Annurev-Environ-2017-Plastic As Permanent Marine Pollution

EG42CH01-Worm ARI 16 September 2017 9:43
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Plastic as a Persistent Marine

Pollutant
Boris Worm,1 Heike K. Lotze,1 Isabelle Jubinville,1
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017.42:1-26. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Chris Wilcox,2 and Jenna Jambeck3

1
Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H4R2, Canada;
Access provided by 81.255.4.126 on 02/22/21. For personal use only.
email: [email protected]
2
Oceans and Atmosphere Business Unit, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation, Hobart, Tasmania TAS 7001, Australia
3
College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017. 42:1–26 Keywords

The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is plastic production, pollution, ecological effects, marine environment,
online at environ.annualreviews.org
persistent organic pollutant
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-
102016-060700 Abstract
Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. Synthetic organic polymers—or plastics—did not enter widespread use until
All rights reserved
the 1950s. By 2015, global production had increased to 322 million metric
tons (Mt) year−1 , which approaches the total weight of the human popu-
lation produced in plastic every year. Approximately half is used for pack-
aging and other disposables, 40% of plastic waste is not accounted for in
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further managed landfills or recycling facilities, and 4.8–12.7 Mt year−1 enter the
Click here to view this article's ocean as macroscopic litter and microplastic particles. Here, we argue that
online features:
• Download ﬁgures as PPT slides such mismanaged plastic waste is similar to other persistent pollutants, such
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or polychlorinated biphenyls
• Explore related articles (PCBs), which once threatened a “silent spring” on land. Such a scenario
• Search keywords
seems now possible in the ocean, where plastic cannot be easily removed,
accumulates in organisms and sediments, and persists much longer than on
land. New evidence indicates a complex toxicology of plastic micro- and
nanoparticles on marine life, and transfer up the food chain, including to
people. We detail solutions to the current crisis of accumulating plastic pol-
lution, suggesting a Global Convention on Plastic Pollution that incentivizes
collaboration between governments, producers, scientists, and citizens.
1
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. HISTORY AND CURRENT TRENDS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION AND
POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The Origin of Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Twentieth-Century Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Current Magnitude of Production and Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Future Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. PLASTIC AS A PERSISTENT POLLUTANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Types of Plastic and Their Ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Size Classes: Micro- Versus Macroplastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Concentration in the Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.4. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Microbial Biodegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. EFFECTS OF PLASTIC POLLUTION ON MARINE LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.1. Ingestion and Entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Toxic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Effects of Micro- and Nanoplastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Trophic Transfer and Bioaccumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Production and New Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Use and Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Major Findings and Knowledge Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Another Silent Spring?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Solving the Plastic Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. INTRODUCTION
Plastics are synthetic organic polymers that can be easily molded into different shapes and products
for a large variety of uses. Invented only 110 years ago (1), plastics are now the most widely used
man-made substances and have become omnipresent in every aspect of our lives. From medical
supplies and water bottles to food packaging, clothing, and construction materials, every person
now disposes an average of 52 kg of plastic waste every year (with a median value of 192 countries,
as Reference 2 reports). Geologists are now considering a plastic horizon in the world’s soils and
sediments as one of the key indicators marking the current geological epoch, the Anthropocene
(3).
Originally deemed harmless, several decades of plastic release into the environment have
brought about a wide range of associated problems. Plastic pollution has now become widely
recognized as a major environmental burden (4, 5), particularly in the oceans where the biophysi-
cal breakdown of plastics is prolonged (6, 7), effects on wildlife are severe (8–10), and options for
removal are very limited (2, 6, 8).
2 Worm et al.
In this review, we provide an up-to-date overview of what is currently known about the pro-
duction, release, persistence, and environmental effects of plastics worldwide, with a focus on new
insights from the marine environment. On the basis of this evidence, we argue that plastics in the
environment are a persistent form of pollution, with similarities to persistent organic pollutants
(POPs). POPs are defined under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(11) as potentially harmful organic compounds that resist environmental degradation through
chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of their persistence, POPs tend to accu-
mulate in organisms and in the environment, and they have become ubiquitous around the globe,
with significant impacts on environmental and human health, a sentiment famously popularized
by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring (12).
When released into the environment, plastics fulfil some criteria for POPs in that they are
organic substances; they persist and accumulate in the environment and in organisms over long
periods of time; and they can cause a wide range of sublethal and lethal effects, including the
complex toxicology of micrometer- to nanometer-sized plastic particles coming to light recently

(13–17). Unlike for POPs, which are being phased out under the Stockholm Convention, the
production and subsequent release into the environment are still continuing to rise significantly
for plastics (Figure 1a). Also, in contrast to POPs, plastics make up an even broader category
of thousands of combinations of polymers and additives that are used in nearly every aspect of
our daily lives, with many critically important applications (e.g., in the medical field) and with
better options for recycling and safe disposal. Hence, we argue here that the global problem of
persistent plastic pollution requires a tailored set of solutions that should be detailed in a dedicated
Global Convention on Plastic Pollution. Such an international protocol, akin to the Stockholm
Convention, could facilitate a global collaborative effort to mitigate the rising tide of plastic
pollution and constrain its long-term effect on the environment—and on people.
a b
350 100 Agriculture
Electrical
Global production (Mt year–1)
300 Automotive
80
250 Construction
200 60
Percent
Consumer items
150
40
100
20 Packaging
50
0
0
1925
1915
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2015
Year
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Figure 1
Time trends in total plastics production worldwide. (a) Global production in million metric tons per year (Mt year−1 ). (b) Usage
patterns of plastic in 2016 are estimated from available sources (18). Three phases are seen: Phase 1 signifies slow development and
invention of most plastics commonly used today (innovation phase), Phase 2 is marked by rapid global expansion and exponential
growth (growth phase), and Phase 3 shows more linear dynamics that more closely mirrors global economic growth (consolidation
phase). Data compiled from References 18, 19, and 20.
www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 3

2. HISTORY AND CURRENT TRENDS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION

AND POLLUTION
2.1. The Origin of Plastics

Humans have modified naturally occurring materials such as metals, stone, clay, and plant fibers
for millennia. However, the twentieth century saw a fundamental departure from this history
through de novo synthesis of an entirely new class of materials: synthetic polymers. Although
natural organic polymers such as cellulose or DNA are ubiquitous in nature, chemists struggled to
comprehend their properties and structure until the beginning of the twentieth century. Regard-
less, early inventors such as John Wesley Hyatt began to tinker with these molecules, chemically
modifying cellulose to produce Celluloid in 1870. The popular material was used, for example, to
make silent-movie film. The world’s first fully synthetic polymer of commercial importance, how-
ever, was Bakelite, invented in 1907 by Leo Baekeland who also first coined the term plastics, after
the Greek world plastikos, meaning moldable. Baekeland mixed two common chemicals, phenol
and formaldehyde, and subjected them to heat and pressure. The resulting resin called Bakelite
(1) opened the door to the Age of Plastics and spurred the growth of a worldwide trillion-dollar
industry that set out to transform every aspect of human material consumption.
2.2. Twentieth-Century Trends

Bakelite production was slow in the beginning, some 180 L d−1 in 1910, when commercial pro-
duction started (19). But by 1930, the product was already ubiquitous, particularly in the emerging
electrical and automotive industries, but also in communication (radios) and even fashion (jewelry).
In what now seems like a visionary statement, the Bakelite corporation adopted the mathematical
symbol for infinity and the slogan “the material of a 1000 uses” (19). Soon, other polymers with
improved properties, such as transparency or the ability to hold different colors, were invented
and commercial production increased dramatically from the 1930s to 1950s. During World War
II, plastic production quadrupled (to ∼360,000 t), particularly in the United States, propelling
plastics into the mainstream. For example, polyamide, commonly known as nylon, was used ex-
tensively in World War II in making parachutes. After the war, the material was adapted to other
uses and widely marketed for clothing. Since then, plastic production increased almost 1,000-fold
(Figure 1a), vastly outpacing global population or economic growth. Since 2000, however, the
annual growth rate in global plastic production has slowed and adds approximately 3–4% (or 10–
12 Mt) per year (18), a percentage figure that is close to annual growth in global GDP. This sug-
gests three distinct periods in plastic production: From 1910–1950 there was slow initial growth as
plastics were invented, tested, and marketed as novelty materials; 1950–2000 saw rapid exponential
growth as plastic use expanded globally and spread to many new applications; and from 2000–2015
there was more linear growth in lockstep with economic growth (Figure 1a). More generally, it
is well known that consumption and associated waste generation tend to increase with increasing
wealth and economic growth (21), but that there is evidence for an inflection point after which
the two become decoupled (22). Thus, a future Phase 4 in Figure 1a might entail saturation of
global markets and stabilization (or decline) in global plastic production.
Concerns about plastic release into the environment were at first nonexistent. The material was
seen as benign, due to its inertness and perceived lack of toxicity. As a result, an estimated sum total
of 5,000 Mt tons of plastic has been discarded into landfills and the environment since 1950 (110).
This led to increasing concerns about pollution, particularly in the oceans, with some actions by
governments to stem the growing tide of plastic debris. The International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was signed in 1973, although a complete ban on
4 Worm et al.
the disposal of plastics at sea was not enacted until the end of 1988 (23). At the same time, waste
disposal practices and recycling capacities improved, particularly in highly industrialized countries,
leading to better waste management and lower release of plastic waste into the environment.
2.3. Current Magnitude of Production and Release

Uniquely, and in contrast to other common materials, plastic use has now permeated all as-
pects of life, from clothing to food, buildings, appliances, communication, transportation, and
medicine, to name a few. New applications are developed every year, and the substitution of
other materials with plastic is still expanding in many sectors. The largest sector currently
is single-use packaging, accounting for close to 40% of total plastic use in Europe (18), fol-
lowed by consumer goods (22%); construction materials (20%); and automotive (9%), elec-
trical (6%), and agriculture applications (3%) (see Figure 1b). With an estimated cumu-
lative production from 1950 to 2015 of 8,300 Mt (110) and current global production at
322 Mt in 2015 (18), annual production is approaching the combined weight of the human
population (assuming 7.3 billion people and an average weight of 45 kg). This means that we
are producing and using our own weight in plastic every year. Production in 2015 was centered
in Asia (49% of global output), with China being the world’s largest producer (28%), followed
by Europe and North America, each contributing 19% (Figure 2). Other regions are of lesser
importance as producers, but not necessarily as consumers, of plastic.
Although plastic is consumed globally, the magnitude of waste mismanagement and pollution
varies markedly across regions (Figure 2). Most plastic now enters the ocean from land-based
sources, often via rivers, wastewater outflows, and transport by wind or tides (2). The total release
Russia
North Europe 2.6%
America 18.5%
18.5% Japan
China
27.8% 4.3%
Africa
7.3% Rest of
Asia
South 16.7%
America
4.4%
Plastic waste available to enter
the ocean in 2010 (million tons)
> 5.00
1.00–5.00
0.25–1.00
0.01–0.25
< 0.01
Figure 2
Spatial patterns of plastic production and pollution. Shown are the percentage contributions of different regions to global plastic
production and the estimated mass of mismanaged plastic waste in million tons (Mt) generated in 2010 by populations living within
50 km of the coast. Figure redrawn after production data from Reference 18 and pollution data from Reference 2.

of plastic waste into marine waters globally is estimated to range between 4.8–12.7 Mt in 2010
(2), roughly equal to dumping a garbage truck of plastic every minute (24). Variation between
countries (Figure 2) is thought to be driven by differences in coastal population density, plastic
consumption, and waste management practices. Between 2 and 90% of individual countries’ waste
gets mismanaged, meaning that it is not recycled or fully contained at a managed landfill site.
Between 2 and 25% of that mismanaged waste is plastic (2). As an example, India and the United
States have similar coastal populations, 188 and 113 million people, respectively. US citizens,
however, produce much more waste per person per day (2.58 kg; 13% of which is plastic) than
Indian citizens (0.34 kg; 3% plastic, which might be a conservative estimate given recent growth).
In contrast, only 2% of that waste stream is mismanaged in the United States, whereas 88% is
mismanaged in India. After combining these figures, India ranks higher (12th) than the United
States (20th) in terms of total contribution to marine plastic pollution worldwide (2). China,
Indonesia, and the Philippines are the top three polluting countries on that list, as they hold very
large coastal populations, are rapidly increasing consumption of plastics, and tend to have poor
waste management practices. Together these three countries account for an estimated 44% of
total marine plastic pollution.

Certainly, current global trends reflect increasing population growth as well as rapidly growing
plastic use and disposal. However, at the same time, we observe stabilization of plastic production
and improving waste management and recycling practices in some jurisdictions. For example,
European plastic production stagnated at ∼60 Mt year−1 between 2005 and 2015 (18). In 2006,
∼24.6 Mt of plastics were discarded in Europe, of which more than half (52%) went into landfills,
29% were incinerated (recovering energy), and 19% were recycled (recovering materials). Only
eight years later, the total amount of plastic waste had not changed but less than one-third went
to landfills (31%), due to rapid growth in recycling capacity (64% increase since 2006) and waste
incineration for energy production (46% increase) (18). These changes were partly driven by plastic
landfill bans introduced across nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland). These countries effectively legislated
plastics out of landfills and now treat all plastic waste as a resource. Two more countries (Finland,
Poland) followed this trend with landfill bans in 2016, whereas countries without such a ban still
report a large proportion of plastic waste entering landfills (18).
2.4. Future Projections

Future projections of plastic production and pollution are inherently uncertain because many
factors influence global use and discard patterns. However, it can be useful to simply project
current trends as an illustration of possible scenarios given business as usual. For example, if
current trends in production would continue, this would mean that by 2050 ∼33,000 Mt of plastic
(resin plus additives) would have been produced over a 100-year history of widespread use (4), or
100 times the weight of the human population now. Assuming no changes to waste management
infrastructure, the total amount of plastic waste available to enter the marine environment from
land could increase by an order of magnitude even over the next decade (2015–2025) to a cumulative
total of 150 Mt in the mid-range scenario (2). This is almost twice the weight of annual marine
fish catches reported to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (25). However,
these scenarios seem less likely when considering observed decoupling of waste generation with
economic growth (22), stagnation of plastic production and use in some regions such as Europe
(18), improved waste management in some countries (21), and growing concerns around release
into the environment and associated health risks (reviewed in more detail below). Without a
6 Worm et al.
doubt, changes in our cultural attitudes about plastics, as well as changes in production and waste
management practices, will greatly influence future trajectories.
3. PLASTIC AS A PERSISTENT POLLUTANT
3.1. Types of Plastic and Their Ingredients

Different types of plastic differ in their chemical composition and environmental impacts. The
most widely used plastics by far are polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE), much of it used to
make pliable films and materials for packaging, but also automotive parts, pipes, and houseware.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyurethane (PU) are often used in construction and automo-
tive industries. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is used for textile fibers and drink bottles, and
polystyrene (PS) for a range of uses, including packaging (StyrofoamTM ) and building insulation.
Polycarbonate (PC) is used in hard, transparent products such as eyeglasses and clear roofing
sheets. Together these made up >80% of plastic use in Europe in 2016, and a large fraction of
global plastic production (18).

Most plastic polymers have inherently low toxicity due to their insolubility in water and because
they are biochemically inert, owing to a large molecular weight. However, all plastics are made
of monomer chemicals that are then combined into synthetic polymers. Many monomers, such
as styrene or vinyl chloride, are toxic and carcinogenic, and monomer residues in plastic products
can be hazardous (26). Four plastics (PVC, PU, PS, and PC) that make up ∼30% of global
production are seen as particularly problematic as they often contain hazardous monomers or
additives (4). Such additives include fillers and plasticizers that modulate texture, or coloring
agents, antimicrobials, flame retardants, and other substances that change material properties in
desired ways (27). These substances can present health risks for humans and other species (28, 29)
and limit reuse and recycling potential. A well-publicized example is Bisphenol A (BPA), which is
widely used to produce PC plastic water bottles and other resins used in food containers, but has
come under scrutiny due its estrogen-mimicking, hormone-like properties and accumulation in
humans (29). Similarly, some common plasticizers (adipates and phthalates) have hormone-like
properties and are frequently added to brittle plastics such as PVC to make them pliable enough
for use in food packaging, toys, and many other daily-use items (29).
3.2. Size Classes: Micro- Versus Macroplastics

Apart from their chemical composition, plastics can be classified by size class, typically referring
to their largest dimension. Different classification schemes have been proposed. Here, we broadly
follow recommendations by da Costa et al. (30) and Eriksen et al. (31), distinguishing small
nanoplastic (<1µm in diameter) and microplastic particles (1 µm–5 mm) from larger mesoplastic
(5–200 mm) and macroplastic items (>200 mm). Microplastics can be produced as such, for
example as plastic pellets that are used as the raw material for fabricating larger items, or via
mechanical breakdown of larger plastic items, for example when a plastic rope disintegrates into
finer filaments (e.g., microfibers). Microplastics have also been released in large quantities as
ingredients in cleaning and cosmetic products (e.g., microbeads in facewash and toothpaste), but
their use in some personal care products is now being phased out in the United States, Canada,
and some other jurisdictions. In recent years, small microplastics (<1mm in size) have become
a growing concern, because of their large abundance in the air, water, sediments, and organisms
(9, 15, 16), and their invisible nature and ability to be transferred through the food chain and
infiltrate living tissues (see section 4.3. below). Very small nanoplastics (<1 µm) have only recently

10,000
Number of pieces
Combined weight
Number of pieces (billions)

Combined weight (Gg)
1,000
100
10
1
Small Larger Mesoplastics Macroplastics
microplastics microplastics
Figure 3
Estimated abundance and weight of plastic pieces in the oceans. Shown are four different size classes, as
defined by the authors of Reference 31: small microplastics (0.33–1 mm), larger microplastics (1.01–
4.75 mm), mesoplastics (4.76–20 mm), and macroplastics (>200 mm). Although microplastics represent
93% of individual pieces, they contribute only 13% to total weight (Gg = 109 g). Figure adapted from data
in Reference 31.
been studied (30, 32) and form during industrial processes such as 3D printing, and via physical
breakdown of microplastics. They can have a variety of demonstrated cytotoxic effects in lab studies
(30), but their abundance and in situ effects in the environment have not been well quantified.
3.3. Concentration in the Marine Environment

Plastics vary in their specific weight: Some items are lighter than seawater, whereas others sink to
the bottom. Available information on the abundance of micro-, meso-, and macroplastics floating
at the ocean surface has been synthesized in a global study that combined data from 24 expeditions
(2007–2013), conducting a total of 680 net tows for micro- and mesoplastics, as well as 891 survey
transects quantifying large macroplastic debris (31). The authors estimated a global abundance
of at least 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic, or 720 items for every person alive today, most of these
being microplastics (0.33–4.75 mm; see Figure 3). More recently, a follow-up study estimated
between 15 and 51 trillion particles floating in the oceans in 2014 (33). In both studies, the global
geographic distribution of plastic debris is uneven and concentrates around coastlines and in the
open ocean gyres, where well-publicized “garbage patches” of high debris concentration form (10,
31). The total weight of floating plastic debris worldwide was estimated to be between 93,000 and
267,000 t (8, 31), with most of the weight being contributed by macroplastics (Figure 3). This
number, however, is at least an order of magnitude lower than the estimated global release of
plastics into the marine environment in 2010 (2).
The “missing plastic” that is not found at the surface potentially ends up in the deep sea and
marine sediments, which may have become prominent sinks for microplastics debris. Concentra-
tions in sediments (by volume) are four to five orders of magnitude higher than they are in the
water column (Table 1). Concentrations also vary much more strongly among sediment samples
(3–4 orders of magnitude) than in the water column (1–2 orders of magnitude), and are particularly
high on urban beaches (34) and in deep-water sediments (16). Due to their large spatial extent
and high plastic debris concentrations, the deep sea has been suggested to act as a global sink for
microplastic pollution (16), although more sampling is needed to verify this. Remarkably, the same
conclusion has recently been reached for POPs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
8 Worm et al.
Table 1 Concentration of microplastic particles in marine sediments and surface watersa

Habitat Region Pieces per 50 ml Source (reference)
Concentration in sediments
Beach Canada 172–689 34
Subtidal United Kingdom 6 6
Estuary United Kingdom 4 6
Beach United Kingdom 0.5 6
Beach Chagos 4.5 94
Beach Worldwide 0.4–6.2 95
Subtidal United Kingdom 0.2–1 95
Deep sea Worldwide 13.4 16
Median 4.25 n/a
Concentration in surface waters

Coast United States 0.0000675 96
Gyre Pacific 0.0001115 97

Coast California 0.0003625 98
Coast Pacific 0.00000485 99
Sea Mediterranean 0.0000058 100
Median 0.0000675 n/a
a
Only studies that reported concentrations per sample volume (or weight with conversion factors) were included.
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs; used as flame retardants), which have been detected in
record concentrations in animals living in the deepest ocean trenches, more than 10,000 m below
the surface (35). Downward transport of plastic particles might be accelerated by entrainment in
naturally forming coagulates, called marine snow, that rapidly sink to the bottom (36).
Another documented sink for microplastic debris (and other pollutants) are marine organisms,
which often show concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than water samples and
in a similar range as sediment samples in the same area; for example, individual wild mussels
in Nova Scotia, Canada, had between 106 and 126 microplastic filaments lodged in their gills,
whereas farmed mussels grown for human consumption had 178 fibers on average (34), possibly
because they are grown on plastic ropes, which tend to shed microplastic fibers. But even the
largest filter feeders, such as baleen whales and basking sharks, accumulate high concentrations of
micro- and mesoplastics in their guts (37), as well as plasticizers and organochlorine POPs in their
blubber (38). Similar to POPs, there is also evidence for trophic transfer between organisms and
accumulation in predators that consume mussels, such as green crabs (17) (see also Section 4.4).
3.4. Persistence
Because of their very high molecular weight and lack of natural analogues, conventional plastics do
not easily biodegrade in the marine or terrestrial environment, and may just disintegrate physically.
Mechanical forces such as waves or the abrasive force of sediment grains act to break down plastics
into smaller pieces, but this does not change the mass of plastic, just its size distribution. When
plastics are exposed to UVB radiation in sunlight and oxygen, however, polymers can be oxidized,
forming hydroperoxides that lead to polymer chain scission; this process can take decades to
centuries in natural soils (39, 40). In the oceans, these processes can be even slower because

mechanical and photolytic forces are greatly diminished, particularly in deeper waters, where
negatively buoyant plastics may accumulate (5, 16). Additionally, plastic objects entering the oceans
inevitably become fouled by bacteria, algae, other organisms and sediment, reducing surface area
exposure to UV radiation and oxygen soon after introduction into the marine environment (41).
As such, most plastic items that reach the marine environment may remain intact for centuries,
and thus accumulate in the marine environment in similar ways as POPs do. A possible exception
are some biodegradable polymers, such as polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), which have been shown
to biodegrade in various environments (42).
3.5. Microbial Biodegradation

As a carbon source, plastic materials could in principle be a resource for bacteria, algae, or fungi
that manage to break down polymer chains. How common this is in nature and how much this
process contributes to the remediation of plastic pollution is poorly known, especially in the ocean.
Microbial communities on plastic debris develop in the process of biofilm formation (43), and en-
zymes secreted by some species of microbes can cleave polymer chains of the fragment creating
erosion on the plastic’s surface (44). Microorganismal degradation of synthetic plastics typically
requires previous mechanical and photodegradation processes (45), and smaller fragments are
broken down faster than larger ones (46). There have been several experiments documenting
microbial degradation, focusing on more easily degradable polymers. For example, Streptomyces
species increased decomposition of degradable polyethylene films when compared to uninoccu-
lated samples (47). Similarly, Amycolatopsis species, which are sparsely distributed in natural soils,
effectively degrade polylactide (PLA) polymer samples (47). At present, however, PLA is com-
postable only in industrial facilities that reach high enough temperatures. Likewise, inoculation of
some fungal species to soil containing plastic fragments enhanced both the degradation of plastic
and accumulation of biomass in the soil (48). Even some macrofauna may possess the ability to
break up and digest certain plastic materials. Caterpillars of the wax moth Galleria mellonella have
recently been decsribed to rapidly biodegrade polyethylene films, which have a similar chemical
structure as the caterpillars’ natural food source, beeswax (49). Likewise, a novel bacterial species
has been discovered recently at a plastic recycling plant; this species is able to use PET as its
major energy and carbon source, but with unknown effects on PET degradation rates in soils or in
the oceans (50). Thus, a growing body of knowledge surrounding microbial biodegradation and
associated organisms and enzymes is setting the stage for production of plastic materials that are
designed to biodegrade, or bioengineering of microbial enzymes that can help to clean up plastic
waste (51).
4. EFFECTS OF PLASTIC POLLUTION ON MARINE LIFE
4.1. Ingestion and Entanglement

The most commonly documented impacts of plastic pollution stem from entanglement and inges-
tion of macroplastic debris (Figure 4, Table 2). The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity recently estimated the proportion of mammals, turtles, and bird species that ingest plas-
tic (40, 100, and 46% of species in these three taxa, respectively) or become entangled in it (46, 100,
and 26%, respectively) (52). Disturbingly, each successive review of the evidence identifies an in-
creasing number of species affected by marine debris, rising to 693 in the most recent estimate (53).
Entanglement is known to affect at least 243 species to date, often with fatal consequences
(53). In many cases, these effects come from derelict or discarded fishing gear, commonly referred
10 Worm et al.
a Seabird species b Sea turtle species

n = 52 n = 136 n = 57 n = 22 n = 12 n = 15 n = 24 n = 16
1.0
n = 23
(proportion of individuals)
0.8
Plastic ingestion
n=3
0.6
0.4
n=3
0.2 n=1
n=3 n=2 n=1 n=1 n=1

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1900 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Year Year
Figure 4
Increasing effects on wildlife over time. Shown are results from two comprehensive studies on time trends in
plastic ingestion for (a) seabirds and (b) sea turtles. Data from Reference 8 and 56. Data in a and b represent
the median proportion of individuals in a taxon with plastic in their digestive system. The median is
calculated over all studies in a given decade. (Upper and lower estimates are quartiles, with bars extending to
1.5 times the interquartile range, n = number of unique species by study combinations).
to as “ghost gear.” For example, the Arafura Sea, between Australia, Indonesia, and Papua New
Guinea, harbors large amounts of derelict fishing gear, catching between 5,000 and 15,000 turtles
across 8,500 nets examined (54). Similarly, estimates from the Puget Sound in the United States
clearly demonstrate the destructive capacity of derelict fishing gear, with a single derelict fishing
net expected to catch 2 invertebrates per day, 1 fish every 3 days, and 1 seabird every five days (55).
Other types of plastic debris that also result in high entanglement rates include packing straps and
balloon strings (53).
Plastic ingestion affects at least 208 species (53). Closely tracking the observed increase in
plastic pollution and floating plastic debris (33), sharp increases in plastic ingestion have been
documented in seabirds and marine turtles over time (Figure 4), with a rate of increase of 1.7%
per year for seabirds (8) and 0.7% for turtles (8, 56). This appears in part due to marine species
mistaking plastic for food, following visual or olfactory cues: Marine turtles, for example, appear
to mistake flexible floating plastics, such as bags or sheeting, for jellyfish, causing gastrointestinal
blockage, injury (57), and reproductive impediments (58). Some seabirds, such as albatrosses, have
a highly evolved sense of smell and appear to be attracted to chemicals released by their planktonic
prey, which are absorbed by floating plastics (59). Although lethal effects due to ingestion exist,
they appear less common than those due to entanglement [4% versus 79% of reported cases (60)].
It is likely, however, that sublethal effects due to ingestion are more prominent than lethal effects
(60). Given the prevalence and rate of increase in ingestion rates, it is likely that future empirical
work will demonstrate population-level changes due to accumulated sublethal impacts (60).
4.2. Toxic Effects

Toxic substances in plastics include monomer residues, plasticizers, coloring agents, flame re-
tardants, and others (26, 27). They can be released upon ingestion and may accumulate in fatty

Table 2 Examples of documented mechanisms by which plastic pollution affects marine wildlife
Source
Species Plastic type Mechanism Study area (reference)
Seabirds
Greater shearwater Plastic bottle cap Starvation due to gastrointestinal Massachusetts 101
obstruction
Magellanic penguin Fragments, line, and Stomach perforation Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, 102
straws Brazil
Sea turtles
Green sea turtle Plastic bags and Impediment of hatchling movement Samandag Coast, 103
other debris toward the sea, exposure to Turkey
predators
Green sea turtle Balloons, plastic and Gastrointestinal distress and Melbourne Beach, 104
nylon string starvation Florida

Leatherback turtle Plastic bags and Blocked and injured cloaca impedes French Guiana 58
debris laying of eggs

Fish
Bigeye tuna Fragments and line Ingestion of plastic fragments Central North Pacific 105
Japanese medaka Particulate plastic Hepatic stress from exposure to Experimental procedure 61
plastic pollutants
Orchid dottyback Plastic bags Leached nonophenol additive-caused Experimental procedure 62
mortality
Larval perch Microplastic Inhibited hatching, decreased growth Experimental procedure 14
particles rate, and altered behavior
Mammals
Fur seal Plastic particles Bioaccumulation of particulate Macquarie Island, 77
plastic from prey fish Southwest Pacific
Sperm whale Plastic bags and Stomach rupture and starvation California 106
debris
Australia sea lion Plastic fishing gear Entanglement-caused mortality Kangaroo Island, South 107
Australia
Invertebrates
Urchin larva Polyethylene pellets Plastic leachates caused abnormal Experimental procedure 66
development
Mussel Microplastic Accumulation of microplastics in Experimental procedure 72
particles circulatory system
Oyster Microplastic Interference with energy uptake and Experimental procedure 13
particles reproduction
Norway lobster Strands and particles Ingestion and accumulation of Clyde Sea, Scotland 108
plastics in the gut
tissues, much like POPs do. Toxic effects on marine wildlife are less commonly demonstrated
than entanglement and ingestion (53), in part because they are more difficult to demonstrate
and usually require experimentation. Experimental studies demonstrate toxicological impacts of
leachates from these materials (Table 2), due to the presence of the leachate in ambient water and
via ingestion of the plastic (61). For instance, coral reef fish exposed to water that had previously
12 Worm et al.
been exposed to food-grade polypropylene bags had elevated levels of nonylphenol, and suffered
increases in both short- and long-term mortality (62). Similar results on toxicity and interference
with chemical cues for predator avoidance were demonstrated for European perch larvae (14).
In addition, many plastics have the capacity to adsorb both organic and metal pollutants (in-
cluding most known POPs) from the environment and concentrate these up to 1 million-fold
relative to concentrations found in seawater (63). Although there is clear evidence for transfer
of a variety of pollutants adsorbed by plastics to organisms, the process is complex and context-
dependent (64). For example, in the warm guts of endotherms, such as birds or humans, associated
environmental pollutants are released at rates up to 30 times greater than in cold-blooded organ-
isms or the surrounding seawater (65). In other cases, the constituents of the plastic itself are more
harmful. For instance, freshly produced polyethylene pellets were more toxic to sea urchin than
pellets previously exposed to marine pollutants in an experimental study in Brazilian waters (66).
A wide variety of marine debris items have recently been tested for toxicological effects in
experimental settings, including cigarette filters (67); various polymers and their leachates (68); PS
particles (69), PE pellets (66), PE and PS particles with adsorbed polyaromatic pollutants (pyrene)
(70); and PP fibers (71). These studies cover a wide range of species, including polychaetes, mussels,
crabs, fish, and seabirds, with negative effects including reduced feeding and reproductive success,
reduced survival, cellular-level toxicity, changes in immune function, changes in enzyme function,
and gene expression. Experimental studies with concentrations of plastic as low as 1% of the diet
demonstrated significant negative effects (71). A recent review summarized both a wide range of
possible direct toxic effects from plastics and enhanced transfer of environmental pollutants via
adsorption and transfer to organisms (64).
4.3. Effects of Micro- and Nanoplastics

Small plastic fragments may act differently from larger items due to their increased surface area,
their capacity to be transferred across tissue or cellular boundaries, or their interactions with other
chemicals in the environment. Recent reviews of experimental evidence for the impacts of plastic
across a range of sizes and levels of biological organization found a complex array of effects for
micro- and nano-sized plastic fragments (5, 15, 30) seen both in invertebrates (13) and vertebrates
(14). For example, in oysters (Figure 5), it was found that experimental exposure to nano- and
microplastics interferes with feeding and reproduction, with negative impacts on fecundity and
offspring quality, both of which are key components of an organism’s fitness (13, 32). Similarly,
when exposed to PS microplastics at concentrations that occur in coastal environments in the
Baltic Sea, fertilized perch eggs have reduced hatching success, and larvae from those waters show
a host of negative effects, from delayed development to increased mortality and compromised
predator avoidance behaviors (14).
In both cases cited above, the impacts result from a mix of leaching of chemicals from the plastics
and physical impacts on digestion. The large surface-to-volume ratio of the small fragments
may exaggerate this, and small size may facilitate ingestion by filter feeders, but there was no
evidence that particles crossed cellular or tissue boundaries (but see 72 for an example where such
transgression occurred). In vitro experiments are demonstrating effects of nanoparticles in realistic
contexts such as mussel haemolymph, which point to potential mechanisms that may eventually
be born out in future in vivo studies (see, e.g., 73). Synergistic effects of microplastics on other
toxins are also possible, although the evidence is mixed so far (74). However, some established
examples exist such as enhancement of chromium toxicity in the presence of microplastics in fish
(75).

LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION
Subcellular Cellular Individual Population
MODES OF ACTION
Ingestion
Microplastics
Uptake across
OH O membrane Elevated
O
O O
antioxidant Reduced
responses Altered growth
OH O
Oxidative feeding
O O
damage
Altered cellular Decreased
Increased Population
Transcription division reproductive
metabolic
output decline
factor activation demand
Altered gene Apoptosis
expression Reallocation Reduced
of energy offspring
Stress response reserves viability
Altered fatty acid

metabolism
Figure 5
Tentative outcome pathways of microplastic pollution at different levels of organization. Microplastic pollutants can enter organisms
through either ingestion or membrane uptake and affect energy allocation, growth, and reproduction via several pathways, likely
influencing every level of organization from subcellular to population. Figure adapted from Reference 15.
4.4. Trophic Transfer and Bioaccumulation

There is increasing evidence for the trophic transfer and potential for bioaccumulation of plastic
and associated chemical pollutants through the food web (Figure 6). A well-studied example
concerns benthic filter feeders, such as mussels that accumulate plastic microfibers and other
particles from the water column, transferring them to benthic predators (17) and human consumers
of farmed or wild shellfish (34). Abundant microplastic particles have also been observed in the
gastrointestinal tracts of larger pinnipeds and cetaceans, suggesting trophic transfer from prey
fish to top predators (76, 77). Some key questions remain, including the ecological relevance of
these transfers in the context of other sources of toxins (64). Laboratory studies have demonstrated
transfer of toxins, such as the flame retardant PBDE, from plastics to organisms including crickets,
amphipods, lungworms, and fish (64). However, plastics have also been found to work in the
opposite direction in laboratory studies, reducing body loads or transfers from the environment.
A key variable is the relative load of pollutants across the environment, the plastic in question,
and the receiving organism, with transfers in differing directions depending on the situation.
Correlative evidence from fish (64), seabirds (78), and mussels (79) does support the potential
of plastics to cause bioaccumulation of environmental pollutants. However, it is still an open
question how the increasing plastic burden of fish and shellfish will affect seafood consumers and
human health. The ubiquity of plastic marine debris in seafood (80) and the toxicity of chemicals
associated with the material have begun to raise concerns, and the weight of evidence suggests that
14 Worm et al.
10 µm
Nanoplastics (< 1 µm) Microplastics (1 µm–5 mm) Mesoplastics (5–200 mm) Macroplastics (> 200 mm)
Bacteria Plankton Larvae Fish Seabirds Turtles Marine mammals

Filter feeders
Sediment Deposit feeders Benthic predators ors

Top predators
Figure 6
Uptake and possible trophic transfer of plastic pollution in marine food webs. Plastic debris of different size classes has been shown to
affect species directly by ingestion or entanglement (thick arrows) or indirectly via uptake with food sources (thin arrows). Fauna of
different sizes and trophic positions will be exposed to particles of different sizes (blue to red) with some degree of bioaccumulation
expected, for both particles themselves (17) and associated chemical pollutants (61, 78). Photographs depict (left to right) nanoplastic
particles taken up by oyster larvae (32), microplastic beads ingested by European perch (14), dead albatross chick with micro- and
mesoplastic debris in the stomach (courtesy of Claire Fackler, Marine Photobank), sea lion entangled in macroplastic fishing gear (107).
chemicals can transfer from plastic to animal. Further research is necessary to evaluate to which
degree plastic debris can transport chemical contaminants to humans via seafood consumption,
and what the long-term effects of such exposure are.
5. SOLUTIONS
As with other global environmental challenges, such as climate change or overfishing, there is no
“silver bullet” that could solve the plastic pollution problem by itself. Instead, a wide range of
interlocking solutions are available that, taken together, could turn the tide of plastic pollution
around, minimizing long-term harm (Table 3). This, however, will require a concerted effort
that builds on the engagement of all levels of society, from governments and plastic producers
to industry users and individual consumers, waste management organizations, as well as scientists
(Figure 7). In the following, we describe solutions that encompass all these sector engagements
from “upstream” to “downstream” with a goal of zero plastic waste input into the ocean (Figure 8).
Obviously, this goal is achievable only if there is some form of global cooperation, as recently
called for by the United Nations Clean Seas Campaign (24). This campaign urges governments
to implement plastic reduction policies (such as bans on microbeads or single-use shopping bags
already present in some countries), encourages industry to minimize plastic packaging and redesign
products, and calls on citizens to change consumptive habits with regard to disposable plastic items.

Table 3 Suggested policy objectives for a comprehensive Global Convention on Plastic Pollution (see also Figure 8)
Value chain step Policy objective
1. Plastic production Reduce demand and volume of production
Require transparency in use of additives and substances of concern to facilitate recycling and ensure safe
chemical management
2. Plastic material and Support new material development through green engineering and the creation of a marketplace for new
product design materials and appropriate incentives
Prohibit excessive packaging to reduce packaging waste and provide a level playing field for marketing via
packaging
3. Waste generation Provide incentives and support for the shift toward a fully circular economy
Ban certain plastic products or applications such as plastic grocery bags, single-use plastic utensils, and
microbeads in personal care products
Educate public about environmental and health risks of particular products and incentivize alternatives
Encourage a reuse and sharing economy

4. Waste management Require producers and consumers to contribute to the cost of recycling or waste management for plastic
products
Create assistance programs that enable technical experts to support countries in need of waste management
system expertise
Create a thriving marketplace for recycled content through recycled content requirements for certain
materials, government procurement policies, or other standard-setting policies
Use landfill bans where appropriate to promote composting and recycling, and to direct hazardous items
toward better end-of-life options
5. Litter capture Use technology and mechanical interventions to capture litter in streams and rivers before it gets to the
ocean
Promote citizen-based or industry-driven cleanup programs
6. Ocean Near-elimination of plastic waste inputs into global marine environment
Commitments have already come from Indonesia to reduce marine litter by 70% by 2025; in terms
of single-use plastic, Uruguay proposes to tax plastic bags in 2017, Ghana is set to outlaw thin-film
plastics, and Costa Rica is planning to dramatically reduce single-use plastic through better waste
management and education (24). We suggest these and additional policy objectives as part of a
comprehensive Global Convention on Plastic Pollution (Table 3).
5.1. Public Policy

Currently, plastics are legally classified together with other solid waste and are not treated as
a pollutant when mismanaged. One way that globally comprehensive regulation can occur is
through a reclassification of the material based on evidence of its impacts on the environment and
humans (4). This could be considered in the development of a new global convention to track
and manage problematic plastic materials. As we argue, plastics in the marine environment exhibit
some characteristics of persistent organic pollutants (organic man-made substances that persist,
accumulate, and harm wildlife and people), although the specifics of the Stockholm Convention
would not apply to most plastic materials. However, classifications can provide an instrument
to remove harmful substances from the environment, regulate their production, and prevent
further waste accumulation. For example, Rochman et al. (4) suggested classifying some plastics
as hazardous substances, recognizing evident harm to wildlife and human health, toxicity, and
persistence in the environment. Another possibility is classification as a priority pollutant, as
defined under the US Clean Water Act. Priority pollutants are taken into account when developing
16 Worm et al.
Governance
Legislation
Regulation
Incentives
Education
Producers Research
Burden of proof Marine science
Best practices Health science
Investment Environmental science
Better materials Citizen and social science
Consumers Waste management

Reduce, reuse, recycle Integrated management
Responsible disposal Litter capture and removal

Awareness Zero waste
Cleanup Use as resource
Figure 7
Solving the plastic crisis by cooperation between all sectors of society.
water quality standards and effluent limitations, especially for wastewater discharges, and consistent
testing protocols and discharge limits must be developed.
A Global Convention on Plastic Pollution could also require producers to declare the in-
gredients of plastic products and warn consumers about their potentially harmful effects. There
are successful precedents with the reclassification of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as hazardous
in 1989 (Montreal Protocol) and POPs in 2004 (Stockholm Convention), respectively (4).
Almost 200 countries stopped the production of 30 dangerous chemical groups and, in the case
of CFCs, ceased all production within 7 years. A reclassification through a Global Convention on
Plastic Pollution could also stimulate new research into less harmful alternatives, improve waste
management practices, and prevent further buildup of plastic waste in the environment.
Another avenue available to governments is the implementation and enforcement of regulations
to control major vectors and pathways in the production, use, consumption, and disposal of plastics,
regardless of whether they are considered hazardous. The goal would be to follow the three
Rs—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle—in all sectors and, ultimately, to create a cyclical, closed-loop
use of resources with zero diversion to landfills or the environment (5, 9). This could be supported
1. Reduce 2. Innovative 3. Reduce 4. Improve 5. Improve 6. Reduce input

plastic materials and waste global waste litter concentrations
production product design generation management capture (zero goal)
Materials and Waste Waste Litter

Plastic production Ocean
product design generation management capture
Figure 8
Elements of a comprehensive strategy to reduce plastic pollution to near zero. See Table 3 for specific
public policy objectives related to each step.

with government incentives, such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) or tax breaks or
subsidies for recycling projects. Another avenue, implemented in parts of Australia, is to institute
a levee for recyclable plastics that are disposed to landfills or energy conversion, with the goal
of diverting >80% to recycling. A further important role for governments is to fund basic and
applied research to quantify the current plastic problem and the risks to human health and the
environment. When these effects become well documented, regulatory action can be implemented
swiftly, as in the recent national bans on plastic microbeads in cleaning and cosmetic products.
Finally, both governmental and nongovernmental organizations should engage in education and
raising awareness about the potentially harmful effects of plastics on human health, wildlife, and
the environment as well as the promotion of alternative choices and products. This will enable
all sectors of society to prioritize the issue and contribute their part, such as following the three
Rs (Figure 7).
5.2. Production and New Materials

The plastic-producing industry needs to take greater responsibility when it comes to material
research, engineering, and manufacturing of plastic products. First, the burden of proof in terms
of health or other harmful effects on people, wildlife, or the environment needs to fall on the
producers. This should include the finished product as well as its ingredients and waste products.
Second, the entire production process needs to follow best practices, including the reduction
of harmful substances and waste; the prevention of plastic pellet loss; the take back, reuse, and
recycling of former plastic products; and transparency about ingredients and production processes
(9). Finally, producers need to invest in the development of safer and more sustainable materials.
Alternative products that are less harmful and less persistent are one direction, such as degradable
natural products or biodegradable plastics (81). Material development and product design can
include Green Engineering principles (82); they would help to avoid many of the externalities of
plastics that are currently occurring. In addition, circular economy concepts are emerging all over
the world and are being applied to plastic materials, especially packaging (81, 83). Both of these
guiding principles promote nontoxic materials, ultimately with the capability of biodegrading and
being recycled. Materials and products made with more homogenous compounds would also make
recycling more efficient and effective. Materials and products can be designed to retain their value,
for collection, recovery, and recycling.
Another direction is to enhance the use phase and lifetime of plastic products including repair
options, reduction of single-use plastics, easier reuse and recycling options, as well as energy recov-
ery (9, 18). And lastly, producers can take more responsibility for product stewardship contribut-
ing to the end-of-life management of materials and products that they distribute in a particular
country. Realizing the marine litter problem, 69 plastic associations in 35 countries have signed
on to the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter since
2011 (http://www.marinelittersolutions.com/). These efforts should be expanded to also deal
with plastics at end-of-life and as harmful and persistent pollutants.
5.3. Use and Consumption

There are many different users and consumers of plastic products, from food packaging to fishing
industries, medical supply to communication companies, and communal institutions to individ-
ual consumers. Independent of the scale of operation, all users and consumers need to promote
and follow the three Rs as one key contribution to reducing plastic waste generation and its
input into the marine environment (5, 9), for example, by reducing the use of single-use plastics
18 Worm et al.
and their replacement with alternative products that are reusable, recyclable, or second-hand.
A key measure to ensure recycling are container deposits, which are widely used for beverage
containers, and are an effective incentive to avoid diversion to landfills. For non-recyclables, the
key contribution is responsible waste disposal, whether in an industrial or personal context. For
example, ghost fishing gear that has been lost or discarded at sea contributes ∼10% of all marine
litter, or 640,000 t (84). Responsible waste handling as well as biodegradable fishing gear could
greatly reduce the harm to marine wildlife. By number of items, cigarettes, caps/lids, and plastic
bottles associated with recreational activities were among the top three items collected during
the 2012 International Coastal Cleanup, the world’s largest volunteer effort to collect data on
marine litter (85). Thus, a third key contribution of all users and consumers is increased aware-
ness about the issue of plastic pollution and the willingness to help solve it through responsible
disposal, and by participation in beach or roadside cleanups as well as boycotts of particularly prob-
lematic products such as BPA-containing water bottles or microbeads in cosmetics and cleaning
products.
5.4. Waste Management

Proper waste collection, disposal and treatment are key issues in many regions around the world
that must be improved to reduce plastic litter and pollution in the ocean (2). Ideally, all countries
would implement integrated waste management systems that combine waste reduction methods
(e.g., reuse, recycle, compost) with proper waste collection, disposal and treatment methods that
reduce harm to the environment. In addition, there is the need to investigate removal methods
for macroscopic plastic litter in different parts of the marine environment, particularly for lost
fishing gear and other materials that frequently cause entanglement and death of marine fauna.
In the end, the goal should be zero waste (Figure 8), as promoted for example by the Zero
Waste International Alliance (http://zwia.org/) and the New Plastics Economy (81). Herein, the
reduction of waste and conservation of materials should have the highest priority, followed by
cyclical use of resources and eventual elimination of the concept of waste. A major part of this is
to shift the paradigm of plastic as a waste, to plastic as a valuable resource in a circular economy.
However, this would require durable and nontoxic products that are specifically made for reuse and
recycling. In some cases, plastic could potentially be used for energy recovery although life-cycle
benefits and burdens are inconsistent and depend on local contexts (86). In addition, in a social cost
analysis and comparison of energy recovery from waste in the United States, United Kingdom,
Germany, and Sweden, it is clear that local context and social acceptance need to be considered
when considering energy production from waste products (87). Several European countries have
already implemented landfill bans, resulting in greatly enhanced recycling and energy recovery
rates (18).
5.5. Research
The study of plastic pollution is inherently interdisciplinary. Although the impacts of plastic on
animals were first discovered by biologists (88), the field has expanded to include a wide variety of
disciplines including, but not limited to, marine science, ecology, human health, environmental
science and engineering, economics, policy, and social and citizen science (Figure 7).
We still do not have sufficient understanding of the sources and sinks of plastic entering the
ocean. Although estimates from the land are mostly complete for meso- and macroplastic debris
(2; also note 110), maritime sources have not been entirely quantified, and micro- or nanoplastic
pathways are not well understood at all. At this point, we find plastic everywhere we look—floating

on the ocean surface, in sediments, on the ocean floor and in the deep sea, in the water column, in
polar ice, and on coastlines. More research is needed to address the issue of “where is the missing
plastic?” Fate and transport are also not well understood, especially the physical and biological
processes and the timescales of plastic fragmentation. This information will help with better risk
assessments for marine species, ecosystems, and people (89).
For the human dimension of plastic pollution, it is recommended that strategies for reducing
marine litter should be guided by both social and natural sciences (90). Social science has tools
for evaluating human perception, communication, and intervention, and these can be used to
examine consumer choice and waste management behavior, measure risk perceptions, optimize
engagement, and evaluate decision making (90). The engagement of citizens has a high priority in
this regard; after all, we all collectively cause the marine litter problem through our consumptive
habits.
A very positive development in this regard is the growth of citizen science, with millions of
people involved in coastal cleanup and data collection schemes. Citizen science programs have
been developed for shoreline monitoring, microplastic sampling (net tows and water sampling), and
microbiological sampling (91). Technology has facilitated data collection at a speed and accuracy
that was not previously available with mobile apps (92). Marine Debris Tracker, sponsored by the
NOAA Marine Debris Program, is the oldest of the litter-data collecting apps with more than
1 million items collected and logged into the database since its release in 2011. Apps allow for
near-real-time data collection and for immediate feedback to users, as well as access to their data
in graphical, mapped, or spreadsheet format (92).
6. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
6.1. Major Findings and Knowledge Gaps

Recent research on the scope of global plastic production (Figure 1) and pollution (Table 1,
Figure 2) has clearly identified that this is a first-order environmental issue, especially in the
ocean. Plastic debris of all size classes is rapidly accumulating at a rate of 4.8–12.7 Mt per year (2)
without any practicable options for large-scale removal, but with clear global hotspots of release
(Figure 2). Microplastics are contributing the vast majority of particles by number, but not by
weight (Figure 3). Biological effects on wildlife and potentially humans are complex, but detailed
mechanisms and patterns are being described (Table 2, Figures 4–5). The effects of entanglement
and ingestion of plastic debris are much more documented than toxic effects and affect a minimum
of 693 documented species. Major knowledge gaps exist around the pathways that plastic debris and
associated pollutants (additives are other pollutants that are adsorbed by plastic particles) take from
surface waters to deep water habitats and sediments, as well as around how these pollutants move
through food webs, including into human seafood consumption (Figure 6). Both the abundance
and biological effects of submicrometer nanoplastics in the marine environment are practically
unknown and represent an important research frontier.
6.2. Another Silent Spring?

The metaphor of a “silent spring” without birdsong became a powerful illustration of the possible
long-term effects of POPs like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and PCBs in the 1950s
and 1960s, when these substances were in widespread use (12). Half a century later, the release
of most POPs into the environment has been dramatically reduced, or even eliminated. Plastics,
however, may cause harm at a similar scale, although most of their well-documented effects so
20 Worm et al.
far are physical, nontoxic, and play out in the oceans, where most people do not witness their
effects. However, the scope of having 90% of surveyed seabirds affected by plastic ingestion, with
increasing trends (Figure 4a), moves a silent spring analogy into the realm of possibility (93).
Here we have attempted to highlight analogies between the problems that emerged around POPs
50 years ago, and the unfolding plastic pollution crisis today. We believe that we can learn from
the experience with POPs, but need to tackle plastic pollution differently as it presents a unique
problem in our society, and the environment.
6.3. Solving the Plastic Problem

Specifically, the plastic problem will not likely be solved by simply banning the produc-
tion of all problematic substances. Although this is an option for certain applications (e.g.
microbeads in personal care products or BPA in baby products), plastics will remain an im-
portant material in humanity’s future. However, much can and will be done to eliminate
plastic pollution as much as possible (24), with many encouraging initiatives in recent years.
Attention to this issue from the public, scientists, and policymakers is at an all-time high and
progressive policies are beginning to emerge. Sources and sinks of plastic pollution are start-
ing to become more clear, and consumers are sensitized to the hazards associated with dis-
posal of plastics in the environment. What is lacking is coordination across sectors, stakeholder
groups, and nations to tackle this problem in a concerted and systematic fashion (Table 3,
Figures 7–8). Here we suggested that a Global Convention on Plastic Pollution might achieve
what the Stockholm Convention achieved for POPs, albeit undoubtedly with a broader suite of
measures and tools. But the end goal of near-zero plastic inputs into the ocean appears achievable,
and should become a unifying focus for environmental policy at the global scale.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that 2. Presents the most
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review. comprehensive
assessment to date of
the total volume and
regional sources of
LITERATURE CITED plastic that pollute
1. Baekeland LH. 1909. The synthesis, constitution, and uses of Bakelite. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1:149–61 marine waters.
2. Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, et al. 2015. Plastic waste inputs from
land into the ocean. Science 347:768–71
4. Makes a
3. Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C, Barnosky AD, Poirier C, et al. 2016. The Anthropocene is comprehensive case
functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351:137 for reclassifying
4. Rochman CM, Browne MA, Halpern BS, Hentschel BT, Hoh E, et al. 2013. Classify plastic plastics as hazardous
waste as hazardous. Nature 494:169–71 pollutants, rather
5. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), ed. than debris.
2016. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Part Two of a Global Assessment.
London: Int. Mar. Org.
8. A global
6. Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, et al. 2004. Lost at sea: Where is all the
meta-analysis that
plastic? Science 304:838
shows rapidly
7. Derraik JG. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. increasing incidence
44:842–52 of plastic ingestion in
8. Wilcox C, van Sebille E, Hardesty BD. 2015. Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, seabirds.
pervasive and increasing. PNAS 38:11899–904

9. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

9. Very (GESAMP), ed. 2015. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A
comprehensive Global Assessment. London: Int. Mar. Org.
review on the state
10. Kaiser J. 2010. The dirt on ocean garbage patches. Science 328:1506
of science on
11. United Nations Environ. Progr. 2001. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollu-
microplastic
pollution. tants. Châtelaine, Switz.: Secr. Stockh. Conv. http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/
TextoftheConvention/tabid/2232/Default.aspx
12. Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
13. Sussarellu R, Suquet M, Thomas Y, Lambert C, Fabioux C, et al. 2016. Oyster reproduction is affected
by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. PNAS 113:2430–35
14. Shows 14. Lönnstedt OM, Eklöv P. 2016. Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles
biologically relevant influence larval fish ecology. Science 352:1213–16
effects of 15. Galloway TS, Lewis CN. 2016. Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations.
microplastics at PNAS 113:2331–33
concentrations that 16. Woodall LC, Sanchez-Vidal A, Canals M, Paterson GL, Coppock R, et al. 2014. The deep sea is a major
are close to those sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 1:140317
now found in natural
17. Farrell P, Nelson K. 2013. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas
environments; paper
(L.). Environ. Pollut. 177:1–3
retracted in May
2017 due to ethical 18. Plastics Europe. 2016. Plastics—The Facts 2016. An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand
concerns. and Waste Data. Brussels, Belg.: Plast. Eur. http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/
20161014113313-plastics_the_facts_2016_final_version.pdf
19. American Chemistry Society (ACS). 1993. The Bakelizer. Washington, DC. ACS. https://
www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/bakelite/the-bakelizer-
commemorative-booklet.pdf
20. Plastics Europe. 2012. Plastics—the Facts 2012. An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand
and Waste Data for 2011. Brussels: Plastic Eur. http://www.plasticseurope.org/Document/plastics-
the-facts-2012.aspx
21. Wilson DC, ed. 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya: Intl. Solid Waste Assoc.,
UN Environ. Progr. http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/september-2015/unep-publications/global-
waste-management-outlook
22. Mazzanti M, Zoboli R. 2008. Waste generation, waste disposal and policy effectiveness: evidence on
decoupling from the European Union. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52:1221–34
23. International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1988. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL): Annex V, Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. London: IMO. http://www.
imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/garbage/Pages/Default.aspx
24. United Nations (UN) Newscentre. 2017. UN declares war on ocean plastic. UN Environment, Febr. 23.
http://web.unep.org/newscentre/un-declares-war-ocean-plastic
25. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aqua-
culture 2016. Rome, Italy: FAO
26. Lithner D, Larsson Å, Dave G. 2011. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic
polymers based on chemical composition. Sci. Total Environ. 409:3309–24
27. Deanin RD. 1975. Additives in plastics. Environ. Health Perspect. 11:35
28. Rochman CM. 2015. The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated with plastic debris
in the marine environment. See Ref. 109, pp. 117–40
29. Koch HM, Calafat AM. 2009. Human body burdens of chemicals used in plastic manufacture. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 364:2063–78
30. da Costa JP, Santos PSM, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. 2016. (Nano)plastics in the environment—
sources, fates and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566–567:15–26
31. Eriksen M, Lebreton LC, Carson HS, Thiel M, Moore CJ, et al. 2014. Plastic pollution in the world’s
oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLOS ONE 9:e111913
32. Cole M, Galloway TS. 2015. Ingestion of nanoplastics and microplastics by Pacific oyster larvae. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 49:14625–32
22 Worm et al.
33. Van Sebille E, Wilcox C, Lebreton L, Maximenko N, Hardesty BD, et al. 2015. A global inventory of
small floating plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 10:124006
34. Mathalon A, Hill P. 2014. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor,
Nova Scotia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81:69–79
35. Jamieson AJ, Malkocs T, Piertney SB, Fujii T, Zhang Z. 2017. Bioaccumulation of persistent organic
pollutants in the deepest ocean fauna. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:0051
36. Shanks AL, Trent JD. 1980. Marine snow: sinking rates and potential role in vertical flux. Deep Sea Res.
Part A 27:137–43
37. Besseling E, Foekema E, Van Franeker J, Leopold M, Kühn S, et al. 2015. Microplastic in a macro filter
feeder: humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 95:248–52
38. Fossi MC, Coppola D, Baini M, Giannetti M, Guerranti C, et al. 2014. Large filter feeding marine
organisms as indicators of microplastic in the pelagic environment: the case studies of the Mediterranean
basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Mar. Environ. Res. 100:17–24
39. Albertsson AC, Karlsson S. 1988. The three stages in degradation of polymers—polyethylene as a model
substance. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 35:1289–302

40. Ohtake Y, Kobayashi T, Asabe H, Murakami N. 1998. Studies on biodegradation of LDPE—observation
of LDPE films scattered in agricultural fields or in garden soil. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 60:79–84
41. Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M. 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic
debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 364:1985–98
42. Keshavarz T, Roy I. 2010. Polyhydroxyalkanoates: bioplastics with a green agenda. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.
13:321–26
43. Zettler ER, Mincer TJ, Amaral-Zettler LA. 2013. Life in the “plastisphere”: microbial communities on
plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:7137–46
44. Shah AA, Hasan F, Hameed A, Ahmed S. 2008. Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive
review. Biotechnol. Adv. 26:246–65
45. Albertsson A-C. 1980. The shape of the biodegradation curve for low and high density polyethenes in
prolonged series of experiments. Eur. Polym. J. 16:623–30
46. Kawai F, Watanabe M, Shibata M, Yokoyama S, Sudate Y, Hayashi S. 2004. Comparative study on
biodegradability of polyethylene wax by bacteria and fungi. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 86:105–14
47. Lee B, Pometto AL, Fratzke A, Bailey TB. 1991. Biodegradation of degradable plastic polyethylene by
Phanerochaete and Streptomyces species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:678–85
48. Orhan Y, Büyükgüngör H. 2000. Enhancement of biodegradability of disposable polyethylene in con-
trolled biological soil. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 45:49–55
49. Bombelli P, Howe CJ, Bertocchini F. 2017. Polyethylene bio-degradation by caterpillars of the wax moth
Galleria mellonella. Curr. Biol. 27:R292–93
50. Yoshida S, Hiraga K, Takehana T, Taniguchi I, Yamaji H, et al. 2017. A bacterium that degrades and
assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 351:1196–99
51. O’Brine T, Thompson RC. 2010. Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 60:2279–83
52. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2016. Marine debris: understanding, preventing and mitigating
the significant adverse impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity. CBD Tech. Ser. 83, Secr. CBD, Montreal,
QC, Can. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-83-en.pdf
53. Gall S, Thompson R. 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92:170–79
54. Wilcox C, Heathcote G, Goldberg J, Gunn R, Peel D, Hardesty BD. 2015. Understanding the sources
and effects of abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear on marine turtles in northern Australia. Conserv.
Biol. 29:198–206
55. Gilardi KV, Carlson-Bremer D, June JA, Antonelis K, Broadhurst G, Cowan T. 2010. Marine species
mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net removal. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 60:376–82
56. Schuyler Q, Hardesty BD, Wilcox C, Townsend K. 2014. Global analysis of anthropogenic debris
ingestion by sea turtles. Conserv. Biol. 28:129–39

57. Schuyler Q, Townsend K, Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Marshall J. 2014. Mistaken identity? Visual sim-
ilarities of marine debris to natural prey items of sea turtles. BMC Ecol. http://www.biomedcentral.
com/1472-6785/14/14
58. Plot V, Georges J-Y. 2010. Plastic debris in a nesting Leatherback Turtle in French Guiana. Chelonian
Conserv. Biol. 9:267–70
59. Savoca MS, Wohlfeil ME, Ebeler SE, Nevitt GA. 2016. Marine plastic debris emits a keystone info-
chemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. Sci. Adv. 2:e1600395
60. Kühn S, Rebolledo ELB, van Franeker JA. 2015. Deleterious effects of litter on marine life. See Ref.
109, pp. 75–116
61. Rochman CM, Hoh E, Kurobe T, Teh SJ. 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish
and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Rep. 3:3263
62. Hamlin HJ, Marciano K, Downs CA. 2015. Migration of nonylphenol from food-grade plastic is toxic
to the coral reef fish species Pseudochromis fridmani. Chemosphere 139:223–28
63. Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T. 2001. Plastic resin pellets as a
transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:318–24
64. Rochman CM. 2016. The role of plastic debris as another source of hazardous chemicals in lower-trophic
level organisms. In The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, ed. D Barceló, AG Kostianoy, pp. 1–15.
New York: Springer

65. Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC. 2014. Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from
microplastics under simulated physiological conditions. Environ. Pollut. 185:16–23
66. Nobre C, Santana M, Maluf A, Cortez F, Cesar A, et al. 2015. Assessment of microplastic toxicity to
embryonic development of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 92:99–104
67. Wright SL, Rowe D, Reid MJ, Thomas KV, Galloway TS. 2015. Bioaccumulation and biological effects
of cigarette litter in marine worms. Sci. Rep. 5:14119
68. Bejgarn S, MacLeod M, Bogdal C, Breitholtz M. 2015. Toxicity of leachate from weathering plastics:
an exploratory screening study with Nitocra spinipes. Chemosphere 132:114–19
69. Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Galloway TS. 2015. The impact of polystyrene microplas-
tics on feeding, function and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ. Sci. Technol.
49:1130–37
70. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Milan M, Benedetti M, Fattorini D, et al. 2015. Pollutants bioavailability and toxi-
cological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ. Pollut. 198:211–22
71. Watts AJ, Urbina MA, Corr S, Lewis C, Galloway TS. 2015. Ingestion of plastic microfibers by the crab
Carcinus maenas and its effect on food consumption and energy balance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49:14597–
604
72. Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. 2008. Ingested microscopic
plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ. Sci. Technol.
42:5026–31
73. Canesi L, Ciacci C, Fabbri R, Balbi T, Salis A, et al. 2016. Interactions of cationic polystyrene nanoparti-
cles with marine bivalve hemocytes in a physiological environment: role of soluble hemolymph proteins.
Environ. Res. 150:73–81
74. Canesi L, Ciacci C, Balbi T. 2015. Interactive effects of nanoparticles with other contaminants in aquatic
organisms: Friend or foe? Mar. Environ. Res. 111:128–34
75. Luı́s LG, Ferreira P, Fonte E, Oliveira M, Guilhermino L. 2015. Does the presence of microplastics
influence the acute toxicity of chromium (VI) to early juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus
microps)? A study with juveniles from two wild estuarine populations. Aquatic Toxicol. 164:163–74
76. Lusher AL, Hernandez-Milian G, O’Brien J, Berrow S, O’Connor I, Officer R. 2015. Microplastic and
macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: the True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus.
Environ. Pollut. 199:185–91
77. Eriksson C, Burton H. 2003. Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals
from Macquarie Island. AMBIO: A J. Hum. Environ. 32:380–84
78. Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka M-A, Watanuki Y. 2013. Accumulation of
plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 69:219–22
24 Worm et al.
79. Jang M, Shim WJ, Han GM, Rani M, Song YK, Hong SH. 2016. Styrofoam debris as a source of
hazardous additives for marine organisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:4951–60
80. Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, et al. 2015. Anthropogenic debris in seafood:
plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci. Rep. 5:14340
81. World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2016. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking
the Future of Plastics. Geneva, Switz.: World Econ. Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf
82. Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB. 2003. Design through the 12 principles of green engineering. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 37: 94A–101A
83. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2017. The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing Action. https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/New-Plastics-Economy_Catalysing-Action_
13-1-17.pdf
84. Cressey D. 2016. Bottles, bags, ropes and toothbrushes: the struggle to track ocean plastics. Nature
536:263–65
85. Thevenon F, Carroll C, Sousa J, eds. 2014. Plastic Debris in the Ocean: The Characterization of Marine
Plastics and Their Environmental Impacts, Situation Analysis Report. Gland, Switz.: Int. Union Conserv.
Nat.
86. Astrup TF, Tonini D, Turconi R, Boldrin A. 2015. Life cycle assessment of thermal Waste-to-Energy
technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manag. 37:104–15
87. Miranda ML, Hale B. 1997. Waste not, want not: the private and social costs of waste-to-energy pro-
duction. Energy Policy 25:587–600
88. Ryan PG, Moore CJ, Franeker JA, Moloney CL. 2009. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in
the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364:1526
89. Hardesty B, Wilcox C. 2017. A risk framework for tackling marine debris. Anal. Methods 9:1429–36
90. Pahl S, Wyles K. 2017. The human dimension: how social and behavioural research methods can help
address microplastics in the environment. Anal. Methods 9:1404–11
91. Zettler ER, Takada H, Monteleone B, Mallos N, Eriksen M, Amaral-Zettler LA. 2017. Incorporating
citizen science to study plastics in the environment. Anal. Methods 9:1392–1403
92. Jambeck JR, Johnsen K. 2015. Marine debris tracker: citizen-based litter and marine debris data collection
and mapping. Comput. Sci. Eng. 17:20–26
93. Worm B. 2015. Silent spring in the ocean. PNAS 112:11752–53
94. Readman JW, DeLuna F, Ebinghaus R, Guzman AN, Price ARG, et al. 2013. Contaminants, pollution
and potential anthropogenic impacts in Chagos/British Indian Ocean Territories. In Coral Reefs of the
United Kingdom Overseas Territories, ed. CRC Sheppard, pp. 283–98. Amsterdam, Neth.: Springer
95. Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, et al. 2011. Accumulation of microplastic on
shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:9175–79
96. Carpenter EJ, Smith K. 1972. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 175:1240–41
97. Moore CJ, Moore SL, Leecaster MK, Weisberg SB. 2001. A comparison of plastic and plankton in the
North Pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42:1297–300
98. Moore CJ, Moore SL, Weisberg SB, Lattin GL, Zellers AF. 2002. A comparison of neustonic plastic
and zooplankton abundance in southern California’s coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44:1035–38
99. Doyle MJ, Watson W, Bowlin NM, Sheavly SB. 2011. Plastic particles in coastal pelagic ecosystems of
the Northeast Pacific ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 71:41–52
100. Collignon A, Hecq J-H, Glagani F, Voisin P, Collard F, Goffart A. 2012. Neustonic microplastic and
zooplankton in the North Western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64:861–64
101. Pierce KE, Harris RJ, Larned LS, Pokras MA. 2004. Obstruction and starvation associated with plastic
ingestion in a Northern Gannet Morus bassanus and a Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis. Mar. Ornithol.
32:187–89
102. Brandão ML, Braga KM, Luque JL. 2011. Marine debris ingestion by Magellanic penguins, Spheniscus
magellanicus (Aves: Sphenisciformes), from the Brazilian coastal zone. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62:2246–49
103. Özdilek HG, Yalçin-Özdilek S, Ozaner FS, Sönmez B. 2006. Impact of accumulated beach litter on
Chelonia mydas L.1758 (Green turtle) hatchlings of the Samandag coast, Hatay, Turkey. Fresenius Environ.
Bull. 15:95–103

104. Stamper MA, Spicer CW, Neiffer DL, Mathews KS, Fleming GJ. 2009. Morbidity in a juvenile green
sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) due to ocean-borne plastic. J. Zoo Wildlife Med. 40:196–98
105. Choy CA, Drazen JC. 2013. Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent debris ingestion by pelagic
predatory fishes from the central North Pacific. Mar. Eecol. Prog. Ser. 485:155–63
106. Jacobsen JK, Massey L, Gulland F. 2010. Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm whales
(Physeter macrocephalus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60:765–67
107. Page B, McKenzie J, McIntosh R, Baylis A, Morrissey A, et al. 2004. Entanglement of Australian sea
lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after Government
and industry attempts to reduce the problem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49:33–42
108. Murray F, Cowie PR. 2011. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus
(Linnaeus, 1758). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62:1207–17
109. Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, eds. 2015. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. New York: Springer
110. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv.
3(7):e1700782
26 Worm et al.
EG42_FrontMatter ARI 22 September 2017 9:43
Annual Review of
Environment
and Resources
Contents
Volume 42, 2017
I. Integrative Themes and Emerging Concerns

Plastic as a Persistent Marine Pollutant
Boris Worm, Heike K. Lotze, Isabelle Jubinville, Chris Wilcox, and Jenna Jambeck p p p p p p 1
African Environmental Change from the Pleistocene

to the Anthropocene
Colin Hoag and Jens-Christian Svenning p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p27

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and
Opportunities
Mark Vardy, Michael Oppenheimer, Navroz K. Dubash, Jessica O’Reilly,
and Dale Jamieson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
The Concept of the Anthropocene
Yadvinder Malhi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p77
Marked for Life: Epigenetic Effects of Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals
Miriam N. Jacobs, Emma L. Marczylo, Carlos Guerrero-Bosagna,
and Joëlle Rüegg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105
II. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Degradation and Recovery in Changing Forest Landscapes:
A Multiscale Conceptual Framework
Jaboury Ghazoul and Robin Chazdon p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 161
III. Human Use of the Environment and Resources

Drivers of Human Stress on the Environment
in the Twenty-First Century
Thomas Dietz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 189
Linking Urbanization and the Environment: Conceptual and
Empirical Advances
Xuemei Bai, Timon McPhearson, Helen Cleugh, Harini Nagendra,
Xin Tong, Tong Zhu, and Yong-Guan Zhu p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 215
vi
Debating Unconventional Energy: Social, Political,

and Economic Implications
Kate J. Neville, Jennifer Baka, Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, Karen Bakker,
Stefan Andreasson, Avner Vengosh, Alvin Lin, Jewellord Nem Singh,
and Erika Weinthal p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Emerging Technologies for Higher Fuel Economy
Automobile Standards
Timothy E. Lipman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 267
The Future of Low-Carbon Electricity
Jeffery B. Greenblatt, Nicholas R. Brown, Rachel Slaybaugh, Theresa Wilks,
Emma Stewart, and Sean T. McCoy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 289
Organic and Conventional Agriculture: A Useful Framing?

Carol Shennan, Timothy J. Krupnik, Graeme Baird, Hamutahl Cohen,
Kelsey Forbush, Robin J. Lovell, and Elissa M. Olimpi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317

Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Change
Avery S. Cohn, Peter Newton, Juliana D.B. Gil, Laura Kuhl,
Leah Samberg, Vincent Ricciardi, Jessica R. Manly, and Sarah Northrop p p p p p p p p p p p p 347
The Future Promise of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Integration:
A Sociotechnical Review and Research Agenda
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Jonn Axsen, and Willett Kempton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377
Technology and Engineering of the Water-Energy Nexus
Prakash Rao, Robert Kostecki, Larry Dale, and Ashok Gadgil p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407
IV. Management and Governance of Resources and Environment

Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review
Bas Arts, Marleen Buizer, Lumina Horlings, Verina Ingram, Cora van Oosten,
and Paul Opdam p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 439
Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment
Matthew A. Cole, Robert J.R. Elliott, and Liyun Zhang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465
Land Tenure Transitions in the Global South: Trends, Drivers,
and Policy Implications
Thomas K. Rudel and Monica Hernandez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 489
Ecosystem Services from Transborder Migratory Species: Implications
for Conservation Governance
Laura López-Hoffman, Charles C. Chester, Darius J. Semmens,
Wayne E. Thogmartin, M. Sofia Rodrı́guez-McGoffin, Robert Merideth,
and Jay E. Diffendorfer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 509
Contents vii
V. Methods and Indicators

Legacies of Historical Human Activities in Arctic Woody Plant
Dynamics
Signe Normand, Toke T. Høye, Bruce C. Forbes, Joseph J. Bowden,
Althea L. Davies, Bent V. Odgaard, Felix Riede, Jens-Christian Svenning,
Urs A. Treier, Rane Willerslev, and Juliane Wischnewski p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 541
Toward the Next Generation of Assessment
Katharine J. Mach and Christopher B. Field p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 569
Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and
Practice for Societal Change
Derk Loorbach, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Flor Avelino p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 599
Attribution of Weather and Climate Events

Friederike E.L. Otto p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627

Material Flow Accounting: Measuring Global Material Use for
Sustainable Development
Fridolin Krausmann, Heinz Schandl, Nina Eisenmenger, Stefan Giljum,
and Tim Jackson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 647
The Impact of Systematic Conservation Planning
Emma J. McIntosh, Robert L. Pressey, Samuel Lloyd, Robert J. Smith,
and Richard Grenyer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 677
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 33–42 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 699

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 33–42 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 705
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles may
be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/environ
viii Contents

Annurev-Environ-2017-Plastic As Permanent Marine Pollution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annurev-Environ-2017-Plastic As Permanent Marine Pollution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annurev-Environ-2017-Plastic As Permanent Marine Pollution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EG42CH01-Worm ARI 16 September 2017 9:43

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Plastic as a Persistent Marine

Chris Wilcox,2 and Jenna Jambeck3

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017. 42:1–26 Keywords

3.3. Concentration in the Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. EFFECTS OF PLASTIC POLLUTION ON MARINE LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

complex toxicology of micrometer- to nanometer-sized plastic particles coming to light recently

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 3

2. HISTORY AND CURRENT TRENDS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION

2.1. The Origin of Plastics

2.2. Twentieth-Century Trends

2.3. Current Magnitude of Production and Release

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 5

total marine plastic pollution.

2.4. Future Projections

3. PLASTIC AS A PERSISTENT POLLUTANT

3.1. Types of Plastic and Their Ingredients

global plastic production (18).

3.2. Size Classes: Micro- Versus Macroplastics

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 7

Number of pieces (billions)

3.3. Concentration in the Marine Environment

Table 1 Concentration of microplastic particles in marine sediments and surface watersa

Concentration in surface waters

Gyre Pacific 0.0001115 97

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 9

3.5. Microbial Biodegradation

4. EFFECTS OF PLASTIC POLLUTION ON MARINE LIFE

4.1. Ingestion and Entanglement

a Seabird species b Sea turtle species

n=3 n=2 n=1 n=1 n=1

4.2. Toxic Effects

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 11

nylon string starvation Florida

debris laying of eggs

4.3. Effects of Micro- and Nanoplastics

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 13

Altered fatty acid

4.4. Trophic Transfer and Bioaccumulation

Bacteria Plankton Larvae Fish Seabirds Turtles Marine mammals

Sediment Deposit feeders Benthic predators ors

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 15

Encourage a reuse and sharing economy

5.1. Public Policy

Consumers Waste management

Responsible disposal Litter capture and removal

1. Reduce 2. Innovative 3. Reduce 4. Improve 5. Improve 6. Reduce input

Materials and Waste Waste Litter

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 17

5.2. Production and New Materials

5.3. Use and Consumption

5.4. Waste Management

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 19

6. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

6.1. Major Findings and Knowledge Gaps

6.2. Another Silent Spring?

6.3. Solving the Plastic Problem

www.annualreviews.org • Plastic as a Persistent Pollutant 21