ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Superficial or Substantial: Why Care about Microplastics in the Anthropocene?
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Free to Read
Viewpoint

Superficial or Substantial: Why Care about Microplastics in the Anthropocene?
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDF

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 6, 3336–3337
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00790
Published March 1, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society
In his recent Viewpoint, G. Allen Burton asks why “fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risks” as “low exposure concentrations dictate there could be no risk”. He criticizes that scientists overstate the risks of microplastics, misinform the public, and “adversely influence” policy making. (1) While we understand Burton’s frustration with—at times—sensationalist media reports on microplastics, we also agree with Hale that Burton’s risk assessment is premature. (2) However, the current discourse reveals a much more fundamental issue, namely, that the disciplines of environmental toxicology and chemistry have yet to find their role in the Anthropocene. The recent microbead bans are illuminating for this challenge: societies have decided to take action on an environmental “threat” before a scientific consensus on its relevance has evolved. We can either bemoan this as being misinformed or critically reflect on why our disciplines had little say in it. We do the latter and respond 3-fold to Burton’s “Why care?” question.

Science: Why Care about Microplastics?

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Burton argues that microplastics pose no risk and we can, consequently, abandon their study. As microplastics research is still in its infancy, we think this judgment is premature. First, exposures are underestimated because they mainly rely on the analysis of large microplastics. (2) Second, environmental risk is dictated by exposure and hazard and our knowledge of the latter is fragmentary at best. Third, risk assessment is complicated by the multitude of synthetic polymers each having individual physicochemical and toxicological properties. (3)
Ultimately, the discourse boils down to one key question: How much scientific evidence do we need to take a decision? The community is split with one fraction calling for more research. Another, louder, fraction believes that there is sufficient evidence but arrives at contradictory conclusions, namely, that the environmental risks are either significant (4) or superficial. (1) The former camp has—so far—been more successful in communicating their view, probably because it is in line with public preconceptions.
Arriving at polar opposites based on the same evidence implies that expert judgment in a situation of information scarcity is prone to bias, especially confirmation and desirability bias. (5) Scientific uncertainty divides the community into those favoring action (based on precaution) and those favoring inaction (to avoid overcaution) as the desirable outcome of a risk decision. Indeed, the missing consensus on how much knowledge is necessary and sufficient to take such decision drives this polarization. It also invites other than scientific arguments and results in gridlock, as we have experienced for endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Societies: Why Care about (Micro)Plastics?

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The public perceives microplastics as a “threat”. In Burton’s view, this is a misperception based on misinformation. By contrast, we argue that the public considers more than toxicological information and has legitimate reasons to be concerned.
As artificial materials, microplastics are negatively connoted per se, even more so when found in natural environments. Their persistence fuels fears about the irreversibility of plastics pollution. The benefits of using microplastics are perceived as low. Thus, microplastics trigger a range of risk perception drivers. (6)
In a broader context, the microplastics debate marks the renaissance of the more general—and larger—problem of plastic pollution, fostering critical reflections on our linear economy, including consumerism and a disposable culture. Societies have assigned symbolic value to microbeads, which represent nothing but the tip of the iceberg of microplastic and plastic pollution. Ultimately, plastic pollution is the visible and tangible part of human-made global change.
Acknowledging this symbolism, larger societal aspects play a decisive role in the public debate, namely, aesthetics (disturbed image of nature), ethics (entangled wildlife), and economics (waste of resources). Accordingly, a broad spectrum of arguments has formed public opinion and motivated political action, such as the recent microbead bans. As low-hanging fruits and no regret measures, they may be dismissed as “gesture politics”. However, they also generated momentum to act on plastics pollution, as demonstrated by more comprehensive policies (e.g. the EU’s plastic strategy). (7) These developments teach us an important lesson: societies act on certain issues even when science is not ready. We can continue lamenting or reflect on how we can voice our scientific views more clearly.

Why Care about Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in the Anthropocene?

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Plastic pollution is prototypical of the globality and complexity of environmental issues in the Anthropocene. Our traditional research modes have become inadequate for addressing these. Obviously, a risk conception built on single compound testing and few model species will not address real-world chemical mixtures or ecosystem impacts. Accordingly, we face a formidable complexity problem in terms of stressors, biodiversity, and as the microbead case illustrates, societal resonance.
In the Anthropocene, complexity is the new normal. Insisting on reductionist approaches and concepts will not only fail to tackle this complexity but also, if continued, marginalize the contribution of environmental toxicology and chemistry in the discourse on global, environmental issues. Accordingly, it is time to rethink and redefine their roles. As there are no simple answers, we need to talk.
We need to discuss (1) the usefulness of our current risk paradigm, (2) how much evidence we need to take risk decisions, and (3) new approaches addressing the stressors’ and biological complexity. Leaving the comfort zone further, we need to recalibrate our links to other disciplines (e.g., sustainability, social sciences) and to the public (risk communication).
More fundamentally, we need to reflect on what we want to contribute to societal progress. Instead of being a “science of problems”, (8) we may want to become a science of solutions, transforming our negative, reactive approach to chemical risks into a positive, prospective one. Fields like Green Chemistry and Safe by Design aim at developing more sustainable chemicals and materials and provide opportunities to explore such new roles.
We believe that the arena of plastics pollution offers a window of opportunity to have these discussions. Instead of continuing our “business as usual” and decrying that societies do not listen to our expert voices, we should take this opportunity to adapt our disciplines to the challenges of the Anthropocene.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
    • Author Contributions

      All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

    • Notes
      The authors declare no competing financial interest.

    Acknowledgments

    Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

    M.W. acknowledges support by the German Federal Ministry for Transportation and Digital Infrastructure and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (02WRS1378, 01UU1603B, 03F0789D). J.K. and C.V. acknowledge support by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (01UU1603A-C).

    References

    Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

    This article references 8 other publications.

    1. 1
      Burton, G. A., Jr. Stressor exposures determine risk: So, why do fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risk?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 1351513516,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05463
    2. 2
      Hale, R. C. Are the risks from microplastics truly trivial?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 931931,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06615
    3. 3
      Lambert, S.; Scherer, C.; Wagner, M. Ecotoxicity testing of microplastics: considering the heterogeneity of physicochemical properties. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2017, 13 (3), 470475,  DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1901
    4. 4
      Rochman, C. M.; Kross, S. M.; Armstrong, J. B.; Bogan, M. T.; Darling, E. S.; Green, S. J.; Smyth, A. R.; Veríssimo, D. Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1075910761,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03909
    5. 5
      Montibeller, G.; von Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 2015, 35 (7), 12301251,  DOI: 10.1111/risa.12360
    6. 6
      Syberg, K.; Hansen, S. F.; Christensen, T. B.; Khan, F. R. Risk perception of plastic pollution: Importance of stakeholder involvement and citizen science. In Freshwater Microplastics. Emerging Environmental Contaminants?; Wagner, M., Lambert, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, 2018; pp 203.
    7. 7
      A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Commission: Brussels, 2018; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac7-11e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
    8. 8
      Tickner, J. A. Science of problems, science of solutions or both? A case example of bisphenol A. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2011, 65 (8), 649650,  DOI: 10.1136/jech.2010.112706

    Cited By

    Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
    Citation Statements
    Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

    This article is cited by 58 publications.

    1. 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
    2. Anderson Abel de Souza Machado, Chris M. Wood, Werner Kloas. Novel Concepts for Novel Entities: Updating Ecotoxicology for a Sustainable Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (9) , 4680-4682. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02031
    3. Nanna B. Hartmann, Thorsten Hüffer, Richard C. Thompson, Martin Hassellöv, Anja Verschoor, Anders E. Daugaard, Sinja Rist, Therese Karlsson, Nicole Brennholt, Matthew Cole, Maria P. Herrling, Maren C. Hess, Natalia P. Ivleva, Amy L. Lusher, Martin Wagner. Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (3) , 1039-1047. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05297
    4. 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
    5. Leonie Fian, Lena M. Schmidlechner, Ulrike Felt, Thilo Hofmann, Mathew P. White, Sabine Pahl. Microplastics in food and drink: perceptions of the risks, challenges, and solutions among individuals in the ‘farm-to-fork’ food chain. Journal of Risk Research 2024, , 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2024.2431900
    6. Navami Surendran Sethulekshmi, Jaya Divakaran Sarasamma. An Appraisal on the Microplastics Pollution in Aruvikkara Reservoir, Kerala, India. Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research 2024, 12 (4) , 257-267. https://doi.org/10.34172/jaehr.1364
    7. Aggnia Marina. Du plastique sur les sentiers : l'empreinte invisible, mais nocive des semelles de chaussures. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience 2024, 12 https://doi.org/10.5802/crgeos.199-fr
    8. Zhitong Chen, Ya Zhou, Chenkai Luo, Qinghai Zhou, Xianhong Wang, Yufeng Wu, Zhifeng Yang. Environmental impacts and mitigation potentials of CO2-based biodegradable plastic based on life cycle assessment – A case study of poly(propylene carbonate). Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 471 , 143387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143387
    9. Muhammad Tariq Khan, Sajid Rashid, Unzile Yaman, Saeed Ahsan Khalid, Asif Kamal, Mushtaq Ahmad, Nasrin Akther, Md Abul Kashem, Md Faysal Hossain, Wajid Rashid. Microplastic pollution in aquatic ecosystem: A review of existing policies and regulations. Chemosphere 2024, 364 , 143221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.143221
    10. Nina Wootton, Bronwyn M. Gillanders, Sophie Leterme, Warwick Noble, Scott P. Wilson, Michelle Blewitt, Stephen E. Swearer, Patrick Reis-Santos. Research priorities on microplastics in marine and coastal environments: An Australian perspective to advance global action. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2024, 205 , 116660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116660
    11. Robin Janzik, Severine Koch, Giorgia Zamariola, Domagoj Vrbos, Mathew P. White, Sabine Pahl, Natalie Berger. Exploring public risk perceptions of microplastics: Findings from a cross‐national qualitative interview study among German and Italian citizens. Risk Analysis 2024, 44 (3) , 521-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14184
    12. Afroza Akter Liza, Asifa Ashrafy, Md. Nazrul Islam, Md. Morsaline Billah, Shaikh Tareq Arafat, Md. Moshiur Rahman, Md. Rezaul Karim, Md. Mehedi Hasan, Ahsan Rajib Promie, Sheikh Mustafizur Rahman. Microplastic pollution: a review of techniques to identify microplastics and their threats to the aquatic ecosystem. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2024, 196 (3) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12441-4
    13. 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
    14. Yang Yu, Nicholas Craig, Lei Su. A Hidden Pathway for Human Exposure to Micro- and Nanoplastics—The Mechanical Fragmentation of Plastic Products during Daily Use. Toxics 2023, 11 (9) , 774. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11090774
    15. 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
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. P. Muthukumaran, P. Suresh Babu, M. Kamaraj, J. Aravind. Microplastics menace: the new emerging lurking environmental issue, a review on sampling and quantification in aquatic environments. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2023, 20 (1) , 1081-1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03591-w
    19. Frances Okoye, Farokh Laqa Kakar, Victoria Onyedibe, Rania Hamza, Bipro Ranjan Dhar, Elsayed Elbeshbishy. Social aspects of microplastics and nanoplastics. 2023, 447-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99908-3.00007-5
    20. Philippe Cecchi. Plastics on the rocks: the invisible but harmful footprint of shoe soles. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience 2023, 355 (G1) , 135-144. https://doi.org/10.5802/crgeos.199
    21. Qiqing Chen, Jiani Gao, Hairui Yu, Hang Su, Yan Yang, Yajuan Cao, Qun Zhang, Yijiu Ren, Henner Hollert, Huahong Shi, Chang Chen, Haipeng Liu. An emerging role of microplastics in the etiology of lung ground glass nodules. Environmental Sciences Europe 2022, 34 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00605-3
    22. Débora Sorolla-Rosario, Julio Llorca-Porcel, Mónica Pérez-Martínez, Dolores Lozano-Castelló, Agustín Bueno-López. Carbon sorbents for the retention of thermodecomposition compounds from microplastics. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2022, 10 (6) , 108970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108970
    23. Xiaoyu Luan, Xiaohui Kou, Long Zhang, Lu Chen, Wei Liu, Zhaojie Cui. Estimation and prediction of plastic losses to the environment in China from 1950 to 2050. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2022, 184 , 106386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106386
    24. Annkatrin Weber, Anja Schwiebs, Helene Solhaug, Jørgen Stenvik, Asbjørn M. Nilsen, Martin Wagner, Borna Relja, Heinfried H. Radeke. Nanoplastics affect the inflammatory cytokine release by primary human monocytes and dendritic cells. Environment International 2022, 163 , 107173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107173
    25. Zipeng Liu, Bernd Nowack. Probabilistic material flow analysis and emissions modeling for five commodity plastics (PUR, ABS, PA, PC, and PMMA) as macroplastics and microplastics✰. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2022, 179 , 106071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106071
    26. Miao Chen, Xiongwei Zhao, Dongming Wu, Licheng Peng, Changhua Fan, Wen Zhang, Qinfen Li, Chengjun Ge. Addition of biodegradable microplastics alters the quantity and chemodiversity of dissolved organic matter in latosol. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 816 , 151960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151960
    27. 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
    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. Theresa Stoll, Peter Stoett, Joanna Vince, Britta Denise Hardesty. Governance and Measures for the Prevention of Marine Debris. 2022, 1129-1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39041-9_26
    30. 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
    31. Amy L. Lusher, Rachel Hurley, Hans Peter H. Arp, Andy M. Booth, Inger Lise N. Bråte, Geir W. Gabrielsen, Alessio Gomiero, Tânia Gomes, Bjørn Einar Grøsvik, Norman Green, Marte Haave, Ingeborg G. Hallanger, Claudia Halsband, Dorte Herzke, Erik J. Joner, Tanja Kögel, Kirsten Rakkestad, Sissel B. Ranneklev, Martin Wagner, Marianne Olsen. Moving forward in microplastic research: A Norwegian perspective. Environment International 2021, 157 , 106794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106794
    32. 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
    33. Minwei Xie, Jun-Lin Huang, Zhi Lin, Rong Chen, Qiao-Guo Tan. Field to laboratory comparison of metal accumulation on aged microplastics in coastal waters. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 797 , 149108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149108
    34. Farhan R. Khan, Stephanie Storebjerg Croft, Elisa Escabia Herrando, Athanasios Kandylas, Tabea Meyerjuergens, Dylan Rayner, Juliane Schulte, Ingmar Valdemarson á Løgmansbø. A Brief Perspective on Environmental Science in the Anthropocene: Recalibrating, Rethinking and Re-Evaluating to Meet the Challenge of Complexity. Environments 2021, 8 (10) , 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8100098
    35. Patricia Raab, Franz X. Bogner, . Conceptions of university students on microplastics in Germany. PLOS ONE 2021, 16 (9) , e0257734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257734
    36. 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
    37. Teng Wang, Baojie Li, Wenwen Yu, Xinqing Zou. Microplastic pollution and quantitative source apportionment in the Jiangsu coastal area, China. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 166 , 112237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112237
    38. Johanna Kramm, Carolin Völker. Wie ist ein nachhaltiger Umgang mit Plastik möglich?. 2021, 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31466-8_10
    39. J.R. Bermúdez, P.W. Swarzenski. A microplastic size classification scheme aligned with universal plankton survey methods. MethodsX 2021, 8 , 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101516
    40. Fatemeh Sadat Hosseini Dinani, Azar Baradaran, Karim Ebrahimpour. Acute Toxic Effects of Polyurethane Microplastics on Adult Zebra Fish (Danio Rerio). International Journal of Environmental Health Engineering 2021, 10 (1) , 9. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijehe.ijehe_12_21
    41. Bingwen Chai, Qiang Wei, Yingzhe She, Guining Lu, Zhi Dang, Hua Yin. Soil microplastic pollution in an e-waste dismantling zone of China. Waste Management 2020, 118 , 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.048
    42. Huaxin Gu, Shuaishuai Wei, Menghong Hu, Huang Wei, Xinghuo Wang, Yueyong Shang, Li’ang Li, Huahong Shi, Youji Wang. Microplastics aggravate the adverse effects of BDE-47 on physiological and defense performance in mussels. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2020, 398 , 122909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122909
    43. Huaxin Gu, Shixiu Wang, Xinghuo Wang, Xiang Yu, Menghong Hu, Wei Huang, Youji Wang. Nanoplastics impair the intestinal health of the juvenile large yellow croaker Larimichthys crocea. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2020, 397 , 122773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122773
    44. 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
    45. 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
    46. Shaoliang Zhang, Jiuqi Wang, Xinhua Hao. Fertilization accelerates the decomposition of microplastics in mollisols. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 722 , 137950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137950
    47. Eoghan M. Cunningham, Konstadinos Kiriakoulakis, Jaimie T. A. Dick, Louise Kregting, Pia Schuchert, Julia D. Sigwart. Driven by speculation, not by impact – the effects of plastic on fish species. Journal of Fish Biology 2020, 96 (6) , 1294-1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14303
    48. 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
    49. Todd Gouin. Toward an Improved Understanding of the Ingestion and Trophic Transfer of Microplastic Particles: Critical Review and Implications for Future Research. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2020, 39 (6) , 1119-1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4718
    50. Theresa Stoll, Peter Stoett, Joanna Vince, Britta Denise Hardesty. Governance and Measures for the Prevention of Marine Debris. 2020, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10618-8_26-1
    51. 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
    52. Christopher J Rhodes. Solving the plastic problem: From cradle to grave, to reincarnation. Science Progress 2019, 102 (3) , 218-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0036850419867204
    53. 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
    54. Agustina Malizia, A. Carolina Monmany-Garzia. Terrestrial ecologists should stop ignoring plastic pollution in the Anthropocene time. Science of The Total Environment 2019, 668 , 1025-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.044
    55. 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
    56. 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
    57. Vesna Kicošev, Laszlo Galambos. Stakeholder Analysis in Solving the Problem of Accumulation of Plastics in Surface Waters of Protected Areas. 2019, 95-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2019_376
    58. 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

    Environmental Science & Technology

    Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 6, 3336–3337
    Click to copy citationCitation copied!
    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00790
    Published March 1, 2018

    Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

    Article Views

    9269

    Altmetric

    -

    Citations

    Learn about these metrics

    Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

    Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

    The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

    • Abstract

    • References


      This article references 8 other publications.

      1. 1
        Burton, G. A., Jr. Stressor exposures determine risk: So, why do fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risk?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 1351513516,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05463
      2. 2
        Hale, R. C. Are the risks from microplastics truly trivial?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 931931,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06615
      3. 3
        Lambert, S.; Scherer, C.; Wagner, M. Ecotoxicity testing of microplastics: considering the heterogeneity of physicochemical properties. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2017, 13 (3), 470475,  DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1901
      4. 4
        Rochman, C. M.; Kross, S. M.; Armstrong, J. B.; Bogan, M. T.; Darling, E. S.; Green, S. J.; Smyth, A. R.; Veríssimo, D. Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1075910761,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03909
      5. 5
        Montibeller, G.; von Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 2015, 35 (7), 12301251,  DOI: 10.1111/risa.12360
      6. 6
        Syberg, K.; Hansen, S. F.; Christensen, T. B.; Khan, F. R. Risk perception of plastic pollution: Importance of stakeholder involvement and citizen science. In Freshwater Microplastics. Emerging Environmental Contaminants?; Wagner, M., Lambert, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, 2018; pp 203.
      7. 7
        A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Commission: Brussels, 2018; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac7-11e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
      8. 8
        Tickner, J. A. Science of problems, science of solutions or both? A case example of bisphenol A. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2011, 65 (8), 649650,  DOI: 10.1136/jech.2010.112706