Ryan Et Al., 2009 - Origem Dos Microplásticos
Ryan Et Al., 2009 - Origem Dos Microplásticos
Ryan Et Al., 2009 - Origem Dos Microplásticos
References
Subject collections
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1526/1999.full.html#ref-list-1
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top
right-hand corner of the article or click here
Review
Percy FitzPatrick Institute, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, and 2Zoology Department and Marine
Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
3
Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 148 N. Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803, USA
4
Wageningen IMARES, PO Box 167, 1790 AD Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands
Plastic debris has significant environmental and economic impacts in marine systems. Monitoring is
crucial to assess the efficacy of measures implemented to reduce the abundance of plastic debris, but it
is complicated by large spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the amounts of plastic debris and by our
limited understanding of the pathways followed by plastic debris and its long-term fate. To date, most
monitoring has focused on beach surveys of stranded plastics and other litter. Infrequent surveys of
the standing stock of litter on beaches provide crude estimates of debris types and abundance, but
are biased by differential removal of litter items by beachcombing, cleanups and beach dynamics.
Monitoring the accumulation of stranded debris provides an index of debris trends in adjacent
waters, but is costly to undertake. At-sea sampling requires large sample sizes for statistical power
to detect changes in abundance, given the high spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Another approach
is to monitor the impacts of plastics. Seabirds and other marine organisms that accumulate plastics in
their stomachs offer a cost-effective way to monitor the abundance and composition of small plastic
litter. Changes in entanglement rates are harder to interpret, as they are sensitive to changes in population sizes of affected species. Monitoring waste disposal on ships and plastic debris levels in rivers
and storm-water runoff is useful because it identifies the main sources of plastic debris entering the
sea and can direct mitigation efforts. Different monitoring approaches are required to answer different
questions, but attempts should be made to standardize approaches internationally.
Keywords: marine debris; mitigation; monitoring; plastic; seabirds; virgin pellets
1. INTRODUCTION
Two of the key characteristics that make plastics so
usefultheir light weight and durabilityalso make
inappropriately handled waste plastics a significant
environmental threat. Plastics are readily transported
long distances from source areas and accumulate in
sinks, mainly in the oceans, where they have a variety of
significant environmental and economic impacts
(Coe & Rogers 1997; Thompson et al. 2009a,b; UNEP
2005). Discarded plastics also affect terrestrial and
fresh-water systems, including ingestion by and entanglement of animals, blocked drainage systems and aesthetic
impacts. However, the literature on plastic pollution
largely focuses on marine systems.
Most plastics break down slowly through a combination of photodegradation, oxidation and mechanical
abrasion (Andrady 2003). Thick plastic items persist
for decades, even when subject to direct sunlight, and
survive even longer when shielded from UV radiation
under water or in sediments. Except for expanded
1999
2000
P. G. Ryan et al.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing the main sources and movement pathways for plastics in the marine environment, with
sinks occurring (1) on beaches, (2) in coastal waters and their sediments and (3) in the open ocean. Curved arrows depict
wind-blown litter, grey arrows water-borne litter, stippled arrows vertical movement through the water column (including
burial in sediments) and black arrows ingestion by marine organisms.
bottles
2001
lids
50
number of items per 100 m
P. G. Ryan et al.
160
40
120
30
80
20
40
10
0
0
1984 1989
1994
year
2005
1984 1989
1994
year
2005
Figure 2. Scoring litter collected from a 50 m stretch of beach (top) and trends in the abundance of plastic bottles and lids (mean and
s.e.) at South African beaches sampled in 1984, 1989, 1994 and 2005. Light grey bars, 36 beaches with regular, municipal cleaning
programmes; dark grey bars, 14 beaches with no formal cleaning programmes (P. G. Ryan & C. L. Moloney, unpublished data).
3. BEACH SURVEYS
Much of what we know about the abundance, distribution and origin of plastic debris in the marine
environment comes from surveys of litter stranded on
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
2002
P. G. Ryan et al.
Table 1. Comparison of survey protocols for monitoring the accumulation of beached litter in the USA (US Marine Debris
Monitoring Program (USMDMP), Sheavly 2007) and Europe (Beach Litter Monitoring Programme, OSPAR Commission
2007a).
USMDMP
OSPAR
type of beach
beach slope
beach length (m)
length of beach surveyed (m)
sand/gravel
15458 (not steep)
.500
500
28 + 3
31 indicator items
no regular cleaning
no impact on threatened species
sand/gravel
.1000
100 (all items)
1000 (items .0.5 m across)
90 (approx.)a
all debris (111 categories)
distant from sources (rivers)
visually/frequently littered
Litter is not removed at some OSPAR sites and some sites are also cleaned by local municipalities (Barbara Wenneker in litt.).
P. G. Ryan et al.
2003
2004
P. G. Ryan et al.
P. G. Ryan et al.
2005
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. A manta trawl (a) being deployed from a research vessel and (b) being towed at sea to sample floating plastics.
120
numbers of entangled seals
P. G. Ryan et al.
(a)
100
80
60
40
20
0
1975
2006
1980
1985
1990
1995
(b)
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
year
Figure 4. Long-term trends in the impacts of plastics on
marine animals: (a) numbers of entangled seals recorded
annually on SE Farallon Island, California, 19761998
(reproduced with permission from Hanni & Pyle 2000);
(b) proportions of prions Pachyptila spp. stranded on
New Zealand beaches that had plastics in their stomachs,
19581977 (reproduced with permission from Harper &
Fowler 1987).
(a) Entanglement
Entanglement is one of the more visible impacts of
plastic debris, affecting a large number of marine
and fresh-water species (Laist 1997). Monitoring the
number of entangled organisms can indicate changes
in the abundance of debris responsible for entanglements. For example, entanglement records for three
species of seals from the Farallon Islands show a
steady increase since the 1970s, but with a marked
peak from 1983 to 1985 (Hanni & Pyle 2000;
figure 4a). Camphuysen (2001) reported increased
entanglement rates of Northern Gannets Morus
bassanus in the North Sea from 1997 to 2000. Such
data can be used to assess whether mitigation
measures have been effective. There was no decrease
in entanglement rates among Hawaiian Monk Seals
Monachus schauinslandi following the introduction of
MARPOL Annex V banning the disposal of plastics
at sea (Henderson 2001), but most entanglements
are from fishing gear lost at sea (not discarded).
However, there was no decrease in entanglement of
two seal species in Australia, despite efforts to reduce
the amount of fishery debris being lost at sea (Page
et al. 2004). At South Georgia, the proportion of
entangled Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella
halved following active promotion of MARPOL
Annex V regulations, but the population of seals
P. G. Ryan et al.
2007
from parents to their offspring (Ryan 1988b) exacerbated by poor discrimination of suitable food items
by naive birds (Day et al. 1985). Another issue is
how ingested plastic loads change with increases in
the abundance of plastic at sea. Is there a linear
relationship, or do birds reach a point where they
become saturated? This question has not been resolved
(Ryan 2008).
Monitoring of plastic loads in seabirds initially
showed increases in plastic ingestion from the 1960s
to the 1980s (figure 4b; Day et al. 1985; Moser &
Lee 1992), but plastic loads have stabilized or
decreased more recently, with significant changes in
the composition of ingested plastic. In the North
Pacific, plastic loads in Short-tailed Shearwaters
Puffinus tenuirostris did not change significantly from
the 1970s to the late-1990s, but virgin pellets were
replaced by fragments of user plastics, decreasing
from 55 73% in the 1970s to 33 per cent in the
1990s (Vlietstra & Parga 2002). Similar decreases in
the proportions of virgin pellets have been found in
five other seabirds foraging in the Atlantic and
southern Indian Oceans from the 1980s to 2000s
(Ryan 2008). Among Northern Fulmars stranded on
Dutch beaches, there has been a long-term decrease
in the mass of virgin pellets over the last 20 yr and,
after peaking in the 1990s, the total mass of ingested
plastic has decreased over the last 10 yr (figure 5).
There thus appears to have been a global decrease
in the abundance of virgin pellets at sea over the last
two decades, which, with the exception of fulmars in
the North Sea, has been offset to a degree by increases
in user plastics. These insights have been obtained at
a fraction of the cost of ship-based surveys of
meso-debris abundance at sea.
6. MONITORING INPUTS
The most direct measure of success in the campaign
against plastic pollution is to monitor the amounts of
waste plastic entering the marine environment. This is
no trivial undertaking, given the wide range of sources
of plastic debris. Two main sources of plastic debris
can be considered separately: ship- and land-based
(Coe & Rogers 1997).
(a) Ship-based sources
Initial concerns about debris in marine environments
focused largely on ship-based sources. Early attempts
to assess the amount of waste disposed of by vessels at
sea (Dixon & Dixon 1981; Pruter 1987) provided
crude estimates of the amount dumped (Rees & Pond
1995), but there have been no formal estimates since
MARPOL Annex V came into force in 1988. Estimates
of compliance with the ban on disposal at sea imposed
on signatories of MARPOL Annex V have been obtained
from the use of port reception facilities (Carpenter &
Macgill 2005). In addition, independent fishery observers can be tasked to report on disposal practices on
fishing vessels (Jones 1995; Walker et al. 1997).
(b) Land-based sources
Although some plastic debris is transported by wind,
most land-based litter is carried by water via rivers
2008
P. G. Ryan et al.
pellets
10 mm
1.25
user plastics
mass (g)
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
virgin pellets
mass (g)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
19821990
1995
year
2000
2005
Figure 5. Typical plastics from a Northern Fulmar stomach (top panel) and trends in the average mass (+s.e.) of user plastic
and virgin plastic pellets in Northern Fulmars stranded on Dutch beaches in 1982 1990 (n 69) and 1997 2005 (n 580).
Table 2. Sampling protocols used to assess plastic debris loads in urban runoff by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation.
Water-based samples are collected upstream of debris booms, above the influence of the tidal prism.
habitat sampled
collection device
surface; mid-stream
surface, edge
mid-water
bed load
bottom sediments
manta trawl
hand net
weighted net
streambed sampler
scoop
0.9 0.15
0.46 0.25
0.46 0.25
0.15 0.15
15 l bucketa
0.33
0.5 or 0.8
0.33
0.33
Fifteen litres of bottom sediments are collected to a depth of 100 mm; in cement-lined canals, samples are collected where the concrete
bottom terminates and natural bottom begins.
and storm-water. Few attempts to quantify the magnitude of litter in runoff have been published in the primary literature (see papers in Coe & Rogers 1997), but
numerous studies have been conducted, often as part
of programmes to educate the public to the dangers
of inappropriate disposal of plastics. Most studies
quantify plastic loads in runoff by sampling litter
captured in a variety of filtering systems (e.g. Durrum
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
7. CONCLUSIONS
Just as multiple initiatives are needed to tackle the
marine litter problem (Coe & Rogers 1997), diverse
approaches are required to monitor the abundance of
plastics in marine environments. For any monitoring
programme, the objectives must be clearly stated, the
methodology clearly defined and quality control
implemented to ensure quality data. Sampling design
needs to be cognizant of the dynamics of plastic in
the environment. Debris monitoring is complicated
by large spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the
amounts of plastic debris. Pilot studies should be
used to estimate variability in sample data, and then
power analysis should assess the numbers of samples
necessary to detect a predetermined change.
By selecting beaches at varying distances from
major litter sources, beach surveys can provide useful
insights into the origins of plastic debris. Monitoring
of stranded litter should concentrate on estimating
the accumulation rate of debris on beaches, because
this gives a measure of the amount of litter at sea.
However, this effort adds considerably to the cost of
beach surveys. Accumulation rates are sensitive to
sampling interval; frequent sampling reduces biases
owing to rapid debris turnover, but estimates are
more variable than longer sampling intervals, requiring
greater sampling effort. At-sea sampling is also extremely expensive, but net-based samples suggest that
there have been marked increases in plastic litter in
accumulation zones in oceanic gyres. Seabirds that
accumulate plastic in their stomachs provide an inexpensive, powerful tool to monitor changes in the abundance and composition of small plastic debris at
regional scales. Monitoring the incidence of entanglement also is useful, provided that search effort is constant and that interpretation acknowledges changes in
the population size of affected organisms.
Assessing the magnitude of debris sources is complicated by the large number of point and diffuse sources
of plastic debris (figure 1). However, this approach has
the advantage of assessing directly whether specific mitigation efforts are having the desired effect. Dumping of
ship-based litter can be assessed by independent
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
P. G. Ryan et al.
2009
REFERENCES
Andrady, A. L. (ed.) 2003 Plastics and the environment.
New York: Wiley.
Armitage, N. & Roseboom, A. 2000 The removal of urban
litter from stormwater conduits and streams: paper 1
the quantities involved and catchment litter management
options. Water SA 26, 181 187.
Arnould, J. P. Y. & Croxall, J. P. 1995 Trends in entanglement of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in
man-made debris at South Georgia. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
30, 707 712. (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(95)00054-Q)
Barnes, D. K. A. 2002 Invasions by marine life on plastic
debris. Nature 416, 808809. (doi:10.1038/416808a)
Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C. & Barlaz, M.
2009 Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris
in global environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364,
19851998. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205)
Boland, R. C. & Donohue, M. J. 2003 Marine debris
accumulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the
endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi
19992001. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46, 13851394. (doi: 10.
1016/S0025-326X(03)00291-1)
Bowman, D., Manor-Samsonov, N. & Golik, A. 1998
Dynamics of litter pollution on Israeli Mediterranean
beaches: a budgetary, litter flux approach. J. Coastal
Res. 14, 418 432.
Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. & Laake,
J. L. 1993 Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Camphuysen, C. J. 2001 Northern Gannets Morus bassanus
found dead in the Netherlands, 19702000. Atlantic
Seabirds 3, 1530.
Carpenter, A. & Macgill, S. M. 2005 The EU Directive on
port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo
residues: the results of a second survey on the provision and
uptake of facilities in North Sea ports. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50,
15411547. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.021)
Carpenter, E. J., Anderson, S. J., Harvey, G. R., Miklas, H. P. &
Peck, B. B. 1972 Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters.
Science 178, 749750. (doi:10.1126/science.178.4062.749)
Cheshire, A. C. et al. 2009 UNEP/IOC Guidelines on survey
and monitoring of marine litter. UNEP Regional Seas Rpts &
Studies, No. 186; IOC Tech. Ser. No. 83.
2010
P. G. Ryan et al.
P. G. Ryan et al.
2011
2012
P. G. Ryan et al.