A global analysis by St. Joseph’s University on Long Island examines the prevalence of microplastics in marine life.
Dr. Konstantine Rountos, who led the study, is an associate professor of biology at the university. He and Afifah Khan, a recent program graduate, found that there are more species scientists should consider when measuring water quality.
WSHU's Sabrina Garone spoke with them to learn more.
WSHU: I think that a lot of us hear the word microplastics and inherently know that that's a bad thing when it comes to our health and the impact on the planet. But, what exactly are microplastics and how prevalent of a problem are they really? I'll start with you, doctor.
KR: Yeah, microplastics are small particles that are derived from either larger macroplastics that break down over time through wind, wave action, abrasion, etc. Or they are created by humans for whatever purpose, like a microbead or something like that. So these are small plastic particles, and just as we know, plastic takes a long time to degrade. These plastic particles end up not only just staying in our environment, but research shows that they're actually found in more and more humans and in other organisms, as well.
WSHU: Afifah, what kind of marine life are we talking about here in this study?
AK: So we looked at bivalve species, which include mussels, clams, and oysters. Then we looked at non-selective species, selective ones and some sponges.
WSHU: Could you explain the difference between the selective feeders and the non-selective feeders?
AK: So, in simpler terms, selective species are organisms that are able to pick what food they eat, and then non-selective organisms are ones that eat whatever they come across.
WSHU: And how are they picking? Filter feeders is the word for that, right?
KR: Filter feeding is a type of suspension feeding, and really, here, as Afifah said correctly, you have selective suspension feeders, those that can take specific particles from the water and consume them or decide not to consume them. And then you have non-selective suspension feeders, which are like sponges, snails, polychaetes — they don't have the ability to discriminate between the particles they ingest.
WSHU: And the non-selective feeders were more impacted by microplastics, right? Could you explain some of the findings there?
KR: For years, we've relied on selective suspension feeders like mussels and oysters to monitor ocean pollution. But this study really shows that non-selective suspension feeders like sponges, snails, and polychaetes are actually better indicators of microplastic pollution, because we found that the non-selective suspension feeders actually had significantly more microplastics than the selective suspension feeders.
WSHU: How exactly is this research being done?
AK: Yeah, so we did this research using different online databases. We took data from other people who have done research in the past in different areas of the world, and we combined that data to create our own graphs and analysis.
WSHU: So like you were just saying, this is a global analysis, but right here at home on Long Island, you know, this is something we could really feel the impacts of with all this access to different waterways. I know many towns are working on building up their shellfish populations. I know a lot of towns are working on building up their shellfish populations. Could one of you speak to that a little bit? How could this impact us here at home?
KR: Yeah, well, one of the major findings from this research is that it highlights the need for scientists and policymakers to really broaden the type of species that we use to monitor for plastic pollution, right? So, if we're only looking at oysters or mussels to give us a gauge of how many microplastics we have in the water, we really are not seeing a true baseline of what might be there. Obviously, there's a reason why we have oysters, mussels, and clams as an indicator species because we heavily consume them. However, these non-selective species may also be important to include to get that accurate baseline.
I would say that the concentrations in the U.S. are typically lower than in other parts of the world. There was actually a study that aired on NPR a few years ago, where our lab and a few undergrads studied oysters and hard clams from Long Island, and we found very low to no microplastics from the island in our shellfish. I know I was happy about that because it kept clams on the menu for me!
WSHU: Well, that's good! I think that's good to know it's not all doom and gloom.
KR: Exactly! Clean water equals clean marine organisms. If we maintain the water quality, the organisms that live in it will also be good quality. If we allow our waters to get degraded and turn a blind eye, we might be causing issues for the organisms that'd we would want to consume.
WSHU: Afifah, did you live on Long Island before going to St. Joe's? Because I'm wondering how much, if at all, living on Long Island and going to school here inspired an interest in marine biology?
AK: Yes, I've always lived on Long Island. I've always been interested in marine biology, and I think I wanted to do something different for research, something I didn't really know about. This way, I can learn as I go. And I came across microplastics, and that was something that sparked an interest in me, and I was like, 'okay, I don't know about this!' So I wanted to learn more, which is why I ended up picking microplastics as my research.
WSHU: Very cool! I'll throw that question to you, doctor as well. I know you said you're from Connecticut originally, but is having access to the water something that that inspired you to take this career path?
KR: Oh, absolutely! It was very infrequently, you know, throughout my childhood, that I wasn't in close proximity to the water, either the Sound or what have you in New England. My uncle was a fisherman in Boston Harbor, and my relatives in Europe were fishermen. So being close to the water — it's something that, you know, I deeply care about, as well as the health of our ocean. If we have healthy oceans, then we have healthy human populations, and as an avid seafood lover and consumer, you know, we need to make sure that our seafood is healthy so that it can provide the nutritional benefits that our human society needs.
WSHU: So what happens now? What are you hoping comes out of these findings here at home and beyond?
KR: What we intend, or what we hope, from this study is that, again, policymakers and ecosystem managers think about what type of species to incorporate when they monitor for microplastics, right? Knowing the fact that this study was able to demonstrate that even though oysters and clams, we've used them in the past to monitor different types of pollution — they may not be those sentinels that we need for microplastic pollution, and we may need to diversify what other types of species we include, to gain a more accurate understanding of what of what's out there.
AK: I feel like we should investigate areas in which we haven't discovered microplastics. Developing countries don't have any, or very few, microplastic examinations, as well as most species. I think future researchers should go into those areas. It's a widespread problem, and we can get a more holistic view if we have more data from around the world, from many different countries. We can see the extent to which these organisms are being impacted, and what it will eventually do to us. So, I think it's very important.
