Algalita Marine Research Blog

Last Saturday I had the privilege of attending Algalita’s Cheers for Change Fundraiser in Long Beach. There I was able to meet more of Algalita’s team, and had the great honor of meeting Captain Moore. It was a truly wonderful and gratifying experience to see supporters come out, and I’m told that the silent auction went very well.

Staying true to sustainable practices, the fundraiser was kept plastic free. When we think of traditional social gatherings that involve serving food and drinks, this feat might sound quite difficult, but Algalita and its partners proved that plastic isn’t always necessary and that a plastic-free night is possible. Rather than Styrofoam or plastic cups, plates, or trash bags, the caterer (Whole Foods) brought eco-friendly plates and brown paper trash bags while glass glasses were provided by Algalita. To top it off, the plates and any leftover food were collected in the paper bags to be composted at a later time.

After observing these efforts, I think that what I got most out of the experience at the fundraiser was a sense of what a difference even a little bit of effort can make in reducing waste and helping the environment. It was just as easy to have compostable supplies over non-compostable ones, and all it took were simple decisions and requests on behalf of the consumers. As a result, there were a few paper bags of reusable/compostable materials versus the typical bulging plastic trash bags full of items that would have simply been discarded. I think it was nice to see how a little bit truly does go a long way towards reducing our environmental footprint and how it really isn’t as difficult as it may seem to incorporate sustainable practices.

A couple weeks ago while I was on my spring break, I had the chance to spend a couple of afternoons at Algalita’s lab, located at the SEA Lab in Redondo Beach. There I met Ann, one of Algalita’s biologists and my source of information and guidance during my visits.

Once I arrived, Ann gave me a brief overview of the different types of tasks she performs and set me right to work on gaining some experience of my own.

The majority of my time at the lab was spent picking plastic particles out of water samples (a task dubbed by Ann as my “lab training”), which proved to be a lot more difficult than I anticipated. Ann showed me how to prepare a sample in a Petri dish from a larger sample of water collected from the ocean. I examined the Petri dish sample under a dissection microscope and used a couple different tweezers to separate and pick out plastic particles from other materials in the sample, like tiny pieces of wood and even microscopic organisms. The plastic particles I collected were placed in a smaller separate vial where I could watch as pieces of plastic slowly but surely accumulated.

If it sounds a bit tedious to pick plastic particles out of a water sample, it’s because it is. But more than that, the experience was also pretty eye-opening and insightful. I found that I was (and still am) most taken aback by how tiny a majority of the plastic particles I collected were, which made identifying the pieces a task in and of itself. The sheer amount of plastic I was able to collect from Petri dish-sized samples was also something to mull over; on both days that I visited, I spent two hours working with each sample and was not able to collect all the plastic particles from either. My second sample was particularly riddled with tiny pieces of Styrofoam that liked to stick to the sides of the dish (and pretty much everything else in the sample), making them especially difficult to collect.

As I worked, I had several thoughts running through my head: if I couldn’t always distinguish plastic particles from organic materials, how could fish and other marine life be expected to do the same? And if a small sample of ocean water contained that much plastic, how much would larger samples hold if they were to be examined? How much is actually floating around in the ocean? When I showed Ann how many pieces I collected and how there were still several pieces left in each sample at the end of my “training sessions,” she remarked that if anything, it was indication of how bad ocean plastic pollution actually is.

Along with developing even greater appreciation and admiration for Algalita’s research and work, I also came away from my time in the lab with a new outlook on waste disposal. Most of the time it seems like the general attitude about leaving trash behind is that a couple of pieces here and there can’t do much harm, but from what I saw in the lab, those few pieces left behind turn into thousands of harmful pieces when they’re left to decompose in places they shouldn’t. But just as a little bit goes a long way to add to the problem, a little bit can go along way in solving it too, and it may be as easy as tossing that abandoned water bottle in the recycling bin instead of leaving it behind.

Perhaps you already bring your own reusable grocery bags, have kicked the bottled water habit and know better than to microwave in plastics, but still find daily life swimming in plastics and want to use less of it.  After recycling, the average American still generates a half pound of plastic refuse daily, a concrete indicator of how deeply entrenched are plastic materials in our 21^st century lifestyle (USEPA, 2010).

Rational reasons to cut back on plastics fall into one of two spheres: limiting exposure to hazardous chemicals associated with plastics – like bisphenol-A, phthalates and flame retardants – or reducing the harm to the environment incurred at all stages in plastics’ lifecycle, from extraction of the petroleum needed for manufacturing to disposal of the non-biodegradable finished products.

Short of adopting a Tarzan-like jungle existence, it’s probably impossible to completely eliminate plastics from modern day life, but with a little digging and shopping savvy, you can enlarge that dent in your plastics consumption.  Some ideas follow.

GROCERIES:  It can be daunting to find anything at conventional supermarket chains (e.g. Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons/Safeway) not packaged in plastic.  Stores select inventories based on their market niche which, for conventional supermarkets, is mainstream brands that emphasize value at competitive prices.  Plastic packaging is simply cheaper to produce and transport than, say, glass, so packaging choices are limited for most products.

Avoiding plastic packaging is much easier at so-called natural foods markets that serve a different market niche.  They stock a plethora of brands where the manufacturer has responded to consumer interests in a healthier lifestyle and alternative packaging.  Non-plastic options are available for most items storewide, many of which are also organic, though you can expect to pay more than for the mainstream brands.  Here are some specifics I found perusing my local Mothers, Sprouts and Whole Foods markets.

There are anywhere from a few to many options in glass containers for common pantry items including ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, molasses, spices, nut butters, steak & barbeque sauces, vegetable oils, vinegars, fruit juices, sodas and bottled water.  Many of the labels might be less familiar to mainstream shoppers, like Cadia, Annie’s Naturals, Lakewood Organic, and OOgavé.  A wide assortment of vitamins and dietary supplements are sold in glass too.

Milk typically comes in plastic jugs or plastic-coated paperboard cartons.  I located four brands in returnable/refillable glass bottles: Straus Family Creamery, Broguiere’s, Claravale Farm and Whole Foods label.  Likewise, two yogurt brands come in pint or quart glass jars, White Mountain and Saint Benoit, and the latter also offers single servings in ceramic cups.  Though butter in paper or foil-wrapped sticks is commonplace, I found only one margarine brand, Earth Balance, in sticks instead of plastic tubs.

No matter where you shop, you’ll cart away less plastic by investing in a handful of reusable bags designed for fresh produce and bulk items like nuts and dried fruits.  Many washable produce bags are available on the web, made from mesh or cloth.  Or, they are easy enough to sew yourself from fabric scraps.

PERSONAL HYGIENE:  Natural foods stores also stock several lines of facial care products (cleansers, toners) and skin moisturizes offered in glass, like Suki, John Masters Organic and Evanhealy.  Some cosmetics brands have committed to using glass or metal containers too.  There is even a brand of deodorant sold in glass spray bottles (Weleda), or you can go for a deodorant bar made of Himalayan crystal salt in paperboard packaging (Deo-Bar).  All-cotton swabs, without the plastic stick, are available too.

My personally favorite find is Eco-DenT, a brand of dental floss offering silk floss and vegetable oil wax alternatives to mainstream nylon floss with petrochemical wax.  It comes in a recyclable cardboard case.

DINING:  Keep a few sets of silverware in the car’s glove box for visiting eateries that serve plastic utensils, and carry reusable take-out containers in the trunk for leftovers.  If frozen coffee store drinks are your weakness, keep a travel drink container handy too.  When throwing parties, do like our grandmothers did, use real dishes and silverware, or at least choose service items carried at natural foods stores made from renewables, like corn starch and wheat straw.

HOME MAINTENANCE:  Though powder detergents are sometimes packaged in cardboard, even environmentally friendly liquid cleaning agents are sold in plastic.  However, it’s quite easy to make your own cleaning supplies from simple ingredients like vinegar, baking soda and lemon.  Enter “homemade cleaning products” in your search engine for recipes to tackle every household cleaning job.

When undertaking home remodeling, choose renewable materials whenever possible, like wood windows & doors, cork flooring and cellulose or cotton insulation.  Be aware that plastic decking lumber can’t be recycled so will eventually be landfilled.

SCHOOL AND OFFICE:  Choose backpacks made of canvas over vinyl ones.  Use paper lunch bags or reusable cloth totes in lieu of vinyl lunch boxes.  Waxed, parchment and butcher papers are all good substitutions for plastic sandwich bags and cling wrap.

The Center for Health and Environmental Justice in New Yorkmaintains extensive online inventories of non-plastic alternatives for every sort of school/office supply and where to purchase.  In addition to necessities like 3-ring binders, files, organizers and address books, the listing includes some surprising options, like bamboo-cased flash drives and highlighter wood pencils.  Many items are available at mainstream office supply stores.

DRIVING:  A vehicle’s interior plastics (dashboard and seating, e.g.) contribute to that infamous “new car smell” by off-gassing dozens of volatile chemicals, many known to be hazardous.  To help car buyers avoid the biggest offenders, last year the Ecology Center in Michigan released its latest rankings of over 200 recent models.  The Honda Civic and Toyota Prius were rated first and second best.  Eliminating polyvinyl plastics from interior components contributed to the Civic’s high status, though other plastics were substituted.  So consumers might still be limited to selecting a car with safer, but not less, plastics.

The explosion of consumer plastics was an outgrowth of petroleum-based industries developed in World War II.  That plastics are so durable and do not biodegrade seemed a good thing at the time, and the toxic nature of many chemicals associated with plastics was unknown.  Today, the wisdom of a culture so entrenched in plastic materials is being reevaluated.  While scientists continue to delineate all the health and environmental impacts of plastics, we already know that fetuses and young children are most susceptible to toxins and that plastics are amassing in even remote ocean regions.

It’s incumbent on us all to rethink our consumer choices and opt for materials we know are safer for our children and the rest of the planet too.

“Regardless of the exact size, mass, and location of the garbage patch, human-made debris does not belong in our oceans and waterways”

                        -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)¹

Some say it’s the size of Texas. Others say it’s at least big enough to be called a “trash island.” But in actuality, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch isn’t even a “patch.”

As Algalita and several other organizations describe, a more appropriate description would be to refer to the “patch” as a “plastic soup” whose ingredients are things that should’ve never made their way into the ocean in the first place.  The main non-so-secret ingredients: thousands upon thousands of pieces of plastic.

How did this plastic soup get cooking? As the National Geographic explains it, plastic and other debris is drawn in toward the center of ocean gyres (circular ocean currents) where it accumulates. A lot of the plastic particles that make up the patch are so small they’re not visible to the naked eye, while other pieces of debris sink to the ocean floor.²

photo from marinedebris.noaa.gov

As unpleasing as the sight of trash in the ocean is, the environmental effects of all that garbage are even worse. Fish, turtles, and seabirds unknowingly eat the plastic and other debris and often starve or rupture organs because they cannot digest the trash.² And as Algalita’s own Captain Charles Moore explained in an interview with Forbes, “about half a dozen species of fish that are consumed by people in Southern California…are consuming plastic so we’re starting to see plastic invading the human food chain as well as the animal food chain in the ocean.”³

Capt. Moore with an example of debris found in the patch (from forbes.com)

Unfortunately, the size, scope, and depth of the garbage patch make it very difficult to simply scoop up all the debris and remove it. NOAA reminds us that most of the plastic debris is microscopic in size, and that in the process of trying to capture the microplastic, we’d be taking essential microscopic plankton along with it.

So what can we do? Again, one of the greatest changes we can make is to incorporate more sustainable practices into daily life. This can be as easy as opting for reusable products over disposable ones whenever possible (which saves money in the long run). Making sure materials are properly recycled is another step, and is one we can directly benefit from right away; any stored up or lingering disposable bottles and cans that we might have right now can be taken to local recycling centers and exchanged for cash vouchers. There is always the option of participating in cleanups around our communities and beaches too.

References:

[1] NOAA (2012). De-mystifying the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html#5

[2] National Geographic (2013). Great Pacific Garbage Patch: Pacific Trash Vortex. http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/?ar_a=1

[3] Hoshaw, Lindsey. Article. “Game Over: An Ocean Hero’s Call to Action.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/lindseyhoshaw/2011/10/10/game-over-an-ocean-heros-call-to-action/

Algalita.org

http://www.algalita.org/AlgalitaFAQs.htm

The scene is set: A gorgeous day out on the beach, sun shining, and water pleasantly warm. But as you get closer to the water, the record playing the soundtrack to this idyllic sight suddenly scratches. It’s not that the water was colder than expected, or that you realized you forgot to put sunscreen on. It’s that there’s a plastic bag touching your foot instead of seaweed and plastic bottle caps washing up on shore instead of seashells.
Okay, these details may have been exaggerated a bit for effect, but this nightmare could easily be the new reality. The culprits: one-time use plastic bottles and bags.
But what could possibly be so bad about products that add so much convenience to everyday life? For starters, the fact that these products are both ready to use and easily disposable also means they accumulate waste. A lot of waste.
The Clean Air Council reports that annually, Americans use about 1 billion shopping bags which create 300,000 tons of landfill waste.1 Additionally, 38 million plastic bottles make their way to American dumps every year, and that number doesn’t even include soda bottles.2
To make matters worse, while these products overwhelm landfills, they simultaneously empty pockets and oil barrels. It costs $4,000 to recycle 1 ton of plastic bags and millions of barrels of oil each year to produce plastic bottles.1
The environmental consequences paint an even bleaker picture, especially for the ocean. Thousands of pieces of plastic can be found per square mile of ocean, and every year, plastic pollution causes the deaths of thousands of marine animals and birds.3 Plastic bottles and bags left in oceans never completely go away either. Even though light breaks the plastic down, there are still toxic particles left behind. Research is showing that these particles enter our food chains when marine animals like fish ingest them and we in turn eat the fish.
The silver lining is that it’s not too late to turn things around. In fact, it only takes a few simple changes to incorporate sustainable, ocean-friendly practices.
Instead of lugging heavy 24-packs of plastic water bottles home every week, why not invest in reusable bottles? A one-time investment of around $7 will save countless trips (and dollars) to buy disposable bottles each week, and will help to significantly reduce plastic waste. If you feel like splurging a bit, many brands offer sleek, stylish reusable bottles for a few dollars more.
With more and more SoCal cities banning one-time use plastic grocery bags, why not phase out the use of these bags too? Investing in reusable grocery bags is both eco-friendly and cost-effective. Many grocery stores charge 10 cents per disposable plastic bag, while others will actually knock 5 cents off a bill for every reusable bag brought in. And just as reusable bottles come in stylish designs, so do reusable bags and totes.
As a college student fortunate enough to go to school by the beach, keeping the oceans plastic free is a cause near and dear to my heart. The best part is, going-green has proved easier and more convenient than I thought. I save much-needed gas and textbook money by using a reusable water bottle (which I always get compliments on because of its cute design), and reusable grocery totes have served me well as makeshift gym and book bags.

________________________________________
[1] Clean Air Council. Waste and Recycling Facts.
www.cleanair.org/Waste/wasteFacts.html

[2] Llanos, M (2005, March 3). Article. “Plastic Bottles Pile Up As Mountains of Waste.”
www.nbcnews.com/id/5279230/#.UUSbqhdJP4t

[3] Envirosax. (2012). Dangers of Plastic Bags.
www.envirosax.com/plastic_bag_facts

Hello Algalita Readers!

My name is Justinne and for the next couple months or so I’ll be contributing blog posts and articles to Algalita’s site. I’m a senior at Cal State Long Beach, and even though I’m an English major, I love learning about the ocean and the environment. A couple semesters ago, I was able to incorporate the state of the ocean into a research paper and learned about the different issues plaguing the ocean. I was shocked to learn about the amount of man-made pollution that makes its way into marine environments and causes serious damage. Since then, I’ve developed a great interest and concern for issues of ocean pollution, particularly plastic pollution because it affects humans too.

For the most part, the blog posts and articles will focus on bringing issues of plastic pollution in marine environments to light, which I hope will be just as insightful a learning experience for readers as it is for me. I will also be sharing tips on how to reduce disposable plastic use and describing some of my own experiences with using greener alternatives.

Thanks for reading!

In pregnant women, exposure today to endocrine-disrupting substances common in everyday plastics might not only be adversely affecting the health of their fetuses, but the health and fertility of their future great grandchildren might also be at risk, according to a laboratory study just published in January.¹  The health risks are not handed down via changes to the genetic DNA code (i.e. gene mutations), but rather through a parallel biological scheme of coding known as “epigenetics.”

Background
Traits are passed from one generation to the next through two distinct but interacting vehicles of inheritance.  The genes that make up our DNA were once thought to contain the entire blueprint for all inherited traits. For some time, however, scientists have understood the critical role of another coding system that literally sits atop the DNA and instructs genes to turn on or off.  Because all cells in a given animal or human have the same DNA sequence as the original fertilized egg and sperm, another mechanism is needed to explain how cell differentiation occurs during development so that a heart cell, for example, ends up so different from, say, a brain or skin cell.

The prefix “epi” means “on top of,” hence the name epigenome referring to this supplementary code affixed to DNA that orchestrates development by regulating gene expression.  For some time now, scientists have known that a person’s epigenome is also involved in establishing susceptibility to diseases because whether or when certain genes are expressed can determine if a person will fall victim to some diseases.

It is also understood that the epigenome is not fixed during a person’s lifetime, but rather can be altered by environment (chemical exposure or even diet, e.g.).  However, it is only recently that scientists have clued into the fact that changes to the epigenome acquired during a lifetime can be passed from one generation to the next right along with the genetic DNA code within sperm or egg cells.  This means that environmentally-mediated modifications in susceptibility to disease have the potential to get passed along too.

Previous studies documented that the agricultural fungicide vinclozolin, when administered to pregnant female rodents, induced permanent epigenetic changes to the sperm of developing fetuses that were replicated and passed on to subsequent generations.  The epigenetic changes were deleterious in that they promoted certain adult-onset diseases.

The present study, conducted at Washington State University, focused instead on two known types of endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in mass-produced plastics, BPA (bisphenol-A) and phthalates.  BPA is a component of both polycarbonate plastics and the epoxy resin lining of most canned foods/beverages.  Exposure during fetal life is known, through animal studies, to impact a wide spectrum of adult-onset diseases, including polycystic ovaries, prostate disease, abnormal mammary gland development, behavioral hyperactivity and aggressiveness, and altered glucose metabolism.  Phthalates are softening agents common in PVC (polyvinyl chloride) plastics and also a common ingredient of beauty products and adhesives.  Phthalates have been linked to many derailments in the normal development of both male and female reproductive systems, resulting in decreased fertility in both sexes.

What did they do?
Pregnant female rats (and consequently their fetuses) were exposed to mixtures of BPA and two phthalates (DEHP and DBP) over a one-week period spanning the critical window in fetal development when gonadal sex is determined.  The incidence of adult-onset diseases of the testis, prostate, ovary and kidney were determined in those fetuses and the grandchildren of those fetuses (i.e. the great grandchildren of the exposed pregnant females) once they reached adulthood.

In understanding this study, it is important to appreciate that the fetuses’ future grandchildren are the first generation where abnormalities cannot be attributed to a direct effect of chemical exposure to any of the fetuses’ tissues, but rather must have been handed down through undesirable epigenetic changes to the exposed fetuses’ sperm or eggs which remained fixed and passed on.  Prior research has shown that gene mutations are not involved.

The best understood epigenetic mechanism is “DNA methylation” where chemical fragments called methyl groups (–CH3) attach or detach to DNA and, in doing so, regulate gene expression. Furthermore, various environmental chemicals are known to alter the pattern of methylation.  In the present study, the researchers looked for enduring and heritable epigenetic changes resulting from exposure to BPA and phthalates by examining the methylation pattern of sperm DNA from both the exposed fetuses and those fetuses’ grandchildren.

What did they find?
As adults, both the originally exposed fetuses and their grandchildren showed increases in testis disease, obesity, ovarian disease, and shifted onset of puberty.  The original fetuses also showed increases in kidney and prostate disease, but those conditions were not inherited by their grandchildren.  The type of disease abnormalities detected were not tumors per se, but rather other tissue abnormalities, like polycystic ovaries or decreased sperm production.

The researchers were also able to identify several epigenetic methylation changes to the sperm DNA of the chemically exposed fetuses that were similarly passed to their grandchildren and thought to be involved in promoting the diseases.

Implications
The central finding of this study is that, in rats, short-term fetal exposure to a mixture of chemicals found in plastics has the potential of promoting adult-onset diseases that, in turn, are handed down to subsequent generations.  The inheritance is not through gene mutations, but rather through epigenetic changes (epimutations) to the developing fetus’ sperm DNA which are not reset with the next generation but rather replicated and passed on.

Rats are mammals and, as such, are useful models for gaining insight into how environmental toxins can affect humans.  This study suggests that plastics we are interacting with today might have the legacy of making our great grandchildren, and perhaps generations beyond, more susceptible to a whole host of diseases when they grow up.

The chemical doses used in this study were low for animal studies but admittedly higher than the levels to which humans are routinely exposed.  Nevertheless, widespread human contamination with both BPA and phthalates is well-documented.  Furthermore, human exposure to these chemicals likely occurs continuously throughout our lifetimes, given the near universal role of plastics in human activities, from dining and driving cars to computer work and housecleaning.  So though the results of this study do not provide any real measure of the risk to humans associated with our current levels of exposure to endocrine-disruptors in plastics, they certainly do raise the possibility that humanity’s love affair with plastics might have lasting effects on the health and fertility of future generations.

This speculation is in line with a growing body of evidence that endocrine disrupting chemicals now widespread in our environment are contributing to the lower sperm counts, more ovarian disease and increasing rates of obesity and infertility frequently seen in human populations (see Discussion).

There are already literally hundreds of studies documenting direct health effects in lab animals and even humans of fetal exposure to BPA and phthalates. We have been playing Russian roulette with these and literally tens of thousands of other synthetic chemicals allowed into commerce since World War II without prior health safety testing.  Chemicals in the United States are still regulated by antiquated legislation (Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) which allows industry to market chemicals without proving their safety first.

For the sake of our own health and that of our progeny, not only do we need to continue mapping out how endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA and phthalates interact with the very apparatus of inheritance, but we also need to insist that the federal government adopts a precautionary approach to chemicals regulation that requires thorough vetting of chemicals for safety to humans and other life forms before being allowed into commerce.
_______________________
¹M Manikkam et al.  Plastics derived endocrine disruptors (BPA, DEHP and DBP) induce epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity, reproductive disease and sperm epimutations.  PLOS ONE, Jan. 2013.

While plastic refuse on land is a familiar eyesore as litter and a burden on our landfills, in the marine environment it can be lethal to sea creatures by way of ingestion or entanglement. Now, an important new study¹ adds to a growing body of evidence that ocean plastic debris is also a threat to humans because plastics are vehicles for introducing toxic chemicals of three sources into the ocean food web.

Background

Two of the sources are intrinsic to the plastic material itself and have been described in previous studies. The first is the very building blocks of plastic polymers. A molecule of plastic is made by linking (polymerizing) literally thousands of chemical fragments called “monomers.” However, polymerization is never complete, always leaving some monomers unattached and free to migrate out into whatever medium the plastic comes in contact, like foods/beverages or the guts of a sea creature that mistook it for food. Some monomers are known to be inherently toxic, like vinyl chloride that makes up polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, styrene that makes up polystyrene, and bisphenol-A (BPA), the building block of polycarbonate plastics.

The second intrinsic source of risky chemicals is the brew of additives that manufacturers mix in to impart plastics with desired properties, such as hardness or resistance to photodegradation. Additives can have toxic properties of their own (like some softening agents and flame retardants), and they are also free to leach out and contaminate their surroundings. Manufacturers generally consider their blends of additives as proprietary information kept secret.

A study just published in December in the journal Environmental Science & Technology addresses a third but external source of toxic substances associated with plastics, deriving from oily pollutants commonly found in seawater that glom onto the surface of plastic debris. Plastics are oily materials synthesized from petroleum or natural gas and, as such, repel water. In water environments like the ocean, they attract other oily chemicals floating about. This was first measured in 2001 by Japanese researchers who found that plastic production pellets (the raw materials of plastic manufacturing) collected from coastal Japanese waters had accumulated toxins at concentrations up to a million times that found in the surrounding seawater. That study was limited to polypropylene (PP) pellets exposed for just 6 days and tested for two types of persistent toxins common in seawater that were banned in the United States in the 1970s and internationally in 2001: DDE (a breakdown product of the insecticide DDT credited with near extinction of the bald eagle) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a family of chemicals with widespread electrical applications).

The study described here from researchers at San Diego State University elaborated on the Japanese findings in that it compared how readily the five most common mass-produced plastic polymers accumulate hazardous chemicals from local seawater and how long they take to reach steady state (equilibrium) levels.

The findings are especially disturbing given that trawls of the five oceanic gyres around the world are documenting the buildup of alarmingly high densities of plastic debris. In the so-called “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” between California and Japan, the latest trawls by the Algalita Marine Research Institute found that plastic debris outweighs zooplankton (tiny creatures at the bottom of the food web) by a factor of 36:1. Plastic is amassing even in areas as remote as the Arctic seafloor.

What Did They Do?
The researchers deposited uncontaminated, preproduction pellets (2-3 mm in size) of five types of plastics at five locations in San Diego Bay, CA. Samples were recovered for analysis of adhered toxins at intervals of 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Testing was performed for a total of 42 distinct chemicals falling into two general families of persistent organic pollutants: PCBs and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – components of fossil fuels and byproducts of burning fossil fuels or forest fires).

What Did They Find?
All five plastic polymers were accumulators of both PCBs and PAHs, showing increasing concentrations over time. However, three of the polymers (HDPE, LDPE and PP) consistently soaked up both chemical families at concentrations an order of magnitude higher than did the remaining two (PVC and PET), a pattern repeated at all time points and bay locations. After 12 months of exposure for example, there was a 34-fold difference in average total PCBs amassed on LDPE compared to PET at one location. At another site, average total PAHs adhered to HDPE was nearly 30 times that of PVC. The researchers think that differences in the size and shape of the polymer molecules can explain why some accumulate more pollutants than others.

As expected, seawater concentrations of PCBs and PAHs varied somewhat over time and between bay locations. Nonetheless, the researchers were able to show that PVC and PET had generally reached equilibrium concentrations of the pollutants by 6 months, whereas the other three plastics had not always reached equilibrium by even 12 months. This is much longer than had been predicted in previous laboratory simulations where polymers were not subject to weathering at sea. Weathering produces pits and other surface irregularities, increasing the surface area available to which toxins can stick.

Implications
Numerous studies have now documented that ingestion of marine plastic debris is commonplace at all levels of the food web, whether passively by filter feeders, like krill and many fish, or actively when mistaken for food by animals as diverse as sea birds, turtles and whales. All these creatures represent entry points into the ocean food web for toxins either placed in plastics during manufacturing or extracted later from seawater. This study highlights that mass-produced plastics today are all potential vehicles for transporting hazardous chemicals found in seawater, so it will be hard to argue that any one plastic is harmless as an ocean pollutant. As example, PP is often considered inherently less toxic than PVC because vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen, yet PP soaks up far more PCBs and PAHs from seawater. The study authors did suggest, however, that PET might be considered of relatively low toxicity because it generally contains fewer additives and appears to accumulate lower concentrations of seawater pollutants.

Another disturbing implication of this study is that, even after accumulation of seawater pollutants reaches an expected equilibrium over, say, several months, marine plastic debris can actually become progressively even more chemically hazardous as weathering continues to increase the surface area available for gathering pollutants. Analogously, larger plastics debris breaks apart over time into smaller bits, also increasing total surface area. The smaller the plastic debris, the greater likelihood it can be ingested by and introduce contaminants into the smallest creatures at the bottom of the food web. Adding to this concern are studies suggesting that “microplastics” (smaller than 1 mm, e.g.) might be more common and certainly harder to measure in marine environments than readily visible debris. No one has yet analyzed how high are the concentrations of ocean pollutants stuck to such miniscule, even microscopic, bits of plastics.

The findings of this study also serve to draw fire to any notion that developing marine biodegradable plastics will automatically eliminate the threat to human health of toxins associated with conventional plastics which are non-biodegradable within any meaningful human timescale. The sole standard established to date for biodegradation of plastics in the marine environment allows that, at 6 months, plastic bits up to 2 mm can remain and that only 30 percent of the original material must have successfully undergone biodegradation, as evidenced by conversion of carbon into carbon dioxide (ASTM D7081). This standard describes a framework allowing even biodegradable plastic debris ample opportunity to deliver a triple chemical threat into the ocean food chain and maybe even onto our own dinner plates.

¹Rochman, C.M. et al.  Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris.  Environmental Science & Technology (2013).

I would like to express my profound gratitude for your commitment to our mission and vision.  Our success is built upon caring individuals like you who trust our ability to positively impact communities worldwide and inspire people to eradicate marine plastic pollution.  Let’s look back and celebrate our key accomplishments in 2012!

Asia Exploration Expedition

Our Asia Exploration Expedition enabled scientists, members of the media, students, educators, and others to witness firsthand the results of the cataclysmic disaster of the Japan tsunami of March 2011.  The 3800 nautical mile voyage provided a unique opportunity to conduct experiments in oceanography and plastic debris generation and movement.  Data will be entered into our new Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping program to understand better the impact on the overall ocean environment, the food chain, and, ultimately, human health.

POPS Speaker Training

 Algalita conducted another highly successful Youth Leadership Training. Twenty-two students improved their public speaking and presentation skills related to plastic marine debris. These students have been challenged to give three presentations within the 2012-13 school year and report their results to us via our website.
2012 POPS Video >>
Inspiring student panelist Ann Garth >>
Algalita Youth In Action Timeline >>
 

2013 and Beyond

Several critical research projects are in the works for 2013. The first project is to better understand the spatial and temporal aspects of plastic debris in the environment. We will work with Esri, a world leader in global mapping, to add greater functionality and data sorting to our Global Information System. Secondly, we will complete sample analysis from the tsunami voyages, providing invaluable insight into the impact of one devastating event on the marine ecosystem.

Two new educational programs will reach students and teachers in 2013. First, Algalita’s Environmental Education Kit will provide local teachers with new tools designed to give students a greater appreciation of the marine environment, how plastic pollution effects marine life, and the impact on the ocean by the actions of individuals. We will provide the kit to 125 middle schools and high schools throughout Southern California, impacting approximately 15,000 students. Second, the hands-on Science in a Suitcase education resource will supplement classroom science curricula, answering the age-old question, “what does science have to do with me?” This educational tool conforms to California Department of Education Science Standards. 32 schools throughout Southern California and nearly 3,500 students will be reached in 2013.

Call to Action

The issue of plastic marine pollution is critical. Time is of the essence. We have set an ambitious 2013 fundraising goal of $250,000. Our groundbreaking research and science-based education will make a positive impact on the health of our planet for generations to come. We invite you to join us in making a difference by contributing $25, $50, $100 or whatever you can afford by visit our donation page to make a tax deductible contribution.  Your gift is deeply appreciated … thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Marieta Francis. Executive Director
 

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko

Bioplastics are simply defined as plastics derived from renewable biomass sources, like plants and microorganisms, whereas conventional plastics are synthesized from non-renewable fossil fuels, either petroleum or natural gas. It’s a common misconception, however, that a bioplastic necessarily breaks down better in the environment than conventional plastics.

Bioplastics are nevertheless marketed as being better for the environment, but how do they really compare?

The Problems with Petroleum-Based Plastics

The push to develop bioplastics emerges from alarming realities starting with the staggering quantity of plastics being produced, over 20 pounds a month for every U.S. resident, according to the latest numbers from the American Chemistry Council. Conventional plastics do not biodegrade (defined below) within any meaningful human timescale – they just break apart into smaller plastic fragments. This means that, except for a tiny fraction of plastic that is combusted for energy production, all plastic eventually ends up as trash, either in landfills or as litter.

Petroleum and natural gas are actually organic substances, but why plastics synthesized from them do not biodegrade is straightforward. The exceptionally strong carbon-carbon bonds created to form the backbone of plastic polymers do not occur naturally in nature so are foreign to microorganisms which readily eat up other organic materials.

Molecules of conventional plastic are also gigantic, making them extra difficult to digest. Each is composed of literally thousands of repeating units called “monomers” so that the weight of a finished polymer molecule is typically over 10,000 (for comparison, the weight of a single water molecule is 18). The simplest is polyethylene (grocery bags, ketchup & shampoo bottles, e.g.) which is just an enormous string of carbon atoms with attached hydrogen atoms.

Captain Charles Moore’s latest trawls in the North Pacific Garbage Patch between California and Japan revealed that the ratio of the weight of plastic debris to zooplankton has risen to 36:1, a six-fold increase in a single decade. Plastic debris is increasing in even the most remote of ocean areas, like the Arctic seafloor.

Buildup of plastics in the marine environment is particularly worrisome. Creatures as varied as sandworms, barnacles, krill, jellyfish, birds, turtles and whales are known to ingest plastic debris, which can block digestive tracts, while many forms of sea life die instead from entanglement.

Furthermore, ingested plastics are a vehicle for transfer of toxins in seawater into the food web because we know from Japanese researchers that the oily nature of plastics allows them to concentrate oily toxins (like polychlorinated biphenyls, nonylphenols and derivatives of DDT) from seawater onto their surfaces. Food web contamination from potentially risky chemicals added to plastics during their manufacture (like bisphenol-A, phthalates and nonylphenols) is a parallel concern.

To understand if bioplastics are less of a hazard to the marine and other environments, it’s first helpful to clear up the meanings of often misconstrued terms describing the breakdown of plastics.

Degradable ≠ Biodegradable ≠ Compostable
Standards for measuring how plastics break down in particular environments have emerged only recently so are still in development. Comparisons among plastics are further complicated by the fact that no one entity is universally recognized as setting those standards.

Nevertheless, international standards have been established by two bodies, ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials) and the Switzerland-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Despite the confusion this fragmentation generates, there is consensus on the distinctions between the key terms: degradable, biodegradable and compostable.

Degradable simply means that chemical changes takes place, maybe from sunlight or heat, that alter a plastic’s structure and properties, like clouding or fragmenting. Biodegradable more narrowly denotes that the degradation results from naturally-occurring microorganisms (bacteria, fungi or algae) but makes no guarantee that the degradation products are non-toxic or make good compost. Compostable goes a step further: ASTM’s definition, for example, specifies that the microorganisms’ breakdown products must yield “CO2, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass at a rate consistent with other known compostable materials and leave no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue,” such as heavy metals.

Plastics can potentially be designed to meet any standard(s) set by ASTM or ISO for breakdown in either aerobic environments, like water or soil, or in anaerobic ones (lacking oxygen), like enclosed wastewater treatment systems. The sealed-off environment within conventional landfills, however, is not amenable to biodegradation of any materials, so there has been little interest in developing standards for landfills.

Plastics manufacturers submit finished products to independent testing organizations which certify whether they meet standards for biodegradable or compostable in given environments.

The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) in New York offers a single certification, guaranteeing compostability (as defined by ASTM) in an industrial composter where conditions like temperature and humidity are tightly controlled. However, the significance of this certification within the United States is undermined by the reality that there are very few industrial composting facilities nationwide.

In Europe, where development of an infrastructure for composting is further along, the organization Vinçotte offers not only certification for industrial compostable but also for home compostable, biodegradable in agricultural soil, and biodegradable in fresh water.

The sole standard for biodegradation of plastics in the marine environment basically requires that, within six months, the plastic must be disintegrated into bits smaller than two millimeters and that biodegradation must have progressed so that at least 30 percent of the carbon has been converted by microorganisms into carbon dioxide (ASTM D7081). Neither BPI nor Vinçotte yet offer certification for this, so any company making this claim would be basing it on their own testing.

A Look at Bioplastics on the Market Today
The following compares the certifications and other environmental merits of some contemporary bioplastics grouped according to the source material (i.e. feedstock). Although starch and cellulose are actually biopolymers found in the natural world which can be converted into plastics (like packing peanuts which dissolve in water), the following discussion is limited to biopolymers synthesized by microorganisms in industrial settings because they represent the frontier of bioplastics and can be processed on the same equipment as conventional plastics.

Be mindful that you can’t rely on the internationally-recognized numbered chasing arrows system to identify bioplastics. Nearly all bioplastics fall under the “#7 OTHER” label which is a catchall for plastics not made of the conventional resin types, labeled #1 – #6.

Corn
Just one company worldwide claims to make bioplastics that meet ASTM’s marine biodegradable standard, Metabolix based in Massachusetts.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are biodegradable monomers, naturally made by bacteria during fermentation of sugar, which can be combined to make high molecular weight polymers suitable for plastics. Metabolix is using bacteria genetically altered to produce high yields of PHAs from the sugar in corn kernels. The resulting biopolymer, Mirel™, is pure PHAs except for proprietary additives mixed in to impart desired properties. According to company spokesperson Lynne Brum, the additives do not include bisphenol-A, phthalates or nonylphenols which have been linked to health problems in lab animals or humans.

Various Mirel™ resins are available for fashioning into many typically disposable items, such as eating utensils, food storage tubs, jars and lids. All are certified for industrial composting, and some are also certified for home composting and/or biodegradation in agricultural soil or fresh water.

However, only the thinnest film grades of Mirel™, appropriate for making carryout bags, yard waste/kitchen compost bags and agricultural film, supposedly meet marine biodegradable standards because greater material thickness would impede biodegradation.

As is true of conventional plastics and organic materials in general, Mirel™ will not biodegrade in landfills. Brum stated that although closed-loop recycling of Mirel™ is certainly possible, the company’s focus thus far has been on biodegradation as an end-of-life option.

Polylactic acid (PLA) is a different biopolymer derived from corn through fermentation by bacteria that naturally produce lactic acid which is then tweaked to form polymers. The primary U.S.manufacturer, NatureWorks LLC, advertises that its PLA resin family, Ingeo, relies on no genetically-modified materials and uses 50 percent less energy and produces 60 percent fewer greenhouse gases than petroleum-based polymers. The range of possible applications is very wide, including clothing, durable goods like mobile phone casings, credit cards, drink bottles and all sorts of food packaging & food service items.

Although Ingeo does not biodegrade in any water or soil environments, it has received certifications for industrial composting. NatureWorks points out that used Ingeo is being recycled in a closed loop into new Ingeo, but recycling on a large scale is not yet feasible because Ingeo products lack a unique identification code and they have to be shipped to the sole recycler inNebraska.

An Italian company, Novamont, is manufacturing a family of biodegradable resins under the label MATER-BI® which do not necessarily qualify fully as bioplastics because unspecified “monomers” derived from “fossil fuels” can be used in the proprietary blends of ingredients which include cornstarch plus other renewables, like vegetable oils. Nevertheless, MATER-BI® resins are certified for industrial composting, and the company claims the feedstocks do not rely on genetically modified crops or deforestation. MATER-BI® can be made into a myriad of products including doggie poop bags, mulching film, shopping bags, bubble wrap, pens and rulers.

Sugarcane
Polyethylene (PE), the most ubiquitous plastic, is made by polymerizing ethylene synthesized from ethanol derived conventionally from petroleum, though synthesis of ethanol from plant sources is also possible. In Brazil, where sugarcane grows abundantly, a company named Braskem is manufacturing ethylene instead from ethanol made from fermented sugarcane. Braskem touts that its ‘Green Ethylene’ is 100 percent renewable source-based and the resulting ‘Green PE’ resins are at least 84 percent renewable content.

Because Green PE is identical to that produced from petroleum, it can be made into the very same products and recycled together with conventional PE. However, this also means it is no more biodegradable than conventional PE in any environment and poses the same risks to the ocean food chain.

Nevertheless, Braskem asserts that Green PE merits its green label on other grounds, like the fact that growing sugarcane draws carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. For every kilogram of Green PE produced, 2.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide are supposedly sequestered in the resin. Also, 50 percent more ethanol can be fermented from sugarcane than from corn.

Are Plastics Really Convenient?
Single-use, disposable plastics were a direct outgrowth of industries developed during World War II and quickly became symbolic of the convenience of modern day living. The supply of fossil fuels felt endless at the time, and the fact that plastics could be made into just about anything and were so long-lasting seemed a good thing.

Nowadays, the prospect of mass conversion from conventional plastics to ones made from renewable sources is raising concerns typically centered on deforestation, monocultures, fresh water supplies, soil erosion, food supplies and food prices as arable land would be diverted to growing feedstock for bioplastics.

Bioplastics manufacturers like to point to the fact that the fraction of global food crops or farm acreage currently used to make bioplastics is miniscule, sidestepping the obvious question of what the realistic impacts would be if bioplastics ever replace conventional ones on a large scale. Consider that ethanol gas, for example, is already in competition with the food supply for available corn.

A research institute in Rotorua, New Zealand called Scion is experimenting with an alternative renewable feedstock, sewage sludge. The idea is that, by cooking sewage sludge, reusable substances can be recovered and converted into bioplastics as well as fertilizers and biofuels. However, the first pilot plant began operations just a year ago, so it will be a long while before the feasibility of making any plastics from sewage is known.

Even if the feedstock issues can be resolved, what to do with plastics at the end of their useful life looms as the more daunting problem. Global figures from 2011 say the world is currently consuming over 450 billion pounds of plastic products a year (99 percent from fossil fuels), and plastic industry experts expect demand to rise exponentially within the next five years.

Even without any change in average per capita consumption (~65 pounds/year), humanity and the planet will be burdened with well over 700 billion pounds of additional plastics each year by mid-century when the world’s population is expected to top nine billion.

Bioplastics designed to biodegrade in industrial composters are no doubt an important step in reducing the burden placed on landfills, although widespread municipal composting in less developed countries is, at best, a pipedream at this point. Furthermore, making plastics compostable does nothing to prevent the continuing buildup of plastics in the marine environment. Ocean plastics derive primarily from land-based sources, like street litter carried via storm drains which empty into rivers flowing into the sea.

While the development of marine biodegradable plastics should be encouraged, it is wishful thinking to assume they will ultimately be the solution. Marine biodegradable plastics do not just dissolve in seawater. ASTM’s marine biodegradable standard allows that decomposing plastics can linger in seawater for many months, ample time to endanger sea life by ingestion or entanglement. Furthermore, we know nothing yet about how bioplastics compare to conventional ones as vehicles for transferring oily toxins in seawater into the food chain.

It’s even conceivable that wide availability of marine biodegradable plastics would add to the volume of ocean plastics because labeling as marine biodegradable might encourage dumping at sea, even though any ocean dumping of plastics has been illegal since 1988 by international treaty (MARPOL Annex V).

Halting the flow of all types of plastics into the ocean is the most rational solution to the crisis of plastic ocean debris. On a local level, this simply entails placing secure lids on trash receptacles and well-designed grates across all storm drains and river mouths that outflow to the sea. On a societal level, however, this means a deliberate shift away from the throwaway culture that led to the exponential rise in the production of plastics in the first place.

After more than a half century of profligate consumption of plastics, we are face-to-face with the reality that there is nothing convenient about getting rid of it all and preventing it from trashing our oceans and contaminating the marine food web.