1. aglobalassessment
microplastics
in the ocean
Small
pieces
of
plas-c,
commonly
referred
to
as
microplas-cs,
were
first
described
in
the
early
1970s
and
are
widespread
in
the
ocean.
Larger
items
made
of
plas-c,
such
as
bags,
rope
and
fishing
nets,
can
have
obvious
direct
impacts
on
marine
life
and
society.
But
the
effects
of
microplas-cs
are
more
difficult
to
quan-fy.
sources, fate & effects
Microplas-c
fragments
from
a
beach
in
Hawaii
©
NOAA
Marine
Debris
Programme
Microplas-c
fragments
from
the
western
North
Atlan-c,
collected
using
a
towed
plankton
net
©
Giora
Proskurowski
,
SEA
This
assessment
should
provide
government,
commerce,
industry
and
society
with
a
more
reliable
basis
on
which
to
base
decisions.

2. what are microplastics?
Plas-cs
have
become
indispensible
in
many
areas
of
modern
life,
used
for
clothing,
storage,
transporta-on,
packaging,
construc-on
and
a
host
of
consumer
goods.
One
of
plas-c’s
greatest
proper-es,
its
durability,
is
also
one
of
the
main
reasons
that
plas-cs
present
a
threat
to
the
marine
environment.
The
risk
increases
as
long
as
plas-c
con-nues
to
enter
the
ocean.
The
term
microplas-cs
was
introduced
within
the
last
decade
to
describe
small
pieces
of
plas-c
found
in
the
ocean,
commonly
defined
as
<
5mm
in
diameter.
Text
box
Secondary
microplas-cs
The
first
scien-fic
paper
describing
small
plas-c
fragments,
found
floa-ng
in
the
northwest
Atlan-c,
was
published
in
1972.
However,
the
aWen-on
of
the
scien-fic
community
was
aroused
about
a
decade
ago.
Since
then
there
has
been
an
enormous
increase
in
publica-ons
about
many
different
aspects
of
microplas-c
distribu-on
and
behaviour.
Year
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Numberofpublications
0
10
20
30
40
50
Plastic pellets
Microplastics
©
Sarah
Gall
One
dis-nct
category
of
microplas-cs
are
plas-c
pellets.
These
represent
one
of
the
main
ways
of
transpor-ng
plas-cs
between
plas-cs
producers
and
companies
conver-ng
plas-cs
into
products.
Accidental
spillages
and
poor
handling
mean
that
plas-c
pellets
are
common
on
beaches,
especially
near
ports
and
industrialised
regions.
Plas-c
pellets
©
Hideshige
Takada
Plas-c
pellets
and
plas-c
par-cles
manufactured
for
par-cular
applica-ons,
such
as
cosme-c
products
and
abrasives,
are
oXen
called
‘primary’
microplas-cs.
Microplas-cs
produced
as
a
result
of
fragmenta-on
from
larger
items
are
called
‘secondary’
microplas-cs.
The
dis-nc-on
is
important
as
it
can
be
used
to
pin-­‐
point
sources
and
target
reduc-on
measures.
Microplas-cs
in
lips-ck
©
Heather
Leslie

3. scope:
Ø key
sources
and
types
of
microplas-cs
Ø weathering
and
fragmenta-on
processes
Ø global
distribu-on
in
the
surface
ocean
using
observa-ons
and
circula-on
models
Ø physical
and
chemical
effects
on
marine
organisms
Ø social
aspects,
including
public
awareness
Ø key
challenges
and
recommenda-ons
Ø materials
science
Ø marine
ecology
Ø physiology
Ø ocean
physics
Ø ecotoxicology
Ø chemistry
Ø science-­‐policy
Ø public
awareness
and
communica-on
expertise:
the origins of microplastics
GESAMP
was
asked
to
conduct
a
global
assessment,
based
on
published
informa-on,
of
the
sources,
fate
and
effects
of
microplas-cs
in
the
marine
environment.
GESAMP
(The
Joint
Group
of
Experts
on
the
Scien-fic
Aspects
of
Marine
Protec-on)
is
an
Inter-­‐Agency
body
of
the
United
Na-ons,
set
up
in
1969
to
provide
authorita-ve
and
independent
advice.
The
scope
was
defined
by
agreed
Terms
of
Reference
and
the
assessment
carried
out
by
a
Working
Group
(2012-­‐2014)
with
experts
from
a
wide
range
of
disciplines,
working
on
a
pro-­‐bono
basis.
Plas-c,
a
type
of
synthe-c
polymer,
may
be
derived
from
fossil-­‐
fuels
or
biomass.
Global
produc-on
is
dominated
by
a
few
well-­‐
known
materials,
but
a
huge
range
of
plas-cs
with
differing
composi-ons
and
proper-es
are
manufactured
each
year.
Some
microplas-cs
are
manufactured
to
fulfill
par-cular
func-ons,
such
as
industrial
abrasives
or
in
domes-c
cleaning
and
cosme-c
products
such
as
toothpaste.
The
forma-on
of
‘secondary’
microplas-cs,
by
fragmenta-on
of
larger
‘macro-­‐size’
debris,
is
influenced
by
a
combina-on
of
environmental
factors
and
the
proper-es
of
the
polymer.
PE
–
polyethylene
PP
–
polypropylene
PS
–
polystyrene
PVC
–
polyvinyl
chloride
PET
–
polyethylene
terephthalate
PU
–
polyurethane
SBR
–
styrene
butadiene
rubber
the assessment

4. EPS
buoys
©
Korea
Na-onal
Marine
Debris
Monitoring
program;
EPS
microplas-cs
-­‐
©
Peter
Kershaw
The
produc-on
of
microplas-cs
by
the
fragmenta-on
of
larger
plas-c
items
is
most
effec-ve
on
beaches,
with
high
UV
irradia-on
and
physical
abrasion
by
waves.
Once
submerged,
cooler
temperatures
and
reduced
UV
means
fragmenta-on
becomes
extremely
slow.
Macro-­‐sized
debris
accounts
for
the
larger
por-on
of
plas-c
in
the
ocean
by
mass
(kg
km-­‐2)
but
micro-­‐debris
the
larger
propor-on
by
number
(items
km-­‐2)
Example
of
regional
difference
in
source
and
fate:
large-­‐scale
use
of
expanded
polystyrene
(EPS)
buoys
for
aquaculture
in
Korea
Generating
microplastics
One
62
litre
buoy
7,600,000
microplas-cs
(2.5
mm
diameter)
7.6
x
1021
nanoplas-cs
(250
nm
diameter)

5. v
Different
sizes
of
plas-c
par-cle
or
larger
plas-c
objects
need
different
types
of
equipment
to
sample
them
in
the
ocean
and
different
analy-cal
techniques
in
the
laboratory.
Size
also
determines
the
likely
impact
on
ocean
life
and
human
ac-vi-es
such
as
fisheries.
Par-cles
in
the
size
range
1
nm
to
<
5
mm
were
considered
microplas-cs
for
the
purposes
of
this
assessment.
Sampling
and
isola-on:
Ø Mega-­‐
&
macro
-­‐sizes
direct
observa-on
Ø Meso-­‐size
sieving
Ø Micro-­‐size
towed
plankton
nets
Ø Nano-­‐size
filtra-on
Ø Mega-­‐
&
macro–sizes
(entanglement)
whales,
seals,
dolphins,
turtles,
fish,
birds
Ø Meso-­‐size
unknown
Ø Micro-­‐size
unknown
Ø Nano-­‐size
unknown
Ø Macro–size
whales,
seals,
dolphins,
turtles
&
birds
Ø Meso-­‐size
birds,
fish
&
invertebrates
Ø Micro-­‐size
fish,
invertebrates
&
other
filter
feeders
Ø Nano-­‐size
invertebrates
&
other
filter
feeders
Direct
external
effects:
Direct
&
indirect
internal
effects
(inges-on):
size is important
making sense of size
FT-­‐IR
Fourier-­‐transform
infra-­‐red
spectroscopy,
Ramon
spectroscopy,
SEM
scanning
electron
microscopy,
TEM
transmission
electron
microscopy,
AFM
atomic
force
microscopy,
AFM-­‐IR
infra-­‐red
spectroscopy

6. Ø Commonly
the
term
‘microplas-cs’
is
used
to
describe
plas-c
par-cles
<
5
mm
in
diameter,
which
includes
par-cles
as
small
as
10
nanometres.
Ø Microplas-cs
may
be
manufactured
for
par-cular
industrial
or
domes-c
applica-ons.
These
are
referred
to
as
‘primary’
microplas-cs,
and
they
can
be
released
inadvertently
into
the
ocean.
Ø Microplas-cs
also
occur
as
a
result
of
the
fragmenta-on
of
larger
plas-c
objects
(termed
‘secondary’
microplas-cs).
Ø
Plas-cs
are
discarded
and
enter
the
ocean
as
a
result
of
many
different
land-­‐
and
sea-­‐based
ac-vi-es,
but
there
are
no
reliable
es-mates
of
the
quan--es
involved,
at
a
regional
or
global
scale.
Ø Microplas-cs
are
distributed
throughout
the
ocean,
occurring
on
shorelines,
in
surface
waters
and
seabed
sediments,
from
the
Arc-c
to
Antarc-c.
They
may
accumulate
at
remote
loca-ons
such
as
mid-­‐ocean
gyres,
as
well
as
close
to
popula-on
centres,
shipping
routes
and
other
major
sources.
Ø Microplas-cs
have
been
found
inside
the
bodies
of
a
wide
variety
of
marine
organisms
including
invertebrates,
fish,
birds
and
mammals.
Ø Plas-cs
oXen
contain
chemicals
added
during
manufacture
and
can
absorb
and
concentrate
contaminants
such
as
pes-cides
from
the
surrounding
seawater.
There
is
emerging
evidence
of
transfer
of
chemicals
from
ingested
plas-cs
into
-ssues.
Ø Very
small
(nano-­‐size)
microplas-cs
have
been
shown
to
cross
cell
membranes,
under
laboratory
condi-ons,
causing
-ssue
damage.
Ø Ingested
microplas-cs
can
affect
the
physiology
of
the
host
organism
and
poten-ally
compromise
its
fitness.
Ø Public
and
private
sector
awareness
of
the
poten-al
nega-ve
ecological,
social
and
economic
impacts
of
microplas-cs
is
much
less
developed
than
for
macro-­‐liWer.
Ø Effec-ve
engagement
and
educa-on
at
all
levels
of
society
(public,
government
and
private
sector)
is
an
essen-al
tool
to
raise
awareness
and
promote
posi-ve
behaviour
change.
conclusions

7. Keychallenges&recommendations
Action-orientated recommendations:
Challenge 1 – to reduce the entry of plastics and microplastics into
the marine environment
Iden-fy
the
main
sources
and
categories
of
plas-cs
and
microplas-cs
entering
the
ocean:
• modelling,
social
and
economic
indicators,
observa-ons
Challenge 2 – overcoming social, technical & economic barriers
U-lise
end-­‐of-­‐life
plas-c
as
a
valuable
resource
as
an
important
part
of
an
overall
waste
reduc-on
strategy:
• promo-ng
reduc-on,
re-­‐use
and
recycling
and
the
circular
economy
Challenge 3 – influencing perceptions and behaviour, to
complement legislation
Promote
greater
awareness
of
the
impacts
of
plas-cs
and
microplas-cs
in
the
marine
environment:
• u-lize
exper-se
from
the
social
sciences
Recommendations to improve a future assessment
Challenge 4 – assessing the risk from nano-plastics
Consider
par-cles
in
the
nano-­‐size
range
in
when
assessing
the
impact
of
plas-cs
in
the
sea:
•
include
exper-se
from
a
wider
range
of
disciplines,
including
pharmacology
and
mammalian
toxicology;
encourage
greater
research
focus,
including
method
development
Challenge 5 – assessing the importance of plastics and
microplastics as a vector for the transfer of organisms
Evaluate
the
poten-al
significance
of
plas-cs
and
microplas-cs
as
a
vector
for
organisms
Challenge 6 – quantifying the chemical exposure risk from
ingested microplastics
Evaluate
the
poten-al
pathways
and
rates
of
chemical
transfer
and
ecotoxicological
risk:
• include
exper-se
on
field
&
laboratory
studies,
animal
behaviour,
physiology
and
the
gut
environment
for
target
species

8. www.gesamp.org
The
assessment
report:
This
brochure
summarises
the
findings
of
GESAMP
Working
Group
40,
on
Sources,
fate
&
effects
of
microplas6cs
in
the
marine
environment
–
a
global
assessment.
The
full
assessment
is
scheduled
for
publica-on
in
early
2015,
in
the
GESAMP
Reports
&
Studies
Series,
available
at
www.gesamp.org
.
The
lead
Agency
for
the
Working
Group
was
the
Intergovernmental
Oceanographic
Commission
(IOC)
of
UNESCO,
with
the
GESAMP
Secretariat,
based
at
the
Interna-onal
Mari-me
Organiza-on
(IMO),
providing
organisa-onal
support.
Contributors
to
Working
Group
40:
Tony
Andrady,
Courtney
Arthur,
Joel
Baker,
Henk
Bouwman,
Sarah
Gall,
Valeria
Hidalgo-­‐Ruz,
Peter
Kershaw
(Chair),
Angela
Koehler,
Kara
Lavender
Law,
Heather
Leslie
(Vice-­‐Chair),
Sabine
Pahl,
Jim
Potemra,
Peter
Ryan,
Won
Joon
Shim,
Hideshige
Takada,
Richard
Thompson,
Alexander
Turra,
Dick
Vethaak
&
Kayleigh
Wyles
Acknowledgements:
The
following
Agencies
provided
in-­‐kind
or
financial
support:
IOC,
IMO,
UNIDO,
UNEP,
NOAA.
In
addi-on,
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(ACC)
and
Plas-cs
Europe
(PE)
provided
generous
financial
support,
without
which
the
Working
Group
could
not
have
func-oned.
Ashley
Carson
(ACC),
Keith
Christman
(ACC),
Roberto
Gomez
(PE)
and
Ralph
Schneider
(PE)
provided
encouragement
and
technical
advice
on
the
plas-cs
industry
and
related
maWers.
The
assessment
report
was
reviewed
by
Jesús
Gago,
François
Galgani,
Chelsea
Rochman,
Mar-n
Thiel
and
Members
of
GESAMP,
who
provided
very
helpful
cri-cisms
and
sugges-ons.
GESAMP
(The
Joint
Group
of
Experts
on
Scien-fic
Aspects
of
Marine
Protec-on)
is
an
inter-­‐Agency
Body
of
the
United
Na-ons,
comprised
of
a
group
of
independent
scien-sts
providing
advice
to
UN
Agencies
on
a
wide
variety
of
ocean
maWers.
For
more
informa-on:
www.gesamp.org
theoffice@gesamp.org