Abstract

Mass production of plastics started nearly 70 years ago and the production rate is expected to double over the next two decades. While serving many applications because of their durability, stability and low cost, plastics have deleterious effects on the environment. Plastic is known to release a variety of chemicals during degradation, which has a negative impact on biota. Here, we show that the most commonly used plastics produce two greenhouse gases, methane and ethylene, when exposed to ambient solar radiation. Polyethylene, which is the most produced and discarded synthetic polymer globally, is the most prolific emitter of both gases. We demonstrate that the production of trace gases from virgin low-density polyethylene increase with time, with rates at the end of a 212-day incubation of 5.8 nmol g-1 d-1 of methane, 14.5 nmol g-1 d-1 of ethylene, 3.9 nmol g-1 d-1 of ethane and 9.7 nmol g-1 d-1 of propylene. Environmentally aged plastics incubated in water for at least 152 days also produced hydrocarbon gases. In addition, low-density polyethylene emits these gases when incubated in air at rates ~2 times and ~76 times higher than when incubated in water for methane and ethylene, respectively. Our results show that plastics represent a heretofore unrecognized source of climate-relevant trace gases that are expected to increase as more plastic is produced and accumulated in the environment.

Introduction

Over the past 50 years, polymer manufacturing has accelerated, from 2x106 metric tonnes (Mt) per year in 1950 to 381x106 Mt per year in 2015, and is expected to double in the next 20 years [1]. The total global production of plastics to date is estimated at 8300x106 Mt, with polyethylene being the most common polymer [2,3], accounting for approximately 36% of all plastic types [1]. In the environment, plastics are vulnerable to weathering and degradation processes, caused by environmental factors such as light, heat, moisture, chemical oxidation and biological activity that are responsible for physical and chemical changes in the structure of the polymer [4].

Polyethylene, like other plastics, is not inert and is known to release additives and other degradation products into the environment throughout its lifetime. For example, the additive bisphenol-A used in the manufacture of many plastic products [5] is leached as plastics age, and hydrocarbon gases are produced during high-temperature decomposition (>202°C) [6]. These chemicals vary amongst different types of plastic and, once released, some can be toxic and have adverse effects on the environment and human health [79]. Degradation processes not only affect the chemical integrity of the plastic but also ultimately results in the fragmentation of the polymer into smaller units increasing the surface area exposed to the elements.

Most plastic is synthesized from natural gases [10] and leaching is expected to occur during the aging processes. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has reported hydrocarbon gas emissions from plastics under natural conditions. This study seeks to investigate this phenomenon and its potential environmental consequences.

Our research investigated the production of hydrocarbon gases from polyethylene and other plastics at ambient temperature, with an emphasis on methane (CH4), one of the most potent atmospheric greenhouse gases [1113] and ethylene (C2H4), which reacts with OH in the atmosphere and increases carbon monoxide concentrations [14,15]. Given the substantial rise in plastic production worldwide, understanding the extent of CH4 and C2H4 emissions from plastic is essential. In addition, we report production rates of ethane (C2H6), the second most abundant hydrocarbon in the atmosphere after CH4, known to enhance the level of tropospheric ozone and carbon monoxide [14,16], and propylene (C3H6), also a hydrocarbon pollutant in the atmosphere [17]. Since plastics come in different compositions and morphologies, we conducted a series of experiments to evaluate gas production under a variety of environmental conditions. We show that solar radiation initiates the production of these gases for the polymers tested.

Materials and methods

Experimental design

Multiple experiments were conducted to assess the relative contribution of plastic in hydrocarbon gas emissions. To assess if different types of plastic emit hydrocarbon gases under natural conditions and the magnitude of these emissions, we tested some of the most common plastics produced worldwide. After selecting the plastic category emitting the greatest amount of hydrocarbon gases, we tested the effect of a change in density and morphology (i.e. pellets, flakes, powder) on hydrocarbon gas emissions. Environmental factors, including solar radiation, UVB (ultraviolet B; 280–320 nm) and solar radiation exposure history were varied as part of this study. These tests were executed in parallel with two long-term experiments assessing the effect of aging for 212 days using virgin pellets and for 152 days using marine plastic from the ocean. Finally, to determine the impact of medium on plastic degradation and gas emissions, we tested the production of gases from plastic incubated in either air or in water. All experiments involving solar radiation were conducted on the roof of C-MORE Hale located in Hawaii, at 21.3°N, 157.9°W.

Hydrocarbon gas production from plastics.

Initial tests were conducted using different substrates including polycarbonate (PC), acrylic (AC), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Each plastic type was incubated in seawater and exposed to ambient solar radiation for several days, to measure the release of CH4 and C2H4 during incubation. Plastic pieces measured 5.5 x 0.8 cm with a thickness of 0.3 cm and weighed approximately 1.5 g. Each piece of plastic was incubated separately in 30 mL gas-tight cylindrical quartz vials (9.6 cm long by 2.0 cm diameter) filled with seawater filtered using a cartridge with a 0.2 μm pore size. The seawater was collected at 25 m depth at Station ALOHA, a long-term monitoring site located 100 km north of Oahu (Hawaii) in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (22.8°N, 158.0°W). The cruise was part of the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT) program (http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/) [18] and because it occurred in international waters, no special permission was necessary to sample seawater. The field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. The vials were incubated in an open, shallow (~15 cm depth) water bath maintained at 26°C. For each plastic type, triplicate vials were exposed to ambient solar radiation and another set of triplicates was incubated in the dark (by wrapping the vials with aluminium foil), for a period of six and seven days, respectively. Triplicate quartz vials filled with filtered seawater but without plastic were incubated in light and dark conditions as control treatments. PS was tested in a separate experiment using the same vials, with pieces that were triangular in shape (approximately 5.0 cm perimeter), a thickness of 0.3 cm and a weight of approximately 0.2 g. A set of triplicate vials with no plastic served as control.

Effects of solar radiation exposure and ultraviolet radiation on hydrocarbon gas production.

Experiments were conducted to determine the effects of aging and irradiance spectrum on hydrocarbon gas production. For these experiments, we used virgin LDPE pellets (Marlex 1017, Chevron Phillips) with a diameter of approximately 5 mm and a density of 0.917 g cm-3. Replicate 30 mL quartz vials (n = 4) containing approximately 0.2 g of LDPE pellets in MilliQ water were incubated on the roof of C-MORE Hale and the outer surfaces of the vials were cleaned and shaken weekly. Hydrocarbon gas concentrations were measured approximately every two weeks over a 212-day period. After each measurement, the inner and outer surfaces of the vials were cleaned, and the vials filled with fresh MilliQ water, the previously-exposed LDPE pellets added, and incubated again.

To determine the effect of UV radiation on hydrocarbon gas production, triplicate vials containing 3.0 g of LDPE pellets immersed in MilliQ water were incubated for seven days either in gas-tight 40 mL Pyrex® bottles (11.8 cm long and 2.1 cm in diameter) or in 30 mL quartz vials, after which the gas concentrations were measured. The dark treatment consisted of virgin LDPE pellets with MilliQ water in vials wrapped in aluminium foil. The Pyrex® bottles were scanned using a spectrophotometer and did not transmit UVB radiation (280–320 nm) and hence could help in deciphering the importance of shorter wavelengths for photo-degradation processes.

To determine whether hydrocarbon gas production continues once the plastic is removed from sunlight, triplicate vials containing 3.0 g of LDPE pellets were incubated in 40 mL serum vials in the dark for 14 days at 25°C. The LDPE pellets had been exposed to light for 270 days and 15 days with a control treatment of virgin pellets that had never been exposed to natural light.

Effects of polymer morphology and density.

An additional test to determine the effect of polymer morphology on hydrocarbon gas production used six different types of polyethylene. Five of the samples were LDPE with three of the samples in pellet form while the other two were either powder or flake. The remaining sample was linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) with a density very close to one of the LDPE pellet treatments. For each treatment, 0.4 g of plastic was incubated in gas-tight quartz vials in MilliQ water and exposed to ambient solar radiation for eight days on the roof of C-MORE Hale. For all experiments, the control treatment (n = 3) consisted of vials with MilliQ water but without polyethylene.

Production of hydrocarbon gases from environmental plastic debris.

In addition to virgin plastic, marine plastic debris from the ocean was collected at Station ALOHA. Plastic pieces were collected using a specialized manta trawl [19] skimming the surface of the ocean for 30 min. The collected plastic (n = 4) was cleaned by soaking in 10% hydrochloric acid for 2 hours and incubated in MilliQ water on the roof of C-MORE Hale as separate pieces (with a weight of approximately 0.2 g) for a period of 152 days. Gas measurements were made every two weeks after which the inner and outer surfaces of the vials were cleaned, filled with MilliQ water, the previously-exposed plastic added, and incubated again. Vials with MilliQ water and without plastic were used as control treatment for each time point.

Emission of hydrocarbon gases by LDPE exposed to natural sunlight in air.

To determine if LDPE virgin pellets also emit hydrocarbons when exposed directly to air and if this production differs under dark conditions, a pre-weighed amount of virgin LDPE pellets (3.0 g) was placed in 30 mL quartz vials that were flushed with zero-CH4 air for 20 seconds and immediately closed. The vials were either exposed to full sunlight or wrapped in aluminium foil. An extra set of flushed vials (without LDPE pellets) for each treatment was also incubated and used as control treatments. At each time point (1, 3, 9 and 17 days), three samples from each treatment (control, light and dark) were removed and analyzed for CH4 and C2H4concentrations in the headspace.

Plastic analysis

To identify the type of plastic collected in the ocean, spectra were obtained using a micro-Raman RXN system (Kaiser Optical Systems Inc.) as previously described [20]. A 785 nm laser excitation and a Leica automated microscope stage with a 50 μm slit width were used to determine the micro-Raman spectra of the different plastic types. The environmental samples were compared with known plastics and the spectra analysed using GRAMS/AI™ Spectroscopy software.

Hydrocarbon analysis

The dissolved gas concentrations were quantified using a purge and trap system [21] connected to a gas chromatograph (Agilent 7890A) equipped with a flame ionization detector. A known volume of sample was transferred from the vials to a sparging chamber using positive pressure supplied by ultra-high purity helium (Airgas) and sparged for 12 min (100 ml min-1). The eluting gas stream was passed through a Nafion dryer and Drierite® and Ascarite® columns in order to remove water vapour and CO2 before being cryotrapped on a sample loop containing Poropak Q 80/100 (Sigma-Aldrich) and immersed in liquid nitrogen. The trap was subsequently heated for two min to approximately 90°C and the gas released was injected onto a 30 m x 0.32 mm GS-CarbonPLOT analytical capillary column (J&W Scientific) with a temperature program of 38°C for 1.0 min, 65°C for 1.3 min and 150°C for 2.2 min [22]. Calibration was performed by analysis of compressed gas standards containing 10 ± 2% ppm of CH4, C2H4, C2H6 and C3H6 in nitrogen (Scott-Marrin). Set volumes of gas standard were analyzed following the same procedure used for sample analysis [23]. The experimental precision of these measurements, based on the coefficient of variation of ten replicate samples, was within 5% for all gases. The limit of detection, given the sample volume typically analyzed for these experiments, was approximately 0.15 nM for all of the gases. The rate of CH4 and C2H4 production in the control treatments (i.e. vials incubated under the same conditions without plastic) was approximately 5%.

Statistical analysis

Student’s t-distribution (t-test) was used to determine differences between treatments with a level of significance of P < 0.05.

Results

Preliminary experiments showed that all of the polymer types tested (PC, AC, PP, PET, PS, HDPE and LDPE) produced measurable quantities of CH4 and C2H4 when exposed to ambient solar radiation (Table 1). The rate of production spanned more than two orders of magnitude between the different types of plastic, from 10 to 4100 pmol g-1d-1 for CH4 and ~ 20 to 5100 pmol g-1d-1 for C2H4. The highest production rates for both gases were measured for LDPE. Most of the samples kept in the dark did not produce any gas, and those that did had much lower production rates, reaching 120 pmol CH4 g-1 d-1 and 60 pmol C2H4 g-1 d-1 for PS, and 50 pmol CH4 g-1 d-1 and 20 pmol C2H4 g-1 d-1 for PET and AC, respectively. Gas production from all other plastic types incubated in the dark was either below the detection limit of the instrument or not significantly different from the control treatment (t-test, P>0.11).

thumbnail
 
Table 1. Mean production rates of CH4 and C2H4 from a variety of plastics incubated in water under ambient solar radiation (light) and dark conditions.

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574.t001

The spectra derived from Raman analysis on plastic debris pieces collected from the open ocean were compared with different types of commercially sourced common plastics. The spectra matched with LDPE and therefore the plastic collected from the open ocean was hereafter referred to as “aged LDPE” (Fig 1E). For both types of plastic, the cumulative amount of hydrocarbon gases increased with time although the relative contribution of the gases produced was variable (Fig 1A and 1B). The rates of hydrocarbon gas production are normalized to weight and to convert to surface area, the pellet weight of approximately 35 mg had a surface area ranging from ca. 70 mm2 to 315 mm2. For the virgin LDPE pellets, the cumulative gas emissions during 212 days were 500, 1700, 340 and 1000 nmol g-1 of CH4, C2H4, C2H6 and C3H6, respectively (Fig 1A). For aged plastics, the cumulative gas emissions during 152 days were 700, 700, 180 and 160 nmol g-1 of CH4, C2H4, C2H6 and C3H6, respectively (Fig 1B). Gas production rates increased over time for the virgin pellets (Fig 1C) but were relatively constant for the aged plastic (Fig 1D). Except for CH4, the weight-normalized gas production rates were lower for the aged plastic compared to virgin pellets. During this period of time (December 2016 to April 2017), the PAR intensity at noon, when the sun was at its zenith, varied from 1496 to 1787 μM m-2s-1.

thumbnail
 
Fig 1. Gas production from LDPE exposed to ambient solar radiation and identification of plastic collected in the open ocean.

The cumulative amount of hydrocarbon gases normalized to weight and production rates of CH4, C2H4, C2H6 and C3H6 from (A) & (C) virgin LDPE pellets (0.2 g) and (B) & (D) LDPE plastic pieces (0.2 g) collected from the open ocean. Measurements were taken at approximately two-week intervals during the incubation period. Error bars represent the error propagation of the standard deviation of the mean for each time point. Panel (E) represents the micro-Raman spectra for the aged LDPE collected in the open ocean (red) and the virgin LDPE pellets (blue).

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574.g001

As shown in previous experiments (Fig 1 and Table 1), LDPE releases large amounts of CH4, C2H4, C2H6 and C3H6 into seawater and MilliQ water when exposed to sunlight. CH4 and C2H4production rates from virgin LDPE pellets were larger (for similar incubation periods) when the plastic was exposed to sunlight directly in air (Fig 2), rather than immersed in water (Fig 1). In that case, production rates for both gases increased with time and ranged from 0.11 to 0.44 nmol CH4 g-1d-1 and 0.32 to 96 nmol C2H4 g-1d-1 after 17 days of incubation (Fig 2). Those final rates are approximately 2 and 76 times larger than CH4 and C2H4 production from LDPE virgin pellets incubated in MilliQ water for 14 days (Figs 1 and 2). No detectable emissions of any of the gases were observed in the control or dark treatments (data not shown).

thumbnail
 
Fig 2. Production rates of CH4 and C2H4 from virgin LDPE pellets exposed to sunlight in air.

Mean production rates of CH4 (A) and C2H4 (B) from LDPE virgin pellets incubated in air under ambient solar radiation for 1, 3, 9 and 17 days. The error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate samples. The emission of CH4 in the dark treatment was below the detection limit and less than 0.3 nmol g-1d-1 for C2H4. The black arrow indicates the production rate of CH4 and C2H4 from virgin LDPE pellets incubated in MilliQ water for 14 days (Fig 1).

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574.g002

The emissions of hydrocarbon gases were measured using virgin LDPE pellets exposed for seven days to the full solar spectrum (FULL; 280–700 nm) and to solar radiation without UVB ((-)UVB; 320–700 nm; Fig 3). Except for C3H6 (t-test, P = 0.636), the results showed significant differences (t-test, P<0.002) between the two treatments, with consistently lower rates for the (-)UVB treatment corresponding to 23%, 74%, and 68% of the FULL treatment for CH4, C2H4and C2H6, respectively. All dark treatments showed emission rates less than 0.1 nmol g-1d-1.

thumbnail
 
Fig 3. Effect of spectral irradiance on hydrocarbon gas production from LDPE.

Production rates of hydrocarbon gases (CH4, C2H4, C2H6 and C3H6) from virgin LDPE pellets kept in the dark, exposed to full solar radiation (280–700 nm) or to solar radiation filtered for UVB (320–700 nm). Error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate samples.

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574.g003

LDPE pellets incubated in the dark after exposure to light produced measurable quantities of hydrocarbon gases. The rates of CH4 (0.11 nmol g-1d-1) and C2H4 (0.52 nmol g-1d-1) production were equivalent to 55% and 40%, respectively, of the rates when the pellets were incubated in the light (0.20 nmol CH4 g-1d-1 and 1.3 nmol C2H4 g-1d-1). In addition, environmentally-aged LDPE plastic collected from the open ocean and incubated for 14 days in the dark under ambient outdoor temperature [18.5–32.5°C] also produced 0.37 ± 0.11, 0.14 ± 0.09, 0.21 ± 0.12 and 0.06 ± 0.03 nmol g-1d-1 of CH4, C2H4, C2H6, and C3H6, respectively. Pellets that had been previously exposed to 270 days of natural solar radiation and incubated at 25°C were amongst the highest production rates for all gases with 0.23 ± 0.02, 0.41 ± 0.05, 2.6 ± 0.22 and 0.70 ± 0.09 nmol g-1d-1 of CH4, C2H4, C2H6, and C3H6, respectively. These results indicate that once initiated, the production of hydrocarbon gases continues in the dark.

Morphology has an important effect on hydrocarbon gas production. LDPE powder exhibited weight-normalized CH4 and C2H4 production rates that were 488 and 132 times higher than LDPE pellets, respectively (Table 2). All forms of LDPE, except LLDPE, produced measurable quantities of hydrocarbon gases with CH4 and C2H4 production rates ranging from 0.08 to 55 nmol CH4 g-1d-1 and 0.16 to 21 nmol C2H4 g-1d-1. With respect to the LDPE pellets of varying densities, there were significant differences in CH4 production between treatments (t-test, P<0.03), with lowest rates for the lowest density treatment and highest rates for the highest density treatment. No other consistent pattern for the other hydrocarbon gases was observed with the different densities. Interestingly, the ratios of the different gases produced varied across LDPE pellet densities. For example, the C2H4: CH4 ratio varied from 1.3 to 4.4 and the C2H4:C2H6 ratio varied from 1.9 to 8.6 indicating that degradation processes were variable for the different morphologies under these experimental conditions.

thumbnail
 
Table 2. Effect of polymer morphology and density on hydrocarbon gas production from polyethylene.

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574.t002

Discussion

The influence of plastic composition on hydrocarbon gas production

Our results show that different types of plastics, that are commonly used and dispersed in the environment worldwide, produce CH4 and C2H4 under environmental conditions. We hypothesize that the relative amounts of low-molecular-weight hydrocarbon gas molecules that are released from plastic substrates depend on the molecular structure of the plastic including the degree of branching, the addition of plasticizers, as well as the manufacturing process. For example, among the plastic materials tested, LDPE produced the largest amounts of CH4 and C2H4, probably due to its weaker structure and more exposed hydrocarbon branches. In contrast, with a more compact structure, lower permeability and fewer accessible active sites, degradation of HDPE resulted in lower emission.

Long-term hydrocarbon gas emission from plastics

The release of greenhouse gases from virgin and aged plastic over time indicates that polymers continue to emit gases to the environment for an undetermined period. We attribute the increased emission of hydrocarbon gases with time from the virgin pellets to photo-degradation of the plastic, as well as the formation of a surface layer marked with fractures, micro-cracks and pits [2426]. With time, these defects increase the surface area available for further photo-chemical degradation and therefore might contribute to an acceleration of the rate of gas production. It is also known that smaller particles of secondary origin termed ‘microplastics’ [27,28] are eventually produced and may further accelerate gas production. The initial shape of the polymer is also a potential factor contributing to the variability in hydrocarbon production because items of the same mass but with different shapes have different surface-to-volume ratios. Small fragments not only have a greater surface-to-volume ratio than larger items, but they also tend to have longer edge lengths relative to their volume [29]. This predicts that in the environment, as plastic particles degrade and become smaller, they will also emit more hydrocarbon gases per unit mass. The emission of gases from the aged plastic collected from the ocean (age unknown at the start of the experiment) indicates that production may continue throughout the entire lifetime of the plastic. We hypothesize that lower production rates from environmentally aged plastic are probably due to the presence of plasticizers that retard photo-degradation by counteracting the negative effect of UV radiation.

Driving factors for gas emissions

Manipulation of the radiation spectrum showed that UVB increases the production of hydrocarbon gases relative to longer wavelengths, which is consistent with its key role in the photo-oxidative degradation processes for polyethylene [26]. Indeed, solar photon flux, especially in the UV portion of the spectrum, provides the activation energy necessary to initiate degradation due to bond cleavage and depolymerisation, which affects the mechanical properties of the material [26,30,31]. We hypothesize that this process yields hydrocarbon gas molecules that are released into the environment. Although the emission of hydrocarbon gases is enhanced by photo-degradation in the UVB spectrum, our results indicate that UVB radiation is not essential for the initiation or the continuous production of hydrocarbon with time. Once initiated by solar radiation, emission of the gases continues in the dark, at a rate that depends on previous radiation exposure.

Effects of morphology and density of polyethylene on gas emissions

While the production of hydrocarbon gases was prevalent in LDPE, the different morphologies and densities within LDPE products resulted in a change in the relative concentrations of the different gases. LDPE in powder form, with a much higher surface area than pellets with the same density and weight, produced the highest amount of hydrocarbon gases. Along with morphology and density, the average molecular weight that varies with the polymer chain length and hence the number of branched molecules exposed may also be a controlling factor in hydrocarbon emissions. Unfortunately, this information is proprietary and very rarely available from suppliers. Also, even polyethylene, which is known to be the simplest polyolefin, can form various conformational structures of the macromolecular chains, which in its solid state assume various states of intermolecular order [10]. This heterogeneity within the same type of plastic would affect the production rates of the different hydrocarbon gases and consequently the ratios among them. Yet, due to the heterogeneity of the products even within the same type of plastic, the nature of the reactions is unknown. The shortening of the long polymer chain and its breakdown into smaller units can be caused by different mechanisms such as random chain scission, end-chain scission, chain-stripping or cross-linking [28]. These reactions would lead to the production of hydrocarbon gases including those presented in this study.

Closing comments

The global production of plastic is large [1] and the amount of plastic waste generated in 2010 from 192 countries was 275x106 Mt from which 4.8x106 to 12.7x106 Mt was estimated to enter the ocean [32]. By 2025, the amount of plastic waste input to marine systems might increase by an order of magnitude if waste management is not improved [32]. Because polyethylene is the most common polymer, it is anticipated to be the most common form of plastic pollution in surface ocean waters worldwide [3335]. In addition, as microplastics with greater surface area are produced hydrocarbon gas production rates will likely accelerate. The results from this study indicate that hydrocarbon gas production may continue indefinitely throughout the lifetime of plastics. The amount of plastic material in the environment exposed to full sunlight exceeds the quantity of submerged plastic. Our experiments indicated that emissions of hydrocarbon gases are even greater (up to 2 times higher for CH4 and up to 76 times higher for C2H4) in air compared to in water. The difference in emission rate for plastic in water compared to plastic exposed to air is partly due to temperature and heat build-up, [36] resulting in the plastic material reaching a temperature higher than the surrounding medium. Furthermore, plastic exposed to air is subjected to less biofouling than in aquatic environments because of the lack of a fluid medium that facilitates microorganisms settling onto the plastic substrate resulting in more surfaces directly exposed to solar radiation and more conducive to deformation, degradation and hydrocarbon production. Therefore, in warm climates, higher hydrocarbon production rates are expected for plastic exposed to air compared to plastic in aquatic environments.

At this stage, very little is known about the contribution of plastic to CH4, C2H4 and other hydrocarbon gas budgets. This study reports the first measurements of hydrocarbon production by plastic under ambient conditions. Based on the rates measured in this study and the amount of plastic produced worldwide CH4 production by plastics is likely to be an insignificant component of the global CH4 budget. However, for the other hydrocarbon gases with much lower global emissions to the atmosphere compared to CH4, the production from the plastics might have more environmental and global relevance. The fate of these gases is also not well constrained, but sinks are likely to be bacterial oxidation to carbon dioxide with a portion of these gases emitted to the atmosphere. Given the ongoing rate at which plastic is being produced, used and exposed on land and the future trend in mismanaged plastic waste ending up in marine systems [32], the amount of plastic exposed to the environment will likely increase with time and so too will the amount of CH4 and C2H4 emitted from polymers. In addition, degradation of plastics in the environment leads to the formation of microplastics with greater surface area, which may accelerate hydrocarbon gas production. Due to the longevity of plastics and the large amounts of plastic persisting in the environment, questions related to the role of plastic in the CH4 and C2H4 global budgets should be prioritized and addressed by the scientific community.

Supporting information

 

pone.0200574.s001.xlsx
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL
1                                                                            
2 LDPE virgin pellets   Mean CH4 Std CH4 Mean CH4 Std CH4 CH4 Mean CH4 Std CH4 Mean CH4 Std CH4 Mean C2H4 Std C2H4 Mean C2H4 Std C2H4 C2H4 Mean C2H4 Std C2H4 Mean C2H4 Std C2H4 Mean C2H6 Std C2H6 Mean C2H6 Std C2H6 C2H6 Mean C2H6 Std C2H6 Mean C2H6 Std C2H6 Mean C3H6 Std C3H6 Mean C3H6 Std C3H6 C3H6 Mean C3H6 Std C3H6 Mean C3H6 Std C3H6
3 Time (days) Plastic weight (mg) C (nM) C (nM) (nmol) (nmol) C(nmol)/day C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g/d) C(nmol/g/d) C (nM) C (nM) (nmol) (nmol) C(nmol)/day C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g/d) C(nmol/g/d) C (nM) C (nM) (nmol) (nmol) C(nmol)/day C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g/d) C(nmol/g/d) C (nM) C (nM) (nmol) (nmol) C(nmol/day) C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g) C(nmol/g/d) C(nmol/g/d)
4 14 171.22500000000002 16.234649555517358 1.4918608481780273 0.48703948666552066 0.04475582544534082 0.034788534761822906 2.841643179889501 0.13610878121344056 0.20297451284925008 0.009722055800960043 101.1989902235308 6.151047669985275 3.0359697067059237 0.1845314300995583 0.2168549790504231 17.734225155598654 0.5346285445635441 1.2667303682570468 0.03818775318311034 21.724106922821107 1.218661991559973 0.6517232076846331 0.03655985974679922 0.04655165769175951 3.8074169525542807 0.10233690401500517 0.27195835375387717 0.007309778858214663 62.2740612086623 6.175411666511623 1.8682218362598695 0.18526234999534877 0.13344441687570496 10.950031123663221 1.4177028968212084 0.7821450802616586 0.10126449263008619
5 28 171.20000000000002 77.94956165757338 12.641273048666548 2.1100417462108707 0.34406324657501053 0.11592873282466787 12.342824080876333 2.0716943982188165 0.6786557786419167 0.1476584600105684 484.0480078864119 28.619777423362272 13.08959931373515 0.717710909345845 0.7181164005020876 76.44585904019708 2.021883400910265 4.193688134614174 0.13927994138612362 89.7140106157406 6.512987484163831 2.4382503842292005 0.18092234344301886 0.12760908403889765 14.251646648000555 0.9983018780783816 0.7460164068175911 0.07093162120660416 299.5308544012019 22.915705740579547 8.098739234435879 0.5942684366169396 0.4450369570125722 47.34316752646288 3.0395798937745373 2.599509743057118 0.19205075364185364
6 46 171.14999999999998 281.5883225610356 52.30410021857404 7.508065974717472 1.3917055674445318 0.2998902349170334 43.64323312863386 6.448508955072312 1.2328219496846458 0.7300275086106411 1195.8103101575614 87.28886915303904 31.954552339496082 2.2795737608065534 1.0480529458756074 186.44834866095994 8.097001400251354 6.111249423375715 0.4355832587164728 220.6672627204324 26.0314515732864 5.90958327704801 0.6941409141363976 0.19285182737882275 34.41790677127402 2.930190492131173 1.1203477846263032 0.1530493513604532 722.2261385078448 53.74068415106303 19.302467345246633 1.4113612939631521 0.6224293394894864 112.67317329788561 5.593691446786828 3.629444765079041 0.2608765972356273
7 60 171.088275 390.387706809033 53.46710531844213 10.364210271594226 1.417258587744869 0.20401030691976813 60.31444838013242 6.4992755538672276 0.9542111545738808 0.44694204093400297 1814.6346728287776 94.21271033983666 48.20923856439052 2.4563638808955552 1.1610490160638882 281.71708440749444 11.444543676744397 6.804909696181037 0.5777160709543817 314.5603450981216 26.857581983269608 8.374961799206869 0.7110026841517607 0.1760984658684899 48.83025313615128 2.9758296031205633 1.0294533117769469 0.03708412297328564 1108.1695412712438 58.7342396834628 29.403266353920937 1.554734296599414 0.721485643476736 170.5813295601893 8.124465358878112 4.136296875878834 0.42086859506866664
8 74 170.875 586.7256945375709 53.73055623782216 15.540120867902976 1.4252395513661473 0.3697078997363393 90.67111923786544 6.741057352360989 1.6906210067306726 0.8301750123758774 2733.71218272647 129.09205070467317 72.42437620112744 3.250278103068216 1.7296526883383516 423.7118524937656 17.78500591772608 10.142483434733652 0.9723967221920298 461.91685916388917 27.155030567441074 12.259720649734415 0.7208763871405347 0.27748277503768193 71.62481794349668 3.3747141281328923 1.6281832005246717 0.11368443658427907 1617.4843031505773 78.99614211253144 42.82125996403075 2.012293139049436 0.9584281150078439 249.23002170366254 11.170541583485235 5.6177637245338055 0.5476017373593621
9 95 170.72500000000002 867.7750768350751 58.150038117117205 22.907987456529927 1.523091597569337 0.3508507899346167 133.9517212860518 7.910512105926992 1.636222475987926 0.7901710757507499 3735.1043299736675 249.90336631637786 98.73410611888424 6.68112639804122 1.2528442817979428 578.5346493764531 42.07055470643494 7.372514137270835 1.8155445812651894 635.7629377827825 31.782023589177744 16.820412754611315 0.8498877826076382 0.21717581451794757 98.40590312064509 4.554536271501251 1.2752897703404011 0.1456481736249167 2213.918260953254 150.58096074455545 58.49095080922778 4.030223362641116 0.7461757545331922 341.4336352245082 25.321750995501322 4.390648262897409 1.08212656408689
10 113 170.625 1070.4659872732532 59.425809882826066 28.20673658922629 1.5531907465132824 0.2943749518164645 165.15630692617842 8.662072822764605 1.733588091118146 0.1960670694082948 4710.868085316226 250.18636849481135 124.24694105704339 6.693457193511925 1.4173797187866195 728.4755199520755 43.22806952287863 8.330048365312356 0.5520288655666531 780.3788567689154 32.395556431964884 20.60070308974935 0.8612657222704356 0.2100161297298907 120.63460122097936 4.923090333170136 1.2349276722407927 0.10383120472422389 2807.8815585616503 153.34590410246037 74.02266408199979 4.1113339210913455 0.862872959598445 432.81877259645006 26.94592844131265 5.076952076218993 0.5118713732326626
11 134 - 1429.9467859686583 23.98249833034535 37.631374550984 1.6826455378865721 0.4487922838932243 220.2345709294886 8.863264092085485 2.6227744763481042 0.08941666307415494 5905.4335370623685 215.75748779040495 155.58766367210788 8.939574097996882 1.4924153626221182 911.6492713493933 54.545658349788795 8.722559590348462 1.5840494979962683 1004.4222604557615 39.97606694223231 26.475824983989998 1.089508726648892 0.2797677092495547 154.95365302198846 5.814574332985967 1.6342405619528142 0.1473304109451447 3439.1887859479884 449.8418123659616 90.62093217655598 11.881656968305327 0.7903937187883902 529.4263849894036 70.19700109002382 4.60036249490255 3.086631221225959
12 148 - 1661.615823032161 30.746566663478983 43.738659999348116 1.7892064948071151 0.4362346748831512 256.05078901534466 9.923982381694286 2.558301291846861 0.3188625827279113 6913.418652556641 218.41441022030057 181.92856120696402 9.032129311373973 1.8814926810611527 1066.072341045937 56.16793341114176 11.030219264038832 0.9572705108546349 1159.4993210381122 40.96456422524201 30.52696289156487 1.1179165948588448 0.2893669933982051 178.69235937559878 6.175046844827924 1.6956218824007379 0.14849463781289926 4098.952295835152 450.5326289629545 107.8592283240408 11.912095765093296 1.2313068676774874 630.4692422260093 70.71234903107296 7.217346945471836 0.6086843601600677
13 162 - 1964.3987287703858 40.295310066162635 51.7063418958456 2.0576676503066915 0.5691201354641058 302.61523517902185 11.269979538393988 3.326031868834087 0.3815048912653555 8075.565186457034 108.50842340549896 212.47811482281782 9.636194073590561 2.1821109725609844 1244.5610430451807 58.54733086401156 12.749192999945977 1.1800925413850325 1353.0881622959378 45.67171140177825 35.54444485849184 1.2761455441161802 0.35839156906621233 208.0078864250271 6.918460936511438 2.0939662178163077 0.22285139866927953 4845.5675308725895 453.09077388881485 127.20426869568264 12.032041107775605 1.3817885979744176 743.5741202790302 71.22015244262101 8.078919860930068 0.6064021046634438
14 198 - 2731.75599671829 37.14583502354657 71.7394957997487 2.082301306429356 0.8347147459959624 419.9267273086345 12.497517449338977 4.831361951059806 0.22502481143382544 9734.45596173246 250.4323863044085 254.7930284186807 11.34327702468954 1.7187846132229805 1492.774972142067 71.06368122849135 10.083349693978201 1.6781984132728132 1875.8683348074242 54.21663068371681 49.172981620020224 1.4582558264123884 0.5397646154365171 287.76401117806415 8.203589268929495 3.159142906217461 0.18359136534306936 5837.216708544274 466.7598844261132 153.0603209579826 12.383498315356972 0.9735591169307981 895.1776670519563 74.09029107738773 5.710984954151287 0.8506864777626282
15 212 - 3267.4621739669446 48.115162388844425 85.51304635267292 2.3303510070911284 0.9838250394945872 500.7332866224368 15.261929315710049 5.771897093843021 0.6257181345331628 11082.993927399699 229.90453226804516 289.5231993269016 11.383855849018163 2.4807264934443505 1696.1628376958038 71.85164416711896 14.527704682409762 0.7579913701438089 2239.3488915393664 55.191360098591964 58.54082365549931 1.4701548619017453 0.6691315739627921 342.6881460567148 9.144617111260114 3.923152491332189 0.28860276720087197 6733.665473306835 469.7318849969482 176.1757209157226 12.477995206640847 1.6510999969814268 1030.4953825164448 74.75779387811134 9.66555110460633 0.7119838394969371
16 Aged LDPE                                                                          
17 35 0 630.9 254.85 17.13 6.74 0.49 128.18 50.98 3.66 1.46 767.78 420.56 20.96 11.15 0.6 166.49 122.01 4.76 3.49 161.93 88.5 4.41 2.33 0.13 35.52 24.56 1.01 0.7 153.71 83.44 4.17 1.93 0.12 30.64 11.37 0.88 0.32
18 53 267.77 1048.08 297.43 28.37 7.86 0.62 213.13 61.74 4.72 1.93 1157.25 448.13 31.48 11.91 0.58 245.93 128.55 4.41 2.25 252.58 99.74 6.86 2.64 0.14 54.89 27.41 1.08 0.68 249.33 94.24 6.75 2.25 0.14 49.14 12.34 1.03 0.27
19 74 302.67 1519.64 338.85 41.11 8.93 0.61 309.47 76.38 4.59 2.14 1573.99 475.51 42.76 12.66 0.54 329.81 134.68 3.99 1.91 366.07 113.95 9.93 3.04 0.15 79 31.34 1.15 0.72 364.29 114.13 9.86 2.84 0.15 74.51 24.94 1.21 1.03
20 88 287.61 1876.13 373.39 50.64 9.88 0.68 378.81 81.36 4.95 2 1891.05 492.52 51.29 13.16 0.61 395.11 140.46 4.66 2.85 439.63 119.76 11.91 3.2 0.14 94.79 33.26 1.13 0.79 431.91 120.05 11.67 3.01 0.13 87.18 25.33 0.91 0.31
21 102 280.41 2254.7 395.17 60.75 10.48 0.72 453.28 85.5 5.32 1.88 2225.92 511.9 60.3 13.73 0.64 463.86 146.91 4.91 3.07 521.81 126.13 14.11 3.38 0.16 112.28 35.44 1.25 0.88 498.59 125.12 13.46 3.17 0.13 99.48 25.57 0.88 0.25
22 138 312.46 3002.46 446.64 80.64 11.65 0.8 605.61 97.78 6.16 1.98 2795.28 548.82 75.41 14.83 0.62 581.77 163.65 4.84 3 707.18 154.21 19.02 4.17 0.19 151.83 45.29 1.54 1.17 643.64 130.39 17.29 3.34 0.16 128.87 28.8 1.19 0.55
23 152 364.84 3492 495.59 93.61 13.12 1.13 699.92 114.07 8.48 3.05 3334.78 591.92 89.79 15.98 1.03 699.08 185.83 8.38 6.29 856.73 167.53 23 4.52 0.28 183.9 50.58 2.29 1.61 772.19 137 20.71 3.51 0.24 155.55 31.89 1.91 0.98
Dataset used for Figs 1, 2 and 3.

(XLSX)

S1 Dataset. Dataset used for Figs 12 and 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Eric Baer, Director of the Center for Layered Polymeric Systems (CLIPS) for advice on polymer characteristics, Anupam Misra and Shiv Sharma for the use of the Raman spectroscopy facilities at the University of Hawaii, Lance Fujieki for his help with meteorological measurements and Blake Watkins for facilitating the collection of plastic at sea. We also thank LabQMC for performer the Brunauer-Emmet-Teller analysis to determine the surface area of our samples.

References

  1. 1.Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017;3: 25–29.
  2. 2.Andrady AL, Neal MA. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364: 1977–1984. pmid:19528050
  3. 3.PlasticsEurope. Plastics–the Facts 2016. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.015
  4. 4.Gewert B, Plassmann MM, MacLeod M. Pathways for degradation of plastic polymers floating in the marine environment. Environ Sci Process Impacts. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2015;17: 1513–21. pmid:26216708
  5. 5.Huang YQ, Wong CKC, Zheng JS, Bouwman H, Barra R, Wahlström B, et al. Bisphenol A (BPA) in China: A review of sources, environmental levels, and potential human health impacts. Environ Int. Elsevier Ltd; 2012;42: 91–99. pmid:21596439
  6. 6.Beyler CL, Hirschler MM. Thermal decomposition of polymers. SPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. 2001. pp. 111–131.
  7. 7.Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DRU, Barlaz MA, Jonsson S, Björn A, et al. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364: 2027–45. pmid:19528054
  8. 8.Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH. Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364: 2153–2166. pmid:19528062
  9. 9.Moore CJ. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ Res. 2008;108: 131–139. pmid:18949831
  10. 10.Vasile MD C. Handbook of polyolefins. 2nd ed. re. C. Vasile MD, editor. New York; 2000.
  11. 11.Saunois M, Jackson RB, Bousquet P, Poulter B, Canadell JG. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environ Res Lett. IOP Publishing; 2016;11: 1–5.
  12. 12.Rigby M, Prinn RG, Fraser PJ, Simmonds PG, Langenfelds RL, Huang J, et al. Renewed growth of atmospheric methane. Geophys Res Lett. 2008;35: 2–7.
  13. 13.Dlugokencky EJ, Bruhwiler L, White JWC, Emmons LK, Novelli PC, Montzka S.A., et al. Observational constraints on recent increases in the atmospheric CH4 burden. Geophys Res Lett. 2009;36: 1–5.
  14. 14.Aikin AC, Herman JR, Maier EJ, McQuillan CJ. Atmospheric chemistry of ethane and ethylene. J Geophys Res Ocean. 1982;87: 3105–3118.
  15. 15.Ghanta M, Fahey D, Subramaniam B. Environmental impacts of ethylene production from diverse feedstocks and energy sources. Appl Petrochemical Res. 2014;4: 167–179.
  16. 16.Aydin M, Verhulst KR, Saltzman ES, Battle MO, Montzka S a, Blake DR, et al. Recent decreases in fossil-fuel emissions of ethane and methane derived from firn air. Nature. 2011;476: 198–201. pmid:21833087
  17. 17.Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment. Cambridge; 2014.
  18. 18.Karl DM, Lukas R. The Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT) program: Background, rationale and field implementation. Deep-Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr. 1996;43: 129–156.
  19. 19.Brown DM, Cheng L. New net for sampling the ocean surface. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1981;5: 225–227.
  20. 20.Misra AK, Sharma SK, Kamemoto L, Zinin P V., Iu Q, Hu N, et al. Novel micro-cavity substrates for improving the Raman signal from submicrometer size materials. Appl Spectrosc. 2009;63: 373–377. pmid:19281655
  21. 21.Tilbrook BD, Karl DM. Methane sources, distributions and sinks from California coastal waters to the oligotrophic North Pacific gyre. Mar Chem. 1995;49: 51–64.
  22. 22.Repeta DJ, Ferrón S, Sosa OA, Johnson CG, Repeta LD, Acker M, et al. Marine methane paradox explained by bacterial degradation of dissolved organic matter. Nat Geosci. 2016;9: 884–887.
  23. 23.Wilson ST, Ferrón S, Karl DM. Interannual variability of methane and nitrous oxide in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Geophys Res Lett. 2017; 9885–9892.
  24. 24.Tavares AC, Gulmine J V., Lepienski CM, Akcelrud L. The effect of accelerated aging on the surface mechanical properties of polyethylene. Polym Degrad Stab. 2003;81: 367–373.
  25. 25.Kupper L, Gulmine J V., Janissek PR, Heise HM. Attenuated total reflection infrared spectroscopy for micro-domain analysis of polyethylene samples after accelerated ageing within weathering chambers. Vib Spectrosc. 2004;34: 63–72.
  26. 26.Andrady AL. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2011;62: 1596–1605. pmid:21742351
  27. 27.Browne MA, Galloway T, Thompson R. Microplastic-an emerging contaminant of potential concern? Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2007;3: 559–561. pmid:18046805
  28. 28.Arthur C, Baker J, Bamford H. Proceedings of the international research workshop on the occurrence, effects, and fate of microplastic marine debris. NOAA Tech Memo NOS-OR&R-30 Arthur C, Bak J, Bamford H, (Eds). 2009; 530.
  29. 29.Ryan PG. Does size and buoyancy affect the long-distance transport of floating debris? Environ Res Lett. 2015;10: 1–6.
  30. 30.Raquez J-M, Bourgeois A, Heidi J, Degee P, Alexandre M, Dubois P. Effects of expandable graphite and modified ammonium polyphosphate on the flame-retardant and mechanical properties of wood flour-polypropylene composites. J Appl Polym Sci. 2011;122: 489–496.
  31. 31.Amin MB, Hamid HS, Khan JH. Photo-oxidative degradation of polyethylene greenhouse film in a harsh environment. J Polym Eng. 1995;14: 253–268.
  32. 32.Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347: 768–771. pmid:25678662
  33. 33.Frias JPGL, Otero V, Sobral P. Evidence of microplastics in samples of zooplankton from Portuguese coastal waters. Mar Environ Res. 2014;95: 89–95. pmid:24461782
  34. 34.Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46: 3060–3075. pmid:22321064
  35. 35.Reisser J, Shaw J, Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Proietti M, Thums M, et al. Marine plastic pollution in waters around Australia: Characteristics, concentrations, and pathways. PLoS One. 2013;8: 1–11. pmid:24312224
  36. 36.Andrady AL. Weathering of polyethylene (LDPE) and enhanced photodegradable polyethylene in the marine environment. J Appl Polym Sci. 1990;39: 363:370.