g. polyethylene and polystyrene) are buoyant, microplastics are abundant near the sea surface. Therefore, microplastics will be widely available to a host of planktonic organisms, including the larval stages of a variety of commercially important species that reside within the euphotic zone (Fendall and Sewell, 2009 and Gregory, 1996). This contact between plankton and microplastics is hypothetically exacerbated in gyres, as plankton populations are low whilst microplastic concentrations are high, resulting from plastic accumulation by ocean currents (Moore, 2008). A range of marine biota, including seabirds, crustaceans and fish, can ingest microplastics Veliparib cell line (Blight and Burger, 1997 and Tourinho

et al., 2010). Plastic fragments were

first identified in the guts of sea birds in the 1960s, when global plastic production was less than 25 million tonnes per annum (Ryan et al., 2009 and Thompson et al., 2009b). In 1982, a team in the Netherlands found 94% of fulmars sampled contained plastics, with an average of 34 plastic fragments per individual. Since, incidence and number of fragments consumed has remained LBH589 solubility dmso high, although the mass of plastic found in each bird has decreased significantly in recent years (Lozano and Mouat, 2009 and van Franeker, 2010). Dissection of planktivorous mesopelagic fish, caught in the North Pacific central gyre, revealed microplastics in the guts of ∼35% of the fish sampled (Boerger et al., 2010). Plastic fibres, fragments and films were also found in the stomachs of 13 of 141 mesopelagic fish caught in the North Pacific gyre (Davison and Asch, 2011). In the Clyde Sea (Scotland), 83% of Nephrops sp. collected had ingested plastics. This commercially important, omnivorous, benthic-dwelling crustacean mainly ate sections of monofilament line and fragments of plastic bags ( Murray and Aprepitant Cowie, 2011). Plastic fibres found in the environment can be as small as 1 μm in diameter, and 15 μm in length, making them

available to minute planktonic species ( Frias et al., 2010). Such fibres may be particularly hazardous as they may clump and knot, potentially preventing egestion ( Murray and Cowie, 2011). In all these examples, these animals might have ingested microplastics voluntarily, which they confuse for their prey. Alternatively, microplastic ingestion may result from eating lower trophic organisms that have themselves consumed microplastics ( Browne et al., 2008 and Fendall and Sewell, 2009). This process was recently demonstrated by providing small fish, which had previously eaten plastic fibres, to Nephrops sp., after a 24-h exposure period, all the Nephrops sp. had plastic fibres in their guts from eating the fish ( Murray and Cowie, 2011). It is yet to be established whether the ingestion of non-polluted microplastics have any significant adverse health effects on biota (e.g. morbidity, mortality or reproductive success) (Zarfl et al., 2011).