Goodbye for now... and surfing entrepreneurs

Unfortunately, at least for now, it is time to bring my blog to a close. It has been something I have greatly enjoyed doing and I hope readers have learnt something new along the way, as I know I certainly have. I decided that I would like to end my blog by once again returning to the surfing entrepreneurs. In particular, Peter Ceglinski, the managing director of The Seabin Project. Whilst writing this blog I got in touch with him and was lucky enough to get a response. The question I decided to ask him was: "From your experience of being out at sea cleaning up ocean waste, how big do you think the problem is, and do you think we, as humans, are currently going in the right direction to reduce this problem or is far more action needed?" The answer I received was as follows…

“My personal belief is that we are in the exact position that we need to be in right now for a cleaner future. The problem we all have created is huge! The size of the problem is directly related with our limited understanding of plastics, our throw away culture and excessive consumer habits. Human nature seems to always go from one extreme to another as we learn from our mistakes, and right now I feel we are in a transitional period and are moving into the problem solving moment.

We all can do a lot to help also. From positive action like picking up litter from the streets, consuming less and reusing products again. There is a lot of groups doing ‘passive action’ by way of studying the problem, this helps us all learn in many ways, however we need positive action also, real hands on stuff... physically doing something.”

I was grateful for his response and I feel it touched upon much of what we have explored throughout this blog. It is very true that we have created a huge problem in the form of marine pollution, but it is not a problem too great to solve. Peter perhaps takes a more optimistic stance than others might, saying we are in the exact position we need to be in to enact a cleaner future, believing we are entering the ‘problem solving movement’. It remains the case that there is much to be done, but I do hope Peter is right in his assumptions, and I believe this blog has shown his opinion to be true at least to some degree.

For anyone following this blog, I thank you for your interest, with one particular question from a reader sticking out in the memory, pulling me up on the fact that it is “the (not our) sea”. I’ve stuck by what I thought was a catchy name for my blog, but it is absolutely correct that it is not ‘our’ sea, but that of the Earth, so we must do our best to take care of it. Hopefully now, in the coming weeks and months, we will start to see more positive updates regarding marine pollution. Goodbye for now and Merry Christmas.

      

The Ocean Cleanup

Last week I explored some potential solutions, particularly concentrating on methods that focus on preventing further pollution of the ocean. Today, as promised, I'll be looking at one example of positive action - taking out of the sea the waste that is already in it. This is in part due to the fact that I have found myself quite often in this blog referring to things as 'a good start', or 'a step in the right direction'. Maybe I have been saying those words a bit too much. My intention is not to take anything away from steps in the right direction, and good starts are always vital, but it is sometimes nice to see some real positive progress taking place, and on a large scale. So this particular post is dedicated to what could perhaps the most promising initiative of this kind - The Ocean Cleanup.

Before exploring the ins and outs of how The Ocean Cleanup works, lets first introduce its founder, Boyan Slat. Now a 22 year old Dutch entrepreneur, Slat dropped out of his Aerospace Engineering degree in 2013 in order to devote all of his time and efforts to the Cleanup program. Since which time he, along with his invention, has received a variety of prestigious accolades. In 2015, he became the youngest ever person to receive the highest environmental honour given out by the UN: Champion of the Earth. In that same year, The Ocean Cleanup was given the Innovation by Design award from Fast Company, and was listed as one of the best 25 inventions by Time Magazine. The short video below shows Slat talking about what brought him to where he is now, describing how the revolutionary idea was first conceived during one of his high school science projects! 

As he alludes to in this short video, the motto by which The Ocean Cleanup lives is "Why move through the ocean, if the ocean can move through you". This unique principle is what perhaps sets this initiative apart from any other solutions out there. The idea of cleaning up the oceans has previously been seen as next to impossible - the amount of time and money it would take for ships to do the job would almost make it counterproductive. However, the idea of the rubbish coming to you, so long as you place your 'bin' in the right position, seems slightly more doable, and this is essentially what The Ocean Cleanup does. Giant V-shaped arrays, stretching up to hundreds of metres long, are placed in the sea at locations where the waste is believed to be concentrating due to ocean currents. The V shape is what allows the waste to then be directed towards a central collection point - from there it can be periodically removed and stored safely on land. Figure 1 below shows how the array aims to catch debris floating in ocean gyres. 

Ocean Cleanup array (Source)

In a method that involves letting the waste come to you, it is therefore imperative that you have a detailed understanding of exactly where these giant ocean currents are taking the waste. Last year, the Ocean Cleanup carried out its 'Mega Expedition' in order to do exactly that. This particular project, the largest ever of its kind, was focused on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, arguably the most notorious collection of waste on the planet. Marine biologist, Serena Cunsolo, described their observations as "devastating to see" after joining the team for the expedition. The estimated cost of tackling the patch is a proposed €4.53 per kg of waste, €317 million in total, according to a feasibility study by Slat et al. (2014). The study suggests that with the implementation of a 100 km long array in the North Pacific, the garbage patch could be reduced by 42% in as little as 10 years. 

However, it is key to note that these feasibility studies were carried out by the founders of the Ocean Cleanup program themselves, but those looking in from the outside may propose a different view. For example, studies by Sherman and Sebille (2016) suggest concentrating efforts in nearshore areas will be a far more efficient way of cleaning up the ocean, as oppose to placing these arrays hundreds of miles out to sea. They believe that attempting to clear up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a distraction from the 'real problem' which is the current input of waste into the ocean. Furthermore, despite constant rebuttals from Slat, some scientists have proposed an ecological impact on marine life, as well as suggesting that Slat has underestimated the forces of waves and currents out at sea. Despite scepticism from some, having raised over $2 million so far to help fund the project, the team placed their 100 m long prototype in the North Sea earlier this year. The main goal is to then be able to start the clean up of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 2020. 

Whether you believe efforts should be concentrated on the inputs, or you think that this particular initiative is the biggest sign of progress so far, I feel the whole problem is ultimately summed up perfectly by Rochman (2016). Using the analogy of a burst pipe in her basement, she describes how she would turn off the source of the water, but certainly wouldn't leave a puddle sat in her house either. In essence, stopping the waste at source is crucial, but clearing up what waste has already been created sure can't be a bad idea either.

Government officials... or maybe not

As I referred to surfing entrepreneurs in my opening blog post, I also mentioned government officials as a possible source of solutions. It is certainly the case that some policies can be adopted to help mitigate the problem of marine pollution, such as the proposed ban on microbeads in cosmetics. Furthermore, regulations on the use of harmful substances, such as pesticides, can be applied to try and reduce the effect of chemical pollution in coastal areas. And so it is in this way that governments can be an effective way of addressing the issue of marine pollution. However, when it comes to other sources of waste, or the clean up of that which has already made it to sea, it is a seemingly more difficult area. Plastics and other debris are accumulating in 5 ocean gyres around the world, and these span international waters. So, with which country does the responsibility lie to get out there and clean it all up? That's the dilemma. The video below, produced by NASA, shows exactly how this waste is accumulating all over the world - ignore the questionable pronunciation of 'buoy'.

The problem surrounding governance is something pointed out by Visbeck et al. (2014), who note the shortcomings of international law regarding the regulatory structure set out across the ocean. This has led to calls being made for governments to develop and agree on new sustainable development goals concerning the condition of the ocean. However, the lack of such an arrangement thus far is what has spurred independent organisations on to take the lead in exploring possible solutions. Cleaning up the vast expanse of the ocean may be a daunting task, but reducing the current input is certainly manageable, and might well be the most feasible answer. 'Garbage tracking' studies carried out by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology propose one potential starting point. These involve the tracking of waste to see both the journey it takes, and where it eventually accumulates. This particular study is used to gather information about the current management of waste in the US, in a bid to use that information to influence the way people recycle. However, Sigler (2014) notes how this could be an effective technique to use on marine plastics - following their journey to identify the areas most vulnerable to them.

Another tracking-based method involves the use of potentially millions of fieldwork assistants... us! Yes, that could include you. This particular initiative involves anyone and everyone who comes across waste, either at the coast or throughout waterways, checking-in their location when they do so. It is referred to as the Marine Debris Tracker mobile application, and is the product of a combined effort by the NOAA Marine Debris Program and the Southeast Atlantic Marine Debris Initiative. This method facilitates the constant collection of data, including the location, and type, of marine debris that people are finding. This allows for what could be an extremely detailed observation of exactly where the debris seems to be concentrating. Studies showed this method to have accounted for the tracking of over 400,000 items... and that was a year ago. Whilst this does not necessarily involve any official clean up component, establishing the location of the waste is a necessary start.

Marine Debris Tracker app (Source)

In my 'How does it get there' post, I acknowledged how developing countries are responsible for a considerable amount of waste input into the sea. This is due to the fact that many of them are host to rapidly growing economies and populations. This in turn has given rise to an increasing consumption of goods, without the appropriate waste management infrastructure to cope. This is not to lay the blame on these countries, but to simply point out that they pose a problem that needs addressing. The UN has identified education as a key component of helping improve the management of waste in these countries - teaching the public the importance of appropriate garbage disposal. It is proposed that officials can then be put in place to monitor this in the long run. 

Promisingly, studies have suggested that the sustainable management of waste is a very feasible possibility for developing countries. This is based on the concept of Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM). In many developing nations, people can benefit economically from waste, and these people would be referred to as stakeholders in this case. The municipality in this scenario is responsible for the cleanliness of the city, as well as the citizens inhabiting it. In short, ISWM attempts to unify all stakeholders in both financial and environmental interests, under the guidance of the municipality. The studies proposed that ISWM is a method which has seen the improvement of both the controlled disposal of waste as well as recycling.

Today I have explored some possible means by which we might reduce the input of waste into the sea. As mentioned previously, going out into the ocean to try and tackle the vast volume of debris that has already accumulated there seems a daunting task. The ocean is over 350 million square kilometres in size, not to mention the 5 trillion pieces of trash that are estimated to be floating around in it. However, next up in my blog I will explore what very well could be a way of cleaning up the ocean. Daunting as it may be, there is a whole lot of waste posing a threat to the wildlife and ecosystems already out there, so getting rid of that could well be as important as stopping additional inputs.  

Surfing Entrepreneurs

Now that we've given a considerable amount of attention to some of the impacts of marine pollution, I feel it appropriate to address some of the possible solutions to it. There is a host of potential solutions, each addressing different aspects of ocean waste. However, I wanted to dedicate my first post on solutions to the people who actually inspired me to write my blog on marine pollution in the first place. Some of you may have been wondering (or may have completely forgotten) what I was alluding to in my first post when I mentioned surfing entrepreneurs. They are the founders of The Seabin Project - an ocean cleanup initiative that involves placing specially crafted bins in marinas, which suck up ocean waste around the clock. In short, these surfing entrepreneurs are a couple of guys who prove that you don't need to be a high ranking official in government to implement a plan to help clean up the ocean. A short video is posted below on who these guys are and how their Seabin works.

As the video explains, it does not merely suck up plastic and other solid waste, but can also help get rid of chemicals, such as oil or detergent, in these marinas. Whilst not the biggest piece of equipment,  it is certainly doing it's part - one of their tweets from last month boasted a day's catch totalling 4.5kg of waste in just one Seabin. A Seabin in every marina across the world might therefore help clear up a fair few kilos of waste! Admittedly though, this is a limited solution, for example it does not address the millions of tonnes of marine debris that are floating around in vast ocean gyres. My coming posts will look at the other initiatives that are gathering momentum with regard to tackling the seemingly more daunting problems such as this. However, I thought this was a fitting way to kick off my posts on solutions, as first and foremost the rubbish in the ocean is coming from us, and these guys prove that we need look no further than ourselves to start tackling this problem.

Chemical Waste

At times in this blog I have mentioned how marine pollution has not necessarily received the same attention that other global issues such as atmospheric pollution perhaps have. This is something nicely pointed out by Gelcich et al. (2014) in their paper on public perceptions of marine environments. This is not to say that ocean waste is more of a problem than our carbon emissions, but the focus on deforestation and fossil fuel burning has almost allowed the condition of our seas to slip under the radar a little bit. In fact, it is only relatively recently that marine pollution has become regarded as a problem in its own right that is in need of a solution. On occasion, it has managed to make front page news, but this is seldom the case and tends only to be in the instance of a catastrophic event. However, one good example of when this has been the case is the gulf of mexico oil spill in 2010, at Deepwater Horizon - described by then White House energy adviser, Carol Browner, as "the worst environmental disaster the US has faced".

Almost 100,000 birds died as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill (Source)

The spill at Deepwater Horizon was a truly devastating marine disaster, and acted as a perfect example of the damage that chemical pollution can do to the ocean. It therefore feels appropriate to have a brief look at a few of the many figures produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in their 2015 report of the event. 68,000 square miles of surface water were contaminated by the spill, as well as over 1,000 miles of coastline. As many as 5,000 marine mammal deaths were estimated, with 1,000 of these being sea turtles. Economically, in excess of $11 billion has been paid in damages to businesses and individuals in the Gulf of Mexico who suffered the effects of the spill. However, whilst international disasters such as this make front page news worldwide, and rightly so, the ongoing chemical pollution of the ocean from other sources tends to go more unnoticed, despite the environmental threat they pose.

In my opening blog post I mentioned how increasing concentrations of nitrogen in the ocean can enhance microbial growth, thus leading to higher volumes of the greenhouse gas, nitrogen oxide, being produced. This in turn contributes to the warming of Earth's atmosphere, going to show that ocean pollution does not just effect marine life but can in fact influence climate on a global scale. That particular study pointed to increasing nitrogen emissions across northeastern Asia as being a cause for this, and further studies have suggested that nitrogen emissions in these areas are becoming greater. Two dominant sources of this ever-growing supply of nitrates to the ocean are the burning of fossil fuels, and agricultural fertilisers, with the latter becoming an increasingly large concern in coastal marine ecosystems.

Nitrates have been used in industrial fertilisers worldwide ever since the introduction of the Haber-Bosch process, which involves the manufacture of ammonia via nitrogen fixation. These nitrates end up in marine habitats via eutrophication - the result of surface water runoff from farms, as explained in my 'How does it get there' post. As discussed, this can increase microbial growth, increasing the production of the greenhouse gas nitrogen. However, this is not the only consequence of hiking up the microbial activity. Studies have shown that enhancing this activity can create 'dead zones', as the excessive amounts of organic matter, created by the nitrates, sinks and decomposes - using up oxygen in the process. Hence, dead zones are defined by a lack of dissolved oxygen in the water, and are a hostile environment for marine organisms. Worryingly, it has been suggested that the occurrence of these dead zones could be set to rise. Figure 1 below is a map of the world's dead zones as of 2005, and unsurprisingly they appear to be rather clustered around the countries which use the most fertiliser.

Figure 1: Dead zones and fertilisers (Source)

Unfortunately, there are yet more threats that eutrophication poses to coastal environments, one such threat being the production of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB's). These are toxic algae created by chemicals from agriculture and industry that are capable of destroying coral reefs. One study in the Gulf of Oman showed how branching coral species were completely lost due to the HAB's, whilst further species experienced 'substantial reductions' in abundance and richness. Other studies have pointed to the impact that they can have on human health. This is most commonly through the consumption of poisoned shellfish, where the the shellfish concerned have been living in habitats affected by HAB's. One example of this is amnesic shellfish poisoning, which can cause intense gastrointestinal distress and even death, whilst survivors may experience severe memory loss. Due to the impacts of poisoned shellfish, the tourist and fishing industries in these areas can suffer.

In our day to day lives it is likely that we will use oil, whether it be through petrol in your car (or the bus if you take it), or perhaps it is used for your heating at home. Similarly, it is perhaps even more likely that the food you eat everyday has been grown on a farm somewhere, using chemical fertilisers. Oil and agricultural chemicals are thus two huge components of everyday life around the world, so as long as we are reliant on them it is important that we understand their impacts on the environment, to allow for mitigation. Now, as promised for the optimists out there, the remainder of this blog will focus more on what is hopefully going to be promising news on marine pollution, by looking at the progress being made to stop it.

Update on Microbeads

Another quick update for today as this morning it was reported that the British government have ordered a review into the impact of microbeads on the food chain. I noted a short while ago in this blog that marine organisms in our food chain are known to ingest microplastics, but the effect of this on human health is relatively unknown due to the lack of study on the matter. This announcement therefore comes as a welcome step towards a better understanding of this particular phenomenon.

It is hoped that further investigation being dedicated to this field will assist with the introduction of rules and regulations regarding the use of microbeads within various products. Earlier this year, the government announced its plans to introduce a ban on microbeads used in cosmetics, to be implemented in 2017. However, it is as of yet undecided exactly what products this ban will encompass, with concerns now being raised over the use of microplastics in household cleaning products. Hopefully therefore, with the government demanding further studies, the true extent to which all microplastics are affecting our food chain will be revealed. Ultimately, this will help to tackle the growing problem of microplastics in the ocean.

Wave goodbye (pun intended) to microbeads - we may soon have to find
something else to invigorate our skin (Source)

The Centre of the Universe... and us

Contrary to popular belief, we humans are not the centre of the universe. In fact, on a planet that is over 4 billion years old, and home to more than 8 million species, to say we are the centre of Earth alone would be a bit of a stretch too. As the timeline in Figure 1 shows, our existence on Earth represents a rather insignificant proportion of its history. However, this does not mean our effect on it will be insignificant. Evidence for the considerable effect that humans are having on the Earth is there for all to see, and as per my blog topic, we will be looking at this influence relative to the oceans. In my 'Waste by the Ocean' post, I spoke about how our waste can come back around to bite us - perhaps a rather egocentric approach. Therefore, I will now look in more detail at how it effects the Earth and everything else on it.



Figure 1: a timeline of Earth's history (Source)

Us humans represent but a small percentage of life on Earth, so it is important to consider how our actions influence what's around us. One way in which our waste can affect marine life involves entanglement in debris. This debris can then lead to death in various ways including drowning, strangulation, and starvation by inhibiting ability to feed. Studies on Australian fur seals at Seal Rock have estimated that in this particular location over 300 seals become entangled in marine debris every year. There are repercussions of this, as other observed seal populations have shown, where almost one third of entangled seals have displayed visible injuries. Furthermore, only 19% of these seals were tangled in collars that were loose enough to be removed. 

Marine mammals are not the only sufferers though, as bird populations can also experience problems related to entanglement. A study in Wales on a Gannet population revealed how the seabirds often use marine debris when making nests. An estimated 18 tonnes of debris has been used for nest building across the colony under investigation. This in turn increases risks associated with entanglement, which can lead to high mortality rates. The effects of this are not thought to have population-level impacts, though this is not believed to be a particularly well understood aspect and warrants further enquiry. This is due to the fact that deaths via entanglement in seabird populations can often be isolated, or even go unnoticed due to the interference of factors such as sinking and predation.

The other major influence on marine life from ocean waste is ingestion, and various studies such as that on fish species by the Spanish Coast have proven this to occur. In this instance, almost 20% of fish under investigation were found to have consumed microplastics. One problem of this consumption relates to possibly harmful chemicals on the plastics. Despite bans on the use of toxic substances such as PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) in agriculture, the chemicals themselves still exist in our environment today. These PCB's attach themselves to microplastics; Andrady (2015) proposes this as a likely method by which toxins might be transferred across organisms after ingestion of the plastics. Further evidence suggests that microplastic ingestion is positively correlated with PCB concentration. However, it is important to note that the possible transfer of toxins in this way, and subsequent effect, is a relatively understudied phenomenon. 

There are various ways in which plastics might be mistakenly ingested, one example is exactly that, a mistake, perhaps birds thinking it is their prey. Other ways include microplastics attaching themselves to seaweed, where they are then consumed by herbivores. However, once ingested, the danger of harmful chemicals is not the only threat to wildlife. Taylor et al. (2016) suggest that one danger of ingesting plastics involves the damaging of the stomach lining, which in turn can cause starvation. Other ways in which organisms can starve include blockage of the digestive tract by larger debris. Figure 2 shows the plastic debris found inside a sperm whale, after it died from starvation, thought to be due to gastric blockage. Included in the findings were large items such as flower pots and hose pipes.

Figure 2: plastic debris found inside deceased sperm whale (Source)

If nothing else, one thing this does show is that we live in a world where our mere waste has the ability to impact life. With our rapidly growing technologies and population, we are developing a power over the environment incomparable to that which we have ever previously held. So onto a cheesy quote; "with great power comes great responsibility". I first heard this in Spiderman, but the likes of Winston Churchill have uttered words similar. This is to say that our actions have consequences, which can sometimes be severe. However, as Figure 1 showed, we have only been on Earth for the 'blink of an eye', so to be able to render the planet inhospitable to ourselves, and others, within that time would be much more than just a terrible shame. We are therefore lucky to have the science available now to show us what we do wrong, so that next time we might do it right.

My next post will move away from plastics to look in more detail at the chemical waste going into our oceans, and what effect this is having. Then, following that, I will start looking at the solutions that are in place to address marine pollution. Much of this blog so far has been a bit doom and gloom with regard to the damage we are causing our oceans. However, it is important to acknowledge when positive progress is being made, which it is, and we'll have a look this later down the line. 

Football and Ocean Waste?

Before my next bigger post, I thought a quick update was called for today on what may have been a rather surprising headline to anyone who saw it. In a football-first, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich will wear kits made entirely from recycled plastic ocean waste. This comes as part of a partnership between Adidas and Parley aimed at making various types of sportswear from recycled plastic. In fact, Adidas say they aim to make 1 million pairs of shoes, made entirely from Parley Ocean Plastic, in 2017 alone.

Bayern Munich sported their sleek, ocean-plastics strip today, although they were unfortunately unable win when donning the garbage-fashioned gear, whilst Real Madrid will have to wait until later in November before they play in theirs. However, what's important here is not the result of the match, but the fact that global companies and superstars, in the world's most popular sport, are teaming up with environmental bodies to raise awareness of this crucial issue - certainly a step in the right direction. One of Bayern's stars, Xabi Alonso, couldn't have put it better himself when he said: "With every second breath we take coming from our oceans, it’s really important that we do what we can do safeguard them". He goes onto say how he hopes this is going to be the start of something special - we couldn't agree with you more, Xabi.

Microplastics

What exactly are microplastics and how have they become such a critical aspect of marine pollution? Since its introduction into academic literature in a 2004 paper, the term microplastic has generally been used to describe pieces of plastic that are smaller than 5mm in diameter, as per the NOAA definition. Though this is not considered a definitive description, as certain studies have pointed out the differences in size that exist across papers due to varying methods of capture. Calls have been made from people within the scientific community for a more rigid definition of the term microplastic to allow for more reliable comparison of differently sourced data. Nonetheless, one thing that we are certain of is that they are incredibly small, and with 5mm being the most widely used boundary, their size, or lack of, is what makes them so hard to quantify in the environment.

Spectroscopic analysis has discovered pieces as small as 20 nanometers in diameter (0.00002mm) - how do we keep track of these in the vast expanse that is the ocean? Quite simply we can't really, or at least we struggle to do so. As a review of all things microplastic points out, there are various ways by which we can attempt to quantify microplastics in the environment, but as of yet there is no robust solution, and ultimately, the fate of microplastics in the ocean remains an elusive phenomenon. This is not to say that there is no hope, as they were once an extremely understudied aspect of marine pollution, and it wasn't even until the turn of the century that they were considered a pollutant within their own right. Whereas they are now receiving a rapidly growing amount of attention, which is certainly an encouraging sign of progress. Another sign of such progress? Look no further than the White House.

Ban microplastics? Obama thinks so

Yes - Barack Obama does think that a ban of microplastics would be a good idea and has in fact signed a bill to pass such a ban. The ban specifically refers to the manufacture and introduction of microbead plastics used in cosmetics, which are one of the primary sources of microplastics in our oceans. These microbeads exist in common facial scrubs that you are more than likely to have come across in your local supermarket or may have even used. Studies have shown that the number of microbeads to be washed down the drain, with one just one use of a facial scrub, ranges from 4,500 to as many as 94,000 individual beads! These may not carry the issues associated with entanglement and choking that come with larger pieces of plastic and debris, but they come with their own different type of problem.

The sorptive properties of microplastics are what cause a threat to marine life, as they can carry harmful chemicals such as PCBs and DDTs (there will be a more in-depth look at this in my next post). Facial scrubs do not provide the only primary source of microplastic in the oceans, as they also exist in certain toothpastes and come from clothes too. Studies estimated that an average 6kg clothes wash of acrylic fabric can release in excess of 700,000 fibres into the environment. The primary release of microplastics into the ocean should therefore warrant significant concern, and the video below shows the attempts being made to raise such concerns.

Whilst the primary release of microplastics into marine environments certainly seems to contribute a large volume of plastic debris, it is the secondary release that perhaps poses a more daunting reality. This secondary production involves the gradual breaking down of larger pieces of plastic, eventually into small microplastics. This fragmentation and degradation of plastics occurs over varying periods of time at sea, depending on the properties of the item, but exact processes by which this degradation occurs are speculative and limited to controlled laboratory work. Though an example of a known process by which this fragmentation occurs is photodegradation - where plastics at the sea surface are broken down into smaller pieces by sunlight.

Why are these secondary microplastics more daunting? Well, the primary source of microplastics is something we have a greater control on right now - petitions and bills are in the pipeline to ban them from production. However, as was mentioned in my first post, there is already a colossal volume of plastic in our oceans, the entire amount of which is vulnerable to degradation into microplastics. Whilst we can improve our management and disposal of plastic waste in the future, to stop it getting into the ocean, the plastics that are already in there are largely out of our control and thus represent a huge potential source of microplastics yet to be added to the great big blue. 

As has been discussed, the abundance of microplastics in the ocean is something that is of great difficulty to measure, but it is likely large number with a fair few zeros on the end of it, hence their growing significance. It was briefly touched upon that the sorptive properties of plastics facilitates the transportation of harmful chemicals, which is essentially what makes these plastics the threat that they are, and this is something that we will look at in my next post.

Waste by the Ocean

Previously, I have spoken about just how much plastic is going into our oceans and where it is coming from. Now, we can have a look at what effects it is having, as not only is this waste creating an eye-sore when washed up on beaches around the world, it can also get into the food chain, our food chain. The recent popular hit 'Cake by the Ocean' features the band DNCE on a sunny beach in paradise throwing cake at each other and eating it. Here, we take a more cynical look at what it really is that we might be ingesting at our favourite seaside eateries, when we're not filming extravagant, cake-themed music videos. In fact, whether you're by the beach or not, it is important to consider the state of the seafood which you are eating. 

In the EU, any genetically modified product is required to advertise itself as such on the packaging. Also, across Europe in recent years, countless pesticides have been banned on farms due to health implications, amongst other reasons. There is a clear concern over the condition of the food we are putting into our bodies, and rightly so, and as far as plastic is concerned, we are certainly moving in the right direction with regard to abolishing it from our oceans. For example, the use of plastic bags in the UK has drastically decreased since the 5p charge was added. 

However, there is still work to be done; we want to be seeing headlines such as 'Use of microplastics banned in cosmetics', not 'Microplastics should be banned in cosmetics' (microplastics are a significant aspect of marine waste that will be discussed in detail in my next blog post). Whilst steps are being made, worries over the contents of the seafood we are consuming do not seem to receive the same concern that other food sources perhaps do. There appears to be a slight disconnect between the waste we are pumping into our oceans and the food we are taking out of it. Like pesticides might affect our corn on the cob, plastic bottle caps might affect our fish and chips.  

In 2013, fish accounted for around 17% of the global population's intake of animal protein - in some countries this figure was over 25%. This is particularly the case for countries such as Iceland and Greenland, who live in an environment not best-suited to growing crops, and so are extremely reliant on fish. With seafood therefore being responsible for a significant proportion of the globe's diet, we must deeply consider what the contents of this food supply might be. 

In addition to the 44% of seabird species that ingest plastic, there are over 250 marine organisms worldwide, and counting, that are known to have been affected by marine debris. This is due to the fact that when plastics in the ocean are broken down into small pieces, marine organisms can mistake them for food. There have been studies on how these plastics can be of detriment to human health once they have found their way into the environment. The plastics contain various harmful chemicals that are produced during part of the manufacturing process, and these can be absorbed into the guts of the organisms which ingest them. Then it's a simple case of dot-to-dot; fish absorb chemicals, humans eat fish. The precise effects on human health that this process has are so far unknown due to this being a relatively understudied phenomenon, hence further research has been advocated. 

Unfortunately, real fish do not use plastic bags to escape captivity (Source)

In a developing world of rising population and growing consumerism, it is important to consider the effects that our actions are having on the environment and how they may come back around to harm us. As previously mentioned, the next post will be about microplastics. These are the 'small pieces' of plastic that marine organisms can mistake for food. I will be discussing exactly what they are and how they have become such a prominent aspect of marine waste. Finally, just a parting thought for any readers at the end of today's topic - think about the food your food is eating!

How does it get there?

In the previous post I touched upon just how much waste is in our oceans, to try and illustrate the sheer size of the issue we have on our hands - an issue made up of over 5 trillion pieces, to be a bit more precise. To give some context to the matter it might be useful to explore exactly where it is that all this waste is coming from, as finding the root of the problem is one way of helping kick start the solution to it. The short video below provides a basic conceptualisation of the various journeys that marine debris can take in order to get to the ocean.

Essentially, marine debris comes from us, humans. Some of us leave it lying around on the beach, some of us dump it in an over flowing bin. We may even drop it on the street, miles away from any beach or coastal resort, but if it makes its way into a drainage system it'll almost certainly end up in the sea. This video demonstrates the importance for each and every one of us to act consciously when thinking about how we dispose of everyday waste such as plastic bags and food wrappers. However, one aspect that this video does fail to touch upon is the impact that large companies and organisations have on waste inputs into the sea. 

Some of the prime culprits of marine dumping are fisheries. Studies in the UK have shown that fisheries remain responsible for a large amount of marine waste that is being washed up on our shores - despite international conventions that have been set up to stop exactly that. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL, was adopted in 1973 with the sole purpose of preventing and minimising pollution from ships. However, these studies have shown that in many cases the rules and regulations are simply being ignored. 

Developing countries are also coming under increasing scrutiny with regard to their management, or mismanagement, of plastic waste. Economic growth is strongly associated with an increased per capita consumption of goods, and studies have shown that this is creating a volume of waste that many developing countries do not have the infrastructure to deal with. This is ultimately leading to uncontrolled or open landfill sites where waste materials are vulnerable to being blown away into the ocean. A map of the top contributing countries according to this trend is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Top 10 countries for mismanaged waste (CNN, adapted from Science 2010)

Figure 2 below nicely sums up the relative contributions to ocean waste from some of the various sources discussed. It may be evident that fisheries pose a problem regarding the dumping of waste in our oceans, and developing countries absolutely need to find a way to better manage their storage of waste. However, the pie chart proves there is no doubt that we the people need to act more responsibly when throwing away our waste.

Figure 2: Sources of marine waste in 2009 (Ocean Conservancy 2012)

As was alluded to in my opening post, plastic marine waste is not the only pollutant of our oceans. Chemical waste also poses a huge threat to the condition of our seas. Sewage systems are one of the methods of transportation whereby chemicals that are a threat to the ocean's ecosystems can make their way into the sea. Once there, these substances can lead to the reduction of oxygen levels and cause decay of submarine plant life. Industries are also often responsible for dumping toxic chemicals directly into rivers which eventually lead to the ocean. As well as being deadly to marine life due to the toxins contained in these chemicals, the temperature of them when dumped can also cause what is known as thermal pollution, whereby organisms die as a result of the heat. 

Then there is also the problem of pesticides. Designed to be lethal to particular organisms, farmers can use them to significant effect in trying to achieve larger crop yields. However, they can also be lethal to other organisms when they eventually make their way into the sea. Predominantly, this occurs as surface water runoff. When rain water runs off the ground surface it takes the pesticides with it when it enters streams and rivers, and you guessed it, these eventually wind their way into the ocean. A small amount can also enter rivers and streams as a result of 'spray drift'. This is when the pesticide being sprayed is carried to the water bodies directly by the wind, though this process is not thought to make as significant a contribution as the runoff component does.

So there we have it - that is how marine waste, both physical and chemical, manages to find its way into the ocean. In the upcoming posts we'll be having more of a look at some of the many possible impacts that this waste can have once it is in the sea. 

The Ocean: Earth's Biggest Trash Can

As Earth's population continues to grow, the production and subsequent disposal of waste is becoming an increasingly pressing issue. Think plastic cups; they're fairly small and insubstantial objects that you probably don't spend too much time worrying about. However, just one of these can take over 50 years to decompose, so with an estimated 8 million tonnes of plastic being dumped in the ocean each year, an almost incomprehensible amount has built up since disposal in the sea first began. The biggest collection of ocean waste stretches from Japan to America and is known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a diagram of which is shown in Figure 1. The extent of this patch is so large that scientists estimate it could even be bigger than the USA. 

Some of you may perhaps be wondering why there is so much waste in our oceans - don't we just put rubbish in the bin? There is in fact a host of ways by which waste can make its way into the ocean, including the mismanagement of landfill sites, shipping casualties, and quite simply littering at the coast. Whether by accident or on purpose, it is something we must try and regulate in order to reduce the damaging effects it can have on ocean life.

Figure 1: the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (National Geographic 2016)

However, dumping of plastics in the ocean is not the only component of marine pollution. Chemical waste from industry and agriculture often gets into streams and rivers which eventually wind their way to the sea, polluting it further. Once in the ocean, these chemicals can become part of the food chain and have a damaging effect on migrating bird populations. Not only does this chemical waste effect wildlife, but it can also influence climate and in fact contribute to global warming. The release of nitrates from fertilisers into the ocean can increase the production of nitrogen, a greenhouse gas, by enhancing microbial growth at the sea surface.

The impact of these chemicals will be explored in greater detail throughout this blog, as well as exactly what happens to those plastics once they have entered the ocean, besides floating from the east coast of Japan to the sunny sands of California. We'll also be looking at what plans are being made, from surfing entrepreneurs to government officials - who will find the most effective solution to help tackle the growing problem of rubbish in our seas?

Feel free to follow, comment, or share!