Microplastics in Freshwater: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Yulia Frank
,
Alexandra Ershova
,
Svetlana Batasheva
,
Egor Vorobiev
,
Svetlana Rakhmatullina
,
Danil Vorobiev
,
Rawil Fakhrullin

The low production costs and useful properties of synthetic polymers have led to their ubiquitous use, from food packaging and household products to high-tech applications in medicine and electronics. Incomplete recycling of plastic materials results in an accumulation of plastic waste, which slowly degrades to produce tiny plastic particles, commonly known as “microplastics” (MPs).

  • microplastics
  • freshwater ecosystems
  • rivers
  • lakes

1. Introduction

The invention of the first phenol-formaldehyde-based synthetic plastic Bakelite dates back to 1907 [1]. The use of plastic materials began to increase significantly from the middle of the 20th century, when new types of polymers were synthesized. Whereas in 1950, 1.5 million tons of synthetic polymers were produced annually, in 2020 the global production amounted to 367 million tons [2]. Around 99% of plastics are produced from hydrocarbon raw materials [3]. Currently, the use of plastic materials is extremely versatile due their properties, such as low density, low thermal and electrical conductivity, and corrosion resistance. The low costs of production also contribute to their ubiquitous use, from food packaging and household products to high-tech applications in medicine and electronics [4]. Thousands of different polymers are produced today on an industrial scale. The largest shares of the total volume produced currently belong to polyethylene (PE) at 30.3%, polypropylene (PP) at 19.7%, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) at 9.6%, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) at 8.4% [2].
The increasing production and consumption of plastic materials have gradually become a huge environmental problem due to the widespread pollution of marine and freshwater ecosystems [5][6][7][8]. Today, enough data have been accumulated on the direct impact of plastics on hydrobionts, which are associated with the ingestion, suffocation, entanglement, and other mechanical effects, so plastic waste has been recognized as dangerous for animals [9]. However, this is not the only adverse effect of plastic accumulation in the oceans and fresh waters. Natural conditions in aquatic ecosystems, such as currents, wave dynamics, solar radiation, and aquatic microorganisms, cause slow degradation and fragmentation of plastic objects into smaller particles commonly known as “microplastics” [10]. Microplastics (MPs) also enter the water directly in the form of tiny particles of polymeric materials used in industry and households [11]. The interest of researchers and the number of works devoted to the sources, distribution, circulation, and bioaccumulation of MPs in aquatic environments have increased dramatically after the publication of an article by Thompson et al. (2004) [12], which showed the widespread distribution and accumulation of plastic microfragments and microfibers in the oceans.
MPs are a heterogeneous type of pollutants with a wide range of properties, such as polymer type, density, size, and shape [13]. The diverse characteristics make MPs potentially accessible to a wide range of neuston, pelagic, and benthic species. These pollutants are present in a variety of ecological niches and are able to enter aquatic food webs at different trophic levels [14]. Polymer microparticles travel long distances and can interact with various hydrobionts, from microorganisms [15] to fish and large mammals [16][17].
The widespread pollution of the world’s oceans by MPs has become a serious problem. MPs have been found in the water column and bottom sediments of all seas and oceans [12][18][19]. There are five known “garbage patches” in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, where plastic debris accumulates in subtropical gyres. Particular attention is now focused on the Arctic region, where the sixth garbage patch is being formed in the Barents Sea [20][21]. The Arctic Ocean has been shown to be contaminated with over 300 billion MP particles [20]. At the same time, recent data show that there is a contrast between the MP content in the surface waters of Atlantic origin and in the waters of river plumes, where the MP content is lower [22].
The studies on MPs in the Russian Federation surface waters also focus chiefly on the seas and are mainly represented by quantitative assessments. Marine plastic pollution has been confirmed by field studies in 7 out of 12 seas studied [23]. The most studied is the Baltic Sea region, where the investigations of MP pollution in the aquatic environment and along the coasts are directed at studying the peculiarities of the distribution and behavior (settling, etc.) of MP particles in the water column [24][25][26], developing methods for monitoring plastic pollution, and studying the mechanisms of accumulation of marine litter on the coasts of the southeastern Baltic [27][28][29] and the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland [30][31][32]. It was found that the maximum amount of MPs is observed in the easternmost part of the Baltic—in the Gulf of Finland—because of the influence of the largest megalopolis of Europe, St. Petersburg, and the special hydrodynamic regime of the estuary of the Neva River, which is a man-made lagoon, where most of the MPs carried by the flow of the Neva River are deposited [33].
Quantitative estimates of the MP content in the surface and subsurface water layers of the seas of the Arctic region have recently been published [22][34][35]. These studies showed the maximum content of marine litter on the coasts and of MPs in the surface water layers in the seas of the Western Arctic—the White, Barents, and Kara Seas. The results confirmed the theory of Van Sebille et al., [21] about the accumulation of pollutants off the coast of Novaya Zemlya, where MP concentrations were an order of magnitude higher than their concentrations in other parts of the Arctic and were comparable to the values obtained in subtropical centers [36].

2. Microplastics as Pollutants of Aquatic Ecosystems: State of Research for Freshwater Bodies in the Russian Federation

2.1. Overview of the Sources, Sampling, and Analysis of Microplastics in Aquatic Ecosystems

The term “microplastics” was first used in 2004 by Thompson et al. [12] to describe microscopic plastic particles that accumulated in the water column and bottom sediments of the UK coastal aquatic ecosystems. Later, it was proposed to classify all plastic particles smaller than 5 mm as MPs [37]. The Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection [38] expanded the concept by defining it as “plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter, including nano-sized particles (down to 1 nm)” [39][40].
Some authors have proposed to consider particles smaller than 1 mm along the longest axis as MPs and to classify particles larger than 1 mm as mesoplastics (up to 25–100 mm) [41]. One of the suggested definitions of MPs is as follows: “Microplastics are any synthetic solid particle or polymeric matrix, with regular or irregular shape and with size ranging from 1 μm to 5 mm, of either primary or secondary manufacturing origin, which are insoluble in water” [12]. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA website), which is actively working towards developing a methodology for studying the distribution of MPs in aquatic environments, and other authors [8][42] also support the current definition of MPs as polymer particles less than 5 mm along the longest axis. There are special terms for fine fractions of MPs, such as “nanoplastics” for particles from 1 nm to 1 μm [43] and “mini-microplastic” for particles less than 330 μm [44]. Small MP particles (up to 0.45 mm, including nanoplastics) are also referred to by the general term “submicroplastic” [45].
Small particles are formed in the aquatic environment in the course of the sequential decomposition of larger plastic materials, mainly as a result of the action of physical and chemical factors [10]; these are the so-called “secondary MPs”. Plastics can also enter water systems directly in the micro-sized (<5 mm) form [11]. This group of MPs is referred to as “primary MPs”.
MPs enter freshwater ecosystems from various point and diffuse sources [46]. Diffuse sources (for example, plastic waste coming with watercourses from a catchment area, with groundwater) are distributed over large areas, while point sources combine direct entry with wastewater, including sewage, agricultural wastewater, storm water, industrial wastewater and others. Primary MPs enter aquatic ecosystems in the form of granules used in many industrial processes (raw materials for the production of plastic products, industrial abrasives, components of paint coatings, drilling fluids, etc.) and in personal care products [42]. The amount of primary MPs entering the oceans annually is estimated at 0.8–2.5 million tons [11]. Secondary MPs are also widespread in aquatic environments. They are formed from the fragmentation of larger plastic products, including plastic waste, synthetic textiles, etc. Quantitative estimates suggest that between 4.8 and 12.7 million tons of plastics enter water bodies annually due to poor waste management [47]. The rates of secondary MP formation are not clearly determined, since this process is complex and depends both on the properties of the material itself and on environmental factors. The leading factor in the degradation of plastics is photochemical oxidation under the action of ultraviolet radiation from sunlight [4][48]. Photooxidation occurs most rapidly on beaches and in open ground conditions; in water, this process is greatly slowed down due to lower ambient temperatures. The formation of biofilms on plastic surfaces also significantly (up to 99%) reduces the effect of ultraviolet radiation [49]. Other significant environmental factors affecting the decay of large fragments to MPs include wind action, waves, aggressive chemical environments, and microbial degradation processes [50]. The cumulative effect of these factors on the formation of secondary MPs has not been studied enough. However, it is known that the smaller the fragments, the faster their further decomposition is, with the formation of MPs under the influence of UV radiation and mechanical abrasion for all types of polymers [51]. High temperatures accelerate the processes of plastic degradation, in particular its photodegradation [52].
Washing of synthetic textiles has recently been recognized as one of the largest sources of microfibers [53]. It is estimated that millions of fibers enter the wastewater during a typical home clothing wash [54]. Ross et al. [55] revealed the intense pollution of the Arctic waters with synthetic fibers, mainly polyester particles, coming with ocean currents and with atmospheric flows from the south. The study [56] showed that it is microfibers that represent the major part of MP particles in the surface layers of the Arctic waters, as a result of the breakdown of larger synthetic materials. These are shipping waste (primarily discharges of liquid household waste), fishing waste (pieces of plastic nets), as well as sewage brought by currents and waste from offshore platforms. This conclusion was confirmed by a recent study in the Arctic seas adjacent to the Russian Federation [34][57], which showed that most of the particles found in the surface water layer are microfibers of polymers, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), and polyethylene (PE).
In general, street runoff, wastewater treatment plants, and atmospheric transfer from land are cited as the largest channels for MPs’ entry into aquatic ecosystems [11]. Many authors have confirmed that MP concentrations are often elevated near point sources, such as large population centers, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and plastic manufactories, and they decrease with distance from the sources [58][59][60]. Considerable attention is paid to assessing the contribution of treatment facilities to the pollution of water environment with MPs. Although most wastewater treatment plants generally have relatively high MP removal rates (over 95%) [61][62], many wastewater treatment plants are not effective at capturing certain types of particles characterized by small size and high buoyancy, such as microspheres and microfibers [63][64]. Industrial sources can also cause the entry of primary MPs into surface waters. In addition to municipal wastewater treatment plants, high concentrations of MPs in the aquatic environment are observed when sampling in the immediate vicinity of plastic factories and other industrial enterprises. MPs are used in various industrial processes as raw materials (“primary granules”) and as a part of abrasive products, and they enter watercourses with regular or accidental releases [65]. Point sources of MPs are characterized by specific “profiles” that reflect the nature of pollution. Microspheres used in personal care and cosmetic products, along with synthetic textile microfibers, are most abundant near wastewater outlets [63][64]; high concentrations of polyester fibers have also been observed near textile factories [66]; microgranules are typical for sites located near the production of plastic products [67]; and fragments of composite thermoplastics containing reflective glass spheres can be associated with the entry of road marking components into surface waters with storm runoff [68]. Most MPs entering the seas from rivers are represented by particles of synthetic polymers left after incomplete wastewater treatment (42%) and microfibers of synthetic fabrics (29%), followed by fragments and fibers from the breakdown of plastic waste (19%) and microspheres from personal care products and industrial sources (10%) [69].
Both special and improvised means can be used to take samples of surface waters and bottom sediments for the quantitative analysis of MPs. Trawl nets of various modifications, such as Manta trawl, neuston and plankton nets, and pump filtration, are used to sample MPs from water, while bottom sediments are collected using bottom grabs or hand tools [32][70][71][72]. Then, laboratory processing of the samples is performed to selectively extract MPs and get rid of other particles, such as minerals and organics. The identification of MP particles becomes more difficult in the presence of organic residues, which also have a low density and are not removed during the separation of particles in saturated salt solutions. Therefore, the elimination of impurities of biological origin, which is achieved by using acidic, alkaline, and enzymatic hydrolysis or strong oxidizing agents, is of great importance for adequate quantitative and qualitative analyses of plastic particles [73].
It is now accepted that visual analysis using stereomicroscopy can be used to obtain preliminary quantitative data on the presence of MPs in aquatic ecosystems. For the qualitative identification of plastic particles, spectroscopic methods are used, such as Raman and IR-Fourier spectroscopy, and pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (pyrolysis GC-MS). The chemical composition of particles is determined to understand the ratio of polymer types in the samples and obtain more accurate estimates of the origin and sources of MPs [70]. For particle analysis, some researchers also use scanning electron microscopy combined with energy-dispersive spectroscopic analysis (SEM-EDS) (for example, [74][75]. According to some estimates, the imperfection of the sampling methodology leads to an underestimation of the real concentrations of MPs in water and bottom sediments of freshwater ecosystems [76]. The use of different methods by different research groups for sampling natural waters and sediments and their subsequent laboratory analysis for MP content in many cases make it difficult to compare quantitative data.

2.2. Abundance and Distribution of Microplastics in Freshwater Ecosystems

The accumulation and transport of plastic debris and microparticles in continental freshwater ecosystems has become the subject of systematic research only since 2010 [58][77][78][79]. Terrestrial fresh waters need intensive research on the extent and peculiarities of pollution with MPs, as they represent the most important source of plastic pollution to the oceans [76][80]. The knowledge of the distribution of MPs in freshwater systems remains limited, but it is clear that the amount of pollutants carried by rivers is enormous. The global model of plastic transport to the World Ocean from river flows estimated the total flux at 1.15 to 2.41 million tons [81], with the 20 most polluted world rivers carrying about 67% of the total volume of transported artificial polymers. Quantitative estimates had been performed for large European rivers. The modeling of MP transport in the Danube basin and the calculated data based on the actual concentrations in the surface waters indicate an annual transport of 500 to 1534 tons of MPs into the Black Sea [69][82][83]. For the Po and Rhine Rivers, the calculated values of MP transport to the seas are 120–399 tons and 20–105 tons per year, respectively [69][83]. The Neva River is presumably one of the main sources of MPs entering the waters of the Gulf of Finland [33], while the Northern Dvina is a source of pollution for the White and Barents Seas [34][36][84].
The second reason for the intensive research on freshwater ecosystems, especially rivers, is that they are valuable water resources subjected to pollution [68]. Despite the common belief that most land-based plastic is transported directly to oceans by rivers, available evidence suggests that the bulk of the pollutants accumulates in rivers and their floodplains [85][86][87][88]. It is believed that lakes act as filters, retaining MPs in land surface waters as they flow into the continental seas and the World Ocean, and become the primary MP reservoir [89]. As a river flows into a lake, MPs are carried by the surface currents of the lake and can be concentrated in small temporary whirlpools [90]. Wind driven surface currents, especially during storms, also transport and deposit significant amounts of plastics on lake shorelines [91]. Rivers and lakes act not only as transit systems on their way to the ocean, but also as reservoirs of plastic pollution. River estuaries function in the same way: for example, the estuary of the Neva River, at its confluence with the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea, serves as an accumulator of marine debris and MPs in the Neva Bay, where the maximum concentrations of MPs in the water and on the coasts are observed [33].
Regression analysis of the data from several dozen freshwater bodies around the world showed that the part of the world with the highest MP content is Asia, followed (in descending order) by North America, Africa, Oceania, South America, and Europe [92]. The average MP concentrations in the surface waters of freshwater bodies around the world vary from tenths to hundreds and thousands of items per cubic meter. However, quantitative estimates are highly dependent on the methods used for sampling and MP detection. For example, when sampling with a neuston network with a mesh diameter of 0.33 mm in the tributaries of the Great Lakes in the United States and visualizing particles under a binocular microscope, the researchers registered the presence of 4.2 MP items per cubic meter on average [93]. Similar results of 5.60 and 5.57 items/m3 were obtained for the surface waters of the Rhine River (from Basel to Rotterdam) [94] and Elba River [95], respectively, using a 0.30 mm and a 0.15 mm mesh and visual analysis with selective particle identification by (Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy) FT-IR spectroscopy. The average concentration of MP particles in the water of the Danube River discovered during multiple sampling using a 0.50 mm mesh and subsequent visual analysis was an order of magnitude lower, 0.32 items/m3 [82]. On the contrary, much higher average values (more than 100 items/m3) were detected using a light microscopy in the surface waters of a Seine tributary, the Marne River, when sampling with a Manta trawl with a mesh of 0.08 mm [96]. One of the highest average MP concentrations in river waters, registered by a visual method in samples taken from the Los Angeles River (USA) using a Manta trawl and various types of nets, reached 3473.42 items/m3 in some seasons [77]. However, it cannot be concluded that a finer mesh diameter when filtering water for MP collection is unequivocally associated with an increase in the number of plastic particles. Thus, in the waters of lakes in China, after direct filtration of water samples using a 45 μm sieve and subsequent visual analysis with verification using a Raman spectroscopy, an average of 617 to 7050 particles per cubic meter was recorded [97][98]. Hundreds and thousands of MP particles per cubic meter of water were detected in the Nakdong River in South Korea using 20 μm filters [99], and the volume of MPs carried by the river per year was estimated by the authors at 5.4–11 trillion particles or 53.3–118 tons.
MPs are also ubiquitous in freshwater bottom sediments where their concentrations vary from single and tens of particles per kg dry weight [100][101] to thousands; for example, in the sediments of the Amsterdam canals, the MP content was found to reach 10,500 particles per kg dry weight [102]. Bottom sediments are considered to be a MP depot, the accumulation of particles in which is the result of sedimentation on a long-term scale.
In addition to the difficulties associated with comparing data obtained by different methods, surface water bodies have other features making it difficult to quantify the MP content. The processes of transport and redistribution of MPs in surface water bodies, especially in river systems, are complex. The mobilization, transport, dispersion, and accumulation of plastics in rivers depend on hydrological and meteorological conditions, including wind speed and direction [103][104], flow velocity, and water level and discharge [105][106]. The hydromorphological and dynamic features of surface water bodies determine the zones of accumulation and the surface transport of MPs [80].
The ways of MP transport in aquatic ecosystems are complex. They are currently best understood for marine and brackish waters and include surface drift, distribution in the water column due to vertical mixing, aggregation near shores and natural obstacles, and sedimentation [107]. In addition to the dynamic conditions of aquatic environments, MP distribution is affected by their physical characteristics (shape, particle size, and polymer density), and, as a result, particles in aquatic environments demonstrate a high variability of dynamic properties, including settling/rising velocity, critical shear stress, and re-suspension threshold [108][109].
To a large extent, the fate of MPs in marine and brackish water ecosystems depends on the type of polymer. Typically, PP and PE are low-density plastics that are relatively buoyant and are carried by currents, while PVC, PS, polyester, and polyamides are considered high-density plastics that tend to sink [110][111]. However, even PP and PE can acquire a higher density as a result of the addition of mineral additives [112]. The denser varieties of plastics tend to sink and reach the bottom sediments. A significant number of MPs are eventually buried in deep ocean sites [113] and accumulate in food chains [114].
The hydrodynamics influencing MP behavior in freshwaters is relatively poorly studied in comparison to that in the waters of the seas. However, it is known that, since the specific gravity of plastics primarily affects their distribution in the surface waters, the water column, and the bottom sediments, MPs are distributed in freshwater systems along a gradient from top downward, with a pronounced increase in concentrations from the surface to the bottom [79][107]). The difference between the MP content in fresh surface waters and bottom sediments can be enormous. Thus, MP concentrations in the sediments of the Elbe River in Germany are, on average, 600,000 times higher than those in the water [95].
Due to the peculiarities of the transport and the accumulation of MPs in rivers, it is difficult to interpret the data when studying MP distribution in cases where it is impossible to take samples along the transect. The selection and analysis of point samples presents a mosaic picture and does not always reflect the real MP concentrations. Fluctuations in the distribution of MPs in the water along the river are due to the fact that complete mixing and redistribution of pollutants can occur at a considerable distance from the source or confluence site with another watercourse; currents, turbulence, and wind action can contribute to the accumulation of floating particles in bends, and the slowing down of currents may be associated with biofouling and the sinking of denser fragments to the bottom [79]. In addition, a set of point measurements is only a “snapshot”, which makes it difficult to estimate the total particle flux, and therefore, for surface water bodies, it is preferable to conduct spatiotemporal studies to determine the average MP concentrations over a certain representative period of time [83].
Despite the fact that the distribution and the abundance of MPs in freshwater ecosystems are influenced by many factors, in general, MP concentrations in freshwater ecosystems, especially in rivers, are directly dependent on population size and population density, but are also influenced by such factors as the efficiency of wastewater treatment, volumes of discharged wastewater, and remoteness from urbanized, industrial, and agricultural centers [76][115]. The majority of MP particles entering freshwater ecosystems are secondary in origin. They form as a result of the destruction of larger plastic items, such as single-use packaging, tires, and fibers, and they are also represented by particles of paving and car paints [68]. These types of MPs enter water bodies and streams along with surface and agricultural runoff or directly from plastic waste as a result of inefficient waste management [116]. Storm runoff is another major source of MPs entering freshwater bodies. These types of wastewater introduce to the aquatic environment the particles from car tire abrasion and road markings [68][117]. However, high MP concentrations in river waters are often associated with primary MPs. The plastics in the Austrian Danube were mainly in the form of industrial raw materials, such as pellets and flakes [82]. Two studies showed that most of the plastics found in surface waters came from cosmetics or textiles [118][119]. In a tributary of the Ob River, the Tom River, synthetic microspheres were identified, the share of which reached 56.8% of the total amount of particles found downstream of a large industrial center of Western Siberia, the city of Kemerovo [120].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/w14233909

References

  1. Shashoua, Y. Conservation of Plastics: Materials Science, Degradation and Preservation; Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 19–38.
  2. Plastics—The Facts 2021. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/AF-Plastics-the-facts-2021_250122.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2022).
  3. Nielsen, T.D.; Hasselbalch, J.; Holmberg, K.; Stripple, J. Politics and the plastic crisis: A review throughout the plastic life cycle. WIReS Energy Environ. 2019, 9, e360.
  4. Andrady, A.L. Persistence of plastic litter in the oceans. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergman, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 57–72.
  5. Galgani, F.; Hanke, G.; Maes, T. Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergman, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 29–56.
  6. Wagner, M.; Scherer, C.; Alvarez-Muñoz, D. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: What we know and what we need to know. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2014, 26, 12.
  7. Eerkes-Medrano, D.; Thompson, R. Occurrence, fate, and effect of microplastics in freshwater systems. In Microplastic Contamination in Aquatic Environments: An Emerging Matter of Environmental Urgency; Zeng, E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 95–132.
  8. Rochman, C.M.; Hoellein, T. The global odyssey of plastic pollution. Science 2020, 368, 317–325.
  9. Rochman, C.M.; Hoh, E.; Kurobe, T.; Teh, S.J. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, e3263.
  10. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2009, 364, 1985–1998.
  11. Boucher, J.; Friot, D. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2017; 46p.
  12. Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 2004, 304, e5672.
  13. Frias, J.P.G.L.; Nash, R. Microplastics: Finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 145–147.
  14. Lehel, J.; Murphy, S. Microplastics in the food chain: Food safety and environmental aspects. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 259, 1–49.
  15. Reisser, J.; Shaw, J.; Hallegraeff, G.; Proietti, M.; Barnes, D.K.A.; Thums, M.; Wilcox, C.; Hardesty, B.D.; Pattiaratchi, C. Millimeter-sized marine plastics: A new pelagic habitat for microorganisms and invertebrates. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e100289.
  16. Lusher, A.; McHugh, M.; Thompson, R.S. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 67, 94–99.
  17. Fossi, M.C.; Panti, C.; Coppola, D.; Matteo, M.; Minutoli, R.; Guerranti, C. Are baleen whales exposed to microplastics threat? The case study of the Mediterranean Fin whale. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2012, 163, 25–26.
  18. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605.
  19. Ryan, P.G.; Van Franeker, J.A.; Moloney, C. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2009, 364, 1999–2012.
  20. Cózar, A.; Martí, E.; Duarte, C.M.; García-de-Lomas, J.; van Sebille, E.; Ballatore, T.J.; Eguíluz, V.M.; González-Gordillo, J.I.; Pedrotti, M.L.; Echevarría, F.; et al. The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating plastics in the North Atlantic branch of the Thermohaline Circulation. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1600582.
  21. van Sebille, E.; England, M.H.; Froyland, G. Origin, dynamics and evolution of ocean garbage patches from observed surface drifters. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, e044040.
  22. Yakushev, E.; Gebruk, A.; Osadchiev, A.; Pakhomova, S.; Lusher, A.; Berezina, A.; van Bavel, B.; Vorozheikina, E.; Chernukh, D.; Kolbasova, G.; et al. Microplastics distribution in the Eurasian Arctic is affected by Atlantic waters and Siberian Rivers. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 23.
  23. Bagaev, A.; Esiukova, E.; Litvinyuk, D. Investigations of plastic contamination of seawater, marine and coastal sediments in the Russian seas: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 32264–32281.
  24. Chubarenko, I.; Bagaev, A.; Zobkov, M.; Esiukova, E. On some physical and dynamical properties of microplastic particles in marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 1–2, 105–112.
  25. Chubarenko, I.; Esiukova, E.; Isachenko, I.; Demchenko, N.; Efimova, I.; Bagaeva, M.; Khatmullina, L.; Bagaev, A.; Zobkov, M. Behavior of microplastics in coastal zones. In Microplastic Contamination in Aquatic Environments: An Emerging Matter of Environmental Urgency; Zeng, E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 175–223.
  26. Bagaev, A.; Khatmullina, L.; Chubarenko, I. Anthropogenic microlitter in the Baltic Sea water column. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 2, 918–923.
  27. Chubarenko, I.P.; Esiukova, E.E.; Bagaev, A.V.; Bagaeva, M.A.; Grave, A.N. Three-dimensional distribution of anthropogenic microparticles in the body of sandy beaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 1340–1351.
  28. Esiukova, E. Plastic contamination on the Baltic beaches of Kaliningrad region, Russia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 2, 1072–1080.
  29. Chubarenko, I.; Stepanova, N. MPs in sea coastal zone: Lessons learned from the Baltic amber. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 224, 243–254.
  30. Eremina, T.; Ershova, A.; Martin, G.; Shilin, M. Marine litter monitoring: Review for the Gulf of Finland coast. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/OES Baltic International Symposium (BALTIC), Klaipeda, Lithuania, 12–15 June 2018; pp. 1–8.
  31. Haseler, M.; Balciunas, A.; Hauk, R.; Sabaliauskaite, V.; Chubarenko, I.; Ershova, A.; Schernewski, G. Marine litter pollution in Baltic Sea beaches: Application of the Sand Rake method. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, e599978.
  32. Ershova, A.A.; Eremina, T.R.; Chubarenko, I.P.; Esiukova, E.E. Marine litter in the Russian Gulf of Finland and South-East Baltic: Application of different methods of beach sand sampling, In Plastics in the Aquatic Environment—Part I. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Stock, F., Reifferscheid, G., Brennholt, N., Kostianaia, E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 111, pp. 461–485.
  33. Martyanov, S.D.; Ryabchenko, V.A.; Ershova, A.; Eremina, T.R. On the assessment of the spread of microplastics in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Fundam. Appl. Hydrophys. 2019, 12, 32–41. (In Russian)
  34. Ershova, A.; Makeeva, I.; Malgina, E.; Sobolev, N.; Smolokurov, A. Combining citizen and conventional science for microplastics monitoring in the White Sea basin (Russian Arctic). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, e112955.
  35. Pakhomova, S.; Berezina, A.; Lusher, A.L.; Zhdanov, I.; Silvestrova, K.; Zavialov, P.; van Bavel, B.; Yakushev, E. Microplastic variability in subsurface water from the Arctic to Antarctica. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 298, 118808.
  36. Tošic, T.; Vruggink, M.; Vesman, A. Microplastics quantification in surface waters of the Barents, Kara and White Seas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 161 Pt A, 111745.
  37. Arthur, C.; Baker, J.E.; Bamford, H.A. (Eds.) NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30. In Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA, 9–11 September 2008; Available online: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/2509 (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  38. GESAMP. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment (Part 1). Available online: http://www.gesamp.org/publications/reports-and-studies-no-90/ (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  39. GESAMP. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment (Part 2). Available online: http://www.gesamp.org/publications/microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2/ (accessed on 29 October 2022).
  40. Cowger, W.; Gray, A.B.; Eriksen, M.; Moore, C.; Thiel, M. Evaluating wastewater effluent as a source of microplastics in environmental samples. In Microplastics in Water and Wastewater; Karapanagioti, H.K., Kalavrouziotis, I.K., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2019; pp. 109–131.
  41. Hartmann, N.B.; Huffer, T.; Thompson, R.C.; Hasselov, M. Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 1039–1047.
  42. Hale, R.C.; Seely, M.E.; Guardia, M.J.; Mai, L.; Zeng, E.Y.A. Global perspective on microplastics. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2020, 125, e2018JC014719.
  43. Gigault, J.; Halle, A.T.; Baudrimont, N.; Pascal, P.Y. Current opinion: What is a nanoplastic? Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 1030–1034.
  44. Brandon, J.A.; Freibott, A.; Sala, L.M. Patterns of suspended and salp-ingested microplastic debris in the North Pacific investigated with epifluorescence microscopy. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2020, 5, 46–53.
  45. Sullivan, G.L.; Gallardo, J.D.; Jones, E.W.; Holliman, P.J.; Watson, T.M.; Sarp, S. Detection of trace sub-micron (nano) plastics in water samples using pyrolysis-gas chromatography time of flight mass spectrometry (PY-GCToF). Chemosphere 2020, 249, 126179.
  46. Horton, A.A.; Dixon, S.J. Microplastics: An introduction to environmental transport processes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. 2017, 5, e1268.
  47. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771.
  48. Ranjan, V.P.; Goel, S. Degradation of low-density polyethylene film exposed to UV radiation in four environments. J. Hazard. Toxic. Radioact. Waste 2019, 23, 04019015.
  49. Weinstein, J.E.; Crocker, B.K.; Gray, A.D. From macroplastic to microplastic: Degradation of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene in a salt marsh habitat. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 1632–1640.
  50. ter Halle, A.; Ladirat, L.; Gendre, X.; Goudouneche, D.; Pusineri, C.; Routaboul, C.; Tenailleau, C.; Duployer, B.; Perez, E. Understanding the fragmentation pattern of marine plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5668–5675.
  51. Song, Y.K.; Hong, S.H.; Jang, M.; Han, G.M.; Jung, S.W.; Shim, W.J. Combined effects of UV exposure duration and mechanical abrasion on microplastic fragmentation by polymer type. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 4368–4376.
  52. Andrady, A.L.; Pandey, K.K.; Heikkilä, A.M. Interactive effects of solar UV radiation and climate change on material damage. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2019, 18, 804–825.
  53. de Falco, F.; di Pace, E.; Cocca, M.; Avella, M. The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, e6633.
  54. Vassilenko, E.; Watkins, M.; Chastain, S.; Mertens, J.; Posacka, A.M.; Patankar, S.; Ross, P.S. Domestic laundry and microfiber pollution: Exploring fiber shedding from consumer apparel textiles. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250346.
  55. Ross, P.S.; Chastain, S.; Vassilenko, E.; Etemadifar, A.; Zimmermann, S.; Quesnel, S.A.; Eert, J.; Solomon, E.; Patankar, S.; Posacka, A.M.; et al. Pervasive distribution of polyester fibers in the Arctic Ocean is driven by Atlantic inputs. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 106.
  56. Lusher, A.L.; Tirelli, V.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R. Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: The first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, e14947.
  57. Ershova, A.A.; Eremina, T.R.; Dunayev, A.L.; Makeeva, I.N.; Tatarenko, Y.A. Study of microplastic pollution in the seas of the Russian Arctic and the Far East. Arct. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 11, 164–177. (In Russian)
  58. Eerkes-Medrano, D.; Thompson, R.C.; Aldridge, D.C. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritization. Water Res. 2015, 75, 63–82.
  59. Wang, J.; Peng, J.; Tan, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhan, Z.; Chen, Q.; Cai, L. Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River littoral zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction with heavy metals. Chemosphere 2017, 171, 248–258.
  60. Campanale, C.; Stock, F.; Massarelli, C.; Kochleus, C.; Bagnuolo, G.; Reifferscheid, G.; Uricchio, V.F. Microplastics and their possible sources: The example of Ofanto river in Southeast Italy. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 258, e113284.
  61. Carr, S.A.; Liu, J.; Tesoro, A.G. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2016, 91, 174–182.
  62. Mintenig, S.M.; Int-Veena, I.; Löderac, M.G.J.; Primpkea, S.; Gerdtsa, G. Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res. 2017, 108, 365–372.
  63. Murphy, F.; Ewins, C.; Carbonnier, F.; Quinn, B. Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5800–5808.
  64. Ziajahromi, S.; Neale, P.A.; Rintoul, L.; Leusch, F.D.L. Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for microplastics: Development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water Res. 2017, 112, 93–99.
  65. Andrady, A.L. The plastic in microplastics: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 119, 12–22.
  66. Lahens, L.; Strady, E.; Kieu-Le, T.C.; Dris, R.; Boukerma, K.; Rinnert, E.; Gasperi, J.; Tassin, B. Macroplastic and microplastic contamination assessment of a tropical river (Saigon River, Vietnam) transversed by a developing megacity. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 661–671.
  67. Klein, S.; Worch, E.; Knepper, T.P. Occurrence and spatial distribution of microplastics in river shore sediments of the Rhine-Main Area in Germany. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 6070–6076.
  68. Horton, A.A.; Walton, A.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Lahive, E.; Svedsen, C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 127–141.
  69. Siegfried, M.; Koelmans, A.A.; Besseling, E.; Kroeze, C. Export of microplastics from land to sea. A modelling approach. Water Res. 2017, 127, 249–257.
  70. Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, F. A detailed review study on potential effects of microplastics and additives of concern on human health. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1212.
  71. Karlsson, T.M.; Kärrman, A.; Rotander, A.; Hassellöv, M. Comparison between manta trawl and in situ pump filtration methods, and guidance for visual identification of microplastics in surface waters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 5559–5571.
  72. Nielsen, T.G.; Almeda, R.; Torres, R.; Vollertsen, J.; Winding, M.H.; Sichlau, V.A.; Rist, S. Quantification of plankton-sized microplastics in a productive coastal Arctic marine ecosystem. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, e115248.
  73. Ivleva, N.P. Chemical analysis of microplastics and nanoplastics: Challenges, advanced methods, and perspectives. Chem. Rev. 2021, 121, 11886–11936.
  74. Zobkov, M.; Zobkova, M.; Galakhina, N.; Efremova, T. Microplastic abundance and accumulation behavior in Lake Onego sediments: A journey from the river mouth to pelagic waters of the large boreal lake. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104–367.
  75. Malygina, N.; Mitrofanova, E.; Kuryatnikova, N.; Biryukov, R.; Zolotov, D.; Pershin, D.; Chernykh, D. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters from plain and mountainous lakes in Siberia, Russia. Water 2021, 13, 2287.
  76. Skalska, K.; Ockelford, A.; Ebdon, J.E.; Cundy, A.B. Riverine microplastics: Behaviour, spatio-temporal variability, and recommendations for standardised sampling and monitoring. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 38, e101600.
  77. Moore, C.J.; Lattin, G.; Zellers, A.F. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 2011, 11, 65–73.
  78. Lambert, S.; Wagner, M. Microplastics are contaminants of emerging concern in freshwater environments: An overview. In Freshwater Microplastics. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, 58; Wagner, M., Lambert, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–23.
  79. Bellasi, A.; Binda, G.; Pozzi, A.; Galafassi, S.; Volta, P.; Bettinetti, R. Microplastic contamination in freshwater environments: A review, focusing on interactions with sediments and benthic organisms. Environments 2020, 7, 30.
  80. van Emmerik, T.; Mellink, Y.; Hauk, R.; Waldschläger, K.; Schreyers, L. Rivers as plastic reservoirs. Front. Water 2022, 3, 786936.
  81. Lebreton, L.; van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.W. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, e15611.
  82. Lechner, A.; Keckeis, H.; Lumesberger-Loisl, F.; Zens, B.; Krusch, R.; Tritthart, M.; Glas, M.; Schludermann, E. The Danube so colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 188, 177–181.
  83. van der Wal, M.; van der Meulen, M.; Tweehuijsen, G.; Peterlin, M.; Palatinus, A.; Kovač Viršek, M.; Coscia, L.; Kržan, A. Identification and Assessment of Riverine Input of (Marine) Litter; IFREMER: Brest, France, 2015; 186p.
  84. Zhdanov, I.; Lokhov, A.; Belesov, A.; Kozhevnikov, A.; Pakhomova, S.; Berezina, A.; Frolova, N.; Kotova, E.; Leshchev, A.; Wang, X.; et al. Assessment of seasonal variability of input of microplastics from the Northern Dvina River to the Arctic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 175, 113370.
  85. van Emmerik, T.; Schwarz, A. Plastic debris in rivers. WIREs Water 2020, 7, e1398.
  86. Tramoy, R.; Gasperi, J.; Colasse, L.; Tassin, B. Transfer dynamic of macroplastics in estuaries—New insights from the seine estuary: Part 1. Long term dynamic based on date-prints on stranded debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 152, e110894.
  87. Newbould, R.A.; Powell, D.M.; Whelan, M.J. Macroplastic debris transfer in rivers: A travel distance approach. Front. Water 2021, 3, e724596.
  88. Ryan, P.G.; Weideman, E.A.; Perold, V.; Hofmeyr, G.; Connan, M. Message in a bottle: Assessing the sources and origins of beach litter to tackle marine pollution. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 288, e117729.
  89. Zobkov, M.B.; Chubarenko, I.P.; Esiukova, E.E.; Belkina, N.A.; Kovalevski, V.V.; Zobkova, M.V.; Efremova, T.A.; Galakhina, N.E. Lakes as accumulators of microplastics on the way from land to the world ocean: Review. Proc. Russ. Geogr. Soc. 2021, 153, 68–86, (In Russian, English summary).
  90. Faure, F.A.; Demars, C.A.; Wieser, O.A.; Kunz, M.B.; de Alencastro, L.F. Plastic pollution in Swiss surface waters: Nature and concentrations, interaction with pollutants. Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 582–591.
  91. Zbyszewski, M.; Corcoran, P.L.; Hockin, A. Comparison of the distribution and degradation of plastic debris along shorelines of the Great Lakes, North America. J. Great Lakes Res. 2014, 40, 288–299.
  92. Chen, H.; Qin, Y.; Huang, H.; Xu, W. A Regional difference analysis of microplastic pollution in global freshwater bodies based on a regression model. Water 2020, 12, 1889.
  93. Baldwin, A.K.; Corsi, S.R.; Mason, S.A. Plastic debris in 29 Great Lakes tributaries: Relations to watershed attributes and hydrology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 10377–10385.
  94. Mani, T.; Hauk, A.; Walter, U.; Burkhardt-Holm, P. Microplastics profile along the Rhine River. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, e17988.
  95. Scherer, C.; Weber, A.; Stock, F.; Vurusic, S.; Egerci, H.; Kochleus, C.; Arendt, A.; Foeldi, C.; Dierkes, G.; Wagner, M.; et al. Comparative assessment of microplastics in water and sediment of a large European river. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, e139866.
  96. Dris, R.; Gasperi, J.; Tassin, B. Sources and fate of microplastics in urban areas: A Focus on Paris Megacity. In Freshwater Microplastics. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Wagner, M., Lambert, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 58, pp. 69–83.
  97. Jiang, C.; Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Du, C.; Wu, L.; Long, Y.; Liu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Yin, Q.; Zhou, Z.; et al. Microplastics in sediment and surface water of west Dongting Lake and south Dongting Lake: Abundance, source and composition. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2164.
  98. Yin, L.; Jiang, C.; Wen, X.; Du, C.; Zhong, W.; Feng, Z.; Long, Y.; Ma, Y. Microplastic pollution in surface water of urban lakes in Changsha, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1650.
  99. Eo, S.; Hee, S.; Kyoung, Y.; Myung, G. Spatiotemporal distribution and annual load of microplastics in the Nakdong River, South Korea. Water Res. 2019, 160, 228–237.
  100. Nel, H.A.; Hean, J.W.; Noundou, X.S.; Froneman, P.W. Do microplastic loads reflect the population demographics along the southern African coastline? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 115, 115–119.
  101. Singh, N.; Mondal, A.; Bagri, A.; Tiwari, E.; Khandelwal, N.; Monikh, F.A.; Darbha, G.K. Characteristics and spatial distribution of microplastics in the lower Ganga River water and sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 163, 111960.
  102. Leslie, H.A.; Brandsma, S.H.; van Velzen, M.J.M.; Vethaak, A.D. Microplastics en route: Field measurements in the dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 2017, 101, 133–142.
  103. Bruge, A.; Barreau, C.; Carlot, J.; Collin, H.; Moreno, C.; Maison, P. Monitoring litter inputs from the Adour River (Southwest France) to the marine environment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 24.
  104. Roebroek, C.T.J.; Harrigan, S.; van Emmerik, T.H.M.; Baugh, C.; Eilander, D.; Prudhomme, C.; Pappenberger, F. Plastic in global rivers: Are floods making it worse? Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, e025003.
  105. Haberstroh, C.J.; Arias, M.A.; Yin, Z.; Wang, M.C. Effects of hydrodynamics on the cross-sectional distribution and transport of plastic in an urban coastal river. Water Environ. Res. 2021, 93, 186–200.
  106. Treilles, R.; Gasperi, J.; Gallard, A.; Mohamed, S.A.A.D.; Rachid, D.R.I.S.; Partibane, C. Microplastics and microfibers in urban runoff from a suburban catchment of Greater Paris. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 287, e117352.
  107. Li, C.; Busquets, R.; Campos, L.C. Assessment of microplastics in freshwater systems: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, e135578.
  108. Khatmullina, L.; Isachenko, I. Settling velocity of microplastic particles of regular shapes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 114, 871–880.
  109. Khatmullina, L.; Chubarenko, I. Transport of marine microplastic particles: Why is it so difficult to predict? Anthr. Coasts 2019, 2, 293–305.
  110. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588–2597.
  111. Andersson, H.; Häbel, H.; Olsson, A.; Sandhagen, S.; von Corswant, C.; Hjärtstam, J.; Persson, M.; Stading, M.; Larsson, A. The influence of the molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer on phase-separated films for controlled release. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 511, 223–235.
  112. Corcoran, P.L.; Norris, T.; Ceccanese, T.; Walzak, M.J.; Helm, P.A.; Marvin, C.H. Hidden plastics of Lake Ontario, Canada and their potential preservation in the sediment record. Env. Pollut. 2015, 204, 17–25.
  113. Woodall, L.C.; Sanchez-Vidal, A.; Canals, M.; Paterson, G.L.J.; Coppock, R.; Sleight, V.; Calafat, A.; Rogers, A.D.R.; Narayanaswamy, B.E.; Thompson, R.S. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2014, 17, 140317.
  114. Seltenrich, N. New link in the food chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, A34–A41.
  115. Yang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Kang, S.; Wang, Z.; Wu, C. Microplastics in freshwater sediment: A review on methods, occurrence, and sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 141948.
  116. Free, C.M.; Jensen, O.P.; Mason, S.A.; Eriksen, M.; Williamson, N.J.; Boldgiv, B. High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 85, 156–163.
  117. Ziajahromi, S.; Drapper, D.; Hornbuckle, A.; Leusch, F.D.L. Microplastic pollution in a stormwater floating treatment wetland: Detection of tyre particles in sediment Shima. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 713, e136356.
  118. Browne, M.A.; Crump, P.; Niven, S.J.; Teuten, E.; Tonkin, A.; Thompson, R. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: Sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9175–9179.
  119. Driedger, A.G.; Dürr, H.H.; Mitchell, K.; Van Cappellen, P. Plastic debris in the Laurentian great lakes: A review. J. Great Lakes Res. 2015, 41, 9–19.
  120. Frank, Y.A.; Vorobiev, E.D.; Vorobiev, D.S.; Trifonov, A.A.; Antsiferov, D.V.; Soliman, H.T.; Wilson, S.P.; Strezov, V. Preliminary screening for microplastic concentrations in the surface water of the Ob and Tom rivers in Siberia, Russia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 80.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback