Identification of Microplastic Fibres on North Devon

Beaches Plymouth University

Angelo Massos

10365453

Advisor: Dr John Martin

Presentation ContentIntroduction Background literatureField and Laboratory methodologyResultsDiscussion Summary

Introduction to my projectAim

To under take primary research for microplastics on North Devon beaches with North Devon AONB.

HypothesisThat there is a positive correlation between microplastic

concentrations and particle size along the beach profile.

Background on sources Microplastics are defined<5mm (Thompson et al., 2004) Microbeads from personal care and household products

(Thompson et al., 2004) Nurdle spillages during transportation (US EPA, 1992).Synthetic fibres from washing clothes and textile industry

(Browne et al., 2011)Fragmenting plastic debris

Figure 1: Microbeads in cosmetics (Lupkin, 2014).

Figure 3: Rayon Microfibre.

Figure 4: Fragment pieces of micoplastic.

Figure 2: Nurdles (Campbell, 2012).

Pathways Microplastics are able to pass through the sewage

treatment plants and end up accumulating in the world’s oceans, gyres and reservoirs (MCS, 2012).

Figure 5: Outfall pipe discharge waste water (Hussey, 2009).

ToxicologyPartitioning of trace metals and hydrophobic persistent

organic pesticides

Figure 6: Partitioning of chemicals between plastics, biota and seawater (Leslie et al., 2011).

Receptors Vertebrates ingest microplastic (Gregory, 2009).Potential toxicity from leaching constituent contaminants

are capable of causing carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption (Oehlmann et al., 2009; Talsness et al., 2009)

Toxins present on microplastics bioaccumulate into trophic levels (Wright et al., 2013)

Have the potential to concentrate in humans who consume marine organisms.

Figure 6: Ingested microplastic in a Zooplankton (Cole et al., 2013)

Field Work Methodology Samples were taken from the low water mark up to the

strandline, from Woolacombe Bay and Wilder Mouth.At each beach, 11 samples for microplastics which were

collected in 500 ml glass bottles (Figure 7) and 2-3 litres of sediment where collected in 5 L plastic containers for sediment particle analysis.

Figure 7: Microplastic sampling at Woolacombe Bay

Sampling sites

Figure 8: Map of sampling sites (University of Edinburgh, 2015)

Microplastic Laboratory Work

Figure 9: Mini pore filtration unit

Figure 10: Fibre picking using microscope

Figure 11: Bruker IFs66 Fourier transform-infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer used for fibre analysis

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Particle Size Laboratory Work

Figure 12: Sieving for particle size.

Figure 13: Sieved samples < 1mm prepared for particle size analysis using malvern 2000.

Stage 1 Stage 2

Results

0m

40

m 8

0m

120

m

160

m

200

m

240

m

280

m

320

m

360

m

400

m

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

cellulosic

Polyamide

Arylic

Polyester

Average Particle size µm %

Num

ber

of

mic

ropla

stic

fibre

s

Ave

rage p

art

icle

siz

e %

(µm

)

Figure: 14 Woolacombe Bay microplastic and average % particle size

0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m 70

m 8

0m 9

0m

100

m

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

cellulosic

Polyamide

Arylic

Polyester

Average particle size µm %

Num

ber

of

mic

ropla

stic

fibre

s

Ave

rage p

art

icle

siz

e %

(µm

)

Figure :15 Wilder Mouth microplastic and average % particle size

Results

Figure: 16 Particle size distribution triangle

Wilder Mouth

Woolacombe Bay

% sand

% gravel

% mud

30 20 10 0405060708090100

30

20

10

0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30

20

10

0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

(s)mG (m)sG

(s)gM (m)gS

smG

gsM gmS

(vm)(g)S

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

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

(vm)gS(vs)gMgSgM

SM

(g)S

(vm)S

(vg)(vm)S(vg)S

(m)SmS

(g)M

(vg)(vs)M(vg)M

(vs)M (s)M sM

G

(vm)(s)G

(vm)sG(vs)mG

(vs)(m)G

(s)(m)G

sGmG

(m)G (s)G

(vs)G

(vm)G (vs)(vm)G

GSM

gravelsandmud

gravellysandymuddy

gsm

(g)(s)(m)

slightly gravellyslightly sandyslightly muddy

(vg)(vs)(vm)

very slightly gravellyvery slightly sandyvery slightly muddy

Blott & Pye (2012) Classification

DiscussionPrimary research which discovered microplasticsNew method of sampling looking at the beach profileHypothesis was not proven due to limited samples and

no replication of samples in laboratory due to time constraints

The presence of fibres and not fragments, derived from sewage.

High percentage of cellulosic fibres which are rayon and therefore not true microplastics

Fibres are denser therefore associated with being in sediment (Woodall et al., 2014).

Summary of conclusions No statistically significant correlation between

microplastics and particle size.Further work looking at the beach profile by zoning

the beach to see weather microplastics are distributed in different zones of the beach

Further research into seasonal differences. Further research into rayon characteristics and

behaviour in the marine environment due to their high abundance.

Reference List Browne, M., Crump, P., Niven, S., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A. & Galloway, T. (2011).

Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9175-9179.

Campbell, K. (2012). Nurdles - The Last Wilderness. [online] The Last Wilderness. Available at: http://www.lastwilderness.net/talking-story/blog/nurdles/ [Last Accessed 16 Feb. 2015].

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J. and Galloway, T. (2013). Microplastic Ingestion by Zooplankton. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(12), pp.pp 6646–6655.

University of Edinburgh (2015). Digimap Home Page. [online] Available at: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/digimap/home [Last Accessed 16 Feb. 2015].

Hussey, M. (2009). Front Strand residents frustrated. [online] YoughalOnline.com. Available at: http://www.youghalonline.com/2009/01/03/front-strand-residents-frustrated-by-outfall-pipe-delay/ [Last Accessed 16 Feb. 2015].

Reference List Lupkin, S. (2014). New York May Ban Microbeads in Facial Scrubs. [online]

ABC News. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/york-ban-microbeads-facial-scrubs/story?id=22467638 [Accessed 16 Feb. 2015].

Thompson, R., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R., Davis, A., Rowland, S. & John, A. (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304 (5672), 838.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1992). Plastic pellets in the aquatic environment: Sources and recommendations. Environmental Protection Agency: Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Final Report 842-B-92-010. Washington, DC.

Woodall, L., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G., Coppock, R., Sleight, V., Calafat, A., Rogers, A., Narayanaswamy, B. and Thompson, R. (2014). The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science, 1(4),140317-140317.

Beat the Microbead Company

http://www.beatthemicrobead.org/en/

The Point Magazine,By Mark King

Thank you for listening any Questions?