Figure 4.
Relationships between MP and sediment distribution patterns. (A–C) Correlation analysis of specific MP and sediment grain size fractions in relative abundances. The inclusion of the outliers (shown as grey triangles) S10 and S1, would unduly influence the regression fit (decrease of r2 to 0.31 and 0.07, respectively) and were consequently excluded from the analysis. (D) Correlation of TMP (log transformed, black squares) and HD polymers (grey diamonds with dashed line) as absolute values with median grain size (d50). (D, insert) Residual analysis of TMP values normalised by the median grain size (d50). Individual studentised residuals are shown as pluses non of which is deemed a clear outlier. (E) Fine sediment fraction (<63 μm) against TMP abundance (log transformed, black squares). Y-axis label is shared with (D). Graphs in different shades of grey present an assemblage of available study sites9,14,16 showing comparable relationships. Small black diamonds with the dashed line represent LD polymers and fibres. For later reference, in both (D) and (E), the respective position of the Baltic Sea sample, Arkona Basin (AB, d50 = 17.3 ± 1.7 μm, <63 μm = 99.6 ± 0.4%, n = 4 36), is marked as a cross. The Gotland Basin with comparable sediment grain size features (GB, <63 μm = 95.7 ± 3.5%, n = 3 65) does not display in the log rendering as MP numbers equal zero. The used grain size data for the two Baltic Sea sediment samples showed neglectable variation across our sampling region36,65. Significant correlations are marked with asterisks. All data displayed on a log scale are based on log transformed regression coefficients.