Newswise — Citizen scientists, comprising tourists on Arctic cruises, have played a pivotal role in aiding a research team in the detection of microplastics on remote Arctic beaches. The extensive global plastic production has led to the widespread presence of these tiny plastic fragments, raising concerns among scientists about potential damage to Arctic ecosystems due to plastic accumulation caused by ocean currents. However, the existing knowledge regarding the scale and types of plastic pollution in the Arctic remains incomplete. To bridge these knowledge gaps, researchers engaged holidaymakers to participate in sample collection efforts during their cruises, offering valuable insights into the issue.
Dr. Bruno Walther, associated with the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, and the author of the study published in Frontiers in Environmental Science, emphasized that plastic pollution has become omnipresent. It is no longer confined to oceans alone but has permeated terrestrial environments, soil, and the majority of rivers worldwide. It even extends its reach to the polar oceans and the deepest ocean trenches.
Plastic gets everywhere
The Svalbard archipelago, Europe's northernmost landmass, possesses captivating beauty but is facing a significant threat from microplastics carried by ocean currents. In the years 2016, 2017, 2021, and 2022, four tourist cruises visited Svalbard, with each expedition collecting sediment samples. Additionally, all cruises except the one in 2022 also conducted surveys for macroplastic debris, focusing on pieces ranging from 2.5 to 10 centimeters in size, for a separate study. Initially, the sampling process involved taking single samples from beaches using basic metal tools, which were then sent to scientists along with metadata and photographs to document the sampling locations. Subsequently, this method evolved to cover entire beaches using sampling grids.
Dr. Walther commented on the effectiveness of citizen science, even in remote Arctic beaches, highlighting its benefits in reducing travel time, lowering CO2 emissions, cutting costs for scientists, and involving citizens in addressing a global environmental issue.
The collected sediment samples underwent a series of steps, including drying, weighing, and measuring. Each sample was filtered to capture particles 1mm or larger in size. The choice of this boundary was based on the assumption that larger particles are less likely to become airborne, a hypothesis that the scientists verified by keeping a bowl of purified water near their workspace and filtering it after their analysis was completed. No microplastics had drifted from the laboratory's air into the water. To prevent plastic contamination during the analysis, the scientists employed various precautions, such as using an air purifier, wearing cotton lab coats, avoiding synthetic clothing, and covering samples with aluminum lids. Plastic particles found in the samples were examined under a microscope and subjected to spectroscopy analysis.
Warning signs
The scientists' findings revealed that the microplastics they were investigating were not widely dispersed across Arctic beaches but were highly concentrated in specific areas. Surprisingly, the overall level of plastic pollution was comparable to regions that were previously believed to be much more contaminated than these remote Arctic beaches. Through their analysis, they were able to identify two distinct sources of plastic pollution in the collected samples.
The first source consisted of polypropylene fibers, which were likely derived from fishing nets. These nets are a direct and significant point of entry for plastic debris into the marine environment and tend to be particularly influential in remote locations. Author Dr. Melanie Bergmann from the Alfred Wegener Institute stated that there is an active fishing fleet operating in the waters surrounding Svalbard, as well as in the North Sea and north Atlantic. Some of the waste produced by these fishing activities eventually drifts and accumulates on the beaches of Svalbard.
The second source of plastic pollution identified in the samples was polyester-epoxide particles. These particles were probably derived from a ship's color coating or equipment, further contributing to the plastic pollution problem in the region.
The netting observed on the beach appeared to have rapidly fragmented due to the harsh environmental conditions, including repeated freeze cycles, high humidity from fog, and up to 24 hours of sunlight during summer. This accelerated fragmentation process could potentially introduce a significant number of tiny and hard-to-detect microplastics into the environment if similar situations occur in other locations.
Dr. Walther emphasized the importance of conducting further sampling in the Arctic, covering more areas, and implementing regular intervals to monitor the ongoing situation.
However, it's essential to note that the analysis of microplastics particles was limited to those larger than 1mm due to the citizen science approach and the need to prevent potential airborne contamination by small particles. Dr. Bergmann cautioned that their previous studies on Arctic water, ice, and sediment samples revealed that over 80% of the particles were much smaller than 1mm. Therefore, if the study had included the examination of smaller particles, a higher number of microplastics would likely have been detected.
RSS