Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.

org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine

environment
Peter G. Ryan, Charles J. Moore, Jan A. van Franeker and Coleen L. Moloney
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2009 364, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0207, published 14 June 2009

References

This article cites 78 articles, 2 of which can be accessed free

Subject collections

Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1526/1999.full.html#ref-list-1

environmental science (184 articles)

Email alerting service

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

To subscribe to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B go to: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009) 364, 19992012

doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0207

Review

Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris

in the marine environment
Peter G. Ryan1,*, Charles J. Moore3, Jan A. van Franeker4
and Coleen L. Moloney2
1

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

* Author for correspondence ([email protected]).

One contribution of 15 to a Theme Issue Plastics, the environment
and human health.

polystyrene, plastics take much longer to degrade in

water than they do on land, mainly owing to the reduced
UV exposure and lower temperatures found in aquatic
habitats (Gregory & Andrady 2003). There has been a
rapid increase in the amount of plastic litter in the
marine environment (Ryan & Moloney 1993), linked
to increases in the use of plastics. Even the development
of the so-called biodegradable plastics is not a longterm solution to the plastic litter problem, because
many such materials contain only a proportion of
biodegradable material such as starch, leaving behind
microscopic plastic fragments (Klemchuk 1990).
Given the impacts of plastic litter (Gregory 2009),
considerable effort has been made to remove waste
plastic and other persistent debris from the environment. This removal may occur before it enters the
sea, through litter collection and screening waste
water systems (e.g. Marais & Armitage 2004) or, thereafter, through collections of litter from beaches (e.g.
Ryan & Swanepoel 1996; Ocean Conservancy 2007),
the seabed (e.g. Donohue et al. 2001) or at sea
(Pichel et al. 2007). However, the most efficient and
cost-effective solution is to reduce the release of plastics
into the environment in the first place. Measures taken
to achieve this goal include education, both of the

1999

This journal is q 2009 The Royal Society

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

2000

P. G. Ryan et al.

Monitoring plastic debris

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.

general public and specific user groups (e.g. the plastics

industrys Operation Clean Sweep to prevent loss of
virgin pellets), and legislation (e.g. Annex V of
MARPOL banning the dumping of plastics at sea).
Assessing the efficacy of these measures requires
monitoring both the amounts of plastic in the environment and the rates at which plastic litter enters the
environment (Sheavly 2007).
Monitoring is a series of measures made to detect
change in the state of a system (Goldsmith 1991). It is
goal dependent, so the protocols used need to be tailored
to the questions being asked. The main questions
regarding plastic litter in the environment are:
(i) What is the abundance, distribution and composition of plastic litter, and are these attributes
changing over time?
(ii) What are the main sources of plastic litter, and
are they changing over time?
(iii) What are the impacts of plastic litter (environmental and economic) and are they changing
over time?
For all three questions, targets may be linked to specific
mitigation measures and may operate at a range of
spatial and temporal scales. For example, at a local
scale, monitoring may assess whether the implementation of a screening system in an urban catchment
reduces litter loads to target levels. At a larger scale,
we might test whether initiatives to reduce the loss of
virgin pellets have reduced the abundance of pellets
at sea. Similarly, monitoring may track a broad suite
of litter types or specific items that have particular
impacts (e.g. high risk of entangling animals) or are
indicators of specific sources of plastic litter.
This paper summarizes monitoring protocols used
to measure changes in plastic debris with a focus on
the marine environment because accumulation and
impacts of plastic litter appear to be most serious in
marine systems. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches and provide a set of
best-practice guidelines for monitoring the abundance
and impacts of plastics. Our paper links with that of
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

Barnes et al. (2009) summarizing trends in plastics in

the environment.
2. PLASTICS IN MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
Plastics dominate marine debris (Coe & Rogers 1997;
UNEP 2005). The proportion of plastic articles
among litter increases with distance from source
areas because they transport more easily than do
more dense materials such as glass or metal and
because they last longer than other low-density
materials such as paper. Most plastics are less dense
than water, but some are more dense (e.g. polyamide,
polyterephthalate, polyvinyl chloride). Floating plastic
debris has become a global problem because it is carried across ocean basins, contaminating even the most
remote islands (Barnes 2002). Plastics in the marine
environment derive from two main sources: rubbish
dumped from ships at sea and land-based sources
such as runoff from rivers, waste water systems,
wind-blown litter and recreational litter left on beaches
(Coe & Rogers 1997). To monitor plastic litter, we
need to understand the dynamic linkages between
litter sources and sinks (figure 1). As one moves offshore, there usually is an increase in the proportion
of ship-based litter and a decrease in total litter
loads, although aggregations may occur in mid-ocean
gyres (Pichel et al. 2007). In addition, the suite of
organisms exposed to plastic litter may differ between
coastal and oceanic waters. Unfortunately, the rates at
which plastic cycles through various pathways are
largely unknown. The combination of multiple diffuse
and point-source inputs and the non-random transportation of debris by winds and currents results in great
temporal and spatial variability in litter loads. Such
variability tends to mask long-term trends, requiring a
non-confounded sampling design with sufficiently large
replication in time and space. Superimposed on the
dynamic system of plastic flux is the gradual fragmentation of large plastic articles over time. Plastic litter
can be broadly divided into macrodebris (.20 mm
diameter), meso-debris (220 mm) and micro-debris
(,2 mm), although different authorities recommend
subtly different size limits (e.g. Cheshire et al. 2009).

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

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).

There is little information on the rates at which different

plastics degrade and fragment under different conditions
(e.g. Pritchard 1997; Andrady 2003), nor is it clear what
is the fate of all the plastic fragments (Thompson et al.
2004). We thus are challenged with trying to monitor a
highly dynamic system about which our understanding
is incomplete, and where the items being monitored
appear and disappear in response to various societal,
technological, environmental and political pressures.
Rees & Pond (1995) recognized three approaches to
marine litter monitoring: (i) beach surveys, (ii) at-sea
surveys and (iii) estimates of the amounts entering
the sea. We summarize each of these approaches, starting with beach surveys, because they are often regarded
as the simplest and most cost-effective way to monitor
large-scale trends in marine litter (Dixon & Dixon
1981; Ribic et al. 1992; Rees & Pond 1995). We discuss
the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and add
a fourth one: evaluating trends in interactions between
wildlife and plastic litter.

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)

beaches (Coe & Rogers 1997). Initial studies were

baseline surveys that summarized the abundance, distribution and composition of litter in various regions. We
cannot provide a comprehensive review of the more
than 100 published surveys of beach macro-debris
(see reviews by Pruter 1987; Derraik 2002), but there
are some consistent patterns: plastics dominate beach
litter in terms of numbers of items (Derraik 2002),
and litter loads are greater close to urban areas (e.g.
Garrity & Levings 1993; Willoughby et al. 1997),
increasing with numbers of visitors to beaches (e.g.
Frost & Cullen 1997). However, many authors note
the difficulty in comparing data among studies. This
difficulty is largely owing to differences in sampling
protocols and the type of data recorded. Some studies
record the numbers of items, some the mass of litter
and some do both. Litter is categorized by the type of
material, function or both. Most studies record only
fairly large items, although the lower limit varies from
10 to 100 mm and is often not reported. Even more
fundamentally, most studies record all litter between
the sea and the highest strandline on the upper shore,
whereas some measure litter within fixed areas, and
others only sample specific strandlines (e.g. Velander &
Mocogni 1999). Only a few studies have sampled
buried litter, even though it may account for a substantial

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

2002

P. G. Ryan et al.

Monitoring plastic debris

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

sample frequency (days)

type of litter recorded
other criteria

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.).

proportion of beach litter loads (Kusui & Noda 2003). In

addition, the width of beach sampled varies greatly, from
a few metres (e.g. Madzena & Lasiak 1997) to entire
beaches .20 km long (e.g. Edyvane et al. 2004).
Finally, most studies report standing stocks of litter,
whereas others assess the rate of accumulation
following removal of existing debris. This is a critical
distinction that requires detailed discussion.
(a) Standing-stock surveys
Standing-stock surveys can show gross changes in the
abundance and distribution of plastic litter (e.g. Ryan &
Moloney 1990; Willoughby et al. 1997; figure 2), but
there are significant problems with the interpretation
of results. The amount of litter on a beach is determined by several factors in addition to the abundance
of litter in adjacent coastal waters. These include local
currents and circulation patterns, beach structure
(slope, particle size, etc.), recent weather conditions
and associated beach dynamics (burial or exposure of
litter, especially on sandy beaches), local land-based
sources (e.g. beach recreation, proximity to poorly
managed landfill sites) and, at least for macro-debris,
any formal or informal cleanup efforts (OSPAR
Commission 2007a; Cheshire et al. 2009). Standing
stocks of beach litter reflect the long-term balance
between inputs (both local, land-based sources and
strandings) and removal (through export, burial, degradation and cleanups). The few studies of beach-litter
dynamics indicate that beach structure influences the
rate of litter turnover, with fairly rapid turnover
rates (312 months), although the fate of most items
is unknown (Garrity & Levings 1993; Bowman et al.
1998). However, persistent accumulations probably
occur at some beaches. Repeated measures of standing
stocks at such beaches may reflect the gradual accumulation of long-lasting debris rather than provide an index
of changes in the abundance of debris at sea.
Some of the factors affecting litter inputs and removal
are fairly constant and thus have little influence on monitoring programmes, but episodic events can mask longterm trends (e.g. storms carry large loads of land-based
litter to sea and re-suspend buried litter). Of greater concern is that human activities typically change over time.
Patterns of beach use tend to increase with growing
human populations, coastal development and improved
access. For example, many beaches categorized as rural
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

with little human influence in an initial survey of 50

South African beaches in 1984 (Ryan & Moloney
1990) have become resort beaches over the following
two decades. There has been a concomitant increase in
formal beach-cleaning efforts over this period (Ryan &
Swanepoel 1996). As a result, the numbers of plastic
bottles on beaches have stabilized at regularly cleaned
beaches, but have continued to increase at seldomcleaned beaches (figure 2). In comparison, small items
such as lids that are often overlooked by cleaning teams
have continued to increase at all beaches (figure 2).
Beach cleanups increasingly are used as an educational
tool (Storrier & McGlashan 2006; Ocean Conservancy
2007), altering litter loads on beaches, and thus need
to be considered when monitoring changes in beach
litter. Beachcombing also selectively removes items
from all but the most remote beaches. For example,
the abundance of fishing floats on uninhabited
Inaccessible Island, central South Atlantic, is two
orders of magnitude greater than similar beaches in
South Africa (Ryan & Watkins 1988). Thus although
standing-stock surveys can track changes in the composition of beach litter (Rees & Pond 1995), they are not
sufficiently sensitive to monitor changes in macro-litter
abundance (Escardo-Boomsma et al. 1995).
(b) Accumulation and loading rates
Many of the problems associated with monitoring
trends in litter with standing-stock surveys are avoided
by recording the rate at which litter accumulates on
beaches. This requires an initial cleanup to remove
all existing debris, followed by regular surveys that
record and remove all newly arrived debris. Such
surveys form the basis of major monitoring programmes established in the USA and western Europe
(table 1). Such fine-scale studies can reveal surprising
linkages between long-term patterns in litter accumulation rates and large-scale climatic cycles (Morishige
et al. 2007). However, they require much more effort
than do surveys of standing stocks, and substantial
investment to conduct them routinely over a sufficiently large number of sites to track trends in debris
abundance accurately (Sheavly 2007).
Escardo-Boomsma et al. (1995) made the distinction
between loading rate (the amount of litter arriving on a
beach) and net accumulation rate (the amount of litter
that accumulates per unit of time). Turnover of plastic

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

on beaches can happen rapidly. Scoring the amount
accumulated at a predetermined interval will influence
the estimate of accumulation rate. Most studies to date
have sampled at monthly or quarterly intervals (e.g.
Garrity & Levings 1993; Madzena & Lasiak 1997;
table 1), but some more frequent surveys have been conducted (two weeks, Morishige et al. 2007; 3 days, Vauk &
Schrey 1987; daily, Swanepoel 1995). There have been
few attempts to assess the impact of sampling interval
on estimates of accumulation rate. The US National
Marine Debris Monitoring Program (USMDMP)
found no difference in accumulation rate for samples collected at different intervals (Sheavly 2007), but failed to
report the range of intervals tested. Walker et al. (1997)
reported greater accumulation rates in winter, when
sampling was monthly, than in summer, when litter
could be sampled only at the end of the season; however,
it was not possible to discriminate whether this was a
sampling artefact or a seasonal difference in the rate of
litter accumulation. The daily accumulation rate of all
debris at two sites near Cape Town, South Africa, was
5060% greater by mass and 100600% greater by
number compared with weekly sampling (Swanepoel
1995). This suggests that the loading rate of small
items, in particular, is grossly underestimated by
weekly sampling. The actual magnitude of this effect
is dependent on turnover rates of debris, which are
influenced by local conditions (Bowman et al. 1998)
and the type of debris (in the Cape Town study, lighter
debris such as foamed polystyrene turned over
more rapidly, probably because it was blown away
by the wind). Of course, frequent surveys fail to measure
the rate of loss of stranded litter, but they provide the
best proxy for at-sea abundance of litter.
Additional issues need to be considered when planning accumulation surveys. The initial cleanup is unlikely to locate all debris, so several collections may be
necessary before the data reflect actual accumulation
rates. In addition, there remain the problems of lateral
drift from adjacent, uncleaned areas and exhumation of
buried debris. Lateral drift may be minor (Garrity &
Levings 1993) and can be addressed by cleaning buffer
zones on either side of the monitoring area. Pilot studies
tracking the movement of marked litter items should
help determine the appropriate buffer width, which is
likely to be site and season specific, linked to local current
and wind conditions. Exhumation of buried debris is
harder to tackle. Probably the best that can be achieved
is to record major changes in beach profile. Such records
might explain anomalies in the data series during
subsequent analysis.
Accumulation studies are more labour-intensive than
standing-stock surveys and require substantial resources
to be conducted at multiple sites. Well-trained volunteers can assist with the process (Sheavly 2007). A
less demanding alternative is to sample accumulation
rates sporadically, recording accumulation on a daily
or weekly basis for a period, then repeating the exercise
several years hence (e.g. Velander & Mocogni 1998).
However, consideration needs to be given to the variability in daily or weekly accumulation rates when deciding the appropriate duration for each bout of sampling.
Daily sampling is more variable (coefficient of variation
4760% by number, 6186% by mass) than weekly
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

P. G. Ryan et al.

2003

sampling (CV 2842% by number, 1938% by

mass; Swanepoel 1995; P. G. Ryan, unpublished data),
suggesting that longer intervals between surveys buffer
some of the short-term variability in accumulation
rates linked to local conditions (e.g. wind direction and
sea state).
(c) Sampling meso- and micro-plastics
Meso- and micro-debris on beaches differ from macrodebris, in that these categories of litter are less likely to
derive directly from beach users and are not targeted by
most cleanup efforts (floatation systems that separate
out low-density debris are costly and not widely
used). Accumulation studies are not feasible because
they require a thorough initial cleanup. It is possible
that changes in beach-cleaning regimes may cause
a bias if a substantial proportion of small plastic
fragments derive from the fragmentation of large litter
items in situ, but this problem does not apply to virgin
pellets. Repeated surveys of beach meso-debris can
detect changes in their abundance (e.g. Ryan &
Moloney 1990), but the results are hard to interpret if
the goal is to detect changes in the amount of debris
at sea. Further, without an understanding of the
dynamics of meso-debris on beaches, it is hard to predict how a change in the at-sea abundance of debris will
affect beach loads. If turnover in beach litter is rapid,
one would expect a decrease in the amount of litter at
sea to result in a decrease in beach load. However,
if beaches accumulate meso-debris, a decrease in litter
at sea would manifest in only a slowing in the rate of
increase in beach load. Changes in the proportions
of different debris types presumably indicate changes
in their relative abundance at sea.
Another problem with sampling meso- and microdebris on beaches is the design of representative
sampling protocols. Sampling of micro-debris is still in
its infancy, with baseline data largely confined to the
presence/absence of different polymers (Thompson
et al. 2004; Ng & Obbard 2006). Initial studies of
meso-debris were also largely qualitative, sufficient only
to detect gross changes in abundance (e.g. Gregory &
Ryan 1997). Quantitative estimates of meso-debris
have been obtained by sieving beach samples, typically
to a depth of approximately 50 mm, and sorting samples
including the use of floatation in sea water (e.g. Ryan &
Moloney 1990; McDermid & McMullen 2004).
However, little attention has been paid to sampling
design and statistical power. Although debris is concentrated in strandlines, point sampling (Moore, S. L.
et al. 2001; McDermid & McMullen 2004) is likely to
miss old, buried lines. Sieving a strip transect from the
most recent strandline to the back of the beach is a
more reliable way to characterize meso-debris loads
(e.g. Ryan & Moloney 1990).
(d) Best practice for beach surveys
The lack of consistency among surveys of beached
plastics to date results in part from different goals,
which include the need to assess the amount and composition of litter, to identify the sources of litter and to
monitor changes in litter loads. Although these goals
may favour different sampling approaches, there is

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

2004

P. G. Ryan et al.

Monitoring plastic debris

need for greater standardization. The United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) is currently
developing a set of guidelines to standardize beach
survey methods (Cheshire et al. 2009). The following
recommendations are based on our best understanding
of beach-litter dynamics and conform to the most
commonly employed practice where possible.
For standing-stock and accumulation studies, the
best approach is to record all litter from the sea edge
to the highest strandline (in most cases, the edge of
terrestrial vegetation). Ideally, both the numbers and
mass of plastic items should be recorded, but counts
may be sufficient for specific types of litter. Items
should be identified as accurately as possible, allowing
them to be categorized according to both composition
and function. Methodologies should explicitly state the
size range of litter items sampled. The minimum length
of beach sampled is determined by the abundance
of litter (de Araujo et al. 2006) and, for monitoring
purposes, it should be determined by a power analysis
based on estimates of variability in accumulation
data from pilot studies and on considerations of the
minimum rate of change to be detected (Ribic &
Ganio 1996). Ideally, sample widths should be at
least 50 m for standing stocks and 500 m for accumulation studies. Site selection is likely to be determined
by the monitoring question (e.g. remote beaches track
litter from ships and long-distance drift litter, whereas
urban beaches track local inputs). However, it is
important that sites be described adequately by
recording substratum, slope, exposure to the open
ocean, proximity to local litter sources, cleaning history, etc. (table 1). For most studies, it is best if no
beach-cleaning takes place, because cleaning significantly alters the abundance and composition of
debris (Moore, S. L. et al. 2001; Somerville et al.
2003). It is also crucial that the site can be relocated
accurately for repeated sampling.
Comparisons of standing stocks have shown marked
increases in some litter types (e.g. Ryan & Moloney
1990; Willoughby et al. 1997; figure 2), but this may
reflect long-term accumulation rather than absolute
increases in the amount of debris at sea. Accumulation
studies are preferred because they demonstrate unambiguous trends in macro-debris abundance at sea
(Ribic et al. 1992, 1997). Despite failing to demonstrate
major changes in debris accumulation rates (Sheavly
2007), the USMDMP provides the best model for
large-scale beach monitoring (table 1). However, it
would be valuable to monitor a broader spectrum of
litter types. Focusing on specific indicator groups can
be useful (e.g. Jozwiak 2005; Shigeru et al. 2006), but
it may fail to detect important changes in non-target
categories (Ribic 1998), including changes in plastic products in the waste stream resulting from novel packaging
applications. Ideally, monitoring should take place at a
network of sites, with analysis testing for common
trends across sites.
Meso-debris should be sampled by a combination
of sieving, dry picking and floatation to locate the
greatest proportion of plastic litter. Fourier-transform
infrared spectroscopy could be used to identify the
polymer type of fragments collected. Surveys should
sample the entire beach profile from the most recent
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

strandline to the back of the shore to a depth of

50 mm. Minimum transect width is again determined
by the abundance of litter, but should not be ,0.5 m.
Macro-debris sampled in this way can give an indication of buried litter loads compared with surface
macro-debris (Kusui & Noda 2003).
4. SURVEYS AT SEA
If the primary goal is to monitor changes in the
amount and composition of plastic debris at sea,
direct surveys avoid many of the complications of
beach dynamics and contamination by beach users.
However, at-sea surveys are complicated by ocean current dynamics, shipboard disposal and accidental loss
and are more costly and more challenging logistically,
given the intensive sampling needed to detect subtle
changes. Surveys at sea are also limited to assessing
standing stocks rather than accumulation rates.
Changes detected in the amounts of debris are the balance between inputs and losses and do not necessarily
reflect the efficacy of mitigation measures to reduce
losses of plastics into the environment.
(a) Floating and suspended debris
The abundance of floating plastics at sea can be estimated either by direct observation of large debris
items (e.g. Day et al. 1990a; Matsumura & Nasu
1997; Thiel et al. 2003; Pichel et al. 2007) or by net
trawls for smaller items (e.g. Carpenter & Smith
1972; Day & Shaw 1987; Ryan 1988a; Day et al.
1990b; Ogi et al. 1999; Moore, C. J. et al. 2001;
Yamashita & Tanimura 2007). Direct observations
rely on competent, motivated observers. Studies comparing detection ability show marked differences
among observers (e.g. Ryan & Cooper 1989), which
needs to be addressed if multiple observers are used
to monitor debris at sea. Counts of litter at sea can be
used to provide an index of abundance (number of
items per unit distance) or an estimate of abundance
based on fixed-width or line transects. Fixed-width
transects assume that all debris is detected, which
is unlikely unless transects are very narrow (e.g.
Willoughby et al. 1997). For line transects, the perpendicular distance to each item has to be estimated to
compensate for decreasing detection rate with distance from the observer (Buckland et al. 1993). This
method assumes that the probability of detection on
the transect line is 1, and there are problems with
variable detection rates depending on sea state, light
conditions and the size, colour and height above water
of plastic objects. Observations should be conducted
only on that side of the ship with the best viewing
conditions. Separate detection curves should be estimated for different sea states, and studies should state
the smallest size of items recorded.
Most surveys are conducted from ships or small
boats, but aerial surveys also have been used to
estimate the abundance of plastic litter at sea (LeckeMitchell & Mullin 1992) and to locate major aggregations of litter (Pichel et al. 2007). Aerial surveys cover
large areas and are less prone to changes in litter
detectability linked to wind strength and sea state,
but they only detect large litter items. As with

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

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.

ship-based surveys, unless inter-observer effects can be

strictly controlled, aerial surveys are more valuable for
detecting spatial differences in abundance than
for monitoring changes over time.
Net-based surveys are less subjective than direct
observations but are limited regarding the area that
can be sampled (net apertures 12 m and ships
typically have to slow down to deploy nets, requiring
dedicated ships time). The plastic debris sampled is
determined by net mesh size, with similar mesh sizes
required to make meaningful comparisons among
studies. Floating debris typically is sampled with a neuston or manta trawl net lined with 0.33 mm mesh
(figure 3). Given the very high level of spatial clumping
in marine litter (e.g. Ryan 1988a; Pichel et al. 2007),
large numbers of net tows are required to adequately
characterize the average abundance of litter at sea.
Long-term changes in plastic meso-litter have been
reported using surface net tows: in the North Pacific
Subtropical Gyre in 1999, plastic abundance was
335 000 items km22 and 5.1 kg km22 (Moore, C. J.
et al. 2001), roughly an order of magnitude greater
than samples collected in the 1980s (Day et al.
1990a,b). Similar dramatic increases in plastic debris
have been reported off Japan (Ogi et al. 1999).
However, caution is needed in interpreting such
findings, because of the problems of extreme spatial
heterogeneity, and the need to compare samples from
equivalent water masses.
To date, most studies have sampled floating plastic
debris, but some plastics are more dense than
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

seawater, making it important to sample mid-water

and bottom loads of plastic debris. Suspended debris
can be sampled with bongo nets with a 0.33 mm
mesh (Lattin et al. 2004). Few such surveys have
been conducted, but data from the eastern North
Pacific suggest that the abundance of suspended
plastic within 10 30 m of the sea surface averages
two orders of magnitude less than that of surface
plastics (AMRF, unpublished data). All subsurface
net tows should be deployed with a flowmeter to
assess the volume of water sampled. The continuous
plankton recorder (CPR) offers a valuable subsurface
tool to track changes in the distribution and composition of micro-plastic particles at sea, both spatially
and temporally (Thompson et al. 2004).

(b) Litter on the seabed

Surveys of macro-debris loads on the seabed have been
conducted with divers (e.g. Donohue et al. 2001;
Nagelkerken et al. 2001), submersibles and remoteoperated vehicles (Galgani et al. 2000) and trawl
surveys (e.g. Galil et al. 1995; Galgani et al. 2000;
Moore & Allen 2000; Lattin et al. 2004; OSPAR
Commission 2007b). Perhaps somewhat surprisingly,
plastics dominate macro-debris on the sea floor to an
extent similar to which they dominate floating litter
and beach debris. Just like stranded debris, plastic on
the seabed aggregates locally in response to local
sources and bottom topography (Galgani et al. 2000;
Moore & Allen 2000). The amount of plastic litter is

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

so great in some areas with large amounts of shipping

traffic that initiatives have been started to clean the
seabed with trawls (OSPAR Commission 2007b),
despite concerns about the ecological impacts of trawling. To date, most studies have measured standing
stocks of macro-debris, but some accumulation data
have been obtained following cleanups of shallow reefs
in Hawaii (Boland & Donohue 2003; Dameron et al.
2007). The rate of litter accumulation on these reefs
is correlated with initial standing stock and is a function
of reef exposure and depth (Dameron et al. 2007).
There has been little attention to the abundance of
meso- and micro-debris on the seabed. Epibenthic
trawls have found substantial plastic loads just above
the seabed in shallow coastal waters off southern
California (Lattin et al. 2004). Bottom sediments in
deeper waters can be sampled with a Van Veen grab
or similar device. Micro-plastics have been found in
subtidal sediments around the UK and Singapore
(Thompson et al. 2004; Ng & Obbard 2006).
(c) Best practice for at-sea surveys
Effective monitoring of floating plastics at-sea requires
huge sample sizes to overcome the very large spatial
heterogeneity in plastic litter. Stratified random
sampling can help with this issue, but it requires a
priori categorization of water masses into the relevant
sampling strata. If resources are available, probably
the best tool is to sample with neuston nets with a
0.33 mm mesh. Direct observations, often using
vessels of opportunity, are less resource-intensive, but
are fraught with potential biases linked to differences
in litter detectability. Such surveys provide only a
crude index of the abundance of floating litter.
Much less is known about the distribution and
abundance of mid-water plastics, but they probably
suffer the same sampling problems, with the added
complication of even lower abundances. The CPR is
a useful tool for long-term subsurface monitoring of
micro-particles.
Monitoring changes in benthic plastic litter is functionally similar to beach surveys, with the added complication of working underwater. Divers can replicate
beach sampling protocols in shallow water, but in
deeper waters there are greater issues with quantitatively
robust sampling owing to variation in trawl and grab
efficiency (linked to substratum type and other local
conditions). Trawl nets also become clogged, reducing
their efficiency and thus underestimating actual plastic
abundance. Remote cameras may provide a more
objective sampling strategy for benthic litter.

5. MONITORING AFFECTED SPECIES

One of the major concerns about the accumulation of
plastic debris in the ocean is the impact on the biota.
Consequently, it is sensible to monitor the rates at
which impacts occur, although it only provides information on specific types of plastic litter. The two
main impacts are entanglement and ingestion, but
monitoring other interactions with wildlife also can
detect useful trends, such as the amount of litter
incorporated in seabird nests (Hartwig et al. 2007).
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

120
numbers of entangled seals

P. G. Ryan et al.

(a)

100
80
60
40
20
0
1975

per cent of prions containing plastic

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

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

roughly doubled over the same period, suggesting that
there was no decrease in the amount of litter at sea and
that the total number of seals affected may have
increased (Arnould & Croxall 1995). This example
illustrates the need to interpret results with caution.
Entanglement tends to be quite rare (Laist 1997),
making it hard to obtain sufficient data to detect a significant change in the rate of entanglement. It is only
really feasible to use as an index of plastic litter if
there is constant search effort.

(b) Plastic ingestion

Ingestion of plastic debris occurs much more frequently
than entanglement, with almost all individuals of some
species containing ingested plastic (e.g. Ryan 1987;
Laist 1997; Robards et al. 1997). Indeed, the first indication that plastics were a problem in marine systems
came when plastic fragments were found in the stomachs
of seabirds in the 1960s. Prions Pachyptila spp. in
New Zealand showed a steady increase in the incidence
of plastic ingestion from the 1960s to the 1970s
(Harper & Fowler 1987; figure 4b), and 74 per cent of
albatross Phoebastria spp. chicks found dead on Laysan
Island, Hawaii, contained plastics in 1965 (Kenyon &
Kridler 1969). Seabirds that accumulate plastics in
their stomachs (especially petrels and storm-petrels,
Procellariiformes) are useful indicators of changes in the
amount and composition of plastic debris at sea. They
collect debris over large areas and can be sampled with
little cost by examining the stomach contents of beached
birds (Harper & Fowler 1987), birds killed accidentally
by fishing activities (Mallory et al. 2006; Ryan 2008) or
by examining regurgitated pellets of predators that feed
on seabirds (Ryan 2008).
Plastic loads in birds reflect regional differences in
the abundance of marine debris (Day et al. 1985;
van Franeker 1985; van Franeker & Bell 1985; Spear
et al. 1995). For example, the amount of ingested
plastic in Northern Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis in the
North Atlantic is greatest in highly contaminated
waters of the North Sea, where almost all birds contain
some plastic (van Franeker et al. 2005), decreasing to
only 36 per cent of birds in arctic Canada (Mallory
et al. 2006). Even within the North Sea, regional
differences are apparent, with average plastic loads
doubling from the Faroe Islands to Scotland and doubling again from Scotland to the southern North Sea
(van Franeker et al. 2005). These regional differences
suggest that there are marked differences in the abundance of meso-debris between these regions, provided
that the foraging areas of birds are largely confined to
these regions.
For monitoring purposes, it is important to understand the factors that influence the amount of plastic
in birds stomachs (Ryan 2008). Seabirds select the
types of plastic fragments they ingest (Day et al.
1985; Ryan 1987), but comparisons within species
should have a consistent bias. Plastic loads in
Northern Fulmars found dead on the Dutch coast
are affected by age but not by sex, season, level of starvation or cause of death (van Franeker et al. 2005).
Young birds typically contain more plastic than
adults, probably because of the transfer of plastic
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

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

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

2008

P. G. Ryan et al.

Monitoring plastic debris

user plastics

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

net aperture (m)

mesh size (mm)

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)

1997; Armitage & Roseboom 2000) or in customized

nets (table 2). However, one study in Melbourne,
Australia, released marked litter items in street-side
storm-water drains and then used schoolchildren to
locate them on surrounding beaches, thus establishing
the link between street litter and beach litter.
To date, most studies of litter in urban runoff have
focused on macro-debris (e.g. Marais & Armitage

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

2004; Marais et al. 2004). The most comprehensive
survey of small plastic litter has been conducted by
the Algalita Marine Research Foundation (AMRF)
in southern California (www.algalita.org; table 2),
which recorded up to 81 g m23 of small plastic items
in storm-water discharges. A key challenge is to cope
with the great temporal heterogeneity in plastic loads
linked to rainfall events. Litter loads build up between
rain events and are then flushed into the receiving
water body. Sampling high-flow events is complicated
by clogging of sampling nets or grids. Passive litter
traps risk blocking drains or losing samples through
the tearing of nets. Surveys of litter on land can also
provide useful information on debris abundance.
The AMRF conducted site inspections of plastic
converters in the Los Angeles basin to assess pellet
spillages, then re-surveyed these businesses following
the implementation of best management practices.
This intervention reduced pellet spillage by 80 per cent.

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

observers on vessels and by monitoring the use of port

reception facilities. Land-based sources can be monitored by sampling rivers, storm-water run-off and other
key sources. In tandem with appropriate education
programmes, measurement of sources can be effective
in promoting changes in disposal practices that
ultimately reduce the amounts of plastic entering
the environment.
We thank our colleagues and many volunteers who assisted
with data collection and tolerated the sometimes smelly
business of collecting beached birds and sorting litter.
P.G.R. and C.L.M. received financial support from the
National Research Foundation and the Plastics Federation
of South Africa. C.J.M. and the Algalita Foundation
received financial support for ocean sampling aboard ORV
Alguita from the Will J. Reid Foundation. Fulmar
monitoring in The Netherlands was commissioned by the
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management (VenW) and is possible thanks to volunteer
assistance from the Dutch Seabird Group (NZG). North
Sea wide monitoring was established by EU Interreg
support and is continued with funds from NYK Group
Europe Ltd and Chevron Upstream Europe.

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.

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

2010

P. G. Ryan et al.

Monitoring plastic debris

Coe, J. M. & Rogers, D. B. (eds) 1997 Marine debris: sources,

impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Dameron, O. J., Parke, M., Albins, M. A. & Brainard, R.
2007 Marine debris accumulation in the northwestern
Hawaiian Islands: an examination of rates and processes.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 423 433. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2006.11.019)
Day, R. H. & Shaw, D. G. 1987 Patterns of abundance of
pelagic plastic and tar in the North Pacific Ocean,
19761985. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18, 311 316. (doi:10.
1016/S0025-326X(87)80017-6)
Day, R. H., Wehle, D. H. S. & Coleman, F. C. 1985
Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In Proc.
Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris (eds
R. S. Shomura & H. O. Yoshida), pp. 344 386. US
Dept Commerce: NOAA Tech. Mem., NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-54.
Day, R. H., Shaw, D. G. & Ignell, S. E. 1990a The quantitative distribution and characteristics of marine debris in
the North Pacific Ocean, 19841988. In Proc. Second
International Conference on Marine Debris (eds R. S.
Shomura & M. L. Godfrey), pp. 182 211. US Dept
Commerce: NOAA Tech. Mem., NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.
Day, R. H., Shaw, D. G. & Ignell, S. E. 1990b The quantitative distribution and characteristics of neuston plastic
in the North Pacific Ocean, 19841988. In Proc. Second
International Conference on Marine Debris (eds R. S.
Shomura & M. L. Godfrey), pp. 247 266. US Dept
Commerce: NOAA Tech. Mem., NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.
de Araujo, M. C. B., Santos, P. J. P. & Costa, M. F. 2006 Ideal
width of transects for monitoring source-related categories
of plastics on beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52, 957961.
Derraik, J. G. B. 2002 The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44,
842 852. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5)
Dixon, T. R. & Dixon, T. J. 1981 Marine litter surveillance.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 12, 289 295. (doi:10.1016/0025326X(81)90078-3)
Donohue, M., Boland, R. C., Sramek, C. M. & Antonelis,
G. A. 2001 Derelict fishing gear in the northwestern
Hawaiian Islands: diving surveys and debris removal
in 1999 confirm threat to coral reef ecosystems. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 42, 1301 1312. (doi:10.1016/S0025326X(01)00139-4)
Durrum, E. 1997 The control of floating debris in an urban
river. In Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions (eds
J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers), pp. 351 358. New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Edyvane, K. S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P. W., Higham, J. S. &
Wace, N. M. 2004 Long-term marine litter monitoring
in the remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48, 10601075. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol
bul.2003.12.012)
Escardo-Boomsma, J., OHara, K. & Ribic, C. A. 1995
National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, vols 12.
Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Water.
Frost, A. & Cullen, M. 1997 Marine debris on northern
New South Wales beaches (Australia): sources and the
role of beach usage. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 348 352.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(96)00149-X)
Galgani, F. et al. 2000 Litter on the sea floor along European
coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 516527. (doi:10.1016/
S0025-326X(99)00234-9)
Galil, B. S., Golik, A. & Turkay, M. 1995 Litter at the
bottom of the sea: a sea bed survey in the eastern
Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30, 22 24. (doi:10.
1016/0025-326X(94)00103-G)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

Garrity, S. D. & Levings, S. C. 1993 Marine debris along

the Caribbean coast of Panama. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26,
317 324. (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(93)90574-4)
Goldsmith, F. B. (ed.) 1991 Monitoring for conservation and
ecology. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Gregory, M. R. 2009 Environmental implications of plastic
debris in marine settingsentanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. B 364, 20132025. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0265)
Gregory, M. R. & Andrady, A. L. 2003 Plastics in the marine
environment. In Plastics and the environment (ed. A. L.
Andrady), pp. 379 402. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gregory, M. R. & Ryan, P. G. 1997 Pelagic plastics and other
seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a review of Southern
Hemisphere perspectives. In Marine debris: sources,
impacts, and solutions (eds J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers),
pp. 4966. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Hanni, K. D. & Pyle, P. 2000 Entanglement of pinnipeds in
synthetic materials at South-east Farallon Island,
California, 19761998. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 10761081.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00050-3)
Harper, P. C. & Fowler, J. A. 1987 Plastic pellets in
New Zealand storm-killed prions (Pachyptila spp.),
1958 1977. Notornis 34, 65 70.
Hartwig, E., Clemens, T. & Heckroth, M. 2007 Plastic
debris as nesting material in a Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)
colony at the Jammerbugt, Northwest Denmark. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 54, 595597. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2007.01.027)
Henderson, J. R. 2001 A pre- and post-MARPOL Annex V
summary of Hawaiian Monk Seal entanglements and
marine debris accumulation in the northwestern
Hawaiian Islands, 19821998. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42,
584 589. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00204-6)
Jones, M. M. 1995 Fishing debris in the Australian marine
environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30, 2533. (doi:10.
1016/0025-326X(94)00108-L)
Jozwiak, T. 2005 Tendencies in the numbers of beverage
containers on the Polish coast in the decade from 1992
to 2001. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50, 8790. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.11.011)
Kenyon, K. W. & Kridler, E. 1969 Laysan Albatross swallow
indigestible matter. Auk 86, 339 343.
Klemchuk, P. P. 1990 Degradable plastics: a critical review.
Polym. Degrad. Stab. 27, 183 202. (doi:10.1016/01413910(90)90108-J)
Kusui, T. & Noda, M. 2003 International survey on the distribution of stranded and buried litter on beaches along
the Sea of Japan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47, 175 179.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00478-2)
Laist, D. W. 1997 Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of
marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive
list of species with entanglement and ingestion records.
In Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions (eds
J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers), pp. 99 140. New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Lattin, G. L., Moore, C. J., Zellers, A. F., Moore, S. L. &
Weisberg, S. B. 2004 A comparison of neustonic plastic
and zooplankton at different depths near the southern
Californian shore. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 291294.
(doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.020)
Lecke-Mitchell, K. M. & Mullin, K. 1992 Distribution and
abundance of large floating plastic in the north-central
Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24, 598 601. (doi:10.
1016/0025-326X(92)90279-F)
Madzena, A. & Lasiak, T. 1997 Spatial and temporal variations in beach litter on the Transkei coast of South
Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 900 907. (doi:10.1016/
S0025-326X(97)00052-0)

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

Monitoring plastic debris

Mallory, M. L., Robertson, G. J. & Moenting, A. 2006
Marine plastic debris in Northern Fulmars from Davis
Straight, Nunavut, Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52,
813 815. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.04.005)
Marais, M. & Armitage, N. 2004 The measurement and
reduction of urban litter entering stormwater drainage
systems: paper 2strategies for reducing the litter
in the stormwater drainage systems. Water SA 30,
469 482.
Marais, M., Armitage, N. & Wise, C. 2004 The measurement and reduction of urban litter entering stormwater
drainage systems: paper 1quantifying the problem
using the City of Cape Town as a case study. Water SA
30, 483 492.
Matsumura, S. & Nasu, K. 1997 Distribution of floating
debris in the North Pacific Ocean: sighting surveys
1986 1991. In Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions (eds J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers), pp. 1524.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
McDermid, K. J. & McMullen, T. L. 2004 Quantitative
analysis of small-plastic debris on beaches in the
Hawaiian archipelago. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48, 790 794.
(doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.10.017)
Moore, C. J. 2008 Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res.
108, 131 139. (doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.025)
Moore, S. L. & Allen, M. J. 2000 Distribution of anthropogenic and natural debris on the mainland shelf of the
southern California Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 8388.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00175-7)
Moore, C. J., Moore, S. L., Leecaster, M. K. & Weisberg,
S. B. 2001 A comparison of plastic and plankton in
the North Pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42,
1297 1300. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00114-X)
Moore, S. L., Gregorio, D., Carreon, M., Weisberg, S. B. &
Leecaster, M. K. 2001 Composition and distribution of
beach debris in Orange County, California. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 42, 241 245. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(00)
00148-X)
Morishige, C., Donohue, M. J., Flint, E., Swenson, C. &
Woolaway, C. 2007 Factors affecting marine debris deposition at French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands Marine National Monument, 19902006. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 54, 1162 1169. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2007.04.014)
Moser, M. L. & Lee, D. S. 1992 A fourteen-year survey of
plastic ingestion by western North Atlantic seabirds.
Colon. Waterbirds 15, 8394. (doi:10.2307/1521357)
Nagelkerken, I., Wiltjer, G. A. M. T., Debrot, A. O. & Pors,
J. L. P. J. 2001 Baseline study of submerged marine debris
at beaches in Curacao, West Indies. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42,
786 789. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00091-1)
Ng, K. L. & Obbard, J. P. 2006 Prevalence of microplastics
in Singapores coastal marine environment. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 52, 761767. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2005.11.017)
Ocean Conservancy 2007 International Coastal Cleanup
Report 2006: a world of difference. Washington, DC,
USA: Ocean Conservancy.
Ogi, H., Baba, N., Ishihara, S. & Shibata, Y. 1999 Sampling
of plastic pellets by two types of neuston net and plastic
pollution in the sea. Bull. Faculty Fisheries, Hokkaido
Univ. 50, 7791.
OSPAR Commission 2007a OSPAR pilot project on
monitoring marine beach litter: monitoring of marine litter
on beaches in the OSPAR region. London, UK: OSPAR
Commission.
OSPAR Commission 2007b Background report on fishing-forlitter activities in the OSPAR region. London, UK: OSPAR
Commission.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

P. G. Ryan et al.

2011

Page, B. et al. 2004 Entanglement of Australasian sea lions

and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other
marine debris before and after government and industry
attempts to reduce the problem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49,
3342. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.006)
Pichel, W. G., Churnside, J. H., Veenstra, T. S., Foley, D. G.,
Friedman, K. S., Brainard, R. E., Nicoll, J. B., Zheng, Q.
& Clemente-Colon, P. 2007 Marine debris collects within
the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 54, 12071211. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2007.04.010)
Pritchard, G. 1997 Plastics additives: an A-Z reference.
London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Pruter, A. T. 1987 Sources, quantities and distribution of
persisten plastics in the marine environment. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 18, 305 310. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X
(87)80016-4)
Rees, G. & Pond, K. 1995 Marine litter monitoring
programmesa review of methods with special reference
to national surveys. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30, 103 108.
(doi:10.1016/0025-326X(94)00192-C)
Ribic, C. A. 1998 Use of indicator items to monitor marine
debris on a New Jersey beach from 1991 to 1996. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 36, 887 891. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X
(98)00064-2)
Ribic, C. A. & Ganio, L. M. 1996 Power analysis for beach
surveys of marine debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32, 554 557.
(doi:10.1016/0025-326X(96)84575-9)
Ribic, C. A., Dixon, T. R. & Vining, I. 1992 Marine debris
survey manual. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108,
US Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
Ribic, C. A., Johnson, S. W. & Cole, C. A. 1997
Distribution, type, accumulation, and source of marine
debris in the US 19891993. In Marine debris: sources,
impacts, and solutions (eds J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers),
pp. 3547. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Robards, M. D., Gould, P. J. & Piatt, J. F. 1997 The highest
global concentrations and increased abundance of
oceanic plastic debris in the North Pacific: evidence
from seabirds. In Marine debris: sources, impacts, and
solutions (eds J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers), pp. 99140.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Ryan, P. G. 1987 The incidence and characteristics of plastic
particles ingested by seabirds. Mar. Environ. Res. 23,
175206. (doi:10.1016/0141-1136(87)90028-6)
Ryan, P. G. 1988a The characteristics and distribution of plastic particles at the sea-surface off the southwestern Cape
Province, South Africa. Mar. Environ. Res. 25, 249273.
(doi:10.1016/0141-1136(88)90015-3)
Ryan, P. G. 1988b Intraspecific variation in plastic ingestion
by seabirds and the flux of plastic through seabird populations. Condor 90, 446 452. (doi:10.2307/1368572)
Ryan, P. G. 2008 Seabirds indicate decreases in plastic pellet
litter in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Ocean.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1406 1409. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol
bul.2008.05.004)
Ryan, P. G. & Cooper, J. 1989 Observer precision and bird
conspicuousness during counts of birds at sea.
S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 8, 271 276.
Ryan, P. G. & Moloney, C. L. 1990 Plastic and other
artefacts on South African beaches: temporal trends in
abundance and composition. S. Afr. J. Sci. 86, 450 452.
Ryan, P. G. & Moloney, C. L. 1993 Marine litter keeps
increasing. Nature 361, 23. (doi:10.1038/361023a0)
Ryan, P. G. & Swanepoel, D. 1996 Cleaning beaches: sweeping litter under the carpet. S. Afr. J. Sci. 92, 275 276.
Ryan, P. G. & Watkins, B. P. 1988 Accumulation of stranded
plastic objects and other artefacts at Inaccessible Island,
central South Atlantic Ocean. S. Afr. J. Antarct. Res. 18,
1113.

Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 16, 2013

2012

P. G. Ryan et al.

Monitoring plastic debris

Sheavly, S. B. 2007 National Marine Debris Monitoring

Program: final program report, data analysis and summary.
Washington, DC, USA: Ocean Conservancy.
Shigeru, F., Azusa, K. & Haruyuki, K. 2006 Monitoring
marine debris using disposable lighters as an indicator.
J. Japan Soc. Waste Manage. Experts 17, 117124.
Somerville, S. E., Miller, K. L. & Mair, J. M. 2003
Assessment of the aesthetic quality of a selection of
beaches in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
46, 11841190. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00126-7)
Spear, L. B., Ainley, D. G. & Ribic, C. A. 1995 Incidence of
plastic in seabirds from the Tropical Pacific, 1984 1991:
relation with distribution of species, sex, age, season, year
and body weight. Mar. Environ. Res. 40, 123 146.
(doi:10.1016/0141-1136(94)00140-K)
Storrier, K. L. & McGlashan, D. J. 2006 Development
and management of a coastal litter campaign: the
voluntary coastal partnership approach. Mar. Policy 30,
189 196. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2005.01.002)
Swanepoel, D. 1995 An analysis of beach debris accumulation in Table Bay, Cape Town, South Africa. MSc
thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I., Vasquez, N. & Macaya, E. 2003
Floating marine debris in coastal waters of the SEPacific (Chile). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46, 224231. (doi:10.
1016/S0025-326X(02)00365-X)
Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A.,
Rowland, S. J., John, A. W. G., McGonigle, D. &
Russell, A. E. 2004 Lost at sea: where is all the plastic?
Science 304, 838. (doi:10.1126/science.1094559)
Thompson, R. C., Swan, S. H., Moore, C. J. & vom Saal, F. S.
2009a Our plastic age. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1973
1976. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0054)
Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vom Saal, F. S. & Swan, S. H.
2009b Plastics, the environment and human health:
current consensus and future trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
364, 21532166. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)

UNEP 2005 Marine litter, an analytical overview. Nairobi,

Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.
van Franeker, J. A. 1985 Plastic ingestion in the North
Atlantic Fulmar. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16, 367 369.
van Franeker, J. A. & Bell, P. J. 1985 Plastic ingestion by petrels
breeding in Antarctica. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19, 672674.
van Franeker, J. A. et al. 2005 Save the North Sea Fulmar
Study 20022004: a regional pilot project for the FulmarLitter-EcoQO in the OSPAR area. Alterra-rapport 1162,
Alterra, Wageningen. See www.zeevogelgroep.nl.
Vauk, G. J. M. & Schrey, E. 1987 Litter pollution from ships
in the German Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18, 316319.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(87)80018-8)
Velander, K. & Mocogni, M. 1998 Maritime litter and
sewage contamination at Cramond Beach Edinburgha
comparative study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38, 1134 1140.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00143-5)
Velander, K. & Mocogni, M. 1999 Beach litter sampling
strategies: is there a best method? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38,
1134 1140. (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00143-5)
Vlietstra, L. S. & Parga, J. A. 2002 Long-term changes in the
type, but not amount, of ingested plastic particles in
short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern Bering Sea.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 945 955. (doi:10.1016/S0025326X(02)00130-3)
Walker, T. R., Reid, K., Arnould, J. P. Y. & Croxall, J. P.
1997 Marine debris surveys at Bird Island, South
Georgia 19901995. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 6165.
(doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(96)00053-7)
Willoughby, N. G., Sangkoyo, H. & Lakaseru, B. O. 1997
Beach litter: an increasing and changing problem for
Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 469478. (doi:10.1016/
S0025-326X(96)00141-5)
Yamashita, R. & Tanimura, A. 2007 Floating plastic in the
Kuroshio Current area, western North Pacific Ocean.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 485 488. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol
bul.2006.11.012)