ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Quick View

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 23, 13515-13516
RETURN TO ISSUEViewpointNEXT

Stressor Exposures Determine Risk: So, Why Do Fellow Scientists Continue To Focus on Superficial Microplastics Risk?

View Author Information
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 23, 13515–13516
Publication Date (Web):November 17, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05463
Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society
Request reuse permissions
  • Free to Read

Article Views

10580

Altmetric

-

Citations

81
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (670 KB)
Get e-Alerts
SUBJECTS:

A couple of years ago, I tried to publish an Op-Ed challenging the perceived environmental threat of microplastics in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Times, and Wall Street Journal—but these respected news outlets rejected my submission. Subsequently, I published a Letter to the Editor in the journal Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management. (1) This did little to change the concern expressed here.

The focus on my opinion article was the concern that the environmental risk from microplastics (more specifically, microbeads) was overstated. As an environmental toxicologist and risk assessor, I knew low microplastic exposure concentrations dictated there could be no risk. Thankfully, others are now beginning to join this chorus. (2-9)

Even when scientific knowledge was in its infancy, Paracelsus stated in ∼500 AD a currently held, toxicological truth: All things are poisons at the right dose. My concern that microplastics in marine and freshwater ecosystems aquatic environment are not a risk due to LOW concentrations (i.e., low exposures) is slowly being realized and certainly applies to other contaminants of emerging concern. Recently, an Environmental Science & Technology Viewpoint article by Weltje and Sumpter (10) challenged scientists to better define environmentally relevant concentrations as all too often this term is loosely used.

Numerous authors and organizations have called for standardized methods for collecting, quantifying, and characterizing microplastics. (3, 11, 12) A plethora of methods exist for each of these three critical components of environmental assessments, each with their own strengths and limitations, but no one is sufficient. High numbers of false positive and false negatives have been identified, depending on the methods used, which makes it impossible to compare microplastic studies that may be overestimating or under-estimating exposures. (2, 11, 12) Nevertheless, the great majority of studies are stating the highest concentrations typically found are in the range of less than 1 to 10s of particles per meter squared (i.e., 1000 L). (2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 14) These concentrations are several orders of magnitude lower than virtually all laboratory studies and organisms feeding on this sized range will find orders of magnitude more plankton available for ingesting. Also, many of the studies measure concentrations based on mass (e.g., mg/L) or surface area (number/km2), and these units add large uncertainty to actual organism exposures to these diverse particles. (3)

As Editor-in-Chief of one of the premier journals for environmental toxicology, I find the continuing publication of microplastics studies stating a severe environmental threat, in high quality journals disturbing. These studies are rapidly picked up by the news media, as we have seen and serve to misinform the public and policy makers, as noted by others. (6, 15)

Are reviewers and Associate Editors for our highest quality journals simply unaware of what constitutes hazard and risk and how exposure is the most important part of the equation? Since scientists should be nonbiased, how can this be happening? Is the penchant for visibility, pressure to publish, inability to publish negative results, funding, and sensationalism overtaken this science? This seems unethical.

In the Environmental Science & Technology Feature by Koelmans et al., (6) they present a comprehensive coverage of these issues and propose and simple and eloquent path forward.

In my opinion, this trend of reporting has adversely influenced policy making (e.g., the banning of microbeads—one of the lesser components of microplastics and clearly not an environmental threat). The dominant component of microplastics characterized to date are not microbeads, rather polyester fibers or fragments (depending on which study cited), which are also below concentrations causing adverse effects. Nevertheless, there is no call by environmental advocates to ban polyester clothing or to ban all plastics which eventually will disintegrate to fragments. Colleagues in the industries affected by this ban have said privately at international scientific conferences it is a battle their respective companies have chosen not to fight. Well, that is wonderful, fewer microbeads being discharged—but if there was no adverse exposure to begin with—why care?

In addition, there are likely much higher exposures from “nanoplastics/nanoparticles” (less than the lowest size of 100 μm often measured for microplastics), but few have attempted to study this small size because of methodological challenges. Perhaps these ultrasmall particles are an environmental risk–but we do not know. Recent papers, suggest they share many traits of nanosize carbon and metal compounds and quickly aggregate in the environment. Much is to be learned from previous nanomaterial research. (16, 17)

The process of determining microplastics risk should be an analysis of true risk (realistic exposure relationships to adverse effects). It should be documented in the field. (3, 6, 18) Much greater and pervasive ecosystem risks often occur where microplastics are at their highest concentrations (18) and are well-documented and rampant globally; including excess nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, solids from erosion, pathogens, altered flows, degraded habitats, temperature, and loss of shading. These common and major stressors should first be dealt with by regulators and environmental advocacy groups before focusing on the minor and questionable threats.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
    • Author
    • Notes
      Disclaimer: The author received no funding from the plastics or any microparticles organization.
      The author declares no competing financial interest.

    References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 18 other publications.

    1. 1
      Burton, G. A., Jr. Losing sight of science in the regulatory push to ban microbeads from consumer products and industrial use Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2015, 11 (3) 346– 347 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1645
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      Cable, R. N.; Beletsky, D.; Beletsky, R.; Wigginton, K.; Locke, B. W.; Duhaime, M. B. Distribution and modeled transport of plastic pollution in the Great Lakes, the world’s largest freshwater resource Front Environ. Sci. 2017,  DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00045
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      Connors, K. A.; Dyer, S. D.; Belanger, S. E. Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 1697– 1703 DOI: 10.1002/etc.3829
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      3
      Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research
      Connors, Kristin A.; Dyer, Scott D.; Belanger, Scott E.
      Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2017), 36 (7), 1697-1703CODEN: ETOCDK; ISSN:0730-7268. (Wiley-Blackwell)
      Investigations into the environmental fate and effects of microplastics have been gaining momentum. Small, insol. polymeric particles are implicated by scientists in a wide variety of studies that are used to suggest a potential for widespread impacts in freshwater and marine pelagic and sediment environments. An exponential growth in scientific publications and an increase in regulatory attention have occurred. However, despite these efforts, the environmental hazard of these particles is still unknown. To evaluate the hazard of microplastics within a risk assessment context, we need a way to evaluate the quality of exptl. studies. We performed a thorough review of the quality and focus of environmental microplastic research, to understand the methodologies employed and how this may assist or distract from the ability of environmental risk assessors to evaluate microplastics. We provide guidance to improve the reliability and relevance of ecotoxicol. studies for regulatory and broader environmental assessments. Nine areas of needed improvement are identified and discussed. Important data gaps and exptl. limitations are highlighted. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;9999:1-7. © 2017 SETAC.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXot12hsLY%253D&md5=ed786252f1762801b02690bb381c4275
    4. 4
      Galloway, T.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 0116 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      4
      Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem
      Galloway Tamara S; Cole Matthew; Lewis Ceri
      Nature ecology & evolution (2017), 1 (5), 116 ISSN:.
      Marine microscopic plastic (microplastic) debris is a modern societal issue, illustrating the challenge of balancing the convenience of plastic in daily life with the prospect of causing ecological harm by careless disposal. Here we develop the concept of microplastic as a complex, dynamic mixture of polymers and additives, to which organic material and contaminants can successively bind to form an 'ecocorona', increasing the density and surface charge of particles and changing their bioavailability and toxicity. Chronic exposure to microplastic is rarely lethal, but can adversely affect individual animals, reducing feeding and depleting energy stores, with knock-on effects for fecundity and growth. We explore the extent to which ecological processes could be impacted, including altered behaviours, bioturbation and impacts on carbon flux to the deep ocean. We discuss how microplastic compares with other anthropogenic pollutants in terms of ecological risk, and consider the role of science and society in tackling this global issue in the future.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1cfotVegsg%253D%253D&md5=30ad45a2216eb32723e00afbb85417d3
    5. 5
      Koelmans, A. A.; Bakir, A.; Burton, G. A.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastic as a vector for chemicals in the aquatic environt: Critical review and model-supported reinterpretation of empirical studies Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3315– 3326 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06069
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Foekema, E.; Kooi, M.; Mintenig, S.; Ossendorp, B. C.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E.; Verschoor, A.; van Wezel, A. P.; Scheffer, M. Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception, and belief Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11513– 11519 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02219
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], [CAS], Google Scholar
      6
      Risks of Plastic Debris: Unravelling Fact, Opinion, Perception, and Belief
      Koelmans, Albert A.; Besseling, Ellen; Foekema, Edwin; Kooi, Merel; Mintenig, Svenja; Ossendorp, Bernadette C.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, Paula E.; Verschoor, Anja; van Wezel, Annemarie P.; Scheffer, Marten
      Environmental Science & Technology (2017), 51 (20), 11513-11519CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      Researcher and media alarms caused plastic debris to be perceived as a major threat to humans and animals; however, although wasting plastics in the environment is clearly undesirable for aesthetic and economic reasons, actual environmental risks of different plastics and their assocd. chems. is largely unknown. This work showed how a systematic assessment of adverse outcome pathways based on ecol. relevant metrics for exposure and effect can bring risk assessment within reach. Results will help respond to the current public concern in a balanced way and allow policy-makers to take measures using scientifically sound reasons.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXhsFynt7%252FO&md5=2a823ec7f7df356ce60ee76b7a6b10af
    7. 7
      Lenz, R.; Enders, K.; Nielsen, T. G. Microplastic exposure studies should be environmentally realistic Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, E4121– E4122 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1606615113
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      7
      Microplastic exposure studies should be environmentally realistic
      Lenz, Robin; Enders, Kristina; Nielsen, Torkel Gissel
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016), 113 (29), E4121-E4122CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
      There is no expanded citation for this reference.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XhtF2ht7bI&md5=bcd8675451a71fd6acb0f7cad2796653
    8. 8
      Tang, B. L. Commentary: Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure Front. Environ. Sci. 2017,  DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00063
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    9. 9
      Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Devriese, L.; Galgani, F.; Robbens, J.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and effects Mar. Environ. Res. 2015, 111, 5– 17 DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.007
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      9
      Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and effects
      Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth; Devriese, Lisa; Galgani, Francois; Robbens, Johan; Janssen, Colin R.
      Marine Environmental Research (2015), 111 (), 5-17CODEN: MERSDW; ISSN:0141-1136. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      A review with many refs. Microplastics are omnipresent in the marine environment and sediments are hypothesized to be major sinks of these plastics. Here, over 100 articles spanning the last 50 yr are reviewed with following objectives: (i) to evaluate current microplastic extn. techniques, (ii) to discuss the occurrence and worldwide distribution of microplastics in sediments, and (iii) to make a comprehensive assessment of the possible adverse effects of this type of pollution to marine organisms. Based on this review we propose future research needs and conclude that there is a clear need for a standardized techniques, unified reporting units and more realistic effect assessments.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXhtVWru73N&md5=551d3e576f2c41fa2963ffeab846c731
    10. 10
      Weltje, L.; Sumpter, J. P. What makes a concentration environmentally relevant? Critique and a Proposal Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11520– 11521 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04673
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    11. 11
      Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R. C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the metehods used for identification and quantification Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060– 3075 DOI: 10.1021/es2031505
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Vandermeersch, G.; Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Janssen, C. R.; Marques, A.; Granby, K.; Fait, G.; Kotterman, M.; Diogene, J.; Bekaert, K.; Robbens, J.; Devriese, L. A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms Environ. Res. 2015, 143, 46– 55 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.016
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      12
      A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms
      Vandermeersch, Griet; Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth; Janssen, Colin R.; Marques, Antonio; Granby, Kit; Fait, Gabriella; Kotterman, Michiel J. J.; Diogene, Jorge; Bekaert, Karen; Robbens, Johan; Devriese, Lisa
      Environmental Research (2015), 143 (Part_B), 46-55CODEN: ENVRAL; ISSN:0013-9351. (Elsevier)
      Microplastics, plastic particles and fragments smaller than 5 mm, are ubiquitous in the marine environment. Ingestion and accumulation of microplastics have previously been demonstrated for diverse marine species ranging from zooplankton to bivalves and fish, implying the potential for microplastics to accumulate in the marine food web. In this way, microplastics can potentially impact food safety and human health. Although a few methods to quantify microplastics in biota have been described, no comparison and/or intercalibration of these techniques have been performed. Here we conducted a literature review on all available extn. and quantification methods. Two of these methods, involving wet acid destruction, were used to evaluate the presence of microplastics in field-collected mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from three different "hotspot" locations in Europe (Po estuary, Italy; Tagus estuary, Portugal; Ebro estuary, Spain). An av. of 0.18±0.14 total microplastics g-1 w.w. for the Acid mix Method and 0.12±0.04 total microplastics g-1 w.w. for the Nitric acid Method was established. Addnl., in a pilot study an av. load of 0.13±0.14 total microplastics g-1 w.w. was recorded in com. mussels (Mytilus edulis and M. galloprovincialis) from five European countries (France, Italy, Denmark, Spain and The Netherlands). A detailed anal. and comparison of methods indicated the need for further research to develop a standardised operating protocol for microplastic quantification and monitoring.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXht1yjsr%252FM&md5=c12c25828a056dcca7c05df9caf97ad8
    13. 13
      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 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02917
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], [CAS], Google Scholar
      13
      Plastic Debris in 29 Great Lakes Tributaries: Relations to Watershed Attributes and Hydrology
      Baldwin, Austin K.; Corsi, Steven R.; Mason, Sherri A.
      Environmental Science & Technology (2016), 50 (19), 10377-10385CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      Plastic debris is a growing contaminant of concern in freshwater environments, yet sources, transport, and fate remain unclear. This study characterized the quantity and morphol. of floating micro- and macroplastics in 29 Great Lakes tributaries in six states under different land covers, wastewater effluent contributions, population densities, and hydrol. conditions. Tributaries were sampled three or four times each using a 333 μm mesh neuston net. Plastic particles were sorted by size, counted, and categorized as fibers/lines, pellets/beads, foams, films, and fragments. Plastics were found in all 107 samples, with a max. concn. of 32 particles/m3 and a median of 1.9 particles/m3. Ninety-eight percent of sampled plastic particles were less than 4.75 mm in diam. and therefore considered microplastics. Fragments, films, foams, and pellets/beads were pos. correlated with urban-related watershed attributes and were found at greater concns. during runoff-event conditions. Fibers, the most frequently detected particle type, were not assocd. with urban-related watershed attributes, wastewater effluent contribution, or hydrol. condition. Results from this study add to the body of information currently available on microplastics in different environmental compartments, including unique contributions to quantify their occurrence and variability in rivers with a wide variety of different land-use characteristics while highlighting differences between surface samples from rivers compared with lakes.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XhsFSjurnJ&md5=da395e7a75896f1b21f6bf50a6688b19
    14. 14
      Beer, S.; Garm, A.; Huwer, B.; Dierking, J.; Nielsen, T. G. No increase in marine microplastic concentration over the last three decades—A case study from the Baltic Sea Sci. Total Environ. 2017,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.101
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    15. 15
      McDevitt, J. P.; Criddle, C. S.; Morse, M.; Hale, R. C.; Bott, C. B.; Rochman, C. M. Addressing the issue of microplastics int he Wake of the Microbead-Free Water Act – A new standard can facilitate improved policy Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6611– 6617 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05812
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    16. 16
      Huffer, T.; Praetorius, A.; Wagner, S.; von der Kammer, F.; Hofmann, T. Microplastic exposure assessment in aquatic environmewnts: Learning from similarities and differences to engineered nanparticles Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 2499– 2507 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04054
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    17. 17
      Syberg, K.; Khan, F. R.; Selck, H.; Palmqvist, A.; Banta, G. T.; Daley, J.; Sano, L.; Duhaime, M. B. Microplastics: Addressing ecological risk through lessons learned Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 34, 945– 953 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2914
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      17
      Microplastics: addressing ecological risk through lessons learned
      Syberg, Kristian; Khan, Farhan R.; Selck, Henriette; Palmqvist, Annemette; Banta, Gary T.; Daley, Jennifer; Sano, Larissa; Duhaime, Melissa B.
      Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2015), 34 (5), 945-953CODEN: ETOCDK; ISSN:0730-7268. (Wiley-Blackwell)
      Plastic litter is an environmental problem of great concern. Despite the magnitude of the plastic pollution in our water bodies, only limited scientific understanding is available about the risk to the environment, particularly for microplastics. The apparent magnitude of the problem calls for quickly developing sound scientific guidance on the ecol. risks of microplastics. The authors suggest that future research into microplastics risks should be guided by lessons learned from the more advanced and better understood areas of (eco) toxicol. of engineered nanoparticles and mixt. toxicity. Relevant examples of advances in these two fields are provided to help accelerate the scientific learning curve within the relatively unexplored area of microplastics risk assessment. Finally, the authors advocate an expansion of the "vector effect" hypothesis with regard to microplastics risk to help focus research of microplastics environmental risk at different levels of biol. and environmental organization. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:945-953. © 2015 SETAC.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXmslyisrw%253D&md5=061f7e81c2e0317ba3b4950ceaa218d1
    18. 18
      Sedlak, D. Three lessons for the microplastics voyage Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 7747– 7748 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03340
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], [CAS], Google Scholar
      18
      Three Lessons for the Microplastics Voyage
      Sedlak, David
      Environmental Science & Technology (2017), 51 (14), 7747-7748CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      A brief review and commentary. Microplastics are our newest emerging contaminant. Although scientists have expressed concerns about the impacts of plastic pollution for over four decades, microplastics did not become emerging contaminants until 2007. The issue gained momentum about five years later, when researchers reported the presence of microbeads from consumer products in wastewater effluent receiving waters. Facing neg. publicity for a nonessential ingredient, leading manufacturers voluntarily eliminated microbeads and accepted the decision to ban them in the United States in 2015. Now that we are into the second wave of research that will det. whether or not the remaining sources of microplastics will be controlled, it is worth considering lessons learned from other emerging contaminants. The first lesson is that occurrence data and lab. toxicol. studies alone are not enough to bring about action when the effects being studied do not involve humans. The second lesson is that contaminants are more likely to emerge if there is a reasonable possibility that their use is endangering human health. The third lesson is that the likelihood that society will control an emerging contaminant is inversely proportional to the cost of solving the problem as well as the degree to which blame can be affixed on a small no. of companies.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXhtFelu7jO&md5=c7bc28aa1467dfda9ac087788521f5f4

    Cited By

    This article is cited by 81 publications.

    1. Natalia P. Ivleva. Chemical Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics: Challenges, Advanced Methods, and Perspectives. Chemical Reviews 2021, 121 (19) , 11886-11936. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00178
    2. Austine Ofondu Chinomso Iroegbu, Suprakas Sinha Ray, Vuyelwa Mbarane, João Carlos Bordado, José Paulo Sardinha. Plastic Pollution: A Perspective on Matters Arising: Challenges and Opportunities. ACS Omega 2021, 6 (30) , 19343-19355. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c02760
    3. Shelie A. Miller. Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (22) , 14143-14151. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05295
    4. Delphine Kawecki, Bernd Nowack. Polymer-Specific Modeling of the Environmental Emissions of Seven Commodity Plastics As Macro- and Microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (16) , 9664-9676. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02900
    5. Jinfeng Ding, Fenghua Jiang, Jingxi Li, Zongxing Wang, Chengjun Sun, Zhangyi Wang, Liang Fu, Neal Xiangyu Ding, Changfei He. Microplastics in the Coral Reef Systems from Xisha Islands of South China Sea. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (14) , 8036-8046. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01452
    6. Jin Liu, Tong Zhang, Lili Tian, Xinlei Liu, Zhichong Qi, Yini Ma, Rong Ji, Wei Chen. Aging Significantly Affects Mobility and Contaminant-Mobilizing Ability of Nanoplastics in Saturated Loamy Sand. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (10) , 5805-5815. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00787
    7. Farhan R. Khan. Ecotoxicology in the Anthropocene: Are We Listening to Nature’s Scream?. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (18) , 10227-10229. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04534
    8. Johanna Kramm, Carolin Völker, Martin Wagner. Superficial or Substantial: Why Care about Microplastics in the Anthropocene?. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (6) , 3336-3337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00790
    9. Alexander S. Tagg, Matthias Labrenz. Closing Microplastic Pathways Before They Open: A Model Approach. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (6) , 3340-3341. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00961
    10. Jin Liu, Yini Ma, Dongqiang Zhu, Tianjiao Xia, Yu Qi, Yao Yao, Xiaoran Guo, Rong Ji, Wei Chen. Polystyrene Nanoplastics-Enhanced Contaminant Transport: Role of Irreversible Adsorption in Glassy Polymeric Domain. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (5) , 2677-2685. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05211
    11. Robert C. Hale . Are the Risks from Microplastics Truly Trivial?. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (3) , 931-931. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06615
    12. Maria Bille Nielsen, Lauge Peter Westergaard Clausen, Richard Cronin, Steffen Foss Hansen, Nikoline Garner Oturai, Kristian Syberg. Unfolding the science behind policy initiatives targeting plastic pollution. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2023, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-022-00046-y
    13. Catherine Tobin, Juanita Urban-Rich, Christopher Larosee, Georgia Mavrommati. The importance of discourse when discussing microplastic pollution with oyster stakeholders in Massachusetts, USA. Ambio 2023, 52 (9) , 1488-1504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01870-z
    14. Jin Chen, Caiyi Guo, Yang Xuan, Tengda Ding. Analysis and toxicity of microplastics in organisms and humans originated from aquatic environment. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2023, 3 , 117293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.117293
    15. Xu Zhou, Cunde Xiao, Xueying Li, Tao Chen, Xiaofan Yang. Microplastics in coastal blue carbon ecosystems: A global Meta-analysis of its distribution, driving mechanisms, and potential risks. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 878 , 163048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163048
    16. Sirui Huang, Ruitong Jiang, Nicholas J. Craig, Hua Deng, Wenhui He, Juan-Ying Li, Lei Su. Accumulation and re-distribution of microplastics via aquatic plants and macroalgae - A review of field studies. Marine Environmental Research 2023, 187 , 105951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.105951
    17. Qiang Zhang, Wenjie Ma, Jingmin Zhu. Combined Toxicities of Di-Butyl Phthalate and Polyethylene Terephthalate to Zebrafish Embryos. Toxics 2023, 11 (5) , 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11050469
    18. Sichen Gao, Gordon Huang, Peng Zhang, Xiaying Xin, Jianan Yin, Dengcheng Han, Tangnyu Song, Scott Rosendahl, Stuart Read. Rethinking the effects of micro/nanoplastics from the global environmental change and systematic perspective: An aquatic environmental system-based comprehensive assessment approach of micro/nanoplastic impacts. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2023, 6 , 131695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131695
    19. Anne Gammelgaard Ballantyne, Jean-Paul de Cros Péronard. Can Communication Theory Advance Research When Environmental Issues Become Wicked? The Case of Microplastics. Science Communication 2023, 45 (2) , 267-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221138271
    20. Aaron J. Beck, Mikael Kaandorp, Thea Hamm, Boie Bogner, Elke Kossel, Mark Lenz, Matthias Haeckel, Eric P. Achterberg. Rapid shipboard measurement of net-collected marine microplastic polymer types using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2023, 62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-023-04634-6
    21. Katherine K. Porterfield, Sarah A. Hobson, Deborah A. Neher, Meredith T. Niles, Eric D. Roy. Microplastics in composts, digestates, and food wastes: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 2023, 52 (2) , 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20450
    22. Philip J. Landrigan, Hervé Raps, Maureen Cropper, Caroline Bald, Manuel Brunner, Elvia Maya Canonizado, Dominic Charles, Thomas C. Chiles, Mary J. Donohue, Judith Enck, Patrick Fenichel, Lora E. Fleming, Christine Ferrier-Pages, Richard Fordham, Aleksandra Gozt, Carly Griffin, Mark E. Hahn, Budi Haryanto, Richard Hixson, Hannah Ianelli, Bryan D. James, Pushpam Kumar, Amalia Laborde, Kara Lavender Law, Keith Martin, Jenna Mu, Yannick Mulders, Adetoun Mustapha, Jia Niu, Sabine Pahl, Yongjoon Park, Maria-Luiza Pedrotti, Jordan Avery Pitt, Mathuros Ruchirawat, Bhedita Jaya Seewoo, Margaret Spring, John J. Stegeman, William Suk, Christos Symeonides, Hideshige Takada, Richard C. Thompson, Andrea Vicini, Zhanyun Wang, Ella Whitman, David Wirth, Megan Wolff, Aroub K. Yousuf, Sarah Dunlop. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health. Annals of Global Health 2023, 89 (1) , 23. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4056
    23. Shelie A. Miller. The capabilities and deficiencies of life cycle assessment to address the plastic problem. Frontiers in Sustainability 2022, 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.1007060
    24. M. della Valle, G. D'Abrosca, M. T. Gentile, L. Russo, C. Isernia, S. Di Gaetano, R. Avolio, R. Castaldo, M. Cocca, G. Gentile, G. Malgieri, M. E. Errico, R. Fattorusso. Polystyrene nanoplastics affect the human ubiquitin structure and ubiquitination in cells: a high-resolution study. Chemical Science 2022, 13 (45) , 13563-13573. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC04434J
    25. Pengfei Wu, Siyi Lin, Guodong Cao, Jiabin Wu, Hangbiao Jin, Chen Wang, Ming Hung Wong, Zhu Yang, Zongwei Cai. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity of microplastics in the human body and health implications. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2022, 437 , 129361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129361
    26. Guilherme Malafaia. Introduction to the special collection “Microplastic dragons live among us”. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 830 , 155557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155557
    27. Kofi O. Renner, Helen A. Foster, Edwin J. Routledge, Mark D. Scrimshaw. A Comparison of Different Approaches for Characterizing Microplastics in Selected Personal Care Products. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2022, 41 (4) , 880-887. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5057
    28. Jie Yin, Juan-Ying Li, Nicholas J. Craig, Lei Su. Microplastic pollution in wild populations of decapod crustaceans: A review. Chemosphere 2022, 291 , 132985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132985
    29. Johanna Kramm, Stefanie Steinhoff, Simon Werschmöller, Beate Völker, Carolin Völker. Explaining risk perception of microplastics: Results from a representative survey in Germany. Global Environmental Change 2022, 73 , 102485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102485
    30. Puspa L. Adhikari, Wokil Bam, Pamela L. Campbell, Francois Oberhaensli, Marc Metian, Marc Besson, Hugo Jacob, Peter W. Swarzenski. Evaluating Microplastic Experimental Design and Exposure Studies in Aquatic Organisms. 2022, 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78627-4_3
    31. Martin Wagner. Solutions to Plastic Pollution: A Conceptual Framework to Tackle a Wicked Problem. 2022, 333-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78627-4_11
    32. Atsuhiko Isobe, Takafumi Azuma, Muhammad Reza Cordova, Andrés Cózar, Francois Galgani, Ryuichi Hagita, La Daana Kanhai, Keiri Imai, Shinsuke Iwasaki, Shin’ichro Kako, Nikolai Kozlovskii, Amy L. Lusher, Sherri A. Mason, Yutaka Michida, Takahisa Mituhasi, Yasuhiro Morii, Tohru Mukai, Anna Popova, Kenichi Shimizu, Tadashi Tokai, Keiichi Uchida, Mitsuharu Yagi, Weiwei Zhang. A multilevel dataset of microplastic abundance in the world’s upper ocean and the Laurentian Great Lakes. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2021, 1 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-021-00013-z
    33. Christina J. Thiele, Malcolm D. Hudson. Uncertainty about the risks associated with microplastics among lay and topic-experienced respondents. Scientific Reports 2021, 11 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86569-5
    34. Emily E. Burns, Iain A. Davies. Coral Ecotoxicological Data Evaluation for the Environmental Safety Assessment of Ultraviolet Filters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2021, 40 (12) , 3441-3464. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5229
    35. Didier L. Baho, Mirco Bundschuh, Martyn N. Futter. Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems: Moving beyond the state of the art to minimize the risk of ecological surprise. Global Change Biology 2021, 27 (17) , 3969-3986. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15724
    36. Anne Gammelgaard Ballantyne, Jean-Paul de Cros Péronard, Rune Aa. Hansen, Allan Gross. Media Issue Crystallization: The Case of Microplastic in Denmark. Environmental Communication 2021, 15 (5) , 610-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1877761
    37. Joana C. Prata, João P. da Costa, Isabel Lopes, Anthony L. Andrady, Armando C. Duarte, Teresa Rocha-Santos. A One Health perspective of the impacts of microplastics on animal, human and environmental health. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 777 , 146094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146094
    38. Ana I. Catarino, Johanna Kramm, Carolin Völker, Theodore B. Henry, Gert Everaert. Risk posed by microplastics: Scientific evidence and public perception. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2021, 29 , 100467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100467
    39. Junyu Wang, Xiaoli Zhao, Fengchang Wu, Lin Niu, Zhi Tang, Weigang Liang, Tianhui Zhao, Mengyuan Fang, Hongzhan Wang, Xiaolei Wang. Characterization, occurrence, environmental behaviors, and risks of nanoplastics in the aquatic environment: Current status and future perspectives. Fundamental Research 2021, 1 (3) , 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2021.05.001
    40. Oldamur Hollóczki. Evidence for protein misfolding in the presence of nanoplastics. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2021, 121 (3) https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.26372
    41. Andrew Barrick, Olivier Champeau, Amélie Chatel, Nicolas Manier, Grant Northcott, Louis A. Tremblay. Plastic additives: challenges in ecotox hazard assessment. PeerJ 2021, 9 , e11300. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11300
    42. Ying Zhang, Shengyan Pu, Xue Lv, Ya Gao, Long Ge. Global trends and prospects in microplastics research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2020, 400 , 123110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123110
    43. Yujie Zhou, Junxiao Wang, Mengmeng Zou, Zhenyi Jia, Shenglu Zhou, Yan Li. Microplastics in soils: A review of methods, occurrence, fate, transport, ecological and environmental risks. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 748 , 141368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141368
    44. Gurusamy Kutralam-Muniasamy, Fermín Pérez-Guevara, I. Elizalde-Martínez, V.C. Shruti. An overview of recent advances in micro/nano beads and microfibers research: Critical assessment and promoting the less known. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 740 , 139991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139991
    45. Jun-Nan Huang, Bin Wen, Jian-Guo Zhu, Yan-Shen Zhang, Jian-Zhong Gao, Zai-Zhong Chen. Exposure to microplastics impairs digestive performance, stimulates immune response and induces microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of juvenile guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Science of The Total Environment 2020, 733 , 138929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138929
    46. Mark L. Hanson, Richard A. Brain. Context and Perspective in Ecotoxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2020, 39 (9) , 1655-1655. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4826
    47. Amy E. Valine, Ashley E. Peterson, Dorothy A. Horn, Kaegan M. Scully‐Engelmeyer, Elise F. Granek. Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers Along a Rural to Urban Gradient Applying a Cost‐Effective Validation Technique. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2020, 39 (8) , 1590-1598. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4755
    48. Hui Ma, Shengyan Pu, Shibin Liu, Yingchen Bai, Sandip Mandal, Baoshan Xing. Microplastics in aquatic environments: Toxicity to trigger ecological consequences. Environmental Pollution 2020, 261 , 114089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114089
    49. Prasun Goswami, Nambali Valsalan Vinithkumar, Gopal Dharani. First evidence of microplastics bioaccumulation by marine organisms in the Port Blair Bay, Andaman Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2020, 155 , 111163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111163
    50. Omoniyi Pereao, Beatrice Opeolu, Olalekan Fatoki. Microplastics in aquatic environment: characterization, ecotoxicological effect, implications for ecosystems and developments in South Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2020, 27 (18) , 22271-22291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08688-2
    51. Carolin Völker, Johanna Kramm, Martin Wagner. On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media. Global Challenges 2020, 4 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900010
    52. Thomas Backhaus, Martin Wagner. Microplastics in the Environment: Much Ado about Nothing? A Debate. Global Challenges 2020, 4 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900022
    53. Garrath T. Wilson, Tracy Bhamra. Design for Sustainability: The Need for a New Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12 (9) , 3615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093615
    54. Kryss Waldschläger, Simone Lechthaler, Georg Stauch, Holger Schüttrumpf. The way of microplastic through the environment – Application of the source-pathway-receptor model (review). Science of The Total Environment 2020, 713 , 136584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136584
    55. Christian Scherer, Raoul Wolf, Johannes Völker, Friederike Stock, Nicole Brennhold, Georg Reifferscheid, Martin Wagner. Toxicity of microplastics and natural particles in the freshwater dipteran Chironomus riparius: Same same but different?. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 711 , 134604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134604
    56. Oldamur Hollóczki, Sascha Gehrke. Can Nanoplastics Alter Cell Membranes?. ChemPhysChem 2020, 21 (1) , 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cphc.201900481
    57. Lei Su, Simon M. Sharp, Vincent J. Pettigrove, Nicholas J. Craig, Bingxu Nan, Fangni Du, Huahong Shi. Superimposed microplastic pollution in a coastal metropolis. Water Research 2020, 168 , 115140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115140
    58. Salla Selonen, Andraž Dolar, Anita Jemec Kokalj, Tina Skalar, Lidia Parramon Dolcet, Rachel Hurley, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel. Exploring the impacts of plastics in soil – The effects of polyester textile fibers on soil invertebrates. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 700 , 134451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134451
    59. Zhiqiang Dong, Ling Zhu, Wen Zhang, Rui Huang, XiangWei Lv, Xinyu Jing, Zhenglong Yang, Junliang Wang, Yuping Qiu. Role of surface functionalities of nanoplastics on their transport in seawater-saturated sea sand. Environmental Pollution 2019, 255 , 113177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113177
    60. Zandra Gerdes, Markus Hermann, Martin Ogonowski, Elena Gorokhova. A novel method for assessing microplastic effect in suspension through mixing test and reference materials. Scientific Reports 2019, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47160-1
    61. Oldamur Hollóczki, Sascha Gehrke. Nanoplastics can change the secondary structure of proteins. Scientific Reports 2019, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52495-w
    62. G. Allen Burton, Eduardo Cimino Cervi. Environmental Stressor Importance: Science versus Media. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2019, 38 (12) , 2587-2592. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4606
    63. Teng Wang, Baojie Li, Xinqing Zou, Ying Wang, Yali Li, Yongjiang Xu, Longjiang Mao, Chuchu Zhang, Wenwen Yu. Emission of primary microplastics in mainland China: Invisible but not negligible. Water Research 2019, 162 , 214-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.042
    64. Todd Gouin, Richard A. Becker, Anne‐Gaelle Collot, John W. Davis, Brett Howard, Kunifumi Inawaka, Mark Lampi, Blanca Serrano Ramon, Jay Shi, Philipp W. Hopp. Toward the Development and Application of an Environmental Risk Assessment Framework for Microplastic. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2019, 38 (10) , 2087-2100. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4529
    65. Bor Luen Tang. On Some Possible Ramifications of the “Microplastics in Fish” Case. Science and Engineering Ethics 2019, 25 (4) , 1303-1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0063-z
    66. Beatriz Fernández, Marina Albentosa. Insights into the uptake, elimination and accumulation of microplastics in mussel. Environmental Pollution 2019, 249 , 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.037
    67. Richard Stafford, Peter J.S. Jones. Viewpoint – Ocean plastic pollution: A convenient but distracting truth?. Marine Policy 2019, 103 , 187-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.003
    68. Lingyun Li, Lei Su, Huiwen Cai, Chelsea M. Rochman, Qipei Li, Prabhu Kolandhasamy, Jinping Peng, Huahong Shi. The uptake of microfibers by freshwater Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) varies based upon physicochemical properties. Chemosphere 2019, 221 , 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.024
    69. Lei Su, Hua Deng, Bowen Li, Qiqing Chen, Vincent Pettigrove, Chenxi Wu, Huahong Shi. The occurrence of microplastic in specific organs in commercially caught fishes from coast and estuary area of east China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2019, 365 , 716-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.11.024
    70. Maria Arias-Andres, Keilor Rojas-Jimenez, Hans-Peter Grossart. Collateral effects of microplastic pollution on aquatic microorganisms: An ecological perspective. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2019, 112 , 234-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.041
    71. Teng Wang, Xinqing Zou, Baojie Li, Yulong Yao, Zheng Zang, Yali Li, Wenwen Yu, Wanzhi Wang. Preliminary study of the source apportionment and diversity of microplastics: Taking floating microplastics in the South China Sea as an example. Environmental Pollution 2019, 245 , 965-974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.110
    72. Shaoliang Zhang, Jiuqi Wang, Xu Liu, Fengjuan Qu, Xueshan Wang, Xinrui Wang, Yu Li, Yankun Sun. Microplastics in the environment: A review of analytical methods, distribution, and biological effects. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2019, 111 , 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.12.002
    73. Gero Benckiser. Plastics, Micro- and Nanomaterials, and Virus-Soil Microbe-Plant Interactions in the Environment. 2019, 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12496-0_4
    74. Ying Wang, Dian Zhang, Mingxing Zhang, Jingli Mu, Guanghui Ding, Zheng Mao, Yifei Cao, Fei Jin, Yi Cong, Lijun Wang, Weiwei Zhang, Juying Wang. Effects of ingested polystyrene microplastics on brine shrimp, Artemia parthenogenetica. Environmental Pollution 2019, 244 , 715-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.024
    75. Aikaterini Anastasopoulou, Tomaso Fortibuoni. Impact of Plastic Pollution on Marine Life in the Mediterranean Sea. 2019, 135-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2019_421
    76. Chantal M. Lanctôt, Maya Al-Sid-Cheikh, Ana I. Catarino, Tom Cresswell, Bruno Danis, Hrissi K. Karapanagioti, Tracy Mincer, François Oberhänsli, Peter Swarzenski, Imma Tolosa, Marc Metian. Application of nuclear techniques to environmental plastics research. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2018, 192 , 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2018.07.019
    77. Xiaoxia Sun, Junhua Liang, Mingliang Zhu, Yongfang Zhao, Bo Zhang. Microplastics in seawater and zooplankton from the Yellow Sea. Environmental Pollution 2018, 242 , 585-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.014
    78. D.J. Perez-Venegas, M. Seguel, H. Pavés, J. Pulgar, M. Urbina, C. Ahrendt, C. Galbán-Malagón. First detection of plastic microfibers in a wild population of South American fur seals (Arctocephalus australis) in the Chilean Northern Patagonia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2018, 136 , 50-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.065
    79. Xiaoxia Sun, Tao Liu, Mingliang Zhu, Junhua Liang, Yongfang Zhao, Bo Zhang. Retention and characteristics of microplastics in natural zooplankton taxa from the East China Sea. Science of The Total Environment 2018, 640-641 , 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.308
    80. Emily E. Burns, Alistair B.A. Boxall. Microplastics in the aquatic environment: Evidence for or against adverse impacts and major knowledge gaps. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2018, 37 (11) , 2776-2796. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4268
    81. Antonio Di Guardo, Todd Gouin, Matthew MacLeod, Martin Scheringer. Environmental fate and exposure models: advances and challenges in 21 st century chemical risk assessment. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2018, 20 (1) , 58-71. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00568G
    Download PDF

    • Abstract

      High Resolution Image
      Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    • References

      ARTICLE SECTIONS
      Jump To

      This article references 18 other publications.

      1. 1
        Burton, G. A., Jr. Losing sight of science in the regulatory push to ban microbeads from consumer products and industrial use Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2015, 11 (3) 346– 347 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1645
        [Crossref], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      2. 2
        Cable, R. N.; Beletsky, D.; Beletsky, R.; Wigginton, K.; Locke, B. W.; Duhaime, M. B. Distribution and modeled transport of plastic pollution in the Great Lakes, the world’s largest freshwater resource Front Environ. Sci. 2017,  DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00045
        [Crossref], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      3. 3
        Connors, K. A.; Dyer, S. D.; Belanger, S. E. Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 1697– 1703 DOI: 10.1002/etc.3829
        [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
        3
        Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research
        Connors, Kristin A.; Dyer, Scott D.; Belanger, Scott E.
        Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2017), 36 (7), 1697-1703CODEN: ETOCDK; ISSN:0730-7268. (Wiley-Blackwell)
        Investigations into the environmental fate and effects of microplastics have been gaining momentum. Small, insol. polymeric particles are implicated by scientists in a wide variety of studies that are used to suggest a potential for widespread impacts in freshwater and marine pelagic and sediment environments. An exponential growth in scientific publications and an increase in regulatory attention have occurred. However, despite these efforts, the environmental hazard of these particles is still unknown. To evaluate the hazard of microplastics within a risk assessment context, we need a way to evaluate the quality of exptl. studies. We performed a thorough review of the quality and focus of environmental microplastic research, to understand the methodologies employed and how this may assist or distract from the ability of environmental risk assessors to evaluate microplastics. We provide guidance to improve the reliability and relevance of ecotoxicol. studies for regulatory and broader environmental assessments. Nine areas of needed improvement are identified and discussed. Important data gaps and exptl. limitations are highlighted. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;9999:1-7. © 2017 SETAC.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXot12hsLY%253D&md5=ed786252f1762801b02690bb381c4275
      4. 4
        Galloway, T.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 0116 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116
        [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
        4
        Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem
        Galloway Tamara S; Cole Matthew; Lewis Ceri
        Nature ecology & evolution (2017), 1 (5), 116 ISSN:.
        Marine microscopic plastic (microplastic) debris is a modern societal issue, illustrating the challenge of balancing the convenience of plastic in daily life with the prospect of causing ecological harm by careless disposal. Here we develop the concept of microplastic as a complex, dynamic mixture of polymers and additives, to which organic material and contaminants can successively bind to form an 'ecocorona', increasing the density and surface charge of particles and changing their bioavailability and toxicity. Chronic exposure to microplastic is rarely lethal, but can adversely affect individual animals, reducing feeding and depleting energy stores, with knock-on effects for fecundity and growth. We explore the extent to which ecological processes could be impacted, including altered behaviours, bioturbation and impacts on carbon flux to the deep ocean. We discuss how microplastic compares with other anthropogenic pollutants in terms of ecological risk, and consider the role of science and society in tackling this global issue in the future.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1cfotVegsg%253D%253D&md5=30ad45a2216eb32723e00afbb85417d3
      5. 5
        Koelmans, A. A.; Bakir, A.; Burton, G. A.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastic as a vector for chemicals in the aquatic environt: Critical review and model-supported reinterpretation of empirical studies Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3315– 3326 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06069
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      6. 6
        Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Foekema, E.; Kooi, M.; Mintenig, S.; Ossendorp, B. C.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E.; Verschoor, A.; van Wezel, A. P.; Scheffer, M. Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception, and belief Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11513– 11519 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02219
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], [CAS], Google Scholar
        6
        Risks of Plastic Debris: Unravelling Fact, Opinion, Perception, and Belief
        Koelmans, Albert A.; Besseling, Ellen; Foekema, Edwin; Kooi, Merel; Mintenig, Svenja; Ossendorp, Bernadette C.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, Paula E.; Verschoor, Anja; van Wezel, Annemarie P.; Scheffer, Marten
        Environmental Science & Technology (2017), 51 (20), 11513-11519CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
        Researcher and media alarms caused plastic debris to be perceived as a major threat to humans and animals; however, although wasting plastics in the environment is clearly undesirable for aesthetic and economic reasons, actual environmental risks of different plastics and their assocd. chems. is largely unknown. This work showed how a systematic assessment of adverse outcome pathways based on ecol. relevant metrics for exposure and effect can bring risk assessment within reach. Results will help respond to the current public concern in a balanced way and allow policy-makers to take measures using scientifically sound reasons.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXhsFynt7%252FO&md5=2a823ec7f7df356ce60ee76b7a6b10af
      7. 7
        Lenz, R.; Enders, K.; Nielsen, T. G. Microplastic exposure studies should be environmentally realistic Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, E4121– E4122 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1606615113
        [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
        7
        Microplastic exposure studies should be environmentally realistic
        Lenz, Robin; Enders, Kristina; Nielsen, Torkel Gissel
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016), 113 (29), E4121-E4122CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
        There is no expanded citation for this reference.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XhtF2ht7bI&md5=bcd8675451a71fd6acb0f7cad2796653
      8. 8
        Tang, B. L. Commentary: Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure Front. Environ. Sci. 2017,  DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00063
        [Crossref], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      9. 9
        Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Devriese, L.; Galgani, F.; Robbens, J.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and effects Mar. Environ. Res. 2015, 111, 5– 17 DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.007
        [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
        9
        Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and effects
        Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth; Devriese, Lisa; Galgani, Francois; Robbens, Johan; Janssen, Colin R.
        Marine Environmental Research (2015), 111 (), 5-17CODEN: MERSDW; ISSN:0141-1136. (Elsevier Ltd.)
        A review with many refs. Microplastics are omnipresent in the marine environment and sediments are hypothesized to be major sinks of these plastics. Here, over 100 articles spanning the last 50 yr are reviewed with following objectives: (i) to evaluate current microplastic extn. techniques, (ii) to discuss the occurrence and worldwide distribution of microplastics in sediments, and (iii) to make a comprehensive assessment of the possible adverse effects of this type of pollution to marine organisms. Based on this review we propose future research needs and conclude that there is a clear need for a standardized techniques, unified reporting units and more realistic effect assessments.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXhtVWru73N&md5=551d3e576f2c41fa2963ffeab846c731
      10. 10
        Weltje, L.; Sumpter, J. P. What makes a concentration environmentally relevant? Critique and a Proposal Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11520– 11521 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04673
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      11. 11
        Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R. C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the metehods used for identification and quantification Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060– 3075 DOI: 10.1021/es2031505
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      12. 12
        Vandermeersch, G.; Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Janssen, C. R.; Marques, A.; Granby, K.; Fait, G.; Kotterman, M.; Diogene, J.; Bekaert, K.; Robbens, J.; Devriese, L. A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms Environ. Res. 2015, 143, 46– 55 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.016
        [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
        12
        A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms
        Vandermeersch, Griet; Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth; Janssen, Colin R.; Marques, Antonio; Granby, Kit; Fait, Gabriella; Kotterman, Michiel J. J.; Diogene, Jorge; Bekaert, Karen; Robbens, Johan; Devriese, Lisa
        Environmental Research (2015), 143 (Part_B), 46-55CODEN: ENVRAL; ISSN:0013-9351. (Elsevier)
        Microplastics, plastic particles and fragments smaller than 5 mm, are ubiquitous in the marine environment. Ingestion and accumulation of microplastics have previously been demonstrated for diverse marine species ranging from zooplankton to bivalves and fish, implying the potential for microplastics to accumulate in the marine food web. In this way, microplastics can potentially impact food safety and human health. Although a few methods to quantify microplastics in biota have been described, no comparison and/or intercalibration of these techniques have been performed. Here we conducted a literature review on all available extn. and quantification methods. Two of these methods, involving wet acid destruction, were used to evaluate the presence of microplastics in field-collected mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from three different "hotspot" locations in Europe (Po estuary, Italy; Tagus estuary, Portugal; Ebro estuary, Spain). An av. of 0.18±0.14 total microplastics g-1 w.w. for the Acid mix Method and 0.12±0.04 total microplastics g-1 w.w. for the Nitric acid Method was established. Addnl., in a pilot study an av. load of 0.13±0.14 total microplastics g-1 w.w. was recorded in com. mussels (Mytilus edulis and M. galloprovincialis) from five European countries (France, Italy, Denmark, Spain and The Netherlands). A detailed anal. and comparison of methods indicated the need for further research to develop a standardised operating protocol for microplastic quantification and monitoring.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXht1yjsr%252FM&md5=c12c25828a056dcca7c05df9caf97ad8
      13. 13
        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 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02917
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], [CAS], Google Scholar
        13
        Plastic Debris in 29 Great Lakes Tributaries: Relations to Watershed Attributes and Hydrology
        Baldwin, Austin K.; Corsi, Steven R.; Mason, Sherri A.
        Environmental Science & Technology (2016), 50 (19), 10377-10385CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
        Plastic debris is a growing contaminant of concern in freshwater environments, yet sources, transport, and fate remain unclear. This study characterized the quantity and morphol. of floating micro- and macroplastics in 29 Great Lakes tributaries in six states under different land covers, wastewater effluent contributions, population densities, and hydrol. conditions. Tributaries were sampled three or four times each using a 333 μm mesh neuston net. Plastic particles were sorted by size, counted, and categorized as fibers/lines, pellets/beads, foams, films, and fragments. Plastics were found in all 107 samples, with a max. concn. of 32 particles/m3 and a median of 1.9 particles/m3. Ninety-eight percent of sampled plastic particles were less than 4.75 mm in diam. and therefore considered microplastics. Fragments, films, foams, and pellets/beads were pos. correlated with urban-related watershed attributes and were found at greater concns. during runoff-event conditions. Fibers, the most frequently detected particle type, were not assocd. with urban-related watershed attributes, wastewater effluent contribution, or hydrol. condition. Results from this study add to the body of information currently available on microplastics in different environmental compartments, including unique contributions to quantify their occurrence and variability in rivers with a wide variety of different land-use characteristics while highlighting differences between surface samples from rivers compared with lakes.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XhsFSjurnJ&md5=da395e7a75896f1b21f6bf50a6688b19
      14. 14
        Beer, S.; Garm, A.; Huwer, B.; Dierking, J.; Nielsen, T. G. No increase in marine microplastic concentration over the last three decades—A case study from the Baltic Sea Sci. Total Environ. 2017,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.101
        [Crossref], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      15. 15
        McDevitt, J. P.; Criddle, C. S.; Morse, M.; Hale, R. C.; Bott, C. B.; Rochman, C. M. Addressing the issue of microplastics int he Wake of the Microbead-Free Water Act – A new standard can facilitate improved policy Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6611– 6617 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05812
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      16. 16
        Huffer, T.; Praetorius, A.; Wagner, S.; von der Kammer, F.; Hofmann, T. Microplastic exposure assessment in aquatic environmewnts: Learning from similarities and differences to engineered nanparticles Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 2499– 2507 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04054
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
        There is no corresponding record for this reference.
      17. 17
        Syberg, K.; Khan, F. R.; Selck, H.; Palmqvist, A.; Banta, G. T.; Daley, J.; Sano, L.; Duhaime, M. B. Microplastics: Addressing ecological risk through lessons learned Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 34, 945– 953 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2914
        [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
        17
        Microplastics: addressing ecological risk through lessons learned
        Syberg, Kristian; Khan, Farhan R.; Selck, Henriette; Palmqvist, Annemette; Banta, Gary T.; Daley, Jennifer; Sano, Larissa; Duhaime, Melissa B.
        Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2015), 34 (5), 945-953CODEN: ETOCDK; ISSN:0730-7268. (Wiley-Blackwell)
        Plastic litter is an environmental problem of great concern. Despite the magnitude of the plastic pollution in our water bodies, only limited scientific understanding is available about the risk to the environment, particularly for microplastics. The apparent magnitude of the problem calls for quickly developing sound scientific guidance on the ecol. risks of microplastics. The authors suggest that future research into microplastics risks should be guided by lessons learned from the more advanced and better understood areas of (eco) toxicol. of engineered nanoparticles and mixt. toxicity. Relevant examples of advances in these two fields are provided to help accelerate the scientific learning curve within the relatively unexplored area of microplastics risk assessment. Finally, the authors advocate an expansion of the "vector effect" hypothesis with regard to microplastics risk to help focus research of microplastics environmental risk at different levels of biol. and environmental organization. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:945-953. © 2015 SETAC.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXmslyisrw%253D&md5=061f7e81c2e0317ba3b4950ceaa218d1
      18. 18
        Sedlak, D. Three lessons for the microplastics voyage Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 7747– 7748 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03340
        [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], [CAS], Google Scholar
        18
        Three Lessons for the Microplastics Voyage
        Sedlak, David
        Environmental Science & Technology (2017), 51 (14), 7747-7748CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
        A brief review and commentary. Microplastics are our newest emerging contaminant. Although scientists have expressed concerns about the impacts of plastic pollution for over four decades, microplastics did not become emerging contaminants until 2007. The issue gained momentum about five years later, when researchers reported the presence of microbeads from consumer products in wastewater effluent receiving waters. Facing neg. publicity for a nonessential ingredient, leading manufacturers voluntarily eliminated microbeads and accepted the decision to ban them in the United States in 2015. Now that we are into the second wave of research that will det. whether or not the remaining sources of microplastics will be controlled, it is worth considering lessons learned from other emerging contaminants. The first lesson is that occurrence data and lab. toxicol. studies alone are not enough to bring about action when the effects being studied do not involve humans. The second lesson is that contaminants are more likely to emerge if there is a reasonable possibility that their use is endangering human health. The third lesson is that the likelihood that society will control an emerging contaminant is inversely proportional to the cost of solving the problem as well as the degree to which blame can be affixed on a small no. of companies.
        >> More from SciFinder ®
        https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXhtFelu7jO&md5=c7bc28aa1467dfda9ac087788521f5f4
    PDF [ 670KB]

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

    STEP 1:
    Click to create an ACS ID

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
    Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect