Microplastic pollution and wet wipe ‘reefs’ are changing the River Thames ecosystem
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
-
Alex McGoran, Royal Holloway
Ever since the issue was highlighted in shows like “Blue Planet 2”, plastic pollution in the world’s oceans has generated a wave of concern among the public. It might surprise people to learn that despite comparably less attention, many of the world’s rivers are just as polluted, if not more so.
Around 80% of marine litter starts on landand rivers help transport it out to sea. In this way, plastic pollution is not just a problem for the distant open ocean – it’s an issue on our doorstep. For this reason, I chose to focus on the River Thames and the impact that plastics are having close to home.
There are currently no estimates for the amount of plastic in the Thames, but the world’s rivers are estimated to carry up to 4,000 kg of plastic out to sea every day. Despite much of the plastic in the Thames making it to the North Sea, a portion is permanently accumulating in the catchment.
A large wet wipe reef on the south bank just upstream of Hammersmith Bridge.Katy McCoy, Author provided
These were most often wet wipes, sanitary products and food packaging, which accumulate in the sediment or are deposited on the inside of bends in the river. Several members of our lab group helped with a cleanup with local environment charity Thames21. On the Thames foreshore at Hammersmith in early 2019, 23,000 wipes were collected, averaging 201 wipes per square metre. You may have heard of wet wipes forming “fatbergs” in sewers, but on the banks of the Thames there are wet wipe reefs that are slowly changing the shape of the river itself.
3 mm microplastic particle recovered from the stomach of a fish compared to a 7 mm grain of rice.Alex McGoran, Author provided
As plastics move through the aquatic environment they break up. Eventually, these particles reach a microscopic scale. I have been researching microplastics, which are items smaller than 5 mm – roughly the size of a grain of rice – since 2015 and every study I have undertaken has found plastic. I have studied two UK rivers, the Thames and the Clyde, and fish in both estuaries have ingested plastic.
A river of plastic
As part of my PhD, I’m researching the accumulation of microplastics in the Thames food web. When I trawl in the Thames for fish the nets are full of plastic, especially tangles of wet wipes. It’s extremely rare that we bring in a net with no litter at all.
Despite its murky appearance, the Thames is a diverse ecosystem that’s full of life. It supports over 120 species of fishas well as many marine mammals, such as grey seals, common seals, dolphins and porpoises. Even a beluga whalewas once spotted. Microplastics in the river can be ingested by all animals in the food web. Negative impacts on one part of this system can potentially cause a cascade which affects other species.
Microplastics accumulate in greater quantities in organisms feeding nearer the top of food webs, like seals.Alex McGoran, Author provided
Microplastics contain chemical additives which are released as they degrade and can act as harmful pollutants in water. These toxic chemicals can be transferred to organisms if they ingest them. This forces the animal to use their energy to treat the problem, rather than growing, feeding or reproducing.
The amount of plastic in an animal’s gut is likely to increase higher up the food web that the animal feeds. If amphipods near the base of the food web ingest a few pieces of plastic then fish eating large numbers of amphipods – each likely to contain small amounts of plastic – would gradually accumulate more as they feed. The seals at the top of the food web, which ingest lots of fish, would be exposed to a greater concentration still.
Though plastic straws and other single-use items have taken much of the blame, the plastic most commonly eaten by flatfish – a species often caught by fishers– are fibres. These are long threads of plastic which originate in our fabrics. Straws may flow out to sea quicker butduring my research in the Thames, I found that 80% of all plastic extracted from animals there were fibres.
Example of some of the plastic found in UK fish – here a plaice is shown with a tangle of fibres.Alex McGoran, Author provided
Hundreds of thousands of these tiny plastic fibres can drain into rivers with every use of our washing machines. Wastewater treatment plants catch the majority of these fibres, but with so many people washing their clothes in the Thames catchment area, a vast number of fibres are still entering the river and making their way out to sea.
Washing clothes less often and using products designed to capture fibres in the wash can prevent them getting to rivers or the sea, such as theguppy friend bag and coraball. We may rightly fret about the impact of our plastic on life in the ocean, but it’s time we realised that the plastic pollution crisis is a lot closer to home than we care to think.
Alex McGoran, PhD Researcher in Aquatic Pollution, Royal Holloway This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Alana James, Northumbria University, Newcastle The fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world, producing 20% of global wastewater and 10% of global carbon emissions – and it’s estimated that by 2050 this will have increased to 25% . A staggering 300,000 tonnes of clothes are sent to British landfills each year. The fast fashion business model, first developed in the early 2000s is responsible for the increase in consumer demand for high quantities of low-quality clothing. Many fashion products now being designed and made specifically for short-term ownership and premature disposal. Clothing quality is decreasing along with costs, and the increased consumption levels of mass-manufactured fashion products are pushing up the consumption of natural resources. The pressure to facilitate consumer hunger imposes significant social and environmental pressures on the manufacturing supply chain. The UK’s consumption levels of fashion are the highest...
For the past few months, a British group has campaigned for an emergency judge-led inquiry into the pandemic. Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK has not got very far: nothing has been offered beyond the promise of an inquiry at some time in the future. Now, though, a parliamentary report has been published which goes some way towards that aim. It comes from the rather grandly named Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and is called ‘ Biosecurity and National Security ’. Because of its focus, the committee concentrates on the government’s preparedness for a pandemic, so it says little about the detailed handling, including the outsourcing , creeping privatisation , chumocracy and all the other criticisms, but it is still a remarkable document on two counts. The first is summarised in Friday’s 18th of December press release announcing the publication of the report, which was headed ‘ Government failed to act on its security ...
David James, Manchester Metropolitan University Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy (or “the boys” as they were often known) can, arguably, be regarded as the greatest double act that comedy has produced. If their star has waned somewhat in the past couple of decades, it is surely because of a lack of exposure rather than their humour going out of style. We can hope that this new film, which has harnessed the considerable comedic talents of Steve Coogan as Laurel and John C Reilly as Hardy will do its bit to bring their timeless brilliance back to the fore. It’s a heartwarming yet bittersweet tale. By 1953, the year of their final tour (the tour that the forthcoming film Stan and Ollie is based around), their film career was over. It had been on a downward trend ever since they left the Hal Roach Lot (or the “Lot of Fun” as it was dubbed) to work for 20th Century Fox in 1941. The move curtailed Laurel’s freedom as the writer and de facto director of the films and, as a resul...
Comments
Post a Comment