research paper on ocean pollution

For Immediate Release

New study takes comprehensive look at marine pollution.

December 3, 2020

Paper finds ocean pollution is a complex mix of chemicals and materials, primarily land-based in origin, with far-reaching consequences for environmental and human health, but there are options available for world leaders

For centuries, the ocean has been viewed as an inexhaustible receptacle for the byproducts of human activity. Today, marine pollution is widespread and getting worse and, in most countries, poorly controlled with the vast majority of contaminants coming from land-based sources. That’s the conclusion of a new study by an international coalition of scientists taking a hard look at the sources, spread, and impacts of ocean pollution worldwide.

The study is the first comprehensive examination of the impacts of ocean pollution on human health. It was published December 3 in the online edition of the Annals of Global Health and released the same day at the Monaco International Symposium on Human Health & the Ocean in a Changing World, convened in Monaco and online by the Prince Albert II de Monaco Foundation, the Centre Scientifique de Monaco and Boston College.

“This paper is part of a global effort to address questions related to oceans and human health,” said Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) toxicologist and senior scientist John Stegeman who is second author on the paper. “Concern is beginning to bubble up in a way that resembles a pot on the stove. It’s reaching the boiling point where action will follow where it’s so clearly needed.”

Despite the ocean’s size—more than two-thirds of the planet is covered by water—and fundamental importance supporting life on Earth, it is under threat, primarily and paradoxically from human activity. The paper, which draws on 584 peer-reviewed scientific studies and independent reports, examines six major contaminants: plastic waste, oil spills, mercury, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, and nutrients, as well as biological threats including harmful algal blooms and human pathogens.

It finds that ocean chemical pollution is a complex mix of substances, more than 80% of which arises from land-based sources. These contaminants reach the oceans through rivers, surface runoff, atmospheric deposition, and direct discharges and are often heaviest near the coasts and most highly concentrated along the coasts of low- and middle-income countries. Waters most seriously impacted by ocean pollution include the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, and Asian rivers. For the many ocean-based ecosystems on which humans rely, these impacts are exacerbated by global climate change. According to the researchers, all of this has led to a worldwide human health impacts that fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations in the Global South, making it a planetary environmental justice problem, as well.

In addition to Stegeman, who is also director of the NSF- and NIH-funded Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Human Health , WHOIbiologists Donald Anderson and Mark Hahn , and chemist Chris Reddy also contributed to the report. Stegeman and the rest of the WHOI team worked on the analysis with researchers from Boston College’s Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, directed by the study’s lead author and Professor of Biology Philip J. Landrigan, MD. Anderson led the report’s section on harmful algal blooms, Hahn contributed to a section on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with Stegeman, and Reddy led the section on oil spills. The Observatory, which tracks efforts to control pollution and prevent pollution-related diseases that account for 9 million deaths worldwide each year, is a program of the new Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society, part of a $300-million investment in the sciences at BC. Altogether, over 40 researchers from institutions across the United States, Europe and Africa were involved in the report.

In an introduction printed in Annals of Global Health , Prince Albert of Monaco points out that their analysis, in addition to providing a global wake-up, serves as a call to mobilize global resolve to curb ocean pollution and to mount even greater scientific efforts to better understand its causes, impacts, and cures.

“The link between ocean pollution and human health has, for a long time, given rise to very few studies,” he says. “Taking into account the effects of ocean pollution—due to plastic, water and industrial waste, chemicals, hydrocarbons, to name a few—on human health should mean that this threat must be permanently included in the international scientific activity.”

The report concludes with a series of urgent recommendations. It calls for eliminating coal combustion, banning all uses of mercury, banning single-use plastics, controlling coastal discharges, and reducing applications of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. It argues that national, regional and international marine pollution control programs must extend to all countries and where necessary supported by the international community. It calls for robust monitoring of all forms of ocean pollution, including satellite monitoring and autonomous drones. It also appeals for the formation of large, new marine protected areas that safeguard critical ecosystems, protect vulnerable fish stocks, and ultimately enhance human health and well-being.

Most urgently, the report calls upon world leaders to recognize the near-existential threats posed by ocean pollution, acknowledge its growing dangers to human and planetary health, and take bold, evidence-based action to stop ocean pollution at its source.

“The key thing to realize about ocean pollution is that, like all forms of pollution, it can be prevented using laws, policies, technology, and enforcement actions that target the most important pollution sources,” said Professor Philip Landrigan, MD, lead author and Director of the Global Observatory on Pollution on Health and of the Global Public Health and the Common Good Program at Boston College. “Many countries have used these tools and have successfully cleaned fouled harbors, rejuvenated estuaries, and restored coral reefs. The results have been increased tourism, restored fisheries, improved human health, and economic growth. These benefits will last for centuries.”

The report is being released in tandem with the Declaration of Monaco: Advancing Human Health & Well-Being by Preventing Ocean Pollution, which was read at the symposium’s closing session. Endorsed by the scientists, physicians and global stakeholders who participated in the symposium in-person and virtually, the declaration summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the Monaco Commission on Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Based on the recognition that all life on Earth depends on the health of the seas, the authors call on leaders and citizens of all nations to “safeguard human health and preserve our Common Home by acting now to end pollution of the ocean.”

“This paper is a clarion call for all of us to pay renewed attention to the ocean that supports life on Earth and to follow the directions laid out by strong science and a committed group of scientists,” said Rick Murray, WHOI Deputy Director and Vice President for research and a member of the conference steering committee. “The ocean has sustained humanity throughout the course of our evolution—it’s time to return the favor and do what is necessary to prevent further, needless damage to our life planetary support system.”

Funding for this work was provided in part by the U.S. Oceans and Human Health Program (NIH grant P01ES028938 and National Science Foundation grant OCE-1840381), the Centre Scientifique de Monaco, the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, the Government of the Principality of Monaco, and Boston College.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) is a private, non-profit organization on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930, its primary mission is to understand the ocean and its interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate an understanding of the ocean’s role in the changing global environment. WHOI’s pioneering discoveries stem from an ideal combination of science and engineering—one that has made it one of the most trusted and technically advanced leaders in basic and applied ocean research and exploration anywhere. WHOI is known for its multidisciplinary approach, superior ship operations, and unparalleled deep-sea robotics capabilities. We play a leading role in ocean observation, and operate the most extensive suite of data-gathering platforms in the world. Top scientists, engineers, and students collaborate on more than 800 concurrent projects worldwide—both above and below the waves—pushing the boundaries of knowledge and possibility. For more information, please visit www.whoi.edu

Loading metrics

Open Access

Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and public health

* E-mail: [email protected] (LG); [email protected] (JE)

Affiliation Public Library of Science, San Francisco, California, United States of America

Affiliation Center for the Advancement of Public Action, Bennington College; Beyond Plastics, Bennington, Vermont, United States of America

• Liza Gross, 
• Judith Enck

Published: March 30, 2021

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001131
• Reader Comments

A new collection of evidence-based commentaries explores critical challenges facing scientists and policymakers working to address the potential environmental and health harms of microplastics. The commentaries reveal a pressing need to develop robust methods to detect, evaluate, and mitigate the impacts of this emerging contaminant, most recently found in human placentas.

Citation: Gross L, Enck J (2021) Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and public health. PLoS Biol 19(3): e3001131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001131

Copyright: © 2021 Gross, Enck. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: Liza Gross is a current paid employee of the Public Library of Science.

The explosive production of affordable plastic goods during the 1950s ushered in an era of disposable living, fueled by an addiction to convenience and consumerism, that has created one of the world’s most vexing pollution problems. Plastic, for all its uses, has left a trail of debris from the deepest ocean trenches to the remotest polar reaches. Plastic pollutes throughout its life cycle, from its beginnings as a by-product of greenhouse gas-emitting oil and natural gas refining to its degradation-resistant end as increasingly fragmented shards of micro-and nanoplastics in atmospheric currents, alpine snow, estuaries, lakes, oceans, and soils. Researchers are finding microplastics in the gut or tissue of nearly every living thing they examine, including the placentas of unborn children.

The first sign of this burgeoning crisis came nearly half a century ago, when marine biologists first spotted tiny plastic pellets stuck to tiny marine organisms and seaweed in the North Atlantic’s Sargasso Sea. Describing their discovery in 1972, the scientists predicted, presciently, that “increasing production of plastics, combined with present waste disposal practices, will probably lead to greater concentrations on the sea surface” [ 1 ].

Researchers have struggled to keep tabs on plastic production and waste ever since. The first global assessment of mass-produced plastics, reported in 2017, estimated that manufacturers had produced 8,300 million metric tons of virgin plastics, creating 6,300 million metric tons of plastic waste—with only 9% recycled, 12% incinerated, and the rest either piling up in landfills or entering the environment [ 2 ].

Some 15 million metric tons of plastic enters the oceans every year [ 3 ], choking marine mammals, invading the guts of fish and seabirds, and posing unknown risks to the animals, and people, who eat them. Plastics release toxic chemicals added during manufacturing as they splinter into smaller and smaller fragments, with half-lives ranging from 58 to 1,200 years [ 4 ]. Persistent organic pollutants have a high affinity for plastic particles, which glom on to these contaminants as do pathogens in the ocean, presenting additional risks to marine life and the food web. Scientists once viewed freshwater lakes and rivers as primarily conduits for plastic, delivering trash from land to the sea, but now realize they’re also repositories.

Plastic production increased from 2 million metric tons a year in 1950 to 380 million metric tons by 2015 and is expected to double by 2050 [ 2 ]. Petrochemical companies’ embrace of fracking has exacerbated the crisis by producing large amounts of ethane, a building block for plastic.

Recognizing the scope and urgency of addressing the plastic pollution crisis, PLOS Biology is publishing a special collection of commentaries called “Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and public health.”

In commissioning the collection, we aimed to illuminate critical questions about microplastics’ effects on environmental and human health and explore current challenges in addressing those questions. The collection features three evidence-based commentaries that address gaps in understanding while flagging research priorities for improving methods to detect, evaluate, and mitigate threats associated with this emerging contaminant.

Environmental ecotoxicologist Scott Coffin and colleagues address recent government efforts to assess and reduce deleterious effects of microplastics, which challenge traditional risk-based regulatory frameworks due to their particle properties, diverse composition, and persistence. In their Essay, “Addressing the environmental and health impacts of microplastics requires open collaboration between diverse sectors” [ 5 ], the authors use California as a case study to suggest strategies to deal with these uncertainties in designing research, policy, and regulation, drawing on parallels with a similar class of emerging contaminants (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).

In “Tackling the toxics in plastics packaging” [ 6 ], environmental toxicologist Jane Muncke focuses on a major driver of the global plastic pollution crisis: single-use food packaging. Our throwaway culture has led to the widespread use of plastic packaging for storing, transporting, preparing, and serving food, along with efforts to reduce plastic waste by giving it new life as recycled material. But these efforts ignore evidence that chemicals in plastic migrate from plastic, making harmful chemicals an unintentional part of the human diet. Addressing contamination from food packaging is an urgent public health need that requires integrating all existing knowledge, she argues.

Much early research on microplastics focused on ocean pollution. But the ubiquitous particles appear to be interfering with the very fabric of the soil environment itself, by influencing soil bulk density and the stability of the building blocks of soil structure, argue Matthias Rillig and colleagues in their Essay. Microplastics can affect the carbon cycle in numerous ways, for example, by being carbon themselves and by influencing soil microbial processes, plant growth, or litter decomposition, the authors argue in “Microplastic effects on carbon cycling processes in soils” [ 7 ]. They call for “a major concerted effort” to understand the pervasive effects of microplastics on the function of soils and terrestrial ecosystems, a monumental feat given the immense diversity of the particles’ chemistry, aging, size, and shape.

The scope and effects of plastic pollution are too vast to be captured in a few commentaries. Microplastics are everywhere and researchers are just starting to get a handle on how to study the influence of this emerging contaminant on diverse environments and organisms. But as the contributors to this collection make clear, the pervasiveness of microplastics makes them nearly impossible to avoid. And the uncertainty surrounding their potential to harm people, wildlife, and the environment, they show, underscores the urgency of developing robust tools and methods to understand how a material designed to make life easier may be making it increasingly unsustainable.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar

Advertisement

Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution

• Original Research
• Published: 02 August 2021
• Volume 32 , pages 145–160, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Kathryn A. Willis 1 , 2 , 5   na1 ,
• Catarina Serra-Gonçalves 1 , 3 ,
• Kelsey Richardson 1 , 2 , 5 ,
• Qamar A. Schuyler 2 ,
• Halfdan Pedersen 8 ,
• Kelli Anderson 4 ,
• Jonathan S. Stark 1 , 7 ,
• Joanna Vince 1 , 5 ,
• Britta D. Hardesty 1 , 2 ,
• Chris Wilcox 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Barbara F. Nowak 1 , 4 ,
• Jennifer L. Lavers 3 ,
• Jayson M. Semmens 3 ,
• Dean Greeno 1 , 6 ,
• Catriona MacLeod 1 , 3 ,
• Nunnoq P. O. Frederiksen 9 , 10 &
• Peter S. Puskic   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1352-8843 1 , 3   na1  

15k Accesses

27 Citations

28 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In the age of the Anthropocene, the ocean has typically been viewed as a sink for pollution. Pollution is varied, ranging from human-made plastics and pharmaceutical compounds, to human-altered abiotic factors, such as sediment and nutrient runoff. As global population, wealth and resource consumption continue to grow, so too does the amount of potential pollution produced. This presents us with a grand challenge which requires interdisciplinary knowledge to solve. There is sufficient data on the human health, social, economic, and environmental risks of marine pollution, resulting in increased awareness and motivation to address this global challenge, however a significant lag exists when implementing strategies to address this issue. This review draws upon the expertise of 17 experts from the fields of social sciences, marine science, visual arts, and Traditional and First Nations Knowledge Holders to present two futures; the Business-As-Usual, based on current trends and observations of growing marine pollution, and a More Sustainable Future, which imagines what our ocean could look like if we implemented current knowledge and technologies. We identify priority actions that governments, industry and consumers can implement at pollution sources, vectors and sinks, over the next decade to reduce marine pollution and steer us towards the More Sustainable Future.

Graphic abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Pollution in Marine Ecosystem: Impact and Prevention

The Oceans and Their Challenge to Conserve Marine Biodiversity

Leveraging Multi-target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The ocean has historically been a sink for pollution, leaving modern society with significant ocean pollution legacy issues to manage (Elliott and Elliott 2013 ; O'Shea et al. 2018 ). People continue to pollute the ocean at increasing rates creating further damage to marine ecosystems. This results in detrimental impacts on livelihoods, food security, marine navigation, wildlife and well-being, among others (Krushelnytska 2018 ; Lebreton and Andrady 2019 ; Nichols 2014 ; Seitzinger et al. 2002 ). As pollution presents a multitude of stressors for ocean life, it cannot be explored in isolation (Khan et al., 2018 ). Thus, global coordinated efforts are essential to manage the current and future state of the ocean and to minimise further damage from pollution (Krushelnytska 2018 ; Macleod et al. 2016 ; O'Brien et al. 2019 ; Williams et al. 2015 ). Efforts are also needed to tackle key questions, such as how do pollutants function in different environments, and interact with each other?

Pollution can be broadly defined as any natural or human-derived substance or energy that is introduced into the environment by humans and that can have a detrimental effect on living organisms and natural environments (UNEP 1982 ). Pollutants, including light and sound in addition to the more commonly recognised forms, can enter the marine environment from a multitude of sources and transport mechanisms (Carroll et al. 2017 ; Depledge et al. 2010 ; Longcore and Rich 2004 ; Williams et al. 2015 ). These may include long range atmospheric movement (Amunsen et al. 1992 ) and transport from inland waterways (Lebreton et al. 2017 ).

Current pollutant concentrations in the marine environment are expected to continue increasing with growth in both global population and product production. For example, global plastic production increased by 13 million tonnes in a single year (PlasticsEurope 2018 ), with rising oceanic plastic linked to such trends (Wilcox et al. 2020 ). Pharmaceutical pollution is predicted to increase with population growth, resulting in a greater range of chemicals entering the ocean through stormwater drains and rivers (Bernhardt et al. 2017 ; Rzymski et al. 2017 ). Additionally, each year new chemical compounds are produced whose impacts on the marine environment are untested (Landrigan et al. 2018 ).

Marine pollution harms organisms throughout the food-web in diverse ways. Trace amounts of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in organisms have the capacity to cause physiological harm (Capaldo et al. 2018 ; Hoffman et al. 2011 ; Salamat et al. 2014 ) and alter behaviours (Brodin et al. 2014 ; Mattsson et al. 2017 ). Artificial lights along coasts at night can disrupt organism navigation, predation and vertical migration (Depledge et al. 2010 ). Pharmaceutical pollutants, such as contraceptive drugs, have induced reproductive failure and sex changes in a range of fish species (Lange et al. 2011 ; Nash et al. 2004 ). Furthermore, some pollutants also have the capacity to bioaccumulate, which means they may become more concentrated in higher trophic marine species (Bustamante et al. 1998 ; Eagles-Smith et al. 2009 ).

Pollution also poses a huge economic risk. Typically, the majority of consequences from pollution disproportionately impact poorer nations who have less resources to manage and remediate these impacts (Alario and Freudenburg 2010 ; Beaumont et al. 2019 ; Golden et al. 2016 ; Landrigan et al. 2018 ). Marine pollution can negatively impact coastal tourism (Jang et al. 2014 ), waterfront real estate (Ofiara and Seneca 2006 ), shipping (Moore 2018 ) and fisheries (Hong et al. 2017 ; Uhrin 2016 ). Contamination of seafood poses a perceived risk to human health, but also results in a significant financial cost for producers and communities (Ofiara and Seneca 2006 ; White et al. 2000 ). Additionally, current remediation strategies for most pollutants in marine and coastal ecosystems are costly, time consuming and may not prove viable in global contexts (Ryan and Jewitt 1996 ; Smith et al. 1997 ; Uhrin 2016 ).

Reducing marine pollution is a global challenge that needs to be addressed for the health of the ocean and the communities and industries it supports. The United Nations proposed and adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) designed to guide future developments and intended to be achieved by 2030. It has flagged the reduction of marine pollution as a key issue underpinning the achievement of SDG 14, Life Under Water, with target 14.1 defined as “prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution” by 2025 (United Nations General Assembly 2015 ). In the UN Decade of Ocean Science (2021–2030), one of the six ocean outcomes relates specifically to the identification and reduction of marine pollution (A Clean Ocean; UN DOS SD). The task of reducing marine pollution is daunting—the ocean is so vast that cleaning it seems almost impossible. However, effective management of pollution at its source is a successful way to reduce it and protect the ocean (DeGeorges et al. 2010 ; Rochman 2016 ; Simmonds et al. 2014 ; Zhu et al. 2008 ). Strategies, implemented locally, nationally and globally, to prevent, or considerably reduce pollution inputs in combination with removing pollutants from the marine environment (Sherman and van Sebille 2016 ) will allow healthy ocean life and processes to continue into the future. However, such strategies need to be implemented on a collective global scale, and target pollution at key intervals from their creation to their use and disposal.

To help explain how society can most effectively address pollution sources and clean the ocean, we depict two different future seas scenarios by 2030. The first is a Business-As-Usual scenario, where society continues to adhere to current management and global trends. The second is a technically achievable, more sustainable future that is congruent with the SDGs, and where society actively take actions and adopt sustainable solutions. We then explore pollution in three ‘zones’ of action; at the source(s), along the way, and at sink, in the context of river or estuarine systems, as water-transported pollution is commonly associated with urban centres alongside river systems (Alongi and McKinnon 2005 ; Lebreton et al. 2017 ; Lohmann et al. 2012 ; Seitzinger and Mayorga 2016 ).

As a group of interdisciplinary scientists, with expertise in marine pollution, we participated in the Future Seas project ( www.FutureSeas2030.org ), which identified marine pollution as one of 12 grand challenges, and followed the method outlined in Nash et al. ( 2021 ). The process involved a structured discussion to explore the direction of marine social-ecological systems over the course of the UN Decade of Ocean Science, specific to marine pollution. The discussion resulted in developing two alternate future scenarios of marine pollution, a ‘Business-As-Usual’ future that is the current trajectory based on published evidence, and a ‘more sustainable’ future that is technically achievable using existing and emerging knowledge and is consistent with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. To ensure a wide range of world views were present in the future scenarios, Indigenous Leaders and Traditional Knowledge Holders from around the world came together and presented their views, experiences and identified their priorities to remove and reduce marine pollution (Nash et al. 2021 ; Fischer et al. 2020 ).

We defined the scope of our paper by identifying key pollutant sources, types and drivers of marine pollution (Table 1 for pollutant sources and types; see " Future Narratives " below). We then developed a list of feasible actions that could drive the current state of the ocean towards a cleaner, more sustainable future (Supplementary Table 1). From these actions we deliberated as a group and identified ten actions that have high potential to be implemented within the next decade and significantly reduce marine pollution (Fig.  1 ). The linkages between our ten priority actions and the SDGs are outlined in Supplementary Table 2.

source of the pollutant (at the source), once the pollutant is released (along the way), once the pollutant has entered the ocean (at the sink) or at multiple points along the system (bottom arrow). * indicates actions that could be successfully implemented well before the next decade to significantly reduce pollution

Ten actions that can substantially reduce the amount of pollution entering the marine environment. Actions are placed along the system where they could have the greatest impact at reducing pollution: at the

Future narratives

We identified three broad sources of marine pollution: land-based industry, sea-based industry, and municipal-based sources and the most significant types of pollution characteristic of each source (Table 1 ). We framed our two contrasting future scenarios (Business-As-Usual and a technically feasible sustainable future), around these pollutants and their sources (Table 2 ). In addition to these future narratives, we reflect on the present impacts that pollution is currently having on the livelihoods and cultures of First Nations peoples and Traditional Knowledge Holders. We include the narratives of the palawa pakana people, from lutruwita/Tasmania (Table 3 ), and the Greenlandic Inuit people (Table 4 ).

We identified three key drivers that will substantially contribute to an increasingly polluted ocean if no actions are taken to intervene; societal behaviours, equity and access to technologies, and governance and policy. Alternatively, these pollution drivers can be viewed as opportunities to implement strategic measures that shift the trajectory from a polluted marine environment to a healthier marine environment. Below we highlight how current societal behaviours, lack of implementation of technological advancements, and ocean governance and policy making contribute to an increasingly polluted ocean and drive society towards a BAU future (Table 2 ). Importantly, we discuss how changes in these behaviours, and improvements in technologies and governance can lead to reduced marine pollution, ultimately driving a cleaner, more sustainable ocean for the future.

Societal behaviour

Societal behaviours that drive increasing pollution in the world’s ocean.

A consumer culture that prioritizes linear production and consumption of cheap, single-use materials and products over circular product design and use (such as, reusable products or products that are made from recycled material), ultimately drives the increased creation of materials. Current production culture is often aligned with little consideration for the socioeconomic and environmental externalities associated with the pollution that is generated from a product’s creation to its disposal (Foltete et al. 2011 ; Schnurr et al. 2018 ). Without a dedicated management strategy for the fate of products after they have met their varying, often single-use objectives, these materials will enter and accumulate in the surrounding environment as pollution (Krushelnytska 2018 ; Sun et al. 2012 ). Three examples of unsustainable social behaviours that lead to products and materials ending up as marine pollution are: (1) the design and creation of products that are inherently polluting. For example, agricultural chemicals or microplastics and chemicals in personal care and cosmetic products. (2) social behaviours that normalize and encourage consumption of single-use products and materials. For example, individually wrapped vegetables or take-away food containers. (3) low awareness of the impacts and consequences and therefore the normalization of polluting behaviours. For example, noise generation by ships at sea (Hildebrand 2009 ) or the large application of fertilizers to agricultural products (Sun et al. 2012 ).

Shifting societal behaviours towards sustainable production and consumption

A cleaner ocean with reduced pollution will require a shift in production practices across a wide array of industries, as well as a shift in consumer behaviour. Presently, consumers and industry alike are seeking science-based information to inform decision making (Englehardt 1994 ; Vergragt et al. 2016 ). Consumers have the power to demand change from industries through purchasing power and social license to operate (Saeed et al. 2019 ). Policymakers have the power to enforce change from industries through regulations and reporting. Aligning the values between producers, consumers and policymakers will ensure best practices of sustainable consumption and production are adopted (Huntington 2017 ; Moktadir et al. 2018 ; Mont and Plepys 2008 ). Improved understanding of the full life cycle of costs, consequences (including internalised externalities, such as the polluter-pays-principle (Schwartz 2018 )), materials used, and pollution potential of products could substantially shift the trajectory in both production and consumerism towards cleaner, more sustainable seas (Grappi et al. 2017 ; Liu et al. 2016 ; Lorek and Spangenberg 2014 ; Sun et al. 2012 ). For example, economic policy instruments (Abbott and Sumaila 2019 ), production transparency (Joakim Larsson and Fick 2009 ), recirculation of materials (Michael 1998 ; Sharma and Henriques 2005 ), and changes in supply-chains (Ouardighi et al. 2016 ) are some of the ways production and consumerism could become more sustainable and result in a cleaner ocean.

Equity and access to technologies

Inequitable access to available technologies.

Despite major advancements in technology and innovation for waste management, much of the current waste infrastructure implemented around the world is outdated, underutilised, or abandoned. This is particularly the case for rapidly developing countries with large populations who have not had access to waste reduction and mitigation technologies and systems employed in upper income countries (Velis 2014 ; Wilson et al. 2015 ). The informal recycling sector (IRS) performs the critical waste management role in many of the world’s most populous countries.

Harnessing technologies for today and the future

Arguably, in today’s world we see an unprecedented number and types of technological advances stemming from but not limited to seismic exploration (Malehmir et al. 2012 ), resource mining (Jennings and Revill 2007 ; Kampmann et al. 2018 ; Parker et al. 2016 ), product movement (Goodchild and Toy 2018 ; Tournadre 2014 ) and product manufacturing (Bennett 2013 ; Mahalik and Nambiar 2010 ). Applying long term vision rather than short term economic gain could include supporting technologies and innovations that provide substantial improvements over Business-As-Usual. For example, supporting businesses or industries that improve recyclability of products (Umeda et al. 2013 ; Yang et al. 2014 ), utilize waste (Korhonen et al. 2018 ; Pan et al. 2015 ), reduce noise (Simmonds et al. 2014 ), and increase overall production efficiency will substantially increase the health of the global ocean. Efforts should be made wherever possible to maintain current waste management infrastructure where proven and effective, in addition to ensuring reliance and durability of new technologies and innovations for improved lifespan and end of life product management. Consumer demand, taxation, and incentives will play a necessary roll to ensure the appropriate technologies are adopted (Ando and Freitas 2011 ; Krass et al. 2013 ).

Governance and policy

Lack of ocean governance and policy making.

The governance arrangements that address marine pollution on global, regional, and national levels are complex and multifaceted. Success requires hard-to-achieve integrated responses. In addition to the equity challenges discussed in Alexander et al. ( 2020 ) which highlight the need for reduced inequity to improve the susatinability of the marine enviornemnt, we highlight that land-based waste is the largest contributor to marine pollution and therefore requires governance and policies that focus on pollution at the source. Current regulations, laws and policies do not always reflect or address the grand challenge of reducing marine pollution at the source. The ocean has traditionally been governed through sectoral approaches such as fisheries, tourism, offshore oil and mining. Unfortunately, this sector approach has caused policy overlap, conflict, inefficiencies and inconsistencies regarding marine pollution governance (Haward 2018 ; Vince and Hardesty 2016 ). Although production, manufacturing, and polluting may largely take place under geo-political boundaries, pollution in the high seas is often hard to assign to a country of origin. This makes identifying and convicting polluters very difficult (Urbina 2019 ). For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) has been criticised as ineffective in reducing marine pollution, largely due to the lack of easily monitoring, identifying and convicting offenders (Henderson 2001 ; Mattson 2006 ).

Harnessing ocean governance and policy

Binding domestic policies and international agreements are regulatory levers that can drive change at local, community, state, federal and international scales (Vince and Hardesty 2018 ). The UN Law of the Sea Convention Part XII (articles 192–237) is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and marine pollution is addressed in article 194. It also sets out the responsibilities of states and necessary measures they need to undertake to minimise pollution their own and other jurisdictions. While the Law of the Sea recognises the differences between sea-based and land-based pollution, it does not address the type of pollutants and technical rules in detail. Voluntary measures including MARPOL 73/78 (IMO 1978 ), United Nations Environment Assembly resolutions (UNEA 2019 ) and the FAO voluntary guidelines for the marking of fishing gear (FAO 2019 ), already exist in an attempt to reduce specific components of marine pollution. However, the health of marine ecosystems would benefit from multilateral international or regional agreements that minimise the production of items or the use of processes that result in high levels of marine ecosystem harm. For example, international regulation for underwater sound (McCarthy 2004 ), policies to reduce waste emissions (Nie 2012 ) and the polluter pays principle (Gaines 1991 ) are policies and agreements that could minimise pollutants entering the marine ecosystem. Global and regional governance can create a favourable context for national policy action. Policies that adapt to shifts in climate and are guided by science and indigenous knowledge could be more likely to succeed (Ban et al. 2020 ).

Actions to achieve a more sustainable future

The grand challenge of reducing ocean pollution can seem overwhelming. However, there are myriad actions, interventions and activities which are highly feasible to implement within the next decade to rapidly reduce the quantity of pollution entering the ocean. Implementing these actions requires collaboration among policymakers, industry, and consumers alike. To reduce pollution from sea-based industries, land-based industries and municipal-based pollutants (Table 1 ), we encourage the global community to consider three ‘zones’ of action or areas to implement change: at the source(s), along the way/along the supply chain, and at sinks (Fig.  1 ). It is important to highlight that action cannot be implemented at any one zone only. For example, repeated clean ups at the sink may reduce pollution in an area for a time, but will not stem the flow of pollutants. Rather, action at all three zones is required if rapid, effective reductions of ocean pollution are to occur.

Actions at the source(s)

Reducing pollution at its multitude of sources is the most effective way to reduce and prevent marine pollution. This is true for land-based industry pollutants, sea-based industry pollutants and municipal-based pollutants. An example for each includes; reduction in fertilizer leading to less agricultural runoff in coastal waters (Bennett et al. 2001 ), changes in packaging materials may see reductions in production on a per item basis, and a lowered frequency and timing of seismic blasting would result in a decrease in underwater noise pollution at the source. The benefits of acting at the source are powerful: if a pollutant is not developed or used initially, it cannot enter the marine environment. Action can occur at the source using various approaches such as; prevention of contaminants, outreach campaigns, introduction of bans (or prohibitions) and incentives and the replacement of technologies and products for less impactful alternatives (Fig.  1 ). However, achieving public support abrupt and major changes can be difficult and time consuming. Such changes may meet resistance (e.g. stopping or changing seismic testing) and there are other factors beyond marine pollution that must be considered (e.g. health and safety of coastal lighting in communities may be considered more important than impacts of light pollution on nearby marine ecosystems). Actions such as outreach and education campaigns (Supplementary Table 2) will be an important pathway to achieve public support.

Actions along the way

Reducing marine pollution along the way requires implementation of approaches aimed at reducing pollution once it has been released from the source and is in transit to the marine environment (Fig.  1 ). Acting along the way does provide the opportunity to target particular pollutants (point-source pollution) which can be particularly effective in reducing those pollutants. While municipal-based pollutants can be reduced ‘along the way’ using infrastructure such as gross pollutant traps (GPTs) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), some pollution such as light or sound may be more difficult to minimize or reduce in such a manner. WWTPs can successfully capture excess nutrients, pharmaceuticals and litter that are transported through sewerage and wastewater systems. However, pollution management ‘ en route ’ means there is both more production and more likelihood of leakage to the environment. In addition, infrastructure that captures pollution is often expensive, requires ongoing maintenance (and hence funding support), and if not managed properly, can become physically blocked, or result in increased risk to human health and the broader environment (e.g. flooding during heavy rainfall events). When considering management opportunities and risks for both land and sea-based pollution, the approaches required may be quite different, yielding unique challenges and opportunities for resolution in each (Alexander et al. 2020 ).

Actions at the sinks

Acting at sinks essentially requires pollution removal (Fig.  1 ). This approach is the most challenging, most expensive, and least likely to yield positive outcomes. The ocean encompasses more than 70% of the earth’s surface and extends to depths beyond ten kilometres. Hence it is a vast area for pollutants to disperse and economically and logistically prohibitive to clean completely. However, in some situations collecting pollutants and cleaning the marine environment is most viable option and there are examples of success. For example, some positive steps to remediate excess nutrients include integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (Buck et al. 2018 ). ‘Net Your Problem’ is a recycling program for fishers to dispose of derelict fishing gear ( www.netyourproblem.com ). Municipal-based and sea-based industry pollutants are often reduced through clean-up events. For example, large oils spills often require community volunteers to remove and clean oil from coastal environments and wildlife. Such activities provide increased awareness of marine pollution issues, and if data are recorded, can provide a baseline or benchmark against which to compare change. To address pollution at sinks requires us to prioritise efforts towards areas with high acclamations of pollution, (e.g., oil spills). Repeated removal or cleaning is unlikely to yield long term results, without managing the pollution upstream –whether along the route or at the source.

To achieve the More Sustainable Future, and significantly reduce pollution (thereby achieving the SGD targets in Supplementary Table 2), society must take ongoing action now and continue this movement beyond 2030. Prioritising the prevention of pollutants from their sources, using bans and incentives, outreach and education, and replacement technologies, is one of the most important steps that can be taken to shift towards a more sustainable future. Without addressing pollution from the source, current and future efforts will continue to remediate rather than mitigate the damage pollution causes to the ocean and organisms within. For pollutants that are not currently feasible to reduce at the source, collection of pollutants before they reach the ocean should be prioritised. For example, wastewater treatment plants and gross pollutant traps located at point-source locations such as stormwater and wastewater drains are feasible methods for reducing pollutants before they reach the ocean. Actions at the sink should target areas where the maximum effort per quantity of pollution can be recovered from the ocean. For example, prompt clean-up responses to large pollution events such as oil spills or flooding events and targeting clean-ups at beaches and coastal waters with large accumulations of plastic pollution.

These priority actions are not the perfect solution, but they are great examples of what can be and is feasibly done to manage marine pollution. Each action is at risk of failing to shift to a cleaner ocean without the support from governments, industries, and individuals across the whole system (from the source to the sink). Governments and individuals need to push for legislation that is binding and support sustainable practices and products. Effective methods for policing also need to be established in partnership with the binding legislation. Regardless of which zone are addressed, our actions on sea and coastal country must be guided by Indigenous knowledge and science (Fischer et al., 2020 ; Mustonen (in prep).

We recognise the major global disruptions which have occurred in 2020, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. The futures presented here were developed prior to this outbreak and therefore do not consider the effects of this situation on global pollution trends. In many ways, this situation allows us to consider a ‘reset’ in global trajectory as discussed by Nash et al. ( 2021 ). Our sustainable future scenario may be considered a very real goal to achieve in the coming decade.

Abbott JK, Sumaila UR (2019) Reducing marine plastic pollution: policy insights from economics. Rev Env Econ Policy 13:327–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez007

Article   Google Scholar  

Alario MV, Freudenburg WR (2010) Environmental risks and environmental justice, or how titanic risks are not so titanic after all. Sociol Inquiry 80:500–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00344.x

Alexander KA, Fleming A, Bax N, et al. (2020) Equity of our future oceans: outcomes and practice in marine science research. Authorea pre-print . December 10, 2020 https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160761569.97952359/v1

Alongi DM, McKinnon AD (2005) The cycling and fate of terrestrially-derived sediments and nutrients in the coastal zone of the Great Barrier Reef shelf. Mar Pollut Bull 51:239–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.10.033

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Amunsen CE, Hanssen JE, Semb A, Steinnes E (1992) Long-range atmospheric transport of trace elements to southern Norway. Atmos Environ, Part A 26:1309–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1686(92)90391-W

Ando AW, Freitas LPC (2011) Consumer demand for green stormwater management technology in an urban setting: the case of Chicago rain barrels. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr011070

Ban NC, Wilson E, Neasloss D (2020) Historical and contemporary indigenous marine conservation strategies in the North Pacific Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for. Conserv Biol 34:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13432

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beaumont NJ et al (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Marine Pollut Bulletin 142:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bennett D (2013) Tracking the trends in manufacturing technology management. J Manuf Technol Manag 24:5–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311287454

Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Caraco NF (2001) Human impact on erodable phosphorus and eutrophication: a global perspective: increasing accumulation of phosphorus in soil threatens rivers, lakes, and coastal oceans with eutrophication. Bioscience 51:227–234. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0227:HIOEPA]2.0.CO;2

Bernhardt ES, Rosi EJ, Gessner MO (2017) Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change. Front Ecol Environ 15:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1450

Brodin T, Piovano S, Fick J, Klaminder J, Heynen M, Jonsson M (2014) Ecological effects of pharmaceuticals in aquatic systems—impacts through behavioural alterations. Phil Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 369:20130580. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0580

Buck B, Troell M, Krause G, Angel D, Grote B, Chopin T (2018) State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Front Mar Sci 5:165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00165

Bustamante P, Caurant F, Fowler SW, Miramand P (1998) Cephalopods as a vector for the transfer of cadmium to top marine predators in the north-east Atlantic Ocean. Sci Total Environ 220:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00250-2

Capaldo A et al (2018) Effects of environmental cocaine concentrations on the skeletal muscle of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Sci Total Environ 640–641:862–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.357

Carroll AG, Przeslawski R, Duncan A, Gunning M, Bruce B (2017) A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on fish & invertebrates. Mar Pollut Bull 114:9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.038

DeGeorges A, Goreau TJ, Reilly B (2010) Land-Sourced Pollution with an Emphasis on Domestic Sewage: Lessons from the Caribbean and Implications for Coastal Development on Indian Ocean and Pacific Coral Reefs. Sustainability 2:2919–2949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092919

Depledge MH, Godard-Codding CAJ, Bowen RE (2010) Light pollution in the sea. Mar Pollut Bull 60:1383–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.002

Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT, De La Cruz SE, Takekawa JY (2009) Mercury bioaccumulation and risk to three waterbird foraging guilds is influenced by foraging ecology and breeding stage. Environ Pollut 157:1993–2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.03.030

Elliott JE, Elliott KH (2013) Tracking Marine Pollution. Science 340:556–558. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235197

Englehardt JD (1994) Identifying promising pollution-prevention technologies. J Environ Eng 120:513–526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1994)120:3(513)

FAO (2019) Voluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear. Directives volontaires sur le marquage des engins de pêche. Directrices voluntarias sobre el marcado de las artes de pesca. Rome/Roma. 88 pp. Licence/Licencia: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

Fischer M, Maxwell K, Fredriksen PO (Nunnoq), Pedersen H, Greeno D, Jones R, Blair JG, Hugu S, Mustonenäki E & Mustonen K. (2020) Empowering her guardians to nurture our oceans future. Authorea https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160391058.89181791/v1

Foltete AS et al (2011) Environmental impact of sunscreen nanomaterials: ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of altered TiO2 nanocomposites on Vicia faba. Environ Pollut 159:2515–2522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.020

Gaines SE (1991) The polluter-pays principle: from economic equity to environmental ethos. Tex Int’l LJ 26:463

Google Scholar  

Golden CD et al (2016) Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/534317a

Goodchild A, Toy J (2018) Delivery by drone: an evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in reducing CO2 emissions in the delivery service industry. Transportation Res Part D Transport Environ 61:58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.02.017

Grappi S, Romani S, Barbarossa C (2017) Fashion without pollution: how consumers evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion industry. J Clean Prod 149:1164–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.183

Haward M (2018) Plastic Pollution of the World’s Seas and Oceans as a Contemporary Challenge in Ocean Governance. Nat Commun 9:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03104-3

Henderson JR (2001) A pre- and post-MARPOL Annex V summary of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements and marine debris accumulation in the northwestern Hawaiian islands, 1982–1998). Mar Pollut Bull 42:584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-326x(00)00204-6

Hildebrand JA (2009) Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395:5–20. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08353

Hoffman DJ, Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT, Adelsbach TL, Stebbins KR (2011) Oxidative stress response of Forster’s terns ( Sterna forsteri ) and Caspian terns ( Hydroprogne caspia ) to mercury and selenium bioaccumulation in liver, kidney, and brain. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:920–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.459

Hong S, Lee J, Lim S (2017) Navigational threats by derelict fishing gear to navy ships in the Korean seas. Mar Pollut Bull 119:100–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.006

Huntington T (2017) Development of a best practice framework for the management of fishing gear, Part 2: Best practice framework for the management of fishing gear. p 1 – 58, Global Ghost Gear Initiative, USA. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b987b8689c172e29293593f/t/5bb64b578165f5891b931a6b/1538673498329/wap_gear_bp_framework_part_2_mm_lk-2017.10.23.pdf

IMO (1978) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). International Maritime Organisation, London, England. https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx

Jang YC, Hong S, Lee J, Lee MJ, Shim WJ (2014) Estimation of lost tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea. Mar Pollut Bull 81:49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021

Jennings S, Revill AS (2007) The role of gear technologists in supporting an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm104

Joakim Larsson DG, Fick J (2009) Transparency throughout the production chain—a way to reduce pollution from the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 53:161–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.01.008

Kampmann P, Christensen L, Fritsche M, Gaudig C, Hanff H, Hildebrandt M, Kirchner F (2018) How AI and robotics can support marine mining. Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2018/4/30/

Khan FR (2018) Ecotoxicology in the Anthropocene: are we listening to nature’s scream? Environ Sci Technol 52(18):10227–10229

Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular Economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ 143:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041

Krass D, Nedorezov T, Ovchinnikov A (2013) Environmental taxes and the choice of green technology. Prod Oper Manag 22:1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12023

Krushelnytska O (2018) Solving Marine Pollution: Successful models to reduce wastewater, agricultural runoff, and marine litter (English). World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.

Landrigan PJ et al (2018) The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet 391:462–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0

Lange A, Paull GC, Hamilton PB, Iguchi T, Tyler CR (2011) Implications of persistent exposure to treated wastewater effluent for breeding in wild roach ( Rutilus rutilus ) populations. Environ Sci Technol 45:1673–1679. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103232q

Lebreton L, Andrady A (2019) Future Scenarios of Global Plastic Waste Generation and Disposal. Palgrave Commun 5:6. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7

Lebreton LC, van der Zwet J, Damsteeg J-W, Slat B, Andrady A, Reisser J (2017) River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans Nature. Communications 8:5611. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611

Liu W, Oosterveer P, Spaargaren G (2016) Promoting sustainable consumption in China: a conceptual framework and research review. J Clean Prod 134:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.124

Lohmann R, Klanova J, Kukucka P, Yonis S, Bollinger K (2012) PCBs and OCPs on a East-to-West transect: the importance of major currents and net volatilization for PCBs in the Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol 46:10471–10479. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203459e

Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0191:Elp]2.0.Co;2

Lorek S, Spangenberg JH (2014) Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy – beyond green growth and green economies. J Clean Product 63:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.045

Macleod CK, Eriksen RS, Chase Z, Apitz SE (2016) Chemical pollutants in the marine environment: causes, effects, and challenges. In: Solan M, Whiteley N (eds) Stressors in the Marine Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Mahalik NP, Nambiar AN (2010) Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.12.006

Malehmir A et al (2012) Seismic methods in mineral exploration and mine planning: a general overview of past and present case histories and a look into the future. Geophysics 77:WC173–WC190. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0028.1

Mattson G (2006) MARPOL 73/78 and Annex I: an assessment of it effectiveness. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 9(2):175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290600728195

Mattsson K, Johnson EV, Malmendal A, Linse S, Hansson LA, Cedervall T (2017) Brain Damage and Behavioural Disorders in Fish Induced by Plastic Nanoparticles Delivered through the Food Chain. Sci Rep 7:11452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McCarthy E (2004) International Regulation of Underwater Sound. Springer, US, New York

Michael JA (1998) Recycling, international trade, and the distribution of pollution: the effect of increased U.S. paper recycling on U.S. import demand for Canadian paper. J Agric Appl Econ 30:217–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S107407080000818X

Moktadir MA, Rahman T, Rahman MH, Ali SM, Paul SK (2018) Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: a perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J Clean Prod 174:1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063

Mont O, Plepys A (2008) Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud or alarmed? J Clean Prod 16:531–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.009

Moore P (2018) Moore on Pricing: The cost of ocean pollution. Logistics Management. https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/moore_on_pricing_the_cost_of_ocean_pollution . Accessed 17/01/2020

Mustonen T, Maxwell KH, Mustonen K et al (2021) Who is the ocean? Preface to the future seas 2030 special issue. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09655-x

Nash JP et al (2004) Long-term exposure to environmental concentrations of the pharmaceutical ethynylestradiol causes reproductive failure in fish. Environ Health Perspect 112:1725–1733. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7209

Nash KL, Alexander KA, Melbourne-Thomas J, Novaglio C, Sbrocchi C, Villanueva C, Pecl GT (2021) Developing achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09629-5

Nichols WJ (2014) Blue Mind Little. Brown Book Group, London

Nie P-y (2012) A monopoly with pollution emissions. J Environ Planning Manag 55:705–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.622742

O’Brien AL, Dafforn KA, Chariton AA, Johnston EL, Mayer-Pinto M (2019) After decades of stressor research in urban estuarine ecosystems the focus is still on single stressors: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 684:753–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.131

Ofiara DD, Seneca JJ (2006) Biological effects and subsequent economic effects and losses from marine pollution and degradations in marine environments: Implications from the literature. Mar Pollut Bull 52:844–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.02.022

O’Shea FT, Cundy AB, Spencer KL (2018) The contaminant legacy from historic coastal landfills and their potential as sources of diffuse pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 128:446–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.047

Ouardighi FE, Sim JE, Kim B (2016) Pollution accumulation and abatement policy in a supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 248:982–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.009

Pan S-Y, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang P-C (2015) Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review. J Clean Prod 108:409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.124

Parker R, Bayne K, Clinton PW (2016) Robotics in forestry NZ Journal of Forestry 60:9

PlasticsEurope (2018) Plastics Europe - The facts 2018: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. PlasticsEurope, Brussels, Belgium, https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/focus-areas/strategy-plastics

Rochman CM (2016) Strategies for reducing ocean plastic debris should be diverse and guided by science. Environ Res Lett 11:041001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/041001

Ryan PG, Jewitt D (1996) Cleaning beaches: sweeping the rubbish under the carpet. S Afr J Sci 92:275–276

Rzymski P, Drewek A, Klimaszyk P (2017) Pharmaceutical pollution of aquatic environment: an emerging and enormous challenge 17:97 https://doi.org/10.1515/limre-2017-0010

Saeed BB, Afsar B, Hafeez S, Khan I, Tahir M, Afridi MA (2019) Promoting employee’s proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:424–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694

Salamat N, Etemadi-Deylami E, Movahedinia A, Mohammadi Y (2014) Heavy metals in selected tissues and histopathological changes in liver and kidney of common moorhen ( Gallinula chloropus ) from Anzali Wetland, the south Caspian Sea. Iran Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 110:298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.09.011

Schnurr REJ et al (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Marine Pollut Bulletin 137:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001

Seitzinger SP, Kroeze C, Bouwman AF, Caraco N, Dentener F, Styles RV (2002) Global patterns of dissolved inorganic and particulate nitrogen inputs to coastal systems: recent conditions and future projections. Estuaries 25:640–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02804897

Seitzinger SP, Mayorga E (2016) Chapter 7.3: Nutrient inputs from river systems to coastal waters. In: IOC-UNESCO and UNEP (2016) Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends . United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, pp 179–195

Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J 26:159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439

Sherman P, van Sebille E (2016) Modeling marine surface microplastic transport to assess optimal removal locations. Environ Res Lett 11:014006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014006

Simmonds MP, Dolman SJ, Jasny M, Parsons ECM, Weilgart L, Wright AJ, Leaper R (2014) Marine noise pollution - increasing recognition but need for more practical action. J Ocean Technol 9:71–90

Smith VK, Zhang X, Palmquist RB (1997) Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environ Resour Econ 10:223–247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026465413899

Sun B, Zhang L, Yang L, Zhang F, Norse D, Zhu Z (2012) Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: causes and mitigation measures. Ambio 41:370–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0249-6

The polluter-pays principle. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law , Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785365669.VI.20

Tournadre J (2014) Anthropogenic pressure on the open ocean: the growth of ship traffic revealed by altimeter data analysis. Geophys Res Lett 41:7924–7932. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061786

Uhrin AV (2016) Tropical cyclones, derelict traps, and the future of the Florida Keys commercial spiny lobster fishery. Marine Policy 69:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.009

Umeda Y, Fukushige S, Mizuno T, Matsuyama Y (2013) Generating design alternatives for increasing recyclability of products. CIRP Ann 62:135–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.060

UNEA (2019) Resolutions adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted on 15 March 2019. UNEP,. http://web.unep.org/environmentassembly/proceedings-report-ministerial-declaration-resolutions-and-decisions .

UNEP UNEP (1982) Marine pollution. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 25

United Nations General Assembly U (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development vol A/RES/70/1

Urbina I (2019) The Outlaw Ocean: Crime and Survival in the Last Untames Frontier. The Bodley Head & Vintage Publishing, London, UK

Velis CA (2014) Global recycling markets - plastic waste: A story for one player – China. Report prepared by FUELogy and formatted by D-waste on behalf of International Solid Waste Association - Globalisation and Waste Management Task Force. ISWA, Vienna, September 2014

Vergragt PJ, Dendler L, de Jong M, Matus K (2016) Transitions to sustainable consumption and production in cities. J Clean Prod 134:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.050

Vince J, Hardesty B Swimming in plastic soup: governance solutions to the marine debris problem. Australian Political Studies Association Conference, 26 – 28 September, University of New South Wales, 2016

Vince J, Hardesty BD (2018) Governance solutions to the tragedy of the commons that marine plastics have become. Front Mar Sci 5:214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00214

White AT, Vogt HP, Arin T (2000) Philippine coral reefs under threat: the economic losses caused by reef destruction. Mar Pollut Bull 40:598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00022-9

Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Law KL (2020) Abundance of floating plastic particles is increasing in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol 54:790–796. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04812

Williams R et al (2015) Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean Coastal Manag 115:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.021

Wilson DC et al. (2015) Global Waste Management Outlook. UNEP, Vienna, Austria

Yang Q, Yu S, Jiang D (2014) A modular method of developing an eco-product family considering the reusability and recyclability of customer products. J Clean Prod 64:254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.030

Zhu W, Graney J, Salvage K (2008) Land-Use Impact on water pollution: elevated pollutant input and reduced pollutant retention. J Contemp Water Res Edu 138:15–21

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lola, Rex and Vanessa Greeno for sharing their knowledge of the impacts of pollution on their art and culture. Thank you to Animate Your Science, JB Creative Services and Annie Gatenby for assistance with the graphical aspects of this project. Thank you to Rupert the Boxer puppy for deciding authorship order. This paper is part of the ‘Future Seas’ initiative ( www.FutureSeas2030.org ), hosted by the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania. This initiative delivers a series of journal articles addressing key challenges for the UN International Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030. The general concepts and methods applied in many of these papers were developed in large collaborative workshops involving more participants than listed as co-authors here, and we are grateful for their collective input. Funding for Future Seas was provided by the Centre for Marine Socioecology, IMAS, MENZIES and the College of Arts, Law and Education, the College of Science and Engineering at UTAS, and Snowchange from Finland. We acknowledge support from a Research Enhancement Program grant from the DVCR Office at UTAS. Thank you to Camilla Novaglio for providing an internal project review of an earlier draft, and to guest editor Rob Stephenson, editor-in-chief Jan Strugnell and two anonymous reviewers, for improving the manuscript. We acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional owners and custodians of sea country all around the world, and recognise their collective wisdom and knowledge of our ocean and coasts.

Author information

P.S. Puskic and K.A. Willis share equal lead authorship on this paper.

Authors and Affiliations

Centre for Marine Sociology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Kathryn A. Willis, Catarina Serra-Gonçalves, Kelsey Richardson, Jonathan S. Stark, Joanna Vince, Britta D. Hardesty, Chris Wilcox, Barbara F. Nowak, Dean Greeno, Catriona MacLeod & Peter S. Puskic

CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Kathryn A. Willis, Kelsey Richardson, Qamar A. Schuyler, Britta D. Hardesty & Chris Wilcox

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Catarina Serra-Gonçalves, Chris Wilcox, Jennifer L. Lavers, Jayson M. Semmens, Catriona MacLeod & Peter S. Puskic

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of Tasmania, Newnham, TAS, Australia

Kelli Anderson & Barbara F. Nowak

School of Social Sciences, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Kathryn A. Willis, Kelsey Richardson & Joanna Vince

School of Creative Arts and Media, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Dean Greeno

Australian Antarctic Division, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Jonathan S. Stark

Pikkoritta Consult, Aasiaat, Greenland

Halfdan Pedersen

The PISUNA Project, Qeqertalik Municipality, Attu, Greenland

Nunnoq P. O. Frederiksen

Snowchange Cooperative, Selkie, Finland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

P.S. Puskic and K. Willis share equal lead authorship on this paper. All authors wrote sections of this manuscript and contributed to concept design and paper discussions. N.F and H.P. wrote the narratives for Table 4 . D.G. wrote Table 3 . All authors provided edits and feedback to earlier drafts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter S. Puskic .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This work is original and has not been submitted for publication anywhere else.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 509 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Willis, K.A., Serra-Gonçalves, C., Richardson, K. et al. Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 32 , 145–160 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2020

Accepted : 08 July 2021

Published : 02 August 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Future scenario
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Ocean Decade
• Sustainable solutions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Press Release

Study in nature: protecting the ocean delivers a comprehensive solution for climate, fishing and biodiversity.

Southern Line Islands

Photograph by Southern Line Islands

Groundbreaking global study is the first to map ocean areas that, if strongly protected, would help solve climate, food and biodiversity crises

London, UK (17 March 2021) —A new study published in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature today offers a combined solution to several of humanity’s most pressing challenges. It is the most comprehensive assessment to date of where strict ocean protection can contribute to a more abundant supply of healthy seafood and provide a cheap, natural solution to address climate change—in addition to protecting embattled species and habitats.

An international team of 26 authors identified specific areas that, if protected, would safeguard over 80% of the habitats for endangered marine species, and increase fishing catches by more than eight million metric tons. The study is also the first to quantify the potential release of carbon dioxide into the ocean from trawling, a widespread fishing practice—and finds that trawling is pumping hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the ocean every year, a volume of emissions similar to those of aviation.

“Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change. Yet only 7% of the ocean is currently under some kind of protection,” said Dr. Enric Sala, explorer in residence at the National Geographic Society and lead author of the study, Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate .

“In this study, we’ve pioneered a new way to identify the places that—if strongly protected—will boost food production and safeguard marine life, all while reducing carbon emissions,” Dr. Sala said. “It’s clear that humanity and the economy will benefit from a healthier ocean. And we can realize those benefits quickly if countries work together to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.”

To identify the priority areas, the authors—leading marine biologists, climate experts, and economists—analyzed the world’s unprotected ocean waters based on the degree to which they are threatened by human activities that can be reduced by marine protected areas (for example, overfishing and habitat destruction). They then developed an algorithm to identify those areas where protections would deliver the greatest benefits across the three complementary goals of biodiversity protection, seafood production and climate mitigation. They mapped these locations to create a practical “blueprint” that governments can use as they implement their commitments to protect nature.

The study does not provide a single map for ocean conservation, but it offers a first-in-kind framework for countries to decide which areas to protect depending on their national priorities. However, the analysis shows that 30% is the minimum amount of ocean that the world must protect in order to provide multiple benefits to humanity.

“There is no single best solution to save marine life and obtain these other benefits. The solution depends on what society—or a given country—cares about, and our study provides a new way to integrate these preferences and find effective conservation strategies,” said Dr. Juan S. Mayorga, a report co-author and a marine data scientist with the Environmental Market Solutions Lab at UC Santa Barbara and Pristine Seas at National Geographic Society.

The study comes ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which is expected to take place in Kunming, China in 2021. The meeting will bring together representatives of 190 countries to finalize an agreement to end the world’s biodiversity crisis. The goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030 (the “30x30” target) is expected to be a pillar of the treaty. The study follows commitments by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Commission and others to achieve this target on national and global scales.

Safeguarding Biodiversity

The report identifies highly diverse marine areas in which species and ecosystems face the greatest threats from human activities. Establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) with strict protection in those places would safeguard more than 80% of the ranges of endangered species, up from a current coverage of less than 2%.

The authors found that the priority locations are distributed throughout the ocean, with the vast majority of them contained within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones of coastal nations.

The additional protection targets are located in the high seas—those waters governed by international law. These include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (a massive underwater mountain range), the Mascarene Plateau in the Indian Ocean, the Nazca Ridge off the west coast of South America and the Southwest Indian Ridge, between Africa and Antarctica.

"Perhaps the most impressive and encouraging result is the enormous gain we can obtain for biodiversity conservation—if we carefully chose the location of strictly protected marine areas,” said Dr. David Mouillot, a report co-author and a professor at the Université de Montpellier in France. “One notable priority for conservation is Antarctica, which currently has little protection, but is projected to host many vulnerable species in a near future due to climate change."

Shoring up the Fishing Industry

The study finds that smartly placed marine protected areas (MPAs) that ban fishing would actually boost the production of fish—at a time when supplies of wild-caught fish are dwindling and demand is rising. In doing so, the study refutes a long-held view that ocean protection harms fisheries and opens up new opportunities to revive the industry just as it is suffering from a recession due to overfishing and the impacts of global warming.

“Some argue that closing areas to fishing hurts fishing interests. But the worst enemy of successful fisheries is overfishing—not protected areas,” Dr. Sala said.

The study finds that protecting the right places could increase the catch of seafood by over 8 million metric tons relative to business as usual.

“It’s simple: When overfishing and other damaging activities cease, marine life bounces back,” said Dr. Reniel Cabral, a report co-author and assistant researcher with the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management and Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara. “After protections are put in place, the diversity and abundance of marine life increase over time, with measurable recovery occurring in as little as three years. Target species and large predators come back, and entire ecosystems are restored within MPAs. With time, the ocean can heal itself and again provide services to humankind.”

Soaking up Carbon

The study is the first to calculate the climate impacts of bottom trawling, a damaging fishing method used worldwide that drags heavy nets across the ocean floor. It finds that the amount of carbon dioxide released into the ocean from this practice is larger than most countries’ annual carbon emissions, and similar to annual carbon dioxide emissions from global aviation.

“The ocean floor is the world’s largest carbon storehouse. If we’re to succeed in stopping global warming, we must leave the carbon-rich seabed undisturbed. Yet every day, we are trawling the seafloor, depleting its biodiversity and mobilizing millennia-old carbon and thus exacerbating climate change. Our findings about the climate impacts of bottom trawling will make the activities on the ocean’s seabed hard to ignore in climate plans going forward,” said Dr. Trisha Atwood of Utah State University, a co-author of the paper.

The study finds that countries with the highest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation via protection of carbon stocks are those with large national waters and large industrial bottom trawl fisheries. It calculates that eliminating 90% of the present risk of carbon disturbance due to bottom trawling would require protecting only about 4% of the ocean , mostly within national waters.

Closing a Gap

The study’s range of findings helps to close a gap in our knowledge about the impacts of ocean conservation, which to date had been understudied relative to land-based conservation.

“The ocean covers 70% of the earth—yet, until now, its importance for solving the challenges of our time has been overlooked,” said Dr. Boris Worm, a study co-author and Killam Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “Smart ocean protection will help to provide cheap natural climate solutions, make seafood more abundant and safeguard imperiled marine species—all at the same time. The benefits are clear. If we want to solve the three most pressing challenges of our century—biodiversity loss, climate change and food shortages —we must protect our ocean.”

Additional Quotes from Supporters and Report Co-Authors

Zac Goldsmith, British Minister for Pacific and the Environment, UK

Kristen Rechberger, Founder & CEO, Dynamic Planet

Dr. William Chueng, Canada Research Chair and Professor, The University of British Columbia, Principal Investigator, Changing Ocean Research Unit, The University of British Columbia

Dr. Jennifer McGowan, Global Science, The Nature Conservancy & Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University

Dr. Alan Friedlander, Chief Scientist, Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society at the Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai'i

Dr. Ben Halpern, Director of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), UCSB

Dr. Whitney Goodell, Marine Ecologist, Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society

Dr. Lance Morgan, President and CEO, Marine Conservation Institute

Dr. Darcy Bradley, Co-Director of the Ocean and Fisheries Program at the Environmental Market Solutions Lab, UCSB

The study, Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate , answers the question of which places in the ocean should we protect for nature and people. The authors developed a novel framework to produce a global map of places that, if protected from fishing and other damaging activities, will produce multiple benefits to people: safeguarding marine life, boosting seafood production and reducing carbon emissions. Twenty-six scientists and economists contributed to the study.

Study’s Topline Facts

• Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change. Yet only 7% of the ocean is currently under some kind of protection.
• A smart plan of ocean protection will contribute to more abundant seafood and provide a cheap, natural solution to help solve climate change, alongside economic benefits.
• Humanity and the economy would benefit from a healthier ocean. Quicker benefits occur when countries work together to protect at least 30% of the ocean.
• Substantial increases in ocean protection could achieve triple benefits, not only protecting biodiversity, but also boosting fisheries’ productivity and securing marine carbon stocks.

Study’s Topline Findings

• The study is the first to calculate that the practice of bottom trawling the ocean floor is responsible for one gigaton of carbon emissions on average annually. This is equivalent to all emissions from aviation worldwide. It is, furthermore, greater than the annual emissions of all countries except China, the U.S., India, Russia and Japan.
• The study reveals that protecting strategic ocean areas could produce an additional 8 million tons of seafood.
• The study reveals that protecting more of the ocean--as long as the protected areas are strategically located--would reap significant benefits for climate, food and biodiversity.

Priority Areas for Triple Wins

• If society were to value marine biodiversity and food provisioning equally, and established marine protected areas based on these two priorities, the best conservation strategy would protect 45% of the ocean, delivering 71% of the possible biodiversity benefits, 92% of the food provisioning benefits and 29% of the carbon benefits.
• If no value were assigned to biodiversity, protecting 29% of the ocean would secure 8.3 million tons of extra seafood and 27% of carbon benefits. It would also still secure 35% of biodiversity benefits.
• Global-scale prioritization helps focus attention and resources on places that yield the largest possible benefits.
• A globally coordinated expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs) could achieve 90% of the maximum possible biodiversity benefit with less than half as much area as a protection strategy based solely on national priorities.
• EEZs are areas of the global ocean within 200 nautical miles off the coast of maritime countries that claim sole rights to the resources found within them. ( Source )

Priority Areas for Climate

• Eliminating 90% of the present risk of carbon disturbance due to bottom trawling would require protecting 3.6% of the ocean, mostly within EEZs.
• Priority areas for carbon are where important carbon stocks coincide with high anthropogenic threats, including Europe’s Atlantic coastal areas and productive upwelling areas.

Countries with the highest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation via protection of carbon stocks are those with large EEZs and large industrial bottom trawl fisheries.

Priority Areas for Biodiversity

• Through protection of specific areas, the average protection of endangered species could be increased from 1.5% to 82% and critically endangered species from 1.1% to and 87%.
• the Antarctic Peninsula
• the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
• the Mascarene Plateau
• the Nazca Ridge
• the Southwest Indian Ridge
• Despite climate change, about 80% of today’s priority areas for biodiversity will still be essential in 2050. In the future, however, some cooler waters will be more important protection priorities, whereas warmer waters will likely be too stressed by climate change to shelter as much biodiversity as they currently do. Specifically, some temperate regions and parts of the Arctic would rank as higher priorities for biodiversity conservation by 2050, whereas large areas in the high seas between the tropics and areas in the Southern Hemisphere would decrease in priority.

Priority Areas for Food Provision

• If we only cared about increasing the supply of seafood, strategically placed MPAs covering 28% of the ocean could increase food provisioning by 8.3 million metric tons.

The Campaign for Nature works with scientists, Indigenous Peoples, and a growing coalition of over 100 conservation organizations around the world who are calling on policymakers to commit to clear and ambitious targets to be agreed upon at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Kunming, China in 2021 to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and working with Indigenous leaders to ensure full respect for Indigenous rights.

Media Contact

The National Geographic Society is a global nonprofit organization that uses the power of science, exploration, education and storytelling to illuminate and protect the wonder of our world. Since 1888, National Geographic has pushed the boundaries of exploration, investing in bold people and transformative ideas, providing more than 15,000 grants for work across all seven continents, reaching 3 million students each year through education offerings, and engaging audiences around the globe through signature experiences, stories and content. To learn more, visit www.nationalgeographic.org or follow us on Instagram , LinkedIn, and Facebook .

• Ocean Melting Greenland
• Marine Plastic Pollution
• Support Ocean Research Project

The Chesapeake Bay Plastic Survey is intended to assess the necessity and to generate a baseline for a future monitoring effort for plastics pollution trends in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Awarded the Woodward and Curran’s Impact Grant, Ocean Research Project will assess bay-wide plastic pollution by exploring plastic particle count as a water quality indicator for monitoring future bay health. In cooperation with its partners, ORP hopes to repeat this project biannually to enrich understanding of the Bay-wide magnitude of plastic pollution, export to the ocean, and how that is changing relative to Bay improvements and climate change.

ORP’s study will be the first to determine particle concentration of plastic pollution across the United States’ largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay. The information from this pilot project will be used to inform a dedicated multi-year sampling program by the Chesapeake Bay Program partners at the federal, state, and local levels.

The abundance of plastic garbage created by modern human civilization has infiltrated the deepest trenches of the world’s oceans and concentrated in huge areas on its surface. An estimated 5.5 trillion pieces of plastic debris are in the world’s oceans. There are countless sources of this plastic debris, but virtually all of it originates on land through the overuse of plastics in our daily lives and improper waste disposal. Once plastic trash enters the Ocean, nature’s forces and the migration of marine species and birds determine how the plastic material and chemical compounds move and accumulate through the complex marine environment, including the food chain and the Plastisphere. Much of this plastic debris is concentrated at the centers of enormous oceanic current circulation regions, called gyres.

We know a little more about chemical transfer risk in the sea food chain. Check out our collaborative publication in Marine Pollution Bulletin to find out more… Here

To better understand the nature of plastic debris in the Ocean, ORP has conducted multiple research expeditions in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. ORP completed its first marine debris research expedition in 2013. During this trip, its crew spent 70 days sailing in the Atlantic Ocean, collecting samples of plastic trash in the water and mapping out the eastern side of the North Atlantic garbage patch. The following year, ORP embarked upon a second expedition to research microplastic pollution in the Pacific Ocean. During this trip, ORP’s crew sailed 6,800 miles nonstop from San Francisco to Yokohama, Japan, collecting microplastic samples along the trans-pacific route.

Due to the flexibility offered by doing research from a sailboat, ORP’s expeditions could dedicate more time to collecting data samples across a much broader area than other similar types of marine research expeditions would typically cover. ORP’s research has provided an essential baseline for marine surface debris data and improved knowledge of the concentration, composition, and extent of plastic debris in the Ocean. ORP conducted its research to ensure the samples could be used to support further research being done as part of plastic pellet toxicity studies at the University of Tokyo’s Pelletwatch program. In addition, ORP’s research was designed to allow ORP and participating scientists to define further the diversity of the Plastisphere, specifically the roles played by bacteria and viruses in their evolving relationships with plastic debris in the Ocean.

ORP’s research expeditions targeting the investigation of northern hemisphere subtropical gyres of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and well as the western Arctic’s plastic pollution in the marine environment have helped increase the scientific community’s understanding of plastic’s pollution’s pervasive distribution across oceans from the sea ice to the seabed. The extensive datasets and that ORP collected, processed and regional interpretation during these expeditions contributed to the following publications:

• Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea  
• PCBs and PBDEs in microplastic particles and zooplankton in open water in the Pacific Ocean and around the coast of Japan
• Mitigation strategies to reverse the rising trend of plastics in Polar Regions

To date, ORP has sailed tens of thousands of miles, spent many months at sea, and a considerable amount of time in labs back on land sorting the samples and data. During our extended periods of time at sea, there was not one day that went by where we did not see foraging birds mistaking marine debris for food. The fight to prevent pollution from plastic debris in the ocean is best fought at the primary source, on land. Education is a critical element of this effort to increase public awareness and encourage proper disposal of plastic trash along with reduced use of plastics ( link to ORP’s education page ).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(8); 2020 Aug

Plastic pollution in the marine environment

Plastic pollution is recognized as a severe anthropogenic issue in the coastal and marine ecosystems across the world. Unprecedented and continuous accumulation of growing plastic contaminants into any respective aquatic ecosystem by the anthropogenic sources causes direct and/or indirect interruption to ecosystem structure, functions, and consequently, services and values. Land-based and sea-based sources are the primary sources of these contaminants in various modes that enter the ocean. In this review paper, we focused on highlighting different aspects related to plastic pollution in coastal and marine environments. Plastic pollutants are distributed in the ecosystems in different forms, with different size variations as megaplastic, macroplastic, mesoplastic, and microplastic. Microplastics in primary and secondary forms reveal a widespread distribution in the water, sediment, and biota of the marine and coastal habitats. The microplastic level of different coastal and marine ecosystems nearly ranged from 0.001-140 particles/m 3 in water and 0.2-8766 particles/m 3 in sediments at different aquatic environments over the world. The microplastic accumulation rate of coastal and marine organisms varied at 0.1-15,033 counts. Accordingly, plastic pollution creates several kinds of negative consequences combined with ecological and socio-economic effects. Entanglement, toxicological effects via ingestion of plastics, suffocation, starvation, dispersal, and rafting of organisms, provision of new habitats, and introduction of invasive species are significant ecological effects with growing threats to biodiversity and trophic relationships. Degradation (changes in the ecosystem state) and modifications of marine systems are associated with loss of ecosystem services and values. Consequently, this emerging contaminant affects the socio-economic aspects through negative impacts on tourism, fishery, shipping, and human health. Preventing accumulation sources of plastic pollutants, 3Rs (Reduce-Recycle-Reuse), awareness & capacity building, and producer/manufacturer responsibility are practical approaches toward addressing the issue of plastic pollution. Existing and adopted policies, legislations, regulations, and initiatives at global, regional, and national level play a vital role in reducing plastic debris in the marine and coastal zones. Development of proposals/solutions on key research gaps can open a novel pathway to address this environmental issue in an effective scientific manner. In conclusion, this paper demonstrates the current status of plastic pollution in the marine ecosystem to make aware people of a plastic-free, healthy blue ocean in the near future.

Aquatic ecology; Ecological health; Ecological restoration; Marine biology; Environmental analysis; Environmental assessment; Environmental hazard; Environmental health; Hydrology; Oceanography; Pollution; Microplastics; Plastic sources; Environmental management; Producer responsibility.

1. Introduction

Marine and coastal environment acts as a highly productive zone that consist different kinds of subsystems, such as coral reefs and seagrasses. It is a complex environment with rich biodiversity ranging from various primitive (horseshoe crab) to the advanced organisms (dolphins). The marine environment is the vast body of water that covers 71 percent of the earth's coverage. However, the global ocean system divides into five major oceans and many seas based on historical, cultural, geographical, scientific characteristics, and size variations. Five ocean basins, i.e., Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and the Antarctic, are the most known marine systems invaded by humans. The Southern Pole (Antarctic) ocean basin was recognized as the fifth ocean basin by the International Hydrographic Organization. All ocean basins act as ecologically and economically important systems for the betterment of humans. Freshwater lotic systems connect with oceans and seas, creating unique, transitional ecosystems like lagoons and estuaries ( Reddy et al., 2018 ). The continental shelf of the marine environment is the mixing place of seawater and freshwater; therefore, this area creates a unique coastal ecosystem.

Marine and coastal ecosystems provide different priceless services and values for human wellbeing and other kinds of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms. Provisioning (the domain of food, fiber, wood, water, pharmaceutical components, oil, mineral sources), regulating (carbon sequestration, maintain water quality, climate regulation), supporting (photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, nursery and breeding grounds, oxygen production), and cultural (spiritual and cultural importance, recreation and tourism) services gained from oceans and coastal ecosystems are ecologically and socio-economically imperative. Due to the massive contribution by services of the aforesaid ecosystems on the human wellbeing component, this paper will mainly focus on emerging anthropogenic threats on the marine environment as an initial step to concern conservation and sustainable management of the aquatic environment.

Aquatic ecosystems are inter-connected with the terrestrial environment; therefore, changes in one system have impacts on another. For decades, different factors, including anthropogenic activities, have stressed the coastal and marine ecosystems ( Adams, 2005 ; Richmond, 2015 ). These stresses include pollution and the physical destruction of the environment. Debris or litter accumulation is one of the human-created severe threats on marine and coastal systems due to unsustainable development and construction activities. Compared with other categories of debris such as glass, cloth, paper, food waste, metal, rubber, medical/personal hygiene-related items, smoking/firework items, and wood ( Nualphan, 2013 ; Rosevelt et al., 2013 ), plastic litter is persistent in the ocean basins due to unique characteristics of plastics (e.g., the potential of ready transportation by water current and wind due to long shelf-life). Plastic debris with counts of five trillion, weighing more than 260,000 tones, is floating over the world's ocean surface as a result of improper waste disposal ( Eriksen et al., 2014 ). Currently, plastic pollution has become a serious concern over almost all parts of ocean basins irrespective of developed or underdeveloped regions in the world ( Figure 1 ).

Overview of the global crisis of plastic pollution in the ocean. (Note; The world map is free and permitted from Cosmographics Ltd 2020 ).

The accumulated plastics in the ocean basins can be broadly classified into four levels based on their sizes: megaplastics, macroplastics, mesoplastics, and microplastics. Microplastics are found in commonly manufactured, commercial products such as personal care and cosmetic products or microplastic particles produce from in-situ environmental degradation and subsequent fragmentation of larger size plastics by physical, chemical, and biological processes ( Browne et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). Microplastics are mostly abundant in marine and coastal systems, while synthetic pollutants chemically interact with organic pollutants and metals ( Guo and Wang, 2019a ). The density of microplastics also affects the distribution of microplastics in the water column. Polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) float in water due to low density of plastics, while polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamide (PA), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with higher density do not float in water, but deposit by inclination through the water column ( Guo and Wang, 2019a ). Accordingly, microplastic pollutants are widely distributed in every sub-zone/layer (pelagic and benthic) of coastal and marine systems. Salinity is one of the key factors affecting on chemical degradation of plastic. Hence, coastal and marine systems, which range at approximately 0.5–35°/00 (ppt: parts per thousand) of salinity, are highly susceptible to the formation of microplastics. Accordingly, scientific evidence of the distribution and persistence of microplastic pollutants must focus on ocean basins and coastal ecosystems to identify the nature of the emerging issue.

Plastic pollutants are abundantly accumulating in these zones with adverse effects on ecological aspects, including biodiversity, economic activities, and human health ( Galgani et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). Microplastics are ingested by different kinds of marine organisms ( Cole et al., 2013 ; Leslie et al., 2017 ). Evidence on microplastics in the aquatic environment ( Cozar et al., 2014 ; Martin et al., 2017 ) signifies the alarm on environmental issues by plastic pollution. They mark the importance of an integrated approach with international, regional, and national efforts as mitigatory strategies to improve plastic waste management by reducing the load of plastic garbage patches in the world ocean basins. Monitoring and dissemination of scientific information on distribution, contamination levels, sources, and possible effects by plastic pollution are required to identify management priorities and implementation of mitigation measures accordingly. Stakeholders should especially be aware of the current situation of the problem, degree of severity and harmfulness of the problem, novel trends, and present scenario and scientific approaches for strategies of prevention or reduction of plastic waste accumulation ( Law, 2017 ). Thus, scientific reviewing of plastic pollution in the ocean basin and coastal zones are essential to derive a clear overall picture. The systematic study of the sources, pathways, transformation modes, adverse effects, and sinks of plastics in the marine environment has been conducted only during the last decade ( Browne et al., 2015 ; Law, 2017 ). This study aims to address the above gap by comprehensively reviewing reliable scientific data on all aspects of plastic pollution in the marine and coastal habitats to give insight into protecting the world ocean basins and coastal zones. Hence, this review paper focuses on (I) seeking the sources of plastic pollution, (II) identifying the current status of the effects of plastic debris accumulation with a clear picture over the world ocean basins and coasts, (III) present an overview of the current situation and recommendations of initiatives on controlling plastic pollution at international, regional, and national levels, rules & regulations and legislation, possible management measures for the awareness of stakeholders such as politicians, decision-makers, researchers, scientists, environmental authorities, the general public, and industries, and improving the capacity building of stakeholders toward the plastic waste management.

2. Plastic accumulation sources

Plastic wastes are accumulated in the aquatic ecosystems directly and indirectly by different kinds of sources. Land and ocean-based sources are critical sources of plastic pollution in coastal and marine ecosystems through in-situ and ex-situ pathways. Major land-based plastic pollution sources are freshwater input, residential & domestic activities, tourism, and other economic actions, including harbor operations. Over 75% of marine plastic litter items are accumulated from land-based sources ( Andrady, 2011 ). Coastal zone is a highly residential, urbanized, and industrialized area. Thus, most local communities are aggregated in coastal zones. Accordingly, residential and industrialized activities are highly focused on this transitional zone. Air blasting and cosmetics used by coastal residents could directly discharge into the coastal zone. In some cases, these plastic containers are released into the wastewater treatment systems or drainage systems. Browne et al. (2007) revealed that a significant amount of plastic debris release or escape even from the treatment systems. After that, such plastic debris accumulates into the natural freshwater ecosystems such as river and streams or subject to leachate into the groundwater and finally end up in the ocean. However, lotic freshwater ecosystems with directional, fast flow rates mainly lead to the accumulation of plastic debris in coastal areas. For example, the plastic waste from two freshwater ecosystems is accumulated into the ocean system around California, and approximately two billion plastic fragments release into the sea during three days’ time ( Moore, 2008 ). Primary sources of the microplastics accumulation into the Goiana Estuary, South America, are harmed river basins ( Lima et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, Thushari et al. (2017b) identified domestic wastes and coastal residential activities significantly contribute to debris accumulation in the coastal environment by in-situ waste accumulating method. Based on the records, tourism and recreational activities have also acted as one of the major sources of marine and coastal plastic accumulation into the ocean and coastal ecosystems. Thushari et al. (2017b) revealed that >60% of beach debris from selected beaches on the eastern coast of Thailand originates from tourism and recreation-related activities. Plastic debris in beaches carries into the ocean as microplastic fragments and secondary plastics ( Cole et al., 2011 ). In the urban beach of the northeast of Brazil, plastic pellets and fragments have been reported as contaminants. The main source of those fragments was the breaking down of larger size plastic debris accumulated on the beach, while the major sources of plastic pellets were from the operational activities of nearby port facilities ( Costa et al., 2010 ). Another potential cause of plastic pollutants is persistent fishing fleet, based on the literature records ( Ivar do Sula et al., 2013 ).

The plastic accumulation rate in the ocean also enhances from land-based sources with prevailing extreme climatic conditions such as storms, hurricanes, and flooding ( Thompson et al., 2005 ). Microplastic debris density in water collected from California was six times higher compared to the normal situation due to prevailing storm conditions ( Moore et al., 2002 ). As per Thushari et al. (2017b) , the coastal debris level was lower in the wet season compared to the dry season in some beaches (e.g., Angsila) along the eastern coast of Thailand, due to dragging of coastal debris into the offshore or deep-sea region by strong monsoon during the rainy season. On the southern Californian coast, the average debris density level was approximately 18 times higher during a storm compared to the normal situation ( Lattin et al., 2004 ). In the western coastal water of Sri Lanka, an island in the Indian Ocean, the mean density of total plastic was recorded as 140.34±13.99 No.m −3 by number of items (count), during August–November 2017 (end of south-west monsoon), mainly by the sources of tourism and fishing activities ( Athawuda et al., 2018 ).

Plastic debris from the beach enters the ocean through coastal water currents. Sometimes, monofilament and nylon fishing nets are disposed of at harbor operations in the shore area and float over the ocean surface. Floated nylon debris drifts over the ocean at different locations by the effect of ocean currents ( Cole et al., 2011 ).

Offshore activities such as commercial fishery, navigation actions, waste disposal, and shellfish/fish culture are key ocean-based sources that contribute to plastic debris accumulation into the marine and coastal zones. Offshore fishing and aquaculture-related operations have been identified as a significant source of plastic pollution into the ocean basins and coastal ecosystems by the number of literature records. Damaged fishing nets and abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing nets (ALDFG) can enter the offshore by fishers during fishing operations.

Maritime and navigation activities are also another source of plastic accumulation in the offshore area of the sea. Marine vessels, intentionally or unintentionally, dump plastic litters into the ocean, with an accumulation rate of approximately 6.5 million tons per year into the deep sea by early 1990 ( Derraik, 2002 ). Thushari et al. (2017b) noted that shipping-related debris levels on the eastern coast of Thailand are significantly lower since that area is not close to the international maritime transportation route. Accidental disposal of plastic litter items during transportation through a terrestrial environment or ocean can cause the flowing of plastics into the sea directly or indirectly. Especially, improper use of plastic packaging materials causes the accumulation of plastic litter into the aquatic environment and the ocean systems ( Cole et al., 2011 ). Synthetic polymers have also been recorded in sub-surface plankton samples around Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago in the Equatorial Atlantic Ocean with an increase in average plastic densities. Plastic materials can be transported over vast distances by ocean currents ( Ivar do Sula et al., 2013 ). A study conducted by Pruter (1987) revealed that plastic pellet densities are 18/km 2 and 3500/km 2 in New Zealand coast (1970) and Sargasso Sea (1980), respectively.

Plastic can be categorized as megaplastic (>1 m), macroplastic (<1 m), mesoplastic (<2.5 cm), and microplastic (<5 mm) (defined size varies according to different literature records) according to size variations ( Wang et al., 2018 ). Another scientific literature categorizes plastic litter according to the different length ranges, as megaplastics (>100 mm), macroplastics (20–100 mm), mesoplastics (5–20 mm), and microplastics (<5 mm) ( Barnes et al., 2009 ). Mesoplastic is an intermediate size range between visible macroplastic and minute microscopic plastics. Larger size plastics visualized by the naked eye is called as macroplastics or megaplastics. A considerable portion of litter by land-based sources is accumulated in the oceans, and >65% of waste is composed of non-degradable macroplastics.

Plastics can enter the marine ecosystems as primary and secondary plastics. The larger plastic fragments sometimes directly release as megaplastic and/or macroplastic debris and convert into microplastics within the environment. Primary microplastics are the plastic debris manufactured with a microscopic size range, whereas secondary plastics are formed after exposing larger plastic debris for different forces and break down into tiny plastic debris. A fraction of the above light weight larger plastics floats on the sea surface, while the remaining portion with high density sinks into the benthic environment of the ocean due to higher molecular weight. Macroplastics are highly susceptible to degrade into micro size plastics by subjecting to different processes such as degradation (changes the state of plastic); photo-degradation, mechanical degradation, and hydrolysis. Biodegradability of plastics is also essential to understand their fate and destination in the respective environment ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ) and identify size variations of plastic pollutants accordingly after subjecting to degradation. Hence, we identified importance of scientific investigation on the aforesaid hot topic. Microplastic debris is known as plastic litter, observable only using a microscope ( Table 1 ).

Table 1

Microplastic size definitions according to the previous literature records.

As per Table 1 , microplastic is defined in several ways by scientists using size variations of debris. Microplastics can be further divided into two types as primary microplastic and secondary microplastic . Primary microplastics are the plastic types with a micro-size range and used for a specific purpose or a product. Primary microplastics are mainly used in manufacturing cosmetics (cleansers, shower gel), medicines, and air blasting medium ( Gregory, 1996 ; Zitko and Hanlon, 1991 ; Patel et al., 2009 ). Microscopic size Polyethylene and Polystyrene particles were observed in cosmetic products ( Gregory, 1996 ). Air-blasting technology also uses blasting of microplastic fragments such as Polyester in different devices such as engines, machines, and vessel/ship hulls ( Browne et al., 2007 ; Gregory, 1996 ). Manufacturing the above products using primary microplastics have rapidly increased during the very recent decades. Secondary microplastics are defined as the plastic debris resulting after the breakdown of macroplastic in the terrestrial environment and ocean ( Thompson et al., 2004 ). In the open environment, macroplastic fragments expose to chemical, biological, physical, and mechanical processes and change the typical properties of plastics such as structure and integrity. As a result, large plastics degrade into minute plastic fragments in the environment ( Andrady, 2011 ; Barnes et al., 2009 ). Fundamental forces leading to degradation of macroplastics are ultra-violet (UV) radiation (Photo-degradation) and wave abrasion physically ( Andrady, 2011 ). During photo-degradation of plastics, sunlight with UV rays subject to degrade large plastics through oxidation of polymer plastic and breakdown of structural integrity. In the beach ecosystem, macroplastic fragments directly expose to the sunlight, and the degradation rate is higher with the presence of more Oxygen ( Andrady, 2011 ; Barnes et al., 2009 ). The plastic fragments with reduced structural integrity are further exposed to the physical and mechanical forces such as wave turbulence and abrasion ( Barnes et al., 2009 ). Finally, macroplastics rapidly convert into minute particles during the degradation process. This process continues until plastics become microscopic in size, and microplastic fragments further cleavage into nano-plastic particles in some cases ( Fendall and Sewell, 2009 ). Oxidative characteristics in the atmosphere and hydrolytic properties of seawater (salinity) profoundly affect the degradation rate of plastics ( Webb et al., 2013 ), and a saline environment with prevailing lower temperature reduces the photo-degradation rate of plastics ( Cole et al., 2011 ).

On the other hand, biodegradable plastic acts as a type of microplastic ( Cole et al., 2011 ). Biodegradable plastics increase the degradation rate in composting bins under optimum conditions such as proper ventilation, humidity, and higher temperature ( Moore, 2008 ; Ryan et al., 2009 ; Thompson et al., 2004 ). A cooler environment without decomposing microbes (the biological process by microorganisms) reduced the degradation rate and caused the accumulation of biodegradable plastics in the ocean ( O'Brine and Thompson, 2010 ). The demersal environment is contaminated with microplastic pollution in Spanish coastal waters ( Bellas et al., 2016 ), and the presence of microplastics in the estuarine ecosystem was confirmed by the study of Abbasi (2018) . According to that study, Musa Estuary, Persian Gulf, was affected by microplastic accumulation and recorded ingestion of highly abundant microplastic particles by both pelagic and demersal fish. The presence of high-density microplastics in demersal biota is associated with the occurrence of plastic debris in the benthic environment, which is the final destination of plastic contaminants by sinking in the marine and coastal environment ( Neves et al., 2015 ; Bellas et al., 2016 ; Jabeen et al., 2017 ). Microplastics in estuaries are subjected to change due to the dynamic conditions by different environmental factors such as wind, tide, residence time, the geographical location of the ecosystem, and the level of anthropogenic activities within the systems ( Peters and Bratton, 2016 ). According to Lima et al. (2014) , vertical salinity gradient causes changes of the distribution of microplastics in coastal ecosystems, including estuaries. Recently, microplastic has been detected even in the traditional salt producing ponds in Indonesia ( Tahir et al., 2018 ).

3. Effects of plastic accumulation

The effects of plastic debris on marine life are within the diverse range and reported in several literature records. The degree of impact by plastic pollution on biodiversity is severe in particular marine systems, and it has been identified as one of the top threats on biota ( Gray, 1997 ). Debris accumulation and potential threats and emerging risks on biota by marine debris, including plastics, is a global concern, and plastic waste has a collective effect on the ecological level and economic aspects.

3.1. Ecological effects of plastic contamination in respective ecosystems

Entanglement and ingestion are some of the critical issues associated with macroplastic fragments. According to the records of Gall and Thompson (2015) , >13,000 individuals representing 208 species and >30,000 individuals belonging to 243 species have encountered issues related to ingestion and entanglement by macroplastic fragments, respectively. Entanglement cases were mainly recorded between the individual organisms and fishing nets or plastic rope in fishing gears. Ingestion is highly associated with individual organisms and plastic fragments ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ) ( Figure 2 ). However, the entanglement effect is comparatively higher than the ingestion by biota in coastal and marine systems. Entanglement and ingestion of macroplastic debris can be lethal or sub-lethal. As the direct results of entanglement or ingestion, coastal and marine biotic organisms die or get injured lethally. Sub-lethal effects cause reducing capturing and swallowing food particles, impairing reproduction ability, loss of sensitivity, the inability to escape from predators, loss of mobility, decreased growth, and body condition. Comparatively, sea turtles, marine mammals, and all types of sea birds are at higher risk of entanglement and ingestion by plastic pollution. Green sea turtle, Hawksbill turtle, Fulmar, Seals, Sea Lions, Puffin, Albatross, Right whale, and Greater shearwater are recorded species negatively affected by the above consequence ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ). Fishing hooks are also highly ingestible plastic debris types in birds ( Hong et al., 2013 ). Hong et al. (2013) noted that Black-tailed gull ingested a hook and entangled in the fishing line by the attachment of head, neck, and wings, thus, failed in moving or foraging. They have also observed >0.1g of plastic content in the gastrointestinal tract of nearly half of the northern Fulmar population. In Norwegian ocean, Nephrops norvegicus, a commercially valuable lobster species, had recorded plastic filaments in 83% of individuals of the population ( Murray and Cowie, 2011 ). As documented ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ), species categorized as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, and near-threatened under IUCN red list were negatively affected by the threats mentioned above by plastic litter accumulation. According to the records of Chiappone et al. (2002) , 49% of hook and line and lobster traps were responsible for tissue damage, injuries, and death of sessile organisms in Florida Key. Findings of Chiappone et al. (2005) revealed the effect of debris from fishing hooks, and the line increased by 84% with negative impacts on poriferans and coelenterates, causing sub-lethal and lethal consequences.

Effects of Plastics on coastal and marine biota: a) Plastics ingestion by a blueshark: Priona ceglauca of Carlos Canales-Cerro ( Thiel et al., 2018 ; photo authorship: Dr. Carlos Canales-Cerro), b) Attachment on plastic debris by Goose Barnacle, Lepas anserifera (photo authorship: J.D.M. Senevirathna), c) Partial cover of macroplastic pollutants on Rock Oyster: Saccostrea forskalii colony (photo authorship: J.D.M. Senevirathna), d) Entanglement of nestling in a synthetic plastic string (photo authorship: Townsend and Barker, 2014 ).

Microplastic accumulation also causes complicated consequences on individual organisms and ecosystems. The density of microplastic is increasing in all oceans worldwide ( Thompson et al., 2009 ). Microplastic debris is possible in accumulating in biotic components, seawater, sediments, and coastline ( Athawuda et al., 2018 ; Thushari et al., 2017a ; Zarfl et al., 2011 ) (Tables  2 and ​ and3, 3 , Figures  2 and ​ and3). 3 ). Lightweight, low-density plastics float in the water, and high-dense particles sink into the benthic system's bottom sediments. There are literature records on contamination of microplastic particles in sub-tidal and inter-tidal ecosystems and marine and coastal surface water ( Athawuda et al., 2018 ; Ng and Obbard, 2006 ; Collignon et al., 2012 ; Browne et al., 2011 ). The size of microplastic fragments is similar to the size of feeding matter, such as planktons and suspended particles ( Wright et al., 2013 ). This characteristic feature allows invertebrates to ingest these synthetic microparticles ( Figure 2 ). The benthic organisms and suspension feeders also feed on microplastics from bottom sediments and contaminated water (Tables  2 and ​ and3). 3 ). According to Moore (2008) , non-selective feeders collect and ingest all the particles within a similar size range of items without sorting through filter-feeding and/or deposit feeding ( Browne et al., 2007 ). Ingestion of microplastic by invertebrates depends on several factors such as feeding mechanism, type, shape, and quantity of plastic matter. Ward and Shumway (2004) reported that polystyrene microparticles are highly susceptible to ingesting by filter-feeding bivalves (Figures  2 and ​ and3), 3 ), and Browne et al. (2008) recorded the translocation of polystyrene particles between the size ranges of 3–10 mm from the digestive system into the circulatory system of Mytilus edulis . Plastic particles with >80 μm deposit in epithelial cells of digestive tubules in the gastrointestinal tract causing adverse effects such as inflammatory issues on invertebrates ( Von Moos et al., 2012 ).

Table 2

Microplastic accumulation rate of water and sediments in different coastal and marine ecosystems in the world.

Table 3

Microplastic ingestion level of different coastal and marine biota of the coastal and marine ecosystems in the world.

Images of scanning electron-microscopic polystyrene (PS) (a, b) and polyamide nylon (PA) (c, d), found in the ingested microplastic samples of Rock Oyster: Saccostrea forskalii , Striped Barnacle: Balanus Amphitrite , and Periwinkle: Littoraria sp. along eastern coasts of Thailand (photo authorship: Thushari et al., 2017a ).

Various literature records are available on the accumulation of microplastic in invertebrate groups and vertebrates found on the coastal and marine environment ( Table 3 ). The microscopic size of microplastic fragments is characterized by a higher surface area: volume ratio and increasing the potential of transporting contaminants and accumulate in biota ( STAP, 2011 ).

Toxic chemicals such as Bisphenol-A (BPA), monomers, flame retardants, oligomers, metal ions, and antibiotics are incorporated with plastics, and these chemical substances can accumulate in the marine organisms that ingested plastics unintentionally ( Lithner et al., 2011 ). Fish, mollusks, and mammals have potentially toxic effects by flame retardants and phthalates incorporated in plastics ( Teuten et al., 2009 ; Oehlmann et al., 2009 ). Based on experimental conditions, BPA and phthalate in plastic causes significant impacts on reproduction, genetic mutations, and growth of organisms ( Oehlmann et al., 2009 ). Similarly, natural populations cause substantial negative consequences due to the presence of above toxic substances in their diet or surrounding environment. On the other hand, plastic materials can absorb persistent toxic chemical substances with bio-accumulation potential. Such kinds of major toxic substances are Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which are highly resistant to biodegradation. POPs include DDT like Organochlorine pesticides, by-products of many industrial processes such as dioxins, i.e., Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDD) and Dibenzo Furans (PCDF), and industrial chemicals like Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCB). Absorbance efficiency of persistent chemicals into plastic materials is significantly higher compared to surrounding seawater ( Teuten et al., 2009 ; Rios et al., 2010 ; Hirai et al., 2011 ). Contaminated plastic debris with this kind of chemicals has high potential in causing the transportation of persistent chemicals into the marine organisms via feeding. Literature also records the high potential of interacting antibiotics and metal ions with plastics. Both microplastics and Sulfamethoxazole (SMX) are ubiquitous pollutants in aquatic ecosystems; the reaction of these two contaminants with each other is recorded in the respective environment. As a result, the adsorption of SMX into microplastics reached equilibrium within 16 hours. Sulfamethazine (SMT) has the adsorption capacity into six types of microplastics: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). However, the adsorption rate of SMX and SMT into microplastics gradually decreased with different environmental variables like pH and salinity ( Guo et al., 2019b , 2019c ). These kinds of persistent antibiotics can cause adverse environmental impacts due to biological activity and antibacterial characters ( Dlugosz et al., 2015 ). The presence of antibiotic drugs makes changes in the population of microbes by proliferating antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) in the natural aquatic environment. This would cause hazardous health threats to humans and other aquatic faunal communities ( Baran et al., 2011 ; Hoa et al., 2011 ).

The microplastic also has an affinity with metal compounds and possible in causing eco-toxicological effects. The adsorption capacity of Sr 2+ on to three types of microplastics, i.e., polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), has been detected according to literature records. The total adsorption rate of Sr 2+ into microplastics is regulated by the external mass transfer step ( Guo and Wang, 2019d ). Accumulated non-biodegradable metal ions in the ecosystems cause toxic effects in plants and animals even at lower levels, and heavy metals produce adverse health effects on humans ( Ntihuga, 2006 ).

According to Cole et al. (2013) , toxic chemical compounds can accumulate in the organisms in higher trophic levels by ingestion of seafood contaminated with plastics and persistent materials, heavy metals, and pharmaceutical compounds. Accordingly, these chemical substances can enter humans through food webs, creating health issues.

Marine litter, including plastics, is useful as a habitat for aquatic organisms. Those artificial, hard substrates act as a new surface for assemblage and colonization of coastal and marine organisms ( Figure 2 ). Invertebrate species including bivalves, crustaceans, echinoderms, gastropods, bryozoans, coelenterates, insects, sponges, and polychaetes, seagrasses, and seaweeds are the major taxa using the substrate of litter/debris as habitats ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ) ( Figure 2 ). Abandoned fishing gears, ALDF, and their parts are used as substrates for colonization of mobile and sessile organisms ( Good et al., 2010 ; Ayaz et al., 2006 ). Plastic debris provides functional habitats for different microorganisms ( Zettler et al., 2013 ). Vibrio bacteria have preferably grown on plastic debris in the oceanic system ( GEF, 2012 ), and marine plastic waste has also been used as new habitat by observed 47 associated marine species in the Maltese Islands ( Pace et al., 2007 ). Dispersion via plastic debris is another ecological effect caused by macro- and megaplastics. Plastic debris acts as floating objects and provides a stable substrate for rafting and transportation of mobile and sessile organisms. This effect acts as a mode of introducing invasive species into a new ecosystem. Ecosystem composition, structure, and equilibrium are totally modified due to competition for resources (e.g., Food, Habitat, and Space) between native and non-native species in such systems. Plastic debris acting as rafting agents are plastic fragments, fishing gear parts, nets, ropes, fishing materials, packaging materials, and microplastic matter ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ). Crustaceans and Annelids are the frequently observed mobile organisms rafting via litter ( Goldstein et al., 2014 ). According to Goldstein et al. (2014) , a diverse group of plastic rafting organisms was recorded from the western and eastern pacific oceanic regions during the 2009–2012 period, while 134 species belonging to 14 phyla were attached to the substrate of plastic buoys originated from aquaculture operations along the south-eastern Pacific region in Chile during 2001–2005 ( Astudillo et al., 2009 ). The floating capacity of the plastic buoys is higher and allows transporting a long distance from the place of origin over the water surface. Austrominius modestus, an exotic barnacle species attached to plastic debris, was observed in Shetland Island, United Kingdom ( Barnes and Milner, 2015 ). In the North Pacific region, various taxonomic groups attached to the floating litter were recorded during 2009–2012, and 87% of total attached debris was hard plastic fragments, as referenced in Goldstein et al. (2014) . Barnes and Milner (2015) revealed that assessing the effects of the accidental introduction of organisms by marine debris is difficult.

Assemblage or ecosystem-level effect was recorded as another consequence of plastic pollution. The degree of severity for the ecosystem level by plastic debris depends on several factors: area covered by plastic debris, type and nature of plastic debris, level of sensitivity of the respective ecosystem, and associated organisms. Based on the literature records, plastic debris accumulation modifies the habitats in the marine environment. Further, benthic, submerged ecosystems such as seagrass and coral reefs in the marine environment degrade by deposition of macro and mega plastic debris on the seafloor ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ). Degraded benthic ecosystems reduce the species richness and composition in the marine environment. Derelict fishing gears are mostly affecting debris type causing assemblage-level impacts ( GEF, 2012 ). In Oman, 69% of coral sites were negatively affected by abandoned fishing gears, or ALDF, including gill nets, and more than 20 genera of corals were adversely affected by decreasing the coral biodiversity ( Al-Jufaili et al., 1999 ). Carson et al. (2011) revealed that microplastic fragments are responsible for changing porosity and heat transferring capacity of sediments. Thus, the physical characteristics of benthic habitats will be altered accordingly, and this would make the survival of benthos difficult without optimum conditions. Plastic debris over the surface of seawater reduces the light penetration capacity and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) level in habitats; accordingly, changes of physicochemical water quality parameters affect primary productivity and tropic relationship in water negatively. Biodiversity gradually declines because of the absence of optimum conditions in the habitats and niches, since food availability and DO level are considered as the main factors (habitat factors) affecting biodiversity. Also, the presence of plastic debris on the respective niches negatively affects the behavioral changes of coastal and marine organisms ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ). Foraging capacity of the intertidal mollusk, Nassarius pullus, reduces rapidly with the presence of plastic debris ( Aloy et al., 2011 ).

3.2. Socio-economic effects by plastic pollution in respective ecosystems

Plastic pollution causes different socio-economic impacts on various aspects, such as commercial fishery, tourism, shipping, and human health, and negatively affects the national economy of the respective country by allocating an extra budget for waste removal. An overload of plastic contaminants in the ocean basins and coastal zones directly influence the commercial fishery, aquaculture, and tourism. In Scotland, debris removal, including plastic litter such as fishing gears and PVC pipes, causes loss of fishing time and extra expense for cleaning ( Ten et al., 2009 ). Ghost trapping fishing (accidental fish catch by discarded/abandoned and lost fishing gear: ALDF) was identified as one of the adverse effects on the commercial fishery sector ( Al-Masroori et al., 2004 ). Ghost fishing significantly reduces fish stocks which play a major role in commercial and recreational fishing ( Anderson and Alford, 2013 ). According to the literature records ( Al-Masroori et al., 2004 ), the expenses are approximately US$ 145 and 168 due to ghost fishing for three months and six months, respectively. Cost-benefit analysis has identified the effect of ghost fishing in Puget Sound, USA ( Gilardi et al., 2010 ), and accordingly, the cost for commercial crab fishery by ghost fishing is nearly US$ 19,656. In Indonesia, severe changes on fishing grounds were recorded by litter accumulation, and fishing gear types were identified as the main component of marine litter. Further, debris accumulation caused negative impacts on the artisanal fishery sector in Indonesia ( Nash, 1992 ). As per UNEP (2009) , an annual loss of US$ 250 million was due to the loss of the lobster fishery sector by the presence of ghost fishing gears.

Marine plastic debris can also act as a key contributor to the distribution of non-native, invasive species. CIESM (2014) has identified algae growth and the proliferation of plastic debris. The overgrowth of these algae has the potential to cause harmful algae blooms and, accordingly, depletion of ecosystem health with economic loss by fishery and tourism-related activities. Further, it induces the depletion of sensitive, submerged ecosystems such as coral reefs, destroy breeding and nursery grounds of seafood sources, and result in a substantial loss of commercial fishery catch ( GEF, 2012 ).

Moreover, microplastic pollution has a severe negative effect on the fishery sector. Organisms representing lower trophic levels are possible to ingest microplastic with food particles ( Wright et al., 2013 ). These contaminants pass to the other organisms through food webs and may accumulate toxic chemicals in higher trophic levels, including fish ( Wright et al., 2013 ), with adverse effects on capture fishery and aquaculture sector. Contaminated fishery sources have low demand, and thus, create an economic loss. If plastic pollution affects negatively on marine biodiversity, seafood safety, and availability, it will create a severe economic impact at the global level, especially in developing countries or islands where marine and coastal fishery resources are a major food source. As an example, food fish contributes, or exceeds, approximately 50% of total animal protein intake in some small islands or developing states: e.g., Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ghana, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, and Sri Lanka. The depletion of fishery resources by plastic pollution directly affects the economy of such countries described above and causes socio-economic crisis and health issues consequently ( Nerland et al., 2014 ; McKinley and Johnston, 2010 ; Johnston and Roberts, 2009 ; FAO, 2016 ).

Plastic pollution in beaches and marine environment triggers a negative effect on aesthetic value, natural beauty, and health of ecosystems ( Figure 4 ). As a result, the lowered aesthetic and recreational value in coastal shore areas and marine systems lead to a significant reduction in the total number of tourists ( Figure 4 ). On the other hand, the health of ecosystems and the possibility of involvement in most recreational activities in marine and coastal zones are proportionate. For example, offshore ocean basin and sensitive coastal ecosystems (e.g., healthy coral reef ecosystems) are associated with tourism-related activities such as coral watching, snorkeling, whale watching, turtle watching, sport fishing, and scuba diving. Death of a coral cover by plastic debris implies the loss of such kind of tourism activities and reducing the number of tourists visiting a specific region ( GEF, 2012 ). The ciliated pathogen, which acts as the causative agent of skeletal eroding band disease in corals, was identified in floating plastic in the western pacific region ( Goldstein et al., 2014 ). Accordingly, infected corals are gradually depleting and severely affect the alteration of ecosystem structure and compositions. Therefore, degraded coral systems may cause to reduce the number of tourists due to loss of aesthetic value and attraction in a certain region. Tourism is related to different parties gaining benefits via direct and/or indirect manner. As an example, a reduced number of tourists causes loss of job opportunities for local communities who depend on tourism-related activities in the respective area. Accordingly, a substantial economic loss directly interconnects with the negative effects of the social aspect. Tourism-oriented islands such as Hawaii and Maldives are economically threatened by declining the annual income through tourism due to this kind of anthropogenic factors ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ).

Negative effects of plastic pollution on coastal and marine vicinity (photo authorship: J.D.M. Senevirathna).

Plastic debris can cause direct and indirect health effects on humans through the ingestion of contaminated seafood sources, and the accumulation of poisonous, persistent chemical substances in the human body. Scuba divers have severe health risks in trapping and entangling discarded fishing nets during diving ( GEF, 2012 ). There is a high risk of loss of lives by accidents due to the accumulation of mega-size marine plastic debris in the ocean ( GEF, 2012 ). Further, polluted coastal and marine zones are associated with negative health issues on tourists and coastal residents. Polluted seawater with plastic debris has adverse impacts on tourists in recreational activities. There are also records of severe injuries by sharp cuts from plastic debris in the shore area and marine zones. Overload of plastic debris in recreational beaches and ocean systems can raise health issues such as lower blood pressure and reduce mental fitness (e.g., stress, anger, tension) in humans ( GESAMP, 2015 ). Adverse health effects can reduce the country's productivity and working efficiency with negative impacts on social and economic aspects of the affected area. In India, environmental problems, including pollution, causes serious ecological effects on the coastal ecosystems, and consequently, have a direct effect on the socio-economic status of coastal communities ( Lakshmi and Rajagopalan, 2000 ).

As the fouling of plastic debris in ships creates disturbances of operational activities, it requires cleaning of ship hulls for proper functioning. APEC (2009) recorded that the annual cost of damage from debris, including plastic litter on shipping, is US$ 279 million. In summary, both ecological and socio-economic impacts of plastic pollution are inter-related.

4. Initiatives on plastic pollution control and prevention

Several kinds of strategies have been identified to address the issue of plastic pollution. Institutional level involvement is such kind of key strategy used in treating the current topic. Global, regional, and national level institutions are essential in controlling and preventing the accumulation of plastic debris in the marine and coastal environments.

4.1. Global-scale initiatives

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly on oceans and the Law of the Sea are examples of such global initiatives that are useful for addressing this issue. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides an international legal framework for controlling plastic contamination. Article 207 and 211 emphasize marine pollution, including plastic debris accumulation with a particular focus on the reduction, control, and prevention of plastic litter. Further, states are provisioning for controlling, reducing, and preventing pollution from different sources like land-based and sea-based sources. UN General Assembly has also delivered essential declarations to make the marine environment cleaner. That includes resolution on making partnership for awareness between the general public and private sector regarding the effects of plastic pollution on ecological, social, and economic aspects and the explicit integration for addressing the issues arising from contamination by plastic debris as aligning with a national strategic framework ( Hirai et al., 2011 ; Cole et al., 2013 ).

Further, the same resolution states that ( Chiappone et al. (2002) ) international, national, and regional organizations [e.g., International Maritime Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and sub-regional fisheries management organizations] must involve with finding solutions for preventing the accumulation of lost or abandoned fishing gears/ALDF. Plastic contamination is detected as one of the serious environmental issues ( UNEP, 2011 ). The conference of the United Nations Convention on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) raised the necessity of plastic pollution control in the ocean basins, including marine zones. It further highlighted (163) the implementation of the framework of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It states to conduct different initiatives by identifying suitable priorities for the management of marine pollution using scientific data or evidence by 2025. This kind of scientific literature review will act as reference data for prioritizing and implementing management activities accordingly at a global level.

On the other hand, the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution (MARPOL) focusing on activities of ships is the legislator's body useful in acquiring the above objective. That convention addresses following key areas which are directly and indirectly related to the plastic pollution control and prevention in the sea: management of garbage including plastic litter, prohibiting dumping and discarding of plastic litter into the sea with the involvement of member states, and responsibilities related to abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gears (ALDF) by minimizing the waste (including plastic debris, especially wastes/litter from fishing gears) received from capture fishery sector.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Article no. 70) states reducing the effects of plastic pollution on coastal and marine biodiversity using strategies (e.g., Strategic Environmental Assessments: SEAs and Environmental Impact Assessments: EIAs) to prevent marine pollution. Subsidiary party on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) acts as the Scientific Advisory body of CBD. Following decisions were made at the 16 th meeting of SBSTTA for controlling pollution including plastic accumulation in marine and coastal zones on 2012: (i) monitoring and documentation on effects of debris on biodiversity and ecosystems, (ii) scientific research and feasible studies on management and controlling of plastic and other kinds of debris, (iii) regional level capacity building programs focusing on methods and approaches of preventing and controlling issues related to plastics and different kinds of litter accumulation.

Convention of Migratory Species (CMS) has also come to power with the implementation of following actions: (i) seeking for marine debris hotspots all over the world, (ii) assessing the effects of plastic and other kinds of litter on coastal and marine biodiversity, (iii) identification of methods and mechanism of controlling marine debris accumulating sources at the regional level, (iv) implementing an action plan to mitigate the pollution by debris deposition in the marine environment at the national level. The scientific council further recommended assessing the impacts on migratory species by marine debris, seeking emerging issues related to community awareness on marine debris accumulation, and identify best management practices on waste control for maritime ships and vessels. Although plastic pollution and waste management are interrelated components, international, legal constitution, or agreement focusing on entirely waste management has not been developed ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ).

However, several kinds of international initiatives focus on waste management, indirectly, or as a part of pollution control and prevention. UNEP council (25/8) has decided to apply a practical approach to waste management. They have addressed the national framework design under the theme of “shift from an end-of-pipe approach in waste management to an integrated waste management approach” ( UNEP, 2011 ). Mitigation of issues on marine plastic debris accumulation and plastic pollution are associated with waste management practices; thus, an internationally accepted, integrated waste management program has been recommended to address the above issue ( UNEP, 2011 ). Basel Convention is one of the most critical international legislation focused on hazardous waste and disposal. Solid plastic fragments are considered as hazardous waste with severe risks on human health ( UNEP, 2005 ). In 2008, the Basel convention implemented the Bali declaration on the theme of “Waste Management for Human Health and Livelihoods.” This declaration works for waste management. Since hazardous waste is composed of plastic debris, plastic pollution control is linked with the Basel convention. Global Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM) of UNEP opened a path for working collaboratively with the international and non-government parties for waste management that are considered as an alternative for plastic pollution control in the marine environment in 2010. Following actions were planned for implementation with a special focus on mitigation of waste accumulation and plastic pollution by GPWM: identification of related issues, suggest appropriate solutions to overcome the above-identified issues, disseminate the findings, develop the international support and involvement, awareness, political support, develop facilities, and capacity to trap wastes.

Honolulu Strategy acts as another global international framework and an initiative for working toward preventing and management of debris, including plastic wastes with the collaborative cooperation of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and UNEP. This initiative guides monitoring and mitigation of litter, including plastic debris. During 2012, the European Commission and 64 government bodies collectively agreed with the Manila declaration that addresses the accomplishment of the Global Program of UNEP's for the management of debris sources from land-based activities. Members of the Manila declaration also collectively agreed to formulate relevant national-level policies in controlling pollution, including marine debris accumulation, which harms marine ecosystems. Also, partners to the Manila declaration adopted in the implementation of the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) under the guidance of the Honolulu Strategy. It further included reducing pollution from ocean-based sources with following goals: (i) limiting contamination levels and possible effects from ocean-based sources responsible for the accumulation of debris including plastics into aquatic systems, (ii) reducing levels and impacts of marine debris including plastics on coasts, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity, and (iii) limitation of accumulation levels and effects of debris from solid wastes and land-based litter into the aquatic ecosystems.

4.2. Regional-scale initiatives

At the regional level, Regional Seas Program of UNEP proposed relevant activities for 13 regional seas: Mediterranean sea, Baltic sea, Black sea, Caspian sea, East Asian seas, Red sea, Eastern African sea, South Asian sea, Wider Caribbean sea, Northeast Atlantic sea, Gulf of Aden sea, Northwest Pacific sea, and Southeast Pacific sea. Coastal cleanup programs have been completed as a global project in all the above regions. European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD, established in 2008, focuses on minimizing the amount of marine debris at a regional level. The directive aims at sustainable utilization of resources in the ecosystem while conserving ecosystems through the Ecosystem-Based Approach (EBA). This task is a collaborative effort of all European countries. Members are required to monitor marine zones and identify achievable targets by 2020. It further included the operational program for ensuring the targets are achieved. South Korea conducted a long-term project to address the issue of marine debris: an in-depth survey and monitoring, identification, prevention, elimination, treatment, and recycling of marine waste for ten years ( GEF, 2012 ). At the regional level, a discarded fishing gear collection project was implemented in Hawaii and South African Coasts through NOAA/MDP. Moreover, scientific studies are recommended to identify the distribution pattern of plastic pollutants in South America's estuarine ecosystems for effective management plans ( Chen, 2015 ; Costa and Barletta, 2015 , 2016 ). Barletta et al. (2019) also recommended the conservation plans for estuaries in South America focusing on annual variations of ecoline, retention recycling cycles, flush of environmental indicators, and effects on trophic webs over whole coverage of gradients of estuary ecosystems to overcome the emerging issues associated with pollution. Restoration of tidal and river forcing is recommended as the most appropriate decision for ecosystem rehabilitation by improving the quality of the estuarine environment in South America at the regional level ( Storm et al., 2005 ; Slater, 2016 ).

4.3. National-level initiatives

Most of the national level legislation addresses the issue of solid waste management and waste production while reducing plastic pollution in marine and coastal ecosystems. In the US, Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act and Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act are key legislative pieces important in mitigation of plastic pollution at the national level. In South Korea, the Practical Integrated System of Marine debris was established to prevent marine debris accumulation from 1999-2009, for ten years. Scotland developed a Scottish marine litter strategy in 2013. In Sri Lanka, national-level regulations on polythene and other types of plastic management were introduced in 2017. This legislation made following efforts under the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980 with the 19 th amendment: (i) prohibition of manufacturing polythene products of 20 microns or below, food wrappers (lunch sheets), any bag with high density (grocery bags) and food containers, plates, cups, spoons from expanded Polystyrene (2034/33-35 and 38), (ii) prohibition of the burning of combustible and rejected matters including plastic (2034/36), and (iii) banning the use of polythene products as decorative items (2034/37) ( CEA, 2017 ).

Marine Pollution Prevention Act No. 35 of 2008 is another national regulation to control, prevent, and manage pollution in the marine environment in Sri Lanka. Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) is the apex party established by the government of Sri Lanka under the above act. MEPA is responsible for finding solutions and remedies for overcoming pollution-related issues in the marine zones of Sri Lanka. With the growth of oceanic pollution by plastics, invasive species, oil spills, ballast water, and maritime traffic in the coastal and marine environments, MEPA has modernized the Policy Strategies and National Action Plan for marine protection in Sri Lanka with the support of IUCN, to suit current scenario during August 2017–January 2018. This Policy Strategies and National Action Plan focus on addressing the issue of plastic pollution in marine water in Sri Lanka as one of grave concern ( IUCN, 2018 ). The capacity-building project was accomplished to manage the marine debris under four key activities: education and awareness, research and scientific study, creating facilities, and policy formulation ( IUCN, 2018 ). Short-life plastic bags are a serious concern among all forms of plastics; thus different control and preventive measures (e.g., the prohibition of polythene bags usage, applying charges, levy, and taxes) have been used by several countries: Switzerland, China, Italy, Rwanda, South Africa, Kenya, Congo, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Mexico, some states in the USA, several states in India, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, South Korea, Romania, Japan, state of Sao Paolo in Brazil, and New Zealand, at a national level ( European Commission, 2013 ). Implementation of effective national-level initiatives by prioritizing site-specific management needs is recommended toward the plastic-free environment by the current study. Also, the approach on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (Please refer to the section of “ EPR towards producer responsibility” for more details) includes a scheme of plastic container deposition in Asia, Europe, Australia, US, and Canada as a national-level plastic pollution control measure.

4.4. Eco-friendly concepts for controlling plastic pollutio; Reuse, Recycle, and Reduction (3Rs) of plastic

The 3Rs of plastic wastes are a major environmentally friendly concept toward plastic-free ecosystems. Different strategies have been introduced as aligning with this 3Rs concept. Reducing plastic and packaging material usage is one of the key alternatives under the EPR (Please refer to the section of “ EPR towards producer responsibility” for more details). Actions of stakeholders related to plastic production and usage can play a vital role in reducing and reusing plastics. These actions can be either individual or collective activities toward reducing plastic accumulation in the ocean. Product manufacturers and sellers are recommended to follow a sustainable environmental management program with the production and selling. Eco-labeled products allow consumers to distinguish environmentally friendly, non-polluting products for making sustainable decisions during the purchasing of items or goods. Over 25 programs are conducted under the Global Eco-Labeling Network (GEN) toward the plastic-free environment. Ten countries use 43 types of greener packaging labels ( GEN, 2019 ) by signifying the effort in reducing plastic pollution at the national level. Also, New Zealand has awarded eco-labels for plastic products having recycling potential. The environmentally friendly and pollution-free packaging materials and products can be sustained through green procurement. Accordingly, improvement of recycling capacity and minimum packaging is required on green procurement. Biodegradable plastic packaging materials are also possible options for selected plastic products ( Mudgal et al., 2012 ) to control plastic debris accumulation.

On the other hand, positive incentives (financial or physical) are useful in promoting the collection and recycling process of plastics. If these initiatives are encouraged further at the national, regional, and global levels, it will provide more economic benefits to the society as an additional advantage, while preventing the accumulation of plastics in marine and coastal ecosystems.

4.5. EPR towards a plastic-free environment

EPR concept addresses the responsibility towards a greener and cleaner environment even after completion of the production chain. The manufacturers of plastic products and packaging items or material can be encouraged to collect packaging (e.g., food and beverage containers) and recycle plastic through funding and operational activities toward the EPR. Currently, developed countries (Japan, Europe, and Canada) use EPR programs, while the developing nations still do not practice this approach on a large scale. However, this approach is one of the best practices for minimizing the plastic accumulation rate in the environment. This paper recommends establishing a sound strategic mechanism focusing on the EPR concept, mainly for developing countries at the national level. Responsibilities for collecting, recycling, reusing, and managing plastic debris are usually held by stakeholder groups such as producers, importers, suppliers, and brand owners. EPR programs can focus on residential areas and public places such as markets, city plaza, pedestrian areas, municipal parks, and city squares, which experience higher accumulation of plastic debris, including packaging matter ( British Columbia Recycling Regulation Amendment, 2011 ). Segregated litter bins and recyclable plastic collecting centers must be established in a sustainable manner (toward EPR) to prevent plastic waste disposal.

4.6. Collaborative approach for plastic-free zones: engagement with business companies

One of the most crucial strategies for controlling plastic pollution is the engagement with private companies and business associations related to plastic products and packaging items. As stakeholder parties, these internationally recognized companies and associations can play a vital role in the management of plastic litter by working with government agencies collaboratively. In the USA, the American Chemistry Council had conducted awareness programs on reuse and recycle plastic bottles. Plastic Europe is one such internationally recognized association, and they conduct series of programs (e.g., campaign for “zero plastic in landfills” program on plastic pellet treatment at the production line) focusing on prevention and management of marine litter accumulation ( European Commission, 2013 ). Since there is a lack of more information, this study recommends the establishment of powerful Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) with collective engagement between the government agencies and private-sector for large-scale scientific research projects toward controlling the plastic pollution and waste management in a country level.

4.7. Economic instruments

Ordinances and fees are kinds of instruments or tools to prevent usage of plastic items and containers. Banning and penalties are other options for plastic pollution control, which acts as an enforceable mitigation measure. Some countries designed policies or legislation to ban the use and import of plastic items, including bags, at the national level (please refer to the section of “ National level initiatives ” for more details). Prohibition of improperly discarding and removal of plastic wastes is another strategy for preventing the accumulation of plastics. Most EPR projects have already introduced a penalty system for producers for violation of rules and regulations related to waste management and improper disposal. The user fee payment system can be introduced to manage plastic wastes based on the concept of charging/fine for consuming plastic items. The introduction of the secondary market for recycled materials is another alternative to reduce the plastic level in the environment. Plastic producers have the responsibility to recycle plastic products and packaging items (EPR) ( UNEP, 2018 ). As a result, they can financially invest in feasible studies, research, and developments to identify innovative alternatives as secondary materials. Sustainable Materials Management (SMS) is another initiative for pollution control toward a cleaner environment ( UNEP, 2018 ). Japan is one of the developed countries following the SMS using the legal framework since 1997.

4.8. Awareness and capacity building campaigns

Changing attitudes toward conservation and sustainable management of the environment is one of the potent tools in enhancing the quality of marine and coastal ecosystems. Improving the public awareness on litter generation, removal, and effects on marine and coastal environment is such kind of strategy for creating new attitudes among local communities. Blue Flag is such an international program conducted in Europe to reduce marine and coastal debris accumulation ( Blue Flag, 2019 ). According to the guidelines of this program, facilitating the segregation of recyclable plastic matter and positioning the disposal bins and containers are compulsory actions. Information related to this issue (e.g., effects from the accumulation of marine debris, marine debris accumulating sources, different approaches on mitigating overload of plastic debris, and the role of a local community toward this issue) can be publicized via social media, local media, distributing printed materials, and displaying in public areas. Beach cleaning and waste removal campaigns are also conducted with the participation of stakeholders as a step of awareness and capacity building of the local community on this emerging issue. However, the success and effectiveness of this kind of cleaning and debris removal programs depend on the involvement of the local community. As a basement for the future, this paper recommends incorporating environmental education into the syllabus of schools and making all possible efforts to adapt the mindset and attitudes of children on protecting the environment, starting from the nursery and/or primary school stage, because the primary level of children is the most effective stage to make changes in the ideas and attributes toward conservation of the environment.

4.9. Scientific investigations and monitoring

Scientific studies and researches are other approaches to address the issue of plastic pollution in a systematic mechanism. Still, knowledge gaps remain in some aspects (e.g., transport, sources, fate, impacts, and solutions of plastic in the environment) related to plastic pollution. Scientific knowledge and evidence of all aspects of plastic pollution would provide clear overall snapshot and guidance to stakeholders (e.g., local community, policymakers, politicians, consumers, and manufacturers) for implementing most suitable behavioral, technological, and policy solutions to address the issue of marine plastics effectively ( IUCN, 2020 ). Continuous research and scientific studies with frequent monitoring is a significant approach in the management of plastic pollution. Feasible studies on innovations would help to identify the related technology, alternative materials, or products to replace plastics. Authors recommend comprehensive scientific studies, regular monitoring of ecosystems, and innovations with the support of governments, private sectors, NGOs, and international organizations to efficiently address plastic pollution.

5. Conclusion

The marine and coastal ecosystems are complex and dynamic ecosystems that provide ecological and commercial values with services by ensuring human wellbeing. Currently, all oceans and many coastal zones are adversely affected by different kinds of natural and anthropogenic activities. Industrialization and urbanization are recognized as major factors for human-induced pollution, including plastic debris accumulation in the marine and coastal habitats. Estuaries are one of the major coastal ecosystems affected by plastic pollution. Currently, plastic pollution is caused by primary and secondary sources with a terrestrial or ocean-based origin. Megaplastic, macroplastic, mesoplastic, and microplastic (in primary and secondary forms) are major plastic pollutants that can be classified based on size variations. Megaplastic, macroplastic, and mesoplastic are bulk plastic debris, while primary and secondary microplastics are minute (microscopically observed) pollutants with the size range of 1–6 mm or <1 mm. Larger debris are also subjected to the formation of microplastics through physical, chemical, and biological processes. Mainly, estuarine ecosystems in some countries (e.g., several countries of the South American and Asian region) are negatively affected by the distribution of microplastics in sediment and water column.

Plastic pollution causes various ecological impacts at the individual, assemblage, and ecosystem levels. Since the size of microplastics is similar to the food particles which are consumed by most marine and coastal organisms in lower trophic levels, these micro-contaminants are highly susceptible to accumulation in such biota through ingestion with harmful impacts. Microplastic would also concentrate on humans and other organisms representing higher trophic levels through food chains and webs. Plastic pollutants interact with other toxic chemical compounds such as POPs, antibiotics, and heavy metal ions, and gradually produce the eco-toxicological effects. Accumulation of plastic debris causes not only negative ecological consequences to the ecosystem but also threatening to the socio-economic aspects of human life in various ways. However, the ecological and socio-economic impacts of plastic pollution are interconnected.

The necessity of mitigation and managing plastic pollution in marine and coastal environments at global, regional, and national scales is widely recognized. Recently, various international organizations and non-profit social groups actively work together with the kind mind of saving the ocean from plastic pollution in different countries and regions. Regional level mechanisms have already recommended evaluating the estuarine contamination by focusing on plastic pollution for the brackish water ecosystems in some countries such as South America. At the national level, some governments have declared legislations to control the plastic pollution issue by prohibiting the usage of plastic products and enhancing reuse and recycling of plastics with novel technologies at regional and national levels. Implementation of environmental governance with pollution control was recommended after thoroughly considering biological and ecological settings of respective ecosystems in countries like South America. However, initiatives on plastic pollution controlling and prevention need to be further improved at aforesaid levels. Therefore, the current study recommends selected productive approaches to address this issue with sound attention from different stakeholders. Reuse, Recycle, and Reduction (3Rs) of plastic pollutants, encouraging the collection of re-usable plastic debris, EPR towards manufacturer accountability, eco-friendly programs through Public-Private Partnerships, awareness and capacity building campaigns focusing on the cleaner environment, scientific studies on nature and severity of this emerging environmental issue, and innovations are suggested as ultimate, effective solutions for reducing and controlling the plastic pollution in these valuable aquatic ecosystems.

Finally, this review paper reveals the overall scenario of global marine and coastal plastic pollution under different aspects. This secondary data would be further useful as baseline information for the site-specific plastic pollution control and management programs. Human acts are one component of the biosphere; thus, our responsibility is to provide the maximum contribution for zero plastic, cleaner, and the greener environment as an eco-friendly living-being.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge Uva Wellasse University for all supports.

• Abbasi S. Microplastics in different tissues of fish and prawn from the Musa Estuary, Persian Gulf. J. Chemosphere. 2018; 205 :80–87. http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11614 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adams S.M. Assessing cause and effect of multiple stressors on marine systems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2005; 51 :8–12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X04004667 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jufaili S., Al-Jabri M., Al-Baluchi A., Baldwin R., Wilson S., West F., Matthews A. Human impacts on coral reefs in the sultanate of Oman. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 1999; 49 :65–74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771499800109 [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Masroori H., Al-Oufi H., McIlwain J., McLean E. Catches of lost fish traps (ghostfishing) from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fish.Res. 2004; 69 :407–414. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783604001444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Aloy A., Vallejo B., Juinio-Meñez M. Increased plastic litter cover affects the foraging activity of the sandy intertidal gastropod Nassariuspullus. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1772–1779. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680006 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson J.A., Alford A.B. Ghost fishing activity in derelict blue crab traps in Louisiana. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 79 :261–267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360333 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrady A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1596–1605. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11003055 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• APEC . APEC Marine Resources Conservation Working Group; Singapore: 2009. Understanding the Economic Benefits of Costs of Controlling Marine Debris in the APEC Region. http://publications.apec.org/Publications/2009/04/Understanding-the-Economic-Benefits-and-Costs-of-Controlling-Marine-Debris-In-the-APEC-Region [ Google Scholar ]
• Astudillo J.C., Bravo M., Dumont C.P., Thiel M. Detached aquaculture buoys in the SE Pacific: potential dispersal vehicles for associated organisms. Aquat. Biol. 2009; 5 :219–231. http://www.bedim.cl/publications/AstudilloetalAQUABIOL2009.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Athapaththu A.M.A.I.K., Athawuda A.M.G.A.D., Dias P.C.B., Abeygunawardana A.P., Senevirathna J.D.M., Thushari G.G.N., Liyanage N.P.P., Jayamanne S.C. Proceedings of International Research Conference of Uva Wellassa University. 2019. Assessment of suspended plastic levels in surface water of southern coastal belt in Sri Lanka. [ Google Scholar ]
• Athawuda A.M.G.A.D., Jayasiri H.B., Jayamanne S.C., Weerakoon W.R.W.M.A.P., Thushari G.G.N., Guruge K.P.G.K.P. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) International Scientific Sessions. Vol. 65. 2018. Plastic litter enumeration and characterization in coastal water, off Colombo, Sri Lanka; p. 35. http://www.erepository.nara.ac.lk/handle/1/837 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayaz A., Acarli D., Altinagac U., Ozekinci U., Kara A., Ozen O. Ghost fishing by monofilament and multifilament gillnets in Izmir Bay, Turkey. Fish. Res. 2006; 79 :267–271. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783606001391?via%3Dihub [ Google Scholar ]
• Baran W, Adamek E, Ziemiańska J, Sobczak A. Effects of the presence of sulfonamides in the environment and their influence on human health. J. Hazard Mater. 2011; 196 :1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barletta M., Lima A.R.A., Costa M.F. Distribution, sources and consequences of nutrients, persistent organic pollutants, metals and microplastics in South American estuaries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019; 651 :1199–1218. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes D.K.A., Galgani F., Thompson R.C., Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528051 1985–1998. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes D.K.A., Milner P. Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 2015; 146 :815–825. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-004-1474-8 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bellas J., Martinez-Armental J., Martinez-Camara A., Beseda V., Martinez-Gómez C. Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016; 109 :55–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergmann M., Wirzberger V., Krumpen T., Lorenz C., Primpke S., Tekman M.B., Gerdts G. High quantities of microplastic in arctic deep-sea sediments from the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017; 51 :11000–11010. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b03331 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bessa F., Barría P., Neto J.M., Frias J.P.G.L., Otero V., Sobral P., Marques J.C. Occurrence of microplastics in commercial fish from a natural estuarine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018; 128 :575–584. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blue Flag. 2019. https://www.blueflag.global/
• Boerger C., Lattin G., Moore S.L., Moore C.J. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the north pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010; 60 (12):2275–2278. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X10003814 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• British Columbia recycling regulation amendment. May 2011. http://productstewardship.net/legislation/british-columbia/british-columbia-2004-recycling-regulation
• Browne M.A., Crump P., Niven S.J., Teuten E., Tonkin A., Galloway T.S., Thompson R.C. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011; 45 :9175–9179. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21894925 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Dissanayake A., Galloway T.S., Lowe D.M., Thompson R.C. Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.) Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008; 42 :5026–5031. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18678044 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Galloway T., Thompson R. Microplastic – an emerging contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 2007; 3 :559–561. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046805 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Galloway T.S., Thompson R.C. Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010; 44 :3404–3409. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Underwood A.J., Chapman M.G., Williams R., Thompson R.C., van Franeker J.A. Linking effects of anthropogenic debris to ecological impacts. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2015; 282 :20142929. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho D.G., Baptista Neto J.A. Microplastic pollution of the beaches of guanabara bay, Southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 2016; 128 :10–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C.L. Regulation and management of marine litter. In: Bergmann M., Gutow L., Klages M., editors. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2015. pp. 395–428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung P.K., Hung P.L., Fok L. River microplastic contamination and dynamics upon a rainfall event in Hong Kong, China. Environ. Process. 2019; 6 :253–264. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40710-018-0345-0 [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiappone M., White A., Swanson D.W., Miller S.L. Occurrence and biological impacts of fishing gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2002; 44 (7):597–604. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiappone M., Dienes H., Swanson D.W., Miller S.L. Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Biol. Conserv. 2005; 121 :221–230. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070400196X?via%3Dihub [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson H., Colbert S., Kaylor M., McDermid K. Small plastic debris changes water movement and heat transfer through beach sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1708–1713. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11003079 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CEA . 2017. Central Environmental Authority - Sri Lanka. http://www.cea.lk/web/en/acts-regulations (Accessed: 08/06/2019) [ Google Scholar ]
• CIESM . In: Marine Litter in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. CIESM Workshop Monograph N° 46. Briand F., editor. CIESM Publisher; Monaco: 2014. p. 180. http://www.ciesm.org/online/monographs/Tirana.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Claessens M., De Meester S., Landuyt L.V., Clerck K.D., Janssen C.R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 (10):2199–2204. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21802098 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M., Lindeque P., Fileman E., Halsband C., Goodhead R., Moger J., Galloway T.S. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013; 47 :6646–6655. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23692270 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M., Lindeque P., Halsband C., Galloway T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :2588–2597. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001295 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M., Webb H., Lindeque P.K., Fileman E.S., Halsband C., Galloway T.S. Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich sea water samples and marine organisms. Sci. Rep. 2014; 4 :4528. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04528 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collignon A., Hecq J.H., Galgani F., Voisin P., Collard F., Goffart A. Neustonic microplastic and zooplankton in the North western Mediterranean sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012; 64 :861–864. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X12000343 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M.F., Barletta M. Microplastics in coastal and marine environments of the western tropical and sub-tropical Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Sci.: Proces. Impacts. 2015; 17 :1868–1879. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M.F., Barletta M. Special challenges in the conservation of fishes and aquatic environments of South America. J. Fish. Biol. 2016; 89 :4–11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M.F., Ivar do Sul J.A., Silva-Cavalcanti J.S. On the importance of size of plastic fragments and pellets on the strandline: a snapshot of a Brazilian beach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010; 168 :299–304. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cozar A., Echevarria F., Gonzalez-Gordillo J.I. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Gland. Vol. 111. IUCN; Switzerland: 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean: the characterization of marine plastics and their environmental impacts, situation analysis report; pp. 10239–10244. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dantas D.V., Barletta M., Costa M.F. The seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine drums (Sciaenidae) Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2012; 19 :600–606. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-011-0579-0 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derraik J.G.B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002; 44 :842–852. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02002205 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devriese L.I., van der Meulen M.D., Maes T., Bekaert K., Paul-Pont I., Frere L., Robbens J., Vethaak A.D. Microplastic contamination in brownshrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the southern North seaand channel area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015; 98 :179–187. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26456303 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dlugosz M., Zmudzki P., Kwiecien A., Szczubialka K., Krzek J., Nowakowska M. Photo catalytic degradation of sulfamethaxazole in aqueous solution using a floating TiO 2 -expanded perlite photocatalyst. J. Hazard Mater. 2015; 298 :146–153. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle M., Watson W., Bowlin N., Sheavly S. Plastic particles in coastal pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 2011; 71 :41–52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21093039 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksen M., Lebreton L.C.M., Carson H.S. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS One. 2014; 9 (12) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission . European Commission; 2013. Draft Impact Assessment for a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste to Reduce the Consumption of Lightweight Plastic Carrier Bags. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2013/EN/1-2013-761-EN-F1-1.Pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome: 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrell P., Nelson K. Trophiclevel transfer ofmicroplastic: Mytilusedulis (L.) to Carcinusmaenas (L.) Environ. Pollut. 2013; 177 :1–3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23434827 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fendall L.S., Sewell M.A. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009; 58 :1225–1228. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481226 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galgani F., Fleet D., Franeker J.V., Katsanevakis S., Maes T., Mouat J., Oosterbaan L., Poitou I., Hanke G., Thompson R., Amato E., Birkun A., Janssen C. Taskgroup 10 report; 2010. marine litter. In: Zampoukas N., editor. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. JRC, IFREMER and ICES. 2010. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/9-Task-Group-10.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gall S.C., Thompson R.C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015; 92 :1–2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25680883 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• GEF . 2012. Impactsof Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions, Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel — Technical Series 2012, No. 67: 61. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-67-en.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• GEN . 2019. Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) https://globalecolabelling.net/ (Accessedin 20/10/2019) [ Google Scholar ]
• GESAMP . Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment. In: Kershaw P.J., editor. (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) 2015. http://www.gesamp.org/publications/microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2 Rep.Stud. GESAMP, 90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilardi K., Carlson-Bremer D., June J., Antonelis K., Broadhurst G., Cowan T. Marine species mortality in derelict fishing nets in PugetSound, WA, and the cost/benefits of derelictnet removal. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010; 690 :376–382. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20031176 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaucia P.O., Maria C.T.M., Cassiana C.M., Theodore B.H., Renato S.C. Microplastic contamination in surface waters in guanabara bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019; 139 :157–162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18308932?via%3Dihub [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein M.C., Carson H.S., Eriksen M. Relationship of diversity and habitat area in North Pacific plastic-associated rafting communities. Mar. Biol. 2014; 161 :1441–1453. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-014-2432-8 [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein M.C., Goodwin D.S. Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) ingestmicro-plastic debris in the north pacific subtropical gyre. Peer J. 2013; 1 :e184. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24167779 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Good T.P., June J.A., Etnier M.A., Broadhurst G. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010; 60 :39–50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X09003713 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graca B., Szewc K., Zakrzewska D., Dołęga A., Szczerbowska-Boruchowska M. Sources and fate of microplastics in marine and beach sediments of the Southern Baltic Sea—a preliminary study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017; 24 (8) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-017-8419-5 7650–7661. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray J. Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodivers. Conserv. 1997; 6 :153–175. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018335901847 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory M.R. Plastic ‘scrubbers’ inhandcleansers: a further (andminor) source for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1996; 32 :867–871. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X96000471 [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Wang J.L. The chemical behaviors of microplastics in marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019; 142 :1–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Liu Y., Wang J.L. Sorption of sulfamethazine onto different types of microplastics: a combined experimental and molecular dynamics simulation study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019; 145 :547–554. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Chen C., Wang J.L. Sorption of sulfamethoxazole onto six types of microplastics. Chemosphere. 2019; 228 :300–308. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Wang J.L. The phenomenological mass transfer kinetics model for Sr 2+ sorption onto spheroids primary microplastics. Environ. Pollut. 2019; 250 :737–745. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall N.M., Berry K.L.E., Rintoul L., Hoogenboom M.O. Microplastic ingestion by scleractinian corals. Mar. Biol. 2015; 162 :725–732. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-015-2619-7 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartmann N.B., Huffer T., Thompson R.C., Hassellov M., Verschoor A., Daugaard A.E., Rist S., Karlsson T., Brennholt N., Cole M., Herrling M.T., Hess M.C., Ivleva N.P., Lusher A.L., Wagner M. Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019; 53 :4678–4679. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirai H., Takada H., Ogata Y., Yamashita R., Mizukawa K., Saha M., Kwan C., Moore C., Gray H., Laursen D., Zettler E., Farrington J., Reddy C., Peacock E., Ward M. Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1683–1692. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1100316X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoa P.T.P., Managaki S., Nakada N., Takada H., Shimizu A., Anh D.H., Viet P.H., Suzuki S. Antibiotic contamination and occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in aquatic environments of northern Vietnam. Sci. Total Environ. 2011; 409 (15):2894–2901. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong S., Jongm Y.L., Yong C.J., Young J.K., Hee J.K., Donguk H., Sang H.H., Daeseok K., Won J.S. Impacts of marine debris on wild animals in the coastal area of Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 66 :117–124. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23199729 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hossaina M.S., Shajjadur M.R., Mohammad N.U., Sharifuzzaman S.M., Sayedur R.C., Subrata S., Shah M.N.C. Vol. 238. 2019. Microplastic contamination in Penaeid shrimp from the northern bay of bengal; p. 124688. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31524623 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IUCN . 2018. International union for conservation of nature. https://www.iucn.org/asia/countries/sri-lanka/development-policy-strategies-and-national-action-plan-marine-protection-sri-lanka Available from: [verified: 08/06/2018] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IUCN International union for conservation of nature. 2020. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastics Available from: [ PubMed ]
• Ivar do Sula J.A., Costa M.F., Barletta M., Cysneiros F.J.A. Pelagic microplastics around anarchipelago of the Equatorial Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 75 (1–2):305–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jabeen K., Su L., Li J., Yang D., Tong C., Mu J., Shi H. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 2017; 221 :141–149. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston E.L., Roberts D.A. Review Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2009; 157 (6):1745–1752. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakshmi A., Rajagopalan R. Socio-economic implications of coastal zone degradation and their mitigation: a case study from coastal villages in India. Ocean Coast Manag. 2000; 43 (8–9):749–762. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattin G.L., Moore C.J., Zellers A.F., Moore S.L., Weisberg S.B. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the southern California shore. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004; 49 :291–294. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X04000402 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law K.L. Plastics in the marine environment. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2017; 9 :205–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law K., Morét-Ferguson S., Maximenko N., Proskurowski G., Peacock E., Hafner J., Reddy C. Plastic accumulation in the north atlantic subtropical gyre. Science. 2010; 329 :1185–1188. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724586 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leslie H.A., Brandsma S.H., van Velzen M.J.M., Vethaak A.D. Microplastics enroute: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Seasediments and biota. Environ. Int. 2017; 101 :133–142. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28143645 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lima A.R.A., Barletta M., Costa M.F., Ramos J.A.A., Dantas D.V., Melo P.A.M.C., Justino A.K.S., Ferreira G.V.B. Changes in the composition of ichthyoplankton assemblage and plastic debris in mangrove creeks relative to moon phases. J. Fish. Biol. 2016; 89 :619–640. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lima A.R.A., Costa M.F., Barletta M. Distribution patterns of microplastics withinthe plankton of a tropical estuary. Environ. Res. 2014; 132 :146–155. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lithner D., Larsson A., Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plasticpolymers based on chemicalcomposition. Sci. Total Environ. 2011; 409 :3309–3324. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21663944 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lusher A., McHugh M., Thompson R. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 67 :94–99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23273934 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J., Lusher A., Thompson R.C., Morley A. The deposition and accumulation of microplastics in marine sediments and bottom water from the Irish continental shelf. Sci. Rep. 2017; 7 :10772. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11079-2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinley A., Johnston E.L. Impacts of contaminant sources on marine fish abundance and species richness: a review and meta-analysis of evidence from the field. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2010; 420 :175–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-termthreat. Environ. Res. 2008; 108 :131–139. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393510800159X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J., Lattin G.L., Zellers A.F. The Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference, September. Redondo Beach, California, USA. 2005. 2005. Density of plastic particles found in zooplankton trawls from coastal waters of California to the north pacific central gyre (2004) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.565.1613 [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J., Moore S.L., Leecaster M.K., Weisberg S.B. A comparison of plastic and plankton in the north pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2001; 42 (12):1297–1300. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X0100114X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J., Moore S.L., Weisberg S.B., Lattin G.L., Zellers A.F. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern California’s coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002; 44 :1035–1038. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02001509 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mudgal S., Muehmel K., Hoa E., Gremont M., Labouze E. DG Environment – European Commission; 2012. Final Report - Options to Improve the Biodegradable Requirements in the Packaging Directive. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/options_to_improve_biodegradability_in_ppwd_2012.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray F., Cowie P.R. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11001755?via=3Dihub 1207–1217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash A. Impacts of marine debris on subsistence fishermen an exploratory study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1992; 24 :150–156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X9290243Y [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerland I.L., Halsband C., Allan I., Thomas K.V. Norwegian Institute for Water Research; 2014. Microplastics in marine Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects. Kristians and. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves D., Sobral P., Ferreira J.L., Pereira T. Ingestion of microplastics by commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015; 101 :119–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng K.L., Obbard J.P. Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore's coastal marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006; 52 :761–767. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X05005357 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ntihuga J.N. 2006. Biosensor to Detect Heavy Metals in Waste Water in Proceedings from the International Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nualphan . Chulalongkorn University; Thailand: 2013. Types and Sources of Marine Debris in BangSaen Beach. Chonburi Province, Master Thesis. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brine T., Thompson R.C. Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2010; 60 (12):2279–2283. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oehlmann J., Schulte-Oehlmann U., Kloas W., Jagnytsch O., Lutz I., Kusk K., Wollenberger L., Santos E., Paull G., Van Look K., Tyler C. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 :2047–2062. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528055 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pace R., Dimech M., Camilleri M. Rapport Commission International pour l’ exploration scientifique de la MerMediterranee. Vol. 38. 2007. Litter as a source of habitat islands on deep water muddy bottoms; p. 567. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/21502 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel M.M., Goyal B.R., Bhadada S.V., Bhatt J.S., Amin A.F. Getting into the brain: approaches to enhance brain drug delivery. CNS Drugs. 2009; 23 :35–58. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19062774 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pazos R.S., Bauer D.E., Gomez N. Microplastics integrating the coastal planktonic community in the inner zone of Río de la Plata estuary (South America) Environ. Pollut. 2018; 243 :134–142. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters C.A., Bratton S.P. Urbanization is a major influence on microplastic ingestion by sunfish in the Brazos River Basin, Central Texas, USA. Environ. Pollut. 2016; 210 :380–387. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Possatto F.E., Barletta M., Costa M.F., Ivar do Sul J.A., Dantas D.V. Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries impact. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1098–1102. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Praboda, M.W.K., Wijethunga, H.N.S., Silva, A.P.R., Gayathry, D. L., Abeygunawardana, A.P., Senevirathna, J.D.M., Thushari, G.G.N., 2020a. Screening of Plastic Pollution Effects in Madu-ganga Estuarine Ecosystem in Southern Province, Sri Lanka: An Approach toward the Coastal Zone Management, Proceedings of International Research Conference - IRCUWU2020.
• Praboda, M.W.K., Egodauyana, K.P.U.T., Wijethunga, H.N.S., Abeygunawardana, A.P., Senevirathna, J.D.M., Thushari, G.G.N., 2020b, Occurrence of Microplastics in Gut and Muscles of Commerson's Anchovy in Madu-Ganga Estuary of Southern Province, Sri Lanka. Proceedings of International Research Conference - IRCUWU2020.
• Pruter A.T. Sources, quantities and distribution of persistent plastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1987; 18 :305–310. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X87800164 [ Google Scholar ]
• Reddy M.T., Natarajan S., Venkateswaran K., Someswara R.P., Neelam S., Nilamani D. Classification, characterization and comparison of aquatic ecosystems in the landscape of adilabad district, Telangana,DeccanRegion, India. OALib J. 2018; 5 :e4459. https://www.scirp.org/html/83843_83843.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Richmond R. Coral reefs: present problems and future concerns resulting from anthropogenic disturbance. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2015; 33 (6):524–536. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/33/6/524/2107143 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rios L., Jones P., Moore C., Narayan U. Quantitation of persistent organic pollutants adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern Pacific Gyre’s “easterngarbagepatch” J. Environ. Monit. 2010; 12 :2226–2236. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2010/EM/C0EM00239A"∖l"!divAbstract. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosevelt C., Los Huertos M., Garza C., Nevins H.M. Marine debris in central California: quantifying type and abundance of beach litter in Monterey Bay, CA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 71 :299–306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan P.G., Moore C.J., van Franeker J.A., Moloney C.L. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528052 1999–2012. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater F.M. Ecotones, ecoclines and eco-perturbations: the aquatic flora and fauna of the S'Albufera Natural Park, Majorca, a contribution and review. Mediterr. J. Biosci. 2016; 1 :120–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• STAP . A STAP Information Document. Global Environment Facility; Washington, DC: 2011. Marine debris as a global environmental problem: introducing a solutions-based frame work focused on plastic; p. 40. http://www.stapgef.org/sites/default/files/stap/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Marine-Debris.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Storm C., van der Velden J.A., Kuijpers J.W.M. From nature conservation towards restoration of estuarine dynamics in the heavily modified Rhine-Meuse estuary, The Netherlands. Arch. Hydrobiol. 2005; 155 :305–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tahir A., Taba P., Samawi M.F., Werorilangi S. Microplastics in water, sediment and salts from traditional salt producing ponds. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage. 2018; 5 (4):431–440. https://www.gjesm.net/article_36408.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ten B.P., Lutchman I., Bassi S., Speck S., Sheavly S., Register K., Woolaway C. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP); Brussels: 2009. Guidelines on the Use of Market-Based Instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/2435 [ Google Scholar ]
• Teuten E., Saquing J., Knappe D., Barlaz M., Jonsson S., Bjorn A., Rowland S., Thompson R., Galloway T., Yamashita R., Ochi D., Watanuki Y., Moore C., Viet P., Tana T., Prudente M., Boonyatumanond R., Zakaria M., Akkhavong K., Ogata Y., Hirai H., Iwasa S., Mizukawa K., Hagino Y., Imamura A., Saha M., Takada S. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 :2027–2045. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528054 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The world map 2020. https://www.cosmographics.co.uk/Educational-Resources/Free-Outline-Map-Of-The-World.html
• Thevenon F., Carroll C., Sousa J. 2014. Plastic Debris in the Ocean: the Characterization of Marine Plastics and Their Environmental Impacts, Situation Analysis Report. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44966 Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiel M., Luna-Jorquera G., Álvarez-Varas R., Gallardo C., Hinojosa I.A., Luna N., Miranda-Urbina D., Morales N., Ory N., Pacheco A.S., Portflitt-Toro M., Zavalaga C. Impacts of marine plastic pollution from continental coasts to subtropical gyres—fish, seabirds, and other vertebrates in the SE pacific. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018; 5 :238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R., Moore C., Andrady A., Gregory M., Takada H., Weisberg S. New directions in plastic debris. Science. 2005; 310 :1117. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5751/1117b [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R., Moore C., vomSaal F., Swan S. Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 :2153–2166. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873021/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R.C., Olsen Y., Mitchell R.P., Davis A., Rowland S.J., John A.W.G., McGonigle D., Russell A.E. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science. 2004; 304 :5672–5838. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5672/838 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thushari G.G.N., Senevirathna J.D.M., Yakupitiyage A., Chavanich S. Effects of microplastics on sessile invertebrates in the eastern coast of Thailand: an approach to coastal zone conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017; 124 :349–355. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28760587 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thushari G.G.N., Suchana C., Amararatne Y. Coastal debris analysis in beaches of Chonburi Province, eastern of Thailand as implications for coastal conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017; 116 :121–129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X16310608 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend A.K., Barker C.M. Plastic and the nest entanglement of urban and agricultural crows. PloS One. 2014; 9 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . Vol. 47. UNEP: United Nations EnvironmentProgramme; Kenya: 2005. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8348 (Marine Litter an Analytical Overview). [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme; Nairobi: 2009. Marine Litter: A Global challenge; p. 232. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7787 [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . United Nations Environment Programme; UNEP: 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Part II Waste, Investing in Energy and Resources Efficiency; p. 632. http://all62.jp/ecoacademy/images/15/green_economy_report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . Vol. 104. UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme; 2018. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_sustainability.pdf (SINGLE-USE PLASTICS: A Roadmap for Sustainability). [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Cauwenberghe L., Claessens M., Vandegehuchte M.B., Janssen C.R. Microplastics are takenupbymussels ( Mytilusedulis ) andlugworms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats. Environ. Pollut. 2015; 199 :10–17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25617854 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vendel A.L., Bessa F., Alves V.E.N., Amorim A.L.A., Patrício J., Palma A.R.T. Wide-spread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017; 117 :448–455. https://europepmc.org/article/med/28214011 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Moos N., Burkhardt-Holm P., Koehler A. Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and tissues of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. after experimental exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012; 46 :11327–11335. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963286 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner J., Wang Z.M., Ghosal S., Rochman C., Gasseld M., Walla S. Novelmethod for the extract ion and identification of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish gut matrices. Anal. Methods. 2017; 9 :1479–1490. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ay/c6ay02396g [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J., Zheng L., Li J. A critical review on the sources and instruments of marine microplastics and prospects on the relevant management in China. Waste Manag. Res. 2018; 36 (10):898–911. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward J.E., Shumway S.E. Separating the grain from the chaff: particles election insuspension- and deposit-feeding bivalves. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2004; 300 :83–130. https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/separating-the-grain-from-the-chaff-particle-selection-in-suspension-0Zkp0JuEZ6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb H.K., Arnott J., Crawford R.J., Ivanova E.P. Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly (ethyleneterephtalate) Polymers. 2013; 5 :1–18. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/5/1/1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Wessel C.C., Lockridge G.R., Battiste D., Cebrian J. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in beach sediments: insights into microplastic accumulation in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016; 109 :178–183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wijethunga H.N.S., Athawuda A.M.G.A.D., Dias P.C.B., Abeygunawardana A.P., Senevirathna J.D.M., Thushari G.G.N., Liyanage N.P.P., Jayamanne S.C. Proceedings of International Research Conference of Uva Wellassa University. 2019. Screening the Effects of Microplastics on Selected Invertebrates along Southern Coastal belt in Sri Lanka: A Preliminary Approach to Coastal Pollution Control. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodall L.C., Sanchez-Vidal A., Canals M., Paterson G.L.J., Rachel C., Victoria S., Antonio C., Rogers A.D., Narayanaswamy B.E., Thompson R.C. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2014; 1 :140317. https://scinapse.io/papers/2011923115 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright S.L., Thompson R.C., Galloway T.S. The physical impact of micro-plastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 2013; 178 :483–492. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113001140 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarfl C., Fleet D., Fries E., Galgani F., Gerdts G., Hanke G., Matthies M. Microplastics in oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1589–1591. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21440270 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zettler E.R., Mincer T.J., Amaral-Zettler L.A. Life in the “Plastisphere”: microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013; 47 :7137–7146. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23745679 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zitko V., Hanlon M. Another source of pollution by plastics: skin cleansers with plastics crubbers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1991; 22 :41–42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X9190444W?via%3Dihub [ Google Scholar ]

Cookie preferences

With cookies, we can make your website experience better. We make use of functional, analytical, and tracking cookies. Thanks to them, we can spot errors and clunky parts in the website, show more relevant advertisements, learn which content is most popular, play videos from YouTube, and more. Some cookies are strictly necessary for using our website, but you can choose to opt out of tracking cookies. Read more about which cookies we use in our privacy policy or via the settings link below.

To watch this video, you need to accept optimal cookies .

For more info, check our cookie policy .

Ocean plastic pollution explained

How much plastic enters the ocean.

Plastic leaks into the ocean from thousands of sources all over the world every day. Increasing consumption combined with improper waste management in many countries has made plastic pollution a worldwide problem, causing damage not only to the environment but also to human health and economies.

Humans produce over 400 million metric tons  of plastic annually. That’s roughly the weight of all humans on the planet — and plastic production is projected to keep going up.

So of this 400 million tons that gets produced each year – how much actually ends up in the ocean? Less than 0.5 percent .

This is because only a small proportion of plastic is disposed of incorrectly, and an even smaller part of that enters waterways. This does not mean the ocean plastic pollution problem is “small” – over 1 million metric tons is still a massive amount of pollution.

So how does plastic become ocean plastic, and what factors can influence it? Let’s dig deeper.

How does plastic enter the ocean?

Plastic usage and waste management infrastructures differ all over the world. Only 9% gets recycled, and about 22% of plastic waste worldwide is either not collected, improperly disposed of, or ends up as litter.

People in high income countries consume the most plastic, but the waste management systems there are usually effective – meaning that even though there’s a lot of plastic around, it is mostly kept out of the natural environment. Meanwhile, lower income countries often consume less plastic, meaning emissions from these countries remain low even if the local waste management infrastructure is lacking.

Most plastic emissions come from middle-income countries, where plastic usage is growing, but a lack of adequate waste management systems presents challenges in dealing with the increase in consumption.

During storms and other heavy rain events, plastic emissions can increase as much as tenfold as trash is washed into waterways. Rivers are the arteries that carry plastic from land to sea — but not every piece of plastic in a river will end up in the ocean. Many objects sink to the riverbed or get stuck somewhere along the river system.

The closer the plastic is to a river, and the closer that river is to the ocean, the greater the chances that the plastic will reach the ocean.

Therefore, coastal cities in middle-income countries are the world’s plastic emissions hotspots . All these factors taken into account led to our study from 2021 identifying 1000 rivers worldwide representing almost 80% of ocean plastic emissions.

Where does plastic pollution go?

MOST PLASTIC EITHER SINKS OR BEACHES WITHIN A MONTH

Nearly half of the plastic sinks directly because of its low buoyancy. Of the other half which floats, our research shows most of it doesn’t go far out in the ocean — about 80% of floating plastic will beach on a coastline within a month of leaking into the ocean. Some objects may be washed out to sea again, but coastlines are the final resting place for most floating ocean plastic. This can have serious consequences for the coastal environment and the fishing and tourism industries, as well as high cleanup costs for coastal communities.

If we take a PET bottle as an example; it is likely to sink as it fills up with water, but the cap, which is made of different type of plastic (HDPE), will stay afloat for much longer. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) products are most likely to travel long distances .

TRAPPED IN THE GYRES

It can take years for a plastic piece to break free from these coastal waters and be carried out to the open ocean – but once it’s out there, it can stay there for a long time.

Plastic accumulates in huge subtropical oceanic areas called gyres – massive circular currents that trap the floating plastic for decades, if not centuries.

There are five gyres in our oceans. The most polluted – and best-studied – is the infamous Great Pacific Garbage Patch , located in the North Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and California.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is estimated to be twice the size of Texas – that’s triple the size of France or Thailand. However, the garbage patch is not a solid island of trash , a common misconception — it’s more often compared to a plastic soup.

Around 100 million kilograms of plastic float in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which contains 1.8 trillion pieces larger than 0.5 mm. That is about 160 pieces per person living on the planet.  About 92% of the floating plastic mass in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch consists of larger objects. Only about 8% of the mass is microplastics. However, these larger objects are continually fragmenting into smaller pieces, which are much harder to clean up; the longer the problem exists, the worse it gets.

Other sources of plastic pollution

FISHING WASTE

Rivers are the main source of ocean plastic pollution, but there is another major source of plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch — fishing gear. Where most plastic in coastal waters comes from land-based sources, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is different. In fact, our research shows that about 80% of the plastic in the GPGP comes from fishing activities at sea.

Fishing equipment lost or dumped at sea has a much higher chance of accumulating offshore because it is emitted far from coastlines (making it less likely to naturally return to shore), and because fishing gear is designed to survive in the water for long periods.

MICROPLASTIC SOURCES

When talking about microplastics , it is helpful to differentiate between primary and secondary microplastics. Primary microplastics, such as nurdles and cosmetic microbeads , are produced in that size.  Secondary microplastics come from the degradation of larger objects. Two major sources of secondary microplastic from/on land are vehicle tires and synthetic clothing .

Microplastics are much more difficult to clean up, and because of their small size, their bioavailability increases, meaning they can potentially impact more species than larger objects. The Ocean Cleanup removes plastic objects from the ocean while they are still at a larger ‘macroplastic’ size, to prevent these objects from breaking into smaller pieces and eventually forming microplastics.

What is the impact of plastic pollution?

Marine wildlife suffers the most direct and damaging effects of ocean plastic pollution. From all kinds of fish to turtles, seals, crustaceans, micro-organisms and many other forms of life, the damage caused by plastic pollution to marine animals is increasingly visible as we learn more about this problem.

One of plastic’s biggest assets as a material is its durability. However, this means that once plastic enters the ocean, it will persist there for long periods; it won’t go away by itself. The oldest pieces we have found in our cleanup catches date back to the 1960s — and during this whole period, marine life is bearing the consequences.

Entanglement and ingestion have been found to impact 914 megafaunal species , of which more than 100 are endangered. As an example, the Mediterranean monk seal’s (Monachus monachus) second leading cause of death (after deliberate killing) is fishing gear entanglement. Our researchers have spotted whales in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, indicating they are exposed to and affected by high quantities of plastic pollution. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch has 180 times more plastic than biomass, indicating that plastic could be a primary food source for organisms in this region.

A DELICATE ECOSYSTEM

Any marine ecosystem is finely balanced, and any change to that balance can seriously impact the inhabitants. Floating plastic debris can allow species such as coastal organisms to spread far from their usual environments and thrive in the open ocean – upsetting the balance in the GPGP. This can be damaging to marine life naturally occurring in ocean garbage patches, such as neuston .

Some plastic not only contains harmful additives and chemicals but also acts as magnets for toxins from the surrounding air or water, so the longer a piece of plastic is out there, the more harmful it can become to any animal that ingests it.

Degradation is slow but constant , so the larger objects are a ticking time bomb, breaking down over time and raising levels of microplastics exponentially. Smaller objects impact and travel up the food chain — a food chain that ends with us humans.

OXYGEN AND CARBON

Research on Prochlorococcus , an abundant bacteria/ phytoplankton in the ocean that produces oxygen, has shown that leaking toxins from plastic negatively affects their oxygen production and their reproduction.

Oceans not only produce oxygen , but also pump carbon down to the seabed. Zooplankton found ingesting microplastic consumed 40% less carbon biomass. The fecal pellets of zooplankton also sink at a lower rate  when consuming significant doses of microplastic, which also may have an impact on the carbon pump.

HUMAN HEALTH

Microplastic is all around us — in our seafood, tap water, and salt, to name a few sources . Studies indicate that plastic can pass through the blood-brain barrier in mice as quickly as 2 hours after consumption. Research has found that it potentially poses acute and (sub) chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, and developmental toxicity.

However, the long-term effects on our health are not yet fully understood , and given how omnipresent it is, it is hard to isolate its full effects.

According to a Deloitte study , plastic pollution has been estimated to cost up to 19$ billion USD per year to the global economy. The costs considered stem from the impact on fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and governmental cleanup. Derelict fishing gear also poses a safety risk to vessels at sea if they get stuck in propellers , which we also experienced firsthand .

What is being done about plastic pollution?

Plastic pollution is a global problem that requires a global response. Efforts to address plastic pollution on a systemic level are fragmented. Thankfully, the momentum for international cooperation to address the plastic crisis has increased over the past year. In particular, marine litter and microplastics have been on the agenda of the UN Environment Assembly for several years. On March 2, 2022, 175 countries participating in UNEA-5.2 adopted the resolution “End plastic pollution: towards an International legally binding instrument”. This historic resolution launched the negotiations for a new legally binding international instrument on plastic pollution. The new instrument should address plastic pollution throughout the entire lifecycle of plastic, from source to sea.

Although this is a milestone worth celebrating, change will be inherently slow. The need for cleanup of what is currently polluting our waterways is evident given its impact right now. Local and global organizations, companies, and initiatives are working to clean up, but we have a long way to go.

We at The Ocean Cleanup work on cleaning up what is on its way through rivers, and what is already polluting our oceans. Identifying the sources of mismanaged waste leakage into the ocean means we can focus our cleanup efforts in those locations and with maximum impact.

As well as helping to identify the key sources of pollution, our cleanup operations provide a unique monitoring tool to track levels of pollution, evaluate the efficiency of policy measures, and optimize solutions. Together with our partners we use this growing knowledge to work towards a future where cleanup is no longer necessary.

Be part of the solution

Contribute to science

Help enrich the data on the sources of ocean plastic pollution. Using the Citizen Science app, you can share valuable information from your nearest river or ocean.

Find out more

We must clean up what is already polluting our oceans and what is on its way via the top 1000 polluting rivers. Learn more about our technology and approach, or check our impact dashboard for our current catch numbers.

Fund the cleanup

As a non-profit, The Ocean Cleanup can clean up plastic in the ocean and on its way via rivers, thanks to your donations.

Related resources

The Top 1000 Polluting Rivers

With modeling, we have identified 1000 rivers that make up 80% of plastic emitted from rivers into the oceans. A 1000 rivers make up 1% of all rivers worldwide.

Why Rivers are the Key to Rapidly Stopping Plastic Pollution

Why We Must Clean The Ocean Garbage Patches

How Ocean Plastics Turn into a Dangerous Meal

The mass of plastics at the surface layer of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is around 180 times higher than that of marine life. This indicates that polluted plastics could be a primary food source for organisms feeding within this region.

North Atlantic Microplastic Concentrations May Exceed Safe Levels for Marine Life Without Intervention

Levels of microplastic pollution in the North Atlantic water column may soon exceed safe limits for marine organisms, especially in areas of high plastic concentration.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is halfway between Hawaii and California. It contains 100 million kilograms of plastic, according to our 2018 research paper.

Where Mismanaged Plastic Waste is Generated and Possible Paths of Change

The Price Tag of Plastic Pollution

The cost of plastic pollution for governments, tourism and fisheries is estimated to be up to 19 billion USD, in a study made with Deloitte.

A Tale of 3 Rivers: Intercontinental River Research Collaboration

Although the majority of plastic in the ocean spills out from rivers, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has another source.

The Other Source: Where Does Plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch Come From?

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Education home
• About NOAA Education
• NOAA in your backyard: Alaska
• NOAA in your backyard: Caribbean
• NOAA in your backyard: Central
• NOAA in your backyard: Great Lakes
• NOAA in your backyard: Gulf of Mexico
• NOAA in your backyard: Mid-Atlantic
• NOAA in your backyard: Northeast
• NOAA in your backyard: Northwest
• NOAA in your backyard: Pacific Islands
• NOAA in your backyard: Southeast
• NOAA in your backyard: Southwest
• Educational mailing lists
• Oct-Dec 2023
• Jul-Sep 2023
• Apr-Jun 2023
• Jan-Mar 2023
• NOAA Sea to Sky: Education resource database
• Ocean acidification
• Ocean currents
• Ocean floor features

Ocean pollution and marine debris

• El Niño and La Niña
• Space weather
• Weather observations
• Weather systems & patterns
• Carbon cycle
• Changing seasons
• Climate change impacts
• Climate data monitoring
• Aquatic food webs
• Coral reef ecosystems
• Fisheries and seafood
• Life in an estuary
• Marine mammals
• Sea turtles
• Great Lakes ecoregion
• Water cycle
• Watersheds, flooding, and pollution
• Data resources for educators
• Education at home
• Elementary resources
• Hands-on science activities
• Special topics
• Conference resources
• About the education resource collections
• Conservation Service Corp Act Direct Hiring Authority
• Educator opportunities
• Grants & networks
• News and stories

Each year, billions of pounds of trash and other pollutants enter the ocean.

Keep exploring

Find even more resources on ocean pollution and marine debris  in our searchable resource database.

Sanctuaries resource collection: Marine debris

Each year, billions of pounds of trash and other pollutants enter the ocean. Where does this pollution come from? Where does it go? Some of the debris ends up on our beaches, washed in with the waves and tides. Some debris sinks, some is eaten by marine animals that mistake it for food, and some accumulates in ocean gyres . Other forms of pollution that impact the health of the ocean come from sources like oil spills or from accumulation of many dispersed sources, such as fertilizer from our yards.

Litter such as plastic detergent bottles, crates, buoys, combs, and water bottles blanket Kanapou Bay, on the Island of Kaho’olawe in Hawaii. This region is a hot-spot for marine debris accumulation. (Image credit: NOAA)

Where does pollution come from?

The majority of pollutants that make their way into the ocean come from human activities along the coastlines and far inland. One of the biggest sources of pollution is nonpoint source pollution , which occurs as a result of runoff . Nonpoint source pollution can come from many sources, like septic tanks, vehicles, farms, livestock ranches, and timber harvest areas. Pollution that comes from a single source, like an oil or chemical spill, is known as point source pollution . Point source pollution events often have large impacts, but fortunately, they occur less often. Discharge from faulty or damaged factories or water treatment systems is also considered point source pollution.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are chemicals created by humans that are notorious for being resistant to biodegradation and have been found in ground, surface, and drinking water. Makayla Neldner, a 2022 Hollings scholar, spent her summer internship at NOAA’s Hollings Marine Lab in Charleston, South Carolina, researching how two PFAS compounds affected the life cycle of larval grass shrimp ( Palaemon pugio ).

Nutrients and algal blooms: Too much of a good thing?

Sometimes it is not the type of material, but its concentration that determines whether a substance is a pollutant. For example, the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are essential elements for plant growth. However, if they are too abundant in a body of water, they can stimulate an overgrowth of algae, triggering an event called an algal bloom . Harmful algal blooms (HABs) , also known as “ red tides ,” grow rapidly and produce toxic effects that can affect marine life and sometimes even humans. Excess nutrients entering a body of water, either through natural or human activities, can also result in hypoxia or dead zones . When large amounts of algae sink and decompose in the water, the decomposition process consumes oxygen and depletes the supply available to healthy marine life. Many of the marine species that live in these areas either die or, if they are mobile (such as fish), leave the area.

Using ecological forecasting , NOAA is able to predict changes in ecosystems in response to HABs and other environmental drivers. These forecasts provide information about how people, economies, and communities may be affected. For example, the Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring System developed by NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science provides information to the public and local authorities to help decide whether beaches need to be closed temporarily to protect public health.

Researchers at the St. Jones Reserve, a component of the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve, observed trash in songbird nests around the reserve’s visitor center. Hollings scholar Eleanor Meng studied whether this trash occurred more frequently in nests near the visitor center compared to nests further away.

Marine debris

Marine debris is a persistent pollution problem that reaches throughout the entire ocean and Great Lakes. Our ocean and waterways are polluted with a wide variety of marine debris, ranging from tiny microplastics , smaller than 5 mm, to derelict fishing gear and abandoned vessels. Worldwide, hundreds of marine species have been negatively impacted by marine debris, which can harm or kill an animal when it is ingested or they become entangled, and can threaten the habitats they depend on. Marine debris can also interfere with navigation safety and potentially pose a threat to human health.

All marine debris comes from people with a majority of it originating on land and entering the ocean and Great Lakes through littering, poor waste management practices, storm water discharge, and extreme natural events such as tsunamis and hurricanes. Some debris, such as derelict fishing gear , can also come from ocean-based sources. This lost or abandoned gear is a major problem because it can continue to capture and kill wildlife, damage sensitive habitats, and even compete with and damage active fishing gear.

Local, national, and international efforts are needed to address this environmental problem. The Save our Seas Act of 2018 amends and reauthorizes the Marine Debris Act to promote international action, authorize cleanup and response actions, and increase coordination among federal agencies on this topic.

Garbage patches: What and where are they?

Garbage patches are large areas of the ocean where trash, fishing gear, and other marine debris collects. The term “garbage patch” is a misleading nickname, making many believe that garbage patches are "islands of trash" that are visible from afar. These areas are actually made up of debris ranging in size, from microplastics to large bundles of derelict fishing gear.

These patches are formed by large, rotating ocean currents called gyres that pull debris into one location, often to the gyre’s center. There are five gyres in the ocean : one in the Indian Ocean, two in the Atlantic Ocean, and two in the Pacific Ocean. Garbage patches of varying sizes are located in each gyre. Due to winds and currents, garbage patches are constantly changing size and shape. The debris making up the garbage patches can be found from the surface of the ocean all the way to the ocean floor .

A group of teens from Mystic Aquarium received funding from NOAA and the North American Association for Environmental Education to lead an action project in their local community. The team chose to work with a non-profit organization to implement a project that focused on raising awareness on plastic pollution and recycling a common type of plastic used on boats.

The impact of marine pollution on seafood

Heavy metals and other contaminants can accumulate in seafood, making it harmful for humans to consume. Microplastics can be ingested by fish and other species that filter their food out of the water. With more than one-third of the shellfish-growing waters of the United States adversely affected by coastal pollution, it’s important for NOAA and it’s partners to study the impacts of microplastics and harmful contaminants in seafood. There is ongoing research around the country focusing on the potential risk to wildlife and humans from debris exposure and ingestion. NOAA monitors seafood contamination and provides safety tips through the Sustainable Seafood portal .

The B’more Conscious environmental fun festival at the National Aquarium focused on blue crab populations in Baltimore, plastic pollution and microplastics, eutrophication and food waste, and the urbanization of Baltimore City. 

EDUCATION CONNECTION

Whether humans live near the coasts or far inland, they are a part of the problem — and the solution — to ocean pollution. Through this collection of resources and information, students can be informed of the types of pollution harming our ocean, and learn about actions they can take to prevent further pollution no matter where they live. The NOAA Marine Debris Program provides many educational resources for educators, students, families, and adults to help better understand this global issue.

Ocean Pollution Detection using Image Processing

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Ocean Floor Polluted with 11 Million Tons of Plastic, New Research Finds

Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash

by Kaleigh Harrison | May 15, 2024

This article is included in these additional categories:

Recent research spearheaded by Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, in collaboration with the University of Toronto, estimates that up to 11 million metric tons of plastic pollution currently reside on the ocean floor. This research, published in the Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers , marks a significant milestone in understanding the full scope of marine plastic pollution.

From Surface Trash to Seabed Sediment

The ocean ingests enough plastic every minute to fill a garbage truck. With global plastic consumption projected to double by 2040, the fate of this plastic is a critical concern for marine conservation efforts. Dr. Denise Hardesty, a Senior Research Scientist at CSIRO, indicated that this is the first estimate of how much plastic waste accumulates on the ocean floor before being broken down into smaller pieces and mixed into ocean sediment.

Unlike prior estimates focused on microplastics , this study examines larger debris, ranging from fishing nets to plastic bags, revealing that the ocean floor is a primary repository for these pollutants: Alice Zhu, a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Toronto and lead researcher of the study notes that the volume of plastic on the ocean floor could be up to 100 times greater than that floating on the surface.

Implications for Environmental Strategies

The findings underscore the importance of halting plastic entry into oceans to reduce surface pollution. However, as Zhu points out, plastic will continue to migrate to the deep sea, necessitating a focus on prevention and remediation strategies that address the entire marine environment.

To estimate the distribution and volume of seafloor plastic, the team employed predictive models based on data from remote-operated vehicles (ROVs) and bottom trawls . Analysis of that data estimated that between 3 and 11 million metric tons of plastic pollution have settled on the ocean’s bed. Furthermore, the ROV findings shed light on the distribution of this plastic mass, indicating a significant accumulation near continental regions. Specifically, nearly half (46%) of the total estimated plastic mass found on the global ocean floor is concentrated at depths shallower than 200 meters. The remaining portion, which accounts for 54% of the plastic mass, is dispersed across deeper oceanic regions, extending from 200 meters down to profound depths of 11,000 meters.

Towards a Plastic-Free Ocean

Understanding the mechanisms of plastic accumulation in deep-sea environments is critical for developing effective source reduction and environmenta l remediation strategies. This research fills a significant knowledge gap and supports initiatives like CSIRO’s Ending Plastic Waste Mission, which aims to transform plastic production, usage, recycling, and disposal practices. The study’s findings highlight the critical need for businesses and policymakers to intensify waste management and marine protection efforts, ensuring the preservation of aquatic ecosystems for future generations.

Additional articles you will be interested in.

Marine Heatwaves Cause Massive Global Coral Bleaching

Invasive Hydrilla Spreads Beyond Connecticut River, Raising Alarms

Can Avocado Waste Transform the Future of Packaging?

Florida’s New Energy Bill Introduces Significant Changes Amid Controversy

Jakarta’s Sinking Reality: Nusantara to Take the Capital Helm in August

Climeworks Launches World’s Largest DAC Facility in Iceland

Shorter Lifespans for Cars May Not Cut Emissions, Study Finds

Trailblazers in Sustainability Highlighted in TIME’s 2024 Next Generation Leaders List

Scientists Warn of Seafloor Mining Impact on Vital Marine Ecosystems

Heat Digesters Are Shaping the Future of Renewable Energy

Stay informed.

Get E+E Leader Articles delivered via Newsletter right to your inbox!

• Print Friendly

The Environmental Impact of Ocean Noise

Ocean noise pollution can extend beyond individual animals to impact entire ecosystems. Here are the facts and how you can help.

As a journalist, Gabriella Sotelo covers the environment, climate change, and agriculture. She has a bachelor's in Journalism/Environmental Studies from NYU.

• New York University
• Environment
• Business & Policy
• Home & Design
• Current Events
• Treehugger Voices
• News Archive

Ocean noise broadly refers to the noise made by human activity that can obstruct the ability of marine animals to hear natural sounds in the ocean. Anthropogenic noise has been increasing over the years, even doubling each decade in some areas of the world. This noise can mask communication between aquatic animals and decrease their ability to find prey or be aware of predators, among other problems. This type of noise pollution can impact individual species from disturbance to mortality if not controlled.

Ocean Noise Pollution Facts

• Sources of human-made ocean noise pollution include shipping vessels, sonar systems, seismic surveys, military exercises, and underwater construction.
• The intensity of ocean noise has increased dramatically over the past few decades due to the expansion of commercial shipping, offshore drilling, and other human activities.
• Marine mammals rely heavily on sound for communication, navigation, and finding food. Excessive noise can disrupt their behavior and cause stress, injury, or even death.
• Ocean noise pollution can also impact fish and invertebrates, affecting their ability to communicate, locate prey, and avoid predators.
• Research and monitoring efforts are ongoing to understand the impacts of ocean noise pollution better and develop effective strategies for its reduction.

What Is Ocean Noise?

Ocean noise can cause changes to the acoustic environment and adds increased stressors for marine life. Ocean noise can be sounds of low, medium, or high frequencies and is attributed to many different types of equipment. This noise can also cause habitat loss and can extend migration routes if it is too disturbing.

Marine life may also be indirectly affected if they stay, but their prey leaves the area because of noise disturbance. Some of the effects monitored in ocean life include stress, weak immune systems, and behavioral disturbances. 

Seismic Surveys

The type of equipment and practices that can affect marine life include seismic surveys, which use loud air guns. The sound can be generated every 10 seconds and can raise noise levels 100 times for days on end within a range of 300,000 square kilometers.

On any given day, there are more than 20 seismic survey ships active worldwide used to conduct surveys for the oil and gas industry.

Marine life can be killed directly by this noise as well as cause internal injuries to animals like the giant squid. There has been evidence of mass whale strandings because whales were injured internally or through their hearing-related structures.  

Impulsive Sound

Another source of problematic noise pollution is impulsive sound—sudden and short-duration sounds that are typically high in intensity and range from low to high frequencies. These are generally used in construction or marine civil engineering. The sound can reach up to 100 kiloHertz, and it can repeat every 10 to 15 seconds.

Sonars are included within impulsive sound but can be separated into different types of sonar. Low-frequency active sonars are usually used by the military and can generate between 100 to 500 Hertz.

Acoustic Deterrent Devices produce impulsive sound, which is used in an effort to reduce bycatch. These devices emit pulses of high-frequency sound and may be used to deter cetaceans from approaching fishing gear or to keep pinnipeds away from fish farms. These devices can produce sound with a frequency between 5 and 160 Hertz—though the intentions may be good, the noise can inflict pain on their target species, as well as unintended species. 

Explosives produce the highest level of noise. Controlled explosives may be used in underwater construction projects, such as the demolition of old structures like oil platforms, bridges, or underwater obstacles. Explosives may also be utilized for military purposes in naval warfare and defense. Underwater explosions can cause immediate and long-term harm to marine life.

Effects of Ocean Noise on Marine Life

Many species of marine life use noise as a means of survival. Some marine animals use calls during procreation or spawning, fish larvae follow sound to find a place to settle, and certain whales use echolocation to orient themselves or find food. Following are just some cases of animals that have been directly affected by ocean noise.

Researchers studying humpback whales in Glacier Bay National Park, United States, documented the effects of high noise exposure from tourism vessels. In competition with these vessels, the whales increased the amplitude of their voice by 0.8 decibels with every 1.0 decibel increase in ambient noise. However, they also vocalized less frequently.

Meanwhile, a 2028 study looking at humpback whales in Japan's Ogasawara Islands observed that the whales stopped vocalizing altogether when a cargo vessel passed within 1,400 meters, ununderscoring yet again how noise pollution can negatively impact these marine life.

Sound can be detected in two sensory systems in fish, with one system based on water motion and low frequency and the other being a frequency-dependent hearing system. Fish can, in general, hear best between frequencies of 30 to 1000 Hertz . When observing settling patterns in fish, many species use sound to orient themselves. One study found that damselfish that were conditioned to artificial noise actually became attracted to the noise, while those that were conditioned to noise from coral reefs avoided artificial noise. The authors concluded that artificial noise can cause confusion in animal species and disrupt orientation, and in doing so, could weaken the population.

Zooplankton

Microscopic zooplankton can be killed by the noise from a single seismic airgun. Zooplankton provides a source of food for the whole ocean ecosystem, but researchers have observed that airgun activity can reduce the number of zooplankton by half, which causes a lack of source of food for marine life. In the study, all immature krill were killed, and some zooplankton species decreased in number above 95%. This impact was observed up to 1.5 hours after the airgun had passed—note that most seismic surveys employ 18 to 48 airguns.

What Can Be Done?

The only certain way to lower the risk of impact is noise abatement—as in, reducing the amount of noise pollution entering the marine environment in the first place. This can be achieved by reducing noise emitted at the source, and by reducing the amount of noise-generating activity.

A study looking at noise abatement set out to determine the best twat o design noise abatement measures, concluding that, "broadly speaking, policy measures to manage environmental pollution can be categorised as command-and-control (CAC) approaches or incentive-based measures (IBMs), also known as market-based measures." CAC approaches would come in the form of mandatory measures. IBMs include cap-and-trade scenarios, "where transferable pollution permits are traded among polluters (affording control over cumulative pollution levels via the total number of permits), or through economic incentives, which encourage pollution reduction through subsidies or taxes linked to emissions."

The authors conclude: "As climate change and increasing human use of the oceans put growing strain on marine ecosystems, noise abatement presents a relatively tractable policy option to help reduce the cumulative burden of anthropogenic pressure on Earth’s marine habitats."

How Can You Help Reduce Ocean Noise Pollution

• Raise awareness: Educate yourself and others about the harmful effects of ocean noise on marine life.
• Reduce personal noise: Minimize the noise you make when boating or participating in water activities.
• Choose quieter watercraft: If you own a boat or personal watercraft, opt for quieter models with noise-reducing features. Consider electric or hybrid engines, which produce less noise and emissions.
• Buy locally! Reducing your dependence on items shipped on cargo ships from overseas helps lessen your personal ocean-noise footprint.
• Promote responsible fishing practices: Encourage sustainable fishing practices that minimize the use of loud equipment and engines.
• Support marine protected areas: Advocate for the creation and expansion of marine protected areas to provide safe havens for marine life and reduce impacts from human activities.
• Support organizations working on noise reduction: These groups often engage in research, advocacy, and policy work to protect marine environments.
• Support regulations and policies: Stay informed about local and international regulations related to ocean noise pollution. Support initiatives that aim to regulate and mitigate noise from shipping, offshore construction, and other industrial activities.

Dan Wilhelmsson, Richard C. Thompson, Katrin Holmström, Olof Lindén, Hanna Eriksson-Hägg, Chapter 6 - Marine Pollution ,

Managing Ocean Environments in a Changing Climate, Elsevier, 2013,

Nikolina Rako-Gospić, Marta Picciulin, Chapter 20 - Underwater Noise: Sources and Effects on Marine Life, World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2019,

Dan Wilhelmsson, Richard C. Thompson, Katrin Holmström, Olof Lindén, Hanna Eriksson-Hägg, Chapter 6 - Marine Pollution,

Managing Ocean Environments in a Changing Climate , Elsevier, 2013.

Nikolina Rako-Gospić, Marta Picciulin, Chapter 20 - Underwater Noise: Sources and Effects on Marine Life , World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2019.

• How Do Trees Reduce Noise Pollution?
• Quietest Cars: Do Electric Cars Make Any Sound?
• Are Endangered Fin Whales Bouncing Back After Decades of Commercial Whaling?
• Marine Biome: Types, Plants, and Wildlife
• How Seismic Blasting Affects Marine Animals
• Endangered Amazon River Dolphins Threatened by Proposed Dams and Dredging
• The Biggest Threats to Endangered Dolphin Species
• The Environmental Impacts of Deep-Sea Mining
• Coastal Lights Are Tricking Coral Reefs and Harming Their Recovery
• How Does Mercury Get in Fish?
• Ocean Plastic Sees Staggering Increase Since 2005, Study Finds
• 14 Most Endangered Whales, Porpoises, and Dolphins
• 7 Haunting Songs Sung by Whales
• Are Orcas Endangered? Conservation Status and Threats
• What Happens When Bearded Seals Aren’t Loud Enough?
• Noise Pollution Is Coming for the Narwhals

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 15 May 2024

One-third of Southern Ocean productivity is supported by dust deposition

• Jakob Weis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9493-4888 1 , 2 ,
• Zanna Chase   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5060-779X 1 , 3 ,
• Christina Schallenberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3073-7500 4 , 5 ,
• Peter G. Strutton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2395-9471 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Andrew R. Bowie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5144-7799 1 , 4 &
• Sonya L. Fiddes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2752-0845 1 , 2 , 4  

Nature volume  629 ,  pages 603–608 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

100 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Carbon cycle
• Environmental impact
• Marine biology
• Palaeoceanography
• Physical oceanography

Natural iron fertilization of the Southern Ocean by windblown dust has been suggested to enhance biological productivity and modulate the climate 1 , 2 , 3 . Yet, this process has never been quantified across the Southern Ocean and at annual timescales 4 , 5 . Here we combined 11 years of nitrate observations from autonomous biogeochemical ocean profiling floats with a Southern Hemisphere dust simulation to empirically derive the relationship between dust-iron deposition and annual net community production (ANCP) in the iron-limited Southern Ocean. Using this relationship, we determined the biological response to dust-iron in the pelagic perennially ice-free Southern Ocean at present and during the last glacial maximum (LGM). We estimate that dust-iron now supports 33% ± 15% of Southern Ocean ANCP. During the LGM, when dust deposition was 5–40-fold higher than today, the contribution of dust to Southern Ocean ANCP was much greater, estimated at 64% ± 13%. We provide quantitative evidence of basin-wide dust-iron fertilization of the Southern Ocean and the potential magnitude of its impact on glacial–interglacial timescales, supporting the idea of the important role of dust in the global carbon cycle and climate 6 , 7 , 8 .

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Antiphased dust deposition and productivity in the Antarctic Zone over 1.5 million years

Equatorial Pacific dust fertilization and source weathering influences on Eocene to Miocene global CO2 decline

A circumpolar dust conveyor in the glacial Southern Ocean

Data availability.

Supporting data used in the analysis are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10374127 (ref. 64 ). ACCESS-AM2 2015–2019 dust fields are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8303317 (ref. 56 ). Figures were created in MATLAB and Adobe Illustrator.  Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Analysis scripts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10374127 (ref. 64 ). The ECHAM6-HAMMOZ model code and all required input data are maintained and made available at https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch after signing a software license agreement that can be downloaded from https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/attachments/291/License_ECHAM-HAMMOZ_June2012.pdf .

Martin, J. H. Glacial–interglacial CO 2 change: the iron hypothesis. Paleoceanography 5 , 1–13 (1990).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Boyd, P. W. et al. A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern Ocean stimulated by iron fertilization. Nature 407 , 695–702 (2000).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Martinez-Garcia, A. et al. Iron fertilization of the subantarctic ocean during the last ice age. Science 343 , 1347–1350 (2014).

Cassar, N. et al. The Southern Ocean biological response to aeolian iron deposition. Science 317 , 1067–1070 (2007).

Boyd, P. W. & Mackie, D. Comment on the Southern Ocean biological response to aeolian iron deposition. Science 319 , 159–159 (2008).

Jickells, T. D. et al. Global iron connections between desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry and climate. Science 308 , 67–71 (2005).

Lambert, F. et al. Dust fluxes and iron fertilization in Holocene and Last Glacial Maximum climates. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42 , 6014–6023 (2015).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Emerson, D. Biogenic iron dust: a novel approach to ocean iron fertilization as a means of large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 22 (2019).

Sarmiento, J. L. & Gruber, N. in Ocean Biogeochemical Dynamics Ch. 8 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2006).

Boyd, P. W., Claustre, H., Levy, M., Siegel, D. A. & Weber, T. Multi-faceted particle pumps drive carbon sequestration in the ocean. Nature 568 , 327–335 (2019).

Buesseler, K. O. et al. Revisiting carbon flux through the ocean’s twilight zone. Science 316 , 567–570 (2007).

Mitchell, B. G., Brody, E. A., Holmhansen, O., Mcclain, C. & Bishop, J. Light limitation of phytoplankton biomass and macronutrient utilization in the Southern-Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36 , 1662–1677 (1991).

Martin, J. H., Gordon, R. M. & Fitzwater, S. E. Iron in Antarctic waters. Nature 345 , 156–158 (1990).

Boyd, P. W. Environmental factors controlling phytoplankton processes in the Southern Ocean. J. Phycol. 38 , 844–861 (2002).

Article   Google Scholar  

DeVries, T., Primeau, F. & Deutsch, C. The sequestration efficiency of the biological pump. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051963 (2012).

Mahowald, N. M. et al. Atmospheric global dust cycle and iron inputs to the ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cy. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002402 (2005).

Hamilton, D. S. et al. Earth, wind, fire and pollution: aerosol nutrient sources and impacts on ocean biogeochemistry. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 14 , 303–330 (2022).

Lamy, F. et al. Increased dust deposition in the Pacific Southern Ocean during glacial periods. Science 343 , 403–407 (2014).

Röthlisberger, R. et al. Ice core evidence for the extent of past atmospheric CO 2 change due to iron fertilisation. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020338 (2004).

Muglia, J., Somes, C. J., Nickelsen, L. & Schmittner, A. Combined effects of atmospheric and seafloor iron fluxes to the glacial ocean. Paleoceanography 32 , 1204–1218 (2017).

Saini, H. et al. Southern Ocean ecosystem response to Last Glacial Maximum boundary conditions. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 36 , e2020PA004075 (2021).

Boyd, P. W. et al. Mesoscale iron enrichment experiments 1993–2005: synthesis and future directions. Science 315 , 612–617 (2007).

Yoon, J. E. et al. Reviews and syntheses: ocean iron fertilization experiments—past, present and future looking to a future Korean iron fertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean (KIFES) project. Biogeosciences 15 , 5847–5889 (2018).

Blain, S., Sarthou, G. & Laan, P. Distribution of dissolved iron during the natural iron-fertilization experiment KEOPS (Kerguelen Plateau, Southern Ocean). Deep-Sea Res. II 55 , 594–605 (2008).

Kaiser, J., Reuer, M. K., Barnett, B. & Bender, M. L. Marine productivity estimates from continuous O2/Ar ratio measurements by membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023459 (2005).

Johnson, K. S., Plant, J. N., Dunne, J. P., Talley, L. D. & Sarmiento, J. L. Annual nitrate drawdown observed by SOCCOM profiling floats and the relationship to annual net community production. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122 , 6668–6683 (2017).

Krätschmer, S. et al. Simulating glacial dust changes in the Southern Hemisphere using ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3. Clim. Past 18 , 67–87 (2022).

Arrigo, K. R., van Dijken, G. L. & Bushinsky, S. Primary production in the Southern Ocean, 1997–2006. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004551 (2008).

Tagliabue, A. et al. Surface-water iron supplies in the Southern Ocean sustained by deep winter mixing. Nat Geosci 7 , 314–320 (2014).

Redfield, A. C. The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. Am. Sci. 46 , 205–221 (1958).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Arteaga, L. A., Pahlow, M., Bushinsky, S. M. & Sarmiento, J. L. Nutrient controls on export production in the Southern Ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cy. 33 , 942–956 (2019).

Huang, Y., Fassbender, A. J. & Bushinsky, S. M. Biogenic carbon pool production maintains the Southern Ocean carbon sink. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120 , e2217909120 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hiscock, W. T. & Millero, F. J. Nutrient and carbon parameters during the Southern Ocean iron experiment (SOFeX). Deep-Sea Res. I 52 , 2086–2108 (2005).

Su, J. Y., Schallenberg, C., Rohr, T., Strutton, P. G. & Phillips, H. E. New estimates of Southern Ocean annual net community production revealed by BGC-Argo floats. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49 , e2021GL097372 (2022).

Schallenberg, C., Ross, A. R. S., Davidson, A. B., Stewart, G. M. & Cullen, J. T. Temporal variability of dissolved iron species in the mesopelagic zone at Ocean Station PAPA. J. Mar. Syst. 172 , 128–136 (2017).

Moore, J. K. & Braucher, O. Sedimentary and mineral dust sources of dissolved iron to the world ocean. Biogeosciences 5 , 631–656 (2008).

Twelves, A. G., Goldberg, D. N., Henley, S. F., Mazloff, M. R. & Jones, D. C. Self-shading and meltwater spreading control the transition from light to iron limitation in an Antarctic coastal polynya. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 126 , e2020JC016636 (2021).

Perron, M. M. G. et al. Origin, transport and deposition of aerosol iron to Australian coastal waters. Atmos. Environ. 228 , 117432 (2020).

Wiseman, N. A., Moore, J. K., Twining, B. S., Hamilton, D. S. & Mahowald, N. M. Acclimation of phytoplankton Fe:C ratios dampens the biogeochemical response to varying atmospheric deposition of soluble iron. Glob. Biogeochem. Cy. 37 , e2022GB007491 (2023).

Tagliabue, A. et al. The interplay between regeneration and scavenging fluxes drives ocean iron cycling. Nat. Commun. 10 , 4960 (2019).

Ito, A. et al. Pyrogenic iron: the missing link to high iron solubility in aerosols. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau7671 (2019).

Tang, W. Y. et al. Widespread phytoplankton blooms triggered by 2019–2020 Australian wildfires. Nature 597 , 370–375 (2021).

Weis, J. et al. Southern Ocean phytoplankton stimulated by wildfire emissions and sustained by iron recycling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49 , e2021GL097538 (2022).

Henley, S. F. et al. Changing biogeochemistry of the Southern Ocean and its ecosystem implications. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00581 (2020).

Sigman, D. M. et al. The Southern Ocean during the ice ages: a review of the Antarctic surface isolation hypothesis, with comparison to the North Pacific. Quat. Sci. Rev. 254 , 106732 (2021).

Shoenfelt, E. M., Winckler, G., Lamy, F., Anderson, R. F. & Bostick, B. C. Highly bioavailable dust-borne iron delivered to the Southern Ocean during glacial periods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 11180–11185 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tagliabue, A. et al. How well do global ocean biogeochemistry models simulate dissolved iron distributions? Glob. Biogeochem. Cy. 30 , 149–174 (2016).

Johnson, K. S. & Coletti, L. J. In situ ultraviolet spectrophotometry for high resolution and long-term monitoring of nitrate, bromide and bisulfide in the ocean. Deep-Sea Res. I 49 , 1291–1305 (2002).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

MacIntyre, G. et al. ISUS/SUNA nitrate measurements in networked ocean observing systems. In Proc OCEANS 2009 (IEEE, Biloxi, 2009).

Johnson, K. S. et al. Processing Bio-Argo Nitrate Concentration at the DAC Level (Ifremer, 2018); https://doi.org/10.13155/46121 .

OneArgo-Mat: A MATLAB toolbox for accessing and visualizing Argo data v. 1.0.3. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6603689 (2022).

Johnson, K. S. et al. Biogeochemical sensor performance in the SOCCOM profiling float array. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122 , 6416–6436 (2017).

Bi, D. H. et al. Configuration and spin-up of ACCESS-CM2, the new generation Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator Coupled Model. J. South. Hemisph. Earth Syst. Sci. 70 , 225–251 (2020).

Fiddes, S. L., Protat, A., Mallet, M. D., Alexander, S. P. & Woodhouse, M. T. Southern Ocean cloud and shortwave radiation biases in a nudged climate model simulation: does the model ever get it right. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22 , 14603–14630 (2022).

Woodward, S. Modeling the atmospheric life cycle and radiative impact of mineral dust in the Hadley Centre climate model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106 , 18155–18166 (2001).

Fiddes, S. L. ACCESS-AM2 dust fields 2015-2019 [data set]. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8303317 (2023).

Stevens, B. et al. Atmospheric component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 5 , 146–172 (2013).

Schultz, M. G. et al. The chemistry-climate model ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0. Geosci. Model. Dev. 11 , 1695–1723 (2018).

ECHAM6-HAMMOZ model data (HAMMOZ, accessed 14 September 2020); https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz/repository/1/show/echam6-hammoz/branches/tanja .

Basterretxea, G., Font-Muñoz, J. S., Hernández-Carrasco, I. & Sañudo-Wilhelmy, S. A. Global variability of high-nutrient low-chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis. Ocean Sci. 19 , 973–990 (2023).

Verdy, A. & Mazloff, M. R. A data assimilating model for estimating Southern Ocean biogeochemistry. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122 , 6968–6988 (2017).

Holte, J. & Talley, L. A new algorithm for finding mixed layer depths with applications to Argo data and subantarctic mode water formation. J. Atmos. Ocean Tech. 26 , 1920–1939 (2009).

Krumhardt, K. M., Long, M. C., Sylvester, Z. T. & Petrik, C. M. Climate drivers of Southern Ocean phytoplankton community composition and potential impacts on higher trophic levels. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 916140 (2022).

Weis, J. Code repository for “One-third of Southern Ocean productivity is supported by dust deposition”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10374127 (2024).

Frank, M. et al. Similar glacial and interglacial export bioproductivity in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean: multiproxy evidence and implications for atmospheric CO 2 . Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 15 , 642–658 (2000).

Nürnberg, C. C., Bohrmann, G., Frank, M. & Schlüter, M. Barium accumulation in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean—results from 190,000 year records. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 12 , 594–603 (1997).

Lamy, F. et al. Increased dust deposition in the Pacific Southern Ocean during glacial periods. Science 343 , 403–407 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245424 .

Toyos, M. H. et al. Concentration, accumulation rates, Th fluxes, focusing factors and productivity proxies on core PS97/093-2 over the past 400,000 years. PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.934588 (2021).

Thöle, L. M. et al. Glacial–interglacial dust and export production records from the Southern Indian Ocean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 525 , 115716, (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Argo Program, which is part of the Global Ocean Observing System ( https://www.seanoe.org/data/00311/42182/ ), the Southern Ocean Observing System (SOOS) and the Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling (SOCCOM) Project funded by the National Science Foundation, Division of Polar Programs (NSF PLR-1425989 and OPP-1936222), supplemented by NASA. The BGC-Argo data were collected and made freely available by the International Argo Program and the national programmes that contribute to it ( http://www.argo.ucsd.edu , http://argo.jcommops.org ). This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources and services from the National Computational Infrastructure (project jk72), which is supported by the Australian Government. This research was partially funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP190103504). A.R.B. and S.L.F. are supported by the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership (AAPP) as part of the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative (ASCI000002). J.W. and P.G.S. are also supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CLEX, CE170100023). We thank S. Krätschmer for providing the LGM dust deposition simulations used in this study. We thank M. Mazloff and T. Rohr for their valuable insights and constructive feedback.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Jakob Weis, Zanna Chase, Peter G. Strutton, Andrew R. Bowie & Sonya L. Fiddes

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CLEX), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Jakob Weis, Peter G. Strutton & Sonya L. Fiddes

Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science (ACEAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Zanna Chase & Peter G. Strutton

Australian Antarctic Program Partnership (AAPP), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Christina Schallenberg, Andrew R. Bowie & Sonya L. Fiddes

Environment, CSIRO, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Christina Schallenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.W., Z.C., C.S., P.G.S. and A.R.B. conceived the study. J.W. conducted the analysis and wrote the manuscript with contributions from all co-authors. S.L.F. provided ACCESS dust deposition model outputs. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakob Weis .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Mathis Hain and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 regional extents of the 50 dust regimes..

The 50 dust regimes (R1–R50) defined in this study from low dust (top left) to high dust deposition (bottom right) and 2012–2022 BGC-Argo nitrate observations included in each regime. Lower and upper annual mean dust flux limits (mg m −2 d −1 ) delineating each regime are indicated in the titles. Note that dust regime boundaries are partially overlapping. Dust limits increase exponentially from low-dust to high-dust regimes, due to the exponential decline of dust with distance from the source regions (see Fig. 1b ), ensuring that regimes are similar in regional extent and number of float observations.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Monthly nitrate climatologies of the 50 dust regimes.

Monthly 0–200 m nitrate climatologies calculated from float observations in each of the 50 dust regimes (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Plotted on the x-axis is the difference in nitrate concentration relative to the winter surface nitrate maximum, illustrating the seasonal nitrate depletion in the epipelagic zone. The horizontal grey bar above each panel indicates the 50-m-averaged maximum seasonal nitrate difference between the winter maximum to the summer minimum (solid profiles, drawdown values are indicated in the title).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Surface nitrate seasonality in each dust regime.

a , 50-m-mean surface nitrate depletion between the seasonal surface nitrate maximum (triangles) and minimum (circles) in each of the 50 dust regimes (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). b , Histogram of the winter nitrate maximum (blue bars) and summer minimum months (red bars), defining the start and end of the productive period, in each dust regime. In >80% of the regimes, the productive period begins in August or September (41 out of 50) and ends between January and March (44 out of 50).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Fe:C ratios derived from net community production and dust-derived soluble iron fluxes.

200-m-integrated net community production (NCP 200m  = ANCP 200m divided by the productive period length) regressed against dust deposition fluxes (lower x-axis) in each of the 50 dust regimes. Southern Ocean basin-averaged Fe:C uptake ratios, indicated in the key, were inferred from the inverse of the regression slope (dotted line) and bioavailable soluble iron (sFe) fluxes (upper x-axis, derived from dust using 3.5 weight-% dust-iron content 16 and 5–15% fractional iron solubility 38 ). Observations exceeding 7 mg dust m -2 d -1 (open markers) were excluded from the regression and the Fe:C calculation due to the assumed limitation of productivity by iron-scavenging and self-shading on NCP under high dust loads. See the methods for further information.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Covariance analysis between ANCP and mixing, latitude and temperature.

Linear regressions of ANCP 50m (black, left y-axis) and ANCP 200m (blue, right y-axis) against, a , seasonal mean mixed layer depths, b , the seasonal shoaling of the mixed layer, c , latitude and, d , seasonal mean temperatures (50 and 200-m-averaged). R 2 and p-values are indicated in the key. ANCP increases northwards, whereas insolation decreases northwards during the productive period (austral spring and summer). Furthermore, the insolation difference in the observed latitude range is minor, which precludes a direct influence of light on the observed increase in ANCP. Temperature limitation factors (T lim , box next to panel e ) were calculated to estimate the maximum possible temperature-induced increase in productivity across dust regimes (see  methods ), indicating that temperature differences can only account for a minor fraction of the observed ANCP increase.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Latitudinally binned 200-m-integrated ANCP.

ANCP 200m averaged over 5° latitudinal bins from this study (yellow markers, mapped on the right) compared against corresponding literature values 26 , 31 (black markers). Each set of markers refers to the same 5° latitude bin indicated by the x-axis ticks. Oxygen-derived ANCP estimates from Arteaga, et al. 31 were calculated based on respiration rates integrated from 100 to 500 m. Regions accounted for in the latitudinally binned and basin-integrated estimates reported in the main text, highlighted in colour, exclude the sea ice zone, shelf regions and high dust regions ( > 7 mg dust m −2 d −1 ) and cover 76 million km 2 . High dust regions were excluded due to the uncertainty associated with the decline of ANCP 200m in these regions (see Fig. 3 ).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Maximum ANCP supportable by the winter nitrate inventory.

Upper ANCP limit (ANCP max in equation 6 ), derived from the 50-m-integrated winter nitrate inventory at the start of the productive period (August/September climatology, 2013–2021 B-SOSE 61 ). These values are considered to be the upper limit of ANCP 50m before productivity is limited by nitrate and cannot be further sustained by dust-iron addition (see  Methods ). ANCP max values were used to cap present-day and LGM ANCP estimates in high-dust and low-nitrate regions, respectively. Adjusted regions are indicated by red and white dots in Fig. 4 .

Extended Data Fig. 8 ECHAM6.3 simulated LGM dust deposition fluxes and difference relative to present-day fluxes.

a , Southern Ocean dust deposition fluxes during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) obtained from the ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3 coupled atmosphere-aerosol model 27 . Markers indicate sediment core locations referred to in Extended Data Table 1 . b , LGM dust fluxes divided by ACCESS-AM2 present-day dust fluxes mapped in Fig. 1b . Across the pelagic ice-free Southern Ocean, ECHAM LGM dust fluxes are, on average, by a factor of 11.4 ± 6.6 higher than ACCESS present-day dust fluxes.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Cumulative areas impacted by dust, nitrate limitation and high dust loads.

The grey shades indicate the cumulative area of, a , present-day and, b , LGM dust influence on the Southern Ocean with decreasing dust deposition, illustrating the expansion of dust from the source regions. The total area of the study region, the pelagic ice-free Southern Ocean south of 30° S, is 78 million km 2 . The overlayed blue, red and yellow shades indicate, respectively, the cumulative area that is impacted by nitrate limitation, high dust loads (> 7 mg m-2 d-1), or both. Therefore, the blue and yellow shade combined represent high-dust regions and the red and yellow shade combined represent nitrate-limited regions.

Source data

Source data fig. 1, source data fig. 2, source data fig. 3, source data fig. 4, source data extended data fig. 1, source data extended data fig. 2, source data extended data fig. 3, source data extended data fig. 4, source data extended data fig. 5, source data extended data fig. 6, source data extended data fig. 7, source data extended data fig. 8, source data extended data fig. 9, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Weis, J., Chase, Z., Schallenberg, C. et al. One-third of Southern Ocean productivity is supported by dust deposition. Nature 629 , 603–608 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07366-4

Download citation

Received : 17 April 2023

Accepted : 28 March 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

Issue Date : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07366-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Scientists find concerning accumulation of pollution in ocean: 'The ocean floor has become a resting place, or reservoir'

Plastics are piling up all around us, and now, scientists say, they're also piling up on the ocean floor.

What happened?

New research estimates that up to 11 million metric tons (more than 12 tons) of plastic pollution is sitting on the ocean floor, reported CSIRO, Australia's national science agency, via Phys.org.

"We discovered that the ocean floor has become a resting place, or reservoir, for most plastic pollution, with between 3 [and] 11 million [metric] tons [about 3.3 to 12.1 million tons] of plastic estimated to be sinking to the ocean floor," said Denise Hardesty, CSIRO senior research scientist.

The plastics accumulate there, she said, before breaking down into smaller microplastics that mix in with ocean sediment. 

While previous studies have looked at microplastics on the seafloor, this research is the first of its kind, taking into account larger items like nets, cups, and plastic bags .

Why is the study concerning?

According to Phys.org and the World Economic Forum , a garbage truck's worth of plastic enters the ocean every single minute. The International Union for Conservation of Nature explained that ocean organisms sometimes eat this waste and it moves up the food web, eventually ending up in our bodies. This is dangerous, as several chemicals used in plastic production are known carcinogens that can cause developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune disorders in humans and wildlife.

Watch now: Alex Honnold shows off his new Rivian

And according to the study's lead author, Alice Zhu , the estimate of plastic pollution sitting on the ocean floor could be 100 times more than what we believe is floating on the surface. 

We already know that ocean plastics endanger wildlife like seabirds, whales, fish, and turtles who may mistake plastic for prey. Most of these animals die of starvation as their stomachs become filled with plastic, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature . They can also suffer from lacerations, infections, reduced ability to swim, and internal injuries, the organization said. Similarly, plastic waste on the ocean floor affects plants and animals who live and hunt in this zone, and can move up the food chain. 

What can I do to help with ocean plastics?

Luckily, a number of companies and governments are hopping on board to reduce plastic pollution. For instance, McDonald's U.K. has banned all plastic cutlery. And major beer brands like Coors Light are getting rid of plastic packaging rings.

Meanwhile, a lot of plastic alternatives are popping up, and scientists have discovered how to break down plastic using hungry wax worms and fungus .

You can do your part by reducing the amount of plastics you use in your daily life: ditch single-use water bottles , invest in reusable grocery sacks , support brands with plastic-free packaging , and switch to bar shampoo and conditioner .

Join our free newsletter for cool news and cool tips that make it easy to help yourself while helping the planet.

Scientists find concerning accumulation of pollution in ocean: 'The ocean floor has become a resting place, or reservoir' first appeared on The Cool Down .