Review
The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris:a review
Jos e G.B.Derraik
*
梦见扫落叶Ecology and Health Rearch Centre,Department of Public Health,Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences,University of Otago,P.O.Box 7343,Wellington,New Zealand
Abstract
The deleterious effects of plastic debris on the marine environment were reviewed by bringing together most of the literature published so far on the topic.A large number of marine species is known to be harmed and/or killed by plastic debris,which could jeopardize their survival,especially since many are already endangered by other forms of anthropogenic activities.Marine animals are mostly affected through entanglement in and ingestion of plastic litter.Other less known threats include the u of plastic debris by ‘‘invader’’species and the absorption of polychlorinated biphenyls from ingested plastics.Less conspicuous forms,such as plastic pellets and ‘‘scrubbers’’are also hazardous.To address
the problem of plastic debris in the oceans is a difficult task,and a variety of approaches are urgently required.Some of the ways to mitigate the problem are discusd.Ó2002Elvier Science Ltd.All rights rerved.
Keywords:Plastic debris;Pollution;Marine environment
1.Introduction
Human activities are responsible for a major decline of the world’s biological diversity,and the problem is so critical that combined human impacts could have ac-celerated prent extinction rates to 1000–10,000times the natural rate (Lovejoy,1997).In the oceans,the threat to marine life comes in various forms,such as overexploitation and harvesting,dumping of waste,pollution,alien species,land reclamation,dredging and global climate change (Beatley,1991;National Rearch Council,1995;Irish and Nor,1996;Ormond et al.,1997;Tickel,1997;Snelgrove,1999).One particular form of human impact constitutes a major threat to marine life:the pollution by plastic debris.1.1.Plastic debris
Plastics are synthetic organic polymers,and though they have only existed for just over a century (Gorman,1993),by 1988in the United States alone,30million tons of plastic were produced annually (O’Hara et al.,1988).The versatility of the materials has lead to a great increa in their u over th
e past three decades,
and they have rapidly moved into all aspects of everyday life (Hann,1990;Laist,1987).Plastics are lightweight,strong,durable and cheap (Laist,1987),characteristics that make them suitable for the manufacture of a very wide range of products.The same properties happen to be the reasons why plastics are a rious hazard to the environment (Pruter,1987;Laist,1987).Since they are also buoyant,an increasingload of plastic debris is be-ingdisperd over longdistances,and when they finally ttle in diments they may persist for centuries (Han-n,1990;Ryan,1987b;Goldberg,1995,1997).
The threat of plastics to the marine environment has been ignored for a long time,and its riousness has been only recently recognid (Stefatos et al.,1999).Fergusson (1974)for instance,then a member of the Council of the British Plastics Federation and a Fellow of the Plastics Institute,stated that ‘‘plastics litter is a very small proportion of all litter and caus no harm to the environment except as an eyesore’’.His comments not only illustrates how the deleterious environmental effects of plastics were entirely overlooked,but also that,apparently,even the plastics industry failed to predict the great boom in the production and u of plastics of the past 30years.In the marine environment,the perceived abundance of marine life and the vastness of the oceans hav
e lead to the dismissal of the prolife-ration of plastic debris as a potential hazard (Laist,1987).
*
肛裂图片女性Fax:+64-4-389-5319.
E-mail address:jderraik@ (J.G.B.Derraik).
0025-326X/02/$-e front matter Ó2002Elvier Science Ltd.All rights rerved.PII:S 0025-326X(02)00220-
第一旅游
5
/locate/marpolbul
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(2002)842–852
The literature on marine debris leaves no doubt that plastics make-up most of the marine litter world
wide (Table1).Though the methods were not assd to ensure that the results were comparable,Table1clearly indicates the predominance of plastics amongst the marine litter,and its proportion consistently varies be-tween60%and80%of the total marine debris(Gregory and Ryan,1997).
五分钟演讲
It is not possible to obtain reliable estimates of the amount of plastic debris that reaches the marine envi-ronment,but the quantities are nevertheless quite sub-stantial.In1975the world’sfishingfleet alone dumped into the a approximately135,400tons of plasticfishing gear and23,600tons of synthetic packaging material (Cawthorn,1989;DOC,1990).Horsman(1982)esti-mated that merchant ships dump639,000plastic con-tainers each day around the world,and ships are therefore,a major source of plastic debris(Shaw,1977; Shaw and Mapes,1979).Recreationalfishingand boats are also responsible for dumpinga considerable amount of marine debris,and accordingto the US Coast G uard they dispo approximately52%of all rubbish dumped in US waters(UNESCO,1994).
Plastic materials also end up in the marine environ-ment when accidentally lost,carelessly handled(Wilber, 1987)or left behind by beachgoers(Pruter,1987).They also reach the a as litter carried by rivers and munic-ipal drainage systems(Pruter,1987;Williams and Sim-mons,1997).There are major inputs of plastic litter from land-bad sources in denly populated or in-dustrialized area
s(Pruter,1987;Gregory,1991),most in the form of packaging.A study on Halifax Harbour
Table1
Proportion of plastics amongmarine debris worldwide(per number of items)
Locality Litter type Percentage of debris items
reprented by plastics
Source
1992International Coastal Cleanups Shoreline59Anon(1990)
St.Lucia,Caribbean Beach51Corbin and Singh(1993) Dominica,Caribbean Beach36Corbin and Singh(1993)
Curacßao,Caribbean Beach40/64Debrot et al.(1999)
Bay of Biscay,NE Atlantic Seabed92Galgani et al.(1995a)
NW Mediterranean Seabed77Galgani et al.(1995b)
French Mediterranean Coast Deep afloor>70Galgani et al.(1996)
European coasts Seafloor>70Galgani et al.(2000) Caribbean coast of Panama Shoreline82Garrity and Levings(1993) Georgia,USA Beach57Gilligan et al.(1992)
5Mediterranean beaches Beach60–80Golik(1997)
50South African beaches Beach>90Gregory and Ryan(1997)
88sites in Tasmania Beach65Gregory and Ryan(1997) Argentina Beach37–72Gregory and Ryan(1997)
9Sub-Antarctic Islands Beach51–88Gregory and Ryan(1997) South Australia Beach62Gregory and Ryan(1997) Kodiak Is,Alaska Seabed47–56Hess et al.(1999)
Tokyo Bay,Japan Seabed80–85Kanehiro et al.(1995)
North Pacific Ocean Surface waters86Laist(1987)
Mexico Beach60Lara-Dominguez et al.(1994) Transkei,South Africa Beach83Madzena and Lasiak(1
997) National Parks in USA Beach88Manski et al.(1991) Mediterranean Sea Surface waters60–70Morris(1980)
Cape Cod,USA Beach/harbour90Ribic et al.(1997)
寒假安全教育4North Atlantic harbors,USA Harbour73–92Ribic et al.(1997)
Is.Beach State Park,New Jery,USA Beach73Ribic(1998)
Halifax Harbour,Canada Beach54Ross et al.(1991)
Price Edward Is.,Southern Ocean Beach88Ryan(1987b)
Gough Is.,Southern Ocean Beach84Ryan(1987b)英雄联盟a
Heard Is.,Southern Ocean Beach51Slip and Burton(1991) Macquire Is.,Southern Ocean Beach71Slip and Burton(1991)
New Zealand Beach75Smith and Tooker(1990)
Two gulfs in W.Greece Seabed79–83Stefatos et al.(1999)
South German Bight Beach75Vauk and Schrey(1987)
Bird Is.,South Georgia,Southern Ocean Beach88a Walker et al.(1997)
FogBay,N.Australia Beach32Whiting(1998)
South Wales,UK Beach63Williams and Tudor(2001) Results are arranged in alphabetical order by author.
a76%of total consisted of synthetic line for long-linefisheries.
J.G.B.Derraik/Marine Pollution Bulletin44(2002)842–852843
in Canada,for instance,showed that62%of the total litter in the harbour originated from recreation and land-bad sources(Ross et al.,1991).In contrast,in beaches away from urban Alaska)most of the litter is made up offishingdebris.
Not only the aesthetically distasteful plastic litter,but also less conspicuous small plastic pellets and granules are a threat to marine biota.The latter are found in large quantities on beaches(Gregory,1978,1989;Shi-ber,1979,1982,1987;Redford et al.,1997),and are the raw material f
公司破产员工赔偿标准or the manufacture of plastic products that end up in the marine environment through acci-dental spillage during transport and handling,not as litter or waste as other forms of plastics(Gregory,1978; Shiber,1979;Redford et al.,1997).Their sizes usually vary from2–6mm,though occasionally much larger ones can be found(Gregory,1977,1978).
Plastic pellets can be found across the Southwest Pacific in surprisingly high quantities for remote and non-industrialid places such as Tonga,Rarotonga and Fiji(Gregory,1999).In New Zealand beaches they are found in quite considerable amounts,in counts of over 100,000raw plastic granules per meter of coast(Greg-ory,1989),with greatest concentration near important industrial centres(Gregory,1977).Their durability in the marine environment is still uncertain but they em to last from3to10years,and additives can probably extend this period to30–50years(Gregory,1978).
Unfortunately,the dumpingof plastic debris into the ocean is an increasingproblem.For instance,surveys carried out in South African beaches5years apart, showed that the densities of all plastic debris have in-cread substantially(Ryan and Moloney,1990).In Panama,experimentally cleared beaches regained about 50%of their original debris load after just3months (Garrity and Levings,1993).Even subantarctic islands are becomingincreasing ly affected by plastic debris,es-peciallyfishinglines(Walker et al.,1997).Benton(1995) surveyed islands in the South Pacific and got t
o the alarmingconclusion that beaches in remote areas had a comparable amount of garbage to a beach in the industrialized western world.
2.The threats from plastics pollution to marine biota
There is still relatively little information on the impact of plastics pollution on the ocean’s ecosystems(Quayle, 1992;Wilber,1987).There is however an increasing knowledge about their deleterious impacts on marine biota(Goldberg,1995).The threats to marine life are primarily mechanical due to ingestion of plastic debris and entanglement in packaging bands,synthetic ropes and lines,or drift nets(Laist,1987,1997;Quayle,1992).
Since the u of plastics continues to increa,so does the amount of plastics pollutingthe marine environ-ment.Robards et al.(1995)examined the gut content of thousands of birds in two parate studies and found that the ingestion of plastics by abirds had signifi-cantly incread duringthe10–15years interval between studies.A study done in the North Pacific(Blight and Burger,1997)found plastic particles in the stomachs of 8of the11abird species caught as bycatch.The list of affected species indicates that marine debris are affecting a significant number of species(Laist,1997).It affects at least267species worldwide,including86%of all a turtle species,44%of all abird species,
and43%of all marine mammal species(Laist,1997).The problem may be highly underestimated as most victim are likely to go undiscovered over vast ocean areas,as they either sink or are eaten by predators(Wolfe,1987).
There is also potential danger to marine ecosystems from the accumulation of plastic debris on the a floor.Accordingto Kanehiro et al.(1995)plastics made up80–85%of the abed debris in Tokyo Bay,an impressivefigure considering that most plastic debris are buoyant.The accumulation of such debris can in-hibit the gas exchange between the overlying waters and the pore waters of the diments,and the resulting hypoxia or anoxia in the benthos can interfere with the normal ecosystem functioning,and alter the make-up of life on the afloor(Goldberg,1994).Moreover,as for pelagic organisms,benthic biota is likewi sub-jected to entanglement and ingestion hazards(Hess et al.,1999).
2.1.Ingestion of plastics
A study done on1033birds collected offthe coast of North Carolina in the USA found that individuals from 55%of the species recorded had plastic particles in their guts(Mor and Lee,1992).The authors obtained evi-dence that some abirds lect specific plastic shapes and colors,mistakingth
em for potential prey items. Shaw and Day(1994)came to the same conclusions,as they studied the prence offloatingplastic particles of different forms,colors and sizes in the North Pacific,findingthat many are sig nificantly under-reprented. Carpenter et al.(1972)examined various species offish with plastic debris in their guts and found that only white plastic spherules had been ingested,indicating that they feed lectively.A similar pattern of lective in-gestion of white plastic debris was found for loggerhead a turtles(Caretta caretta)in the Central Mediterra-nean(G ramentz,1988).Amongabirds,the ing estion of plastics is directly correlated to foraging strategies and technique,and diet(Azzarello and Van-Vleet,1987; Ryan,1987a;Mor and Lee,1992;Laist,1987,1997). For instance,planktivores are more likely to confu plastic pellets with their prey than do piscivores,there-fore the former have a higher incidence of ingested plastics(Azzarello and Van-Vleet,1987).
844J.G.B.Derraik/Marine Pollution Bulletin44(2002)842–852
Ryan(1988)performed an experiment with domestic chickens(Gallus domesticus)to establish the potential effects of ingested plastic particles on abirds.They were fed with polyethylene pellets and the results indi-cated that ingested plastics reduce meal size by reducing the storage volume of the stomach and the feeding stimulus.He concluded that abirds with large plastic loads have reduced f
ood consumption,which limits their ability to lay down fat deposits,thus reducingfitness. Connors and Smith(1982)had previously reached the same conclusion,as their study indicated that the in-gestion of plastic particles hindered formation of fat deposits in migrating red phalaropes(Phalaropus fuli-carius),adverly affecting long-distance migration and possibly their reproductive effort on breedingg rounds. Spear et al.(1995)however,provided probably thefirst solid evidence for a negative relationship between number of plastic particles ingested and physical con-dition(body weight)in abirds from the tropical Pacific.
Other harmful effects from the ingestion of plastics include blockage of gastric enzyme cretion,diminished feedingstimulus,lowered steroid hormone levels,de-layed ovulation and reproductive failure(Azzarello and Van-Vleet,1987).The ingestion of plastic debris by smallfish and abirds for instance,can reduce food uptake,cau internal injury and death following blockage of intestinal tract(Carpenter et al.,1972; Rothstein,1973;Ryan,1988;Zitko and Hanlon,1991). The extent of the harm,however,will vary amongspe-cies.Procellariiformes for example,are more vulnerable due to their inability to regurgitate ingested plastics (Furness,1985;Azzarello and Van-Vleet,1987).
共度良宵是什么意思Laist(1987)and Fry et al.(1987)obrved that adults that manage to regurgitate plastic particles could pass them onto the chicks duringfeeding.The chicks of Laysan albatross(Diomedea immutabilis)in
the Ha-waiian Islands for instance,are unable to regurgitate such materials which accumulate in their stomachs,be-cominga sig nificant source of mortality,as90%of the chicks surveyed had some sort of plastic debris in their upper GI tract(Fry et al.,1987).Even Antarctic and sub-Antarctic abirds are subjected to this hazard(Slip et al.,1990).Wilson’s storm-petrels(Oceanites oceani-cus)for instance,pick up plastic debris while wintering in other areas(Van Franeker and Bell,1988).A white-faced storm-petrel(Pelagodroma marina)found dead at the isolated Chatham Islands(New Zealand)at a breedingsite,had no food in its stomach while its g iz-zard was packed with plastic pellets(Bourne and Imber, 1982).
The harm from ingestion of plastics is nevertheless not restricted to abirds.Polythene bags drifting in ocean currents look much like the prey items targeted by turtles(Mattlin and Cawthorn,1986;Gramentz,1988; Bugoni et al.,2001).There is evidence that their survival is beinghindered by plastic debris(Dug uy et al.,1998), with younga turtles beingparticularly vulnerable (Carr,1987).Balazs(1985)listed79cas of turtles who guts were full of various sorts of plastic debris, and O’Hara et al.(1988)cited a turtle found in New York that had swallowed540m offishingline. Oesophagus and stomach contents were examined from 38specimens of the endangered green a turtle(Che-lonia mydas)on the south of Brazil,23of which(60.5%) had ingeste
d anthropogenic debris,mainly plastics (Bugoni et al.,2001).Among das washed ashore in Florida,56%had anthropogenic debris in their digestive tracts(Bjorndal et al.,1994).Tom a s et al. (2002)found that75.9%of54loggerhead a turtles (C.caretta)captured byfishermen had plastic debris in their digestive tracts.
At least26species of cetaceans have been docu-mented to ingest plastic debris(Baird and Hooker, 2000).A youngmale pyg my sperm whale(Kogia brevi-ceps)stranded alive in Texas,USA,died in a holding tank11days later(Tarpley and Marwitz,1993).The necropsy showed that thefirst two stomach compart-ments were completely occluded by plastic debris(gar-bage can liner,a bread wrapper,a corn chip bag and two other pieces of plastic sheeting).The death of an endangered West Indian manatee(Trichechus manatus) in1985in Florida was apparently caud by a large piece of plastic that blocked its digestive tract(Laist, 1987).Deaths of the also endangered Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris)have too been blamed on plastic debris in their guts(Beck and Barros,1991). Secchi and Zarzur(1999)blamed the fate of a dead Blainville’s beaked whale(Mesoplodon densirostris)wa-shed ashore in Brazil to a bundle of plastic threads found in the animals’stomach.Coleman and Wehle (1984)and Baird and Hooker(2000)cited other ceta-ceans that have been reported with ingested plastics, such as the killer whale(Orcinus orca).
Some species offish offthe British coast were found to contain plastic cups within their guts that would eventually lead to their death(Anon,1975).In the Bristol Channel in the summer of1973,21%of the flounders(Platichthyesflesus)were found to contain polystyrene spherules(Kartar et al.,1976).The same study found,that in some areas,25%of a snails (Liparis liparis)(afish,despite its common name)were heavily contaminated by such debris.In the New En-gland coast,USA,the same type of spherules were found in8out of14fish species examined,and in some species33%of individuals were contaminated(Carpen-ter et al.,1972).
2.2.Plastics ingestion and polychlorinated biphenyls
Over the past20years polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)have increasingly polluted marine food webs,
J.G.B.Derraik/Marine Pollution Bulletin44(2002)842–852845
and are prevalent in abirds(Ryan et al.,1988). Though their adver effects may not always be appar-ent,PCBs lead to reproductive disorders or death,they increa risk of dias and alter hormone levels(Ryan et al.,1988;Lee et al.,2001).The chemicals have a detrimental effect on marine organisms even at very low levels and plastic pellets could be a route for PCBs into marine food chains(Carpenter and Smith,1972;Car-penter et al.,1972;Rothstein,1973;Zitko and Hanlon, 199
1;Mato et al.,2001).
Ryan et al.(1988)studyingg reat shearwaters(Puffi-nus gravis),obtained evidence that PCBs in the birds’tissues were derived from ingested plastic particles. Their study prented thefirst indication that abirds can assimilate chemicals from plastic particles in their stomachs,indicatinga dang erous pathway for poten-tially harmful pollutants.Bjorndal et al.(1994)worked with a turtles and came to a similar conclusion,that the absorption of toxins as sublethal effects of debris ingestion has an unknown,but potentially great nega-tive effect on their demography.
Plastic debris can be a source of other contaminants besides PCBs.Accordingto Zitko(1993)low molecular weight compounds from polystyrene particles are lea-ched by awater,and the fate and effects of such compounds on aquatic biota are not known.
2.3.Entanglement in plastic debris
Entanglement in plastic debris,especially in dis-cardedfishingg ear,is a very rious threat to marine animals.Accordingto Schrey and Vauk(1987)entan-glement accounts for13–29%of the obrved mortality of gannets(Sula bassana)at Helgoland,German Bight. Entanglement also affects the survival of the endan-gered a turtles(Carr,1987),but it is a particular problem for marine mammals,
such as fur als,which are both curious and playful(Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986).
Youngfur als are attracted tofloatingdebris and dive and roll about in it(Mattlin and Cawthorn,1986). They will approach objects in the water and often poke their heads into loops and holes(Fowler,1987;Laist, 1987).Though the plastic loops can easily slip onto their necks,the lie of the longg uard hairs prevents the strappingfrom slippingoff(Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986).Many al pups grow into the plastic collars,and in time as it tightens,the plastic vers the al’s arteries or strangles it(Weisskopf,1988).Ironically,once the entangled al dies and decompos,the plastic band is free to be picked up by another victim(DOC,1990; Mattlin and Cawthorn,1986),as some plastic articles may take500years to decompo(Gorman,1993; UNESCO,1994).
Once an animal is entangled,it may drown,have its ability to catch food or to avoid predators impaired,or incur wounds from abrasive or cuttingaction of at-tached debris(Laist,1987,1997;Jones,1995).Accord-ing to Feldkamp et al.(1989)entanglement can greatly reducefitness,as it leads to a significant increa in energetic costs of travel.For the northern fur als (Callorhinus ursinus),for instance,they stated that net fragments over200g could result in4-fold increa in the demand of food consumption to maintain body condition.
The decline in the populations of the northern a lion(Eumetopias jubatus),endangered Hawaiian monk al(Monachus schauinslandi)(Henderson,1990,2001) and northern fur al(Fowler,1987)ems at least ag-gravated by entanglement of young animals in lost or discarded nets and packingbands.In the PribiloffIslands alone,in the BeringSea west of Alaska,the percentage of northern fur als returning to rookeries entangled in plastic bands ro from nil in1969to38% in1973(Mattlin and Cawthorn,1986).The population in1976was decliningat a rate of4–6%a year,and scientists estimated that up to40,000fur als a year were beingkilled by plastic entang lement(Weisskopf, 1988).A decline due to entanglement also ems to be occurringwith Antarctic fur als(Arctocephalus gaz-ella)(Croxall et al.,1990).Pemberton et al.(1992)and Jones(1995)both reported similar concern for Austra-lian fur als(Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus).At South-east Farallon Island,Northern California,a sur-vey from1976–1988obrved914pinnipeds entangled in or with body constrictions from synthetic materials (Hanni and Pyle,2000).
Lost or abandonedfishingnets po a particular g reat risk(Jones,1995).The‘‘ghost nets’’continue to catch animals even if they sink or are lost on the abed(Laist, 1987).In1978,99dead abirds and over200dead salmon were counted duringthe retrieval of a1500m ghost net south of the Aleutian Islands(DeGange and Newby,1980).In a survey done in1983/84offthe coast of Japan,it was estimate
d that533fur als were en-tangled and drowned in nets lost in the area(Laist, 1987).Whales are also victims,as‘‘they sometimes lunge for schools offish and surface with nettingcaug ht in their mouths or wrapped around their heads and tails’’(Weisskopf,1988).
2.4.Plastic‘‘scrubbers’’
Studies(Gregory,1996;Zitko and Hanlon,1991) have drawn attention to an inconspicuous and previ-ously overlooked form of plastics pollution:small fragments of plastic(usually up to0.5mm across)de-rived from hand cleaners,cosmetic preparations and airblast cleaningmedia.The environmental impact of the particles,as well as similar sizedflakes from de-gradation of larger plastic litter,has not been properly established yet.
846J.G.B.Derraik/Marine Pollution Bulletin44(2002)842–852
