Corrigendum: Microplastics in sea surface waters in the Southern Bight of the North Sea

A Corrigendum on
Microplastics in sea surface waters in the Southern Bight of the North Sea

By Hoehn DP, McGoran AR, Barry J, Russell J, Nicolaus EEM and Bakir A (2024). Front. Mar. Sci. 11:1430307. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1430307

In the published article, there was an error. The unit ‘mm’ was used instead of ‘µm’.

A correction has been made to the Introduction, fourth paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“While the collection of surface microlitter is usually carried out using Neuston nets in the mesh size range of 300–350 mm, other sampling gears have also been applied including underway pumping systems (Desforges et al., 2014; Lenz and Labrenz, 2018; Kye et al., 2023), Niskin bottles (Whitaker et al., 2019), and microplastic pumps (Preston-Whyte et al., 2021).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“While the collection of surface microlitter is usually carried out using Neuston nets in the mesh size range of 300–350 µm, other sampling gears have also been applied including underway pumping systems (Desforges et al., 2014; Lenz and Labrenz, 2018; Kye et al., 2023), Niskin bottles (Whitaker et al., 2019), and microplastic pumps (Preston-Whyte et al., 2021).”

A correction has been made to Materials and Method, 2.1 Sample collection, second paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“A Neuston catamaran (Hydro-Bios; net mesh size, 300 mm) with a mechanical flowmeter (General Oceanics, 2030 and 2031 series) attached was used for the collection of floating microplastics, as it can even operate in high wave conditions compare to a manta trawl that operates best in calm conditions (Löder and Gerdts, 2015).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“A Neuston catamaran (Hydro-Bios; net mesh size, 300 µm) with a mechanical flowmeter (General Oceanics, 2030 and 2031 series) attached was used for the collection of floating microplastics, as it can even operate in high wave conditions compare to a manta trawl that operates best in calm conditions (Löder and Gerdts, 2015).”

A correction has been made to Results, 3.2 Monitoring of floating micro-, meso-, and macroplastics in surface waters, 3.2.1 Microplastics, second paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“Sizes of microplastics (n=2,341, 11% of total MP analysed by micro-FTIR) ranged between 142 and 4,960 mm. Most items were in the size range 1,000–5,000 µm (84%) followed by 300–999 µm (15%).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Sizes of microplastics (n=2,341, 11% of total MP analysed by micro-FTIR) ranged between 142 and 4,960 µm. Most items were in the size range 1,000 – 5,000 µm (84%) followed by 300–999 µm (15%).”

A correction has been made to Discussion, 4.1 Guidelines for Monitoring Microplastics, first paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“The European Commission (2023) also recommends the use of manta trawls with nets with a mesh size of 300 mm for the harmonisation with other monitoring programmes, which is consistent with this study.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The European Commission (2023) also recommends the use of manta trawls with nets with a mesh size of 300 µm for the harmonisation with other monitoring programmes, which is consistent with this study.”

A correction has been made to Discussion, 4.5 Polymer type and form, second paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“It is worth noting that due to the relatively large net mesh size used (300–330 mm), smaller filaments were most probably lost during sample collection and were therefore under-estimated in the present study.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“It is worth nothing that due to the relatively large net mesh size used (300–330 µm), smaller filaments were most probably lost during sample collection and were therefore under-estimated in the present study.”

A correction has been made to Discussion, 4.5 Polymer type and form, second paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“Previous studies for the UK indicated that most microfilaments had a mean diameter of ~20–30 mm (Bakir et al., 2023).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Previous studies for the UK indicated that most microfilaments had a mean diameter of ~20–30 µm (Bakir et al., 2023).”

A correction has been made to Conclusion, third paragraph. This sentence previously stated:

“Smaller items (smaller than 300 mm) are potentially under-sampled in surface water when they are smaller than the mesh size such as the small pink beads from cosmetics.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Smaller items (smaller than 300 µm) are potentially under-sampled in surface water when they are smaller than the mesh size such as the small pink beads from cosmetics.”

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.