011). Marine Litter Issues, Impact and Actions. Scottish

government.

Rees, G., & Pond, K. (1994). Impacts: Aesthetics, Health and Physical

Appearance. In: Earll,R.C. (Ed.), Proceedings of Workshop on Coastal and

Riverine Litter: Problems and Effective Solutions. Marine Environmental

Management and Training, Kempley, Gloucestershire. 5-7.

Rios, L., Jones, P., Moore, C., & Narayan, U. (2010). Quantitation of persistent

organic pollutants adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern Pacific

Gyre’s “eastern garbage patch. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(12),

2189-2312.

Rios, L., Moore, C., & Jones, P. (2007). Persistent organic pollutants carried by

synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54,

1230-1237.

Rochman, C., Hoh, E., Hentschel, B., & Kaye, S. (2013). Long-term field

measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic

pellets: Implications for plastic marine debris. Environ Sci Technol, 47,

1646–1654.

Ryan, P., Connell, A., & Gardner, B. (1988). Plastic ingestion and PCBs in

seabirds: is there a relationship? Marine pollution bulletin, 19, 174–176.

Sheavly, S., & Register, K. (2007). Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental

Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions, J Polym Environ, 15: 301–305.

Talsness, C., Andrade, A., Kuriyama, S., Taylor, J., & vom Saal, F. (2009).

Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals and relevance for

human health Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B:

Biological Science, 364 (1526), 2079 - 2096.

Talvitie, J. and Heinonen, M. (2014). Preliminary study on Synthetic microfibers

and particles at a municipal waste water treatment plant. Baltic Marine

Environment Protection Commission.

64

Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, F. K., & Watanuki, Y. (2013).

Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting

marine plastics. Marine pollution bulletin, 69(1-2), 219-222.

Teuten, E., Rowland, S., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2007). Potential for

plastics to transport hydrophobicm contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol.,

41(22), 7759- 7764.

The plastic industry. (2011). Plastics – the Facts 2011. An Analysis of European

Plastics Production, Demand and Recovery for 2010.

Thompson, R., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R., Davis, A., Rowland, S. & John, A. (2004).

Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304 (5672), 838.

Thompson, R., Swan, S., Moore, C., & vom Saal, F. (2009b). Our plastic age.

Philos Trans. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sc, 364,, 1973–1976.

UK Government, (1990). Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IV Provisions

relating to litter Section 87. London: The Stationery Office.

UK National Statistics, (2012). Mid-2010 Urban Area SYOA ests England and

Wales (Excel sheet 7134Kb) Search Results - ONS. [online] Available at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=woolacombe+pop

ulation [Last Accessed 3 Mar. 2015].

United Nations, (UN), (1977). Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

Dumping of Wastes and other Matter. Annex 1. 1046, 1-15749, 203.

United Nations Environmental Protection Agency (UNEP). (1990). GESAMP: The

state of the marine environment. GESAMP Reports and Studies, No. 39.

United.

United Nations Environmental Protection (UNEP). (2015): Regional Seas

Programme Marine Litter. [online] Available at:

http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/about/default.asp [Last

Accessed 26 Feb. 2015].

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2011). Fisheries Investing in

natural capital. United Nations Environment Programme.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1992). Plastic pellets

in the aquatic environment: Sources and recommendations. Environmental

Protection Agency: Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Final Report

842-B-92-010. Washington, DC.

Vianello, A., Boldrin, A., Guerriero, P., Moschino, V., Rella, R. & Sturaro, A. (2013).

Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy: First

65

observations on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuarine,

Coastal and Shelf Science, 130, 54-61.

Vethaak, D. (2015). Extra filter in washing machines welcomed - Deltares. [online]

Deltares. Available at: https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/extra-filter-washing-

machines-welcomed/ [ Last Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].

Ward, J., & Kach, D. (2009). Marine aggregates facilitate ingestion of

nanoparticles by suspension-feeding bivalves. Marine Environmental

Research , 68(3), 137- 142.

Wick, P., Malek, A., Manser, P., Meili, D., Maeder-Althaus, X. & Diener, L. (2010).

Barrier capacity of human placenta for nano-sized materials. Environment

Health Perspect, 118, 432-436.

Williams, A.T., Simmons, S.L. and Fricker, A. 1993 Offshore sinks of marine litter:

A new problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 26 (7), 404-405.

Winston, J., Gregory, M., & Stevens, L. (1997). Encrusters, epibionts and other

biota associated with pelagic plastics: a review of biogeographical,

environmental and conservation issues. In: J.M. Coe & D.B. Rogers (Eds.)

Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer.

Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). The physical impacts of

microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178(0269-

7491), 483-492.

Woodall, L., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G., Coppock, R., Sleight, V.,

Calafat, A., Rogers, A., Narayanaswamy, B. and Thompson, R. (2014). The

deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society Open

Science, 1(4),140317-140317.

Wurl, O., & Obbard, J. (2004). A review of pollutants in the sea-surface microlayer:

a unique habitat for marine organisms. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 1016-

1030.

66

9.0 Appendices