Title: Developing a transport model for plastic distribution in the North Sea

Authors: Gergo Geza Dohi Trepszker, Dana Stuparu, Myra van der Meulen, Frank Kleissen,
Dick Vethaak, Ghada El Serafy
Institute: Deltares

Abstract: This article serves as a first step in the assessing of the situation of plastic pollution in
the North Sea. It studies the movement of microplastic particles, to comply with the requirements
of European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, using a numerical model, which helps
determine the accumulation areas, otherwise known as hotspots. The mapping, understanding
and the recreation of the current situation regarding microplastic pollution in the North Sea is a
necessary step in eliminating the pollution. Using Deltares software, a numerical model was
created to simulate the transport and deposition of microplastic particles. In case of uncertainty
regarding the data, namely particle size and quantity, a probabilistic approach was used for a
better description of the reality, to be tested with different plastic types. The results, in the form of
maps, represent residence time, concentration and quantity, and define affected areas, which
serve as starting points for further research.
Keywords: microplastics, pollution, probabilistic, modeling, North Sea
1. Introduction

The presence of plastic litter within the marine environment is a relatively new issue. The first
reports on this subject appeared in the early 1970s (Fowler, 1987, June) (Carpenter & Jr., 1972
March) (Coe & Rogers, 1997) (Colton, Knapp, & Bruce R., 1974, August 9) however they have
had only a minimal impact on the scientific community. Over the years, many reports have been
written focusing on the entanglement in plastic of marine mammals (Coe & B, 1997 January 1),
cetaceans (Clapham, Young, & Bronwell, 1999) and other species (Erikson, 2003, September),
called ghost fishing, caused by derelict gear. Another topic widely discussed was the ingestion of
plastic by various species of birds (Mallory, 2008 August) (Cade, 2002, November) and turtles
(Mascarenhas, 2004) (Bugoni, Krause, & M.V., 2001, December) (Toms, Guitart, Mateo, &
Raga, 2002, March) with the conclusion that up to 44% of marine birds ingest plastics (Rios,
Moore, & Jones, 2007 August) With the increasing observations of plastic in the marine
environment,the European Unions new legislative framework has integrated an important
directive related to the observation and study of the plastic pollution in the European seas. A
particular type of plastic causing significant issues with the microbiology of the marine
environment is the small sized plastic, not visible to the naked eye, referred to as micro-plastics
(Matthew, Pennie, Claudia, & Tamara, 2011 December). The focus of the present paper is to
present the ongoing developments of the Delft3D PART particle tracking model to simulate the
evolution in time of the position of microplastic particles from their release (discharge points such
as the Meuse and the Rhine) until the end of the simulation.

1.1 Plastic presence in the marine environment

The abundance of microplastics in the oceans has steadily increased over the last few decades
with the rising plastic consumption worldwide (Ivar do Sul, 2013) .The origin of micro plastics in
the marine environment can be traced from different possible sources. Generally, micro plastics
can be divided in two groups: primary and secondary microplastics (Matthew, Pennie, Claudia, &
Tamara, 2011 December). Primary microplastics are produced either for direct use, such as for
industrial abrasives, cosmetics (Zitko, 1991), exfoliates (Derraik, 2002) (Fendall & Sewell, 2009,
August), or for indirect use as precursors, resin pellets, for the production of manifold consumer
products. Secondary micro plastics form in the environment as a consequence of the breakdown
of larger plastic material (Ryan, 2009) (Thompson, et al., 2004 ), especially marine debris, into
smaller and smaller fragments. The breakdown is caused by mechanical forces such as waves
and photochemical processes triggered by sunlight (Browne, Galoway, & Thompson, 2007
October). Another source for secondary micro plastics is the shedding of synthetic fibres from
textiles by domestic clothes washing. A comparison done between micro plastic particles in
sewage effluent from clothes washing (urban areas) and micro plastics in the environment
(marine) has concluded that much of the micro plastic pollution sized less than 1 mm may consist
of shed synthetic textile fibres (Browne M. A., 2012) (Moore C. J., 2008).
Scientifically, the integral impact of microplastics on wildlife and human health is not well
established, however there are studies (Dr. Hideshige, 2013) which state that micro plastics have
the potential to cause adverse effects in wildlife and humans (e.g. cancer, malformation,
decrease in the immune response or impaired reproductive ability). Another study (Browne,
Dissanayake, Galloway, Lowe, & Thompson, 2008) states that concentration of microplastics is
the highest 12 days after ingestion, and it accumulates in the circulatory system of mussels,
Mytilus edulis, where it stays for up to 48 days. It was shown that in the short term there are no
significant biological effects, however it is unknown whether ahigher threat is posed in the long
term.

1.2 Marine Strategy Framework Directive

As an answer to the environmental concerns regarding micro plastics pollution, the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was adopted by the European Union in 2008, requiring
that Member States put in place measures to achieve good environmental status (GES) in the
seas of Europe by the year 2020 (European Comission, Legislation: the Marine Directive, 2008).
The directive lists 11 good environmental status descriptors for the specific areas where this
must be achieved. The properties and quantities of marine litter are highlighted in the attributes
of the 10th descriptor, as follows:
-

Amount, source and composition of litter washed ashore and/or deposited on coastlines.
Amount and composition of litter in the water column, including floating and suspended
litter, and accumulation on the sea floor.
Amount and composition of litter ingested by marine animals.
Amount, distribution and composition of micro-particles (mainly micro plastics).

The motivation of the current study is working towards the goal of reducing the amount of plastic
debris and pollution in the North Sea. To achieve this, as a first step, a plastic tracking model has
been developed with the aim of simulating the route of microplastic particles in the North Sea,
from their origin (discharge points such as rivers) until the spot where particles end up when the

simulation ends. This approach allows for the identification of the main contributors and sources
of the pollution, the hot-spots for the accumulation of the particles and the tracking of the particle
movement.

1.3 Review of existing plastic measurements in the North Sea

The availability of information and data regarding plastic quantity in the North Sea is scarce,
however first assumptions can be deducted from general data on plastic presence. Since the
middle of the last century (more than two hundred million tonnes annually) (Barnes, Francois,
Barlaz, & Richard, 2009), (Thompson R. S., 2009 June) and (Andrady, 2011), several million
tonnes of plastics have been produced. However, speculation exists over how much of this
plastic will end up in the ocean, where it suffers degradation and fragmentation (Barnes, Francois,
Barlaz, & Richard, 2009) (Andrady, 2011).
The abundances observed in the present day, in the surface waters of the North Sea, (0-300
items per square km) are much higher than that of a previous report (Dixon, 1983) (0-3 items per
square km). This is most likely due to the methodological differences of field sampling, but the
possibility that marine litter has increased in the past 25 years is also valid.
Since the availability of information and data regarding the quantity of plastic present is not
specific enough regarding the North Sea, modelling is a good approach simulate plastic transport
and estimate the existing quantities of microplastics.

Different types (polyethylene, polystyrene, PET, PVC) and sizes (10 m, 330 m and 5 mm) of
plastics were analysed.
The added value of the probability approach in this study helps the definition of the variation of
element sizes present in the marine environment of the North Sea. Since data regarding the
exact sizes and quantity of the plastic particles is either not available or the current
measurements do not show conclusive results, probability is one of the best ways to define the
existing situation. By defining elements with the help of probability the part of fragmentation of
plastics and uncertainty of element sizes is covered to some extent, providing more precise
simulation results.
The proposal for the study was the combination of numerical modelling with a probabilistic
approach. The size of the microplastics will be described using different probability distributions.
In this way, the existing variation in microplastic size in the marine environment will be accounted
for. The trajectories of different plastic types were simulated and different size distributions were
tested. The probabilistic approach together with the observational data can help to build a
numerical model of the transport and accumulation of micro plastics within the North Sea, with a
high enough precision to be later used by decision makers.

1.4 Further developments of the Delft3D-PART module

To gain more knowledge regarding the amount and distribution of micro plastics in the North Sea,
the powerful tool of numerical modelling was used. To present results, an extended version of
the Delft3D model, developed by Deltares, was used to simulate the movement of microplastic
particles in the marine environment of the North Sea and gain more knowledge regarding the

amount and distribution of microplastics in the North Sea. Plastic modelling was performed using
the Delft3D-PART module. This module is part of the Delft3D model suite, which consists of a
unique, fully integrated computer software modules for a multi-disciplinary approach and 3D
computations for coastal, river and estuarine areas. It can carry out simulations of flows,
sediment transports, waves, water quality, morphological developments and ecology.
The PART module of Delft3D simulates transport and simple water quality processes by means
of a particle tracking method using the (2 or 3-dimensional) flow data from the Delf3D-FLOW
module. The tracks are followed in three dimensions over time, whereby a dynamic concentration
distribution is obtained by calculating the mass of particles in the model grid cells. The processes
are assumed to be deterministic except for a random displacement of the particle at each time
step. The particle tracking method is based on a random-walk method since the simulated
behaviour is stochastic and the number of particles is limited (Rubinstein, 1981). (It is worth
noting that D-Waq PART is the only stochastic model in the whole Delft3D suite.)
The hydrodynamic conditions (velocities, water elevations, density, salinity, vertical eddy
viscosity and vertical eddy diffusivity) are calculated in the Delft3D-FLOW modules and are used
as input to Delft3D-PART.

In Delft3D-PART every particle is subject to a random displacement. The position of every

individual particle can be influenced by advection (transport by water flow), diffusion/dispersion (a
random component) and settling (including sedimentation/erosion characteristics).The distance
of the displacement depends on the local dispersion and the time step in the model. The
direction of the displacement is random. The method used is often referred to as the random
walk method or the Monte Carlo method. Also, the mass of a particle represents the amount of
a substance attached to it. The mass of a particle can be influenced by the decay rate (first order
decay).
Also, the position of every individual particle (x, y and z co-ordinate) is known from its release
until the end of the simulation. The position of a particle does not depend on the grid (size) used
and so sub-grid concentration patterns can be calculated. The concentration of a substance is
determined by the number of particles per unit volume. The volume used to calculate the
concentrations is defined by using the hydrodynamic segments (from the Delft3D-FLOW
computation)
The model simply counts the number of particles present in each volume and calculates the
corresponding concentration of each substance (Deltares, 2013).
The settling velocity of each particle at time t is calculated with the following formula:

 =    + 
sin 






Equation 1 Settling velocity of particles

Where:

 Settling velocity [m/s]
C Local concentration of particles [particles/m]
N Exponent for adjusting concentration []
 Non-cyclic component of the settling velocity[m/s]


Amplitude of periodic sinusoidal variation in time [m/s]
T Period of sinusoidal variation [s]
Phase lag for the sinusoidal variation[]
  Concentration dependent factor for settling velocity [particles/m]
In order to account for different plastic particle characteristics, the above formulation has been
improved, such that the settling velocity of the particles is dependent on the difference in
densities between the micro-plastics and the marine environment, and also on the particle sizes.
This has resulted in a calculation of the settling velocity according to Stokes law:
2  !"# %"& ' ( 

 =
*+
9
)
Equation 2 Settling velocity of particles according to Stokes

Where:
Settling velocity [m/s]


 !"# Density of the particles [kg/m ]
%"& ' Density of the sea water [kg/m]
)
Dynamic viscosity [kg/(s*m)]
g
Gravitational acceleration [m/s ]
R
Radius of particle [m]

By combining the initial formulation with the Stokes law, the following formula has been derived:

 =   - + 
sin .
Equation 3 Combined settling velocity formula

2/0 + 1
2  !"# %"& ' ( 
*+
34 +
2
9
)

2. Assumptions in the modeling framework

In case of mathematical modeling, assumptions are made, creating a functioning model which
can correctly reproduce the modeled event. Modeling is a theoretical approach so it is imperative
to know the process of simplification involved, and the correct way of interpretation of the results.
The assumptions introduced as follows were involved in the modeling process.
2.1.

General assumptions

Several assumptions were made regarding the domain and its driving forces. The model was run
for the hydrodynamics of the year 2008, as a test case. It is worth mentioning that this is a
relatively calm year. As previously stated the plastic introduced into the model domain was solely
from the rivers, which discharge into the North Sea. Assumptions were made for the estimation
of input percentage per river according to pollution.
Regarding the domain of the North Sea, the assumptions made are explained below. The model
domain was restricted to the North Sea, where the density of water is calculated as a function of
salinity and temperature. For a more realistic representation, the settling velocity is calculated
with the Stokes formula. To make testing and comparison viable, the observation points were
placed according to ones existing in reality. To be in conformity with previous studies and
research, the quantity of plastic is assumed to be 0.1 g per cubic meter of incoming fresh water,
according to the study done by (Andrs, et al., 2014). Several test cases done have shown that
the plastic input coordinates from rivers Rhine and Scheldt are better to be inside the domain of
the North Sea and not at the end of the water way, as is the case with the rest of the rivers. This
was done to assure that the plastic particles end up inside the model domain and not get stuck in
the waterway of the river. Since this is a basic model, the density of plastic is considered
constant throughout the simulation period as fouling is not yet included in the model.
Plastic incoming from rivers is divided between each of the rivers by percentages according to
the following figure.

Figure 1 Plastic input according to rivers in the North Sea

Since the main source of plastic is directly tied to the human activity on land (Andrady, 2011),
one assumption of this study was that the discharge of plastic occurs at the river estuaries and
close to industrial areas, especially plants which produce packaging.
2.2.
Plastic types and behaviour
A study made by (Martin Thiel, 2011 April) on the floating objects in the Northern Sea states that
anthropogenic debris is commonly found on the shorelines and beaches of the North Sea.
Floating debris in the North Sea is dominated by plastics (Vauk & Schrey Eckhart, 1987 June).
The high longevity of plastics combined with their disproportionally high supply is most likely
responsible for this pattern. There is a contradiction between sources as some suggest that
micro plastics come from fragmentation while others prove that they are transported into the
North Sea from rivers. The high amount of large plastic fragments observed in the North Sea is
probably also an indication of the long persistence of plastics at the sea surface accompanied by
initial fragmentation. Sources of anthropogenic debris may be local and distant. A study made by
(Galgani, et al., 2000, June) suggests fisheries to be an important source of anthropogenic
pollution in the North Sea. The importance of rivers in transporting litter into coastal areas is
emphasized in a study made by (Willams, 1997, Autumn).
Floating debris will end up on nearby beaches or may accumulate in convergence zones, where
it might finally sink to the seafloor (Acha, 2003). Highlighting the relationship between litter
accumulation on the beaches (Vauk & Schrey Eckhart, 1987 June) suggested that the winds
pushed anthropogenic debris from source regions (shipping lanes) onto local beaches. The study
made by (Galgani, et al., 2000, June) also suggests the fact that the debris gets transported
north and will eventually sediment on the western parts of the North Sea, probably due to the
loss of buoyancy caused by a progressive accumulation of organisms (Harms, 1990) (Lobelle &
Cunliffe, 2011 January).
Plastic materials also end up in the marine environment when accidentally lost, carelessly
handled (Wilber, 1987) or left behind by beachgoers (Pruter, 1987 June). They also reach the
sea as litter carried by rivers and municipal drainage systems (Pruter, 1987 June), (Willams,
1997, Autumn). There are major inputs of plastic litter from land-based sources in densely

populated or industrialized areas (Pruter, 1987 June), (Gregory, 1991), most in the form of
packaging.
For a better understanding of the movement of micro plastic elements in the marine environment
a brief introduction about the different types of plastic is necessary. The plastic elements
presented below consist of 90% of the worlds total plastic production (Andrady A.L., 2009 July
27), it can therefore be assumed that they are the ones which eventually arrive and remain
present in the marine environment of the North Sea as well. These elements together with their
physical properties are as follows:
Polystyrene is a synthetic aromatic polymer made from the monomer styrene, a liquid
petrochemical. Polystyrene can be rigid or foamed. The general properties of polystyrene are
clear, hard and brittle. It is a very inexpensive resin per unit weight. It is a rather poor barrier to
oxygen and water vapour and has relatively low melting point. Polystyrene is one of the most
widely used plastics, the scale of its production being several billion kilograms per year.
Polystyrene can be naturally transparent, but can be coloured with colorants. Uses include
protective packaging (such as packing peanuts and CD or DVD cases), containers, lids, bottles,
trays, tumblers, and disposable cutlery (Jrgen, Bruce G., Jeffrey R., Herbert, Karl-Heinz, &
Christian, 2007) (American Chemistry Council, 2012).
Polyethylene or polythene is the most common plastic. The annual global production is
approximately 80 million tons. Its primary use is in packaging (plastic bags, films, geomembranes, containers including bottles, etc.). Many kinds of polyethylene are known, with most
having the chemical formula (C2H4)nH2. Thus Polyethylene is usually a mixture of similar
organic compounds that differ in terms of the value of n (Piringer & Baner, 2008).
Polyvinyl chloride, commonly abbreviated PVC, is the third-most widely produced polymer,
after polyethylene and polypropylene. PVC is used in construction because it is more effective
than traditional materials such as copper, iron or wood in pipe and profile applications. It can be
made softer and more flexible by the addition of plasticizers, the most widely used being
phthalates. In this form, it is also used in plumbing, electrical cable insulation, inflatable products
and many applications in which it replaces rubber (Allsopp & Vianello, 2012) (Titow, Phil., &
F.R.S.C., 1984).
Polyethylene terephthalate (sometimes written poly(ethylene terephthalate)), commonly
abbreviated PET is a thermoplastic polymer resin of the polyester family and is used in synthetic
fibres; beverage food and other liquid containers; thermoforming applications; and engineering
resins often in combination with glass fibre. The majority of the worlds PET production is for
synthetic fibres (in excess of 60%), with bottle production accounting for around 30% of global
demand. In the context of textile applications, PET is referred to by its common name polyester,
whereas the acronym PET is generally used in relation to packaging (James G. & Lange, 2005).
Polypropylene, also known as polypropene, is a thermoplastic polymer used in a wide variety of
applications including packaging and labelling, textiles (e.g., ropes, thermal underwear and
carpets), stationery, plastic parts and reusable containers of various types, laboratory
equipment, loudspeakers, automotive components, and polymer banknotes. An addition
polymer made from the monomer propylene, it is rugged and unusually resistant to many
chemical solvents, bases and acids (Maier & Haber, 1998).
The following table represents the chemical and physical properties, integrated, of the materials
presented above:
Nr.
1
2
3
4
5

Name
Polystyrene
Polyethylene
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Polypropylene

Table 1 Plastic types

Chemical formula
9 :9 
 :;  :
 :8 <

 :9 =; 
8 :> 

Density [*/678]
1.05
0.88-0.94
1.1-1.45
1.38-1.45
0.946

In this study, four types of plastics described previously have been modelled. This decision is
based on the estimation that they account for 80% of the total plastic production of the globe
(Andrady A.L., 2009 July 27). The goal is to create a model that produces results which can be
explained by physics. Correct results were generated when talking about the difference between
the density of the seawater and the plastic particles. The PET and PVC type particles have sunk
to the lower layers of the model and most likely deposit, according to the hydrodynamics present
in the model since their density is higher than that of the seawater. The Polyethylene has
gathered on the superior layers and was floating, since its density is lower than that of the
seawater. Interesting results were gained when talking about Polystyrene since the density of
Polystyrene is 1050 kilograms per cubic meter which is close to the density of seawater
(approximately 1024 kilograms per cubic meter). In the present state, the model does not include
the biological process of fouling which, in time, influences the density of the plastic particles.
Since the density of Polystyrene is close to that of the seawater (which evolves in time according
to temperature and salinity), the results are a preview of what the model will produce once the
fouling process is implemented.

2.3.

Probabilistic modeling

To successfully simulate the movement of microplastic particles in the marine environment of the
North Sea, a distribution of size is necessary for the definition of the particles. Since the
approach used was a probabilistic one, this was one of the elements to which probability was
attached. To generate the element sizes and to make sure that the proper probability and
randomness is introduced in this step, the usage of sampling techniques is necessary. In
statistics, quality assurance and survey methodology, sampling is concerned with the selection of
a subset of elements from within a statistical group to estimate characteristics of the whole group.
Each observation measures one or more properties (such as weight, location or colour, in this
case size) of observable bodies distinguished as independent objects or individuals. In survey
sampling, weights can be applied to the data to adjust for the sample design, particularly
stratified sampling. Results from probability theory and statistical theory are employed to guide
practice.
In probability sampling every unit in the group has a chance (greater than zero) of being selected
in the sample, and this probability can be accurately determined. The combination of these traits
makes it possible to produce unbiased estimates of group totals, by weighting sampled units
according to their probability of selection. Probability sampling includes: simple random sampling,
systematic sampling and stratified sampling. These various ways of probability sampling have
two things in common: every element has a known non-zero probability of being sampled and
they involve a random selection at some point.
The sampling techniques used for testing purposes were Systematic sampling, Stratified
sampling and Latin Hypercube sampling. The principle used was a simple one: generate a vector
which has 100 times more values than required and sample 1% of it to create a vector with the
required number of values. The Monte Carlo method was used to test the accuracy of the
sampling methods. The Systematic and Stratified sampling methods presented equally good
results regarding precision, and the systematic sampling method was selected since it took less
computational effort to run.
After testing various number of particles it has been concluded that for a good precision and an
acceptable computational time the optimal number for running the simulation is 5 000 000 of
particles. The standard deviation for each distribution of particle size was 25% of the mean value
and the sizes for particles have been sampled with the systematic sampling technique.
Studies regarding the North Sea climate show that the occurrence of storms will impact the
shallow regions by increasing the resuspension and resurfacing of sunken material (Fettweis,

Monbaliu, Baeye, Nechad, & Van den Eynde, 2012). Prevailing winds will, impact the residual
transport of suspended particles in the North Sea. The more protected Southern Bight exhibits,
relatively stronger influences transport, whereas in the central North Sea and the German Bight,
resuspension is more pronounced. This pattern results in an alternation of relatively high
suspended matter concentration in the Southern Bight and in the rest of the southern North Sea
during certain weather conditions.
A series of processes may induce variations in the concentration of suspended particulate matter
on temporal and spatial scales. On short time scales, the predominant forcing is related to tides,
waves and atmospheric circulation (Baeye, Fettweis, Voulgaris, & Van Lancker, 2011), and
locally to stratification by fresh water input (Pietrzak, Boe, & Eleveld, 2011 April 15). On longer
time scales neapspring cycles and meteorological and climatological variations become the
more significant influencing factors.
Annual variations are caused by seasonal changes in wind pattern and strength and result in
higher suspended matter concentration during winter and lower concentrations during summer.
Climatological effects are linked to the frequency of occurrence of certain weather patterns, e.g.
the North Atlantic Oscillation is responsible for much of the observed weather and climate
variability in the North Sea, especially during winter months (Hurrell, 1995, August 4) (Schwierz,
2006 November) and this has thus a pronounced effect on suspended matter concentration.
The present research focuses therefore on large scale geographical variability of high turbidity
zones in the North Sea and the English Channel induced by meteorological and climatological
variations using remote sensing data. The southern North Sea, with stronger tidal currents and
shallower water, has higher SPM concentrations than the northern North Sea. The most
important high turbidity areas are the Belgian Dutch Coastal zone (Flemish Banks); the Thames
plume extending eastward into the East Anglian plume; the Humber coast; the Wadden Sea and
the coastline along the West Frisian (The Netherlands), East Frisian (Germany) and North
Frisian (Germany and Denmark) Islands.
The following figure represents a broad overview of the currents present in the North Sea
(SeaOnScreen, 2014). Following the directions of the currents and the presence of plastic results
within the following models it can be stated that the model is a correct one from a hydrodynamic
point of view.

Figure 2 Currents in the North Sea

The purpose of the study however, was to see the differences and/or similarities between cases
which have the same type of plastic (density) but different element sizes and different
distributions and how they affect the movement and accumulation of the plastic material within
the studied domain. Since there are so many different types of plastic present in the marine

environment, it is good to look at the differences to see more clearly which of the zones are
polluted by a specific type of plastic. The difference of density causes different types of plastic to
generate hot-spots in different places in the model. Viewing the differences between different
types helps in the identification process, while differences between sizes of the same plastic can
expand the domain of where the hot-spots might appear.

3. Steps towards model validation

To create a reliable and trustworthy model, its results must be compared and adjusted to
represent values close to those taken from fieldwork. The measurements used were taken as
part of the MWTL monitoring program of Rijkswaterstaat within the framework of the Interreg Iva
MICRO project. Sampling took place on board the vessel Zirfea, in a two week period in June,
2014 (MWTL sampling round 16). Sediment samples were collected using a Van Veen grab. On
each location, 3 sequential sediment grabs were taken from which the upper 5 cm of sediment
were collected and pooled into one sample. Samples were collected in 1 Litre glass jars and
cooled (4 degrees centigrade). In necessary cases, visible biota was removed. Upon arrival on
shore, samples were further cooled to -20 degrees centigrade for further analysis.
Samples were analysed by the Institute of Environmental Studies (Amsterdam, the Netherlands).
Sediment samples were homogenized and subsamples were taken for microplastic analysis and
determination of dry weight. The method of (Thompson, et al., 2004 ) was applied, in a slightly
modified form to adapt to the needs of the extraction of microplastics from the sediment samples.
The sediment (25 g) was added to an Erlenmeyer with MilliQ water and NaCl (saturated solution,
1.2 kg NaCl/L). For a minimum of 2 minutes, after which the suspension was stirred using a
teflon stirring bar, at the bottom of the flask. This allowed the sample material to suspend and
enabled density separation of the sediment and particle material. After stirring, the sediment
particles were allowed to sink to the bottom, whereas the particles lighter than the saturated salt
solution, were allowed to float (minimum 1 hour). The top water layer was retrieved and filtered
over a 0.7 m Whatman GF/C glass filter, followed by a rinsing step with hydrogen peroxide
(30%) to remove any residual organic material. For each series of samples, two blank and two
duplicate analyses were performed. Filters were analysed by hand using light microscopy and
the length of the particles was measured with MicroCamLab by Microsoft. The microplastic
particles were counted and corrected for background levels determined by the blank samples
(control chart mean 2 microplastic particles per analysis). The dry weight of the sediments was
determined gravimetrically after freeze-drying a 5g subsample of the homogenized sample, to a
constant weight. Microplastic concentrations were expressed as a number of particles per kg of
dry sediment.
The following figure represents a map of the locations from which the samples were extracted.

Figure 3 Observation points for field measurements

Following is a table containing comparison of results from the model to the field measurements,
calculated with relative error.
Observation Point
BE MIC 1
BE MIC 1
BE MIC 3
BE MIC 1
BE 830
BE Ooh
UK CSEMP 475
UK CSEMP 536
UK CSEMP 484
UK CSEMP 466
NL Noordwijk 70
NL - Noordwijk 20
NL - Noordwijk 10
NL - Noordwijk 2
NL Goere 2
NL Walcrn 70
NL Walcrn 20
NL Walcrn 2

Measured
(nr. of part.)
252
110
54
59
146
3146
0
348
643
233
96
418
301
109
0
225
0
62

Model
(nr. of part
15
15
30
15
23
5
180
200
45
20
2
5
20
7
20
8
10
35

Relative
Error (%)
94,04
86,36
44,44
74,57
84,24
99,84
100
42,52
93,01
91,41
97,91
98,81
93,35
93,57
100
96,44
100
43,54

Table 2 Differences in model results and field measurement

The table above clearly shows that there is a large difference between the field measurements
and the model results, in favour of the field measurements. Before stating any conclusions a
recap of the model assumptions is necessary in order to understand and explain the differences.
The model runs for one year and only includes plastic pollution incoming from rivers, even from
those just the heavy ones which surely settle on the bottom to be compared to the
measurements taken from the sediments. Taking into account that the field measurements
include plastic which has been gathering for more than 60 years, including all sources (recreation,
dumping, neglect, etc.), and all types of plastic (heavy, medium and light with biota), the
difference can be explained by looking at the model assumptions. It is expected for the model to
produce results which are greatly underestimating the amount of plastic pollution present within

the studied domain, since the assumptions of the model scale down the results. Further research
will imply the running of the model for more consecutive years and with an input from different
sources than rivers for a better representation of the plastic pollution.
4. Model results

The following section will present a series of results, in the form of figures, generated by the
model. The results represent the hydrodynamics of the North Sea in the time periods of the years
2006, 2007 and 2008. The simulated time period had been 365 days for each of the different test
cases. The following figures present the mean values and the presence time for plastic for the
whole year (365 days). In all of the figures with mean values, the scales is between 0 and 0.1
milligrams (10^-4grams). Regarding the presence time, all figures have a scale between 0 and
365 days which represents how many days of the whole year was plastic present in the
respective layer.
Along the Dutch coastal area the model used has a much more dense mesh than the rest of the
areas. Since residence time is calculated by days in which plastic was present in a specific cell,
areas with smaller cell size will always represent lower values than areas with large cells. This is
the reason why in some of the figures the Dutch coastal zone shows lower values than the rest of
the model domain.

Figure 4 Difference (right) in mean values for light (left) and heavy (middle) plastic in mg/l Layer 1

Figure 5 Difference (right) in mean values for light (left) and heavy (middle) plastic in mg/l Layer 12

It can be clearly seen that in the case of heavy plastic there is a high mean value close to the
coastal area in the deeper part (represented by layer 12 in the model) of the North Sea, while in
case of the light plastic the mean value is very low in the deep parts, while the case being exactly
the opposite for the surface waters (layer 1). In both cases the element sizes and distribution
types are the same, 330 microns (mean value for size) and normal distribution.

Figure 6 Difference (right) in residence time for light (left) and heavy (middle) plastic in days Layer 1

Figure 7 Difference (right) in residence time for light (left) and heavy (middle) plastic in days Layer 12

Regarding the residence time (presence time within a specific grid cell), the simulation results
reveal that light plastic spreads out a lot more and as such covers larger areas creating medium
to high residence times in the areas it reaches (surface waters). In case of heavy plastic since
settling velocities are higher, spreading is not so obvious (exception around the coastal area),
however in the areas where plastic is present it shows high or very high residence times.
If analysed further, the difference between medium (Polystyrene) and light (Polyethylene) plastic
present similar finds such as the differences between heavy and light. The medium plastic has
high or very high residence times in the coastal zones in the deeper layers and almost nothing in
the superior ones, compared to the relatively low residence time of the light plastic within the
lower layers and incredibly high ones in the surface layers.

Figure 8 Difference (right) in residence time for medium (left) and light (middle) plastic in days Layer 1

Regarding the difference between the mean values of plastic concentration in case of
Polystyrene and PVC it can be seen that in coastal regions in both cases high mean values of

plastic can be found. The values are clearly higher in case of the heavy plastic compared to that
of medium plastic.

Figure 9 Difference (right) in mean value for medium (left) and heavy (middle) plastic in mg/l Layer 12

In all cases made for comparison the expected results are represented by the model, meaning
that heavy plastic settles on the lower layers and lighter plastic gathers and floats on the surface
layers. An interesting find is the one which shows that in case of plastic which settles, the regions
with the highest concentration and residence time are the zones near the coast, and along one
major current which goes through the middle of the North Sea.
4.1.
Comparison regarding particle size
Different sizes for plastic particles were tested. The simulation results show that micro-plastics
with a medium mean value (330 microns) spreads out more than plastic with small mean value
(10 microns). Computing the presence of the plastic also shows that medium sized particles have
a higher presence time than the small sized particles.

Figure 10 Difference (right) in mean value for medium (left) and small (middle) sized plastic in mg/l Layer 1

Figure 11 Difference (right) in mean value for medium (left) and large (middle) sized light plastic in mg/l Layer 1

When comparing small sized plastic particles with large sized plastic particles similar results to
the previous observation can be seen, meaning that plastic with higher particle sizes shows
higher mean values and higher residence time in case of a comparison with small particle sized
plastic.

Figure 12 Difference (right) in mean value for small (left) and large (middle) sized light plastic in mg/l Layer 1

Figure 13 Difference (right) in residence time for small (left) and large (middle) sized light plastic in days Layer 1

The results can be clearly explained by physics, since the formula used for settling velocity (in
the present case of light particles with negative results) has the particle size on the second power
it clearly contributes and highly influences the velocities for the particles. The model provides
logical and physically self-explanatory (expected) results.

4.2.
Differences regarding size distribution:
In case of the analysis done regarding the differences between distribution types, two
comparisons were made, one in case of medium density plastic and one in case of heavy density
plastic. Both cases represent the same size distribution and plastic type as to only magnify the
differences caused by the distribution types. Looking at the first comparison when talking about
medium density plastic, the differences can only be seen in case of the mean values and only in
the bottom layer (12) of the model at specific locations which represent river mouths (plastic
introduction points). These differences are caused by the random factor introduced in the model
and the time and distance it takes for the plastic to travel from the superior layer (1) to the inferior
layer (12). In case of the residence time the differences are so small that they can be considered
insignificant.

Figure 14 Difference (right) in mean value for normally (left) and lognormally (middle) distributed medium plastic
in mg/l Layer 12

Figure 15 Difference (right) in residence time for normally (left) and lognormally (middle) distributed medium
plastic in days Layer 12

In case of the second comparison when talking about heavy plastic the observations are the
same as the ones for the medium density plastic.

Figure 16 Difference (right) in mean value for normally (left) and lognormally (middle) distributed heavy plastic in
mg/l Layer 12

Figure 17 Difference (right) in residence time for normally (left) and lognormally (middle) distributed heavy plastic
in days Layer 12

As a final word regarding the differences between normal and log-normal distributions, in this
case they do not have a high effect on the model.
4.3.
Conclusions regarding the size-density coupling
The table below represents the results found regarding the relationship between the size and
density of the studied particles, all summed up for a clearer view, divided by layers (depth). The
green and red colours represent low and high plastic concentrations while the arrows pointing up
and down represent an increase and a decrease in plastic quantity between the layers. The
direction is always from shallow to deep waters.
Presence
Polystyrene
1050 kg/m3

Polyethylene
910 kg/ m3

Polyvinylchloride
(PVC)
1275 kg/ m3

10 microns

1
2-4

5-11

12

1
2-4
5-9
10-11
12
1
2-4
5-9
10-11
12

330 microns

1
2-4

5-9

10-11
12

2-11

12

5000 microns

1-11
12

1
2-12

1-11
12

1-11
12

1-11

12
2-4

5-9

10-11

12

Table 3 Summarised size-density results, Presence time

Mean
10 microns
330 microns
1
1

Polystyrene
2-4

2-11

1050 kg/ m3
5-11

12

12

1
1
Polyethylene

2-11

2-11
910 kg/ m3
12

12

Polyvinylchloride
1

1-11

(PVC)
2-11

12

1275 kg/ m3
12

Polyethylene1

1-11

terephthalate (PET)

2-11
12
1400 kg/ m3
12

Polyethyleneterephthalate (PET)
1400 kg/ m3

1-11
12

5000 microns
1-11

12

1
2-12

1-11
12

1-11
12

Table 4 Summarised size-density results, Mean value

To summarize the results of the research in a few key concepts:

1. Particles with a higher radius (size) will always move (settle or surface) faster than
particles with a lower radius.
2. Particles with a high density (heavy) will always settle on the lower layers, while particles
with a low density (light) will always gather on the surface layers of the model.
3. The difference between the tested distribution types (normal and log-normal) is not
significant enough to affect the model and show conclusive results.
A different overview of the results can be seen in the following figures where 3 different models
are compared with each one representing a different scenario. The figures prove that the model
used is good enough to simulate plastic propagation within the North Sea domain for dependable
results. The first four of the figures will represent mean values for the amount of plastic while the
results section will conclude with four other figures showing it by quantity (number of particles).
The year defining the hydrodynamics of the North Sea was 2008. The first figure shows the
sensitivity analysis of the model in in relation to the plastic concentration of the input. The three
figures represent three different values of plastic concentration; however they have the same
type of heavy plastic, polystyrene.

Figure 18 Sensitivity analysis of plastic concentration values in case of heavy plastic in mg/l Layer 12

The next figure shows the same sensitivity analysis with the difference of the plastic being a light
one, Polyethylene.

Figure 19 Sensitivity analysis of plastic concentration values in case of light plastic, residence time in days Layer
1

To better understand and make the results more tangible the, the last two figures can be seen
below with the difference of showing plastic quantity (number of particles) instead of
concentration.

Figure 20 Sensitivity analysis of plastic concentration values in case of heavy plastic in mg/l Layer 12

Figure 21 Sensitivity analysis of plastic concentration values in case of light plastic, residence time, Layer 1

Analysing the results from the previous figures which included comparisons of 3 models, it can
be clearly stated that model has a very high sensitivity to the input quantity of plastic regardless
of it being heavy or light, however the effects are more visible in the case of light plastic.

5. Discussion

Since the modelling process is based on assumptions which simply the modelled event to be
able to represent it, they can represent topics for discussion and further research. A good
example for this is the fact that the model currently assumes that there is no plastic present in the
North Sea domain when the simulation starts. As stated previously, plastic has been
accumulating in the marine environment for over 50 years, with more field data, the model could
be improved. However this assumption leads to the conclusion that actual amount of plastic
present in the North Sea is much higher than the amount the model results present.
The other assumption which is a major simplification is the fact that in the model, all particles are
spherical shaped, however field measurements prove that there various other shapes and forms
which plastic particles have. In the case of applying the different shapes to the model, the
formula for settling velocity would be different, thus causing different spreading and settling
zones (hot spots).
Regarding the hot spots presented by the results, field measurements are necessary to provide
data regarding plastic types and sources to be able to identify main polluters. Once this is done
steps can be taken to reduce pollution.
The values tested for plastic quantity input for the model have a large effect on the model. In
case of light plastics, the increased concentration caused much larger areas to be impacted by
high presenting high plastic pollution. In case of heavy plastics the concentration increase only
increased the concentration in the settling zones. Quantifying the actual concentration of
incoming plastic pollution would be an important step for further research.
The comparison of the results with field sampling data raises new challenges and possibilities for
further improvement and research. It is clear that the model needs to be scaled to be in a
comparable form with the reality, the challenge consisting in discovering the correct way of doing
it. Further steps must be taken, in order to conduct the validation process in the correct way,
which will adjust the model to the required situation. The challenge consists in making the correct
assumptions and not oversimplifying the model while recreating the existing situation.
6. Conclusions and recommendations for future research

The differences between the plastic particle densities and sizes prove that the model is now in a
state which is stable enough to run basic and correct simulations.
During the modelling process assumptions were made such as the fact, that there are processes
in nature which are not present in the model, for example fouling and fragmentation. These need
to be included in the model to better simulate the behaviour of micro plastics within the North Sea
domain. A study made by (Song & Andrady, 1991 December) contains experiments which refer
to the effects of fouling on plastic material when exposed to marine environment. This study
states that the floating debris is more dangerous as it attracts different species like seals (Laist,
1987 June). Fouling of plastic surfaces in sea water is well known (Andrady A. L., 1989) and is
likely to lead to marked changes in the density of the plastic item. It is conceivable that at least
with some items, extensive fouling might cause an initially positively buoyant piece of plastic to
partially or completely sink in sea water (Andrady A. L., June 10, 1987).
Some assumptions within the model are also not completely representative of reality, such as the
fact that the river Rhine introduces 30% of the total plastic within the model, however are
necessary to start the modelling process. For such assumptions, measured data and more
indicative values are necessary. To exemplify a few, values for the quantity of plastic per cubic
meter of water or the number of particles released, the distribution of quantity of particles

amongst the rivers should all be measured and validated before a precise and representative
model can be created. The introduction of particles in the model only occurs at river mouths
however there might be other points where plastic is introduced into the North Sea. These need
to be measured, tested and implemented in the further research process. The model used was
mainly restricted to the hydrodynamics of the year 2008, other years and other periods (longer or
shorter than a year) should also be considered.
An interesting find, extracted from results is the fact that the most impacted areas are the coastal
zones, and in some cases the south western floor of the North Sea. The highest concentrations
of plastic, according to the model, were registered at the inflow of the river Elbe and close to the
Dutch coast. Heavily affected zones, such as the coast can present plastic concentrations higher
than 10 milligrams per cubic meter of water, while zones where plastic pollutants are present can
go as high as 2 milligrams of plastic per cubic meter of water. There are studies which presents
plastic as high as 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter in the open ocean (Andrs, et al., 2014),
however it is not specific to a typical region and was used as a guideline to get the current
modelling process started.
Since the affected areas are clearly visible in the model results, it could be a good starting point
for further research such as fieldwork. Data from the specified zones should be collected
regarding plastic size, type and origin. Such data can be used for validation as well as input for a
future reduction plan in plastic pollution and policy making.
The possibilities for research are present, expanding the modelling process and making it more
precise and accurate should be the goal for further research on the topic of plastic litter modelling.
We propose to continue the research and the modelling process by expanding more the usage of
the probabilistic approach with a more detailed description of plastic particle characteristics and
transport processes. So far this method has presented good results, which combined with the
measured data can be validated and verified to provide further clarity.
The model results can be compared to the plastics measurements resulted from the KIMO
initiative for marine litter monitoring (Kimo, 2014). The model and the data can then support each
other and create a sound basis to identify plastic accumulation areas within the North Sea.
Effort is being put into improve the model by connecting it with the available sources of data. In
this direction, additional information regarding the amount of micro plastics entering the North
Sea environment via the river Maas has been collected within the CleanSea project (CleanSea
Project, 2013). Such information can be used to adjust the current considered amount (which is
calculated as a function of river discharge and plastic concentration in the fresh water input).
7. Acknowledgments

We would like to offer special thanks to all of the parties involved in the CleanSea FP7 European
Union project, in particular, to Heather Leslie, the coordinator, for her help in bringing all the
involved parties together. We would also like to show gratitude to the members of the Fishing for
litter project for providing us with field data and measurements.

8. References
Acha, E. M. (2003). The role of Rio de la Plata bottom salinity front in accumulating debris.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 46., 197-202.
Allsopp, M. W., & Vianello, V. (2012). Poly(Vinyl Chloride). In B. Elvers, Ullmann's Encyclopedia
of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
American Chemistry Council, I. (2012, 12 24). Introduction to Plastics Science Teaching
Resources. Retrieved 12 03, 2014, from Common Plastic Resins Used in Packaging:
http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Hands-onPlastics/Introduction-to-Plastics-Science-Teaching-Resources/History-of-PolymersPlastics-for-Teachers.html
Andrady A.L., N. M. (2009 July 27). Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences 364(1526), 1977-1984.
Andrady, A. L. (1989). Outdoor weathering of selected polymeric materials under marine
exposure conditions. Polymer Degradation and Stability, Volume 26, Issue 4, 333-345.
Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Andrady, A. L. (June 10, 1987). Plastics in the Marine Environment. Symposium on Degradable
Plastics (pp. 22-25). Washington, D.C.: The Society of Plastics industry, Inc. .
Andrs, C., Echevarraa, F., Gonzlez-Gordilloa, J. I., Irigoienb, X., bedaa, B., Hernandez-Leon,
S., et al. (2014). Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 10239-10244.
Baeye, M., Fettweis, M., Voulgaris, G., & Van Lancker, V. (2011). Sediment mobility in response
to tidal and wind-driven flows along the Belgian inner shelf, southern North Sea. Ocean
Dynamics, Volume 61, Issue 5, 611-622.
Barnes, D. K., Francois, G., Barlaz, T. a., & Richard, C. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation
of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 364, 1985-1998.
Browne, M. A., Dissanayake, A., Galloway, T. S., Lowe, D. M., & Thompson, R. C. (2008).
Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus
edulis (L.). Environmental Science & Technology Volume 42, Issue 13, 5026-5031.
Browne, M. A., Galoway, T., & Thompson, R. (2007 October). Microplastic - an emerging
contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Management Volume 3, Issue 4, 559-561.
Bugoni, L., Krause, L., & M.V., P. (2001, December). Marine debris and human impacts on sea
turtles in southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume 42, Issue 12, 1330-1334.
Cade, G. (2002, November). Seabirds and floating plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
Volume 44, Issue 11, 1294-1295.
Carpenter, E., & Jr., S. K. (1972 March). Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science, Volume
175, Issue 4027, 1240-1241.
Clapham, P., Young, S., & Bronwell, R. J. (1999). Baleen whales: Conservation Issues and The
Status Of The Most Endangered Populations. Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. Paper 104., 35-60.
CleanSea Project. (2013). Retrieved 10 21, 2014, from CleanSea Project: http://www.cleanseaproject.eu/drupal/index.php
Coe, J. .., & Rogers, D. (1997). Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, and Solutions. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Coe, J. M., & B, R. D. (1997 January 1). Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of Marine Life
in Marine Debris Including a Comprehensive List of Species with Entanglement and
Ingestion Records. In D. W. Laist, Marine Debris (pp. 99-139). New York: Springer.
Colton, J. B., Knapp, F. D., & Bruce R., B. (1974, August 9). Plastic particles in surface waters of
the northwestern Atlantic. Science, Volume 185, 491-497.

Derraik, J. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 44, 842-852.
Dr. Hideshige, T. (2013, May 10). Microplastics and the Threat to Our Seafood. Retrieved March
19, 2014, from Ocean health Index: http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/News/Microplastics
Encyclopaedia, Britannica, & L.M.A. (1985). Encyclopadia Britannica. In Europe - Encyclopdia
Britannica Macropdia 18, 15th edition (pp. 832-835). ISBN 0-85229-423-9.:
Encyclopadia Britannica Inc.
Erikson, C. B. (2003, September). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in
fur seals from Macquarie Island. Ambio Volume 32, 380-384.
European Comission. (2008, 10 20). Legislation: the Marine Directive. Retrieved 10 20, 2014,
from European Comission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marinepolicy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm
European Parliament, a. C. (2008). Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Retrieved 10 20, 2014,
from Descriptor 10: Marine Litter: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/goodenvironmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm
Feller, W. (1968). An introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications Vol.1. John Wiley
and Sons (WIE).
Fendall, L. S., & Sewell, M. A. (2009, August). Contributing to marine pollution by washing your
face: Microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 58, Issue 8,
1225-1228.
Fettweis, M., Monbaliu, J., Baeye, M., Nechad, B., & Van den Eynde, D. (2012, SeptemberDecember). Weather and climate induced spatial variability of surface suspended
particulate matter concentration in the North Sea and the English Channel. Methods in
Oceanography, Volumes 3-4, 25-39.
Fowler, C. W. (1987, June). Marine Debris and Northern Fur Seals: A Case Study. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, Volume 18, Issue 6, Supplement B, 326-335.
Galgani, F., Leaute, J., Moguedet, P., Souplets, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., et al. (2000, June).
Litter on the Sea Floor Along European Coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 40,
Issue 6, 516-527.
Gregory, M. (1991). The hazards of persistent marine pollution: drift plastics and conservation
islands. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 21, Issue 2, 83-100.
Harms, J. (1990). Marine plastic litter as an artificial hard bottom fouling ground. Helgolnder
Meeresuntersuchungen, Volume 44, Issue 3-4, 503-506.
Hurrell, J. W. (1995, August 4). Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: Regional
Temperatures and Precipitation. Science, New Series, Volume 269, Number 5224, 676679.
James G., S., & Lange, N. A. (2005). Lange's handbook of chemistry. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Jrgen, M., Bruce G., F., Jeffrey R., K., Herbert, E., Karl-Heinz, O., & Christian, S. (2007).
Polystyrene and Styrene Copolymers. In B. Elvers, Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kimo, I. (2014). Local Authorities International Environmental Organisation. Retrieved 10 22,
2014, from http://www.kimointernational.org/Home.aspx
Laist, D. W. (1987 June). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in
the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 18, Issue 6, Supplement B,
319-326.
Lobelle, D., & Cunliffe, M. (2011 January). Early microbial biofilm formation on marine plastic
debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 62, Issue 1, 197-200.
Maier, C., & Haber, T. (1998). Polypropylene: the definitive user's guide and databook. William
Andrew Inc.

Mallory, M. L. (2008 August). Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from the Canadian high
Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 56, Issue 8, 1501-1504.
Martin Thiel, I. A. (2011 April). Spatio-temporal distribution of floating objects in the German Bight
(North Sea). Journal Of Sea Research, Volume 65, Issue 3, 368-379.
Mascarenhas, R. S. (2004). Plastic debris ingestion by sea turtle in Paraiba, Brazil. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, Volume 49, Issue 4, 354-355.
Matthew, C., Pennie, L., Claudia, H., & Tamara, S. G. (2011 December). Microplastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 62,
Issue 12, 2588-2597.
Peter Norvig, S. T. (2013). Udacity: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved 12 3, 2014,
from Coursemania: http://coursemania.com/introduction-to-artificial-intelligence-withpeter-norvig-and-sebastian-thrun/
Pietrzak, J. D., Boe, G. J., & Eleveld, M. A. (2011 April 15). Mechanisms controlling the intraannual mesoscale variability of SST and SPM in the southern North Sea. Continental
Shelf Research, Volume 31, Issue 6, 594-610.
Piringer, O. G., & Baner, A. L. (2008). Plastic packaging: interactions with food and
pharmaceuticals. Wiley-VCH.
Pruter, A. (1987 June). Sources, quantities and distribution of persistent plastics in the marine
environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 18, Issue 6, Supplement B, 305-310.
Rios, L. M., Moore, C., & Jones, R. P. (2007 August). Persistent organic pollutants carried by
synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 54, Issue
8, 1230-1237.
Ripley, G., & Dana, C. A. (1883). The American Cyclopaedia: A popular Dictionary of General
Knowledge. D. Appleton and company.
Ryan, P. M. (2009). Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society B: Biological Sciences 364, 1999-2012.
Schwierz, C. A. (2006 November). Challenges posed by and approaches to the study of
seasonal-to-decadal climate variability. Climate Change, Volume 79, Issue 1-2, 31-63.
SeaOnScreen, E. (2014). SeaOnScreen. Retrieved 12 3, 2014, from North Sea Sea Currents:
http://www.zeeinzicht.nl/vleet/index.php?id=3111&template=templatevleeteng&language=2&item=Sea-currents
Siegmund, D. O. (2014 April, 04 10). Probability Theory. In Encyclopaediae Britannica.
Song, Y., & Andrady, A. L. (1991 December). Fouling of Floating Plastic Debris Under Biscayne
Bay Exposure Conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 22, Issue 12, 608-613.
Stuart, A., & Keith, O. (2010). Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics, Volume 1: Distribution
Theory.
Thompson, R. O. (2004 May). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science, Volume 304, 838.
Thompson, R. S. (2009 June). Our plastic age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, Volume 364, Issue 1526, 1973-1976.
Titow, W. V., Phil., P. C., & F.R.S.C., F. C. (1984). PVC technology. Springer.
Toms, J., Guitart, R., Mateo, R., & Raga, J. (2002, March). Marine debris ingestion in
loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, Volume 44, Issue 3, 211-216.
Vauk, G. J., & Schrey Eckhart. (1987 June). Litter pollution from ships in the German Bight.
Marine pollution bulletin, Volume 18, Issue 6, Supplement B, 316-319.
Webster, N. &. (1913). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. G &
C. Merriam Co.
Wilber, R. (1987). Plastic in the North Atlantic. Oceanus, Volume 30, 61-68.
Willams, A. S. (1997, Autumn). Estuarine litter at the river/beach interface in the Bristol Channel
United Kingdom. Journal of Coast Research, Volume 13, Number 4, 1159-1165.

Zitko, V. H. (1991). Another source of pollution by plastics: skin cleansers with plastic scrubbers.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 22, Issues 41-42, 41-42.