Pacific garbage patch where is it

The name "Pacific Garbage Patch" has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs.

This is not the case. While higher concentrations of litter items can be found in this area, much of the debris is actually small pieces of floating plastic that are not immediately evident to the naked eye.

Ocean debris is continuously mixed by wind and wave action and widely dispersed both over huge surface areas and throughout the top portion of the water column. The first identified Japanese debris items that arrived after 10 to 12 months on the North American shores were objects with high windage such as buoys, boats and floating docks.

Debris also arrived on Hawaiian Islands 18 months after the incident. The time of arrival was closely related to object types, starting in the first year with large oyster farm buoys and other floats, containers, and canisters. In the second year more buoys, tipped boats, fridges, and pallets arrived, followed later by timber beams and wooden debris.

The definition of a dynamic GPGP boundary that accounts for seasonal and inter-annual variabilities allowed us to estimate which sea surface trawl data points from the literature are inside or outside the GPGP region. Concentration data from the literature Supplementary Table 2 was obtained from published datasets or digitized from figures when not available digitally 17 , 46 , When data was reported in unit of mass per volume of water 48 , we used the net tow depth to calculate the concentration per surface area unit.

We compared the model-predicted GPGP boundary with the locations of samples collected between and 21 , 22 , 48 , We only used net tows from the first two categories above so that concentration statistics for outside the patch were not biased by measurements taken in equatorial and polar waters, where concentrations were very low. Plastics were by far the most dominant type of marine litter found, representing more than We estimated that an area of 1. We predicted that the GPGP contains a total of 1.

Out of this total, we estimated 1. The bold black line represents our established limit for the GPGP. All observational maps are showing mid-point mass concentration estimates as well as the predicted GPGP boundaries for the corresponding sampling period: August for net tow samples, and October for aerial mosaics.

Maps were created using QGIS version 2. For megaplastics, we could also assess the mass contributions of different object types. Ocean plastic size spectrum in the GPGP. Plastic type H include pieces of hard plastic, plastic sheet and film, type N encompasses plastic lines, ropes and fishing nets, type P are pre-production plastic pellets, and type F are pieces made of foamed plastics.

Whiskers extend from lower to upper estimates per size class, accounting for uncertainties in both monitoring and modelling methods. Dots represent the mean concentrations, the whiskers and darker shades represent our confidence intervals, and the lighter shades extend from the 5 th and 95 th percentile of measured concentrations. Megaplastics generally yielded the highest observed mass concentration with mean measured values of The polymer composition of ocean plastic collected in the GPGP were analysed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy.

Object type was rarely identifiable as most particles consisted of fragments. Plastic objects that could be identified either entire or in early stages of fragmentation included containers, bottles, lids, bottle caps, packaging straps, eel trap cones, oyster spacers, ropes, and fishing nets Supplementary Table 4. Age and geographical origin evidences were found on some objects, with 50 items having a readable production date: 1 in , 7 in the s, 17 in the s, 24 in the s and 1 from We also found objects with recognizable words or sentences written in 9 different languages.

One third had Japanese inscriptions objects and another third had Chinese objects. Our global model simulated the release of Lagrangian particles from significant sources of ocean plastic. It predicted that the relative contribution of marine sources fishing, shipping and aquaculture industries to the GPGP plastic load was above global average Fig. Modelled source and forcing distributions. When considering particles from all forcing scenarios investigated in this study Fig.

Particles subject to greater atmospheric drag were more likely to escape the GPGP, circling around the North Pacific subtropical gyre if exiting from the south or, entering the North Pacific subpolar gyre near Alaska if leaving from the north. We also noticed that the higher the windage coefficient, the more likely a particle was to encounter landmass.

Our model resolved the temporal variability of ocean plastic accumulation in the ocean. This allowed us to predict where the GPGP is located at monthly intervals. Both GPGP latitudinal and longitudinal oscillations intensified with higher atmospheric drag term components. A dynamic GPGP model boundary allowed us to determine whether surface net tows from previous studies 17 , 21 , 22 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 were sampling inside or outside the GPGP.

Average plastic mass concentration measured by net tows inside the GPGP boundary showed an exponential increase over the last decades, rising from an average 0. Decadal evolution of microplastic concentration in the GPGP. Mean circles and standard error whiskers of microplastic mass concentrations measured by surface net tows conducted in different decades, within light blue and around dark grey the GPGP.

This study provides a detailed quantification and characterization of ocean plastic within a major oceanic plastic pollution hotspot: the GPGP. The sea surface environment of this oceanic region is now dominated by polyethylene PE and polypropylene PP pieces, substantially outweighing other artificial and natural floating debris.

Our aerial survey data, combined with in-situ observations from two different trawl devices, supported the development of a comprehensive assessment of all GPGP debris larger than 0.

Our model estimates that this 1. We suggest that the increase in the estimate is mainly explained by the use of more robust methods for quantifying macro- and megaplastics over larger sea surface areas. For instance, aerial imagery allowed us to more accurately count and measure the size of sighted objects, which undeniably reduced uncertainties in mass estimates when compared to vessel-based visual surveys.

Nonetheless, differences between estimates could also be attributed to increasing levels of ocean plastic pollution in the area, and particularly plastic inputs from the Tohoku tsunami. An estimated 4. This leaves 1. Considering our estimated global inputs of plastics into the ocean 5.

Despite an increase in the GPGP mass estimate, a great discrepancy between predicted and observed ocean plastic concentrations remains. Considering currently accepted plastic inputs from land- and marine-based sources, our global model predicted millions of tonnes of ocean plastic to be within the GPGP region, while we only found tens of thousands of tonnes. The rest may strand in coastlines 13 , 55 , 56 , be ingested by marine life 57 or removed from the sea surface due to loss of buoyancy through biofouling 58 or aggregation The specific characteristics of the GPGP debris suggest that only certain types of plastic have the capacity to persist at the sea surface for extended periods of time and accumulate in oceanic plastic pollution hotspots.

Secondly, at least half of the collected GPGP plastics was composed of objects from marine based sources, while the relative source amplitudes considered in our model predicted that mass contributions from land-based plastics, even though lower than global average, would still dominate in these offshore environments.

This discrepancy could be due to differences in the magnitude of certain removal processes between land-based and marine-based plastics that were not accounted for in our models. We trust that beaching is one of these processes as it may primarily remove plastics that are discarded in coastal environments through wave, tidal and onshore winds transport. Nonetheless, the GPGP dominance of marine-sourced plastics could also be attributed to their purposely engineered durability in the marine environment e.

In this study, we considered fishing, aquaculture and shipping to be responsible for As fishing, shipping and aquaculture intensify globally 42 , it is crucial to better quantify and mitigate this significant source of highly persistent ocean plastic. Finally, it seems that most plastics accumulating in the GPGP region are hardly transported by winds. Our model predicted that the GPGP is dominated by objects with low or null windage coefficient, and it was the null windage forcing scenario that best represented the GPGP plastic concentrations gradients measured in this study.

Furthermore, most objects captured in our trawls e. Ghostnets, which were the main contributors to the total mass of GPGP plastic, generally have a draft of several metres, and therefore are unlikely to be influenced by wind transport. The negligible amounts of foam collected within the GPGP, together with the high abundance of foam removed from Alaska during beach clean-ups 63 , and early sightings of highly buoyant debris originated from the Tohoku tsunami along shorelines i.

It is important to highlight here that our mass estimates are conservative. Most of our sampling effort were conducted inside the GPGP boundary line defined in this study. Moreover, we improved our knowledge on the quantity of plastic contained inside the GPGP over a brief period of time, but we underestimated amounts of higher windage debris that may be passing through the GPGP, while circulating the North Pacific with the subtropical gyre currents.

On a monthly average, the concentration of high windage debris within the GPGP may be minimal as it is spread over a larger area than low windage debris. However, when considering debris that passes through the GPGP over a longer period of time, the contribution of high windage debris may be more substantial.

Furthermore, some sample biases also made our estimates conservative. Regarding trawl sampling, vessel wake effects were minimized as much as possible, but it is likely that vessel-induced disturbance of the water flow affected the capture efficiency of our nets.

Also, both trawls were towed at an angle so the net moved away from vessel , which means that the width of the sampled area is likely smaller than the net width dimensions used in our area estimations. Finally, megaplastic concentrations estimated from the examination of our aerial mosaics are conservative as some plastics are likely to have been missed by our observers and detection algorithm, or not considered as we only logged features that were clearly recognised as floating plastics.

Historical data from surface net tows — indicate that plastic pollution levels are increasing exponentially inside the GPGP, and at a faster rate than in surrounding waters.

While this does not necessarily mean that the GPGP is the final resting place for ocean plastic reaching this region, it provides evidence that the plastic mass inflow is greater than the outflow.

The degradation rate of synthetic polymers in the marine environment is poorly understood 64 , but it is known to depend on local environmental conditions, polymer types, shape and coating of objects The mass of plastics floating in the GPGP was mostly distributed in macro- and megaplastics.

It is difficult to estimate how long it will take for all the material currently present in the area to degrade in smaller pieces and eventually escape sea surface waters. Based on our modelling results, it seems the bulk mass of material currently present in the GPGP is very unlikely to leave the area and may slowly degrade into increasingly smaller pieces that can eventually either sink to the seafloor 14 , or behave as water tracer due to its microscopic size and low Reynolds number Our study provides a comprehensive assessment of the GPGP buoyant plastic loads and characteristics.

Nonetheless, a quantification of plastic inputs and outputs into and from the GPGP is required to better assess the residence time of the plastics accumulating in this area. More research effort is needed to quantify ocean plastic sources, transport and loss processes and subsequently implement them in ocean plastic transport models.

For instance, no study has recently estimated the global input of fishing gear losses at sea. Furthermore, coastal transport of plastics and its interaction with coastlines worldwide is poorly understood and needs to be implemented in current global models. Levels of plastic pollution in deep water layers and seafloor below the GPGP remain unknown, and could be quantified through sampling.

Air- and space-borne remote sensing technologies may drastically increase our knowledge of ocean plastic transport and certainly represent a great prospect for the future of the ocean plastic research field. Recent advances in commercial satellite imagery for instance may already allow us to identify meter-sized debris items, such as large ghostnets, which are a major contributor to oceanic plastic pollution levels and impacts.

All datasets associated with this manuscript are available on Figshare Plastics Europe. Plastics - the facts an analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. Geyer, R. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Center for Marine Conservation, Arthur, C. Out of sight but not out of mind: harmful effects of derelict traps in selected U.

Al-Masroori, H. Catches of lost fish traps ghost fishing from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Article Google Scholar. Sancho, G. Catch rates of monkfish Lophius spp. Humborstad, O. Catches of Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides in deepwater ghost-fishing gillnets on the Norwegian continental slope. Weisskopf, M. Plastic reaps a grim harvest in the oceans of the world.

Smithsonian 18 , 59 Google Scholar. Wilcox, C. Understanding the sources and effects of abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear on marine turtles in northern Australia. Article PubMed Google Scholar. Andrady, A. Microplastics in the marine environment. Kako, S. Inverse estimation of drifting-object outflows using actual observation data. A decadal prediction of the quantity of plastic marine debris littered on beaches of the East Asian marginal seas.

Lavers, J. PNAS , — Barnes, K. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Thompson, R. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science , Eriksen, M. Springer, Wong, C. Quantitative tar and plastic waste distributions in the Pacific Ocean. Nature , 30—32 Howell, E. On North Pacific circulation and associated marine debris concentration. Chu, S. Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates and carboxylic acids in liver, muscle and adipose tissues of black-footed albatross Phoebastria nigripes from Midway Island, North Pacific Ocean.

Chemosphere , 60—66 Young, L. Bringing home the trash: do colony-based differences in foraging distribution lead to increased plastic ingestion in Laysan albatrosses? The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is formed by four currents rotating clockwise around an area of 20 million square kilometers 7.

The area in the center of a gyre tends to be very calm and stable. The circular motion of the gyre draws debris into this stable center, where it becomes trapped. A plastic water bottle discarded off the coast of California, for instance, takes the California Current south toward Mexico. There, it may catch the North Equatorial Current, which crosses the vast Pacific. Near the coast of Japan, the bottle may travel north on the powerful Kuroshiro Current. Finally, the bottle travels eastward on the North Pacific Current.

The gently rolling vortexes of the Eastern and Western Garbage Patches gradually draw in the bottle. The amount of debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch accumulates because much of it is not biodegradable.

Many plastics, for instance, do not wear down; they simply break into tinier and tinier pieces. In reality, these patches are almost entirely made up of tiny bits of plastic, called microplastics. The microplastics of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can simply make the water look like a cloudy soup.

This soup is intermixed with larger items, such as fishing gear and shoes. The seafloor beneath the Great Pacific Garbage Patch may also be an underwater trash heap. While oceanographers and climatologists predicted the existence of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, it was a racing boat captain by the name of Charles Moore who actually discovered the trash vortex.

Moore was sailing from Hawaii to California after competing in a yachting race. Crossing the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, Moore and his crew noticed millions of pieces of plastic surrounding his ship. No one knows how much debris makes up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is too large for scientists to trawl. In addition, not all of the trash floats on the surface.

These percentages vary by region, however. A study found that synthetic fishing nets made up nearly half the mass of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, due largely to ocean current dynamics and increased fishing activity in the Pacific Ocean. While many different types of trash enter the ocean, plastics make up the majority of marine debris for two reasons. Second, plastic goods do not biodegrade but instead, break down into smaller pieces. In the ocean, the sun breaks down these plastics into tinier and tinier pieces, a process known as photodegradation.

Most of this debris comes from plastic bags, bottle caps, plastic water bottles, and Styrofoam cups. Marine debris can be very harmful to marine life in the gyre.

For instance, loggerhead sea turtles often mistake plastic bags for jellies, their favorite food. Albatrosses mistake plastic resin pellets for fish eggs and feed them to chicks, which die of starvation or ruptured organs.

Seals and other marine mammals are especially at risk. They can get entangled in abandoned plastic fishing nets, which are being discarded largely due to inclement weather and illegal fishing. Marine debris can also disturb marine food webs in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. As microplastics and other trash collect on or near the surface of the ocean, they block sunlight from reaching plankton and algae below. Algae and plankton are the most common autotrophs, or producers, in the marine food web.

Autotrophs are organisms that can produce their own nutrients from carbon and sunlight. If algae and plankton communities are threatened, the entire food web may change. Animals that feed on algae and plankton, such as fish and turtles, will have less food. If populations of those animals decrease , there will be less food for apex predators such as tuna, sharks, and whales. Eventually, seafood becomes less available and more expensive for people. These dangers are compounded by the fact that plastics both leach out and absorb harmful pollutants.

As plastics break down through photodegradation, they leach out colorants and chemicals, such as bisphenol A BPA , that have been linked to environmental and health problems. Conversely, plastics can also absorb pollutants, such as PCBs, from the seawater.