Microplastics distribution in the Eurasian Arctic is affected by Atlantic waters and Siberian rivers

Abstract

Plastic pollution is globally recognised as a threat to marine ecosystems, habitats, and wildlife, and it has now reached remote locations such as the Arctic Ocean. Nevertheless, the distribution of microplastics in the Eurasian Arctic is particularly underreported. Here we present analyses of 60 subsurface pump water samples and 48 surface neuston net samples from the Eurasian Arctic with the goal to quantify and classify microplastics in relation to oceanographic conditions. In our study area, we found on average 0.004 items of microplastics per m3 in the surface samples, and 0.8 items per m3 in the subsurface samples. Microplastic characteristics differ significantly between Atlantic surface water, Polar surface water and discharge plumes of the Great Siberian Rivers, allowing identification of two sources of microplastic pollution (p < 0.05 for surface area, morphology, and polymer types). The highest weight concentration of microplastics was observed within surface waters of Atlantic origin. Siberian river discharge was identified as the second largest source. We conclude that these water masses govern the distribution of microplastics in the Eurasian Arctic. The microplastics properties (i.e. abundance, polymer type, size, weight concentrations) can be used for identification of the water masses.

Modelling the Influence from Biota and Organic Matter on the Transport Dynamics of Microplastics in the Water Column and Bottom Sediments in the Oslo Fjord

“…In case of a release at 30 m (below the pycnocline), heavy MP sinks down rapidly and cannot be captured and significantly slowed by biota and organic matter, but in case of a release at 3 m depth it can be partially trapped in the surface layer during the production period that can be explained by density decrease of the sinking MP and by intensive turbulence in the upper mixed layer. That account for numerous observations of high dense MPs in a water column during the field studies [44]. For the floating MPs, the shift of the discharge from below the pycnocline to the upper mixed layer led to a less pronounced effect of the summer "purification" of the surface layer from MPs, and the same held true for the neutrally buoyant MPs.…”

Environmental Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics: A Current Overview

“…MNPs’ pollution is a major contributor to one of the most pervasive and long-term anthropogenic changes transpired to the earth’s terrestrial habitat. Consequently, overwhelming evidence of direct and indirect deleterious effects of MNPs’ pollution on various terrestrial habitats has emerged in recent years ( Ambrosini et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2020a ; Chen et al, 2020b ; Yakushev et al, 2021 ). It is important to note that majority of the plastic wastes that end up in water bodies were initially produced, used, and indiscriminately discarded on land ( de Souza Machado et al, 2018 ).…”

Evidence for Microplastics Contamination of the Remote Tributary of the Yenisei River, Siberia—The Pilot Study Results

“…A recent study found MPs, with particle average concentration 1.14 items per cubic meter, in 7 out of 13 sites in the White Sea basin, [8]. The results of quantitative analyses of MP abundance in the surface and subsurface waters of the East Siberian, Laptev, Barents and Kara seas have been published [9]. The highest mass concentration of MPs was observed in surface waters of Atlantic origin, whilst Siberian Rivers were identified as the second most important source of pollution in the Eurasian Arctic [9].…”

“…The results of quantitative analyses of MP abundance in the surface and subsurface waters of the East Siberian, Laptev, Barents and Kara seas have been published [9]. The highest mass concentration of MPs was observed in surface waters of Atlantic origin, whilst Siberian Rivers were identified as the second most important source of pollution in the Eurasian Arctic [9]. However, the contribution of rivers of Siberia to MPs flows in the Arctic region remains uncertain.…”