Prevalence of microplastics in the seal colony of Seal Rocks Victoria Australia

The Presence of plastic pollution in the
Australian Fur Seal (Arctocephalus
pusillus doriferus) colony of Seal Rocks,
Victoria, Australia.
Karl S. Jaeger
Abstract
The aim of this project was to determine if there is a presence of plastic pollution in
the Australian Fur Seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) colony of Seal Rocks, Phillip Island,
Victoria, Australia. This project was undertaken in attempt to increase the data available in
regards to the presence of plastic pollution in larger vertebrate mammalian species such as
the Australian fur seals.
92 samples were taken from the Australian fur seal colony of Seal Rocks in Victoria,
Australia and analysed. This was achieved through the use of methods of environmental
analysis involving the isolation of plastic from scat samples by drying, sieving, and separation
by floating out plastic in a NaCl solution. FT-IR analysis was used to acquire a definitive
analysis of what types of plastics were present. Seven samples were discarded due to the
moisture content being too high. From 85 samples remaining 14 (16%) contained plastic
fragments ranging in sizes of approximately 2-15mm in diameter. FT-IR spectroscopy was
then used to determine the types of plastics present. The types plastics indicated were PE,HDPE
and Nylon. These plastics all consistent with waste associated with, bottles, plastic packaging and
fishing line.
In conclusion it was determined that there is a presence of plastic pollution in the
Australian fur seal colony of Seal Rocks consistent with the findings of current research. I
believe these results may warrant further monitoring and research of the effects of the
presence plastic in the marine food web of not only the seal colonies of Victoria, but also
the entire marine ecosystem.
Introduction
Since the observation of microplastic pollution (plastic pieces ≤ 5mm) in the worlds
marine environment in the early 1970s the effects of these plastics on the marine ecosystem
has been of interest to scientists. (Carpenter 1972) Research into the presence of plastic
pollution in the oceans of the world has revealed that 60-80% of accumulated pollution in
the marine environment is plastic waste and that the presence of this plastic presents an ever
growing threat to the marine environments. (Andrady 2011) (Wright 2013)
As the threat of plastic pollution in the marine environment increases, concerns have
been raised as to the effects of this plastic on the plant and animal life present in the

marine ecosystem once it has entered the World’s oceans. (Carson 2013) Studies into the
prevalence of plastic pollution in the marine food web have shown that there is an alarming
amount of plastic being found in species such as Marine birds, seals, turtles and filter feeders
such as mussels and zoo plankton species. These are just some of the marine life being
affected by the presence of plastic in the marine food web. (Andrady 2011) (Carson 2013)
(Eriksson. 2013) (Eriksen 2014) (Eriksson 2003)
Materials and Methods
Sample Collection Materials
 Latex gloves
 Paper bags (two per scat sample)
 Large plastic bags (one per paper sample bag)
 Plastic freezer bags
 PPE (Wetsuit, wetsuit booties or runners and sun protection - hat, sunscreen etc)
Separation Materials
 Glass beakers (250mLx5)
 Fallon tubes x93
 Tweezers
 Standard sieve Stainless steel (Assorted sizes)
 Filter papers x1 box
 Aluminium foil
 Analytical balance
 Autoclave tape
 NaCl solution (900g/L) approx 20Ltrs
 Autoclave bags (140°C+) and boxes
 Autoclave bags (paper)
 Pyroneg (disinfectant)
 Rod stirrer
 Mortar and pestle
 PPE (Lab coat, safety glasses, Latex gloves (double gloved) and face masks)
Sample collection
Samples were taken from random areas of the colony during two trips to Seal Rocks,
the first in July (2014) and a second in February (2015). Sampling methods for the detection
of plastic pollution vary due to environmental conditions. For this project, sampling of the
seals faecal matter was chosen as this method allowed for ease for collection and more
importantly, minimum contact with the seal population. (Eriksson 2003) Each sample was
placed into a paper bag, then again into a second paper bag. Once this was completed the
two bags were placed in a plastic bag and stored in a -80 freezer. Paper bags were used to
eliminate the variable of the contamination of the samples by other sources of plastic.

Oven Drying.
All handling of faecal material to be conducted in a class 2 biological
cabinet.
The following method was experimental determine after initial trialling of a method
involving wet scat material. (Claessen 2013) (Hidalgo-Ruz 2012) (Hollman 2013) The revised
drying method decreased the amount of handling time and also dramatically reduced the
amount of liquid waste produced.
1. Weigh each scat separately (wet weight) and record the data. This is done to
determine the moisture content of the samples. Initial weight minus dry weight.
2. The scat samples will be dried in a drying oven, 75°C for 24hrs. Dried on tray lined
with tin foil and each scat to be placed on a separate square piece of tin foil
(10x10cm approx) and placed on tray. Scat will be weighed once dried (dry weight).
Separation
1. Once the samples are desiccated (completely void of moisture), place scat into
mortar and crush gently so as not to damage ant possible plastic fragments. When
scat is completely broken up, place into sieve and gently sieve scat over
biological hazard bag.
2. Once scat has been thoroughly sieved, place contents of sieve into 250ml
beaker containing 150mLs of NaCl solution (900g/Litre) adjusted. (Hollman
2013) (Claessen 2013)
3. When all samples have been prepared allow to stand, this allows heavier
material to settle to the bottom. (Hidalgo-Ruz 2012)
4. Check for visual signs of separation (plastics floating on surface of NaCl
solution and solids at the bottom). (Hidalgo-Ruz 2012)
5. Remove any plastics present using tea strainer (small sieve) or tweezers, then
place plastic samples in dish (1/sample). (Hidalgo-Ruz 2012) Plastics are then
later to be stored in Eppendorf tubes filled with 70% Ethanol.
6. Liquid waste (slurry) is to be filtered first using funnel and filter papers to
separate the solid waste from liquid waste. (As per instruction outlined in Lab
RA)
7. Liquid waste can then be disposed of via drain after the addition of Pyroneg,
solid waste is to be autoclaved and incinerated. (As per instruction outlined in
Lab RA)
8. Plastic samples to be stored in Eppendorf tubes in -80 freezer.

Analysis methods
Once the plastic pieces were isolated, Fourier Transmission Infra Red Spectroscopy
(FT-IR) was used to analyse the viable fragments to determine the type of material present.
(Hidalgo-Ruz 2012). A Spectrum 100 FT-IR was used with a range of 650-4000cmˉ¹ used.
With settings for Energy = 300, Scan =8 and resolution = 4 (default).
1. Total number of plastic particles found/scat.
2. Total plastic size.
3. Types of plastic isolated.
4. Store as per methods (8)
Results
93 samples were taken from the Australian fur seal colony of Seal Rocks in Victoria,
Australia and analysed for the presence of plastic pollution. (Table 2) Seven samples were
discarded due to the moisture content being too high. The remaining scat samples displayed
and average mass of 59.530±54.370 for wet samples and 26.710±27.070 for dried samples.
(Figures 1-2)(Table 3) From the remaining 85 samples 45 plastic like fragments ranging in
sizes of approximately 1-15mm in diameter were isolated. (Table 4) Only fragments ≥1mm
were kept for analysis, all other material <1mm was discarded. The initial 21 samples
contained 45 fragments each having an average number of 2.143±1.797 pieces found.(Table 6)
The initial samples displayed assorted shapes, with forms such as filament, spherical,
triangular and round pieces present. (Figure 3) On examination the plastic fragments clearly
showed signs of weathering with clear indications of abrasion and tearing, with sizes in the
range of 1-15mm with an average of 5.313±3.645, with 16% of the initial samples measuring
5mm and 16% measuring 6mm. (Table 7)(Figure 4)
24020016012080400
20
15
10
5
0
Wet Weight (g)
Frequency
Histogram of Wet Weight (g)
Figure 1: Distribution of weight in wet scats.

120100806040200
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Dry Weight (g)
Frequency
Histogram of Dry Weight (g)
Figure 2: Distribution of weight in dry scats.
Figure 3: Examples of confirmed plastics. Samples 1b, 8a and 23a.
Figure 4: Percent distribution of size in initial seal scat samples.
2%
12%
12%
12%
16%
16%
2%
7%
5%
5%
2%
5% 2%2%
% Distribution of size in initial
samples
1mm 2mm 3mm 4mm 5mm 6mm 7mm
8mm 9mm 10mm 11mm 12mm 13mm 15mm

FT-IR spectroscopy was then used to determine the types of plastics present.
(Appendix, FT-IR results) The total number of confirmed samples to containing plastic
fragments was 14 (16%) with 18 pieces being isolated. (Table 8) The plastic fragments
confirmed by FT-IR analysis had sizes in the range of 2-12mm in diameter with an average
of 6.056±2.532 (Table 9) with 28% of the confirmed pieces measuring 6mm. (Figure 5) The
isolated plastics displayed colouring of green/grey, clear and white (Figure 3) with the types
plastics identified as Polyethylene (PE) 61%, High density Polyethylene (HDPE) 11% and
Nylon 28%. (Table 8)(Figure 6) On examining the plastic fragments the pieces clearly showed
signs of weathering with clear indications of abrasion and tearing consistent with server
exposure. (Figure 3)
Figure 5: Percent distribution of confirmed plastic fragments.
Figure 6: Percentage of confirmed sample containing plastic.
5% 5%
17%
17%
28%
11%
5%
6%
6%
% distrubition of size of in samples
containing confirmedfragments
2mm 3mm 4mm 5mm 6mm 8mm 9mm 10mm 12mm
84%
16%
Percetage of samples
containing plastic fragments
Samples containing no plastic Samples containing plastic

Discussion
Seal Rocks is located approximately 2Km off the south-west coast of Phillip Island,
Victoria and is the home to the largest Australian fur seal colony in Australia, with a
population of approximately 30,000 seals. With a feeding radius of <200Km within the Bass
Straight region, (Figure 7) with some feeding trips recorded up to 1208Km away from the
colony, (Kirkwood. 2011) the seals have a large area in which they can come in contact with
the plastic pollution effecting the marine food web. (Carson 2013) From the 85 samples
collected from the colony 16% of them contained plastic fragments. Analysis of the plastic
material isolated from the scat samples revealed the fragments had an average size of
6.056±2.532, the size in this instance is a good indication that the plastics were not ingested
by the seals directly as has been document in studies involving marine birds and fish. (Lavers
2014) (Tanaka 2013) (Hirai 2011) (Fendall 2009)
Figure 7: Map of location and feeing area. (Kirkwood 2008)
This raises the question as to the origin of the fragments. The ingestion of plastic by
marine animals is well documented, with studies on the ingestion of plastic pollution in all
its forms by marine animals revealing that plastic pollution has found its way into the marine
food web of all marine inhabitants. (Avio 2015) (Lavers 2014) (Eriksson 2003) The seals diet
consists of a variety of fish species such as Cephalopods including Arrow Squid, Nototodarus
gouldi and Calamari, Redbait (Emmelichtys nitidus), Barracouta (Thyrsites atun), Red Cod
(Pseudophycis bachus), Jack Mackerel (Trachurus declivis) and Leatherjackets (Family
Monocanthidae). (Kirkwood 2008) (Kirkwood 2008) (Kirkwood. 2011) Studies have shown the
accumulation of plastic pollution in pelagic species not unlike those consumed by the seals of

Seal Rocks begins with the smaller organism at the lower end of the food web that these
fish regularly feed on. (Bravo Rebolledo 2013) (Baulch 2014) (Boerger 2010) (Setala 2014) The
plastic found in these species and the species of prey within the food web is consumed
accidently, this has been well documented in studies involving fish, marine bird species and
plankton. (Lavers 2014) (Hirai 2011) (Setala 2014) Plastic fragments mistaken for food then pass
along the food chain, finally making their way to apex predators such as seals and marine
birds. (Bravo Rebolledo 2013) (Lavers 2014)
A number of factors may influence the availability of plastic and the preferences
marine animals exhibit towards them. For example, the size and type of materials the
fragments are made of can influence the bioavailability of this pollution in the marine
ecosystem. The relative density of the plastic can affect the buoyancy of the plastic in
seawater allowing the material to be spread throughout the water column. (Table 1) (Lobelle
2011) Other factors that can affect the bioavailability of plastic in the marine environment is
the absorption of hydrophobic chemicals to the surface of the plastic.
Table 1: Specific gravitiesof plastic materials, commonly found in marine pollution. (Eriksson 2003)
This process can change the relative density of materials in the aquatic environment
by adding extra material to the particle. (Rochman. 2014) Recent studies have also shown that
the accumulation of microbial colonies on the surfaces of plastic and the subsequent
formation of biofilm, may contribute to the change of density of these materials and it is this
process of changing density that exposes this pollution to the pelagic strata inhabitants.
(Lobelle 2011)
The data collected from this project when compared with recent studies is consistent
with the indications that the seals are not consuming the plastic as a part of their regular
feeding habits, but are consuming the plastic that has been accumulating in their prey species
as it passes along the marine food web. (Andrady 2011) (Bravo Rebolledo 2013) (Eriksson 2003)
(Setala 2014)

Conclusion
Plastic pollution in the marine environment is now of great concern as it presents a
threat not only to marine habitat but to the global ecosystem. (Eriksen 2014) It was the aim
of this report to determine if there was a presence of plastic pollution in the Australian Fur
seal colony of Seal Rocks, Victoria. The data collect through the analysis of the scat samples
taken from the Seal Rocks colony when compared with current research in regards to plastic
pollution in marine animals, shows significant indication that there is presence of plastic
pollution with in the colony of Seal Rocks.
Current research into the effects of plastic pollution clearly show that plastic pollution
in all its forms presents a possible threat to the marine environment. As detailed in this
report it is clear there is a presence of plastic pollution in the food web of the Seal Rocks
colony. The extent of this pollution can been seen in the data collected by current research
and has been reported to be effecting the marine ecosystem in many areas, and it is only
through further education of the global governments and their communities that we can begin
to develop a better understanding of the increasing problems created by plastic pollution.
(Kalogerakis 2015) (Eriksen 2014) Initiatives like the original MARPOL convention and recently
the MSFD will make aware the increasing need to develop further research programs to be
used to begin to control the increasing effects of plastic pollution in the marine ecosystem, if
not in general the world’s ecosystem. (Kalogerakis 2015)
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the staff of the Phillip Island Nature Parks (PINP), with special thanks to Dr
Peter Dann and Dr Rebecca Macintosh (PINP). Thank you to the staff of RMIT university,
again with special thanks to Associate Professor Mark Osborn (RMIT).
References
Andrady, A L. “Microplastic in the marine environment.” Marine pollution bulletin,no. 62 (2011):
1596-1605.
Carpenter,E.J., Smith, K. L. “Plastics on the Sargasso sea surface.” Science,1972: 1240-1241.
Carson, H. S. “The incidence of plastic ingestion by fish: From the preys prspective.” Marine
pollution bulletin,no. 74 (2013): 170-174.
Claessen,M., Van Cauwenberghe,L., Vandegehuchte, M.B.,Janssen,C.R. “New techniques for the
detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms.” Marine Pollution Bulletin,no.
70 (2013): 227-233.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton L, Carson H, Thiel M, Moore C, Borerro J, Galgan F, Ryan P,Reisser J.
“Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons
afloat at sea.” Plos ONE,2014.
Eriksson, C.,Burton, H. “Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seal
from Macquarie Island.” Ambio 32, no. 6 (2003): 380-384.
Eriksson., Burton, H., Fitch, S., van den Hoff, J. “Daily accumulation of marine debris on sub
Antarctic island beaches.” Marine pollution bulletin,no. 66 (2013): 199-208.

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R. C., Thiel, M. “Microplastics in the marine environment:
A review of methods used for the identification and quantification.” Environmental Science and
Technology,no. 46 (2012): 3060-3075.
Hollman, P.C.H.,Bouwmeester,H.,Peters,R.J.B. Microplastics in the aquatic food chain: Sources,
measurements, occurence and potential health risks. Wageningen: RIKILT Wageningen, 2013.
Kalogerakis, N., Arff, J., Banat, I.M.,Broch, O.J.,Daffonchino, L., Edvardsen, T., Eguiraun, H.,
Giuliano, L., Handa,A., Lopez-de-Lpina, K, Marigomez, I., Martinez, I., Oie, G., Rojo, F., Skjermo,
J., Zanaroli, G., Fva, F. “The role of environmental biotechnology in exploring, exploiting,
monitoring, preserving, protecting and decontaminating the marine environment.” New biotechnology
32, no. 1 (2015): 157-167.
Kirkwood R., Lynch, M., Gales, N.,Dann, P.,Summer, M. “At sea movements and habitat use of
adult male Australian fur seals (Arctocephlus pusillus dorifers).” Can. J. Zool 84 (2006): 1781-1788.
Kirkwood, R., Hume, F., Hindell, M. “sea temperature variation mediate annual changes in the diet of
Australian fur seals in Bass Strait.” Marine ecology progressseries 369 (2008): 297-309.
Kirkwood., R.,Arnould, J.P.Y. “Foraging trip strategies and habitat use during late pup rearing by
lactating Australian fur seals.” Australian Journal of Zoology,no. 59 (2011): 216-226.
Wright, Stephaine L., Thompson, Richard C.,Galloway, Tamara S. “The physiacl impacts of
microplastic on marine organisms: A review.” Environmental pollution,2013: 483-492.
Appendix (results)
Table 1: Scat samples,initial data
Sample # Foil (g)
Foil + Scat Wet
(g) Wet Weight (g)
Foil + Scat Dry
(g) Dry Weight (g)
1 3.55 56.48 52.93 38.65 35.1
2 2.68 55.6 52.92 23.01 20.33
3 3.63 39.81 36.18 15.56 11.93
4 2.73 56.9 54.17 23.02 20.29
5 4.31 54.81 50.5 24.69 20.38
6 4.37 31.19 26.82 13.73 9.36
7 4.42 116.39 111.97 7.97 3.55
8 4.51 79.3 74.79 50.97 46.46
9 4.81 270 265.19 120 115.19
10 4.44 190 185.56 130 125.56
11 4.42 93.24 88.82 31.22 26.8

12 4.3 57.7 53.4 27.69 23.39
13 4.4 98.78 94.38 59.23 54.83
14 4.41 53.78 49.37 18.86 14.45
15 4.5 38.78 34.28 24.58 20.08
16 4.46 38.24 33.78 15.27 10.81
17 4.36 179.83 175.47 54.45 50.09
18 4.36 35.91 31.55 23.27 18.91
19 4.26 137.91 133.65 115.41 111.15
20 4.63 40.21 35.58 16.15 11.52
21 4.02 125 120.98 75 70.98
22 4.37 106.41 102.04 27.28 22.91
23 4.5 115.21 110.71 32.35 27.85
24 4.69 66.45 61.76 29.31 24.62
25 3.92 63.37 59.45 37.1 33.18
26 4.37 89.56 85.19 25.78 21.41
27 4.11 37.54 33.43 26.03 21.92
28 4.6 78.4 73.8 55.17 50.57
29 4.41 34.81 30.4 17.75 13.34
30 4.53 33.72 29.19 11.27 6.74
31 4.53 37.56 33.03 18.93 14.4
32 4.41 257 252.59 106.63 102.22
33 3.95 34.27 30.32 12.69 8.74
34 3.78 155 151.22 65.02 61.24
35 4.77 26.1 21.33 13.96 9.19
36 3.98 42.01 38.03 17.86 13.88
37 4.81 20.81 16 11.44 6.63
38 3.66 95.13 91.47 53.83 50.17
39 4 125 121 80.5 76.5
40 3.07 46.75 43.68 22.39 19.32
41 3.94 34.9 30.96 13.89 9.95
42 4.12 115 110.88 42.3 38.18
43 3.93 57.77 53.84 38.69 34.76
44 3.81 16.26 12.45 10.47 6.66
45 3.88 41.14 37.26 22.31 18.43

46 4.01 150 145.99 54.38 50.37
47 3.82 32.44 28.62 12.84 9.02
48 3.89 180 176.11 118.53 114.64
49 3.78 85.27 81.49 47.04 43.26
50 3.77 66.08 62.31 42.11 38.34
51 3.9 31.9 28 25.84 21.94
52 3.87 47.93 44.06 18.06 14.19
53 3.92 25.98 22.06 16.4 12.48
54 3.99 49.51 45.52 28.05 24.06
55 4.02 113.5 109.48 52.01 47.99
56 3.8 30.27 26.47 23.79 19.99
57 3.98 27.49 23.51 13.09 9.11
58 0 0 0 0 0
59 3.83 33.93 30.1 12.95 9.12
60 4.03 33.1 29.07 23.76 19.73
61 3.99 42.27 38.28 18.62 14.63
62 3.74 19.26 15.52 7.74 4
63 3.85 17.89 14.04 15.43 11.58
64 3.98 59.48 55.5 36.03 32.05
65 0 0 0 0 0
66 4.01 52.98 48.97 38.76 34.75
67 3.72 32.73 29.01 21.83 18.11
68 3.9 19.55 15.65 10.22 6.32
69 3.92 17.8 13.88 11.7 7.78
70 4.14 69.63 65.49 44.09 39.95
71 3.88 104.64 100.76 56.63 52.75
72 3.95 11.78 7.83 6.96 3.01
73 4.1 91.66 87.56 36.2 32.1
74 0 0 0 0 0
75 3.98 34.52 30.54 19.78 15.8
76 0 0 0 0 0
77 3.76 25.2 21.44 13.64 9.88
78 0 0 0 0 0
79 3.87 112.77 108.9 56.54 52.67

80 0 0 0 0 0
81 3.95 215 211.05 40.26 36.31
82 3.85 26.4 22.55 11.63 7.78
83 3.75 7.73 3.98 4.44 0.69
84 3.85 62.58 58.73 22.06 18.21
85 3.75 15.08 11.33 5.38 1.63
86 3.89 76.23 72.34 31.29 27.4
87 3.93 65.43 61.5 29.09 25.16
88 3.81 56.08 52.27 19.75 15.94
89 4.08 48.92 44.84 18.77 14.69
90 0 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0
92 3.93 77.24 73.31 49.72 45.79
93 3.85 29.4 25.55 10.91 7.06
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of wet and dry seal scat samples
————— 27/05/2015 10:52:56 AM ————————————————————
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.
Descriptive Statistics:Wet Weight (g), Dry Weight (g)
Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3
Wet Weight (g) 93 3 59.53 5.64 54.37 0.00 26.01 44.06 83.34
Dry Weight (g) 93 0 26.71 2.81 27.07 0.00 9.11 19.32 35.70
Variable Maximum
Wet Weight (g) 265.19
Dry Weight (g) 125.56
Table 3: Number of fragments isolated fromscat samples.
Sample# # of fragments Sample#2 # of fragments2
1 8 25 2
2 2 32 1
3 1 33 1
4 1 34 0
5 3 36 1
6 1 38 0
8 3 40 1

11 2 47 3
12 0 48 0
18 1 52 1
21 2 58 1
22 2 59 0
23 6 78 2
Table 4: Size of plastic fragments isolated fromscat samples.
Sample# Sample size (mm) Sample#2 Sample size (mm)2
1a 3 21a 8
1b 4 21b 4
1c 2 22a 15
1d 2 22b 8
1e 2 23a 9
1f 2 23b 6
1g 3 23c 4
1h 2 23d 5
2a 3 25a 5
2b 5 25b 3
3 1 32 4
4 6 33 6
5a 12 34 0
5b 9 36 8
5c 6 38 0
6 7 40 3
8a 5 47a 13
8b 10 47b 11
8c 10 47c 6
11a 5 48 0
11b 4 52 6
12 0 58 12
18 5 59 0
78a 6
78b 5
Table 5: Descriptive statisticsof number of fragments.
Descriptive Statistics:No. of frags, Sample size (mm), Sample size (mm)2
No. of frags 21 0 2.143 0.392 1.797 1.000 1.000 2.000 2.500
Variable Maximum
No. of frags 8.000
Table 6: Descriptive statisticsof size of fragments isolated.

Descriptive Statistics:size mm 2
size mm 2 48 0 5.313 0.526 3.645 0.000 3.000 5.000 7.750
Variable Maximum
size mm 2 15.000
Table 7: FT-IR results, plastics isolated from scat samples.
Sample # Type of plastic Size (mm)
1b PE 4
2a PE 2
2b PE 8
4 PE 6
8b PE 10
18 PE 5
21a PE 8
23a HDPE 9
23b Nylon 6
23c Nylon 4
23d Nylon 5
25a PE 5
32 PE 4
33 PE 6
40 Nylon 3
47c Nylon 6
58 HDPE 12
78a PE 6
Table 8: Descriptive statisticsof fragment size in confirmed samples.
Descriptive Statistics:type of plastic Size (mm)
Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median
type of plastic Size (mm) 18 0 6.056 0.597 2.532 2.000 4.000 6.000
Variable Q3 Maximum
type of plastic Size (mm) 8.000 12.000
Results of FT-IR analysis (viable samples only)
cat1b.asc / Spectrum.lst EuclideanSearch Hit List
0.729 F87495 TETRAHYDROTHIOPHENE 1-OXIDE
0.682 A10000
0.674 RT037A TALC GROUND WITH KBR
0.619 RT280A MIR OF LINER WITH COLOURCOAT WHITE C88/35
0.612 RT404A M3 STARCH, KBR GRIND
0.611 F65540 METHYL ALCOHOL
0.602 RT406A M4 STARCH - KBR GRIND
0.602 RT405A M4 CAT STARCH - KBR GRIND
0.602 AP0053 POLYETHYLENE, CHLORINATED 48% CHLORINE

0.599 RT125A MG BL. BAG KRAFT (AUTOCLAVING) :MIR(CMIR
0.581 F13170 BENZYL ALCOHOL
0.575 RT448A ALUM ALUMINATES, KBR GRIND
0.572 F49790 L(-)-GLYCERALDEHYDE UNNATURAL FORM
0.571 RT063A POLYPROPYLENE (TALC FILLED) EXB&D FAN HO
0.571 RT187A TALC PLUS ENSO EXTRACTIVES (ADDEDSPECTR
0.563 RT363A ALUMINIUMHYDROXIDE
0.563 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.551 F56760 3-(2-IMIDAZOLIN-1-YL)PROPYLTRIETHOXYSILANE
0.551 F09326 3-AMINOPROPYLTRIMETHOXYSILANE,
0.548 F28707 B-CYCLODEXTRIN
0.542 F49135 L(-)-GLUCOSE
0.541 F49140 D(+)-GLUCOSE ANHYDROUS
0.539 F14880 BIS(2-HYDROXYETHYL)AMINO-TRIS(HYDROXYMETHYL)METHANE
0.537 RT422A STARCOTE 350 OUTTURN R/NO.729155 -MIR KRS-5
0.535 RT579A XEROX FUSER LUBRICANT DOCUTECH (POLYDIMETHYSILOXANE)
0.512 F17531 BROMOMESITYLENE
0.506 RT402A CAT STARCH EXF2 - DRIED, KBR GRIND
Scat2a.sp / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.656 RT360A COLLIE/COOKOMEGA O/PVARNISH 053038 - M
0.641 RT361A COLLIE PROKOTE O/P VAENISH - MIR ON COATED
0.623 RM009A KAOLIN CLAY EX CRODA DIAMOND ANVIL CELL
0.601 F51980 HEPTYL-BETA-D-GLUCOPYRANOSIDE
0.599 RT276A COLOURCOAT WHITE ACF699 EXPACIFICINKS,
0.593 RT446A TONGANAH(CLAY), KBR GRIND
0.593 RT180A PREMIER S.D. EXGEORGIA KAOCIN
0.588 RT175A ALPHAGLOSS SAMPLE 10114
0.557 RT275A COLOURCOAT WHITE EXPACIFICINKS, DRIED
0.555 AP0021 METHYL CELLULOSE
0.554 RT278A ACF 129 STANDARD BLACKEXPACIFICINKS,
0.540 F75083 OCTYL-BETA-D-GLUCOPYRANOSIDE
0.528 RT040A AMMONIUMHYDROGEN TETRABORATE
0.485 F78554 PHENYL-BETA-D-GLUCOPYRANOSIDE
0.481 RT356A SILICONE SIZEEXF6,DRIED @ 105C,SMEARED ON
0.480 F44203 DODECYL-B-D-GLUCOPYRANOSIDE
0.476 F91440 1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE
0.476 RT266A SILICONE OIL EXTOSHIBA PHOTOCOPIER,SMEA
0.474 F10050 AMYGDALIN
0.467 AP0018 HYDROXYBUTYL METHYL CELLULOSE 8% HYDROXYBUTYL, 20% METHOXYL
0.466 RT219A NALCO F 3054 DEFOAMER, DRIED105DEG + SME
Scat2b.asc / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.666 A10000
0.564 RT178A COLLOID 15/40

0.532 RT438A SILICA AR GRADE SIO2.XH2O KBR GRIND
0.530 RT043A ALUM EX F3 : DRIED ON GLASS & GROUNDWITH
0.527 RT179A MANILDRA SIZE PRESSSTARCHAHF 180 -KBR
0.508 RT274A STARCH EXM/V #3 22/4/88 POWDER KBR GRIND
0.503 RT359A COATES GVM6180 - GRAVURE APPLIED NITROCE
Scat4.asc / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.650 A10000
0.610 F49135 L(-)-GLUCOSE
0.589 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.625 A10000
0.600 RT178A COLLOID 15/40

0.639 A10000
0.567 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.548 F49135 L(-)-GLUCOSE
Scat21a.asc / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.644 A10000

0.599 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.566 F49135 L(-)-GLUCOSE
Scat23a.asc / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.899 RT366A HDPE-MULTI REFLECTION SURFACE TRANSMISS
0.864 RT118A 2.5% E.V.A MULTI REFLECTION SURFACE TRANS
0.860 RT369A X03(4202) EX EXTHENE, MIR
0.839 RT368A E220 FILM, EXEXTHENE MIR
0.833 RT338A DEFOAMER, DEAIREX8042 SOLID, SMEARED ON
0.811 RT337A DEFOAMER FOAMASTER SOLID, SMEAREDON DISC
0.810 AP0049 POLYETHYLENE HIGH DENSITY
0.807 RT367A SURLYN MULTI REFLECTION SURFACE TRANSMI
0.806 RT261A SYNTHETICWAXEXCRODA, CHLOROFORMEXTRA
0.802 AP0038 POLYAMIDE RESIN MELTING PT 95DEG C
0.758 RT362A FOAMASTER DF215 ANTIFOAMEXPETRIE
0.749 RT082A HC WAX181-185 - HOT MELT ADHESIVE COMPON
0.732 RT227A HDPE SCLAIR 68A EX DUPONT -THIN FILM
0.730 RT270A F2 WET END DEFOAMER, CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.725 AP0056 POLYETHYLENE, OXIDIZED ACIDNUMBER 15 MG KOH/G
0.724 RT296A HDPE 7541 NCPE 7541 EX NESTE , T-610626, T
0.721 RT297A LDPE NCPE 7530 EX NESTE (TALCFILLED), THIN
0.719 RT419A WAX EXGULLOTINE M3, CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.703 RT061A RIEGEL SUPER BARRIERLINER
0.699 RT190A ALKATHENE -SPECACARD A RING -2 FOILS
0.694 RT257A PARAFFIN WAXEXCRODA, CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.688 RT036A POLYETHYLENE-TRANSMISSION FILM
0.687 F74752 OCTADECYLAMINE
0.687 RT186A PARACOL WAX, THIN FILM
0.683 RT250A LLDPE DOWLEX3010 EX DOW CHEM. -THIN FILM
0.669 RT119A E220 FILMEXEXTHENE, TRANSMISSION
0.661 RT451A DEFOAMER LIQUID, KBR GRIND
0.660 RT191A NEWS 2617T -SPECACARD -A RING,2 FOILS
0.715 RT428A NOPCOBOND WET STRENGTH RESIN,DRIED 105C,SME
0.658 F22720 CHITIN
0.593 AP0024 NYLON 6 (POLYCARPROLACTAM)
0.584 RT126A NOPCOBOND SWS 25 THIN FILM
0.582 RT557A OVEN DRIED (105C) MILK, MIC.
0.580 RT026A HYDROCHLORICCASEINEXPETRIE
0.552 RT382A LATEX BASED SBR - DRIED, KBR GRIND

0.548 AP0025 NYLON 6/6 (POLYHEXAMETHYLENE ADIPAMIDE)
0.540 AP0026 NYLON 6/9 (POLYHEXAMETHYLENE NONANEDIAMIDE)
0.533 RT539A BASE COAT REZOSOL 8233 EX KCA - SMEARED
0.519 F76200 D-PANTHENOL
0.515 F09650 5-AMINO-N-VALERICACID
0.512 F73350 NITROGUANIDINE MOISTENEDWITH20%H20
0.511 AP0029 NYLON 6/T (POLYHEXAMETHYLENE TEREPHTHALAMIDE)
0.494 AP0028 NYLON 6/12 (POLYHEXAMETHYLENE DODECANEDIAMIDE)
0.494 RT462A PERCOL 292 1.8.94 CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.487 RT540A BASE COAT REZOSOL 8233 EX KCA - CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.486 AP0030 NYLON 11 (POLYUNDECANOAMIDE)
0.486 AP0027 NYLON 6/10 (POLYHEXAMETHYLENE SEBACAMIDE)
0.485 F67787 N-METHYLMERCAPTOACETAMIDE
0.484 RT290A NB LOVE CATIONICSTARCH EX F2, DRIED 105C
0.481 F07985 5-AMINOFLUORESCEIN
0.479 RT549A DETAC3131 EX SHOALHAVEN - SMEAR ON DISK
0.478 RT423A REDOXDYE POWDER -USED ON SCAN RATE PAPER E
0.468 RT447A CAT STARCH - MANILDRA, KBR GRIND
0.461 RT395A THERMALITE GLUE - CHCL3 EXTRACT
0.457 AP0031 NYLON 12 (POLYLAURYLLACTAM)
0.457 F21877 4(5)-CARBOXYFLUORESCEIN
Scat23c.asc / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.681 F22720 CHITIN
0.492 A10000
0.477 RT594A CHEESE SPREAD SINGLESON KBR DISC
0.459 AP0031 NYLON 12 (POLYLAURYLLACTAM)
0.440 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.439 RT282A LDPE B4524-90 EX NESTE -KBR GRINDON TGA
0.439 F28705 A-CYCLODEXTRIN
0.419 F90160 TOMATINE
Scat23d.dx / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.695 RT382A LATEX BASED SBR - DRIED, KBR GRIND

0.575 RT102A CASEIN ,KBR GRIND
0.558 RT549A DETAC3131 EX SHOALHAVEN - SMEAR ON DISK
0.535 F22720 CHITIN
0.529 RT540A BASE COAT REZOSOL 8233 EX KCA - CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.529 AP0029 NYLON 6/T (POLYHEXAMETHYLENE TEREPHTHALAMIDE)
0.514 F09650 5-AMINO-N-VALERICACID
0.512 F07280 8-AMINOCAPRYLICACID
0.487 RT290A NB LOVE CATIONICSTARCH EXF2, DRIED 105C
0.614 A10000
0.580 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.480 F72030 SODIUMTETRATHIONATEDIHYDRATE
0.659 A10000

0.586 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.562 F49135 L(-)-GLUCOSE
0.632 A10000
0.625 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.572 F22720 CHITIN

0.445 RT524A OPTICAL BRIGHTENING AGENT (OBA) BLANKOPHOR - DRIED, KBR GRIND
0.445 RT523A BERSET 86325B MELAMINE RESIN
0.438 RT290A NB LOVE CATIONICSTARCH EXF2, DRIED 105C
0.417 F70482 NAPHTHOL AS-BI PHOSPHATE
0.409 RT302A ADDITIONSPECTRUMBMA COLL SILICA +NB LOVE
0.405 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.400 F72030 SODIUMTETRATHIONATEDIHYDRATE
Scat47c.asc / Spectrum.lst Euclidean Search Hit List
0.676 F22720 CHITIN
0.461 RT524A OPTICAL BRIGHTENING AGENT (OBA) BLANKOPHOR - DRIED, KBR GRIND
0.461 RT523A BERSET 86325B MELAMINE RESIN
0.456 F88561 THIODIETHYLENEGLYCOL
0.445 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.437 F90160 TOMATINE
0.435 RT440A FOUNTAIN SOLUTION,DRIED105C,SMEARED ON DIS
0.434 RT456A FOUNTAIN SOLUTION,DRIED105C,SMEARED ON D
0.428 AP0021 METHYL CELLULOSE
0.415 RT594A CHEESE SPREAD SINGLESON KBR DISC
0.413 F44203 DODECYL-B-D-GLUCOPYRANOSIDE
0.409 F41650 METHYL SULFOXIDE

0.916 RT366A HDPE-MULTI REFLECTION SURFACE TRANSMISS
0.880 RT118A 2.5% E.V.A MULTI REFLECTION SURFACE TRANS
0.875 RT369A X03(4202) EX EXTHENE, MIR
0.862 RT368A E220 FILM, EXEXTHENE MIR
0.834 AP0049 POLYETHYLENE HIGH DENSITY
0.833 RT367A SURLYN MULTI REFLECTION SURFACE TRANSMI
0.831 RT338A DEFOAMER, DEAIREX8042 SOLID, SMEARED ON
0.815 RT261A SYNTHETICWAXEXCRODA, CHLOROFORMEXTRA
0.813 RT337A DEFOAMER FOAMASTER SOLID, SMEAREDON DISC
0.779 RT297A LDPE NCPE 7530 EX NESTE (TALCFILLED), THIN
0.774 AP0038 POLYAMIDE RESIN MELTING PT 95DEG C
0.770 AP0056 POLYETHYLENE, OXIDIZED ACIDNUMBER 15 MG KOH/G
0.766 RT227A HDPE SCLAIR 68A EX DUPONT -THIN FILM
0.765 RT082A HC WAX181-185 - HOT MELT ADHESIVE COMPON
0.754 RT296A HDPE 7541 NCPE 7541 EX NESTE , T-610626, T
0.743 RT419A WAX EXGULLOTINE M3, CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.742 RT362A FOAMASTER DF215 ANTIFOAMEXPETRIE
0.730 RT270A F2 WET END DEFOAMER, CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.727 RT257A PARAFFIN WAXEXCRODA, CHLOROFORMEXTRACT
0.721 RT061A RIEGEL SUPER BARRIERLINER
0.718 RT036A POLYETHYLENE-TRANSMISSION FILM
0.717 RT186A PARACOL WAX, THIN FILM
0.716 RT250A LLDPE DOWLEX3010 EX DOW CHEM. -THIN FILM
0.715 RT190A ALKATHENE -SPECACARD A RING -2 FOILS
0.711 RT119A E220 FILMEXEXTHENE, TRANSMISSION
0.708 F74752 OCTADECYLAMINE
0.707 RT191A NEWS 2617T -SPECACARD -A RING,2 FOILS
0.700 RT120A X03 (4202) EXEXTHENE, TRANSMISSION
0.635 A10000
0.561 RT178A COLLOID 15/40
0.531 RT438A SILICA AR GRADE SIO2.XH2O KBR GRIND

Prevalence of microplastics in the seal colony of Seal Rocks Victoria Australia

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie Prevalence of microplastics in the seal colony of Seal Rocks Victoria Australia

Ähnlich wie Prevalence of microplastics in the seal colony of Seal Rocks Victoria Australia (20)

Prevalence of microplastics in the seal colony of Seal Rocks Victoria Australia