Dataset for "Estuaries as filters for riverine microplastics: Simulations in a large, coastal-plain estuary"

This dataset comprises two materials. The first is a ZIP file of version (v3.3.3) of Ichthyop (https://github.com/ichthyop/ichthyop) that was then modified in order to (1) allow the number of particles released in a zone to vary with time; and to (2) allow a combination of existing coastline interactions (beaching & none) according to a specified variable added to the ChesROMS grid file, emulating a Chesapeake Bay shoreline with armored segments.

The second material is the output of the modified Ichthyop, arranged in a MAT-file, organized to include all relevant information (time, latitude, longitude, depth, & fate) for each simulation. The Composite Case structure includes simulations for releases at all ten ChesROMS rivers for both positively buoyant and negatively buoyant particles. The Sensitivity Tests structure includes simulations for all parameters tested (interannual variability, turbulent dissipation rate, size, density, coastline interaction) in the York River.

Citation

López, Alexander (2021). Dataset for "Estuaries as filters for riverine microplastics: Simulations in a large, coastal-plain estuary" [Data set]. Scholarsphere. https://doi.org/10.26207/m26x-q972

Files

Metadata

Work Title Dataset for "Estuaries as filters for riverine microplastics: Simulations in a large, coastal-plain estuary"
Subtitle Submitting to Frontiers in Marine Science | Marine Pollution
Access
Open Access
Creators
  1. Alexander López
Keyword
  1. ROMS
  2. Ichthyop
  3. microplastics
  4. Chesapeake Bay
License GNU General Public License (GPLv3)
Work Type Dataset
Acknowledgments
  1. Michael López
Publication Date May 24, 2021
DOI doi:10.26207/m26x-q972
Geographic Area
  1. Chesapeake Bay
Deposited May 24, 2021

Versions

Analytics

Collections

This resource is currently not in any collection.

Work History

Version 1
published

  • Created

    May 24, 2021 14:28 by axl5758

  • Updated Acknowledgments Show Changes

    May 24, 2021 14:30 by axl5758

    Acknowledgments
    • Michael López
  • Added Creator Alexander López

    May 24, 2021 14:30 by axl5758

  • Added Ichthyop_3.3.3_Lopez_modified.zip

    May 24, 2021 14:44 by axl5758

  • Added CompositeCase_&_SensitivityTests.mat

    May 24, 2021 14:44 by axl5758

  • Updated License Show Changes

    May 24, 2021 14:50 by axl5758

    License
    • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
  • Published

    May 24, 2021 14:50 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:17 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]

Version 2
published

  • Created

    May 24, 2021 14:53 by axl5758

  • Updated Keyword Show Changes

    May 24, 2021 14:54 by axl5758

    Keyword
    • ROMS, Ichthyop, microplastics, Chesapeake Bay
    • ROMS, Ichthyop, Microplastics, Chesapeake Bay
  • Published

    May 24, 2021 14:54 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:17 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]

Version 3
published

  • Created

    May 24, 2021 15:04 by axl5758

  • Updated Description, Publisher's Statement Show Changes

    May 24, 2021 15:05 by axl5758

    Description
    • This dataset comprises two materials. The first is a ZIP file of version (v3.3.3) of Ichthyop (https://github.com/ichthyop/ichthyop) that was then modified in order to (1) allow the number of particles released in a zone to vary with time; and to (2) allow a combination of existing coastline interactions (beaching & none) according to a specified variable added to the ChesROMS grid file, emulating a Chesapeake Bay shoreline with armored segments.
    • The second material is the output of the modified Ichthyop, arranged in a MAT-file, organized to include all relevant information (time, latitude, longitude, depth, & fate) for each simulation. The Composite Case structure includes simulations for releases at all ten ChesROMS rivers for both positively buoyant and negatively buoyant particles. The Sensitivity Tests structure includes simulations for all parameters tested (interannual variability, turbulent dissipation rate, size, density, coastline interaction) in the York River.
    • Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estu-aries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we test the hypothesis that estuaries are a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics using a model of microplastic transport in the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America. The one-year base-case simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm particles, shows that 93% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 3% exported from the Bay, and 4% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and distribution was sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall distribution and mean duration in the water column. Pos-itively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their origin. By allowing particles to beach, specifically along a partially armored coastline, and be removed from the system, distribution pat-terns throughout the Bay are significantly altered, with over 90% now beaching, instead of all particles ex-iting the Bay. The majority of deposition happened close to riverine sources, although notable beaching of microplastics along the eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay was also seen. Despite microplastic distribu-tions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all sce-narios the overwhelming majority of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
    Publisher's Statement
    • This dataset comprises two materials. The first is a ZIP file of version (v3.3.3) of Ichthyop (https://github.com/ichthyop/ichthyop) that was then modified in order to allow the number of particles released in a zone to vary with time, and to allow a combination of existing coastline interactions (beaching & none) according to a specified variable added to the ChesROMS grid file, emulating a Chesapeake Bay shoreline with armored segments.
    • The second material is the output of the modified Ichthyop, arranged in a MAT-file, organized to include all relevant information (time, latitude, longitude, depth, & fate) for each simulation. The Composite Case structure includes simulations for releases at all ten ChesROMS rivers for both positively buoyant and negatively buoyant particles. The Sensitivity Tests structure includes simulations for all parameters tested (interannual variability, turbulent dissipation rate, size, density, coastline interaction) in the York River.
  • Published

    May 24, 2021 15:05 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:17 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]

Version 4
published

  • Created

    May 24, 2021 15:06 by axl5758

  • Updated Publisher's Statement Show Changes

    May 24, 2021 15:06 by axl5758

    Publisher's Statement
    • This dataset comprises two materials. The first is a ZIP file of version (v3.3.3) of Ichthyop (https://github.com/ichthyop/ichthyop) that was then modified in order to allow the number of particles released in a zone to vary with time, and to allow a combination of existing coastline interactions (beaching & none) according to a specified variable added to the ChesROMS grid file, emulating a Chesapeake Bay shoreline with armored segments.
    • The second material is the output of the modified Ichthyop, arranged in a MAT-file, organized to include all relevant information (time, latitude, longitude, depth, & fate) for each simulation. The Composite Case structure includes simulations for releases at all ten ChesROMS rivers for both positively buoyant and negatively buoyant particles. The Sensitivity Tests structure includes simulations for all parameters tested (interannual variability, turbulent dissipation rate, size, density, coastline interaction) in the York River.
  • Published

    May 24, 2021 15:07 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:17 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]

Version 5
published

  • Created

    May 24, 2021 15:08 by axl5758

  • Updated Description Show Changes

    May 24, 2021 15:11 by axl5758

    Description
    • Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estu-aries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we test the hypothesis that estuaries are a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics using a model of microplastic transport in the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America. The one-year base-case simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm particles, shows that 93% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 3% exported from the Bay, and 4% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and distribution was sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall distribution and mean duration in the water column. Pos-itively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their origin. By allowing particles to beach, specifically along a partially armored coastline, and be removed from the system, distribution pat-terns throughout the Bay are significantly altered, with over 90% now beaching, instead of all particles ex-iting the Bay. The majority of deposition happened close to riverine sources, although notable beaching of microplastics along the eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay was also seen. Despite microplastic distribu-tions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all sce-narios the overwhelming majority of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
    • Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estuaries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we test the hypothesis that estuaries are a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics using a model of microplastic transport in the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America. The one-year base-case simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm particles, shows that 93% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 3% exported from the Bay, and 4% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and distribution was sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall distribution and mean duration in the water column. Positively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their origin. By allowing particles to beach, specifically along a partially armored coastline, and be removed from the system, distribution patterns throughout the Bay are significantly altered, with over 90% now beaching, instead of all particles exiting the Bay. The majority of deposition happened close to riverine sources, although notable beaching of microplastics along the eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay was also seen. Despite microplastic distributions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all scenarios the overwhelming majority of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
  • Published

    May 24, 2021 15:11 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:17 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]

Version 6
published

  • Created

    July 29, 2021 16:08 by axl5758

  • Updated Keyword, Description Show Changes

    July 29, 2021 16:11 by axl5758

    Keyword
    • ROMS, Ichthyop, Microplastics, Chesapeake Bay
    • ROMS, Ichthyop, Microplastics, Chesapeake Bay, ABSTRACT: Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estuaries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we use a model of estuarine microplastic transport to test the hypothesis that the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America, is a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics. The one-year composite simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm diameter particles, shows that 94% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 5% exported from the Bay, and 1% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, turbulent dissipation rates, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and fate were sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall fate and mean duration in the water column. Positively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their river sources, which may help guide sampling campaigns. Half of all riverine microplastics that beach do so within 7 to 13 days, while those that leave the bay do so within 26 days. Despite microplastic distributions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all scenarios most of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
    Description
    • Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estuaries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we test the hypothesis that estuaries are a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics using a model of microplastic transport in the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America. The one-year base-case simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm particles, shows that 93% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 3% exported from the Bay, and 4% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and distribution was sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall distribution and mean duration in the water column. Positively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their origin. By allowing particles to beach, specifically along a partially armored coastline, and be removed from the system, distribution patterns throughout the Bay are significantly altered, with over 90% now beaching, instead of all particles exiting the Bay. The majority of deposition happened close to riverine sources, although notable beaching of microplastics along the eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay was also seen. Despite microplastic distributions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all scenarios the overwhelming majority of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
    • Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estuaries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we use a model of estuarine microplastic transport to test the hypothesis that the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America, is a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics. The one-year composite simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm diameter particles, shows that 94% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 5% exported from the Bay, and 1% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, turbulent dissipation rates, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and fate were sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall fate and mean duration in the water column. Positively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their river sources, which may help guide sampling campaigns. Half of all riverine microplastics that beach do so within 7 to 13 days, while those that leave the bay do so within 26 days. Despite microplastic distributions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all scenarios most of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
  • Deleted CompositeCase_&_SensitivityTests.mat

    July 29, 2021 16:12 by axl5758

  • Deleted Ichthyop_3.3.3_Lopez_modified.zip

    July 29, 2021 16:12 by axl5758

  • Added CompositeCase_&_SensitivityTests.mat

    July 29, 2021 16:59 by axl5758

  • Added Ichthyop_3.3.3_Lopez_modified.zip

    July 29, 2021 16:59 by axl5758

  • Updated Keyword, Subtitle, Publication Date Show Changes

    July 29, 2021 17:01 by axl5758

    Keyword
    • ROMS, Ichthyop, Microplastics, Chesapeake Bay, ABSTRACT: Public awareness of microplastics and their widespread presence throughout most bodies of water are increasingly documented. The accumulation of microplastics in the ocean, however, appears to be far less than their riverine inputs, suggesting that there is a “missing sink” of plastics in the ocean. Estuaries have long been recognized as filters for riverine material in marine biogeochemical budgets. Here we use a model of estuarine microplastic transport to test the hypothesis that the Chesapeake Bay, a large coastal-plain estuary in eastern North America, is a potentially large filter, or “sink,” of riverine microplastics. The one-year composite simulation, which tracks an equal number of buoyant and sinking 5-mm diameter particles, shows that 94% of riverine microplastics are beached, with only 5% exported from the Bay, and 1% remaining in the water column. We evaluate the robustness of this finding by conducting additional simulations in a tributary of the Bay for different years, particle densities, particle sizes, turbulent dissipation rates, and shoreline characteristics. The resulting microplastic transport and fate were sensitive to interannual variability over a decadal (2010–2019) analysis, with greater export out of the Bay during high streamflow years. Particle size was found to be unimportant while particle density—specifically if a particle was buoyant or not—was found to significantly influence overall fate and mean duration in the water column. Positively buoyant microplastics are more mobile due to being in the seaward branch of the residual estuarine circulation while negatively buoyant microplastics are transported a lesser distance due to being in the landward branch, and therefore tend to deposit on coastlines close to their river sources, which may help guide sampling campaigns. Half of all riverine microplastics that beach do so within 7 to 13 days, while those that leave the bay do so within 26 days. Despite microplastic distributions being sensitive to some modeling choices (e.g., particle density and shoreline hardening), in all scenarios most of riverine plastics do not make it to the ocean, suggesting that estuaries may serve as a filter for riverine microplastics.
    • ROMS, Ichthyop, Microplastics, Chesapeake Bay, Estuaries
    Subtitle
    • Submitting to Frontiers in Marine Science | Marine Pollution
    • Submitted to Frontiers in Marine Science | Marine Pollution
    Publication Date
    • 2021-05-24
    • 2021-07-30
  • Published

    July 29, 2021 17:01 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:18 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]

Version 7
published

  • Created

    November 30, 2021 16:44 by axl5758

  • Updated Publication Date Show Changes

    November 30, 2021 16:51 by axl5758

    Publication Date
    • 2021-07-30
    • 2021-11-30
  • Added README.txt

    November 30, 2021 16:51 by axl5758

  • Published

    November 30, 2021 16:51 by axl5758

  • Updated

    March 22, 2022 16:18 by [unknown user]

  • Updated

    April 04, 2024 10:21 by [unknown user]