Evidence record

Where does the ocean’s plastic go?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 24 September 2026.

A judgement, not a fact: 9
Source checked: 33
Partly checked: 14
Presented as open: 1

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A question about a mass balance. The surface measurements and the input estimates are both real, and the gap between them was the puzzle. Since 2020 the puzzle has been answered twice, by work that disagrees about which side of the balance was wrong, so where the plastic is remains open.

Surface surveys find far less floating plastic than the input estimates imply
Established
Every global surface estimate from 2014 to 2023 sits well below the input estimated in 2015. What the shortfall means is the contested part.
Millions of tonnes of plastic enter the ocean every year
Contested
The 2015 estimate of 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes for 2010 is the figure the puzzle was built on. A 2021 reanalysis and a 2023 model put the input far lower; a 2020 study of the Atlantic interior concluded that it must be higher.
The plastic that entered the ocean is somewhere that could be found
Open
Sampling below the surface and at the smallest sizes keeps finding plastic the nets missed, and a model finds the buoyant mass in large debris. Neither has been reconciled with the other.

How the question is labelled

Claim: The missing tonnage

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s own title. The tonnage is missing from the surface surveys (claim 3); whether it is missing from the ocean at all is what claims 54 to 60 dispute.

Claim 1 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Plastic

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: Surveys of the sea surface found far less floating plastic than estimates of what enters the ocean implied.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the global load of plastic on the open ocean surface was estimated to be on the order of tens of thousands of tons, far less than expected
Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: weighing between 93 and 236 thousand metric tons, which is only approximately 1% of global plastic waste estimated to enter the ocean in the year 2010

Later work looked for

Crossref and Europe PMC, 2016 on, "global floating plastic estimate": a 2023 time series (Eriksen) raises the surface figure to millions of tonnes, mostly below one year of the 2015 input estimate; the subtitle was put in the past tense and the dispute added.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Surveys of the sea surface find far less floating plastic than the amount entering the ocean implies.” The amount entering the ocean is an estimate, and one now disputed in both directions (claims 57 to 60). The comparison belongs to the 2014 and 2015 surveys.

Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The gap has since been explained twice, in opposite directions.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

One account finds far more plastic below the surface and concludes the input was underestimated; the other finds a much lower input. Claims 54 to 60 set them out.

Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanDiscussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Our results demonstrate that there is no missing sink of oceanic plastic; rather, previous assessments of plastic pollution in the ocean were insufficient with respect to particle size collected and water layer surveyed.
Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisImplications of residence times for future projections
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: The decreased input and increased standing stock suggest that there is no ‘missing sink’ for marine plastic pollution

What this does not establish

Each explanation is its authors’ claim. Neither has settled the question, which is why the page files it as uncertain.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "missing ocean plastic sink": the 2021 reanalysis and its 2022 comment and reply are the other main exchange; all are on the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The gap is most of it.” Work since 2020 disputes whether most of the plastic is missing at all. Pabortsava and Lampitt (2020) and Kaandorp and others (2023) each conclude there is no missing sink, for opposite reasons.

Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Plastic was estimated in 2015 to enter the ocean at millions of tonnes a year.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: We calculate that 275 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste was generated in 192 coastal countries in 2010, with 4.8 to 12.7 million MT entering the ocean.

What this does not establish

An estimate from waste statistics, not a measurement of plastic arriving at sea. The paper was read only as its abstract.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "plastic emissions ocean rivers estimate": a 2023 model puts the buoyant input near 0.5 million tonnes a year and a 2021 reanalysis puts river fluxes far lower; the summary now dates the figure to 2015 and reports both.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Plastic enters the ocean in millions of tonnes a year.” Stated as fact, it is one estimate. Kaandorp and others (2023) put the input of buoyant plastic at 470 to 540 thousand tonnes a year.

Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Measurements of what floats at the surface accounted for a small fraction of that.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: weighing between 93 and 236 thousand metric tons, which is only approximately 1% of global plastic waste estimated to enter the ocean in the year 2010

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "global floating plastic estimate": Eriksen and others (2023) put the 2019 surface load at 1.1 to 4.9 million tonnes, which is no longer a small fraction of one year at the lower input estimate; the sentence was put in the past tense, and claim 20 reports the newer figure.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Measurements of what floats at the surface account for a small fraction of that.” True of the 2014 and 2015 estimates. The 2023 surface estimate is far larger.

Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Later work closes the gap from opposite ends: one model puts the input far lower, while sampling below the surface finds far more plastic than the nets ever showed.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Our model estimates an ocean plastic input of about 500 kilotonnes per year, less than previous estimates.
Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic Oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: here we show that the ocean interior conceals high loads of small-sized plastic debris which can balance and even exceed the estimated plastic inputs into the ocean since 1950

What this does not establish

The model covers initially buoyant plastics only. The subsurface total is an extrapolation from one Atlantic transect.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "missing ocean plastic sink" and "nanoplastic North Atlantic": the 2025 nanoplastic survey adds to the subsurface side; nothing found that reconciles the two.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The rest has gone somewhere,” That the rest has gone somewhere assumes the input estimate is right, which a 2023 model and a 2021 reanalysis dispute.

Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Where the plastic is remains an open problem, with different consequences depending on the answer.

Kind: Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review: Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

Kaandorp and others (2023) and Pabortsava and Lampitt (2020) each consider the budget closed, in ways that cannot both hold for the size of the input. The page treats that disagreement as leaving the question open.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Resolving the fate of the missing plastic debris is of fundamental importance to determine the nature and significance of the impacts of plastic pollution in the ocean.
Supports
Nanoplastic concentrations across the North AtlanticResults and discussion, final paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Our finding underscores the need to determine the origin, formation and transport of nanoplastics, as well as their further fate in the ocean.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and identifying where is an open problem with different consequences depending on the answer.” Rewritten as its own sentence after the previous one changed.

Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The image of a garbage patch suggests an island.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: What the surveys find is a soup of fragments, and much less of it than the accounting predicts.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanMaterials and Methods
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: The vast majority of the plastic items consisted of fragments of larger objects
Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the global load of plastic on the open ocean surface was estimated to be on the order of tens of thousands of tons, far less than expected
Qualifies
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisDominant contribution of large plastic items
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: One of our key results is that the majority of plastic mass is contained in the large plastic items (>25 mm): 90–98%
Fragments dominate by count in the nets. By mass, the model finds large items dominate.

What this does not establish

What net surveys find. Nets undersample large items, which a 2023 model finds hold most of the floating mass.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "global mass buoyant marine plastics": Kaandorp and others (2023) qualify it by mass; recorded in limits.

Claim 10 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A missing quantity is not reassuring.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement, and the sentence after it says why.

Claim 11 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Either the material is somewhere, or in some form, that has not been measured, or the accounting that says it went in is wrong.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: This discrepancy could be due to overestimation of input estimates, processes removing plastic from the surface ocean or fragmentation and degradation.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “It means the material is somewhere that has not been measured.” The literature names overestimated input as one explanation of the gap (Kaandorp and others 2023; Weiss and others 2021), so the page cannot assume the material is at sea.

Claim 12 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What is measured

Claim: What is measured

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The surface has been surveyed

Claim: The surface has been surveyed

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrissection 2.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: surface trawls carried out between 1971 and 2013, spanning all major ocean basins except the Arctic

What this does not establish

Surveyed unevenly. Most tows are from the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and the southern basins are sparse.

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2016 on, "floating ocean plastics time series": Eriksen and others (2023) still call the southern basins data-poor.

Claim 14 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2014 study synthesised net tows from a global circumnavigation and from other expeditions to produce a map of floating plastic and a first estimate of how much is there.

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The circumnavigation was the Malaspina 2010 expedition; regional cruises and published data were added to it.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanabstract; Significance
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Using data from the Malaspina 2010 circumnavigation, regional surveys, and previously published reports, we show a worldwide distribution of plastic on the surface of the open ocean ... to provide a global map and a first-order approximation of the magnitude of the plastic pollution

Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Debris concentrates in the five subtropical gyres, as ocean circulation models predict.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: mostly accumulating in the convergence zones of each of the five subtropical gyres with comparable density
Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrissection 4
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: all analyses find the highest concentrations of net-collected plastics in the subtropical gyres

What this does not establish

Concentration is highest in the gyres, but models put 30 to 70 per cent of particles in the undersampled low-concentration regions outside them.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "subtropical gyre floating plastic accumulation": later syntheses agree; nothing that changes it.

Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That study put the load between 7,000 and 35,000 tonnes, for pieces from 0.2 to 100 millimetres in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion; Table 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the amount of plastic in the open-ocean surface between 7,000 and 35,000 tons (Table 1)
Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrissection 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: between 7000 and 35 000 tons of floating plastic (0.20–100 mm in size)
The size range is van Sebille and others’ description of the Cózar estimate.

What this does not establish

The open-ocean surface only. Semi-enclosed seas such as the Mediterranean, where data were scarce, are outside it.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2015 on, "global floating plastic estimate": superseded as the largest estimate by van Sebille (2015) and Eriksen (2023), both now on the page.

Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is not the only figure.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: A 2015 synthesis standardised more than 11,000 net tows and ran three circulation models over them, and got 93,000 to 236,000 tonnes.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrissection 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: We compiled all available plastic data collected with surface-trawling plankton nets (more than 11 000 observations
Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: to standardize a global dataset of plastic marine debris measured using surface-trawling plankton nets and coupled this with three different ocean circulation models to spatially interpolate the observations ... weighing between 93 and 236 thousand metric tons

What this does not establish

The range is the spread of three models, not a statistical confidence interval.

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2016 on, "floating ocean plastics global": Eriksen and others (2023) is larger; added to the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A later synthesis” Dated, now that a later one follows it.

Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2023 time series from 11,777 stations put the load in 2019 at 1.1 to 4.9 million tonnes, rising steeply since 2005, though its masses rest on one average weight per particle.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: we used previously published and new data on floating ocean plastics (n = 11,777 stations) ... Today’s global abundance is estimated at approximately 82–358 trillion plastic particles weighing 1.1–4.9 million tonnes.
Table 1 gives these as the values for 2019, the last year of the series: 1.11 to 4.86 million tonnes.
Supports
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredResults
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: from 2005 onward, there is a consistent and rapid increase in plastic abundance
Supports
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredMethods
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Mass was estimated with a common conversion rate reported in the literature (1.36 x 10⁻² g particle⁻¹)
Notation restored: Superscripts restored from the Europe PMC full-text XML (PMC9994742), read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: Mass was estimated with a common conversion rate reported in the literature (1.36 x 10−2 g particle-1)

What this does not establish

The mass comes from a particle count times one average particle weight, which the authors list as a limitation. The southern basins remain data-poor.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2023 on, "floating plastic time series global": nothing later found that revises it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The page’s newest surface figure was from 2015. Eriksen and others (2023) is an order of magnitude larger and reports a rise since 2005.

Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The surface estimates now span nearly three orders of magnitude.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

From 7,000 tonnes at the bottom of the 2014 range to 4.9 million at the top of the 2023 one, a factor of about 700. The estimates cover different years and methods.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the amount of plastic in the open-ocean surface between 7,000 and 35,000 tons (Table 1)
Supports
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: weighing 1.1–4.9 million tonnes

Later work looked for

As for claim 20.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The surface estimates disagree with each other by an order of magnitude, and all of them sit far below the amount thought to enter the sea.” With the 2023 estimate the spread is nearly three orders, and its upper bound reaches the lower bound of one year’s input as estimated in 2015, so “far below” no longer holds for every estimate.

Claim 21 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The accounting problem

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: millions of t

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: with 4.8 to 12.7 million MT entering the ocean
Qualifies
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Our model estimates an ocean plastic input of about 500 kilotonnes per year, less than previous estimates.

What this does not establish

The 2015 estimate, read as an abstract. The note beside it gives the lower 2023 figure.

Later work looked for

As for claim 5.

Claim 23 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Entering the ocean each year

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Estimated in 2015 from waste generation and mismanagement on land.

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Population size and the quality of waste management systems largely determine which countries contribute the greatest mass of uncaptured waste available to become plastic marine debris.

What this does not establish

The method is described from the abstract; the body was not read.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Estimated from waste generation and mismanagement on land.” Dated, since a later estimate follows it.

Claim 25 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2023 model of buoyant plastic puts it near half a million.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisA 3D map of marine plastic litter
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: We calculate a total marine plastic input of 500 kilotonnes per year (95% confidence interval: 470–540 kilotonnes

What this does not establish

Only plastics that float when they enter the sea; denser polymers such as PVC and PET, which earlier estimates cited by the authors put at 35 to 40 per cent of the mass entering, are left out. A model fitted to observations, not a measured flux.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The input figure is disputed; the rival estimate is added beside it.

Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: thousands to millions of t

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the amount of plastic in the open-ocean surface between 7,000 and 35,000 tons (Table 1)
Supports
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: weighing 1.1–4.9 million tonnes

Later work looked for

As for claim 20.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “tens to hundreds of thousands of t” The range ran from Cózar’s 7,000 tonnes, below “tens of thousands”, and omitted the 2023 estimate of 1.1 to 4.9 million.

Claim 27 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Measured floating at the surface

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: From net tows.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrissection 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: We compiled all available plastic data collected with surface-trawling plankton nets

Later work looked for

How the estimates were made; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “From net tows across the gyres.” The syntheses extrapolate to the whole ocean surface, not only the gyres, and the tows are not confined to them.

Claim 29 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The published estimates, from 2014 to 2023, differ by nearly three orders of magnitude.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the amount of plastic in the open-ocean surface between 7,000 and 35,000 tons (Table 1)
Supports
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: weighing 1.1–4.9 million tonnes
From 7,000 tonnes in 2014 to 4.9 million in 2023 is a factor of 700, about 2.8 orders of magnitude.

Later work looked for

As for claim 20.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The published syntheses differ by an order of magnitude.” Updated for Eriksen and others (2023).

Claim 30 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: the difference

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Unaccounted for

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The difference between the input estimate and the surface estimates, which the note beside it explains four ways.

Claim 32 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Somewhere that has not been surveyed, in a form the nets do not catch, already broken down, or never there if the input was overestimated.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: This discrepancy could be due to overestimation of input estimates, processes removing plastic from the surface ocean or fragmentation and degradation.
Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Missing microplastic may derive from nano-fragmentation processes, rendering the very small pieces undetectable to convectional sampling nets, and/or may be transferred to the ocean interior.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Somewhere that has not been surveyed, in a form the nets do not catch, or already broken down.” Overestimated input is a published explanation of the gap and was missing.

Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

How much goes in

Claim: How much goes in

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The other side of the accounting was estimated in 2015, by linking data on solid waste, population and economic status across 192 coastal countries.

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: By linking worldwide data on solid waste, population density, and economic status, we estimated the mass of land-based plastic waste entering the ocean. We calculate that 275 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste was generated in 192 coastal countries

What this does not establish

Described from the abstract. The body, with the model’s steps, was not read.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The other side of the accounting was estimated in 2015, from waste generation in every coastal country, the fraction handled badly, and how much of that reaches the sea.” Narrowed to what the abstract, the only part readable here, says of the method.

Claim 35 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The figure for a single year, 2010, came out between about 4.8 and 12.7 million tonnes.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: in 192 coastal countries in 2010, with 4.8 to 12.7 million MT entering the ocean
Cuts against
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisA 3D map of marine plastic litter
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: The 190–220 kilotonnes of input from coastlines is furthermore at least an order of magnitude smaller than previous estimates (4,800–12,700 kilotonnes per year (ref. 4)).

What this does not establish

A model estimate, read as an abstract. A 2023 model puts the coastal input at least an order of magnitude lower.

Later work looked for

As for claim 5; the contradicting estimate is on the page in claims 26 and 59.

Claim 36 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Population and the quality of waste management largely decided which countries contributed most,

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Population size and the quality of waste management systems largely determine which countries contribute the greatest mass of uncaptured waste available to become plastic marine debris.

What this does not establish

A result of the model, which is built from those variables. The country ranking in the body was not read.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Twenty countries account for most of it,” The twenty-country figure is in the body of the paper, which could not be read here. Replaced with what the abstract says.

Claim 37 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and without better waste management the cumulative amount available to enter the sea was projected to grow tenfold by 2025.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Without waste management infrastructure improvements, the cumulative quantity of plastic waste available to enter the ocean from land is predicted to increase by an order of magnitude by 2025.

What this does not establish

A projection of waste available to enter the ocean, not of plastic measured arriving. Whether it came true is not tested here.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and the amount was projected to rise steeply without changes in waste management.” Made specific to what the abstract projects.

Claim 38 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Set against the floating estimates of 2014 and 2015, the gap was not a rounding error.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claim 40: about one per cent of a single year of input. Dated because the 2023 surface estimate narrows it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Set against any of the floating estimates, the gap is not a rounding error.” The upper end of the 2023 estimate reaches the lower end of one year’s input, so the sentence holds for the earlier estimates only.

Claim 39 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The 2015 synthesis put the standing stock of floating microplastic at around one per cent of a single year of input.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the accumulated number of microplastic particles in 2014 ranges from 15 to 51 trillion particles, weighing between 93 and 236 thousand metric tons, which is only approximately 1% of global plastic waste estimated to enter the ocean in the year 2010

Later work looked for

As for claim 6.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The largest survey puts” It is no longer the largest: the 2023 time series uses more stations, and a 2023 model more measurements.

Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Its authors noted that a stock and an annual flux are not the same quantity, and that the input counts plastics that never float, but judged that large debris outside the nets was unlikely to close two orders of magnitude.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrissection 4
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: plastic items larger than 200 mm ... this is unlikely to account for the two ... magnitude difference. Importantly, however, there is no reason that standing stock estimates should equal an annual input estimate, especially since the input is of all plastic materials

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A stock and an annual flux are not the same quantity, and the input figure counts plastics that never float, but neither of those closes two orders of magnitude.” The paper raises the stock and flux points as reasons the two need not match, and doubts only that large debris closes the gap. The page had judged all three itself, and a 2023 model disputes the large-debris judgement (claim 42).

Claim 41 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2023 model, with the 2015 synthesis’s lead author among its authors, found that items larger than 25 millimetres hold more than 95 per cent of the buoyant mass.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Erik van Sebille led the 2015 synthesis and is the last author of the 2023 model.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisauthor list; reference 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Henk A. Dijkstra1 & Erik van Sebille1 ... van Sebille, E. et al. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris
Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: We find that larger plastics (>25 mm) contribute to more than 95% of the initially buoyant marine plastic mass: 3,100 out of 3,200 kilotonnes for the year 2020.

What this does not establish

A model fitted to surface, beach and deep-ocean data, for initially buoyant polymers only. The 2015 comment concerned items over 200 millimetres; the model’s threshold is 25.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Later work bearing directly on the 2015 judgement.

Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The smallest fragments are missing too

Claim: The smallest fragments are missing too

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: a peak in abundance of fragments around 2 mm and a pronounced gap below 1 mm
Qualifies
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanDiscussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the smaller-sized microplastics were severely underestimated in previous assessments of marine plastic pollution
Missing from surface nets, not from the ocean: small particles were found below the surface.

What this does not establish

Missing from the surface net samples.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2015 on, "size distribution floating microplastic small fragments": Pabortsava and Lampitt (2020) find small microplastics below the surface; recorded here and on claim 47.

Claim 43 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Plastic at sea breaks into smaller pieces under sunlight and mechanical stress, so the size distribution should keep rising towards the small end.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanIntroduction; Results and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: Exposure of plastic objects on the surface waters to solar radiation results in their photodegradation ... Therefore, the progressive fragmentation of the plastic objects into more and smaller pieces should lead to a gradual increase of fragments toward small sizes.

What this does not establish

The expectation rests on fragmentation experiments and a steady-state model, not on observing fragmentation at sea.

Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In the 2014 surface samples it does not: abundance peaks at fragments of about two millimetres and falls away below one.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: a peak in abundance of fragments around 2 mm and a pronounced gap below 1 mm
Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: the size distribution of nonplastic particles in the same samples followed the characteristic power distribution
The authors’ check that the gap is not a sampling artefact of the net.

What this does not establish

Surface net samples with a 200 micrometre mesh, from the Malaspina circumnavigation.

Later work looked for

As for claim 43.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “It does not:” The observation is of surface net samples. Smaller particles have since been found below the surface.

Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is a specific and informative absence.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 44 and 45.

Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Something removes the small fragments from the surface faster than they are produced.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Our observations of the size distribution of floating plastic debris point at important size-selective sinks removing millimeter-sized fragments of floating plastic on a large scale.
Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanDiscussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: considerable amounts of small microplastics are lost from the surface waters and stored in the ocean interior

What is missing

Claim: What is missing

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The fragments get smaller until they reach a size the nets stop finding.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claim 45. Particles below the mesh are not undetectable in principle: claim 56 reports nanoplastics measured by other methods.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The fragments get smaller until they reach a size at which they stop being found.” Nanoplastics have since been measured in the water column (ten Hietbrink and others 2025). It is the nets that stop finding them.

Claim 49 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Where it went

Claim: Where it went

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The candidates are that fragments sink once fouled by organisms, that they are eaten by animals and carried downward in faeces or in bodies, that they wash back onto shores, and that they degrade into pieces too small for the nets to catch.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: possible sinks have been proposed: shore deposition, nano-fragmentation, biofouling, and ingestion
Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: sink with the bodies of dead fish, or be defecated

Claim 51 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In 2014 none had been shown to account for the bulk.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion, final paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: plastic are as yet unknown. We cannot rule out either of the proposed sink processes

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “None has been shown to account for the bulk.” Two later lines of work each claim to account for it (claims 54 to 59), so the statement is dated.

Claim 52 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The team that listed them judged a rigorous attribution not yet possible, and the washing ashore of millimetre fragments already trapped in the central gyres unlikely.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Although a rigorous attribution of losses to each of these mechanisms is not yet possible
Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanResults and Discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: A selective washing ashore of the millimeter-sized fragments trapped in central areas of the open ocean is unlikely.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A rigorous attribution is not yet possible, and the washing ashore of millimetre fragments already trapped in the central gyres is judged unlikely.” Attributed to Cózar and others and to their date.

Claim 53 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Two later lines of work each claim to close the gap.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanDiscussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Our results demonstrate that there is no missing sink of oceanic plastic
Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: suggest there is no missing sink of marine plastic pollution

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "missing ocean plastic sink": the two lines of work on the page are the ones found.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” New paragraph reporting work since 2020.

Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Extrapolating from samples taken across the Atlantic in 2016, one team put just three polymers, in particles of 32 to 651 micrometres, at 11.6 to 21.1 million tonnes in the top 200 metres, and concluded that the input estimates were too low.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic Oceanabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: The combined mass of just the three most-littered plastics (polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene) of 32–651 µm size-class suspended in the top 200 m of the Atlantic Ocean is 11.6–21.1 Million Tonnes.
Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanMethods
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: Atlantic Meridional Transect cruise AMT26 JR16001 (http://www.amt-uk.org/) in September–November 2016
Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanDiscussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: our observations are incompatible with the previously calculated supply rates of plastic to the ocean and we conclude that the latter are substantial underestimates

What this does not establish

One cruise track, extrapolated to the whole Atlantic on the assumption that its concentrations are representative. Masses come from converting two-dimensional images, which the authors list as a source of uncertainty.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "subsurface microplastic Atlantic mass": nothing found that remeasures the basin; the 2025 nanoplastic survey is on the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Later work on where the plastic is, missing from the page.

Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Extrapolating from one transect, a 2025 study put nanoplastics, smaller than a micrometre, at about 27 million tonnes in the mixed layer of the temperate and subtropical North Atlantic.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Nanoplastic concentrations across the North Atlanticabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: ocean nanoplastics (<1 μm) remain largely unquantified ... Here we measure nanoplastic concentrations on an ocean-basin scale along a transect crossing the North Atlantic ... For the mixed layer of the temperate to subtropical North Atlantic, we estimate that the mass of nanoplastic may amount to 27 million tonnes (Mt).

What this does not establish

PET, PS and PVC only: polyethylene and polypropylene, the commonest floating polymers, were not detected, which the authors cannot fully explain. The mass is an extrapolation from a single transect.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2023 on, "nanoplastic North Atlantic concentration": this is the study; nothing later found.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Later work on the smallest size class, missing from the page.

Claim 56 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: From the other end, a 2021 reanalysis argued that river fluxes had been overestimated by two to three orders of magnitude.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The missing ocean plastic sink: gone with the riversabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: we demonstrate that current river flux assessments are overestimated by two to three orders of magnitude

What this does not establish

The published paper was read as its abstract; the authors’ submitted manuscript, read in full, makes the same claim in the same words. The reanalysis concerns microplastics carried by rivers, not all plastic input.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2021 on, "missing ocean plastic sink gone with the rivers": a 2022 comment and reply, both on the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The input side of the dispute was missing from the page.

Claim 57 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A published comment called its conclusion fundamentally flawed, and the authors replied defending it.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Comment on “The missing ocean plastic sink: Gone with the rivers”abstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Argument
The source reads: We contend that this conclusion is fundamentally flawed, because the residence time is obtained through dividing a published oceanic stock of plastic debris by a doubtable river microplastic flux estimated by the authors.
Supports
Response to Comment on “The missing ocean plastic sink: Gone with the rivers”opening summary; first paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Argument
The source reads: Mai et al. are mistaken in their assertions that we incorrectly calculated the residence time for floating microplastic stock at the ocean surface

What this does not establish

The comment was read as its published summary only; the reply was read in full.

Later work looked for

As for claim 57.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The reanalysis is disputed in print, and the page reports that.

Claim 58 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The 2023 model, assimilating surface, beach and deep-ocean data, put the input of buoyant plastic near half a million tonnes a year and concluded there is no missing sink.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: We assimilate observational data from different marine reservoirs, including coastlines, the ocean surface, and the deep ocean, into a numerical model ... Our model estimates an ocean plastic input of about 500 kilotonnes per year, less than previous estimates.
Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: suggest there is no missing sink of marine plastic pollution

What this does not establish

Initially buoyant polymers only, and particles down to 0.1 millimetres; nanoplastics and dense polymers are outside it. Its deep-ocean data are 120 measurements against nearly 15,000 at the surface.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The model that disputes the input estimate was missing from the page.

Claim 59 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: One account says the input was too high, the other that it was too low.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The two studies cover different polymers and sizes, so they are not strictly measuring the same thing, but both state a conclusion about the total input.

Supports
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisImplications of residence times for future projections
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: We also find a plastic input into the marine environment of 470–540 kilotonnes per year, at least an order of magnitude less than previous estimates
Supports
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanDiscussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: our observations are incompatible with the previously calculated supply rates of plastic to the ocean and we conclude that the latter are substantial underestimates

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” States the disagreement plainly.

Claim 60 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Which is right changes the hazard.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s own judgement. Cózar and others (2014) make the same link between the fate of the plastic and its impacts.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “They imply different things:” Rewritten with the paragraph that follows.

Claim 61 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Plastic sealed into sediment, large debris that lingers at sea for years, and nanoplastic spread through the water column do not reach living things in the same way.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s reading of claims 55 to 59. The sources describe how long large debris stays at sea and what nanoplastic may do; neither ranks the hazards.

Context
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisImplications of residence times for future projections
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Model
The source reads: We expect that in this scenario only 10% of the plastic mass would be removed from the marine environment within 2 years
Context
Nanoplastic concentrations across the North AtlanticResults and discussion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Earth and its record · Measurement
The source reads: nanoplastics may represent the most problematic plastic size fraction for ocean life

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “a sea floor reservoir is inert, while material moving through food webs is not.” No cited source says plastic on the sea floor is inert. Replaced with a comparison the page can make from its sources, marked as the page’s reading.

Claim 62 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the harm is

Claim: What the harm is

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Entanglement and ingestion are documented directly.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The impact of debris on marine lifeabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: at least 17% of species affected by entanglement and ingestion were listed as threatened or near threatened
Supports
Plastic debris in the open oceanIntroduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: Plastic ingestion has been documented from small fish to large mammals

What this does not establish

The review was read as its abstract only.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "marine debris entanglement ingestion review": later taxon-specific reviews (turtles, sharks and rays) extend the record; nothing that changes it.

Claim 64 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2015 review of 340 studies recorded encounters between marine debris and 693 species, and plastic accounted for 92 per cent of the encounters.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The impact of debris on marine lifeabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: 340 original publications reported encounters between organisms and marine debris and 693 species. Plastic debris accounted for 92% of encounters between debris and individuals.

What this does not establish

A count of published records up to 2015, read from the abstract. It measures where research has looked as much as where harm occurs.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "marine debris species number review": no later global count was read, so the figure is dated to 2015 on the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A review of 340 studies recorded encounters between marine debris and 693 species, and plastic accounted for 92 per cent of them.” “Of them” read as 92 per cent of the species. The review gives 92 per cent of encounters between debris and individuals. Dated.

Claim 65 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Effects at the level of populations, and the effects of the smallest particles on physiology, are far less clear.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The impact of debris on marine lifeabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: the potential for sublethal effects of ingestion an area of considerable uncertainty and concern
Supports
The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceivedabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: conclude that the quantity and quality of research requires improvement to allow the risk of ecological impacts of marine debris to be determined with precision

What this does not establish

Both reviews were read as abstracts.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "microplastic population level effects marine review": nothing read that settles population effects.

Claim 66 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2016 systematic review of the field counted 366 perceived threats from marine debris.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceivedabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: we critically and systematically review the literature ... found 366 perceived threats of debris across all levels

What this does not establish

Read as the abstract.

Later work looked for

As for claim 66.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A systematic review of the field” Dated.

Claim 67 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Most of the ones that had been tested were demonstrated, but nearly nine in ten of those sat at the level of molecules, cells and tissues rather than whole animals or communities.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceivedabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: Two hundred and ninety-six of these perceived threats were tested, 83% of which were demonstrated. The majority (82%) of demonstrated impacts were due to plastic, relative to other materials (e.g., metals, glass) and largely (89%) at suborganismal levels (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue).

What this does not establish

From the abstract. A demonstrated effect is one shown in at least one study, often in the laboratory.

Later work looked for

As for claim 66.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “at the level of cells and tissues rather than populations.” The review’s levels are suborganismal against individual deaths and changes in assemblages, not populations.

Claim 68 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Distinguishing what is established from what is assumed is unusually hard here, because the subject arrives already attached to a conclusion.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement. The review’s own framing, separating demonstrated from perceived impacts, is what it rests on.

Context
The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceivedtitle and abstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Review of the field
The source reads: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived

Claim 69 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read

Plastic debris in the open oceanCozar and others, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · Published PDF, deposited at digital.csic.es (hdl 10261/317727); PNAS open access optionRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyThe SI Appendix was not read.
Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceanJambeck and others, Science · Europe PMC record, PMID 25678662Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyClosed access; no repository copy could be reached (science.org refused, the author’s site has an expired certificate, the ISWA copy is gone). The body and its country table were not read.
A global inventory of small floating plastic debrisvan Sebille and others, Environmental Research Letters · Publisher PDF, iopscience.iop.orgRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 3.0The supplementary tables and figures were not read.
The impact of debris on marine lifeGall and Thompson, Marine Pollution Bulletin · Europe PMC record, PMID 25680883Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyClosed access; the body was not read.
The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceivedRochman and others, Ecology · Crossref and Europe PMC recordsAbstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyThe open copy is on Wiley, which refuses this environment. The body was not read.
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans: urgent solutions requiredEriksen and others, PLOS ONE · Europe PMC full text, PMC9994742Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The supporting datasets were not read.
Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debrisKaandorp and others, Nature Geoscience · Publisher PDF, nature.com, including Methods and Extended Data captionsRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The Supplementary Information was not read.
High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic OceanPabortsava and Lampitt, Nature Communications · Europe PMC full text, PMC7434887Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The Supplementary Methods and Data were not read.
Nanoplastic concentrations across the North Atlanticten Hietbrink and others, Nature · Europe PMC full text, PMC12240857Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0
The missing ocean plastic sink: gone with the riversWeiss and others, Science · Europe PMC record, PMID 34210886, for the published abstract; the authors’ submitted manuscript (HAL hal-03718112) also read in fullAbstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyThe version of record is closed access and was read only as its abstract. The submitted manuscript deposited in HAL was read in full; it is the pre-review text, so the published paper’s body is not taken from it.
Comment on “The missing ocean plastic sink: Gone with the rivers”Mai, Sun and Zeng, Science · Europe PMC record, PMID 35981017Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyClosed access; only the summary was read.
Response to Comment on “The missing ocean plastic sink: Gone with the rivers”Weiss and Ludwig, Science · Published Technical Response (Science 377, eabm7305, 19 August 2022), deposited in HAL (insu-04470957)Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly