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!