Microplastic emergency and the associated plastisphere in freshwater habitats of the Arctic

The workshop lasted in two days, involving 32 scientists (including four early career scientists, ECS, and nine invited speakers) from Canada, Italy, Latvia, Norway, and Spain (see additional material for participant list). In the days leading up to the start of the event, participants were asked to answer a 10-question questionnaire, as follows, in order to have a common baseline for in-person discussion during the workshop days:

1. What do we currently know about the sources of microplastics entering Arctic freshwater systems? Could there be others still unidentified or underreported?
2. What do we currently know about the pathways by which microplastics enter Arctic freshwater systems? Could there be others still unidentified or underreported? How could the already known ones be monitored?
3. To your knowledge, in which freshwater systems in the Arctic have microplastics been found? In what other freshwater compartments should they be looked for?
4. In your experience, what shapes and chemical composition do the plastics found in the Arctic freshwater generally have?
5. In your opinion, what might be the effects and impacts of microplastics (and the plastisphere) in the Arctic on freshwater ecosystems and Arctic indigenous communities and biota, including human health? For example, may microplastics in Arctic freshwater be reservoirs of human pathogens, contaminants and antibiotic resistance genes?
6. In your opinion, what actions at local and international level could be taken to carry out long-term monitoring of microplastics in the still scarcely explored Arctic freshwater?
7. What challenges should be addressed (e.g., in terms of data acquisition and comparability, risk assessment) to obtain a comprehensive picture of microplastics (sources, transport pathways, impacts) in Arctic freshwaters? For example, coordination of international efforts, harmonization of sampling protocols, selection of monitoring sites, open data sharing, synergies with existing programmes, involvement of Arctic research bases.
8. What are your suggestions for how to best involve and engage indigenous communities in microplastics monitoring programs?
9. Please, list 3 (scientific) highlights in bullets – appropriate for an interdisciplinary audience – related to microplastic pollution in the Arctic.
10. Please, list your key statements and recommendations for research priorities in Arctic research (related to microplastic pollution) for the coming decade.
    During both days, each invited speaker was introduced with a short biography (see additional material). Each lecture had a duration of 25 min plus 5 min for Q&A.

The first day started in the afternoon with an introduction to the ICARP IV process by the organizers, followed by five invited lectures dealing with i) the current state of microplastic pollution in Arctic freshwater systems (Federico Citterich, ECS, Institute of Polar Sciences, CNR-ISP, Italy), ii) the atmospheric transport of microplastics to remote areas (Nikolaos Evangeliou, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norway), iii) size and replicas matter about microplastics in Arctic rivers, lakes and fjords (Inta Dimante-Deimantovica, Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology, Latvia), iv) implementing protocols from AMAP in the Canadian Arctic (Jennifer Provencher, Ecotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division in Environment and Climate Change, Canada), and v) microplastics and microlitter in Svalbard Islands (Fabiana Corami, CNR-ISP, Italy). This was followed by a one-hour discussion among all participants on the topics covered in the lectures.

The second day included both morning and afternoon sessions. The first part of the morning session, as for Day 1, was dedicated to lectures addressing the i) plastic pollution in polar areas with a focus on the road to Busan to the United Nations Plastic Treaty final session negotiations (Ilaria Corsi, University of Siena, Italy; by remote), ii) microplastics in sub-Arctic rivers, including freshwater sponges (Cristina Pedà, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Italy; by remote), and iii) Arctic seabirds (Davide Taurozzi, ECS, University of Roma Tre, Italy) and iv) polar plastisphere (Francisca Fernández-Piñas, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain). Before the brainstorming session, the outcomes from the questionnaire (see additional material for a summary) were graphically showcased by F. Citterich and discussed among participants. Participants were subdivided in two main groups for a first brainstorming on microplastics (first group) and plastisphere (second group) to individuate main research gaps and priorities related to microplastic pollution in the Arctic freshwater systems. F. Corami and J. Provencher were designated as rapporteurs of the group on microplastics, whereas F. Fernández-Piñas was the rapporteur of the group focusing on the plastisphere. The session continued by merging main information emerging from the morning break-out sessions and a report of activities was drafted. The workshop allowed gaining relevant information to take actions in thwarting plastic pollution in Arctic freshwaters (e.g., snow, glaciers, lakes and rivers), along with a focus on the plastisphere. The workshop ended doing final considerations and outlining future steps before reporting to ICARP IV.

Three highlights

• Microplastic pollution in Arctic freshwater systems is under-investigated in terms of sources, transport pathways and spreading, and monitoring.
• Plastisphere may represent a health issue due to the spread pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes.
• Standardized protocols for sampling, laboratory analyses and continuous feedback are needed, but these are being undertaken by many groups, so coordination is needed, not new efforts.

Summary of input provided for the ICARP IV process

Microplastic pollution is of great environmental concern. Microplastics have been found all over the Earth, which is indicative of the important threat they constitute. Yet, while the ocean is an object of major interest, the data available in the literature about microplastic pollution in the freshwaters, including those of the Earth’s poles, are limited to few reports, questioning the transport patterns through which microplastics reach these remote areas. In this regard, there is a lack of data on the plastic sources in the Arctic and, in turn, in Arctic freshwater systems, as well as a lack of understanding of the plastic fragmentation and bio/degradation processes in Polar environments. Microplastics can be ingested or accumulated (such as in sponges) by animals and can damage their biological structures and functions, as well as escalate the trophic levels down to indigenous people (even including drinking water sources). Microplastics can also alter microbial community biodiversity (and functions) by serving as surfaces onto which microbes (including pathogens) can grow and develop the plastisphere. This latter is a complex microbial community consisting of different microorganisms (including autotrophs, heterotrophs and predators) attached to plastic fragments. It is a novel habitat for microorganisms in general, often constituting vectors/reservoirs of pathogens, toxic and invasive species and antibiotic resistant genes, thus posing risk to human health. Additives can change the microbial communities in the plastisphere. Plastic-attached microbes could be also capable of degrading plastic polymers, thus altering the buoyancy of polymers and the toxicity of plastics. In turn, the ability to degrade plastics by cold-adapted microorganisms could lead to an environmental-friendly solution in mitigating plastic pollution in cold environments.

Recommendations for priorities in Arctic research for the coming decade

Research priorities should include:

• Coordinating field and lab based methodologies for quantifying and characterizing microplastics with our bodies working on this topic is needed (e.g. the Arctic Council, PICES, ICES, GESAMP, etc.).
• Long-term monitoring program addressing microplastic sources and pathways to individuate trends for spreading.
• Address both the Arctic and Antarctica: there are more similarities than differences. The differences are Indigenous communities, the riverine inputs, the standing freshwater, e.g. lotic and lentic waters.
• Studying microplastics using a holistic One-Health Approach.
• Study of microbial communities attached to plastics according to shapes and sizes, and polymer type. Cultured and molecular approaches recommended. Identification of plastic core microbiome across various locations/environments.
• Viriome monitoring in the plastisphere.
• In situ colonization experiments (Ecological succession of microorganisms over time, pristine versus aged plastics) or analysis from collected plastics on site.
• Potential risks of the plastisphere for humans and environments. Focus on the transfer of pathogens/antibiotic resistance genes through the trophic web.
• Isolation of plastic degrading microorganisms from the polar plastisphere.

Recommendations emerging from the workshop:

• Control of potential antibiotic abuse and misuse of the local communities. Waste and waste-water management. Monitoring of antibiotic resistant bacteria in waste-water plants, hospitals, households.
• Effects on the full food chain and possible microbiome change in guts of various animals.
• Interlaboratory comparison for polymers - intercalibration and cross validation (reference libraries) – are needed. Enhancing mobility grants and building networks to support polymers ID.
• Policy and risk assessment should be carried out.
• Identification of bioindicators for plastic pollution in Arctic freshwater habitat.

Key-statements:

• Polymer identification: invest money for instrumentation and research.
• Different priority lists (local vs regional vs Un Treaty) exist.
• Need for power analysis and how to report the result of the research.

Recommendations for the implementation of the suggested priorities

• Need for the coordination between groups that are working on the establishment of standardized methods of sampling and analysis in the Polar monitoring program.
• Cooperation between research groups and institutions
• Global science of polar areas research
• Adopt best practices and measures to mitigate pollution, including tourist control and regulation. Eco tourism practices.
• Positive reinforcement policies and activities to prevent and fight plastic pollution.
• Spread information to the local communities, especially indigenous communities and policy makers. Involve people in citizen science and correct waste management.
• Remediation / bioremediation of plastic waste.

Download the full Report

Main Organiser

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (Institute of Polar Sciences, National Research Council of Italy (CNR-ISP), Spianata San Raineri 86, 92122 Messina, Italy)

Type of Activity

• Workshop

Dates and Locations

• 10 - 11 October 2024, Messina, Italy