e e e

.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb

6 i 6 6
5 .2 nRunning
d head: MIRCOPLASTICS AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 1 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

Microplastics Found in Marine Mammals: A Developing Threat

Mandi T. Jebe

Brigham Young University

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 2 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IP Abstract
r IP ert
o p o pe op
Pr Pr Pr

e e e
.58 Jeb
Keywords: Microplastics, marine debris, marine mammals, . 58 Jeb ingestion, pollution . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 3 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert Mammals: A Developing Threat
Microplastics Found in Marine IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
Microplastic pollution and its effect on marine mammals is a subject receiving recent

attention due to an increased concentration in the pollutant worldwide (Cole, Lindeque,

Halsband, & Galloway, 2011). For many years the effects of macro-plastic debris and pollution

on marine species have been well studied and are known to be negative. However, as macro-

plastic eventually degrades in marine environments it creates microplastics, which are defined as

plastics smaller than .5mm (Cole et al., 2011). The presence of this pollutant is exacerbated by

the manufacture of microplastics for cosmetics and engineering purposes which inevitably enter

marine ecosystems. The study of the effect of these microplastics on all marine organisms is

becoming more relevant based on the persistent nature of the pollutant, but definitive conclusions

have still
e not been drawn due to a large lack in knowledge. e e
8
5 Je b 58 Jeb 58 Jeb
6 . 6 . 6 .
5 .2 ndi Because microplastics are a widespread pollutant,
5 .2 ndi this paper will focus specifically on the 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o effects of marine plastic ingestion in marine 6 o
: mammals.
y The collaborative, worldwide effort of : 6 y o
IP ert IP ert IP ert
o p p op
Pr ro many marine ecosystems, leading most researchers
scientists shows microplastics are presentPin Pr
to conclude the presence of this pollutant is universal (Cole et al., 2011). Due to the widespread

nature of this pollutant, study of the effect of microplastics in all marine organisms has occurred

or is underway.

Studies of marine mammals have determined ingestion does occur in several species of

these organisms and debate continues on the primary cause of ingestion, which most likely varies

from species to species (Besseling et al., 2015; Fossi et al., 2012; Hernandez-Gonzalez et al.,

2018; Lusher et al., 2015; Nelms, Galloway, Godley, Jarvis, Lindeque, 2018; Xiong et al., 2018;

Zhu et al., 2019). Harmful effects caused by this ingestion are currently being investigated but

are currently yielding few discoveries. The source of microplastic pollutants have been well
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 4 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert studied and scientists continue to encourageIP the r public to be aware of the effects and how best I
toP r
o p o pe o pe
Pr Pr Pr
limit them. This paper will explore all these areas of research, attempting to bring together the

most relevant data in addressing these problems. To begin discussing this subject in depth the

breadth of the problem needs to be understood.

Spread of Microplastic Pollution

As mentioned above, the efforts of many scientists allow us to determine the wide-

reaching scale of microplastics pollution. The first study investigating microplastic ingestion in

marine mammals took place in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Italy (Fossi et al., 2012).

While Fossi et al. provided empirical evidence of the presence of microplastics in the

Mediterranean Sea, they could not provide the same evidence for the presence of microplastics

insideethe fin whale studied since the gastrointestinal tract ewas never dissected. e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
While the previous study adds valuable information to the investigation of microplastics, 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o the most influential study of microplastic presence : 6 y o and ingestion took place in Ireland three years :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr able to study a stranded predatory whale
later (Lusher et al., 2015). Lusher et al. were Pr
specifically for ingestion of microplastics. The method used in this study to determine

microplastic content in the gastrointestinal tract is used by scientists studying microplastics

consistently. This study not only confirmed the presence of microplastics in Irish waters, but

because fibers and fragments of microplastic were found in the gastrointestinal tract, it was the

first study to prove marine mammals can ingest this pollutant.

Studies occurring after the Lusher et al. (2015) research followed the basic procedure

outlined there and began to be reported worldwide. Besseling et al. (2015) completed an

investigation shortly after the influential study by Lusher et al. locating microplastics in the

Netherlands. At the end of the year 2015, several areas around Europe were known to contain
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IP erin
high amounts of microplastics by verification IP ert
the gastrointestinal tract of marine mammals. In
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
the year 2018, multiple studies were done, expanding the known reach of microplastics. Nelms et

al. (2018) verified the presence of microplastics in the waters surrounding the United Kingdom.

Hernandez-Gonzalez et al. (2018) recorded microplastic presence off the coast of Spain and both

Xiong et al. (2018) and Zhu et al. (2019) recorded presence off the coast of China. All

discoveries listed above were verified with the presence of microplastics inside local marine

mammals.

Three separate studies documented presence of microplastics in other areas of the world,

not through presence of microplastic in marine mammals but through water sampling. Waller et

al. (2017) located microplastics in Antarctic waters. Gray, Wertz, Leads, and Weinstein (2018)

and Yu e et al. (2018) both located microplastics off the8southeast e coast of the United States. More e
8
5 Je b 5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nresearch
d could be used in these areas specifically 5to .2 determine
n d if the presence of microplastics 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o has begun to affect marine animals in general, : 6 ando
y more specifically, valuable marine mammals. :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr This world-wide pollutant presence grantsPrmicroplastics Pr
the descriptor ‘ubiquitous’ used by Cole

et al. (2011).

Not only are microplastics found spread through almost every ocean, but they can be

found in several different species of marine mammal. The studies listed above found

microplastics present in a different species for each. As mentioned above, Fossi et al. (2012) was

the first study done in the Mediterranean and assumes microplastics presence in a fin whale

while Lusher et al. (2015) found microplastics in a True’s beaked whale. Both mammals happen

to be predatory as opposed to filter feeding. Besseling et al. (2015) located microplastics in a

humpback whale, beginning the investigation into the effect of microplastics on filter feeding

mammals. Nelms et al. (2018) found microplastics in the United Kingdom within captive grey
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 6 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert Hernandez-Gonzalez et al. (2018) found
seals feeding on mackerel from the open ocean. IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of a common dolphin in Spain and was the first study to

find evidence of microplastics in a dolphin. The studies in China are especially unique due to the

fact they were able to study mature and neonatal mammals. Xiong et al. (2018) studied

microplastics in East Asian finless porpoises, finding microplastics in both the mature porpoises

and the neonatal porpoise. Zhu et al. (2018) located microplastics within coastal dolphins, both

in the mature and neonatal dolphins. Worldwide research effort has been able to definitively

place microplastics inside six marine mammal species, potentially seven depending on the study

done by Fossi et al. (2012).

When looking at locations and marine mammal species combined, the spread of this

pollution
e is overwhelming. The vastness of microplastic pollution
e has no doubt contributed to the e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nfact
d so many different species are affected. Marine 5 .2mammals
n d are a valuable area of study in this 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o category since these animals usually inhabit 6 ospots in the food chain, allowing them to
: top y :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op p
ro lower levels of the food chain. Marine mammalsPro
p
Pr represent some of what is taking place in Pthe

will serve as a flagship species for general ocean health. Unfortunately, due to the degradable

nature of macro-plastic, these problems are not likely to lessen in the coming years.

Investigating Ingestion in Marine Mammals

This desperate situation has inspired scientists to investigate the ingestion of

microplastics and their movement through the food chain to determine potential negative effects

on marine mammals. The first question addressed was how marine mammals obtained

microplastics in their systems since, unlike fish, they do not filter water—and subsequent

pollution—into their bodies. Cole et al. (2011) divides marine debris intake into two categories;

primary and secondary intake. Primary intake of debris is when it is ingested directly from the
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 7 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert ocean. Secondary intake, therefore, occursIPwhen r the debris is ingested through another animal, I P r
o p o pe o pe
Pr Pr Pr
also referred to as trophic transfer.

The first studies of ingestion occurred in predatory mammals, so the first explanation

offered was trophic transfer, or transfer of microplastics through the food chain. Lusher et al.

(2015) assumed the likelihood of a predatory mammal accidently ingesting microplastics was

small, mainly because large marine mammals aren’t likely to confuse microplastics for prey—a

trait discovered in zooplankton (Griffen, Green, & Stafford, 2018)—and capture prey quickly,

minimalizing the potential for accidental intake through hunting.

Most of the studies mentioned in this paper investigated predatory mammals. Nelms et al.

(2018) were inclined to agree with the explanation proposed by Lusher et al. (2015). However,

Xionge et al. (2018) and Zhu et al. (2018) question this conclusion. e Both studies had the e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nopportunity
d to investigate neonatal marine mammals, 5 .2 ndand both studies discovered microplastics 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o present in those neonatal mammals. The argument : 6 y o posed states these animals would not have P: 6 ty o
IP ert IP ert I er
o p o p p
Pr Pr
been independent eaters; therefore, they would feed by nursing from their mothers. It is not Pro

likely microplastics can transfer through breastmilk, which would require entry into the blood

stream. Therefore, the most likely conclusion is predatory marine mammals are accidently

ingesting microplastics through primary intake while also receiving them through trophic

transfer.

While most studies investigating the ingestion of microplastics have occurred in

predatory marine mammals, Fossi et al. (2012) and Besseling et al. (2015) studied the presence

of microplastics in fin and humpback whales, just two species of whale which filter feed through

baleen in their mouths. These studies serve as likely explanations of the effect of microplastics

on filter feeding marine mammals. Fossi et al. (2012) determined the potential presence of
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 8 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ertthe result of primary ingestion. However, it was IP ert
microplastics in the fin whale was most likely
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
acknowledged trophic transfer through the zooplankton these whales feed on was a possible

source of secondary ingestion. Besseling et al. (2015) were inclined to agree with Fossi et al.

Humpback whales are unique filter feeders because they lunge for their prey and take up large

mouthfuls of food and water through this lunging action. In doing so, pollutants floating in the

water tend to be dispersed instead of entering the whale. Due to this feeding strategy, it was

hypothesized humpback whales in particular are more likely to experience secondary ingestion

of microplastics from zooplankton than primary ingestion from the small sample of water taken

in during the lunge. Other species of baleen whale are more likely to use water flow to catch prey

which could increase primary ingestion of microplastics in these whales since microplastics are

often ecarried through these water flows. e e

.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 i 6
5 .2 ndi The study completed by Griffin et al. (2018)5 .2 also
n d sheds light on the likelihood of 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o ingestion in filter feeding whales. This study : 6usedo
y a computer model to simulate accumulation of :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr the model itself didn’t ascend the food chain to filter
microplastics through the food chain. While Pr
feeding mammals, important facts were discovered about the microplastic accumulation in

zooplankton, the main food source for filter feeding whales. It was determined even when the

microplastic concentration in the water is fixed, if the zooplankton regenerate quickly,

microplastic intake through the food chain increased regardless of the fixed microplastic

concentration. Because filter feeding whales are likely to feed during algal blooms, they are

likely to be subjected to these conditions, increasing the microplastic uptake in filter feeding

whales whereas this phenomenon isn’t likely to affect predatory marine mammals.

These studies come together to show the main cause of ingestion in these marine

mammals is complex and hard to understand. While it may seem logical to conclude filter
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 9 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert IP take
feeding marine mammals are more likely to r in microplastics through primary ingestion I
and P r
o p o pe o pe
Pr Pr Pr
predatory marine mammals are more likely to take in microplastics through secondary ingestion,

deeper research shows the conclusion most likely isn’t simple. Even through extended research,

it still isn’t clear which form of ingestion may be more responsible for ingestion in filter feeding

or predatory marine mammals. Methods of ingestion is an area of study in microplastic pollution

which lacks definitive answers, even though the safest conclusion may be to assume both forms

of ingestion are equally important a variety of marine mammals.

Effects of Ingestion on Marine Mammals

Another area of research lacking conclusions is the effects of microplastic ingestion on

marine mammals. A majority of the studies mentioned above mention common knowledge of the

adverse e effects microplastic ingestion has on fish (Besseling e et al., 2015; Cole et al., 2011; Fossi e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
6 . .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 netdi al., 2012; Hernandez-Gonzalez et al., 2018; Lusher 5 .2 ndet al., 2015; Nelms et al., 2018; Xiong et 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). Fossi et al. (2012) o
: 6 ywhile studying the chemical effects of :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op these chemical effects on fish. It is well Pro
p
Pr Pr
microplastics on marine mammals also researched

documented that chemicals carried on microplastics can be released in the fish’s system which is

detrimental to the biological functions of the fish. Nelms et al. (2018) specifically researched

these effects on fish, stating microplastics can reduce feeding capacity, energy reserves and

reproduction. Microplastics in fish can also destroy intestinal function. The goal of the majority

of scientific research was to determine if any of these affects also occur within marine mammals

who have ingested microplastics.

To find these affects in marine mammals, many studies found evidence of egestion of

microplastics from the mammal’s system. Lusher et al. (2015) found particles of microplastic

throughout the entire digestive tract of the True’s beaked whale studied, suggesting movement
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 10 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert through the system and eventual egestion.IPHernandez-Gonzalez
r et al. (2018) found the I P r
o p o pe o pe
Pr Pr Pr
microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of the 30 dolphins studied were not blocking the tract or

affecting flow of digested material through the animals. Nelms et al. (2018) study provides

definitive proof of egestion of microplastics through marine mammals by investigating

microplastics in the scat of grey seals, ingested through plastic-ridden mackerel. These studies

seem to suggest microplastics have little to no effect on the digestive system of marine

mammals.

Later studies would seem to disagree with this claim, finding the spread of microplastics

throughout the gastrointestinal tract may not be equal throughout. Zhu et al. (2019) found in the

dolphins studied that the hind gut of the animal often had less microplastics than the fore- or

midgut.e Xiong et al. (2018) found the same results in the porpoises
e studied. They further e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nhypothesized
d the folds in the stomach of marine mammals
5 .2 ndi could serve as retainers for the 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o microplastics, causing the higher concentration : 6 yato the beginning of the gastrointestinal tract than : 6 o
y
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr the middle and end. Pr Pr
Nelms et al. (2019) further investigated the effects of ingestion, supporting the above

claims of higher microplastic concentration in the stomach of marine mammals compared to the

later portions of the gastrointestinal tract. They further determined microplastics travel through

the gastrointestinal tract of marine mammals slower than regularly ingested and digested material

by several days. Nelms et al. (2019) went one step further in their investigation than any study

before by comparing the microplastic concentration in recorded mammals with the recorded

cause of death. A statistical correlation was found between microplastic concentration and death

from infectious disease. While this correlation would require further research, it is a step towards

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 11 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert
better understanding the total effect of microplastic ingestion on marine mammals, especially IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
long-term effects.

One long term effect attracting concern is chemical intake from microplastics, which was

addressed in two studies mentioned above (Nelms et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2019). It has been

determined chemical pollutants often attach to microplastics while floating in the water column

(Cole et al. 2011). Not only are these absorbed chemicals toxic, but the chemicals within

microplastics are also toxic and have been known to leech out. Xiong et al. (2018) determined

microplastics can be retained within stomach folds of marine mammals, increasing the

possibility of the mammals absorbing these toxic chemicals through the gastrointestinal tract.

Nelms et al. (2019) added to this hypothesis by determining microplastics remain in the

gastrointestinal
e tract longer than other ingested and digested e material, increasing the time table e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i . .
.2 nfor
d potential intake of these dangerous chemicals.5.The 26 difull effects of the intake of the chemicals 6
.2 ndi
5
4 a 4 a n 5
4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o require further research. However, if the effects o anything like those in fish who have ingested: 6 o
: 6 y are y
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr it could be detrimental to the biological systems Pofr
microplastics, and therefore toxic chemicals,

these animals.

If these effects were determined to be detrimental they would have worldwide and

species-wide implications. Fossi et al. (2018) explains the vital role marine mammals serve in

our ecosystems as sentinel species. Marine mammals serve this purpose, first because they reside

close to the peak of the food chain, allowing them to represent changes taking place further down

in the food chain—changes which can be hard to identify individually. Marine mammals are also

invaluable to human research. The biological systems of marine mammals and humans have

many similarities, meaning negative affects discovered from microplastic ingestion in marine

mammals could soon apply to humans eating fish contaminated with microplastics. It is for these
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 12 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert a high priority to predict potential human
reasons the research of these areas has become IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
consequences.

The effects from ingestion of microplastics is an area of research still lacking definitive

answers. We are still unaware of the long-term effects of this ingestion and specific chemical

effects is subject lacking intense study. However, study in these areas is being actively pursued

and encouraged. Not only are marine mammals a beneficial source of research for potential

effects on the human species, they are often keystone species since they hold a critical position in

their ecosystem. A pollutant with a negative effect on a keystone species will have a negative

effect on almost all other members of the ecosystem. If these species are to become further

endangered due to this increasing pollution source, research as to the protection of these species

is of the
e highest priority. Prevention of a further increase ine the pollutant is also something being e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Jeb 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 npursued,
d .2 ndi to understand where the pollutant
and in order to prevent spread it is first required
5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o comes from. :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr
Human Increase of Contributions to Microplastic Pollution Pr
Cole et al. (2011) compiled expansive research on the creation and addition of

microplastics in the oceanic environment so as to better understand and control these primary

sources. The first way for microplastics to enter the ecosystem is from degrading macro-plastics.

It is a common misconception that plastic doesn’t degrade. With the mix of ultraviolet light and

water erosion, plastic will eventually degrade, typically fragmenting into smaller pieces. As these

pieces decrease past 5 mm, they qualify as microplastics. Macro-plastic pollution occurs directly

due to human interference and can be decreased through a reduced use of plastic by humans and

an increase in recycling plastics (Wilcox C., Mallos, N.J., Leonard, G.H., Rodriguez, Hardesty,

B.D., 2016).
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I er I er I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 13 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IP edirectly
Microplastic pollution can also relate r to human activity through manufacturingIP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
for both cosmetic and industrial purposes (Cole et al., 2011). These microplastics can transfer to

marine ecosystems two different ways. First, some of these microplastics can be lost while being

shipped across the ocean. If a shipping accident does occur extra pollutant is added what is

already present. The second way is through waste treatment plants. Most treatment plants aren’t

equipped to remove these small pieces of plastic from waste, allowing it to be filtered through,

eventually entering our ecosystems.

Waller et al. (2017) supported the finding that waste treatment centers are ineffective at

filtering these pollutants from the waste. These ineffective treatment centers were one of the

largest contributors to the microplastic concentration in the Antarctic waters studied by Waller et

al. Microplastics
e in cosmetics were not the only contributing e factor; microplastics through e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nlaundry
d contributed more to the polluted state in the 5 .2 Antarctic
n d specifically. Anytime a polyester 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o or nylon fabric is washed, many microplastic o
: 6fragments
y are released and aren’t effectively :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op ecosystem. Due to the cold weather in the op
Pr filtered out of the water which then entersPrthe Pr
Antarctic, polyester fabrics are often used, increasing their effect in polar places specifically.

These two sources come together to explain the microplastic pollution currently being

discovered throughout oceans worldwide can almost all be traced back to human activity. Due to

the negative effects these sources have been proven and predicted to have, it is an important part

of human activity to try and reduce these pollutions. The importance of wise plastic usage is

emphasized by several scientific experts as an important next step (Besseling et al., 2015; Fossi

et al., 2012; Griffen, R.L., Green, I., and Stafford, R., 2018; Hernandez-Gonzalez et al., 2018;

Lusher et al., 2015; Lusher et al., 2018; Nelms et al., 2019; Wilcox et al., 2016), and their advice

should be heeded.
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I er I er I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 14 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IPConclusion
r IP ert
o p o pe op
Pr Pr Pr
These experts and their research have provided a broad scope of information on

microplastics and their interaction with and effect on marine mammals. Many scientists’ research

proved microplastics are not only present throughout the world’s oceans (Besseling et al., 2015;

Fossi et al., 2012; Gray et al., 2018; Hernandez-Gonzalez et al., 2018; Lusher et al., 2015; Lusher

et al., 2018; Nelms et al., 2019; Waller et al., 2017; Wilcox et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2018; Yu et

al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019) but they also showed how microplastics have been ingested in six,

and potentially seven different marine mammal species (Besseling et al., 2015; Fossi et al., 2012;

Hernandez-Gonzalez et al., 2018; Lusher et al., 2015; Lusher et al., 2018; Nelms et al., 2019;

Wilcox et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). These points illustrate this problem is

not small
e and will most likely continue to expand and 8present e itself in even more species. e
8
5 Je b 5 Je b 58 Jeb
6 . .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 ndi Through research in known affected species, 5 .2 ningestion
d of microplastics has been 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o thoroughly investigated and it has been determined : 6 y o most ingestion is due to both primary and P: 6 ty o
IP ert IP ert I er
o p o p op
Pr r
secondary ingestion regardless of feedingPstyle, Pr
meaning the effect on these animals is essentially

unavoidable (Cole et al., 2011). The research on the true effect of this pollutant on marine

mammals is still being developed. While nothing can be officially concluded, we do know this

pollutant provides a potential for transporting dangerous chemicals within marine mammals,

exposing these animals to absorption of such chemicals which can have negative biological

effects (Cole et al., 2011; Fossi et al., 2012; Fossi et al., 2018; Nelms et al., 2018), all the way to

potentially increasing the rate of death by infectious disease (Nelms et al., 2019). These effects

represent not only valuable knowledge for the protection of these species, but also play an

important role in understanding potential threats to human welfare because of this overwhelming

pollutant (Fossi et al., 2018).

e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I er I er I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 15 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IP epollutant
Lastly, the creation and spread of this r is mostly due to human activity and use.IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
While researchers are searching for ways to mitigate this problem, it would be foolish to

overlook the greatest benefit, which would be reduced plastic pollution from human use. Several

researchers have discovered the largest contributors to microplastics pollution are degrading

macro-plastics, shipping accidents involving microplastics, and subpar waste treatment facilities.

These issues are being pursued actively to find ways to better cope with this pollutant.

Finding these coping mechanisms will be vital in the future since this problem is unlikely

to disappear due to the nearly indestructible nature of macro- and microplastics. In the past, we

dealt with macro-plastic pollution. Currently we deal with microplastic pollution, and the future

may bring about new forms of plastic pollutants to investigate such as nano-plastics. If we can

begin eto mitigate this effect now through a shared knowledge e of the long-term effects this e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 npollutant
d has on sentinel and keystone species such 5 .2 asndmarine mammals, perhaps we can leave 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o these ecosystems in better shape than they Pwere : 6 y ofound. :6 yo
IP ert I ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 16 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IPReferences
r IP ert
o p o pe op
Pr Pr Pr
Besseling, E., Foekema, E.M., Van Franeker, J.A., Leopold, M.F., Kühn, S., Rebolledo, E.L.,

Hebe, E., Mielke, L., Ijzer, J., & Kamminga, P. (2015). Microplastic in a macro filter

feeder: humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95 (1),

248-252. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15001952

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T.S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in

the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62 (12), 2588-2597.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11005133

Fossi, M.C., Panti, C., Guerranti, C., Coppola, D., Giannetti, M., Marsili, L., & Minutoli, R.

(2012). Are baleen whales exposed to the threat of microplastics? A case study of the

8 e Mediterranean fin whale (Baleanoptera physalus). 8 eMarine Pollution Bulletin, 64 (11), e

.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi .2 ndi
2374-2379. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X12004122
5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o Fossi, M.C., Panti, C., Baini, M., & Lavers,P: J.L. 6 o(2018). A Review of Plastic-Associated
y :6 yo
IP ert I ert IP ert
op op Sea and Eastern Australian Shearwaters as Pro
p
Pr Pr
Pressures: Cetaceans of the Mediterranean

Case Studies. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 10-19.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00173/full

Griffin, R.L., Green, L., & Stafford, R. (2018). Accumulation of marine microplastics along a

trophic gradient as determine by an agent based model. Ecological Informatics, 45, 81-

84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954116301492

Gray, A.D., Wertz, H., Leads, R.R., & Weinstein, J.E. (2018). Microplastic in two South Carolina

Estuaries: Occurrence, distribution, and composition. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128,

223-233. https://www-sciencedirect-

com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S0025326X18300419
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 17 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert Hernandez-Gonzalez, A., Saavedra, C., Gago,IP ertJ., Covelo, P., Santos, M.B., & Pierce, G.J. (2018).
IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
Microplastics in the stomach contents of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) stranded

on the Galician Coasts (NW Spain, 2005-2010). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 137, 526-532.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18307343

Lusher, A.L., Hernandez-Milian, G., O’Brien, J., Berrow, S., O’Connor, I., & Officer, R. (2015).

Microplastic and microplastic ingestion by a deep living, oceanic cetacean: The True’s

beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus. Environmental Pollution, 199, 185-191.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749115000421

Lusher, A.L., Hernandez-Milian, G., Berrow, S., Rogan, E., & O’Connor, I. (2018). Incidence of

marine debris in cetaceans stranded and bycaught in Ireland: Recent findings and a

8 e review of historical knowledge. Environmental8 Pollution, e 232, 467-476. https://www- e

.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi .2 ndi
sciencedirect-com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S0269749117325204
5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o Nelms, S.E., Galloway, T.S., Godley, B.J., PJarvis, : 6 y o D.S., & Lindeque, P.K. (2018). Investigating P: 6 ty o
IP ert I ert I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr top predators. Environmental Pollution, 238, 999-
microplastic trophic transfer in marine Pr
1007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749117343294

Nelms, S.E., Barnett, J., Brownlow, A., Davison, N.J., Deaville, R., Galloway, T.S., Lindeque,

P.K., Santillo, D., & Godley, B.J. (2019). Microplastics in marine mammals stranded

around the British coast: ubiquitous but transitory? Scientific Reports, 9, 8-14.

https://www.nature.com/search?q=microplastics+in+marine+mammals

Waller, C.L., Griffiths, H.J., Waluda, C.M., Thorpe, S.E., Loaiza, I., Moreno, B., Pacherres, C.O.,

& Hughes, K.A. (2017). Microplastics in the Antarctic marine system: An emerging area

of research. Science of the Total Environment, 598, 220-227. https://www-sciencedirect-

com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S0048969717308148
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nMIRCOPLASTICS
d AND MAMMALS 5 .2 ndi 18 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert
Wilcox, C., Mallos, N.J., Leonard, G.H., Rodriguez, A., & Hardesty, B.D. (2016). Using expertIP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Marine Policy,

65, 107-114. https://www-sciencedirect-

com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002985

Xiong, X., Chen, X.C., Zhang, K., Mei, Z.G., Hao, Y.J., Zheng, J.S., Wu, C.X., Wang, K.X.,

Ruan, Y.F., Lam, P.K.S., & Wang, D. (2018). Microplastics in the intestinal tracts of East

Asian finless porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis sunameri) from Yellow Sea and

Bohai Sea of China. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 136, 55-60.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18306428

Yu, X.B., Ladewig, S., Bao, S.W., Toline, C.A., Whitmire, S., & Chow, A.T. (2018). Occurrence

8 e and distribution of microplastics at selected coastal8 esites along the southeastern United e
.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 6 i 6
5 .2 ndi States. Science of the Total Environment, 613,
5 .2 nd298-305. https://www-sciencedirect- 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo
com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S0048969717324427 :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op p
ro S.D., Li, D., Yang, Z.Y., & Wang, J.Z. (2019). Pro
p
Pr Zhu, J.M., YU, X.Y., Zhang, Q., Li, Y.P., PTan,

Cetaceans and microplastics: First report of microplastic ingestion by a coastal delphinid,

Sousa chinensis. Science of the Total Environment, 659, 649-654.

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr