Environment Pollution and Climate Change
Open Access

Macroplastics; Water pollution

Introduction

Ocean Cleanup, a non-profit organization based in the Netherlands with the objective of eliminating 90% of the floating plastic pollution in the ocean, is carrying out the most high-profile effort to clean up ocean plastic. When plastic trash was able to get past its barriers and a piece broke off due to the wind and waves, the first collection system failed. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch has been cleared of 220,000 pounds of plastic thanks to its most recent, more successful iteration. The Ocean Cleanup system is made up of a massive, floating, net-like barrier that is three meters deep and forms a big U shape. Two ships slowly pull it along. Plastic flows naturally to the central retention zone as a result of the movement. The barriers are closed, the retention zone is picked up, and the plastic is emptied onto one of the two vessels’ decks once a week when they come together. There it’s isolated into various reusing streams, bundled, and shipped off reusing offices inland. The association’s Framework 03 is underway; it’s multiple times greater and will lessen the expense per kilogram of plastic gathered. Despite the fact that Ocean Cleanup has garnered a lot of attention for its efforts, some marine biologists are of the opinion that its strategies may actually cause more harm than good. They point to the ships that tow the barriers powered by fossil fuels and emit 660 tons of carbon dioxide per month during cleanup. Ocean Cleanup claims that it experiments with biofuels and offsets its emissions. Additionally, a number of specialists in ocean plastics are concerned that the Ocean Cleanup system will harm marine life and may kill organisms even if they are returned to the ocean. Ocean Cleanup argues that fish can get out of their system. In addition, breathing ports for mammals, birds, or turtles caught in the retention zone, underwater cameras to prevent marine life from becoming entangled, and a remote-controlled trigger release to open one end of the retention zone in the event of a creature getting stuck there are all present. Observers of protected species are always present to observe and document all animals. Another worry is that Ocean Cleanup’s system could harm a little-known ecosystem called neuston before scientists have had time to study it. Neuston is made up of insects, worms, snails, nudibranchs, crabs, and sea anemones that float on the ocean surface like plastic [1-4].

Discussion

Other critics claim that Ocean Cleanup’s method is ineffective for eliminating microplastics, and others contend that beach cleanups and other low-tech methods are more efficient because they prevent plastics from entering the ocean in the first place. It turns out that while some of the plastic in the gyres is decades old, more of the plastic that was made recently is found close to the shore. 77% of plastic remained on beaches or floated in coastal waters for the first five years after entering the ocean from land, according to one study. Erik van Sebille, an oceanographer at Utrecht University, claims that the majority of the plastic in the ocean is found within 100 miles of the shore, where it is washes back and forth on the sand and eventually breaks down into microplastics. This implies that ocean side cleanups might be one of the best approaches to managing sea plastics and microplastics.

Beach cleanups for volunteers are frequently organized by a number of organizations: Ocean Blue Project, the American Littoral Society, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Ocean Conservancy are just a few examples. Around the world, scientists have discovered that 80% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from 1,000 rivers.

Ocean Cleanup also has technology for cleaning up rivers called Interceptors, which are solar-powered catamaran-like vessels that are lowered into polluted rivers’ mouths. A barrier directs trash onto the conveyor belt of the Interceptor as the water flows, where it is dumped into a shuttle; The trash is transported by the shuttle to barge-mounted dumpsters, where they are emptied along the riverbank. A facility that manages waste receives the garbage. Over 2.2 million pounds of trash have been removed from rivers in Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica by eight Interceptors thus far [5,6].

Microplastics Scientists believe that there are between 82,000 and 578,000 tons of microplastics—pieces of plastic less than five millimeters in length, or about the size of a sesame seed—in the ocean. There may be more. The majority of microplastics are produced by the breakdown of plastic debris, synthetic clothing, personal care products, tires, city dust, and other sources. The majority of it washes out to sea and ends up in the ocean or in the sediment because current technology is unable to filter them out at sewage treatment plants.

The contents of a sediment sample taken off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, from 1870 to 2009 were revealed. Plastic fibers of a size of one millimeter or less were found in the layers from 1945 to 2009. The amount doubled every 15 years as time went on, reflecting the actual rate of plastic production worldwide. Nearly 15.5 million tons of microplastics are currently present on the ocean floor, according to Australian researchers who examined sediments from the ocean.

Because marine animals consume microplastics, they also consume the harmful chemicals that were added to the original plastic to make it flexible, colorful, waterproof, or resistant to flames. Additionally, harmful bacteria and other toxic chemicals can be carried by microplastics. They have been displayed to hurt marine life by disturbing regenerative frameworks, hindering development, and causing tissue irritation and liver harm [7,8].

Microplastics are a part of the food chain and are consumed by humans because they have been found in all marine life, including the guts of tiny crustaceans in the ocean’s deepest trenches. Although microplastics have already been found in human blood, feces, and the placentas of unborn babies, no large-scale, conclusive studies on how microplastics harm human health have been conducted to date.

Beizhan Yan is a Lamont Associate Research Professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of the Columbia Climate School. His area of expertise is plastic pollution. He is teaming up with scientists from the Columbia Science Division and the Postal carrier School of General Wellbeing to analyze the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics (little pieces short of what one micron in size) in people - what openness levels individuals have, how the plastic particles get into the blood, whether microplastics are shipped to the organs, and whether they can cause antagonistic wellbeing impacts [9,10].

Conclusions

Yan is also studying the sources and environmental fate of microplastics in NYC waterways with River keeper, Stevens Institute of Technology’s Philip Orton, and Lamont’s Joaquim Goes. It won’t be easy to clean up microplastics while also protecting ecosystems. Yan said, “Those small microplastics exist together with numerous different minerals and fine particles, similar to sediment, dirt, plant trash, and dark carbon - a wide range of different particles, whether regular or anthropogenic. Because of their similar size and density, it is challenging to effectively distinguish microplastics from other particles. The microplastics probably make up less than 0.1 percent of the total mass of these particles in terms of concentration or mass. He is of the opinion that scientists might in the not-too-distant future develop a method for effectively separating the components, but such a tool does not yet exist.

1. Galbraith JA, Beggs JR, Jones DN, McNaughton EJ, Krull CR, et al. (2014) Risks and drivers of wild bird feeding in urban areas of New Zealand. Biol Conserv. 180: 64-74.

Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Galbraith JA, Beggs JR, Jones DN and Stanley MC (2015) Supplementary feeding restructures urban bird communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112: 1-10.

Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Hartup BK, Bickal JM, Dhondt AA, Ley DH, Kollias GV (2001) Dynamics of conjunctivitis and Mycoplasma gallisepticum infections in house finches. Auk 118: 327-333.

Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Howard P, Jones DN (2004) A qualitative study of wildlife feeding in south-east Queensland. Urban Wildlife: More than Meets the Eye, eds D. Lunney and S. Burgin 55-62.

Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Jones D (2011) An appetite for connection: Why we need to understand the effect and value of feeding wild birds. Emu 111: 1-7.

Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Jones DN (2017) Influential factors for natal dispersal in an avian island metapopulation. J Avian Biol 39: 265-271.

Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Jones DN, Reynolds SJ (2008) Feeding birds in our towns and cities: a global 966 research opportunity. J Avian Biol 39: 265-271.

Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Lawson B, Robinson RA, Colvile KM, Peck KM, Chantrey J, et al. (2012) The emergence and spread of finch trichomonosis in the British Isles. Phil Trans R Soc B 367: 2852-2863.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Leston LF, Rodewald AD (2006) Are urban forests ecological traps for understory birds? An examination using Northern Cardinals. Biol Conserv 131: 566-574.

Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Limbe City Council (2014) The Limbe City Council Report.