Explore the vast range of titles available.

The research objective was to study the presence of DNA damages in haddock exposed to petrogenic or pyrogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from different sources: 1) extracts of oil produced water (PW), dominated by 2-ring PAHs; 2) distillation fractions of crude oil (representing oil-based drilling mud), dominated by 3-ring PAHs; 3) heavy pyrogenic PAHs, mixture of 4/5/6-ring PAHs. The biological effect of the different PAH sources was studied by feeding juvenile haddock with low doses of PAHs (0.3–0.7 mg PAH/kg fish/day) for two months, followed by a two-months recovery. In addition to the oral exposure, a group of fish was exposed to 12 single compounds of PAHs (4/5/6-ring) via intraperitoneal injection. The main endpoint was the analysis of hepatic and intestinal DNA adducts. In addition, PAH burden in liver, bile metabolites, gene and protein expression of CYP1A, GST activity, lipid peroxidation, skeletal deformities and histopathology of livers were evaluated. Juvenile haddock responded quickly to both intraperitoneal injection and oral exposure of 4/5/6-ring PAHs. High levels of DNA adducts were detected in livers three days after the dose of the single compound exposure. Fish had also high levels of DNA adducts in liver after being fed with extracts dominated by 2-ring PAHs (a PW exposure scenario) and 3-ring PAHs (simulating an oil exposure scenario). Elevated levels of DNA adducts were observed in the liver of all exposed groups after the 2 months of recovery. High levels of DNA adduct were found also in the intestines of individuals exposed to oil or heavy PAHs, but not in the PW or control groups. This suggests that the intestinal barrier is very important for detoxification of orally exposures of PAHs.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme has published a plan and guidelines for the monitoring of litter and microplastics (MP) in the Arctic. Here, we look beyond suggestions for immediate monitoring and discuss challenges, opportunities, and future strategies in the long-term monitoring of litter and MP in the Arctic. Challenges are related to environmental conditions, lack of harmonization and standardization of measurements, and long-term coordinated and harmonized data storage. Furthermore, major knowledge gaps exist with regard to benchmark levels, transport, sources, and effects, which should be considered in future monitoring strategies. Their development could build on the existing infrastructure and networks established in other monitoring initiatives in the Arctic, while taking into account specific requirements for litter and MP monitoring. Knowledge existing in northern and Indigenous communities, as well as their research priorities, should be integrated into collaborative approaches. The monitoring plan for litter and MP in the Arctic allows for an ecosystem-based approach, which will improve the understanding of linkages between environmental media of the Arctic, as well as links to the global problem of litter and MP pollution.

Marine litter in the Arctic Basin is influenced by transport from Atlantic and Pacific waters. This highlights the need for harmonization of guidelines across regions. Monitoring can be used to assess temporal and spatial trends but can also be used to assess if environmental objectives are reached, for example, to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Seafloor monitoring by trawling needs substantial resources and specific sampling strategies to be sufficiently robust to demonstrate changes over time. Observation and visual evaluation in shallow and deep waters using towed camera systems, remotely operated underwater vehicles, and submersibles are well suited for the Arctic environment. The use of imagery still needs to be adjusted through automation and image analyses, including deep learning approaches and data management, but will also serve to monitor areas with a rocky seafloor. We recommend developing a monitoring plan for seafloor litter by selecting representative sites for visual inspection that cover different depths and substrata in marine landscapes, and recording the litter collected or observed across all forms of seafloor sampling or imaging. We need better coverage and knowledge of status of seafloor litter for the whole Arctic and recommend initiatives to be taken for regions where such knowledge is lacking.

Few studies have been published on occurrence and distribution on microplastics (MPs) in invertebrates from the Arctic. We still need to develop harmonised methods to enable good comparison between studies taking into account recovery rates, size ranges, shapes and polymer types. Here, we review studies on MPs in invertebrates from the Arctic and present suggestions on sampling protocols and potential indicator species. Since information on MPs in Arctic invertebrates is vastly lacking, we recommend to at least include suspension feeding bivalves like mussels in monitoring programmes to function as indicator species in the Arctic. Mussels have also been suggested as indicator species for MP monitoring in coastal regions further south. Although we recognise the challenge with particle selection and egestion in mussels as well as the relatively low concentrations of MPs in Arctic waters, uptake levels seem to represent recent exposures. More research is needed to understand these selection processes and how they affect the bioaccumulation processes. Future research should include studies on whether different functional groups of invertebrates have different exposures to MPs, e.g., if there are differences between sessile versus motile species or different feeding strategies. More knowledge on monitoring strategies for pelagic and benthic species is needed.

Litter and microplastic assessments are being carried out worldwide. Arctic ecosystems are no exception and plastic pollution is high on the Arctic Council's agenda. Water and sediment have been identified as two of the priority compartments for monitoring plastics under the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Recommendations for monitoring both compartments are presented in this publication. Alone, such samples can provide information on presence, fate, and potential impacts to ecosystems. Together, the quantification of microplastics in sediment and water from the same region produce a three-dimensional picture of plastics, not only a snapshot of floating or buoyant plastics in the surface water or water column but also a picture of the plastics reaching the shoreline or benthic sediments, in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Assessment methodologies must be adapted to the ecosystems of interest to generate reliable data. In its current form, published data on plastic pollution in the Arctic is sporadic and collected using a wide spectrum of methods which limits the extent to which data can be compared. A harmonised and coordinated effort is needed to gather data on plastic pollution for the Pan-Arctic. Such information will aid in identifying priority regions and focusing mitigation efforts.

This paper examines a number of specific, practical recommendations to advance knowledge and move towards evidence-based solutions to microplastic (MP) pollution in the Nordic marine environment. The paper approaches the subject of MPs holistically, emphasises the knowledge gaps and challenges in answering pressing questions, discusses the limitations that so far have prevented these questions from being solved, and suggests approaches for answering them. The Nordic context is chosen due to the global importance of its ecosystem that is threatened by MP pollution, exacerbated by climate change. The research questions discussed pick up knowledge gaps identified in attempts to answer the most pressing questions of our time regarding marine MP pollution and are applicable to some or all seas of the Nordic region, from the Baltic and North Seas in the south to the Arctic in the north. The research questions relate to sources, sinks and transport of MPs, and how food webs are potentially impacted in Nordic marine environments. In addition, we point out the relevance for stakeholders expected to use the emerging knowledge. Through this exercise, using concrete examples, we aim to invite discussions on how a concerted effort by the Nordic countries can bring MP research to a higher level of understanding needed to address the MP pollution problem in Nordic marine habitats.

Microplastics are pervasive pollutants in marine ecosystems worldwide and are increasingly recognized as a significant environmental threat. Sri Lanka, an island nation, is not exempt from this issue. While microplastic pollution has been extensively studied in the southern and western parts of Sri Lanka, limited data is available for the northern coastal regions. This first quantitative study aimed to assess the concentration of microplastics on three northern beaches: Mathagal, Point Pedro, and Charty Beach. This study reveals substantial microplastic contamination, with an average abundance of 11.06 ± 6.06 items/m 2 . The predominant size range of microplastics was 3 to 4 mm (32%). The most common shapes identified were fragments (58%), pellets (17%), and foam (10%), with the primary colours being white (42%), blue (26%), and green (21%). Polyethylene (53%) and polypropylene (18%) were the most prevalent polymers found. Among the beaches studied, Point Pedro had the highest pellet pollution index (PPI), although all three beaches were categorized as having a “very low” PPI level (0.0 < PPI ≤ 0.5). The study highlights the significant contribution of land-based sources to microplastic pollution on these beaches and emphasizes the urgent need for ongoing research and systematic monitoring of microplastic pollution in northern Sri Lanka.

This study presents a large-scale monitoring of marine litter performed in the joint Norwegian–Russian ecosystem monitoring surveys in the period from 2010 to 2016 and contribute to documentation of the extent of marine litter in the Barents Sea. The distribution and abundance of marine litter were calculated by recordings of bycatch from the pelagic trawling in upper 60 m, from bottom trawling close to the sea floor, and floating marine debris at surface by visual observations. The study is comprehensive regarding coverage and number with registrations from 2,265 pelagic trawls and 1,860 bottom trawls, in addition to surface registration between the stations. Marine litter has been recorded from 301 pelagic and 624 of the bottom trawl catches. In total, 784 visual observations of floating marine debris were recorded during the period. Marine litter has been categorized according to volume or weight of the material types plastic, wood, metal, rubber, glass, paper, and textile. Marine litter is observed in the entire Barents Sea and distribution vary with material densities, ocean currents and depth. Plastic dominated number of observations with marine litter, as 72% of surface observations, 94% of pelagic trawls, and 86% of bottom trawls contained plastic. Observations of wood constituted 19% of surface observations, 1% of pelagic trawls, and 17% of bottom trawls with marine litter. Materials from other categories such as metal, rubber, paper, textile, and glass were observed sporadically. Recordings of wood dominated surface observations (61.9 ± 21.6% by volume) and on seafloor (59.4 ± 35.0% by weight), while plastic dominated marine litter observations in upper 60 m depth (86.4 ± 16.5% by weight) over these 7 years. Based on recordings and volume or area covered, mean levels of plastic in the upper 60 m of the Barents Sea were found to 0.011 mg m−3 (pelagic) and 2.9 kg km−2 at sea floor over the study period. Average levels of marine litter (all material types) at the sea floor were found to be 26 kg km−2.

Plastic pollution is ubiquitous, and the Arctic is no exception. One important step to understand the extent of the problem, and to monitor its impact is to have repeatable, comparable, and relevant measures across time and space that allow for the detection of marine litter trends. Arctic shorelines are a critical part of monitoring efforts. Pan-Arctic monitoring of litter on shorelines is also an essential component to examine global trends. Based on previous work examining litter in some regions of the Arctic, we suggest steps towards more harmonized protocols that include community-based monitoring, crowdsourced science programs, and science team-based surveys that are specific for the Arctic. Specifically, we recommend that shoreline survey sites for long-term monitoring be established where possible and be at least 50 m and surveys carried out at regular intervals of at least twice a year by any type of research team. Criteria for the selection of sites should be grounded in Indigenous and other local community and regional priorities, and should result in representation of both remote shorelines impacted by distant-source marine litter and shorelines impacted by more local sources. Results of any Arctic shoreline litter surveys should be made regularly available either through publications which include data sets, and/or accessible databases to promote regional comparisons and trend analysis across the pan-Arctic.