Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts

While plastic has many valuable uses, we have become addicted to single-use or disposable plastic — with severe environmental consequences. Around the world, one million plastic drinking bottles are purchased every minute, while up to 5 trillion single-use plastic bags are used worldwide every year. In total, half of all plastic produced is designed to be used only once — and then thrown away. Researchers estimate that more than 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic has been produced since the early 1950s. About 60% of that plastic has ended up in either a landfill or the natural environment.
About Global Documents

Global Documents provides you with documents from around the globe on a variety of topics for your enjoyment.
Global Documents utilizes edocr for all it's document needs due to edocr's wonderful content features. Thousands of professionals and businesses around the globe publish marketing, sales, operations, customer service and financial documents making it easier for prospects and customers to find content.
Plastic Plastic Waste Human Health impact Plastic Waste Ecological impact Marin
About Global Documents

Global Documents provides you with documents from around the globe on a variety of topics for your enjoyment.
Plastic Plastic Waste Human Health impact Plastic Waste Ecological impact Marin
Plastic Waste: 
Ecological and Human Health Impacts
November 2011
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Contents
Executive Summary  
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
Introduction   
 
 
 
                                             
3
1.0 Plastic Waste: Drivers and Pressures  
 
 
 
4
2.0 State of Plastic Waste in the Environment 
 
 
 
8
3.0 Impacts of Plastics Waste on the Health of Ecosystems 
 
16
4.0 Responses 
 
 
 
 
                             
28 
References 
 
 
 
 
                                            
37
Figures
1.   World Plastics Production 1950-2008. From Plastic Waste in the 
4
      Environment.  
  
 
 
 
 
 
2.   Continued decoupling of plastic waste and landfill 
 
  
5 
 
 
 
 
 
3.   Main sources and movement pathways for plastic in the 
      marine environment.  
  
 
 
 
  
 
6
4.   Proportion of post-consumer waste in EU-27, Norway and 
       Switzerland according to function, 2008. 
 
 
 
7
5.   Composition and numbers of marine litter items found on  
      beaches within OSPAR network.    
 
 
 
 
8
6.   Changes in composition of marine items found on beaches  
       within OSPAR network 
 
 
 
 
 
   
9
7.   Algalita Research Centre monitoring 
 
 
 
 
10
8.   Litter ( items/ hectare) on the sea bed in the channel (x) and 
      the gulf of Lion (y) 1998 -2010 
 
 
 
 
 
11         
 
 
9.   Trends in the average number of marine litter items collected 
       on reference beaches over three time periods  
 
 
12
10. Identity and compostition of plastic debris collected from the
       strandline of the Tamar Estuary (UK) 
 
 
 
 
12
11. Amount of user and industrial plastic in Fulmar stomachs in 
      Netherlands over time 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14
12. EcoQO performance in North Sea regions 2005-2009 and 
       preliminary trends. Trend shown by connecting running 
       average 5 year data  
 
 
 
 
 
 
15 
 
 
 
13. Trends in EcoQO performance in different regions of the 
       North Sea since 2002 (by running 5-year average data)  
 
15
14. Number and percentage of marine species with documented
       entanglement and ingestion records                               
 
 
16
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
15. Relationship between BPA concentrations in leachate and per
       capita GDP of Asian countries 
 
 
 
 
 
20
16. Illustration of additional effects of plastics in transport of
       phenanthrene 
 
 
 
 
               
 
22
17. Concentrations of PCBS in beached plastic pellets 
 
 
23
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Plastic waste is a growing concern and the drivers behind 
it look set to continue. Although recently there has been 
a slight decrease in plastic production, this is unlikely to be 
maintained. Plastic is a highly useful material and its applications 
are expected to increase as more new products and plastics are 
developed to meet demands. The increased use and production 
of plastic in developing and emerging countries is a particular 
concern, as the sophistication of their waste management 
infrastructure may not be developing at an appropriate 
rate to deal with their increasing levels of plastic waste.
 
Management of waste in the EU has been improving in terms 
of recycling and energy recovery, but there is still much 
to be done. At the heart of the problem is one of plastic’s 
most valued properties: its durability. Combined with the 
throwaway culture that has grown up around plastic products, 
this means that we are using materials that are designed to 
last, but for short-term purposes.
 
The state of plastic waste is notoriously hard to measure. It 
is estimated that in 2008 EU-27, Norway and Switzerland 
produced about 24.9 megatonnes of plastic waste (Mudgal 
et al., 2011) but its distribution is difficult to ascertain. This is 
especially so in the marine environment where the constant 
movement of the oceans, both horizontally on the surface 
and vertically within the water column, make it difficult 
to develop an accurate picture. Since the discovery of the 
Northern Pacific Garbage Patch, research has explored 
the gyres as areas of plastic waste accumulation, as well 
as beaches and river estuaries. There are a number of 
methods used to survey marine litter and currently there 
are initiatives to harmonise these. Several standardised 
surveillance guidelines have been developed, for example, 
those produced by the Oslo Paris Convention for Protection 
of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) 
and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 
On land, there are few figures on the level of plastic waste 
and there is a need for more information on sources and 
possible pathways into the environment. There has been 
increasing concern about the presence of microplastics, which 
are generally defined as plastic fragments less than 5mm in 
size. These are produced either from the weathering of larger 
plastics or deposited directly as pre-consumer plastic or 
from use in abrasives, such as those used in some cosmetics. 
Microplastics are particularly difficult to monitor and they 
may also have more influential impacts than larger plastics.
The impacts of plastic waste on our health and the environment 
are only just becoming apparent. Most of our knowledge is 
around plastic waste in the marine environment, although 
there is research that indicates that plastic waste in landfill 
and in badly managed recycling systems could be having 
an impact, mainly from the chemicals contained in plastic.
 
In the marine environment, the most well documented impacts 
are entanglement and ingestion by wildlife. Other lesser-
known effects are the alteration of habitats and the transport 
of alien species. Perhaps one of the most difficult impacts 
to fully understand, but also potentially one of the most 
concerning, is the impact of chemicals associated with plastic 
waste. There are several chemicals within plastic material itself 
that have been added to give it certain properties such as 
Bisphenol A, phthalates and flame retardants. These all have 
known negative effects on human and animal health, mainly 
affecting the endocrine system. There are also toxic monomers, 
which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems. 
The actual role of plastic waste in causing these health impacts 
is uncertain. This is partly because it is not clear what level of 
exposure is caused by plastic waste, and partly because the 
mechanisms by which the chemicals from plastic may have 
an impact on humans and animals are not fully established. 
The most likely pathway is through ingestion, after which 
chemicals could bioaccumulate up the food chain, meaning 
that those at the top could be exposed to greater levels of 
chemicals.
 
Plastic waste also has the ability to attract contaminants, such 
as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). This is particularly so 
in the marine environment since many of these contaminants 
are hydrophobic, which means they do not mix or bind with 
water. Again, the role of plastic waste in the impact of these 
toxic chemicals is unclear. Plastic could potentially transport 
these chemicals to otherwise clean environments and, when 
ingested by wildlife,  plastic could cause the transfer of chemicals 
into the organism’s system. However, in some conditions 
plastic could potentially act as a sink for contaminants, 
making them less available to wildlife, particularly if they are 
buried on the seafloor. With their large surface area-to-volume 
ratio, microplastics may have the capacity to make chemicals 
more available to wildlife and the environment in comparison 
to larger sized plastics. However, once ingested, microplastics 
may pass through the digestive system more quickly than 
larger plastics, potentially providing less opportunity for 
chemicals to be absorbed into the circulatory system.
 
Although plastic waste may not always cause detectable 
harm or death as an isolated factor, when combined with 
other impacts, such as uncontrolled fishing or oil spills, it may 
contribute cumulatively to serious impacts. These sub-lethal 
effects are difficult to monitor, but are nonetheless important 
to recognise. Research has indicated that some species or 
developmental stages are more vulnerable to ingestion of plastic 
waste and the toxic effects of the chemicals associated with it.
 
Policy responses to plastic waste come in many forms and 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
work on many levels, ranging from beach clean-ups to bans on 
plastic waste disposal at sea, to targets for waste management 
and recycling. Several market-based instruments have been 
explored such as deposit schemes to encourage the return 
and multi-use of plastics, and taxation on single-use plastics 
that do not fit into deposit return systems. However there has 
been little widespread application of these instruments and 
more research is needed to maximise their effectiveness and 
ensure they do not have secondary effects other than those 
intended.
 
Plastic waste has the additional complication of spanning 
many policy areas, such as marine management, coastal 
management, waste management and the regulation of 
chemicals. This range of responses is necessary for such 
a global problem with such local variation, but to ensure 
plastic waste does not fall through the holes in the net of 
responsibility, there is a need to harmonise efforts and co-
ordinate between different policy areas.  A number of reports 
have called for better implementation of existing policy. The 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive has specified ‘marine 
litter’ as one of its descriptors of good environmental status 
and four indicators of this have been identified which can be 
applied to plastic waste. However, there may also be room for 
policy that is more specifically related to plastic waste, while 
still allowing for its connection to different policy areas.
 
Lastly, there are a number of research gaps that need to be 
addressed to provide a stronger evidence-base on which 
to develop policy. Some of these are at the detailed level 
of impact, such as the actual levels of chemical exposure 
caused by plastic waste. Others are more action-orientated, 
for example, identifying potential hotspots where plastic 
waste is problematic, identifying high-risk products that use 
plastic or identifying wildlife and human groups that are more 
vulnerable to the impacts of plastic waste. However, the very 
nature of plastic waste as a fluctuating and mobile issue means 
that science is unlikely to be able to answer all the questions. 
It may be preferable to take policy action before waiting for 
a completely clear research picture to emerge so as to avoid 
the risk of impacts worsening and becoming more difficult to 
manage in the future. 
2
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
In the last 60 years, plastic has become a useful and versatile 
material with a wide range of applications. Its uses are likely to 
increase with ongoing developments in the plastic industry. 
In the future, plastic could help address some of the world’s 
most pressing problems, such as climate change and food 
shortages. For example, plastics are used in the manufacture of 
rotors for wind turbines and tunnels made from polyethylene 
can help crops grow in otherwise unfavourable conditions. 
As demand for materials with certain qualities increases, 
the plastics industry will aim to supply them. Meanwhile, 
increasing plastic production and use in emerging economies 
looks set to continue, and waste management infrastructure 
will have to develop accordingly. 
Unfortunately, the properties of plastic that make it so valuable 
also make its disposal problematic, such as its durability, light 
weight and low cost. In many cases plastics are thrown away after 
one use, especially packaging and sheeting, but because they 
are durable, they persist in the environment. If plastic reaches 
the sea, its low density means it tends to remain on the surface.
Increasing attention has been paid to plastic waste by 
policymakers, scientists and the media and probably one of 
the most influential factors was the discovery of the Great 
Pacific Garbage Patch by Charles Moore in the late 1990s. 
This is a layer of rubbish floating between California and 
Hawaii that has been estimated to span about 3.43 million 
km2 (the size of Europe). It is mostly plastic and contains 
everything from large abandoned fishing nets to plastic 
bottles to tiny particles of plastic (or ‘microplastics’). This type 
of mass in the seas can be known as ‘plastic soup’ and there 
are concerns that Europe hosts similar patches, in areas such 
as the Mediterranean and the North Sea. As such, marine 
litter and plastic waste is a priority on the EU policy agenda.
Plastic is still a relatively new material, which means the 
problem of plastic waste has only recently been realised, as 
has knowledge about its environmental persistence (Barnes 
et al., 2009). Even more recent is the discovery of possible 
health and environmental effects, such as the impacts of the 
chemicals contained in plastics. The monitoring of plastic 
waste and research into its impacts are still in their infancy, 
but so far the implications are worrying. 
The complexity of the issue is enhanced by the global nature 
of plastic waste and its constant movement, particularly at 
sea. This makes it difficult to confidently identify sources and 
scale up impacts from a specific location to create a global 
picture. The content of plastic waste can differ according 
to the location and time of year, while its impacts can vary 
between species and human life stages. So far, research has 
been somewhat piecemeal in documenting plastic waste’s 
distribution and impacts. To effectively inform policy, there 
needs to be more collation of existing data and greater 
harmonisation of research methods. This is also necessary to 
implement and monitor policy. 
This Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report on 
the human health and ecological impacts of plastic waste 
summarises and collates current research in this area. Using the 
Drivers Pressures State Impact Response (DPSIR) framework, 
it highlights major issues and concerns, as well as outlining 
questions around existing responses and possible strategies 
for the future. 
With the global nature of plastic waste, it is difficult to be 
precise about the Drivers and Pressures that bear influence 
and Section 1 combines the two and concentrates on 
measurement and monitoring. The sections covering 
State and Impacts concentrate on human health and 
ecological impacts. Finally, Section 4 deals with Responses 
to Plastic Waste and highlights current and future issues 
that need to be addressed, as well as knowledge gaps 
where more research is required to inform policy responses. 
3
INTRODUCTION
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
In 2009, around 230 million tonnes of plastic were produced 
and around 25 per cent of these plastics were used in the EU 
(Mudgal et al., 2011). This global figure has been increasing 
by an average rate of 9 per cent since 1950 to a peak of 245 
million tonnes in 2008, after which there was a slight drop in 
production. The financial recession may be responsible for this 
slight decline in plastic production, (PlasticsEurope, 2010 see 
Figure 1). 
About 50 per cent of plastic is used for single-use disposable 
applications, such as packaging, agricultural films and 
disposable consumer items (Hopewell et al., 2009). The 
drivers for plastic use are its improved physical and chemical 
properties compared to alternatives, its low cost and the 
possibility of mass production. Drivers for its reduction lie in a 
desire to minimise the use of resources (Kershaw et al., 2011). 
A life cycle analysis study has indicated that the use of plastics 
leads to significantly less energy consumption and emissions 
of greenhouse gases than the use of alternative materials 
(Pilz et al., 2010). In other words, plastic has surpassed other 
materials for certain functions and its comparative advantages 
may be increasing as technology improves.
In addition, the increasingly short lifetime of products that use 
plastic, especially electronic goods, means that more plastic 
waste is being produced in today’s upgrade-and-dispose 
culture. A key example of this is the mobile phone: its plastic 
components contain several toxic substances (Nnorom & 
Osibanjo, 2009). Although these substances are not at levels 
to cause immediate risk, if quantities increase and end-of-
life management is inadequate, such as the open burning 
often practised in developing countries, there is potential for 
environmental pollution and human health impacts. 
Production of plastic has levelled off in recent years, however, 
it is not declining and may well increase in the future as 
applications for plastic increase and its use continues to grow 
in developing and emerging economies (Global Industry 
Analysts, 2011). Without appropriate waste management, this 
will lead to increased plastic waste, which will add to the ‘back 
log’ of plastic waste already in existence. There is no agreed 
figure on the time that plastic takes to degrade, but it could be 
hundreds or thousands of years (Kershaw et al., 2011). 
Most types of plastic are not biodegradable. Some plastics are 
designed to be biodegradable and can be broken down in a 
controlled environment, such as landfill, but it is uncertain if 
this will occur under other conditions, especially in oceans 
where the temperature is colder (Song et al., 2009; O’Brine & 
Thompson, 2010). Even if plastic does eventually biodegrade, 
it will temporarily break into smaller fragments, which then 
produce so-called ‘microplastics’. These have a specific and 
significant set of impacts (see sections 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9).
4
1.0 PLASTIC WASTE: DRIVERS AND PRESSURES  
Figure 1. World Plastics Production 1950-2008. FromThe Compelling 
Facts about Plastic, PlasticsEurope (2009), p33.
Box 1 
Examples of the distribution of plastic waste
•	
In 1992, a container ship lost 30,000 rubber ducks off the coast of China. Fifteen years later, some of these 
turned up on the shores of the UK (Maggs et al., 2010). 
•	
In 2005 a piece of plastic found in an albatross stomach bore a serial number traced to a World War II seaplane 
shot down in 1944. Computer models re-creating the object’s journey showed it spent a decade the Western 
Garbage Patch, just south of Japan, and then drifted 6,000 miles to the Eastern Garbage Patch off the West 
Coast of the U.S., where it spun in circles for the next 50 years (Weiss et al., 2006) 
•	
Van Franeker (2011) estimated that North Sea fulmars annually reshape and redistribute about six tons of 
plastic through ingestion of plastic waste. 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
1.1 
Sources of plastic waste
Plastic waste is a global problem, but with regional 
variability. This is particularly true of plastic waste in the 
marine environment, which can travel long distances, carried 
by currents or transported by wildlife, which ingest or become 
entangled in plastic.
The EU’s Waste Framework Directive prioritises prevention 
in waste management. To develop effective prevention 
strategies, it is useful for policymakers to know the major 
sources of plastic waste and, if possible, which of these 
represent the greatest risk. Furthermore, to implement 
prevention-orientated 
policy 
effectively, 
meaningful 
monitoring of plastic waste is needed to assess the impact 
of policy. An example of this is the EU’s Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (MFSD), which has established that 
Member States should take necessary measures to achieve 
or maintain good environmental status of marine waters by 
the year 2020. This requires monitoring and therefore the 
development of indicators of good environmental status. The 
MFSD has outlined 11 descriptors of environmental status, 
one of which is marine litter and identified four indicators for 
marine litter which, by default, also apply to plastic waste in 
the marine environment (see Box 2).
A significant issue is that, while there is an abundance of data 
on debris in the marine environment, there is a comparative 
shortage of data on plastic waste on land. This is despite 
the estimate that 80 per cent of plastic waste in the sea is 
from land-based sources (Sheavly, 2005). The main land-
based sources of marine plastic waste include storm water 
discharge, combined sewer overflows, tourism related litter, 
illegal dumping, industrial activities e.g. plastic resin pellets, 
losses from accidents and transport, and blowing from landfill 
sites (Allsopp et al., 2006). The ocean-based sources tend to be 
commercial fishing, recreational boaters, merchant/military/
research vessels, losses from transport, offshore oil and gas 
platforms (Sheavly, 2005). A disproportionate amount of 
waste in the marine environment is plastic. Plastics make up 
an estimated 10 per cent of household waste, most of which 
is disposed in landfill (Barnes, 2009; Hopewell et al., 2009). 
However, 60- 80 per cent of the waste found on beaches, 
floating on the ocean or on the seabed is plastic (Derraik, 
2002; Barnes, 2005). 
Waste management 
varies 
from 
country to country. One of the most 
instrumental EU waste management 
regulations is the Landfill Directive 
(1999), which sets targets for the 
diversion of biodegradable municipal 
waste from landfill, allowing Member 
States to choose their own strategies for 
meeting these targets. However, there 
are no specific targets for diversion of 
plastic waste. An EEA review (Herczeg 
et al., 2009) of the Directive in five EU 
countries and one sub-national area 
(Estonia, Finland, the Flemish Region of 
Belgium, Germany, Hungary and Italy), 
indicates that there has generally been a drop in the amount 
of waste going to landfill from 1999-2006. Separate data from 
a PlasticsEurope report (PlasticsEurope, 2009) indicate that, 
despite a 3 per cent annual growth in the past decade for 
post-consumer plastic waste in EU15, landfill amounts have 
increased by only 1.1 per cent per year (see Figure 2), thanks 
to increases in recycling and energy recovery.
 
Sources of plastic waste vary by region, for example, shipping 
and fisheries are significant contributors in the East Asian 
Seas region and the southern North Sea (Kershaw et al., 2011), 
whereas tourism is a major source in the Mediterranean. 
Plastic waste accumulates in certain areas of the sea, such as 
gyres, which are large rotating currents, which have lower 
sea levels near their centres. There are five major gyres in 
the world: the North Pacific, the South Pacific, the Indian 
Ocean, the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic. These act 
as accumulation zones for marine debris, which is forced into 
the centre where winds and currents are weaker (Moore et al., 
2001).
Currents, wave action, and the nature of the continental 
shelf and seafloor also affect the distribution of plastic waste. 
Harbours and estuaries near urban areas tend to attract large 
amounts of plastic waste from recreation and land-based 
sources, while more remote beaches tend to be littered with 
fishing debris (Derraik, 2002). This is supported by findings 
from a study in a conservation area in north-eastern Brazil (Ivar 
5
Figure 2. Continued decoupling of plastic waste and landfill. From The Compelling Facts about Plastic, 
PlasticsEurope (2009) p11.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
do Sul et al., 2011) which indicated that 70 per cent of debris 
on populated beaches comes from local sources, mainly 
tourism activities, while on unpopulated beaches, non-local 
sources account for 70 per cent of plastic waste, mainly from 
fishing and domestic activities, such as household waste from 
rivers and onshore, as well as waste from transiting ships. 
Although it is important to try and determine sources of 
plastic waste for developing and monitoring policy, it should 
be remembered that the distinction between land-based and 
sea-based sources is irrelevant for prevention, as all plastic 
is produced on land. If we are to reduce overall amounts of 
plastic waste, the land is where the greatest efforts need to 
be made.
1.2 
Categories of plastic waste
Categorisation can help us understand plastic waste and 
identify sources. However, most classifications have a purpose 
and waste is often categorised with a specific goal in mind. 
For example, a waste classification designed to support a 
recycling programme would identify commonly recycled 
plastics (Barnes et al., 2009). Classification can also depend on 
policy, for example, Moore et al. (2011) conducted a study on 
plastic debris in two Californian rivers that categorised pieces 
as below or above 4.5mm, because Californian law defines 
rubbish as being 5mm or greater. 
One of the most fundamental categorisations is into pre- and 
post-consumer plastic waste. Pre-consumer plastic waste is 
produced during manufacturing or converting processes, 
while post-consumer plastic waste is produced after a product 
is consumed or used. Pre-consumer plastic waste often 
consists of small pellets that are used to make larger plastic 
objects. Many statistics are concerned with post-consumer 
plastic waste. In 2008, the EU-27, Norway and Switzerland 
were estimated to generate a total of 24.9 megatonnes of 
post-consumer plastic waste (PlasticsEurope, 2009). This was 
further categorised according to function. (See fig. 4)
At sea, plastic waste is often categorised into macro- (over 
20mm diameter), meso- (5-20mm diameter) and micro- 
(under 5mm diameter) plastics. Very small microplastics are 
barely detectable, and for practical purposes, microplastics 
are usually defined as those that range from 5mm to 333 
micrometres (µm). Practically, this is the lower limit because 
333µm mesh nets (‘Neuston nets’) are commonly used for 
sampling (Arthur et al., 2009). However, methods, such as 
‘Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy’, can detect particles 
less than 1.6µm. Macroplastics can be further categorised 
according to type of object, for example, bottle, bag or lid.
1.3 
Microplastics: sources and categories
Microplastics are a significant issue in plastic waste, partly 
because they are more difficult to monitor, and partly because 
they may have greater impacts at a chemical and physical 
level on ecosystems and human health, owing to their size 
and large volume-to-surface area ratio. 
In the ocean as well as on land, plastics tend to fragment into 
smaller particles. This can be aided by the action of ultraviolet 
(UV) radiation, waves and wind. In landfills, leachate acidity 
and chemicals can break down plastics. In the sea, water 
absorbs and scatters UV so plastics floating near the surface 
will break down more rapidly than those at depth. For those 
on the seabed, breakdown is significantly slower since there is 
no UV radiation and temperatures are colder. 
6
Box 2 
MSFD indicators of marine debris to measure good environmental status:
1. Trends in the amount, distribution and composition of marine debris on coastlines.
2. 
Trends in marine debris in the column and deposited on seafloor.
3. 
Trends in the amount, distribution and composition of micro particles (mainly microplastics)
4. 
Trends in the amount and composition of marine debris ingested by wildlife. 
Figure 3. Main sources and movement pathways for plastic in the ma-
rine environment. (from UNEP Year Book, Kershaw et al., 2011)
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Plastic fragments can also come from the use of plastic particles 
as abrasives in ‘sandblasting’ and exfoliants in cosmetics (Barnes 
et al., 2009; Andrady, 2011), from spillage of pre-production 
plastic pellets and powders used for moulding plastic objects, 
as well as from plastic items deliberately shredded on board 
ships to conceal plastic waste in food waste (Barnes et al., 
2009).  These sources are known as primary microplastic 
sources, whereas secondary microplastics are those formed 
from breakdown of larger plastic material (Arthur et al., 2009). 
The relative importance of primary and secondary sources of 
microplastics to the environment is unknown and addressing 
this gap could help inform measures to mitigate and prevent 
microplastic pollution (Arthur et al., 2009). 
Andrady (2011) provides a comprehensive review of the 
degradation processes of plastics under marine conditions 
and the origin of microplastics. The review raises the concept 
of nanoplastics. These are engineered plastic nanoparticles 
derived from post-consumer waste via degradation. Although 
they have not been quantified yet the review suggests there is 
little doubt that weathering of plastic can produce nanoscale 
particles, which could potentially be easily absorbed by 
phytoplankton and zooplankton (Andrady, 2011).
Another potential secondary source of degradation into 
microplastic is through digestion by wildlife, which also 
transport plastic waste. Van Franeker (2011) suggest that 
fulmars (a type of seabird) reduce the size of plastic particles 
in their muscular stomach and excrete them back into the 
environment in the form of microplastics. They estimate that 
fulmars reshape and redistribute about 630 million plastic 
particles every year, representing about six tons in plastic 
mass. 
7
Figure 4. Proportion of post-consumer waste in EU-27, Norway and 
Switzerland according to function, 2008. From Plastic Waste in the Envi-
ronment, Mudgal et al.(2011)
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
As production and use of plastic has increased over the 
years, a large amount of plastic waste has accumulated in 
the environment. As a durable material, it is also persistent. 
Recycling and recovery rates may be improving, but the actual 
amount of plastic waste produced remains roughly the same 
and adds to existing waste.
 
There is little information on the amounts, rates, fate or impacts 
of plastic waste on land, whereas there has been a major effort 
to quantify impacts on shorelines and sea (Barnes et al., 2009). 
If it is not recycled or recovered, most plastic waste is disposed 
of in landfill sites where, although not visible, it may still come 
to the surface as ‘debris’. In addition, the conditions within 
landfill may cause the chemicals contained within plastic to 
become more readily available to the environment (see section 
3.6). This is a particular concern in developing countries where 
landfill management is not as closely monitored as in the EU. 
2.1 
Between land and sea - Monitoring plastic waste  
 
on coastlines 
Although it is difficult to determine source and type of plastic 
at sea, particularly if it is weathered or partially degraded by 
sunlight, there are several methods to monitor plastic waste in 
the marine environment, including beach surveys, surveys at 
sea and monitoring species affected by plastic waste. 
Beach surveys vary in their sampling protocols. For example, 
they can record the number of items and/or the mass of waste, 
and can differ in the areas covered and whether they include 
buried litter. There is debate on whether standing ‘stocks’ of 
plastic waste should be recorded, i.e. snapshots of plastic 
waste at points in time, or rates of accumulation, i.e. how much 
plastic waste accumulates per unit of time. The latter requires 
an initial clean-up of the area, which is difficult, particularly for 
microplastics. 
Plastic waste monitoring is usually embedded in the 
monitoring of general marine litter. The OSPAR (Oslo Paris 
Convention for Protection of the Marine Environment of 
the North-East Atlantic) Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine 
Beach Litter in the North Sea was one of the first region-wide 
projects in Europe to develop a standard method to monitor 
marine litter found on beaches. It identified the sources and 
quantitative trends in marine litter on the beaches of nine 
countries within the OSPAR network. This confirmed that the 
predominant type of marine litter is plastic. On the Greater 
North Sea coast, plastic dominated with the highest levels in 
the north where it made up 80 per cent of beach litter;  on 
average there were 900 items of litter per 100m of beach. 
Lower percentages of plastic were found further south, where 
it made up 75 per cent of items on the Southern North Sea 
coast (out of 400 items per 100m), 70 per cent on the Celtic 
Sea Coast (out of 650 items per 100m) and 62 per cent on the 
Iberian Coast and Bay of Biscay (out of 200 items per 100m) 
(OSPAR, 2007). These plastic items were classified according 
to type (see Figure 5), with plastic/polystyrene pieces smaller 
than 50cm dominating.
Overall quantities of plastic waste on OSPAR beaches 
fluctuated between 2001 and 2006 with no discernible 
pattern. The composition of the plastic waste also changed, 
particularly for plastic/polystyrene (see Figure 6). It is difficult 
to find a consistent trend over time for plastic waste both on 
beaches and at sea. This lack of pattern is likely to be partly 
because plastic debris in the marine environment is always 
moving. Barnes and Milner (2005) found no consistent trend in 
general debris in northern hemisphere shores, but there were 
increasing densities throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 
2000s in the southern 
hemisphere with 
the 
highest 
increases 
at 
high southern latitudes. 
More recent data (Barnes 
et al., 2009) suggests 
that patterns of debris 
accumulation may be 
stabilising 
on 
islands 
(those considered were 
South Orkney, 
South 
Georgia and NW Hawaii).
A relatively new survey 
method combines the use 
of aerial photography and 
in situ measurements. 
This calculates the mass 
8
2.0 STATE OF PLASTIC WASTE IN THE ENVIRONMENT 
Figure 5. Composition and numbers of marine litter items found on beaches within OSPAR network.  From Marine 
litter Preventing a Sea of Plastic (2009), OSPAR Convention
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
of litter per unit area using a sample and then combines it with 
balloon-assisted photography to define the area covered by 
litter. On an island beach surveyed in Japan, the mass of litter 
was calculated to be 716 kg, 74 per cent of which was plastic 
(Nakashima et al., 2011). Despite being measured by weight, 
55 per cent of the plastic waste was light plastic. Polyethylene 
was the most common type found and the study suggested 
further research is needed to determine if lighter plastics, such 
as polyethylene, are more readily transported by winds and 
currents than heavier plastics, such as PVC which tends to sink 
and so is subject to different patterns of transportation than 
plastic on the surface. From -their pilot project, OSPAR have 
developed a set of guidelines for monitoring marine litter 
on beaches (OSPAR, 2010a) that sets out recommendations 
on selecting reference beaches, sampling, timing and 
identification of litter. As part of Cheshire et al.’s (2009) UNEP/
IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring marine litter, there is 
also a set of operational guidelines for comprehensive beach 
litter assessment. More informally Ryan et al. (2009) have set 
out best practices for beach surveys (see Box 4).
2.2 
The marine surface - monitoring plastic waste  
 
 
floating at sea
Surveys at sea are more costly and challenging than beach 
surveys and can only assess standing (or floating) stocks rather 
than accumulation rates, because it is impossible to perform 
a complete clean-up. Amounts of floating debris can be 
estimated either by direct observation or by net trawls. 
Most observation surveys are conducted from ships or small 
boats. Aerial surveys have also been used which have the 
advantage of covering large areas but the disadvantage of 
only detecting large items of waste (Ryan et al., 2009). In 2008, 
an assessment prepared by MED POL (the marine pollution 
assessment and control component of the Mediterranean 
Action Plan) reported finding 2.1 items of general debris 
per km2 floating in the Mediterranean Sea (observation with 
binoculars) and 83 per cent of this waste was plastic (UNEP, 
2009). All observation surveys suffer discrepancies between 
individual observers (inter-observer variability), but variability 
can also occur for other reasons, such as meteorological 
conditions, ocean currents and the constant movement of 
plastic waste. For example, in a visual survey of general debris 
conducted in the northwestern Mediterranean 15-25 items 
per km2 were reported in 1997, and just 1.5-3 items per km2 
were reported in 2000 (Aliani et al., 2003). 
In general, net-based surveys tend to be less subjective. 
Most research has been done using Neuston or Manta trawl 
nets, which have a small mesh (usually 0.3mm, and small net 
opening and thus focus on microplastics). Manta trawls have 
been used to sample and characterise the large gyre systems 
in the oceans with elevated amounts of clustered marine litter 
(Pichel et al., 2007).  One of the most well known research 
programmes that use this method is the Algalita Centre, which 
regularly monitors the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (see 
Figure 7). In 1999, they reported just under 335,000 items of 
plastic per km2, weighing 5.1 kg per km2 (Moore et al., 2001). 
9
Figure 6. Changes in composition of marine items found on beaches 
within OSPAR network. Diagram from Marine Litter Preventing a Sea of 
Plastic (2009) OSPAR Commission
Box 3  
 Local variability in plastic waste
A study in Portugal (Frias et al., 2011) researched plastic 
debris on mainland coasts. This found that out of 9655 plastic 
items identified from 10 beaches, about 85 per cent were 
plastic fragments, plastic pellets and styrofoam. There was a 
decrease in volume of plastics from north to south, probably 
because north-south main currents carry and deposit 
plastic debris from both land-based and sea-based sources. 
Box 4  
Best practices for beach surveys of  
 
 
plastic waste, Ryan et al (2009)
•	
Record litter from the sea-edge to the highest area 
at the top of the beach where debris is deposited 
(strandline)
•	
Record both the mass and the number of items of 
plastic waste
•	 Categorise according to composition and function
•	
Ideally sample across a network of sites
•	
Sampling of meso-debris should be done with a 
combination of methods
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Investigation into the physical and chemical composition 
of plastic waste is limited, although there has been a recent 
study of the composition of plastic debris in the western North 
Atlantic Ocean (Moret-Fergusson et al., 2010). This found that 
more than 88 per cent of particles were less than 10 mm in 
length and 69 per cent measuring between 2 and 6 mm. Over 
time the percentage of smaller sized particles has increased. 
In the 1990s, 16 per cent of plastic particles were 10mm or 
larger, while in a more recent study period, only 6 per cent 
were 10 mm or larger. This could indicate that mechanical 
abrasion and photochemical breakdown are causing plastic 
particles to decrease in size.  
Secondly, the study indicated that the density of plastic 
particles on coastlines was similar to that of virgin plastics i.e. 
the plastic had changed little from its original form, whereas 
at sea the density of plastic particles were greater, indicating 
a change from its time at sea. This was thought to be due to 
biomass accumulation on the plastic or biofouling, which is 
likely to increase the density of the plastic. The researchers 
suggest that data on particle density could help us understand 
what types of plastics are sinking or floating and the potential 
impact of plastics on wildlife.
Methods to ascertain composition of plastics tend to rely 
on ‘Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy’. However, 
Moret-Fergusson et al. (2010) suggest that this technology 
is scarce and expensive, and propose a simpler alternative 
for establishing composition, which analyses the amount of 
carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen in plastic. This method may 
be cheaper, but it is not as accurate and requires combusting 
samples of plastic. Infrared spectroscopy methods are under 
further development and may become cheaper in the future.
2.3 
Monitoring plastic debris in rivers and estuaries
Studying plastic waste in rivers and estuaries could prove 
useful in trying to identify sources. Browne et al. (2010) 
investigated the composition of plastic debris on the banks 
of a UK estuary from both the surface and the underlying 
3cm of sediment. Out of the 952 items found, microplastic 
(less than 1mm) accounted for 65 per cent of debris and 
mainly (80 per cent) consisted of the denser plastics such as 
PVC, polyester and polyamide. Macroplastics tended to be 
less dense. There are a number of possible explanations for 
this. For example, it could be that denser plastics are more 
likely to suffer weathering as they are in contact with abrasive 
particles in sediment, or it could be that denser microplastics 
are easier to distinguish from the sediment so appear to 
be more abundant. The research found a larger amount of 
microplastics at the more exposed sites towards the mouth of 
the estuary where debris is likely to experience strong wave-
action and abrasion. Another possible source is the discharge 
from sewage treatment, as domestic laundry may act a source 
of fibres or microplastics. 
Galgani et al. (2000) suggest that strong currents in large 
rivers may transport litter offshore while in the smaller 
rivers, where currents are weaker, the litter tends to become 
beached in the estuaries. As existing research indicates, there 
is much speculation about the reasons for the composition 
and distribution of plastic debris and much still needs to be 
done on the major influences to identify where policy can 
be effective. Moore et al. (2011) studied quantity and type 
of plastic debris from two urban rivers to coastal waters and 
beaches in Southern California. Using nets in the rivers they 
found 2.3 billion pieces over 72 hours, which weighed 30,500 
kg. The majority were foams, such as polystyrene (71 per 
cent), followed by ‘miscellaneous fragments’ (14 per cent), 
pre-production pellets (10 per cent) and whole items (1 per 
cent). 81 per cent of all plastics were between 1 and 4.75 mm 
(the size above which California officially classifies them as 
rubbish). The study suggests more systemic monitoring could 
provide a picture of how much debris is being transported 
by rivers, which in turn could provide a baseline to support 
decisions by policymakers on how to prevent plastic entering 
rivers.
2.4 
Monitoring plastic waste in the water column and  
 
on the seafloor
Most studies tend to sample floating plastic debris, but it is 
also important to monitor suspended plastic and plastic on 
the sea bottom. Bongo nets can be used to sample suspended 
debris, while trawl surveys, scuba diver surveys, and submarine 
vehicles can be used to sample plastic waste on the sea 
bottom. Data from the KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale 
Miljøorganisasjon)  ‘Fishing for Litter’ activities organised 
by national governments in the Netherlands, Scotland and 
the United Kingdom found that plastic made up a large 
percentage of marine litter on the seabed. 
For example, in Scotland 55 per cent of the 3464 items of 
marine litter recovered (which made up 117 tonnes in weight) 
were plastic (KIMO, 2008). In their study of benthic marine 
litter, Galgani et al. (2000) found relatively lower percentages 
of plastic in the Celtic Sea, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea 
(30 per cent, 36 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively) while 
10
Figure 7. Algalita Research Centre monitoring. Weight density 
refers to the total weight of plastic particles found per cubic 
metre of water. The larger the circle on the map, the greater 
the weight of plastic particles found at that particular site. 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
in the north-western Mediterranean, the East English Channel 
and Bay of Seine, the percentages were higher (77 per cent, 85 
per cent and 89 per cent, respectively). 
The figures are most concerning for the north-western 
Mediterranean where the level of litter is much higher than 
other regions at just under 20 items per hectare (ranging 
between 0 and 78 items), which means there are, on average, 
15 items of plastic waste per hectare, most of which are plastic 
bags. Other regions had between 1 and 6 items of marine 
litter per hectare. As well as regional variability, there was also 
seasonal variability, for example, in the Bay of Biscay there are 
approximately two items of marine litter per hectare during 
the summer and 14 items per hectare in winter. Most of the 
items were plastic (92 per cent) and out of those, the majority 
(94 per cent) were plastic bags. 
The densely populated coastline, shipping and limited tidal 
flow or water circulation which traps the bottom debris 
may be responsible for the large amounts of plastic waste 
in Mediterranean sites. High sediment accumulation also 
tends to trap plastic. Large rivers are responsible for inputs of 
plastic debris to the seabed and collections are often found 
around the river mouth. At a smaller scale, there is a high 
concentration of plastic around rocks and in channels or 
canyons, particularly on the continental shelf (Galgani et al., 
1996). As most polymers degrade through exposure to UV 
radiation, it is likely that plastic on the sea floor will be even 
more persistent than that on the surface or on the 
beach. 
Just as plastic waste moves on the surface of the 
sea and from the sea to the coast, it can also move 
vertically. So-called ‘biofouling’ or accumulation of 
micro-organisms, plants or algae onto plastic debris 
causes it to become heavier and eventually sink. In 
their sample of plastic debris in the western North 
Atlantic Ocean, Morét-Ferguson et al. (2010) found 
that the range in specific gravities (specific gravity is 
the ratio of the plastic density to the density of water) 
was 0.808 to 1.24 grams per milliliter. This range 
was greater than most virgin plastics and indicated 
that the plastics had been subject to fouling. They 
also found that the plastic in the sea had a different 
specific gravity to plastic debris found at the beach, 
suggesting that plastic undergoes changes when it 
is at sea. 
Lobelle and Cunliffe (2011) investigated the formation 
of films of micro-organisms (biofilms) on plastic waste 
in the sea and found that films developed rapidly and 
were visibly apparent after one week.  By three weeks, 
the plastic started to sink below the surface. These 
data could help identify what types of plastic are 
floating or sinking, and which are therefore potential 
hazards for either surface-feeding or seafloor-feeding wildlife. 
Establishing the size, mass and composition of plastics that 
persist in the ocean is important for understanding the 
impacts of plastics (Morét-Ferguson et al., 2010)
2.5 
Trends in plastic waste over time
It is difficult to find any clear patterns in the quantities 
of plastic waste over time. In some regions, and over some 
timescales, there appears to be an increase, whereas in others 
there may be a short-term decline and then stabilisation. This is 
evidenced by the findings from the OSPAR survey (see Figure 9). 
As yet, no studies have found evidence of a continuing decline 
in the quantity of plastic debris in the oceans over time and 
the majority of studies show considerable variability between 
sampling dates and therefore give little evidence of temporal 
trends. The monitoring data we have is mostly from beaches 
or surface waters. There is evidence that plastics are sinking 
from the sea surface to the seabed with substantial quantities 
observed by submersibles, there are also reports of plastic 
debris accumulating beneath the surface in beach sediments. 
Hence movement of debris away from the compartments 
that have traditionally been monitored will also influence 
our ability to detect underlying trends in the accumulation 
of debris (Thompson, 2011, in correspondence). As plastic 
is continually being manufactured and notoriously difficult 
11
Figure 8. Litter ( items/ hectare) on the sea bed in the channel (x) and the gulf of 
Lion (y) 1998 -2010. Data collected from International Bottom Trawl Surveys from 
the IBTS and MEDITS programs in France (Source: Galgani, F. IFREMER).
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
to degrade, plastic waste could be moving to areas where 
it cannot be monitored, either in an inaccessible location 
(buried or in the deep sea), or because it has been ingested 
by wildlife. It could also have changed into microplastic that is 
more difficult to monitor.
2.8 
Microplastics: monitoring trends
The MSFD specifies that trends in micro-particles, 
especially microplastics, should be an indicator of 
marine debris to determine good environmental 
status. However, the sampling of microplastics is still 
in its infancy. With beach surveys it is not possible to 
conduct accumulation studies as they require an initial 
clean-up, and, when sampling is performed, it needs to 
be done by sieving, typically to a depth of 50 mm and 
then sorting by floating in seawater (Ryan et al., 2009). 
Various studies at sea have indicated that microscopic 
plastic fragments and fibres are widespread. Browne 
et al. (2007) reported that microplastics account for 
80 per cent of the number of stranded plastics in the 
Tamar Estuary, UK (see Figure 10), and Moore et al. 
(2011) reported that microplastics contribute about 
80 per cent by count of total plastic debris in Los 
Angeles watershed. Browne et al. (2010) indicated that 
microplastics tend to be composed of denser plastics and are 
more abundant at the mouth of the river. Microplastics often 
become part of the sediment, both on the beach and on the 
sea bottom. Currently it is unclear whether this sedimentation 
could actually act as a sink for microplastics and alter their 
exposure to the environment and wildlife (Zarfl et al., 2011). 
KIMO Sweden has assessed the abundance of microscopic 
plastic particles that are less than 4.5mm in Swedish west 
coast waters (Norén, 2007). A considerably higher amount 
of microplastic particles was found using an 80µm mesh, 
compared to using a 450µm mesh, to concentrate the water 
samples. Up to 100,000 times higher concentrations, (150-
2400 per m3), of small plastic fibres were retained on an 80µm 
mesh with the highest concentration (102,000 per m3) found 
locally in the harbour outside a polyethylene production 
plant. This illustrates the impact of different methodologies 
on findings and local influences.
A study in the Hawaiian island of Kauai investigated the 
degradation processes involved in production of microplastic 
by analysing the relationships between particle composition 
and surface texture on plastics collected from beaches 
(Cooper & Corcoran, 2010; Corcoran et al., 2009). Over ten days 
of sampling, the research found that, on average, 484 pieces 
of plastic were deposited on the beach daily. Results indicated 
that both chemical breakdown (usually caused by sunlight 
exposure) and mechanical breakdown (usually from the 
motion of currents and abrasion against rock and sand) are 
occurring. Examination of texture indicated that mechanical 
erosion had occurred on most samples, for example impacts 
caused fractures, sand abrasion caused grooves, and the effects 
of salt caused notches. Pits were identified on almost half of 
the plastic samples, indicating the occurrence of chemical 
12
Figure 9. Trends in the average number of marine litter items 
collected on reference beaches over three time periods. OSPAR 
Quality Status Report, chap 9: other human uses and impacts, 2010b.
Figure 10. 
Identity and composition of plastic debris collected from 
the strandline of the Tamar Estuary (UK) From Browne et al. 
(2010)
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
weathering. There was also a tendency for fractures and edges 
in particles to contain oxidation products, which suggested 
that fractures created by mechanical weathering were then 
favourable locations for chemical weathering, which further 
weakens the surface and causes the plastic to become brittle 
and break. The results also suggest that polyethylene has the 
potential to degrade more readily than polypropylene, as it is 
more conducive to the oxidation process. There is a possibility 
that additives may provide preferential sites for continued 
degradation, as indicated by the small patches of heavily 
oxidized areas in otherwise intact plastic pellets. 
O’Brine & Thompson (2010) have investigated the degradation 
of plastic carrier bags. They studied compostable and oxo-
biodegradable plastics (which contain metal salts to speed 
up the degradation process) and found compostable plastics 
were completely lost from the wooden platforms to which 
they were stapled within 16 to 24 weeks, whereas 98 per 
cent of the oxo-biodegradable plastic remained after 40 
weeks. Increasing the degradation rates of plastic could 
have unintended negative impacts in some cases due to the 
possibility that plastic does not fully degrade in the marine 
environment and could therefore speed up the creation of 
microplastics.
Better methods to isolate microplastics from surface waters, 
sediments and organisms are needed, as well as research 
methods that produce comparable data across different 
studies. Where possible, microplastic measurements could be 
added to existing and ongoing plankton surveys, especially 
in coastal areas (Arthur et al., 2009). At the Joint Group of 
Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental 
Protection (GESAMP) workshop on this subject there was a 
call for a taxonomy of plastic particles in terms of size, shape, 
density, chemical composition and properties as well as the 
age of particles (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010). This could be 
incorporated into more specific standards that define Good 
Environmental Status in the EU MFSD and help develop 
guidelines of sampling and reporting. 
2.7 
Monitoring the impact of plastic waste on wildlife
One of the major concerns about plastic waste is the 
impact on wildlife. The actual impacts and their implications 
for biodiversity and environmental health will be discussed 
in more detail in section 3.1. Here, impact is considered in 
terms of its role in monitoring the state of plastic waste in the 
environment. Once again, there is very little research on land-
based wildlife.
Monitoring entangled wildlife can be used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of policy. However, it must be remembered 
that this type of monitoring indicates changes in abundance 
of debris that are responsible for entanglement, which can 
vary according to species and location. For example, after 
the MARPOL Annex V banned the disposal of plastics at sea, 
there was no decrease in entanglement rates of Hawaiian 
Monk Seals (Henderson, 2001). This is probably because 
most entanglements are due to lost fishing gear rather 
than plastics disposed by ships at sea. If the monitoring had 
considered a species that tended to be entangled by the 
type of plastic waste disposed by ships, then the impact may 
have been noticeable. With this variability and the relatively 
small numbers of entanglements that are recorded, caution 
has to be taken when scaling up figures. For example, UNEP’s 
general figure of 100,000 mammals dying each year has been 
called into question. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 2010).
Ingestion of plastic occurs more frequently than entanglement. 
The MFSD has identified ingestion of waste as an indicator for 
monitoring environmental status. Ingestion of plastic waste 
has been documented in a number of species. For some 
species, almost all individuals contain ingested plastic (Ryan 
et al., 2009), including sea birds, fish, turtles, mussels and 
mammals. Clearly different species ingest different types and 
sizes of plastic debris. Many animals mistake plastic waste for 
prey, for example, fish can confuse plastic pellets for plankton, 
birds may mistake pieces of plastic for cuttlefish or other prey 
13
Box 5 
 Ryan et al. (2009) – Best practices for at-sea surveys of plastic waste
•	
Effective monitoring of floating plastics requires huge sample sizes to overcome large variation in spatial 
distribution. 
•	
Stratified sampling could be helpful which places similar water masses in the same category before sampling 
occurs. 
•	
Probably the best sampling tool is the Neuston net with a 0.33mm mesh
•	
The continuous plankton recorder (CPR) is a valuable subsurface tool to track changes in microplastic particles
•	
For shallow waters, monitoring plastic litter on the seafloor can use the same protocols as beach sampling. For 
deeper waters, sampling issues have to be considered because variation in the efficiency of trawling means 
trawling nets may become clogged. Remote cameras may provide a more accurate sampling strategy.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
and sea turtles can confuse plastic bags for jellyfish (Derraik, 
2002; Gregory, 2009). Young birds typically contain more 
plastic than adults, probably because they cannot discriminate 
between suitable food items, and sometimes parents will 
accidently feed plastic to offspring (Ryan, 1988). Other animals 
may ingest plastic that is present in their prey, for example, 
pelagic fish (those that live between the sea bottom and the 
surface) are thought to consume plastic particles and these 
fish are then eaten by fur seals. 
Recent research on plankton-eating (and pelagic) fish in the 
North Pacific Gyre (Boerger et al., 2010) has indicated that 35 
per cent had ingested plastic, averaging 2.1 pieces per fish. 
However, Davison & Asch (2011) found only 9.2 per cent of 
sampled mesopelagic fish (those that inhabit water at depths 
from about 200m to 1000m) contained plastic in the North 
Pacific Gyre. This study was the first to account for the potential 
bias of ‘net feeding’, which is when fish are more likely to ingest 
plastic because the nets that capture them also catch and 
concentrate plastic waste. Davison & Asch (2011) suggest that 
the higher levels of plastic waste in Boerger et al.’s study could 
be the result of net feeding as they used Manta nets, which 
have very long tow duration. 
To give some idea of the overall level of plastic in fish stomachs, 
Davison & Asch (2011) scaled up their findings to estimate 
that mesopelagic fish in total ingest 12,000 to 24,000 tons of 
plastic in the North Pacific. However, similar to entanglement, 
there is a great deal of variability and caution must be taken 
when scaling up or extrapolating figures to cover numbers or 
regions larger than the sample.
A study on catfish in an estuary in northeastern Brazil 
indicated that between 18 and 33 per cent of individuals had 
plastic debris in their stomach, depending on the species of 
catfish (Possatto et al., 2011). This illustrates the variability 
between different species of the same type of fish. Despite the 
variability between species, catfish could be a good species 
for monitoring plastic ingestion in rivers, as they are both 
predators and prey to larger fish.
Seabirds are commonly used to monitor ingested plastics and 
the best-known example is the northern fulmar that has been 
used by the OSPAR Commission to develop ecological quality 
objectives (EcoQOs). It is a convenient species to measure 
plastic pollution because it frequently ingests plastic litter, 
is abundant in the North Sea, forages exclusively at sea and 
retains slowly digesting materials in the stomach. Patterns 
have been found over time with types of plastic (Van Franeker 
et al., 2011). Figure 11 indicates that the amount of consumer 
plastic in fulmar stomachs in the Netherlands increased 
almost threefold from the 1980s to 1990s, then decreased, 
but is currently stable at a level still above that in the 1980s. 
Industrial plastic granules followed a different pattern and 
almost halved in quantity between the 1980s and 1990s; since 
then that trend has slowed to an insignificant level of change. 
Overall, the amount of plastic in fulmar stomachs is currently 
similar to that in the 1980s, but has a different composition 
with less industrial and more consumer plastic debris. 
From a long-term study, OSPAR have put forward the following 
EcoQO that spells out the target and temporal and spatial 
frame in which it must be reached:
‘There should be less than 10 per cent of northern fulmars 
having more than 0.1g of plastic particles in their stomach 
in samples of 50 to 100 beach-washed fulmars found from 
each of 4 to 5 areas of the North Sea over a period of at least 
five years.’
The initial suggestion for a target was more strict (less 
than 10 per cent of northern fulmars having more than 10 
pieces of plastic particles in their stomach, equal to about 
0.01g) but it such a target was thought not be achievable. 
The 0.1g limit for ten per cent is ambitious but achievable 
and currently only occurs in more pristine conditions (Van 
Franeker et al., 2011). So far the EcoQO has not been met 
in any of the study areas and is probably only achieved in 
Arctic populations. From 2005 to 2009, the stomachs of 916 
beached fulmars from the North Sea were analysed and the 
percentage with more than 0.1g of plastic in their stomach 
ranged from 53 per cent to 86 per cent. The English Channel 
area is the most heavily polluted with plastics in the North 
Sea, while seas around the Scottish Islands are the cleanest 
(Figure 12). 
14
Figure  11.  Amount of user and industrial plastic in Fulmar stomachs in 
Netherlands over time. Van Franeker, J.A.; & the SNS Fulmar Study Group 
(2011a). 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
In terms of trends over time in plastic waste found in the 
stomachs of fulmars in different regions of the North Sea, 
the most recent data suggest stability or slow decline in the 
southern North Sea, and slow increases in most other areas, 
but none of these are significant (Van Franeker & the SNS 
Fulmar Study Group 2011a, see Figure 13). The lack of a clear 
trend in marine litter in the North Sea is not dissimilar to the 
findings from beach surveys by OSPAR. 
It should be noted that the 10 per cent target established by 
OSPAR is not directly related to the current health status of 
fulmars, but is more a political choice. It is difficult to establish 
a biologically meaningful level because a ‘no effect’ level for 
fulmars could still be harmful to other ecosystem components, 
and the EcoQO is an indication of the level of litter and only 
indirectly of harm to marine organisms from that litter. It 
is a ’thermometer’ of the environment and other species 
could be affected more or less (Galgani et al., 2010). In order 
to harmonise the monitoring of fulmars, a manual has been 
produced describing methods, standard forms and codes (Van 
Franeker, 2004). The cost of implementing such a monitoring 
initiative in the OSPAR region has been estimated at €10,000 
per contracting partner (Barnay et al., 2010) when added to 
the Dutch basic monitoring program and made into a larger 
project.  In addition to being a valuable policy instrument, 
studying ingestion of plastic waste by wildlife is a useful 
communication tool to attract public attention. The image of 
a bird with plastic in its stomach makes the ecological impact 
of plastic waste very real. However, the fulmar is not present 
globally and parallel species for monitoring may need to be 
identified in other parts of the world. For areas where fulmars 
are not so abundant, the project has initiated pilot studies into 
the suitability of another seabird species (Cory’s Shearwater) 
for monitoring. In time, it may be useful to monitor other 
species, such as mammals, turtles and fish, with standardised 
measures. For example, the turtle may be the most appropriate 
monitoring species in the Mediterranean. The identification 
of marine species or life stages that are most vulnerable to 
plastic exposure could be useful to perform exposure studies 
in locations likely to be ‘plastic or microplastic hotspots’ as well 
as habitats to these vulnerable species (Arthur et al., 2009). 
15
Figure 12. EcoQO performance in North Sea regions 2005-2009 and 
preliminary trends. Trend shown by connecting running average 5 year 
data .  From Van Franeker, J.A.; & the SNS Fulmar Study Group  (2011a).
Figure 13. Trends in EcoQO performance in different regions of the 
North Sea since 2002 (by running 5-year average data).  Van Franeker, 
J.A.; & the SNS Fulmar Study Group  (2011a).
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Plastic waste has several impacts on the health 
of ecosystems and humans. Some of these are 
more obvious and clearly proven, for example, the 
entanglement of marine wildlife. Others are subtler and 
not well understood, such as the transport and possible 
concentration of contaminants by plastic waste.  Again, 
there appears to be more monitoring of ecological and 
human health impacts in the marine environment than 
on land.
3.1 
Harm to wildlife
Although there is little research on the specific 
impacts of plastic waste on land-based wildlife, there 
is concern that incorrectly managed landfills could lead 
to either the escape of plastic waste or the escape of 
landfill leachate containing the chemicals associated 
with plastic. In addition, unofficial recycling methods, 
particularly in developing countries, can cause the 
release of chemicals into the environment, for example, 
the burning of plastic coated wires to extract metal. The 
possible impacts of the release of these chemicals are 
examined in section 3.62 on plastic additives. 
UNEP (2006) claims that plastic waste causes the death 
of up to a million seabirds, 100,000 marine mammals 
and countless fish through various impacts. Although 
this figure is useful in raising awareness, it is important 
to remember that it has been derived from the scaling 
up of smaller samples from a study in Canada (NOAA, 
2010). Probably a more accurate representation is that 
compiled by Laist (1997), which reported that at least 267 
different species are known to have suffered from impacts 
of plastic waste. This includes 86 per cent of all sea turtle 
species, 44 per cent of all seabird species and 43 per cent of 
all marine mammal species (Laist, 1997). This is likely to be 
an underestimate as the list was compiled over ten years ago 
and, even with updating, there are probably a large number 
of species that have not been studied and therefore impacts 
are not included. There is a huge amount of literature on 
ingestion and entanglement (Gregory, 2009) and Figure 
14 lists examples of known impacts on wildlife in terms of 
entanglement and ingestion. This list is far from complete, but 
gives a good indication of impacts.
3.2 
Entanglement of wildlife in plastic waste
Wildlife entanglement in plastic can happen in a number 
of ways and the results can be devastating. The research in 
this area tends to be limited to certain species and certain 
locations and it is difficult to understand changing rates of 
entanglement (Gregory, 2009). Once an animal is entangled it 
can drown, incur wounds or be less able to catch food or avoid 
predators. Young fur seals have been documented as being 
badly affected (Mattlin & Cawthorn, 1986) and it appears the 
decline in the Hawaiian monk seal and the northern fur seal 
has been aggravated by entanglement of young animals. In 
1976 it was estimated that up to 40,000 fur seals were being 
killed a year by plastic entanglement (Weisskopf, 1988). There 
have also been sightings of whales towing masses of tangled 
rope and other debris, including crayfish pots and buoys. 
(Gregory, 2009). 
Major sources of the plastic responsible for entanglement are 
abandoned or lost fishing nets and pots (also known as ‘ghost 
fishing’), plastic packing loops, six-pack carriers and plastic 
rope (Derraik, 2002; Gregory, 2009). Ghost fishing can trap 
and kill fish, which can reduce catches for fisheries. It is not 
16
3.0 IMPACTS OF PLASTIC WASTE ON THE HEALTH OF 
 
ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMANS 
Figure 14. Number and percentage of marine species with documented 
entanglement and ingestion records from Mudgal et al. (2011) Plastic Waste in the 
Environment p114 (adapted from Laist, 1997)
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
restricted to surface waters as trawl gear can also be caught 
during passage across the seabed and, because it is durable, 
it is likely to remain there almost indefinitely. For example, a 
1500 metre long section of net was found south of the Aleutian 
Islands containing 99 seabirds, 2 sharks and 75 salmon and the 
net was estimated to be adrift for about a month and to have 
travelled over 60 miles (US EPA, 1992). Local environmental 
conditions influence the lifetime of a ghost net, for example, 
in calm waters the net can continue to ‘fish’ for decades, while 
nets in areas of large swell and storm activity are more likely 
to be torn apart and destroyed (Allsopp et al., 2006). Derelict 
fishing gear can also be destructive to coral reefs by becoming 
snagged on coral and causing coral heads to break-off. These 
can then become caught in the nets and cause more damage 
(NOAA, 2005).
3.3 
Ingestion of plastic waste
Harm to wildlife caused by ingested plastic will vary, 
depending on their digestive system, the amount and type of 
plastic ingested and the developmental stage of the animal. 
For example, certain birds (procellariiformes – a group of birds 
that includes albatrosses) are more vulnerable because they 
generally do not regurgitate plastics. When feeding their 
chicks, they can regurgitate the contents (including plastics) 
of their larger stomachs, but they retain the plastics in their 
second muscular stomach. Fry et al. (1987) found that 90 per 
cent of Laysan albatross chicks had plastic debris in their upper 
tract, most likely the result of feeding by parents. Further 
evidence of plastic ingestion by Laysan albatross chicks comes 
from studies by Auman et al. (1998) and Young et al. (2009). 
One major effect of ingestion is reduced appetite, as it causes 
the stomach to feel full. This can lead to starvation. Ryan (1988) 
investigated this experimentally by feeding polyethylene 
pellets to domestic chickens. Results indicated that ingested 
plastics reduced the volume of the stomach and therefore 
the meal size. Spear et al. (1995) provided evidence that the 
higher the number of plastic particles ingested, the worse 
the physical condition (body weight) is in seabirds from the 
tropical Pacific. 
Ingestion of plastic can cause more serious blockage of the 
digestive tract and internal injuries. Sea turtles have been 
particularly prone to this, but studies differ in their findings 
according to the geographical area. Tomás et al. (2002) found 
that plastic debris had been ingested by over three quarters 
of a sample of loggerhead turtles caught by fishermen in the 
western Mediterranean, while Casale et al. (2008) found about 
half of their sample in the central Mediterranean had ingested 
plastic. Lazar and Gracan (2011) found just over a third of sea 
turtles had ingested plastic debris. This indicates geographical 
and possibly temporal variation in recordings of plastic waste 
ingestion, despite research involving the same species. 
Among cetaceans (mammals best adapted to aquatic life), at 
least 26 species have been documented with plastic debris 
in their stomach (Denuncio et al., 2011).  A recent study on 
Franciscana dolphins accidently captured by fisheries in 
Argentina found that 28 per cent of the sample had plastic 
debris in their stomachs (Denuncio et al., 2011). Packaging 
debris (cellophane, bags and bands) was found in just under 
two thirds of these dolphins, while just over a third had 
ingested fishery gear fragments (monofilament lines, ropes 
and nets). Ingestion of plastic was high in recently weaned 
dolphins, possibly because young dolphins are still learning 
how to catch prey and misidentified plastic as food. It is also 
at this life stage when heavy metals, such as mercury and 
cadmium, start to bioaccumulate (Gerpe et al., 2002). It could 
be that, although ingestion of plastic debris on its own is not 
lethal, when it combines with other impacts, it could cause a 
lethal cumulative effect. In turn, this interaction could be more 
likely at certain points in an animal’s life, such as just after 
weaning in the Franciscana dolphin. This type of information 
could be useful for conservation management.
Murray and Cowie (2011) investigated plastic ingestion by 
Nephrops norvegicus (langoustines). They found 81 per cent 
of their sample contained plastics, mainly in the form of 
filaments, but also in tightly tangled balls of plastic strands. 
In a parallel experimental study, they also found that N. 
norvegicus that were fed with fish containing plastic did 
ingest the strands, but did not excrete them. Although the 
ecological impacts are uncertain, this is a commercial species 
fished on a large-scale and the presence of plastics in their 
stomach may have implications for human health, particularly 
in terms of chemicals moving from the plastic into the flesh 
(see section 3.6). 
3.4 
Ingestion of microplastics
The specific impacts of microplastics is a growing concern 
and also an area that is not well understood (Browne et al., 
2008), as it is difficult to quantify microplastics in animal 
tissues. Experimental studies have revealed that amphipods, 
barnacles and lugworms ingest microplastics (Thompson et 
al., 2004). Studies on mussels (Browne et al., 2008) indicate that 
microplastics are translocated from the gut to the circulatory 
system within 3 days and then persist in circulation for over 
48 days. The research also found a higher number of smaller 
particles (3.0 µm microspheres) in the circulatory fluid than 
larger particles (9.6 µm microspheres), which indicates that 
17
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
these smaller particles have greater potential for accumulation 
in tissues of organisms. The study did not find any significant 
toxicological effects, but these may occur over a longer 
period of exposure (as might occur in a natural environment). 
Research on the final fate of microplastics after ingestion is still 
sparse and more knowledge is needed on the processes by 
which they move into the circulatory system.
3.5 
Sub-lethal effects of ingesting plastic waste
On a few occasions it can be confidently inferred that 
ingestion of plastic waste has caused death, for example, one 
juvenile turtle in Lazar and Gracan’s study (2011) had ingested 
enough plastic to occupy a major part of the stomach and 
was very likely the cause of death. Such observations are 
rare. Nevertheless, there are numerous sub-lethal effects 
of ingesting plastic waste and more research is needed to 
understand these and to determine if animals can pass plastic 
through the gut or if some plastic remains throughout the 
life span (Boerger et al., 2010). This could inform mitigation 
of negative impacts before populations become threatened, 
rather than waiting for population decline (Williams et al., 
2011). Effects associated with chemicals that are part of plastic 
or transported by plastic may also be sub-lethal (see section 
3.6). There could also be other impacts not necessarily linked 
to digestion, for example, plastic ingestion could increase the 
buoyancy of fish making it difficult for mesopelagic fish to 
return to deeper waters (Boerger et al., 2010). 
It has been suggested that research on ingestion may be 
skewed, in that animals studied are those that have been 
stranded and might have had ‘abnormal’ foraging patterns 
before their death. However, in their study of northern fulmar 
monitoring, van Franeker & Meijboom (2002) compared birds 
that were found stranded and died of starvation to those that 
died accidentally, such as from collision, and found the same 
amount of plastic within the stomachs of the two groups. This 
indicates that those birds found stranded can be considered 
representative of the ‘healthy’ population. Similar assessments 
will be needed when initiating monitoring work that uses 
other species. 
Research in British Columbia, Canada, (Williams et al., 
2011) has attempted to identify where marine animals and 
marine debris overlap by mapping and super-imposing 
the distribution of both. They combined survey results and 
modelling on both the distribution of marine debris and 
the distribution of 11 marine animals. Areas of overlap were 
identified and the researchers suggest that high-overlap areas 
should be prioritised for future research. They also highlight 
the fact that many of the species most likely to ingest plastic 
are not protected species and there is little incorporation of 
vulnerability to plastic debris ingestion or entanglement into 
conservation policy. 
Although this study has used modelling to estimate the larger 
scale impacts its dataset was limited and it is still very difficult 
to quantify population level deaths or effects. There is a need 
for more co-ordination between data and regions. Any scaling 
up must be done to an optimum level, i.e. at an appropriate 
regional scale, as there is high geographical variability in the 
level of plastic waste. 
3.6 
Possible impact of chemicals on human health  
     
 
and ecosystems
A lesser-known impact that could result from ingestion, 
entanglement and inadequate waste management is the 
impact of chemicals on humans and ecosystems, either 
contained in plastic or transported by plastic waste. Plastic is 
not inert, but contains several chemicals with toxic potential. 
It also has the potential to transport contaminants. Although 
much is known about the impact of actual chemicals 
themselves, there still remain many questions about the role 
of plastic and plastic waste in exposing humans and wildlife to 
these chemicals. 
3.6.1 
Toxic monomers
Polymers are composed of 
repeating subunits, or 
‘monomers’, and some of the major plastics (for example, PVC 
and polystyrene) have been found to release toxic monomers 
linked to cancer and reproductive problems (Marcilla et al., 
2004; Garrigos et al., 2004). Often, during plastic production, 
polymerisation reactions are not complete and the unreacted 
monomers can be found in the final material. Polymers can 
also be broken up into monomers by heat, UV radiation, 
mechanical action and other chemicals. Lithner et al. (2011) 
compiled an environmental and health hazard ranking of 
55 polymers based on the hazard classifications of their 
component monomers from the EU classification, labelling 
and packaging regulation. Thirty-one of these were made 
from monomers that belong to the two worst hazard levels 
and many have high global annual production. The study 
indicated that PVC should receive extra attention because it 
contains a carcinogenic monomer and is produced globally in 
large quantities. The study did not include risks from additives 
and this could increase the hazard ranking of many polymers.
18
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
3.6.2 
Plastic Additives
Plastic contains chemicals or additives to give it certain 
properties. There is a wide range of additives, but probably the 
most relevant to ecology and human health are the following: 
1. Bisphenol A is a monomer that is used to make the 
hard, clear plastic in polycarbonate food and beverage 
containers, CD cases and many other consumer products. 
It is an endocrine disruptor and acts like the female 
hormone oestrogen. It leaches in variable amounts 
and for different lengths of time, depending on the 
product and conditions, i.e. it is released more easily at 
higher temperatures and with changes in acidity. Early 
development appears to be particularly sensitive to its 
effects, with a growing body of evidence for associations 
with chronic disease, including cardiovascular disease 
and type 2 diabetes and with hormonal changes in adults 
(Lang et al., 2008, Galloway et al., 2010, Melzer et al., 2011). 
Experiments on animals have revealed that Bisphenol 
A (BPA) causes various impacts on their reproductive 
systems, as well as increases in body weight and insulin 
resistance (Ben-Jonathan et al., 2009). A major concern is 
that these adverse effects relate to current disease trends 
in human populations, such as increases in prostrate 
cancer, breast cancer, sperm count decreases, miscarriage, 
obesity and type 2 diabetes (Oehlmann et al., 2009). 
2. Phthalates (diesters of 1,2 – benzenedicarboxylic acid) are 
a group of industrial chemicals used as plasticisers, which 
make plastics, such as PVC, more flexible or resilient. They 
are extremely widespread and are found in items including 
toys, food packaging, hoses, raincoats, shower curtains 
and vinyl flooring. High-molecular weight phthalates (e.g. 
di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, DEHP) are primarily used as 
plasticisers, but the low-molecular weight phthalates (e.g. 
diethyl phthalate, DEP) are used as solvents in personal-
care products. This means the sources of phthalates in the 
environment are numerous. Certain phthalates have been 
shown to function as endocrine disruptors, and to have 
anti-androgenic activity. They are not chemically bound 
to the plastic matrix, which means they can easily leach 
out of products to contaminate the environment (Talness 
et al., 2009; Meeker et al., 2009). There is experimental 
evidence of negative impacts on reproductive systems 
of animals and these resemble human reproductive 
disorders, especially testicular dysgenesis syndrome, 
indicating a possible link between phthalate exposure 
and human disease. However, the dosages in animal 
studies are likely to be much higher than exposure levels 
to humans. Links have also been made between phthalate 
exposure and obesity and allergies.
3. Brominated Flame Retardants are deemed necessary 
in plastics for safety reasons. Common examples of 
these are polybrominated diphenyl esters (PBDEs) and 
tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA). They are added to a 
variety of consumer products, including textiles and 
thermoplastics used in electronics, e.g. televisions and 
computers. Studies indicate that PBDEs and TBBPA have 
hormone-disrupting effects, in particular on oestrogen 
and thyroid hormones, and that exposure to PBDEs impairs 
development of the reproductive and nervous system. 
The potential harmful effects of these chemicals have been 
documented (for reviews see Talsness et al., 2009; Meeker et 
al., 2009; Oehlmann et al., 2009; Hengstler et al., 2011), as has 
their presence in the environment and within the biological 
systems of wildlife and humans (Koch & Calafat, 2009). There 
is some variation across different demographic groups and, of 
particular concern, is the higher concentrations of Bisphenol A 
and phthalates in young children (Koch & Calafat, 2009).
Bisphenol A and phthalates are rapidly metabolised once 
ingested but their concentration within the tissues varies 
between species for the same exposure. The bioconcentration 
factor is the concentration of a chemical within the tissue of the 
species compared with its concentration in the surrounding 
environment. For example bioconcentration factors of the 
phthalate DEHP (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) are between 42 
and 842 in fish, but they are 3600 for an amphipod and 2500 
for a type of mussel (Oehlmann et al., 2009).
A review by Talsness et al. (2009) has identified several studies 
that demonstrate BPA is leaching from products that have been 
thrown into landfills and entering groundwater, contaminating 
rivers, streams and drinking water. Because BPA breaks down 
slowly, the compound could build up in waters and harm fish 
and other aquatic life. Research on 10 landfill sites in Japan 
(Yamamoto et al., 2001) found concentrations of BPA ranging 
from 1.3 to 17,200 µg per litre with a median concentration of 
269 µg per litre. In some cases, the concentrations exceeded 
the level above which it is considered toxic to aquatic biota. 
Plastic waste was the major type of waste in landfills with the 
highest levels of BPA, indicating that plastic waste was an 
important source of the BPA. 
Teuten et al., (2009) suggested that the migration of 
additives from plastic to the landfill leachate depends on 
several factors, including the pore size of the plastic, the 
molecular size of the additive and the nature of the leachate, 
in terms of its acidityand organic content. By comparing 
19
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
studies on endocrine disrupting chemicals in tropical Asian 
countries, Teuten et al. (2009) found evidence that the more 
industrialised countries (Malaysia and Thailand) had higher 
BPA concentrations in landfill leachate than less industrialised 
countries (e.g. Laos and Cambodia). They suggested that the 
most probable reason for this is the greater use of plastics in 
the industrialised countries, which thus generates more plastic 
waste. (See Figure 15).
If badly managed, recycling processes can cause the 
release of chemicals from plastics into the environment and 
subsequent impacts on human health. This can be the case 
of electronic waste, which is exported outside Europe where 
it is recycled in small workshops, sometimes without proper 
ventilation, often by burning to extract the valuable metals. 
Chipping and melting of plastics releases toxic chemicals, 
for example, copper wires are often recovered by burning 
the PVC, and PBDE (flame retardant) protected cables and 
can release toxic chlorinated and brominates dioxins (PCDD/
PBDD) and furans (PCDF/PBDF). Kyung-Seop et al. (2007, 
2009) demonstrated that combustion of PVC with other 
plastics in the laboratory produced substantial levels of PAHs 
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and these were strongly 
associated with plasticiser content. Wong et al. (2007) studied 
the concentrations of POPs (persistent organic pollutants) in a 
province in China, which had become an intensive electronic 
waste recycling site. In comparison to levels of chemicals in 
other sites and to guidelines adopted by other countries, the 
air, soil and sediment was highly contaminated, in some cases, 
100 times higher than published data (for PBDE). In general, 
it appeared the incomplete combustion of plastic wastes 
(plastic chips, wire insulations, PVC materials) was the main 
source of POPs. Such high concentrations of toxic chemicals 
would affect workers and residents through inhalation, dermal 
exposure and ingestion of contaminated drinking water 
and food, especially as the province was also a rice-growing 
region. Since Wong et al.’s (2007) study was conducted, the 
Chinese government has tightened regulations on the import 
of electronic waste, but it is likely that it may make its way to 
other countries and be processed in a similar way.
3.6.3 Metals
There has been some concern about heavy metals, such as 
cadmium, in plastic especially in children’s toys and in plastic 
crates and pellets.  Although there is little evidence that these 
traces of heavy metals present a health risk to humans, there 
is also a lack of research on the presence of heavy metals in 
children’s toys, which could potentially leach out when thrown 
away (Mudgal et al., 2011). Waste plastic components of mobile 
phones have also been found to contain lead, cadmium, nickel 
and silver (Nnorom & Osibanjo, 2009). 
Ashton et al. (2010) analysed pre-production plastic pellets 
from four UK beaches for traces of major metals such as 
aluminium and iron, and for trace metals such as copper, zinc, 
lead etc. Results showed that production pellets are able to 
accumulate metals to concentrations that, in some cases, 
approach those on other marine solids such as sediment and 
algal fragments.  
Plastics may represent only a small reservoir of metals on 
beaches and there are other more important sources, but 
when the plastics move into the open sea their importance 
in the transportation of metals is greater. In addition since 
metals are adsorbed to the surface of plastic, they are likely to 
be accessible to fauna that inadvertently ingest them. 
3.6.4 
Status of knowledge and research
A large number of questions remain about the toxicity of 
plastic. Currently little is known about the possible exposure 
levels of chemicals from plastic waste and the specific 
impact caused by plastic waste. Plastic waste is not the only 
source of these chemicals. For example, BPA also comes from 
thermal paper and printer ink, while phthalates are also used 
in solvents, personal-care products, textiles and pesticides, 
and flame retardants have a number of applications other 
than protecting plastic objects from fire. In addition, it may 
not be plastic waste but the product during its lifetime that 
is a source of contamination, for example, exposure to BPA 
20
Figure 15. Relationship between BPA concentrations in leachate 
and per capita GDP of Asian countries. From Teuten et al (2009)
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
and high molecular-weight phthalates result primarily from 
ingesting food that has been in contact with plastic (Koch & 
Calafat, 2009). More research is needed to try to establish the 
pathways by which these chemicals reach the environment 
and how much plastic waste contributes to the levels of 
these chemicals within wildlife and humans. The sources and 
routes to exposure need to be identified and their relative 
contributions assessed to inform measures to reduce exposure. 
3.7 
Microplastics: potential toxic impacts
Microplastics have a larger surface to volume ratio than 
macroplastics, which potentially could encourage the 
exchange of contaminants (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010). Very 
little is known about the rates of leaching of integral plastic 
components, such as additives and toxic monomers, to 
seawater. The proceedings of the International Research 
Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Micro 
plastic Marine Debris (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010) suggested 
realistic exposure experiments of microplastics are needed 
to determine their toxicity levels in the laboratory and better 
knowledge on the dose-response relationships between 
specific types of microplastics and vulnerable marine species 
or life stages. The toxicity studies could then be scaled up to 
levels of microplastics observed in hotspots to provide an idea 
of the possible real-life impact (Arthur et al., 2009). Similarly, 
little is known about the bioavailability of chemicals through 
ingestion of microplastics, but the evidence from filter feeders, 
deposit feeders and detritivores (Thompson et al., 2004; 
Browne et al., 2008) indicates that these animals can absorb 
microplastics from the gut into the bloodstream. Further 
study is needed on possible bioaccumulation, especially 
with phthalates, and whether it occurs selectively in different 
species and at different life stages within species. 
3.8 
Collection and transport of other contaminants   
 
by plastic waste
Other chemicals may also contaminate plastic debris. 
This can happen in a number of ways. Plastic particles from 
hand cleaners, cosmetic preparations and air blast cleaning 
may all have collected chemicals. In air blasting technology, 
polyethylene particles are used to strip paint from metallic 
surfaces and clean engine parts. These can be used up to 
ten times before they are discarded, which means they can 
become significantly contaminated by heavy metals (Derraik, 
2002). Many will find their way into marine waters where they 
could be transferred to filter-feeding organisms and other 
invertebrates, eventually reaching species higher up in the 
food chain. 
Plastic can also pick up contaminants that are present in 
water, particularly those that are hydrophobic (repel or 
unable to mix with water). This includes many POPs, such as 
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and PAHs (polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons), as well as organo-chlorine pesticides, such as 
DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane).  Some are highly toxic 
and have a wide range of chronic effects, including endocrine 
disruption, mutation and cancer (Rios et al., 2007). At least 
half the PCBs ever produced are still in use, especially in older 
electrical equipment, so there remains a large reservoir of 
PCBs with the potential to be released into the environment 
through spills or leakages from transformers and other devices 
(Rios et al., 2007). PAHs are formed during the incomplete 
combustion of coal, oil, gas, garbage and other organic 
substances. In laboratory studies where animals are exposed 
to some PAHs over long periods, they have developed lung 
cancer from inhalation, stomach cancer from ingesting PAHs 
in food, and skin cancer from skin contact. Human health 
effects from chronic or long-term exposure to PAHs may 
include decreased immune function, cataracts, kidney and 
21
Box 6  
Major challenges facing research into impact of chemicals within plastic (Meeker et al., 2009;  
 
 
Oehlmann et al.2009)
•	
Shifts in exposure levels among populations over time, causing ever-changing patterns of production. 
•	
The impact of mixtures of different chemicals and their cumulative effect on ecosystems and human health, 
also known as the ‘cocktail effect’. 
•	
The possibility of multiple interaction sites within the body affecting a wide range of biological processes
•	
Potential latent and transgenerational effects (e.g. epigenetic modification) of exposure to chemicals
Innovations that can help meet these challenges:
•	
Improved biomarkers (substances used as indicators) of the level of exposure to chemicals
•	
Better statistical methods to deal with multiple exposures
•	 New measures to assess the routes of exposure and links between exposure and impacts on human health 
and ecosystems
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
liver damage, breathing problems, asthma-like symptoms, 
and lung function abnormalities, and repeated contact 
with skin may induce skin inflammation. Evidence primarily 
from occupational studies of workers exposed to mixtures 
containing PAHs shows an increased risk of predominantly 
skin and lung cancers but also bladder and gastrointestinal 
cancers (Toxipedia, 2011). Pesticides such as DDT are toxic to 
a wide range of animals, particularly birds. DDT and DDE have 
been linked to diabetes, developmental and reproductive 
toxicity and cancer in humans. Although some of the more 
toxic pesticides, such as DDT, have been banned, they are still 
persistent in the environment. 
Many of the hydrophobic contaminants are concentrated at 
the sea surface and their levels are up to 500 times greater 
than in the underlying water column (Teuten et al., 2007). As 
most plastics float, they have the potential to adsorb these 
contaminants that are concentrated at the sea surface leading 
to several possible outcomes. The plastics can either transport 
the contaminants to other areas and, if washed up, the 
contaminants could be transferred to shoreline sediment or 
plastic could be eaten by wildlife and potentially transferred 
to their tissues and further up the food chain. Plastic could 
be subject to fouling and then sink to the bottom where it 
becomes part of the sediment or is eaten by benthic organisms 
that live on the sea bottom. If plastic does become part of the 
sediment, whether on the shore or sea bottom, then it is no 
longer as available for degradation by micro-organisms as it 
was in the water, especially if it is buried (Teuten et al., 2007). 
According to the Stockholm Convention on POPs, persistence, 
long-range transport potential and bioaccumulation potential 
are fundamental criteria in assessing the risk of POPs. A 
compound’s persistence tends to be based on environmental 
half-lives while transport potential is based on monitoring 
data in remote regions. Bioaccumulation potential is derived 
from bioconcentration factor (BCF), which is the concentration 
of a chemical in a tissue compared to its concentration in the 
surrounding water. 
Rios et al. (2010) investigated the amount of POPs on samples of 
plastic debris from the Northern Pacific Gyre and found that over 
50 per cent contained PCBs, 40 per cent contained pesticides 
and nearly 80 per cent contained PAHs. The concentrations 
of pollutants ranged from a few parts per billion (ppb) to 
thousands of ppb, with the types of contaminants similar to 
those found in marine sediments. The researchers suggested 
that plastic debris behaves similarly to sediments in the way it 
accumulates pollutants but, unlike sediments, micro-plastics 
tend to remain at the surface where they are potentially more 
available to wildlife. Research on plastic found on beaches and 
in stranded albatrosses in California, Hawaii and Mexico, found 
a ratio of different PAHs that indicated the principle source of 
the PAHs on the plastic was incomplete combustion of fossil 
fuels, most probably from urban and industrial areas (Rios et 
al., 2007). The main types of polymer were polyethylene and 
polypropylene, which are very common thermoplastic resins 
used mostly in packaging. Teuten et al. (2009) suggested that 
polyethylene might accumulate more organic contaminants 
than other plastics. 
More recently Hirai et al. (2011) analysed the concentrations 
and composition of organic pollutants on plastic fragments 
(about 10 mm in size) at eight locations including gyres, 
remote beaches and urban beaches. PCBs, PAHs, DDT, PBDEs, 
a l k y l p h e n o l s 
and Bisphenol A 
were detected in 
concentrations 
ranging 
from 
one 
to 
10,000 
nanog r ammes 
per 
gram 
of 
plastic. There was 
variability in how 
the 
pollutants 
had 
become 
associated 
with 
the 
plastic. 
H y d r o p h o b i c 
compounds such 
as PCBs and PAHs 
appeared to have 
22
Figure 16. Illustration of additional effects of plastics in transport of phenanthrene. From Teuten et al. (2009).
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
been absorbed to the plastic from the seawater. They tended 
to be in higher concentrations at urban beaches, although 
there were occasionally in very high concentrations at sea. In 
comparison PCBs were derived mainly from legacy pollution 
i.e. pollution still remaining from before the time when 
they were banned. The source of PAHs seemed to be on the 
whole from oil slicks while Bisphenol A and PBDEs came from 
additives in the plastic. 
Monitoring in remote regions is one means of assessing long-
range transport. Zarfl & Matthies (2010) estimated the fluxes 
of PCBs, PBDEs and perfluorooctanaic acid (PFOA) to the Arctic 
via plastic debris on the main ocean currents. They estimated 
that fluxes in pollutants caused by plastic was in the order of 
four to six times smaller than fluxes caused by atmospheric 
or seawater currents, which accounted for several tons of 
pollutants per year. However, the researchers did highlight 
that the significance of pollutant transport routes does not 
only depend on the absolute amount of pollutants, but also on 
their impact from direct plastic ingestion and bioaccumulation 
in food chains.
Teuten et al. (2009) investigated in more detail the uptake 
and subsequent release of one POP – phenanthrene – on 
three major plastics: polyethylene, polypropylene and 
polyvinylchloride. In all cases they found that pollutants 
adsorbed onto the plastics at a much higher rate than onto 
natural sediments. However, desorption (or release) of the 
phenanthrene occurred more rapidly from sediments than 
from plastic. This has several possible consequences as it 
could mean the plastic acts 
like a sink for the pollutants by 
lessening their availability to the 
environment, or it could mean 
that it increases their lifetime in 
the environment by hindering 
their disposal by natural means, 
such as microbial degradation. 
There is therefore a debate as to 
whether plastic debris acts as a 
sink for pollutants or as a storage 
and transport vessel whose 
impact ultimately depends on 
the fate of the plastic. 
Another 
factor 
to consider 
is what happens to plastic 
loaded with pollutants when 
it 
is 
ingested by wildlife. 
Research demonstrates 
the 
potential for plastic to gather 
toxic contaminants, but little is known about the potential 
for plastics to release contaminants or additives to marine 
wildlife. Once inside an organism, the presence of digestive 
surfactants (which prevent particles sticking together) is 
known to increase the desorption rate of PAHs from plastics 
by up to 20 times compared with seawater (Murray & Cowie, 
2011). Teuten et al. (2007) investigated this by modelling the 
possible effects on the lugworm, which is a common benthic 
deposit feeder. They estimated that the addition of as little as 1 
µg of contaminated polyethylene to a gram of sediment would 
produce a significant increase (80 per cent) in phenanthrene 
accumulation by the lugworm. As this plastic concentration 
is lower than that found in the environment, it suggests 
plastic debris may play an important role in transporting 
contaminants to sediment-dwelling organisms. 
Ryan et al. (1988) found a positive correlation between the 
mass of ingested plastic and PCB concentrations in fat tissue 
of Great Shearwater birds, providing the first indication that 
marine organisms can absorb toxic chemicals into their 
flesh. Further study with shearwater chicks that were fed 
with polyethylene pellets containing PCBs (Teuten et al., 
2009) indicated that plastics could transport environmental 
contaminants to organisms at various levels of the food chain. 
This study analysed levels of PCBs in preen gland oil (produced 
by birds for preening) and found higher levels in chicks that 
had been fed on PCB plastic. More research is needed on other 
organisms, considering a range of contaminants and plastic 
types, as well as the effects of environmental exposure in 
terms of weathering and aging of polymers.
23
Figure 17. 
 Concentrations of PCBS in beached plastic pellets. From Teuten et al. 
(2009) 
paper 
in PNAS but 
also 
from 
International Pellet Watch paper 
(Ogata et al, 
2011)
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
3.9 
Microplastic accumulation and transport of  
 
 
chemicals
A number of studies have focused specifically on the role of 
microplastics in the transport of pollutants, partly because 
they are more likely to be ingested, but also they have an 
increased surface-to-volume ratio. Rios et al. (2007) analysed 
pre-production plastic pellets and post-consumer fragments 
from beaches and regurgitated albatross stomach contents in 
California, Hawaii and Mexico. They found PAHs in all samples 
and PCBs only in the debris collected on beaches. The only 
pesticide detected was DDT. Observations suggested that the 
concentration of POPs on plastic debris could be a function of 
the age of the plastic. Teuten et al. (2009) indicated that time-
scales of adsorption and desorption are a function of the type 
of plastic, its size and the compound. 
One study (Ogata et al., 2011) actually used plastic pellets as 
a means to monitor the amount of POPs in coastal waters. 
International Pellet Watch has been in operation since 2006, 
sampling pre-production polyethylene pellets from countries 
around the world by asking local communities to collect 
plastic pellets and send them to the laboratory where they are 
analysed for PCBs, DDTs and HCHs (hexachlorocyclohexanes). 
Initial findings have indicated that PCB concentrations are 
highest in US coasts, followed by Western Europe and Japan, 
whereas concentrations are lower in tropical Asia, southern 
Africa and Australia. However, in India, especially in Chennai, 
there were high PCB concentrations, probably from recycling 
of electronic waste and poor management of ship-breaking 
activities. 
These high concentrations could expose wildlife, which ingest 
plastics in that area to significant amounts of pollutants 
(Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010).  High concentrations of DDTs are 
found on the US west coast and in Vietnam, probably the result 
of high pesticide use in the past. Although this research was 
primarily to monitor POPs, it has the dual purpose of clarifying 
the role of plastic waste in transporting these chemicals and 
identifying patterns of prevalence of POPs in the marine 
environment.
Interestingly, a study on POPs and microplastics on a 
Portuguese beach very close to one of the beaches sampled 
in the International Pellet Watch study indicated much higher 
levels of PCBs and PAHS, which suggests either a large variation 
within close proximity or variation in the results produced by 
different sampling methods (Frias et al., 2010). This research in 
Portugal also indicated that older particles have higher levels 
of POPs, suggesting that microplastics continue to accumulate 
contaminants throughout their lifetime. 
Although we are knowledgeable about the harmful effects 
of most chemicals, it remains unclear as to the degree of 
their bioavailability once they are adsorbed to plastics. The 
challenge is how to identify the added or reduced chemical 
impact of plastics and microplastics relative to the ‘natural’ 
bioaccumulation of pollutants from water and through the 
food chain (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010). 
Research has indicated that animals at lower trophic levels do 
ingest microplastics and they are absorbed into their system. 
There is a possibility that microplastics could act as a sink for 
POPs (as described in scenario 3 in Box 7), but it is likely that 
this will depend on the surrounding environment in terms of 
concentration of POPs in the water column, level of fouling, 
ocean and air currents, level and type of sediment, age and 
type of plastic (Teuten et al., 2009). 
In turn, any impact on wildlife, whether from transported 
contaminants or those contained within the plastic, will 
depend on species, its distribution in that area, its stage of 
development, surrounding environmental conditions, food 
availability, and perhaps its position in the food web. Very little 
24
Box 7 
Possible scenarios of the fate of transported chemicals in microplastics (Bowmer & Kershaw,  
 
 
2010)
1. Microplastics will take up and release pollutants from the water column. This could mean they adsorb 
pollutants where concentrations are high and then release them in cleaner, remote regions. The speed of this 
could depend on the type of microplastic.
2. 
For most pollutants, atmospheric transport by wind and ocean currents will be the most dominant form of 
transportation, as suggested by Zarfl & Matthies (2010). The influence of microplastics will be relatively low, 
apart from in locations where atmospheric transport is small.
3. Microplastics will serve as a stable phase in the water column in addition to organic matter and sediments 
and act as a sink for pollutants. To assess this modelling is needed to evaluate the tendency of chemicals to 
partition between air, water, plastics and organic carbon in the sediments. 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
is known about bioaccumulation of these chemicals and since 
humans could be one of the creatures most affected by this, 
there is a need for greater understanding. Already, concern has 
been raised about the presence of microplastics in crustaceans 
and mussels and the possible impact on human health further 
up the food chain (Murray & Cowie, 2011; Browne et al., 2008).
3.10 
Plastic waste: impact on habitats
As well as a direct physical impact on marine wildlife and 
humans, plastic waste also affects habitats, both on land and 
sea. Visually, plastic waste is a problem for human habitats, 
but it also has substantial impacts on wildlife habitat. Most 
documented effects are on the marine environment and, 
once again, there is a lack of evidence on possible land-based 
impacts. Although plastic is often buoyant, it can sink to the 
bottom of the sea, pulled down by certain ‘bottom-hugging’ 
currents, oceanic fronts or rapid and heavy fouling. Sediment 
may also help keep plastic on the seafloor. 
It is likely that once on the seafloor, plastic waste will change 
the workings of the ecosystem. Goldberg (1997) has suggested 
the plastic sheets could act like a blanket, inhibiting gas 
exchange and leading to anoxia or hypoxia (low oxygen levels). 
Plastic waste could also create artificial hard grounds (Gregory, 
2009) and cause problems, especially for burying creatures. 
Katsenevakis et al. (2006) investigated the effect of marine 
litter on benthic (seafloor dwelling) animals by purposefully 
placing litter on the seafloor of Greek coves, most of which 
was plastic bottles. In areas of litter, there was an increase in 
abundance and number of species, either because the waste 
provided refuge or reproduction sites for mobile species, such 
as Alica mirabilis (a sea anemone) or because species which 
prefer hard surfaces had the opportunity to settle, such as 
barnacles and sponge. However, it would be naïve to interpret 
the results as indicating that litter can be beneficial, as this 
would ignore the long-term effects of ecological change on 
benthic communities. Plastic waste could encourage the 
invasion of species who prefer hard surfaces and, as a result, 
indigenous species may be displaced, particularly those who 
prefer sandy and muddy bottoms. The researchers called for 
further research into the impact of plastic waste on other 
habitat types, such as coral reefs, seagrass beds and deep 
bottoms.
Plastic waste also affects beaches. So-called 
‘wrack’ 
environments consist of natural flotsam and jetsam such 
as seaweed, driftwood etc. that is washed up on the shore, 
and often contains plastic waste. These habitats can support 
diverse, marginal invertebrate species and are also visited 
by many vertebrates, mostly birds who can use plastic waste 
as nesting material. However, they can also displace species 
that live in unspoiled beach conditions and affect the ability 
of wildlife to find food. For example research by Aloy et al. 
(2011) in the Philippines showed that the efficiency of the 
gastropod Nassarius pullus to locate and move towards a food 
item decreased as the level of plastic debris increased on the 
beach.   Beach clean-ups are a way to remove plastic waste, but 
it is often assumed that the beach will return to its previous 
state once the clean-up is done. However, it can take time 
for certain displaced species to recolonise. Another problem 
with clean-ups is that they can miss buried plastic waste and 
microplastics that are often mixed up with the sediment itself.
25
Box 8 
Observations in mass mortality of the northern fulmar (Van Franeker, 2011c) 
•	 As part of the North Sea monitoring of fulmars, surveyors encountered an exceptionally large number of dead 
fulmars in March to June 2004 in the southern North Sea. Patterns of delayed moult (renewal of feathers) 
indicated that most of the birds had suffered continuous food shortages since the previous autumn. The poor 
plumage may have affected waterproofing, flying and insulation. The large majority of the birds were adult 
females, which is unusual. Some of these were egg-carrying females, which again is unusual as the normal 
strategy for fulmars under poor food conditions is to cease reproduction. 
•	
Both moulting and reproductive decisions tend to be hormonally regulated, which suggests the possibility of 
a disturbed endocrine hormonal system in these fulmars. As fulmars grind down plastic in their digestive tract, 
this is likely to maximise uptake of plastic-related chemicals but, even if absorbed, the effects of pollutants can 
only become apparent when the birds use their fat reserves and contaminants start circulating in the blood. 
•	 Under prolonged periods of reduced food and therefore body condition, it is likely that endocrine hormone 
disruptors take full effect. If this is the case, it would mean that chemicals related to plastic ingestion could 
be latent and then, under unfavourable conditions, their release is triggered. This explanation could not be 
proven as no funds were available to test levels of pollutants and hormones in the birds; it is however an 
argued example of how sub-lethal effects of plastic waste can combine with other effects and contribute to 
lethal impacts.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Carson et al. (2011) assessed the impact of plastic fragments 
on beaches in terms of how they alter the physical properties 
when they are part of the sediment. They compared sand from 
a beach in Hawaii that contained up to 30.2 per cent of plastic 
by weight (mainly in the top 15 cm) to sand from a beach with 
a negligible amount of plastic. Their results indicated that the 
presence of plastic fragments changed the water movement 
and heat transfer of the beach. Plastic fragments appeared to 
increase the permeability of the beach so that greater volumes 
of water could pass through it, which could enrich the beach 
water with nutrients and potentially alter ecosystems. They 
also found that the beach containing plastic fragments 
warmed at a slower rate and reached a lower maximum 
temperature. This could have implications for beach wildlife, 
including those who bury eggs in the sediments and whose 
sex of offspring depends on the temperature of the sand, such 
as sea turtles.
3.11 
The role of plastic waste in invasions of alien  
 
 
species 
As well as transporting pollutants, plastic waste can also 
be a mode of transport for species, potentially increasing 
the range of certain marine organisms or introducing 
species into an environment where they were previously 
absent (Derraik, 2002). This in turn can cause subsequent 
changes in the ecosystem. Although large-scale and long-
term documentation of this is difficult to establish, there 
are a number of examples that provide insight into this 
problem. Plastic debris is most commonly colonised by 
encrusting and fouling organisms that tend to live on the 
surface of other creatures, including: barnacles, tube worms, 
foraminifera, coralline algae, hydroids and bivalve molluscs. 
Recorded plastics that have transported alien species are 
virgin plastic pellets, synthetic rope, crates and netting, but 
many other forms of plastic could serve as vessels or vehicles 
for transport. Often plastic debris can provide habitat for the 
larval and juvenile stages of marine animals that can then be 
transported and develop in the new environment. However, 
not all the species that are transported will necessarily prove 
harmful to their new host environment (Gregory, 2009). Little 
is known about the current and future implications of the 
transport of invasive species via plastic waste, especially the 
role of microplastics in transporting microorganisms that are 
very difficult to observe or study. 
Invasive species and their impacts on ecosystems are becoming 
an increasing concern, especially with the potential of climate 
change to alter population distributions. Despite the lack of 
knowledge of the impact of plastic waste on the transportation 
of alien species it should not be underestimated as it may have 
larger effects in the future, especially if combined with other 
impacts such as climate change.
3.12 
Social and economic impacts as result of  
 
 
ecological and health impacts
Mouat et al. (2009) investigated the North Atlantic region 
and estimated substantial economic losses caused by marine 
litter. For example, costs associated with removing beach litter 
each year for local municipalities is approximately €18 million 
in the UK, and €10.4 million in the Netherlands and Belgium. 
In terms of fishing, Mouat et al. (2009) estimated the cost of 
marine litter to the Scottish fishing fleet was between €11.7 - 
13 million on average per year, which is the equivalent of 5 per 
cent of the total revenue of affected fisheries. This is mainly 
because marine litter restricts and contaminates catch, and 
nets become caught on debris. Given that plastic waste often 
makes up the majority of marine litter, then the cost of plastic 
waste in the environment is substantial. However, the cost 
attributable only to ecological harm caused by plastic waste is 
difficult to extract from existing figures. 
The study by Mouat et al. (2009) also examined costs to several 
other areas, such as tourism, rescue services and voluntary 
organisations. Galgani et al. (2010) highlight that these figures 
are based on voluntary responses to surveys and may be 
lacking in spatial coverage. In terms of tourism, Balance et al. 
(2000) considered beaches in South Africa and estimated that 
an increase in litter of 10 pieces per m2 would deter 40 per 
cent of foreign tourists and 60 per cent of domestic tourists 
from returning to the beaches. Little research has been carried 
out on the specific social and economic impacts of plastic 
waste, although the type of impacts are likely to be similar 
to those identified for general debris. There has been no 
specific research on the social and economic repercussions of 
the ecological and health impacts of plastic waste, but some 
studies have incorporated cost implications into their analysis, 
for example, Sancho et al., (2003) calculated that the amount 
of monkfish trapped by ghost nets in Cantabrian Sea may be 
around 1.5 per cent of commercial landings. 
Mouat et al. (2009) have suggested that economic impact 
could provide a more powerful incentive for removing and 
preventing beach litter than current legislation. Whether 
a specific cost analysis of the impacts of plastic waste will 
add anything further to this is difficult to know. Analysing 
economic costs may be easier for the more direct impacts, 
such as ingestion and entanglement, but difficult for the 
toxic impacts of additives in plastic waste or contaminants 
26
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
transported by plastic waste, especially as little is known 
about the specific effects of these. Contaminated marine 
species could create costs for fishing, aquaculture and coastal 
agriculture, and chemicals within or transported by plastic 
waste could potentially create costs human health costs. 
Furthermore, costs may be incurred by damage to ecosystem 
services (Galgani et al., 2010), such as the oceans’ ability to 
store CO2 and water quality regulation provided by soil. To 
accurately calculate these costs more detailed assessments 
are needed on the ecological impact of plastic waste. As the 
impacts of plastic waste could be greater when considered as 
part of a system that includes several anthropogenic impacts 
rather than on its own, it may be more valuable to consider the 
total cost of impacts or create ‘scenarios’ where plastic waste 
plays a part to demonstrate its effects. 
Plastic fragments inland, on beaches and on the sea are 
potentially dangerous to small children as they may be 
ingested. Depending on the seriousness of the toxic impacts 
of chemicals involved in plastic waste, there could also be 
social impacts in terms of human health, particularly if it 
occurs at an important developmental stage. If these impacts 
occur there would also be subsequent pressures on health 
and care systems. Since plastics are relatively new, it may be 
that the human health impacts and wider social implications 
of plastic waste may become more serious and widespread in 
the future as we learn more. 
 
27
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
There is a wide range of policy responses to marine litter, 
but there are also some more specifically aimed at plastic 
waste. Responses can be at the international level, such 
as Annex V to International Convention for Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the UNEP Global Programme 
of Action for Protection of the Marine Environment from 
Land-based activities and the EU Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive (MSFD). The Basel Convention on the control of 
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their 
disposal was adopted in 1989. This year, the meeting of those 
party to the Basel Convention (COP10) chose as its theme 
the prevention, minimisation and recovery of wastes. It links 
waste management to the achievement of the Millennium 
Development Goals and could create opportunities to draw 
attention to plastic waste in the future. The UNEP (DTIE IETC) 
Global Partnership on Waste Management was created in 2009 
and earlier this year it drafted its framework document. It aims 
to coordinate different waste sectors and related activities/
initiatives and has eleven thematic focal areas, one of which 
is plastic waste while another is marine litter. Each focal group 
will have a working group that will develop a work plan for 
their activities, including timeline, identification of resources, 
and a fund-raising strategy.
Other responses are regional, such as the Barcelona Convention 
for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution, 
or the OSPAR EcoQO initiatives or HELCOM convention’s 
Strategy on Port Reception Facilities for Ship-Generated Waste 
in the Baltic (Galgani et al., 2010). There are also national and 
local policy responses, sometimes to implement international 
policy, but also as initiatives in their own right. Many of the 
clean-up and monitoring programmes are conducted at this 
level. 
As well as crossing many levels of policy, plastic debris is 
an issue that crosses many policy areas, including waste 
management, enterprise and ecodesign, chemical regulation, 
marine policy, integrated coastal zone management and 
fishing policy. Some of the themes that are important to 
consider in policy responses are discussed below. 
4.1 
Who is responsible for plastic waste?
One of the difficulties with responding to the problem of 
plastic waste lies in locating responsibility for its impacts. 
Identifying sources is particularly difficult, exacerbated by 
the transport of plastic waste on the world’s oceans. It is 
very much a global problem and comes with all the issues 
of responsibility that surround governing the commons. It is 
further complicated by the lack of research into the impacts 
of plastic waste on land, where all plastic originates. More 
research is needed to identify sources and locate areas where 
policy can have an effect. The research must be clearly policy-
relevant, for example, establishing if plastic waste comes from 
landfill, fishing equipment or littering could inform policy, 
whereas establishing the details of whether microplastics are 
formed by physical weathering or photo-oxidation may not 
be so directly useful to policymakers.
‘The seas are shared and major research infrastructure and 
programmes require funding beyond the capacity of single 
member states, demanding an improved synergy within 
an inter-disciplinary, multi-sector scientific and industrial 
community which in turn calls for new governance 
mechanisms. This is broadly speaking the aims of the EU 
marine/maritime research strategy.’ (Bowmer & Kershaw, 
2010)
What must be remembered is that, although little is known 
about the specific sources of plastic waste, we do know 
that plastic waste is driven by the production of plastic and 
this, in turn, is driven by human demand and consumption. 
Regardless of which pathway the plastic takes to becoming 
waste and its eventual fate in the environment, and regardless 
of whether it comes from the land or sea, human production 
and consumption of plastic is the primary source. 
At the heart of recognising this responsibility is the ’prevention‘ 
level of the European Waste Framework Directive hierarchy. 
Prevention can be approached in two ways: prevention of 
plastic production and prevention of plastic becoming waste. 
These two sub-levels feed into each other: if less plastic is 
produced then less plastic becomes waste.  If less plastic is 
thrown away through reuse or recycling, then potentially there 
is less demand for virgin plastic and production decreases. 
This is just one illustration of how the different levels of the 
waste management hierarchy interact.
4.2 
Preventing plastic production
In very basic terms there are two parts to the prevention 
equation: the consumer and the producer, or supply and 
demand. Both need incentives to produce and use less 
plastic and, ideally, the incentives would come from each 
other. However, the supply chain is more complex than this 
and involves many players who are both consumers and 
producers. Incentives do not happen naturally and may need 
a third party to introduce them.
Incentives can take many shapes and forms, working at 
28
4.0 RESPONSES
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
several levels and scales and sometimes working alongside 
disincentives. There can be incentives for manufacturers 
to increase the lifetime of products through redesign, 
replaceable parts, recycling and producing upgrades. Already 
the EU Ecolabel initiative is awarded to products designed for 
greater durability and recyclability (for example, televisions) or 
whose durability is increased through upgrades (for example, 
computers). However, it may be possible to make the Ecolabel 
more specific to plastic or create a plastic Ecolabel. 
Alongside incentives for manufacturers, there will need to 
be incentives for consumers to reuse and recycle. Ecolabels, 
deposit schemes and reverse vending schemes that incentivise 
the reuse of plastic bottles can help encourage this (Mouat et 
al., 2009). These have been proven to be effective for refillable 
bottles, with return rates of up to 90 per cent in Germany, 
Denmark and Malta (Ten Brink et al., 2009). For higher value 
items, extended producer responsibility could be adopted, for 
example, fishing nets that are rented by producers (fisheries) 
rather than sold outright (Macfadyen et al., 2009). This aims to 
encourage the producer to reuse the net, eventually returning 
it at the end of its life, thus reducing the temptation to dispose 
of it at sea. Disincentives for consumers can also be applied to 
encourage reuse, for example, taxes on plastic bags. 
Another alternative is to charge extra for certain problematic 
products, such as fishing line, fishing floats and plastic food 
containers (Ten Brink et al., 2009). In terms of targeting 
specific products, labels could be instrumental in informing 
consumers of the plastic content of the product or indeed a 
breakdown of the plastic and its potentially harmful additives. 
However, this must go alongside education so that consumers 
fully understand the implications of the labels and impacts 
of plastic waste. The Chemical Branch of the UNEP Division 
of Technology, Industry and Economics CIP has investigated 
the information flow about chemicals in products and made 
several recommendations on how this could be improved at 
an industry level (see Box 9)
A more stringent response could be the banning of 
problematic types of plastic (particularly packaging), but it 
should be noted that bans can have unintended impacts 
caused by replacement products and should be thoroughly 
reviewed before implementation (Ten Brink et al., 2009). 
In terms of targeting specific consumers of plastic, fishing and 
marine-based litter is more abundant in the North Sea than 
in other European seas, so interventions here should perhaps 
target the fishing community. For the Mediterranean, much of 
the litter is caused by tourism, so policy should be directed at 
this sector. 
4.3 
Preventing plastic becoming waste
Preventing plastic becoming waste could depend on how 
it is viewed. Mouat et al. (2009) suggest that, as a starting 
point, marine litter needs to be regarded as a pollutant on the 
same level as heavy metals, chemicals and oil, which would 
then give it the same political credibility. They explain that, in 
most countries, NGOs and volunteers undertake monitoring 
of marine litter and there are no national monitoring 
programmes as there are for other pollutants.  
The prevention of plastic becoming waste can be addressed 
by some activities including reuse and recycling, but it also 
needs to address the activities that lead to its disposal. The 
high movement of communities linked to plastic waste, such 
as tourists and fishing fleets, causes another responsibility 
issue, as they may not have any long-standing relationship 
29
Box 9 Findings from the UNEP/DTIE CIP Report on information on chemicals in products
1. 
Information is available about chemicals, but does not flow easily through supply chains and is often lost mid-chain 
between chemical production and manufacture of the final product.  Engagement of mid-chain actors, such as 
distributors and brand name companies, is therefore crucial.
2. A harmonised industry-wide effort by the plastic sector to improve information flow would be more efficient and 
effective than individual company actions.
3. 
Such a project would require commitment from a few leading companies in selected sectors, e.g. textiles, toys, 
construction or electronic equipment.
4. 
Systems that indicate the harmful chemicals that are not contained in a given product could be used as a simplified 
approach.
5. 
Improving information flow should take a two-tier approach: to address the challenges of knowing which substances 
are present in the product, and possibly which ones can migrate from it, and to address the challenge of interpreting 
and evaluating information to serve stakeholder needs.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
with the region that they are potentially affecting. As such, 
some preventative measures can be directly targeted at these 
communities, as well as at more permanent groups. Ten Brink 
et al. (2009) have reviewed several of these measures in their 
guidelines on the use of market-based instruments to address 
the problem of marine litter. These include:
•	 Applying the polluter pays principle, in terms of fines for 
littering, dumping waste and illegal disposal. 
•	 Applying the user pays principle, in terms of tourist taxes, 
car park fees, port reception and ship berthing fees. These 
can then contribute to beach cleaning and improving 
waste infrastructure. 
•	
Incentives for portside disposal of ship-generated waste 
can curb waste discharges at sea. In addition, economic 
incentives can be provided to encourage disposal of 
waste onshore, such as the no-special-fee system for oils 
and waste discharged to port reception facilities in the 
Baltic Sea Area implemented by HELCOM. 
•	
Landfill taxes. These are present in many EU Member 
States and vary from country to country, and have 
different effects on different actors with industry tending 
to feel a greater impact. Sometimes, high landfill taxes 
can lead to an increase in illegal dumping so they should 
be set at an affordable level.
•	
Tradable permits. In theory these would allow actors to 
produce plastic waste in exchange for buying permits to 
fund organisations or initiatives that were reducing plastic 
waste elsewhere. In general, it is thought that tradable 
permits are not appropriate for littering.
•	
Incentives to fishermen for reporting on and removing 
debris, for example the ‘Fishing for Plastic’ project in the 
Save our North Sea programme, which pays fishermen to 
remove plastic.
•	
Financial and technical support for installing waste 
management systems on board fishing vessels, leisure 
crafts and larger ships with inadequate facilities. 
•	 Award based incentives for coastal villages with Integrated 
Waste Management systems, which incorporate all the 
policies, programmes and technologies that are necessary 
to manage the entire waste stream.
4.4 
Waste management
Waste management has a large part to play in preventing 
plastic waste becoming harmful. Incorrectly managed landfills 
may cause waste to reach the environment, as well as the 
additional issue of chemicals from plastic waste escaping in 
the leachate. Wastewater is another potential source, both 
in terms of microplastic that has not been effectively filtered 
or the presence of chemicals released from the plastic within 
wastewater. The endpoint of treated wastewater is generally 
into rivers or the sea. Prevention in this area can take the form 
of bans, such as Annex V to the MARPOL agreement, which 
prevents the disposal of plastic waste in the sea. However, 
many are sceptical about the impact of Annex V and call for 
better implementation and monitoring (Mouat et al., 2010; 
Kershaw et al., 2011). The EU Landfill Directive has restricted 
some specific waste streams, such as tyres, liquids and 
explosives, going to landfill, but there is no specific mention 
of plastic. 
The most noticeable shift is in newer Member States who 
have greater room for improvement. Recycling of plastic has 
increased from 20.4 per cent in 2007 to 21.3 per cent in 2008 
across Europe, while energy recovery increased from 29.2 per 
cent in 2007 to 30 per cent in 2008 (PlasticsEurope, 2009). 
Since plastic lends itself well to alternative means of disposal, 
such as recycling and energy recovery, it has been suggested 
that landfill bans could reduce the amount of plastic waste in 
landfill.  Nine of the EU 27+2 Member States have achieved 
plastic recovery of 80 per cent, and all these nine countries 
have legislation on restricting the ‘Total Organic Carbon’ 
content of waste sent to landfill. This indirectly affects the 
recycling of plastic waste as it has a high organic carbon 
content, but there may be potential for landfill legislation to 
address plastic waste more directly.
There are concerns that waste management is inadequate. 
This is particularly the case for some developing countries, 
which can also be the recipients of illegally exported waste. 
This raises the issue of responsibility again, as waste may have 
originated in developed countries, yet its poor management 
elsewhere is contributing to the harmful effects of plastic 
waste on the environment and human health.
The use of targets could be instrumental in this area. While 
there are currently targets for the amount and type of waste 
going to landfill, targets could be set more specifically for 
plastic waste. For example:
•	
Specific recycling targets for plastic waste 
•	
100 per cent collection and separation of plastic waste 
from households and businesses 
•	
Full recyclability of plastic products
•	
Specific targets for plastic waste within the MSFD 
descriptor for marine litter
•	
Targets on the percentage of plastic produced that must 
be fully biodegradable
This raises the issue of whether plastic waste requires its own 
30
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
monitoring and legislation, or if it can be embedded in more 
general legislation of waste or marine litter. Again, this touches 
on the issue of responsibility. Plastic waste does require 
responses from several policy areas, but by distributing the 
responsibility it may mean that less direct action is taken. The 
EU has a directive specifically on packaging and perhaps it 
may be worth considering a specific directive on plastic waste.
4.5  
Plastic waste: a cross-boundary issue 
Plastic waste crosses and straddles many boundaries, one 
of the most important being the boundary between land 
and sea. The frameworks to address these transboundary 
issues are in place, such as the Global Programme of Action 
for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-
based Activities and the EU’s recommendation on Integrated 
Coastal Zone Management. However, both of these could be 
more specifically instrumental in the area of marine debris and 
plastic waste. Plastic waste does not recognise boundaries 
in the environment and, although it is important to identify 
sources, it may be more useful to identify the routes that 
plastic takes to reach the environment, which would highlight 
appropriate locations for intervention. 
Geographical boundaries are not respected by plastic waste, 
but are necessary to propose locally tuned responses, for 
example, through regional initiatives such as the UNEP Regional 
Seas Programme and the various conventions targeted at 
specific seas, such as the Barcelona (Mediterranean), OSPAR 
(North Atlantic) and HELCOM (Baltic Sea) conventions. There 
are disparities between regions, for example, in the Black 
Sea all affected states are in the process of developing and 
updating their national instruments aimed at combating 
marine pollution. One of the main problems affecting Black 
Sea countries in this process is that they do not fully implement 
and apply existing laws and regulations (Galgani et al., 2010).
The issues of plastic waste are covered and implemented 
by several authorities, 
including maritime authorities, 
environmental authorities and waste authorities. They also 
involve many sectors, such as politicians, the plastics and 
retail industry, science, education and the general public. 
Co-ordination of enforcement is essential as each authority 
and sector may consider plastic waste to be another’s 
responsibility. As several reports suggest, (Mouat et al., 2010; 
Kershaw et al., 2011) the legislation is often in place, but there 
are difficulties with enforcement.
‘Coordination of enforcement is therefore essential. Many 
countries reported the general legislations to be insufficient 
and some of the present regulations to be too vague or 
difficult to understand for the people working with marine 
litter in practice. To have marine litter policy, in most of the 
countries, it is necessary to compile all the texts relative 
to the water pollution, to the waste and to the protection 
of habitats and species. The difficulty lies in the fact that 
public policies relative to waste are often separated from 
that relative to water pollution. The marine litter is situated 
at the cross of these two sectoral policies.’ (Galgani et al., 
2010)
Another boundary issue is that of establishing the level of 
impact above which plastic waste is considered harmful. The 
presence of plastic waste is clearly a concern and some of its 
impacts are visible. However, many of its more potentially 
concerning impacts are not so observable or provable. 
Ingestion of plastic can be studied, but the level at which 
ingested plastic starts to cause harm is not well established. 
Similarly, the potential effects of chemicals within plastic and 
transported by plastic are not known in terms of the level at 
which they become toxic. It could be that plastic waste acts 
a sink for some of these chemicals. Many of the impacts of 
plastic waste are sub-lethal, but in conjunction with other 
impacts from plastic waste or environmental effects, such as oil 
spills or harsh weather conditions, they could become lethal. 
As such, it may prove useful to not only study the immediate 
impacts of plastic waste but also the cumulative impacts. This 
could have the possible objective of establishing risk factors 
or situations that exacerbate the effects of plastic waste, or 
indeed identifying other impacts that are exacerbated by the 
presence of plastic waste. 
4.6 
An appropriate evidence-base for plastic waste   
 
policy
There is no question that environmental policy needs to be 
evidence-based. However, where questions do arise is how 
hard the evidence base needs to be before policy action 
is taken. There is currently a wide range of evidence for 
various ecological impacts of plastic waste and some serious 
implications for impacts on human health. However, there 
are also many research gaps, which means that the overall 
picture is not entirely clear. The question is whether to wait 
until the picture becomes clearer but, by which time, impacts 
could have worsened and be more difficult to manage. A 
good example of when policy action was taken before a firm 
evidence base was established is the OSPAR Ecological Quality 
Objective (EcoQO), which has set a target for the number of 
fulmars found with a certain percentage of plastic waste in 
their stomachs. When this objective was set it was not based 
31
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
on hard scientific fact, but was an estimate of the amount 
of fulmars with this level of plastic in relatively untouched 
areas, such as the Arctic. The estimate did fit well with later 
monitoring findings, suggesting that sometimes targets need 
to be set before the full scientific picture is clear. 
The four indicators outlined in the Marine Framework Strategy 
Directive are a good starting point (see Box 2). Already based on 
scientific findings, they call for further research to explore the 
acceptable levels of plastic waste with the aim of monitoring 
and managing them. However, there is still a knowledge gap 
concerning the impact of plastic waste on land and eventual 
impact of land-based plastic waste at sea. The scientific world 
needs to be clear about how realistic it is to answer some of 
the research questions that policymakers would like to pose in 
order to inform policy and, if these cannot be answered, then 
scientists and policymakers need to reach a middle ground. 
This is particularly relevant to sources of plastic waste and 
whether there is any possible way of tracing or identifying 
major sources that could then be addressed. For macro debris, 
there is evidence that certain objects, such as plastic bottles 
and plastic bags, are more widespread than others, and 
highlighting these in education and public awareness around 
littering and the types of plastic objects that are particularly 
problematic could be useful. 
There is also evidence that certain types of polymer are present 
in far greater quantities than others, for example, polyethylene. 
What is not known is whether amounts of certain polymers 
are excessive, considering the ratio of different polymers 
produced. What has been noted is the amount of plastic waste 
direct from industry (pre-consumer) has declined, while post-
consumer plastic waste has increased (van Franeker & SNS 
Fulmar Study Group, 2011a; Ryan, 2008).
Policy based on findings about chemicals within plastics has 
already been made, such as the ban on Bisphenol A (see box 
10 below), but for chemicals with less clear impacts (especially 
if their effects are sub-lethal or sub-toxic but could still 
accumulate) other initiatives may need to be developed. 
4.7 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive response   
 
to plastic waste
There are already methods in use to investigate the four 
indicators for the marine litter outlined in the MSFD (see Box 2) 
and their definition has been established (Galgani et al., 2010). 
Plastic waste is not only influential in marine litter, but also in 
several other elements of the MSFD, such as non-indigenous 
species introduced by human activities, marine food webs 
and concentrations of contaminants.
The MFSD task force dedicated to marine litter suggested in 
their report (Galgani et al., 2010) that monitoring of marine 
litter should occur at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. 
For all four indicators it recommended the harmonisation of 
monitoring protocols and methods in the European region 
and recording the composition of litter in categories indicative 
of sources. This is likely to include plastic but could possibly be 
sub-divided into other categories to help identify types and 
sources of plastic. 
One of the main goals of identifying the indicators is to establish 
targets to work towards to establish good environmental 
status. Setting targets is not easy and, as discussed in section 
4.6, scientific evidence on which to base targets is sometimes 
lacking. Possible targets can be based on levels found in 
32
Box  10  
Restrictions on use of plastic additives
Bisphenol A - There has been ongoing debate about the use of Bisphenol A in Europe, and the EU has now banned the 
placing on the market and importing of polycarbonate baby bottles containing Bisphenol A. Although this ban will affect 
the type of new plastic waste entering the environment it will not affect debris already in the environment. 
Phthalates - The use of some phthalates has been restricted in the EU for use in children’s toys since 1999. DEHP, BBP, 
and DBP are restricted for all toys; DINP, DIDP, and DNOP are restricted only in toys that can be taken into the mouth. The 
restriction states that the amount of phthalates may not be greater than 0.1 per cent mass per cent of the plasticised part 
of the toy.  There are no other specific restrictions in the EU, although draft proposals have been tabled for the inclusion of 
BBP, DEHP, and DBP on the Candidate list of Substances for Authorisation under REACH
Flame-retardants - In 2008 the EU banned several types of PBDEs when it was discovered that they were accumulating in 
breast milk. This is of particular concern as is their release through the burning of electronic and electric waste when it is 
dismantled/recycled in uncontrolled environments. 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
relatively untouched regions, such as the Arctic, but, in some 
cases, they may have to be more arbitrary (Galgani et al., 2010). 
The EcoQO target set by OSPAR provides a good example 
from which to follow and has already been adopted by the 
Netherlands to monitor the effects of implementing the EU 
Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste 
and cargo residues (Van Franeker, J.A. & the SNS Fulmar Study 
Group, 2011a). 
As well as the complexity of the current situation of plastic 
waste there are also numerous future impacts and possible 
trends that could further complicate matters (see Box 11).
4.8 
Identifying and filling knowledge gaps 
By its nature, plastic waste is a difficult area to research and 
is also a relatively recent phenomenon so that research is still 
in its infancy. As such there are various knowledge gaps about 
the ecological and human health impacts of plastic waste and 
it is important to identify and prioritise the most pressing gaps 
that need to be filled for effective policymaking.
4.8.1 
Knowledge gaps: monitoring data 
‘There is a dearth of information on the actual inputs of 
plastics to the oceans; this needs to be urgently addressed 
by Governments, municipalities, the plastic industry and 
multi-national retailers because land-based sources are 
expected to have a far greater contribution than maritime 
activities.’ (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010).
A great deal is unknown about the state of plastic waste in 
the environment, but there is also a great deal that it is not 
possible to know. Effective responses need better information 
on geographic origins of plastic waste, which require regular 
surveys and analysis on the relationship between local weather 
conditions and geography, such as the washing out of litter 
from land into sea after torrential rain on Mediterranean coasts 
(Galgani et al., 2010). Surveys should cover different seasons 
and variability in human activities, such as tourism and be 
done at a local, regional, river basin and European level. 
It is clear that there is a need for better harmonisation and 
initiatives like the MSFD and established guidelines by OSPAR 
and UNEP are moving towards this. The role of citizen science 
has great potential in this area and research has shown that 
the use of volunteers to conduct litter surveys is a reliable 
method with no statistical difference between results of 
data gathered by inexperienced and experienced surveyors 
(Tudor & Williams, 2001). High-resolution geo-referenced 
images used for wildlife monitoring could provide a platform 
for litter monitoring alongside better satellite images. 
Other possibilities include ship-based camera monitoring 
and cameras on stationary platforms (Galgani et al., 2010). 
However, it is also important to prioritise what needs to be 
known to inform policy and to ensure that this can be done 
realistically.
The GESAMP report (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010) has questioned 
the necessity of a global assessment of microplastics, bearing 
in mind the length of completion and costs. The report 
suggests it should be firmly embedded in the wider scientific 
context of marine debris and that microplastic monitoring 
in the water column could be introduced into routine 
programmes of plankton sampling.  It has also been suggested 
that aerial surveys conducted for oil spill detection could 
be used to evaluate litter (Galgani et al., 2010). The GESAMP 
report (Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010) also suggests that classical 
monitoring may not be the best use of scarce resources when 
considered globally. A clearer focus on specific areas, such as 
33
Box 11  
Future issues that may influence the impacts of plastic waste 
•	
Increases in plastic production, use, waste and recycling in developing and emerging countries, taking into account 
projected population growth 
•	 Continuing production of plastic waste on top of existing plastic waste – how big is the problem and how much big-
ger will it get in the future?
•	
Impacts of climate change, such as flooding and emergency events, may increase plastic waste. For example, the 
floods in China in 2010 carried tonnes of plastic to the Three Gorges dam, threatening the functioning of water 
overflow valves. Increases in temperature and environmental conditions may affect the degradation of plastic into 
microplastics or the release of chemicals contained or transported on plastic waste.
•	
Synergic or interactive effects of plastic debris with other impacts, such as bioaccumulation of mercury and cadmium 
in Franciscana dolphins, alongside ingested plastic waste and entanglement in fishing nets (Denuncio et al, 2011).
•	
Potential positive or negative impacts of biodegradable plastics in terms of biodegradation of plastic so that it is no 
longer waste but, depending on the time scale of degradation, could risk accelerating the formation of microplastics.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
hotspots, might translate more quickly and effectively into 
policy decisions. The question is then how to define these 
hotspots, bearing in mind not only concern in terms of human 
health and the environment, but also what can realistically be 
determined. An example is provided by Galgani et al. (2010) 
who suggested targeting research on microplasatics in sewage 
outfalls and locations where microplastics are used for shot 
blasting. Once appropriate measures for the four EU MSFD 
indicators related to marine litter have been developed, then 
they could also be used to identify hotspots for policy action 
at a regional and national level. Galgani et al. (2010) have 
identified a lack of data on waste on the seabed and generally, 
more research needs to be conducted into microplastics (see 
Box 12).
There is a need to harmonise research methods to assess 
impacts, but at the same time, the regional or local context 
must be taken into account. For example, difficulties arise 
in selecting the wildlife in which to measure the amount 
of ingested plastic waste. Modelling is another option for 
estimating the state of plastic waste and identifying hotspots, 
particularly as policy decisions need to consider future 
distribution of plastic waste. However, an accurate model 
would need to consider a huge amount of meteorological, 
oceanic and wildlife variables. Some research has modelled 
the overlap of plastic waste distribution with the distribution 
of marine species (Williams et al., 2011), which could provide 
useful information for identifying problematic areas. However, 
Galgani et al. (2010) have urged caution in this approach, as 
the two parameters (distribution of species and distribution 
of plastic waste) are influenced by a wide range of natural 
and human circumstances. They do, however, highlight the 
potential in using existing datasets and models of drift times, 
regional connectivity and weather and currents.
A better understanding of the degradation process of plastic 
waste would be useful to inform policy, particularly relating to 
biodegradable materials, as there is concern that these could 
exacerbate issues surrounding microplastics if materials do 
not biodegrade completely and/or within an adequate time 
frame. Finally, monitoring of plastic waste on land is a large 
research gap. Although there is plenty of monitoring on 
beaches and coastlines, inland monitoring is not well reported 
and better data are needed on the level and type of plastic 
waste within landfills.
4.8.2 
Knowledge gaps: impacts of chemicals in plastic
There is currently an absence of knowledge on exposure 
levels and toxicity of chemicals associated with plastic in the 
environment. 
As awareness of the harmful impacts of chemicals associated 
with plastic is recent, there is a need for more longitudinal 
studies to explore the long-term impacts and the temporal 
relationship between exposure to additives and adverse 
reproductive and developmental outcomes to ascertain 
causality, i.e. how long they take to have a harmful impact 
(Meeker et al., 2009). 
Longitudinal research would also allow analysis of shifts 
in exposure among populations, while 
larger scale 
epidemiological studies could help quantify human health 
impacts and allow meaningful samples of particularly 
vulnerable groups, e.g. children and women of reproductive 
age (Koch & Calafat, 2009; Meeker et al., 2009). 
Studies are also needed to identify which phthalate metabolites 
and BPA species should be monitored, i.e. which are relevant 
to human health (Koch & Calafat, 2009). Research on wildlife 
has indicated that the concentrations of plasticisers at which 
there is a biological effect in the laboratory are similar to the 
concentrations found in real environments. This suggests that 
some wildlife populations are being affected (Oehlmann et 
  34
Box 12 Recommendations for monitoring the four  
 
different indicators of marine debris in the  
 
MFSD (Galgani et al., 2010)
1. Coastlines – Four counts of marine litter each year 
for each season to monitor the number of items, vol-
ume or weight. A unified system of classifying litter 
at least on the regional scale. 
2. Water column, surface and seabed  – Frequency 
of surveys can vary from a count every year (shallow 
waters) to one every five years or decade (deep 
seafloor). It should be reported in appropriate units, 
such as items per m2 of seabed or per m3 of water. A 
classification system of a minimum of six categories 
is suggested.
3. Biomonitoring in marine wildlife – The use of the 
fulmar in regions where it occurs and other suitable 
species in non-fulmar regions, for example, shear-
waters, in warmer parts of the Atlantic and Medi-
terranean. Other representative species should be 
investigated. 
4. Microplastics – The monitoring of both sediments 
and seawater, including intertidal and subtidal 
zones. Possible target areas could be industrial areas 
where plastic powders are used, sewage outfalls and 
locations where plastics are used for shot blasting. 
Results should be recorded in density units.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
al., 2009), but there are as yet no studies on the population 
effects of additives. The impacts of long-term exposures 
on species that are most sensitive to additives should be a 
research priority, amongst these are molluscs, crustaceans 
and amphibians (Oehlmann et al., 2009). There is growing 
concern about the impact of chemical mixtures and the 
possibility that the harmful impacts of some chemicals could 
be greater when they are combined with other chemicals. 
It is possible that plastic waste could act as a platform for 
the mixing of chemicals. Similarly, looking at the impacts of 
chemicals it could be mixtures of impacts that are harmful 
to the environment or human health. For example, Meeker 
et al. (2009) suggested that evaluations of impact should not 
be just at the level of individual hormones, but on the ratios 
between hormones as well.
Modelling may have a role to play in filling some research 
gaps. Teuten et al. (2009) have modelled the desorption of 
persistant organic pollutants (POPs) from plastic waste and 
this could prove useful in predicting impacts of real levels of 
plastic waste. There is also potential to model the tendency of 
chemicals to partition between air, water, plastics and organic 
carbon in the sediments, in order to understand more about 
whether plastic waste could be a sink for POPs or a dangerous 
transport vessel.
4.8.3 
Knowledge gaps –exposure levels to chemicals   
 
associated with plastic waste
Better knowledge is needed on the actual impact of 
chemicals associated with plastic waste on the environment 
and human health. This would include the differential 
impacts of chemicals on different forms of wildlife. Better 
understanding is needed of the biological mechanisms 
involved in the exposure of humans and animals to chemicals 
associated with plastic waste and the transfer of chemicals 
into biological systems. 
In terms of management, it would be useful to identify 
the sources and routes by which wildlife and humans are 
exposed to chemicals in plastic waste. If possible, some kind 
of identification of which plastics transfer contaminants 
and which contaminants are most likely to be adsorbed and 
transferred. This would include more land-based research on 
plastic waste and research on chemicals in landfills, particularly 
measuring level of additives leached into environment 
(Oehlmann et al., 2009).
4.9 
Possible interventions 
‘There is a need for scientists to express ‘damage’ in terms 
that can be easily understood by the general public. Where 
resources are limited it will be important to focus on 
policies that deliver benefits to the largest proportion of 
the population on the most important sociological/health 
issues and micro-plastics might fare better in this regard 
when considered as a subset of marine litter problem.’ 
(Bowmer & Kershaw, 2010).
Plastic waste prevention is preferable to clean-up, which is 
very difficult to implement. Prevention can work at the level 
of production of plastic in terms of redesigning  products to 
use less plastic, design for reuse and recycling and reduced 
packaging material. For these to be successful interventions, 
there may need to be a value placed on disposable products 
to encourage their reuse and encourage manufacturers to 
design them for reuse and recycling. Prevention can also work 
at the level of plastic becoming waste with the use of targets, 
taxes and bans but these must be carefully implemented.
Although prevention is a priority, due to the amount of plastic 
waste already in the environment, clean-up initiatives must also 
continue. These can be combined with monitoring exercises 
and involve local communities and fishing communities, such 
as KIMO’s Fishing for Litter. Some, such as International Pellet 
Watch, can assess levels of POPs. With such a huge issue as 
plastic waste, citizen science is a good approach to cleaning-
up and monitoring, while also increasing awareness.
Effective policy requires effective monitoring and the current 
state of plastic waste monitoring needs harmonisation, which 
is being put into place by various guidelines on marine debris 
in general. Although it is good to take into account regional 
35
Box 13 Targeting current bad practices 
•	
Landfill management and waste management in new 
Member States and developing countries.
•	
Littering on land, the coastal zone and at sea.
•	
The use of microplastics for abrasion in products 
including cosmetics.
•	
Shredding plastic waste (particularly on boats) to put 
in food waste.
•	
Excessive use of plastic bags and packaging.
•	 Use of additives that are a risk to health, especially 
Bisphenol A and some phthalates.
•	 Use of plastics that will degrade quickly but not 
completely, leading to increase in microplastics i.e. 
oxo-degradable plastics. 
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
differences, production of an excessive number of guidelines 
should be avoided as these would later require harmonisation. 
Monitoring can be embedded in more general marine debris 
initiatives as long as there are figures specifically related to 
plastic. Similarly, microplastic monitoring can be performed 
alongside plankton sampling.
There is also a need for better education and awareness 
around plastic waste. Plastic footprints and labelling on 
products are possible but need the appropriate education 
to make them meaningful. Alongside this there could be 
labelling of products that contain known harmful additives. 
Banning of some harmful chemicals contained in plastic, such 
as Bisphenol A and some phthalates, has already occurred, but 
for others restriction may have to be voluntary. A harmonised 
industry-wide effort is needed to communicate information 
about chemicals used in plastic, alongside public education 
about the chemicals. 
Waste management is highly important in addressing the 
issues of plastic waste. The systems differ from country to 
country and region to region. Although international and 
European legislation exists, it requires better monitoring to 
ensure complete implementation. More specific legislation 
or clauses within existing legislation relating to plastic waste 
could be considered. 
In terms of addressing existing problems with plastic waste the 
identification of plastic waste ’hotspots‘ may prove useful. This 
can be done by monitoring or by some forms of modelling, for 
example, models of ocean currents such as gyres and the Gulf 
Stream that casts floating objects to Caribbean and eastern 
North Atlantic shores (Bowmer and Kershaw, 2010). Another 
approach is the identification and protection of species, 
habitats and human groups that are vulnerable to plastic 
waste and the chemicals associated with it.
In general, there needs to be better integration of marine 
planning with terrestrial planning. The frameworks are in place 
for this in terms of the EU Recommendation for Integrated 
Coastal Management and the Integration of Marine and 
Maritime Research, but more needs to be done to ensure 
better implementation and this may need to be more focused 
on plastic waste (Mouat et al., 2010; Kershaw et al., 2011).
36
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011 37
Aliani, S., A. Griffa & A. Molcard. (2003). Floating debris in the Ligurian Sea, 
northwestern Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1142-1149.
Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D. & Johnston, P. (2006) Plastic Debris in 
the World’s Oceans. Greenpeace International. Downloadable from http://
oceans.greenpeace.org/en/documents-reports/plastic_ocean_report
Aloy, A.B., Vallejo, B.M. & Juinio-Meñez, M.A. (2011) Increased plastic litter 
cover affects the foraging activity of the sandy intertidal gastropod Nassarius 
pullus. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1772-1779.
Andrady, A.L. (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine 
Pollution Bulletin 62:1596-1605.
Arthur, C., Baker, J. & Bamford, H. (2009) Proceedings of the International 
Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic 
Marine Debris. Sept 9-11, 2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30.
Auman, H.J., Ludwig, J.P., Giesy, J.P. & Colborn, T. (1997) Plastic ingestion by 
Laysan Albaross chicks on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995. In 
G.Robinson & R. Gales (eds.) Albatross Biology and Conservation. Surrey Beatty 
& Sons, Chipping Norton. Chapter 20 pp 239-244.
Ashton, K., Holmes, I. & Turner, A. (2010) Association of metals with plastic 
production pellets in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 
60(11):2050-2055
Balance, A., P. Ryan, and J.K. Turpie. (2000) How much is a clean beach worth? 
The impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South 
African Journal of Science 96: 210-213.
Barnay, A., Degre, E., Emmerson, R. et al.  (2010) Evaluation of the OSPAR 
system of Ecological Quality Objectives for the North Sea . OSPAR 
Commission Biodiversity Series.
Barnes, D.K.A & Milner, P. (2005) Drifting plastic and its consequences for 
sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 146:815-825.
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C. & Barlaz, M. (2009) Accumulation 
and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364:1985-1998.
Ben-Jonathan, N., Hugo, E.R & Brandebourg, T.D. (2009). Effects of bisphenol 
A on adipokine release from human adipose tissue: Implications for the 
metabolic syndrome. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinol 304(1-2): 49-54.
Boerger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L. & Moore, C.J. (2010) Plastic ingestion 
by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin 60:2275-2278.
Bowmer, T. & Kershaw, P. (2010) Proceedings of the GESAMP International 
Workshop on Microplastic particles as a vector in transporting persistent, 
bio-accumulating and toxic substances in the ocean. GESAMP Reports & 
Studies No. 8
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T. & Thompson, R. (2007) Microplastic – An emerging 
contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environmental Assessment and 
Management 3(4):559-566.
Browne, M.A., Dissanayake, A., Galloway, T.S. et al. (2008) Ingested 
Microscopic Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, 
Mytilus edulis (L.) Environmental Science & Technology 42(13): 5026-5031.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S. & Thompson, R.C. (2010) Spatial Patterns of 
Plastic Debris along Estuarine Shorelines Environmental Science & Technology 
44(9):3404-3409.
Carson, H.S., Colbert, S.L., Kaylor, M.J. & McDermid, K.J. (2011) Small 
plastic debris changes water movement and heat transfer through beach 
sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1708-1713.
Casale, P., Abbate, G., Freggi, D. et al. (2008). Foraging ecology of loggerhead 
sea turtles Caretta caretta in the central Mediterranean Sea: evidence for a 
relaxed life history model. Marine Ecology Progress Series 372, 265–276. 
Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J. et al. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on 
Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and 
Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83
Cooper, D.A. & Corcoran, P.L. (2010) Effects of mechanical and chemical 
processes on the degradation of plastic beach debris on the island of Kauai, 
Hawaii. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:650-654.
Corcoran, P.L., Biesinger, M.C. & Grifi, M. (2009) Plastics and beaches: A 
degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:80-84.
Davison, P. & Asch, R.G. (2011) Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the 
North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Marine Ecology Progress Series 432:173-180.
Denuncio, P., Bastida, R., Dassis, M. et al. (2011) Plastic ingestion in 
Franciscana dolphins, Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais and d’Orbigny, 
1844) from Argentina. Marine Pollution Bulletin doi: 10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2011.05.003.
Derraik, J.G.B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic 
debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842-852.
DiGangi, J., Blum, A., Bergman, Å. et al. (2010) San Antonio Statement on 
Brominated and Chlorinated Flame Retardants Environmental Health 
Perspectives 118(12): 516-518.
Frias, J.P.G.L., Sobral, P. & Ferreira, A.M. (2010) Organic pollutants in 
microplastics from two beaches of the Portuguese coast. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin. 60:1988-1992.
Frias, J.P.G.L., Martins, J. & Sobral, P. (2011) Research in plastic marine debris in 
mainland Portugal. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 11(1):145-
148.
Fry, D.M., Fefer, S.I. & Sileo, L. (1987) Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan 
Albatrosses and Wedge-tailed Shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Marine 
Pollution Bulletin 18(6): 339-343.
Galgani, F. et al. (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine 
Pollution Bulletin 40, 516 – 527. 
Galgani, F., Souplet, A. & Cadiou, Y. (1996). Accumulation of debris on the 
deep sea floor of the French Mediterranean coast. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 142, 
225–234.  
Galgani, F., Fleet, D., Van Franeker, J. et al. (2010) Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive Task Group 10 Report Marine Litter JRC scientific and technical 
Reports, European Union, IFREMER and ICES 2010.
Galgani, F. & Piha, H. (2010) Report of the Joint MEDPOL/Blacksea/ICES 
Workshop on Marine Litter (WKMAL), ICES report n°27 .
REFERENCES
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
Galloway, T. (2008) Plastic bottles and moral codes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 
56:163-165.
Galloway T., Cipelli R., Guralnik J. et al. (2010) Daily Bisphenol A Excretion and 
Associations with Sex Hormone Concentrations: Results from the InCHIANTI 
Adult Population Study. Environmental Health Perspectives 118:1603-1608. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002367
Garrigos, M.C., Marin, M.L, Canto, A. & Sanchez, A. (2004) Determination of 
residual styrene monomer in polystyrene granules by gas chromatography-
mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 1061:211-216.
Gerpe, M., Rodriguez, D., Moreno, V. et al. (2002). Accumulation of heavy 
metals in the Franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) from Buenos Aires Province, 
Argentina. LAJAM 1 (1), 95–106.
Global Industry Analysts (2011) Molded Plastics: A Global Strategic Business 
Report. Global Industry Analysts Inc.
Goldberg, E.D. (1997) Plasticizing the seafloor: an overview. Environmental 
Technology 18:195-202.
Gregory, M.R. (1996) Plastic ‘scrubbers’ in hand cleansers: a further (and 
minor) source for marine pollution identified. Marine Pollution Bulletin 
32:867-871
Gregory, M.R. (2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine 
settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking 
and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 
364:2013-2025.
Henderson, J.R. (2001) A pre and post-MARPOL Annex V summary of 
Hawaiian Monk Seal entanglements and marine debris accumulation in the 
northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1982-1998. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 42:584-
589.
Hengstler, J.G., Foth, H., Gebel, T. et al. (2011) Critical evaluation of key 
evidence on the human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol A. Critical 
Review of Toxicology 2011 41(4): 263-291.
Herczeg, M, Skovgaard, M., Zoboli, R. & Mazzanti, M. (2009) Diverting waste 
from landfill. Effectiveness of waste management policies in the European 
Union. European Environment Agency Report No. 7/2009.
Hirai, H., Takada, H., Ogata, Y. et al. (2011) Organic micropollutants in marine 
plastic debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Marine 
Pollution Bulletin 62:1683-1692.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C. et al. (2011) Plastic Pollution at 
a Sea Turtle Conservation Area in NE Brazil: Contrasting Developed and 
Undeveloped Beaches. Estuaries and Coasts 34:814-823.
Jefferson Hopewell, J., Robert Dvorak, R., & Edward Kosior, E. (2009) Plastics 
recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society B 364(1526): 2115–2126.
Katsanevakis, S., Verriopoulos, G., Nicolaidou, A. et al. (2006) Effect of marine 
litter on the benthic megafauna of coastal soft bottoms: a manipulative field 
experiment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54:771-778.
Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S. et al.  (2011) Plastic Debris in the Ocean in 
UNEP Year Book 2011: Emerging issues in our global environment, United 
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
KIMO (2008) Fishing for Litter Scotland Final Report 2005 – 2008. KIMO 
publication
Koch, H.M. & Calafat, A.M. (2009) Human body burdens of chemicals used 
in plastic manufacture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 
364:2063-2078
Kyung-Seop, K., Young-Bok, J., Young-Hwan, K. et al. (2009) The effect on 
formation of polychlorinated benzenes, polychlorinated phenols and PAHs 
during PVC combustion at variable plasticizer content. Organohalogen 
Compounds 71:1875-1878
Kyung-Seop, K., Won-Kuk, K., Young-Hwan, K. et al. (2007) Emission 
characteristics of hazardous air pollutants from co-combustion of various 
plastics. Organohalogen Compounds 69:2427-2430
Laist, D. W., (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in 
marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement 
and ingestion records. In: Coe, J. M. and D. B. Rogers (Eds.), Marine Debris -- 
Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 99-139.
Lang, I.A., Galloway, T.S., Scarlett, A. et al. (2008) Association of Urinary 
Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory 
Abnormalities in Adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 
doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1303.
Lazar, B. & Gracan, R. (2011) Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea 
turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:43-47.
Lithner, D., Larsson, Å. & Dave, G. (2011) Environmental and health hazard 
ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. 
Science of the Total Environment 409:3309-3324.
Lobelle, D. & Cunliffe, M. (2011) Early microbial biofilm formation on marine 
plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:197-200.
Marcilla, A., Garia, S., Garcia-Queseda, J.C. (2004) Study of the migration of 
PVC plasticizers. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 71:457-463.
MacFadyen, G., Huntingdon, T. & Cappell, R. (2009) Abandoned, lost or 
otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Rome.
Maggs, J, Hougee, M & Balk, V.  (2010) No place for waste. Let’s end ship waste 
dumping at sea. Brochure by Seas at Risk and the North Sea Foundation.
Mattlin, R.H. and Cawthorn, M.W. (1986) Marine debris – an international 
problem. New Zealand Environment 51:3-6.
Melzer, D, Rice, N.E., Lewis, C. et al. (2010) Association of urinary bisphenol a 
concentration with heart disease: evidence from NHANES 2003/06. PLoS One 
13: 5(1).
Mouat, J., Lopez Lozano, M. & Bateson, H. (2010) Economic Impacts of Marine 
Litter. Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon (KIMO) publication.
Meeker, J.D., Sathyanarayana, S. & Swan, S.H. (2009) Phthalates and other 
additives in plastics: human exposure and associated health outcomes. 
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364:2097-2113.
Moore, C.J., Moore, S.L., Leecaster, M.K. & Weisberg, S.B. (2001) A comparison 
of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin 40:83-88.
38
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011 39
Moore, C.J., Lattin, G.L. & Zellers, A.F. (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.
Morét-Ferguson, S., Lavendar-Law, K. Proskurowski, G. et al. (2010) The size, 
mass and composition of plastic debris in the western North Atlantic Ocean. 
Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:1873-1878.
Mudgal, S., Lyons, L., Bain, J. et al. (2011) Plastic Waste in the Environment 
– Revised Final Report for European Commission DG Environment. Bio 
Intelligence Service. Downloadable from http://www.ec.europa.eu/
environment/waste/studies/pdf/plastics.pdf 
Murray, F. & Cowie, P.R. (2011) Plastic contamination in the decapod 
crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Marine Pollution Bulletin 
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.032.
Nakashima, E., Isobe, A., Magome, S. et al. (2011) Using aerial photography 
and in situ measurements to estimate the quantity of macro-litter on 
beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:762-769.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010) Plastic 
Marine Debris What We Know. Downloadable from http://marinedebris.noaa.
gov/info/plastic.html 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department 
of Commerce (2005). Coral reef restoration through marine debris 
mitigation. NOAA.
Norén, F. (2007) Small plastic particles in Coastal Swedish Waters. KIMO 
Sweden.
Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O. (2009) Toxicity characterization of waste mobile 
phone plastics. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 161:183-188.
O’ Brine, T. & Thompson, R.C. (2010) Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the 
marine environment Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:2279-2283.
Oehlmann, J., Schulte-Oehlmann, U., Kloas, W. et al. (2009) A critical analysis 
of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions 
of the Royal Society B. 364:2047-2062.
Ogata, Y., Takada, H., Mizukawa, K. et al. (2009) International Pellet Watch: 
Global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in coastal waters. 
1. Initial phase data on PCBs, DDTs and HCHs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 
58:1437-1446.
OSPAR (2007) Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter. OSPAR 
Commission.
OSPAR (2008) Background document for the EcoQO on plastic particles in 
stomachs of seabirds OSPAR Commission.
OSPAR (2009) Evaluation of OSPAR system of Ecological Quality Objectives 
for the North Sea (update 2010) OSPAR Commission.
OSPAR (2010a) Guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the 
OSPAR Maritime area . OSPAR Commission.
OSPAR (2010b) Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission.
OSPAR  & UNEP (2009) Marine Litter Preventing a Sea of Plastic. UNEP and 
OSPAR Commission.
Pichel, W.G., Churnside, J.H., Veenstra, T.S. et al. (2007) Marine debris collects 
within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin  54:1207-1211.
Pilz, H., Brandt, B. & Fehringer, R. (2010) The impact of plastics on life cycle 
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Summary 
report by denkstatt for Plastics Europe. 
PlasticsEurope (2009) The Compelling Facts about Plastics 2009. An 
analysis of European plastics production, demand and recovery for 2008. 
PlasticsEurope, European Plastics Converters, European Association of 
Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations & European Plastics Recyclers.
PlasticsEurope (2010) Plastics the Facts 2010. An analysis of European plastics 
production, demand and recovery for 2009. PlasticsEurope, European 
Plastics Converters, European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery 
Organisations & European Plastics Recyclers.
Possatto, F.E., Barletta, M., Costa, M.F. et al. (2011) Plastic debris ingestion by 
marine catfish: An unexpected fisheries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 
1098-1102.
Rios, L.M., Moore, C. & Jones, P.R. (2007) Persistent organic pollutants carried 
by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 
54:1230-1237.
Rios, L.M., Jones, P.R., Moore, C. & Narayan, U.V. (2010) Quantification of 
persistent organic pollutants adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern 
Pacific Gyre’s “eastern garbage patch” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 
12:2226-2236.
Ryan, P.G. (1988) Intraspecific variation in plastic ingestion by seabirds and 
the flux of plastic through seabird populations. Condor 90: 446-452.
Ryan, P.G. (2008) Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic 
litter in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Oceans Marine Pollution 
Bulletin 56:1406-1409.
Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A. & Moloney, C.L. (2009) Monitoring 
the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364:1999-2012
Sancho G., Puente E., Bilbao A. et al. (2003) Catch rates of monkfish (Lophius 
spp.) by lost tangle nets in the Cantabrian Sea (northern Spain) Fisheries 
Research 64:129-139.
Sheavly S.B. (2005). Sixth Meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal 
Consultative Processes on Oceans & the Law of the Sea. Marine debris – an 
overview of a critical issue for our oceans. June 6-10, 2005. http://www.
un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/consultative_process.htm
Sheavly, S.B. & Register, K.M. (2007) Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental 
Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Journal of Polymer Environment 
15:301-305.
Spear, L.B., Ainley, D.G. & Ribic, C.A. (1995) Incidence of plastic in seabirds 
from the tropical Pacific, 1984–91 – relation with distribution of species, 
sex, age, season, year and body-weight. Marine Environmental Research 
40:123–146.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2011) www.pops.int
J. H. Song, J.H., R. J. Murphy, R.J., Narayan, R. & Davies, G.B.H (2009) 
Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. 
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364(1526): 2127–2139.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011 40
Talness, C.E., Andrade, A.J., Kuriyama, S.N. et al. (2009) Components of 
plastic: experimental studies in animals and relevance for human health. 
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:2079-2096.
Teuten, E.L., Rowland, S.J., Galloway, T.S. & Thompson, R.C. (2007) Potential 
for Plastics to Transport Hydrophobic Contaminants. Environmental Science & 
Technology 41:7759-7764.
Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U et al. (2009) Transport and release 
of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:2027-2045.
Ten Brink, P., Lutchman, I., Bassi. S. et al. (2009) Guidelines on the Use of 
Market-based instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter. Institute 
for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium & Sheavly 
Consultants, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P. et al. (2004) Lost at Sea: Where is all 
the plastic? Science 7: 838.
Thompson, R.C., Swan, S.H., Moore, C.J. & vom Saal, F.S. (2009) Our plastic 
age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:1973-1976.
Tomás, J., Guitart, R., Mateo, R., & Raga, J.A., (2002) Marine debris ingestion 
in loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean. 
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 211–216. 
Tourinho, P.S., Ivar do Sul, J.A. & Fillmann, G. (2009) Is marine debris ingestion 
still a problem for the coastal marine biota of southern Brazil? Marine 
Pollution Bulletin doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.10.013.
Toxipedia (2011) http://toxipedia.org
Tudor, D.T. & Williams, A.T. (2001) Investigation of litter problems in the 
Severn estuary/Bristol channel area, R&D Technical Summary, E1-082/TS. 
Bristol: Environment Agency; 2001.
Turner, A. & Holmes, L. (2011) Occurrence, distribution and characteristics 
of beached plastic production pellets on the island of Malta (central 
Mediterranean) Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 377-381.
UmweltBundesAmt (German Federal Environment Agency) (2010) Bisphenol 
A: An industrial chemical with adverse effects. UmweltBundesAmt (German 
Federal Environment Agency).
Van Franeker, J.A.; & Meijboom, A.  2002. Litter NSV - Marine litter monitoring 
by Northern Fulmars: a pilot study. Alterra (Alterra-Rapport 4010.
Van Franeker, J.A. (2004) Save the North Sea fulmar-litter-EcoQO manual Part 
1: collection and dissection procedures. Alterra (Alterra-Rapport 672).
Van Franeker, J.A. (2011). Reshape and relocate: seabirds as transformers and 
transporters of microplastics.  Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, 
Honolulu Hawaii 20-25 Mar 2011. Oral Presentation Extended Abstracts 6.d.3. 
278-280.
Van Franeker, J.A., Blaize, C., Danielsen, J. et al. (2011) Monitoring plastic 
ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea..  
Environmental Pollution doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.008.
Van Franeker, J.A. & the SNS Fulmar Study Group  (2011a). Fulmar Litter 
EcoQO monitoring along Dutch and North Sea coasts in relation to EU 
Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities: results to 2009. IMARES 
Report Nr C037/11. IMARES, Texel, 52pp +2app.
Van Franeker, J.A. & SNS Fulmar Study Group (2011b). A standard protocol 
for monitoring marine debris using seabird stomach contents: the Fulmar 
EcoQO approach from the North Sea.  Fifth International Marine Debris 
Conference, Honolulu Hawaii 20-25 Mar 2011. Oral Presentation Extended 
Abstracts 3.c.5. 116-120.
Van Franeker, J.A. & SNS Fulmar Study Group  (2011c). Chemicals in marine 
plastics and potential risks for a seabird like the Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus 
glacialis).  Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, Honolulu Hawaii 20-
25 Mar 2011. Oral Presentation Extended Abstracts 8.c.4. 415-418.
UNEP (2006). Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas. 
UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 178. UNEP/ IUCN, Switzerland 
2006. ISBN: 92-807-2734-6 .
UNEP (2009) Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Nairobi: UNEP.
UNEP & IOMC (Inter-organisation Programme for the Sound Management of 
Chemicals) (2011) A Synthesis of findings under the UNEP/IOMC project on 
Information on Chemicals in Products UNEP/DTIE CIP Project.
UNEP (DTIE ITEC) (2011) Framework of Global Partnership on Waste 
Management.
US EPA (1992), Turning the tide on trash. A learning guide on marine debris. 
EPA842-B-92-003.
Weiss, K.R., McFarling, U.L. & Loomis, R. (2006) Plague of plastic chokes the 
seas. Los Angeles Times. 2 August.
Weisskopf, M. (1988) Plastic reaps a grim harvest in the oceans of the world 
(plastic trash kills and maims marine life) Smithsonian 18, 58.
Williams, R., Ashe, E. & O’Hara, P.D. (2011) Marine mammals and debris in 
coastal waters of British Columbia, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1303-
1316.
Wong, M.H., Wu, S.C., Deng, W.J. et al. (2007) Export of toxic chemicals  - A 
review of the case of uncontrolled electronic waste recycling.  Environmental 
Pollution 149:131-140.
Yamamoto, T. & Yasuhara, A. (1999) Quantities of Bisphenol A leached from 
Plastic Waste Samples. Chemosphere 38(11):2569-2576.
Yamamoto, T., Yasuhara, A., Shiraishi, H. & Nakasugi, O. (2001) Bisphenol A in 
hazardous waste landfill leachates. Chemosphere 42:415-418.
Young, L.C., Vanderlip, C., Duffy, D.C, et al.  (2009) Bringing Home the Trash: 
Do Colony-Based Differences in Foraging Distribution Lead to Increased 
Plastic Ingestion in Laysan Albatrosses? PLoS One 4(10): 1-9
Zarfl, C., Flet, D., Fries, E. et al.  (2011) Microplastics in oceans. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin 62:1589-1591.
Zarfl, C. & Matthies, M., (2010) Are marine plastic particles transport vectors 
for organic pollutants to the Arctic? Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:1810-1814.
Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts
 
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth Reports | Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts November 2011
The contents and views included in this In-depth Report are based on independent research and do 
not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission.
This In-depth Report is published by the European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment and edited by the 
Science Communication Unit, the University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol. Email: sfep.editorial@uwe.ac.uk
Images are reproduced with permission from the following sources: 
Page1 © Science Communication Unit, UWE;
Figure 1:  World Plastics Production 1950-2008.  The Compelling Facts about Plastic, PlasticsEurope (2009), p33.
Figure 2:  Continued decoupling of plastic waste and landfill. The Compelling Facts about Plastic, PlasticsEurope (2009), p11.
Figure 3: Main sources and movement pathways for plastic in the marine environment. Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S. et al.  (2011) Plastic Debris in 
the Ocean in UNEP Year Book 2011: Emerging issues in our global environment. United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi. Adapted from Ryan et 
al., (2009). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 364: 1999-2012 .
Figure 4: Proportion of post-consumer waste in EU-27, Norway and Switzerland according to function, 2008. From Plastic Waste in the Environment 
(2011), Mudgal et al.
Figure 5: Composition and numbers of marine litter items found on beaches within OSPAR network. From Marine litter Preventing a Sea of Plastic 
(2009), OSPAR Commission
Figure 6:  Changes in composition of marine items found on beaches within OSPAR network. Diagram from Marine Litter Preventing a Sea of Plastic 
(2009) OSPAR Commission.
Figure 7:  Weight densities of plastic debris from Ocean Surface samples, North Pacific Gyre 2007-2008. Plastic Density in the Pacific: 2007-2008 data. 
Algalita Research Centre Monitoring.
Figure 8:   Litter ( items/ hectare) on the sea bed in the channel (x) and the gulf of Lion (y). Data collected from International Bottom Trawl Surveys 
from the IBTS and MEDITS programs in France. Galgani, F., IFREMER.
Figure 9:  Trends in the average number of marine litter items collected on reference beaches over three time periods. Other human uses and im-
pacts, OSPAR Quality Status Report, chap 9: 2010b.
Figure 10: Identity and composition of plastic debris collected from the strandline of the Tamar Estuary (UK.) Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S. & Thomp-
son, R.C. (2010) Spatial Patterns of Plastic Debris along Estuarine Shorelines. Environmental Science & Technology. 44(9):3404-3409.
Figure 11: Amount of user and industrial plastic in Fulmar stomachs in Netherlands over time. Van Franeker, J.A.; & the SNS Fulmar Study Group  
(2011a). 
Figure 12:  EcoQO performance in North Sea regions 2005-2009 and preliminary trends. Trend shown by connecting running average 5 year data .  
Van Franeker, J.A.; & the SNS Fulmar Study Group  (2011a).
Figure 13:  Trends in EcoQO performance in different regions of the North Sea since 2002 (by running 5-year average data).  Van Franeker, J.A.; & the 
SNS Fulmar Study Group  (2011a).
Figure 14:  Number and percentage of marine species with documented entanglement and ingestion records. Mudgal et al. (2011) Plastic Waste in 
the Environment Report, p 114 (adapted from Laist, 1997).
Figure 15:  Relationship between BPA concentrations in leachate and per capita GDP of Asian countries. Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U 
et al. (2009) Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 
364:2027-2045.
Figure 16: Illustration of additional effects of plastics in transport of phenanthrene. Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U et al. (2009) Transport 
and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364:2027-2045.
Figure 17: Concentrations of PCBs in beached plastic pellets. Teuten et al. (2009) and also from International Pellet Watch paper (Ogata et al, 2011). 
41
About Science for Environment Policy
Science for Environment Policy is a free news and information service from the European Commission’s 
Directorate-General Environment, which provides the latest environmental policy-relevant research findings.
In-depth Reports are a new feature to the service, which report on the latest relevant science for 
policy issues in question. The service also publishes a weekly News Alert and regular Thematic Issues, 
which are delivered by email to subscribers and provide accessible summaries of key scientific studies.
For more 
information or 
to 
subscribe 
to 
the News Alert 
and Thematic 
Issues, please email: 
sfep@uwe.ac.uk or visit:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/index_en.htm