Microplastics in the Great Lakes:

Sources to Lake Ontario

Paul Helm

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 1

Overview

• Definition(s) of Microplastics

• Concerns about Microplastics

• Occurrence / Sources to Lake Ontario – Surface waters – Wastewater – Sediments – Fish

• Ongoing initiatives

Microplastics – plastic particles <5 mm across Primary: manufactured, direct release (pellets, microbeads)

Secondary: wear, fragmentation (debris, fabrics, tires)

Sources:

- beads in personal care products

- raw feed stock polymer pellets

- fibers (clothing), line, rope

- degraded / abraded debris / litter

- food packaging, insulation board

- tire dust / wear; road paints

- film, bags, sheeting

Pellets on Lake Ontario beach 2013

Microplastics are ingested by organisms, and can circulate through out

• Ingestion by organisms – MP found in a wide variety of

organisms all over the world

• Translocation from the Gut Tract – 4, 16 µm in mussels (Browne 2008) – Up to 500 µm in fish liver (Avio 2015) – 5, 20 µm mice (Deng 2017)

• Vector for pathogens & contaminants – Microbial community on particles – Sorption of contaminants – Leaching of additives (flame

retardants, plasticizers, UV stabilizers)

M. Eriksen, 5 Gyres

Cole et al., ES&T 2013

Avio et al 2015

Macroplastics (marine debris) can have devastating impacts on individual organisms

• Ingestion and Entanglement

• Well-documented impacts of plastics debris on individuals

• Ecological Impacts? – Effects on population?

Microplastic Impacts

• Nutrition / nutrient use • Feeding behavior • Metabolic indicators (Oxidative stress, hormones, lipids)

Impacts of microplastics documented across size scales and level of organization

Assemblage Population Organism

Organ System Organ Tissue

Cell Organelle

Molecular Assemblies Macromolecules Small Molecules

Atoms Subatomic Particles

Rochman et al., 2016 (Ecology)

“our systematic review suggests that sufficient evidence exists for decision makers to begin to mitigate problematic plastic debris now”

Pre-production pellets (“nurdles”) washing up on Great Lakes beaches

• Noted in Lake Huron in 2007

Shores of Lake Huron awash in plastic pellets PATRICK WHITE The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Oct. 13 2010, 10:22 PM EDT

Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation, 2010

7

Microbeads found in surface waters of the Great Lakes

• Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie (2012)

Max: 463,000 / km2

8

Questions for Assessing & Managing Microplastics

1) What and how much microplastics are in our waters?

2) Where are the microplastics coming from? • Specific sources?; Key pathways (stormwater, WWTP)?

3) What harm do the microplastics cause? 4) What can be done to reduce the presence of

microplastics in the environment? • Microbeads a first step; variety of sources will mean a

broad range of solutions to address microplastics • Can we track reductions? Can we fingerprint sources?

Sampling for Microplastics Collection:

Water – Plankton Nets (335; 363μm), Sieves, Filtration

Sediment – Bulk Collections

10

11

Microplastics more abundant near urban centers - MECP 2014 Surface Water Trawl Results

(litter, commercial processes)

(personal care products)

(rope, line/net, clothing, cig butts)

(packing, food containers, insulation)

(plastic bags, wrapping)

Categories (potential sources)

/ “Nurdles”

Greatest abundances near points of input to the lakes – MECP trawl results from 2015

Humber Bay

Toronto Harbour

Count / square km

Count / square km 12

Relatively high microplastic concentrations in bottom sediment near Toronto

Plas

tic P

artic

les

(#) /

kg

>27,000

Ballent, Corcoran et al., Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016

2012 2014 2015

13

Current categorization of microplastic is broad, inconsistent

How to categorize microbeads?

• Irregular microbeads likely included as “Fragments”

• Spherical microbeads sometimes included as “Pellets” (along with pre-production pellets)

Helm, 2017. Analytical Methods

Typical Categories • Fragment • Foam • Fiber • Film • Pellets

Source specific?

Guide management decisions?

Alternative Categories • Fragment • Commercial Fragments • Spherical Microbeads • Irregular Microbeads • Foam • Fiber • Film • Pre-production Pellets

More source-specific

Potential to guide management decisions

14

Fragment shape/type (morphology/taxonomy) may provide an indication of sources

Evidence • Residential street debris • Taken from larger litter items • Broken up pieces

Character • Irregular, jagged, angular edges • Hard, unable to compress • Glossy or dull, multi-colours • May be abraded, contain patterns • Soft black tar-like material

Fragments: Litter/debris-derived & “other” polymeric material

15

Particles with character indicative of commercial activities found with regularity

Evidence • Plastics recycler site spill materials • In-house cuttings • Verbal communications

Character • Twisted and curled, shaved off • Accordion pattern from cutting • Range of colours, firm and rigid • Melted drops, clumps; cooled, hard • Uni-directional flow striations

Commercial Fragments: Plastic product manufacture/recycling, building material cutting

→ Need “reference materials” for better “library”, validation 16

Distributions - Source Specific Categories

17

Toronto Harbour

Humber Bay

Mouth of Don River

Near Humber WWTP

Diffuser

Refined categories indicate different sources to WWTPs

18

Locations of plastics-based businesses align with abundance and particle type observations

Ballent, Corcoran et al., Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016

19

Inputs of plastics to nearshore Lake Ontario evident in Toronto area fish

Nfish = 266

Mea

n #

Mic

ropl

astic

s / f

ish

Keenan Munno U of T; MECP

Offshore Great Lakes fish: Microfibers are the dominant form of microplastics

• 96.9% of microplastics in fish are fibers - 80% fibers (Rochman et al., 2015) - 98% fibers (Wieczorek et al., 2018) - 97-100% fibers (McNeish et al., 2018)

- Up to 70 plastic particles per fish

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

Lisa Erdle Rochman Lab, U of T

21

Dated sediment cores may provide a means to track long term reductions in the GL

Lake Ontario

Hamilton

Toronto 403

208

Corcoran et al., 2015 Environ. Pollut.

Core Slice Station 403 Station 208 0-2 cm 9 5 2-4 cm 9 2 4-6 cm 3 1 6-8 cm 5 1

22

Microplastics Monitoring & Research

Monitoring

• WWTPs 2015-2019; evaluate ban on microbeads (MECP) • Lake Ontario nearshore, urban streams (MECP) • Great Lakes sediments, track through time (UWO//MECP/ECCC) • Lake Simcoe sediment & surface water 2018 (MECP/UT)

Effects

• Life cycle exposures of fathead minnows (UT, MECP, DFO) – Variety of microplastic types, including fibres

Exposure

• “Am I eating plastic?” “Are they poisoning our fish?” (UT, MECP) • Lake Simcoe; Lake Superior

Environmental occurrence studies provide useful information on the wide variety of sources to consider

• Microplastics monitoring in the Great Lakes surface water indicates the following major particle types: • Fragments (from both litter/debris and commercial activities) • Fibers • Microbeads (from personal care products) • Foam (polystyrene)

• Given the variety of sources and types of material, several approaches will need to be undertaken to achieve reductions

24

Polystyrene “snow” easily enters waterways

Polystyrene insulation board; cutting, preparing for stucco

25

26

Acknowledgments

Anika Ballent Bethany Dean Patricia Corcoran

Keenan Munno Lisa Erdle Chelsea Rochman Don Jackson

GL Field Unit Alina Sims

Co-op Students

Maryanne Stones Garett Zimmer

Giuseppe Gigliotti Courtney Miller Keisha Harris

Moyosore Lanisa Jonathan Abraham