Variation in Microplastic Concentration within intertidal sediments

Depending on tidal height and Sediment Grain Size

Tom McAleese, Dr. Joanne Preston, University of Portsmouth
1. Aims and summary of study:
This study aims to answer the question, does microplastic concentration in sediments change depending on the spatial distribution along the
intertidal, sediment size and microplastic type. The purpose of this is to shed light on the environmental mechanisms of microplastic
movement within sediments, which may have useful applications in the reduction of microplastic pollution and protection of intertidal
organisms. To do this samples were collected from 3 tidal heights from which microplastics were extracted using floatation/filtration method
and enumerated using fluorescent microscopy.

2. Background 3. Method 4. Results

Microplastics, plastic particles Sediment size fractions
5mm or smaller, are As shown in figure 2,
ubiquitous within the marine sediment size fractions
environment. (Cole et al, for each sample varied
2011) including within greatly depending on
sediments, where their small location in the
size means they are intertidal. Samples
biologically available to collected from further
benthic marine biota. up the shore contained
Ingestion of these particles a greater percentage of
can cause a number of large grains. with the
adverse effects on organisms. upper shore sample in
For example, their digestive transect 1 containing
tracts may become blocked 61%≥ 4000µm
(Barnes et al 2009), or compared to 32%≥
harmful substances either 4000µm and
within the plastics 22%≥4000µm for the
(plasticizers) or adhered to mid and lower shore,
the surface of the plastic (e.g. respectively. A reverse
hydrophobic persistent trend was seen for
organic pollutants) may be small grains, with
released into the organism’s samples collected
tissues. Causing adverse lower down the shore
health effects such as sexual Figure 2: pie charts showing
containing a greater % sediment size fractions in transect
disruption. (Talsness et al, of small grains. 1. (T1U- upper shore, T1M- Mid
2009), (Betts, 2008). As shore, T1L- Lower shore)

benthic organisms are key

Microplastic content (Expected findings)
contributors to major
It is expected that all samples at each tidal
ecological processes, it is
height will contain microplastics. Expected
important to understand how
quantities of microplastics in each sample lie
microplastic’s interact with
within the 10-70 range, based on preliminary
the sediments around them,
results. Mathalon and Hill’s 2014 study shows
in order to attempt to reduce
Figure 1: Flowchart showing method of plastic extraction that tidal height is not expected to have a
their negative impacts.
from collected sediment samples. significant effect on microplastic concentration.
This study also failed to find any correlation
5. Conclusions
between sediment grain size and microplastic
Variation in microplastic concentration between samples appears to not be
concentration. (Mathalon and Hill, 2014)
dependent on tidal height or sediment grain size. Yet there is clear variation
Therefore I expect to accept a null hypothesis
between samples, therefore there must be another factor or factors at play,
for both of these variables. Preliminary results
causing this variation. Mathalon and Hill suggest that microplastic distribution in
have supported this, As seen in figure 3, there is
the intertidal may be affected by a number of processes; Some biological, such as
no clear trend established between tidal height
association with microbial films reducing free movement of microplastics with the
and microplastic concentration or for sediment
tides. Some anthropogenic, such as sources of microplastic input and density of
grain size and microplastic concentration.
input. And some physical, such as wave action and tidal patterns (Mathalon and
70
Hill, 2014). Further research looking into these processes is required to gain a
60 T1U
better understanding of how microplastics become distributed within the T1M
Number of Microplastics

50
intertidal. After which we can hope to contain or even reduce their distribution. T1L
40

30
References
• D.K.A Barnes, F. Galgani, R.C Thompson, M. Barlaz, 2009, Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments, 20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, volume 364, issue 1526, pages 1985-1998
10
• K. Betts, 2008, Why small plastic particles may pose a big problem in the oceans, Environmental Science & Technology, volume 42, issue 24,
pages 8995-8995 0
• M. Cole, P. Lindeque, C. Halsband, T.S. Galloway, 2011, Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review, Marine Pollution 2000 250 63
Bulletin, volume 62, issue 12, pages 2588-2597 Sediment Grain Size (µm)
• A. Mathalon, P. Hill, 2014, Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax
Harbor, Nova Scotia, Marine Pollution Bulletin, volume 81, issue 1, pages 69-79 Figure 3: Bar chart showing preliminary results of numbers of
• C. Talsness, A. Andrade, S. Kuriyama, J. Taylor, F. Vom Saal, 2009, Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals and relevance for microplastics for 3 sediment grain sizes for each tidal height. (T1U-
human health, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, volume 364, issue 1526, pages 2079-2096 upper shore, T1M- Mid shore, T1L- Lower shore)