The Impact of Microplastics on Marine Life and Humans

Tyane Hooks

University of North Florida

HSC4730

Doctor Barnes

December 7, 2020
 Abstract

With the continuous rise of microplastic particles in waters from human activity, studies

have acknowledged the potential relationships between microplastics, their resulting particles

and the health of marine organisms and humans through consumption. Information on this

relationship is limited and requires more study to drive policy change and consumer awareness.

The toxicity of plastics that accumulate through manufacturing and marine environments are

ingested and could have implications for health. Microplastics are known to come from multiple

personal care and cosmetic products that are still being manufactured to this day. The question of

what the health risks are pose a great concern in years to come. Therefore, this study will

examine the potential effects of the microplastics through professional observation, and the best

course of action to take in the future will be evaluated.

 Background

The distribution of micro-plastics to marine environments and ecosystems have been a

concern since the 1970’s. In 2009 alone, global plastic production was 250 million tons, whereas

in 2016 it increased to 335 million tons (Alimba & Faggio, 2019). Annually, an estimate of 4.8-

12 million tons of plastic enter the marine environment (Botterell et al., 2019). This estimate is

likely be a major underestimate of the true amount of microplastics on a global scale. Micro-

plastics can be described as plastic particles that are smaller than 5mm (Lei et al., 2017) (Chang,

2015; Carr et al., 2016). Microbeads, a form of primary micro-plastics can be defined as, small

plastic particles that are >1mm or less in size (Cole et al., 2011; Kalčíková et al., 2017). These

plastic particles disperse onto water surfaces and are automatic hazardous solid waste material to

marine life and ecosystems. According to (Fendall & Sewell, 2009), hand cleansers, such as

liquid plastic-sand soaps were the first source of pollution discovered in 1990. Yet, through the

increase use of microplastics, natural exfoliant ingredients such as pumice, oatmeal, apricot or

walnut husk (Fendall & Sewell, 2009) were replaced in multiple products further increasing the

issue. The sustainability of the ingredient is why it is widely used to this day. Overall, the use of

microbeads has caused an increase in the pollution of water bodies through every day human

activity, such as washing of the face and body, and brushing of the teeth. A single use of an

exfoliant is estimated to release between 4954 and 94,500 microbeads per use (Napper et al.,

2015). Because the size range of microbeads are 60 to 800um in diameter (Chang, 2015), they

easily pass through current wastewater treatment plants. Activated sludge, a wastewater

treatment process only captures 53% of microbeads (Kalčíková et al., 2017). Therefore, the

remaining microbeads are transported directly to our waters worldwide at high amounts.
 There are two main sources of micro-plastics in the environment today. This first source

is primary micro-plastics. These are plastics manufactured for industrial or domestic applications

to be of a microscopic size (Auta et al., 2017). Secondary micro-plastics are another source of

micro-plastics. They are particles that result from the degradation of larger plastic items due to

environmental factors (Auta et al., 2017). Microbeads have become normal part of aquatic life

around the globe. Microbeads are used in multiple personal care and cosmetic products as

abrasives or exfoliants. Products that contain microbeads include but are not limited to facial

scrubs, soaps, shampoos, makeup, and toothpaste etc. (Anderson et al., 2016). These products are

the distributors of primary microplastics today.

Though the characteristics of microbeads vary in different products, their transportation

to the marine environment are similar. As products are used, they are washed down the drain and

pass through wastewater treatment systems due to their small size. The particles are then

transported to aquatic and terrestrial environments; our lakes, rivers and oceans. They also

accumulate at beaches, shorelines, and on water surfaces (Auta et al., 2017). Majority of

microbeads in products are created with polyethylene, therefore, the density of the plastic is

<1mm (Fendall & Sewell, 2009). In result to this low density, microbeads float on the sea’s

surface (Auta et al., 2017; Fendall & Sewell, 2009). The bioavailability of the microbeads then

become the issue as they continue to enter the marine environment every day. Marine biota such

as arrow worms, mussels, copepods, fish, crustaceans (large and small) and seabirds (De Sá et

al., 2018) consume microbeads as they are mistaken for food. Although primary microplastics

floating on the surface only accounts for 10% of the particles (Guerranti et al., 2019), the health

of marine organisms that ingest them can be threatened. This is due to the size and the toxicity

levels of the microbeads. Toxicity is determined by the chemicals from manufacturing and the
ability of microbeads to absorb organic pollutants in the ocean. The marine ecosystem is

believed to be impacted by the transport of pollutants by zooplankton (worms, copepods) when

they are consumed by higher level organisms during gut passage (Kalčíková et al., 2017).

Impacts are believed to be negative in terms of the growth, development, reproduction, and

lifespan of organisms (Botterell et al., 2019).

When the negative impacts associated with higher taxa, such as fish and other seafood

items are high, humans are believed to have negative health impacts associated due to the

consumption of these organisms (Anderson et al., 2016; Fendall & Sewell, 2009). Although

current data suggest that the levels humans may consume through drinking water and seafood are

not harmful, the evidence of this theory is limited. It is known that microplastics are non-

biodegradable particles that are harmful to the environment. We know that marine life consumes

these particles daily. We know that humans drink the water and eat the seafood containing

microplastics, but what does it do to us? What are the implications to our health? These are the

things we need to know. This is what could drive a change globally through the change of

current policies and consumer practices.

In order to be successful with the overall end goal of this study, everything from what

microplastics are to what they do in the environment to how they affect living creatures must be

known. Current policies in place are not good enough to solve the issue because microbeads and

other microplastics are still being transferred in our waters at high rates. The Microbead-Free

Waters Act put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 is an example. In the document,

microbeads and rinse off products were not defined in depth. Allowing manufacturers to keep

microbeads as an ingredient in products today. This not only makes the law a failure, it shows

that not enough information is available for actions taken to be a serious demand. Other
countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada also have made laws based on half

information. If the whole topic of microplastics are evaluated, efficient solutions will be in the

works. For the whole topic to be covered, effects in marine life and humans must be known.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the implications microplastics pose to marine life

and humans through consumption. The purpose is to determine the best course of action, to

reduce/ eliminate microplastics and their impacts.

 Pilot Study

. A research study was implemented with the goal of understand the knowledge of others

when it comes to microplastics, and their views on the topic overall. An introductory like survey

was created using google forms survey tool and was distributed through social media and group

chats. Completing the survey was voluntary. There was a total of 17 individuals who participated

in the google forms survey. All individuals who participated were environmental scientists that

were expected to have experience in this field. This study was a great representation of other

environmental from around the globe.

Pilot Study Data Analysis

In figure 1, the data from the survey shows whether participants studied microplastics (x-

axis) and the number of participants in the study (y-axis). Of the total amount of responses,

52.9% (9 people) studied microplastics in aquatic environments, 23.5% (4 people) studied

microplastics a little, and 23.5% (4 people) did not study microplastics. This shows that the

majority of participates are aware of microplastics, and that there is a reason it’s being studied.

Figure 1

In figure 2 below, the response rate of participants knowledge of health implications is

shown below. Of those who completed the survey, 35.3% (6 people) knew of the potential health
risk associated with microbead consumption, 35.3% (6 people) had an idea of the implications,

and 29.4% (5 people) did not know of the potential risk. This shows that more than half of the

participants 70.3% (12 people) are aware that there could be human health impacts associated

with microbead consumption.

Figure 2

Overall, most environmental scientists understand that microplastics are a problem to the

marine environment and may have negative effects on humans.

Methods

The aim of this study focuses on the potentiality of the microplastics currently in our

environment. This study will be carried out by the primary investigator Tyane Hooks, a

University of North Florida student in a public health research class. The assistance of three

research assistants will be needed for ensuring the proper conduct of this research.

Responsibilities will include recruitment, data collection, data analysis and publication

assistance. This study will be conducted from January 2021 to January 2023.

The participants of this study are environmental health scientist that live in Florida.

Environmental health scientists are the preferred subjects due to the awareness of microplastics
and their effects being scarce. Research regarding the overall issue is being conducted to date

and has not successfully made it out to the public, therefore environmental health scientists have

the most knowledge on the risks. This population allows us to get different perspectives

throughout the state. The participants must have experience in the field of microplastics. This

ensures that data received will be the most accurate evidence from studies the participants may

have conducted. A total of 60 participants will be selected for this study. Individuals will be

asked to participate through introductory survey emails shared through organizations throughout

Florida. The survey was created using Google forms survey tool. Voluntary completion of the

introductory survey, including contact information will ensure that individuals will like to

participate. Their current level of knowledge on microplastics will be tested as the survey is

completed. This is an important factor going in the study. Based on the data from the intro

survey, eligibility will be determined. All participants will receive a $25 gift card as

compensation.

The study design will be a qualitative study. This study design was chosen to examine the

possible outcomes that would promote the need for change. This study design is also best in

terms of presenting findings to the public. The survey instrument will ask questions regarding the

importance of microplastics, how much we consume, their effects on the marine ecosystem and

humans, and the best course of action to reduce these risks will be recorded. Data collection will

start with focus group discussions. Of the 60 participants, there will be 6 focus discussion groups

containing 10 participants each. The session will be 1 hour and conducted by the primary

investigator and assisting researcher. The discussion will be recorded with an audio recorder and

notes will be taken by the assisting researcher. The primary investigator will moderate. These

meetings will be conducted over 4 months to give participants the opportunity to choose the date
best for them. Once all sessions are completed, transcripts will be ready for review by the

primary investigator and the research assistants. A thematic analysis will then be conducted as

this is best for the type pf responses that will be given. As we review the transcript, coding of the

data will be completed. They will then be grouped into categories and themes will be derived

from the observations. This process will occur more than once as new codes may appear during

further review. As final themes are developed, they will be put in categories and stored in word

documents with labels.

A problem that could arise is getting enough participants because of the chosen method,

email. Also, the target population may be hard to make availability for. Not all environmental

health scientists will have knowledge of microplastics. Therefore, we provided the $25 gift card

as compensation to acknowledge and thank participants. This problem could also be controlled

by allowing environmental health scientists who are not as experienced or environmental health

majors to participate. Another problem could be the disagreement in responses regarding the

effects of microplastics and the best solution to reduce them. This can be controlled by setting

ground rules and establishing rapport prior to the session.

This will be a qualitative study evaluating the effects of microplastics on marine

environments, and humans. The purpose is to investigate the potential risk and the best solution

to solve the issue.

 Data Dissemination Plan

Once the research study is concluded, the findings will be presented in a peer-reviewed journal

article. Results of the study will then be presented at a conference, such as the National Institute

of Environmental Health Sciences conference. This conference will be no different than the ones

conducted every year as they are open to the public. Therefore, this conference will be a mix of

environmental health scientists and the general public that are interested in the findings. The

presentation will be oral. This is the best way to ensure that the findings are be heard by every

single individual that will be in the room. Following the presentation more discussion towards

future research or expected policy changes will be brought up further moving the topic in the

right direction. Although the presentation will initially be presented in a conference, it will also

be made available online through environmental and public health websites. The presentation

will be available for those such as college students, professors, environmental health majors and

others who may benefit from the information.

 References

Alimba, C. G., & Faggio, C. (2019). Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends in

environmental pollution and mechanisms of toxicological profile. Environmental

Toxicology and Pharmacology, 68, 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2019.03.001

Anderson, A., Grose, J., Pahl, S., Thompson, R., & Wyles, K. (2016). Microplastics in personal

care products: Exploring perceptions of environmentalists, beauticians and

students. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 113(1-2), 454-

460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.048

Auta, H., Emenike, C., & Fauziah, S. (2017). Distribution and importance of microplastics in the

marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential

solutions. Environment International, 102, 165-

176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013

Botterell, Z. L., Beaumont, N., Dorrington, T., Steinke, M., Thompson, R. C., & Lindeque, P. K.

(2019). Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton: A

review. Environmental Pollution, 245, 98-

110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.065

Carr, S. A., Liu, J., & Tesoro, A. G. (2016). Transport and fate of microplastic particles in

wastewater treatment plants. Water Research, 91, 174-

182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.01.002

Chang, M. (2015). Reducing microplastics from facial exfoliating cleansers in wastewater

through treatment versus consumer product decisions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101(1),

330-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.074
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants

in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2588-

2597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025

De Sá, L. C., Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, F., Rocha, T. L., & Futter, M. N. (2018). Studies of the

effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we

focus our efforts in the future? Science of The Total Environment, 645, 1029-

1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207

Fendall, L. S., & Sewell, M. A. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face:

Microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(8), 1225-

1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.025

(n.d.). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-114hr1321enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr1321enr.pdf

Guerranti, C., Martellini, T., Perra, G., Scopetani, C., & Cincinelli, A. (2019). Microplastics in

cosmetics: Environmental issues and needs for global bans. Environmental Toxicology

and Pharmacology, 68, 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2019.03.007

Kalčíková, G., Alič, B., Skalar, T., Bundschuh, M., & Gotvajn, A. Ž. (2017). Wastewater

treatment plant effluents as source of cosmetic polyethylene microbeads to

freshwater. Chemosphere, 188, 25-

31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.08.131

Lei, K., Qiao, F., Liu, Q., Wei, Z., Qi, H., Cui, S., Yue, X., Deng, Y., & An, L. (2017).

Microplastics releasing from personal care and cosmetic products in China. Marine

Pollution Bulletin, 123(1-2), 122-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.016

The microbead-free waters act. (2017, November 3). U.S. Food and Drug

Administration. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/microbead-

free-waters-act-faqs

Napper, I. E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). Characterisation, quantity

and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 99(1-2), 178-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029
 Appendix A: Example Survey Questionnaire

1. Do you feel the use of microbeads in personal care products/ cosmetics such as facial

scrubs, soaps, and toothpaste are necessary?

a) Yes

b) No

2. Which statement best matched your feelings towards microbeads?

a) Microbeads do not pose a threat.

b) Microbeads poses a threat but not that we should worry too much.

c) Microbeads poses a great threat to the environment, humans, and marine life and

should be taken seriously.

3. Are you aware that more than 8 trillion microbeads enter aquatic environments in the U.S

every day through human activity?

a) Yes

b) No

4. Do you know that microbeads obtain organic pollutants over time and can last in our

waters for multiple years?

a) Yes

b) No

5. What is the estimated amount of microplastics that marine life consumes each year?

a) 1,000-5,000

b) 5,000-10,000

c) 10,000-15,000

d) 15,000 or more
6. Which estimate is closest to the average amount of marine animals that die each year

from microbead consumption?

a) 1,000

b) 50,000

c) 100,000

d) Other

7. What is the estimated amount of microplastics that humans consume daily?

a) 50-100

b) 100-150

c) 150-250

d) Too many to count

e) Don’t Know

8. Do you know of the animal health risks associated with microbead consumption? If yes,

what are they?

a) Yes, _____________________________________________________

b) No

9. Do you know of the potential human health risks associated with the consumption of

contaminated seafood and water? If yes, what are they?

a) Yes, ______________________________________________________

b) No

c) Maybe

10. What do you feel would be the best tactic to reduce microplastic pollutants and their

impacts?
 a) Global Ban

b) Better wastewater treatment systems

c) Increased consumer awareness

d) Other

Appendix B: Budget Outline

Budget Item Year 1 Cost Year 2 Cost Total Cost

Personnel
Main Research $21,000 19,000 $40,000
Assistant
Research Assistant 1 $15,900 $12,600 $28,500
Research Assistant 2 $15,900 $12,600 $28,500
Research Assistant 3 $15,900 $11,500 $27,400
Equipment and $400 N/A $400
Supplies (Audio
Recorder, Pens,
Pencils, Notepads,
snacks)

Travel Cost (Gas, $10,000 N/A $10,000

hotel room for
participants that live
farther away, money
for meals)

Study Conference $700 N/A $700

Room (5 1-hour
sessions)

NIEHS conference N/A $1,460 $1,460

fees (room rental,
snacks)

Compensation (gift $1,500 N/A $1,500

cards for participants

Publication (Journal N/A $4,000 $4,000

Article)
 Other Expenses $5,500 $52,040 $57,540
(Lunch and learns,
materials for college
presentations, extra
materials etc.
Total Requested $86,800 $113,200 $200,000

Appendix C: Timeline

Year 1

Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct No Dec

v
Narrative review

Establish Study

Aims
Develop/send
introduction survey,
wait for responses.
Evaluate survey
responses/ Contact
wanted participants.
Conduct survey

Review transcripts/
code data
Data Analysis

Year 2

Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec

y g
Data analysis cont.
Publish peer-
reviewed journal
article
Create presentation
for findings
Present findings at
conference
Present findings at
luncheons/
environmental
health college
classes