Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical

Subscriber access provided by HKU Libraries

Article

Ups and downs in the ocean: Effects of biofouling on the vertical transport of microplastics Merel Kooi, Egbert H Van Nes, Marten Scheffer, and Albert A. Koelmans Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 14 Jun 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on June 15, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 30

1

Environmental Science & Technology

Ups and downs in the ocean: Effects of biofouling on vertical transport of microplastics

2

3

Merel Kooi1,*, Egbert H. van Nes1, Marten Scheffer1, Albert A. Koelmans1,2

4

5

1

6

Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The

7

Netherlands

8

2

Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Department of Environmental

Wageningen Marine Research, P.O. Box 68, 1970 AB IJmuiden, The Netherlands

9

10

* Corresponding author: M. Kooi, Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group,

11

Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700

12

AA Wageningen, The Netherlands – E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: +316 17640777

13

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


14

Keywords: microplastic, biofouling, settling, fate, vertical distribution, ocean models

15

16

Abstract

17

Recent studies suggest size-selective removal of small plastic particles from the ocean surface, an

18

observation that remains unexplained. We studied one of the hypotheses regarding this size-

19

selective removal: the formation of a biofilm on the microplastics (biofouling). We developed the

20

first theoretical model that is capable of simulating the effect of biofouling on the fate of

21

microplastic. The model is based on settling, biofilm growth and ocean depth profiles for light,

22

water density, temperature, salinity and viscosity. Using realistic parameters, the model simulates

23

the vertical transport of small microplastic particles over time, and predicts that the particles either

24

float, sink to the ocean floor, or oscillate vertically, depending on the size and density of the

25

particle. The predicted size-dependent vertical movement of microplastic particles results in a

26

maximum concentration at intermediate depths. Consequently, relatively low abundances of small

27

particles are predicted at the ocean surface, while at the same time these small particles may never

28

reach the ocean floor. Our results hint at the fate of ‘lost’ plastic in the ocean, and provide a start

29

for predicting risks of exposure to microplastics for potentially vulnerable species living at these

30

depths.


Page 2 of 30

Page 3 of 30

31


Abstract Art – TOC:

32



33

Introduction

34

Plastic waste entering the oceans was estimated between 4.8 and 12.7 million metric tons for

35

2010, and these amounts are expected to increase one order of magnitude by 2025.1 This plastic

36

debris will fragment to smaller particles due to photodegradation, physical erosion or

37

biodegradation.2 Consequently, microplastics, defined as plastic particles < 5 mm, are numerically

38

more abundant than larger plastic debris, both at the sea surface and in the water column.3–6

39

Microplastics can, among others, be ingested by detritivores, deposit feeders, filter feeders and

40

zooplankton.7–10 Ingestion may cause chemical leaching and blockage or damage of digestive

41

tracks, resulting in satiation, starvation and physical deterioration of organisms.7

42

Due to fragmentation of larger plastic, it is expected that the number of particles in the ocean

43

increases exponentially with decreasing size.6 However, a size-dependent lack of small particles

44

was observed at the ocean surface, suggesting that particles smaller than 1 mm are somehow

45

‘lost’.6,11 While microplastic amounts have accumulated in the pelagic zone,12 microplastic fate

46

below the ocean surface remains largely unknown.6,13 There are several hypotheses for the

47

removal of these smaller particles, such as ingestion by marine organisms,6 vertical transport

48

caused by wind mixing,14 the accumulation of organisms on plastics (biofouling) followed by

49

settling,6,15 fast degradation to very small particles (‘nanofragmentation’)6 or a combination

50

thereof. Here we study whether the biofouling hypothesis can explain the fate of the ‘lost’ plastics.

51

Biofouling is defined as the accumulation of organisms on submerged surfaces and affects the

52

hydrophobicity and buoyancy of plastic.15–19 When the density of a particle with biofilm exceeds

53

seawater density, it starts to settle.15,18 As seawater density gradually increases with depth, the

54

particle can be expected to stay suspended at the depth were its density equals seawater density.6,15

55

It has been hypothesized that the depths at which the particles are suspended might be equal to the

56

pycno- and thermocline depth.15 It is also possible that particles sink deeper as several studies


Page 4 of 30

Page 5 of 30


57

indicate the presence of microplastics on the ocean floor, although the transport mechanisms

58

remain unknown.20–22 Biofouling occurs within days, and within weeks algal fouling communities

59

are formed on the plastic surfaces.15,17,23 Plastics can start sinking within two weeks, the time

60

depending on particle size, type, shape, roughness and environmental conditions.23 Ye and

61

Andrady (1991) report sinking of plastics within seven weeks, but also indicate that defouling

62

occurs quickly after particle submersion.15 Defouling can be the result of light limitation, grazing,

63

or dissolution of carbonates in acid waters.6,15 Fouling also occurs under submerged conditions,

64

but with different algae species and at a slower rate.15,17

65

The development of dynamic models for biofouling and microplastic settling is essential in order

66

to predict the vertical distribution of microplastics. The above shows that there are several

67

empirical studies addressing biofouling, however, deterministic quantitative frameworks that are

68

capable of simulating the effects of biofouling on the vertical distribution of microplastics are

69

lacking. Modelling fouled plastic movement from a theoretical point of view is useful in order to

70

evaluate the different factors and processes influencing microplastic biofouling and the associated

71

sinking through scenario analysis. In the present study we provide the first theoretical model that

72

simulates the effect of biofouling on the settling of microplastics. We modelled particles ranging

73

between 10 mm and 0.1 µm in radius, and for convenience refer to all these particles as

74

‘microplastics’. We present model simulations that show the effect of particle size, particle type

75

(density), and oceanographic variables on the fouling of plastic by attachment of algae and

76

subsequent settling. To explain the observed systems behaviour, selected additional calculations

77

are performed. These calculations include assessment of the dependence of the model outcome to

78

variability in some of the key parameters.

79

Modelling the effect of biofouling on the vertical transport of microplastics



Page 6 of 30

80

The model simulates settling or rising of microplastic particles, dependent on density differences

81

between the composite particles and seawater and uses well-established concepts and

82

parameterizations for all of its components. The composite particle density was determined by

83

algae attachment, growth, respiration and mortality. Settling of plastic particles over depth was

84

modelled as a function of the settling velocity (m s-1).

85

= (, )

(1)

86

Microplastic particles come in many shapes. Hence, the settling velocity was calculated using a

87

modification of the Stokes equation, provided by Dietrich (1982).24 This equation can be applied

88

to both spherical and non-spherical particles by using an equivalent spherical diameter24 and was

89

recently verified for microplastics, using settling data for spherical, pristine microplastic

90

particles:25 ,

91

(, ) = −

92

in which is the density of the plastic particle with biofilm (kg m-3), , the sea water

93

density at depth (kg m-3), , the kinematic viscosity of the seawater (m2 s-1), the

94

gravitational acceleration (m s-2) and ∗ the dimensionless settling velocity.24 The dimensionless

95

settling velocity ∗ is a function of the dimensionless particle diameter

96

settling velocity was calculated as:24

97

∗ = 1.74 ⋅ 10'

98

log(∗ ) = −3.76715 + 1.92944 log

99

0.00056(log

,

∗)

∗ ,

( ∗

'.3

(2)

for ∗

∗

∗.

The dimensionless

< 0.05

(3)

− 0.09815(log

for 0.05 ≥

∗

∗)

(.3

− 0.00575(log

∗)

4.3

+

≥ 5 ⋅ 105

100

The dimensionless particle diameter was calculated from the equivalent spherical diameter

101

(m):24


6

Page 7 of 30

102


∗

=

7 , 89:;

(4)

, 6{l6 ), differential settling (\N |H{69 ) and

157

advective shear (\N k|l> ) collision frequencies (m3 s-1). These different encounter kernel rates

158

were calculated as:36,38

159

\N I>6{l6 = 4M(

160

( \N |H{69 = MF

161

\N k|l> = 1.3}(F + FN )4

GH

+

N )(F

+ FN )

W

(14)

(



GH

N

are the diffusivity of the plastic particle and the algae cells (m2 s-1), and } is

162

in which

163

the shear rate (s-1). For the Brownian encounter kernel rate, the diffusivity of the plastic and algae

164

was calculated as:36

165

GH

=

and

Page 10 of 30

~(dA(4.W) L >

and

N

=

~(dA(4.W) L >Q

(15)

166

where is the Boltzmann constant (m2 kg s-2 K-1), R the dynamic water viscosity (kg m-1 s-1)

167

and where the radius of the total particle, F = FGH + IJ , and the radius of the algae, FN , were

168

calculated assuming a spherical particle or algae shape (m).

169

Algae growth (term 2 in Equation 11) was modelled as

170

R(S , T ) = RG (T )Φ(S )

for Sr{6 < S < Srls

(16)

171

where RG (T ) is the growth rate under optimal temperature conditions for a certain light intensity

172

T , and Φ(S) is the temperature influence on the growth rate.39

173

RG (T ) = Rrls ⋅

174

Φ(S ) =

175

In the above equations, T is the light intensity at depth (µE m-2 s-1), TG is the optimal light

176

intensity for algae growth (µE m-2 s-1), Rrls is the maximum growth rate under optimal conditions

177

(s-1), is the initial slope (s-1) and Srls , Sr{6 and SG are the maximum, minimum and optimal

178

temperature to sustain algae growth respectively (ºC).39 For S < Sr{6 and S > Srls , Rrls = 0

179

and therefore R(S , T ) is zero.39 The light intensity at depth was calculated according to the law

180

of Lambert-Beer:

181

T = T3 b

g A unv W g?

(17)

=

(d dunv )(d du; )=

7d? du; 8⋅t7d? du; 87d d? 87d? dunv 87d? Adu; (d 8x

(18)

(19)


Page 11 of 30


182

in which T3 is the light intensity at the surface and is the extinction coefficient (m-1). Light

183

availability at the sea surface was calculated using a sinusoidal function:40,41

184

T3 = Tr sin(2M)

185

in which Tr is the light intensity at noon (µE m-2 s-1). When the sinus function of Equation 20

186

becomes negative, a value of 0 µE m-2 s-1 was assumed. The light extinction, needed for Equation

187

19, is assumed to be dominated by water and algae induced extinctions, and can be calculated as:40

188

= + G ]ℎ_ `

189

with and G the extinction coefficients for water and chlorophyll respectively.

190

Algae mortality and respiration, i.e. terms 3 and 4 of Equation 11 respectively, where modelled

191

using a constant mortality and respiration rate. A temperature dependency of respiration was

192

realised with a VW3 coefficient. The VW3coefficient indicates how much the respiration rate

193

increases when the temperature increases 10 ºC.42,43 As algae growth (Eq 10, term 2) and algae

194

respiration (Eq 10, term 4) are temperature dependent, a seawater temperature profile over depth

195

was needed. Seawater temperature was empirically approximated using a Hill function,44 which

196

adequately captured the characteristic shape of a thermocline:

197

S = S>J + 7SI − S>J 8 ? A ?

198

in which S is the water temperature at depth (°C), S>J the water temperature at the surface

199

(°C), SI the water temperature at the sea bottom (°C), the thermocline depth (m) and a

200

parameter defining the steepness of the thermocline.

201

As mentioned above, the density difference between the particle and seawater is the main driver of

202

the modelled transport. The above Equations 5 – 22 detailed the calculation of the total density

(20)

(21)

?

(22)



Page 12 of 30

203

( in Equation 2). Hereafter we focus on the calculation of the seawater density (, in

204

Equation 2). Seawater density is determined by temperature and salinity ( ), according to:45

205

, = 7`W + `( S + `4 S ( + `' S 4 + `c S ' 8 + 7W + ( S + 4 S ( + ' S 4 +

206

c ( S ( 8

207

The temperature profile was calculated with Equation 22. A salinity depth profile ( , g kg-1) was

208

calculated using a fifth order polynomial function.

209

= W c + ( ' + 4 4 + ' ( + c +

210

Below J{s , the depth at which the salinity profile becomes constant, a constant value J{s is

211

assumed. Last, the kinematic viscosity, , (m2 s-1), as was used in Equation 2, was calculated as

212

, =

213

based on the seawater density and the dynamic viscosity, R, (kg m-1 s-1). The dynamic

214

viscosity of seawater was calculated using empirical equations.45 Viscosity was derived from the

215

temperature and salinity profile, by first calculating the water dynamic viscosity R, , followed by

216

calculation of the seawater dynamic viscosity: 45

217

R, = 4.2844 ⋅ 10c + 3.Wc(d A'.554)=5W.(5

(26)

218

R, = R, (1 + O + ( )

(27)

219

in which

220

O = 1.541 + 1.998 ⋅ 10( S − 9.52 ⋅ 10c S (

(28)

221

= 7.974 − 7.561 ⋅ 10( S + 4.724 ⋅ 10' S (

(29)

(23)

for < J{s

,

(24)

(25)

,

W


Page 13 of 30


222

Parameters and numerical model implementation. Model parameters were estimated based on

223

literature data, and are summarized in Table S1 of the supporting information (SI). Here some key

224

choices are briefly discussed. In this model, no specific algae species is modelled. Instead, we

225

modelled an average marine species, with the parameter characteristics defined by the mean or

226

median values reported for “marine algae” or “marine phytoplankton”. By default, the biofilm

227

density (IJ , Equation 5) was set at 1388 kg m-3, which is the median of the measured values of

228

Fisher et al. (1983). This median value is of the same order of magnitude as the 1250 kg m-3 used

229

in the modelling study by Besseling et al. (2017).46,47 An algae cell volume (N , Equation 10) of

230

2.0⋅10-16 m3 was used, which represents the median value reported by Lopéz-Sandoval et al.

231

(2014).48 Algae biomass was lost through respiration and mortality (Equation 11). In this study a

232

(grazing) mortality of 0.39 d-1 was used, a mean value for oceanic habitats.49 A respiration rate of

233

0.1 d-1 was used in combination with a respiration VW3value of 2, which is a commonly used

234

value.43,48,50–52 The maximum growth rate (Rrls , Equation 16) was set at 1.85 d-1, the value

235

reported for Nannochloropsis oceanica by Bernard and Rémond (2012).39 A light intensity at noon

236

of 1.2⋅108 µEm-2d-1 was used, together with an optimal light intensity of 1.8⋅1013 µEm-2d-1 (Tr

237

and TG in Equation 20 and 17, respectively).39,53 A light : dark duration of 12 hours each was

238

assumed. The conversion from carbon to algae cells is highly variable, ranging between 35339 to

239

47.76 pg carbon cell-1.32 We choose the median value, 2726⋅10-9 mg carbon cell-1.

240

Parameter values for the depth profiles of temperature and salinity were obtained from the NASA,

241

choosing the North Pacific near Hawaii as a default location.54,55 For temperature, Equation 22

242

was fitted through the data points obtained from the surface to 4000 m depth, with a resulting R2

243

of 0.99. The salinity profile was fitted as a 5th order polynomial function (R2 = 0.74) from the

244

surface to 1000 m depth, followed by a constant value from 1000 m to 4000 m depth. Parameters

245

of these fits are also provided in Table S1.



246

The model was solved using MATLAB R2012a with GRIND for MATLAB (http://www.sparcs-

247

center.org/grind.html). Because the modelled system appeared to be a stiff system, the

248

MATLAB’s ode23s solver was used.

249

Model simulations. Different analyses were done with the model described above, focussing on

250

the effect of particle density and size on vertical transport in the water column. The effect of

251

particle density was studied by simulating the most common polymer types: high density

252

polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinylchloride

253

(PVC) and polystyrene (PS). HDPE, LDPE and PP are initially buoyant plastics (density plastic

Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical

Recommend Documents