Plastics and the Anthropocene

PL Corcoran and K Jazvac, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

A Ballent, Algalita Marine Research and Education, Long Beach, CA, United States
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Plastics are materials that are composed of polymers, which are repeating chains of molecules that can be processed and shaped.
Conventional plastics are produced from organic substances, such as crude oil and natural gas, through distillation, polymerization,
and processing. Plastics can be characterized as thermoplastics, which can be melted, molded, and resolidified repeatedly, and
thermosets, which upon formation, form irreversible chemical bonds between polymers. Most plastics used in consumer goods are
thermoplastics, and can therefore be recycled, although they also represent the largest source of plastics pollution in the environ-
ment. Petroleum-based plastic products have become ubiquitous in the modern urban lifestyle as cost-effective alternatives for
materials such as metal, glass, paper, ceramic, and natural fibers. Industrial production of commercial plastic has increased
exponentially since the 1960s, with global production levels reaching 311 million tonnes per year in 2014 (PlasticsEurope,
2015). It is anticipated that an additional 33 billion tonnes of plastic will be added to the planet by 2050 if there is no change in
current consumption rates (Rochman et al., 2013). The consequence of increased plastics production is greater input into the
environment. Jambeck et al. (2015) estimated that 4.8–12.7 million metric tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste entered the world’s
oceans in 2010. The global plastics contamination of Earth’s ecosystems has resulted from the immense scale of the plastic industry,
poor product design that does not consider the postconsumer stage, low-recycling rates, and the lack of policies supporting a circular
plastics economy (Neufeld et al., 2016).
Plastic products in the natural environment undergo photo-, thermooxidative, and hydrolytic degradation, which, combined
with mechanical weathering, promotes embrittlement by reducing the molecular weight of the polymer (Andrady, 2011). The result
of embrittlement is the creation of microplastics, plastic particles that are <5 mm in size. Fragments on the millimeter scale are
easily dispersed by wind and water, making microplastics readily available to small organisms (Cole et al., 2011). As a result of their
large surface area to volume ratio, microplastics are particularly susceptible to changes in density, which may result in burial, and to
adsorption of contaminants that could be harmful to organisms ingesting the particles. Both microplastics and larger plastic debris
are widely dispersed across Earth’s surface, are deposited in landfills, or are transported through storm drains and tributaries to lakes
and oceans. Buoyant plastics in aquatic ecosystems will accumulate at or just below the water surface in zones of concentrated
rotating currents (e.g., gyres). In contrast, nonbuoyant plastics with densities greater than water will sink and become intermingled
with bottom sediment. The density of a plastic may also be increased: (i) anthropogenically, either during manufacturing or by
human activities that alter the original form of the material or (ii) naturally, through mineral adsorption, or by the actions of
organisms encountering the material in the environment. Once intermingled with sediment, whether in water bodies or on land,
plastics have extraordinary potential to become part of the stratigraphic record as a global anthropogenic marker horizon.

Plastics as a Modern Material

Natural plastics, such as shellac and latex, were first used to create coverings and insulators during the early to middle 1800s.
Celluloid, one of the first plastic prototypes, was developed during the late 1800s and was used for numerous products, including
billiard balls and false teeth, and it led to the use of cellulose nitrate in making photographic film (Finkelstein, 2008). The first
synthetic plastic, Bakelite, was introduced to the world by Leo Baekeland in 1909 and represented the first plastic resistant to
chemical reactions that could be easily molded into different sizes and shapes. Bakelite was followed in the 1930s by the invention
of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), and poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA);
materials that prompted the increase in plastics production and solidified the association between the plastics and fossil fuel
industries (Brydson, 1999). Conventional plastics are produced from organic substances, such as crude oil and natural gas, through
the initial process of distillation. Upon heating, the organic substance releases different hydrocarbon chains according to their
vaporization temperatures. Large hydrocarbon molecules (e.g., ethane, propane) are broken down into smaller molecules during a
process termed “cracking.” The resultant monomers (e.g., ethylene, propylene) are polymerized, a process by which the molecules
are joined together using a catalyst to form long chains of repeating units (e.g., PE, PP).
Raw plastics are often produced in the form of millimeter-scale pellets (granules) because they are easier to transport than large
or oddly shaped materials, and they also ensure consistent heating and flow during extrusion and injection molding processes
(Brydson, 1999). Combining raw plastics with organic and inorganic additives alters the physical properties of the material in order
to extend the life of the plastic. Additives such as plasticizers, pigments, stabilizers, and lubricants increase the structural and impact
strength of plastics, improve the scratch resistance of the material, provide brightness and color, and reduce plate-out. Thousands of
types of plastic are produced today; some of the major types and uses include: PP (packaging, textiles), PE (packaging, plastic bags),
PS (single-use cutlery), PVC (packaging, construction), PMMA (lenses, cases), nylon (clothing, electronics), polyvinyl acetate (PVA;
glue), polyurethane (PU; foams, sealants, wheels), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS; Lego), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET;
water bottles, clothing).

Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.10000-X 163

164 Plastics and the Anthropocene

Plastics Dispersal

Plastics were developed to provide a material that is lightweight, durable, and relatively resistant to decay that could be produced
and shipped at low cost. The physical characteristics of plastics, however, account for their persistence in the environment,
particularly where recovery and recycling systems are rudimentary or completely lacking. Plastic products enter the aquatic
environment mainly through deliberate dumping, careless littering, industrial spillage during transportation and in factories, and
discharge from drainage outlets, effluent pipes, and wastewater treatment facilities. An example of the latter source are microbeads
from personal care products and sandblasting media, and microsynthetic fibers derived from washing of textiles, that are not
completely removed during wastewater treatment. In a study by Browne et al. (2011), effluent from sewage treatment plants
sampled on a global scale contained microplastics that were composed of 84% fibers.
Low-density plastics remain in the water column indefinitely or are washed up along shorelines, only to be transported back into
lakes and oceans during storm events. Under certain conditions, low-density plastics will sink through the water column or become
trapped on land (see Section “Plastics Burial and Preservation”). Those debris items that remain in the water column may act as
rafts for encrusting organisms and contribute to the transport of colonizers to new ecosystems (Barnes, 2002). The global dispersal
of plastics has resulted in serious physiological consequences for a number of species, including ingestion and strangulation. Gall
and Thompson (2015) recently conducted a thorough review of the available literature concerning plastics and organisms and
determined that 693 species have had encounters with marine debris, and of that debris, 92% was composed of plastic. These
interactions between different species and plastics have been recorded from regions such as Africa, Antarctica, the Arctic, Australasia,
Europe, North America, and Europe, thereby highlighted the global distribution of plastic waste.
Anticipated sinks for aquatic plastic debris are depositional zones that favor the accumulation of plastic particles. These include
areas of relatively low turbulence where plastics and other organic debris can settle, such as in harbors, coves, and deep basins.
In beach environments, the greatest abundances of plastic are found along strandlines where particles are trapped among woody
and plant debris of similar density. The collection of buoyant plastic debris is also facilitated in the backshore zone of beaches by
anthropogenic or natural obstacles (e.g., retaining walls, vegetation). Although low-density plastics are dispersed on a global scale,
the distribution of plastic debris in the benthic realm is primarily controlled by urban proximity, geomorphology, and hydrological
conditions (Corcoran, 2015).
On land, nonrecyclable plastic waste is deposited in managed or unmanaged landfill sites (“garbage dumps”). Solid waste in
modern managed landfills is underlain by a plastic liner intended to keep solvents (leachate) from seeping into the underlying soil.
Pipes drain the leachate, which is then transported to wastewater treatment facilities, although a proportion of it inevitably seeps
into the surrounding environment. In unmanaged landfill sites, leachate is allowed to flow freely, thereby transporting potentially
harmful chemicals to neighboring ecosystems. Plastics relegated to landfill sites contribute to the leachate depending on the pH of
the solvent, the hydrophobicity of the polymer, and the additives present in the plastic material (Teuten et al., 2009). Examples of
chemicals known to leach from plastics in landfills include Bisphenol A and nonylphenols; both are endocrine disruptors. The
plastic materials themselves, however, do not readily degrade in landfills, especially at those sites that are underlain and overlain by
liners (Zalasiewicz et al., 2016). Burial and coverage of the plastic debris protects it from its primary degrading agent,
photodegradation.

Plastics Degradation

One of the main issues contributing to the persistence of plastic debris is its resistance to degradation. In the natural environment,
degradation of plastic occurs when a polymer’s properties are compromised as a result of chemical, mechanical, or biological
processes. The main chemical process that affects plastics in the natural environment is photodegradation, which takes place during
reaction of UV radiation with groups in the molecular structure of the plastic or its added compounds. The resultant polymer chain
breakage enables generated free radicals to bind with oxygen in a process called photooxidation (Singh and Sharma, 2008).
Photooxidation reduces the molecular mass of the polymer and causes embrittlement and discoloration of the material (Fig. 1A and
B). Embrittled plastics are prone to mechanical stress because the material has reduced strength and flexibility (Andrady, 2011).
Embrittlement and fracture have significant implications for the dispersal of plastic, as smaller particles are transported more easily
by water and air. Another important chemical process affecting the integrity of a plastic is thermal degradation, in which molecules
deteriorate through molecular scission when overheated. In contrast to the process of photodegradation, the reactions taking place
during thermal degradation occur throughout the particle rather than at the surface only.
In the natural environment, overheating mainly results from exposure of the plastic material to UV radiation. Thermal
degradation can result in color changes, crazing, decreased ductility, and eventual embrittlement. Additional chemical processes
affecting polymer stability include ozone-induced degradation and mechanochemical degradation; the reader is directed to Singh
and Sharma (2008) for a thorough review of chemical degradation processes.
Mechanical degradation of plastics generally refers to high-pressure plastic deformation in laboratories, factories, and the built
environment. Mechanical weathering, however, occurs in the natural environment where plastic particles are impacted by sand
grains, rock fragments, shells, rigid organic debris, or other plastic fragments. The ideal location for these processes to occur is along
shorelines where plastic debris is transported by waves and wind across beach surfaces (Corcoran et al., 2009). Subrounded particles
with grooves and conchoidal fractures indicate that abrasion and particle impacts play a role in mechanical weathering of plastics
 Plastics and the Anthropocene 165

Fig. 1 Characteristics of plastic debris in the environment. (A) Plastic fragments from Kamilo Beach Hawaii, formed through embrittlement of larger products.
Large beige fragment is 4 cm long. (B) Discoloration of a plastic cap and fragment. Cap is 3 cm wide. (C) Scanning electron microscope image of a groove formed on
the surface of a plastic fragment. (D) Encrusting organisms (mainly barnacles) on lids collected from Wainiha Beach, Kauai.

(Fig. 1C). The surface textures are also the sites of oxidative weathering products, thus indicating that mechanical and chemical
processes work together toward degradation-induced embrittlement of plastic debris.
The third major type of plastics degradation is biological. Plastics are generally resistant to biodegradation because polymers are
too large to breach the cellular membranes of microbes (Shah et al., 2008). Instead, biodegradation is initiated either by a
mechanical or chemical process, or by biodeterioration, which involves the colonization of organisms within and on the surfaces
of plastics (Lucas et al., 2008) (Fig. 1D). The growth and activities of these organisms depend on environmental conditions, as well
as the nature of the polymer, including such aspects as crystallinity, molecular weight, functional groups, and additives. Microor-
ganisms can penetrate plastic surfaces by releasing active chemicals or organic acids that contribute to chemical biodeterioration.
This allows water to intrude the polymer structure, which leads to hydrolysis and depolymerization. Oligomers and monomers can
also be produced by physical deterioration, wherein pore structures are displaced by microbial secretions (slime), and through
enzymatic processes (Lucas et al., 2008). Once depolymerization has occurred, atoms from within the plastic material are
assimilated into the cells of the microorganisms, thus providing the energy required for growth and reproduction. In turn, the
original plastic product becomes more degraded over time.
There are a number of natural biodegradable polymers, such as cellulose and chitin. Synthetic plastics, however, including those
that are most commonly produced (PE, PP, PS, PMMA), are not considered biodegradable in the natural environment. The
production of nonnatural biodegradable plastics has increased over recent years although these products have been used in the
medical industry for quite some time (e.g., sutures, drug delivery). Unfortunately, biodegradable plastics tend to break down only
under specific environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, light, types of microbes, scale of composting), which when not met
results in burial and preservation.

Plastics Burial and Preservation

Aquatic Environments
The majority of studies concerning plastics in the environment focus on the neustonic compartment of lakes, oceans, and
tributaries; however, plastics with densities greater than water have been identified in benthic sediments of oceans, seas, estuaries,
lakes, and rivers (Corcoran, 2015). The density of a plastic depends on the mass of the atoms in the molecule and the manner in
which the molecules are arranged in space. For example, the density of PE ranges between 0.92 and 0.97; low-density polyethylene
(LDPE) contains polymers that are linear and repeatedly branching, whereas high-density polyethylene (HDPE) is composed of
polymers that are unbranched and more tightly packed. Although plastics with densities greater than water, such as PVC, PS, and
polyester, are expected to sink through the water column, low-density plastics have also been discovered in lake-bottom sediments
(e.g., Ballent et al., 2016) (Fig. 2A–C). The increase in density that has allowed for settling of plastics like PE and PP can be attributed
to (1) the presence of mineral fillers, (2) adsorption of clay minerals to the surfaces of plastic particles, (3) fecal express following
ingestion by organisms, and (4) biofouling (Corcoran, 2015; Zalasiewicz et al., 2016).
166 Plastics and the Anthropocene

Fig. 2 Microplastics from Lake Ontario bottom sediment samples: (A) microbeads and microfibers, (B) spotted fillers in a PE fragment, and (C) clay minerals
adhered to a fragment of PE.

Common minerals added to plastics at the production stage include calcium carbonate (CaCO2), kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4),
and talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2). Calcium carbonate (calcite) is a common rock-forming mineral that is used to increase impact
resistance and stiffness. Kaolinite is a readily available clay mineral that is used to produce a smooth finish and to contribute
strength and weathering-resistance to a plastic product. Talc is an important filler because it provides plastic with high strength and
increased scratch resistance while contributing very little weight to the product. However, with densities ranging from 2.6 to
2.7 g/cm3, these mineral fillers may significantly increase the net particle density of a plastic depending on their abundance in the
material (Fig. 2B). Clay minerals may also adsorb to the surfaces of plastic particles if the plastics are positively charged or where
negatively charged plastics and clays are associated with polyvalent cations (Fig. 2C).
Laboratory experiments have shown that assimilation of microplastics with fecal matter can result in density increase and
transportation of the plastics from surface waters to the seabed. Organisms, such as polychaete worms, copepods, and mysid
shrimp, consume microplastics and later egest them with organic matter as fecal pellets (Setälä et al., 2016). In a recent study by
Cole et al. (2016), copepods exposed to PS, phytoplankton, and organic matter in seawater-filled beakers expelled fecal pellets
containing microplastics. Those pellets without microplastics had an average density of 1.26 g/cm3, which indicates that assimilat-
ing PS (1.04 g/cm3) with natural fecal matter increases the potential for the plastic to sink and eventually become buried.
In addition to fecal express, organisms can play a role in vertical transport of plastics through colonization by sessile organisms
(biofouling). A recent investigation by Fazey and Ryan (2016) demonstrated how biofouling of LDPE and HDPE in seawater
resulted in significant density increase in plastics of various sizes. Smaller particles sank more rapidly than larger items as a result of
their greater surface area to volume ratios. Over a 12-week period, the mean accumulated dry mass on microplastic items increased
5800%, indicating that the smallest particles (5  5 mm) had the greatest accumulation of encrusting organisms.
The sinking of plastics and their ultimate burial in aquatic environments are also controlled by water turbulence in different
depositional zones. Low-energy environments where plastics are expected to accumulate, if their density allows, include lagoons,
sheltered embayments, estuaries, protected inlets, deep offshore zones, and lake centers. Corcoran et al. (2015) reported that
microplastic abundances in lake-bottom sediment from Lake Ontario, Canada, were greater near the lake center than near the outlet
of the Niagara River where discharge results in a plume that can travel up to 18 km offshore. According to the model of Zalasiewicz
et al. (2016), high-density plastics will preferentially accumulate closer to shore, whereas lower-density plastics will be transported
offshore by wind, waves, and currents. Along continental slopes, turbidity currents are expected to funnel plastic debris through
submarine canyons to the toes of submarine fans. Once deposited, plastics may become buried by overlying sediment or may
be bioturbated and mixed with older deposits. Preservation of plastic material is optimized through burial, especially in zones
lacking oxygen.

Terrestrial Environments
Accumulation of plastics in terrestrial environments is extensive. Burial of plastic debris, however, is particularly intensified at
sites that are susceptible to continuous deposition of natural sedimentary or anthropogenic material. Key sinks for plastics burial
 Plastics and the Anthropocene 167

Fig. 3 Shoreline plastic debris. (A) Plastic items entangled with organic debris on the surface of Lake Ontario. (B) Plastic line entangled in woody debris on
Wainiha Beach, Kauai. (C) Plastic fragments intermingled with organic debris on Kalihiwai Beach, Kauai. Fragments are <5 mm in size. (D) Plastic debris found
5 cm below the beach surface at Kalihiwai Beach, Kauai.

and potential preservation are shorelines characterized by abundant organic debris and back beach vegetation, confined
landscapes where recycling or reuse is limited, and landfills. Along shorelines, organic debris, such as weeds, kelp, and woody
fragments, is washed up along strandlines or is transported to the back of the beach where the beach is narrow. Plastics floating in
the water are preferentially intertwined with the low-density organic material (Fig. 3A and B), which results in their deposition
along the shoreline. Where wave and current action is relatively low, small plastic particles, such as pellets, fibers, and
microplastic fragments, are common components in strandline material (Fig. 3C). In contrast, beaches affected by high-energy
onshore transport contain microplastics in addition to intact items. Coasts exposed to ocean swells, such as Wainiha Beach on the
northern coast of Kauai, are littered with large plastic items along the strandline. In many cases, the large swells will erode and
retransport strandline material back out to sea, but during a relatively calm season, small plastic debris may become buried
beneath the beach surface by tidal and wave sedimentation (Fig. 3D). Studies of microplastics in beach sediments indicate that
plastic particles may be found at sediment depths down to 2 m. Such significant depths could be easily reached during tsunami or
large storm (e.g., hurricane) events.
Shorelines with great abundances of plastic debris that are characteristically the sites of anthropogenic burning are also potential
sinks for plastics. Corcoran et al. (2014) coined the term plastiglomerate for a stone composed of variable mixtures of plastic items,
beach sand, rock fragments, and organic material such as shells, coral, wood, and seeds, consolidated by a matrix of hardened
melted plastic (Fig. 4A). This stone was first identified on Kamilo Beach, Hawaii, but has since been reported along shorelines on
other continents. Due to the movement of surface ocean currents, and its location within the North Pacific gyre, the eastern and
southeastern windward shorelines of the Hawaiian Islands is a depository for large quantities of plastic debris. Through campfire
burning, the debris becomes molten and fuses with the natural material on the beach. This agglutination increases the density of the
overall product compared with the original lower density of the plastic. In turn, the plastic items are less easily transported by wind
and water, thereby improving their likelihood to be buried, and thus preserved in the future rock record.
Inland from shorelines and in regions without recycling facilities, plastic waste litters the landscape. Rather than remove the
debris, new buildings and structures are erected over the layers of plastic, which essentially entombs the material, thereby protecting
it from degrading agents (Fig. 4B). A similar process occurs in unmanaged landfills, except that at these sites, the plastic and other
waste items are purposefully buried beneath surrounding soil in order to create the illusion of a natural landscape. Unfortunately,
the heterogeneity of the waste material may lead to the development of irregular cavities in the ground that become enlarged by
water erosion (Fig. 4C). A possible outcome is the reintroduction of plastic debris into the sedimentary cycle. Some plastics are
produced specifically to enter the natural environment, such as crop coverings (films), mulching pellets, and water hoses in
agriculture. Some underground pipes used to transport water are composed of PVC. These products are used on a global scale
and in some locations will be left buried underground indefinitely.
168 Plastics and the Anthropocene

Fig. 4 Burial of plastics. (A) Plastiglomerate sample from Kamilo Beach, Hawaii. Sample is 9 cm wide. (B) Plastic marker horizon at the Erbil Citadel, northern Iraq.
(C) Plastic marker horizon at an unmanaged landfill near Gowganda, Ontario. (D) Urban fossil from an Italian street. (B) Photo courtesy of Jessica S. Johnson.
(D) Photo courtesy of Francesca Cirilli. http://www.francescacirilli.it/portfolio/urban-fossils.

Plastics as Anthropogenic Symbols

In 2016, the Working Group on the Anthropocene (WGA) presented its provisional recommendation at the 35th International
Geological Congress that the Anthropocene epoch be declared with a starting date of 1950. Among the indicative signatures of this
new proposed epoch are radiogenic isotopes from nuclear weapons fallout; chemicals, such as fertilizers; and the dramatic increase
of anthropogenic materials found in sediment. These combined indicators have the capacity to demonstrate that the Anthropocene
is stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene (Waters et al., 2016).

New Anthropogenic Materials

The influx of new anthropogenic materials since the mid 20th century has resulted directly from increased resource consumption,
technological developments, urbanization, mining, and population growth. Plastics, concrete, and elemental aluminum, in
particular, have had dramatic global production increases since the 1950s (Waters et al., 2016 and references therein).
In addition to the hundreds of millions of tonnes of plastics produced annually, aluminum and concrete production has accelerated
significantly with cumulative production rates topping over 500 million tons since 1950 (Waters et al., 2016). Of further
significance is the substantial weight difference between concrete, aluminum, and plastic. For example, 311 million tonnes of
plastic has an enormous physical presence in the environment compared to the same weight of concrete. Factoring in the immense
production rates of plastics, its potential role as a stratigraphic indicator of humankind’s irrevocable impact on Earth’s stratigraphic
record is undeniable. This is further emphasized by a global accumulation of plastics that vastly outweighs the mass of the current
human population on Earth (Zalasiewicz et al., 2016).

Technofossils and Urban Fossils

A key aspect in selecting a marker for the proposed Anthropocene is the ability of plastics, as well as other new materials, to be
permanently recorded in the rock record. The high preservation potential of plastics suggest that if buried, clear geological or
chemical signatures will be left behind, yet the exact means by which this occurs will likely be different than for typical fossils.
Fossils, as remains of past life forms, have played a central role in mapping the evolution and history of life on Earth. A biotic
fossil—a fossil that originates from a living thing, of which crude oil is an example—has been used as an analogy for how
information will be extracted from the stratigraphic remains of plastic. The category, however, does not precisely apply to plastics,
given their synthetic nature. Another category that has been suggested for future plastic fossils is trace fossils. These fossils, however,
are indications of the activities of past organisms, such as burrowing, feeding, and grazing, and thus, plastics do not strictly qualify.
As an expansion to this line of extended categorization, new terms have come into use to describe the physical traces that plastics, as
well as other new materials and technologies, will leave behind. Key among these terms are technofossils and urban fossils.
 Plastics and the Anthropocene 169

Technofossils are trace fossils of human-made technologies (Zalasiewicz et al., 2014, and references therein). A cell phone, an
aluminum can, or a plastic water bottle are all examples of technofossils. The term is useful in that it expands defined understand-
ings of a “fossil” to consider the extensive population growth and material production of the 20th and 21st centuries. Simply put, at
no other time in history has there been so much “stuff” around for researchers to navigate and categorize. In addition, the term
“technofossil” implicates not only geologists in its study, but also historians and anthropologists, as in the case of the study of the
tools and objects of early Homo sapiens (Zalasiewicz et al., 2014). Like the polymers discussed in the previous sections, if buried,
technofossils have strong potential to enter the future rock record and act as stratigraphic indicators of the Anthropocene epoch.
Urban fossils is a term that has been used by a number of different researchers over the past 20 years. An exemplary project is
Urban Fossils: Paleontology between past and future by photographer Francesca Cirilli, in consultation with paleontologists Massimo
Delfino and Francesca Lozar of the University of Turin. Cirilli defines urban fossils as any trace or remnant of human activity left in
an urban environment. Displayed at MUSE Science Museum in Trento Italy in 2016, the project included Cirilli’s own photographs
of urban fossils, in addition to serving as a locale for citizens to contribute their own photographs using the hashtag #fossiliurbani.
The results show many plastic objects embedded in concrete, asphalt, and paving tar, thus increasing their potential to be buried and
preserved in the future rock record (Fig. 4D). Cirilli’s intentions with the project were to include the mundane and ubiquitous into
the records of paleontology—a goal and ethos that reflects the sheer volume and reach of plastics pollution and its potential to be
preserved.

Plastic Debris as a Marker Horizon of the Anthropocene

Chronostratigraphic units in the geological record (e.g., period, age, epoch) are defined by a precise locality referred to as the Global
Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP). Each GSSP is agreed upon by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS),
and is based on key requirements. The geological requirements include: (i) exposure over an adequate thickness of sediment,
(ii) continuous sedimentation represented throughout the exposure, (iii) definable sedimentation rate, (iv) absence of tectonic
disturbances, and (v) absence of strong diagenetic and metamorphic alteration (Remane et al., 1996). Given the dearth of plastic
debris already buried in terrestrial and aquatic sedimentary environments, the relatively uncomplicated nature in determining
sedimentation rates in lake-bottom sediments, the abundance of coherent beds under- and overlying horizons of plastics, and the
young age of the material, plastics meet the geological requirements of a GSSP. Finding biostratigraphic markers, such as the
abundance of a specific index fossil, may not be possible, but the derivation of plastics from fossil fuels supports a biogenic origin.
An additional, yet critical, requirement of a GSSP is that the lower boundary is characterized by a marker horizon that can be
correlated on a global scale in deposits of similar age. Marker horizons are measurable lithological units that are distinct from under-
and overlying strata. The global reach of plastics is considerable, as even the ocean waters surrounding Antarctica have been found to
contain plastics. The sudden (relative to geologic time scale) appearance of this globally ubiquitous material since the invention of
Bakelite, followed by the continued marketing success of single-use plastic products beginning in the 1950s is also consistent with
marker horizons that signal a new chronostratigraphic unit. Many GSSPs are physically designated by a golden spike; for example, a
golden spike was driven into an outcrop at Fortune Head, Newfoundland to mark the GSSP of the Precambrian-Cambrian
Boundary, as indicated by the first appearance of Cambrian-aspect macrofauna. Many GSSPs are indicated by a metaphoric
“golden spike,” but all GSSPs must have a particular point in a specific place at a specific stratigraphic level. Given that key plastics
pollution researchers, such as social scientist Max Liboiron, have described the presence of plastics and microplastics in the
environment as a global “miasma,” or a “soup” rather than a site-specific phenomena, the ability to identify a physical point
may prove challenging. Potential sites would have to be easily accessible and not susceptible to erosion, reworking, and tectonic
deformation. Buried plastics on stable cratonic shields, whether on land or in lake-bottom sediments, would be ideal. The major
challenge resides in assigning a new epoch without a consolidated GSSP.

See also: Contamination of Our Oceans by Plastics; Plastics in the Ocean.

References
Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 1596–1605.
Ballent A, Corcoran PL, Madden O, Helm PA, and Longstaffe FJ (2016) Sources and sinks of microplastics in Canadian Lake Ontario nearshore, tributary and beach sediments. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 110: 383–395.
Barnes DKA (2002) Biodiversity: Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416: 808–809.
Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, and Thompson R (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: Sources and sinks. Environmental
Science & Technology 45: 9175–9179.
Brydson JA (1999) Plastics materials. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman Ltd p. 920.
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, and Galloway TS (2011) Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 2588–2597.
Cole M, Lindeque PK, Fileman E, Clark J, Lewis C, Halsband C, and Galloway TS (2016) Microplastics alter the properties and sinking rates of zooplankton faecal pellets. Environmental
Science & Technology 50: 3239–3246.
Corcoran PL (2015) Benthic plastic debris in marine and fresh water environments. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts 17: 1363–1369.
170 Plastics and the Anthropocene

Corcoran PL, Biesinger MC, and Grifi M (2009) Plastics and beaches: A degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 80–84.
Corcoran PL, Moore CJ, and Jazvac K (2014) An anthropogenic marker horizon in the future rock record. GSA Today 24: 4–8.
Corcoran PL, Norris T, Ceccanese T, Walzak MJ, Helm PA, and Marvin CH (2015) Hidden plastics of Lake Ontario, Canada and their potential preservation in the sediment record.
Environmental Pollution 204: 17–25.
Fazey FM and Ryan PG (2016) Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics: An experimental study into the effect of size on surface longevity. Environmental Pollution 210: 354–360.
Finkelstein NH (2008) Plastics. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark p. 144.
Gall SC and Thompson RC (2015) The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin 92: 170–179.
Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, and Law KL (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 374: 768–771.
Lucas N, Bienaime C, Belloy C, Queneudec M, Silvestre F, and Nava-Saucedo JE (2008) Polymer biodegradation: Mechanisms and estimation techniques—A review. Chemosphere
73: 429–442.
Neufeld L, Stassen F, Sheppard R, and Gilman T (eds.) (2016) In: The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of plastics, p. 36 Retrieved from http://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
PlasticsEurope (2015). Plastics—the facts 2014/2015: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/
20151216062602-plastics_the_facts_2015_final_30pages_14122015.pdf.
Remane J, Bassett MG, Cowie JW, Gohrbandt KH, and Lane HR (1996) Revised guidelines for the establishment of global chronostratigraphic standards by the International
Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). Episodes 19: 77–81.
Rochman CM, Browne MA, Halpern BS, Hentschel BT, Hoh E, Karapanagioti HK, Rios-Mendoza LM, Takada H, and Thompson RC (2013) Policy: Classify plastic waste as hazardous.
Nature 494: 169–171.
Setälä O, Norkko J, and Lehtiniemi M (2016) Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion in a coastal invertebrate community. Marine Pollution Bulletin 102: 95–101.
Shah AA, Hasan F, Hameed A, and Ahmed S (2008) Biological degradation of plastics: A comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances 26: 246–265.
Singh B and Sharma N (2008) Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation. Polymer Degradation and Stability 93: 561–584.
Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DRU, Barlaz M, Jonsson S, Björn A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC, Galloway TS, Yamashita R, Ochi D, Watanuki Y, Moore C, Viet PH, Tana TS,
Prudente M, Boonyatumanond R, Zakaria MP, Akkhavong K, Ogata Y, Hirai H, Iwasa S, Mizukawa K, Hagino Y, Imamura A, Saha M, and Takada H (2009) Transport and release of
chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 364: 2027–2045.
Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C, Barnosky AD, Poirer C, Gałuszka A, Cearreta A, Edgeworth M, Ellis EC, Ellis M, Jeandel C, Leinfelder R, McNeill JR, Richter Dd, Steffen W,
Syvitski J, Vidas D, Wagreich M, Williams M, Zhisheng A, Grinevald J, Odada E, Oreskes N, and Wolfe AP (2016) The anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from
the Holocene. Science 351. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622.
Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Waters CN, Barnosky AD, and Haff P (2014) The technofossil record of humans. The Anthropocene Review 1: 34–43.
Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Ivar-do-Sul JA, Corcoran PL, Barnosky AD, Cearreta A, Edgewoth M, Galuszka A, Jeandel C, Leinfelder R, McNeill JR, Steffen W, Summerhayes C,
Wagreich M, Williams M, Wolfe AP, and Yonan Y (2016) The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a stratigraphic indicator of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 13: 4–17.