"Plastics are showing up in the world’s most remote places, including Mount Everest" and "How much plastic floats in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?"

 Posted by Harrison Smith

Plastics are finding a way into the most extreme and isolated landscapes that Planet Earth has to offer. Plastics, or rather microplastics, have been found in the snow of Mount Everest. Majority of the plastics were found to be polyester fibers, likely originating from clothes of human hikers. Supporting this claim, it was found that snow from the base camp had a high concentration of plastic particles. The base camp is a common place for hikers to congregate, so it is reasonable that there is a high concentration of microplastics in this area shedding from their clothes. Nonetheless, plastic was found as high as 8,440 meters above sea level, only 400 meters from the summit of the tallest peak on the planet.

Plastic has also been found in some of the deepest depths of the sea, in the Mariana Trench. Plastics were found as deep as 10,890 meters below sea level, far below the penetrable reach of sunlight. The worst part? These plastics were found inside of animals. In one 2019 study, 90 crustaceans deep in the Pacific were analyzed for plastic contaminants. Of these 90 crustaceans, 65 were found to have microplastics inside of them. It is obvious that human waste is reaching the furthest corners and most hidden nooks and crannies of our planet.

Apart from the Mariana Trench and Mount Everest, plastics have been found in places far from any usual human activity. Plastics have been found in alarming amounts at an isolated meteorological station in the Pyrenees Mountains. Specifically, 365 microplastic particles per day rain down on each square meter at the station. That is as much as some cities! These particles are estimated to travel 95 km due to wind propulsion before landing at the remote meteorological station in the Pyrenees Mountains. This 95 km distance is based on simulations that consider wind speed and direction.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking. 365 particles per square meter in a remote location? How is that possible? Well we are not talking about Tupperware or water bottles here. We are talking about microplastics. Microplastics, as defined by this article, are any

plastic pieces smaller than 5 millimeters in length. Some may be invisible to the human eye, and others may be fibers reaching the length of a half centimeter. Below is an image provided to give an idea of the size of particles that were in discussion throughout the duration of the article.

A microplastic, as shown on the right, compared in size to one of the previously discussed crustaceans, as shown on the left. This comparison is provided to give a general guideline of the size of the plastics discussed in this article and blog post. Use the key provided at the top of pictures for size comparisons.

The microplastics in discussion are definitely small, but are they small enough to be labeled as negligible or harmless? The answer is no. Microplastics can block the gills of certain crustaceans, like crabs, and negatively impact ecosystems. Other animals around the globe are also susceptible to harm from these microplastics.

To be fair, larger animals will likely bypass complications caused by these microplastics. Believe it or not, humans consume a surprising amount of microplastics. One study estimates that humans consume between 39,000 and 52,000 microplastics annually. This study came about these numbers based on analyzing common food and drinks for their composition of microplastics. These numbers are surprisingly large, considering that we likely are never aware of the plastic we are consuming; if that were the case, we would just spit out our food before swallowing. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume that microplastics do not impact larger animals, such as sea turtles or big game fish. Whereas this might be true for the individual, it is not true for the ecosystems that host these animals. If their ecosystems cannot withstand the microplastic pollution, the animals themselves may be at risk.

However, there are direct, pollution-related risks to the species that may be immune to harm from microplastics. This is because microplastics are a form of pollution, but it does not act alone. All of the plastic waste around the world is not under 5 millimeters in length. A lot of waste is bigger and more prominent than the small fibers previously talked about in this blog post. The truth is there is all kinds of human waste found in our previously pristine environment. This is due to the increase in human plastic use over the past century. In the 1950’s the global plastic usage landed around 5 million tons per year. In 2020, the annual plastic usage has jumped to 330 million tons per year. The heavy usage of plastic has resulted in vast amounts of pollution.

One major example is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also referred to as Trash Island. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is comprised of two massive piles of trash floating in the Northern Pacific. Whereas much of the debris is made of larger pieces of plastic, majority of it is actually comprised of degraded plastics that have turned into microplastics. These microplastics account for about 94% of the object counts of the patches. In terms of mass, however, objects larger than .5 centimeters account for 92% of the total mass. The patches are massive; scientists have estimated that the size of the patches is equivalent to twice the area of Texas. The problem here is that much of the plastic floats below the surface, and the patches are constantly moving and morphing into different shapes. These factors make it hard for scientists to estimate the size and density of the patches. These numbers are important to accurately determine, as they can lead engineers to develop more efficient ways to clean up the garbage and help restore a healthy ecosystem.

A portion of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch floats in the ocean.