Skip to main content
Microplastics and Nanoplastics
Download PDF

Legacy oceanic plastic pollution must be addressed to mitigate possible long-term ecological impacts

Microplastics and Nanoplastics volume 3, Article number: 25 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Scientific research over the past decade has demonstrated that plastic in our oceans has detrimental consequences for marine life at all trophic levels. As countries negotiate an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, the focus is on eliminating plastic emissions to the environment. Here, we argue that, while this endeavour is urgently needed to limit the negative impacts of plastic on ocean ecosystems, the reduction of the plastic flow to the environment should not be the sole purpose of the negotiations. Legacy oceanic plastic pollution is also a major concern that needs to be addressed in the coming Treaty. Plastic is ubiquitous and persistent in the environment, and its slow degradation produces uncountable amounts of potentially even more impactful micro- and nanoparticles. Thus, plastic that is already present in the oceans may continue to affect ecosystems for centuries. Recent global assessments reveal that microplastics could have a significant impact on biogeochemical cycles and microbial food chains within ocean ecosystems that may be equivalent to those of climate change. Therefore, we argue that cleanup initiatives are essential to avoid further longterm impacts of legacy oceanic pollution. The upcoming international negotiations to develop a new Global Plastics Treaty should aim at urgently reducing the flow of plastic to the marine environment while supporting innovative solutions towards efficient monitoring and cleanup of the legacy oceanic plastic pollution.

Introduction

Over the past decades, the steep increase in ocean plastics contamination has raised concerns in the scientific community as well as among the public [1,2,3,4]. The visible impacts of plastic pollution on ocean ecosystems and economic sectors have led to calls for urgent action to address this pressing issue [5, 6]. At an international level, UNEA Resolution 5/14 was adopted in March 2022 to develop a new legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment [7]. An Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee was established to guide the negotiation process, with the aim to complete the negotiations by the end of 2024. At the national level, countries attempt to address environmental plastic pollution via a multitude of legislative approaches including the phase out of single-use plastics and levies to discourage their use and/or to encourage their recycling [8,9,10]. Such efforts largely target reducing the flow of plastics into the environment, particularly into our oceans.

Every year, the global flow of plastic into the ocean from land is estimated between 0.1 and 23 million metric tons (MT) [11]. Most of this pollution is linked with inadequate waste management [12], and the current commitments of countries towards waste reduction are insufficient to tackle the continued increase in global plastic production [13]. Plastic emissions from marine activities such as fishing and shipping remain poorly quantified but have been estimated to range around 0.2 to 0.6 MT per year [14]. While production control and emission reduction are unarguably essential to avoiding further contamination, they do not address impacts of plastics that have already accumulated in the ocean, and for which any preventive actions come too late. This so-called legacy oceanic plastic pollution is defined as the aggregated mass of plastic emitted from rivers and coastlines, or that was lost, abandoned, or otherwise discarded, into coastal waters and ocean, including areas beyond national jurisdiction. An estimated 0.6 to 2.0 MT of plastics is currently floating at the ocean surface globally, with most of this plastic mass contained in larger objects [14, 15]. These plastic items are likely to persist at the ocean surface for decades or longer, slowly degrading into potentially impactful micro- and nanoplastics [15,16,17]. In this light, various initiatives to address this legacy pollution problem in the marine environment have emerged [18]. The most frequent method is plastic cleanup either at the coast, the river mouth or at the sea surface [19]. However, concerns are raised related to the efficiency of such efforts relative to their carbon emissions and potential impact on the local ecosystem by entrapping marine life [20, 21].

In this Perspective, we argue that to efficiently tackle plastic pollution in the oceans, international negotiations should aim at stopping the flow of plastic into the environment as quickly as possible. However, this measure, even if successful, can not address the legacy oceanic plastic pollution. Mounting evidence of adverse ecological and biological consequences of microplastics contamination suggests that measures to avoid environmental fragmentation of legacy pollution and to follow the precautionary principle in relation to human health and marine life is warranted. If we don’t act now, we may never be able to do so in the future because the plastic will go further into the water column, out of reach for any viable remediation strategy. Thus, collective action should be taken for the remediation of legacy oceanic plastic pollution, while at the same time implementing upstream and midstream measures. Global support towards innovative, scalable and environmentally sound cleanup solutions is necessary to help mitigate negative impacts of plastic already accumulated in our oceans.

The environmental impacts of ocean plastic pollution

Ocean plastic pollution has clear detriments to marine ecosystems. Plastic in our oceans impacts marine life through many processes involving ingestion [22], entanglement [23], distribution of invasive and potentially harmful organisms and pathogens [24], and the release of chemicals [25, 26] (Fig. 1). Furthermore, negative impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife directly threatens commercial activities such as fisheries and tourism [6, 27]. Plastic pollution regularly causes damage to fishing gear and vessels as well as a general degradation of fish quality and quantity, with direct consequences for the economic sustainability of marine activities [28, 29]. Furthermore, plastic pollution may directly threaten human health and recreational grounds through the transport of pathogens by plastic debris [24, 30, 31] and through translocation of nano-sized particles in humans [32, 33].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Size dependent environmental impacts of plastic debris. The colour bars represent the species impacted by each plastic size class

Full size image

Besides entanglement of marine life in larger plastic items, particularly abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, one of the most important aspects of plastic pollution is fragmentation of larger plastic items into uncountable micro- and nano-plastic particles [17, 34]. Although micro- and nano-sized plastics make up a small portion of the total mass of plastic pollution in the ocean [14], they may be responsible for a significant part of the damage [35]. As plastics fragment into smaller microplastics, they lose buoyancy and begin to trace neutrally [36, 37]. Consequently, micro- and nanoplastics are redistributed by ocean currents and are found in every region of the ocean [38,39,40,41,42]. Thus, they may affect all trophic levels, from mammals to plankton [43,44,45]. Additionally, their large surface to volume ratio makes them particularly susceptible to the transport and release of contaminants, nutrients, and to the formation of biofilm [46,47,48]. Stimulation of algal growth by microplastics is widely reported which has implications for nutrient cycling [49].

Recently, global biogeochemical models have been developed to study the potential impacts of microplastics at the global scale [38, 50]. These models enable researchers to study the global distribution and seasonal variations of microplastics, plankton, and nutrients. A first global assessment revealed that the seasonal peak in zooplankton grazing rates coincides with that of microplastic concentration in over 25% of the ocean surface [38]. This suggests that zooplankton, keystone species in the ocean, are potentially significantly exposed to the impacts of microplastics. A different model study estimated that microplastic-slowed fecal pellet sinking could produce an up to 30% reduction in fecal pellet fluxes and a more than 50% increase in other organic detrital fluxes in a business-as-usual increasing pollution scenario [50]. Furthermore, ecological shifts due to shoaling of nutrient remineralization impacted the competitive advantage between functional groups, suggesting shifting selective pressure altering winners and losers in the presence of microplastics [50].

While global scale model development of plastic-biological interactions is still in its early days, multiple models using a diversity of approaches produce non-negligible biogeochemical impacts at regional to global scale. To date, the modeling of ecological and biogeochemical impacts of open ocean microplastic pollution suggests significant impacts may occur in gyres because of the exceptionally high concentrations of microplastic found in those regions [38]. But other regions such as the biologically productive North Pacific and North Atlantic/North Sea, as well as coastal areas that retain high amounts of plastic waste may also be impacted [38, 50]. Water column contamination exposes poorly understood ocean ecosystems, such as the meso- and bathypelagic to unknown ill effects. These environments are very sensitive to perturbation and are also tightly coupled to ocean carbon cycling. These findings suggest that ocean microplastic contamination has the potential to cause widespread, poorly reversible, and long-term impacts on marine ecosystems. The potential for long-term ecological impacts of microplastics (including in areas beyond national jurisdiction) carries far-ranging socioeconomic implications that must be considered when formulating policy.

Current applications and benefits of plastics removal

The scientific consensus is clear: plastic pollution is a major threat to ocean ecosystems, and we must take action to limit it [51,52,53]. One of the main solutions put forward during the ongoing negotiations of a Global Plastics Treaty is to put a rapid end to plastic emissions into the environment. The success of this ambitious goal is an undeniable necessity. Yet, scientific research has demonstrated that the large amount of plastic that has already reached the ocean will continue to impact the ecosystems for centuries [16, 54,55,56]. Figure 2 illustrates the dispersal of floating plastic debris in the global ocean by comparing simulated ocean contamination with, and without land-based plastic emissions. It shows that legacy oceanic plastic pollution remaining in our oceans after turning off plastic emissions from land will either beach back to land or concentrate in subtropical oceanic gyres. Recent research revealed that plastic debris afloat in these offshore waters can persist for decades or longer [14, 15, 57]. Thus, even with immediate land-based flux elimination, the level of microplastics in the ocean could double by mid-century due to the slow degradation of larger legacy plastics into smaller pieces [15]. Mitigating microplastic pollution in the global ocean therefore requires a drastic reduction in emissions of plastic pollution in combination with active removal of larger plastic items already present in the ocean to reduce further generation of secondary microplastics for the decades to come (Fig. 3). In this context, it is essential that remediation solutions for legacy oceanic plastic pollution within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction be proposed during negotiations, and that the upcoming Global Plastics Treaty addresses this issue, adopting the technology neutrality principle. The technology neutrality principle implies applying no constraints or prescriptions on choices of technology or equipment, and not favouring nor discriminating against any technology. Moreover, before deployment, each remediation technology should be assessed by conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment and by subsequently developing an Environmental Management Plan to monitor and mitigate potentially adverse impacts during operations [19].

Fig. 2
figure 2

a Modelled distribution of plastic debris afloat at sea. b Legacy oceanic plastic pollution remaining in our oceans after turning off plastic emissions from land. Model particles are advected using data on sea surface circulation following the methodology of Lebreton et al. 2012 [58], from significant inland sources of plastic pollution as reported in Meijer et al. 2021 [59]. A beaching term is added using the formulation presented in Lebreton et al. 2022 [60] to represent the stranding of floating debris. Particles are continuously released from 1993 to 2020 in (a) while the influx of modelled debris is stopped from 2010 in (b). Results are presented for the year 2020

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Future projections for accumulated mass of buoyant (a) macroplastic (i.e., plastic items > 5 mm) and (b) secondary microplastics (i.e., plastic fragments < 5 mm generated by degradation of macroplastics) at the ocean surface under three scenarios: (1) business as usual (i.e., emissions increase at average 2005–2015 growth rate), (2) 80% emission reduction from 2020, and (3) 80% emission reduction from 2020 combined with a 12% annual cleanup of macroplastics. These scenarios are based on the global degradation and circulation model by Lebreton et al. (2019) [15]

Full size image

Removing plastic accumulated in offshore areas reduces harm from entanglement, ingestion, and invasive species transport, as well as the risks for human health (reducing human exposure to pathogens found on ocean plastic via seafood consumption or direct contact with ocean plastic). Furthermore, it decreases costs to small island states (which receive large amounts of plastic from the gyres) [61], to marine traffic (entanglement and collision, increased insurance costs) [29], and to coastal communities (beach cleanups, decreased tourism) [28, 62]. Overall, marine plastic pollution represents an avoidable cost to society [63]. Thus, avoiding plastic pollution through flux reduction and cleanup should bring immediate economic benefits.

In the open ocean, the majority of plastic cleanups target the surface of the gyres which are convergence zones, concentrating the highest amounts of floating plastic debris [64, 65]. In these areas surface plastic removal limits the risks of ventilating plastic pollution towards the deeper layers [66]. Thus, surface ocean cleanups may bring long-term significant ecological and economic benefits. Finally, oceanic gyres are the main areas of accumulation for positively buoyant and persistent legacy oceanic plastic pollution (Fig. 2). Therefore, ecological impacts of plastic pollution in these regions may be observed for decades, even after stopping plastic emissions to the ocean (Fig. 3). Thus, the surface of oceanic gyres are particularly sensitive to the impacts of legacy plastic pollution and surface cleanups could efficiently mitigate these impacts.

Challenges and recommendations

The Global Plastics Treaty must prioritize stopping the flow of plastic into the ocean. However, it must also address the legacy oceanic plastic pollution, particularly in plastic accumulation hotspots. A major fraction of positively buoyant plastic debris ends up on beaches and coasts [15, 67]. Coastal environments are therefore significant plastic accumulation zones and targeted by a variety of beach cleanup or dive against debris activities worldwide [19, 52, 61]. However, such efforts are largely conducted by manual labour and run on a voluntary basis, without coordinated oversight. Many coastal areas are difficult to access and therefore remain largely unaddressed by manual cleanups.

In the open ocean, the highest levels of plastic pollution are found in the subtropical oceanic gyres [19, 62, 68]. Initiatives such as The Ocean Cleanup have started to remove legacy plastic pollution from the North Pacific subtropical gyre, the largest accumulation zone of floating plastic debris in the ocean, also termed the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Such cleanup efforts have been met with some criticism due to the potential for unintentional damage associated with possible bycatch of marine life and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere [19]. However, open ocean cleanup is a complex issue with both potential benefits and drawbacks. The negative impacts of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems are already well-documented, and the long-term impacts of inaction towards legacy oceanic plastic pollution are potentially significant and irreversible. Thus, impact assessments of cleanup technologies should assess the net environmental gain by evaluating both the negative impacts occurring during cleanup as well as the harm reduction achieved by mitigating the negative impacts associated with plastic pollution. In this context, legislation on plastic pollution must be based on a careful consideration of all options, including the costs and benefits of different clean-up methods against not acting at all, and taking into account all future socio-economic scenarios regarding plastic production and waste management.

Cleanup initiatives in the marine environment are currently mostly limited to beaches, the sea surface, and the shallow seabed. No efficient and environmentally-sound method seems to exist to address the legacy pollution beyond a few meters water depth nor from micro- and nanoplastics. Nature-based solutions are a promising example for the latter [69]. Yet, significant research and developments are required to further explore such solutions.

When considering the vastness of legacy oceanic plastic pollution, substantial funding and policy support are necessary to continue the current cleanup efforts and to find additional innovative solutions to tackle the legacy oceanic plastic pollution at scale. The responsibility of cleaning up this tremendous amount of legacy plastic in our ocean can not rely solely on NGOs, non-profit organizations, and voluntary citizens [5]. We need concerted efforts from all countries working together to coordinate and fund this essential work. The Global Plastics Treaty is an opportunity to encourage policy decisions that address the issue of legacy oceanic plastic pollution, including in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and to provide the necessary financial and institutional means. This includes scaling up and organizing cleanup operations, developing new technologies for removing plastic pollution, and creating incentives for the reduction and mitigation of plastics. We argue that priority should be given to cleanup technologies targeting legacy oceanic plastic pollution hotspots with highest ecological risks on short and long timescales, such as coastal and marginal seas and subtropical oceanic gyres [54, 70]. Besides removing plastic, cleanup activities also monitor and measure the plastic pollution problem. Data and knowledge on the scale of the plastic problem over time as a result of cleanup activities will allow the effectiveness of upstream, midstream and downstream measures of the Global Plastics Treaty to be assessed.

The strong connectivity between ocean regions makes plastic pollution a global problem since plastic debris can be transported over long distances [71,72,73]. As a result, plastic pollution has reached even the most remote areas [74,75,76]. Moreover, some regions receive plastic pollution that originated from other countries [60, 67]. Therefore, dealing with ocean plastic pollution will necessarily involve a debate on global justice and equity in the face of the global plastic pollution problem. Furthermore, offshore plastic accumulation zones are in areas beyond national jurisdiction and therefore without clearly attributable responsibility. This highlights the need for international treaties, such as the treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) and the coming Global Plastics Treaty, to solve a multigenerational collective problem, in a collective way.

Conclusions

While uncertainty remains in the quantification of impacts of plastic in the marine environment, preliminary research based on global oceanic models indicates substantial ecological impacts. In the context of multiple anthropogenic threats to the oceans, avoidance of long-term, widespread ecological damage should be a priority and all measures to prevent plastic impacts must be encouraged. We fully support the objectives of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and argue that ending the flux of plastics pollution into the environment will be insufficient to stop contamination impacts associated with plastic already present in our oceans. The remaining meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution should elevate discussions around the remediation of oceanic plastic pollution and establish clear targets, including accumulation areas beyond national jurisdiction such as the subtropical oceanic gyres. The coming Global Plastics Treaty should formalize how states can collectively address legacy oceanic plastic pollution and provide stable long-term financial and policy support.

Availability of data and materials

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper.

Abbreviations

MT:

Million metric tons

UNEA:

United Nations Environment Assembly

References

  1. Andrady AL. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2011;62:1596–605.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Crawford CB, Quinn B. Plastic production, waste and legislation. Microplastic Pollutants. 2017;30:39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809406-8.00003-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eriksen M, et al. Plastic pollution in the World’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One. 2014;9:e111913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lebreton L, et al. Evidence that the great Pacific garbage patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci Rep. 2018;8:4666.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vince J, Hardesty BD. Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restor Ecol. 2017;25:123–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vince J, Stoett P. From problem to crisis to interdisciplinary solutions: plastic marine debris. Mar Policy. 2018;96:200–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. UNEP. Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. UNEP - UN Environment Programme http://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution (2022).

  8. Xanthos D, Walker TR. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;118:17–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. UNEP. Plastics legislation explorer | UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform. https://leap.unep.org/knowledge/toolkits/plastic/legislation-explorer.

  10. Chen Y, Awasthi AK, Wei F, Tan Q, Li J. Single-use plastics: production, usage, disposal, and adverse impacts. Sci Total Environ. 2021;752:141772.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang Y, et al. Plastic waste discharge to the global ocean constrained by seawater observations. Nat Commun. 2023;14:1372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jambeck JR, et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347:768–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Borrelle SB, et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science. 2020;369:1515–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaandorp MLA, Lobelle D, Kehl C, Dijkstra HA, van Sebille E. Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris. Nat Geosci. 2023;16:689–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lebreton L, Egger M, Slat B. A global mass budget for positively buoyant macroplastic debris in the ocean. Sci Rep. 2019;9:12922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Agarwal S. Biodegradable polymers: present opportunities and challenges in providing a microplastic-free environment. Macromol Chem Phys. 2020;221:2000017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrady AL. Weathering and fragmentation of plastic debris in the ocean environment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;180:113761.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dijkstra H, van Beukering P, Brouwer R. In the business of dirty oceans: overview of startups and entrepreneurs managing marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;162:111880.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Falk-Andersson J, et al. Cleaning up without messing up: maximizing the benefits of plastic clean-up technologies through new regulatory approaches. Environ Sci Technol. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c01885.

  20. Hohn S, et al. The long-term legacy of plastic mass production. Sci Total Environ. 2020;746:141115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cordier M, Uehara T. How much innovation is needed to protect the ocean from plastic contamination? Sci Total Environ. 2019;670:789–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bravo Rebolledo EL, Van Franeker JA, Jansen OE, Brasseur SMJM. Plastic ingestion by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Netherlands. Mar Pollut Bull. 2013;67:200–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jepsen EM, de Bruyn PJN. Pinniped entanglement in oceanic plastic pollution: a global review. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;145:295–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bowley J, Baker-Austin C, Porter A, Hartnell R, Lewis C. Oceanic hitchhikers – assessing pathogen risks from marine microplastic. Trends Microbiol. 2021;29:107–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lehtiniemi M, et al. Exposure to leachates from post-consumer plastic and recycled rubber causes stress responses and mortality in a copepod Limnocalanus macrurus. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;173:113103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tetu, S. G. et al. Plastic leachates impair growth and oxygen production in Prochlorococcus , the ocean’s most abundant photosynthetic bacteria. Commun Biol 2, 1–9 (2019).

  27. Nguyen L, Brouwer R. Fishing for litter: creating an economic market for marine plastics in a sustainable fisheries model. Front Mar Sci. 2022;9

  28. Beaumont NJ, et al. Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;142:189–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hong S, Lee J, Lim S. Navigational threats by derelict fishing gear to navy ships in the Korean seas. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;119:100–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Foulon V, et al. Colonization of polystyrene microparticles by vibrio crassostreae: light and Electron microscopic investigation. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:10988–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodrigues A, Oliver DM, McCarron A, Quilliam RS. Colonisation of plastic pellets (nurdles) by E. Coli at public bathing beaches. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;139:376–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lin S, et al. Metabolomics reveal Nanoplastic-induced mitochondrial damage in human liver and lung cells. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:12483–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Leslie HA, et al. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. 2022;107199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199.

  34. Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2009;364:1985–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Khalid N, et al. Linking effects of microplastics to ecological impacts in marine environments. Chemosphere. 2021;264:128541.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhao S, et al. Large quantities of small microplastics permeate the surface ocean to abyssal depths in the South Atlantic gyre. Glob Chang Biol. 2022;28:2991–3006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pabortsava K, Lampitt RS. High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4073.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Richon C, Gorgues T, Paul-Pont I, Maes C. Zooplankton exposure to microplastics at global scale: influence of vertical distribution and seasonality. Front Mar Sci. 2022;9

  39. Mountford AS, Maqueda MAM. Eulerian modeling of the three-dimensional distribution of seven popular microplastic types in the Global Ocean. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2019;124:8558–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH. Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ Int. 2017;102:165–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bergmann M, et al. High quantities of microplastic in Arctic Deep-Sea sediments from the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:11000–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Cincinelli A, et al. Microplastic in the surface waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica): occurrence, distribution and characterization by FTIR. Chemosphere. 2017;175:391–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lusher AL, et al. Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: the True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus. Environ Pollut. 2015;199:185–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bellas J, Martínez-Armental J, Martínez-Cámara A, Besada V, Martínez-Gómez C. Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;109:55–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Botterell ZLR, et al. Microplastic ingestion in zooplankton from the Fram Strait in the Arctic. Sci Total Environ. 2022;831:154886.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hartmann NB, et al. Microplastics as vectors for environmental contaminants: exploring sorption, desorption, and transfer to biota. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2017;13:488–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Johansen MP, et al. Biofilm-enhanced adsorption of strong and weak cations onto different microplastic sample types: use of spectroscopy, microscopy and radiotracer methods. Water Res. 2019;158:392–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Semcesen PO, Wells MG. Biofilm growth on buoyant microplastics leads to changes in settling rates: implications for microplastic retention in the Great Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;170:112573.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Galgani L, Loiselle SA. Plastic pollution impacts on marine carbon biogeochemistry. Environ Pollut. 2021;268:115598.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kvale K, Hunt C, James A, Koeve W. Regionally disparate ecological responses to microplastic slowing of faecal pellets yields coherent carbon cycle response. Front Mar Sci. 2023;10

  51. Alava JJ, et al. A call to include plastics in the global environment in the class of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) pollutants. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57:8185–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Rochman CM, et al. The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology. 2016;97:302–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rochman CM, et al. Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:10759–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Clark BL, et al. Global assessment of marine plastic exposure risk for oceanic birds. Nat Commun. 2023;14:3665.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Everaert G, et al. Risk assessment of microplastics in the ocean: Modelling approach and first conclusions. Environ Pollut. 2018;242:1930–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Gall SC, Thompson RC. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;92:170–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Delre A, et al. Plastic photodegradation under simulated marine conditions. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023;187:114544.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Lebreton LC-M, Greer SD, Borrero JC. Numerical modelling of floating debris in the world’s oceans. Mar Pollut Bull. 2012;64:653–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Meijer LJJ, van Emmerik T, van der Ent R, Schmidt C, Lebreton L. More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Science. Advances. 2021;7:eaaz5803.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lebreton L, et al. Industrialised fishing nations largely contribute to floating plastic pollution in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Sci Rep. 2022;12:12666.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Burt AJ, et al. The costs of removing the unsanctioned import of marine plastic litter to small island states. Sci Rep. 2020;10:14458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Jorgensen B, Krasny M, Baztan J. Volunteer beach cleanups: civic environmental stewardship combating global plastic pollution. Sustain Sci. 2021;16:153–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. McIlgorm A, Campbell HF, Rule MJ. The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean Coast Manag. 2011;54:643–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Isobe A, Iwasaki S, Uchida K, Tokai T. Abundance of non-conservative microplastics in the upper ocean from 1957 to 2066. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Isobe A, et al. A multilevel dataset of microplastic abundance in the world’s upper ocean and the Laurentian Great Lakes. Microplastics and Nanoplastics. 2021;1:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Egger M, Sulu-Gambari F, Lebreton L. First evidence of plastic fallout from the North Pacific garbage patch. Sci Rep. 2020;10:7495.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Onink, V., Jongedijk, C., Hoffman, M., Sebille, E. van & Laufkötter, C. Global simulations of marine plastic transport show plastic trapping in coastal zones. Environ Res Lett (2021) doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abecbd.

  68. PADI AWARE Foundation. Participate in a Dive Against Debris | PADI AWARE. https://www.diveagainstdebris.org/diveagainstdebris.

  69. Cole M, et al. Mussel power: scoping a nature-based solution to microplastic debris. J Hazard Mater. 2023;453:131392.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Everaert G, et al. Risks of floating microplastic in the global ocean. Environ Pollut. 2020;267:115499.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Chenillat F, Huck T, Maes C, Grima N, Blanke B. Fate of floating plastic debris released along the coasts in a global ocean model. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;165:112116.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Huck T, et al. Three-dimensional dispersion of neutral “plastic” particles in a Global Ocean model. Frontiers in Analytical Science. 2022;2

  73. Bajon R, et al. Influence of waves on the three-dimensional distribution of plastic in the ocean. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023;187:114533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Lavers JL, Bond AL. Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic debris on one of the world’s most remote and pristine islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:6052–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Herrera A, Rivera JA, Moreno T, Martínez I, Gómez M. First inventory of marine debris on Alegranza, an uninhabited island in the Northeast Atlantic. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;178:113604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Gregory MR. The hazards of persistent marine pollution: drift plastics and conservation islands. J R Soc N Z. 1991;21:83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to João Ribeiro-Bidaoui and Janne van Eerten for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript, as well as to Charlotte Laufkötter and Thomas Gorgues for fruitful discussions.

Funding

K.K. acknowledges support from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment within the Antarctic Science Platform, grant ANTA1801. K.K. also acknowledges support from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment through the Global Change through Time programme (Strategic Science Investment Fund, contract C05X1702). M.E. and L.L. acknowledge funding by the donors of The Ocean Cleanup. C.R. acknowledges funding from the Institut des Sciences du Calcul et des Données (ISCD) of Sorbonne University (IDEX SUPER 11-IDEX-0004) through the support of the sponsored project-team FORMAL (From ObseRving to Modelling oceAn Life).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques, LOCEAN-IPSL, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Camille Richon

  2. Laboratoire d’Océanographie Physique et Spatiale (LOPS), Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France

    Camille Richon

  3. GNS Science, Avalon, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

    Karin Kvale

  4. The Ocean Cleanup, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Laurent Lebreton & Matthias Egger

  5. The Modelling House, Raglan, New Zealand

    Laurent Lebreton

  6. Egger Research and Consulting, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Matthias Egger

Authors
  1. Camille Richon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Kvale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurent Lebreton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Egger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.E, C.R. and K.K. designed the study. C.R. prepared Fig. 1. L.L. performed the numerical modelling and prepared Figs. 2 and 3. C.R., K.K. and M. E. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Egger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

M.E. and L.L. are employed by The Ocean Cleanup, a non-profit organization aimed at advancing scientific understanding and developing solutions to rid the oceans of plastic, headquartered in Rotterdam. C.R. and K.K. declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richon, C., Kvale, K., Lebreton, L. et al. Legacy oceanic plastic pollution must be addressed to mitigate possible long-term ecological impacts. Micropl.&Nanopl. 3, 25 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00074-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00074-2

Keywords