Policies and Responses of Microplastics: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Paula Harkes and Version 2 by Jason Zhu.

Although (micro)plastic contamination is a worldwide concern, most scientific literature only restates that issue rather than presenting strategies to cope with it. The knowledge are assembled on policies and responses to tackle plastic pollution, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, gray literature and relevant reports to provide: (1) a timeline of policies directly or indirectly addressing microplastics; (2) the most up-to-date upstream responses to prevent microplastics pollution, such as circular economy, behavioral change, development of bio-based polymers and market-based instruments as well as source-specific strategies, focusing on the clothing industry, tire and road wear particles, antifouling paints and recreational activities; (3) a set of downstream responses tackling microplastics, such as waste to energy, degradation, water treatment plants and litter clean-up strategies; and examples of (4) multifaceted responses focused on both mitigating and preventing microplastics pollution, e.g., approaches implemented in fisheries and aquaculture facilities.

  • microplastic contamination
  • policymaking
  • prevention
  • mitigation

1. Policies Tackling (Micro)Plastic Contamination

1.1. Overview

Seven decades after the invention of synthetic plastic, several conventions started to tackle plastic pollution. Although most regulations initially addressed plastic pollution in general, they directly influenced the mid-2000s to 2020 regulations targeting microplastics.

1.2. Pioneer Conventions

Pioneer legislative efforts in the 1970s [1][2][3][4] started to regulate both land and sea-based pollution, i.e., the direct or indirect introduction of substance or energy into the environment by humans that would lead to deleterious effects to living resources, ecosystems, amenities and human health [5][6]. In the following decade, the United Nations (UN) conventions [7][8] tackling the marine pollution and transboundary movement of hazardous materials gained force, leading to the elaboration of agendas [7], compulsoriness annexes [9] and refund–deposit systems [10]. Grounded under these legal efforts, the 1990s have boosted measures to cope with anthropogenic waste. The Helsinki Convention “HELCOM” (1992) classified harmful substances as “any substance, which, if introduced to the sea, is liable to cause pollution” [11][12]. Moreover, the UN “Global Programme of Action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities” [13] came up with action plans to tackle both land- and sea-based pollution. Although plastics were not explicitly mentioned in any of the aforementioned policies and yet were not included in the program on persistent organic pollutants [13], some well-known conventions and action plans were amended to tackle plastic pollution. For instance, the Barcelona Convention [14][15], the Northwest Pacific Action Plan [16], the OSPAR convention [4], and the amended Basel Convention, which explicitly mentioned microplastics [15][16].

1.3. Policies and Initiatives Tackling Plastics

Scaffolded on the conventions tackling contaminants, policies directly targeting plastics have begun to emerge. Europe continued to establish several policies [15][17][18][19], and the European Marine Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (MSFD) emphatically addressed plastic pollution [15][20][21]. The United Nations (UN) embraced the concerns and encouraged stakeholder involvement [22], financed regional seas to combat marine litter, identified potential market-based instruments [10] and provided guidelines for worldwide efforts [9]. Those initiatives reverberated, and 69 world plastic organizations committed to dealing with the financial loss from plastic waste [23]. Furthermore, Taiwan encouraged deposit-refund policies [16]; China announced the Prevention and Control of Waste Plastic Processing and Utilization [24]; and management strategies were proposed to reduce littering in the Antarctic [25].
Between 2013 and 2020, the policies and initiatives tackling plastic contamination or even banning plastics boomed worldwide. The following ones are worth highlighting since they function as a scaffold for the current policies in place: Regional plans [12][15][26]; national, regional and collective agreements [27][28]; MARPOL 73/78 annex amendment [1]; UN resolutions encouraging stakeholder involvement and monitoring programs [25]; national laws [24]; Directives (EU)2015/720 [29][30], (EU)2018/851 [31], (EU)2019/904 [32]; taxation reforms, e.g., Portuguese Law n° 82-D/2014 [33]; restriction on the imports of plastic waste [34]; and Single-use plastic bans [35][36]. These efforts led to the European Strategy for Plastic in a Circular Economy to transform plastics design, production and recycling [37], as well as the scientific urge to recommend marine plastic pollution as a planetary boundary threat [38]. Plastic bans in India [39] and China [10] and restrictions in Taiwan [16] led the way in Asia. Nevertheless, challenges concerning inefficient enforcement and bureaucracy emerged [36]. Considering the current movement toward a carbon-neutral Europe by 2025 [4] and an environmentally-friendly future worldwide, more top-down policies are yet to come. For example, the Hainan provincial government in China announced the ban on non-degradable plastic products after 2025 [36]; the Ocean Plastics Charter was approved by eight countries to enhance the plastic circular economy by 2030 [30]; and the UNEP proposed to decrease marine plastic litter to zero by 2050 through the G20 Osaka Blue Ocean Vision [40].

1.4. Policies and Initiatives Directly Tackling Microplastics

Almost 35 years after the first initiatives tackling land- and sea-based pollution, the term microplastics was coined by Thompson and colleagues [41]. Due to the groundwork on policymaking carried out to tackle macroplastics, the inclusion of microplastics in policies took merely four years, when they were first addressed in the MSFD (2008) [15][20][21]. That triggered a cascade effect. In 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Brazil (Rio + 20), emphatically addressed microplastics as an emergent environmental issue [42][43]. The reasoning of microplastics as harmful substances still resonates in the last updated version of the “Oceans and the Law of the Sea” [40].
In the following years, microplastics were banned in wash-off cosmetic products in the US [44], the Netherlands [45], France, Taiwan, South Korea, Sweden [30] and the UK [46]. The International Coral Reef Initiative and the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty endorsed the reduction of plastic microbeads [47][48]; the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) followed the same line of thought to tackle microbeads [49]; and Canada classified microplastics as toxins in personal care products [9][50]. However, only personal care products were tackled, and microbeads and other microplastics in abrasive materials, such as plastic blasting and automotive molding, were disregarded [9]. Furthermore, HELCOM proposed a regional action plan to tackle microplastics, including recommendations on legal instruments to act upon it, encouraging microplastic-free formulas and replacing microplastics in personal care products [12]. Additionally, monitoring programs [36] and UN resolutions 1/6 and 2/11 on marine plastic litter and microplastics started to consider microplastic contamination as one of the six key emerging environmental issues [51][52]. The United Nations Member States committed to supporting the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 [53], including a reduction of microplastic contamination. However, the other SDGs lack indicators related to microplastics [54].
Further policymaking targeting (micro)plastics is foreseen for the following years, since the United Nations formulated a comprehensive plan to target microplastics worldwide under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [55]. It highlights the need for setting up action plans, technologies and strategies to prevent and reduce microplastic pollution, promote stakeholder engagement and assess environmental and socioeconomic costs, feasibility and effectiveness of the abovementioned, amongst others [55]. A key question remains: Will there be enough enforcement for top-down and bottom-up policies and initiatives coming up in the following years?

2. Upstream Responses to Prevent Microplastic Pollution

2.1. Circular Economy

A circular economy is an intersection between environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and social equality [56][57]. The transition toward a circular economy requires a fundamental shift in the design, production, consumption and end-of-life management of plastic products. That is, using raw materials more efficiently and reducing waste production to a minimum. Circular economy stands out as a long-term solution to cope with plastic pollution [1][57][58][59]. Although this shift demands investments in infrastructure and behavioral changes, substantial economic benefits are foreseen since about 95% of the plastic packaging value is lost after its first use [43]. Circular economy is pivotal for the reduction of mainly secondary microplastics in the environment [39], since the eco-design and the use of alternative materials for SUP items can enhance products’ shelf-life, mechanical properties and increase recyclability [39][60].
Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are often used to evaluate products’ environmental impacts, to encourage eco-design [61] and thus to foment a circular economy [62]. Currently, the marILCA impact assessment methodology includes an impact category for marine litter and may serve as a reference to also tackle microplastics, by assessing microplastics eco-toxicity and their impact on biota, economy and natural value [63].
Recycling is one of the main pillars of plastics’ circular economy. Some polymers can be pre-sorted, processed, melted, extruded, pelletized and reprocessed into novel products. However, not all plastics are recycled due to a lack of economic viability and technical barrier solutions [64]. Several EU-funded projects have focused on upcycling marine litter and derelict fishing nets, such as BLUENET [65], OCEANETS [66], MARELITT [67], SEACYCLE [68]. For example, some companies have established yarn production by recycling fishing gears [69][70][71]. Yet, recycling alternatives are not developed for microplastics due to the stock limitation [72], highlighting the urge to design microplastic-free products and reduce the sources of secondary microplastics. It is noteworthy that the plastic recycling process could be less sustainable than using virgin plastic when elevated consumption of non-renewable energy and long-transportation routes are needed [73][74]. Nevertheless, limitations to the recycling process, such as high costs, alloy complexity and limited mechanical properties, could be overcome by microbial technology that transforms plastic waste into high-value products [75].
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) imposes accountability over the entire life cycle of products and packaging introduced onto the market, making manufacturers responsible for the products’ end-of-life [43]. EPR encourages the development of easily reused/recycled products requiring fewer resources and fewer hazardous substances. The partnership between Adidas and Parley is an example of EPR that resulted in 30 million shoes produced from plastic debris at the end of 2020 [76]. However, developing flexible EPR strategies within fragmented plastic governance is challenging [77][78], and when it comes to microplastics, addressing producer physical responsibility is still an intricate task [79].

2.2. Behavioral Changes

Behavioral changes and multi-layered governance among general citizens, governments, industries, NGOs, academia, fishers and local communities are fundamental to the prevention of the leakage of microplastics into the environment [80][81][82]. Thus, promoting environmental literacy among youths [16] and adults [83], as well as engaging stakeholders to advocate the reduction of plastic pollution, are essential strategies to tackle littering [84]. Anti-littering campaigns, such as “Basuraleza” in the Basque Country [85], and “Keep Britain Tidy” in the UK, can be underlined as behavior-shifting efforts [42]. More specifically, the tailored ocean literacy tools could help to reduce microplastic contamination. For instance, the ResponSEAble project (https://www.responseable.eu/, accessed on 6 December 2020) tools successfully raised awareness among participants, triggered behavioral changes and minimized microplastic contamination from cosmetics and ballast water [86].
In light of this urge for behavioral changes, the Dutch government proposed to raise awareness of microplastic pollution in 2016 by fostering research, elaborating public procurements, enhancing media outreach and including microplastics as pollution indicators in abrasive cleaning agents of international certifications [87]. Furthermore, Belgium developed a system to stress where industries could reduce primary microplastics use throughout their production system [88]. Those actions combined with the worldwide concern of microplastic pollution have led to the ECHA proposal of a wide-range restriction on microplastics in Europe. When successful, this proposal will prevent the release of 500,000 tonnes of microplastics in the next 20 years [89].
Lack of knowledge is a hurdle to any behavioral changes. Citizens are generally unaware of microplastics pollution. However, Henderson and Green (2020) point out that some know about microbeads present in personal care products due to media outreach. However, only a few correlate their use of personal care products with microplastic pollution in the environment, highlighting that environmental awareness is more effective when the content aligns with the values and realities of people [90].
Media strategies and educational films emphasizing the issues arising from microplastic could increase social engagement [90]. Moreover, mediatic campaigns linked to academic measures, e.g., MOOC on Marine Litter [91] and Ocean Plastic Webinars [92], could support policymakers to trigger long-term behavioral changes through moral obligation [60]. Although the media strategies are often related to the aquatic environment, these media efforts should target all environments (e.g., aquatic, aerial and terrestrial ecosystems) due to microplastic ubiquity.

2.3. Bio-Based Polymers

Bio-based plastics are another response discussed by stakeholders to minimize fossil fuel overexploitation and to prevent pollution from oil-based plastics [93]. Even though the former represented only 1% of the current total annual plastic production (2.1 million tons in 2019) [93], the bio-based polymers are recently gaining more attention. Several bio-based polymers with efficient mechanical properties can be produced using direct fermentation of blended starch and other raw materials, such as polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), polylactic acids (PLAs) and polyhydroxybutyrates (PHBs) [64]. Some of these polymers, e.g., PCLs, PHAs and PHBs, can be produced from sewage sludge and further incorporated as biopolymer and hard packaging products [94]. That may represent a potential strategy to recycle waste and reduce plastic contamination. Furthermore, chitosan [95], pectin, starch, lignin [34][96] and jute fiber [97] are other bio matrices under investigation worldwide with the potential to occupy the plastic market in the coming years.
Bio-based polymers have been used successfully for fishing gear making [98][99][100]. However, bio-based polymer production and use are still under debate [101][102][103] due to high costs (2–4 times more than oil-based plastics) [64], non-ideal mechanical properties, lack of waste management infrastructures, water footprint and substantial land use [104]. Moreover, the transition towards bio-based plastics may be misleading since not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable, e.g., bio-PE [105].

2.4. Market-Based Instruments (MBIs)

Regulatory MBIs impact behavioral changes toward plastic littering and microplastics contamination [106]. These instruments estimate the externalities derived from plastic littering, considering their improper management costs and the urge for revenue-raising policies, rewards and incentives to retrieve these pollution costs [107]. Considering these externalities in products’ prices is essential to assuring that the stakeholders are dealing with full costs. Here, MBIs with the potential to prevent microplastics are discussed.
  • Green procurement: Environmental considerations are integrated into procurement decisions, for instance, a seaside community requiring restaurants to use only reusable plates, cups, and cutlery [10], or Nordic countries proposing a joint investment in recycling infrastructure [108].
  • User/Consumer/Beneficiary pays: A levy is applied to users/consumers using products that are harmful to the environment or citizens receiving a benefit. For example, a user of a clean beach contributes to beach clean-up, or users must pay a 10% fee on the use of plastic bags (in Portugal this measure led to a decrease of about 60% in plastic bag consumption per person per shopping trip [33]). However, these measures tend to fail without well-implemented monitoring systems [82].
  • Polluter pays principle (PPP): Polluters are responsible for addressing pollution. That encourages companies to find alternatives within their manufacturing processes [109], e.g., the Alliance to End Plastic Waste will invest up to USD 1.5 billion over the next five years on projects targeting a plastic-free ocean [34], and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to achieve zero plastics in landfill by 2025 in Europe [110]. Regarding microplastics, the polluter can pay for mitigation strategies, such as research on eco-design or innovative cleaning-up initiatives [111] and microplastic removal from WWTP [112].
  • Deposit-refund programs: Strategy already implemented in several countries to encourage citizens to return containers that can help prevent the entry of such objects into the environment, e.g., returnable beverage bottles. The deposit–refund systems in Denmark, the USA, Canada and Australia for bottles are a success and could serve as a benchmark for worldwide implementation [113].
  • Incentives/subsidies: Mechanisms that maintain prices below market levels for consumers or higher than market levels for producers. Examples include the fishing gear buyback program (700 tons of waste recovered in South Korea between 2007 and 2011 [114]); fiscal subsidies to recycling companies, fishers and other enterprises using recycled material [106]; and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund promoting the Fishing for Litter activities [19][98].
  • Liability/Fines/Charges/Fees/Taxes/Bans: Constant reinforcements and audits can discourage microplastics use during manufacturing. Although tracing back the microplastic producers is a strenuous task, especially in developing countries, the money acquired from fines [10], SUP surcharges and other liabilities could be invested in alternative upstream responses.
  • Banning SUP: Bans on SUP commodities, such as plastic bags and plastic-based microbeads, have the potential to prevent microplastics pollution from both primary and secondary sources [58][115] and to disrupt consumers’ behavior by undermining the possibility of acquiring SUP [116]; however, the unintended impacts of bans should be meticulously reviewed beforehand, e.g., impacts of disposable paper cups with plastic coating [117].
  • Ecolabeling: Reduce the adverse environmental impacts of products and raise awareness among consumers when purchasing products [118]. Ecolabels are only given to products respecting strict criteria and are regulated (ER Regulation 66/2010 on EU Ecolabel). For instance, rinse-off cosmetic products with microplastics cannot acquire the EU Ecolabel [87], and only products containing an elevated proportion of recycled plastics obtain the Nordic Swan Ecolabel [64]. Although imposing ecological requirements can represent a solution to cope with this issue, consumers would seldom choose labeled microplastic-free products when the label comes along with an additional “ecological” cost [118]. However, microplastics-free labels convey information about companies’ environmental consciousness and enforce the idea of communicating political and ethical preferences through conscious consumption [118].
  • Private governance: MBI efficiency tackling microplastics is only feasible with non-fragmented governance involving third-party organizations [119][120]. Even though challenging certification systems could be used as transnational instruments for environmental standards through the orchestration of several actors and directives, certification labels to prevent microplastic pollution are not as effective as top-down governance methods encouraging consumers to pay more for eco-friendly alternatives through state regulatory frameworks [118].

2.5. Primary Microfibers from Clothing

Primary microfibers are constantly released by the clothing industry, from the manufacturing stage to the washing cycles [121][122]. Microfibers formation depends on the type of polymer used in the textile [123], the cutting process [124], washing machine type, washing cycles selected and the clothing age [125]. To cope with this issue, thin coating fabrics made of silicon or bio-based materials could reduce microfiber loss by about 30% [126]. Moreover, three pre-washes, superimposed filter meshes and detergent use could reduce >53% of microfiber emissions [127]. LUV-R filter and Cora Ball, technologies already available in the market, could capture 87% and 26% of microfibers by count in the wash [128], and XFiltra filter and Guppyfriend bag could reduce 78% and 54% of microfibers loss, respectively [123]. However, these strategies demand time and care from users, impacting their comfort. That highlights the need to develop a filter already connected to the washing machine.
Even with such improvements, about 15 thousand tons of microfibers would still be released into the environment [125]. Hence, engaging the textile sector and washing machine manufacturers as well as sharing the technological advances and establishing protocols for monitoring fiber loss is necessary to palliate the microplastics released from clothing garments [121].

2.6. Tire and Road Wear Particles (TRWP)

TRWP can represent up to 5.5 kg of microplastics per capita per year to the surrounding environments [129]. In the USA this accounts for 1,120,000 t/y, and in the European Union, 1,327,00 t/y [130].
Investments in infrastructure, maintenance, monitoring and alternative materials stand out as a measure to prevent the emission of TRWP microplastics. For monitoring purposes, the following strategies are suggested: (1) standardize methodologies to provide a holistic picture of TRWP emissions; (2) define emission factors of TRWP release; (3) assess either mileage or tires’ average weight loss; and (4) set specific biomarkers to calculate the amount of TRWP in environmental samples [129][130]. For maintenance, several improvements are proposed: (1) correct wheel alignment and balancing [129]; (2) the prevention of studded tire use through taxes [131]; and (3) wear-resistant tires with design improvements (e.g., tires with silica as filler and tires resistant to degradation from physicochemical stressors [132]). Additionally, ModieSlabs, an innovative concrete pavement, and other prefabricated concrete pavements, can reduce up to 50% of the TRWP emissions compared with asphalt roads [87]. The use of infiltration bases to retain microplastics are also recommended, i.e., gully pots, filter strip, infiltration chamber systems, perforated pipe with a stone-filled trench, or even bio-retention systems and rainwater harvesting [131]. Other studies highlight the urge to enhance runoff treatments and drainage systems [129] or to install gutters connected to the sewage system along the roads [87].

2.7. Antifouling Paints

Antifouling coatings used by both the fishing and shipping industries reduce vessels’ drag resulting from fouling. These coatings usually release microplastics into the environment. To prevent this source of pollution, mandatory regulation to control the emission during abrasion and further paint innovation, such as silicon-based and other antifouling agents, is needed [133]. The following measures are also pivotal to preventing microplastic emissions: avoidance of excessive antifouling coating and dust spreading during coating removal; surface sanding and priming indoors; constant cleaning and maintenance to minimize peeling off processes and contamination from brushes/rollers; and awareness-raising among crew members. Furthermore, efforts are needed to improve the paint wear resistance, to replace the microplastics with more environmentally friendly agents and to develop products (catalysts) to optimize paint degradation rates [87].

3. Downstream Strategies to Mitigate Microplastics Pollution

3.1. Degradation of Microplastics

Plastic degradation occurs by different means. Plastic photodegradation requires only sunlight and oxygen to trigger plastic deterioration and hole formation. Innovative photodegradation has focused on the degradation of high density polyethylene (HDPE) microplastics by two semiconductors based on N–TiO2 [134] and the partial degradation of LDPE films through visible-light-induced plasmonic photocatalysts with platinum nanoparticles deposited on zinc oxide (ZnO) nanorods [135].
Macro-organisms have also been described as potential biodegrading agents. Caterpillars of the wax moth (Galleria mellonella) [136] and isolates from Lumbricus terretris gut microbiota were reported as PE degraders [137]. PS mineralization was elicited by Tenebrio molitor Linnaeus microbiota [138].
Numerous microorganisms were already reported as plastic degraders. Alcanivorax borkumensis may degrade LDPE [139]; Zalerion maritimum ingests PE [140]; Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6 consumes PET [141]; Rhodococcus sp. biodegrades PP; Aspergillus sp. colonizes HDPE surfaces; Pseudomonas and Alcanivorax act on PCL; Vibrio alginolyticus on PVA-LLDPE and Muricauda sp. on PET [142]; and the strain TKCM 64 and Lactobacillus plantarum (MTCC 4461) were reported on PCL [143]. Actinomycetes, Rhodobacteraceaes, Mucor rouxii NRRL 1835, Streptomyces bacteria and Aspergillus flavus biodegrading potential was also documented [75][144][145].
Numerous biodegradation studies are centered on Pseudomonas and Bacillus since they can trigger polymeric chain scission and partially degrade brominated high-impact PS [146], HDPE/PE [147], LDPE [148] and PVC [99]. The enzymes excreted by Pseudomonas sp. AKS2 can degrade the biopolymer polyethylene succinate (PES) at a rate of 1.65 mg d-1 [149]. The engineered Bacillus subtilis strain had shown high PETase activity [150]. According to Auta and colleagues, Bacillus cereus can reduce PS microplastics to its half in 363 days, and Bacillus gottheilii exemplified a multi-plastic degrader since it colonized PE, PET, PP and PS [151].
Several uncertainties remain regarding biodegradation efficiency and scaling it up. For instance, the efficiency of waste collection systems to handle biodegradable polymers, rates of GHG emissions in landfills, the role played by contaminants attached to plastics in compost quality, shelf-life of biodegradable packaging, land-use to sustain bio-based plastics [60] and the actual assimilation of plastic carbons into microbial biomass, CO2, or CH4 [152]. A more detailed perspective can be seen in the authors’ perspectives section.

3.2. Waste to Energy

Waste to energy (incineration) is often the solution left for a polymer with difficult recyclability [153][154]. Some polyolefins, thermoplastics and polyesters can be transformed into fuel and energy through microwave pyrolysis [110], co-pyrolysis or catalytic pyrolysis processes [72]. The recovered constituents can result in chemicals and asphalt quality enhancers, e.g., carbon black [155], or be upcycled into carbon nanotubes [156]. Moreover, integrated carboxylic oxidation and hydrothermal hydrolysis could activate peroxymonosulfate as a reactive radical to decompose plastics into intermediate organic matter to enhance algal biodiesel development [157]. Although more sustainable than overexploiting fossil fuel [158], this process demands cost-prohibitive technologies typically unavailable in small communities [25]. Currently, incineration represents a reasonable alternative for complex waste streams, such as marine litter [159].

3.3. Water Treatment Plants

Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP), Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM), Drinkable Water Treatment plants (DWTP), landfills and sewage treatment plants (STP) collect microplastics and mitigate microplastics emissions into the environment. Modern WWTP can retain >90% of the microplastics arriving in their facilities [160][161][162], and DWTP presents high retention rates [163]. These industries employ the following technology to retain microplastics.
  • Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is considered the most effective technology for removing microplastics (>98% removal efficiency). Microplastics are also retained in the sedimentation [112][164] and coagulation-flocculation processes, which retain more than half of microplastics content [72].
  • Rapid sand filtration, ozone treatment and reverse osmosis also retain microplastics [72][112][160].
  • Filters (e.g., granular activated carbon, carbon block faucet and reverse osmosis filters) are efficient for recovering microfibers, and air flotation combined with activated sludge technologies can remove microplastics from the WWTP sludge [165].
The retained microplastics become part of the biosolid. Considering the elevated accumulation of microplastics in WWTP biosolids and their application as organic fertilizer in agricultural lands, several alternative applications stand out, e.g., bio-bricks [166]. Nevertheless, efforts are needed to make these techniques cost-effective and efficient in assessing the fragmentation of microplastics into nanoplastics in these processes [163]. Intensified R&D in microplastics in water treatment plants tends to increase since the proposal (TA/2019/0071) that includes microplastics as a water quality criterion in Europe [167].

3.4. Cleanups and Removal Strategies

Continuous cleanups to avoid plastic accumulation on shorelines are effective, even on a minor scale, for reducing the amount of plastic, microplastics and additives in the environment [168]. Although scarce cleanups are exclusively targeting microplastics [169], microplastic contamination is mitigated when macro litter is removed. The Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup [170] and the Zero Plastiko [171] are worth mentioning due to the high social commitment and awareness-raising events.
Specific microplastic removal strategies include the GoJelly prototype made from jellyfish mucus to retain microplastics [172]; the Clean Swell application from Fighting for Trash Free Seas that connects citizen scientists worldwide to cleanups [173]; the “Mr. Trash Wheel” in Baltimore [128]; and giant drain socks to trap litter in the mouths of Australian stormwater drains [174]. Furthermore, Ocean Cleanup® developed an u-shaped system to trap floating marine litter from garbage patches and an interceptor for polluted rivers in Indonesia, Vietnam, Dominican Republic and Jamaica, and intends to transform the collected marine litter into revenue [175][176].

4. Fisheries and Aquaculture as Examples of Multifaceted Responses to Both Preventand Mitigate Microplastics Pollution

Fishing for litter (FFL) is an effective response that engages fishers to retrieve marine litter both passively (voluntarily litter collection during commercial fishing) or actively (funded by incentives or as a service) [177]. However, FFL, particularly active FFL, can be costly [177][178][179].The activity is, therefore, recommended for areas with confirmed presence of floating marine litter structures, such as marine litter windrows (Ruiz et al., 2021). Then, the fished litter could be reinserted into the market [180] or transformed into energy [16]. The following are some potential applications within the fishing and aquaculture sector to deal with marine litter: Gear tagging and tracking; technologies with less net contact with the seabed; deployment practices; enhanced management; enforcements in controlling illegal fishing/dumping; improvement of port reception facilities; strict towing control [25]; resistant bio-based fishing nets [100][180]; educational programs for fishers [181]; and risk assessments of nearby fish farms [182]. The aquaculture sector also started to propose solutions to deal with marine litter [183]. For instance, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council has planned to ask certified producers to perform risk assessments of potential plastic pollution and to implement mitigation actions to diminish the producers’ impacts [184][185].

5. Conclusions

This entry summarizes the current knowledge on policies and strategies to prevent(upstream responses) and mitigate (downstream responses) microplastics pollution, addingvalue to existing literature. Here, researchers highlight the importance of integrated governance,the inclusion of microplastics in policymaking and the urge for enforcement to cope withthis multi-layered environmental issue. Microplastics have already been included inseveral policies worldwide, 17 years after the first use of the term microplastics. This legalrecognition of both microplastics and nanoplastics, combined with legal enforcement, isexpected to increase in the following years. Researchers expect the responses and possible solutionspresented here to serve as an updated baseline for policymakers and stakeholders to tacklemicroplastic and plastic pollution.The 2010s boom in policies tackling microplastics raises some key questions. Are researchers measuring whether policies’ implementation is preventing or mitigating microplastics contamination in the environment? Is there a holistic picture of the increase, stabilizationor decrease of microplastics entering the environment over the past decade? Are theXXI century policies marking a turnaround or dip in microplastic pollution? Numerousgrants were distributed worldwide to tackle microplastics contamination, but is thereany reliable monitoring plan that shows, in fact, the decrease of (micro)plastics in theenvironment? Since plastic production worldwide is still increasing and more than one-halfof all the plastics ever produced have been made since 2000, it is unlikely that the boomin policymaking after the 2010s was sufficient to bring down the levels of (micro)plasticpollution in the environment. Researchers urge effective monitoring to assess how the top-downpolicymaking established in this century resonates with the amount of (micro)plastics foundin the environment. Without proper monitoring, (micro)plastic pollution may culminate inan unsolved and outdated environmental concern.It is intelligible that preventing microplastics from entering the environment should bea priority over cleaning them up, which is cost-prohibitive, technically challenging or sim-ply not beneficial to the environment. Although upstream responses stand out, they shouldnot completely eclipse downstream responses, which are also needed. Comprehensiveand operational legislation/regulations are required as groundwork to actively preventmicroplastics from entering the environment. It is infered that the way forward to regulatemicroplastic pollution in the following decades is to strengthen the policymaking to stopmicroplastic from entering the environment and enforce already existing top-down policies.A circular economy stands out as the chief solution to reduce microplastics contamination. Policies and initiatives tackling some SUP, such as plastic cutlery, have been an inflec-tion point regarding plastic pollution in the environment. Strengthening these policies andextrapolating them to microplastics is necessary. This encouragement could be carried outthrough harmonization of legal instruments, market liability, investments in alternativematerials, eco-design, EPR schemes, including externalities in products, microplastic-freelabels and constant inspection of regular businesses. Environmental and socioeconomicbenefits can be foreseen when incentives trigger the development of alternatives to oil-based plastic. Behavioral changes towards microplastics at all societal levels need to befostered through environment literacy and engagement of different stakeholders throughbehavior-shifting efforts linked to mediatic campaigns.Source-specific upstream responses can also act as potential preventive measures.Textile sectors and washing machine manufacturers will have to palliate the release ofmicroplastics from clothing garments. Further research should also focus on alternativematerials and technologies to replace tires’ synthetic rubber, the plastic coating used inantifouling painting, along with other sustainable alternatives. Nevertheless, it is pivotal torestate that plastic pollution is intertwined with other environmental issues. For instance,blindly banning plastic mulch in agricultural soils, may lead to decreased productivity,increased pesticide application, higher water use, etc. Hence, life cycle assessments are fundamental to avoid a “one fits all solution” and highlight the need for solutions tailoringthe specific circumstances and applications.
Regarding mitigation measures, investments are recommended in integrated wastemanagement programs with technological advancements and tertiary treatments, whichcould also enhance health quality and living standards in developing countries. Moreover,biodegradable polymers and microbial degradation, often presented as potential solutions,need further thorough research since biodegradation rates depend on different propertiesand complexity of the receiving systems, i.e., plastic films claimed as biodegradable undercontrolled environments may not degrade or last longer in natural environments. Thecost-efficiency of these solutions ought to be evaluated as well. In another perspective, severalcrucial questions remain unanswered: (1) Are microorganisms consuming microplasticsonly under starvation? (2) To what extent are microorganisms indeed biodegrading andassimilating microplastics instead of only fragmenting them? (3) What are the consequencesof plastic biodegradation on the environment regarding additive leaking, nutrient use andmicrobiome changes? (4) Are these degradation techniques cost-efficient solutions for allpackaging or only plastic intended to finish its use in the environment? Further empiricdata is needed to tackle those unanswered questions.To sum up, the upstream and downstream responses discussed here could enhancethe baseline used by the United Nations and the other stakeholders involved to target (mi-cro)plastic pollution. Researchers emphatically urge a wide-ranging assessment of how the policiesimplemented after the 2010s have helped to reduce the (micro)plastics in the environment.Then policymakers could decide whether to strengthen, reinforce or replace the existingpolicies. It is pivotal, however, to consider plastic pollution as an additional anthropogenicfactor undermining the planetary boundaries instead of an isolated issue. Therefore, it isfundamental to consider climate change, land use and cost-efficiency throughout the entireprocess to implement upstream or downstream responses to tackle plastic pollution.

References

  1. Agamuthu, P.; Mehran, S.B.; Norkhairah, A.; Norkhairiyah, A. Marine Debris: A Review of Impacts and Global Initiatives. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 987–1002.
  2. Duncan, R.N. The 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes at Sea. J. Mar. L. Com. 1973, 5, 299.
  3. Laursen, F. Marine Policies of the European Community. In North-South Perspectives on Marine Policy; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 45–65.
  4. EU Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. Brussels, 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  5. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. Marine Pollution Control in Europe: Regional Approaches, 1972–1980. Mar. Policy 1984, 8, 44–55.
  6. Paris-Convention Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Landbased Sources. Available online: https://english.dipublico.org/965/convention-for-the-prevention-of-marine-pollution-from-land-based-sources-paris-convention (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  7. Constable, A.J.; de la Mare, W.K.; Agnew, D.J.; Everson, I.; Miller, D. Managing Fisheries to Conserve the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem: Practical Implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2000, 57, 778–791.
  8. Raubenheimer, K.; McIlgorm, A. Can the Basel and Stockholm Conventions Provide a Global Framework to Reduce the Impact of Marine Plastic Litter? Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 285–290.
  9. Pettipas, S.; Bernier, M.; Walker, T.R. A Canadian Policy Framework to Mitigate Plastic Marine Pollution. Mar. Policy 2016, 68, 117–122.
  10. Brink, T.; Lutchman, P.; Bassi, I.; Speck, S.; Sheavly, S.; Register, S.K.; Woolaway, C. Guidelines on the Use of Market-Based Instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter; IEEP: Brussels, Belgium; Sheavly Consultants: Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2009; p. 60.
  11. The Helsinki Convention. Available online: https://cn.bing.com/search?q=HELCOM+The+Helsinki+Convention+1992%2C+2020.&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=helcom+the+helsinki+convention+1992%2C+2020.&sc=10-42&sk=&cvid=5F1117022B434363B7813305D0E9E1F8&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl= (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  12. Baltic Sea Action Plan. Available online: https://cn.bing.com/search?q=Regional+Action+Plan+for+Marine+Litter+in+the+Baltic+Sea%3B+Baltic+Marine+Environment+Protection+Commission&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=&sc=0-0&sk=&cvid=ACF8E392A1454D8597993C2698AF1C66&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl= (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  13. Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities and Other Activities Relevant to the Process of Amendment of the Lbs Protocol and Its Implementation. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/toolkits-manuals-and-guides/global-programme-action-protection-marine-environment-land (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  14. Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/39166493/Our_Oceans_Seas_and_Coasts (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  15. Fossi, M.C.; Vlachogianni, T.; Galgani, F.; Innocenti, F.D.; Zampetti, G.; Leone, G. Assessing and Mitigating the Harmful Effects of Plastic Pollution: The Collective Multi-Stakeholder Driven Euro-Mediterranean Response. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 184, 105005.
  16. Kuo, F.-J.; Huang, H.-W. Strategy for Mitigation of Marine Debris: Analysis of Sources and Composition of Marine Debris in Northern Taiwan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 83, 70–78.
  17. Karasik, R.; Vegh, T.; Diana, Z.; Bering, J.; Caldas, J.; Pickle, A.; Rittschof, D.; Virdin, J. 20 Years of Government Responses to the Global Plastic Pollution Problem: The Plastics Policy Inventory; Nix: Durham, UK, 2020.
  18. Wingfield, S.; Lim, M. The United Nations Basel Convention’s Global Plastic Waste Partnership: History, Evolution and Progress. In Microplastic Environment Pattern Process; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 323–331.
  19. EMSA Port Reception Facilities-PRF Directive 2000/59/EC 2000. 2020. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2000/59/contents (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  20. Coyle, R.; Hardiman, G.; Driscoll, K.O. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of Their Sources, Distribution Processes and Uptake into Ecosystems. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2020, 2, 100010.
  21. Bottari, T.; Savoca, S.; Mancuso, M.; Capillo, G.; GiuseppePanarello, G.; MartinaBonsignore, M.; Crupi, R.; Sanfilippo, M.; D’Urso, L.; Compagnini, G.; et al. Plastics Occurrence in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Zeus Faber and Lepidopus Caudatus from the Tyrrhenian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 146, 408–416.
  22. Oceans and the Law of the Sea. 2005. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/oceans-and-the-law-of-the-sea (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  23. Puskic, P.S.; Coghlan, A.R. Minimal meso-plastics detected in Australian coastal reef fish. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 113074.
  24. Zhang, K.; Shi, H.; Peng, J.; Wang, Y.; Xiong, X.; Wu, C.; Lam, P.K.S. Microplastic Pollution in China’s Inland Water Systems: A Review of Findings, Methods, Characteristics, Effects, and Management. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 1641–1653.
  25. Eriksen, M.; Borgogno, F.; Villarrubia-Gómez, P.; Anderson, E.; Box, C.; Trenholm, N. Mitigation Strategies to Reverse the Rising Trend of Plastics in Polar Regions. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105704.
  26. Arctic Marine Litter Project No Title. Available online: http://www.wur.eu/arcticmarinelitter (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  27. Plastic Cycle Value Chain Agreement. Available online: https://www.kunststofkringloop.nl/english/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  28. Basel-Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/basel-convention-control-transboundary-movements-hazardous-wastes (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  29. Vázquez-Rowe, I. A Fine Kettle of Fish: The Fishing Industry and Environmental Impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2020, 13, 1–5.
  30. Karbalaei, S.; Hanachi, P.; Walker, T.R.; Cole, M. Occurrence, Sources, Human Health Impacts and Mitigation of Microplastic Pollution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 36046–36063.
  31. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/851 on the Reduction of the Impact of Certain Plastic Products on the Environment 2018. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2018/851/introduction# (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  32. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/904 on the Reduction of the Impact of Certain Plastic Products on the Environment 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  33. Martinho, G.; Balaia, N.; Pires, A. The Portuguese Plastic Carrier Bag Tax: The Effects on Consumers’ Behavior. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 3–12.
  34. Barceló, D.; Picó, Y. Microplastics in the Global Aquatic Environment: Analysis, Effects, Remediation and Policy Solutions. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 103421.
  35. Surfrider Historic Single-Use Plastic Bans Passes in Honolulu 2019. 2020. Available online: https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/historic-single-use-plastic-ban-passes-in-honolulu (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  36. Fu, D.; Chen, C.M.; Qi, H.; Fan, Z.; Wang, Z.; Peng, L.; Li, B. Occurrences and Distribution of Microplastic Pollution and the Control Measures in China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 153, 110963.
  37. EU European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy 2018, SWD. 2018. Available online: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/agenda/our-events/events/eu-strategy-plastics-circular-economy (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  38. Villarrubia-Gómez, P.; Cornell, S.E.; Fabres, J. Marine Plastic Pollution as a Planetary Boundary Threat—The Drifting Piece in the Sustainability Puzzle. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 213–220.
  39. Rajmohan, K.V.S.; Ramya, C.; Raja Viswanathan, M.; Varjani, S. Plastic Pollutants: Effective Waste Management for Pollution Control and Abatement. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2019, 12, 72–84.
  40. UNEP 74/19. Oceans and the Law of the Sea 2019. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/news/un-environment-programme-unep-during-high-level-week-74th-session-un-general (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  41. Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.J.; John, A.W.G.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A.E. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science 2004, 304, 838.
  42. GPML Global Partnership on Marine Litter 2012. 2020. Available online: https://www.gpmarinelitter.org/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  43. Critchell, K.; Bauer-Civiello, A.; Benham, C.; Berry, K.; Eagle, L.; Hamann, M.; Hussey, K.; Ridgway, T. Chapter 34-Plastic Pollution in the Coastal Environment: Current Challenges and Future Solutions. In Coasts and Estuaries; Wolanski, E., Day, J.W., Elliott, M., Ramachandran, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 595–609. ISBN 978-0-12-814003-1.
  44. US-Congress H.R.1321-Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015. 2015. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1321 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  45. Al-Salem, S.M.; Uddin, S.; Al-Yamani, F. An Assessment of Microplastics Threat to the Marine Environment: A Short Review in Context of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. Mar. Environ. Res. 2020, 159, 104961.
  46. UK The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017. 2017. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2017/9780111162118 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  47. ICRI International Coral Reef Initiative 2016. Available online: https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/working-regional-seas/partners/international-coral-reef (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  48. Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Reducing Plastic Pollution in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean: Resolution 5 (2019)—ATCM XLII–CEP XXII, Prague (2019). Available online: https://www.ats.aq/devAS/Meetings/Measure/705 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  49. Jemec Kokalj, A.; Kuehnel, D.; Puntar, B.; Žgajnar Gotvajn, A.; Kalčikova, G. An Exploratory Ecotoxicity Study of Primary Microplastics versus Aged in Natural Waters and Wastewaters. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 112980.
  50. CANADA Microbeads in Toiletries Regulations 2017, 151. Available online: https://delltech.com/blog/canadian-microbeads-in-toiletries-regulations/#:~:text=In%20June%202017%2C%20the%20Microbeads%20in%20Toiletries%20Regulations,microbeads%2C%20including%20non-prescription%20drugs%20and%20natural%20health%20products (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  51. UNEA Annex I. UNEA Resolution 1/6 Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics. 2016. Available online: https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/plastics-policies/unea-resolution-16-marine-plastic-debris-and-microplastics (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  52. UNEP 2/11. Marine Plastic Litter and Microplastics. 2016. Available online: https://leap.unep.org/content/unea-resolution/marine-plastic-litter-and-microplastics (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  53. SDG Sustainable Development Goals—14 Life Below Water 2017. Available online: https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/sustainable-development-goal-14-life-below-water/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  54. Walker, T.R. (Micro) Plastics and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 30, 100497.
  55. UNEP 3/7. Marine Litter and Microplastics 2018. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/emerging-issues/marine-plastics-litter-and-microplastic (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  56. Hartley, K.; van Santen, R.; Kirchherr, J. Policies for Transitioning towards a Circular Economy: Expectations from the European Union (EU). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104634.
  57. Calisto Friant, M.; Vermeulen, W.J.V.; Salomone, R. Analysing European Union Circular Economy Policies: Words versus Actions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 337–353.
  58. Lyons, B.P.; Cowie, W.J.; Maes, T.; Le Quesne, W.J.F. Marine Plastic Litter in the ROPME Sea Area: Current Knowledge and Recommendations. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 187, 109839.
  59. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Global Assessment. 2015. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/sources-fate-and-effects-microplastics-marine-environment-global-assessment (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  60. Prata, J.C.; Silva, A.L.P.; da Costa, J.P.; Mouneyrac, C.; Walker, T.R.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Solutions and Integrated Strategies for the Control and Mitigation of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2411.
  61. Del Borghi, A.; Strazza, C.; Magrassi, F.; Taramasso, A.C.; Gallo, M. Life Cycle Assessment for Eco-Design of Product–Package Systems in the Food Industry—The Case of Legumes. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 13, 24–36.
  62. Vázquez-Rowe, I. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Related Issues Raised by the Medellin Declaration 2019, 22,23. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/life-cycle-impact-assessment (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  63. marILCA Integrating Potential Environmental Impacts of Marine Litter into LCA 2019. 2020. Available online: https://marilca.org/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  64. Ogunola, O.S.; Onada, O.A.; Falaye, A.E. Mitigation Measures to Avert the Impacts of Plastics and Microplastics in the Marine Environment (A Review). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9293–9310.
  65. BLUENET BLUENET, Creating New Life for Abandoned, Lost or Discarded Fishing and Aquaculture Gears to Prevent Marine Litter Generation, 2017. 2020. Available online: https://www.bluenetproject.eu/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  66. OCEANNET Ocean-Based Negative Emission Technologies-Analyzing the Feasibility, Risks, and Co-Benefits for Stabilizing the Climate (OceanNETs) 2020. 2020. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/869357 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  67. Stolte, A.; Schneider, F. Recycling Options for Derelict Fishing Gear. 2018. Available online: https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/recycling-options-for-derelict-fishing-gear (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  68. TERNUA Recycled Materials 2015. 2020. Available online: https://www.ternua.com/com/recycled-materials/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  69. ECONYL ECONYL® Regenerated Nylon 2011. 2020. Available online: https://www.econyl.com/press/econyl-regenerated-nylon-celebrates-a-decade-of-endless-possibilities/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  70. NOFIR Recycling Discarded Equipment from Fishing and Fish Farming 2011. 2020. Available online: https://nofir.no/en/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  71. PLASTIX The World Has a Problem: Plastic Waste 2012. 2020. Available online: https://plastixglobal.com (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  72. Sun, J.; Dai, X.; Wang, Q.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Ni, B.-J. Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Plants: Detection, Occurrence and Removal. Water Res. 2019, 152, 21–37.
  73. Gu, F.; Guo, J.; Zhang, W.; Summers, P.A.; Hall, P. From Waste Plastics to Industrial Raw Materials: A Life Cycle Assessment of Mechanical Plastic Recycling Practice Based on a Real-World Case Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601–602, 1192–1207.
  74. Eljarrat, E. Los Aditivos Químicos Asociados Al Plástico: Otro Reto En La Lucha Contra La Contaminación Por Plásticos. In Proceedings of the Jornada Descifrando el Futuro de los Materiales Biodegradables Para Aplicaciones Marinas, 23.03.2021, Basque Country. 2021. Available online: https://www.idaea.csic.es/event/los-aditivos-quimicos-asociados-al-plastico-otro-reto-en-la-lucha-contra-la-contaminacion-por-plasticos/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  75. Awasthi, A.K.; Tan, Q.; Li, J. Biotechnological Potential for Microplastic Waste. Trends Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 1196–1199.
  76. Parley. Five Years of Working with Parley to end Plastic Waste 2020. 2020. Available online: https://news.adidas.com/made-with-recycled-materials/five-years-of-working-with-parley-to-end-plastic-waste/s/40d88ae9-a487-4dbf-af48-9ebb16882247 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  77. Dauvergne, P. Why Is the Global Governance of Plastic Failing the Oceans? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 51, 22–31.
  78. Ritchey, M.S.T. Scenarios and Strategies for Extended Producer Responsibility. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237760747_Scenarios_and_Strategies_for_Extended_Producer_Responsibility_Using_Morphological_Analysis_to_Evaluate_EPR_System_Strategies_in_Sweden (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  79. Doughty, R.; Eriksen, M. The Case for a Ban on Microplastics in Personal Care Products. Tulane Environ. Law J. 2014, 27, 277–298.
  80. Rochman, C.M.; Cook, A.M.; Koelmans, A.A. Plastic Debris and Policy: Using Current Scientific Understanding to Invoke Positive Change. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 1617–1626.
  81. Combating Marine Plastic Litter and Microplastics: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Relevant International, Regional and Subregional Governance Strategies and Approaches. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346487759_Combating_marine_plastic_litter_and_microplastics_an_assessment_of_the_effectiveness_of_relevant_international_regional_and_subregional_governance_strategies_and_approaches (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  82. The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and Management of Marine Debris. 2012. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/10670#:~:text=The%20Honolulu%20Strategy%20is%20a%20framework%20for%20a,the%20world%2C%20regardless%20of%20specific%20conditions%20or%20challenges (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  83. Brennan, C.; Ashley, M.; Molloy, O. A System Dynamics Approach to Increasing Ocean Literacy. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 360.
  84. Clausen, L.P.W.; Hansen, O.F.H.; Oturai, N.B.; Syberg, K.; Hansen, S.F. Stakeholder Analysis with Regard to a Recent European Restriction Proposal on Microplastics. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235062.
  85. Libera Libera-Unidos Contra La Bazuraleza 2018. 2020. Available online: https://proyectolibera.org/basuraleza (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  86. Ashley, M.; Pahl, S.; Glegg, G.; Fletcher, S. A Change of Mind: Applying Social and Behavioral Research Methods to the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Ocean Literacy Initiatives. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 288.
  87. Aj, V.; Depoorter, L.; Dröge, R.; Kuenen, J.; Devalk, E. Emission of Microplastics and Potential Mitigation Measures: Abrasive Cleaning Agents, Paints and Tyre Wear; National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 4, pp. 1–73.
  88. Ooms, J.; Landman, H.; Politiek, E.T.; Van Bruggen, R.P.; Joosten, E.A. Test to Assess and Prevent the Emission of Primary Synthetic Microparticles (Primary Microplastics); Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium: DG Environment, FPS Health. 2015. Available online: https://documents.pub/document/test-to-assess-and-prevent-the-emission-of-primary-to-assess-and-prevent-the.html?page=1 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  89. ECHA Microplastics. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/microplastics (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  90. Henderson, L.; Green, C. Making Sense of Microplastics? Public Understandings of Plastic Pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 152, 110908.
  91. BlueMED Understanding and Acting for a Healthy Plastic Free Mediterranean Sea 2020. 2020. Available online: https://westmed-initiative.ec.europa.eu/events/understanding-and-acting-for-a-healthy-plastic-free-mediterranean-sea-16-june-23-july-online-trainings/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  92. OceanPlastic Ocean Plastic Webinars 2020. 2020. Available online: https://oceanplasticwebina.wixsite.com/homepage (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  93. European-Bioplastics Bioplastic Market Data 2019. 2020. Available online: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  94. Liu, F.; Li, J.; Zhang, X. Bioplastic Production from Wastewater Sludge and Application. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 344, 12071.
  95. Lorevice, M.; Otoni, C.; Moura, M.; Mattoso, L. Chitosan Nanoparticles on the Improvement of Thermal, Barrier, and Mechanical Properties of High- and Low-Methyl Pectin Films. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 52, 732–740.
  96. Otoni, C.; Avena-Bustillos, R.; Azeredo, H.; Lorevice, M.; Moura, M.; Mattoso, L.; McHugh, T. Recent Advances on Edible Films Based on Fruits and Vegetables—A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 1151–1169.
  97. Ray, N. Commercial Production of Sonali Bags. 2020. Available online: https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/print/commercial-production-of-sonali-bags-1571580056 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  98. Maritime-Forum Workshop on Circular Design of Fishing Gear 2020. 2020. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/4486 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  99. Raddadi, N.; Fava, F. Biodegradation of Oil-Based Plastics in the Environment: Existing Knowledge and Needs of Research and Innovation. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 679, 148–158.
  100. Grimaldo, E.; Herrmann, B.; Jacques, N.; Vollstad, J.; Su, B. Effect of Mechanical Properties of Monofilament Twines on the Catch Efficiency of Biodegradable Gillnets. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234224.
  101. Kershaw, P. Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter: Misconceptions, Concerns and Impacts on Marine Environments. 2015. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/biodegradable-plastics-and-marine-litter-misconceptions-concerns-and-impacts (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  102. Van den Oever, M.; Molenveld, K.; Zee, M.; Bos, H. Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics—Facts and Figures. In Focus on Food Packaging in the Netherlands. 2017. Available online: https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/bio-based-and-biodegradable-plastics-facts-and-figures-focus-on-f (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  103. UNEP from Pollution to Solution. Litter, A Glob. Assess. OF Mar. 2021. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter-and-plastic-pollution (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  104. Brizga, J.; Hubacek, K.; Feng, K. The Unintended Side Effects of Bioplastics: Carbon, Land, and Water Footprints. One Earth 2020, 3, 45–53.
  105. Riggi, E.; Santagata, G.; Malinconico, M. Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics for Use in Crop Production. Recent Pat. Food. Nutr. Agric. 2011, 3, 49–63.
  106. Oosterhuis, F.; Papyrakis, E.; Boteler, B. Economic Instruments and Marine Litter Control. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 102, 47–54.
  107. Klemeš, J.J.; Van Fan, Y.; Jiang, P. Plastics: Friends or Foes? The Circularity and Plastic Waste Footprint. Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2020, 43, 1549–1565.
  108. Munck-Kampmann, B.E.; Werther, I.; Christensen, L.H. Policy Brief—Recycling in the Circular Economy: How to Improve the Recycling Markets for Construction Materials, Biowaste, Plastics and Critical Metals; ANP; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; ISBN 9789289357708.
  109. Schwartz, P. Research Handbook on International Environmental Law. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; ISBN 9781786436986.
  110. EIP-AGRI Reducing the Plastic Footprint of Agriculture. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/focus-groups/reducing-plastic-footprint-agriculture (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  111. Hale, R.C.; Seeley, M.E.; La Guardia, M.J.; Mai, L.; Zeng, E.Y. A Global Perspective on Microplastics. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2020, 125, e2018JC014719.
  112. Talvitie, J.; Mikola, A.; Koistinen, A.; Setälä, O. Solutions to Microplastic Pollution—Removal of Microplastics from Wastewater Effluent with Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technologies. Water Res. 2017, 123, 401–407.
  113. Zhou, G.; Gu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Gong, Y.; Mu, X.; Han, H.; Chang, T. A Systematic Review of the Deposit-Refund System for Beverage Packaging: Operating Mode, Key Parameter and Development Trend. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119660.
  114. Kim, S.-G.; Lee, W.-I.L.; Yuseok, M. The Estimation of Derelict Fishing Gear in the Coastal Waters of South Korea: Trap and Gill-Net Fisheries. Mar. Policy 2014, 46, 119–122.
  115. Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Transportation Fate and Removal of Microplastic Pollution—A Perspective on Environmental Pollution. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2020, 2, 100015.
  116. Godfrey, L. Waste Plastic, the Challenge Facing Developing Countries—Ban It, Change It, Collect It? Recycling 2019, 4, 3.
  117. Foteinis, S. How Small Daily Choices Play a Huge Role in Climate Change: The Disposable Paper Cup Environmental Bane. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120294.
  118. Misund, A.; Tiller, R.; Canning-Clode, J.; Freitas, M.; Schmidt, J.O.; Javidpour, J. Can We Shop Ourselves to a Clean Sea? An Experimental Panel Approach to Assess the Persuasiveness of Private Labels as a Private Governance Approach to Microplastic Pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 153, 110927.
  119. Stoll, T.; Stoett, P.; Vince, J.; Hardesty, B.D. Governance and Measures for the Prevention of Marine Debris BT—Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment; Rocha-Santos, T., Costa, M., Mouneyrac, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–23. ISBN 978-3-030-10618-8.
  120. Vince, J. Third Party Certification: Implementation Challenges in Private-Social Partnerships. Policy Des. Pract. 2018, 1, 323–336.
  121. Henry, B.; Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G. Microfibres from Apparel and Home Textiles: Prospects for Including Microplastics in Environmental Sustainability Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 483–494.
  122. Napper, I.E.; Thompson, R.C. Release of Synthetic Microplastic Plastic Fibres from Domestic Washing Machines: Effects of Fabric Type and Washing Conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112, 39–45.
  123. Napper, I.E.; Barrett, A.C.; Thompson, R.C. The Efficiency of Devices Intended to Reduce Microfibre Release during Clothes Washing. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 140412.
  124. Cai, Y.; Mitrano, D.M.; Heuberger, M.; Hufenus, R.; Nowack, B. The Origin of Microplastic Fiber in Polyester Textiles: The Textile Production Process Matters. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 121970.
  125. Hartline, N.L.; Bruce, N.J.; Karba, S.N.; Ruff, E.O.; Sonar, S.U.; Holden, P.A. Microfiber Masses Recovered from Conventional Machine Washing of New or Aged Garments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 11532–11538.
  126. Mossotti, R.; Montarsolo, A.; Patrucco, A.; Zoccola, M.; Caringella, R.; Pozzo, P.D.; Tonin, C. Mitigation of the Impact Caused by Microfibers Released During Washings by Implementing New Chitosan Finishing Treatments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Microplastic Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea; Cocca, M., DiPace, E., Errico, M.E., Gentile, G., Montarsolo, A., Mossotti, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; ISBN 2364-6934978-3-319-71279-6.
  127. Cesa, F.S.; Turra, A.; Checon, H.H.; Leonardi, B.; Baruque-Ramos, J. Laundering and Textile Parameters Influence Fibers Release in Household Washings. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 257, 113553.
  128. McIlwraith, H.K.; Lin, J.; Erdle, L.M.; Mallos, N.; Diamond, M.L.; Rochman, C.M. Capturing Microfibers – Marketed Technologies Reduce Microfiber Emissions from Washing Machines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 139, 40–45.
  129. Baensch-Baltruschat, B.; Kocher, B.; Stock, F.; Reifferscheid, G. Tyre and Road Wear Particles (TRWP)—A Review of Generation, Properties, Emissions, Human Health Risk, Ecotoxicity, and Fate in the Environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 733, 137823.
  130. Wagner, S.; Hüffer, T.; Klöckner, P.; Wehrhahn, M.; Hofmann, T.; Reemtsma, T. Tire Wear Particles in the Aquatic Environment—A Review on Generation, Analysis, Occurrence, Fate and Effects. Water Res. 2018, 139, 83–100.
  131. Vogelsang, C. Microplastics in Road Dust—Characteristics Pathways and Measures; Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) and Institute of Transport Economics: Report number: M-959|2018. 2019. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Microplastics-in-road-dust-%E2%80%93-characteristics%2C-and-Vogelsang-Lusher/e884d2252570ef999058a4c053ed6b7fd09872e3 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  132. OECD Nanotechnology and Tyres. 2014. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/nanosafety/nanotechnology-and-tyres-9789264209152-en.htm (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  133. IMO. Hull Scrapings and Marine Coatings as a Source of Microplastics; International Maritime Organization. 2019. Available online: https://www.gpmarinelitter.org/resources/report/hull-scrapings-and-marine-coatings-source-microplastics (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  134. Ariza-Tarazona, M.C.; Villarreal-Chiu, J.F.; Barbieri, V.; Siligardi, C.; Cedillo-González, E.I. New Strategy for Microplastic Degradation: Green Photocatalysis Using a Protein-Based Porous N-TiO2 Semiconductor. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 9618–9624.
  135. Tofa, T.S.; Ye, F.; Kunjali, K.L.; Dutta, J. Enhanced Visible Light Photodegradation of Microplastic Fragments with Plasmonic Platinum/Zinc Oxide Nanorod Photocatalysts. Catalysts 2019, 9, 819.
  136. Bombelli, P.; Howe, C.; Bertocchini, F. Polyethylene Bio-Degradation by Caterpillars of the Wax Moth Galleria Mellonella. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R292–R293.
  137. Huerta, E.; Gertsen, H.; Gooren, H.P.A.; Peters, P.; Salánki, T.; Ploeg, M.; Besseling, E.; Koelmans, A.; Geissen, V. Microplastics in the Terrestrial Ecosystem: Implications for Lumbricus Terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 2685–2691.
  138. Yang, Y.; Yang, J.; Wu, W.-M.; Zhao, J.; Song, Y.; Gao, L.; Yang, R.; Jiang, L. Biodegradation and Mineralization of Polystyrene by Plastic-Eating Mealworms: Part 2. Role of Gut Microorganisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12087–12093.
  139. Delacuvellerie, A.; Cyriaque, V.; Gobert, S.; Benali, S.; Ruddy, W. The Plastisphere in Marine Ecosystem Hosts Potential Specific Microbial Degraders Including Alcanivorax Borkumensis as a Key Player for the Low-Density Polyethylene Degradation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 380, 120899.
  140. Paço, A.; Duarte, K.; Da Costa, J.; Santos, P.; Pereira, R.; Pereira, M.E.; Freitas, A.; Duarte, A.; Rocha-Santos, T. Biodegradation of Polyethylene Microplastics by the Marine Fungus Zalerion Maritimum. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 10–15.
  141. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A Bacterium That Degrades and Assimilates Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199.
  142. Kumar, A.G.; K, A.; M, H.; K, S.; G, D. Review on Plastic Wastes in Marine Environment—Biodegradation and Biotechnological Solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 150, 110733.
  143. Suzuki, M.; Tachibana, Y.; Oba, K.; Takizawa, R.; Kasuya, K.-I. Microbial Degradation of Poly(ε-Caprolactone) in a Coastal Environment. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2018, 149, 1–8.
  144. Caruso, G. Plastic Degrading Microorganisms as a Tool for Bioremediation of Plastic Contamination in Aquatic Environments. J. Pollut. Eff. Control 2015, 3, 3.
  145. Srivastava, R.K.; Shetti, N.P.; Reddy, K.R.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Sustainable Energy from Waste Organic Matters via Efficient Microbial Processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137927.
  146. Mohan, A.; Sekhar, V.C.; Bhaskar, T.; Nampoothiri, K.M. Microbial Assisted High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) Degradation. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 213, 204–207.
  147. Rajendran, S.; Ramya, R.; Kannan, K.; Arokiaswamy, R.A.; Rajesh Kannan, V. Investigation of Biodegradation Potentials of High Density Polyethylene Degrading Marine Bacteria Isolated from the Coastal Regions of Tamil Nadu, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 549–560.
  148. Muhonja, C.N.; Makonde, H.; Magoma, G.; Imbuga, M. Biodegradability of Polyethylene by Bacteria and Fungi from Dandora Dumpsite Nairobi-Kenya. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198446.
  149. Tribedi, P.; Sil, A. Low-Density Polyethylene Degradation by Pseudomonas Sp AKS2 Biofilm. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2012, 20, 4146–4153.
  150. Huang, X.; Cao, L.; Qin, Z.; Li, S.; Kong, W.; Liu, Y. Tat-Independent Secretion of Polyethylene Terephthalate Hydrolase PETase in Bacillus Subtilis 168 Mediated by Its Native Signal Peptide. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 13217–13227.
  151. Auta, H.S.; Emenike, C.U.; Fauziah, S.H. Screening of Bacillus Strains Isolated from Mangrove Ecosystems in Peninsular Malaysia for Microplastic Degradation. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 1552–1559.
  152. Zumstein, M.T.; Narayan, R.; Kohler, H.-P.E.; McNeill, K.; Sander, M. Dos and Do Nots When Assessing the Biodegradation of Plastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 9967–9969.
  153. Ignatyev, I.A.; Thielemans, W.; Vander Beke, B. Recycling of Polymers: A Review. ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 1579–1593.
  154. Baytekin, B.; Baytekin, H.T.; Grzybowski, B.A. Retrieving and Converting Energy from Polymers: Deployable Technologies and Emerging Concepts. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 3467–3482.
  155. Poulikakos, L.D.; Papadaskalopoulou, C.; Hofko, B.; Gschösser, F.; Cannone Falchetto, A.; Bueno, M.; Arraigada, M.; Sousa, J.; Ruiz, R.; Petit, C.; et al. Harvesting the Unexplored Potential of European Waste Materials for Road Construction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 116, 32–44.
  156. Zhuo, C. Upcycling Waste Plastics into Carbon Nanomaterials: A Review. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131, 1–14.
  157. Peng, K.; Morrow, G.; Zhang, X.; Tipeng, W.; Zhongfu, T.; Agarwa, J. Systematic Comparison of Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels and Biomass Resources. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 192–200.
  158. Bernardo, C.A.; Simões, C.; Pinto, L. Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Analysis of Plastic Waste Management Options: A Review; AIP Publishing LLC.: Melville, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 1779.
  159. Faussone, G.C.; Kržan, A.; Grilc, M. Conversion of Marine Litter from Venice Lagoon into Marine Fuels via Thermochemical Route: The Overview of Products, Their Yield, Quality and Environmental Impact. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9481.
  160. Bayo, J.; López-Castellanos, J.; Olmos, S. Membrane Bioreactor and Rapid Sand Filtration for the Removal of Microplastics in an Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 156, 111211.
  161. Sol, D.; Laca, A.; Laca, A.; Díaz, M. Approaching the Environmental Problem of Microplastics: Importance of WWTP Treatments. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140016.
  162. Lebreton, L.C.M.; Van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River Plastic Emissions to the World’s Oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611.
  163. Shen, M.; Song, B.; Zhu, Y.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wen, X.; Chen, M.; Yi, H. Removal of Microplastics via Drinking Water Treatment: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Chemosphere 2020, 251, 126612.
  164. Meng, Y.; Kelly, F.J.; Wright, S.L. Advances and Challenges of Microplastic Pollution in Freshwater Ecosystems: A UK Perspective. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113445.
  165. Singh, R.P.; Mishra, S.; Das, A.P. Synthetic Microfibers: Pollution Toxicity and Remediation. Chemosphere 2020, 257, 127199.
  166. Mohajerani, A.; Karabatak, B. Microplastics and Pollutants in Biosolids Have Contaminated Agricultural Soils: An Analytical Study and a Proposal to Cease the Use of Biosolids in Farmlands and Utilise Them in Sustainable Bricks. Waste Manag. 2020, 107, 252–265.
  167. European-Parliament Minimum Requirements for Water Reuse. 2019. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0071_EN.html (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  168. De Frond, H.L.; van Sebille, E.; Parnis, J.M.; Diamond, M.L.; Mallos, N.; Kingsbury, T.; Rochman, C.M. Estimating the Mass of Chemicals Associated with Ocean Plastic Pollution to Inform Mitigation Efforts. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2019, 15, 596–606.
  169. De Carvalho, D.G.; Baptista Neto, J.A. Microplastic Pollution of the Beaches of Guanabara Bay, Southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 128, 10–17.
  170. Ocean-Conservancy Building a Clean Swell; Ocean Conservancy. 2018. Available online: https://cn.bing.com/search?q=Ocean-Conservancy+Building+a+Clean+Swell%3B+Ocean+Conservancy%2C+2018&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=211.+ocean-conservancy+building+a+clean+swell%3B+ocean+conservancy%2C+2018&sc=10-70&sk=&cvid=CC2057223DD5446D80382A16217D56C7&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl= (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  171. Zero-Plastiko-Urdaibai. Zero Plastiko Urdaibai Collects 8 Tonnes of Waste in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve 2019. 2020. Available online: http://www.islandbiosphere.org/Contingut.aspx?IdPub=1409 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  172. Freeman, S.; Booth, A.M.; Sabbah, I.; Tiller, R.; Dierking, J.; Klun, K.; Rotter, A.; Ben-David, E.; Javidpour, J.; Angel, D.L. Between Source and Sea: The Role of Wastewater Treatment in Reducing Marine Microplastics. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 266, 110642.
  173. Ocean-Conservancy Meet Clean Swell 2020. 2020. Available online: https://oceanconservancy.org/clean-on-2020/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  174. De Poloni, G. Meet the Drain Sock—A Simple Pollution Solution Taking the World by Storm 2019. 2020. Available online: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/10/meet-the-drain-sock-a-simple-pollution-solution-taking-the-world-by-storm/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  175. Ocean-Cleanup. The Largest Cleanup in History 2020. 2020. Available online: https://happyeconews.com/2020/07/06/biggest-open-ocean-clean-up-ever/#:~:text=Ocean%20Voyages%20Institute%20Sets%20Record%20with%20Largest%20Open,as%20the%20Great%20Pacific%20Garbage%20Patch%20or%20Gyre (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  176. Ocean-Cleanup. The Ocean Cleanup Is Awarded $1 Million to Combate Jamaica’s Highest Polluting Waterway 2020. 2020. Available online: https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/the-ocean-cleanup-is-awarded-1-million-to-combat-jamaicas-highest-polluting-waterway/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  177. Andrés, M.; Delpey, M.; Ruiz, I.; Declerck, A.; Sarrade, C.; Bergeron, P.; Basurko, O.C. Measuring and Comparing Solutions for Floating Marine Litter Removal: Lessons Learned in the South-East Coast of the Bay of Biscay from an Economic Perspective. Mar. Policy 2021, 127, 104450.
  178. Cózar, A.; Aliani, S.; Basurko, O.C.; Arias, M.; Isobe, A.; Topouzelis, K.; Rubio, A.; Morales-Caselles, C. Marine Litter Windrows: A Strategic Target to Understand and Manage the Ocean Plastic Pollution. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 98.
  179. Ruiz, I.; Basurko, O.C.; Rubio, A.; Delpey, M.; Granado, I.; Declerck, A.; Mader, J.; Cózar, A. Litter Windrows in the South-East Coast of the Bay of Biscay: An Ocean Process Enabling Effective Active Fishing for Litter. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 308.
  180. OSPAR. Comission OSPAR Scoping Study on Best Practices for the Design and Recycling of Fishing Gear as a Means to Reduce Quantities of Fishing Gear Found as Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic; Ospar Comission—Environmental Impacts of Human Activites. 2020. Available online: https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1399 (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  181. Franco-Trecu, V.; Drago, M.; Katz, H.; Machin, E.; Marin, Y. With the Noose around the Neck: Marine Debris Entangling Otariid Species. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 985–989.
  182. Krüger, L.; Casado-Coy, N.; Valle, C.; Ramos, M.; Sánchez-Jerez, P.; Gago, J.; Carretero, O.; Beltran-Sanahuja, A.; Sanz-Lazaro, C. Plastic Debris Accumulation in the Seabed Derived from Coastal Fish Farming. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 257, 113336.
  183. AQUA-LIT. Notas Del Taller de Mar Mediterráneo; Valencia. 2020. Available online: https://aqua-lit.eu/assets/content/AQUA-LIT_MedLL_programme.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  184. ASC. ASC’s Focus on Plastics, Marine Litter and Ghost Gear 2019. 2020. Available online: https://www.asc-aqua.org/programme-improvements/marine-litter/ (accessed on 6 December 2020).
  185. Huntington, T. Marine Litter and Aquaculture Gear—White Paper. Report Produced by Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. 2019. Available online: https://www.asc-aqua.org/.../11/ASC_Marine-Litter-and-Aquaculture-Gear-November-2019.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2020).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback