National Academies Press: OpenBook

Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste (2021)

Chapter: Appendix D: Estuary Table

« Previous: Appendix C: Legal Framework
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Estuary Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26132.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Estuary Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26132.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Estuary Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26132.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Estuary Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26132.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Estuary Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26132.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Estuary Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26132.
×
Page 187

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Appendix D Estuary Table 182 Prepublication Copy

TABLE D-1 Peer-reviewed Studies in which Plastic Waste was Measured in Estuaries and Rivers of the United States Prepublication Copy Environmental Sampling Study Locale Sampling dates matrix (N=# of sites) method Abundance, as reported Notes 3 Moore, Lattin, and Los Angeles Two occupations: Surface, mid-depth, Manta net and 0 to 12,932 particles/m ; 0 to Sampled during dry period Zellers 2011 and San Nov 22 or Dec 28, and bottom samples hand nets 121 g/m3 (Nov/Dec) and within 24 hours Gabriel 2004, and Apr 11, (N=3, two (0.333–0.8 mm of 0.25 in. of rainfall (Apr) Rivers 2005 occupations) mesh) Yonkos et al. Chesapeake ~monthly between 4 estuarine tributaries, Manta net (0.3 From < 1.0 to > 560 g/km2 Peaks in abundance after major 2014 Bay July and Dec 2011 surface water (N=60) mm mesh) storm events Bikker et al. 2020 Chesapeake Single occupation Estuary surface water Manta net (0.33 0.007 to 1.245 particles/m3 Not all particles were plastic. Bay collected Aug 31– (N=30) mm mesh) Polyethylene (PE), Sep 18, 2015 polypropylene (PP) most common plastics found Davis and Murphy Salish Sea & 2011 (N=62), Estuary surface water Manta net (0.335 0 to > 130,000 particles/km2 Samples dominated by expanded 2015 Inside 2012 (N=15) (N=77) mm mesh) polystyrene (EPS) foam Passage (WA) McCormick et al. 9 rivers in Single occupation Stream surface water Neuston net 0.48 (+/- 0.09) to 11.22 (+/- Highly variable particle flux 2016 Chicago collected Jul 10– (N=9, each site with 4 (0.333 mm) 1.53) particles/m3 between sites; mainly PE, PP, metropolitan Oct 13, 2014 replicates at both polystyrene (PS); 7 of 9 sites area (IL, IN) locations upstream and had higher concentrations downstream of downstream of WWTP effluent wastewater treatment plant [WWTP] outfall site) Hoellein et al. North Shore Aug 7, 2017 Channel surface water Neuston net 1.67 particles/m3 to 10.36 Much higher microplastic 2017 Channel and benthic sediment (0.333 mm), particles/m3 (water); 36 to 1613 abundance in sediment than in (urban (N=5, 4 replicates of Ponar grab particles/L (sediment) surface water; microplastic waterway, each sample type at (~0.75-1 L abundance in water did not vary Chicago, IL) each location) sediment) with increasing distance downstream of WWTP outfall Baldwin, Corsi, 29 Great Apr 2014–Apr Surface water (N=107) Neuston net 0.05 to 32 particles/m3 Plastics found in all samples. and Mason 2016 Lakes 2015, each (0.333 mm Majority were fibers/lines whose tributaries (6 tributary sampled mesh) concentrations were not related states) 3–4 times to watershed attributes or hydrological processes (Continued) 183

Continued 184 Environmental Sampling Study Locale Sampling dates matrix (N=# of sites) method Abundance, as reported Notes Sutton et al. 2016 San Francisco Single occupation Estuary surface water Manta net (0.333 15,000 to 2,000,000 Abundances higher in southern Bay collected on 2 (N =9) mm mesh) particles/km2 Bay than central Bay days in Jan 2015 Sutton et al. 2019 San Francisco Two occupations Estuary surface water Manta net (0.335 2,400 to 6,200,000 particles/km2 Abundances include Bay and (wet/dry (N=17) and sediments mm mesh), 1-L in surface water; 0.5 to 60 microplastics and other Tomales Bay conditions) (N=20) water grab particles/g dry weight microparticles. Surface water sample, pumped samples collected in the wet water sample, season had higher sediment grab concentrations of microplastics than in the dry season. Miller et al. 2017 Hudson River Single occupation River surface water Water grab 0 to 12.37 microfibers/L Abundances include (NY) collected in June (N=142) samples, filtered microplastics and other and Oct 2016 on 0.45 µm filter microfibers Gray et al. 2018 Charleston Single occupation Sea surface microlayer 4-L sea surface 0 to 1195.7 +/- 193.9 High abundance of suspected Harbor, (N=12), intertidal microlayer particles/m2 in sediment; 3 to 88 tire wear particles (Charleston Winyah Bay sediment (N=10) samples; top 2 particles/L in water Harbor) (SC) cm of sediment in quadrats Barrows et al. Gallatin Sept 2015 –June River surface water ~1-L water 0 to 67.5 particles/L Majority of particles were fibers 2018 River basin 2017 (N=714, occupied samples (80%); microplastic (MT, WY) seasonally over 2 years concentration inversely related at 72 sites) to river discharge Kapp and Snake River 5 repeated River surface water 1.85-L water 0- 5.405 particles/L (bulk water Yeatman 2018 (WY, ID, sampling periods samples (N=28); samples); 0 - 13.701 particles/m3 OR, WA) between June and net samples (net samples) Aug 2015 (0.100 mm mesh) (N=28) Prepublication Copy Cohen et al. 2019 Delaware Apr 21, 28 2017 Estuary surface water Ring plankton 0.19 to 1.24 particles/m3 High spatial/temporal variability Bay and June 12, 13 (N=16, occupied once net (0.2 mm 2017 in Apr and once in mesh) June)

McEachern et al. Tampa Bay 1–5 months Surface water (N=24; 2 1-L water 0 to 7.0 particles/L (bulk water Prepublication Copy 2019 (FL) between samples methods), sediment samples; samples); 1.2 to 18.1 from June 2016 to (N=9) plankton net particles/m3 (net tow samples); July 2017 (water); (0.33 mm mesh); 30 to 790 particles/kg (sediment) Single occupation, Shipek grab for Mar 21–23, 2017 sediment (sediment) Lenaker et al. Milwaukee 5 sampling trips, Stream/river/estuary Neuston net 0.21–19.1 particles/m3 at Concentration of low-density 2019 River Basin May to Sept 2016 surface water and (0.333 mm surface; 0.06– 4.3 particles/m3 particles decreased with depth; (water sampling); subsurface water mesh); Circular subsurface; 32.9–6229 concentration of high-density June 2016 (N=96), sediment net (0.333 mm) particles/kg dry weight sediment particles increased with depth (sediment) (N=9) for subsurface; Spoons for sediment Christensen et al. Blacksburg, Single occupation River bed, banks and Hand trowel (40 Averages by site ranged from 17 Average concentration was as 2020 VA region on June 21, 2018 floodplain sediment cm x 40 cm area particles/kg to 180 particles/kg high or higher in floodplain than and Aug 31, 2018 from 3 rivers (N=14) x 4 cm depth) in stream channel, and average particle size was also larger Bailey et al. 2021 Raritan River July 26, 2018 (low River and estuary Plankton net 0 - 2.75 particles/m3 for 500– and Raritan flow), Apr 11, surface water (N=14, (0.080 or 0.150 2000 µm size class; 0.38–4.71 Bay (NJ) 2019 (moderate some duplicates) mm mesh) particles/m3 for 250–500 µm size flow), Apr 16, class 2019 (high flow) 185

Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste REFERENCES Bailey, K., K. Sipps, G. K. Saba, G. Arbuckle-Keil, R. J. Chant, and N. L. Fahrenfeld. 2021. “Quantification and composition of microplastics in the Raritan Hudson Estuary: Comparison to pathways of entry and implications for fate.” Chemosphere 272. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129886. Baldwin, A. K., S. R. Corsi, and S. A. Mason. 2016. “Plastic debris in 29 Great Lakes tributaries: Relations to watershed attributes and hydrology.” Environ Sci Technol 50 (19):10377-10385. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02917. Barrows, A. P. W., K. S. Christiansen, E. T. Bode, and T. J. Hoellein. 2018. “A watershed-scale, citizen science approach to quantifying microplastic concentration in a mixed land-use river.” Water Research 147:382-392. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.013. Bikker, J., J. Lawson, S. Wilson, and C. M. Rochman. 2020. “Microplastics and other anthropogenic particles in the surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay.” Mar Pollut Bull 156:111257. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111257. Christensen, N. D., C. E. Wisinger, L. A. Maynard, N. Chauhan, J. T. Schubert, J. A. Czuba, and J. R. Barone. 2020. “Transport and characterization of microplastics in inland waterways.” Journal of Water Process Engineering 38. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101640. Cohen, J. H., A. M. Internicola, R. A. Mason, and T. Kukulka. 2019. “Observations and simulations of microplastic debris in a tide, wind, and freshwater-driven estuarine environment: The Delaware Bay.” Environmental Science and Technology 53 (24):14204-14211. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04814. Davis, W., III, and A. G. Murphy. 2015. “Plastic in surface waters of the Inside Passage and beaches of the Salish Sea in Washington State.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 97 (1-2):169-177. doi: 10.1016/j.mar polbul.2015.06.019. Gray, A. D., H. Wertz, R. R. Leads, and J. E. Weinstein. 2018. “Microplastic in two South Carolina Estuaries: Occurrence, distribution, and composition.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 128:223-233. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.030. Hoellein, T. J., A. R. McCormick, J. Hittie, M. G. London, J. W. Scott, and J. J. Kelly. 2017. “Longitudinal patterns of microplastic concentration and bacterial assemblages in surface and benthic habitats of an urban river.” Freshwater Science 36 (3):491-507. doi: 10.1086/693012. Kapp, K. J., and E. Yeatman. 2018. “Microplastic hotspots in the Snake and Lower Columbia rivers: A journey from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the Pacific Ocean.” Environ Pollut 241:1082- 1090. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.033. Lenaker, P. L., A. K. Baldwin, S. R. Corsi, S. A. Mason, P. C. Reneau, and J. W. Scott. 2019. “Vertical distribution of microplastics in the water column and surficial sediment from the Milwaukee River Basin to Lake Michigan.” Environ Sci Technol 53 (21):12227-12237. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b03 850. McCormick, A. R., T. J. Hoellein, M. G. London, J. Hittie, J. W. Scott, and J. J. Kelly. 2016. “Microplastic in surface waters of urban rivers: Concentration, sources, and associated bacterial assemblages.” Ecosphere 7 (11). doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1556. McEachern, K., H. Alegria, A. L. Kalagher, C. Hansen, S. Morrison, and D. Hastings. 2019. “Microplastics in Tampa Bay, Florida: Abundance and variability in estuarine waters and sediments.” Mar Pollut Bull 148:97-106. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.07.068. Miller, R. Z., A. J. R. Watts, B. O. Winslow, T. S. Galloway, and A. P. W. Barrows. 2017. “Mountains to the sea: River study of plastic and non-plastic microfiber pollution in the northeast USA.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 124 (1):245-251. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.028. Moore, C. J., G. L. Lattin, and A. F. Zellers. 2011. “Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California.” Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 11 (1):65-73. Sutton, R., S. A. Mason, S. K. Stanek, E. Willis-Norton, I. F. Wren, and C. Box. 2016. “Microplastic contamination in the San Francisco Bay, California, USA.” Mar Pollut Bull 109 (1):230-235. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.077. 186 Prepublication Copy

Appendix D Sutton, R., A. Franz, A. Gilbreath, D. Lin, L. Miller, M. Sedlak, A. Wong, C. Box, , R. Holleman, K. Munno, X. Zhu, C. Rochman.2019. “Understanding microplastic levels, pathways, and transport in the San Francisco Bay Region.” SFEI Contribution No. 950. (San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.). Yonkos, L. T., E. A. Friedel, A. C. Perez-Reyes, S. Ghosal, and C. D. Arthur. 2014. “Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A.” Environ Sci Technol 48 (24):14195-202. doi: 10.1021/es5036317. Prepublication Copy 187

Next: Appendix E: Global Instruments and Activities Relevant to Ocean Plastic Pollution »
Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $69.00 Buy Paperback | $60.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

An estimated 8 million metric tons (MMT) of plastic waste enters the world's ocean each year - the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck of plastic waste into the ocean every minute. Plastic waste is now found in almost every marine habitat, from the ocean surface to deep sea sediments to the ocean's vast mid-water region, as well as the Great Lakes. This report responds to a request in the bipartisan Save Our Seas 2.0 Act for a scientific synthesis of the role of the United States both in contributing to and responding to global ocean plastic waste.

The United States is a major producer of plastics and in 2016, generated more plastic waste by weight and per capita than any other nation. Although the U.S. solid waste management system is advanced, it is not sufficient to deter leakage into the environment. Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste calls for a national strategy by the end of 2022 to reduce the nation's contribution to global ocean plastic waste at every step - from production to its entry into the environment - including by substantially reducing U.S. solid waste generation. This report also recommends a nationally-coordinated and expanded monitoring system to track plastic pollution in order to understand the scales and sources of U.S. plastic waste, set reduction and management priorities, and measure progress.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!