Microplastics and other anthropogenic particles in the surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay

Bikker, Jacqueline; Lawson, James S.; Wilson, Stiv; Rochman, Chelsea M.

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111257

Cited by 60 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In rivers of the upper Chesapeake Bay, concentrations of microplastics ranged over 3 orders of magnitude (<1.0 to >560 g/km 2 ), were positively correlated with population density, and occurred in greatest concentrations at three of four sites shortly after major rains [34]. Along a broad swath of the Chesapeake Bay mainstem, Bikker et al (2020) [35] also reported a wide range of microplastic concentrations, from 0.007 to 1.245 particles/ m 3 . In general, these values are lower to much lower than those reported for the European coast and the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (between 13 to 501 items/m 3 ) [36], although approximately 40% of those microplastic counts were fibers, a form not considered in our analyses.…”

Section: Microplastics Collected From the Estuarine Environmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Bacterial biofilms colonizing plastics in estuarine waters, with an emphasis on Vibrio spp. and their antibacterial resistance

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since plastics degrade very slowly, they remain in the environment on much longer timescales than most natural organic substrates and provide a novel habitat for colonization by bacterial communities. The spectrum of relationships between plastics and bacteria, however, is little understood. The first objective of this study was to examine plastics as substrates for communities of Bacteria in estuarine surface waters. We used next-generation sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene to characterize communities from plastics collected in the field, and over the course of two colonization experiments, from biofilms that developed on plastic (low-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polystyrene) and glass substrates placed in the environment. Both field sampling and colonization experiments were conducted in estuarine tributaries of the lower Chesapeake Bay. As a second objective, we concomitantly analyzed biofilms on plastic substrates to ascertain the presence and abundance of Vibrio spp. bacteria, then isolated three human pathogens, V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, and V. vulnificus, and determined their antibiotic-resistant profiles. In both components of this study, we compared our results with analyses conducted on paired samples of estuarine water. This research adds to a nascent literature that suggests environmental factors govern the development of bacterial communities on plastics, more so than the characteristics of the plastic substrates themselves. In addition, this study is the first to culture three pathogenic vibrios from plastics in estuaries, reinforcing and expanding upon earlier reports of plastic pollution as a habitat for Vibrio species. The antibiotic resistance detected among the isolates, coupled with the longevity of plastics in the aqueous environment, suggests biofilms on plastics have potential to persist and serve as focal points of potential pathogens and horizontal gene transfer.

show abstract

Section: Microplastics Collected From the Estuarine Environmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Bacterial biofilms colonizing plastics in estuarine waters, with an emphasis on Vibrio spp. and their antibacterial resistance

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Microplastics may be further divided into primary particles, like pre-production pellets, clothing fibres and exfoliating beads used in cosmetic products that are < 5 mm before entering the environment, and secondary particles that are broken down from larger debris in situ to fragments, films, foams and fibres of < 5 mm in size. Microplastics may also be classified according to additional physical or chemical attributes, like polymer type, colour, roughness, transparency and shape ( Gauci et al., 2019 ; Bikker et al., 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paint particles in the marine environment: An overlooked component of microplastics

Turner

2021

Water Research X

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Paint particles are often overlooked in the micro-debris and microplastic pools. The sources, behaviour and impacts of paint in the marine environment are reviewed. Paint particle emissions may be as high as 35% of the synthetic micro-debris input. Paint is regularly detected in sea surface trawls, sediments and animal digestive tracts. Hazardous additives in micro-paint particles render them more harmful than microplastics.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the extensive water quality database that has been generated from regular monitoring since 1985, sampling efforts for microplastics within the waters of this heavily populated region are limited (Yonkos et al, 2014;Bikker et al, 2020) and are mostly located in the mid-and upper-portions of the Bay (Figure 1). Yonkos et al (2014) sampled four tributaries five times using a 330 µm mesh net during July to December 2011, finding microplastic concentrations at these sites to be correlated with nearby population density and the percentage of developed or urbanized land use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yonkos et al (2014) sampled four tributaries five times using a 330 µm mesh net during July to December 2011, finding microplastic concentrations at these sites to be correlated with nearby population density and the percentage of developed or urbanized land use. Bikker et al (2020) sampled 30 sites along the mid-to upper-mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay using a 330 µm mesh net during August-September 2015, finding that fragments, films, and fibers accounted for over 75% of sampled microplastics, and that concentrations were higher near cities or where large rivers entered the estuary than in the mainstem. Coles et al (2020) sampled numerous creeks and streams in the northeastern United States using a 333 µm mesh net, seven of which are within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coles et al (2020) sampled numerous creeks and streams in the northeastern United States using a 333 µm mesh net, seven of which are within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These seven sites were sampled twice between June 2017 and July 2018, once during baseflow conditions and once during stormflow conditions, and had concentrations greater by an order of magnitude or more than those of Yonkos et al (2014), which in turn reported concentrations an order of magnitude more than those of Bikker et al (2020). The Yonkos et al (2014) samples were processed differently than the Bikker et al (2020) and Coles et al (2020) datasets, the latter two using nearly the same protocol; this may have imparted a bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estuaries as Filters for Riverine Microplastics: Simulations in a Large, Coastal-Plain Estuary

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estuaries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we use a model of estuarine microplastic transport to test the hypothesis that the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America, is a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics. The 1-year composite simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm diameter particles, shows that 94% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 5% exported from the Bay, and 1% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, turbulent dissipation rates, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and fate were sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density – specifically if a particle was buoyant or not – was found to significantly influence overall fate and mean duration in the water column. Positively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their river sources, which may help guide sampling campaigns. Half of all riverine microplastics that beach do so within 7–13 days, while those that leave the bay do so within 26 days. Despite microplastic distributions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all scenarios most of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.

show abstract

Microplastics and other anthropogenic particles in the surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay

Cited by 60 publications

References 72 publications

Bacterial biofilms colonizing plastics in estuarine waters, with an emphasis on Vibrio spp. and their antibacterial resistance

Bacterial biofilms colonizing plastics in estuarine waters, with an emphasis on Vibrio spp. and their antibacterial resistance

Paint particles in the marine environment: An overlooked component of microplastics

Estuaries as Filters for Riverine Microplastics: Simulations in a Large, Coastal-Plain Estuary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About