Microplastics and Persistent Fluorinated Chemicals in the Antarctic 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Microplastics and persistent fluorinated chemicals in the Antarctic 2 Aerial view near the Weddell Sea in the Antarctic © Daniel Beltrá / Greenpeace 3 Contents Executive Summary 5 Sampling Locations 6 Microplastics: The Problem 8 Microplastics: Key Findings 8 Microplastics from seawater samples 8 Microplastics from manta trawl samples 10 PFASs: The Problem 11 PFASs: Key Findings 11 Discussion 12 Discussion on microplastics 12 Discussion on PFASs 13 Annex 1 14 Methodology for microfibre samples 14 Methodology for PFAS samples 14 Annex 2 15 Details of the analytical results on PFAS 15 Data visualisation for figures 1 and 2 17 Annex 3 18 Details of the manta trawl samples and findings 18 Acknowledgements 18 End notes 19 4 Marine biologists carrying a box of snow samples © Christian Åslund / Greenpeace 5 Executive Summary In early 2018, Greenpeace undertook an expedition Greenpeace’s Antarctic investigations add to the Antarctic to carry out scientific research, valuable new data to the scientific investigation including seabed submarine dives exploring little- of contamination in the Antarctic region. The known benthic ecosystems and sampling for findings confirm the presence of persistent microplastics and persistent chemicals, in order to microplastics and hazardous and persistent learn more about biodiversity and pollution in this chemicals (PFASs) in remote regions around the remote area.1 Antarctic Peninsula and the Bransfield Strait, including in areas that are being considered This briefing presents the findings of the sea- for protection because of their importance for surface water samples and manta trawl net wildlife. The findings for microplastics are within samples taken to investigate the presence of the range of other scientific studies on seawater microplastics in Antarctic waters, and the snow in remote regions. Given that there is little data for samples taken to analyse for the persistent and microplastics or microfibres in Antarctic waters hazardous chemicals, per- and polyfluorinated these investigations provide new information on alkylated substances (PFAS). the status of contamination in the region. The samples show that even the most remote The Antarctic Circumpolar Current acts as a and pristine habitats of the Antarctic are natural barrier encircling Antarctica, with a contaminated with microplastic waste and minimal exchange of seawater from North to persistent hazardous chemicals. South. Considering the many uncertainties involved in such investigations, the findings Microplastics: suggest that the marine transport of microplastics is not completely restricted by this barrier. • Seven of the eight seawater samples that were tested contained microplastics, with at least The findings of PFASs in snow confirm the results one microplastic fibre per litre. With limited of previous Greenpeace expeditions to remote data available on the presence of microplastics areas in Asia, Europe and South America. Once in Antarctic waters, these significant findings they are released, PFASs are spread globally by provide a valuable addition to datasets, long distance transport through the atmosphere confirming the presence of contamination in and are deposited as snow in all remote regions. the region. Both microplastics and PFASs are man-made • In addition, nine samples were taken using a materials with a wide range of uses that are manta trawl and analysed for microplastics. contaminating the planet’s water bodies and Microplastic fragments were detected in two potentially harming aquatic organisms. samples. Sampling for PFASs in snow and water took place Chemicals: during Greenpeace’s expedition to the Antarctic, in January, February and March 2018. As well as • Detectable concentrations of PFASs were the nine snow samples, six water samples were found in freshly fallen snow at nearly all of the taken. Water samples for microplastics were sites where samples for PFAS analysis were collected in February. taken. A total of nine snow samples and six water samples were taken.2 • PFASs are a group of chemicals widely used in industrial processes and consumer products and have been linked to reproductive and developmental issues in wildlife. The snow samples gathered included freshly fallen snow, suggesting some of the hazardous chemicals were atmospheric and not from a local source. The chemicals are persistent and degrade in nature very slowly. 6 Sampling Locations January, PFASs: March, PFASs: The locations visited in January were Hope Bay In March, snow samples were taken in Discovery on the Trinity Peninsula, Kinnes Cove on Joinville Bay on Greenwich Island (Bransfield Strait). Island (both flanking the Antarctic sound) and Samples were analysed for PFASs. Lecointe Island off Brabant Island (Gerlache Strait). Two samples of snow and two samples of water Some of the samples were collected from were collected at each location. The samples were locations remote from potential local sources, e.g. analysed for PFASs. Joinville Island and Lecointe Island. Other samples were collected in the vicinity of local sources with February, PFASs and microplastics: scientists visiting or tourist traffic, for example at King George Island or Greenwich Island. In February, water samples for PFASs were collected at Maxwell Bay between King George Overall nine snow samples and six water samples Island and Nelson Island (Bransfield Strait). were analysed for PFASs. Eight seawater samples Seawater samples for microplastics analysis were were analysed for microplastics. collected in the same location. Samples were also taken at Cuverville Island in the Gerlache Strait and Yankee Harbour on Greenwich Island in Bransfield Strait. These samples were analysed for microplastics. .................................................... Microplastic sampling in Antarctic waters from aboard the Arctic Sunrise © Christian Åslund / Greenpeace 7 The sample locations .............................................. The nine manta trawl locations .............................................. 8 Microplastics: The Problem Much of the recent focus on marine plastic as filter-feeding and foraging species can have pollution has been on the larger, more physiological and behavioural consequences. This immediately recognisable pieces of plastic litter includes inflammation of gut and other tissues, that enter the ocean – between 4.8 and 12.7 impacts on energy balance and growth rates and million tonnes every year.3 However, there are changes in feeding behaviour and efficiency.13 growing concerns about microplastics – commonly defined as pieces of plastic with a diameter of Antarctica is not associated with the scale of 5mm or less4 – which have potentially negative plastic waste plaguing other parts of the world, impacts on marine species, including seabirds however, microplastic pollution has previously and filter-feeding sharks. This is both because of been found in the Southern Ocean. Relatively the direct physical effects of the plastics when dense concentrations of microplastics in deep- they are ingested by marine animals and because sea sediments and surface waters similar to those of the mixture of potentially hazardous chemical found in Northern Hemisphere oceans have been additives and contaminants they can carry. discovered at two out of five stations around Microplastics include: Antarctica that were surveyed.14 These and similar findings raise concern about the widespread • Fragments of larger plastic items in the ocean nature of marine plastic pollution and the that have broken into smaller pieces by natural possibility of krill ingesting microplastics and so processes such as waves, sediment abrasion, entering the food chain.15 and degradation in sunlight5. Microplastics: Key Findings • Plastic particles deliberately manufactured to be in this size range, such as microbeads used Microplastics from seawater samples in cosmetics and personal care products. A total of 8 x 2.5 litre samples of surface water • Microplastic fragments from land-based were collected as duplicates from 4 separate sources such as tyres, or fibres from synthetic locations in Antarctic waters in February 2018 clothes, which are released into wastewater (ANT18001-8). For analysis, 1 litre of the 2.5 systems when consumers wash them. litres was filtered through a silver filter with a pore size of 5 µm. Possible microplastics/ While larger pieces of plastic are a very obvious microfibres retained by the filters were initially symptom of ocean pollution, microplastics identified under a dissecting microscope and are a far less visible part of the same problem, subsequently analysed using FT-IR microscopy and arguably even more difficult to measure to try to identify the material. Two laboratory and address. The source of the plastic can be blank samples were prepared under the onshore and offshore, including from wastewater same conditions to control for airborne fibre discharges from land and at sea, urban run-off, contamination (filtering an equivalent volume windblown litter, and even lost or abandoned of deionised water), but none was found. For fishing gear. further details of the methodology see Annex 1. Because of their synthetic nature and their All 8 samples (4 location duplicates) were found propensity to adsorb or attract chemicals from to contain at least one man-made fibre, at seawater on to their surfaces, microplastics densities of between 0.8 and 5.6 fibres per litre, can also carry substantial concentrations of a and with at least one of those fibres confirmed