Linkedin_Microplastics in North Devon Intertidal Sediments_Angelo_Massos_10365453

UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH
The Identification of
Microplastic Fibres on
North Devon Beaches
Angelo Massos 10365453
4/23/2015

I
Abstract
Microplastics are less than 5mm in size and are categorised as by either
fragments, nurdles or fibres. This project found microplastic fibres on two North
Devon Beaches, Woolacombe Bay and Wildersmouth. 11 samples were taken
along a transect from the low water mark up to the strandline to identify for the
presence of microplastics, to determine particle size, and to see whether the
particle size correlated with the number of microplastics. In addition, a survey of
the beach profile was conducted, recording the elevation using a (Garmin eTrex
Legend H Handheld) GPS System to see if the microplastics correlated with the
beach elevation. Microplastic fibres were individually analysed using Bruker IFs66
FT-IR, and then analysed against the two Bruker libraries spectra, BPAD.SO1 and
Synthetic Fibres ATR Library. Particle size was analysed using the Malvern 2000,
which uses laser defraction. The results show that there was no correlation
between microplastic fibres and particle size and no correlation between the
elevation of the beach profile and the distribution of microplastic fibres. The
microplastic fibres present in the samples consisted of polyester, polyamide,
acrylic and cellulosic, indicating the potential sources were a waste water
treatment plant and an outfall pipe. Microplastic pollution on North Devon beaches
has been proven by this project, therefore raising concerns about microplastic
contamination from metals and persistent organic pesticides, with the associated
implications for the marine environment and human health.

II
Acknowledgements
Without the collaboration of North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (ANOB) and Plymouth University, this project would not have been
possible. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr John Martin for his guidance throughout
the project. Many thanks to the North Devon AONB team, in particular Elaine
Hayes for helping with the project design and Natalie Gibb for helping with
sampling in the field.
Thanks also go to the laboratory technicians Andrew Tonkin and Richard Hartley
for their help and guidance during the laboratory processing and analytical phases
of the project.
My gratitude goes to Prof Richard Thompson, who helped with his inspirational
guidance and knowledge during the design of the project and the processing of
results.
Many thanks to my parents Jacky and Theo Massos, and Jane Richardson, for
their continuous support and encouragement throughout this project.

III
Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements II
List of Figures V
List of Appendices VI
Chapter 1 1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Aims 2
1.2 Objectives 2
1.3 Hypothesis 2
Chapter 2 2
2.0 Literature Review 2
2.1 Global, international and national legislation and policy on the prevention of marine
litter 2
2.2 Environment impacts of marine litter 4
2.2.1 Ingestion 4
2.2.2 Impact of litter on benthic habitat 4
2.2.3 Transportation of non- native invasive species 5
2.3 Sources of Marine Litter 5
2.4 Microplastics in the marine environment 6
2.4.1 Microplastics and sources 6
2.4.2 Pathways 9
2.4.2.1 Environment 9
2.4.2.2 Food chain 9
2.4.2.3 Sinks 9
2.5 Socio-Economic Impacts of microplastics 10
2.6 Microplastics properties 11
2.6.1 Polymers 12
2.6.2 Density 12
2.6.3 Abundance 13
2.6.4 Colour 13
2.6.5 Biological interactions 14
2.6.6 Physical impacts of microplastics 14
2.7 Indirect Impacts from microplastics contaminates 14

IV
2.7.1 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) 14
2.7.2 Trace metals 17
2.8 Data monitoring 17
2.8.1 Data Gap 21
Chapter 3 22
3.0 Methodology 22
3.1 Site description 22
3.2. Field Work 25
3.3 Laboratory work 27
3.3.1 Stage 1: Equipment list: 27
3.3.1.1 Method Process 27
3.3. 2 Stage 2: Removing fibres 28
3.3.3 Stage 3: Fibre analysis 29
3.4 Particle size analysis 32
Chapter 4 33
4.0 Results 33
4.1 Microplastic results 33
4.2 Particle size results 42
Chapter 5 45
5.0 Discussion 45
5.1 Discussion of results 45
5.2 Receptors to microplastics 50
5.3 Global content of microplastics 51
6.0 Conclusion 55
7.0 Recommendations 56
8.0 References 57
9.0 Appendices 66

V
List of Figures
Figure 2: List of commonly produced plastic polymers (Anon, 2011). 11
Figure 2.1: Potential pathways for the transport of microplastics and its biological
interactions (Wright et al., 2013) 13
Figure 2.2: Partitioning of chemicals between plastics, biota and seawater (Leslie
et al., 2011). 15
Figure 2.3: Sources of marine microplastics and the various physical, chemical
and biological processes affecting microplastics in the marine environment (Leslie
et al., 2011). 16
Figure 2.4: MCS Great British Beach Clean weekend annual average data for
North Devon for small plastics < 2.5cm. 18
Figure 2.5: MCS seasonal average data for North Devon for small plastics < 2.5
cm. 20
Figure 3: OS Map of sampling sites located in North Devon (University of
Edinburgh, 2015) 22
Figure 3.1: OS map of Woolacombe Bay (University of Edinburgh, 2015). 23
Figure 3.2: Picture of Woolacombe Bay 23
Figure 3.3: OS map of Wildersmouth Beach (University of Edinburgh, 2015). 24
Figure 3.4: Picture of Wildersmouth Beach. 25
Figure 3.5: Microplastic sampling at Woolacombe Bay. 25
Figure 3.6: Bulk sediment sampling for particle size analysis at Wildersmouth
Beach. 26
Figure 3.7: Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS System. 26
Figure: 3.8 Acid rinsing of 500ml glass jars 27
Figure: 3.9 Mini pore filtration unit 28
Figure: 3.10 Picking potential microplastics for FT-IR analysis 28
Figure 3.11: Bruker FT-IR 29
Figure: 3.12 Cellulosic rayon fibre wave spectra 30
Figure: 3.13 Polyamide nylon fibre wave spectra 30
Figure 3.14: Polyester fibre spectra 31
Figure 3.15: Acrylic fibre spectra 31
Figure 3.16: sieve shaker 32
Figure 3.17: Malvern 2000 33
Figure: 4 Rayon fibre from samples 34
Figure: 4.1 Woolacombe Bay microplastic and average % particle size. 35
Figure 4.2: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of microplastic
fibres present at Woolacombe Bay. 36
Figure: 4.3 Wildersmouth microplastic and average % particle size 37
Figure 4.4: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of microplastic
fibres and the total number present at Wildersmouth. 38
Figure: 4.5 Scatter graph of average particle size µm against total fibres for
Woolacombe Bay. 38
Wildersmouth. 39

VI
Figure 4.7 Woolacombe Bay beach profile, plotted against the microplastic fibres.
41
Figure 4.8 Wildersmouth beach profile, plotted against the microplastic fibres. 42
Figure: 4.9 Sediment classification triangle (Blott and Pye, 2012). 43
Figure 4.10 Particle size accumulative curves for Woolacombe Bay. 44
Figure 4.11 Particle size accumulative curves for Wildersmouth. 45
List of Tables
Table 2: Legislation and policy, global, international and national 3
Table 2.1: Ingested marine litter reported in marine organisms 4
Table 2.2: Sources of Marine Litter from MCS annual Beachwatch report UK (MCS
2013). 6
Table 2.3: Microplastics types and sources. 8
Table 2.4: MCS number of Beachwatch seasonal surveys from 2002 - 2013 in
North Devon for plastic < 2.5 cm 19
Table: 4 raw data from Woolacombe Bay sample at 0m. 34
Table: 4.1 Calculated confidence intervals at 60% and 70% for each category of
fibre. 35
Table 4.2: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Woolacombe Bay 36
Table 4.3: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Wildersmouth 37
Table: 4.4 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using Tukey
method for Woolacombe Bay. 39
Table: 4.5 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using Tukey
method for Wildersmouth. 40
List of Appendices
1.0 Risk Assessment
2.0 COSH Forms

1
Chapter 1
1.0 Introduction
Marine litter poses a growing threat to the marine and coastal environment; more
than 1 million birds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year from becoming
entangled in or ingesting marine litter (KIMO, 2013). World production of plastics
was 265 million tonnes in 2010, of which 57 million tonnes were produced in
Europe (The Plastic Industry, 2011). The consequence of the increasing demand
for plastics has led to an annual production increase of 5% for the past 20 years in
Europe (The Plastic Industry, 2011). The relatively low cost of production, and
single-use items means that end of life plastics are accumulating in the
environment; plastic is not valued, which has led to it being disposed of incorrectly
(Thompson et al., 2009b).
The environment is vulnerable to litter which causes damaging ecological impacts,
such as entanglement, ingestion, smothering, disturbance and removal of habitat,
the transportation of invasive species and the degradation of poisonous
substances (Everard et al., 2002). Marine litter consists of material such as plastic
which has slow degradation rates, resulting in fragments known as
microplastics >5mm (Bakir et al., 2012); continuous input of large quantities of
these items is resulting in litter accumulating in marine and coastal environments
(UNEP n.d). Litter waste from the shipping industry, as well as lack of land based
infrastructure to receive litter, poor education and a lack of awareness among
main stakeholders and the general public, are the main contributing factors for
marine litter increase worldwide (UNEP, n.d).

2
1.1 Aims
 The aim of this study is to investigate North Devon beaches for the
presence of microplastics.
 To compare the concentrations of microplastics against particle size of the
beach sediments.
 To determine whether microplastics show a distribution along the beach
profile.
1.2 Objectives
 Collect samples of sediment for analysis of microplastics and collect
sediment samples to determine particle size.
 Carry out preparation and laboratory analysis of samples collected.
 Collate and interpret the data.
 Report on the North Devon beaches to understand environmental problems
associated with microplastics.
1.3 Hypothesis
 To identify the presence of microplastics on North Devon Beaches.
 To identify a positive correlation between microplastics and fine particle size.
 To identify a positive correlation between microplastic concentrations and
the elevation along beaches profiles.
Chapter 2
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Global, international and national legislation and policy on the
prevention of marine litter
Impacts on the environment from marine litter have been identified and have
started to be addressed by legislation and policy. To control marine debris there is
a need for a legal framework to be implemented, to ensure that polluters become
accountable for their actions. There is legislation, both internationally and
nationally, to deal with sources of marine pollution, shown in Table 2.

3
Table 1: Legislation and policy, global, international and national
International Action Reference
London Convention on the
Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and other Matter,
1972
Prohibits dumping of persistent
plastics and non-biodegradable
materials under Annex 1
(UN, 1977).
International Convention
for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships 1973
(MARPOL 73/78).
Annex V ban disposal in to the sea
of any forms of plastic under IMO
(International Maritime
Organization) Conventions
(IMO, 2011).
Convention for the
Protection of the Marine
Environment, North East
Atlantic -OSPAR
Convention.
Annex I prevents and eliminates of
pollution from land-based sources;
Annex III eliminates of pollution
from offshore sources; Annex IV
assess the quality of the marine
environment
(EC, 1998).
European Action Reference
EU Marine Strategy
Framework Directive
(2008/56/EC).
To achieve ‘good environmental
status’ (GES) by 2020 across
Europe’s marine environment.
(EU, 2008).
EU Directive on packaging
and packaging waste
(2004/12/EC).
To harmonize national measures
concerning the management of
packaging and packaging waste,
enhancing environmental
protection.
(EU, 2004).
EU Waste Directive
2008/98/EC
To encourage recycling of waste
within EU member states
(EU, 2008).
EU Directive on the landfill
of waste (1999/31/EC).
To prevent or minimize possible
negative effects on the environment
from the landfilling of waste, by
introducing stringent technical
requirements for waste and landfills.
(EU, 1999).
EU Directive on port
reception facilities for ship
federated waste and cargo
residues (2000/59/EC
December 2002)
To enhance the availability and use
of port reception facilities for ship
generated
waste and cargo residues
(EU, 2000a).
Bathing Water Directive
(2006/7/EC)
To preserve, protect and improve
the quality of the environment and
to protect human health.
(EU, 2006).
EU Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC).
To ensure that all aquatic
ecosystems and wetlands in the EU
have achieved 'good chemical and
ecological status' by 2015.
(EU, 2000b).

4
2.2 Environment impacts of marine litter
The current legislation is not preventing litter entering the marine environment and
causing the death of marine organisms, directly or indirectly.
2.2.1 Ingestion
Ingestion of litter by animals occurs when litter items are mistaken for food, or
consumed by a higher trophic level species (Everard et al., 2002). The ingestion of
marine litter has been reported to date and is shown in Table 2.1. Seabirds are
particularly susceptible to ingesting marine litter as they are surface feeders (Day,
1985), which is also problematic as consumed items are regurgitated to feed their
young (Fry et al., 1987).
Table 2.1: Ingested marine litter reported in marine organisms
Species Number of reported
species
References
Seabirds 111 (Allsopp et al., 2006)
Marine mammals 31 (Allsopp et al., 2006)
Cetaceans 26 (Derraik 2002).
Ingestion of plastics leads to a less acute effect than entanglement due to the slow
accumulation of plastic items in the animals’ gut (Faris and Hart, 1995). Litter can
consequently lead to physical damage, mechanical blockage, damage of foraging
ability (Laist, 1987), feeding capacity and malnutrition. Contaminated plastic can
lead to reproductive disorders, hormonal inbalance, an increased risk of diseases
and possible death (Azzarello and Van-Vleet, 1987).
2.2.2 Impact of litter on benthic habitat
70% of marine litter is estimated to accumulate on the seaﬂoor (OSPAR, 1995).
Litter accumulation can prevent gas exchange between overlying waters and the
National Action Reference
Environmental Protection
Act - 1990 (HMSO, 1990).
Section 87 is an offence to drop
litter in a public place including land
covered by water.
(UK
Government,
1990).

5
pore waters of sediment, leading to reduced oxygen in sediments (Mouat et al.,
2010). An additional impact on the functioning of the ecosystem is by smothering
of benthic organisms and changes to the composition of biota on the seaﬂoor
(Derraik, 2002). Marine litter can also cause physical damage to benthic habitats
through abrasion, scouring, breaking and smothering (Sheavly and Register 2007).
Benthic organisms are also at risk from entanglement by and of ingestion marine
litter (Derraik 2002).
2.2.3 Transportation of non- native invasive species
Floating litter can facilitate transportation for organisms to travel long distances,
creating a problem of introducing invasive species. Dispersal by plastic debris is
most likely to affect adjacent coastal regions; litter can be rapidly dispersed along
a shoreline by currents (Everard et al., 2001). Fouling organisms are transported
by vessels successfully carrying organisms through environments that are often
hostile due to temperature and salinity (Everard et al., 2001). However, floating
plastic poses a bigger problem as there is an increased likelihood for encrusting
biota to be transported due to the slow movement of plastic which increases their
chances of survival; therefore invasive species are a threat from transboundary
pollution and may have a significant biological impact (Winston et al., 1997).
The circulation of the ocean can cause litter items to be anchored, which provides
a surface for attachment; this allows invasive species the chance to colonise
habitats and therefore creates competition for native organisms (Everard et al.,
2001).
2.3 Sources of Marine Litter
Plastic debris originates from either intentional or accidental mishandling (Sheavly
& Register 2007). The sources of marine litter are from land-based sources which
are transported by rivers and estuaries, and from offshore sources. The major
sources include: sewage treatment works; combined sewer overflows; other
industrial discharges; urban runoff; shipping; oil rigs; ministry of defence munitions;
dereliction (piers, wrecks, etc); agricultural waste; the fishing industry; fly tipping;
aquaculture; municipal waste; recreational and leisure usage (MCS, 2010).

6
Public littering from tourists and recreational visitors are key sources of litter, with
public littering accounting for 42% of all debris found during the 2009 UK
Beachwatch (MCS, 2010). Poor waste management practices can result in debris
from waste collection and transportation, and disposal sites entering the marine
environment.
On a global scale, nearly 80% of the world's marine debris is thought to have
originated from land sources (Faris and Hart, 1994). The Marine Conservation
Society (MCS) annual Beachwatch report shows that in recent years tourism,
fishing and sewage related debris have consistently been identified as causing the
highest volume of litter (Table 2.2). 38% of litter cannot be sourced (MCS, 2013)
(Table 2.2).
Table 2.2: Sources of Marine Litter from MCS annual Beachwatch report UK
(MCS 2013).
Sources of Marine Litter Percentage (%) of total litter
Tourism 39.4
Fishing 12.6
Sewage 4.3
Unknown source 38
2.4 Microplastics in the marine environment
2.4.1 Microplastics and sources
Microplastics are defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) as items less than 5 mm in size; microplastics can be primary,
manufactured to be of microscopic size, or secondary, coming from the
fragmentation of plastic items (Arthur et al., 2009). Microplastics heavily
contaminate the sediments in coastal areas; over the past 24 years in the North
Atlantic there has been a decrease in the average particle size from 10.66mm in
1990 to 5.05mm in 2000; 69% of fragments were 2-6mm, indicating higher
concentrations of microplastics (Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2013).
Microplastics are associated with fine sediment particles and behave in a similar to
other contaminates (Vianello et al., 2013).
Primary microplastics sources are from industry or from cosmetic products
containing microbeads (Frendall and Sewell, 2009). Microbeads and are not

7
removed in sewage treatment process as the microplastics are often too small to
be filtered out and therefore enter the marine environment (MCS, 2012) (Table
2.3). The sandblasting industry now uses primary microplastics because they stay
sharper and effective for longer than sand particles, causing concerns for their
emission into the atmosphere and subsequent atmospheric deposition at sea
(Leslie et al., 2011) (Table 2.3).
Industrial cleaning products release the microplastics they contain, which can be
contaminated with materials from the surfaces they were used to clean, such as
machinery parts (Gregory, 1996).
Microplastics can come from the transportation of pre-production pellets, termed
‘nurdles’, which are transported to factories but spillages are commonly known to
occur, releasing billons of nurdles into the environment (US EPA, 1992) (Table
2.3). Nurdles have been reported floating in coastal surface waters and in the
oceans as well as on beaches around the world and in sediments (Derraik 2002).
Other sources of microplastics in seawater are paint, and the operation of ships
(JRC, 2011); offshore installations could also be a source of microplastics, as are
oil spills (JRC, 2011).
Secondary microplastics consist of fragments of macroplastic litter emitted from
sea or land (Gregory, 1996). Another source of microplastics is synthetic fibres
from abrasion of washing clothing, and other materials which shed fibres from both
the textile industry and domestic use (Browne et al., 2011) (Table 2.3). In excess
of 1900 microplastic fibres from clothing can be released into domestic wastewater
by laundering a single garment (Browne et al., 2011).

8
Table 2.3: Microplastics types and sources.
Type of
microplastics
Source Images
Microbeads Cosmetic and house
products (Eriksen et al.,
2013)
Microbeads in cosmetics (Lupkin,
2014).
Microbeads Sandblasting using
microplastics which are
transported through the
air and their subsequent
atmospheric deposition at
sea (Leslie et al., 2011).
Sandblasting.
Pre-production
pellets
‘Nurdles’
Plastic pellets and
powders which are
transported by container
ships may be lost during
cargo handling in
harbours (JRC, 2011).
Nurdles (Campbell, 2012).
Synthetic
fibres
Washing clothes and the
textile industry are
sources of artificial fibres
from abrasion of clothing
and other materials (JRC,
2011).
Microplastic fibre.
Fragments
<5mm
Large macroplastic items
are degraded by UVB and
abrasion. Sources are
from land and fisheries
(Moore, 2008).
Fragment pieces of microplastic.

9
2.4.2 Pathways
2.4.2.1 Environment
Once in the sea, the pathways through which litter items circulate depends upon
the type of the litter item, and the features such as buoyancy, shape and size; the
environmental influence of wind, tide and current controls the pathway force
(Eriksen et al., 2013). Marine litter can accumulates in gyres; gyres are formed by
surface currents that are primarily a combination of Ekman currents driven by local
wind and geostrophic currents sustained by the equilibrium between sea level
gradients and the Coriolis force (Eriksen et al., 2013).
2.4.2.2 Food chain
Microplastics inhabit the same size fraction as sediments and some planktonic
organisms, and can be ingested by low trophic suspension, filter and deposit
feeders, detritivores and planktivores (Thompson et al., 2004). Microplastics are
potentially bioavailable to a wide range of organisms and can bioaccumulate
across trophic levels (Wright et al., 2013). Filter and deposit feeders are a potential
source of microplastic intake into humans, but current exposure concentrations
cannot be estimated due to toxicity data not being available (Hollman et al., 2013).
2.4.2.3 Sinks
Sinks are beaches which include sand dunes and deposits of material commonly
on the sea bed (Williams et al., 1993). These sinks may or may not be permanent
due to coastal processes. Consequently, beach clearance operations, such as the
removal of litter at a temporary sink, may in the long term be ineffective as the
beach is replenished periodically from offshore sinks (Everard et al., 2002).
Litter can circulate for a long time in the marine environment due to the
persistence of the litter items; for example, the impact of plastic on the
environment is highly persistent and it accumulates in sinks (Everard et al., 2002).
A plastic bottle is estimated to persist for 450 years in the marine environment
(UNEP,1990); however, this estimated persistent figure does not take into account
environmental processes of the sea, therefore the persistent time may be less.
Plastic litter undergoes degradation into smaller fragments such as microplastics,

10
which may leach chemicals such as plasticisers and other polymer constituents
and particulates into the sea (Everard et al., 2002). These substances may be
persistent, and others are known to exert adverse biological effects at very low
concentrations (Everard et al., 2002).
The water column is a temporary sink for marine litter; depending on the buoyancy
of litter items, litter can be stratified (Galgani et al., 2010). Shallow coastal areas
can act as a litter sink; due to their geomorphological features, marine litter is in
higher concentrations in coastal areas compared with continental shelves and the
deep seafloor (Katsanevakis, 2008). Deep water is another sink as the majority of
macro-debris, which is predominantly plastic, eventually settles to the seabed.
Litter aggregation on the seabed is localised, dependent on nearby source inputs
and seabed topography (Galgani et al., 2010).
2.5 Socio-Economic Impacts of microplastics
The global fishing industry’s total output is $235 billion worldwide (UNEP, 2011).
The world’s fisheries deliver annual profits to fishing enterprises worldwide of
approximately US $8 billion and supports, directly and indirectly, 170 million jobs,
providing some US $35 billion in household income per year (UNEP, 2011).
North Devon has four ports; in 2013, landings in North Devon were 1,350 tonnes
of fish with a total value of £2.1 million (FLAG, 2013). The implications of
microplastics polluting the marine environment and accumulating in the marine
food chain are unknown. A potential problem is that marine organisms become too
contaminated for human consumption, leading to huge impacts on the fishing
industry and global and regional economies. The risks to human health are not
fully understood; therefore more research is required to understand whether there
are long term health problems. In addition, there is a cost to cleaning beaches,
which is especially relevant in the southwest of England because of the tourist
industry; the North Devon beaches attract tourists and generate £376m annually,
supporting 10,633 jobs (AONB, 2014).

11
2.6 Microplastics properties
Microplastics are made from synthetic polymer(s), as shown in Figure 2 (Anon,
2011). High production volumes originate from petroleum-based raw materials:
about 8% of global oil production goes towards the production of plastics (Andrady
& Neal 2009). The high production volumes supply 75% of the demand for plastics
in Europe (Anon, 2011). Polymers are synthesized either by joining monomer units
to form a polymer or by producing a free radical monomer, leading to a chain
reaction that quickly produces a long chain polymer (Bolgar et al., 2008).
Polyethylene or polypropylene are usually cylindrical-shaped and may be
colourless, coloured or translucent and are used in cosmetic products (Mato et al.,
2001; Endo et al., 2005). Polyethylene is a potential transporter of hydrophobic
organic contaminants, such as phenanthrene which is derived from fossil fuel
burning and poses dangerous pollution to the ocean (Teuten et al., 2007).
Figure 2: List of commonly produced plastic polymers (Anon, 2011).
Plastics are generally resilient to biodegradation but will break down slowly
through mechanical action; plastics absorb ultraviolet radiation which causes
plastics to fragment but this only affects floating plastics near the surface
(European Commission, 2011; Thompson et al., 2004). Due to the plastics
durability and resilience to biodegradation, plastic material can persist for
hundreds or thousands of years (Anthony & Andrady, 2011). Older microplastic
pellets are usually associated with discolouration into yellow, abrasion, cracking,
fouling, tarring and encrustation by precipitates (Endo et al., 2005).

12
2.6.1 Polymers
Polymers in plastics contain a combination of additives which include: plasticizers
that make plastics flexible and durable; flame retardants; surfactants; additives
that enhance resistance to oxidation, UV radiation and high temperatures;
modifiers to improve resistance to breakage; pigments; dispergents; lubricants;
antistatics; nanoparticles or nanofibers; inert fillers; biocides; and fragrances
(Leslie et al., 2011). Additives need to be considered a part of the potential
ecological impact of microplastics and there has been an increase in global plastic
additives, estimated at 11.1 million tonnes in 2009 (Leslie et al., 2011).
Microplastics have been accumulating in oceans worldwide over the last four
decades (Carpenter et al., 1972); microplastics are bioavailable because their
small size make them available to lower trophic organisms (suspension, filter and
deposit feeders and detritivores), which are only able to identify particles by size
therefore mistakenly ingesting microplastics (Moore, 2008). Higher trophic
planktivores could passively ingest microplastics during normal feeding behaviour
as they mistake particles for natural prey (Thompson et al., 2004; Wright et al.,
2013. This leads to potential accumulation within organisms, resulting in physical
harm, such as by internal abrasions and blockages (Wright et al., 2013).
2.6.2 Density
Plankton filter feeders and suspension feeders inhabit the upper water column and
are more likely to encounter positively buoyant low density plastics (Wright et al.,
2013). Figure 2.1 shows buoyancy is influenced by biofouling, the rate of
biofouling; is dependent on surface energy and hardness of the polymer and also
the water conditions (Muthukumar et al., 2011). This process may make
microplastics available to organisms at different depths of the water column,
including benthic suspension feeders, deposit feeders and detritivores (Wright et
al., 2013). De-fouling in the water column by foraging organisms is a potential
pathway for microplastics to return to the sea-air interface (Anthony and Andrady,
2011) (Figure 2.1).

13
Figure 2.1: Potential pathways for the transport of microplastics and its
biological interactions (Wright et al., 2013)
2.6.3 Abundance
Increasing the abundance of microplastics in the marine environment will increase
the chances of organisms encountering it and therefore affect its bioavailability
(Wright et al., 2013). Continual fragmentation of macroplastics increases the
amount of microplastics available for ingestion (Wright et al., 2013).
2.6.4 Colour
The colouration of microplastics may contribute to the likelihood of ingestion
(Wright et al., 2013). Commercially important fish are visual predators, preying on
zooplankton, and may feed on microplastics which bear a resemblance to their
prey (Shaw and Day, 1994). An experiment on fish from the Niantic Bay area, New
England, showed that fish selectively only ingested opaque white polystyrene
spherules (Carpenter et al., 1972).

14
2.6.5 Biological interactions
Seasonal flocculation of particulates into sinking aggregates is an important
pathway for energy transfer between pelagic and benthic habitats (Ward and Kach,
2009). Subsequently, microplastics can become incorporated into marine
aggregates and transferred in to the food chain (Wright et al., 2013). Ingested
microplastics could be excreted within faecal matter, which suspension feeder and
detritivores may ingest (Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1). Benthic organisms
undertake bioturbation; microplastics in the sediment are therefore potentially
ingested or resuspended into the water column, becoming available to infrauna
(Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1).
2.6.6 Physical impacts of microplastics
The ingestion of microplastics by vertebrates causes internal and external
abrasion and ulcers because of blockages in the digestive tract which may result
in satiation, starvation, physical deterioration, reduced predator avoidance,
weakening of feeding ability, the potential transfer of damaging toxicants from
seawater, and death (Gregory, 2009). There is potential for microplastics to clog
and block the feeding appendages of marine invertebrates or even to become
embedded in tissues (Derraik, 2002). Figure 2.2 illustrates numerous types of
physical, chemical and biological processes involved in the transport and
destination of microplastics in the marine environment, the leaching and
absorption of environmental chemical contaminants, and interactions with biota.
2.7 Indirect Impacts from microplastics contaminates
2.7.1 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
The sea surface microlayer is enriched with pollutants from atmospheric
deposition; these chemicals interact with both floating microplastics and plankton
(Booij and Van Drooge 2001; Wurl & Obbard 2004) (Figure 2.3). Further to the
potential physical impacts of ingested microplastics, toxicity could additionally
come from leaching constituent contaminants, such as monomers and plastic
additives, which are capable of causing carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption
(Oehlmann et al., 2009; Talsness et al., 2009). A study of ultrafine polystyrene

15
particles on rats showed lung inflammation and enzyme activity were affected
depending on the dose (Leslie et al., 2011). When humans ingest microplastics
<150 µm they have been shown to be absorbed from the gut to the lymph and
circulatory systems and can be linked with tumours (Hussain et al., 2001; Pauly et
al., 1998). Nano-sized particles up to 240 µm in diameter have been shown to
cross into the human placenta (Wick et al., 2010).
Microplastics are liable to concentrate to hydrophobic POPs from seawater by
partitioning (Anthony & Andrady 2011) (Figure 2.2). Hydrophobicity of POPs is
how they facilitate their concentrations on microplastics, up to six times the order
of magnitude higher than seawater (Anthony & Andrady 2011; Wright et al., 2013).
When contaminated plastics are ingested they provide a pathway for POPs into
the food web, as organisms take up and store POPs in their tissues and cells;
additionally there is the potential to biomagnify across trophic levels (Anthony &
Andrady 2011; Browne et al., 2011) (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Partitioning of chemicals between plastics, biota and seawater
(Leslie et al., 2011).
The long residence and possible storage in sediments of microplastics results in
ingestion, retention, egestion and possible re-ingestion, which may present
potential mechanisms for the transport of POPs, and for the release of chemical
additives from plastics to organisms (Bakir et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 1988 and
Tanaka et al., 2013) (Figure 2.3).

16
Figure 2.3: Sources of marine microplastics and the various physical, chemical and biological processes affecting
microplastics in the marine environment (Leslie et al., 2011).

17
2.7.2 Trace metals
Various metals are found on plastic debris; metals associate with microplastic by
the adsorption of ions to polymers and coatings attaching to the microplastic
surface (Holmes et al., 2012) or, associated with hydrogeneous or biogenic
phases, they frequently occur in a moderately bioaccessible form to fauna that
mistakenly ingest them (Ashton et al., 2010). Accumulation of metals on plastic
debris may not differ greatly by polymer type as they do for organic chemical
pollutants (Rockman et al., 2013). Microplastics accumulate metals directly in the
surface microlayer; the buoyancy of microplastics leads to exposure to high
concentrations of metals and other contaminates in the sea surface microlayer
(Wurl and Obbard, 2004). Contaminated plastics can be transported considerable
distances because of the buoyancy, causing implications for transfer into the food
chain (Holmes et al., 2013). Organisms mistake plastic for food (Teuten et al.,
2009), leading to metals potentially being mobilised in organisms’ acidic digestive
systems (Holmes et al., 2013). Metals may bioaccumulate or be released back into
seawater in a more soluble and biologically available form (Holmes et al., 2013).
2.8 Data monitoring
Marine litter has been monitored on North Devon beaches; unpublished data is
available from the MCS since 2002. Currently there is no specific data monitoring
microplastics, only data for small plastics < 2.5cm, which includes macro, meso
and micro plastics visible to the naked eye.
Figure 2.4 shows data collected in North Devon from the Great British Beach
Clean weekend which has been an annual event held in September since 2002.
The Great British Beach Clean is a national beach cleaning programme, designed
to support communities in caring for their local beaches. Carrying out beach litter
surveys improves knowledge and understanding of the problems, enables
resources to be targeted effectively and builds a better understanding of where
beach litter is coming from and therefore how to reduce it at source.
Over the 11 year survey period there has been annual fluctuation of plastic < 2.5
cm marine litter. The lowest number of items was in 2003 when 31 items were
recorded; the highest number of items was 163 recorded in 2011. Between 2005

18
and 2009 there was a decrease in the amount of plastic < 2.5 cm and then in 2010
it increased to 158 items. Figure 2.4 shows that there are a lot of influencing
factors causing variation in the amount of plastics < 2.5 cm recorded. A factor
influencing the results is that the number of beach surveys conducted varied,
which affected the average and gave an inaccurate representation of the problem.
Figure 2.4: MCS Great British Beach Clean weekend annual average data for
North Devon for small plastics < 2.5cm.
Table 2.4 shows the number of seasonal surveys for North Devon for plastic <
2.5cm. This table highlights the variation in the number of surveys carried out
annually, with 2005 having the highest number, 34 surveys, and in 2003 the lowest
number of surveys was 2. Over the 11 year period most of the beach surveys were
carried out in the winter season, and surveys during the autumn had the lowest
number. During the winter of 2005, there were the largest number of surveys, but
in more recent years winter surveys have declined. Table 2.4 shows that the
results in Figure 2.5 are influenced by the number of beach cleans conducted; the
seasonal average of plastics < 2.5cm varies because the number of beach
surveys for each season varies from 0 to 20. The seasonal variation is due to the
survey’s reliance on volunteers and can only therefore be done when volunteers
are available .
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Itemsofplastic<2.5cm
Year of sampling

19
Table 2.4: MCS number of Beachwatch seasonal surveys from 2002 - 2013 in
North Devon for plastic < 2.5 cm
Figure 2.5 shows the seasonal average data for North Devon for small plastics <
2.5 cm. In 2002 there was no data collected for spring and in 2003 there was no
data collected for spring or autumn, the volumes of litter over the 2 years were
relatively low. In autumn 2004 the number of items reached 443 which shows an
increase compared to the rest of the year. In the years 2005 to 2007 there was no
litter data collected in the autumn; between 2006 and 2007 the number of items
recorded was highest in winter. In the 2008 spring data there were 537 items
recorded, which is the highest recorded over the 11 year time period. In this year
there was also the highest number of items recorded for summer, 117. During the
summer of 2008 the weather was recorded as being unseasonal, therefore
creating higher inputs on beaches due to weather’s influence on the distribution of
litter. In 2009 data was only collected in the spring and autumn; the autumn data
was 384 items which is considerably higher than data collected in the spring. In
2010 there was no data recorded for winter or autumn but from the data collected
in the spring and summer the number of items was low. In 2011 there was no data
recorded for the autumn and the highest number of items collected was in winter.
In 2012 data was collected only in the spring and summer, with the data for spring
Year
Winter
surveys
Spring
surveys
Summer
surveys
Autumn
surveys
Total annual
surveys
2002 1 1 1 1 4
2003 1 0 1 0 2
2004 3 2 2 2 9
2005 20 9 5 0 34
2006 6 4 6 0 16
2007 3 5 5 0 13
2008 4 5 8 1 18
2009 2 3 2 2 9
2010 0 1 1 1 3
2011 2 1 1 0 4
2012 0 2 3 0 5
2013 1 1 0 2 4
Total seasonal
surveys 43 34 35 9 121

20
being higher than for the summer. In 2013 data was not collected during the
summer and in the winter there was the highest number of items.
Figure 2.5: MCS seasonal average data for North Devon for small plastics <
2.5 cm.
A possible influencing factor on the variability of the data was the weather
conditions, such as wind strength and direction and other weather events which
control the impacts and distribution of litter (JRC, 2011).Tide times would also
affect the amount of litter surveyed, because high tides would deposit more litter
onto the beach. A possible reason for litter items to be higher in number in autumn
could be due to the seasonal influx of beach users from tourism increasing the
volume of litter left on beaches. In the spring surveys a possible reason for high
amounts of litter items could be due to stormy winter and spring tides potentially
transporting more litter.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Itemsofplastic<2.5cm
Year of sampling
winter average of plastic items
< 2.5 cm
spring average of plastic items
< 2.5 cm
summer average of plastic
items < 2.5 cm
Autumn average of plastic
items < 2.5 cm

21
Overall the surveying of beaches for both the Great British Beach Clean and the
Beachwatch seasonal surveys over this time period have been subject to
constraints, such as lack of funding for organising and disposing of waste from
beaches. The weather conditions varied over the time period of data collection,
which prevented surveys being conducted due to health and safety risks. The
weather and time of year may have influenced the numbers of volunteers, which
fluctuated from 0 to 45 people in both surveys.
There are a combination of factors which led to inconsistent surveys being carried
out. The sampling locations where not consistent during this time period making it
difficult to identify trends and patterns. Variations in the number of volunteers
reduced the quantity and accuracy of data. As conducting surveys on North Devon
beaches requires a low tide for safety reasons, the variation in tide times affected
the possibility of planning regular surveys throughout the year and annually for
both the Great British Beach Clean and the Beachwatch.
2.8.1 Data Gap
Data from beach cleaning surveys only provides data on plastic debris < 2.5cm. In
practical terms identifying plastic < 5mm is not possible without analytical
equipment and trained personnel and is therefore not reflected in the data from
beach cleaning surveys. There are no current surveys monitoring microplastics on
North Devon beaches. The literature demonstrates the problems associated with
microplastics in the marine environment; therefore an investigation into the
presence of microplastics on North Devon beaches is essential.

22
Chapter 3
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Site description
Sampling sites are located within the North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) (Figure 3). The sites were chosen based on their sediment
types and characteristics.
Figure 3: OS Map of sampling sites located in North Devon (University of
Edinburgh, 2015)
Woolacombe Bay (SS 457439) is a sandy beach (Figure 3.2) 2.37km in width and
with a depth profile of 400m (Figure 3.1), which experiences an influx in
population during the summer months from tourism; the residual population of
Woolacombe is 857 (UK National Statistics, 2012). Woolacombe has an urban
settlement; behind the beach are sand dunes and improved grassland. Behind the
sand dune is a waste water treatment works which is a potential source of
microplastics (Figure 3.1).

23
Figure 3.1: OS map of Woolacombe Bay (University of Edinburgh, 2015).
Figure 3.2: Picture of Woolacombe Bay

24
Wildersmouth beach (SS 511476) is situated within the an old Victorian town of
Ilfracombe, and has a sand and shingle beach (Figure 3.4) 60m in width and with
a depth profile of 100m (Figure 3.3). The surrounding land cover is urban and
suburban (Figure 3.3), with a residual population of 10,717 (UK National Statistics,
2012); in addition Ilfracombe experiences a population influx during the summer
months from tourism, which may increase the volume of microplastics.
Figure 3.3: OS map of Wildersmouth Beach (University of Edinburgh, 2015).

25
3.2. Field Work
Bulk samples were taken from the low water mark to the strandline to test for
microplastics and for particle size. At Woolacombe Bay 11 samples were collected
at 40m intervals along a 400m transect (Figure 3.5). At Wildersmouth 11 samples
were collected at 10m intervals along a 100m transect (Figure 3.6). Samples were
removed from the top 5cm of sediment (Liebezeit and Dubaish, 2012) within the
50x50cm quadrat using a metal trowel. Cotton clothing was worn to reduce the risk
of contamination from microplastic fibres from the researcher’s clothing. The
elevations were recorded using a Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS System
to survey the profile of the beaches at both sampling sites (Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.5: Microplastic sampling at Woolacombe Bay.
Figure 3.4: Picture of
Wildersmouth Beach.

26
Figure 3.6: Bulk sediment sampling for particle size analysis at
Wildersmouth Beach.
Figure 3.7: Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS System.
Prior to conducting the field work, 22 x 500ml glass jars were acid rinsed with
Acetone and Dichloromethane to avoid contamination from potential plastic
contaminants in the production and packaging of the sampling jars (Figure: 3.8).
Any contamination makes the data collected unreliable.

27
Figure: 3.8 Acid rinsing of 500ml glass jars
3.3 Laboratory work
To determine the presence of microplastics, there are three stages to the process:
the separation of microplastics from sediment; hand picking of microplastics;
identifying the microplastics using the Fourier transform-infrared (FT-IR).
3.3.1 Stage 1: Equipment list:
500ml conical, 500ml and 150ml beakers, sodium chloride 300ml, teaspoon
(metal), glass funnel, Whatman filters GFF, Bucher flasks 1L, hose (vacuum tube),
and clamp.
3.3.1.1 Method Process
 100g of sample was removed and placed into 500ml conical
 300ml of sodium chloride was added
 The sample was inverted for 1 minute and left to stand for 5 minutes
 The sample was poured through a mini pore filtration unit, which used a
vacuum to aid the filtration process (Figure 3.9)
 Potential microplastics were removed from the sample by Whatman filter
GFF.
 Whatman filters were left in a 40o
C oven for 24 hours.

28
Figure: 3.9 Mini pore filtration unit
3.3. 2 Stage 2: Removing fibres
From each sample, individual fibres were picked using a microscope and metal
tweezers, placing potential microplastic fibres into a second pertre dish lined a with
Whatman filter (Figure 3.10).
Figure: 3.10 Picking potential microplastics for FT-IR analysis

29
3.3.3 Stage 3: Fibre analysis
FT-IR analysis using Bruker IFs66 (Figure 3.11) was used to identify each
individual fibre, which was then analysed against the two Bruker libraries spectra,
BPAD.SO1 and Synthetic Fibres ATR Library. The matches with a quality index
greater than or equal to 0.7 were accepted. Matches with a quality index less than
0.7 but greater than or equal to 0.6 were individually inspected and interpreted
based on the closeness of their absorption frequencies to those of chemical bonds
in the known polymers. Matches with a quality index less than 0.6 were rejected
(Woodall et al., 2014).
Figure 3.11: Bruker FT-IR
Figures 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, shows spectra matches for cellulosic, polyamide,
polyester and acrylic fibres from samples.

30
Figure: 3.12 Cellulosic rayon fibre wave spectra
Figure: 3.13 Polyamide nylon fibre wave spectra

31
Figure 3.14: Polyester fibre spectra
Figure 3.15: Acrylic fibre spectra

32
3.4 Particle size analysis
Sediment particle size was determined to see if microplastic fibres were in higher
concentrations in samples with a finer particle size. For determining particle size
two stages were required as the particle sizes ranged from 16mm to > 1mm.
Stage 1 was used sieves: 16mm, 11.2mm 8mm, 5.6mm, 4mm 2.8mm, 2mm,
1.6mm, 1.4mm, 1.18mm and 1mm and a sieve shaker (Figure 3.16); the sieve
shaker was only used for Wildersmouth samples as samples taken from
Woolacombe Bay were fine sand and could therefore be analysed using the
Malvern 2000.
Figure 3.16: sieve shaker
Stage 2 was used the Malven 2000 (Figure 3.17) for laser defraction to determine
the particle size <1mm; this was used for samples from both sites.

33
Figure 3.17: Malvern 2000
Chapter 4
4.0 Results
In this chapter the results are presented on the different type and number of
microplastics found at each sampling site. The particle size results are correlated
with the number of microplastics. Classification of the sediment type of each
sampling site was determined as well all calculating a correlation between
microplastics and their distribution along the beach.
4.1 Microplastic results
Samples collected at Woolacombe Bay and Wildersmouth are illustrated in
Figures 4.1 and 4.3. In the samples microplastic fibres were the only type of
microplastic present. The most abundant fibres present are cellulosic (Figure 4.2
and Figure 4.4) consisting predominately of rayon, which indicates a sewage-
derived source from toiletry products such as nappies and tampons (Lusher et al.,
2013). Cellulosic fibres are not true microplastics, which is problematic when
analysing samples as the FT-IR is unable to determine whether fibres are
synthetic or natural due to their similar chemical structure (Lusher et al., 2014).
However, when viewing the fibres under a microscope they appeared to be of a
synthetic colour, either blue or red, rather than a typical cellulosic green colour,
which is shown in Figure 4.

34
Figure: 4 Rayon fibre from samples
An example of the raw data analysed from the FT-IR is shown in Table 4, which
displays the identity of the fibre type and the Euclidean score. The Euclidean
scores ranges from 0-1, with 0 being a 100% match and 1 being unidentifiable.
Table: 4 raw data from Woolacombe Bay sample at 0m.
Sample
0m Identity
Hit
Numbe
r
Hit
Qualit
y
Library
Entry
Euclidean
Score
1
North American Rayon Corp fine 300-50 Br
Rayon white 8 440 220 0.529
2
Rayon white 8 356 220 0.57
3
Rayon Staple AVTEX 13.5 microns 1.5
denier brighter clear 3 598 302 0.605
4 50% Polyester 30% Cotton green 3 351 33 0.654
5
Polyester staple 2.25 denier with Ge
Crystal 1 681 291 0.204
6
Rayon white 2 436 220 0.547
7
8
Rayon white 7 366 220 0.522
9
North American Rayon Corp fine denier
100/42 XDL Rayon white 1 390 323 0.47
10
Courtaulds North American Inc black
solution dyed Rayon black 5 422 121 0.479
11
12
North American Rayon Corp finer denier
300-50 Br Rayon 4 457 220 0.666
13
Viscose Rayon Continuous filament Dupont
white 6 303 323 0.681

35
To assess the quality of the raw data matches, confidence intervals at 60% and 70%
are calculated (Table 4.1) to determine whether the Euclidean score is accepted or
rejected, in order to have confidence in the data.
Table: 4.1 Calculated confidence intervals at 60% and 70% for each category
of fibre.
Microplastic fibres in the sample at Woolacombe Bay are displayed in Figure 4.1,
showing the average percentage particle size plotted against the total number of
microplastic fibres. Statistical analysis using a correlation test was undertaken
using Minitab 16 which generated a P-value of 0.221; this shows no statistically
significate correlation between the average percentage particle size and total
amount of fibres. The total number of accepted microplastic fibres matches
analysed is 149 (Table 4.2). The most abundant microplastic fibre is cellulosic
which represents 90% of the sample, followed by polyester fibres which represent
6% of the sample (Figure 4.2).
Figure: 4.1 Woolacombe Bay microplastic and average % particle size.
Fibre type Confidence interval 60% Confidence interval 70 %
Polyester 0.2 0.4 0.35
Acrylic 0.3 0.5 0.45
Polyamide 0.4 0.6 0.55
cellulosic 0.6 0.8 0.75
44.0
46.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
54.0
56.0
58.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Averageparticlesize%(µm)
Numberofmicroplasticfibres
Distance along the beach
cellulosic
Polyamide
Arylic
Polyester

36
Table 4.2: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Woolacombe Bay
Microplastic
fibre type
0
m
40
m
80
m
12
0m
16
0m
20
0m
24
0m
28
0m
32
0m
36
0m
40
0m
Total number of
microplastic fibres
Polyester 1 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 9
Acrylic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Polyamide 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 4
Cellulosic
1
2 5 5 2 2 9 35 10 22 10 22 134
Figure 4.2: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of
microplastic fibres present at Woolacombe Bay.
Microplastic fibres in the samples at Wildersmouth are shown in Figure 4.3. The
average percentage particle size was plotted against the total amount of
microplastic fibres. Statistical analysis using a correlation test in Minitab 16
generated a P-value of 0.272, which shows no statistically significant correlation
between the average percentage particle size and total number of fibres. The total
number of accepted microplastic fibre matches analysed is 87 (Table 4.3). The
most abundant microplastic fibre at Wildersmouth is cellulosic which makes up 97%
of the sample (Figure 4.4).
6% 1%
3%
90%
Polyester
Arylic
Polyamide
Cellulosic

37
Figure: 4.3 Wildersmouth microplastic and average % particle size
Table 4.3: Accepted microplastic fibre matches for Wildersmouth
Microplastic
fibre type
0
m
10
m
20
m
30
m
40
m
50
m
60
m
70
m
80
m
90
m
100
m
Total number of
microplastic fibres
Polyester 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Arylic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polyamide 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Cellulosic
1
1 5 7 7 7 6 10 13 5 4 9 84
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Averageparticlesize%(µm)
Numberofmicroplasticfibres
Distance along the beach
Cellulosic
Polyamide
Arylic
Polyester
Amount of
Fibres

38
Figure 4.4: Shows a pie chart of the percentages of different types of
microplastic fibres and the total number present at Wildersmouth.
Scatter graphs created in Minitab 16 display both sampling sites with regression
giving a visual representation of the correlation test, which shows a wide spread of
data points (Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6).
403020100
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
Total number of fibres
Averagepartilcesizeµm
Woolacombe Bay.
1%
2%
97%
Polyester
Polyamide
Cellulosic

39
15.012.510.07.55.0
45
40
35
30
25
20
Total amount of fibres
AverageParticlesizeµm
Wildersmouth.
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show distribution results of microplastics along both beaches.
The sampling sites were paired together to create sections of the beaches, the
samples at the low water mark was excluded to have 10 samples paired together.
A one way ANOVA using Tukey test was used to determine whether there was a
statistical significance. Tables 4 and 4.1 show there is no statistical significance for
microplastic distribution at either sampling site. In the grouping section of the
tables the letters are the same which shows no statistical significance.
Table: 4.4 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using
Tukey method for Woolacombe Bay.
Sampling sites
grouped (m)
N Mean Grouping
200&240 4 12 A
280&320 4 9 A
360&400 4 8.25 A
40&80 4 2.5 A
120&160 4 2 A

40
Table: 4.5 One way ANOVA test, displaying grouping Information using
Tukey method for Wildersmouth.
Sampling sites
grouped (m)
N Mean Grouping
70&80 4 4.75 A
50&60 4 4 A
30&40 4 3.75 A
10&20 4 3.5 A
90&100 4 3.25 A
.
Following the distribution results of microplastic along the beach, the elevation of
the profile was recorded to determine if the distribution of microplastic fibres is
associated with different heights of the beach. Figure 4.7 shows the elevations for
Woolacombe Bay and the number of microplastic fibres. At 0m to 80m the
elevation is -2m, which is the closest to the low water mark that samples were
taken. At 0m the beach has been in contact with the seawater for the longest
period of time, potentially increasing the number of microplastic fibres deposited.
Between 40m to 160m the number of microplastic fibres does not increase with
the elevation. At 240m there is an increase in the number of microplastic fibres
with the increasing elevation. Between 240m and 400m the number of fibres
fluctuates, however the majority of the fibres are distributed where the elevation is
above 5m and closer to the strandline. However, when undertaking a correlation
test between the amount of fibres and the elevation using Minitab 16, a P- value of
0.052 was produced which shows no statistically significant correlation between
the elevation and the number of microplastic fibres.

41
Figure 4.7 Woolacombe Bay beach profile, plotted against the microplastic
fibres.
The distribution of microplastic fibres against the elevation for Wildersmouth is
displayed in Figure 4.8. The overall distribution of the microplastics shows small
variation in relation to the elevation. Minitab 16 was used to carry out a correlation
test and produced a P-Value of 0.871, which shows no statistically significant
correlation.
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Elevationin(m)
NumberofMicroplasticFbres
Samples taken from Woolacombe (m)
Total amount of
fibres
Elevation (m)

42
Figure 4.8 Wildersmouth beach profile, plotted against the microplastic
fibres.
4.2 Particle size results
The results of the particle size test, as determined by the classification of the
beach sediment, are represented in Figure 4.9. In addition, results for the
distribution of the different particle sizes of the beach sediment are displayed in
Figures 4.10 and 4.11.
The classification of the sediment type for both sampling sites is illustrated in
Figure 4.9. The sediment type for Woolacombe Bay is sandy, whereas
Wildersmouth has a variety of different sediment types ranging from sandy to
sandy gravel.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elevation(m)
NumberofMircoplasticFibres
Samples taken from Wildersmouth (m)
Total amount of
fibres
Elevation (m)

43
Figure: 4.9 Sediment classification triangle (Blott and Pye, 2012).
The distribution of the sediment for both sampling sites is illustrated by the particle
size accumulative curves (Figure 4.10 and 4.11). Figure 4.10 shows Woolacombe
Bay is a sandy beach with an expected decrease in particle size along the beach,
but there is no trend in particle size change along the profile of the beach.
Wildersmouth
Woolacombe Bay
% mud
30
20
10
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(s)mG (m)sG
(s)gM (m)gS
smG
gsM gmS
(vg)(m)S(vg)mS(vg)sM(vg)(s)M
(g)(s)M (g)sM (g)mS (g)(m)S
gSgM
S
M (vm)S
(vg)(vm)S
(vg)S
(m)SmS
(g)M
(vg)(vs)M
(vg)M
(vs)M (s)M sM
G
(s)(m)G
sGmG
(m)G (s)G
(vs)G
(vm)G (vs)(vm)G
G
S
M
gravel
sand
mud
gravelly
sandy
muddy
g
s
m
(g)
(s)
(m)
slightly gravelly
slightly sandy
slightly muddy
(vg)
(vs)
(vm)
very slightly gravelly
very slightly sandy
very slightly muddy

44
Figure 4.10 Particle size accumulative curves for Woolacombe Bay.
Figure 4.11 displays Wildersmouth particle sizes, showing a wide variation of
particle size but with no trend along the beach profile. However, this was
anticipated due to the geographical features of the beach which influence change
in the particle size along the beach profile.
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
100 300 500 700 900
400m
360m
320m
280m
240m
200m
160m
120m
80m
40m
0m
Sand µm
Particlesize%

45
Figure 4.11 Particle size accumulative curves for Wildersmouth.
Chapter 5
5.0 Discussion
This chapter discusses the results of the investigation into microplastic fibres on
North Devon beaches and their possible sources. It also reviews the literature
results and the limitations and constraints of the project. The implications of
microplastics to potential receptors are also discussed, in addition to proposing
possible remediation and solutions.
5.1 Discussion of results
The results show that microplastics are present in North Devon beaches, which is
of concern for the environment and human health. In the samples, the only
microplastics found were microplastic fibres, which were acrylic, polyester,
polyamide or cellulosic. According to Lusher et al., (2013), microplastic fibres are
removed from the water column more quickly than lighter more buoyant
microplastics, such are polystyrene and acrylic, due to the density of the fibres.
This could explain why only microplastic fibres are deposited into sediment.
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
100 1000 10000 100000
0m
10m
20m
30m
40m
50m
60m
70m
80m
90m
100m
Sand- sandy gravel µm
Particlesize%

46
The most abundant type of fibres was cellulosic, predominantly rayon, for both
sampling sites; however, as rayon is a semisynthetic polymer, the FT-IR could not
determine if the fibre was synthetic or natural (Lusher et al., 2013). Rayon is used
in clothing, cigarette filters and personal hygiene products (Woodall et al., 2014).
The possible source of rayon is waste water from sewage treatment plant inputs:
from abrasion of clothing from washing, female toiletries and nappies (Lusher et al.,
2013).
At Woolacombe Bay, Figure 3.1 shows that behind the sand dunes there is a
waste water treatment plant, which is therefore a potential source of pollution as
microplastic fibres are not removed by treatment works (Browne et al., 2011).
From the distribution results in Table 4.4 there is no statistically significant
evidence to show that microplastics show any trend in regard to their distribution
along the beach profile. However, from looking at Figure 4.1 there is a higher
number of fibres present in the samples towards to the strandline of the beach.
Further to the distribution results above, Figure 4.7 shows the distribution of
microplastic fibres in relation to the elevation of the beach profile. The distribution
of microplastic fibres does not correlate with the elevation, however the P- value of
0.052 shows that it is close to representing a correlation. The elevation may be
influenced by tidal movement; on the day of surveying the tide was 9m, therefore a
larger area of the beach was covered in water. At the low water mark, the
elevation was -2m, and this area of the beach had been in contact with the water
for the longest period of time; therefore, there was more time for less dense
microplastic fibres to be deposited. Between 40m and 160m microplastic fibres do
not increase with the elevation. The highest number of microplastic fibres is
between 5m elevation and the strandline; this could be due to the land-based
source, the waste water treatment plant, from which microplastic fibres are
transported and deposited, via the river (Figure 3.1), onto the beach. In addition
this could be due to the buoyancy and density of the microplastic fibres which are
known to be denser than fragmented pieces (Woodall et al., 2014); therefore the
fibres are deposited more quickly from the water column which may be a possible
reason for the increase in the distribution towards the strandline. The sample
taken from 240m has the highest number of microplastic fibres, which may be due

47
to the river as it disperses near the sampling area. During the river processes, the
river water disperses onto the beach above the mean high tide mark (Figure 3.1)
with subsequent loss in flow rate. In addition, the gravitational force of an outgoing
tide may contribute to the dispersal of microplastic fibres as the river water
disperses along the beach profile. This may explain why the number of
microplastic fibres is high in the 240m sample. The sample at 240m is in contact
with the sea irrespective of the height of the tide, unlike the sample at the
strandline, which on the day of sampling was 400m. As the strandline varies
dependent on the tidal cycle (Browne et al., 2011), this could explain why the
deposits of microplastic fibres are lower at the strandline than at 240m.
Research by Vianello et al. (2013) indicates that microplastics behave in a similar
why to ‘other contaminants associated with finer sediment fractions’; therefore the
average percentage particle size at Woolacombe Bay was plotted (Figure 4.1) to
see whether microplastics correlate with a fine particle size. Woolacombe Bay
sediment type is 100% sand, shown in Figure 4.9, which is a fine sediment; the
larger surface area would suggest more microplastics would be present. However,
a correlation test using Minitab 16 generated P-value of 0.221, showing no
statistical correlation between particle size and microplastic concentrations.
Despite no statistical correlation, the total number fibres in the samples from
Woolacombe Bay, 149 (Figure 4.1) of which 90% are cellulosic (Figure 4.2), is
greater than the number from Wildersmouth, which had 87 microplastic fibres
(Figure 4.3). The particle size distribution along Woolacombe Bay is of sand
classification, but does not show any distinctive trend along the profile (Figure
4.10).
At Wildersmouth the surrounding land use is urban (Figure 3.3) therefore there is
an increase in surface run off. Wildersmouth has an outfall pipe which is a
probable point source of microplastics onto the beach. The town of Ilfracombe,
which encompasses Wildersmouth beach, has a Victorian infrastructure with a
degrading sewage system; Wildersmouth is known to fail bathing water quality
standards (DEFRA, n.d). The distribution results show that microplastic fibres are
not statistically distributed along the beach, a possible reason being the
geographical features of the beach. Figure 3.4 shows the challenges of taking

48
samples, due to the obstructions caused by large boulders and wave cut platforms
within the transect line of sampling. At Wildersmouth the overall distribution of
microplastic fibres along the beach profile has small variation in relation to the
elevation (Figure 4.8); using Minitab 16, a correlation test produced a P-Value of
0.871, which shows no statistically significant correlation between the elevation
and the number of microplastic fibres. The total number microplastic fibres do not
show much variation between the samples, therefore elevation at Wildersmouth
does not statistically influence the distribution of microplastic fibres. However the
geographical features and high energy environment of the beach influences the
particle size of Wildersmouth, which shows a wide variation in sediment type from
sandy gravel to gravel (Figure 4.9) but with no trend along the beach profile
(Figure 4.11); this could explain the distribution of microplastic fibres which are
relatively evenly distributed along the beach profile and do not show a correlation
with elevation.
Microplastic fibres in the samples collected were tested for a correlation with the
average percentage particle size; using Minitab 16, a P-value of 0.272 was
generated. The P-value of 0.272 shows there is no statistically significant
correlation between the concentration of microplastic fibres and particle size. The
microplastic fibres found in the samples were 97% cellulosic and, as previously
discussed, cellulosic fibres are not true microplastics. The high percentages of
cellulosic fibres found at both sampling sites dominate the results and may mask
the statistics for true microplastic fibres.
Within the cellulosic fibres, rayon is in particularly high proportions at both
sampling sites. Both sites are susceptible to waste water which is the predominant
source of microplastic fibres (Browne et al., 2011) including cellulosic fibres. The
sources of rayon are from toiletries, including nappies and wipes, and cigarette
filters (Lusher et al., 2013) often transported within waste water. The chemistry of
rayon causes it to disintegrate quickly, therefore suggesting a potential reason for
rayon’s high concentrations in the samples (Park et al., 2004).
The particle size results show no trends or patterns along the beach profiles at
either sampling sites. At Woolacombe Bay, which has finer sandy sediment, there
were more microplastic fibres compared to Wildersmouth, which is sandy gravel

49
and gravel, but there is no statistically significant difference. Hence it is not
possible to prove the hypothesis of a positive correlation between fine particle size
and the concentration of microplastic fibres.
There were limitations to the study. The time constraints of the project, in
conjunction with the time consuming methodologies, hindered the ability to
produce replicates of samples for microplastic fibre identification. Therefore the
accuracy and precision of the results are not present, due to means and standard
deviations not being possible from a single analysis of each sample. The standard
deviations would have been represented by error bars. Another limitation was that
when undertaking the beach surveys the Garmin eTrex Legend H Handheld GPS
System (Figure 3.7) varied in accuracy from 6m to 2m. Therefore the elevation
results may have an error of up to 6m. This is more significant for the samples
taken at Wildersmouth, where the distance between samples was only 10m,
compared to Woolacombe Bay where the samples were 40m apart. The elevation
results may therefore not represent the most accurate record of beach elevations
and may have been more accurate using surveying canes.
In the density separation of the microplastics, the technique is based on the
difference between the density of plastic particles and the higher density of the
sediment (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2004). The density of plastic
polymers can differ significantly depending on the type of polymer; the density
values can range from 0.9 to 1.6 g cm3
(Claessens et al., 2011). The separation
technique used sodium chloride (NaCl) solution which is most commonly used in
other studies; however, the plastics with a density higher than 1.2 g cm3
were not
extracted from the sediment sample. Therefore important high density plastic
types such as Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and Polyethylene terephalate (PET) went
unnoticed, resulting in an underestimation of the total microplastic concentration
present in a sample (Claessens et al., 2011). A potential option is sodium iodide
solution (NaI) with a density of 1.6 g cm3
, however this is expensive and therefore
not available for this project (Claessens et al., 2011).

50
5.2 Receptors to microplastics
Both sampling sites represent the different types of beaches and the presence of
microplastics in North Devon. The receptors to the microplastic fibres are
particularly benthic suspension feeders, deposit feeders and detritivores (Wright et
al., 2013). This is due to various factors, such as the natural process of sinking
aggregates as marine snow for energy transfer between pelagic and benthic
habitats (Ward and Kach, 2009), which incorporate microplastics and therefore
create the possibility of transference in to the food chain.
The buoyant microplastics in the surface layers of the water column are mistakenly
ingested by plankton and other organisms; in addition higher trophic planktivores
passively ingest microplastics as they mistake particles for natural prey
(Thompson et al., 2004; Wright et al., 2013), leading to potential bioaccumulation
within organisms and resulting in physical harm, such as internal abrasions and
blockages (Wright et al., 2013). The ingested microplastics are excreted within
faecal matter and may be deposited in marine snow, and suspension feeders and
detritivores may ingest the excreted microplastics (Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1).
Benthic organisms undertake the process of bioturbation whereby sediment is
ingested therefore settled microplastics in the sediment are bioaccumulating as
well as being re-suspended into the water column (Wright et al., 2013) (Figure 2.1).
Another biological process is de-fouling in the water column by foraging organisms
providing a pathway for microplastics to return to the sea-air interface (Anthony &
Andrady, 2011) (Figure 2.1). The processes of re-suspension of microplastics
cause indirect impacts to mobile pelagic organisms.
Biofouling is dependent on surface energy, hardness of the polymer and the water
conditions (Muthukumar et al., 2011). Polyester fibres from discarded fishing lines
and nets are potentially subjected to biofouling, as their source is from sea rather
than land. Biofouling increases the density of the microplastics, therefore exposing
more layers of the water column to microplastics when sinking (Wright et al., 2013)
(Figure 2.1). This process leads to microplastics being available to organisms at
different depths of the water column, including benthic suspension feeders,
deposit feeders and detritivores (Wright et al., 2013).

51
In addition to the physical impacts of ingested microplastics, toxicity from leaching
constituent contaminants, such as monomers and plastic additives, are capable of
causing carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption (Oehlmann et al., 2009;
Talsness et al., 2009). This raises concern regarding human health, especially for
people consuming marine organisms, particularly benthic organisms. There are
current studies observing the effect of ultrafine polystyrene particles on rats; the
results showed lung inflammation and enzyme activity where affected depending
on the dose (Leslie et al., 2011). Inhaled microplastic fibres taken up into lung
tissues can be linked to tumours in humans (Pauly et al., 1998). Other studies
show when humans ingest microplastics <150 µm they have been shown to
absorb from the gut to the lymph and circulatory systems, and cross into the
human placenta (Hussain et al., 2001; Wick et al., 2010).
5.3 Global content of microplastics
From the study by Woodall et al. (2014), microplastic fibres represent the greatest
amount of microplastic which is estimated at 4 billion fibres per km2
. Rayon is
associated with microplastics; in Woodall et al.’s (2014) study rayon represents
56.9% of the samples compared to the results for North Devon which are > 90%,
with rayon more than twice the abundance of polyester. However, Woodall et al.
(2014) examined samples taken from deep sea sediment rather than along the
beach profile. In Woodall et al.’s (2014) paper, the most abundant true microplastic
was polyester; the results in Figures 4.1 and 4.3 show polyester as the most
abundant true microplastic, therefore showing a possible trend. However, the
percentage of fibres in the samples from North Devon was different from those in
the samples from Woodall et al. (2014).
A study by Browne et al. (2011) only observed the samples from the strandline of
beaches, where the results showed that the proportions of microplastic fibres were:
polyester 78%, polyamide 9%, and acrylic 5%. In addition 7% of microplastics
were from polypropylene sourced from cosmetic products (Browne et al., 2011);
polypropylene was not present in North Devon samples. The main source of the
microplastics in Browne et al.’s (2011) study were from discharged effluent from
waste water treatment plants, which is the same for North Devon.

52
Saeed and Thompson (2014) observed microplastics in samples taken from the
water column, which showed more types of microplastic present in the
environment. This is due to their density as they are lighter and therefore
suspended in the water column rather than deposited into sediments. Saeed and
Thompson (2014) show microplastic fibres, such as polyester and nylon, are
present in the water column; the research on North Devon beach showed that
microplastic fibres are also in the sediments, which therefore indicates the
circulation of microplastic from the surface water to the benthos (Figure 2.1).
Anthony and Andrady (2011) indicate that microplastics are liable to concentrate to
hydrophobic POPs from seawater by partitioning (Figure 2.2). The concentrations
of POPs on microplastics can be up to six times the order of magnitude higher
than seawater (Anthony & Andrady 2011; Wright et al., 2013). Therefore when
microplastics are ingested they provide a pathway for POPs into the food web;
organisms take up and store POPs in their tissues and cells and there is the
concern about biomagnification across trophic levels (Anthony & Andrady 2011;
Browne et al., 2011) (Figure 2.2). In North Devon the samples were not analysed
for POPs, but there is concern that microplastics in the samples are potentially
contaminated with POPs from the agricultural industry.
Marine organisms are able to ingest, retain, egest and possibly re-ingest
microplastics, due to the long residence and possible storage microplastics in
sediments; this could present an opportunity for the transportation of POPs, and
for the release of chemical additives from plastics into organisms (Bakir et al.,
2014; Ryan et al., 1988 and Tanaka et al., 2013) (Figure 2.3).
Holmes et al., (2012) research into metals which associate with microplastics by
the adsorption of ions to polymers and coatings. The metals attach to the
microplastic surface, or are associated with hydrogenous or biogenic phases. The
metals commonly occur in a moderately bioaccessible form to fauna that
mistakenly ingest them (Ashton et al., 2010). Microplastics accumulate metals
directly in the surface microlayer; positive buoyancy of microplastics exacerbates
the exposure to high concentrations of metals and other contaminants in the sea
surface microlayer (Wurl and Obbard, 2004). The microplastics present in North
Devon have a reduced likelihood of being contaminated by metal, due to the

53
microplastics being fibres and therefore negatively buoyant and found in the
sediment (Holmes et al., 2012). Therefore the contact with metal contaminants is
lessened due to higher concentrations occurring in the surface layers of the water
column (Holmes et al., 2012).
5.4 Remediation and Solutions
Currently there are no possible methods of remediation of microplastic fibres.
There have been studies by Talvitie and Heinonenand (2014) to monitor waste
water from waste water treatment plants in Russia, whereby research shows that
96.57% of microplastic fibres are removed from waste water by settling or being
captured into the sludge during the treatment processes. After the purification
process therefore, only 3.43% of microplastic fibres are released into the
environment. Leslie et al. (2013) detected microplastic in treated waste water
from three Dutch plants, one of which had installed a membrane bioreactor, but
this had no influence on quantity of microplastic removed from waste water.
Mintenig et al. (2014) examined waste water and sewage sludge and found that
microplastics were present; this study was able to classify the sources of
microplastics, such as from toothpaste, cosmetics, clothing and packaging.
These pilot studies prove the sources of microplastics are from waste water
treatment plants but a high percentage of microplastics are removed during the
treatment processes. However, on a global scale, and within Europe, the waste
water is not always treated to a tertiary level. Therefore primary and secondary
treatment works alone would remove fewer microplastics, therefore increasing the
amount discharged into the environment. Efforts are being made to reduce the
amount of microplastics entering the treatment works by the European Life +
Mermaids project which was launched on the 22nd
of January (Vethaak, 2015).
The project aims to reduce the amount of microplastics entering the sewage
system in waste water by a minimum of 70% by developing a filter that can be
installed in any washing machine (Vethaak, 2015).
Current legislation does not prevent microplastics from entering the environment
(Table 2). However, current legislation does prohibit the dumping of plastic into the

54
environment under The London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, 1972. Amendments to legislation could
play a role in removing microplastics from waste water, by declaring microplastics
as hazardous waste. Amended or new legislation would provide environmental
standards, and monitoring and regulation of waste water would ensure minimal or
no microplastics were discharged into the environment.
5.5 Underlining issues of microplastic
Current beach litter surveys do not take into account microplastics. The focus of
litter surveys is macroplastics as it poses a visible problem. However, it is possible
to remediate nurdles (Table 2.3) from beaches because they are visible to the
human eye; The Great Nurdle Hunt project cleans beaches of nurdles and maps
their abundance across the UK and Europe (FIDRA, n.d.a). In 2011, a declaration
was made by the Global Plastic Association for the Solutions on Marine Litter,
whereby members of the plastic industry signed up to prevent further nurdle loss;
this has been endorsed by The British Plastic Federation and Plastics Europe
(FIDRA, n.d.b). Remediation of microplastic fibres on beaches is currently not
possible and therefore no surveys are undertaken.
The current perception of marine litter, as witnessed during participation on beach
cleans and surveys whilst working with North Devon Coast AONB on a summer
placement, is concerned with the visible problem from macroplastics, as they
create a source of visual pollution. However, small non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) do not have the resources to survey or remediate for
microplastics, therefore when beach cleans and surveys are undertaken the
education about the problem of microplastics is overlooked due to the emphasis
on macroplastics. The size of microplastics makes it a hidden problem and it
therefore goes unnoticed, so once beaches have been cleaned for macroplastics,
this creates a false sense that the beaches as microplastics are generally not
visible to the naked eye.
Microplastic pollution in the marine environment poses potential problems, within
the food chain: if marine organisms become too contaminated for human

55
consumption, this would have a catastrophic impact on the fishing industry and
global and regional economies, such as North Devon which has an annual total
value of £2.1 million from landings (FLAG, 2013). The potential threat would not
only be financially damaging but would also contribute to social decline for the
region.
6.0 Conclusion
Microplastics are present on North Devon Beaches in the form of microplastic
fibres. The identification of microplastic fibres shows that the composition of the
microplastic fibres is predominantly cellulosic; the cellulosic fibres consisted of
mainly rayon which is a semisynthetic microplastic, compared to polyester, the
second most commonly found fibre, which is a true microplastic. The main source
of microplastic fibres is waste water. Woolacombe Bay has a waste water
treatment plant behind the sand dunes which discharges into the river before
dispersion onto the beach. At Wildersmouth the surrounding urban environment is
known to have a degrading sewage system. Wildersmouth is known to fail bathing
water quality standards; a possible direct point source of microplastics is the outfall
pipe.
There was no positive correlation between the number of microplastics fibres and
the particle size at either sampling site. However, there were more microplastic
fibres found in the samples taken from Woolacome Bay, which is a sandy beach,
compared to Wildersmouth, which is gravelly.
There was no positive correlation between the number of microplastic fibres and
the elevation along the beach profile. However, at Woolacombe Bay the
correlation produced a P-value of 0.052 which is close to being statistically
significant. The elevation between 5m up to the strandline showed the area where
most of the microplastics were distributed. At Wildersmouth, the microplastics did
not show any variation with elevation, which may be due to geographical features
and the high energy intense environment which mixes the sediment.
The presence of microplastics, in particular microplastic fibres, is of concern
regarding the possible toxicity effects on the marine environment. In addition there
is a potential threat from bioaccumulation through trophic levels, which may have a

56
consequential impact on environmental, economic and social factors and raises
concerns for human health.
7.0 Recommendations
1. To increase the efficiency of the removal of microplastics in the density
separation. There is an alternative to the conventional saturated sodium
chloride (NaCl) solution, which is to use sodium iodide solution (NaI) with a
density of 1.6 g cm3
. If more dense microplastics were present the NaI
solution would enable them to be removed for analysis.
2. To research into possible seasonal variation by taking samples over
different seasons to see whether weather patterns affect the distribution of
different types of microplastic, and to see if population influxes during the
tourist season affect the number of microplastics.
3. To research into rayon characteristics and behaviour and interaction in the
marine environment, as results showed that rayon was in high abundance
in the samples from both beaches.
4. To examine the potential contamination of microplastics from metals and
POPs. The presence of microplastics has been confirmed by this project;
with the problems with the agricultural industry within North Devon
catchments, contamination from POPs is likely. Therefore analysis of
microplastics for POPs contamination is needed.
5. To research whether the general public’s attitude to marine litter is
determined by the size of debris and to provide education about
microplastic problems and sources.

57
8.0 References
Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santi llo, D., & Johnston, P. (2006). Plastic debris in the
world’s oceans. GreenPeace.
Andrady, A., & Neal, M. (2009). Applications and societal benefits of plastics.
Philos T Roy Soc B , 364, 1977-1984.
Anon. (2011). Plastics – the Facts: An analysis of European plastics production,
demand and recovery for 2010. Joint publication of PlasticsEurope, EuPC,
EuPR and EPRO., 31 .
Anthony, L., & Andrady. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1596-1605.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., & Bamford, H. (2009). Proceedings of the International
Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic
Marine Debris. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical
Memorandum .
Ashton, K., Holmes, L., & Turner, A. (2010). Association of metals with plastic
production pellets in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60,
2050-2055.
Azzarello, & Van-Vleet. (1987). Marine birds and plastic pollution. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 37, 295–303.
Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, C. R. (2012). Competitive sorption of
persistent organic pollutants onto microplastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
64, 2782–2789.
Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2014). Transport of persistent
organic pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 140(1), 14-21.
Blott, S. and Pye, K. (2012). Particle size scales and classification of sediment
types based on particle size distributions: Review and recommended
procedures. Sedimentology, 59, 2071-2096.
Bolgar, M., Hubball, J., Groeger, J., & Meronek, S. (2008). Handbook for the
chemical analysis of plastic and polymer additives. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA., 481.
Booij, K., & Van Drooge, B. (2001). Polychlorinated biphenyls and
hexachlorobenzene in atmosphere, sea-surface microlayer, and water
measured with semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs).
Chemosphere, 44, 91-98.

58
Browne, M., Crump, P., Niven, S., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A. & Galloway, T. (2011).
Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks.
Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9175-9179.
Carpenter, E., Anderson, S., Harvey, G., Miklas, H., & Peck, B. (1972).
Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science , 178(4062), 749-750.
Day, R. (1985). Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In: Proceedings of a
Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 184,
Honolulu, Hawaii (R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds), U.S. Dept. of
Comm., NOAA, Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. 198-212.
DEFRA, (n.d). Environment Agency Bathing Water Quality. [online]
Environment.data.gov.uk. Available at:
http://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/explorer/info.html?_search=wilde&site=
ukk4304-34500 [Last Accessed 2 April. 2015].
Derraik, J. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.
Dixon, T. R., & Dixon, T. J. (1981). Marine litter surveillance. Marine Pollution
Bulletin. 12, 9, 289-295.
Endo, S., Takizawa, R., Okuda, K., Takada, H., Chiba, K. & Kanehiro, H. (2005).
Concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 50, 1103-1114.
Eriksen, M., Maximenko, N., Thiel, M., Cummins, A., Lattin, G. & Wilson, S. (2013).
Plastic pollution in the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 68(1-2), 71-76.
European Commission. (2011). Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health
Impacts. Sciennce from Environment Policy .
European Communities, (EC) (1998). OSPAR Convention: Convention for the
protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. On the
Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of
the Martime Area Article 3 1(ii). 28.
European Union (EU). (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament
and the council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community
action in the field of marine environment environmental policy (Marine
Strategy Framework Directive); Official Journal of the European Union L
164/19
European Union (EU), (2006). Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of

59
bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC; Official Journal
of the European Union L 64/37.
European Union, (EU). (2004). Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on
packaging and packaging waste - Statement by the Council, the
Commission and the European Parliament; Official Journal L 047
European Union (EU). (2000a). Directive 2000/59/ EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 Novemeber on port reception facilities for ship
generated waste and cargo residues; Official Journal of the European
Union L 332/28/12/2000.
European Union (EU), (2000b). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy; Official Journal L 327.
Everard, M., Colcomb, K., Boyes, G., Holmes, P., Vincent, C., & Fanshawe, T.
(2002). The Impacts of Marine Litter. Marine Pollution Monitoring
Management Group.
Faris, J., & Hart, K. (1994). Seas of Debris: A Summary of the Third International
Conference on Marine Debris. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 54.
Faris, J., & Hart, K. (1995). Seas of debris: A summary of the Third International
Conference on Marine Debris. UNC-SG-95-01. North Carolina Sea Grant
College Program. Raleigh, N.C
FIDRA, (n.d.a). Global Response. [online] Nurdlehunt.org.uk. Available at:
http://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/whats-the-solution/global-response.html [Last
Accessed 21 Apr. 2015].
FIDRA, (n.d.b). Nurdle Map. [online] Nurdlehunt.org.uk. Available at:
http://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/take-part/nurdle-map.html [Last Accessed 21
Apr. 2015].
Fendall, L., & Sewell, M. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing
yourface: microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58,
1225–1228.
Fry, Feefer, & Sileo. (1987). Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan, albatrosses and
wedge tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
18 (6B), 339-343.
Galgani, F., Fleet, D., van Franeker, J., Katsanevakis, S., Maes, T. & Mouat, L.
(2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 10 Report.
Marine litter. EUR 24340 EN - 2010.

60
Gregory, M. (1996). Plastic “scrubbers” in hand cleansers: a further (and minor)
source for marine pollution identified. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 867-871.
Gregory, M. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings
e entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological,
364(1526), 2013- 2025.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R., & Thiel, M. (2012). Microplastics in the
marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and
quantification. Environ. Sei. Technol, 46, 3060-3075.
Hirai, H., Takada, H., Ogata, Y., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K.& Saha, M.(2011).
Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
62(8), 1683-1692.
Hollman, P., Bouwmeester, H., & Peters, R. (2013). Microplastics in the aquatic
food chain sources, measurement, occurrence and potential health risks.
Wageningen, RIKLT Wageningen UR (University and Research Centre).
Holmes, L. A., Turner, A., & Thompson, R. C. (2012). Adsorption of trace metals to
plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution, 160,
42-48.
Hussain, N., Jaitley, V., & Florence, A. (2001). Recent advances in the
understanding of uptake of microparticulates across the gastrointestinal
lymphatics. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 50, 107-142.
International Maritime Organisation, (IMO), (2011). International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). [online] Available at:
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Internation
al-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-
%28MARPOL%29.aspx [Last Accessed 4 Mar. 2015].
Jones, M. M. (1995). Fishing Debris in the Australian Marine Environment. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 30, 1, 25-33.
Joint Research Centre (JRC) MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter.
(2011). Marine Litter Technical Recommendations for the Implementation of
MSFD Requirements. Luxembourg: European Union.
Katsanevakis, S. (2008). Marine debris, a growing problem: Sources,
distribution,composition, and impacts. In: Hofer TN (ed) Marine Pollution:
New Research. Nova Science Publishers, New York. 53–100.

61
KIMO. (2013). Marine Litter. Available:
http://www.kimointernational.org/MarineLitter.aspx (Last Acessed on 10
June 2014).
Laist, D. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic
debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18, 319-326.
Lart, B. (1995). Marine Litter Impacts on Fisheries. (In) Earll, R.C. (ed.), Coastal
and Riverine Litter: Problems and Effective Solutions. Coastal Management
for Sustainability,Candle Cottage, Kempley, Glos. UK. 4-5.
Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., (2013). Microplastic Survey of the
Dutch Environment. Novel Data Set of Microplastics in North Sea
Sediments, Treated Wastewater Effluents and Marine Biota. Amsterdam:
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University.
Leslie, H., van der Meulen, M., Kleissen, F., & Vethaak, A. (2011). Microplastic
Litter in the Dutch Marine Environment Providing facts and analysis for
concerned with marine microplastic litter. Deltares.
Liebezeit, G., & Dubaish, F. (2012). Microplastics in beaches of East Frisian
Islands Spiekeroog and Kachelotplate. Bulletin Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 89, 213-217.
Lusher, A., Burke, A., O’Connor, I. and Officer, R. (2014). Microplastic pollution in
the Northeast Atlantic Ocean: Validated and opportunistic sampling. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 88, (1-2), 325-333.
Lusher, A., McHugh, M. and Thompson, R. (2013). Occurrence of microplastics in
the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English
Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67 (1-2), 94-99.
Macfadyen, G., Hunti ngton, T., & Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or
otherwise discarded ﬁshing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and
Studies No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523.
Marine Conservation Society (MSC). (2013). Beachwatch Nationwide Beach-
Clean & Survey Report.
Marine Conservation Society (MCS). (2000). Beachwatch '99 - Nationwide Beach
Clean and survey report.
Marine Conservation Society (MCS). (2010). 2. Method 2.1 litter suvey . Marine
Conservation Society.
Marine Conversation Society (MCS). (2012). Micro plastics in personal care
products. Available:

62
http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/pollution/positionpaper-microplastics-
august2012.pdf (Last Acessed 11 June 2014).
Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kenehiro, H., Ohtake, C., & Kaminuma, T. (2001).
Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine
environment. Environmental Science and Technology, 35, 318- 324.
Mintenig, S., Int-Veen, I., Löder, D. and Gerdts, D. (2014). Mikroplastik in
ausgewählten Kläranlagen des Oldenburgisch- Ostfriesischen
Wasserverbandes (OOWV) in Niedersachsen. Alfred-Wegener-Institut,
Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) Biologische
Anstalt Helgoland.
Minitab 16 Statistical Software (2010). [Computer software]. State College, PA:
Minitab, Inc. (www.minitab.com)
Moore, C. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly
increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research , 108(2), 131-139.
Morét-Ferguson, S., Law, K., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E., Peacock, E., & Reddy,
C. (2010). The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western
North Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60 (10), 1873 - 1878.
Mouat, J., Lopez-Lozano, R., & Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts of marine
Litter . KIMO.
Muthukumar, T., Aravinthan, A., Lakshmi, K., Venkatesan, R., Vedaprakash, L., &
Doble, M. (2011). Fouling and stability of polymers and composites in
marine environment. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation,
65(2), 276-284.
North Devon Coast Areas of Natural Outstanding Beauty AONB. (2014). 2014-
2019 AONB Management Plan.
Northern Devon Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG). (2013). Understanding the
Market and Supply Chain for Fish Caught and Landed in Northern Devon.
Oehlmann, J., Schulte-Oehlmann, U., Kloas, W., Jagnytsch, O., Lutz, I., Kusk, K.,
et al. ( 2009). A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on
wildlife. Philosophical. sophical Transactions of Royal Society of London B:
Biological science 364 (1526) 2047-2062.
OSPAR. (1995). Summary Record of the Oslo and Paris Conventions for the
Prevention of Marine Pollution Working Group on Impacts on the Marine
Environment (IMPACT) Group, IMPACT 95/14/1-E.

Linkedin_Microplastics in North Devon Intertidal Sediments_Angelo_Massos_10365453

Linkedin_Microplastics in North Devon Intertidal Sediments_Angelo_Massos_10365453

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Linkedin_Microplastics in North Devon Intertidal Sediments_Angelo_Massos_10365453

Similar to Linkedin_Microplastics in North Devon Intertidal Sediments_Angelo_Massos_10365453 (20)

Linkedin_Microplastics in North Devon Intertidal Sediments_Angelo_Massos_10365453