Critical Review

pubs.acs.org/est

Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of the Methods

Used for Identification and Quantification
Valeria Hidalgo-Ruz,†,‡ Lars Gutow,§ Richard C. Thompson,∥ and Martin Thiel*,†,⊥
†
Facultad Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Católica del Norte, Larrondo 1281, Coquimbo, Chile
‡
Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Recursos Naturales, Universidad de Valparaíso, Av. Borgoño 16344, Viña del Mar, Chile
§
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Box 12 01 61, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany
∥
School of Marine Science and Engineering, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, United Kingdom
⊥
Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Á ridas (CEAZA), Coquimbo, Chile

ABSTRACT: This review of 68 studies compares the method-

ologies used for the identification and quantification of micro-
plastics from the marine environment. Three main sampling
strategies were identified: selective, volume-reduced, and bulk
sampling. Most sediment samples came from sandy beaches at
the high tide line, and most seawater samples were taken at the
sea surface using neuston nets. Four steps were distinguished
during sample processing: density separation, filtration, sieving,
and visual sorting of microplastics. Visual sorting was one of the
most commonly used methods for the identification of micro-
plastics (using type, shape, degradation stage, and color as criteria).
Chemical and physical characteristics (e.g., specific density) were
also used. The most reliable method to identify the chemical composition of microplastics is by infrared spectroscopy. Most studies
reported that plastic fragments were polyethylene and polypropylene polymers. Units commonly used for abundance estimates are “items
per m2” for sediment and sea surface studies and “items per m3” for water column studies. Mesh size of sieves and filters used during
sampling or sample processing influence abundance estimates. Most studies reported two main size ranges of microplastics: (i) 500 μm−5
mm, which are retained by a 500 μm sieve/net, and (ii) 1−500 μm, or fractions thereof that are retained on filters. We recommend that
future programs of monitoring continue to distinguish these size fractions, but we suggest standardized sampling procedures which allow
the spatiotemporal comparison of microplastic abundance across marine environments.

■ INTRODUCTION
The worldwide production of plastics has increased considerably
organisms,20−24 the extent to which ingestion might present a
toxicological hazard is not well-known.
since the development of synthetic polymers in the middle of the In order to gain a better understanding of the impacts of
20th century.1,2 When discarded in the marine environment, microplastics, most studies have focused on quantifying their
plastics can become an environmental hazard.3,4 Plastic debris abundance in the marine environment. One of the main prob-
enters the marine environment in a wide range of sizes, in the lems of large-scale spatial and temporal comparisons is the fact
micrometer to meter range.5 Microplastic particles comprise either that a wide variety of approaches have been used to identify and
manufactured plastics of microscopic size, such as scrubbers6,7 and quantify microplastics. Furthermore, microplastics comprise a
industrial pellets that serve as precursors for manufactured plastic very heterogeneous assemblage of pieces that vary in size,
products (primary sources), or fragments or fibers of plastics shape, color, specific density, chemical composition, and other
derived from the breakdown of larger plastic products (secondary characteristics. For meaningful comparisons and monitoring, it
sources).4,8,9 Degradation processes of plastics are extremely is thus important to define specific methodological criteria to
slow,5,10 and thus microplastics potentially persist for very long estimate the abundances, distribution and composition of
time periods in the marine environment.11,12 microplastics.25 Future monitoring programs will benefit from
The presence and accumulation of microplastics in the ocean standardized procedures for sampling and sorting of micro-
is of considerable concern for a variety of reasons, especially plastics such as those proposed by the Marine Strategy Frame-
because they are ingested by marine biota.4,13 Microplastics can work Directive of the EU.26
absorb persistent bioaccumulative and toxic compounds (PBT)
from seawater,14 which include persistent organic pollutants Received: September 8, 2011
(POPs)15−17 and metals.18 Once ingested, the absorbed pollutants Revised: January 15, 2012
may be transferred to the respective organisms.19 However, while Accepted: February 9, 2012
microplastics have been reported in a wide variety of marine Published: February 9, 2012

© 2012 American Chemical Society 3060 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

The main objective of the present review is to assess the examined temporal changes in microplastics abundance,21,38,39
different methods that have been employed for the dispersal,36 and degradation rates.40−42
identification and quantification of microplastics in marine Plastic pellets are also increasingly used as passive samplers
environments. Based on the results, we recommend basic for POPs12,43−46 and metals.18 Ingestion of microplastics by
criteria and approaches to ensure that future quantitative marine organisms and their physiological and ecological
estimates are comparable, providing standardized data of implications have also gained attention recently,47−49 but this
microplastics in the marine environment. topic is beyond the scope of this review.

■ REVIEW OF METHODS
We conducted an extensive literature review using databases
■ SAMPLING
General Sampling Methods. Sampling of microplastics in
such as ISI Web of Knowledge, Science Direct, Google Scholar, the main marine environments (sea surface, water column,
and all published volumes of the journals Marine Pollution sediment) requires different approaches: samples can be
Bulletin and Environmental Science & Technology, for studies selective, bulk, or volume-reduced. Selective sampling in the
published up to December 2011. The term ‘microplastics’ was field consists of direct extraction from the environment of items
first used in 2004 to describe very small fragments of plastic that are recognizable by the naked eye, usually on the surface of
(∼50 μm) in the water column and in sediments.21 In 2009, sediments. This method was applied in 24 of the 44 sediment
Arthur et al. proposed that microplastics should include all studies, 20 of which focused exclusively on plastic pellets.
fragments <5 mm.9 However, at present there is no universally Sampling for plastic pellets is often selective, because their size
adopted definition in terms of the size range for microplastics. range (1−6 mm diameter) makes them easily recognizable in
In this review we take a broad, methodologically focused the flotsam deposits of sandy beaches. However, when
perspective dating back prior to 2004 and aim to include all microplastics are mixed with other debris or have no
studies describing small fragments of plastics in the environ- characteristic shapes (i.e., irregular, rough, angular) there is a
ment, irrespective of whether the term ‘microplastics’ was great risk of overlooking them,50 and particular care needs to be
specifically used. Keywords used in our searches were as taken when selectively sampling them in the field.
follows: microplastics, microdebris, microlitter, plastic frag- Bulk samples refer to samples where the entire volume of the
ments, pellets, marine debris and plastics. We also examined the sample is taken without reducing it during the sampling process
reference lists from the selected literature and back-tracked to (18 sediment studies and one seawater study). Bulk samples are
other relevant papers until no new references came up. most appropriate when microplastics cannot be easily identified
A total of 68 research articles were found. From these we visually because (i) they are covered by sediment particles, (ii)
extracted information on (i) study objectives, (ii) sampling their abundance is small requiring sorting/filtering of large
procedure, (iii) laboratory processing of samples, (iv) volumes of sediment/water, or (iii) they are too small to be
identification of microplastics, and (v) microplastics abundance. identified with the naked eye.
For the evaluation, we distinguished the main marine Volume-reduced samples in both sediment and seawater
environments that were studied: sediment, water column, and samples refer to samples where the volume of the bulk sample
sea surface.

■
is usually reduced during sampling, preserving only that portion
of the sample that is of interest for further processing. Three
OBJECTIVES OF STUDIES ON MARINE sediment studies, 29 sea surface studies and six water column
MICROPLASTICS studies applied this method. For sedimentary environments,
Small particles of plastic were first reported in the marine samples can be sieved directly on the beach or onboard the
environment in the early 1970s.20,27 The objectives of vessel45 while for seawater samples, volume-reduced samples
subsequent studies were variable, with a majority of studies are usually obtained by filtering large volumes of water with
that examined the spatial distribution (abundance, mass, type, nets. Bulk and volume-reduced samples require further
and/or size) of microplastics28−31 (Table 1). The objectives of processing in the laboratory.
Sediment Samples. Forty-four studies determined the
Table 1. Principal Objectives of the Examined Studies on densities of microplastics in sedimentary environments, mostly
Microplasticsa on sandy beaches. The number of beaches sampled in each
study ranged from one33,42,43 to 300 beaches in a study from
objectives
n = 44 n = 30 n=7 n = 68
sediment sea surface water column total
New Zealand.51 Most studies examined between 5 and 18
beaches (e.g., refs 40 and 52−54).
methodology 2 2 - 3
The specific tidal zone sampled on a beach varied
presence/absence 4 2 1 5
considerably among studies; some covered the entire extent
spatial distribution 25 22 5 45
of the beach, from the intertidal to the supralittoral zone (Table 2).
temporal variability 3 6 1 9
Some studies distinguished several littoral zones,21 while others
dispersal processes 1 - - 1
pooled samples across different zones.40,55 The majority of
physical properties and 4 2 - 6
fragmentation processes studies, however, focused on the most recent flotsam deposited
contaminants 12 3 1 13 at the high tide line. A considerable number of studies (eight of
a 44 studies) did not explicitly mention the tidal zone where
Note that some studies have several objectives and thus the sum may
exceed the total number of studies in each column. samples were taken.
This lack of uniformity across the reviewed studies shows the
other studies were to confirm the presence of microplastics in need to examine systematically where microplastics tend to
other locations,32,33 compare different sampling and sorting accumulate across the beach zone. In a comparison of 10
methods,34,35 and estimate proportions of microplastics versus different sampling methods, the highest amounts of macrolitter
macroplastics36 or versus zooplankton.37 A few studies also were usually found in the upper beach zones.56 Pellets also
3061 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Table 2. Beach Zones Where Sediment Samples Were Two studies followed a stratified sampling scheme using a corer
Takena down to a depth of 25 cm, separating the core into five layers
each of which had a thickness of 5 cm,60 and to a depth of 28
beach zones no.
and 32 cm, with four sediment layers of 7 and 8 cm,
supralittoral 13 respectively.57
high tide line 28 Given that beaches and subtidal coastal habitats are dynamic
high intertidal zone 14
systems with continuous and seasonal erosion of sediment61,62
mid intertidal zone 13
microplastics may become buried in sediment during periods of
low intertidal zone 13
accretion. Furthermore, beaches filter and retain particulate
sublittoral 3
organic matter (POM) over a range of depths, and sediments
not specified 8
a
between 0 and 5 cm depth are characterized by steep gradients
N = 44 studies; note that the sum of sampled zones exceeds the total and strong seasonal variation of more fine-grained particles and
number of studies, because several studies sampled more than one
POM.61 In permeable sands, microplastics might accumulate in
beach zone.
similar ways as sediment particles and POM, resulting in
accumulate near the high tide line, but large quantities are also microplastics being trapped in deeper sediment layers;63,64 this
found in ditches and trenches on the back beach.52 In general, should be examined with stratified samples using cores.59,60
microplastics move differently than macroplastics in the sea: Sea Surface and Water Column Samples. Thirty-three
the distribution of macroplastics can often be explained by the studies investigated the abundance of pelagic microplastics (sea
prevailing currents and wind, while the mechanisms that drive surface and water column). Twenty-six of these studies sampled
the distribution of microplastics are less well-known and are exclusively at the sea surface. The depth of the surface layer
possibly influenced by particle aggregation or animal activ- sampled was not specified in most cases, with the exception of
ities.36 Comparative studies should be conducted to determine three studies that sampled neuston layers of 50−60 μm (surface
the accumulation dynamics of microplastics along gradients of microlayer), 15 cm, and 25 cm thickness.32,65,66 Water column
wave exposure and tidal height. Studies from the subtidal zone samples were taken from 1 to 212 m depth.32,65
revealed that microplastics were more abundant in subtidal Sea surface samples were mostly taken by neuston nets
sediments than on sandy beaches and in estuarine hab- (Table 4). The main advantage of using a net is that large
itats.8,21,57
Sampling tools were reported in 31 of the 44 reviewed Table 4. Instruments Used for Sampling of Suspended
sediment studies. Selective sediment samples for plastic pellets Microplasticsa
and fragments were taken with tweezers,18,46 tablespoons,42 or
instrument sea surface water column
picked up by hand.15,52,55 Twenty-eight studies sampled at the
high tide line, using different approaches: (i) sampling a linear bongo/zooplankton net - 5
extension along the strandline with a spoon and/or a trowel other plankton samplers - 3
neuston net 28 -
(eight studies), (ii) sampling an areal extension using quadrats
other neuston samplers 1 -
(13 studies), and (iii) sampling different depth strata using a
corers (two studies). Five studies did not report the exact N = 33 studies; note that the sum of studies using each instrument
sampling procedure. The three studies from the sublittoral exceeds the total number of studies, because several studies took water
zone8,21,57 sampled with Ekman and van Veen grabs. column and sea surface samples.
Sampling units were directly related to the sampling
instrument used. Studies that sampled a specific areal extension volumes of water can be sampled quickly, only retaining the
(from 0.0079 to 5 m2) employed quadrats and corers. Other volume-reduced sample. There was only one study that
sampling units were weight (from 0.15 to 10 kg) and volume of collected bulk samples of 10 L using a rotating drum sampler.32
sediment (from 0.1 to 8 L). This sampler consists of a partly immersed rotating glass
Samples were taken to variable depths below the sediment cylinder with a clean hydrophilic surface, using capillary force to
surface. Twenty-seven studies did not mention the sampled sample water from the surface microlayer (1 to 1000 μm
depth. Reported sampling depths ranged from 0 to 32 cm thick).67−69 For water column samples, zooplankton nets were
(Table 3). Most studies sampled a single depth layer within the used most commonly (Table 4). Other instruments, such as the
continuous plankton recorder (CPR)21 and an epibenthic
Table 3. Depth Strata Sampled for Microplastic Abundance
from Sedimentsa sled,70 were also used.
The most relevant characteristics of the sampling nets used
depths of samples no. are the mesh size and the opening area of the net. Mesh sizes
0−5 16 ranged from 0.053 to 3 mm, with a majority of the studies (42%)
5−10 4 ranging from 0.30 to 0.39 mm (Table 5). The net aperture for
10−20 6 rectangular openings of neuston nets (sea surface) ranged from
>20 4
0.03 to 2.0 m2.31,37 For circular-bongo nets (water column) the
not described 27
a net aperture ranged from 0.79 to 1.58 m2.20,65 The length of the
N = 44 studies; note that the sum of sampled depth layers exceeds
the total number of studies, because some studies sampled more than
net for sea surface samples was mentioned in 14 studies, varying
one layer. from 1.0 to 8.5 m, with most nets being 3.0 to 4.5 m long. The
length of the net for water column samples was only specified in
top 5 cm of sediment.42,58,59 Two studies sampled a second one study that used two different sampling devices: 3 m long
layer at 10 cm depth, in addition to the sediment surface.32,40 bongo nets and an epibenthic sled with a net that was 1 m long.70
3062 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Table 5. Different Mesh Sizes Used for Sampling of the sediment is expected to rapidly settle to the bottom, while
Suspended Microplasticsa the low density particles remain in suspension or float to the
surface of the solution. Subsequently, the supernatant with the
mesh size (μm) sea surface water column
plastic particles is extracted for further processing.
50−290 2 2 Ten of the 13 sediment studies that included density
300−390 13 2
separation (Figure 1a-c,e) applied a concentrated saline NaCl
400−505 5 1
solution (1.2 g cm−3). Other solutions applied were a sodium
600−1000 6 -
polytungstate solution with a density of 1.4 g cm−3,40
1500−3000 3 -
tapwater,50 and seawater.72 Plastics that float in fresh and
not specified 6 2
a
seawater are polystyrene in foamed form, high and low den-
N = 33 studies; note that the sum of cases exceeds the total number sity polyethylene, and polypropylene. Polystyrene in solid form
of studies, because several studies took both water column and sea
surface samples.
also floats in a hypersaturated saline solution. Finally, the

■
plastics that float in sodium polytungstate solution include
SAMPLE PROCESSING flexible and rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVCs), polyethylene
terephthalate (PETs), and nylon.1,50 A similar density
Laboratory processing and subsequent sorting of microplastics separation procedure was used in two seawater studies, placing
is essential for bulk and volume-reduced samples. Four main the sample in freshwater and removing floating particles from the
steps can be distinguished during laboratory processing of supernatant.70,73
samples: density separation, filtration, sieving, and visual sorting Shaking time varied widely between studies, according to the
(Figure 1). size of the sediment sample: it ranged from 30 s21 up to 2 h.74
Density Separation. The specific density of plastic The time used for the suspended particles to settle down after
particles can vary considerably depending on the type of shaking ranged from 2 min21,36 up to 6 h.32 Recent studies
polymer and the manufacturing process. Density values for explicitly mentioned a repetition of density separation of the
plastics range from 0.8 to 1.4 g cm−3, specifically for sample remains.8,59 Unpublished work had shown that additional
polypropylene from 0.85 to 0.94 g cm−3, polyethylene from microplastic fragments can be recovered after an initial extraction
0.92 to 0.97 g cm−3, and for polystyrene from <0.05 to 1.00 g (R. C. Thompson, personal communication). As a consequence
cm−371 (for specific densities of plastic polymers see Table 7). three studies have since used several sequential extraction steps as
These values refer to virgin resins, without taking into account being an efficient approach to maximize recovery in relation to
the effect on density of various additives that might be added sampling time.8,57,59
during product manufacturing. Typical densities for sand or Filtration. The plastic particles are separated from the
other sediments are 2.65 g cm−3. This difference is exploited to supernatant obtained from the density separation by passing
separate the lighter plastic particles from the heavier sediment the solution that contains the plastic particles over a filter,
grains by mixing a sediment sample with a saturated solution usually aided by a vacuum.21,32 Filter papers had pore sizes of
and shaking it for a certain amount of time. After mixing, 1 to 1.6 μm (six studies) and 2 μm (one study).66 In the study

Figure 1. Steps for sample processing. (a) Bulk sediment sample separated by density difference and filtering; (b) Bulk sediment sample separated
by density difference, where floating microplastics are picked up from the supernatant; (c) Bulk sediment sample separated by density difference and
sieving; (d) Bulk sediment sample that is reduced by sieving; (e) Volume-reduced sediment sample separated by density difference, where floating
microplastics are picked up from the supernatant; (f) Volume-reduced sediment samples where floating microplastics are picked up from the
supernatant; (g) Bulk seawater sample passed through filter for microplastics separation; (h) Volume-reduced seawater sample passed through the
filtration step; (i) Volume-reduced seawater sample passed through sieves; (j) Volume-reduced seawater sample passed straight through visual
sorting. All methodologies included a final step of visual separation of microplastics; in some cases the identity of the pieces extracted was then
confirmed by an additional step such as FT-IR spectroscopy (n = 28, see Figure 5B). N = 43 studies that employed the respective sequence of
processing steps.

3063 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075

Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Table 6. Categories Used To Describe Microplastics Sieving. Microplastics can be separated from samples using
sieves of variable mesh sizes. Materials retained in the sieve are
categories
collected (and sorted), while those that pass through are usually
sources consumer product fragments (e.g., fishing net) and raw industrial discarded. The use of sieves with different mesh sizes allows
pellets
type plastic fragments, pellets, filaments, plastic films, foamed plastic, distinguishing size categories of microplastics. Sieving was used
granules, and styrofoam by six sediment (Figure 1c-d) and five sea surface studies
shape for pellets: cylindrical, disks, flat, ovoid, spheruloids (Figure 1i). The sediment studies employed either one
for f ragments: rounded, subrounded, subangular, angular sieve57,72,75,76 or sieve cascades of two33 and three sieves.29
general: irregular, elongated, degraded, rough, and broken edges Sea surface studies used one,77 five,37,78 and six sieves.70,79 The
erosion fresh, unweathered, incipient alteration, and level of crazing sieves had mesh sizes ranging from 0.038 to 4.75 mm. All
(conchoidal fractures), weathered, grooves, irregular surface,
jagged fragments, linear fractures, subparallel ridges, and very studies included a sieve of 1 mm, except for the studies that
degraded used only one sieve with mesh sizes ranging from 0.038 mm,57
color transparent, crystalline, white, clear-white-cream, red, orange, blue, to 0.33 mm72,77 and 2 mm,53,76 respectively.
opaque, black, gray, brown, green, pink, tan, yellow, and
pigmentation Visual Sorting and Separation. In all reviewed studies,
visual examination of the concentrated sample remains is an
obligatory step. Careful visual sorting of residues is necessary to
Table 7. Number of Studies That Identified Polymer Type
separate the plastics from other materials, such as organic debris
among the Sorted Microplastic Debris and Specific Densities
of Different Polymer Typesa (shell fragments, animals parts, dried algae, or seagrasses, etc.)
and other items (metal paint coatings, tar, glass, etc.). This is
polymer type polymer density (g cm‑3) no. of studies done by direct examination of the sample by the naked eye or
polyethylene 0.917−0.965 33 with the aid of a dissecting microscope.12,65,78−80 Most sea
polypropylene 0.9−0.91 27 surface studies separated microplastics by visual sorting of the
polystyrene 1.04−1.1 17 particles (Figure 1j) that were retained in the cod end of the
polyamide (nylon) 1.02−1.05 7 net.28,30,81,82 The silk screen from the CPR is examined under
polyester 1.24−2.3 4 the dissecting microscope for plastic particles.21
acrylic 1.09−1.20 4 Previously isolated plastic fragments can also be washed for
polyoximethylene 1.41−1.61 4 removing other substances that adhere to their surface (like
polyvinyl alcohol 1.19−1.31 3 sand and soil);29 e.g. by ultrasonic cleaning in a liquid medium
polyvinylchloride 1.16−1.58 2 or deionized water.42 Samples can be preserved in their original
poly methylacrylate 1.17−1.20 2 form without initial sorting, or they can be immediately sorted
polyethylene terephthalate 1.37−1.45 1
to store only the plastics from the original sample. Plastics
alkyd 1.24−2.10 1
separated from the sample should be dried and kept in a dark
polyurethane 1.2 1
a
and temperature-controlled environment (stable room temper-
Data from a total of N = 42 studies. ature) to reduce degradation during storage.
To avoid misidentification and underestimation of micro-
where density separation was done with freshwater, the plastics it is necessary to standardize the plastic particle selec-
microplastics were picked up by tweezers from the surface of tion, following certain criteria to guarantee proper identifica-
the aqueous supernatant.50 In order to sort out larger particles tion. This is particularly important when it is not possible to use
before the filtration step, water samples can first be sieved over more accurate methods, such as Fourier transform infrared
a sieve with 500 μm mesh size.1 spectroscopy (FT-IR). Pieces of microplastics toward the larger
None of the reviewed studies specified in detail how the end of the size range (>1 mm) can to some extent be visually
supernatant was extracted. Some fraction of the microplastics distinguished according to the following criteria: no cellular or
might stick to the wall of the receptacle that contains the organic structures are visible, fibers should be equally thick
solution, losing part of the sample during the procedure. Thus throughout their entire length, particles must present clear and
washing of the container walls onto the filter is recommended. homogeneous colors, and if they are transparent or white, they
Furthermore, samples can also become contaminated by must be examined under high magnification and a fluorescence
particles present in the air of the laboratory, on the clothes microscope.66 New methods to separate microplastics from
of workers, in poorly cleaned instruments, by improperly sealed bulk samples or from samples with large amounts of organic
samples, by plaques of color scratched off the ship wall by the debris need to be developed to improve the efficiency of
sampling gear, or by fibers broken off the plastic nets that are sampling programs. Molecular mapping made by focal plane
used for seawater sampling. For accurate results it is necessary array (FPA)-based imaging has recently been examined to
to minimize sources of contamination, and avoid both loss of detect microplastics by scanning the surface of filters obtained
parts from the sample or overestimation of microplastics due to from density separation and filtration of samples.83 Enzymatic
contamination. Control samples should always be used to digestion of organic debris and other approaches could also be
confirm that there is no procedural sample contamination.66 explored to facilitate the visual sorting of microplastics from
Several contamination prevention strategies (e.g., sealing of large sample volumes. Electrostatic separation of plastics from
filters in Petri dishes during drying) have been specified.21,32,74 sediments was extensively examined by one of us (R. C.
Some laboratories use the procedures described above (R. C. Thompson, unpublished data), and while this proved efficient
Thompson, personal communication), but it is recommended in separating known plastics spiked into specific sediments, it
to standardize those and also run cross-calibrations among was not advantageous in the separation of mixtures of polymers
laboratories. from more diverse natural sediments and organic matter.
3064 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology

■
Critical Review

CHARACTERIZATION OF MICROPLASTICS collected microplastics ranged from 0.5 to 2 mm.33,84 Similarly,

Due to the diversity of sources, there exists a wide variety of the minimum size of microplastics collected from seawater
microplastics with multiple shapes, sizes, and origins (Table 6). samples is determined by the mesh size of the net. Mesh sizes
The characteristics of microplastics determine their distribution varied from 53 μm to 3 mm for seawater samples (Table 5).
and impact in the environment. For instance, dense plastic During sample processing, the sizes of microplastics obtained
particles spend more time in contact and collide more forcefully from bulk seawater and sediment samples are limited by the
with abrasive sediment particles than lighter microplastics do.36 pore size of the filters (1.6 to 2 μm).21,66
These differences are important because they can affect degra- The size ranges of the collected microplastics varied widely
dation rates, surface characteristics, and shapes of microplastic among the reviewed studies. Forty-seven studies reported
particles. values for minimum and maximum sizes of microplastics; 16 of
Size Fractions. The term “microplastics” was first used in these studies were related to pellets. Plastic preproduction
the year 2004 and is associated with a classification based on pellets have a reference diameter of 1 to 5 mm15 with a typical
size.21 There is no general consensus about a specific size diameter of 3.5 mm.38 The values obtained by the reviewed
nomenclature, although it has been suggested that microplastics studies were close to these reference values, with a range of 1 to
should be defined as particles <5 mm.9 The studies reviewed 6 mm. Fifteen sediment studies reported the size range for
here identified a wider range of sizes. Although not all studies plastic fragments, with size ranges of 1 μm to 20 mm (Figure 2a).
referred exclusively to ‘microplastics’, they nonetheless The size ranges of microplastics in sea surface samples were
classified micro- and small plastics, generally items <20 mm. reported in 17 studies (Figure 2b). The widest size range from
The minimum size of the collected microplastics directly sea surface studies was from 0.5 to 29 mm.38 Eight studies were
depends on the sampling and processing methods. For consistent with upper size recommendations in Arthur et al.
sediment samples that were sieved, the minimum sizes of (2009)9 and classified the plastic particles with a maximum

Figure 2. Size ranges for microplastics from (a) sediment, (b) sea surface, and (c) water column studies. Only those studies that provided the lower
and upper size limits of microplastics are shown (excluding studies of plastic pellets because here size limits are dictated by pellet sizes).

3065 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075

Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Figure 3. Distribution of plastic particles among size categories. (A) Sediment studies: (a) ref 60, (b) ref 59, (c) ref 33, (d) ref 29, (e) ref 75,
(f) ref 50. (B) Sea surface studies: (a) ref 78, (b) ref 70 (c), ref 37, (d) ref 79, (e) ref 80, (f) ref 65, (g) ref 30. (C) Water column studies: (a) ref 70,
(b) ref 65.

value of 5 mm and a minimum value according to the mesh size sieve cascades during sample processing. The largest propor-
of the nets (ranging from 0.335 to 5 mm).79 tion of plastic fragments was obtained in the size classes of 1 to
Three of the seven water column studies presented size range 5 mm.29,33,75 One study that used an “in situ” sieving step (1 mm)
values. The maximum value reported was 10 mm65 (Figure 2c). and density separation (Figure 1e) also presented size
The minimum value for microplastics in water samples (sea categories. Here, plastic pellets represented 58.3% of all
surface and water column) was 1.6 μm4 although this study did microplastics.50
not mention the maximum value of the collected plastic Seven sea surface studies reported size categories (Figure 3B).
fragments. Studies with a sieving step retained smaller particles than studies
Some of the reviewed studies also distinguished different size that only used visual sorting. Most plastic items identified in these
classes of microplastics (Figure 3). Size categories were given in studies were between 0.25 to 5 mm in diameter,30,37,65,70,78 but
six sediment studies (Figure 3A), mostly in those that used many were also >4.8 mm.79 Only two water column studies
3066 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Figure 4. Categories of particle sizes. (a) Suggested methods-oriented categories of microplastics based on this review: 1 to <500 and 500 μm to 5
mm, (b) size range of microplastics given by the reviewed studies (based on Figure 2), (c) litter,120 (d) debris,5 (e) plankton,121,122 (f) benthos,123
(g) geology.85

distinguished size classes (Figure 3C), based on sieving and visual main size categories of microplastics: (i) < 500 μm (with the
sorting. Most microplastics were found in the size classes 0.5 to lower size limit, which should be stated, being restricted by
1 mm65 and 2.8 to 4.75 mm.70 technological constraints of identification equipment), and (ii)
No minimum size has been defined for microplastics. The 500 μm to 5 mm (Figure 4a). In the future, samples could be
smallest reported size was 1 μm diameter and 20 μm length sieved over a 500 μm mesh, and the fraction passing through
in sediment samples.45 Most studies presented values above the sieve should then be analyzed by density separation and
500 μm for sediment samples and 300 μm for seawater filtering. This would ensure that those studies that use the
samples. This differentiation depended directly on two main density separation and filtration technique to quantify the smaller
factors: the tools used during sampling and the processing size fractions of microplastics (<500 μm) can also be compared
steps. Particles >500 μm are retained in standard sieves and can with other studies that only employ sieves to quantify the large
then be sorted using a dissecting microscope. Particles <500 μm fraction of microplastics (500 μm to 5 mm). Beyond those
were usually only obtained by studies with density separation and fractions it is very likely that there are even smaller fragments that
filtration, and particles <2 μm are unlikely to be sampled are in the range of nanoparticles. Identifying and quantifying
representatively.36 those nanoplastics will require new and innovative methods.1
Microplastics occur in size ranges that are similar to many Morphology and Physical Characterization of Micro-
organisms from benthos and plankton communities. The same plastics. The number of categories used to classify micro-
applies to geological sediment categories, which are mobilized plastics depends on the criteria of the respective authors, which
in similar ways as microplastics. Size ranges of microplastics can can vary widely. Fifty-four of the 68 reviewed studies offered
be related to the geological categories of silt and sand,85 micro-, morphological descriptions of microplastics, referring to origin,
meio-, and macrofauna for benthos, and micro- and macro- type, shape, color, and/or degradation stage of the particles
plankton (Figure 4). Due to these overlaps, microplastics are (Table 6). Eighteen of these studies corresponded exclusively
frequently obtained in studies targeting specific benthos or to studies on plastic pellets. The variation in sizes, shapes,
plankton size categories.37,79 The strong overlap between and colors of microplastics is of particular concern since they
important size categories of benthic and planktonic organisms could easily be mistaken for food by marine organisms and
also highlights the potential for microplastic ingestion by a wide seabirds.21,22,86
variety of organisms. Sources and Types of Microplastics. Sources of plastic
Based on the preceding comparison and on presently pellets were mainly associated to plastic-processing plants close
employed methods to quantify microplastics in the environ- to study sites.76,87 However, plastic pellets have also been found
ment, it may be useful methodologically to distinguish two on urban beaches distant from potential sources, implying
3067 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Figure 5. (A) Frequency of microplastics of different specific densities found (a) at the sea surface and (b) in beach sediments. Broken vertical line
indicates the specific density of seawater and bold horizontal lines show the specific densities of particular polymers (based on ref 80); PP:
Polypropylene, HDPE: High density polyethylene, LDPE: Low density polyethylene, PS: Polystyrene, PVC: Polyvinyl chloride, PET: Polyethylene
terephthalate. Reprinted from Morét-Ferguson et al. The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 1873−1878 (ref 80), with permission from Elsevier. (B) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) spectra of some
common plastic polymers. Spectra obtained from Bruker Optics ATR-Polymer Library, A Collection of Synthetic Fibres, Copyright 2004 Bruker
Optic GmbH.

long-distance marine transport.33 Some properties of plastic sea or the recent break-up of larger pieces, while smooth edges
pellets may change during residence at sea. For example, the are often associated with older fragments that have been con-
specific density of pellets decreased during prolonged exposure tinuously polished by other particles or sediment.27,65
to the marine environment, from 0.85 to 0.81 g cm−3 for high Circularity varied inversely with particle size. Larger particles
density polyethylene (HDPE) and from 1.41 to 1.24 g cm−3 for had more elongate shapes and/or irregular surfaces, while
polystyrene (PS).80 Buoyancy and density of plastics may progressively smaller particles were consistently more circular.38
change during their residence at sea due to weathering and bio- Likely, particles continue to fragment and degrade to ever
fouling.80,88 This can be seen in the fact that the specific densities smaller particles over time.1,65
of many pelagic microplastics do not coincide with that of primary Degradation and erosion of the particle surface are caused by
polymers (Figure 5). In the open ocean microplastics with high biological breakdown, photodegradation, chemical weathering,
specific density (negative buoyancy) will quickly sink and are thus or physical forces (wave action, wind, sand-blasting).1 This can
absent from neuston samples (Figure 5). cause visible cracks on the plastic surface, producing a wide
Fragments from plastic consumer products were of variable variety of different particle shapes.78 Scanning electron
types and diverse origins. These particles have been described microscopy revealed that angular and subangular particles
as “embrittled and weathered, irregularly shaped and sized featured conchoidal fractures, while rounded particles had
degradational chunks of plastic”,51 with sharp, broken edges.78 linear fractures and adhering particles.40 Numerous surface
The origin of these fragments can be fishing nets, line fibers scratches on predominantly eroded angular plastic fragments
(polypropylene strands), thin plastic films, industrial raw (<1 cm2) may be caused by continuous particle−particle
material (e.g., from ship breaking industry), pellets or polymer collision.42 Pellets that presented a degree of weathering have
fragments of oxo-biodegradable plastic.65,70,74,89 Other partic- been termed eroded or weathered plastic pellets.76,90,91 Many of
ular sources of microplastics are facial cleansers7 and small the plastic pellets found in a study on New Zealand beaches
polyethylene microplastics or polyester fibers of low density were fresh but some showed degradation and embrittlement.51
which escape from treatment screens at wastewater plants and Surface abrasion is also caused by physical degradation and
eventually arrive in the ocean.8 oxidative aging of plastic particles in response to ultraviolet and
Shape and Erosion of Microplastics. Microplastics vary in infrared components from solar radiation.1,73 Plastic fragments
shape from irregular to spherical and long-thin fibers. Plastic found in scats of fur seals Arctocephalus spp. also had clear
pellets can have tablet-like, oblong, cylindrical, spherical, and abrasion marks, presumably generated either in the digestive
disk shapes, mostly spherical to ovoid with rounded ends.52 tract of the seals or during physical breakdown on nearby
Most fragments found in subtidal and estuarine sediments were cobble beaches.92
fibers.8,21,36 The shape of plastic fragments depends on the frag- The surface texture of microplastics may affect the con-
mentation process as well as residence time in the environment. centrations of sorbed chemicals. Pollutant sorption to plastic
Sharp edges might indicate either recent introduction into the pellets increases with the surface area as a result of weathering,
3068 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Table 8. Various Quantitative Units Used in the Reviewed of an unknown plastic sample with spectra of known polymers
Studiesa (Figure 5B). The different types of spectroscopy applied for
microplastics identification were infrared spectrophotometer,51
N = 22 N = 21 sea N = 5 water
results units sediment surface column Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR),21,45,74 and
near-infrared spectrometer.46 A range of common polymers like
Abundance (N = 39)
PP, PE, and polyester can be identified by these techniques.8
items per m2 13 13 -
items per m3 5 6 5
Another chemical analysis is the Raman spectroscopy23 which
items per m strandline 3 - -
also gives information about the crystalline structure of the
items per kg sediment 1 - -
polymer.95 Also, a differential scanning calorimeter was used in
Mass (N = 13)
one study,96 where temperature is applied simultaneously to an
grams per m2 2 6 -
unknown sample and a reference material.
grams per m3 - 2 1
Characteristic smoke during combustion and solvent assays
grams per gram 3 - -
have also been used to determine the polymers that micro-
sediment plastics are made of.27,51,73,97 Synthetic polymers can also be
a
N = 43 studies; note that the number of studies with the respective identified using the specific density of the particles (see also
units exceeds the total number of studies. Figure 5A) and to a lesser extent other characteristics such as
color. The density-based identification method has been
which enhances the sorbate’s effective diffusivity.15 Although applied in two studies,80,98 in which a sample is placed in
plastics undergo various physical and chemical changes as they distilled water and ethanol or concentrated solutions of calcium
age, no method exists at present that allows for determining or strontium chloride are titrated until the plastic piece is neutrally
how long the particles have been in the marine environment buoyant.
(unless they have characteristics that can be traced to a specific The use of certain characteristics, such as specific density and
point source such as a ship or container wreck). However, this color, seem useful methods for rapid and economic polymer
information would be invaluable to estimate drift trajectories of identification of plastic pellets, because those characteristics
floating microplastics and, thus, potential source regions. have been described for virgin pellets.80,93 Nonetheless, for
Color of Microplastics. The colors of microplastics were plastic fragments this method cannot be applied, because their
characterized in 24 of the 68 reviewed studies, revealing a shape (an indicator for recent fragmentation or prolonged
diverse range of colors (Table 6). The most common colors persistence and erosion along the edges) and color are more
found were white or related (e.g., discolored yellow, clear- variable and are unlikely associated with a specific polymer
white-cream). Color can facilitate separation in situations where type. Microparticles of unknown origin might also be
microplastics are scattered among large quantities of other erroneously characterized as microplastics, a problem that
debris. Particles with eye-catching colors have a high probability increases considerably with decreasing particle size. For that
of being isolated for subsequent identification as microplastics, reason, the use of spectroscopy (FT-IR spectroscopy, near-
while those with dull colors are easily overlooked, thus potentially infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy) is strongly re-
introducing bias. commended for small plastic fragments, because it can
Colors have been used for a preliminary identification of the determine the chemical composition of unknown plastic
chemical composition of the most common pellets.52 Clear and fragments with high reliability. This step is critical since up to
transparent plastic pellets have been ascribed to polypropylene 70% of particles that visually resemble microplastics are not
(PP), and white plastic pellets to polyethylene (PE),58 but for confirmed as plastics by FT-IR spectroscopy (R. C. Thompson,
conclusive identification further analyses are required (see personal communication). Alternative spectroscopic techni-
below). Low density PE has opaque colors, while ethyl vinyl ques, like attenuated total reflectance (ATR) FT-IR spectros-
acetate corresponds to clear and almost transparent pellets.93 copy, could also facilitate the identification of irregularly shaped
Color has also been used as an index of photodegradation and microplastics that cannot be identified by FT-IR spectrosco-
residence time at the sea surface17,94 and the degree of tarring py,83 but the main disadvantage is the high cost of this
or weathering.55 It has been suggested that discolored PE instrument.95
pellets may contain higher amounts of PCBs than non-
discolored pellets, because the discoloration process (yellowing)
is indicative of longer exposure time to seawater, which enhances
■ QUANTIFICATION OF MICROPLASTICS
Quantitative data were reported in 60 of the 68 reviewed
the chances of the polymers becoming oxidized.43 Black and aged studies, which (i) examined the spatial and temporal dis-
pellets, essentially those composed of polystyrene (PS) and PP, tribution of microplastics, (ii) analyzed methodological aspects,
presented the highest diversity of adsorbed pollutants for both (iii) quantified organic pollutants and metals, and (iv)
PAHs and PCBs.45 determined rates of accumulation of microplastics on beaches.
Identifying the Chemical Composition of Micro- Mass and abundance of microplastics was determined in 13 and
plastics. Plastics are synthetic polymers made from a wide 39 studies, respectively (Table 8). For sediment samples the
range of chemical compounds with different characteristics most commonly used units for mass were “grams of micro-
each. Forty-two of the reviewed studies described the chemical plastics per m2” and for abundance “microplastic items per m2”
composition of microplastics, although not all of them con- (or items cm−2). For sea surface samples, “grams per m2” and
ducted rigorous chemical analyses. The most common polymers “items per m2” were the most commonly used values for mass
identified in the reviewed studies were PE, PP, and polystyrene and abundance, respectively, although a considerable number of
(Table 7), which is commonly used for packaging.36 studies also reported “items per volume” (items m−3). Only one
Several methods have been employed to identify microplastic study for water column samples quantified mass values in
polymers. Identification based on infrared (IR) spectroscopy “milligrams per m3”, while abundance was mostly reported as
was used in 28 studies. This method compares the IR spectrum “items per m3”. The value of “pieces per day”, the plastic
3069 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

Figure 6. (a) Comparison of microplastic abundance in sediment, sea surface, and water column environments. The units are expressed on a
logarithmic scale for items m−2 (left axis, diamonds) and items m−3 (right axis, squares and triangles). Values for subtidal sediments are highlighted
by gray triangles. Note that values were scaled up for sediment samples (areas or volumes of replicates generally comprise 10−100 cm2 or 10−100
cm3, respectively), while values for seawater samples were scaled down (replicates generally sample areas/volumes 10−1000 m2 or 10−100 m3,
respectively). Overlapping dots were separated to show all data points. (b) Relationship between the mesh size of the nets and abundance
(logarithmic scale) of microplastics in sea surface samples as items per m2. (c) Relationship between the mesh size of the nets and abundance
(logarithmic scale) of microplastics in sea surface (gray diamonds) and water column (black squares) samples as items per m3. Line shows significant
relationship (p < 0.05) for sea surface samples. Each data point represents one study; if several values were provided for a particular study, we
calculated the mean value.

replenishment rate on Hawaiian beaches, was estimated by one reported abundances of ∼5 synthetic fibers 50 mL−1 sediment,21
study.42 ∼0.8 synthetic fibers 50 mL−1 sediment,8 and 97 particles kg−1
Values for abundances ranged from 0.21 to more than 77,000 dry sediment,57 which scales up to ∼115,000, ∼18,000, and
items m−2 in sediment samples.52,72 These values are ∼125,000 items m−3, respectively (Figure 6a).
substantially higher than those from sea surface samples, The fact that seawater samples correspond to volume-
which ranged from 8 × 10−5 to 5 items m−2,76,99 i.e. there were reduced samples taken with nets might explain the lower
several orders of magnitude difference between the two abundances of microplastics in these environments, compared
environments (Figure 6a). Abundance values per volume to sediments (Figure 6a). Abundances of microplastics are
ranged from 0.022 to 8,654 items m−3 at the sea surface38,66 likely directly related to the mesh size of the net. A possible loss
and from 0.014 to 12.51 items m−3 in the water column.65,81 of particles <1 mm passing through a mesh size of 0.95 mm has
Also in this case, sediment samples contained substantially higher been suggested to impede the comparison with other studies
amounts of microplastics, ranging from 185 to 80,000 items that used a net with smaller mesh size.87 The retention
m−3.36,59 The three studies that obtained subtidal sediments efficiency differs substantially between an 80 μm mesh and a
3070 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

450 μm mesh, with an up to 100,000 times higher concen- samples are taken in a standardized manner in a specific surface
tration of small plastic fibers in the former.66 area and from a specified depth layer, per-area data (items m−2)
When comparing among the reviewed studies, there was can be easily converted to per-volume data (items m−3) and
indeed a tendency of a negative exponential relationship between both should be reported.
mesh size and abundance for sea surface samples measured as Also, the classification of microplastics is important for
items per m3 (p = 0.024) but not for sea surface measured as determining abundances and source pathways. Fragments from
items per m2 (p = 0.54) or water column samples (p = 0.35) plastic products were often numerically dominant, followed by
measured as items per m3 (Figure 6b,c). The lack of a correlation plastic pellets28,36,37,65,78,80 and styrofoam as the second most
for some of the examined relationships is probably due to abundant material.30 This suggests that at present most
fundamental variations in microplastic abundances between the microplastics originate from secondary rather than primary
locations where samples were taken, e.g. the open ocean in the sources.38,78,80 While plastic pellets were very abundant
South Atlantic98 or coastal waters near Cape Province, South between the 1970s and 1990s,51,73 their proportions seem to
Africa.28 Most likely, abundances of microplastics also depend on have decreased in recent years,25 possibly due to better practices
distances from sources and human population centers, similar as during pellet transport. Reference collections have proven to be of
reported for macroplastics.100,101 Furthermore, ocean currents can extraordinary importance in order to analyze short- and long-term
play an important role in transporting and accumulating micro- temporal trends.21,38,39
plastics on the shore or in oceanic gyres.28,36,102 A solid analysis of long-term trends requires standardized
The variable units in which abundance and mass of procedures in sampling and sample processing. This review on
microplastics are reported become problematic when different methods applied in research on microplastics in the marine
studies are compared, even though units can be transformed in environment indicates the importance of standardized
some cases. The choice of a specific unit to quantify micro- procedures that will maximize comparability of past and future
plastics is a very relevant topic. We suggest the use of con- investigations in pelagic and sedimentary marine environments
vertible units whenever possible. For example, if sediment (Figure 7). All of these procedures include sieving of bulk or

Figure 7. Suggested sampling schemes for different types of samples to achieve maximum comparability among results from past and future sampling
programs on marine microplastics. All samples should be sieved over a standard mesh, ideally of 500 μm, or alternatively 1000 μm. The material
retained in the sieve should then be identified by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR). Sieved sediment samples should then be
processed by the density separation and followed by the filtration over a fine filter of about 1 μm. Bulk water samples can be filtered directly after
sieving. Samples taken with nets (sea surface or water column) should also be sieved over a 500 μm mesh; microplastics can then directly be sorted
from the sieve and separately from the sieved water.

3071 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075

Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

volume-reduced samples to cover the full size range of marine

microplastics adequately and an obligate visual sorting step.
Whenever possible, a stratified sampling strategy should be
applied for sediment samples (seafloor, beaches) to determine
the dynamics of microplastics within marine sediments.

■ OUTLOOK
The observed differences between types and amounts of
microplastics in the main marine habitat compartments (shore
sediments, sea surface, water column, and seafloor) indicate
that import, export, and residence times of microplastics may
vary depending on their characteristics, mostly size and the
specific density of the polymers.
Microplastics of low specific density are positively buoyant
and thus likely spend a long time at the sea surface (or in the
water column), where they can potentially be transported over
long distances. They can thus be found in remote places, e.g. on Figure 8. Schematic figure indicating standing stocks in different
sandy beaches, distant from their sources (Figure 8). However, habitat compartments and flux pathways of (a) positively buoyant and
particles with low specific density have also been found in (b) negatively buoyant microplastics in the marine environment: sandy
subtidal sediments.8,21,57 CHN elemental analysis revealed beaches, subtidal sediments, sea surface, water column, and ocean
relatively high contents of nitrogen (N) on microplastics, which floor. Curved black arrows indicate the inputs of microplastics into the
suggested abundant epibiont overgrowth, because N is not a environment, straight black arrows show the fluxes between different
habitat compartments, bold borders around larger boxes highlight the
component of synthetic polymers.80 Overgrowth by micro- and most likely compartments for accumulation of microplastics (tiny
macro-organisms causes an increase in specific density and thus dots).
contributes to a loss in buoyancy and sinking of micro-
plastics86,103 (Figure 8a). In contrast, erosion may lead to Smaller plastic pieces are likely to mix with food items49 and
decreases in specific density, thereby enhancing buoyancy.80 hence organisms may transport them into other (including
Biofouling and erosion thus cause changes in specific density, nonmarine) compartments.92 Seabirds selectively feed on
affecting exchange processes between different compartments. plastics from the sea surface,99,111 which can be deposited in
Due to complex interactions between fouling, erosion, and
terrestrial habitats by regurgitation, defecation, or decom-
surface-volume ratios of particles, it can be hypothesized that
position after death.112 The types of plastics most commonly
temporal changes in buoyancy of microplastics depend on
particle sizes. More research is needed to understand the ingested by seabirds are plastic pellets and user plastics, such as
interaction between epibionts and microplastics and their fragments and monofilament lines.13,113−116 For these reasons
effects on particle buoyancy.104 seabirds have been used as indicators of changes in the amount
While positively buoyant microplastics are widely dispersed and composition of plastic debris in certain regions.25,114,117
across the world’s oceans, microplastics of high specific density Stomachs of different seabird species contained plastic particles
are negatively buoyant and thus sink more rapidly to the mostly between 2 and 8 mm.118,119 Thus, stomach contents can
seafloor; consequently they are expected to accumulate in subtidal only be used to monitor particles in this size range; other
sediments near their sources (Figure 8b). Interestingly, micro- organisms such as invertebrate suspension- and deposit-feeders
plastics appear to be rare in deep sea sediment traps,39 but more may provide opportunities to sample smaller pieces of debris.
deep sea studies are needed as macroplastic debris is now Considering that microplastics cannot be effectively removed
relatively common in these habitats.5 from the ocean, future studies are necessary to understand how
The transfer of microplastics between compartments (shore, biological agents (such as epibionts or seabirds) and abiotic
sea surface, water column, seafloor) is likely to vary, and there factors (UV radiation, wave action, currents) affect the transfer,
are particular areas where these particles have been shown to accumulation, and further breakdown of microplastics and to
accumulate: on the shores,75 on the seafloor,105,106 and in the describe the potential impacts of this debris. More work is also
oceanic gyres.37,107,108 Given the lack of samples from subtidal needed to identify and reduce/eliminate the sources of
and deep sea sediments, future studies should examine these microplastics in the environment. Hopefully, this review will
marine environments. Also rocky shore samples are markedly
contribute toward establishing standardized sampling programs
absent from studies on microplastics. This is surprising because
and hence to a more comprehensive understanding of the
exposed rocky shores should enhance fragmentation of macro-
plastics that are battered against rocks and subsequently ground sources, sinks, and fluxes of microplastics in the marine
down further by large moving boulders.92,109 Due to the high environment.
hydrodynamic energy, it is likely that rocky shores export
ground-up microplastics. In contrast, salt marshes with low hydro-
dynamic energy probably are retention systems for microplastics
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
(e.g., particle retention in salt marshes).110 Quantitative sampling
*Phone: + 56 51 209939. Fax: + 56 51 209812. E-mail: thiel@
on complex rocky shores and in salt marshes is challenging
ucn.cl.
but given the above considerations, it appears important to
estimate plastic fragmentation, transfer, and accumulation in these Notes
habitats. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
3072 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075
Environmental Science & Technology

■
Critical Review

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS data on PCBs, DDTs, and HCHs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 1437−
1446.
We are very grateful to four anonymous reviewers who provided (18) Ashton, K.; Holmes, L.; Turner, A. Association of metals with
many constructive comments that helped to improve this plastic production pellets in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
manuscript. Lucas Eastman kindly read the final version of the 2010, 60, 2050−2055.
manuscript. R.C.T. was supported by DEFRA contract (19) Teuten, E. L.; Saquing, J. M.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Barlaz, M. A.;
ME5416, Leverhulme Trust grant F/00/568/C, and NERC Jonsson, S.; Björn, A.; Rowland, S. J.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway,
Grant NE/C000994/1. T. S.; Yamashita, R.; Ochi, D.; Watanuki, Y.; Moore, C.; Viet, P. H.;

■ REFERENCES
(1) Andrady, A. L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar.
Tana, T. S.; Prudente, M.; Boonyatumanond, R.; Zakaria, M. P.;
Akkhavong, K.; Ogata, Y.; Hirai, H.; Iwasa, S.; Mizukawa, K.; Hagino,
Y.; Imamura, A.; Saha, M.; Takada, H. Transport and release of
chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos.
Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596−1605.
Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364, 2027−2045.
(2) Derraik, J. G. B. The pollution of the marine environment by
(20) Carpenter, E. J.; Anderson, S. J.; Harvey, G. R.; Miklas, H. P.;
plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 842−852.
Peck, B. B. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 1972, 17,
(3) Moore, C. J. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a
rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 2008, 108, 131−139. 749−750.
(4) Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, S. C. (21) Thompson, R. C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R. P.; Davis, A.; Rowland,
Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. S. J.; John, A. W. G.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A. E. Lost at sea: where is
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 62, 2588−2597. all the plastic? Science 2004, 304, 838.
(5) Barnes, D. K. A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R. C.; Barlaz, M. (22) Browne, M. A.; Dissanayake, A.; Galloway, T. S.; Lowe, D. M.;
Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environ- Thompson, R. C. Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the
ments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364, 1985−1998. circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ. Sci.
(6) Gregory, M. R. Plastic ‘scrubbers’ in hand cleansers: a further Technol. 2008, 42, 5026−5031.
(and minor) source for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (23) Murray, F.; Cowie, P. R. Plastic contamination in the decapod
1996, 32, 867−871. crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(7) Fendall, L. S.; Sewell, M. A. Contributing to marine pollution by 2011, 62, 1207−1217.
washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (24) Davison, P.; Asch, R. G. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes
2009, 58, 1225−1228. in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Ecol.: Prog. Ser. 2011, 432,
(8) Browne, M. A.; Crump, P.; Niven, S. J.; Teuten, E. L.; Tonkin, A.; 173−180.
Galloway, T.; Thompson, R. C. Accumulations of microplastic on (25) Ryan, P. G.; Moore, C. J.; Van Franeker, J. A.; Moloney, C. L.
shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment.
45, 9175−9179. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364, 1999−2012.
(9) Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the (26) Galgani, F.; Fleet, D.; Van Franeker, J.; Katsanevakis, S.; Maes,
Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Sept 9−11, T.; Oosterbaan, L.; Poitou, I.; Hanke, G.; Thompson, R.; Amato, E.;
2008. Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., Eds.; NOAA Technical Janssen, C. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Task group 10 report
Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30, 2009. Marine Litter; European Commission Joint Research Center: 2010.
(10) Roy, P. K.; Hakkarainen, M.; Varma, I. K.; Albertsson, A. C. (27) Carpenter, E. J.; Smith, K. L. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea
Degradable polyethylene: fantasy or reality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, surface. Science 1972, 175, 1240−1241.
45, 4217−4227. (28) Ryan, P. G. The characteristics and distribution of plastic
(11) Hopewell, J.; Dvorak, R.; Kosior, E. Plastics recycling: challenges particles at the sea-surface off the southwestern Cape Province, South
and opportunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364, 2115−26. Africa. Mar. Environ. Res. 1988, 25, 249−273.
(12) Rios, L. M.; Jones, P. R.; Moore, C.; Narayan, U. V. (29) McDermid, K. J.; McMullen, T. L. Quantitative analysis of
Quantitation of persistent organic pollutants adsorbed on plastic small-plastic debris on beaches in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Mar.
debris from the Northern Pacific Gyre’s “eastern garbage patch”. Pollut. Bull. 2004, 48, 790−794.
J. Environ. Monit. 2010, 12, 2226−2236. (30) Yamashita, R.; Tanimura, A. Floating plastic in the Kuroshio
(13) Laist, D. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life Current area, western North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 54,
in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with 485−488.
entanglement and ingestion records. In Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, (31) Van Dolah, R. F.; Burrel, V. G.; West, S. B. The distribution of
and Solutions; Coe, J., Rogers, D., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: New York, pelagic tar and plastics in the South Atlantic Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
1997; pp 99−140. 1980, 352−356.
(14) Gouin, T.; Roche, N.; Lohmann, R.; Hodges, G. A (32) Ng, K. L.; Obbard, J. P. Prevalence of microplastics in
thermodynamic approach for assessing the environmental exposure Singapore’s coastal marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006, 52,
of chemicals absorbed to microplastic. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 761−767.
1466−1472. (33) Costa, M. F.; Ivar do Sul, J. A.; Silva-Cavalcanti, J. S.; Araújo,
(15) Mato, Y.; Isobe, T.; Takada, H.; Kanehiro, H.; Ohtake, C.; M. C. B.; Spengler, A.; Tourinho, P. S. On the importance of size of
Kaminuma, T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic plastic fragments and pellets on the strandline: a snapshot of a
chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, Brazilian beach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 168, 299−304.
318−324. (34) Ogi, H.; Baba, N.; Ishihata, S.; Shibata, Y. Sampling of plastic
(16) Rios, L. M.; Moore, C.; Jones, P. R. Persistent organic pollutants pellets by two types of neuston net and plastic pollution in the sea.
carried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. Fac. Fish. Hokkaido Univ. 1999, 50, 77−91.
Bull. 2007, 54, 1230−1237. (35) Ogi, H.; Fukumoto, Y. A sorting method for small plastic debris
(17) Ogata, Y.; Takada, H.; Mizukawa, K.; Hirai, H.; Iwasa, S.; Endo, floating on the sea surface and stranded on sandy beaches. Bull. Fac.
S.; Mato, Y.; Saha, M.; Okuda, K.; Nakashima, A.; Murakami, M.; Fish., Hokkaido Univ. 2000, 51, 71−93.
Zurcher, N.; Booyatumanondo, R.; Zakaria, M. P.; Dung, L. Q.; (36) Browne, M. A.; Galloway, T. S.; Thompson, R. C. Spatial
Gordon, M.; Miguez, C.; Suzuki, S.; Moore, C.; Karapanagioti, H. K.; patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci.
Weerts, S.; McClurg, T.; Burres, E.; Smith, W.; Van Velkenburg, M.; Technol. 2010, 44, 3404−3409.
Lang, J. S.; Lang, R. C.; Laursen, D.; Danner, B.; Stewardson, N.; (37) Moore, C. J.; Moore, S. L.; Leecaster, M. K.; Weisberg, S. B. A
Thompson, R. C. International Pellet Watch: global monitoring of Comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre.
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in coastal waters. 1. Initial phase Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2001, 42, 1297−1300.

3073 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075

Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

(38) Gilfillan, L. R.; Ohman, M. D.; Doyle, M. J.; Watson, W. (59) Martins, J.; Sobral, P. Plastic marine debris on the Portuguese
Occurrence of plastic micro-debris in the Southern California Current coastline: A matter of size? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2649−2653.
System. CalCOFI Rep. 2009, 50, 123−133. (60) Carson, H. S.; Colbert, S. L.; Kaylor, M. J.; McDermid, K. J.
(39) Law, K. L.; Morét -Ferguson, S.; Maximenko, N. A.; Small plastic debris changes water movement and heat transfer
Proskurowski, G.; Peacock, E. E.; Hafner, J.; Reddy, C. M. Plastic through beach sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1708−1713.
accumulation in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Science 2010, 329, (61) Rusch, A.; Huettel, M.; Forster, S. Particulate organic matter in
1185−1188. permeable marine sands - dynamics in time and depth. Estuarine,
(40) Corcoran, P. L.; Biesinger, M. C.; Grifi, M. Plastics and beaches: Coastal Shelf Sci. 2000, 51, 399−414.
a degrading relationship. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 80−84. (62) Huettel, M.; Rusch, A. Transport and degradation of
(41) Biesinger, M. C.; Corcoran, P. L.; Walzak, M. J. Developing phytoplankton in permeable sediment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2000, 45,
ToF-SIMS methods for investigating the degradation of plastic debris 534−549.
on beaches. Surf. Interface Anal. 2011, 43, 443−445. (63) Galil, B. S.; Golik, A.; Türkay, M. Litter at the bottom of the sea:
(42) Cooper, D. A; Corcoran, P. L. Effects of mechanical and a sea bed survey in the Eastern Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1995,
chemical processes on the degradation of plastic beach debris on the 30, 22−24.
island of Kauai, Hawaii. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 650−654. (64) Kanehiro, H.; Tokai, T.; Matuda, K. Marine litter composition
(43) Endo, S.; Takizawa, R.; Okuda, K.; Takada, H.; Chiba, K.; and distribution on the seabed of Tokyo Bay. Fish. Eng. 1995, 31,
Kanehiro, H.; Ogi, H.; Yamashita, R.; Date, T. Concentration of 195−199.
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in beached resin pellets: variability (65) Doyle, M. J.; Watson, W.; Bowlin, N. M.; Sheavly, S. B. Plastic
among individual particles and regional differences. Mar. Pollut. Bull. particles in coastal pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific ocean.
2005, 50, 1103−1114. Mar. Environ. Res. 2011, 71, 41−52.
(44) Karapanagioti, H. K.; Klontza, I. Testing phenanthrene (66) Norén, F. Small plastic particles in Coastal Swedish waters. KIMO
distribution properties of virgin plastic pellets and plastic eroded report; 2007.
pellets found on Lesvos island beaches (Greece). Mar. Environ. Res. (67) Harvey, G. W.; Burzell, L. A. A simple microlayer method for
2008, 65, 283−290. small samples. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1972, 17, 156−157.
(45) Frias, J. P. G. L.; Sobral, P.; Ferreira, A. M. Organic pollutants in (68) Carlson, D. J.; Cullen, J. L.; Cantey, J. J. Description of and
microplastics from two beaches of the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. results from a new surface microlayer sampling device. Deep-Sea Res.,
Bull. 2010, 60, 1988−1992. Part A 1988, 35, 1205−1213.
(46) Hirai, H.; Takada, H.; Ogata, Y.; Yamashita, R.; Mizukawa, K.; (69) Wurl, O.; Obbard, J. P. Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs in the
Saha, M.; Kwan, C.; Moore, C.; Gray, H.; Laursen, D.; Zettler, E. R.; sea-surface microlayer and seawater samples of Singapore. Mar. Pollut.
Farrington, J. W.; Reddy, C. M.; Peacock, E. E.; Ward, M. W. Organic Bull. 2005, 50, 1233−1243.
micropollutants in marine plastics debris from the open ocean and (70) Lattin, G. L.; Moore, C. J.; Zellers, A. F.; Moore, S. L.; Weisberg,
remote and urban beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1683−1692. S. B. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different
(47) Graham, E.; Thompson, J. Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea depths near the southern California shore. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004, 49,
cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 291−294.
Ecol. 2009, 368, 22−29. (71) Ye, S.; Andrady, A. L. Fouling of floating plastic debris under
(48) Aloy, A. B.; Vallejo, B. M. Jr.; Juinio-Meñez, M. A. Increased Biscayne Bay exposure conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1991, 22, 608−
plastic litter cover affects the foraging activity of the sandy intertidal 613.
gastropod Nassarius pullus. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1772−1779. (72) Kusui, T.; Noda, M. International survey on the distribution of
(49) Boerger, C. M.; Lattin, G. L.; Moore, S. L.; Moore, C. J. Plastic stranded and buried litter on beaches along the Sea of Japan. Mar.
ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Pollut. Bull. 2003, 47, 175−179.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 2275−2278. (73) Gregory, M. R. Virgin plastic granules on some beaches of
(50) Zurcher, N. Small plastic debris on beaches in Hong Kong: an Eastern Canada and Bermuda. Mar. Environ. Res. 1983, 10, 73−92.
initial investigation. Thesis for the degree of Master of Science in (74) Reddy, M. S.; Basha, S.; Adimurthy, S.; Ramachandraiah, G.
Environmental Management, University of Hong Kong, 2009. Description of the small plastics fragments in marine sediments along
(51) Gregory, M. R. Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic the Alang-Sosiya ship-breaking yard, India. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci.
granules on New Zealand beaches. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 1978, 2006, 68, 656−660.
12, 399−414. (75) Ivar do Sul, J. A.; Spengler, A.; Costa, M. F. Here, there and
(52) Abu-Hilal, A. H.; Al-Najjar, T. H. Plastic pellets on the beaches everywhere. Small plastic fragments and pellets on beaches of
of the northern Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage. Fernando de Noronha (Equatorial Western Atlantic). Mar. Pollut.
2009, 12, 461−470. Bull. 2009, 58, 1236−1238.
(53) Van, A.; Rochman, C. M.; Flores, E. M.; Hill, K. L.; Vargas, E.; (76) Kuriyama, Y.; Konishi, K.; Kanehiro, H.; Otake, C.; Kanimura,
Vargas, S. A.; Hoh, E. Persistent organic pollutants in plastic marine T.; Mato, Y.; Takada, H.; Kojima, A. Plastic pellets in the marine
debris found on beaches in San Diego, California. Chemosphere 2012, environment of Tokyo Bay and Saganli Bay. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi
86, 258−263. 2002, 68, 164−171.
(54) Shiber, J. G. Plastic pellets on Spain’s “Costa del Sol” beaches. (77) Redford, D. P.; Trulli, W. R.; Trulli, H. K. Composition of
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1982, 13, 409−412. floating debris in harbours of the United States. Chem. Ecol. 1992, 7,
(55) Turner, A.; Holmes, L. Occurrence, distribution and character- 75−92.
istics of beached plastic production pellets on the island of Malta (78) Shaw, D. G.; Day, R. H. Colour- and form-dependent loss of
(central Mediterranean). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 377−381. plastic micro-debris from the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(56) Velander, K.; Mocogni, M. Beach litter sampling strategies: is 1994, 28, 39−43.
there a “best” method? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1999, 38, 1134−1140. (79) Moore, C. J.; Moore, S. L.; Weisberg, S. B.; Lattin, G. L.; Zellers,
(57) Claessens, M.; Meester, S. D.; Landuyt, L. V.; Clerck, K. D.; A. F. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in
Janssen, C. R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine southern California’s coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 1035−
sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2199− 1038.
2204. (80) Morét-Ferguson, S.; Law, K. L.; Proskurowski, G.; Murphy,
(58) Ismail, A.; Adilah, N. M. B.; Nurulhudha, M. J. Plastic pellets E. K.; Peacock, E. E.; Reddy, C. M. The size, mass, and composition of
along Kuala Selangor-Sepang coastline. Malays. Appl. Biol. 2009, 38, plastic debris in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
85−88. 2010, 60, 1873−1878.

3074 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075

Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

(81) Morris, A. W.; Hamilton, E. I. Polystyrene spherules in the (105) Spengler, A.; Costa, M. F. Methods applied in studies of
Bristol Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1974, 5, 26−27. benthic marine debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2008, 56, 226−230.
(82) Colton, J. B.; Burns, B. R.; Knapp, F. D. Plastic particles in (106) Miyake, H.; Shibata, H.; Furushima, Y. Deep-sea litter study
surface waters of the northwestern Atlantic. Science 1974, 185, 491− using deep-sea observation tools. In Interdisciplinary Studies on
497. Environmental Chemistry - Marine Environmental Modeling & Analysis;
(83) Harrison, J. P.; Ojeda, J. J.; Romero-Gonzales, M. E. The Omori, K., Guo, X., Yoshie, N., Fujii, N., Handoh, I. C., Isobe, A.,
applicability of reflectance micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectros- Tanabe, S., Eds.; TERRAPUB: Tokyo, 2011; pp 261−269.
copy for the detection of synthetic microplastics in marine sediments. (107) Martinez, E.; Maamaatuaiahutapu, K.; Taillandier, V. Floating
Sci. Total Environ. 2012, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.078. marine debris surface drift: convergence and accumulation toward the
(84) Fujieda, S.; Sasaki, K. Stranded debris of foamed plastic on the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 1347−1355.
coast of Eta island and Kurahashi island in Hiroshima Bay. Nippon (108) Leichter, J. J. Investigating the accumulation of plastic debris in
Suisan Gakkaishi 2005, 71, 755−761. the North Pacific Gyre. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Environmental
(85) Wentworth, C. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic Chemistry - Marine Environmental Modeling & Analysis; Omori, K.,
sediments. J. Geol. 1922, 30, 377−392. Guo, X., Yoshie, N., Fujii, N., Handoh, I. C., Isobe, A., Tanabe, S., Eds.;
(86) Gregory, M. R. Environmental implications of plastic debris in TERRAPUB: Tokyo, 2011; pp 251−259.
marine settings − entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, (109) Williams, A. T.; Tudor, D. T. Litter burial and exhumation:
hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364, spatial and temporal distribution on a cobble pocket beach. Mar.
2013−2025. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 42, 1031−1039.
(87) Colton, J. B. Plastics in the ocean. Oceanus 1974, 18, 61−64. (110) Mudd, S.; D’Alpaos, A.; Morris, J. How does vegetation affect
(88) Andrady, A. L.; Hamid, S. H.; Hu, X.; Torikai, A. Effects of sedimentation on tidal marshes? Investigating particle capture and
hydrodynamic controls on biologically mediated sedimentation. J.
increased solar ultraviolet radiation on materials. J. Photochem.
Geophys. Res. 2010, 115, F03029 DOI: 10.1029/2009JF001566.
Photobiol., B 1998, 46, 96−103.
(111) Moser, M. L.; Lee, D. S. A fourteen-year survey of plastic
(89) O’Brine, T.; Thompson, R. C. Degradation of plastic carrier
ingestion by Western North Atlantic seabirds. Colonial Waterbirds
bags in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 2279−
1992, 15, 83−94.
2283. (112) Ryan, P. G. Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of
(90) Khordagui, H. K.; Abu-Hilal, A. H. Industrial plastic on the plastic litter in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Oceans. Mar.
southern beaches of the Arabian Gulf and the western beaches of the Pollut. Bull. 2008, 56, 1406−1409.
Gulf of Oman. Environ. Pollut. 1994, 84, 325−327. (113) Day, R. H.; Wehle, D. H. S.; Coleman, F. C. Ingestion of
(91) Karapanagioti, H. K.; Endo, S.; Ogata, Y.; Takada, H. Diffuse plastic pollutants by marine birds. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the
pollution by persistent organic pollutants as measured in plastic pellets Fate and Impact of Marine Debris; US Department of Commerce:
sampled from various beaches in Greece. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54, 1985; pp
312−317. 344−386.
(92) Eriksson, C.; Burton, H. Origins and biological accumulation of (114) Van Franeker, J. A.; Blaize, C.; Danielsen, J.; Fairclough, K.;
small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquarie Island. Ambio 2003, Gollan, J.; Guse, N.; Hansen, P. L.; Heubeck, M.; Jensen, J. K.; Le
32, 380−384. Guillou, G.; Olsen, B.; Olsen, K. O.; Pedersen, J.; Stienen, E. W. M.;
(93) Shiber, J. G. Plastic pellets and tar on Spain’s Mediterranean Turner, D. M. Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar
beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1987, 18, 84−86. Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2609−
(94) Andrady, A. L.; Pegram, J. E.; Song, Y. Studies on enhanced 2615.
degradable plastics. II. Weathering of enhanced photodegradable (115) Fry, D. M.; Fefer, S. I.; Sileo, L. Ingestion of plastic debris by
polyethylenes under marine and freshwater floating exposure. J. Laysan Albatrosses and Wedge-tailed Shearwaters in the Hawaiian
Environ. Polymer Degrad. 1993, 1, 117−126. Islands. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1987, 18, 339−343.
(95) Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on plastic (116) Robards, M. D.; Piatt, J. F.; Wohl, K. D. Increasing frequency
particles as a vector in transporting persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic of plastic particles ingested by seabirds in the subarctic North Pacific.
substances in the oceans. Bowmer, T., Kershaw, P. J., Eds.; GESAMP Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1995, 30, 151−157.
Rep.; 2010. (117) Vlietstra, L. S.; Parga, J. A. Long-term changes in the type, but
(96) Shiber, J. G. Plastic pellets on the coast of Lebanon. Mar. Pollut. not amount, of ingested plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in
Bull. 1979, 10, 28−30. the southeastern Bering Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 945−955.
(97) Austin, H. M.; Stoops-Glass, P. M. The distribution of (118) Furness, R. W. Ingestion of plastic particles by seabirds at
polystyrene spheres and nibs in Block Island Sound during 1972− Gough Island, South Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Pollut. Ecol. Biol. 1985,
1973. Chesapeake Sci. 1977, 18, 89−91. 38, 261−272.
(98) Morris, R J. Plastic debris in the surface waters of the South (119) Van Franeker, J. A.; Bell, P. J. Plastic ingestion by petrels
Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1980, 11, 164−166. breeding in Antarctica. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1988, 19, 672−674.
(99) Day, R. H.; Shaw, D. G. Patterns in the abundance of pelagic (120) Gregory, M. R. Marine debris: notes from Chatman Island, and
plastic and tar in the North Pacific Ocean, 1976 - 1985. Mar. Pollut. Mason and Doughboy Bays, Stewart Island. Tane 1999, 37, 201−210.
Bull. 1987, 18, 311−316. (121) Omori, M.; Ikeda, T. Methods in Marine Zooplankton Ecology;
(100) Barnes, D. K. A. Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, USA, 1984.
Nature 2002, 416, 808−809. (122) Callieri, C.; Stockner, J. G. Freshwater autotrophic
(101) Thiel, M.; Hinojosa, I.; Vásquez, N.; Macaya, E. Floating picoplankton: a review. J. Limnol. 2002, 61, 1−14.
marine debris in coastal waters of the SE-Pacific (Chile). Mar. Pollut. (123) Gray, J.; Elliott, M. Ecology of Marine Sediments: from Science to
Bull. 2003, 46, 224−231. Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 2009.
(102) Maximenko, N.; Hafner, J.; Niiler, P. Pathways of marine (124) Wilber, R. J. Plastic in the North Pacific. Oceanus 1987, 30,
61−68.
debris derived from trajectories of Lagrangian drifters. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
2012, 65, 51−62.
(103) Lobelle, D.; Cunliffe, M. Early microbial biofilm formation on
marine plastic debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 197−200.
(104) Harrison, J. P.; Sapp, M.; Schratzberger, M.; Osborn, A. M.
Interactions between microorganisms and marine microplastics: a call
for research. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2011, 45, 12−20.

3075 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060−3075

 Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Review

Identification and characterization of micro-plastics in the marine T

environment: A mini review
Anguluri N V Lakshmi Kavyaa, Subramanian Sundarrajanb, , Seeram Ramakrishnab,
⁎ ⁎

a
Amity Institute of Nanotechnology, Amity University, Noida, UP, India
b
Center for Nanofibers and Nanotechnology Lab, Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Blk E3 05-12, 2 Engineering Drive 3, Singapore 117581,
Singapore

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Micro-plastics (MPs) are an environmental threat that has been gaining importance lately with an increasing
Micro-plastics number of studies demonstrating that they are a larger threat than previously thought. Scientists around the
Marine world have used a wide number of methods in their studies and they have adapted changes in response to the
Methodology specific nature of the research undertaken. This article provides an account of the historical development of the
Characterization
MP menace, development of methods and tools used in MP research and also describes the challenges that are
faced to further advancement to take place. The article is categorized into various sections that include history,
sources, isolation, extraction, and characterization of MPs. Among the thermal characterization techniques,
direct pyrolysis mass spectrometry and secondary ion mass spectrometry, which are widely used to characterize
the plastics, but not utilised so far in this field are also highlighted for future direction.

1. Introduction 2014 at 3.11 × 108 metric tonnes (Europe, Plastic, 2015).

The plastic material provided a range of solution to the market
1.1. Plastics: a complex history of market demand and dominance problem of packaging material. In the US alone, packaging plastic ac­
counts for a little over one third of the market demand, and in a similar
In essence, plastics are a long chain class of Organic polymers that trend, such plastics that serve very short-term needs account for the
have a high Molecular Weight. The organic mass that the common larger chunk of market demand. Another estimate states that a low
plastics compose of are largely derived from the fossil fuel feed (Resins, 8.8% of the total consumer plastic is recycled (EPA, US, 2014), this
2015). In the process of deriving such a plastic that would suit a given regardless of the greater fraction these plastics hold in the total waste
application, plastic resins are added with various substances to render generated (Estimated at 12.8% of solid waste mass collected at the
them with properties such as increased strength, greater durability, municipality level, 4) and, the very convenient and feasible process of
light weight and insulation (Thermal and electric). The substances recycling that consists of a breaking down stage followed by re-melting
added may well include fillers, plasticizing agents, stabilizers (UV and (Andrady, 2015). A notable finding was that Europe, known for its
Thermal), antimicrobial agents, coloring dyes, etc., and the product greater recycling capabilities of plastic, only has a 30% recycle rate
may take up forms such as foams, sticking substances (Adhesives), fi­ (Europe, Plastic, 2015), in spite of being an advanced and self-sufficient
bers, films and other moulds in solid. region. This can be accounted in for by the nature of use of consumer
The introduction of such a developed polymer occurred as early as plastics that pose a challenge in its recycle abilities such as processing
the mid-nineteenth century, where accelerated commercial production damages, improper discarding, In addition there are possibilities of feed
followed towards the finish of the second-world war. The development contamination, and also the marketing difficulties of recycled plastics
of several variants of plastics happened during the early twentieth (Andrady, 2015). Publication trend in Microplastics (MPs) from 2011 to
century, in line with the exponential growth that followed the 1950s. 2020 searched in sci-finder (Fig. 1). This indicates that this field is
One estimate for the prevalence of plastic forms today is that about booming in an unprecedented manner.
seven types of commodity thermoplastics account for roughly 85% of The debris found in the marine environment is composed of those
the total plastic available in the markets globally (Resins, 2015). An­ that were transported or readily dumped in the ocean such as solids that
other estimate puts the total plastic produced in terms of weight as of were manufactured for a relevant purpose. They may take up several

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Sundarrajan), [email protected] (S. Ramakrishna).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111704
Received 3 August 2020; Received in revised form 18 September 2020; Accepted 19 September 2020
Available online 26 September 2020
0025-326X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Number of publications
746 756

484

263
176
11 17 33 75 123

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Publicaon Year

Fig. 1. Publication trend in MPs from 2011 to 2020. The data is searched in Scifinder, search hint MPs as keyword and marine as refine word. Only published in
English are included here. Assessed on 28th July 2020.

Fig. 2. Possible passageways of ex­

posure and particle toxicity for MPs in
the body.
Represented by the permission of Prata,
Joana Correia, João P. da Costa, Isabel
Lopes, Armando C. Duarte, and Teresa
Rocha-Santos. “Environmental ex­
posure to microplastics: An overview
on possible human health effects.”
Science of the Total Environment 702
(2020): 134455.

forms such as rubber, wood, textiles, paper, plastic, etc., this only goes (Ryan, 2015). Continued development of research into the problem of
on to reiterate the dependence and prevalence of plastic. In the sense plastics reaching the marine ecosystem does not merely call for an as­
that the solids classified as readily degradable that can be seen in the sessment of the depth at which it impacts marine life and other linked
form of paper, wood and natural fibers are easily degraded, but other ecosystems, but it also warrants the need to develop innovatory solu­
materials that are termed non plastic, but still remain degradable such tions in a rapid phase.
as ceramics from sea wrecks (Schleicher et al., 2008). People are open
to MPs by breathing, intake and skin contact, finally causing the chronic 1.2. Microplastics: the smaller the size, the greater the threat
prolonged inflammatory lesions (Fig. 2) (Prata et al., 2020).
The problem with plastic however is their non-biodegradable nature Plastics were thought to be the biggest threat posed to the marine
that exists in combination with their light weight, rendering them environment until the discovery of MPs. In the beginning of this cen­
readily transportable by air and water currents. Among the research tury, MPs were described as a collective debris of very minute or even
that goes into analysing the debris of the ocean, plastics have occupied microscopic plastic mass whose size is less than 5 mm (Andrady, 2011).
a prime position, with wreckage investigation and fishery gear that Upon discovery, MPs became the greatest threat that we were faced
became derelict in a close prominence. Previous studies have shown with (Magnusson et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2004). The definitive
that among the debris collected from the surface, from the seabed and range of their size is debatable and it varies with every study, some
beaches. Plastics were found to be the greater fraction of floating debris estimating them at a diameter size < 1 mm (Browne et al., 2007;
in the ocean (Law et al., 2010), they are common in seabed samples Browne et al., 2010a; Claessens et al., 2011a), while on the other hand,
(Galgani et al., 2000a) and, they were observed in large quantities they have been linked to a much greater diameter of size < 10 mm
during beach surveying and cleaning missions (Galgani et al., 2000b; (Graham and Thompson, 2009), and others with varying estimates in-
Conservancy, Ocean, 2014). between these ranges (Barnes et al., 2009; Betts, 2008; Derraik, 2002;
A depiction of plastic as a serious threat to the marine environment Ryan et al., 2009).
can be traced back to the early publications of Marine debris prevalence A Research team from Korea observed the existence of MPs in 4

2
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Fig. 3. A representation displaying

how influence of human beings cause
MPs to get in food network, make a
way to our food and, finally, our or­
gans.
Adapted from Cho, Youna, Won Joon
Shim, Mi Jang, Gi Myung Han, and
Sang Hee Hong. “Abundance and
characteristics of microplastics in
market bivalves from South Korea.”
Environmental Pollution 245 (2019):
1107–1116.

marketable bivalves from their 3 main cities, whose mean concentra­ (Magnusson et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2004), which are degrade on
tion of MPs was 0.15 ± 0.20 particles/g and it was assessed that the land and reach the ocean in their designated size, or they are directly
Korean people intakes 212 particles/person/year from shellfish inges­ reach the ocean and degrade in it. Fragmentation of macroplastics (or
tion (Cho et al., 2019). Entering of MPs in marine creatures is leading a mesoplastics) occur because of several factors such as physical, che­
conduit for litters and pollutants into our food (Fig. 3). mical, or biological (Browne et al., 2007).
Such variations lacking consistency demands that a set of standards Photo-oxidation of plastics by nonionizing rays such as UV rays,
must be established in order to avoid problems that could potentially even from natural sunlight has been reported. These rays dissociate the
arise (Claessens et al., 2011b; Costa et al., 2010). There have also been polymer matrix by a bond cleavage (Browne et al., 2007; Halle et al.,
suggestions of classifying a third kind of plastic based on size called the 2017; Hüffer et al., 2018; Moore, 2008; Rios et al., 2007). In order to
Mesoplastics, referring to MP debris that would be visible to the naked tackle such oxidation reaction, additives are found to be used in most
eye, but does not require the aid of a microscope (Andrady, 2011). industries, resulting in a product cast with greater durability and re­
sistance to photo-degradation (Talsness et al., 2009). Photo-degrada­
tion is not a concern to the plastic debris already in the ocean, as the
1.3. MP sources and its classification marine aquatic conditions of temperature and salinity are not favour­
able for the photo-degradative process, but on land, plastics undergo a
MPs are broadly classified into primary and secondary MPs, based much more rapid process of photo-degradation (Barnes et al., 2009;
on their size. This is done based on the source of origin of such plastics. Andrady, 2011; Moore, 2008).
This classification seeks to differentiate the MPs that were manu­ Physical factors such as surface waves, turbulence of water currents
factured to the current size from that which has undergone degradation etc., are also considered to be prominent factors driving fragmentation
to arrive at the current size. In the case of being manufactured to mi­ after the loss of structural integrity of the original debris that reached
croscopic size, the debris thus created post application of the plastics, is the ocean. This process is cyclic and will result in MP debris that is
termed primary MP debris, where in there was no need for the de­ clearly classifiable as MP (Magnusson et al., 2016; Browne et al., 2007;
gradation of the plastic to attain its current size. Such plastics are often Barnes et al., 2009; Fendall and Sewell, 2009; Rios et al., 2007). Other
found in cosmetic products (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991), air blasting studies have suggested that these MPs do not stop their fragmentation
material (Gregory, 1996) and rarely seen applied in medicine (Patel at near micrometric scales but go on to form nanoplastics (Galgani
et al., 2009). et al., 2010).
Plastics of greater size such as pellets used for multiple household
application that were suggested as mesoplastics were also seen to be a
significant, yet subjectable addition to the contribution of primary MPs 2. Extraction of microplastics
(Costa et al., 2010; Andrady, 2011). Cosmetic micro-scrubs were cre­
ated as an exfoliating material, in competition against the traditional 2.1. Sampling methods
scrubs such as ground nuts, fibers and pumice (Derraik, 2002; Fendall
and Sewell, 2009). Primary MPs have in addition, been found play a Broad observations of the debris collected from a given spot such as
crucial role in air blasting technology, this technology removes rust and the surface of the ocean or the seabed could result in a misleading
paint from a given industrial substrate that had undergone the dete­ observation of various characteristics such as surface morphology and
rioration process by using MPs like polyester(PES) (Browne et al., 2007; measures of particulate size. The area of collection could often be large
Derraik, 2002; Gregory, 1996). These air blasting scrubs are reused as required by the nature of the research study. The extraction and
until they lose efficiency and at the point of discard, they also have separation processes of MPs is a laboratory based process that requires
heavy metal contaminants among the likes of lead and cadmium efficient and maximal isolation of MPs from the large samples that
(Derraik, 2002; Gregory, 1996). MPs that has reached its classified size predominantly constitute masses that can infringe with further studies
over degradation during a given period of time is called Secondary MPs (Rocha-Santos and Duarte, 2015).

3
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

For the process of sampling, several plastics are used, these include Santos and Duarte, 2015). Oxidation agents did not cause any sig­
vessels (Rocha-Santos and Duarte, 2015; Dubaish and Liebezeit, 2013), nificant damage to the isolated MPs, as seen at the point of observation,
benthic trawls (Cole et al., 2011), bongo nets (Cole et al., 2011) and but these methods did take a toll on the degree of recovery of these
surface trawls (Lee et al., 2014). MP isolation from aquatic samples is plastics being extracted from the biological sample and its accuracy.
easier, as compared to the soil and sediments from the marine en­ The use of enzymes as an extraction agent was found to be more
vironment. Samples from the general marine areas such as beach, es­ suitable, effective in terms of both cost and time for biological samples
tuaries and sea floor can also be used for MP isolation. This is done with for recovery with minimal destruction (Courtene-Jones et al., 2017).
the help of stainless-steel spatulas and spoons, if the sample is super­ Several enzymes that are of digestive employability, such as proteases
ficial, and the Cores and bottom trawls are used for deep sampling were used and optimized to suitable reaction conditions of effective
(Vianello et al., 2013a; Harrison et al., 2012; Cauwenberghe et al., degradation, bar the MP. The effect of such enzymes is also tested with
2013). MPs to understand any possibility of sample deterioration. Trypsin was
found to be an effective enzyme, among those that were tested for the
2.2. Extraction from sediments and waters suitability as a pre-treatment agent. It showed one of the greatest de­
gradation rates, with an 88% loss of extra biological material at a
For the post sampling of water and sediments, the density separa­ working concentration of 0.3125% of trypsin (Courtene-Jones et al.,
tion techniques are applied to separate the MPs from the samples. High 2017). Several other methods have also been used as complexity of the
concentrates of salt are normally used to float a fraction of the MPs. The biological samples increased.
use of NaCl solution for such separations was first documented with One prominent method developed was to test and optimize the
samples collected from Norderney, a Northern Sea Island (Fries et al., temperature at which the oxidizing agent degraded the most of extra
2013a). Following this, a density separation procedure based on NaCl biological matter in the sample. The treatment of the biological mass
solution was reported from Canterbury coast lines in New Zealand with KOH caused significant biological degradation at 40 °C, this
(Clunies-Ross et al., 2016). Other such ionic solutions have also been temperature made the process time efficient, and inflicted very little
shown to be effective in this principle of gradient separation, some damage to the MPs. Another good procedure was to pre-treat with NaI
examples include, Sodium bromide, Sodium iodide, Zinc chloride and and then to treat with KOH as described earlier, which is also proved to
Zinc iodide. These solutions, however proved to be costly and toxic to be efficient (Karami et al., 2017). The addition of NaI solution was
the environment (Mintenig et al., 2017). reported to remove any residual minerals that may have been persisting
In line with expectations, the increase in gradient density of the in the samples. MPs, regardless of type showed good degrees of retrieval
solution, gave rise to the amount of MP recovered. NaI and ZnBr2 were and upon separation, were found to only have mild damage to char­
noted to have a significantly greater rate (p < 0.001) of recovery of acteristics such as color, weight and size, suggesting that these tech­
MPs. The size of the particles being recovered has shown to be a strong niques have potential application prospects with biological samples
factor, and had to be taken into consideration while determining the (Roch and Brinker, 2017).
solution (Quinn et al., 2017). Prior treatment of the sample is reported Determining suitable extraction methods becomes crucial for fur­
to increase the amount of MP recovered from the sample, whereby ther studies. Variations in methods limits drawing comparisons, as
stubborn debris such as algae and organic matter are removed. An there are no established standard protocols already available (Besley
additional step of peroxidation with H2O2 was found to increase the et al., 2017). Details of sampling, such as sampling depth, location of
yield and remove debris with a negligible degree of destruction to the collection, extraction repeats and time for settling are parameters that
sample (Zhao et al., 2017). The use of the Fentons reagent causes very are critical in line with literature. Trawl specifications, such as its
negligible damage to the intrinsic properties of the MPs and causes texture and diameter are also essential to be studied for good isolation.
considerable reduction of the preparation time (Tagg et al., 2017). Certain reports have emerged, suggesting that the season of the year
Ultrasonic extraction methods have also been demonstrated to be ef­ also must be taken into consideration, while collecting the MP sedi­
fective in retrieving MPs from the gastro-intestinal tract of fish, and the ments. They observed some variations in the concentration of MPs with
use of ultrasonication resulted in a reduction of hazardous occupational respect to season (Veerasingam et al., 2016). The presence of MPs
risks involved and raised protocol safety (Wagner et al., 2017). within the environment of the lab may also cause great interference in
For the preparation of samples, several devices have been developed analysis (Woodall et al., 2015). This goes on to demonstrate that de­
in addition to the available methods of chemical extraction. Mechanical velopment of procedures, and techniques are highly required to analyse
separation of MP particles from water was achieved and reported in MPs in aquatic environments. These standards must be globally agreed
2016, wherein the separating device was constructed with pipes (PVC) on and set up as keys to guided research, in order to meet its purpose
and connectors(Fig. 4). (Woodall et al., 2015).
A disk was randomly drilled through its area with a mesh layer
(1 mm and 50 μm) glued to it, that was designed for the process of 3. Identification and characterization
separation. The lesser density of the MPs assured that they flowed to the
top of the separator, with the water flow. This instrument gave a re­ The presence of MPs is everywhere in the marine ecosystem, and its
covery rate of 97.25% (Wessel et al., 2016). Team from the Chinese delirious impact on biological life forms were well understood, there
Academy of Science had developed an integrative device that assured a arose a need to study these particles and the effects caused in detail
comparable recovery of MPs from sedimentary samples (Zhang et al., with respect to their size (Lee et al., 2013; Canesi et al., 2015). These
2015). studies required a good understanding of the physiochemical properties
of this particulate matter, thereby requiring a detailed characterization.
2.3. Extraction from organisms A good characterization would further help to understand, the nature of
these particles, such as their shapes, colors, and constituent polymer
Some of these sampling protocols are advantageous to the re­ material. Here, we present a broad outline of prevalent characterization
searcher and have a greater preference in the field than the others for tools and their application in MPs characterization.
the purpose of sample collection of MPs from sediments, waters, and
biological samples. In the case of biological samples, pre-treatment is 3.1. Optical and electron microscopy
highly necessary, there must be a procedure that involves solutions
such as H2O2 to discard the contaminating mass. Some of the other such Optical microscopy (Dissection microscopy) is a commonly used
pre-treatment agents include KOH, HNO3, NaClO and HCl (Rocha- tool to study the larger particulate masses, ranging in at a size of about

4
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Fig. 4. Density separator design and

setup. a) Part identification and as­
sembly and b) functional depiction
identifying internal components and
separation process location.
Reprinted by the permission of Wessel,
C.C., Lockridge, G.R., Battiste, D., &
Cebrian, J. (2016). Abundance and
characteristics of microplastics in
beach sediments: insights into micro­
plastic accumulation in northern Gulf
of Mexico estuaries. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 109 (Resins, 2015), 178–183.

a 100 μm or more, as seen in the case of the net samples (Eriksen et al., the data on the available chemical functional groups in a given
2014; Desforges et al., 2014; Laglbauer et al., 2014; Mathalon and Hill, polymer. Every polymer produces a unique set of spectroscopic band
2014; Kang et al., 2015; Nel and Froneman, 2015). This method allows signature that allows the differentiation and among the plastics, as well
the study of surface texture and enables the differentiation of MPs from as of the plastics from the organic mass (Löder and Gerdts, 2015). A
the contaminating ambiguous mass. properly established and detailed database of available standard spec­
In spite of the most particles being easily identifiable under the troscopic data for the various plastic polymers makes the identification
optical microscope, there may be particles classified under the sub of polymers an easy task. In the cases of very low particulate size of
100 μm range that can be very difficult to identify by optical micro­ samples available, the option of micro FTIR (μ-FTIR) may be used (Song
scopy, as in addition to their size constrain, they may also have no et al., 2014). In the μ-FTIR, the preliminary studies are conducted by
specified shape or color (Song et al., 2015). The contaminating sedi­ switching between the objective lens and the IR probe prior to spec­
ment that persist because of poor separation in the gradient method of troscopic studies. Overview of the different analytical methods used to
separation may also interfere during observation in MPs identification. assess the concentration, chemical composition and morphology of
Further, in extracting the biogenic material from sedimentary samples, MP’s in biological tissues, sediments and water, from 2018 to 2020 is
the microscopic observation is difficult as a result of chemical digestion given in Table 1.
that has not been successful in eradicating the contaminants. Prior Phenomenon such as attenuated total internal reflectance (ATR),
studies have also demonstrated that the false positive count was high Transmission (Turner and Holmes, 2011; Ugolini et al., 2013), and
for material being mistaken as MPs. It was seen that the average per­ reflectance (Ng and Obbard, 2006) modes are applied in the form of IR
centage for such misidentifications were high at the rate of 20% and in spectroscope operational modes for MPs analysis. As opposed to the
the case of transparent polymers, at 70% (65–67). This was later con­ transmission mode, the ATR and reflectance modes does not need any
firmed with spectroscopy. About 14% of these particles had a polymeric sample preparation step in the case of an opaque sample. Further, the
MPs composition, regardless of like resemblance (Löder and Gerdts, ATR mode gives a stable and reliable spectral line data, even in the case
2015). Microscopic methods also proved to be a weak means to dis­ of studying surfaces that have a rough texture, which would otherwise
tinguish between the synthetic and natural fibers (e.g., PES vs dyed give out unstable spectral lines. It is understood that the particulates
cotton). Surveys have shown that fibers occupy a predominant position that have a size lower than the IR beam aperture are easily detectable
in the fractions of MPs found in the ocean, in the water, sedimentary by the probe.
and biological samples (Browne et al., 2010a, 2010b; Lusher et al.,
2013).
3.3. Raman spectroscopy
The use of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) can provide a much
clearer image, given all these limitations of typical optical microscopy.
Apart from the use of FT-IR, the use of Raman's spectroscopy for the
The high-resolution nature of electron microscopy gives us a clear
identification of MPs are also a common practice (Van Cauwenberghe
distinction between the organic particles and the plastic particles
et al., 2013; Collard et al., 2015). Based on the molecular structure of
(Cooper and Corcoran, 2010). Further an Energy Dispersive X-Ray
the atoms on the surface, the laser beam that has been shot at the
(EDX) analysis, can give us the exact elemental composition of the
particles gives rise to a unique pattern of backscatter (Löder and Gerdts,
particles and ensure that the plastic particles are differentiated from the
2015). The Raman's spectroscopy, in addition to identifying the plastic,
others as the plastics have a much greater percentage of carbon content
it will also provide a composition of the polymers with respect to FTIR,
(Vianello et al., 2013b).
which only allows an identification of the polymer. Further, in addition
to the non-destructive methods of chemical analysis and microscopy,
3.2. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy Raman's spectroscopy gives us a comparable tool of identification with
the FTIR, bearing in mind the heavy cost of the instrumentation. FTIR
Fourier Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) spectroscopy is another tool and Raman spectroscopy can be used in a complimentary fashion with
that is found to be greatly useful in the characterization of MPs. It gives one another. The Raman spectroscopy methods allow the

5
 Table 1
Overview of the different analytical methods used to assess the concentration, chemical composition and morphology of MP's in biological tissues, sediments and water, from 2018 to 2020.
MP type Location Environment matrix Size of MPs Concentration Shape Analysis method Summary Ref

PE, rayon Victoria, Australia Freshwater, P. 0.036 to 4.668 mm, 0.190 to 4.2 mm 0.4 ± 0.27 items/L, Fibers FTIR, SEM Blue color and fiber-routine (in (Nan et al.,
australiensis (shrimp) 0.52 ± 0.55 items/ind water and shrimp). common 2020)
type-PE (water) and rayon
(shrimp). primary studies of
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al.

freshwater crustacean as a bio-

indicator in measuring the MPs
PP, PE, Polystyrene Three gorges Surface water, G 1: < 0.5 mm 1597 to 12,611 n/m3, s 25 Fibers, μ-raman spectroscopy Water-PP,PE (abundant). (Di and Wang,
(PS) reservoir, china sediments G 2: 0.5–1 mm to 300 n/kg (ww) fragments, Sediment-PS (abundant). 2018)
G 3: 1–2 mm pellets, films, Chemical pollutants were also
G 4: 2–3 mm styrofoam identified. MPs sourcing in TGR
G 5: 3–4 mm is imperfect and further
G 6: 4–5 mm investigation is required
Polypropylene (PP), Southern Engraulis encrasicolus, 0.10–1.5 mm,0.25–0.83 mm, 0.26 items/specimen, 0.53 Fibers, fragments Raman, FTIR Presence of small amounts of (Savoca et al.,
PAN, PE, PA and tyrrhenian sea Sardina pilchardus items/specimen spectroscopy, SEM organic dyes and components, 2020)
PUR, polyester (involved in the polymer
matrix to adjust its base
properties) on MPs.
PVC, Polyamide, PE Irish waters Crustacean Nephrops 1–2 mm 1.75 ± 2.01 items Fibers FTIR Positive connection among (Hara et al.,
norvegicus prawn caraspace condition and 2020)
MPs abundance. 15 to 4471
particles/year of seafood for
human intake
PS foam, PP El Quetzalito sand Sand Beach 1–5 mm 279 items/m2 Fragments, Mid-infrared PS, PP are common in trade, (Mazariegos-
beach, beads spectroscopy profitable, fishing, and Ortíz et al.,
Guatemalan domestic activities which state 2020)

6
Caribbean the necessity to develop proper
ecological management for
solid waste treatment and
discarding
PS, PP and PE Southern Caspian Surface water, – 34,490 particles per km2, Fragments, ATR-FTIR, Optical The capability of MP pollution (Mataji et al.,
sea sediments 210 particles per kg foams microscope, X-ray and the need to determine the 2020)
(EDS) level of pollution in southern
caspian sea
PE, PS, nylon Andaman and Water 35.29 to 5010 μm 0.93 ± 0.59 particles/m3, Fibers, Stereomicroscope, Results show important (Goswami et al.,
nicobar islands Sediment 45.17 ± 25.23 particles/ fragments, ATR-FTIR relations amid fish weight and 2020)
Zooplankton kg, 0.12 ± 0.07 pieces/ pellets length with the consumed MPs
Finfish zooplankter and in the fish gut, MP ingestion –
Shell fishes 10.65 ± 7.83 particles/ Large creatures > small ones.
specimen The MPs residing duration in
the larger organisms GI tract
may be greater than the small
organisms
PE, PP, PL, PA, PS, Southwest coast, Coastal waters, beach Coastal waters: 0.3–0.6 (41%), Coastal waters: fragments, fiber/ ATR-FTIR, FP-XRF Wide number of metalloids, (Robin et al.,
PUR, PVC kerala sediments, marine 0.6–1.18 (22); 1.18–2.36 (19) and 1.25 ± 0.88 particles/m3, line and foam other elements and heavy 2020)
fishes 2.36–4.75 mm (18) beach sediments: metals that are indicating
Sediments: 40.7 ± 33.2 particles/m2 dangerous chemicals exist in
0.3–0.6 (44%), 0.6–1.18 (21); MPs. Improved the idea on the
1.18–2.36 (21) and 2.36–4.75 mm sources, transfer pathways and
(21) the related environmental
threats
PA, PE, PP Brisbane river, sediments < 3 mm 0.18 to 129.20 mg/kg, or Fiber, fragment, ATR-FTIR Believes that river sediments (Durukan and
Australia 10 to 520 items/kg. film acts as a sink for plastic Karadagli, 2019)
accumulation. It emphasizes
that an established standard
(continued on next page)
Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704
 Table 1 (continued)

MP type Location Environment matrix Size of MPs Concentration Shape Analysis method Summary Ref

unit should precede to develop

relation among studies and to
avoid over- or under-
estimation of the extent of MP
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al.

pollution in aquatic system

PE, PVC, PP Atlantic coast, Mytilus edulis (Blue 30 to 200 μm – fibers μ-FTIR Microscopy Great retrieval amounts were (Phuong et al.,
France mussels) achieved particularly for PE 2018)
and PVC (80% recoveries). This
procedure permitted to notice
and find MPs (20 to 100 μm)
PE, PP China Tap water < 50 μm 440 ± 275 particles L-1 Fragments, Micro-raman Consumable water treatment (Tong et al.,
spheres, fibers units have to face the issue of 2020)
MPs contamination in tap
water because of eco-
toxicological effects on human
beings.
PS, PE Caspian sea, north Sediments 250–500 μm 25 and 330 items/kg Film, fragment, SEM-EDS analysis, PLM MPs distribution showed an (Mehdinia et al.,
of Iran fiber and Raman micro- uneven spatial pattern 2020)
spectroscopy suggesting that the greater MPs
quantity are near permanent
rivers and in the regions with
increased range in fishing and
tourism events
PP,PE, Polyesters, PET, Rawal lake, Surface water, ≤ 1 mm Water: 0.142 items/0.1 L, Fibers, fragments FTIR Higher conc. of MPs in the (Irfan et al.,
PVC Pakistan sediments sediments: 1.04 items/ sediments in comparison to 2020)
0.01 kg Rawal Lake water. Increased

7
population density surrounding
lake, inappropriate garbage
disposal, tourism, and leisure
time activities may be the
major reasons for the lake's MP
pollution
Polyester, PP, PE, Municipal waste Water – Influent: 12.2 pieces/L, Fibers, FTIR Advised to start tertiary (Hongprasith
Polyacrylate, PS, water treatment aeration tank: 138.2 Fragments, treatment to develop MPs et al., 2020)
PU, PDMS plant, Thailand pieces/L, effluent: 2.0 spheres removal in WWTPs, and to put
pieces/L on post-treatment to the
WWTPs' raw slurry to prevent
the MPs' release into the
environment when the slurry is
smeared to farming land
PP, PS, PC, PE, PET Yellow sea and Neophocaena – 19.1 ± 7.2 items/ Fibers, Raman Trophic transfer and ingestion (Xiong et al.,
bohai sea, China asiaeorientalis individual fragments, foams (unintentional) might be the 2018)
sunameri(7 East asian potential pathways for MPs
finless porpoises) intaken by finless porpoise.
Intestinal structure(specific
one) might account for the
predominance of fibers and the
accumulation of MPs at the
starting part of intestines
GPPS, PE, PET, PA, PP Coastal areas of Siganus fuscescens 1–5 mm 30mp per site Fibers, FTIR MPs were absent in the guts of (Bucol et al.,
Negros oriental, (rabbitfish) fish, likely due to the different 2020)
Philippines location and character of their
feeding habitats.
PE, PP, rayon, acrylic Korea Meretrix lusoria(clam), 100–300 μm(43%), 1000–3000 μm Clam: 0.08items/g, blood Fibers, fragment Light microscope, FTIR MPs composition was mostly (Borkar et al.,
Scapharca broughtonii (37%), 1–5 mm(16%) arkshell: 0.05items/g, rayon, semi-synthetic cellulosic 2020)
Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

(continued on next page)

 Table 1 (continued)

MP type Location Environment matrix Size of MPs Concentration Shape Analysis method Summary Ref

(blood arkshell), styela warty sea quirt: 0.12 material and polyester, which
clava(warty sea quirt) items/g are main component of fabric
and textile
PE, PP, PS, PVC, Hong Kong Sediments 0.5–5 mm 100pieces of different size, Fragment, fiber, FTIR Mechanisms behind adsorption (Li et al., 2020)
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al.

PET,ABS, PEUT, color, shape foam, pigment, and desorption processes

CA film research between metals and
MPs will aid in calculating the
risks to both human health and
the environment.
PP Tambak Lorok Sediments, sea water Sediments: 255–6137 μm, sea water: Sea water: 7–111 particles/ Filamentous, FTIR At the surface of seawater, PP (Khoironi et al.,
coastal area, Sem 270–1279 μm 10 mL, sediments: 8–49 fibers underwent photo-oxidation 2020)
arang, Indonesia particles/g degradation at 50 cm depth and
biodegradation at 170 cm.
PS, PP, PE 15 stations, Surface water 1000–3000 μm (32%), 500–1000 μm 899 total counted particles Fibers, ATR-FTIR Collected MPs has mainly PE, (Kor and
Persian gulf (29.2%), 3000–5000 μm (22.5%), fragments, film, blue and white color. Mehdinia, 2020)
100–500 μm (16.4%) pellets Parameters like population,
sewage and wastewaters
inputs, shipping, fishing and
industrial activity in the coasts
influence the MPs abundance
PE, PET, rayon Qingdao, China Tap water, Jihongtan 10 to 5000 μm Tap water: 0.3 to 1.6 fibers ATR- μ-FTIR Great risk of the MPs was (Zhang et al.,
Reservoir water, items/L, reservoir sources: evaluated by the polymers 2020)
Laoshan Reservoir 0.2 to 0.7 items/L potential risk index. Outcome
showed that water treatment
decreased the MPs dangers in
tap water.

8
PET, PE, regenerated New Zealand sediments < 300 μm (4) 459 particles.m−2 ranging Fibers, ATR-FTIR Great variability seen between (Bridson et al.,
cellulose 300–500 μm (39) from 0 to 2615 fragments, films sites with no link detected 2020)
500–1000 μm (35) particles.m−2 between spatial data, signifying
1000–5000 μm (21) that MPs richness is very site-
specific.
ABS,CA, EVA, PC, PE, Urban coastal sw, sediments and fish – – Fibers, ATR-FTIR The sewage treatment plant (Ferreira et al.,
PETE, PMMA, P, environment, gastrointestinal tracts of fragments, indicated to give to MP levels 2020)
PS, PTFE, PU, PVC suva, Fiji the fish microbeads, in sediment only, not in water.
films Fragments and fibers were the
major MP type, and increased
quantity of PE, PP and latex
were obtained
PA,PU/PET blend, Gulf of Tigullio, Sediment of torrents – Torrents: 1.5 items Fibers, FTIR spectroscopy 2D Tuning the methods and (Cutroneo et al.,
Acrylonitrile- NW Italy and sea bottom cm−3 ± 1.3 SD, Sea fragments, imaging spectral analysis used for μl 2020)
acrylate, PS bottom: 1.6 items pellets, films, sampling and analysis is
cm−3 ± 1.3 SD granules important to facilitate in
contrast with the results
reported by other studies
PE, PS, Silicone, PTFE, South Korea See the foot notea < 1 mm – 90% See the foot noteb Fibers, fragments FTIR Habitat occupancy is also (Park et al.,
Polyester, rayon 1-5 mm – 10% important in evaluating the 2020)
MPs abundance in fish than
feeding habit. PTFE's density
cause the ingestion by bottom-
dwelling.

a
Surface water of the Han river and its tributaries, carp (C. carpio), crucian carp (C. cuvieri), bluegill (L. macrochirus), bass (M. salmoides), catfish (S. asotus), and snakehead (C. argus).
b
Surface waters 1. At 0 m was 0–42.9 particles/m3. 2. At a depth of 2 m was 20.0–180.0 particles/m3. River tributaries: 1.2 to 234.5 particles/m3. Intestines of fish: 4 to 48 particles/fish. Gills of fish: 1 to 16 particles/
fish.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704
 Table 2
Sampling procedure, Pre-treatment for analytical method like Py-GC/MS used for characterization and determination of MPs in water, fish, and sand from 2019 to 2020.
MP type Location Sampling procedure Pre-treatment Size Summary Remarks Ref

PE,PP PET,PVC, PS Boknafjorden, Wet residues collected at a site- Focused onto filters of fiberglass 10–40 μm Shifts which are observed in size Good sensitivity, reliability, (Gomiero et al.,
or PA South-west Norway eight kilograms, refined, distribution were also in some sites and rapidity. 2019)
separated them according to size and were related to the bottom
using 10-250 mm mesh size currents of marine sea and the
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al.

sieves impact of some anthropogenic

activities.
PS Italy Diff size (3 m and 45 m) by Tissues of mussels(bivalves) were 2–10 m Pyrolysis results showed that the May hamper the detection of (Fabbri et al.,
lamella, branchia and stomach cured with 10% KOH at 900 °C with concurrent importance of particle styrene oligomers. Last 2020)
related organs – displayed for satisfying assimilation size and mass concentration pyrolysis item is inclined to
four days at diff conc polymer effectiveness(97 + 1%) suggests the need to include both framework obstructions
variables in ecological threat
investigation
PS, PS, PVC, PET Atlantic and Refer the footnotea Sifted on a glass fiber channel (15 mm, < 1 mm Patterns (regional one's) of MP Has a great capability to make (Fischer et al.,
Mediterranean 1 m pore 7 size; pre-rewarded in a components are distinguished and MP mass parts from 2019)
marine muffle furnace at 400c for twelve allow mapping for more targeted compound ecological sample
hours source associated research. FdS
MPs reveals the MP mass load of
related coastal waters and runs its
chronological/geographical
studies
PE, PP France 1.5 kg of dry residues - acquired. Flotation treatment – Impact of tide lines was revealed Slight estimation of 80% (Périne et al.,
They were sieved with a 5, 2, only on particle abundance at pyrogram is important to 2019)
and 1 mm sieves Boulogne-surMer, might be ensure appropriate
because of black pellets(high recognizable proof
proportion) at this tide line.

9
PE, PS Germany filters with mesh sizes of – 25,70 and Polymer mass quantification for Minimal sample preparation (Müller et al.,
100 mm, 50 mm and 10 mm 120 μm detected polymer types was with short analysis times 2020)
were used questionable for Σ-GC/MS,
whereas further methods were
unsuccessful to define the correct
polymer mass.
PE, PP, PS Germany Methanolic pre-removal was – 10–50 μm and Solid samples in particular, the Enables low quantification (Dierkes et al.,
implemented to minimise 200–400 μm analysis of triplicate analysis limits when combined with 2019)
alarming effects of the matrix. revealed that the raised statistical pressurized liquid extraction
Removal of MPs was allowed uncertainties because of non-
with THF at 185 °C and hundred uniform MPs distribution. Care to
bar. be taken because agglomerates
might form during milling and
homogenization of samples
PE, PP, PS, PVC, PA, Brazil Gathering residues, drying, – 0.1–1 mm Approximate total MPs profusion Refer the foot noted (Gimiliani et al.,
EPDM filtering by using 0.25,0.5, 1.0, and distribution at the sieve 2020)
2.0 mm sizes of mesh meshes tested, calculate thread/
fiber and fragment proportions,
and segregate MP samples for the
following Py-GC/MS study to
recognize their compositions.
PE, PP, PS German river elbe Apstein mesh of plankton Refer the foot noteb 125–5000 μm PE and PP, being routine polymer Refer the foot notec (Scherer et al.,
(opening: 0.022 m2, Ø 17 cm, kinds in the water phase, whereas 2020)
size: 110 cm, mesh extent: highly diverse polymer
150 μm) distribution was witnessed in the
case of sediments
(continued on next page)
Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Sample to a sieve of 20 m and washed with pre-separated (1 m) faucet water. The non-dissolvable particles were moved with NaBr arrangement from sieve into a 200 ml division channel, vivaciously shaken. 40 min –

Powders of ground filters were re-suspended in H2O, permit elements to settling down and filtered the supernatant(2×). Suspended channel powder was totally moved on another channel and allowed to dry for
characterization of particles ranging in size at the level of few microns,

(Vilakati et al.,
this is made possible by the very narrow slit beam in the Raman
et al., 2020)
(Castelvetro
Spectroscope (Cole et al., 2013).
Raman spectroscopy is advantageous in the sense that it is, like

2020)
Ref

FTIR, a noncontact method. This is further used to identify MPs among

Higher analytical sensitivity. Results showed that sampled MP with PS reference has PS was crosslinked with divinylbenzene might had impact on identification of styrene by Py-GC/MS technique.
zooplankton samples, which is made possible by the confocal micro­
scopic attachment seen in the Raman Spectroscopy (Cole et al., 2013).
items causes under or over-

subjective determination of
obstructions with pyrolysis

On the contrary, Raman's spectroscopy had the great disadvantage

molecule and size, cross-
sensitivity. No data on

in Interference faced by the additives and pigments to make the final

Proper technique for
Good accuracy and

the pyrolysis items

plastic cast meet the requirement (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2013; Tagg
et al., 2015). List of studies carried out on using Py-GC/MS for the past

Financially savvy, creates less natural effect than those as of now accessible. Successful in blocking the requirement for solvents and decreasing the preparation time of sample.
estimations.

2 years are given in Table 2.

Remarks

3.4. Thermal analysis

Among the tools used in the identification of MPs, the thermo-

Presence of great range of PET MPs
in sediment brings the necessity to

inorganic elements such as Cl, Na,

morphological patterns with the

analytical method is the most recent tool to make debut, where in it is

used to study changes in the intrinsic physiochemical properties of the
explore more regarding the

MPs showed varied surface

plastic with respect to its thermal stability (Tagg et al., 2015; Castañeda
presence and extent of

et al., 2014).
One such tool is the Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), which
Ca, Al, Si and Fe
contamination

studies the thermal properties of the unknown polymer microparticles

(Tsukame et al., 1997). This technique requires the use of reference
Summary

materials for the identification and matching of a given MP sample.

Therefore, this technique is prevalently used in the identification of
primary plastics, which readily have reference material such as micro
beads of PE (Castañeda et al., 2014). The idea of attaching thermo­
gravimetric analysis (TGA) to DSC was tried, and it was observed that
this could help to differentiate between the PP and PE polymers, but the
1–5 mm

method faced the problem of overlap in phase transition and as a result

Size

could not be able to identify few important polymers such as PVC, PES,
–

PA and PET (Majewsky et al., 2016).

TGA in combination with solid phase extraction (SPE), and being
coupled to a thermal desorption gas chromatography mass spectro­
photometry (TDS-GC–MS), grants the user a set of advantages. It allows
larger sampling size in comparison to a Py-GC/MS and grants greater
resolution when compared to a DSC (Dümichen et al., 2015). TGA-SPE-
Flotation treatment

TDS-GCMS was found to be effective in the identification and quanti­

fication of PE from a sample of soil and mussels, whereas the PP, PS and
Pre-treatment

mixed polymer also gave out similar results to validate this method
(Dümichen et al., 2015).
Py-GC/MS is the most commonly used tool for identification of the
–

polymeric type today. In the Py-GC/MS technique, the polymer is

pyrolyzed under inert atmosphere, which was then fed to a gas chro­
taking 3 subsamples, about 15 g
10 cm top, filtered to eliminate

precisely homogenized before

300 μm neuston net, cleaning

matography (GC) coupled with mass spectrometry, in which GC sepa­

1 kg residue gathered from

and stockpiled in 1 L glass

Samples were collected by

rates the pyrolyzed products and pyrogram is generated. The pyrogram

> 2 mm fragments, and

each, for triplicate test

of the unknown samples are compared with available or developed

Sampling procedure

reference pyrogram to understand the constitution of the polymer mass

under study. The method allows the use of relatively much lesser mass,
in the range of 0.35–7 mg of particulate debris, at temperatures as high
as 700 °C in comparison with TGA. The bulk of the analysed sediments
bottles

and solid particulates under suspension revealed the presence of PVC,

allowing to settle, bottom particles discarded.

PS, poly(vinyl acetate) (PVA) and styrene-butadiene styrene rubber in

good resolution (Fabbri et al., 2000; Fabbri, 2001). Py-GC/MS was also
Cape town, South

used to study the particles such as PA and chlorinated polyethylene

(CPE)/chloro-sulphonated polyethylene (CSPE) (Fries et al., 2013b;
Nuelle et al., 2014; Dekiff et al., 2014). According to the instrument
Location

Africa

condition, we need to choose the pyrolyzing filament for the identifi­

Italy

cation of the polymer.

Table 2 (continued)

4. Future directions
Polyamide-12
PE,PET, PVC, PS,

7 days at 55 °C.
PAA, EVA,

The characterization of MPs by thermal techniques studied so far

and to be applied in future are highlighted in Fig. 5 below. In the ex­
MP type

isting literature, studies on MPs thermal degradation are usually re­

PET

d
b
a

ported using Py-GC/MS technique and thermal desorption gas

c

10
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Fig. 5. Characterization of MPs by thermal techniques.

Table 3
Comparison between DPMS and Py-GC/MS.
Pyrolysis DPMS Py-GC/MS

Residence time in Less than a second Milli seconds

pyrolysis zone
Pyrolysis products Polymer is pyrolyzed very close to the ion source, and the primary chain Primary pyrolyzed products have enough residence time to go
cleavage products are instantaneously reached to the detector. Primary pyrolysis through secondary reactions. Secondary pyrolysis products are
products are detected mostly detected
Thermally labile products Can be detected without any secondary reactions Secondary reactions are possible
Molecular weight effect Higher molecular weight degradation products can be analysed Generally, higher molecular weight degradation products are lost
in the column or after formation

chromatography–mass spectrometry (TD-GC–MS), which could be due insight into the functional groups formed through the hydrolysis and/or
to the expertise only in these techniques. The characterization of MPs photo-degradation of these MPs in marine environment and thereby its
by direct pyrolysis mass spectrometry (DPMS) and secondary ion Mass human health impact can be assessed, which has also to be studied in
spectrometry (SIMS) have to be studied in future. future. It is to be noted here that only two reports are available on SIMS,
Earlier studies on the analysis of the degradation products of MPs in which 1) metal ion diffusion into plastics (Kern et al., n.d.) and 2) sea
using the Py-GC/MS technique provided information only on the sec­ surface exposure (Jungnickel et al., 2016) are studied.
ondary degradation products. The MPs by both DPMS and Py-GC/MS
techniques, will have to be studied in future, which will shed light both 5. Conclusion
on the end groups that are formed during the hydrolysis and/or pho­
todegradation (please note photodegradation does not happen for There is much left to study about these MPs debris that are making a
sample in ocean/water) of these MPs in marine environment. Generally, great hindrance for the Marine eco-system. While we are currently
DPMS technique has been applied to study the degradation products of capable of understanding the individual composition, there are several
most of the polymers, to cite a few hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene limitations to these tools, such as the reduced size, of these particles
(HTPB) (Ganesh et al., 2000), polysulfides (PLS) (Sundarrajan et al., that sometimes falls beyond the frame of the characterization or iso­
2002; Sundarrajan et al., 2005; Montaudo et al., 1994), PET (Montaudo lation method, the time consuming extraction processes and persistent
et al., 1993) and so on. In DPMS technique, polymer is pyrolyzed very non-plastic mass. The development in available technology seen today
near to the ion source, and the primary chain cleavage products formed for the purpose of isolation and identification of MPs is a result of slow
are instantaneously reached to detector for obtaining the mass spectra. improvement that happened over four decades to facilitate the rise of
The comparison between DPMS and Py-GC/MS technique are briefly demand for efficiency and speed in this process. With the understanding
presented in Table 3. In future, we are aiming to study the MPs in of the need to study this debris being consistent, there is a strong need
marine environment by using the above two techniques. As the time for better and advanced technology to aid the researcher. In conclusion,
scales of the two pyrolysis techniques are very different, we expect that we suggest that further advancements developed must take into con­
thermally labile pyrolysis products, end group formed during photo­ sideration, the fragmenting nature of this debris and seek to reduce the
oxidation of MPs in the sea-shore and hydrolysed groups formed in the minimal separable and identifiable size of the MPs. Earlier studies on
case of MPs in marine (aqueous) environment will be detected in DPMS. the analysis of the degradation products of MPs using the Py-GC/MS
Also, a comparative study by DPMS and Py-GC/MS may be able to technique provided information only on the secondary degradation
detect different chemical compounds. products. The identification and characterization of MPs by both DPMS
Detection limit of MPs in the marine environment must be im­ and Py-GC/MS techniques, will have to be studied in future, which will
proved, which can enter into human food chain through fish. Secondary shed light both on the end groups that are formed during the hydrolysis
ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) has been widely used to characterize the and/or degradation of these MPs in marine environment. In addition,
polymers, additives in polymers, and so on. However, to the best of our SIMS studies must be carried out, which will shed light on formed
knowledge (confirmed by Sci-finder search), it has not been applied to functional groups, adsorbed metal ions, and other adsorbed species on
characterize the MPs in marine environment. This study will provide an MP surfaces.

11
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

CRediT authorship contribution statement Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (12), 6646–6655.

Collard, France, Gilbert, Bernard, Eppe, Gauthier, Parmentier, Eric, Das, Krishna, 2015.
Detection of anthropogenic particles in fish stomachs: an isolation method adapted to
The manuscript, figure and tables were contributed by Kavya. identification by Raman spectroscopy. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69 (3),
Reviewing, write up and improving manuscript quality, Future direc­ 331–339.
Conservancy, Ocean, 2014. Turning the Tide on Trash: 2014 Report. Retrieved
tions, literature search partly, abstract and conclusion part and sub­ September 5. pp. 2014.
sequent corrections were performed by Subramanian Sundarrajan. The Cooper, David A., Corcoran, Patricia L., 2010. Effects of mechanical and chemical pro­
overall direction and guidance were provided by Seeram Ramakrishna. cesses on the degradation of plastic beach debris on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 60 (5), 650–654.
Costa, Monica F., Sul, Juliana A. Ivar Do, Silva-Cavalcanti, Jacqueline S., Araújo, Maria
Declaration of competing interest Christina B., Spengler, Ângela, Tourinho, Paula S., 2010. On the importance of size of
plastic fragments and pellets on the strandline: a snapshot of a Brazilian beach.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 168 (1–4), 299–304.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Courtene-Jones, Winnie, Quinn, Brian, Murphy, Fionn, Gary, Stefan F., Narayanaswamy,
Bhavani E., 2017. Optimisation of enzymatic digestion and validation of specimen
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­ preservation methods for the analysis of ingested microplastics. Anal. Methods 9 (9),
ence the work reported in this paper. 1437–1445.
Cutroneo, Laura, Cincinelli, Alessandra, Chelazzi, David, Fortunati, Alessia, Reboa, Anna,
Spadoni, Sara, Vena, Enrico, Capello, Marco, 2020. Baseline characterisation of mi­
Acknowledgement crolitter in the sediment of torrents and the sea bottom in the Gulf of Tigullio (NW
Italy). Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 35, 101119.
Dekiff, Jens H., Remy, Dominique, Klasmeier, Jörg, Fries, Elke, 2014. Occurrence and
This research was funded by the GSK Singapore Partnership 4th
spatial distribution of microplastics in sediments from Norderney. Environ. Pollut.
Green and Sustainable Manufacturing Award 2017, funded by the GSK- 186, 248–256.
EDB Trust Fund (WBS: 265-000-608-504). Derraik, Jose G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44 (9), 842–852.
Desforges, Jean-Pierre W., Galbraith, Moira, Dangerfield, Neil, Ross, Peter S., 2014.
References Widespread distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific
Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79 (1–2), 94–99.
Di, Mingxiao, Wang, Jun, 2018. Microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the
Andrady, Anthony L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Sci. Total Environ. 616, 1620–1627.
62 (8), 1596–1605. Dierkes, Georg, Lauschke, Tim, Becher, Susanne, Schumacher, Heike, Földi, Corinna,
Andrady, Anthony L., 2015. Plastics and Environmental Sustainability. John Wiley & Ternes, Thomas, 2019. Quantification of microplastics in environmental samples via
Sons. pressurized liquid extraction and pyrolysis-gas chromatography. Anal. Bioanal.
Barnes, David K.A., Galgani, Francois, Thompson, Richard C., Barlaz, Morton, 2009. Chem. 411 (26), 6959–6968.
Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Dubaish, Fatehi, Liebezeit, Gerd, 2013. Suspended microplastics and black carbon par­
Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364 (1526), 1985–1998. ticles in the jade system, southern North Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224 (2), 1352.
Besley, Aiken, Vijver, Martina G., Behrens, Paul, Bosker, Thijs, 2017. A standardized Dümichen, Erik, Barthel, Anne-Kathrin, Braun, Ulrike, Bannick, Claus G., Brand, Kathrin,
method for sampling and extraction methods for quantifying microplastics in beach Jekel, Martin, Senz, Rainer, 2015. Analysis of polyethylene microplastics in en­
sand. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (1), 77–83. vironmental samples, using a thermal decomposition method. Water Res. 85,
Betts, Kellyn, 2008. Why Small Plastic Particles May Pose a Big Problem in the Oceans. 451–457.
pp. 8995. Durukan, Serkan, Karadagli, Fatih, 2019. Physical characteristics, fiber compositions, and
Borkar, Shweta, Sondavid Nandanwar, Young-IL Kim, Don Kim, Hyun Kwan Shim, and tensile properties of nonwoven wipes and toilet papers in relevance to what is
Hak Jun Kim. "Investigation of microplastics from three marine organisms." Korean J. flushable. Sci. Total Environ. 697, 134135.
Fish Aquat. Sci. 53, no. 2 (2020): 244–250. EPA, US, 2014. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United
Bridson, James H., Patel, Meeta, Lewis, Anita, Gaw, Sally, Parker, Kate, 2020. States Tables and Figures for 2012. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
Microplastic contamination in Auckland (New Zealand) beach sediments. Mar. Eriksen, Marcus, Lebreton, Laurent C.M., Carson, Henry S., Thiel, Martin, Moore, Charles
Pollut. Bull. 151, 110867. J., Borerro, Jose C., Galgani, Francois, Ryan, Peter G., Reisser, Julia, 2014. Plastic
Browne, Mark A., Galloway, Tamara, Thompson, Richard, 2007. Microplastic—an pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over
emerging contaminant of potential concern? Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 3 (4), 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One 9 (12), e111913.
559–561. Europe, Plastic, 2015. Plastics—the facts 2015 an analysis of European plastics produc­
Browne, Mark A., Galloway, Tamara S., Thompson, Richard C., 2010a. Spatial patterns of tion, demand and waste data. In: Plastics Europe, Association of Plastic
plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 3404–3409. Manufacturers Brussels.
Browne, Mark A., Galloway, Tamara S., Thompson, Richard C., 2010b. Spatial patterns of Fabbri, Daniele, 2001. Use of pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry to study
plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 3404–3409. environmental pollution caused by synthetic polymers: a case study: the Ravenna
Bucol, Lilibeth A., Romano, Edwin F., Cabcaban, Sherlyn M., Siplon, Lyca Mae D., Madrid, Lagoon. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 58, 361–370.
Gianni Coleen, Bucol, Abner A., Polidoro, Beth, 2020. Microplastics in marine sedi­ Fabbri, Daniele, Tartari, Daniele, Trombini, Claudio, 2000. Analysis of poly (vinyl
ments and rabbitfish (Siganus fuscescens) from selected coastal areas of Negros chloride) and other polymers in sediments and suspended matter of a coastal lagoon
Oriental, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110685. by pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 413 (1–2),
Canesi, L., Ciacci, Caterina, Bergami, E., Monopoli, M.P., Dawson, K.A., Papa, Stefano, 3–11.
Canonico, Barbara, Corsi, I., 2015. Evidence for immunomodulation and apoptotic Fabbri, Daniele, Rombolà, Alessandro G., Vassura, Ivano, Torri, Cristian, Franzellitti,
processes induced by cationic polystyrene nanoparticles in the hemocytes of the Silvia, Capolupo, Marco, Fabbri, Elena, 2020. Off-line analytical pyrolysis GC-MS to
marine bivalve Mytilus. Mar. Environ. Res. 111, 34–40. study the accumulation of polystyrene microparticles in exposed mussels. J. Anal.
Castañeda, Rowshyra A., Avlijas, Suncica, Simard, M. Anouk, Ricciardi, Anthony, 2014. Appl. Pyrolysis 149, 104836.
Microplastic pollution in St. Lawrence river sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71 Fendall, Lisa S., Sewell, Mary A., 2009. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your
(12), 1767–1771. face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (8), 1225–1228.
Castelvetro, Valter, Corti, Andrea, Bianchi, Sabrina, Ceccarini, Alessio, Manariti, Ferreira, Marta, Thompson, Jameel, Paris, Andrew, Rohindra, David, Rico, Ciro, 2020.
Antonella, Vinciguerra, Virginia, 2020. Quantification of poly (ethylene ter­ Presence of microplastics in water, sediments and fish species in an urban coastal
ephthalate) micro-and nanoparticle contaminants in marine sediments and other environment of Fiji, a Pacific small island developing state. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 153,
environmental matrices. J. Hazard. Mater. 385, 121517. 110991.
Cauwenberghe, Van, Lisbeth, Michiel Claessens, Vandegehuchte, Michiel B., Mees, Jan, Fischer, Marten, Goßmann, Isabel, Scholz-Böttcher, Barbara M., 2019. Fleur de Sel—an
Janssen, Colin R., 2013. Assessment of marine debris on the Belgian Continental interregional monitor for microplastics mass load and composition in European
Shelf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73 (1), 161–169. coastal waters? J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 144, 104711.
Cho, Youna, Shim, Won Joon, Jang, Mi, Han, Gi Myung, Hong, Sang Hee, 2019. Fries, Elke, Dekiff, Jens H., Willmeyer, Jana, Nuelle, Marie-Theres, Ebert, Martin, Remy,
Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in market bivalves from South Korea. Dominique, 2013a. Identification of polymer types and additives in marine micro­
Environ. Pollut. 245, 1107–1116. plastic particles using pyrolysis-GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environ
Claessens, Michiel, Meester, Steven De, Landuyt, Lieve Van, Clerck, Karen De, Janssen, Sci Process Impacts 15 (10), 1949–1956.
Colin R., 2011a. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments Fries, Elke, Dekiff, Jens H., Willmeyer, Jana, Nuelle, Marie-Theres, Ebert, Martin, Remy,
along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (10), 2199–2204. Dominique, 2013b. Identification of polymer types and additives in marine micro­
Claessens, Michiel, Meester, Steven De, Landuyt, Lieve Van, Clerck, Karen De, Janssen, plastic particles using pyrolysis-GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environ
Colin R., 2011b. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments Sci Process Impacts 15 (10), 1949–1956.
along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (10), 2199–2204. Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H.,
Clunies-Ross, P.J., Smith, G.P.S., Gordon, K.C., Gaw, S., 2016. Synthetic shorelines in New et al., 2000a. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40 (6),
Zealand? Quantification and characterisation of microplastic pollution on 516–527.
Canterbury’s coastlines. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50 (2), 317–325. Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H.,
Cole, Matthew, Lindeque, Pennie, Halsband, Claudia, Galloway, Tamara S., 2011. et al., 2000b. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40 (6),
Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 516–527.
62 (12), 2588–2597. Galgani, F., Fleet, D., Franeker, J.V., Katsanevakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J., Oosterbaan, L.,
Cole, Matthew, Lindeque, Pennie, Fileman, Elaine, Halsband, Claudia, Goodhead, Rhys, Janssen, dan C., et al., 2010. Marine strategy framework directive—task group 10
Moger, Julian, Galloway, Tamara S., 2013. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton.

12
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

report marine litter. In: Zampoukas, N. (Ed.), Scientific and Technical Reports. Mathalon, Alysse, Hill, Paul, 2014. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem sur­
European Commission Joint. Research Centre. Ispra. rounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81 (1), 69–79.
Ganesh, K., Sundarrajan, S., Kishore, K., Ninan, K.N., George, B., Surianarayanan, M., Mazariegos-Ortíz, Carlos, de los Ángeles Rosales, María, Carrillo-Ovalle, Leonel, Cardoso,
2000. Primary pyrolysis products of hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene. Renan Pereira, Muniz, Marcelo Costa, dos Anjos, Roberto Meigikos, 2020. First evi­
Macromolecules 33 (2), 326–330. dence of microplastic pollution in the El Quetzalito sand beach of the Guatemalan
Gimiliani, Giovana Teixeira, Fornari, Milene, Redígolo, Marcelo Miyada, Willian Vega Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 156, 111220.
Bustillos, José Oscar, Moledo de Souza Abessa, Denis, Faustino Pires, Maria Mehdinia, Ali, Dehbandi, Reza, Hamzehpour, Ali, Rahnama, Reza, 2020. Identification of
Aparecida, 2020. Simple and cost-effective method for microplastic quantification in microplastics in the sediments of southern coasts of the Caspian Sea, north of Iran.
estuarine sediment: a case study of the Santos and São Vicente Estuarine System. Case Environ. Pollut. 258, 113738.
Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng., 100020. Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, Ivo, Löder, Martin G.J., Primpke, Sebastian, Gerdts, Gunnar,
Gomiero, Alessio, Øysæd, Kjell Birger, Agustsson, Thorleifur, van Hoytema, Nanne, van 2017. Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using
Thiel, Thomas, Grati, Fabio, 2019. First record of characterization, concentration and focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res. 108,
distribution of microplastics in coastal sediments of an urban fjord in south west 365–372.
Norway using a thermal degradation method. Chemosphere 227, 705–714. Montaudo, Giorgio, Puglisi, Concetto, Samperi, Filippo, 1993. Primary thermal de­
Goswami, Prasun, Vinithkumar, Nambali Valsalan, Dharani, Gopal, 2020. First evidence gradation mechanisms of PET and PBT. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 42 (1), 13–28.
of microplastics bioaccumulation by marine organisms in the Port Blair Bay, Montaudo, G., Puglisi, C., Blazò, M., Kishore, K., Ganesh, K., 1994. Thermal degradation
Andaman Islands. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 155, 111163. products of poly (styrenesulfides) investigated by direct pyrolysis—mass spectro­
Graham, Erin R., Thompson, Joseph T., 2009. Deposit-and suspension-feeding sea cu­ metry and flash pyrolysis—gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Appl.
cumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 368 (1), Pyrolysis 29 (2), 207–222.
22–29. Moore, Charles James, 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly
Gregory, Murray R., 1996. Plastic ‘scrubbers’ in hand cleansers: a further (and minor) increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108 (2), 131–139.
source for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32 (12), 867–871. Müller, Yanina K., Wernicke, Theo, Pittroff, Marco, Witzig, Cordula S., Storck, Florian R.,
Halle, Ter, Alexandra, Lucie Ladirat, Martignac, Marion, Mingotaud, Anne Françoise, Klinger, Josef, Zumbülte, Nicole, 2020. Microplastic analysis—are we measuring the
Boyron, Olivier, Perez, Emile, 2017. To what extent are microplastics from the open same? Results on the first global comparative study for microplastic analysis in a
ocean weathered? Environ. Pollut. 227, 167–174. water sample. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 412 (3), 555–560.
Hara, Jenevieve, Frias, João, Nash, Róisín, 2020. Quantification of microplastic ingestion Nan, Bingxu, Su, Lei, Kellar, Claudette, Craig, Nicholas J., Keough, Michael J., Pettigrove,
by the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus from Irish waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. Vincent, 2020. Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian fresh­
152, 110905. water shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia. Environ. Pollut. 259,
Harrison, Jesse P., Ojeda, Jesús J., Romero-González, María E., 2012. The applicability of 113865.
reflectance micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for the detection of syn­ Nel, H.A., Froneman, P.W., 2015. A quantitative analysis of microplastic pollution along
thetic microplastics in marine sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 416, 455–463. the south-eastern coastline of South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101 (1), 274–279.
Hongprasith, Narapong, Kittimethawong, Chakrit, Lertluksanaporn, Rawit, Ng, K.L., Obbard, J.P., 2006. Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s coastal marine
Eamchotchawalit, Theepop, Kittipongvises, Suthirat, Lohwacharin, Jenyuk, 2020. IR environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52 (7), 761–767.
microspectroscopic identification of microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment Nuelle, Marie-Theres, Dekiff, Jens H., Remy, Dominique, Fries, Elke, 2014. A new ana­
plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–8. lytical approach for monitoring microplastics in marine sediments. Environ. Pollut.
Hüffer, Thorsten, Weniger, Anne-Katrin, Hofmann, Thilo, 2018. Data on sorption of or­ 184, 161–169.
ganic compounds by aged polystyrene microplastic particles. Data Brief 18, 474–479. Park, Tae-Jin, Lee, Seung-Hyun, Lee, Myung-Sung, Lee, Jae-Kwan, Lee, Soo-Hyung, Zoh,
Irfan, Tahira, Khalid, Sofia, Taneez, Mahwish, Hashmi, Muhammad Zaffar, 2020. Plastic Kyung-Duk, 2020. Occurrence of microplastics in the Han River and riverine fish in
driven pollution in Pakistan: the first evidence of environmental exposure to mi­ South Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 708, 134535.
croplastic in sediments and water of Rawal Lake. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–10. Patel, Mayur M., Goyal, Bhoomika R., Bhadada, Shraddha V., Bhatt, Jay S., Amin, Avani
Jungnickel, H., Pund, R., Tentschert, J., Reichardt, P., Laux, P., Harbach, H., Luch, A., F., 2009. Getting into the brain. CNS Drugs 23 (1), 35–58.
2016. Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS)-based analysis and Périne, Doyen, Hermabessiere, Ludovic, Dehaut, Alexandre, Himber, Charlotte, Decodts,
imaging of polyethylene microplastics formation during sea surf simulation. Sci. Marion, Degraeve, Thiefaine, Delord, Léna, et al., 2019. Occurrence and identifica­
Total Environ. 563, 261–266. tion of microplastics in beach sediments from the Hauts-de-France region. Environ.
Kang, Jung-Hoon, Kwon, Oh-Youn, Shim, Won Joon, 2015. Potential threat of micro­ Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (27), 28010–28021.
plastics to zooplanktivores in the surface waters of the Southern Sea of Korea. Arch. Phuong, Nam Ngoc, Zalouk-Vergnoux, Aurore, Kamari, Abderrahmane, Mouneyrac,
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69 (3), 340–351. Catherine, Amiard, Frederic, Poirier, Laurence, Lagarde, Fabienne, 2018.
Karami, Ali, Golieskardi, Abolfazl, Choo, Cheng Keong, Romano, Nicholas, Ho, Yu Bin, Quantification and characterization of microplastics in blue mussels (Mytilus edulis):
Salamatinia, Babak, 2017. A high-performance protocol for extraction of micro­ protocol setup and preliminary data on the contamination of the French Atlantic
plastics in fish. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 485–494. coast. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (7), 6135–6144.
Kern, Stefanie, Christine Kern, Mark Melvin Pradja, Rolf-Alexander Düring, and Marcus Prata, Joana Correia, da Costa, João P., Lopes, Isabel, Duarte, Armando C., Rocha-Santos,
Rohnke. "Spatially resolved indiffusion behavior of Cu2+ and Ni2+ in poly­ Teresa, 2020. Environmental exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible
propylene." J. Appl. Polym. Sci.: 49655. human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 702, 134455.
Khoironi, Adian, Hadiyanto, Hadiyanto, Anggoro, Sutrisno, Sudarno, Sudarno, 2020. Quinn, Brian, Murphy, Fionn, Ewins, Ciaran, 2017. Validation of density separation for
Evaluation of polypropylene plastic degradation and microplastic identification in the rapid recovery of microplastics from sediment. Anal. Methods 9 (9), 1491–1498.
sediments at Tambak Lorok coastal area, Semarang, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, Resins, O.N., 2015. Plastic. “Acc Publishes 2015 Statistical Reference Book on Plastic
110868. Resins,” no. 202.
Kor, Kamalodin, Mehdinia, Ali, 2020. Neustonic microplastic pollution in the Persian Rios, Lorena M., Moore, Charles, Jones, Patrick R., 2007. Persistent organic pollutants
Gulf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110665. carried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54 (8),
Laglbauer, Betty J.L., Franco-Santos, Rita Melo, Andreu-Cazenave, Miguel, Brunelli, Lisa, 1230–1237.
Papadatou, Maria, Palatinus, Andreja, Grego, Mateja, Deprez, Tim, 2014. Robin, R.S., Karthik, R., Purvaja, R., Ganguly, D., Anandavelu, I., Mugilarasan, M.,
Macrodebris and microplastics from beaches in Slovenia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89 (1–2), Ramesh, R., 2020. Holistic assessment of microplastics in various coastal environ­
356–366. mental matrices, southwest coast of India. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134947.
Law, Kara Lavender, Morét-Ferguson, Skye, Maximenko, Nikolai A., Proskurowski, Giora, Roch, Samuel, Brinker, Alexander, 2017. Rapid and efficient method for the detection of
Peacock, Emily E., Hafner, Jan, Reddy, Christopher M., 2010. Plastic accumulation in microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (8),
the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Science 329 (5996), 1185–1188. 4522–4530.
Lee, Kyun-Woo, Shim, Won Joon, Youn Kwon, Oh., Kang, Jung-Hoon, 2013. Size-de­ Rocha-Santos, Teresa, Duarte, Armando C., 2015. A critical overview of the analytical
pendent effects of micro polystyrene particles in the marine copepod Tigriopus ja­ approaches to the occurrence, the fate and the behavior of microplastics in the en­
ponicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (19), 11278–11283. vironment. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 65, 47–53.
Lee, Hwang, Shim, Won Joon, Kwon, Jung-Hwan, 2014. Sorption capacity of plastic Ryan, Peter G., 2015. A brief history of marine litter research. In: Marine Anthropogenic
debris for hydrophobic organic chemicals. Sci. Total Environ. 470, 1545–1552. Litter. Springer, Cham, pp. 1–25.
Li, Wenjie, Lo, Hoi-Shing, Wong, Ho-Man, Zhou, Man, Wong, Chun-Yuen, Tam, Nora Ryan, Peter G., Moore, Charles J., van Franeker, Jan A., Moloney, Coleen L., 2009.
Fung-Yee, Cheung, Siu-Gin, 2020. Heavy metals contamination of sedimentary mi­ Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans.
croplastics in Hong Kong. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 153, 110977. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364 (1526), 1999–2012.
Löder, Martin G.J., Gerdts, Gunnar, 2015. Methodology used for the detection and Savoca, Serena, Bottari, Teresa, Fazio, Enza, Bonsignore, Martina, Mancuso, Monique,
identification of microplastics—a critical appraisal. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Luna, Gian Marco, Romeo, Teresa, et al., 2020. Plastics occurrence in juveniles of
Springer, Cham, pp. 201–227. Engraulis encrasicolus and Sardina pilchardus in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Sci.
Lusher, Amy L., Mchugh, Matthew, Thompson, Richard C., 2013. Occurrence of micro­ Total Environ. 718, 137457.
plastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Scherer, Christian, Weber, Annkatrin, Stock, Friederike, Vurusic, Sebastijan, Egerci,
Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 67 (1–2), 94–99. Harun, Kochleus, Christian, Arendt, Niklas, et al., 2020. Comparative assessment of
Magnusson, Kerstin, Eliasson, Karin, Fråne, Anna, Haikonen, Kalle, Hultén, Johan, microplastics in water and sediment of a large European river. Sci. Total Environ.
Olshammar, Mikael, Stadmark, Johanna, Voisin, Anais, 2016. Swedish sources and 139866.
pathways for microplastics to the marine environment. In: A Review of Existing Data. Schleicher, Lisa S., Miller, J. William, Watkins-Kenney, Sarah C., Carnes-McNaughton,
IVL, C, pp. 183. Linda F., Wilde-Ramsing, Mark U., 2008. Non-destructive chemical characterization
Majewsky, Marius, Bitter, Hajo, Eiche, Elisabeth, Horn, Harald, 2016. Determination of of ceramic sherds from Shipwreck 31CR314 and Brunswick Town, North Carolina. J.
microplastic polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) in environmental samples Archaeol. Sci. 35 (10), 2824–2838.
using thermal analysis (TGA-DSC). Sci. Total Environ. 568, 507–511. Song, Young Kyoung, Hong, Sang Hee, Jang, Mi, Kang, Jung-Hoon, Kwon, Oh. Youn, Han,
Mataji, Ameneh, Taleshi, Mojtaba S., Balimoghaddas, Ebrahim, 2020. Distribution and Gi Myung, Shim, Won Joon, 2014. Large accumulation of micro-sized synthetic
characterization of microplastics in surface waters and the southern caspian sea polymer particles in the sea surface microlayer. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (16),
coasts sediments. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 78 (1), 86–93. 9014–9021.

13
A. N V Lakshmi Kavya, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111704

Song, Young Kyoung, Hong, Sang Hee, Jang, Mi, Han, Gi Myung, Rani, Manviri, Lee, Chemosphere 159, 496–505.
Jongmyoung, Shim, Won Joon, 2015. A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic Vianello, A., Boldrin, A., Guerriero, P., Moschino, V., Rella, R., Sturaro, A., Da Ros, L.,
identification methods for analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Mar. 2013a. Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy: first observa­
Pollut. Bull. 93 (1–2), 202–209. tions on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 130,
Sundarrajan, S., Surianarayanan, M., Srinivasan, K.S.V., Kishore, K., 2002. Thermal de­ 54–61.
gradation processes in polysulfide copolymers investigated by direct pyrolysis mass Vianello, A., Boldrin, A., Guerriero, P., Moschino, V., Rella, R., Sturaro, A., Da Ros, L.,
spectrometry and flash pyrolysis− gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 2013b. Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy: first observa­
Macromolecules 35 (9), 3331–3337. tions on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 130,
Sundarrajan, Subramanian, Surianarayanan, Mahadevan, Srinivasan, Kalathur Sabdham 54–61.
Vangepuram, 2005. Synthesis and characterization of saturated and unsaturated Vilakati, Bongekile, Sivasankar, V., Mamba, Bhekie B., Omine, Kiyoshi, Msagati, Titus
polysulfide polymers and their thermal degradation processes investigated by flash A.M., 2020. Characterization of plastic micro particles in the Atlantic Ocean seashore
pyrolysis–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Polym. Sci. A Polym. Chem. 43 of Cape Town, South Africa and mass spectrometry analysis of pyrolyzate products.
(3), 638–649. Environ. Pollut. 265 (part A), 114859.
Tagg, Alexander S., Sapp, Melanie, Harrison, Jesse P., Ojeda, Jesús J., 2015. Identification Wagner, Jeff, Wang, Zhong-Min, Ghosal, Sutapa, Rochman, Chelsea, Gassel, Margy, Wall,
and quantification of microplastics in wastewater using focal plane array-based re­ Stephen, 2017. Novel method for the extraction and identification of microplastics in
flectance micro-FT-IR imaging. Anal. Chem. 87 (12), 6032–6040. ocean trawl and fish gut matrices. Anal. Methods 9 (9), 1479–1490.
Tagg, A.S., Harrison, Jesse Patrick, Ju-Nam, Yon, Sapp, Melanie, Bradley, Emma L., Wessel, Caitlin C., Lockridge, Grant R., Battiste, David, Cebrian, Just, 2016. Abundance
Sinclair, Christopher J., Ojeda, Jesús Javier, 2017. Fenton’s reagent for the rapid and and characteristics of microplastics in beach sediments: insights into microplastic
efficient isolation of microplastics from wastewater. Chem. Commun. 53 (2), accumulation in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109 (1),
372–375. 178–183.
Talsness, Chris E., Andrade, Anderson J.M., Kuriyama, Sergio N., Taylor, Julia A., Saal, Woodall, Lucy C., Gwinnett, Claire, Packer, Margaret, Thompson, Richard C., Robinson,
Frederick S. Vom, 2009. Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals and Laura F., Paterson, Gordon L.J., 2015. Using a forensic science approach to minimize
relevance for human health. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364 (1526), 2079–2096. environmental contamination and to identify microfibres in marine sediments. Mar.
Thompson, Richard C., Olsen, Ylva, Mitchell, Richard P., Davis, Anthony, Rowland, Pollut. Bull. 95 (1), 40–46.
Steven J., John, Anthony W.G., McGonigle, Daniel, Russell, Andrea E., 2004. Lost at Xiong, Xiong, Chen, Xianchuan, Zhang, Kai, Mei, Zhigang, Hao, Yujiang, Zheng, Jinsong,
sea: where is all the plastic? Science(Washington) 304 (5672), 838. Wu, Chenxi, et al., 2018. Microplastics in the intestinal tracts of East Asian finless
Tong, Huiyan, Jiang, Qianyi, Hu, Xingshuai, Zhong, Xiaocong, 2020. Occurrence and porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis sunameri) from Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea of
identification of microplastics in tap water from China. Chemosphere 126493. China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 136, 55–60.
Tsukame, Takahiro, Ehara, Yasushi, Shimizu, Yasuko, Kutsuzawa, Michio, Saitoh, Hideki, Zhang, H., Q. Zhou, and Y. Luo. "A method and apparatus of continuous flow and flotating
Shibasaki, Yoshio, 1997. Characterization of microstructure of polyethylenes by separation for microplastics." China Patent, Application Number, 201510227085 1
differential scanning calorimetry. Thermochim. Acta 299 (1–2), 27–32. (2015).
Turner, Andrew, Holmes, Luke, 2011. Occurrence, distribution and characteristics of Zhang, Min, Li, Jingxi, Ding, Haibing, Ding, Jinfeng, Jiang, Fenghua, Ding, Neal Xiangyu,
beached plastic production pellets on the island of Malta (central Mediterranean). Sun, Chengjun, 2020. Distribution characteristics and influencing factors of micro­
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (2), 377–381. plastics in urban tap water and water sources in Qingdao, China. Anal. Lett. 53 (8),
Ugolini, A., Ungherese, G., Ciofini, M., Lapucci, A., Camaiti, M., 2013. Microplastic debris 1312–1327.
in sandhoppers. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 129, 19–22. Zhao, Shiye, Danley, Meghan, Ward, J. Evan, Li, Daoji, Mincer, Tracy J., 2017. An ap­
Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth, Vanreusel, Ann, Mees, Jan, Janssen, Colin R., 2013. proach for extraction, characterization and quantitation of microplastic in natural
Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 182, 495–499. marine snow using Raman microscopy. Anal. Methods 9 (9), 1470–1478.
Veerasingam, S., Saha, Mahua, Suneel, V., Vethamony, P., Rodrigues, Andrea Carmelita, Zitko, V., Hanlon, M., 1991. Another source of pollution by plastics: skin cleaners with
Bhattacharyya, Sourav, Naik, B.G., 2016. Characteristics, seasonal distribution and plastic scrubbers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22 (1), 41–42.
surface degradation features of microplastic pellets along the Goa coast, India.

14
REVIEW ARTICLE A Global Perspective on Microplastics
10.1029/2018JC014719
Robert C. Hale1, Meredith E. Seeley1, Mark J. La Guardia1, Lei Mai2, and Eddy Y. Zeng2
1
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, USA, 2Guangdong Key Laboratory of
Environmental Pollution and Health, School of Environment, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

Abstract Society has become increasingly reliant on plastics since commercial production began in
about 1950. Their versatility, stability, light weight, and low production costs have fueled global demand.
Most plastics are initially used and discarded on land. Nonetheless, the amount of microplastics in
Key Points: some oceanic compartments is predicted to double by 2030. To solve this global problem, we must
• The sources, behavior, fate, and understand plastic composition, physical forms, uses, transport, and fragmentation into microplastics
effects of microplastics are
inexplicably tied to those of their
(and nanoplastics). Plastic debris/microplastics arise from land disposal, wastewater treatment, tire wear,
plastic product and macrodebris paint failure, textile washing, and at‐sea losses. Riverine and atmospheric transport, storm water, and
precursors, as well as the disasters facilitate releases. In surface waters plastics/microplastics weather, biofoul, aggregate, and sink,
nanoplastics into which they
fragment
are ingested by organisms and redistributed by currents. Ocean sediments are likely the ultimate destination.
• Microplastic sampling and Plastics release additives, concentrate environmental contaminants, and serve as substrates for biofilms,
characterization methods are including exotic and pathogenic species. Microplastic abundance increases as fragment size decreases,
evolving, but their inadequacies still
hamper efforts to evaluate the true
as does the proportion of organisms capable of ingesting them. Particles <20 μm may penetrate cell
extent of their presence and membranes, exacerbating risks. Exposure can compromise feeding, metabolic processes, reproduction,
consequences in the built and and behavior. But more investigation is required to draw definitive conclusions. Human ingestion of
natural environments
• Microplastics are a
contaminated seafood and water is a concern. Microplastics indoors present yet uncharacterized risks,
global/multimedia phenomenon; magnified by the time we spend inside (>90%) and the abundance of polymeric products therein.
hence, they cannot be adequately Scientific challenges include improving microplastic sampling and characterization approaches,
understood, or related concerns
resolved, in the context of the
understanding long‐term behavior, additive bioavailability, and organismal and ecosystem health risks.
marine environment alone or a Solutions include improving globally based pollution prevention, developing degradable polymers and
single discipline additives, and reducing consumption/expanding plastic reuse.

1. Overview
Correspondence to:
R. C. Hale, Microplastics (1 to 5,000 μm particles) captured widespread attention after reports detailed massive “garbage
[email protected]
patches” in the world's great oceanic gyres. Concern followed over possible negative impacts on marine life.
While plastic wastes in the environment is truly a global and multi‐media issue, popular press and scientific
Citation: attention has predominantly been “ocean‐centric” (e.g. Cole et al., 2011). Like climate change and persistent
Hale, R. C., Seeley, M. E., La Guardia,
organic pollutants, plastic debris exemplifies our capacity to alter the environment on a global scale.
M. J., Mai, L., & Zeng, E. Y. (2020). A
Global Perspective on Microplastics. Villarrubia‐Gómez et al. (2018) argued that marine plastic contamination is irreversible and globally ubiqui-
Journal of Geophysical Research: tous and therefore meets two of the three conditions for a chemical pollution planetary boundary threat. The
Oceans, 125, e2018JC014719. https://
third condition is demonstrated widespread ecological disruption. Investigation of the possibility for such
doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014719
disruption has only recently begun but will become more critical as plastic contamination rises.
Received 19 AUG 2019 Indeed, Koelmans et al. (2017) recently argued that it is time to move beyond conjecture and proposed a
Accepted 1 DEC 2019 frame work for evaluating toxicological risks of microplastics.
Accepted article online 6 JAN 2020
Microplastics are found in diverse forms, including spheres, fragments, and fibers. Most (with the exception
of intentionally manufactured microbeads) arise from the deterioration of larger plastics (macroplastics).
Microplastics fragment into ever‐smaller debris over time, eventually becoming nanoplastics (<1 μm;
Lambert & Wagner, 2016; Hartmann et al., 2019). Hence, microplastics are largely a transitionary state
between macrodebris and nanomaterials. Besseling et al. (2018) estimated that fragmentation of spherical
microplastics could generate >1014 times greater numbers of nanoparticles. To understand microplastic
sources, fate, and consequences, one must consider the continuum, from plastic products/debris to micro-
plastics and nanoplastics. Hence, this review will encompass all three size classes.
Despite growing attention, the actual amounts of plastics in environmental compartments (terrestrial, mar-
©2020. American Geophysical Union. ine, freshwater, and atmospheric) and their ecological significance are still unclear. This is in part due to the
All Rights Reserved. recency of attention and lack of adequate sampling and analysis approaches, as well as the immensity and

HALE ET AL. 1 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Figure 1. While the global emission of carbon exceeds that of plastic production, the rate of increase of the latter now exceeds that of the former. Figure from
Borrelle et al. (2017).

diversity of the oceans. Estimates of the amount of floating plastic in the ocean are as high as 236,000 metric
tons (Van Sebille et al., 2015). Jambeck et al. (2015) suggested that 4.8 to 12.7 million tons of plastic debris per
year enter the ocean and projected cumulative inputs will increase tenfold by 2025.
Most published plastic debris surveys have focused on the ocean's surface (e.g., Cózar et al., 2014), but efforts
are now expanding into deeper waters, sediments, freshwaters, soils, air, and biological systems. In part, this
is based on ease of sampling and a predilection toward floating plastics. This is being remedied as the
research field matures. Microplastics have recently been discovered in presumably pristine locales, including
Arctic sea ice (Peeken et al., 2018), the Antarctic (Waller et al., 2017), remote mountain ranges (Allen et al.,
2019), and deep ocean trenches (Jamieson et al., 2019). As is common with emerging environmental issues,
much early work focused on describing the extent of microplastic contamination, although sampling and
analytical methods are not yet up to the challenge. Research is now also expanding to the processes of micro-
plastic formation, transport, fate, organismal exposure, and ecosystem effects.
As immense as the issue of microplastics in the world's ocean is, it is only part of a larger, more complex rea-
lity. Most waste plastics are disposed of in landfills, incinerated, or recycled, although much is mismanaged
and enters the natural environment. Over the last 70 years the nations of the world have become increasingly
dependent on plastics. Between 1950 and 2015 the annual growth rate of production has been 8.4% (Geyer
et al., 2017). Emerging and poor countries are now adopting usage of plastics en masse (Lwanga et al.,
2017), resulting in an upsurge in global plastic manufacture and consumption. The rate of plastic production
has recently surpassed that for carbon emissions (Figure 1). Ironically, affluent nations have shipped sub-
stantial amounts of plastic wastes, including obsolete electronics (e‐waste), to poorer countries for recycling.
In many cases these materials have been mishandled and much of the remnants (after removal of valuable
components such as copper and circuit boards) discarded improperly or even burned (Asante et al., 2016).
For these reasons and a lack of waste management infrastructure, the Asian Pacific region is believed to have
overtaken Western countries as the major contributor of plastic debris to coastal ocean waters (Jambeck
et al., 2015). However, China, a major waste recipient, recently disrupted the plastics recycling market by
restricting foreign imports (Tan et al., 2018). Other importing nations are following suit. This may alter
future plastic debris distributions and force more affluent countries to invest in solutions.

HALE ET AL. 2 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

To comprehend and ultimately resolve the microplastics problem, we must consider the nature, usage, and
fate of plastics in terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic compartments. We must balance the positive and
negative consequences of plastics, in order to prioritize actions to best protect global health. Currently, most
people researching microplastics in the environment have operated largely within individual specialties, for
example, polymer chemistry, waste management, atmospheric, terrestrial, freshwater, and marine science.
Delineation and resolution of the plastics issue will require wider participation/collaboration, adoption of
more holistic, interdisciplinary approaches, and recognition of plastic pollution as a risk to the global envir-
onment. This review is intended to facilitate that transition and will conclude with the identification of key
challenges to achieve these ends.

2. The Nature of Plastics and Microplastics

While the public often assumes that all plastics are compositionally the same and thus behave analogously in
the environment, this is not the case. To understand the behavior, fate, and consequences of microplastics, we
must first consider their composition and diversity. Identification of microplastics in the environment presents
a multidimensional challenge that is yet unmet. Their complexity parallels that of naturally occurring, parti-
culate organic matter (Hoellein et al., 2019). Plastics (and thus microplastics) vary in chemical composition,
physical form, size, texture, and shape. These characteristics evolve while in use and after discard.
Intentionally manufactured microplastics, designated primary microplastics, include microbeads in perso-
nal care products and industrial abrasives for delicate surfaces. Microbeads are also used in cleaning agents,
coatings and paints, drilling fluids in the oil and gas industry, and as precursor resins and pellets for the man-
ufacture of finished plastic products. In the U.S. the Microbeads Free Waters Act of 2015 was enacted to elim-
inate microbeads from rinse‐off personal care products (McDevitt et al., 2017), but not from nonrinse off
(e.g., sunscreen and cosmetic makeup) or industrial applications. Similar regulations have been enacted
elsewhere. Secondary microplastics are formed from the fragmentation of larger plastics during usage
(e.g., wear particles from tires) or after disposal. Secondary are far more abundant than primary microplas-
tics. Environmental half‐lives of plastics vary by polymer type and ambient conditions but range from days to
centuries (Ward et al., 2019). Most have not been evaluated scientifically. Andrady (2017) postulated that a
majority of plastic fragmentation occurs on land due to greater ambient temperatures, frictional forces, and
UV exposure.

2.1. Uses and Properties of Plastics

Due to their attributes, synthetic polymers have supplanted many naturally derived materials in modern
society (Lebreton & Andrady, 2019). Applications include single‐use food and beverage containers, thermal
insulation, home and workplace furnishings, electrical and electronic devices, vehicle interiors, toys, fabrics,
surface coatings, and even medical devices (e.g., artificial joints, incubators, intravenous (IV) fluid bags, and
drug delivery devices).
The design of plastics determines their properties and fitness for desired applications. Plastics are composites
of long chain organic polymers. Finished products may be homogeneous in terms of constituent polymer or
contain different types blended or cross‐reacted to achieve the desired characteristics. Polymer chains are
produced by combining chemical monomers, often derived from fossil fuels, into strands of repeating units.
Polymers also occur naturally in molecules such as biodegradable deoxyribonucleic acid or starch, as well as
more environmentally persistent cellulose and chitin. Microorganisms capable of degrading these natural
polymers have evolved over time. In contrast, synthetic polymers have only been produced in large amounts
since about 1950. For this reason and their compositional features, most synthetic polymers exhibit greater
resistance to biodegradation.
The densities of plastics vary by composition and span those of water. Most early observations of plastics
focused on macrodebris floating at the water's surface or stranded on shorelines. These include low‐density
polymers used in single‐use containers such as polyethylene and polypropylene. However, many other poly-
mers (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, and polyvinyl chloride) are denser than water and
thus are expected to sink. In aquatic environments, even these simple predictions as to fate may be mislead-
ing, as over time most surfaces develop a biofilm (Zettler et al., 2013) or form aggregations, which may even-
tually cause even buoyant plastics to sink. Polystyrene foam is common in fishing floats but will sink after air

HALE ET AL. 3 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

spaces within become waterlogged. In contrast, surface tension can main-

tain dense plastic resins at the water's surface.
Organic or inorganic additives are used to modify plastic properties such
as color, flexibility, flame retardancy, and ultraviolet (UV) resistance.
These additives may be present at percent by weight levels and will travel
with fragments formed from the parent products. Nonpolymeric fillers,
either functional or simple extenders, may also be added to plastics during
their formation to modify performance or reduce cost. It is noteworthy
that these amendments can even alter the overall density of the product
and thus its physical fate in aquatic systems. Additives, unreacted mono-
mers, degradates, and other materials (including nanoparticles) may be
released from the polymer matrix as a function of their properties and
Figure 2. Proposed relationship between microplastic size, particle number, environmental conditions. Indeed, researchers reported that some of
and total mass over time. We postulate that as particle size decreases and these plastic‐associated components may contribute to oceanic dissolved
surface area increases, environmental reactivity will increase. This may organic carbon (DOC) pools (Romera‐Castillo et al., 2018).
result in a decrease in total mass due to enhanced biodegradation.
A plastic product's mode of use and disposal influences its fate. To illus-
trate, automobile tires are subject to frictional road wear and weathering
while in use. In contrast, the plastic casings of electronics typically reside indoors and release minimal
microplastics during their in‐use lifetimes. Diversity of composition and the presence of potentially toxic
additives in plastics complicate reuse and environmental consequences. For example, if the host polymer
breaks down rapidly in the environment, the additives therein may be released. In recycling, banned addi-
tives may carry over into the new products. For example, flame retardant polybrominated diphenyl ether
(PBDE) polymer additives were removed from production in the U.S. in 2004. However, residues may be pre-
sent in contemporary carpet underlayment formed from recycled materials (DiGangi et al., 2011). Recycling
of e‐wastes in developing countries often involves shredding and burning plastics and hence releases micro-
plastics locally (Labunska et al., 2013).

2.2. Weathering and Degradation of Plastics

Plastics are vulnerable to weathering to varying degrees. Chemical oxidation of the polymer as a result of expo-
sure to sunlight is often the most impactful (Andrady, 2015). As noted above, additives may reduce such degra-
dation. Photooxidation is most rapid at the water surface, on beaches, and in exposed terrestrial scenarios,
negligible if shielded in aquatic sediments, soil, or landfills. Weinstein et al. (2016) noted that biofilm forma-
tion on plastic surfaces reduced UV light penetration by up to 99%. Interestingly, Khaled et al. (2018) reported
that incorporation of brominated flame retardant additives into polystyrene film increased UV absorption and
subsequent photooxidation of the polymer. They observed that byproducts were generated from the flame
retardants themselves and from the reaction of the polystyrene with bromine radicals. The amount of degra-
dation products leached into water constituted up 14% of the weight of the original polymeric film. Weathering
of plastics by UV oxidation may also increase vulnerability to later biodegradation.
Some polymers are composed of monomers derived from renewable, nonpetroleum sources, for example,
rayon and cellulose acetate (used in textiles and cigarette filters). Hartmann et al. (2019) included these as
“plastics,” although others have excluded them due to their cellulose‐derived origin. Additionally, polyhy-
droxyalkanoate from bacterial precursors and polyactic acid from plant starch have recently been produced
to be more inherently biodegradable (Harrison et al., 2018). The goal is to allow complete degradation to CO2
after the end of product service life, as partial breakdown may generate intermediates of unknown proper-
ties, as well as microplastics. The rate of polymer biodegradation increases as particle size decreases and sur-
face area increases (Chinaglia et al., 2018), although this has not been well investigated under marine
conditions. This may be an important factor in long‐term fate of microplastics (Figure 2). Characteristics
of the surrounding environment are also controlling (Dilkes‐Hoffman et al., 2019). For example, the above
biopolymers are denser than water and hence will sink. There, it may encounter lower ambient oxygen
levels, temperature, and light exposure, reducing the subsequent rate of degradation.
Recent work indicates that certain microorganisms may be capable of degrading petrobased synthetic poly-
mers. For example, Yang et al. (2015) observed that the gut bacteria of mealworms can slowly breakdown

HALE ET AL. 4 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Figure 3. Microplastic size distributions depend on sampling location (geographically and vertically in the water
column) and analytical methods applied. For example, Enders et al. (2015) pumped North Atlantic surface waters
through a 10 μm filter and then analyzed microplastics with Raman microspectroscopy. Cózar et al. (2014) collected
floating microplastics with a 200 μm net during the Malaspina global circumnavigation. They selected candidate micro-
plastics with a dissecting scope and evaluated composition of random particles with Raman spectroscopy. Selection of
surface waters, use of large mesh nets (>200 μm), and FTIR detection (minimum detection limit 20 μm, but often larger)
has been common and hence will underestimate the contribution of small microplastics or dense polymers that sink.

polystyrene, although residues remain. Yoshida et al. (2016) reported that bacteria exposed to polyethylene
terephthalate at a recycling site produced enzymes that could degrade it to its constituent monomers.
However, polymers with greater crystallinity, such as polyethylene, may be more resistant. Nonetheless,
Brandon et al. (2018) observed similar rates of degradation of polyethylene and polystyrene by
mealworms and that this was facilitated by adaption of their microbiomes. Microbial growth during use is
a concern in a number of plastic applications, such as kitchenware. Thus, some manufacturers have
added antimicrobial agents, for example, triclosan, to products. Alternatively, the so‐called oxodegradable
plastics are imbued with additives (e.g., transition metals) to accelerate polymer oxidation and
fragmentation of the plastic (Ammala et al., 2011). This was initially promoted as an attractive feature for
plastic sheeting (also known as plastic mulch or plasticulture) used to block weeds and maintain soil
moisture and temperature in crop farming (Steinmetz et al., 2016). However, biodegradation of the
residual plastic has been found to be slow and to release microplastics. Hence, the European Union has
taken steps to restrict their usage (European Union, 2018). However, a new polymer called poly
(diketoenamine) was recently synthesized that may be readily disassembled into its monomers
(Christensen et al., 2019). This allows flexibility of reuse and an opportunity to separate out unwanted
additives from previous applications.

2.3. Analysis of Microplastics

An overview of current sampling and analytical approaches for determining microplastics in complex envir-
onmental media is provided here to allow the reader to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the avail-
able literature detailing their presence in the global environment. The first crucial step for quantifying
microplastics in matrices from the field is collecting a representative sample consistent with the desired
research objectives. Many published studies have focused on specific zones where plastics are obvious, such
as the sea surface, shorelines, and beaches. Water sampling has often been conducted by towing a mesh net
(often 300 μm). However, this distorts the true size distribution of microplastics in the water, as shown in
Figure 3, which compares data from Cózar et al. (2014) versus Enders et al. (2015). Further, Chae et al.

HALE ET AL. 5 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

(2015) collected orders of magnitude greater microplastics from water when using a 20 μm hand net versus
300 μm trawl net. In addition, higher‐density and biofouled microplastics will sink; thus, water surface‐
focused approaches will not collect these.
Organisms may be evaluated for microplastic content in their entirety, or specific organs targeted. In any
event, researchers (e.g., Erni‐Cassola et al., 2017) commonly utilize a digestion step to eliminate labile tis-
sues, leaving behind the more recalcitrant microplastics. Evaluation of small microplastics (on the order
of 10 μm) and nanoplastics that may have penetrated cell membranes should be considered as these may
have greater toxicological implications (Triebskorn et al., 2018) than those in the lumen of the gut (which
may be quickly egested). Care to prevent and monitor contamination by nonsample‐related microplastics
during collection, processing, and detection are essential. Lab environments, where sample processing
occurs, are major sources of microplastics due to the abundance of synthetic fibers and other plastic products
indoors. This portends the extent of our personal exposure to microplastics indoors.
To understand the fate and consequences of microplastics in the environment, we must be able to measure
their full range of sizes and composition. Efforts to date examining their distribution and abundances have
been hampered by inadequate methods. Matrices where microplastics reside include water, sediment, bio-
logical tissues, soil, wastewater sludge, and air. Approaches to sampling, cleanup, and detection of micro-
plastics in these media are still evolving. Multistep procedures are common in environmental chemistry
due to the need to extract the analytes from the bulk matrix and remove interfering materials before final
microplastic detection and quantitation. Ideally, the detection technique provides both quantitative and
qualitative information (e.g., polymer type and quantity, additive content, fragment dimensions, and shape).
Analysis should be automated where feasible to reduce costs and accelerate sample throughput. To date,
researchers in the field have utilized different techniques for extraction from environmental matrices
(Fuller & Gautam, 2016; Hurley, Lusher, et al., 2018; Hurley, Woodward, et al., 2018; Wagner et al., 2017)
and for polymer identification (Fries et al., 2013; Käppler et al., 2018; Mintenig et al., 2017). Differences in
method effectiveness make comparison of data between studies more difficult.
As microplastics breakdown continuously in the environment, smaller fragments become increasingly
abundant over time (see Figures 2 and 3). While the fate of these minute particles has not yet been deter-
mined, they hold the key to the ultimate destiny of microplastics in the environment. Nonetheless, the
majority of published reports have focused on materials >100 μm due to methodological constraints.
Published studies also present the presence of microplastics in different ways, for example, number or
weight of microplastics per sample volume or weight. This further impairs comparison of studies.
Several reviews of microplastic detection methods have been published (e.g., Mai et al., 2018; Prata, 2018;
Zarfl, 2019). Early approaches often relied on light microscopy. However, this technique cannot provide che-
mical composition and thus is weak for differentiating synthetic polymers from sample interferences.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) has been widely used for polymer identification, producing
spectra that can be matched to library standards. The development of FTIR microspectroscopy, allowing par-
ticle chemical mapping, has substantially advanced microplastic characterization capabilities. In sophisti-
cated instruments sample filtrates may be automatically scanned for microparticles and fibers and
tentative polymer types assigned using, for example, a focal plane array detector (e.g., Primpke et al.,
2017). Unfortunately, conventional FTIR is typically limited to targets >10 μm due to diffraction limit con-
siderations. Raman microspectroscopy can provide detection down to about 1 μm and is being increasingly
utilized (Schymanski et al., 2018). Polymers may be weathered and thus produce spectra deviating from vir-
gin standards, complicating identification. In response, some researchers have created their own libraries of
weathered materials to assist identification (e.g., Choy et al., 2019). Attenuated total reflectance FTIR and
atomic force microscopy have also been used but require physical contact of the probe with the targeted
material. Thus, these tools may not be optimal for samples containing numerous minute targets. Optical
photothermal infrared spectroscopy, offering submicron spatial resolution, has recently been commercia-
lized. This technique uses a visible light probe to measure the photothermal response of targeted particles
following IR absorption (Figure 4). Configurations are available that permit both IR and Raman scans to
be performed on a given target, providing increased compositional information (Marcott et al., 2019).
Alternatively, Erni‐Cassola et al. (2017) applied a lipophilic fluorescent dye (Nile red), in combination with
fluorescence microscopy, to reveal microplastics in samples. Use of image analysis software allowed

HALE ET AL. 6 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Figure 4. Schematic of an optical photothermal IR/Raman spectrometer (a), a visible image of a microparticle in an indoor dust sample (b), and corresponding
FTIR (c) and Raman (d) spectra.The microparticle was tentatively identified as a poly (methyl methacrylate) based on comparison to library spectra. Analysis
and graphics courtesy of Debra Cook and Jay Anderson, Photothermal Spectroscopy Corp., Santa Barbara, CA, USA.

automated measurements. Prior to detection, the authors applied a hydrogen peroxide treatment (see
discussion below) to reduce/eliminate fluorescent biogenic materials. However, some less intense
fluorescence by residual chitin was observed. Fluorescence intensity was also less for more polar polymers
(e.g., polycarbonate, polyurethane, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyvinyl chloride) than lipophilic
polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene. Fluorescence may also be used to prescreen targets for
further micro FTIR or Raman investigation (e.g., Maes et al., 2017). Finally, destructive techniques such
as pyrolysis‐GC/MS can be employed, whereby microplastic(s) is vaporized at between 600 and 700 °C
and resulting components chromatographically separated and identified by mass spectrometry (Käppler
et al., 2018). However, destructive techniques such as this do not allow evaluation of particle shape and size.
Alternatively, samples can be presieved to isolate the desired size ranges. Resulting fractions may then be
extracted/dissolved and then subjected to pyrolysis or other techniques. For example, Ceccarini et al.
(2018) applied differential solvent extraction, pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS),
FTIR, size exclusion chromatography, and nuclear magnetic resonance to the analysis of microplastics in
to beach sediment samples. They observed (1) substantially greater amounts of microplastics than com-
monly reported in samples due to their detection of microplastics less than 20 μm; (2) extensive oxidation
of olefinic and polystyrene polymers due to weathering; and (3) fractionation of different microplastics by
size, polymeric composition, and degree of chemical weathering across beach transects. They further
observed that denser microplastics (such as polyester, polyamide, and polyvinyl chloride), as well as oxidized
microplastics, accumulated preferentially in aquatic versus beach sediments.

HALE ET AL. 7 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Environmental samples commonly contain interfering, nonplastic materials. Widely used treatments
employ the low specific gravity and high chemical resistance of synthetic polymers (Stock et al., 2019) to
remove interfering materials. Flotation/sedimentation to separate microplastics from denser materials, such
as minerals, is regularly utilized. This may be conducted in simple glass separatory funnels or more elaborate
apparatuses, such as the stainless steel Munich Plastic Sediment Separator (Coppock et al., 2017). As some
polymers (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and nylon) have densities
exceeding water, a high‐density saline solution (e.g., NaCl, NaI, or ZnCl2) may be employed to facilitate their
flotation. In addition, researchers often employ a step to destroy interfering natural materials such as bio-
fouling on plastic surfaces and cellulose and chitin particles (Stock et al., 2019). Hydrogen peroxide and
Fenton's reagent are most commonly employed, although alternatives include acid, base, or a suite of
enzymes that target specific classes. Care must be exercised to include the full range of polymers during den-
sity separation and not destroy more labile polymers during caustic treatment. Differential extraction may
also be used. For example, Fuller and Gautam (2016) applied a two‐step, pressurized fluid extraction with
different organic solvents to separate microplastics from municipal waste and industrial soil samples. The
first step used methanol at 100 °C to remove coincident fats and oils. The second step employed methylene
chloride at 180 °C to yield the plastics. The extraction process could be conducted using an automated com-
mercial instrument. The extracted material solidified after solvent evaporation into a composite plastic resi-
due. Limitations were that shape and size data for individual particles were lost, and interpretation of the
combined IR spectra from multiple, coincident polymers was more difficult. Alternatively, C. Liu, Li, et al.
(2019) quantified polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate microplastics in a variety of matrices by first
depolymerizing them via alkali‐assisted thermal hydrolysis. They then used liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry (LC/MS) to detect the resulting bisphenol A and p‐phthalic acid, respectively.
In summary, available sampling and analysis approaches have rapidly advanced in the past decade, yet they
still fail to fully meet the challenges presented by microplastics in the environment and must be improved.
Data on environmental microplastics levels should be scrutinized for methodological rigor and complete-
ness. In most studies to date, published concentration values are underestimates, as they do not encompass
important environmental compartments, polymer types, microplastic or nanoplastic sizes, or chemically
weathered materials.

3. Microplastics in the Indoor and Terrestrial Environment

Residents of developed countries spend >90% of their lives indoors (Bernstein et al., 2008), and homes and
workplaces are increasingly airtight and insulated with additive‐treated insulation such as polystyrene.
Consequently, our exposure to microplastics from inhalation and dust ingestion indoors may have toxicolo-
gical consequences, but scant research exists on the subject. In one of the few published studies, Dris et al.
(2017) reported indoor air concentrations of microfibers of between 1.0 and 60.0 fibers m−3, exceeding out-
door levels (0.3 to 1.5 fibers m−3). Indoor microfibers consisted of 67% natural or hybrid materials (primarily
cellulose fibers, acetate cellulose, or keratinous wool). The remaining fibers were wholly synthetic polymers,
dominated by polypropylene (Dris et al., 2016).
Polymer‐based products often contain chemical additives (e.g., flame‐retardants, dyes, plasticizers, and UV‐
inhibitors). Such additives were long‐assumed to be completely sequestered within the polymer matrix.
However, we now recognize that they may enter indoor air and dust by volatilization, polymer degradation,
and fragment dispersal. Additives in indoor dust samples have been shown to correlate with the number of
polymer‐related consumer products in the room (Marklund et al., 2003). A review by Lucattini et al. (2018)
described multiple studies detecting polymer additives in indoor air and dust. Indoor levels generally exceed
those outdoors (Melymuk et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2018). Potential health effects may be linked. For exam-
ple, Pauly et al. (1998) examined 114 human malignant lung specimens and found that 87% contained cel-
lulosic or other polymeric fibers.
Volatilization of chemicals (e.g., styrene, vinyl chloride, and formaldehyde) from polymers is a major source
of indoor air pollution; however, microplastic dispersal is an underappreciated pathway for semivolatile che-
mical dissemination. Concentration variations in indoor dust samples of up to 6 orders of magnitude for
phthalates and flame retardant additives have been reported (Harrad et al., 2008; Lucattini et al., 2018);
likely due to the heterogeneous distribution of microplastics within the indoor spaces sampled. Webster

HALE ET AL. 8 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

et al. (2009) supported the premise that additive‐laden microplastics play a role in contaminant dispersal.
Using X‐ray energy dispersive spectrometry, they imaged bromine‐rich sites (a marker of brominated flame
retardant additives) on microparticles in indoor dust samples from homes and vehicles. The particles them-
selves consisted of a calcium‐containing acrylic polymer (calcium carbonate is a common polymer filler;
Thenepalli et al., 2015).
Suzuki et al. (2009) detected microplastics in indoor dust samples from Japanese households and work
places. Again, bromine‐rich clusters within the dust samples were observed. Particle textures, colors, and
fibrous shapes were consistent with microplastics and textile fibers, ranging in size from 500 to 1,500 μm.
Wagner et al. (2013) identified BDE‐209 (a common flame retardant) containing microplastics in dust using
Raman microspectroscopy. Fluorescent pigments, dyes, and optical brightening or whitening agents are also
widely used in the plastic and textile industry (Christie, 1994). Dehghani et al. (2017) employed fluorescence
microscopy to assess microplastics in urban street sweeping samples from the central district of Tehran, Iran.
Fluorescent particles and fibers were visible in all samples. Samples were also analyzed by energy dispersive
X‐ray spectroscopy for Al, Na, Ca, Mg, and Si, elements common in polymer antioxidants. Concentrations of
microplastics in the dust samples ranged from 2.8 to 20 particles g−1 and from <100 to 5,000 μm in size. C.
Liu, Li, et al. (2019), using the thermal hydrolysis/LC MS approach previously described, reported polyethy-
lene terephthalate levels in Chinese indoor and outdoor dust up to 120,000 and 9,020 mg/kg, respectively.
Polycarbonate concentrations were lower, that is, 4.6 and 2.0 mg/kg, respectively. The authors also
employed FTIR microscopy and confirmed substantial numbers of polyester fibers in the dust, supporting
the polyethylene terephthalate findings. The authors projected that the estimated daily intake of polyethy-
lene terephthalate via dust ingestion for infants was 89,700 ng/kg‐bw/day (C. Liu, Li, et al., 2019)
Catarino et al. (2018) compared microplastic exposure from eating mussels to that acquired from indoor dust
fallout during the meal. The authors concluded that the latter likely contributed orders of magnitude more
microplastics than did the former, highlighting the importance of human exposure in the indoor environment.
3.1. Terrestrial Inputs of Microplastics to the Oceans
Plastics are manufactured, used, and predominantly first disposed of on, or into, soils. Plastics at the soil
surface are subjected to greater UV exposure, abrasion, and temperatures than water‐immersed materials
(Ng et al., 2018). Upon entering soils, microplastics can penetrate vertically via water infiltration
(O'Connor et al., 2019), facilitated by wet/dry weather cycles or tilling (Rillig, Ingraffia, et al., 2017) and
by the actions of soil organisms (Rillig, Ziersch, et al., 2017). Smaller particles are more likely to move hor-
izontally and vertically. Panno et al. (2019) recently detected microplastics, exclusively fibers, up to 15.2 par-
ticles L‐1 in 16 of 17 groundwater samples from two karst aquifers in Illinois (USA). They hypothesized these
microplastics may have been derived from drainage from private septic systems. Treated wastewater efflu-
ents are increasingly being injected into aquifers to replenish groundwater. Oil and gas production water
and other industrial wastes may contain microplastics and are also injected for disposal purposes. As to orga-
nismal uptake and transfer, Lwanga et al. (2017) measured microplastic and macroplastics from discarded
packaging in home gardens in southeast Mexico. Analyses showed that microplastics increased approxi-
mately tenfold between soil (0.87 particles g−1), earthworms (14.8 particles g−1), and chicken feces (130 par-
ticles g−1). Macroplastics were also confirmed in the chickens' gizzards and crops. The authors suggested
that the chickens' feeding and digestive processes further fragmented the ingested macroplastics. In addi-
tion, the presence of microplastics in soils has been observed to alter resident microbial respiration and other
processes (Yang et al., 2018). Such “ecosystem” metabolic consequences require greater investigation in both
terrestrial and aquatic environments.
Land‐based microplastic sources are diverse and include landfills, wastewater solids and effluents, losses
from industrial facilities (including plastics manufacturing), plastic agricultural mulch, polymer paints,
and vehicle tire abrasion (Chae & An, 2018).
3.1.1. Landfills and Dumps
Most plastics are disposed of in landfills in developed countries. These vary from secure, lined, and covered
facilities to open trash piles that are later abandoned. However, even developed countries have had issues
with off‐site losses or mismanaged waste. For example, activities associated with the Fresh Kills landfill that
served New York City were suggested as a major source of the medical waste (the so‐called “syringe tide”)
that washed up on nearby beaches in 1987–1988 (Sheer & Moss, 2011). Historically, and in developing

HALE ET AL. 9 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

countries today, many dumps have been located in low‐lying areas, as such lands were deemed of limited
value due to flooding (Brand et al., 2018). As sea level rises, these zones will be subject to greater flooding
and erosion, contributing to additional release of plastic debris. Construction and demolition (C&D) landfills
often serve as the repositories for debris following disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and wildfires.
These landfills are typically engineered and regulated less strictly than municipal landfills. C&D debris is
presumed to be less hazardous than other wastes but may contain large amounts of plastics (e.g., furniture
and insulation) with high additives levels. In the U.S. in 2002 alone, 610–780 million tons of C&D debris
were generated, versus 214 million tons of municipal solid waste (Powell et al., 2015). Leachates and erosion
from C&D landfills may thus also be a source of microplastics and additives to surrounding areas.
3.1.2. Burning of Plastics
Plastic trash and e‐wastes are often burned under poorly controlled conditions liberating contaminants
(Gullett et al., 2007; Asante et al., 2016). Releases of microplastics and additives as a result of these, as well
as wildfires, have been inadequately evaluated. In the U.S. in 2016, 1.3 million fires occurred (https://www.
usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/#causesR). A total of 347 fires at waste and recycling facilities were reported in
North America from April 2017 to 2018 alone (Fogelman, 2018). Additionally, wildfires are increasing in fre-
quency worldwide with climate change (Keeley & Syphar, 2016). These fires engulf homes, businesses, and
vehicles that contain abundant polymeric materials. The charred, disintegrating plastics may be transported
offsite and into waterways. Airborne particulates are also produced and include plastic additives. For exam-
ple, Ni et al. (2016) reported that airborne particulates and residual ash exhibited mg kg−1 concentrations of
flame retardant polymer additives after plastic wastes were burned. Dust collected from New York City
streets following the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attack contained flame retardant polymer additives
(Lioy et al., 2002). Resulting particulate matter may be small (<2.5 μm: PM2.5) and can penetrate deeply into
respiratory tracts of air breathing organisms, including humans (Liu et al., 2016).
3.1.3. Tire Wear
Another source of microplastics to terrestrial ecosystems is from vehicle tire wear. Modern tires contain
fillers (e.g., carbon black), additives, metallic and polymeric fibers, and natural and synthetic rubbers
(primarily butadiene and styrene‐butadiene polymers). Kole et al. (2017) estimated that each person in
the U.S. generated 4.7 kg year−1 of tire wear microplastics, equivalent to 1.8 million metric tons year−1.
These authors hypothesized that tire wear may contribute 5–10% of global ocean plastics loading, as well
as 3–7% of PM2.5 in urban air. Transport of this material to waterways may occur via surface runoff, exacer-
bated by the impermeability of road surfaces. Alternatively, tire wear fragments enter sewer systems and
then wastewater treatment plants. Locally, amounts released will vary depending on miles driven, climate,
and topography. An estimate for the OSPAR catchment (essentially, the European countries bordering the
North‐East Atlantic Ocean) suggested that the amount of microplastics transported to local marine environ-
ments from tire wear was comparable to land‐based litter. This was followed by that from paints, preproduc-
tion pellets, cosmetics, and laundry fibers. However, estimated ranges spanned orders of magnitude
(OSPAR, 2017).
3.1.4. Paint and Coatings
Paints and surface coatings often contain polymers. Painted surfaces include structures, roadway markings,
and vessels and are subject to weathering. Abrasive blasting (occasionally using microbeads) prior to
repainting of surfaces will also generate microparticles. Paint often contain metal‐based pigments (e.g.,
Cu and Zn). Takahashi et al. (2012) observed that up to 0.2% of the mass of cored sediments from the
Plymouth estuary (UK) consisted of paint particles. Song et al. (2015) investigated microplastics in waters
of Jinhae Bay, Korea. They reported that the abundance of paint particles exceeded those of other micro-
plastic types and that size frequencies peaked in the 50 to 100 μm range. The authors indicated that alkyd
ship paint resins and poly (acrylate/styrene) from fiberglass resins were dominant polymers. They also
noted that microplastics concentrated in the surface microlayer, a biologically important interface. Chae
et al. (2015) published similar findings for the Incheon/Kyeonggi coastal region (Korea). Gove et al.
(2019) observed that surface slicks contained a plastics‐to‐larval fish ratio that was sixtyfold higher than
that of adjacent waters. They further estimated that such slicks represented only 8.3% of ocean surface habi-
tat in a coastal Hawai'i ecosystem but contained 91.8% of floating plastic. Imhof et al. (2016) reported micro-
plastics and paint particle loads in beach sediments from an Italian subalpine lake. They observed that the
paint particles typically were smaller than other types of microplastics, mostly 1 to 50 μm, likely due to
their brittleness.

HALE ET AL. 10 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

3.1.5. Microplastics From Clothes Washing

Habib et al. (1998) was among the first to suggest synthetic fibers, originating from textile washing, might be
useful tracers of wastewater effluents and land‐applied biosolids. Due to differences in media sampled and
analytical methods, researchers do not yet agree on which microplastic types are most dominant in the envir-
onment. However, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature ranked releases from the laundry of
synthetic textiles first, contributing 35% of the world ocean's microplastic burden (Boucher & Friot, 2017).
Napper and Thompson (2016) estimated that over 700,000 fibers could be released from a 6 kg domestic wash
load of acrylic fabric. Browne et al. (2011) sampled wastewater from washing machines and observed that a
single garment could produce >1,900 fibers per wash load. Microplastics can then enter septic systems or be
transferred to wastewater treatment facilities for additional treatment. However, in developing countries, tex-
tile wastewater may directly enter streams. Zambrano et al. (2019) observed lower biodegradation of synthetic
fibers such as polyester in a simulated aquatic environment than naturally derived fibers, that is, cotton,
polyester/cotton, or rayon. Biodegradation after 243 days of exposure was approximately 76% for cotton,
62% rayon, 40% polyester/cotton, but only 4% for polyester. Bajpai et al. (2011) indicated that microbial adher-
ence to polyester fibers was low compared to cotton and polyester/cotton blend fibers.
Textiles can also trap airborne particulate pollutants. For example, Stapleton et al. (2005), detected flame
retardant additives and triethyl phosphate (a polymer resin modifier used in unsaturated polyesters) in
clothes dryer lint. Schreder and La Guardia (2014) detected several polymer additives not used in clothing
(e.g., Penta‐PBDE formulation used primarily in polyurethane foam) in laundry wastewater. They suggested
that airborne microplastics adhering on clothing were transferred to laundry wash water. They also reported
that hydrophilic polymer additives (e.g., chlorinated phosphate esters) in laundry wastewater exhibited
<16% removal rates following wastewater treatment. In contrast, hydrophobic additives (e.g., PBDEs) had
a >86% removal rate. The hydrophobic additives could eventually be introduced to soils via land‐applied bio-
solids, while more water‐soluble additives would enter receiving waters via effluent discharge. With respect
to the latter, O'Brien et al. (2015) estimated that 2.1 mg person−1 day−1 of organophosphate esters are trans-
ferred to treatment plants.

3.1.6. Wastewater Treatment

Industrial and domestic wastewaters contain microplastics and polymer additives derived from consumer
products (Schreder & La Guardia, 2014). In affluent countries, wastewaters and storm water runoff from
urban areas are typically routed to centralized treatment facilities. The treated effluents are eventually dis-
charged to receiving waters. Some effluents, however, particularly in arid areas, are redirected for irrigation.
Microplastics therein are then introduced to soils. Indeed, some wastewater treatment plants have instituted
additional cleanup steps and have rebranded themselves “water reclamation facilities.”
Microplastic fate during wastewater treatment is primarily influenced by particle densities. Most treatment
schemes employ an initial screening of influent to eliminate macrodebris and settling to remove dense sand
and grit. These byproducts are normally sent to a landfill. The next step (termed “primary”) typically includes
surface skimming and solids settling. Secondary treatment follows with aerobic digestion of labile organic mat-
ter and additional solids settling. A polymeric or inorganic flocculant is often added to improve particle sedi-
mentation. Microplastics are sequestered into the settled solids to varying extents by these steps, with overall
treatment removal rates of 90–99% in well‐designed systems (Carr et al., 2016; Raju et al., 2018). Murphy et al.
(2016) noted that most of the buoyant microplastics, including the majority of microbeads from personal care
products, were entrained in the floating grease fraction. They observed that 78.3% of microplastics were
removed during primary treatment, while secondary removed 20.1%. Exclusion of oil and grease and primary
sludge from land‐applied materials would thus reduce the amount of microplastics transferred to soils.
Treatment may be less effective for microplastics <100 μm. While facilities rarely implement steps aimed spe-
cifically at microplastics removal, interest is increasing. For example, Talvitie et al. (2017) evaluated several
advanced options: discfilter, rapid sand filtration, dissolved air flotation, and membrane bioreactor.
Most microplastics that enter wastewater treatment works are sequestered in sewage sludge, which may be
land applied to soils as a fertilizer. Land application economizes on landfill space and disposal costs. In the
U.S., approximately 60% of wastewater sludge (also known as biosolids) is applied on agricultural fields,
reclamation sites, or sold directly to consumers for use on gardens and landscaping. Mahon et al. (2017)
reported microplastic burdens of 4,196 to 15,385 microparticles kg−1 in Irish sludges destined for land

HALE ET AL. 11 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

application. Repeated applications on the same plot (common for fertilizers) increased proportionately the
abundance of microplastics in receiving soils (Corradini et al., 2019). Nizzetto et al. (2016) estimated that
the amount of microplastics added to European and North American soils via such applications exceeds
the global burden now present in oceanic surface waters. Weithmann et al. (2018) observed that composts
derived from household and commercial sources contained up to 895 microplastics kg−1. The smallest
microplastics examined by these authors were 1,000 μm, so the actual abundances were likely much higher.
Microplastics in soil may persist for decades or longer. Indeed, Zubris and Richards (2005) proposed their
presence as a marker of past sludge applications. Plastic sheeting is widely used in agriculture to retain soil
moisture and heat and block weed growth. Its breakdown is a source of microplastics to soils and later sur-
face waters (Steinmetz et al., 2016).
Even when treatment facilities use techniques with high removal efficiencies or do not land‐apply sludge,
the massive water volumes of effluent discharged introduces substantial amounts of microplastics to receiv-
ing waters (Kay et al., 2018). Mason, Garneau, et al. (2016) surveyed 17 U.S. wastewater facilities (all practi-
cing secondary treatment) and estimated that these were releasing on average >4 million microparticles per
facility per day. They observed that tertiary filtration treatments (granular or biological aerated filter) were
ineffective at further reducing microplastic discharges. Murphy et al. (2016) estimated that a secondary
Scottish treatment plant (serving a population of 650,000) with a removal rate of >98% still released 65 mil-
lion microplastics to receiving waters each day. Wastewater treatment plant discharges are often located on
rivers, estuaries, and oceanic coastlines to take advantage of subsequent dilution and removal processes and
thus are important sources of microplastics to these water bodies (Conley et al., 2019). McCormick et al.
(2014) reported that microplastic concentrations (mean: 18 particles m−3) downstream of an urban waste-
water treatment plant were comparable to maximum coastal concentrations after storm events.
Some treatment facilities employ biological aerated filters containing plastic “bio‐beads” as high surface area
substrates. The biofilm formed on these surfaces facilitate digestion of wastewater organic matter. These bio‐
beads may be similar in size to preproduction pellets (nurdles) used to manufacture plastic products. Turner
et al. (2019) suggested that the release of bio‐beads contributed to the plastic litter observed on western
European beaches. They further hypothesized, based on elemental analyses (e.g., Br, Sb, and Pb), that some
of the bio‐beads might be derived from recycled e‐waste plastics containing toxic additives such as flame
retardants. Wastewater treatment facilities may also contribute to the growth of novel bacterial biofilm
assemblages on microplastics discharged. For example, McCormick et al. (2014) observed significant
colonization of microplastics by wastewater‐associated organisms, including some plastic decomposing
(e.g., Pseudomonas) and potentially pathogenic taxa such as Campylobacteraceae. Microplastics colonized
with such microbes may introduce them to receiving waters if they escape wastewater treatment facilities.
It is important to note that most published studies focus on microplastic fate in advanced treatment facilities.
Worldwide, many locales have no treatment or primary only. In addition, large rainfall events may result in
wastewaters bypassing treatment altogether, especially at facilities with combined sewer overflows (see dis-
cussion on storms). Even in affluent countries such as the U.S., waivers allowing primary‐only treatment
have been issued to facilities discharging into open or fast‐moving marine waters, for example, in
California, Hawaii, Guam, Virgin Islands, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. Cities in several Canadian provinces also
discharge to the ocean following only crude treatment (e.g., Johannessen et al., 2015). As another example,
Antarctica is largely pristine. Yet prior to 2003, domestic wastewater was simply macerated and then dis-
charged directly to adjacent McMurdo Sound, under the premise that constituents therein were biodegrad-
able and subsequently well diluted. Even after implementation of advanced wastewater treatment in 2003,
polymer additives in indoor dust and treated effluents from this facility, as well as their presence in sedi-
ments and biota of the neighboring environment, were detectable (Hale et al., 2008). Microplastics likely
served as a carrier for at least some of these.

3.2. Direct Releases to Surface Waters

Plastics may enter surface waters directly via fishing and aquaculture, intentional disposal from vessels, and
storm‐related debris. Nets, lines, floats, and traps may contain plastics and synthetic fibers. Although these
are designed to resist weathering, over time they will degrade. Lost fishing gear retains its capacity to ensnare
(“ghost fish”) biota for years. Wilcox et al. (2015) postulated that >6 million tons are lost annually. Lebreton
et al. (2018) estimated 45,000 to 129,000 tons of plastic were floating within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

HALE ET AL. 12 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

About 46% of that consisted of lost fishing nets and 8% of microplastics. Fragments of derelict nets and lines
can also catch on obstructions such as reefs, further damaging marine life. These continuously degrade,
forming secondary microplastics. While many wild‐caught fisheries are in decline, aquaculture has
expanded at an annual rate of 5.8% over the last 30 years (Oyinlola et al., 2018). Aquaculture is typically done
near shore and is generally better monitored than wild‐caught fisheries (Schoof & DeNike, 2017), yet some
associated gear will be lost and deteriorate.
Plastics also enter waters via cargo lost overboard and materials discarded or otherwise lost on or adjacent to
shorelines. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V
entered into force in 1988 to reduce the discharge of garbage (including plastics) to the ocean (http://
www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/garbage/Pages/Default.aspx). However, it
is voluntary and only applies to larger vessels on international voyages. The 2005 MARPOL Annex IV
restricts the discharge of sewage from ships. As noted previously, wastewaters contain microplastics. The
International Maritime Organization states: “It is generally considered that on the high seas, the oceans
are capable of assimilating and dealing with raw sewage through natural bacterial action.” Dumping of sew-
age is allowed when the ship is in operation and has an approved sewage treatment plant or when the ship is
discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system more than three nautical miles
from the nearest land. It allows untreated sewage to be discharged if the ship is more than 12 nautical miles
from the nearest land.
In some cases, plastics and construction debris have intentionally been deployed in water bodies, for exam-
ple, for the creation of artificial reefs to attract finfish and shellfish (Collins et al., 1995). From 1970 to 1990,
about 1 million waste automobile tires were sunk in coastal zones (Faverney et al., 2010). In some cases, tires
were chipped to increase surface areas, placed in mesh bags, and then anchored down. Unfortunately, some
of these materials broke free, damaged nearby reefs, and accumulated on beaches (Sherman & Spieler, 2006).
Some were later removed at substantial cost; in other cases the materials were abandoned. After loss, micro-
plastics were surely created as the materials were abraded and weathered.
Preproduction pellets (i.e., nurdles) and other microplastics have been observed on shorelines near plastics
manufacturing facilities or due to riverine, lacustrine, estuarine, and marine circulation patterns (Antunes
et al., 2013; Browne et al., 2010; Klein et al., 2015; Zbyszewski & Corcoran, 2011). In the northeast Atlantic pre-
production pellets have been suggested as the fourth largest direct source of microplastics to surface waters,
behind tire wear, land‐based litter, and deteriorating paints (OSPAR, 2017). Pellets and resins may be lost from
manufacturing facilities and during shipping activities. Loss rate estimates vary from about 0.01 to 0.1% of pro-
duction and shipping (OSPAR, 2017). A program known as Operation Clean Sweep® has been implemented in
North America and the UK by the plastics supply chain to reduce losses of such materials (http://www.
opcleansweep.eu/wp‐content/uploads/2019/03/OCS_A4_Report_2018_ONLINE.pdf).
Episodic events such as storms scour shorelines and periodically inundate urbanized areas. Floodwaters
carry deposited debris into receiving waters. Storm waters also can inundate treatment plants resulting in
untreated wastewater entering receiving waters (Kiaghadi & Rifai, 2019). Nonetheless, few studies have
examined the role of extreme weather on the fate of plastics. J. Wang, Lu, et al. (2019) reported that micro-
plastic abundances increased 40% in Sanggou Bay, China, following a typhoon. Hurley, Woodward, et al.
(2018) detailed the existence of several riverine sediment microplastic hotspots, with concentrations as high
as 517,000 particles m−2. After a series of floods, they concluded that about 70% of the existing in‐place
microplastics (equivalent to about 0.85 ± 0.27 tons or 43 ± 14 billion particles) were exported downstream
towards the Irish Sea.
Devastating tsunamis can travel kilometers inland, and receding waters introduce massive amounts of deb-
ris into oceans. For example, the 2011 Great Japan Tsunami injected an estimated 5 million tons of debris
into the Pacific (Murray et al., 2018), approximating the estimated amount of plastics entering the oceans
each year worldwide. Lebreton and Borrero (2013) calculated that this single event was >3,000 times the
average yearly amount of land‐based litter contributed by all of Japan and exceeded by thirteenfold the
amount of plastic currently in Atlantic surface waters. Once in the ocean, debris was fractionated by physical
processes. Dense debris sunk near shore. Based on modeling and observations, most of the smaller floating
debris eventually entered the Pacific “garbage patch” (Maximenko et al., 2018). Substantial debris reached
North America and Pacific island shores. During peak deposition periods, Murray et al. (2018) estimated that

HALE ET AL. 13 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

debris strandings increased tenfold along the North American west coast. Some large windage debris was
steered farther north. Much will never be recovered and will fragment in situ, increasing microplastic loads.

3.3. Atmospheric Transport

Little research has examined atmospheric transport of microplastics to date. As the oceans cover over 70% of
the globe, atmospheric deposition of microplastics to marine environments is likely substantial. Recently,
Dris et al. (2016) calculated atmospheric deposition of synthetic fibers, amounting to 3 to 10 metric tons each
year, on a 2,500 km2 area encompassing the footprint of greater Paris, France. Deposition reached 355 par-
ticles m−2 day−1. Small fibers, 7 to 15 μm in diameter, were the most abundant. While rain events increased
deposition, there was not a direct correlation with rainfall amount. Microplastic deposition was greater at
urban than suburban sites. K. Liu, Wang, et al. (2019) reported slightly higher airborne microplastics levels
for Shanghai. They observed that fibers constituted 67% of microplastics observed and estimated that
Shanghai residents inhaled about 21 microplastic particles day−1. Allen et al. (2019) examined atmospheric
deposition in a remote Pyrenees (France) alpine catchment and found rates (as high as 365 microplastics
m−2 day−1) comparable to the above urban areas. They suggested that some microplastics may be trans-
ported thousands of kilometers and across oceans and that rain and snowfall events facilitated deposition.
Most fragment particles were <50 μm, but fibers were predominantly 100 to 300 μm in length. Unlike other
studies, they reported that polystyrene was a dominant polymer type in deposition samples.

4. Microplastics in Freshwaters
After release to the terrestrial environment, plastics may be transferred to wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Human
population densities are higher near water bodies, as they provide valuable transportation routes and suitable
water for irrigation, industrial application, and consumption. The world's rivers are especially vulnerable to
pollution, altered hydrology, and introduction of invasive species (Best, 2019). The occurrence of microplastics
in freshwaters has been reviewed (Eerkes‐Medrano et al., 2015; Horton et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018; Wagner
et al., 2014). Surface runoff and atmospheric deposition transfer plastic debris and microplastics within the
drainage area into freshwater receiving systems. Plastic burdens in these aquatic systems, along with direct
dumping and littering, eventually move downstream and enter estuaries and coastal seas. The importance
of rivers as conduits of plastic waste was suggested by Lebreton and Andrady (2019). They estimated that
91% of mismanaged plastic wastes is transported via watersheds larger than 100 km2. They further suggested
that >25% of global wastes have been discarded into 14 large (>1,000,000 km2) riverine watersheds in North
America (Mississippi, Nelson, and Saint Lawrence), South America (Amazon and Paraná), Africa (Congo,
Niger, Nile, and Zambezi), Europe (Volga and Lena), and Asia (Amur, Yangtze, and Ganges).

4.1. Microplastics in Lakes and Rivers

Globally, no obvious regional patterns in microplastic concentrations among lakes have yet been estab-
lished, likely because burdens are impacted from local sources and sampling coverage is sparse. For exam-
ple, no published data on microplastics in the largest freshwater lake in the world, Lake Baikal (Russia), was
found. However, Battulga et al. (2019) presented results on plastic debris along the shore of the Selenga
River, a Baikal tributary, in Mongolia. Polystyrene foam, believed to be from local sources, was observed
to be the major type of debris. The Laurentian Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's surface fresh water
(slightly less than Baikal) and serve as a major drinking water source for U.S. and Canadian residents.
Eriksen et al. (2013) estimated that average abundance of microplastics in Lake Superior, Huron, and Erie
was 43,000 particles km−2 (equivalent to 0.27 particles m−3). However, Baldwin et al. (2016) observed an
order of magnitude higher level (466,000 particles km−2, equivalent to 2.9 particles m−3) near several large
cities. Eriksen et al. (2013) also reported that Lake Erie, which has a greater number of major cities with
populations exceeding 100,000 in its immediate watershed than the other Great Lakes, was more polluted
than Lake Superior or Huron. They also noted that microplastics <1 mm accounted for 81% of total particles
in the Great Lakes. Mason, Kammin, et al. (2016) reported that surface waters of Lake Michigan had an aver-
age abundance of 17,000 particles km−2. Ballent et al. (2016) evaluated microplastics in sediments of Lake
Ontario. They found an average of 760 particles kg−1. Higher levels were apparent in sediments near urban
centers such as Toronto, Canada. Etobicoke Creek (a tributary of Lake Ontario and home to several plastics
manufacturers and distributors) contained the highest concentration: 28,000 particles kg−1. In Lake

HALE ET AL. 14 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Winnipeg surface waters, higher abundances of microplastics occurred in nearshore waters than offshore
waters, demonstrating the influence of land‐based sources (Anderson et al., 2017). This lake is located in a
relatively undeveloped area of Manitoba, Canada, and is the eleventh largest freshwater lake in the world.
Microplastics have also been reported in European lakes, wherein concentrations were 2.68 to 3.36 and 0.82
to 4.42 particles m−3 in surface waters of Lake Chiusi and Lake Bolsena (Italy), respectively (Fischer et al.,
2016). The authors noted that high winds affected the surface water distribution of microplastic fragments,
but not fibers, demonstrating another variable that should be considered when sampling. An average micro-
plastic concentration of 0.5 particles m−3 was reported in Swiss lakes, with individual concentrations ran-
ging from 0.06 particles m−3 in Lake Zurich to 1.2 particles m−3 in Lake Maggiore and Grand Lac Geneva
(Faure et al., 2012). In Asia, microplastics were detected in remote Lake Hovsgol, in Mongolia (Free et al.,
2014). In Lake Taihu (China) the concentrations of microplastics varied by location, with lower concentra-
tions in the central part (0.3 particles m−3) and higher levels in the northwestern (1.1 particles m−3) and
southeastern (2.5 particles m−3) sections (Su et al., 2016).
Lakes generally have large surface area to shoreline ratios, resulting in dilution. For example, microplastic
abundances decreased with increasing lake surface area for the Great Lakes mentioned above, with indivi-
dual mean concentrations of 0.66, 0.034, and 0.02 particles m−3 for Lake Erie (surface area: 26,000 km2),
Huron (60,000 km2), and Superior (82,000 km2), respectively (Eriksen et al., 2013). This pattern also follows
the population densities and degree of industrialization in the associated watersheds. As further evidence of
the dilution capacity occurring in lakes, Baldwin et al. (2016) determined that microplastic concentrations
in the surface waters of tributaries exceeded those of the Great Lakes; that is, the mean concentration was
4.2 particles m−3 in 29 tributaries, while only 0.27 particles m−3 in the Great Lakes. This underlines the role
of the tributaries as sources or conveyors of microplastics. About 72% of the plastic particles in the tributaries
were <1 mm, comparable to 81% in the Great Lakes. Microplastic concentrations were positively correlated
with the levels of urbanization and runoff in the watersheds (Baldwin et al., 2016), supporting the influence
of both anthropogenic activities and hydrological conditions on the occurrence of microplastics in both the
tributaries and lakes themselves.
As land‐based sources of plastic debris dominate, rivers act as major receptors and conduits of debris to lacus-
trine systems (Schmidt et al., 2017). Disparities between microplastic concentrations at different sampling sites
may be due to point sources or the sampling methods employed. Dris et al. (2015) observed high microplastic
concentrations in rivers (3–106 particles m−3), attributed to urban inputs such as treatment plant discharges.
Kapp and Yeatman (2018) reported microplastic concentrations in surface waters from the 1735 km Snake and
523 km lower Columbia Rivers (U.S.). They reported higher levels in areas adjacent to agricultural areas, pos-
sibly due to the use of biosolid fertilizers or plastic mulches. Recreational areas also exhibited elevated
levels. Somewhat surprisingly, a correlation of microplastic levels with human population densities was not
observed. Microplastic concentrations were negatively correlated with water velocity. The authors hypothe-
sized that dams might contribute to accumulations of less dense microplastics, as did K. Zhang et al. (2017)
investigating distributions of microplastics in the Yangtze River near the Three Gorges Dam in China.
McCormick et al. (2014) observed microplastic concentrations increased from upstream (1.94 ± 0.81 particles
m−3) to downstream (18 ± 11 particles/m3) sites in the Illinois River, a tributary of the Mississippi.
Microplastic concentrations here varied as the river flowed through multiple cities (McCormick et al., 2014).
Another example is the Rhone River (Switzerland), where a higher mean concentration was found near
Geneva (0.29 particles m−3) than Chancy (0.13 particles m−3; Faure et al., 2012). Plastic waste in river waters
may also strand on shorelines, embed in sediment, be ingested by organisms, or be carried downstream.
However, floods may later resuspend microplastics in sediments and recapture shoreline debris.

4.2. Riverine Input of Microplastics to Coastal Zones, Estuaries, and Oceans

Although the transition between the sources of plastic pollution (inland streams and rivers) and their sinks
in coastal zones and the oceans is critically important, less research has investigated this transition area than
the remote ocean gyres. Several models have been developed to estimate the export of debris from rivers to
coastal zones and the oceans. Lebreton et al. (2017) estimated that 1.15 to 2.41 million tons of plastics are
released to the oceans through river‐fed estuaries each year. These authors also considered the impact of
dams and related water retaining structures on transport of microplastics. Schmidt et al. (2017) reported a
similar range of annual plastic inputs: 0.47 to 2.75 million tons. The concept of mismanaged plastic waste

HALE ET AL. 15 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

(Jambeck et al., 2015) has been used to estimate riverine plastic inputs (Lebreton et al., 2017), although addi-
tional, updated metrics are needed to improve models.
It is likely that coastal water bodies (e.g., bays and estuaries) are even more polluted than rivers due to multi-
ple input sources and circulation patterns in these semienclosed basins. For example, the Beijiang River of
South China was reported to contain a mean concentration of 0.56 ± 0.45 particles m−3 compared to 0.11–68
particles m−3 in Xiangxi Bay (Tan et al., 2019). Zhao et al. (2014) observed surface water microplastic levels
as high as 4,137 particle m−3 in the Yangtze Estuary (China). Dominant forms observed were fibers, but
unfortunately, the authors did not report polymer composition. Cheung et al. (2016) observed much higher
microplastic concentrations during the wet than the dry season in Hong Kong waters near the Pearl River
Estuary. These authors suggested that if microplastic concentrations exhibit seasonal variability, seasonality
must be considered to reduce bias in estimating overall riverine inputs of microplastics. Yonkos et al. (2014)
reported positive correlations between the plastic concentrations in four estuarine rivers of the Chesapeake
Bay and both population density and extent of urbanization within the watersheds. A 1‐year survey of the
Nakdong River (the longest river in South Korea) with four sampling time points found riverine inputs of
microplastics of 53 to 118 tons year−1, with highest microplastic concentrations in the wet season
(Eo et al., 2019). Unfortunately, there are few studies to compare results with, as most sampling campaigns
have been conducted over only a few months with fewer than four consecutive field measurements. As such,
current modeling exercises have largely relied on fragmented data to estimate riverine plastic inputs and
incorporate insufficient validation (Schmidt et al., 2017).
While the presence of microplastics in estuaries has been documented (Gray et al., 2018; Pazos et al., 2018;
Yonkos et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2015), our understanding of their distributions and processes remains lim-
ited. However, it is likely that principles gleaned from studies of naturally occurring particulates of compar-
able densities are applicable, especially as microplastics weather and accumulate biofilms. In terms of
behavior after release, Hoellein et al. (2019) observed that microplastics mimicked natural particles in terms
of deposition in an experimental stream. They argued that existing studies on particulate organic matter
could provide insights on microplastic behavior and fate. They observed that high‐density microplastics
and those with “sticky” biofilms settled the quickest, while fibers remained suspended longer and exhibited
less biofilm formation. The most prevalent types of polymer types reported in estuaries have been polyethy-
lene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (Sadri & Thompson, 2014). In part, this is because most studies have
focused on shorelines and surface sampling, which preferentially collect these low‐density polymers. In a
South American study, Acha et al. (2003) suggested that a benthic estuarine salinity front acted as a seaward
barrier to and concentrated riverine‐derived macroplastic debris. They also reported that this zone was a
focal point for finfish and shellfish, as well as zooplankton. Cohen et al. (2019) sampled and modeled the
surface distributions of buoyant microplastics in the Delaware Bay (USA) estuary and observed substantial
spatiotemporal variability. They noted highest concentrations near the estuarine turbidity maximum.
Browne et al. (2010) evaluated the roles of wind, waves, and tides on the fate and deposition of shoreline
plastic debris in a UK estuary. They observed greater amounts of plastics at downwind sites and higher
amounts of denser microplastics in sediments.
Both physical and chemical interactions may affect microplastic fate in waterbodies (including bays and
estuaries) where flora and fauna, as well as salinity and pH gradients, exist. In the coastal zone, Li et al.
(2018) observed that polystyrene microplastics, associated with local mollusk aquaculture, were dominant
pollutants in Quinzhou Bay (China) and that the dense vegetation in the system trapped plastic debris.
Shellfish are also efficient at removing suspended particulates and are common inhabitants of such environ-
ments. Therefore, filtration and subsequent deposition to sediments via feces or pseudofeces may be impor-
tant microplastic removal mechanisms (Zhao et al., 2018). Microplastics may exhibit surface charge
alterations, especially after weathering and biofouling (Paul‐Pont et al., 2018). Such outcomes may result
in enhanced aggregation and flocculation, with resultant sinking and ultimately deposition in sediment.
Interactions between charged plastic surfaces may also occur with metals and organic chemical species
(Holmes et al., 2014). Chemical constituents of microplastics may also be transported from terrestrial runoff
to oceanic systems via estuaries. For example, Amamiya et al. (2019) reported styrene oligomers, derived
from polystyrene, entered Tokyo Bay from land‐based sources as a function of monthly precipitation.

Overall, the transport of plastic debris from land to oceans is a complex process and affected by a variety of
factors, including human population density, urbanization, per capita income, hydrological conditions,

HALE ET AL. 16 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Figure 5. Global ocean distribution of microplastics (portrayed simplistically as multicolor hexagons). Inputs of micro-
plastics are shown in red, while processes that control their distribution and export from the surface are in green.
Photodegradation (the most rapid weathering process) of microplastics will be exacerbated in exposed terrestrial situations
and the surface ocean. Ultimately, microplastics will accumulate in deep ocean sediments.

waste management infrastructure, and living standards. More integrated models are desirable, to better
constrain global riverine inputs and reflect the state of plastic pollution. This should be supported by
long‐term monitoring programs, better sampling strategies to encompass variability (e.g., tidal
oscillations), and improved model calibration and validation.

5. Fate of Microplastics in the Ocean

Media reports of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” notorious as an area of floating trash “twice the size of
Texas” in the Pacific Ocean sparked global interest in plastic pollution. Trawling the water's surface with
333 µm mesh nets, Moore et al. (2001) reported the mass of microplastic in samples from the North Pacific gyre
was six times that of coincident plankton. Although this galvanized global discussion of marine debris, reports
existed as early as 1965 (Ostle et al., 2019). Due to their size, bathymetry, and position in the hydrological cycle,
oceans serve as a sink for plastic debris and other persistent pollutants. Basic physical oceanographic consid-
erations (Ekman transport, geostrophy, etc.) explain why plastic debris accumulates within the more quiescent
zones of oceanic gyres, while more complex processes determine the distribution of marine plastics in less
obvious locales, including deep sea sediments and ice sheets (Figure 5). Research combining modeling and
observational data has been employed to better understand the distribution and trends of microplastics in
oceans, bays, and estuaries. As an example of this approach and to illustrate the potential gravity of the situa-
tion, Isobe et al. (2019) predicted that the weight of pelagic microplastics around the Pacific Ocean subtropical
convergence zone would double by 2030 and quadrupole by 2060. They postulated that the latter might pose
health risks to resident marine organisms based on available, albeit limited, toxicological studies. The authors
incorporated major assumptions concerning microplastic particle size, behavior, and their environmental per-
sistence into their model. Clearly, research to refine such assumptions is crucial.
5.1. Theoretical and Empirical Models of Microplastics in Surface Oceanic Waters
Due to the vastness of the world's oceans, theoretical and empirical models have been developed to predict
where microplastics will accumulate. Early models used to predict marine debris distribution were designed
to track ocean currents. However, these were modified by Maximenko and Niiler to explain hot spots of plas-
tic accumulation (“Ocean Debris”, 2008). Their model identified the five ocean gyres (North Pacific, South
Pacific, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Indian) as major destinations of marine debris.

HALE ET AL. 17 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Since then, more elaborate models of surface microplastic distribution have been developed. Lebreton
et al. (2012) used predictions of plastic input into the oceans, combined with Lagrangian particle tracking
and surface ocean circulation models to estimate microplastic distribution. They forecasted that debris will
accumulate in the five gyres, with higher concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., North Pacific
Subtropical Convergence Zone). They also highlighted the importance of marine debris source and
showed that debris may accumulate closer to shore (instead of only in the gyre patches), depending on
the point of origin. The conclusions drawn by these authors corroborate another theoretical model,
focused on North Pacific Ocean circulation patterns, and suggested that convergence patterns could result
in amplified marine debris accumulations in certain areas (Howell et al., 2012). Another Lagrangian drift
model was used to understand the movement of plastic debris in the North Sea. Using wind and current
data, Neumann et al. (2014) projected the fate of microplastics from a hypothetical release of plastic pellets
after nine years. The authors noted that seasonal differences factored into the model accurately predicted
the different concentrations of pellets along the coastline over time. It further suggested that the coastal
ocean patterns may be influenced in the short term (seasonally), while the open ocean debris would be
affected over longer time scales. Unfortunately, the authors found that hindcasting the model did not
accurately predict plastic source(s).
An important aspect of theoretical models for forecasting marine debris circulation pertains to the connec-
tivity of surface oceans, or the balance between debris attraction to or dispersion from a central area, such as
a gyre. Van Sebille et al. (2012) were among the first to use observational data to model the spread of plastic
debris in the ocean. These authors combined data from the Global Drifter Program and applied a particle‐
trajectory tracker approach to predict where the particle would travel over seasonal, yearly, or multiyearly
time frames. They confirmed the existence of five major ocean garbage patches but also predicted another
in the Barents Sea. In addition, they used the model to track the “leakiness” of the garbage patches. They
found that the patches are likely to be more dispersive than would have been projected from linear ocean
circulation/Ekman theory, highlighting the importance of combining observational data with models.
Froyland et al. (2014) used a Markov chain model to observe where in space surface water (and microplas-
tics) may be sequestered over time. The authors highlighted the importance of understanding surface ocean
circulation as a three‐dimensional system instead of a two‐dimensional plane and included ground truthed
upwelling and downwelling observations in their model. They found that some small, uniquely shaped areas
are likely to attract and keep ocean pollution “forever.” Contrary to intuition, these attracting regions are in
the general area of ocean gyres but do not directly overlap with them, extending westward in the Southern
Hemisphere and southward in the North Atlantic. Other regions that theoretically only lose debris over
extended periods are found in the remainder of the five primary ocean gyre regions and in some coastal
zones. The authors point out that this model may be valuable in understanding the long‐term fate of marine
debris, which cannot readily be accomplished on an observational time scale.
A number of researchers have used field‐collected microplastics data to create empirical models. Goldstein
et al. (2013) surveyed microplastics in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. They indicated the plastic densities
correlated with the physical parameters of the water body. Empirical modelers have also utilized satellite
observations. Sherman and Van Sebille (2016) combined empirical data on floating marine debris from satel-
lite observations and sea surface trawls to estimate current plastic locations and project plastic densities in
those locations until 2025. A goal of this study was to predict optimal removal locations for sea surface micro-
plastics. Contrary to data highlighting plastic concentrations in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, the mod-
eled optimal removal location was closer to the east coast of China, in part due to the high debris output from
this region.
Another study tracked the movement of droged and undroged drifters as a proxy for marine debris
(Beron‐Vera et al., 2016). The authors found that undroged drifters naturally moved toward areas where
marine debris accumulates but point out that this could not be explained by Ekman surface transport alone.
Rather, the drifter location was motivated by inertial properties of the drifter (controlled by finite size and
buoyancy). They elucidated this through known properties of drifters but proposed that this could be applic-
able to all marine flotsam. In fact, recent work highlights that debris models often depend too much upon
Ekman transport and geostrophic current patterns and fail to include processes such as wave‐induced
Stokes drift in their estimations (Biastoch et al., 2019; Onink et al., 2019). By comparing models that include
or omit wave‐induced Stokes drift, Onink et al. (2019) found that existing models depending upon Ekman

HALE ET AL. 18 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

and geostrophy are appropriate for most ocean basins, except for the Arctic. These authors also traced the
transfer of microplastics between ocean basins, showing that those that originate in the North Pacific likely
will remain there, while plastics originating in other basins are more likely to disperse to other basins. The
exchange reported between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, models that include wave‐induced Stokes,
and thermohaline circulation patterns support the Arctic as a destination for surface microplastic pollution
(Cózar et al., 2017), discussed later as a sink for ocean microplastics.
The majority of microplastic distribution models have focused on open ocean and gyre dynamics rather than
the coastal zone. Zhang et al. (2017) combined the physical characteristics of microplastics and factors affect-
ing coastal ocean dynamics (e.g., wind, waves, and tides) to develop a model for microplastics near coast-
lines. Models of debris distribution were also completed for the Mediterranean Sea, using Lagrangian drift
models (Mansui et al., 2015). These data identified three zones that may be short‐term hot spots for debris
accumulation and additional areas that were unlikely to see debris accumulation on most time scales. In
the long‐term, however, the dynamical processes of a semienclosed ocean basin made it so that there was
no area(s) projected to maintain debris on the oceanic time scales identified in Froyland et al. (2014). This
could be attributable to assumptions of the model, however, including the unrealistically dense and homo-
geneous starting distribution of microplastics, as detailed by the authors.
Due to the complexity of modeling coastal ocean and enclosed basin dynamics, microplastic tracking in the
coastal zone has been largely dependent upon observational studies. In a study of the northwestern
Mediterranean Sea, Collignon et al. (2012) observed that 90% of the stations surveyed contained microplas-
tics. The concentration of microplastics was lower following strong wind events, suggesting that wind plays a
role in vertical mixing of microplastics out of surface waters. In a surface water study of microplastics in the
North Yellow Sea, China, microplastics were observed at all 19 study sites, with an average concentration of
545 items m−3, which is about average for other surface water studies in the region (Zhu et al., 2018). These
authors attributed the higher abundance of these microplastics in the northern than the southern portion of
the bay to prevailing wind patterns and proximity of developed land. Overall, these and other studies suggest
that microplastics in coastal surface waters are at least as ubiquitous as in open ocean waters, yet modeling
their distribution is complicated by local source hot spots, wind and precipitation patterns, morphology, and
complex water circulation.
In a recent meta‐analysis of microplastic polymer distribution, Erni‐Cassola et al. (2019) confirmed that
most polymers observed in surface waters were polyethylene and polypropylene, low‐density polymers
common in single‐use products. This is true of coastal zones as well; for example, polyethylene dominated
surface water in the aforementioned study of the North Yellow Sea (Zhu et al., 2018). Deeper in the water
column, denser particles (e.g., polyester, polyamide, and acrylics) may dominate (Erni‐Cassola et al.,
2019). Recently, sampling protocols have begun to use smaller sampling mesh sizes, whole water samples,
or more sensitive detection schemes, allowing determination of smaller microplastics. These changes have
revealed that fibers are often more abundant than fragments in some aquatic systems (Barrows et al.,
2018; Carr, 2017). Such fibers generally derive from textiles, rope, or netting and can include polyethylene,
polyamide (nylon), and polyester. Polymer categorization is useful as it provides insight into the potential
source of the plastic and explains distribution based on density. Yet other complexities, such as additive
composition or biofilm presence, may have substantial impacts on microplastic fate, and effects are
often unexplored.

5.2. Export of Microplastics From the Surface Ocean to Deep Waters and Benthos
Some models had predicted that there should be up to 100 times more plastic in the surface ocean than has
been commonly reported (Cózar et al., 2014; Geyer et al., 2017; Jambeck et al., 2015). Early hypotheses for
the location of this “missing plastic” included degradation into minute fragments below size detection limits,
biofouling (which may lead to sinking), stranding of debris, ingestion by marine species, and incomplete
observations (Cózar et al., 2014). Now, this “missing plastic” is primarily thought to be in the nanoplastic
or microplastic size range and has motivated research on their fate beyond surface waters.
The Arctic Ocean (specifically, the seas east of Greenland), a site of deep water formation in thermohaline
circulation models, and has been proposed as a “dead‐end” for microplastics. Based on ocean circulation
and Lagrangian drift models, Cózar et al. (2017) speculated that the Greenland and Barents Seas (sites of

HALE ET AL. 19 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

North Atlantic Deep Water formation) likely accumulate debris. Field sampling by these authors confirmed
that microplastics were abundant in these two seas compared to other portions of the Arctic Ocean. The type,
size, and morphology of the plastics suggested that they were highly weathered and had traveled long dis-
tances on the surface ocean prior to reaching the Arctic. Researchers have hypothesized that once reaching
the Arctic, microplastics may be vertically exported to the benthos. Kanhai et al. (2019) collected and
evaluated sediment cores from the Arctic Central Basin for the presence of microplastics. They observed that
7 of the 11 samples contained microplastics (all <100 μm), with a concentration of 0–200 particles kg−1.
These results may not be impressive at first glance, but considering the experimental limitations (including
sample size and volume and extraction protocol), this study showed that microplastics are likely widely
abundant in Arctic sediments. Bergmann and Klages (2012) previously observed a more than doubling of
plastic and other anthropogenically derived macrodebris on the Arctic seafloor between 2002 and 2011 at
the HAUSGARTEN observatory (79°N). They postulated that the increase might be related to receding
sea ice.
Microplastics have been observed in deep‐sea sediments from a variety of other locations, including the
North and South Atlantic, Southern Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Indian Ocean. Although they did not
determine polymer type, Van Cauwenberghe et al. (2013) found microplastics in 5 of 11 sediment samples,
originating from 1,176 to 4,843 m in depth and between 44 and 161 μm in size. In another study, Woodall
et al. (2014) recovered microplastics from all 12 sediment samples collected in deep sea locations. All were
fibers and mostly polyester or acrylic polymers, as would be expected based on their densities
(Erni‐Cassola et al., 2019). Fibers of cellulose‐derived rayon were also detected. Concentrations ranged from
1.4 to 40 pieces per 50 ml of sediment. These authors also tested four deep‐sea corals and found microfibers
in all samples using a binocular microscope and entomological pin. It is not surprising that organic matter is
reaching these deep‐sea plains and trenches, as it has been found at surprising concentrations in other abys-
sal locations, such as the Atacama trench (Danovaro et al., 2003). These results contradict preconceived
notions of the buoyancy of plastics and their propensity to sink to great depths.
Mechanisms have been proposed to explain the export of microplastics from surface waters to sediments,
including increased density from biofouling. In a controlled study, Fazey and Ryan (2016) allowed biofilms
to form on plastics of different sizes (5–50 mm) and observed sinking rates. They found that the smaller plas-
tics sank faster than larger particles, yet all sank within the 12‐week study period. Biofilm formation, how-
ever, is a highly variable process. As such, these results may not apply to all systems, particularly oligotrophic
ocean gyres. Kooi et al. (2017) developed a model of microplastic vertical transport based on biofouling and
water conditions. Their model suggested that smaller biofilmed microplastics (<1 μm) will settle faster than
larger ones and are less likely to resurface. Contrarily, particles from 1 to 5 μm may oscillate in the middle
water column, suggesting that some microplastics may be “lost” to the middepths, and neither retained in
the surface water or sinking to greater depths. This correlates with previously discussed observational evi-
dence that microplastics found in the deep sea were smaller than 200 μm (Van Cauwenberghe et al.,
2013; Woodall et al., 2014). Yet, the model also specified that particles <10 μm were likely to exit surface
waters and remain suspended in the water column because of their extremely slow sinking rates (Kooi
et al., 2017). This is a theoretical prediction yet useful for understanding the dynamics of microplastic sink-
ing following biofilm growth. Choy et al. (2019) sampled microplastics between 100 and 5,000 μm in water
along vertical transects off Monterey Bay, California, using remotely operated vehicles. They observed max-
imum concentrations between 200 and 600 m. The microplastics observed were dominated by weathered
polyethylene terephthalate and polyamide fibers. They hypothesized that these were not locally derived.
The California Current carries waters south along the coast from British Columbia. Hence, a possible source
might be microfibers released from wastewater treatment plants practicing primary‐only treatment (see was-
tewater section) located north of Monterey.
In addition to biofouling, aggregation and incorporation into marine snow or fecal pellets can alter the buoy-
ancy of the microplastic complex sufficiently to cause vertical export. Cole et al. (2016) tested the sinking
rates of microplastic‐containing copepod fecal pellets. Pellets with buoyant microplastics sank at a slower
velocity than those without, making them more likely to fragment in the water column or be consumed
by other organisms. In a laboratory test, Porter et al. (2018) found that microplastics were incorporated into
marine snow, which increased their sinking rate. For polyamide fragments, this sinking rate increased by
916 m day−1. These authors also reported that mussels were more likely to ingest microplastics

HALE ET AL. 20 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

incorporated into marine snow than bare microplastics. This demonstrated that marine snow is not only a
route of vertical export but may also increase microplastic uptake by benthic organisms.
Microplastics are also abundant in coastal sediments, as evidenced by numerous surveys in coastal zones.
Many studies have enumerated microplastics across sediments including beaches (Lots et al., 2017), shore-
lines (Browne et al., 2010), and coastal lagoons (Vianello et al., 2013). Van Cauwenberghe et al. (2015)
reviewed studies of microplastics in coastal sediments, highlighting that most studies focused on beaches
(80%). However, the sampling locations within beaches were highly variable between studies, reducing com-
parability. Furthermore, factors including wind and currents, transient conditions, and microplastic type
complicate predicting locations of microplastic accumulation zones. Some studies, however, highlight that
sediment suspension zones (associated with fine sediment particles) also have higher microplastic concen-
trations (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2015; Vianello et al., 2013) than nonsuspension zones. As in coastal zone
surface waters, microplastics in sediments appear to positively correlate with nearby population density
(Browne et al., 2011; Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2015). Human population density also has a large influence
on the type of microplastic found. Browne et al. (2011) reported high concentrations of microfibers near was-
tewater treatment effluent discharge sites, likely derived from textiles. Otherwise, microplastic fragments in
coastal sediments are generally elevated in polyethylene and polypropylene, low‐density polymers common
in single‐use plastics. However, denser polymers that are often in fiber form (e.g., polyester, polyamide, and
acrylic) are regularly reported in high concentrations in intertidal and subtidal sediments, as well as sites
with episodic polystyrene inputs (Erni‐Cassola et al., 2019). Overall, these studies reveal that microplastics
are abundant in coastal sediments, yet the trends are variable, limiting the efficacy of models based on
coastal processes such as wind and currents alone. In total, although floating microplastics are the most
commonly reported, multiple mechanisms exist that may remove even these buoyant particles from the sur-
face ocean (Figure 5), thus transferring risks to other habitats, such as benthic ecosystems.
5.2.1. Biofouling
In aquatic environments plastics become covered by organic and inorganic materials, microorganisms,
algae, and invertebrates. Zettler et al. (2013) coined the term “plastisphere” to describe this novel habitat.
Biofilms on surfaces also increase drag on vessels. Development and manufacture of antifoulants to reduce
growth on boat hulls, buoys, and other submerged surfaces is a major industry. The medical field is also con-
cerned about the health consequences of microbial biofilm growth on teeth and surgical implants, such as
heart valves and catheters. Biofilms serve as major avenues for human infections and potential mediators
of antibiotic resistance (Socransky & Haffajee, 2002).
The biofilms that form on submerged surfaces in fresh and marine environments provide diverse niches,
including aerobic and anaerobic zones, as well as pH, redox, and other gradients (Hall‐Stoodley et al.,
2004). Surface adhesion presents organisms with advantages, for example, greater nutritional access, physi-
cal protection, and environmental stability. Biofilm inhabitants also excrete chemical cues that affect inver-
tebrate recruitment and forms of metabolic cooperation (e.g., quorum sensing; Socransky & Haffajee, 2002;
Zhang et al., 2019). Further supporting the important ecological role of biofilms, Zhang et al. (2019) recently
identified 7,300 new species from metagenomics data from biofilm‐forming microorganisms. Most previous
work to identify marine species focused on free‐living forms. The additions of Zhang et al. (2019) increased
the known microbial diversity of the oceans by more than 20%. Clearly, factors that influence or alter the
formation and evolution of biofilm communities may have profound impacts on ecological communities
in aquatic systems, in general.
Biofilms may also support habitats for microorganisms that excrete extracellular enzymes capable of degrad-
ing polymers (Dang & Lovell, 2016). Scanning electron microscopic examination of surfaces by Zettler et al.
(2013) of weathered polyethylene and polypropylene debris from the North Atlantic revealed depressions,
whose shapes conformed to those of the observed bacteria. They hypothesized that these depressions were
caused by hydrocarbon degraders. Not surprisingly, they observed that communities on the plastic surfaces
differed from those in the surrounding water. The authors also noted an abundance of Vibrio spp. on sam-
ples. This genus includes several pathogenic species (e.g., V. cholera, V. vulnificus, and V. parahaemolyticus)
responsible for cholera, necrotizing wound infections, sepsis, and gastroenteritis in humans (Bartlett &
Azam, 2005). In a substrate recruitment experiment in the North Sea, Oberbeckmann et al. (2016) used
16S rRNA gene sequence comparisons and reported that bacterial/archaeal communities associated with
polyethylene terephthalate debris differed significantly from free‐living ones, but not from those on

HALE ET AL. 21 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

natural suspended particles (>3 μm) or glass. They did, however, observe
differences at the operational taxonomic unit (OTU) level, with polyethy-
lene terephthalate‐associated communities exhibiting the presence of
some hydrocarbon degraders. They also noted that biofilm communities
differed by location and season.
The presence of biofilms may influence the likelihood of microplastic
ingestion due to chemical cues exuded by the colonizing organisms. For
example, in lab exposures Vroom et al. (2017) observed that polystyrene
microplastics, primed by immersion in seawater, were ingested by two
of three marine zooplankton species tested at a greater rate than
unprimed plastics. Savoca et al. (2016) hypothesized that the odor of
dimethyl sulfide‐related chemicals that accumulated on plastics increased
their consumption by sea birds. Savoca et al. (2017) later observed that
aqueous leachates generated from weathered/biofouled polypropylene
beads resulted in foraging behavior in the northern anchovy (Engraulis
mordax) mimicking that observed when extracts of food were provided.
Exposure to unfouled beads did not elicit such a response. Nasser and
Lynch (2016) reported that proteins released from Daphnia magna
(a common freshwater toxicity assay organism) associated with polystyr-
ene nanobeads increased their agglomeration. Particles with these
Figure 6. Image of polyurethane microplastics (<53 μm) ingested by brine “eco‐coronas” were ingested and retained at greater rates than untreated
shrimp nauplii (Artemia sp., length ~500 μm). Microplastics were present nanoparticles, and exposed organisms exhibited depressed feeding rates
−1
at a concentration of 100 mg L . Fluorescent microplastics (pink) are evi- and lower survival.
dent at a high density within the shrimp's digestive tract. These were egested
within 48 hr after cessation of exposure. Some of the additives within the Selective feeding on biofilmed, weathered plastics does not always occur,
microplastics likely leached out of the plastic during its residence in the however. In a series of lab experiments, Allen et al. (2017) observed that a
digestive tract and exposure water (see Figure 8). Imaged on an Olympus scleractinian coral ingested virtually all microplastic fragments (seven dif-
FV1200 laser scanning confocal microscope. Credit: Hamish Small (VIMS)
ferent polymer types of 500 to 1,000 μm) offered but rejected similarly
and Virginia Worrell (Virginia Governor's School).
sized sand particles. In subsequent feeding experiments the corals
ingested threefold to fivefold greater numbers of unweathered than fouled
plastics. The authors speculated that the biofilm masked chemical cues on the plastic that stimulated feeding
(e.g., plastic additives), the physical weathering removed these cues or altered the surface properties, or the
biofilm itself contained feeding deterrents. Nakashima et al. (2016) also hypothesized that biofilms forming
on plastic debris might reduce the leaching of metal and organic additives, which may serve as sensory cues
encouraging or discouraging ingestion. Holmes et al. (2012) observed that weathered polyethylene pellets
adsorbed greater amounts of trace metals than virgin pellets. They hypothesized that this was due to an
increase in surface reactivity derived from weathering, precipitates, or biofilms on the pellets. Clearly, the
implications of biofilm formation vary across plastic composition and location and are likely perceived
differently depending upon the species studied. Future research should investigate if plastic‐degrading
communities identified on microplastics in the field can facilitate identification of species or conditions
capable of degrading polymers or aid in our design of new plastics that are readily degradable under real
world conditions.

6. Microplastic Uptake and Consequences in Biota

As plastic debris is ubiquitous, essentially all aquatic and terrestrial species encounter it, regardless of
trophic level. Biological effects may arise due to physical interactions with the microplastics, chemical expo-
sure to plastic constituents (e.g. additives), sorbed toxins (synthetic or natural), or surface‐associated organ-
isms (e.g. pathogens). Interactions can lead to entanglement, ingestion, death, and a variety of other health
or ecosystem effects. In the case of microplastic debris, the nature of the interactions is easily visualized
(Hammer et al., 2012). Small aquatic biota, such as plankton, and larger filter feeders, from shellfish to whale
sharks, may ingest or otherwise contact microplastic particles. Microplastic size, shape, and texture will be
important in determining if there are negative consequences, yet this is not easily observed due to the small
size and complex nature and behavior of microplastics. However, even minute zooplankton may ingest

HALE ET AL. 22 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

microplastics (Cole et al., 2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine biota were reviewed by
Wright et al. (2013). Figure 6 shows microplastics (<53 μm; produced from commercial polyurethane foam)
ingested by brine shrimp nauplii (Artemia sp; 400–500 μm in length) in the lab. These microplastics were
fluorescent due to the chemical additives present.

6.1. Microplastic Ingestion and Tissue Translocation

Exposure is a prerequisite to manifestation of toxic effects. Ingestion of microplastics by aquatic biota has
been widely surveyed (Possatto et al., 2011; Lusher et al., 2013; Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen, 2014;
Desforges et al., 2015; Güven et al., 2017; Lusher, Hollman, et al., 2017; Provencher et al., 2018; Nelms
et al., 2019; Windsor et al., 2019). Marine species have been a focus of the bulk of such research. For example,
Lusher et al. (2013) reported that 36% of pelagic and demersal fish collected from the English Channel had
microplastics in their digestive systems. Nelms et al. (2019) observed that every specimen sampled of
stranded marine mammals along the British coast exhibited microplastics in its digestive tract. In both stu-
dies, most were fibers, not fragments. Interactions with microplastic particles or fibers extend to lower
trophic levels. For example, Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen (2014) reported that up to 50% of commercially
grown bivalves contained microplastics in their tissues, and Desforges et al. (2015) observed microplastics
(mostly fibers) in two zooplankton species collected from the Northeast Pacific. Choy et al. (2019) detected
microplastics in giant larvaceans (Bathochordaeus stygius) and pelagic red crabs (Pleuroncodes planipes) at
intermediate depths off the California coast. The larvaceans ingest particles using large mucous mesh filters,
which are discarded when clogged, and then sink to the seafloor. While they did not focus on microplastics,
Lamb et al. (2018) estimated that coral reefs from the Asia Pacific region were entangled with 11.1 billion
plastic items. Rotjan et al. (2019) observed on average >100 microplastics (predominantly polyamide, polye-
ster, and synthetic cellulose‐based fibers) per polyp of northern star coral (Astrangia poculatain) collected off
of Rhode Island (U.S). In this same report corals coexposed in the lab to polyethylene microbeads and brine
shrimp eggs of similar proportions preferentially ingested the microplastics. When fed microbeads initially,
corals later failed to consume brine shrimp eggs. Seabirds have also been widely studied. Avery‐Gomm et al.
(2018) observed that 79% of sea bird (northern fulmar, Fulmarus glacialis) samples collected from the south-
eastern Canadian waters of the Labrador Sea contained microplastics in their digestive tracts. Remarkably,
Jamieson et al. (2019) recovered mainly microfibers from 72% of the Lysianassoidea amphipods sampled at
7,000 to 10,890 m in six of the deepest ocean trenches in the Pacific Rim. In freshwater environments, a
recent study found that 50% of riverine macroinvertebrates (including detritivores and filter feeders) con-
tained microplastics (Windsor et al., 2019). These and other studies provide proof that ingestion of micro-
plastics by aquatic biota is widespread. Indeed, as the discard of plastics increases and our detection
capabilities improve, percentages of occurrence will increase.
The motivation to ingest microplastics may be a combination of accidental ingestion and reaction to sensory
cues but will vary by species, environment, and life stage. Cues may be visual, such as color or shape
(Schuyler et al., 2014) or tactile. As discussed above, plastic additives or cues emitted from associated bio-
films may influence ingestion. Terrestrial wildlife, for example, bears and wolves, have also been observed
to ingest plastic marine debris on Alaskan shores. Microplastics were apparent in their feces and tooth
and claw marks observed on larger debris (Figure 7). This demonstrates another fragmentation process, as
well as the transfer of plastics from marine to terrestrial ecosystems. In a freshwater to terrestrial transfer
context, Windsor et al. (2019) observed microplastics in half of the freshwater feeding invertebrates sampled,
including mayflies and caddisflies. In the lab, Al‐Jaibachi et al. (2018) showed that microplastics could be
transferred between aquatic (larvae) and terrestrial (adult) stages of mosquitos (Culex pipiens). Small parti-
cles (2 μm) were more efficiently transferred than larger (15 μm) polystyrene beads.
There is compelling evidence that microplastics <20 μm may enter the tissues of diverse biota through the
digestive system, hemolymph, or blood. Studies have shown that microplastics translocate in the tissues of
invertebrates such as fiddler crabs and mussels (Brennecke et al., 2015; Browne et al., 2008). Dawson et al.
(2018) fed ~30 μm fluorescent polyethylene microbeads to Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), the major
phytoplankton grazer in the Southern Ocean. They observed that fragments isolated from the krill and their
feces were on average 6 to 7 μm, while fragments <1 μm entered the digestive gland itself. The authors sug-
gested that in nature, particles will weather and become embrittled, increasing vulnerability to physical
breakdown during digestion. Such fragmentation to microplastics and nanoplastics may facilitate their

HALE ET AL. 23 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Figure 7. Fragmentation and ingestion of marine plastic debris by Alaskan terrestrial wildlife. (a) Plastics washed up on
Alaskan beach, including tsunami debris; (b) polystyrene fragmented by wildlife; (c) PVC float chewed on by wildlife;
(d) polystyrene floats chewed on by wildlife; (e) bear scat, showing ingested plastic debris; (f) coyote scat containing
ingested plastic debris. Photos courtesy of Chris Pallister, Gulf of Alaska Keepers (goak.org).

translocation into tissues. Investigation of several finfishes showed that microplastics accumulate in the
gills, alimentary tract, liver, and muscle (Avio et al., 2015; Choi et al., 2018; Greven et al., 2016; Su et al.,
2019), with distributions among organs differing depending on particle size (Lu et al., 2016). Ding et al.
(2018) exposed red tilapia fish over 14 days to 0.1 μm polystyrene particles at 1, 10, and 100 μg L−1. Tissue
concentrations increased over time in the order: alimentary tract > gills > liver/brain). Transport across
the highly selective blood brain barrier and accumulation of nanoplastics in the brain of fishes indicated
that small microplastics may enter the vascular system and be transported to diverse internal tissues,
including blood filtering (e.g., liver) and immune organs (e.g., spleen and head kidney). Entry of
microplastics and nanoplastics into tissues may also facilitate food chain transfer. Mattsson et al. (2017)
found that nanoplastic particles (52–330 nm) were transferred up through a marine food chain, from
zooplankton to finfish.
Ingestion or tissue translocation of microplastics can cause digestive system blockage, tissue damage, beha-
vioral changes, immune response, and death. Yet, some encounters may result in no observed effects
(Jovanović, 2017). Outcomes are dependent on the type of debris and organism and can be highly variable.
Mortality is generally not a dominant observation. More commonly, microplastic ingestion is reported to
reduce consumption of nutritious prey, leading to altered metabolism and behavior (as summarized in
Galloway et al., 2017). Contrarily, an experiment where brine shrimp larvae were exposed to 10 μm

HALE ET AL. 24 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

polystyrene particles found no effect on development, growth, or survival but reported that epithelial tissues
of the intestinal tract were changed, possibly affecting digestive efficiency (Y. Wang, Zhang, et al., 2019).
Similarly, Pedà et al. (2016) observed damage to the intestine of European sea bass following polyvinyl chlor-
ide pellet (3 mm) exposure and Jin et al. (2018) found that the intestinal epithelial tissues and mucous of
mice were altered following ingestion of 5 μm polystyrene particles during a 6‐week exposure. These obser-
vations suggest that a major consequence of ingestion of microplastics may be filling or physical alteration of
the digestive tract, compromising ingestion or assimilation of nutritious food.

6.2. Toxic Effects of Microplastics

Behavioral, metabolic, and developmental changes have been observed following microplastic exposure.
Mattsson et al. (2017) found that nanoplastic particles (52–330 nm) reduced survival of zooplankton and
altered behavior in finfish (measured as activity, feeding time, and distance swam in search of prey).
Although few studies have investigated effects across multiple life stages, Luan et al. (2019) observed that poly-
styrene microplastics were most toxic to developing clams during the egg hatching stage (compared to larval
stages), decreasing developmental rates. Research has also shown that microplastics may disrupt development
leading to physical abnormalities, such as Nobre et al. (2015) reported in sea urchin embryos. Oxidative stress
has also been observed following exposure in a variety of species, including the aforementioned reports on
juvenile zebra fish (Lu et al., 2016) and red tilapia (Ding et al., 2018). Overall, a variety of studies have
addressed these effects (reviewed in Prokić et al., 2019). However, the diversity of microplastic materials
and metrics of effects used make it problematic to directly compare results, just as the diversity of microplastics
in the natural environment makes it difficult to predict toxicological outcomes with confidence.
The innate and adaptive immune systems are designed to respond to foreign antigens, so research has queried
if microplastics may be perceived as antigens or possibly inhibit immune response. Espinosa et al. (2018) stu-
died immune responses of head kidney leucocytes in seabream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) using 40–150 μm polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride particles. They found that there was a minimal
immune response, with the exception of potential oxidative stress. However, this study used microplastics 4 to
15 times larger than the average immune cell. As such, direct effects on function of immune cells (including
phagocytosis) would be limited. Veneman et al. (2017) tested developmental effects of polystyrene (0.7 μm)
in early stage zebra fish. The authors noted interactions with phagocytic cells (including neutrophils) and acti-
vation of the complement system and neutrophils. Greven et al. (2016) observed changes in fathead minnow
neutrophil response after exposure to polystyrene and polycarbonate nanoplastics. These and other studies
suggest that microplastics can induce immune responses in aquatic species, notably fishes (whose immune
system is a proxy for human immunity), which may alter infectious disease resistance.
Recent work has investigated the influence of microplastics on organismal microbiomes. The importance of
microbiomes to nutrition and disease protection is well recognized in fishes (Adamovsky et al., 2018;
Llewellyn et al., 2014) and humans (Shreiner et al., 2015). As previously discussed, microplastic surfaces
may develop novel biofilm microbiomes, potentially leading to specific microbial‐mediated consequences
(Zettler et al., 2013). Jin et al. (2018) found that in addition to digestive tissue alterations, the gut microbiome
of mice was substantially altered following polystyrene microplastic ingestion, modifying metabolic path-
ways including amino acid and bile metabolism. These authors suggested that such alterations could trigger
metabolic disorders. Wan et al. (2019) monitored the microbiome of larval zebrafish after 1 week of exposure
to 5 and 50 μm polystyrene particles (at 100 and 1,000 μg L−1). During this time, microbial diversity and
metabolic functions (i.e., lipid metabolism and glycolysis) were significantly altered. In wild‐caught flesh‐
footed shearwaters (Ardenna carneipes), an endangered seabird in Australia, Lavers et al. (2019) observed
a correlation between blood chemistry parameters (lowered blood calcium, heightened uric acid, choles-
terol, and amylase) and reduced morphometrics (reduced body mass, wing length, culmen, and head + bill
length) with the incidence of ingested plastic.
Research has also demonstrated that reproduction may be affected by microplastic exposure. A study inves-
tigating the effects of polystyrene microbeads (2 and 6 μm at 32 μg L−1) found that mussels exhibited
decreased reproductive capacity following a 2‐month exposure (Sussarellu et al., 2016). This was evidenced
in the abundance and development of larvae, as well as the number and diameter of oocytes and sperm moti-
lity. The authors suggested that this resulted from an energy shift away from reproduction and toward struc-
tural growth, due to feeding changes triggered by microplastic exposure. In a similar study with Daphnia

HALE ET AL. 25 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

magna, individuals fed 1–5 μm microplastic particles over a 21‐day incubation exhibited decreased repro-
ductive success (Pacheco et al., 2018). Effects included delayed brood release, decreased number of brood,
and immobility in juveniles.
Most of the available toxicological studies have been conducted under laboratory conditions, which may
limit their real‐world applicability. Many used fluorescently labeled plastics to track their distribution
through tissues (e.g., Browne et al., 2008; Choi et al., 2018; Ding et al., 2018; Dawson et al., 2018; Greven
et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2016; Veneman et al., 2017; Wan et al., 2019; Y Wang, Zhang, et al.,
2019). Toxicologists must ensure that the dyes do not leach or possess toxic properties. Schür et al. (2019)
observed that the fluorescence signal does not always indicate particle location itself but may be an artifact
of fluorescent chemical translocation. A reason that few studies have addressed toxicity in field‐collected sce-
narios is that unlabeled (e.g., nonfluorescing) microplastics in such samples are difficult to detect within
organisms. Although research has specifically addressed methodologies used to separate microplastics from
tissues (Lusher, Welden, et al., 2017), microplastics <20 μm are difficult to isolate and identify. In addition,
microplastics in the environment are extremely diverse, that is, exist as complex mixtures, in a sea of addi-
tional potential stressors. Thus, tying effects to a single, particular plastic can be extremely difficult outside a
controlled, laboratory situation. Clearly, further research on the dissemination of microplastics into and
between tissues is necessary to elucidate toxicological consequences. A major challenge to this research is
increasing our ability to reliably trace small microplastics.

6.3. Mechanisms of Microplastic Toxicity

Pathologies due to microplastic exposure can be driven by a variety of factors, including sorbed
pathogens/pollutants and polymer/additive composition. As previously discussed, it has been demonstrated
that microplastics can harbor pathogens (Kirstein et al., 2016; Viršek et al., 2017). Plastic/biofilm associa-
tions have been proposed as a vector of disease in wildlife and humans (Keswani et al., 2016). Biofilms on
plastics used in human joint replacements have been reported to be a source of infection (Gbejuade et al.,
2015). Lamb et al. (2018) observed disease incidence increased from 4% to 89% when coral reef species were
in contact with plastics. Rotjan et al. (2019) fed corals in the lab polyethylene microplastics with an
Escherichia coli‐containing biofilm. Two weeks postingestion E. coli was detected in all such fed corals, as
well as in some adjacent polyps. These corals died within 4 weeks after microplastic ingestion.
Microplastics sorb persistent organic and inorganic (e.g. toxic metals) pollutants in natural environments.
Indeed, this phenomenon has been exploited in designing polymer‐based passive sampling devices for dis-
solved organic pollutants (MacKenzie et al., 2004; Rochman et al., 2013; Telfer et al., 2014). However, sorp-
tion of a pollutant to a microplastic surface may be influenced by competitive interactions with other
chemicals present, as demonstrated by Bakir et al. (2012). The exaggerated surface areas of microplastics
compared to parent debris enhance contaminant sorption potential. For example, J. Wang, Liu, et al.
(2019) examined the sorption of phenanthrene and nitrobenzene onto polystyrene microplastics.
Particle/water partitioning of these chemicals tracked decreasing particle size, except for the smallest nano-
plastics where aggregation may have reduced their cumulative surface areas. Both laboratory (Beckingham
& Ghosh, 2017; Tanaka et al., 2015) and field‐based studies (Gassel et al., 2013; Rochman et al., 2014;
Scopetani et al., 2018) investigated whether such sorbed pollutants accumulate in organisms after ingestion.
Batel et al. (2016) fed Artemia sp. nauplii small microplastics with absorbed benzo(a)pyrene. They then fed
these nauplii to zebrafish (Danio rerio) and observed trophic transfer of both the microplastics and benzo(a)
pyrene. Most such studies examined organic pollutants, but Barboza et al. (2018) evaluated interactions
between mercury and microplastics, and resulting toxicological implications in fish.
Some authors (e.g., Besseling et al., 2018; Koelmans et al., 2016) have suggested that the importance of con-
taminant accumulation potential may be overestimated). They hypothesized that the outcome varies
depending on the conditions within the gut of the organism studied, that is, the type of gut fluid (Tanaka
et al., 2015). Contaminant sorption onto plastics could also reduce the opportunity for contact with the
organism, for example, if the microplastic/contaminant is sequestered in sediments.
Plastic products also may contain toxic organic and inorganic additives at several percent of the total plastic
weight (Hermabessiere et al., 2017). Plastics are widely used as containers for food and beverages, as well as
in medical devices, and researchers have examined additive migration in those contexts (Hahladakis et al.,
2018), but few have considered the toxicological potential of microplastic‐related additives on aquatic life.

HALE ET AL. 26 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Lead, an additive in some polyvinyl chloride fishing floats, was shown to

leach in lab experiments (Nakashima et al., 2016). Migration decreased
over time as the lead near the float's surface was depleted. However,
release was reinvigorated after the polymer surface was abraded, as might
occur as the plastic fragments in the field. Thus, organisms contacting vir-
gin microplastics may experience greater exposure to additives than those
encountering weathered materials (Nobre et al., 2015).
The characteristics of the polymer, additive, and the leaching fluid play a
role in the extent of the additive release. For example, Hale and Chen
(2016) examined the leaching of flame retardants from virgin polyur-
ethane microplastics in the laboratory under various salinity, tempera-
ture, DOC, and digestive fluid conditions. Increasing water
temperatures enhanced the release of hydrophobic brominated flame
retardants, but not the more soluble phosphate‐based additives, which
was already substantial. Increasing humic acid concentrations showed a
similar pattern (see Figure 8), as did surrogate digestive fluids (not
shown). As there typically are multiple sources of additives (e.g., waste-
water treatment plant effluents, industrial releases, and contaminated
sediments), the contribution of leaching directly from in situ plastic debris
is difficult to assess. However, Martins et al. (2015, 2016) reported phtha-
late uptake and plastic debris‐derived immunogenic effects in salmonid
fishes in a remote Alaskan estuary. The site was pristine except for input
of ocean‐derived plastic debris.

In some cases, the presence of specific additives in plastics is unantici-

pated. For example, polystyrene fishing floats, aquaculture buoys have
been observed to contain the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane
(HBCD; Rani et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2016) and in shellfish growing
thereon (Jang et al., 2016). While HBCD has been widely used as an addi-
tive in extruded polystyrene insulation boards, there is no functional rea-
Figure 8. Leaching of additives from polyurethane microplastics under dif-
ferent environmental conditions. (a) Microplastics were added to a sand son for it being in floats. The authors observed some of the highest HBCD
column, leachate collected, and then analyzed by liquid chromatography/ concentrations in polystyrene insulation board debris from the Pacific
mass spectrometry (LC/MS). Increasing (b) dissolved organic carbon (DOC) coastlines of Alaska and California (Jang et al., 2017), theorized to be from
concentration and (c) temperature greatly enhanced release of the hydro- the 2011 Japanese tsunami disaster.
phobic BDE‐47 and TBB, but not the more hydrophilic TDCPP. [BDE‐47:
2,2′,4,4′‐tetra‐bromodiphenyl ether; TBB: 2‐ethyl‐hexyl tetrabromobenzo- In a terrestrial context, Gaylor et al. (2012) observed that house crickets
ate; TDCPP: tris(1,3‐dichloro‐2‐propyl)phosphate. Default leaching condi- (A. domesticus) ingested polyurethane microplastics and accumulated a
tions: 400 mg of 53–300 μm polyurethane, water column flow 1 ml/min, 40 °
portion of the polymer additives therein. Previous work had shown that
C, 0 PSU, no added DOC.]
such additives could undergo trophic transfer to frogs via consumption
of polyurethane‐exposed crickets (Hale et al., 2002). These same polymer additives had also been detected
at high levels in fish collected from a river downstream of a treatment plant (Hale et al., 2001) that received
wastewater from a plastics manufacturing facility. However, the precise role played by microplastics in
transferring the additives to the fish has yet to be delineated. Nonetheless, polymer additive detection in fish
fillets confirmed their presence outside of the digestive tract and in tissue consumed by humans.

Toxicity identification evaluation approaches may advance our understanding of the extent and conse-
quences of polymer additive and sorbed contaminant release. In this context, Coffin et al. (2019) examined
the ability of pepsin, a digestive enzyme, to leach additives from common plastic items. Using an in‐vitro cell
line, they reported that simulated gut conditions increased the estrogenicity of leachates from polystyrene,
polyethylene, and polypropylene. Bisphenol A and two phthalate plasticizers were identified, but levels
detected were deemed insufficient to explain the estrogenicity observed. The authors hypothesized that addi-
tional, undetermined additives in the leachates likely contributed. Jonker et al. (2016) combined chemical
analysis (liquid chromatography/high‐resolution time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry) of plastic leachates with
estrogenicity detection. They employed a reporter gene assay incorporating human VM7Luc4E2 cells. The
plastics were extracted with organic solvents (tetrahydrofuran:methanol; 50:50, v/v), which revealed

HALE ET AL. 27 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Figure 9. Challenges for the study and reduction of microplastic pollution are illustrated here. Note that microplastics and
nanoplastics have been simplistically illustrated here as hexagonal, colored particles. In actuality, their sizes and shapes
are extremely variable and include fibers. Challenges 1–4 stem from the nature of the plastics and their weathering with
time. Challenges 5–7 involve determining their distribution throughout the environment results and delineation of their
effects. Finally, Challenges 8–10 involve mitigating the global health risks that microplastics pose.

several brominated and phosphate‐based additives. Estrogenic compounds identified included bisphenol A
and 2,4‐di‐tert‐butylphenol. The authors hypothesized that the lack of associated estrogenicity may have
been due to the additives' low known potencies and water solubilities.
Plastic polymers themselves are generally viewed as inert, nontoxic, stable materials; however, exceptions
exist. For example, the polystyrene monomer styrene has carcinogenic properties (Gibbs & Mulligan,
1997). Saido et al. (2014) found styrene to be widely distributed along coastlines of the northwest Pacific
Ocean. Comparison of and extrapolation from lab studies using the same nominal polymer type can be mis-
leading as materials obtained from different sources may differ in regards to actual polymer composition,
morphology, and additive content. Composition of “neat” plastics obtained from commercial sources may
differ from those commonly in consumer goods and thus in environmental debris. Furthermore, important
compositional information may be deemed confidential business information and thus unavailable to
the researcher.
Microplastic morphological characteristics (shape, texture, and size) may influence toxicological outcomes, for
example, controlling if it is translocated in the tissues, blocks the digestive tract, or irritates or lacerates tissues,
resulting in abnormalities or increasing susceptibility to infectious diseases. Growing research suggests that
microfibers are a prevalent form of plastic pollution in the environment (Güven et al., 2017; Panno et al.,
2019; Michielssen et al., 2016). Their dimensions may present novel risks, as they are more likely to penetrate
or otherwise irritate tissues. The toxicity of asbestos, for example, is driven by its fibrous morphology (Siegrist
& Wylie, 1980). Further, weathering changes the surface morphology and properties of microplastics
(Balakrishnan et al., 2019) and may have profound effects on toxicological outcomes. For simplicity and repro-
ducibility, most toxicological studies have utilized virgin plastics, although exceptions exist (see biofilm sec-
tion). Standardized methods to realistically weather plastics prior to experimentation are needed. A more
complete understanding of toxic outcomes and ecological risks from exposure to microplastics would justify
increased expenditures to delineate their fate and reduce environmental releases, relative to the threats posed
by other stressors such as disease, climate change and toxic chemicals (Koelmans et al., 2017).

7. Conclusions
Recently, concern over microplastics in the environment has been criticized as a distraction from other
issues threatening global environmental health, including climate change (Stafford & Jones, 2019).

HALE ET AL. 28 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Ironically, plastics also play a role in climate change. Their manufacture represents 6% of current global oil
consumption (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey and Company, 2016). Zheng and Suh (2019) calcu-
lated that fossil fuel‐based plastics produced in 2015 emitted 3.8% of the total global CO2 over the course of
their life cycles. The growth in plastic production is outpacing carbon emissions (Figure 1) and if unchecked
is projected to contribute 15% of global greenhouse gases by 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey
and Company, 2016). Over 90% arose during plastic production versus end of life (landfilling, recycling, and
incineration). Recycling would constitute a net CO2 loss if used to supplant virgin plastic manufacturing
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey and Company, 2016). Furthermore, weathering of plastics in
the surface ocean has been shown to release the potent greenhouse gases methane and ethylene; thus, plastic
is not a permanent CO2 sink (Royer et al., 2018). Zheng and Suh (2019) suggested that increased use of
renewable bio‐based plastic feedstocks, greater recycling, and management of increasing demand are criti-
cal. However, Reddy et al. (2013) noted that a shift to generate 250 million tons of plastics from bio‐based
sources would divert 5% of available arable land from food production. In addition, the increased supply
of natural gas from hydrofracturing of North American shale deposits has fueled an expansion in U.S. plas-
tics manufacturing capacity (American Chemical Council, 2015). This poses an economic hurdle to
increased recycling. Clearly, the environmental role of plastics is complex, and solutions will require
creative strategies.

Due to the useful properties of plastics and our growing dependence on them, we cannot simply ban or
quickly replace them. Indeed, global usage is escalating, as is their mismanagement and entry into the nat-
ural environment. These plastics will over time degrade into microplastics and nanoplastics. At present, we
do not adequately understand the toxicological or ecosystem consequences of these. However, if serious
impacts are not already occurring, they certainly will arise as environmental levels increase. Examining
“hot spots” and the most exposed species are two valuable strategies for evaluating toxicological severity
of pollution. Ironically, humans living indoors, not marine organisms, may be the most exposed to micro-
plastics and associated additives.

This review is based on two underlying principles: (1) Microplastics are a transitory state existing between
plastic products/macrodebris and nanoplastics. To understand and solve the “microplastics” issue, we can-
not consider microplastics in isolation; we must consider all size groups. (2) The “microplastics” problem
extends well beyond the oceans. While the ultimate sink of microplastics is likely deep ocean sediments,
plastics are produced, used, and discarded initially on land and then are dispersed through the
other compartments.

Grand challenges related to these are detailed below and summarized in Figure 9.
1. Understand the complex composition of plastic products. The perception that all plastics are inert and
compositionally identical is incorrect. To resolve critical questions and mitigate possible impacts, plastic
manufacturers, aquatic and terrestrial and atmospheric scientists, health care specialists, waste and che-
mical engineers, economists, regulators, and others must collaborate and better understand the compo-
sition and nature of plastic products, including additives. The complexity of microplastics becomes far
more convoluted once they enter, intermingle, and weather in the environment.
2. Advance available sampling and analytical methods to detect small (<20 um) and diverse microplastics
and reveal their characteristics. We must improve sampling and analysis capabilities across all matrices,
including nanoplastics and weathered materials. Failure to sample appropriate locales in a representa-
tive manner or to encompass critical analytes leads to invalid conclusions. An overemphasis on the
abundance of microplastic particles in samples, in lieu of mass balances, currently exists. In part, this
is driven by analytical procedures that are weak in terms of mass quantitation.
3. Understand the sources and sinks of plastics, compartments, and transport processes involved. With ade-
quate analytical tools in hand, we can better elucidate the sources, pathways, and sinks of macroplastics,
microplastics, and nanoplastics in terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric compartments. Estimates based
on selected strata (e.g., surface waters or sediments), size ranges (e.g., sampling >300 μm), polymer types
(e.g., confined to buoyant olefinics), or forms (pellets, fragments, or fibers) should be qualified to avoid
confusion. In addition, an oft‐mentioned criticism of the sparse published toxicity studies available is that
some are conducted at “unrealistically high microplastic concentrations.” Our current analytical capabil-
ities are inadequate to determine true environmental concentrations and levels are increasing.

HALE ET AL. 29 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

4. Elucidate the influence of particle size on weathering and biodegradability. Do particles/fibers continue to
fragment into nanomaterials? Does the fate of these minute materials differ from expectations? That is,
do plastics last indefinitely in the environment or do they become increasingly vulnerable to physical
and biologically mediated degradation as they fragment and their surface areas increase (Figure 2)?
This has been inadequately explored to date.
5. Quantify human exposure via air, water, and food. We are exposed to microplastics and nanoplastics via
contaminated food and water. Ironically, much of this (and indoor air) is in intimate contact with plastic
containers, filters, and other devices. We are likely most exposed to microplastics and associated addi-
tives from our indoor environment, yet little research to date has investigated this, let alone evaluated
associated risks. It is instructive that ingestion and inhalation of indoor dust is now accepted as the
major pathway for our exposure to flame retardant polymer additives. What about exposure to micro-
plastics themselves, which are carriers of these additives?
6. Discover the complexities of microplastic interactions with the environment. We must better understand
the complexities of microplastic interactions with the environment, especially transition zones such
as estuaries. These must include holistic studies on individual organism, populations, and ecosystem
health and processes. Although many studies have begun to elucidate microplastic fate, more are
needed to prioritize prevention and remediation strategies. In addition, plastic surfaces submerged in
aquatic systems rapidly acquire biofilms (“eco‐coronas”) and may be chemically altered by, for example,
oxidation. These affect biological ingestion/palatability, degradability, specific gravity, sorption of con-
taminants, and desorption of additives. Therefore, these environmental interactions should be carefully
evaluated.
7. Utilize laboratory studies to evaluate the toxicity of the wide variety of plastics that exist in the environment.
Controlled laboratory studies are critical in elucidating the effects of different plastic products on species
and communities of interest. Such studies must be designed to address true, environmental threats. For
example, many utilize plastic beads purchased from laboratory suppliers. Although these provide
insights into important processes, they differ in form and composition from plastic debris in the envir-
onment, limiting the unrestrained applicability of results.
8. Recognize that microplastic pollution is a global (international) issue that does not respect political
boundaries. Like the trajectories of climate change, fossil fuel consumption, and species management,
developed and emerging nations must cooperate to find equitable solutions to plastics pollution.
9. Understand the capabilities and pitfalls of green chemistry and bioremediation as potential solutions. The
most successful solutions to microplastic pollution will take place at the beginning of the lifecycle of
plastic products themselves, not remediating microplastics once in the open ocean. This is similar to
controlling or cleaning up an oil spill. Prevention is best, followed by containment and lastly cleanup.
The development of “green materials” is promising. However, facile breakdown of the polymer matrix
may facilitate release and enhance exposure to potentially toxic additives, so additives must also be
thoughtfully engineered—we must avoid the so‐called “regrettable substitution.” Additionally, plastic
waste management and recycling must be improved. Developing countries have recently been identi-
fied as an increasing source of marine plastic pollution. Wealthy nations should pioneer strategies for
redesign, reuse, and recycling, not seek to offload their wastes to developing nations.
Acknowledgments 10. Implement policy to help mitigate plastic pollution. Most plastics are inexpensive to manufacture. Hence,
Partial funding for experiments related there is little financial incentive to reuse them. To support a circular lifecycle, the upfront price of plas-
to leaching of additives from tics must incorporate end of life costs. Currently, low volume plastic users and associated ecosystems
microplastics was provided by the
Marine Debris Program of the U.S. bear a disproportionate burden (e.g., remote islands are now being littered with plastic debris). This
National Oceanic and Atmospheric environmental injustice echoes that of climate change and sea level rise. Landfills may be mined by
Agency (NOAA) under Award future generations as resources become scarce and technologies improve. Optimization of such
NA13NOS4630062. Data from that
project used in the current paper are “dumps” into “repositories” is worthy of consideration. Political initiatives across borders should seek
archived in a ScholarWorks repository to accomplish these goals.
accessible at https://doi.org/10.25773/
xpxq‐xx83. Support for Drs. Zeng and
Mai was provided by the Ministry of
Science and Technology of China
References
(2016YFC1402200). This is Acha, E. M., Hermes, W. M., Iribarne, O., Gagliardini, D. A., Lasta, C., & Daleo, P. (2003). The role of the Rio de la Plata bottom salinity
Contribution #3862 from the Virginia front in accumulating debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025‐326X(02)00356‐9
Institute of Marine Science, William & Adamovsky, O., Buerger, A. N., Wormington, A. M., Ector, N., Griffitt, R. J., Bisesi, J. H., & Martyniuk, C. J. (2018). The gut microbiome and
Mary. aquatic toxicology: An emerging concept for environmental health. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 37(11), 2758–2775.

HALE ET AL. 30 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Al‐Jaibachi, R., Cuthbert, R. N., & Callaghan, A. (2018). Up and away: Ontogenic transference as a pathway for aerial dispersal of micro-
plastics. Biology Letters, 14(9). http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0479
Allen, A. S., Seymour, A. C., & Rittschof, D. (2017). Chemoreception drives plastic consumption in a hard coral. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
124(1), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.030
Allen, S., Allen, D., Phoenix, V. R., Roux, L., Jiménez, P. D., Simonneau, A., et al. (2019). Atmospheric transport and deposition of
microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nature Geoscience, 12, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561‐019‐0335‐5
Amamiya, K., Saido, K., Chung, S. Y., Hiaki, T., Lee, D. S., & Kwon, B. G. (2019). Evidence of transport of styrene oligomers originated from
polystyrene plastic to oceans by runoff. Science of the Total Environment, 667, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.383
American Chemical Council (2015). The rising competitive advantage of U.S. plastics. https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education‐
Resources/Publications/The‐Rising‐Competitive‐Advantage‐of‐US‐Plastics.pdf
Ammala, A., Bateman, S., Dean, K., Petinakis, E., Sangwan, P., Wong, S., et al. (2011). An overview of degradable and biodegradable
polyolefins. Progress in Polymer Science, 36(8), 1015–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.12.002
Anderson, P., Warrack, S., Langen, V., Challis, J., Hanson, M., & Rennie, M. (2017). Microplastic pollution in Lake Winnipeg, Canada.
Environmental Pollution, 225, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.072
Andrady, A. L. (2015). Persistence of plastic litter in the oceans. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic
Litter, (pp. 57–72). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Andrady, A. L. (2017). The plastic in microplastics: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 119(1), 12–22.
Antunes, J. C., Frias, J. G. L., Micaelo, A. C., & Sobral, P. (2013). Resin pellets from beaches of the Portuguese coast and adsorbed persistent
organic pollutants. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 130, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.06.016
Asante, K. A., Pwamang, J. A., Amoyaw‐Osei, Y., & Ampofo, J. A. (2016). E‐waste interventions in Ghana. Reviews on Environmental
Health, 31(1), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh‐2015‐0047
Avery‐Gomm, S., Provencher, J. F., Liboiron, M., Poon, F. E., & Smith, P. A. (2018). Plastic pollution in the Labrador Sea: An assessment
using the seabird northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis as a biological monitoring species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 127, 817–822. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.001
Avio, C. G., Gorbi, S., & Regoli, F. (2015). Experimental development of a new protocol for extraction and characterization of microplastics
in fish tissues: First observations in commercial species from Adriatic Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 111, 18–26. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.014
Bajpai, V., Dey, A., Ghosh, S., Bajpai, S., & Jha, M. K. (2011). Quantification of bacterial adherence on different textile fabrics. International
Biodeteriorioration and Biodegradation, 65, 1169–1174.
Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2012). Competitive sorption of persistent organic pollutants onto microplastics in the marine
environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(12), 2782–2789.
Balakrishnan, G., Déniel, M., Nicolai, T., Chassenieux, C., & Lagarde, F. (2019). Towards more realistic reference microplastics and
nanoplastics: Preparation of polyethylene micro/nanoparticles with a biosurfactant. Environmental Science: Nano, 6(1), 315–324.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EN01005F
Baldwin, A. K., Corsi, S. R., & Mason, S. A. (2016). Plastic debris in 29 Great Lakes tributaries: Relations to watershed attributes and
hydrology. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(19), 10377–10385. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02917
Ballent, A., Corcoran, P. L., Madden, O., Helm, P. A., & Longstaffe, F. J. (2016). Sources and sinks of microplastics in Canadian Lake
Ontario nearshore, tributary and beach sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 110(1), 383–395. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.06.037
Barboza, L. G. A., Vieira, L. R., Branco, V., Figueiredo, N., Carvalho, F., Carvalho, C., & Guilhermino, L. (2018). Microplastics cause
neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and energy‐related changes and interact with the bioaccumulation of mercury in the European seabass,
Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758). Aquatic Toxicology, 195, 49–57.
Barrows, A. P. W., Cathey, S. E., & Petersen, C. W. (2018). Marine environment microfiber contamination: Global patterns and the diversity
of microparticle origins. Environmental Pollution, 237, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.062
Bartlett, D. H., & Azam, F. (2005). Chitin, cholera, and competence. Science, 310(5755), 1775–1777.
Batel, A., Linti, F., Scherer, M., Erdinger, L., & Braunbeck, T. (2016). Transfer of benzo[a]pyrene from microplastics to Artemia nauplii and
further to zebrafish via a trophic food web experiment: CYP1A induction and visual tracking of persistent organic pollutants.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(7), 1656–1666. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3361
Battulga, B., Kawahigashi, M., & Oyuntsetseg, B. (2019). Distribution and composition of plastic debris along the river shore in the Selenga
River basin in Mongolia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(14), 14059–14072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356‐019‐04632‐
1
Beckingham, B., & Ghosh, U. (2017). Differential bioavailability of polychlorinated biphenyls associated with environmental particles:
Microplastic in comparison to wood, coal and biochar. Environmental Pollution, 220, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.09.033
Bergmann, B., & Klages, M. (2012). Increase of litter at the Arctic deep‐sea observatory HAUSGARTEN. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(12),
2734–2741.
Bernstein, J. A., Alexis, N., Bacchus, H., Bernstein, I. L., Fritz, P., Horner, E., et al. (2008). The health effects of nonindustrial indoor air
pollution. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 121(3), 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.10.045
Beron‐Vera, F. J., Olascoaga, M. J., & Lumpkin, R. (2016). Inertia‐induced accumulation of flotsam in the subtropical gyres. Geophysical
Research Letters, 43(23), 12,228–12,233. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071443
Besseling, E., Redondo‐Hasselerharm, P., Foekema, E. M., & Koelmans, A. A. (2018). Quantifying ecological risks of aquatic micro‐ and
nanoplastic. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(1), 32–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1531688
Best, J. (2019). Anthropogenic stresses on the world's big rivers. Nature Geoscience, 12(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561‐018‐0262‐x
Biastoch, A., Biastoch, A., New, A. L., Rühs, S., Nurser, A. J. G., Drillet, Y., & Bidlot, J.‐R. (2019). Strategies for simulating the drift of marine
debris. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2019.1602102
Borrelle, S. B., Rochman, C. M., Liboiron, M., Bond, A. L., Lusher, A., Bradshaw, H., & Provencher, J. F. (2017). Opinion: Why we need an
international agreement on marine plastic pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), 9994–9997. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1714450114
Boucher, J. & Friot, D. (2017). Primary microplastics in the oceans: A global evaluation of sources. International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Gland, Switzerland.
Brand, J. H., Spencer, K. L., O'shea, F. T., & Lindsay, J. E. (2018). Potential pollution risks of historic landfills on low‐lying coasts and
estuaries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 5, e1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1264

HALE ET AL. 31 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Brandon, A. M., Gao, S. H., Tian, R., Ning, D., Yang, S. S., Zhou, J., et al. (2018). Biodegradation of polyethylene and plastic mixtures in
mealworms (larvae of Tenebrio molitor) and effects on the gut microbiome. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(11),
6526–6533.
Brennecke, D., Ferreira, E. C., Costa, T. M. M., Appel, D., da Gama, B. A. P., & Lenz, M. (2015). Ingested microplastics (>100 μm) are
translocated to organs of the tropical fiddler crab Uca rapax. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 96(1–2), 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2015.05.001
Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2011). Accumulation of microplastics on
shorelines worldwide: Sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(21), 9175–9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es201811s
Browne, M. A., Dissanayake, A., Galloway, T. S., Lowe, D. M., & Thompson, R. C. (2008). Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the
circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science and Technology, 42(13), 5026–5031. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es800249a
Browne, M. A., Galloway, T. S., & Thompson, R. C. (2010). Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environmental
Science and Technology, 44(9), 3404–3409. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903784e
Carr, S. A. (2017). Sources and dispersive modes of micro‐fibers in the environment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Management, 13(3), 466–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1916
Carr, S. A., Liu, J., & Tesoro, A. G. (2016). Transport and fate of microplastic particles in waste water treatment plants. Water Research, 91,
174–182.
Catarino, A. I., Valeria, M., Sanderson, W. G., Thompson, R. C., & Henry, T. B. (2018). Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels
indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during a meal. Environmental
Pollution, 237, 675–684.
Ceccarini, A., Corti, A., Erba, F., Modugno, F., La Nasa, J., Bianchi, S., & Castelvetro, V. (2018). The hidden microplastics: New insights and
figures from the thorough separation and characterization of microplastics and of their degradation byproducts in coastal sediments.
Environmental Science & Technology, 52(10), 5634–5643. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01487
Chae, D. H., Kim, I. S., Kim, S. K., Song, Y. K., & Shim, W. J. (2015). Abundance and distribution characteristics of microplastics in surface
seawaters of the Incheon/Kyeonggi Coastal Region. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 69(3), 269–278.
Chae, Y., & An, Y. (2018). Current research trends on plastic pollution and ecological impacts on the soil ecosystem: A review.
Environmental Pollution, 240, 387–395.
Cheung, P. K., Cheung, L. T. O., & Fok, L. (2016). Seasonal variation in the abundance of marine plastic debris in the estuary of a sub-
tropical macro‐scale drainage basin in South China. Science of the Total Environment, 562, 658–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.04.048
Cheung, P. K., Fok, L., Hung, P. L., & Cheung, L. T. O. (2018). Spatio‐temporal comparison of neustonic microplastic density in Hong Kong
waters under the influence of the Pearl River Estuary. Science of the Total Environment, 628‐629, 731–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.01.338
Chinaglia, S., Tosin, M., & Degli‐Innocenti, F. (2018). Biodegradation rate of biodegradable plastics at molecular level. Polymer Degradation
and Stability, 147, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2017.12.011
Choi, J. S., Jung, Y. J., Hong, N. H., Hong, S. H., & Park, J. W. (2018). Toxicological effects of irregularly shaped and spherical microplastics
in a marine teleost, the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 129(1), 231–240. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.039
Choy, C. A., Robison, B. H., Gagne, T. O., Erwin, B., Firl, E., Halden, R. U., et al. (2019). The vertical distribution and biological transport of
marine microplastics across the epipelagic and mesopelagic water column. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 7843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐
019‐44117‐2
Christensen, P. R., Scheuermann, A. M., Loeffler, K. E., & Helms, B. A. (2019). Closed‐loop recycling of plastics enabled by dynamic
covalent diketoenamine bonds. Nature Chemistry, 11(5), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557‐019‐0249‐2
Christie, R. M. (1994).Pigments, dyes and fluorescent brightening agents for plastics: an overview. Polymer International, 34 (4), 351–361.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.1994.210340401
Coffin, S., Huang, G. Y., Lee, I., & Schlenk, D. (2019). Fish and seabird gut conditions enhance desorption of estrogenic chemicals from
commonly‐ingested plastic items. Environmental Science & Technology, 53, 4588–4599. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07140
Cohen, J. H., Internicola, A., Mason, R. A., & Kukulka, T. (2019). Observations and simulations of microplastic debris in a tide, wind, and
freshwater‐driven estuarine environment—The Delaware Bay. Environmental Science and Technology, Just Accepted Manuscript.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04814 Publication Date (Web): 08 Nov 2019
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton.
Environmental Science and Technology, 47(12), 6646–6655. https://doi.org/10.1021/es400663f
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 62, 2588–2597.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P. K., Fileman, E., Clark, J., Lewis, C., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2016). Microplastics alter the properties and
sinking rates of zooplankton fecal pellets. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(6), 3239–3246. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.5b05905
Collignon, A., Hecq, J. H., Glagani, F., Voisin, P., Collard, F., & Goffart, A. (2012). Neustonic microplastic and zooplankton in the North
Western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(4), 861–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.011
Collins, K. J., Jensen, A. C., & Albert, S. A. (1995). A review of waste tire utilization in the marine environment. Chemistry and Ecology,
10(3‐4), 205–216.
Conley, K., Clum, A., Deepe, J., Lane, H., & Beckingham, B. (2019). Wastewater treatment plants as a source of microplastics to an urban
estuary: Removal efficiencies and loading per capita over one year. Water Research X, 3, 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wroa.2019.100030
Coppock, R. L., Cole, M., Lindeque, P. K., Queirós, A. M., & Galloway, T. S. (2017). A small‐scale, portable method for extracting micro-
plastics from marine sediments. Environmental Pollution, 230, 829–837.
Corradini, F., Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta‐Lwanga, E., & Geissen, V. (2019). Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agri-
cultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Science of the Total Environment, 671, 411–420.
Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González‐Gordillo, J. I., Irigoien, X., Ubeda, B., Hernández‐León, S., et al. (2014). Plastic debris in the open ocean.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(28), 10,239–10,244. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1314705111

HALE ET AL. 32 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Cózar, A., Martí, E., Duarte, C. M., García‐de‐Lomas, J., Van Sebille, E., Ballatore, T. J., et al. (2017). The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for
floating plastics in the North Atlantic branch of the Thermohaline Circulation. Science Advances, 3(4), e1600582–9. https://doi.org/
10.1126/sciadv.1600582
Dang, H., & Lovell, C. R. (2016). Microbial surface colonization and biofilm development in marine environments. Microbiology and
Molecular Biology Reviews, 80(1), 91–138. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00037‐1
Danovaro, R., Della Croce, N., Dell'Anno, A., & Pusceddu, A. (2003). A depocenter of organic matter at 7800 m depth in the SE Pacific
Ocean. Deep‐Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 50(12), 1411–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2003.07.001
Dawson, A. L., Kawaguchi, S., King, C. K., Townsend, K. A., King, R., Huston, W. M., & Bengtson Nash, S. M. (2018). Turning microplastics
into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nature Communications, 9, 1001.
Dehghani, S., Moore, F., & Akhbarizadeh, R. (2017). Microplastic pollution in deposited urban dust, Tehran metropolis, Iran.
Environmental Science and Pollution, 24, 20,360–20,371.
Desforges, J. P. W., Galbraith, M., & Ross, P. S. (2015). Ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 69(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244‐015‐0172‐5
DiGangi, J., Strakova, J., & Watson, A. (2011). A survey of PBDEs in recycled carpet padding. Organohalogen Compounds, 73,
2067–2070.
Dilkes‐Hoffman, L. S., Lant, P. A., Laycock, B., & Pratt, S. (2019). The rate of biodegradation of PHA bioplastics in the marine environment:
A meta‐study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 142, 15–24.
Ding, J., Zhang, S., Razanajatovo, R. M., Zou, H., & Zhu, W. (2018). Accumulation, tissue distribution, and biochemical effects of poly-
styrene microplastics in the freshwater fish red tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Environmental Pollution, 238, 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.001
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V., & Tassin, B. (2017). A first overview of textile fibers, including
microplastics, in indoor and outdoor environments. Environmental Pollution, 221, 453–458.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., & Tassin, B. (2015). Microplastic contamination in an urban area: A case study in
Greater Paris. Environmental Chemistry, 12(5), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14167
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., & Tassin, B. (2016). Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the
environment? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 104, 290–293.
Eerkes‐Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015). Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats,
identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research, 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.02.012
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company. (2016). World economic forum the new plastics economy—Rethinking the future of
plastics. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf
Enders, K., Lenz, R., Stedmon, C. A., & Nielsen, T. (2015). Abundance, size and polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥10 μm in
the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled vertical distribution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 100(1), 70–81. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2015.09.027
Eo, S., Hong, S. H., Song, Y. K., Han, G. M., & Shim, W. J. (2019). Spatiotemporal distribution and annual load of microplastics in the
Nakdong River, South Korea. Water Research, 160, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.053
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., et al. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world's oceans:
More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e111913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0111913
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., et al. (2013). Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 77, 177–182.
Erni‐Cassola, G., Gibson, M. I., Thompson, R. C., & Christie‐Oleza, J. A. (2017). Lost, but found with Nile Red: A novel method for detecting
and quantifying small microplastics (1 mm to 20 μm) in environmental samples. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(23),
13,641–13,648. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04512
Erni‐Cassola, G., Zadjelovic, V., Gibson, M. I., & Christie‐Oleza, J. A. (2019). Distribution of plastic polymer types in the marine envir-
onment: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 369, 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.02.067
Espinosa, C., García Beltrán, J. M., Esteban, M. A., & Cuesta, A. (2018). In vitro effects of virgin microplastics on fish head‐kidney leucocyte
activities. Environmental Pollution, 235, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.054
European Union (2018). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact of the use of oxo‐
degradable plastic, including oxo‐degradable plastic carrier bags, on the environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular‐
economy/pdf/oxo‐plastics.pdf
Faure, F., Corbas, M., Baecher, H., & De Allencastro, L. F. (2012). Pollution due to plastics and microplastics in Lake Geneva and in the
Mediterranean Sea. Archives des Sciences, 65, 157–164.
Faverney, C. R., Guibbolini‐Sabatier, M. E., & Francour, P. (2010). An ecotoxicological approach with transplanted mussels (Mytilus gal-
loprovincialis) for assessing the impact of tyre reefs immersed along the NW Mediterranean Sea. Marine Environmental Resources, 87–94.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.03.007
Fazey, F. M. C., & Ryan, P. G. (2016). Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics: An experimental study into the effect of size on surface
longevity. Environmental Pollution, 210, 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.026
Fischer, E. K., Paglialonga, L., Czech, E., & Tamminga, M. (2016). Microplastic pollution in lakes and lake shoreline sediments—A case
study on Lake Bolsena and Lake Chiusi (central Italy). Environmental Pollution, 213, 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.03.012
Fogelman, R. (2018). Fighting the fire surge. Waste Today. https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/fighting‐the‐‐fire‐surge/
Free, C. M., Jensen, O. P., Mason, S. A., Eriksen, M., Williamson, N. J., & Boldgiv, B. (2014). High‐levels of microplastic pollution in a large,
remote, mountain lake. Risk Analysis An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 85(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.06.001
Fries, E., Dekiff, J. H., Willmeyer, J., Nuelle, M., Ebert, M., & Remy, D. (2013). Identification of polymer types and additives in marine
microplastic particles using pyrolysis‐GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 15,
1949–1956.
Froyland, G., Stuart, R. M., & Van Sebille, E. (2014). How well‐connected is the surface of the global ocean? Chaos: An interdisciplinary
journal of nonlinear science, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4892530
Fuller, S., & Gautam, A. (2016). A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized fluid extraction. Environmental Science &
Technology, 50, 5774–5780. http://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.6B00816

HALE ET AL. 33 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Galloway, T. S., Cole, M., & Lewis, C. (2017). Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nature Ecology and
Evolution, 1(5), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559‐017‐0116
Gassel, M., Harwani, S., Park, J. S., & Jahn, A. (2013). Detection of nonylphenol and persistent organic pollutants in fish from the North
Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 73(1), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.05.014
Gaylor, M. O., Harvey, E., & Hale, R. C. (2012). House crickets can accumulate polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) directly from
polyurethane foam common in consumer products. Chemosphere, 86, 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.
10.014
Gbejuade, H. O., Lovering, A. M., & Webb, J. C. (2015). The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections: A review. Acta
Orthopaedica, 86(2), 147–158.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. http://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Gibbs, B. F., & Mulligan, C. N. (1997). Styrene toxicity: An ecotoxicological assessment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 38(3),
181–194. https://doi.org/10.1006/EESA.1997.1526
Goldstein, M. C., Titmus, A. J., & Ford, M. (2013). Scales of spatial heterogeneity of plastic marine debris in the northeast Pacific Ocean.
PLoS ONE, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080020
Gove, J. M., Whitney, J. L., McManus, M. A., Lecky, J., Carvalho, F. C., Lynch, J. M., et al. (2019). Prey‐size plastics are invading larval fish
nurseries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 24,143–24,149. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907496116
Gray, A. D., Wertz, H., Leads, R. R., & Weinstein, J. E. (2018). Microplastic in two South Carolina Estuaries: Occurrence, distribution, and
composition. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.030
Greven, A. C., Merk, T., Karagöz, F., Mohr, K., Klapper, M., Jovanović, B., & Palić, D. (2016). Polycarbonate and polystyrene nanoplastic
particles act as stressors to the innate immune system of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 35(12), 3093–3100. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3501
Gullett, B. K., Linak, W. P., Touati, A., Wasson, S. J., Gatica, S., & King, C. J. (2007). Characterization of air emissions and residual ash from
open burning of electronic wastes during simulated rudimentary recycling operations. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 9(1), 69–79.
Güven, O., Gökdağ, K., Jovanović, B., & Kıdeyş, A. E. (2017). Microplastic litter composition of the Turkish territorial waters of the
Mediterranean Sea, and its occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of fish. Environmental Pollution, 223, 286–294. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.025
Habib, D., Locke, D., & Cannone, L. (1998). Synthetic fibers as indicators of municipal sewage sludge, sludge products, and sewage
treatment plant effluents. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 103, 1–8.
Hahladakis, J. N., Velis, C. A., Weber, R., Iacovidou, E., & Purnell, P. (2018). An overview of chemical additives present in plastics:
Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 344, 179–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014
Hale, R. C. & Chen, D. (2016). Influence of a suite of environmentally relevant conditions on PBT leaching from, and sorption to, marine
microplastic debris. NOAA project NA13NOS4630062. https://doi.org/10.25773/xpxq‐xx83
Hale, R. C., Kim, S. L., Harvey, E., La Guardia, M. J., Mainor, T. M., Bush, E. O., & Jacobs, E. M. (2008). Antarctic research bases: Local
sources of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants. Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 1452–1457.
Hale, R. C., La Guardia, M. J., Harvey, E., & Mainor, M. T. (2002). Potential role of fire retardant‐treated polyurethane foam as a
source of brominated diphenyl ethers to the U.S. environment. Chemosphere, 46(5), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045‐6535(01)
00237‐5
Hale, R. C., La Guardia, M. J., Harvey, E. P., Mainor, T. M., Duff, W. H., & Gaylor, M. O. (2001). Polybrominated diphenyl ether flame
retardants in Virginia freshwater fishes (USA). Environmental Science and Technology, 35(23), 4585–4591. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es010845q
Hall‐Stoodley, L., Costerton, J. W., & Stoodley, P. (2004). Bacterial biofilms: From the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nature
Reviews Microbiology, 2(2), 95–108. http://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro821
Hammer, J., Kraak, M. H. S., & Parsons, J. R. (2012). Plastics in the marine environment: The dark side of a modern gift. In D. M. Whitacre
(Ed.), Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (pp. 1–44). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978‐1‐4614‐3414‐6_1
Harrad, S., Ibarra, C., Diamond, M., Melymuk, L., Robson, M., Douwes, J., et al. (2008). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in domestic indoor
dust from Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. Environment International, 34(2), 232–238. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2007.08.008
Harrison, J. P., Boardman, C., O'Callaghan, K., Delort, A. M., & Song, J. (2018). Biodegradability standards for carrier bags and plastic films
in aquatic environments: A critical review. Royal Society Open Science, 5(5), 171792.
Hartmann, N. B., Hüffer, T., Thompson, R. C., Hassellöv, M., Verschoor, A., Daugaard, A. E., et al. (2019). Are we speaking the same
language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environmental Science & Technology, 53
(3), 1039–1047. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05297
Hermabessiere, L., Dehaut, A., Paul‐Pont, I., Lacroix, C., Jezequel, R., Soudant, P., & Duflos, G. (2017). Occurrence and effects of plastic
additives on marine environments and organisms: A review. Chemosphere, 182, 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.05.096
Hoellein, T. J., Shogren, A. J., Tank, J. L., Risteca, P., & Kelly, J. J. (2019). Microplastic deposition velocity in streams follows patterns for
naturally occurring allochthonous particles. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 3740. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐019‐40126‐3
Holmes, A. L., Turner, A., & Thompson, C. R. (2012). Adsorption of trace metals to plastic resin pellets in the marine environment.
Environmental Pollution, 160, 42–48.
Holmes, A. L., Turner, A., & Thompson, C. R. (2014). Interactions between trace metals and plastic production pellets under estuarine
conditions. Marine Chemistry, 167, 25–32.
Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., & Svendsen, C. (2017). Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments:
Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of the Total Environment,
586, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190
Howell, E. A., Bograd, S. J., Morishige, C., Seki, M. P., & Polovina, J. J. (2012). On North Pacific circulation and associated marine debris
concentration. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65(1–3), 1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.04.034
Hurley, R., Woodward, J., & Rothwell, J. J. (2018). Microplastic contamination of river beds significantly reduced by catchment‐wide
flooding. Nature Geoscience, 11, 251–257.

HALE ET AL. 34 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Hurley, R. R., Lusher, A. L., Olsen, M., & Nizzetto, L. (2018). Validation of a method for extracting microplastics from complex, organic‐
rich, environmental matrices. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(13), 7409–7417. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01517
Imhof, H. K., Laforsch, C., Wiesheu, A. C., Schmid, J., Anger, P. M., Niessner, R., & Ivleva, N. P. (2016). Pigments and plastic in limnetic
ecosystems: A qualitative and quantitative study on microparticles of different size classes. Water Research, 98, 64–74. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.015
Isobe, A., Iwasaki, S., Uchida, K., & Tokai, T. (2019). Abundance of non‐conservative microplastics in the upper ocean from 1957 to 2066.
Nature Communications, 10(417). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐019‐08316‐9
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.
Science, 347(6223), 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
Jamieson, A. J., Brooks, L. S. R., Reid, W. D. K., Piertney, S. B., Narayanaswamy, B. E., & Linley, T. D. (2019). Microplastics and synthetic
particles ingested by deep‐sea amphipods in six of the deepest marine ecosystems on Earth. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180667
Jang, M., Shim, W. J., Han, G. M., Rani, M., Song, Y. K., & Hong, S. H. (2016). Styrofoam debris as a source of hazardous additives for
marine organisms. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(10), 4951–4960. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05485
Jang, M., Shim, W. J., Han, G. M., Rani, M., Song, Y. K., & Hong, S. H. (2017). Widespread detection of a brominated flame retardant,
hexabromocyclododecane, in expanded polystyrene marine debris and microplastics from South Korea and the Asia‐Pacific coastal
region. Environmental Pollution, 231, 785–794. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.066
Jin, Y., Xia, J., Pan, Z., Yang, J., Wang, W., & Fu, Z. (2018). Polystyrene microplastics induce microbiota dysbiosis and inflammation in the
gut of adult zebrafish. Environmental Pollution, 235, 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.088
Johannessen, S. C., Macdonald, R. W., Burd, B., van Roodselaar, A., & Bertold, S. (2015). Local environmental conditions determine the
footprint of municipal effluent in coastal waters: A case study in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Science of the Total
Environment, 508, 228–239. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.096
Jonker, W., Ballesteros‐Gómez, A., Hamers, T., Somsen, G. W., Lamoree, M. H., & Kool, J. (2016). Highly selective screening of estrogenic
compounds in consumer‐electronics plastics by liquid chromatography in parallel combined with nanofractionation‐bioactivity detec-
tion and mass spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), 12,385–12,393. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03762
Jovanović, B. (2017). Ingestion of microplastics by fish and its potential consequences from a physical perspective. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(3), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1913
Kanhai, L. D. K., Johansson, C., Frias, J. P. G. L., Gardfeldt, K., Thompson, R. C., & O'Connor, I. (2019). Deep sea sediments of the Arctic
Central Basin: A potential sink for microplastics. Deep‐Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 145, 137–142. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dsr.2019.03.003
Kapp, K. J., & Yeatman, E. (2018). Microplastic hotspots in the Snake and Lower Columbia rivers: A journey from the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem to the Pacific Ocean. Environmental Pollution, 241, 1082–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.033
Käppler, A., Fischer, M., Scholz‐Böttcher, B. M., Oberbeckmann, S., Labrenz, M., Fischer, D., et al. (2018). Comparison of μ‐ATR‐FTIR
spectroscopy and py‐GCMS as identification tools for microplastic particles and fibers isolated from river sediments. Analytical and
Bioanalytical Chemistry, 410(21), 5313–5327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216‐018‐1185‐5
Kay, P., Hiscoe, R., Moberley, I., Bajic, L., & McKenna, N. (2018). Wastewater treatment plants as a source of microplastics in river
catchments. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(20), 20,264–20,267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356‐018‐2070‐7
Keeley, J. E., & Syphar, A. D. (2016). Climate change and future fire regimes: Examples from California. Geosciences, 6(3), 37. https://doi.
org/10.3390/geosciences6030037
Keswani, A., Oliver, D. M., Gutierrez, T., & Quilliam, R. S. (2016). Microbial hitchhikers on marine plastic debris: Human exposure risks at
bathing waters and beach environments. Marine Environmental Research, 118, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.04.006
Khaled, A., Rivaton, A., Richard, C., Jaber, F., & Sleiman, M. (2018). Phototransformation of plastic containing brominated flame retar-
dants: Enhanced fragmentation and release of photoproducts to water and air. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(19),
11,123–11,131. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03172
Kiaghadi, A., & Rifai, H. S. (2019). Physical, chemical, and microbial quality of floodwaters in Houston following Hurricane Harvey.
Environmental Science and Technology, Article ASAP. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00792
Kirstein, I. V., Kirmizi, S., Wichels, A., Garin‐Fernandez, A., Erler, R., Löder, M., & Gerdts, G. (2016). Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for
potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. Marine Environmental Research, 120, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marenvres.2016.07.004
Klein, S., Worch, E., & Knepper, T. P. (2015). Occurrence and spatial distribution of microplastics in river shore sediments of the Rhine‐
Main area in Germany. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(10), 6070–6076.
Koelmans, A. A., Bakir, A., Burton, G. A., & Janssen, C. R. (2016). Microplastic as a vector for chemicals in the aquatic environment:
Critical review and model‐supported reinterpretation of empirical studies. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(7), 3315–3326.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06069
Koelmans, A. A., Besseling, E., Foekema, E., Kooi, M., Mintenig, S., Ossendorp, B. C., et al. (2017). Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact,
opinion, perception, and belief. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(20), 11,513–11,519. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02219
Kole, P. J., Lohr, A. J., van Belleghem, F., & Ragas, A. M. J. (2017). Wear and tear of tyres: A stealthy source of microplastics in the
environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10). http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101265
Kooi, M., Van Nes, E. H., Scheffer, M., & Koelmans, A. A. (2017). Ups and downs in the Ocean: Effects of biofouling on vertical transport of
microplastics. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(14), 7963–7971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04702
Labunska, I., Harrad, S., Santillo, D., Johnston, P., & Brigden, K. (2013). Levels and distribution of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in soil,
sediment and dust samples collected from various electronic waste recycling sites within Guiyu town, southern China. Environmental
Science: Processes & Impacts, 15(2), 503–511.
Lamb, J. B., Willis, B. L., Fiorenza, E. A., Couch, C. S., Howard, R., Rader, D. N., et al. (2018). Plastic waste associated with disease on coral
reefs. Science, 359(6374), 26–29.
Lambert, S., & Wagner, M. (2016). Characterisation of nanoplastics during the degradation of polystyrene. Chemosphere, 145, 265–268.
Lavers, J. L., Hutton, I., & Bond, A. L. (2019). Clinical pathology of plastic ingestion in marine birds and relationships with blood chemistry.
Environmental Science & Technology, 53(15), 9224–9231. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02098
Lebreton, L., & Andrady, A. (2019). Future scenarios of global plastic waste use. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41599‐018‐0212‐7
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte‐Rose, J., Aitken, R., Marthouse, S., et al. (2018). Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is
rapidly accumulating plastic. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4666. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐018‐22939‐w

HALE ET AL. 35 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Lebreton, L. C., & Borrero, J. C. (2013). Modeling the transport and accumulation floating debris generated by the 11 March 2011 Tohoku
tsunami. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 66(1‐2), 53–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.013
Lebreton, L. C. M., Greer, S. D., & Borrero, J. C. (2012). Numerical modelling of floating debris in the world's oceans. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 64(3), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.027
Lebreton, L. C. M., van der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J. W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., & Reisser, J. (2017). River plastic emissions to the world's oceans.
Nature Communications, 8, 15611. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611
Li, J., Liu, H., & Chen, J. P. (2018). Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for
microplastics detection. Water Research, 137, 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.056
Lioy, P. J., Weisel, C. P., Millette, J. R., Eisenreich, S., Vallero, D., Offenberg, J., et al. (2002). Characterization of the dust/smoke aerosol that
settled east of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 110(7), 703–714. http://doi.org/110:703‐714, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110703
Liu, C., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Deng, J., Gao, Y., et al. (2019). Widespread distribution of PET and PC microplastics in dust in urban
China and their estimated human exposure. Environment International, 128, 116–124.
Liu, J. C., Mickley, L. J., Sulprizio, M. P., Yue, X., Ebisu, K., Anderson, G. B., et al. (2016). Particulate air pollution from wildfires in the
western U.S. under climate change. Climatic Change, 138(3), 655–666.
Liu, K., Wang, X., Fang, T., Xu, P., Zhu, L., & Li, D. (2019). Source and potential risk assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in
Shanghai. Science of the Total Environment, 675, 462–471. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110
Llewellyn, M. S., Boutin, S., Hoseinifar, S. H., & Derome, N. (2014). Teleost microbiomes: The state of the art in their characterization,
manipulation and importance in aquaculture and fisheries. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5, 207. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2014.00207
Lots, F. A. E., Behrens, P., Vijver, M. G., Horton, A. A., & Bosker, T. (2017). A large‐scale investigation of microplastic contamination:
Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in European beach sediment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 123(1–2), 219–226. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.057
Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Deng, Y., Jiang, W., Zhao, Y., Geng, J., et al. (2016). Uptake and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in zebrafish
(Danio rerio) and toxic effects in liver. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(7), 4054–4060. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00183
Luan, L., Wang, X., Zheng, H., Liu, L., Luo, X., & Li, F. (2019). Differential toxicity of functionalized polystyrene microplastics to clams
(Meretrix meretrix) at three key development stages of life history. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 139, 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.01.003
Lucattini, L., Poma, G., Covaci, A., de Boer, J., & Lamoree, M. H. (2018). A review of semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in the
indoor environment: Occurrence in consumer products, indoor air and dust. Chemosphere, 201, 466–482.
Lusher, A., Hollman, P., & Mandoza‐Hill, J. J. (2017). Microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper (Vol. 615). Retrieved from. http://www.fao.org/3/a‐i7677e.pdf
Lusher, A. L., McHugh, M., & Thompson, R. C. (2013). Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish
from the English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67(1‐2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028
Lusher, A. L., Welden, N. A., Sobral, P., & Cole, M. (2017). Sampling, isolating and identifying microplastics ingested by fish and inver-
tebrates. Analytical Methods, 9(9), 1346–1360. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ay02415g
Lwanga, E. H., Vega, J. M., Quej, V. K., Chi, J. A., Cid, L. S., Chi, C., et al. (2017). Field evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a ter-
restrial food chain. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14,071–14,077. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐017‐14588‐2
MacKenzie, L., Beuzenberg, V., Holland, P., McNabb, P., & Selwood, A. (2004). Solid phase adsorption toxin tracking (SPATT): A new
monitoring tool that simulates the biotoxin contamination of filter feeding bivalves. Toxicon, 44(8), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
toxicon.2004.08.020
Maes, T., Jessop, R., Wellner, N., Haupt, K., & Mayes, A. G. (2017). A rapid‐screening approach to detect and quantify microplastics based
on fluorescent tagging with Nile Red. Science Report, 7, 44501. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep44501
Mahon, A. M., O'Connell, B., Healy, M. G., O'Connor, I., Officer, R., Nash, R., & Morrison, L. (2017). Microplastics in sewage sludge: Effects
of treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(2), 810–818. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04048
Mai, L., Bao, L., Shi, L., Wong, C. S., & Zeng, E. Y. (2018). A review of methods for measuring microplastics in aquatic environments.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(12), 11,319–11,332.
Mansui, J., Molcard, A., & Ourmières, Y. (2015). Modelling the transport and accumulation of floating marine debris in the Mediterranean
basin. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 91(1), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.11.037
Marcott, C.A., Prater, C., Dillon, E., Kansiz, M. (2019). Simultaneous Raman and photothermal infrared spectroscopy at submicron spatial
resolution. Abstracts of Papers, 257th ACS National Meeting & Exposition, Orlando, FL, United States, Mar. 31‐Apr. 4, 2019, ANYL‐
0350.
Marklund, A., Andersson, B., & Haglund, P. (2003). Screening of organophosphorus compounds and their distribution in various indoor
environments. Chemosphere, 53, 1137–1146.
Martins, K., Applegate, B., Hagedorn, B., Kennish, J., & Zwollo, P. (2015). Di(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate inhibits B cell proliferation and
reduces the abundance of IgM‐secreting cells in cultured immune tissues of the rainbow trout. Fish & Shellfish Immunology, 44(1),
332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2015.02.037
Martins, K., Hagedorn, B., Ali, S., Kennish, J., Applegate, B., Leu, M., et al. (2016). Tissue phthalate levels correlate with changes in
immune gene expression in a population of juvenile wild salmon. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 71(1),
35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244‐016‐0283‐7
Mason, S. A., Garneau, D., Sutton, R., Chu, Y., Ehmann, K., Barnes, J., et al. (2016). Microplastic pollution is widely detected in U.S.
municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environmental Pollution, 218, 1045–1054.
Mason, S. A., Kammin, L., Eriksen, M., Aleid, G., Wilson, S., Box, C., et al. (2016). Pelagic plastic pollution within the surface waters of Lake
Michigan, USA. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 42(4), 753–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.05.009
Mattsson, K., Johnson, E. V., Malmendal, A., Linse, S., Hansson, L. A., & Cedervall, T. (2017). Brain damage and behavioural disorders in
fish induced by plastic nanoparticles delivered through the food chain. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐017‐
10813‐0
Maximenko, N., Hafner, J., Kamachi, M., & MacFadyen, A. (2018). Numerical simulations of debris drift from the Great Japan Tsunami of
2011 and their verification with observational reports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 132, 5–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.03.056
McCormick, A., Hoellein, T. J., Mason, S. A., Schluep, J., & Kelly, J. (2014). Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an
urban river. Environmental Science and Technology, 48, 11,863–11,871.

HALE ET AL. 36 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

McDevitt, J., Criddle, C. S., Morse, M., Hale, R. C., Bott, C., & Rochman, C. (2017). Addressing the issue of microplastics in the wake of the
Microbead‐Free Waters Act—A new standard can facilitate improved policy. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(12), 6611–6617.
Melymuk, L., Bohlin‐Nizzetto, P., Kukučka, P., Vojta, S., Kalina, J., Kupr, P., & Klanova, J. (2016). Seasonality and indoor/outdoor rela-
tionships of flame retardants and PCBs in residential air. Environmental Pollution, 218, 392–401.
Michielssen, M. R., Michielssen, E. R., Ni, J., & Duhaime, M. B. (2016). Fate of microplastics and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in
wastewater treatment plants depends on unit processes employed. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 2(6), 1064–1073
. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00207B
Mintenig, S. M., Int‐Veen, I., Löder, M. G. J., Primpke, S., & Gerdts, G. (2017). Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water
treatment plants using focal plane array‐based micro‐Fourier‐transform infrared imaging. Water Research, 108, 365–372. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015
Moore, C. J., Moore, S. L., Leecaster, M. K., & Weisberg, S. B. (2001). A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific Central
Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(12), 1297–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025‐326X(01)00114‐X
Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., & Quinn, B. (2016). Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic
environment. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(11), 5800–5808. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416
Murray, C. C., Maximenko, N., & Lippiatt, S. (2018). The influx of marine debris from the Great Japan Tsunami of 2011 to North American
shorelines. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 132, 26–32.
Nakashima, E., Isobe, A., Kako, S., Itai, T., Takahashi, S., & Guo, X. (2016). The potential of oceanic transport and onshore leaching of
additive‐derived lead by marine macro‐plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 107(1), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.03.038
Napper, I. E., & Thompson, R. C. (2016). Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibers form domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric
type and washing conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 112, 39–45.
Nasser, F., & Lynch, I. (2016). Secreted protein eco‐corona mediates uptake and impacts of polystyrene nanoparticles on Daphnia magna.
Journal of Proteomics, 137, 45–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2015.09.005
Nelms, S. E., Barnett, J., Brownlow, A., Davison, N. J., Deaville, R., Galloway, T. S., et al. (2019). Microplastics in marine mammals stranded
around the British coast: Ubiquitous but transitory? Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1075–1078. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐018‐37428‐3
Neumann, D., Callies, U., & Matthies, M. (2014). Marine litter ensemble transport simulations in the southern North Sea. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 86(1‐2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.016
Ng, E. L., Lwanga, E. H., Eldridge, S. M., Johnston, P., Hu, H. W., Geissen, V., & Chen, D. (2018). An overview of microplastic and
nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 1377–1388.
Ni, H. G., Lu, S. Y., Mo, T., & Zeng, H. (2016). Brominated flame retardant emissions from the open burning of five plastic wastes and
implications for environmental exposure in China. Environmental Pollution, 214, 70–76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.
03.049
Nizzetto, L., Langaas, S., & Futter, M. (2016). Correspondence—Pollution: Do microplastics spill on to farm soils? Nature, 537, 488.
Nobre, C. R., Santana, M. F. M., Maluf, A., Cortez, F. S., Cesar, A., Pereira, C. D. S., & Turra, A. (2015). Assessment of microplastic toxicity to
embryonic development of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1–2),
99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.050
Oberbeckmann, S., Osborn, A. M., & Duhaime, M. B. (2016). Microbes on a bottle: Substrate, season and geography influence community
composition of microbes colonizing marine plastic debris. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0159289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159289
O'Brien, J. W., Thai, P. K., Brandsma, S. H., Leonards, P. E. G., Ort, C., & Mueller, J. F. (2015). Wastewater analysis of census day samples to
investigate per capita input of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers into wastewater. Chemosphere, 138, 328–334.
Ocean Debris. (2008). International Pacific Research Center Climate, 8(2), 14–16.
O'Connor, D., Pan, S., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Yuanliang, J., Wei‐Min, W., & Deyi, H. (2019). Microplastics undergo accelerated vertical
migration in sand soil due to small size and wet‐dry cycles. Environmental Pollution, 249, 527–534.
Onink, V., Wichmann, D., Delandmeter, P., & van Sebille, E. (2019). The role of Ekman currents, geostrophy, and Stokes drift in the
accumulation of floating microplastic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124(3), 1474–1490. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JC014547
OSPAR Commission. (2017). Assessment document of land‐based inputs of microplastics in the marine environment. pp. 74. https://www.
ospar.org/documents?v=38018.
Ostle, C., Thompson, R. C., Broughton, D., Gregory, L., Wootton, M., & Johns, D. G. (2019). The rise in ocean plastics evidenced from a 60‐
year time series. Nature Communications, 10(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐019‐09506‐1
Oyinlola, M. A., Reygondeau, G., Wabnitz, C. C. C., Troell, M., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2018). Global estimation of areas with suitable
environmental conditions for mariculture species. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0191086. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191086
Pacheco, A., Martins, A., & Guilhermino, L. (2018). Toxicological interactions induced by chronic exposure to gold nanoparticles and
microplastics mixtures in Daphnia magna. Science of the Total Environment, 628‐629, 474–483.
Panno, S. V., Kelly, W. R., Scott, J., Zheng, W., McNeish, R. E., Holm, N., et al. (2019). Microplastic contamination in karst groundwater
systems. Groundwater, 57(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12862
Paul‐Pont, I., Tallec, K., Gonzalez‐Fernandez, C., Lambert, C., Vincent, D., Mazurais, D., et al. (2018). Constraints and priorities for con-
ducting experimental exposures of marine organisms to microplastics. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2018.00252
Pauly, J. L., Stegmeier, S. J., Allaart, H. A., Cheney, R. T., Zhang, P. J., Mayer, A. G., & Streck, R. J. (1998). Inhaled cellulosic and plastic
fibers found in human lung tissue. Cancer Epidemiolgical, Biomarkers & Prevention, 7, 419–428.
Pazos, R. S., Bauer, D. E., & Gómez, N. (2018). Microplastics integrating the coastal planktonic community in the inner zone of the Río de la
Plata estuary (South America). Environmental Pollution, 243, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.064
Pedà, C., Caccamo, L., Fossi, M. C., Gai, F., Andaloro, F., Genovese, L., et al. (2016). Intestinal alterations in European sea bass
Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) exposed to microplastics: Preliminary results. Environmental Pollution, 212, 251–256. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.083
Peeken, I., Primpke, S., Beyer, B., Gütermann, J., Katlein, C., Krumpen, T., et al. (2018). Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and
means of transport for microplastics. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1505. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐018‐03825‐5
Porter, A., Lyons, B. P., Galloway, T. S., & Lewis, C. (2018). Role of marine snows in microplastic fate and bioavailability. Environmental
Science and Technology, 52(12), 7111–7119. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01000
Possatto, F. E., Barletta, M., Costa, M. F., Ivar do Sul, J. A., & Dantas, D. V. (2011). Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: An unexpected
fisheries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(5), 1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.01.036

HALE ET AL. 37 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Powell, J. T., Jain, P., Smith, J., Townsend, T. G., & Tolaymat, T. M. (2015). Does disposing of construction and demolition debris in unlined
landfills impact groundwater quality? Evidence from 91 Landfill Sites in Florida. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(15),
9029–9036. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01368
Prata, J. C. (2018). Microplastics in wastewater: State of the knowledge on sources, fate and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 129,
262–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.046
Primpke, S., Lorenz, C., Rascher‐Friesenhausen, R., & Gerdts, G. (2017). An automated approach for microplastics analysis using
focal plane array (FPA) FTIR microscopy and image analysis. Analytical Methods, 9(9), 1499–1511. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C6AY02476A
Prokić, M. D., Radovanović, T. B., Gavrić, J. P., & Faggio, C. (2019). Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics: Examination of biomarkers,
current state and future perspectives. TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 111, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.
12.001
Provencher, J. F., Vermaire, J. C., Avery‐Gomm, S., Braune, B. M., & Mallory, M. L. (2018). Garbage in guano? Microplastic debris found in
faecal precursors of seabirds known to ingest plastics. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 1477–1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.07.101
Raju, N. S., Carbery, M., Kuttykattil, A., Senathirajah, K., Subashchandrabose, S. R., Evans, G., & Thavamani, P. (2018). Transport and fate
of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Implications to environmental health. Reviews in Environmental Science and
Bio/Technology, 17(4), 637–653. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11157‐018‐9480‐3
Rani, M., Shim, W. J., Han, G. M., Jang, M., Song, Y. K., & Hong, S. H. (2014). Hexabromocyclododecane in polystyrene based consumer
products: An evidence of unregulated use. Chemosphere, 110, 111–119. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.02.022
Reddy, R. L., Reddy, V. S., & Gupta, G. A. (2013). Study of bio‐plastics as green & sustainable alternative to plastics. International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3, 82–89.
Rillig, M. C., Ingraffia, R., & de Souza Machado, A. A. (2017). Microplastic incorporation into soil in agroecosystems. Frontiers in Plant
Science, 8, 1805. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01805
Rillig, M. C., Ziersch, L., & Hempel, S. (2017). Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms. Nature Scientific Reports, 7, 1362.
Rochman, C. M., Hoh, E., Hentschel, B. T., & Kaye, S. (2013). Long‐term field measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five
types of plastic pellets: Implications for plastic marine debris. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(3), 1646–1654. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es303700s
Rochman, C. M., Lewison, R. L., Eriksen, M., Allen, H., Cook, A. M., & Teh, S. J. (2014). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish
tissue may be an indicator of plastic contamination in marine habitats. Science of the Total Environment, 476‐477, 622–633. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.058
Romera‐Castillo, C., Pinto, M., Langer, T. M., Álvarez‐Salgado, X. A., & Herndl, G. J. (2018). Dissolved organic carbon leaching from
plastics stimulates microbial activity in the ocean. Nature Communications, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐018‐03798‐5
Rotjan, R. D., Sharp, K. H., Gauthier, A. E., Yelton, R., Baron Lopez, E. M., Carilli, J., et al. (2019). Patterns, dynamics and consequences of
microplastic ingestion by the temperate coral, Astrangia poculata. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1905),
20190726. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0726
Royer, S.‐J., Ferrón, S., Wilson, S. T., & Kar, D. M. (2018). Production of methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLoS ONE,
13(8), e0200574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2010.07.024
Sadri, S. S., & Thompson, R. C. (2014). On the quantity and composition of floating plastic debris entering and leaving the Tamar Estuary,
Southwest England. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.020
Saido, K., Koizumi, K., Sato, H., Ogawa, N., Kwon, B. G., Chung, S. Y., et al. (2014). New analytical method for the determination of styrene
oligomers formed from polystyrene decomposition and its application at the coastlines of the North‐West Pacific Ocean. Science of the
Total Environment, 473‐474, 490–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.081
Savoca, M. S., Tyson, C. W., McGill, M., & Slager, C. J. (2017). Odours from marine plastic debris induce food search behaviours in a forage
fish. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences, 284. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1000
Savoca, M. S., Wohlfeil, M. E., Ebeler, S. E., & Nevitt, G. A. (2016). Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory
foraging seabirds. Science Advances, 2(11), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600395
Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., & Wagner, S. (2017). Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(21),
12,246–12,253. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368
Schoof, R. A., & DeNike, J. (2017). Microplastics in the context of regulation of commercial shellfish aquaculture operations. Integrated
Envrionmental Assessment Management, 13(3), 522–527.
Schreder, E. D., & La Guardia, M. J. (2014). Flame retardant transfers from U.S. households (dust and laundry) to the aquatic environment.
Environmental Science and Technology, 48, 11,575–11,583.
Schür, C., Rist, S., Baun, A., Mayer, P., Hartmann, N. B., & Wagner, M. (2019). When fluorescence is not a particle: The tissue translocation
of microplastics in Daphnia magna seems an artifact. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Accepted Author Manuscript. http://doi.
org/doi:10.1002/etc.4436
Schuyler, Q. A., Wilcox, C., Townsend, K., Hardesty, B. D., & Marshall, N. J. (2014). Mistaken identity? Visual similarities of marine debris
to natural prey items of sea turtles. BMC Ecology, 14, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472‐6785‐14‐14
Schymanski, D., Goldbeck, C., Humpf, H. U., & Fürst, P. (2018). Analysis of microplastics in water by micro‐Raman spectroscopy: Release
of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. Water Research, 129, 154–162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2017.11.011
Scopetani, C., Cincinelli, A., Martellini, T., Lombardini, E., Ciofini, A., Fortunati, A., et al. (2018). Ingested microplastic as a two‐way
transporter for PBDEs in Talitrus saltator. Environmental Research, 167, 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.07.030
Sheer, R. & Moss, D. (2011). Medical waste on beaches. The Environmental Magazine, https://emagazine.com/medical‐waste‐on‐beaches/
Sherman, P., & Van Sebille, E. (2016). Modeling marine surface microplastic transport to assess optimal removal locations. Environmental
Research Letters, 11(1), 14006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/11/1/014006
Sherman, R. L., & Spieler, R. E. (2006). Tires: Unstable materials for artificial reef construction. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the
Environment, 88, 215–223. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit‐transactions‐on‐ecology‐and‐the‐environment/88/16182
Shreiner, A. B., Kao, J. Y., & Young, V. B. (2015). The gut microbiome in health and in disease. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, 31(1),
69–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOG.0000000000000139
Siegrist, H. G., & Wylie, A. G. (1980). Characterizing and discriminating the shape of asbestos particles. Environmental Research, 23(2),
348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013‐9351(80)90070‐5
Socransky, S. S., & Haffajee, A. D. (2002). Dental biofilms: Difficult therapeutic targets. Periodontology 2000, 28(1), 12–55.

HALE ET AL. 38 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Song, Y. K., Hong, S. H., Jang, M., Han, G. M., & Shim, W. J. (2015). Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in the sea surface
microlayer in Jinhae Bay, South Korea. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 69(3), 279–287. http://doi.org/
10.1007/s00244‐015‐0209‐9
Stafford, R., & Jones, P. J. S. (2019). Viewpoint—Ocean plastic pollution: A convenient but distracting truth? Marine Policy, 103, 187–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.003
Stapleton, H. M., Dodder, N. G., Ofenberg, J. H., Schantz, M. M., & Wise, S. A. (2005). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in house dust and
clothes dryer lint. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 925–931.
Steinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tröger, J., et al. (2016). Plastic mulching in agriculture: Trading short‐
term agronomic benefits for long‐term soil degradation? Science of the Total Environment, 550, 690–705. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.01.153
Stock, F., Kochleus, C., Bänsch‐Baltruschat, B., Brennholt, N., & Reifferscheid, G. (2019). Sampling techniques and preparation methods
for microplastic analyses in the aquatic environment—A review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 113, 84–92.
Su, L., Deng, H., Li, B., Chen, Q., Pettigrove, V., Wu, C., & Shi, H. (2019). The occurrence of microplastic in specific organs in commercially
caught fishes from coast and estuary area of east China. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 365, 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2018.11.024
Su, L., Xue, Y., Li, L., Yang, D., Kolandhasamy, P., Li, D., & Shi, H. (2016). Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environmental Pollution,
216, 711–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.036
Sussarellu, R., Suquet, M., Thomas, Y., Lambert, C., Fabioux, C., Pernet, M. E. J., et al. (2016). Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to
polystyrene microplastics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), 2430–2435. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519019113
Suzuki, G., Kida, A., Sakai, S., & Takigami, H. (2009). Existence state of bromine as an indicator of the source of brominated flame retar-
dants in indoor dust. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 1437–1442.
Takahashi, C. K., Turner, A., Millward, G. E., & Glegg, G. A. (2012). Persistence and metallic composition of paint particles in sediments
from a tidal inlet. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 133–137.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., & Setälä, O. (2017). Solutions to microplastic pollution—Removal of microplastics from wastewater
effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water Research, 15(123), 401–407. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2017.07.005
Tan, Q., Li, J., & Boljkovac, C. (2018). Responding to China's waste import ban through a new, innovative, cooperative mechanism.
Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), 7595–7597.
Tan, X., Yu, X., Cai, L., Wang, J., & Peng, J. (2019). Microplastics and associated PAHs in surface water from the Feilaixia Reservoir in the
Beijiang River, China. Chemosphere, 221, 834–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.022
Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Fukuwaka, M. A., & Watanuki, Y. (2015). Facilitated leaching of additive‐derived
PBDEs from plastic by seabirds' stomach oil and accumulation in tissues. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(19), 11,799–11,807.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01376
Telfer, T. P., Denson, K. W., & Wright, D. R. (2014). Passive sampling methods for contaminated sediments: Scientific rationale supporting
use of freely dissolved concentrations. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ieam.1508
Thenepalli, T., Jun, A. Y., Han, C., Ramakrishna, C., & Ahn, J. W. (2015). A strategy of precipitated calcium carbonate (CaCO3) fillers for
enhancing the mechanical properties of polypropylene polymers. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 32(6), 1009–1022.
Triebskorn, R., Braunbeck, T., Grummt, T., Hanslik, L., Huppertsberg, S., Jekel, M., et al. (2018). Relevance of nano‐ and microplastics for
freshwater ecosystems: A critical review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 110, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.023
Turner, A., Wallerstein, C., & Arnold, R. (2019). Identification, origin and characteristics of bio‐bead microplastics from beaches in western
Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 664, 938–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.281
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., & Janssen, C. R. (2015). Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques,
occurrence and effects. Marine Environmental Research, 111, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.007
Van Cauwenberghe, L., & Janssen, C. R. (2014). Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental Pollution, 193,
65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vanreusel, A., Mees, J., & Janssen, C. R. (2013). Microplastic pollution in deep‐sea sediments. Environmental
Pollution, 182, 495–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013
Van Sebille, E., England, M. H., & Froyland, G. (2012). Origin, dynamics and evolution of ocean garbage patches from observed surface
drifters. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 044040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/7/4/044040
Van Sebille, E., Wilcox, C., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Hardesty, B. D., Franeker, J. A., et al. (2015). A global inventory of small floating
plastic debris. Environmental Research Letters, 10(12), 124006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/10/12/124006
Veneman, W. J., Spaink, H. P., Brun, N. R., Bosker, T., & Vijver, M. G. (2017). Pathway analysis of systemic transcriptome responses to
injected polystyrene particles in zebrafish larvae. Aquatic Toxicology, 190, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.06.014
Vianello, A., Boldrin, A., Guerriero, P., Moschino, V., Rella, R., Sturaro, A., & Da Ros, L. (2013). Microplastic particles in sediments of
Lagoon of Venice, Italy: First observations on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 130,
54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.03.022
Villarrubia‐Gómez, P., Cornell, S. E., & Fabres, F. (2018). Marine plastic pollution as a planetary boundary threat—The drifting piece in the
sustainability puzzle. Marine Policy, 96, 213–220.
Viršek, M. K., Lovšin, M. N., Koren, Š., Kržan, A., & Peterlin, M. (2017). Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish
pathogen species Aeromonas salmonicida. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 125(1‐2), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.024
Vroom, R. J. E., Koelmans, A. A., Besseling, E., & Halsband, C. (2017). Aging of microplastics promotes their ingestion by marine zoo-
plankton. Environmental Pollution, 231, 987–996. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.088
Wagner, J., Ghosal, S., Whitehead, T., & Metayer, C. (2013). Morphology, spatial distribution, and concentration of flame retardants in
consumer products and environmental dust using scanning electron microscopy and Raman micro‐spectroscopy. Environment
International, 59, 16–26.
Wagner, J., Wang, Z. M., Ghosal, S., Rochman, C., Gassel, M., & Wall, S. (2017). Novel method for the extraction and identification of
microplastics in ocean trawl and fish gut matrices. Analytical Methods, 9(9), 1479–1490. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02396G
Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez‐Muñoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S., et al. (2014). Microplastics in freshwater ecosys-
tems: What we know and what we need to know. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302‐014‐0012‐7
Waller, C., Griffiths, H., Waluda, C., Thorpe, S., Loaiza, I., Moreno, B., et al. (2017). Microplastics in the Antarctic marine system: An
emerging area of research. Science of the Total Environment, 598, 220–227. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.283

HALE ET AL. 39 of 40
 21699291, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014719 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2018JC014719

Wan, Z., Wang, C., Zhou, J., Shen, M., Wang, X., Fu, Z., & Jin, Y. (2019). Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the composition
of the microbiome and metabolism in larval zebrafish. Chemosphere, 217, 646–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.11.070
Wang, J., Liu, X., Liu, G., Zhang, Z., Wu, H., Cui, B., et al. (2019). Size effect of polystyrene microplastics on sorption of phenanthrene and
nitrobenzene. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 173, 331–338. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.037
Wang, J., Lu, L., Wang, M., Jiang, T., Liu, X., & Ru, S. (2019). Typhoons increase the abundance of microplastics in the marine environment
and cultured organisms: A case study in Sanggou Bay, China. Science of the Total Environment, 667, 20,191–20,198.
Wang, Y., Zhang, D., Zhang, M., Mu, J., Ding, G., Mao, Z., et al. (2019). Effects of ingested polystyrene microplastics on brine shrimp,
Artemia parthenogenetica. Environmental Pollution, 244, 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.024
Ward, C. P., Armstrong, C. J., Walsh, A. N., Jackson, J. H., & Reddy, C. M. (2019). Sunlight converts polystyrene to carbon dioxide and
dissolved organic carbon. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 6, 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00532
Webster, T. F., Harrad, S., Millette, J. R., Holbrook, R. D., Stapleton, H. M., Allen, J. G., et al. (2009). Identifying transfer mechanisms and
sources of decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE‐209) in indoor environments using environmental forensic microscopy. Environmental
Science and Technology, 43(9), 3067–3072. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803139w
Weinstein, J. E., Crocker, B. K., & Gray, A. D. (2016). From macroplastic to microplastic: Degradation of high‐density polyethylene,
polypropylene, and polystyrene in a salt marsh habitat. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(7), 1632–1640.
Weithmann, N., Moller, J. N., Loder, M. G. J., Piehl, S., Laforsch, C., & Freitag, R. (2018). Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of
microplastic into the environment. Science Advances, 4, eaap8060.
Wilcox, C., Heathcote, G., Goldberg, J., Gunn, R., Peel, D., & Hardesty, B. D. (2015). Understanding the sources and effects of abandoned,
lost, and discarded fishing gear on marine turtles in northern Australia. Conservation Biology, 29, 198–206. http://doi.org/10.1111/
cobi.12355
Windsor, F. M., Tilley, R. M., Tyler, C. R., & Ormerod, S. J. (2019). Microplastic ingestion by riverine macroinvertebrates. Science of the
Total Environment, 646, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.271
Wong, F., de Wit, C. A., & Newton, S. R. (2018). Concentration and variability of organophosphate esters, halogenated flame retardants,
and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in indoor and outdoor air in Stockholm, Sweden. Environmental Pollution, 240, 514–522.
Woodall, L. C., Sanchez‐Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G. L. J., Coppock, R., Sleight, V., et al. (2014). The deep sea is a major sink for
microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science, 1(4), 140317. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140317
Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review.
Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492.
Yang, X., Bento, C. P. M., Chen, H., Zhang, H., Xue, S., Lwanga, E. H., et al. (2018). Influence of microplastic addition on glyphosate decay
and soil microbial activities in Chinese loess soil. Environmental Pollution, 242(Pt A), 338–347. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.07.006
Yang, Y., Yang, J., Wu, W. M., Zhao, J., Song, Y., Gao, L., et al. (2015). Biodegradation and mineralization of polystyrene by plastic‐eating
mealworms: Part 1. Chemical and physical characterization and isotopic tests. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(20),
12,080–12,086.
Yonkos, L. T., Friedel, E. A., Perez‐Reyes, A. C., Ghosal, S., & Arthur, C. D. (2014). Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake
Bay, U.S.A. Environmental Science and Technology, 48, 14,195–14,202. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5036317
Yoshida, S., Hiraga, K., Takehana, T., Taniguchi, I., Yamaji, H., Maeda, Y., et al. (2016). A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly
(ethylene terephthalate). Science, 351(6278), 1196–1199. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad6359
Zambrano, M. C., Pawlak, J. J., Daystar, J., Ankeny, M., Cheng, J. J., & Venditti, R. A. (2019). Microfibers generated from the laundering of
cotton, rayon and polyester based fabrics and their aquatic biodegradation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 142, 394–407.
Zarfl, C. (2019). Promising techniques and open challenges for microplastic identification and quantification in environmental matrices.
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216‐019‐01763‐9
Zbyszewski, M., & Corcoran, P. L. (2011). Distribution and degradation of fresh water plastic particles along the beaches of Lake Huron,
Canada. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 220(1‐4), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270‐011‐0760‐6
Zettler, E. R., Mincer, T. J., & Amaral‐Zettler, L. A. (2013). Life in the “plastisphere”: Microbial communities on plastic marine debris.
Environmental Science and Technology, 47(13), 7137–7146. http://doi.org/10.1021/es401288x
Zhang, H. (2017). Transport of microplastics in coastal seas. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 199, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecss.2017.09.032
Zhang, K., Xiong, X., Hu, H., Wu, C., Bi, Y., Wu, Y., et al. (2017). Occurrence and characteristics of microplastic pollution in Xiangxi Bay of
Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(7), 3794–3801. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00369
Zhang, W., Ding, W., Li, Y., Tam, C., Bougouffa, S., Wang, R., et al. (2019). Marine biofilms constitute a bank of hidden microbial diversity
and functional potential. Nature Communications, 10.
Zhao, S., Zhu, L., & Li, D. (2015). Microplastic in three urban estuaries, China. Environmental Pollution, 206, 597–604. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2015.08.027
Zhao, S., Ward, J. E., Danley, M., & Mincer, T. J. (2018). Field‐based evidence for microplastic in marine aggregates and mussels:
Implications for trophic transfer. Environmental Science & Technology, 52, 11,038–11,048. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03467
Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Wang, T., & Li, D. (2014). Suspended microplastics in the surface water of the Yangtze Estuary system,China: first
observations on occurrence, distribution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86 (1), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.032
Zheng, J., & Suh, S. (2019). Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nature Climate Change, 9, 374–378.
Zhu, L., Bai, H., Chen, B., Sun, X., Qu, K., & Xia, B. (2018). Microplastic pollution in North Yellow Sea, China: Observations on occurrence,
distribution and identification. Science of the Total Environment, 636, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.182
Zubris, K. A. V., & Richards, B. K. (2005). Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of sludge. Environmental Pollution, 138,
201–211.

HALE ET AL. 40 of 40
 ARTICLE
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 OPEN

High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the

surface of the Atlantic Ocean
Katsiaryna Pabortsava1,2 ✉ & Richard S. Lampitt1,2

Concern over plastic pollution of the marine environment is severe. The mass-imbalance
between the plastic litter supplied to and observed in the ocean currently suggests a missing
1234567890():,;

sink. However, here we show that the ocean interior conceals high loads of small-sized plastic
debris which can balance and even exceed the estimated plastic inputs into the ocean since
1950. The combined mass of just the three most-littered plastics (polyethylene, poly-
propylene, and polystyrene) of 32–651 µm size-class suspended in the top 200 m of the
Atlantic Ocean is 11.6–21.1 Million Tonnes. Considering that plastics of other sizes and
polymer types will be found in the deeper ocean and in the sediments, our results indicate
that both inputs and stocks of ocean plastics are much higher than determined previously. It
is thus critical to assess these terms across all size categories and polymer groups to
determine the fate and danger of plastic contamination.

1 National
Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. 2These authors contributed equally: Katsiaryna Pabortsava, Richard S.
✉
Lampitt. email: [email protected]

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1

ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9

M
arine microplastics (10–1000 µm) belong to the con- Ltd.)21,22 deployed simultaneously at three discrete depths
tinuum of the discarded plastic debris that enters the (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Table 1; ‘Methods’). The shallowest
ocean from land-based and marine sources1. The sampling depth was always at 10 m below the surface to obtain
pathways of plastic input are very diverse and include riverine2 concentrations of microplastics representative of the upper water
and atmospheric transport3 from coastal and inland areas, illegal column (Fig. 1b). We collected microplastics at two depths below
dumping activities, erosion of legacy refuse dumps, and direct at- the base of mixed layer to measure their dispersal into the ocean
sea littering from shipping, fishing and aquaculture activities1,4. interior. The mixed layer depth (MLD) was determined from the
The ubiquitous presence of microplastics in the marine envir- conductivity–temperature–depth profiles collected prior to each
onment raises concerns over damage they could cause to oceanic deployment of the pumps (refs. 23,24) and employing a fixed
ecosystems and eventually to human health5,6. Yet, the scientific temperature-based criterion (ΔT = 0.8 °C for stations 01–19 and
evidence for the present and future risks from microplastics is far ΔT = 0.3 °C for stations 23, 27 and 30; Fig. 1b; see ref. 25). On our
from robust as sources, exposure levels and harm from these latitudinal transect, the MLD was between 28 and 140 m. The
contaminants are all poorly constrained. Although a significant intermediate sampling depth was selected to be at ~10–30 m
body of data on (micro)-plastic loads in the ocean has been below the MLD (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Table 1). The deepest
collected, the geographical spread of the measurements is sparse (mesopelagic) layer of particle collection was 100 m below this
and have been mostly focussed on plastic particles greater than intermediate sampling horizon, a depth well into the interior of
250 µm in size from the surface waters and seafloor (ref. 7 and the ocean (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Table 1) and isolated from the
references therein). Abundance and distribution of microplastics, ocean surface for decades26.
especially those in smaller size categories (<250 µm) throughout All steps involving sample collection, processing and analysis
the vast ocean interior remain virtually unknown except for one were performed in the air-controlled environment and using
full-depth (8–4400 m) survey in the Arctic Central Basin8. This clean, pre-combusted and where possible non-plastic laboratory-
leaves a significant knowledge gap, as the presence of micro- ware (‘Methods’). Particle collection with SAPs offered significant
plastics >11 µm in the deep-sea sediment9 indicate that removal advantages with respect to the volumes of seawater filtered
from the surface ocean to the abyss does take place. Given the (507–1534 L per SAP; Supplementary Data 1) and prevention of
current lack of knowledge about the location and fate of micro- air-borne contamination (‘Methods’). No PE, PP and PS
plastics in most of the ocean volume, the loads of oceanic plastics microplastics were detected in all procedural blanks (Supplemen-
floating in the surface ocean cannot be balanced by their mass tary Figs. 1 and 2) indicating contamination-free sampling and
fluxes from land and marine sources7,10. The estimated inputs of analysis (also see Supplementary Methods). Following the
plastic debris into the ocean2,4,11, in turn, are also massively removal of particulate organic material with KOH27,28, micro-
uncertain and require robust empirical assessments on a global plastics were pre-concentrated on a stainless-steel mesh with
scale. 25 µm aperture to be detected and characterised (polymer type
The additional challenge/uncertainty comes from the versatility and size) using Fourier-Transform infrared (FTIR) imaging at 25
of plastic materials and hence the necessity to assess the pollution µm resolution (‘Methods’).
with classes/polymer types of microplastics rather than con- We report the concentrations of polymer-specific microplastics
sidering them as a single material2. The extremely wide range of as particle number per unit volume (particles m−3) for a
physical and chemical properties of different plastic types would comparison with previous studies. Imaging IR provides two-
in part determine the extent and rate of their transformations dimensional (2D) properties (length, width, area) of individual
(e.g. fragmentation12,13, degradation14, aggregation15) and inter- particles, which, along with the respective particle count data, was
actions (biofouling16 and ingestion17,18) in the ocean and thus used to estimate polymer-specific mass concentrations (µg m−3:
their persistence and impacts on the biota therein. see ‘Methods’, ref. 24 and Supplementary Data 1) and subse-
Here, we assessed the pollution from polyethylene (PE), quently their respective loads in the ocean (‘Methods’). We
polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) litter at 12 locations on calculated particulate mass using the same procedure and
a 10,000 km North–South transect of the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1). assumptions of particle shape, thickness and density as in
The polymer groups investigated are the most common com- previous studies10,29–32 but report the lowest values to provide
modity plastics that are mainly used for packaging. They thus the most conservative estimates of mass concentrations (detailed
have a short lifetime and a high contribution to the content of the in Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Fig. 3). Mass of
global plastic waste (56%)19. Recent meta-analysis20 also identi- individual microplastics <300 µm have not been measured
fied PE, PP and PS as the most abundant polymers in the marine directly in bulk marine particle samples. We present empirical
environment, although their distribution in the open ocean and information about the size and mass of polymer-specific plastic
especially its interior was poorly constrained. We measured penetrating deeper into the ocean interior, crucial for under-
penetration of PE, PP and PS particles down to 25 µm in size standing and predicting the global inventory of marine plastic
from the near surface to the ocean interior below the maximum debris and their sources.
depth of upper ocean mixing (>200 m). We discuss our findings
in the context of previous observations and estimates of plastic
pollution in the Atlantic, both horizontally and with depth. We Abundance and distribution in the Atlantic Ocean. PE, PP and
provide a basin-scale assessment of the magnitude of pollution by PS microplastics were found at all stations in number and mass
these polymers in the upper 200 m and relate these data to the concentrations that varied by several orders of magnitude hor-
previously calculated plastic inputs to the ocean over the past 65 izontally and with depth (Fig. 2). Overall, PE was the most
years. abundant and pervasive polymer group with significantly higher
number and mass concentrations (mean ± s.d., 1602 ± 1551 par-
ticles m−3 and 389 ± 377 µg m−3) compared to PP (490 ± 822
Results particles m−3 and 262 ± 568 µg m−3) and PS (180 ± 439 particles
Field observations. To quantify and characterise the horizontal m−3 and 58 ± 241 µg m−3) (for all, Mann–Whitney U test:
and vertical abundance of PE, PP and PS, at each station of the p < 0.001, α = 0.01). PE microplastics were identified in all sam-
transect we collected suspended marine particles including plas- ples except for the intermediate depth layer of the southernmost
tics using in situ stand-alone pumps (SAPs; Challenger Oceanic station (53°S). Note that no PP or PS microplastics were found at

2 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 ARTICLE

a MLD depth (m) b

60 30 27 23 19 18 15 12 09 08 06 03 01
700
0
0.3
20
01 50
600
40 03
0.8
100 15

Depth (m)
0.8
500

ΔT (°C)
0.3

20 06 150 0.3
08 10
Latitude (°N)

09
400

Ocean Data View / DIVA

200
0 12
5
250
15 300

300 0
–20 18 EQ 20°N 40°N
40°S 20°S
19 200
Latitude (°N)
23
–40
100
30 27

–60 0
–60 –40 –20 0
Longitude (°E)

Fig. 1 Sampling locations for microplastics. a Sampling sites (numbered white circles) superimposed on a climatology of maximum monthly mixed layer
depth (MLD, m) in the Atlantic Ocean compiled using Argo profiles79,80 b Latitudinal section showing sampling locations (numbered) for microplastics
(white circles) in the water column in relation to the depth of mixed layer, defined as an absolute change in temperature (ΔT (°C)) with respect to an
approximately uniform region of temperature at 10 m below the ocean surface25. Vertical profiles of temperature were collected at each station prior to the
deployment of SAPs (ref. 23). Isotherms (white contours) of ΔT = 0.8 °C marked the base of the mixed layer at stations 01 to 19. Due to intense mixing at
stations 23, 27, and 30, the fixed temperature criterion was lowered to ΔT = 0.3 °C (ref. 25).

this sampling location, although other types of polymers such as however, PE and PS concentrations declined steadily with depth
polyamide and cellophane were present (Supplementary Data 2), (Fig. 4a, c). The mass loss with depth was faster for PS microplastics
from which we conclude that the absence of PP and PS was not a than for PE. The apparent mismatch between the vertical patterns of
consequence of faulty sampling. The presence of PP and espe- number and mass concentrations of PE and PS was in part attributed
cially of PS below the MLD was patchy. Only 67% of the samples to a significant decrease in particle size between the surface and
from the intermediate depth layer contained PP while PS intermediate depth layers (Fig. 3a, c). Here the mean (±s.d.) size of
microplastics were encountered in 60% of the surface samples PE and PS microplastics changed from 105 ± 74 to 89 ± 57 µm
and in <50% of the deeper ones. (Mann–Whitney U test: W = 101,077, p = 0.000582, α = 0.01) and
The size of all the detected PE, PP and PS microplastics was from 102 ± 95 to 78 ± 38 µm (Mann–Whitney U test: W = 249.5,
measured as maximum diameter (Feret diameter) and ranged p = 0.01077, α = 0.01), respectively. Contrary to PE and PS, the
from 32 to 651 µm (mean = 81 µm, n = 1444; Fig. 3). The mean number and mass concentrations of PP were the lowest at the
majority of the polymer-specific microplastics were <100 µm intermediate depth layer (mean ± s.d., 271 ± 496 particles m−3 and
(PE = 68%, PP = 49% and PS = 67%) with the peak size 44 ± 58 µg m−3; Fig. 4b). PP microplastics were also smaller in size at
distribution observed in the range 50–75 µm for all the polymer this depth layer (mean ± s.d., 102 ± 47 µm) than the particles
groups (Fig. 3). Only a small fraction of all three polymer groups captured in the surface (mean ± s.d., 119 ± 66 µm) and mesopelagic
were >300 µm: for PE, the contribution of this size fraction was waters (mean ± s.d., 132 ± 112 µm) (Fig. 3b), although these
1.1% numerically, while the respective values for PP and PS were differences were not significant based on Mann–Whitney U statistics.
2.5% and 0.7%, respectively. The PP microplastics had a higher
contribution of 100–200 µm particles (40%) compared to PE
(27%) and PS (18%), which explains overall significantly larger Discussion
average sizes (±s.d.) of PP microplastics (117 ± 76 µm; n = 302) This study provides the wide-scale depth-resolved data on pol-
than those of PE (96 ± 61 µm; n = 1017; Mann–Whitney U test: lution of the Atlantic Ocean by PE, PP and PS microplastics. Our
W = 147,085, p = 1.42 × 10−9, α = 0.01) and PS (87 ± 64 µm; n = observations reveal very high concentrations of these polymers in
125; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 29,341, p = 8.94 × 10−8, α = the size range 32–651 µm spreading across all latitudes and
0.01). penetrating from the near surface ocean, through the mixed layer
We find elevated number and mass concentrations (mean ± s.d.) and into the ocean interior (>200 m).
of PE (1732 ± 1793 particles m−3 and 591 ± 460 µg m−3), PP (822 ± Overall, the relative mass concentrations of the polymer-
1250 particles m−3 and 258 ± 354 µg m−3) and PS (228 ± 350 specific microplastics in our samples (PE > PP > PS) was con-
particles m−3 and 148 ± 424 µg m−3) in the near-surface waters, sistent with the polymer composition of plastic waste generated
although considerable quantities of these microplastics were found globally19 and captured in the surface ocean and at the seabed
below the MLD (Fig. 2, Fig. 4). As such, by count, mean PE and PS (review by ref. 20 and references therein).
abundances were comparable in the surface and right below the A direct comparison of our near-surface abundance data with
MLD (Fig. 4a, c). In the mesopelagic, the average abundance the previous Atlantic studies of microplastic pollution is chal-
decreased by a factor of 2 for PE (1052 ± 452 particles m−3) and lenging as nearly all of them applied different sampling and
dropped ~4-fold for PS (mean, 62 ± 90 particles m−3). By mass, analytical approaches. As such, our study assessed in a consistent,

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 3

ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9

a PE (particles m–3) b PP (particles m–3) c PS (particles m–3)

0 4000 8000 12,000 0 4000 8000 12,000 0 4000 8000 12,000

45°N
38°N
21°N
15°N
11°N
PS (particles m–3)
Latitude

PP (particles m–3)
1°N 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
45°N 45°N
9°S 38°N 38°N
21°N 21°N
21°S 15°N 15°N
11°N 11°N
24°S

Latitude

Latitude
1°N 1°N
9°S 9°S
37°S 21°S 21°S
24°S 24°S
50°S 37°S 37°S
50°S
53°S 53°S
50°S
53°S

d PE (μg m–3) e PP (μg m–3) f PS (μg m–3)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
45°N
38°N
21°N
15°N
11°N
Latitude

1°N PS (μg m–3)

0 100 200 300 1400 2000 3000
9°S
45°N
38°N
21°S
21°N
24°S 15°N
11°N

Latitude
37°S 1°N
9°S
50°S 21°S
24°S
53°S 37°S
50°S
53°S

10 m depth
10 m depth 10 m depth
Intermediate depth (50–170 m)
Intermediate depth (50–170 m) Intermediate depth (50–170 m)
Mesopelagic depth (100–270 m)
Mesopelagic depth (100–270 m) Mesopelagic depth (100–270 m)

Fig. 2 Microplastics abundance in the study area. a–c particle number concentrations (particles m−3) and d, e mass concentrations (µg m−3) of the
polymer groups at each station and depth layer. No near surface (10 m) sample was taken at 45°N (marked with white triangle) due to pump failure. In a–c,
the height of the bar shows the particle number concentration derived from the mean microplastic count in four imaged areas of a sample24 and scaled to
the known total area filtered and the known sample volume of the investigated sample fraction (see ‘Methods’ and Supplementary Data 1). In d–f, the
height of the bar shows the mass concentration of microplastic derived from particle number concentration data and two-dimensional properties of
detected individual particles using Method IV (ref. 10; see Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Data 1). All error bars are one standard deviation
showing uncertainty propagated through the calculations. Only upper error bar (+1 s.d.) is shown for clarity. Note a magnified scale for concentrations of
polypropylene (b) and polystyrene (c, f).

targeted manner the smaller size category of microplastics across same detection approach33. Note that PE also dominated the
an extensive ocean region and at three discrete depths and ana- polymer composition in most of the Arctic ice cores examined in
lysed them using FTIR imaging technique. Our method enabled ref. 33.
the detection of very small particles and did not require visual Despite the different methodologies, our near-surface mea-
selection of suspect plastics prior to analysis33. We thus detected surements are comparable to the wind-corrected estimates of
much higher near-surface abundances of the examined polymer 25–1000 µm bulk microplastics floating in the North Atlantic
groups (range combined, 990–6999 particles m−3) compared to (610–36,000 particles m−3; ref. 31). The particle size distribution
the Atlantic records of pre-selected, bulk microplastic debris in of PE, PP and PS microplastics was dominated by 50–80 µm
size range ≥10 µm (range, 13–801 particles m−3; ref. 34). Similarly, fraction, consistent with findings of ref. 34. The combined mass
we found more PE (64 particles m−3), PP (29 particles m−3) and concentration of PE, PP and PS in the near surface (range,
PS (12 particles m−3) debris in size range >250 µm than the 259–1969 µg m−3) was also of the same order of magnitude as the
earlier surveys of bulk microplastics in the Atlantic (e.g. range concentrations of the floating bulk plastic debris of >300 µm in
0–8.5 particles m−3 in ref. 35 and 0–22.5 particles m−3 in ref. 36). size (100–1000 µg m−3 and ref. 10 and 5–14,000 µg m−3 in ref. 31).
Our polymer-specific concentrations were, however, significantly Further to refs. 31,34, our findings now provide a strong support
lower than the load of bulk plastic debris of >25 µm in size for the smaller-sized microplastics being a dominant constituent
detected in the Arctic Sea Ice (105–108 particles m−3) using the of the oceanic plastic inventory, previously unaccounted by the

4 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 ARTICLE

a b c
Polyethylene Polypropylene Polystyrene

10 m
n = 302 n = 163 n = 45
Depth layer
Mesopelagic Intermediate

n = 522 n = 72 n = 69

n = 193 n = 67 n = 11

100 300 500 700 100 300 500 700 100 300 500 700
Feret diameter (μm)

Fig. 3 Size distribution of microplastics with depth. a Polyethylene, b polypropylene and c polystyrene. Data points making up the distributions are shown
as circles of the respective colour. The width of each distribution was scaled to be equal to allow the inter-comparison of the distributions regardless of the
number of data points (n). The white circles indicate mean particle sizes with horizontal bars as ±standard deviation. Dashed line marks the lowest particle
size measured (32 µm) in this study. The dominance of microplastics <300 µm in size is highlighted in grey. Source data set is provided in ref. 24.

Number concentration Mass concentration

(particles m–3) (μg m–3)
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Polypropylene Polyethylene

b
Polystyrene

10 m depth Intermediate depth Mesopelagic depth

50–170 m 100–270 m
(n = 11) (n = 12) (n = 12)

Fig. 4 Vertical distribution of microplastics in the study area. The bars show particle number (particles m−3) and mass concentrations (µg m−3) of
a polyethylene, b polypropylene and c polystyrene averaged over all sampling stations at each depth horizon. Data presented as mean values with upper
error bars (+1 s.d.) for clarity. In figure legend, letter n in parentheses indicates the number of stations sampled at the respective depth horizon
(Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Data 1).

common sampling techniques and hence not included in the microplastics were only seen at 15°N (Fig. 2) and were likely
estimates of the oceanic burden of plastics7,37,38. advected from Cape Verde (located ~600 km east of the sampling
The observations of microplastic abundance in the open ocean site (Fig. 1)) by prevailing currents and winds. Concentrations of
setting and at depths below the mixed layer were only made in the all three polymer groups were the lowest at stations 15–19 in the
Arctic Central Basin8. These data are also limited to pre-selected South Atlantic subtropical gyre (Fig. 2). At present, this spatial
microplastics of >250 µm size class, of which 96% were synthetic mismatch cannot be explained with certainty. One reason is that
fibres. The remaining fraction were non-fibre microplastics of the full extent of accumulation of different size classes of plastic
polymer types other than PE, PP and PS and combined con- debris in the gyres has not yet been measured, while most of the
centrations 0–4 particles m−3, which hinders the direct compar- ocean surface and subsurface waters is also undersampled7. This
ison with our data. introduces serious uncertainties in identifying distribution pat-
With respect to the basin-wide distribution pattern, we terns of plastic contamination on basin and global scales7,41.
observed no prominent increase in subsurface abundance of small Noteworthy is the fact that earlier surveys10,34,39,40 report highly
microplastics in the Atlantic subtropical gyres, where larger variable abundance of net-collected plastics across the gyres with
floating plastics, pre-cursors of microplastics, seem to accumulate different locations of the measured hotspots in the Atlantic
according to the previous sampling efforts10,34,39,40 and predic- relative to our sampling sites. Another reason concerns the fun-
tions from the large-scale surface ocean transport models7,37,38. damental processes that supply, distribute, transform and remove
In the northern gyre, the elevated abundance of PE, PP and PS plastics in the ocean which need to be constrained to explain the

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 5

ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9

variations in plastic abundance in the sea surface and at depth. As We note a higher error of PS concentrations compared to that
such, a surface inventory of plastics on any size class at a given of PE and PP (Fig. 2) due to low absolute counts of PS micro-
location reflects inputs and removal rates over time. The input rate plastics in the individual samples (Supplementary Table 1). The
is a function of the amount of plastic debris entering the ocean importance of class-based assessment of microplastics in envir-
and the rate at which they fragment to sizes that can be captured onmental samples was suggested previously2. Our data now
by the available sampling techniques. Once in the surface ocean, demonstrate the importance of tailoring the methods of micro-
plastics are distributed around by the prevailing winds, surface plastics sampling and analysis to specific polymer types with a
currents and small circulation features7,42,43. Removal processes consideration of their likely abundance in the environment. As
will dilute plastic concentrations in the surface and determine such, targeted extraction of polymer types of interest, pre-
their abundance in the ocean interior34. These processes include concentrating them by filtering larger volumes of water and
advection37,44, ingestion by zooplankton17 and larger marine scanning larger image areas on the filter could reduce the
organisms45, gravitational sinking following biofouling and uncertainty when studying relatively rare plastics, such as PS.
incorporation of microplastics into phytodetrital aggregates15 and Similar approach has been developed for measurements of major
faecal material18. The mechanistic nature, strength and rates of and trace elements in the ocean52, which could be used as a
these redistribution and removal processes are currently unknown guideline for improving and harmonising methods in marine
but will likely vary within different regions of oceanography in the plastic research.
Atlantic and globally. Our depth-resolved assessment of micro- We report the combined mass concentrations of PE, PP and PS
plastic contamination over spatially extensive transect in the microplastics below the MLD and in the mesopelagic to be on
Atlantic reveals the complexity of the interactions between oceanic average (±s.d.) 511 ± 440 and 642 ± 916 µg m−3, respectively.
processes and plastic debris. An intensive, coherent and repeated Although extremely variable with latitude, these values are of the
sampling effort, similar to the annually repeated AMT voyages, or same order of magnitude as the mass loads of larger plastic litter,
involving autonomous in situ observations, are required to resolve pre-cursors of microplastics, reported to float in the Atlantic10,31.
these interactions in different oceanic regions. This is critical if we The observed conservation of plastic mass at depth points to
are to understand and predict the fate and impacts of plastics downward transport of surface plastics after fragmentation. It also
debris on the marine ecosystems. demonstrates that the removal of these small microplastics into
Our study demonstrates a strong heterogeneity in horizontal the ocean interior is an important sink that prevents plastic
and vertical abundance of the individual plastic types. The ubi- accumulation in the surface waters.
quitous presence of PE and PP microplastics in the surface The predominance of microplastics <100 µm at all our sampled
ocean33–35 and sediments9 has been documented previously. We locations indicates that the horizontal dispersal of microplastics
now show that the sub-surface contamination with these poly- and their loss into the ocean interior is a size-selective
mers is also pervasive and reaches very remote areas of the South process10,34,42. We hypothesise that some portion of the PE, PP
Atlantic (Fig. 2a, b). PE and PP are the most used and littered and PS debris was released into the marine environment in sub-
globally19 and are also initially buoyant in seawater and thus millimetre size (e.g. as deliberately manufactured microplastics),
could travel over long distances before being lost into the ocean33. while mechanical forces and photochemical processes fragmented
It is possible that the elevated quantities of PE and PP micro- larger plastics into microplastics both in situ and during their
plastics (up to 2553 and 726 particles m−3, respectively) found transit to the remote Atlantic waters. Regardless of the prove-
around South Georgia (stations 27 and 30) were advected by the nance, the small size of microplastics appears to be an important
Southern ACC Front travelling from the Rapa Nui garbage patch trigger for downward transport to occur. Smaller microplastics
in the South Atlantic39,46 or by the Sub-Antarctic Front, which are more prone to vertical dispersal by mixing and diffusion,
could have entrained plastic-contaminated waters carried by the especially within the mixed layer30,34,43. Biofouling of plastic
Brazil Current39. Input from local fishing activities around the surfaces, a process that reduces buoyancy of plastics sufficiently to
archipelago is also likely. For example, parts of fishing gear such cause them to sink53–55, has been shown to be faster for smaller
as braided ropes of longlines and trawls are often made of PE and particles due to their high surface-to-volume ratio56. In turn,
PP or composites of PE with other polymers47–49. biofilm-covered microplastics aggregate more rapidly with mar-
Of the examined groups, PS was the only polymer to show a ine snow57, which could facilitate their downward export to the
significant southward decrease in its surface mass abundance deep ocean. A preferential ingestion of smaller plastics by marine
(Mann–Whitney, W = 233, p = 0.0053, α = 0.01; Fig. 2f), which zooplankton has also been observed17,58, with implications for
is likely due to overall lower production, consumption and waste their subsequent incorporation into fast-sinking faecal pellets18.
of this polymer by the countries in the Southern Hemisphere4,50. The overall absence of a clear pattern in vertical abundance of
PS microplastics were scarce in the near surface, consistent with the examined polymer groups indicates that their supply, dis-
previous observations35,40; they were rarely encountered in the tribution and fate, and hence, residence time in the water column,
mesopelagic layer and not detected at this depth in the South are affected by diverse and complex processes10. Polymer type
Atlantic (Fig. 2c, f). Relatively low stability and high degradation could influence the rates of these processes as already evident
rates of PS in seawater could be one explanation for the low from different vertical distribution pattern for PE, PP and PS
abundance as well as smaller particle sizes of this polymer com- debris. The overall persistence of PE, PP and PS in the upper
pared to that of PE and PP51. In addition, PS is produced in two mesopelagic is, however, unclear, as the abundance of these
distinct chemical grades, which could impact its fate in the water polymers in the abyssal ocean and at the seabed are yet to be
column. Microplastics of crystal-grade PS (used in houseware and measured on relevant spatio-temporal scales.
rigid packaging) are denser than seawater (ρ = 1.04–1.05 g cm−3), Our depth-resolved, polymer-specific data set demonstrates
and thus might be more prone to transport down the water that (i) the smaller-sized microplastics were severely under-
column and surpass the depths sampled in our study. Alter- estimated in previous assessments of marine plastic pollution and
natively, but not exclusive, microplastics derived from the foam (ii) considerable amounts of small microplastics are lost from the
expanded PS material, which is 98% gas by composition with surface waters and stored in the ocean interior. Focussing on the
density of ~0.05 g cm−3, might be preferentially retained above Atlantic Ocean and including polymer-specific microplastics in
the shallowest depth sampled in our study and/or dispersed size range 32–651 µm, we can now reconcile the existing con-
horizontally by prevailing surface currents44 and winds. undrum of missing ocean plastics7,10. We acknowledge that the

6 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 ARTICLE

differences in the particle size and plastic types (bulk vs. specific 60
Bulk plastics
polymers) of the input and stock terms need to be minimised to
allow for their direct comparison. The uncertainties of our data PE+PP+PS
due to the size limit of particles measured and conversion of 2D Max estimate
50 >300 μm
images into mass concentrations also need to be reduced. We also
note that the spatial and vertical trends of plastic abundance and
distribution in the Atlantic is likely to vary due to different routes
of supply and removal of plastics, which are yet to be constrained. 40
However, despite these limitations, the fundamental conclusion

Mass, million tonnes

about the Atlantic plastic budget will be unchanged as our esti-
mates are a very conservative minimum estimate of the total mass
contamination level. 30
Based on the plastic waste generation trends from 1950 to 2015
(ref. 19) and assuming that the Atlantic Ocean was consistently 32–651 μm
receiving 0.3–0.8% of the global plastic waste4 for 65 years, we 20
estimate the Atlantic waters and sediments to hold 17–47 million
tonnes (MT) of plastic litter (‘Methods’ and Supplementary >5000 μm
Table 2).
Averaged over all locations and depth layers sampled in 10
this study, the mass concentrations of the investigated
polymer-specific microplastic in 32–651 µm size category were 32–651 μm
>300 μm
389–719 µg m−3 (PE), 216–324 µg m−3 (PP) and 58–95 µg m−3 0
(PS). Assuming that these concentrations were representative of Input Surface ocean Ocean interior Seabed
the whole area of the Atlantic Ocean59 and down to 200 m depth (1950–2015) (0–10 m) (10–200 m)
(mean depth of the mesopelagic layer sampled in this study), we
calculate the combined weight of these three polymer groups to Fig. 5 Plastic mass balance for the Atlantic Ocean. Grey bars show the
be 11.6–21.1 MT (PE = 6–14 MT, PP = 4–5 MT and PS = inputs and oceanic inventory of bulk plastic litter from the
0.95–1.6 MT) (Fig. 5). This is a significant contribution to literature2,4,7,31,39,60. Blue bars show the combined mass of polyethylene
~0.1 MT of larger plastic debris (>300 µm) predicted to be dis- (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) microplastics measured in
persed in the surface waters of the Atlantic7,39 and accumulated this study (the most conservative estimates; see Supplementary Methods
on the seafloor (5.6–13.5 MT of plastic debris >5 mm in size; for details). The upper (max) estimates for each category are shown with
ref. 60) (‘Methods’ and Supplementary Table 2). Note that the dashed bars. Numbers above the bars indicate particle size category. Plastic
contribution of polymer-specific microplastics of 300–651 µm size input is represented by the cumulative mass of bulk plastic litter that is
category was negligible given their low abundance in the samples estimated to have entered the Atlantic Ocean between 1950 and 2015
(<5%). The high quantities of small polymer-specific plastics that (refs. 2,4,19). The load of plastics in the surface ocean (0–10 m) includes the
we estimate to be stored in the upper 200 m of the Atlantic are estimated mass of bulk plastic debris (0.1 million tonnes; refs. 7,39;
therefore staggering, given that they represent only 5.3% of the Supplementary Table 2) and the combined mass of PE, PE and PS
Atlantic Ocean volume59 and do not include 44% of other littered determined in this study (0.8–1.6 million tonnes).
plastic types19 and microplastics in size category below the
detection limit of this study9,33,61 including nanoplastics62,63. Our
basin-scale estimates also do not account for the plastic litter that models account for atmospheric3 and maritime inputs of plastics.
could have been advected to the coastlines44 or large quantities of Most importantly, they completely underrepresent microplastics
small plastic debris that have already been buried in the deep-sea <300 µm and thus do not account for microplastics that were
sediments (e.g. ~80% of plastic particles reported in the Arctic deliberately produced in microscopic size (e.g. microbeads) and
sediments were in ≤25 µm size category9). that fragmented/degraded to smaller sizes prior to entering the
Including the loads of small microplastics of only three poly- marine environment. Recent studies demonstrate that micro-
mer types accumulating in upper mesopelagic into the previously plastics that are directly released into the environment as small
calculated marine plastic stocks can now balance and, given the plastic particles (<5 mm) could be a significant source of plastic in
aforementioned limitations, exceed the cumulative supply of the ocean64–66. The modelled estimates of the global supply of the
plastic to the Atlantic since 1950s. manufactured microplastics to the ocean are on the order of
Our results demonstrate that there is no missing sink of 0.8–2.5 MT year−1 (ref. 67), but they are highly uncertain and
oceanic plastic; rather, previous assessments of plastic pollution in require validation with empirical data.
the ocean were insufficient with respect to particle size collected The question of missing plastic sinks in the ocean7,10 stimu-
and water layer surveyed. They also reveal a critical importance of lated adoption of better analytical tools, which enabled reliable
very small, sub-surface microplastics for the oceanic plastic bur- and unbiased detection of small microplastics in the marine
den, especially relative to larger-sized plastic debris floating in the environment. Similar to our methodology, the FTIR imaging that
surface or deposited on seabed. Importantly, our observations are scans the entire filtered particle sample allowed ref. 33 to detect
incompatible with the previously calculated supply rates of plastic 2–3 orders of magnitude more microplastics >11 µm in the Arctic
to the ocean and we conclude that the latter are substantial sea-ice compared to the previous assessments based on techni-
underestimates. There are several explanations that could be put ques that require manual pre-selection of potential plastics68. As
forward. First, the estimated amount of land-based plastic inputs our ability to sample and detect smaller-sized plastics in the ocean
are fundamentally based on country-scale waste generation data improves, the critical need emerges also to constrain robustly the
for which a fraction is assumed to enter the ocean4 but has not yet inputs of plastic into the ocean from terrestrial and marine
been measured directly. Refs. 2,11, however, used measurements sources, ensuring that small size categories of plastics, including
of microplastic concentrations in rivers to calibrate model coef- nanoplastics, feature in future field observations and predictive
ficients for the plastic inputs via rivers. Further, none of the models.

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 7

ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9

Plastic plays an important role in our lives, providing enor- onto silver filters (0.8 µm nominal pore size; Sterlitech, USA), dried and stored
mous benefits and savings with respect to health and safety, until analysis.
resource and energy consumption, CO2 emissions and produc-
tion costs69. These features cannot currently be matched by any Measurements with FTIR imaging system. The chemical composition of the
other material70. Yet, the durability of the material that is such an extracted marine particles was determined using a linear-array FTIR imaging
advantage in its use is also a cause for concern when plastic is system. The equipment used was Spotlight™ 400 FTIR Imaging System coupled to
Frontier™ IR Spectrometer (PerkinElmer, Llantrisant, UK) and equipped with a
released into the wider environment due to poor waste man- triple Cassegrain optical system and a 2 × 8 linear array Mercury Cadmium Tell-
agement practices. To date, a key uncertainty has been the uride (MCT) detector. The front and the sample stage of the imaging microscope
magnitude of contamination of the ocean and our findings were surrounded with the Spotlight atmospheric enclosure made of Plexiglas,
demonstrate that this is much higher in terms of mass than has which minimises atmospheric effects and vibrations and, importantly, the air-
borne contamination of the samples and the optical components (Supplementary
been estimated previously. As plastics are likely to be widely used Fig. 4). The region of interest with a total area of 6 mm × 6 mm, corresponding to
for many years to come71, the need to quantify this material in 18% of the filtered sample (total area 201 mm2 based on the aperture of the
terms of its sources, sinks and the processes responsible is a Advantec Millipore filtration cup), and positioned over the centre of the filter
matter of considerable urgency. Without this fundamental disc, was scanned in transmission mode over spectral range of 4000–750 cm−1 at
8 cm−1 spectral resolution and 25 µm pixel resolution applying 4 co-added scans.
knowledge, evidence-based conclusion about harms associated The boundaries of total area imaged were limited to the aperture of the sample
with exposure to plastics as well as decisions about the ways holder (Ø = 10 mm) onto which the sample filter was mounted for transmission
society produces, uses and disposes of this very valuable and measurements. For consistency and to prevent sample loss, potential contamina-
extraordinary material will not be possible. tion and double-counting of particles, the filter was not repositioned to allow for its
other areas to be exposed for further imaging. The imaging area was also binned
into 2 × 2 square selections termed markers with area 3 mm × 3 mm each to
optimise the spectral data output per image. The IR image background was col-
Methods lected in air under the same spectral settings but with an increased number of co-
Contamination prevention. All steps involving sample collection, processing and
added spectra (n = 120). Each measurement took 88 min and generated
analysis were performed in the air-controlled environment: at sea, all the work was
57,600 single spectra over the total area imaged.
done in the laminar flow cabinet (P-range, Bassaire, UK); on land, samples were
The analysis of the acquired hyperspectral IR images and polymer identification
handled in ISO-5 clean laboratory and in the laminar flow cabinet constructed with
was performed using the PerkinElmer Spectrum™ IMAGE and Spectrum™
laminated high-density non-particle shedding board (Felcon, UK). If not stated
10 software. The detailed procedure is described in Supplementary Methods.
otherwise, all laboratory ware was made of glass or stainless steel and cleaned
Briefly, chemometric technique of principal component analysis (PCA) was used to
thoroughly prior use (Supplementary Methods). The exposed surface area of the
first explore the chemical composition of the entire imaged particle sample and
containers was also minimised (e.g. conical flasks were used instead of beakers). All
collect spectra from each variation (score) displayed on the reconstructed PCA-
filter membranes used in this study were pre-combusted at 500 °C (stainless-steel
based IR image73–75 (Supplementary Fig. 5a, b). The collected individual spectra
and glass-fibre filters) and at 300 °C (silver filters) in a glass petri dishes for 24 h
were then exported into the Spectrum™ 10 software (Supplementary Fig. 5c) for
and kept covered at all times. The use of SAPs for particle collection offered
identification via comparison against the spectra in the reference polymer library
significant advantages with respect to preventing air-borne contamination72. The
(18,711 polymer types; spectra database from S.T. Japan-Europe GmbH, Germany/
sample mesh was locked in the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filter housing with an
Japan). Spectra with the hit quality >0.7 (max. hit score of 1) were accepted as
outlet (Ø 2.5 cm) of the same polymer type, white PP baffle separating the filter
verified polymers types9,76 and saved. From those, the best quality spectra for PE,
mesh of different sizes, butyl O-rings sealing the internal assembly72 and stainless-
PP and PS were selected and used as reference spectra to plot correlation maps
steel clamps locking all the units. Filter housing and all its components were
against every pixel constituting the IR image using Spectrum™ IMAGE
thoroughly cleaned prior to every deployment under the laminar flow hood
(Supplementary Fig. 6a). In essence, the reconstructed IR image was showing the
(Supplementary Methods). Sample mesh was loaded into and removed from the
locations of and areas occupied by each of the examined polymer type. These
filter housing in the laminar flow cabinet. The filter housing was covered with
polymer-specific IR images were then exported into the FIJI Image J image software
aluminium foil to exclude any air-borne particles until the last minute before the
for particle count and characterisation77,78 (see Supplementary Methods,
deployment and during the transit into the ship’s laboratory after the deployment.
Supplementary Fig. 6b and Supplementary Table 4).
All chemicals used for sample processing (potassium hydroxide and ethanol) were
filtered through a pre-combusted silver filter (nominal pore size 0.8 µm,
Sterlitech, USA). Quantifying number concentrations of microplastics. Polymer-specific particles
were counted in each of the four 3 mm × 3 mm markers making up the total
imaged area (6 mm × 6 mm) of the filter. For each sample, we treated the four
Sample collection and processing at sea. Water column samples were collected markers as sample replicates24 to account for the uneven distribution of plastic
aboard RRS James Clack Ross during the passage of the Atlantic Meridional particles on the sample filter, similar to the method in ref. 33. We calculated the
Transect cruise AMT26 JR16001 (http://www.amt-uk.org/) in mean and standard deviation of the four replicates to determine particle count of
September–November 2016. At each station/depth, the in situ SAPs (Challenger- the imaged area. These values were then scaled to particle per unit volume units (m−3)
Oceanic Ltd.) were used to collect large volumes of seawater (507–1534 L over 50 using known total filter area (201 mm2), volume of a sample fraction/split filtered for
min of pumping) to capture both suspended and sinking particles21,22 onto pre- FTIR imaging and the total volume of seawater collected with in situ pump per each
cleaned stainless-steel mesh with 55 µm aperture size (seawater-resistant, molyb- sample (Supplementary Data 1; see similar approach in ref. 3). Error propagation for
denum bearing grade SS316; The Mesh Company, UK) and nylon 6,6 NITEX mesh calculation of particle number per filter included the error from the conversion of full
with 1 µm aperture size (Sefar, Switzerland). Post-filtration, each particle-loaded sample volume to the investigated sample fraction (split). The former was based on the
mesh was carefully folded and stored at −20 °C until analysis31. practical accuracy of the SAP flow rate, which is ~±2% for a flow rate of 60 L h−1 for
clogged filters through to 1000 L h−1 in clear waters (Challenger Oceanic Ltd.). The
error from splitting the water–particle mixture was estimated to be ~5% based on the
Sample preparation for FTIR imaging. Particles on each mesh were rinsed off gravimetric measurements of a MilliQ water sample split in the same manner as the
using 1 L of artificial sea water (ASW) and each fraction was collected into indi- samples. The error associated with the measurement of the size of the filtered and
vidual glass flask. The ASW (target concentration 35 g L−1) was prepared by first scanned areas were considered negligible.
dissolving high-grade pre-combusted salt (500 °C for 24 h) in MilliQ and then
filtering the ASW solution through a glass-fibre filter (nominal pore size 0.8 µm,
GF/F, Whatman). Individual ASW–particle mixture was split into four fractions of Procedural blanks. The unused meshes were prepared and processed on board of
equivalent volume using a Folsom splitter made of polymethyl methacrylate the ship in exactly the same manner as the samples. For the blank test, 3 L of MilliQ
(Plexiglas/Perspex). The split of each size fraction was swirled gently to homo- water were passed through the clean unused meshes (in triplicates) loaded into the
genise the water–particle mixture, and a 100 mL aliquot was immediately trans- SAP filter housing in the laminar flow cabinet. Handling of the procedural blanks
ferred into a graduated 200-mL glass flask, covered with a watch glass and in the land laboratory in preparation for FTIR imaging was performed in the same
incubated with 15 mL of 47% KOH (Merck, Germany) at 60 °C for 72 h to remove way as the samples. The contamination of blanks with PE, PP and PS were
particulate organic material27,28. Post-digestion, the samples each size fraction was examined by reconstructing the acquired IR images of the blank samples against
filtered onto a 25-mm stainless-steel filter disc (25 µm aperture size; The Mesh the respective reference spectra identified in the actual samples (Supplementary
Company, UK) and rinsed with MilliQ to remove salt and with 30% (v/v %) Table 3). All the polymer spectra selected as reference spectra had a hit score >0.90
ethanol (Merck, Germany) to reduce surface tension9. The particle-loaded filter (i.e. 90% similarity with the library spectra). No microplastic particles reliably
discs were placed in the glass petri dishes and with their lids opened slightly dried identified as PE, PP and PS were detected in the procedural blanks (Supplementary
in the laminar flow cabinet for 24–48 h before being fully capped. The remaining Figs. 1 and 2). Suspect pixels with elevated correlation coefficients (0.615–0.634)
filtrate (1–25 µm particle size fraction, which is not a part of this study) was filtered against reference polymer spectra were found in blank #2/marker 2 and identified

8 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 ARTICLE

as polymethyl pentane (PMP; spectrum ID SP0061; best hit score = 0.78) and in International Argo Program and the national programmes that contribute to it (http://
blank #3/marker 4 and identified as benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP; spectrum ID www.argo.ucsd.edu, http://argo.jcommops.org). The Argo Program is part of the Global
AD0232; best hit scores = 0.91). PMP is a rigid polyolefin and was identified in Ocean Observing System (https://doi.org/10.17882/42182#56126). The CTD profile data
5 samples out of 36 with a hit score range 0.73–0.83. BBP is a common plasticiser collected during the AMT26 JR16001 expedition were provided by and are freely
for PVC and was present in 4 samples with a hit score range 0.86–0.97 (Supple- available from BODC (https://doi.org/10.5285/aa51baf6-2095-6c28-e053-6c86abc0d7f7
mentary Data 2). BBP spectra were present in other 14 samples, although their and ref. 23).
quality was below acceptable (hit score range 0.47–0.69; Supplementary Data 2).
BBP plasticiser is a sticky liquid that could have been released from the PVC-based
SAP filter housing or from the PVC particles themselves during digestion proce- Received: 22 November 2019; Accepted: 22 July 2020;
dure and stuck on the mesh wire. The locations of these polymer types on the IR
image maps did not coincide with any of the polymer groups of interest.

Mass conversion. The mass of the individual microplastic particles was calculated
by multiplying their volume by their polymer-specific density (Supplementary
Data 1). Particle volume was estimated using the particle dimensions (length and/ References
or area) measured on the IR image and assuming a range of particle shapes as 1. GESAMP. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine
applied in previous studies (refs. 10,29,31,32). Here we report the most conservative Environment (Part 2) (IMO, 2016).
estimates (Method IV/Flake), which were obtained using the method of ref. 10. The 2. Lebreton, L. C. et al. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat.
details and sensitivity analysis for mass conversions using all the applied methods Commun. 8, 15611 (2017).
are provided in Supplementary Methods and summarised in Supplementary Fig. 3. 3. Allen, S. et al. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a
Mass concentrations of polymer-specific microplastics (in µg m−3) were calculated remote mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12, 339–344 (2019).
by multiplying their average particle mass by number concentration in each sample 4. Jambeck, J. R. et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347,
(Supplementary Data 1). 768–771 (2015).
5. Galloway, T. S., Cole, M. & Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris
throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0116 (2017).
Mass budget of plastics in the Atlantic Ocean. The cumulative input of plastic
debris to the ocean from 1950 to 2015 and their current loads in different com- 6. Wright, S. L. & Kelly, F. J. Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ.
partments (surface water, water column and deep-sea sediments) of the Atlantic Sci. Technol. 51, 6634–6647 (2017).
Ocean were estimated using the data available from literature2,4,7,10,19,39,60 and 7. Van Sebille, E. et al. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris.
including the polymer-specific mass concentrations measured in this study (Sup- Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124006 (2015).
plementary Table 2). 8. Kanhai, L. D. K. et al. Microplastics in sub-surface waters of the Arctic Central
Plastic inputs to the Atlantic Ocean were calculated using the estimates of the Basin. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 130, 8–18 (2018).
global plastic waste generation from 1950 to 2015 (ref. 19; Supplementary Table 2). 9. Bergmann, M. et al. High quantities of microplastic in Arctic deep-sea
The fraction of the global plastic waste, by weight, that has entered the Atlantic by sediments from the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51,
2015 was calculated by first considering the estimates of mismanaged plastic waste 11000–11010 (2017).
generated in and available to be discarded only from the countries bordering the 10. Cózar, A. et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 111,
Atlantic Ocean in 2010 (refs. 2,4; Supplementary Table 2). The sources included 10239–10244 (2014).
mismanaged plastic waste from the coastal areas (>5 mm in size; ref. 4) and rivers 11. Schmidt., C., Krauth, T. & Wagner, S. Export of plastic debris by rivers into
(>0.3 mm in size; ref. 2). Note that ref. 2 obtained river inputs using Jambeck et al.’s the sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 12246–12253 (2017).
mismanaged plastic waste model4, river catchment areas and locations of artificial 12. Dawson, A. L. et al. Turning microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive
dams, and hence these inputs are not additional but have been included in Jambeck fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nat. Commun. 9, 1001 (2018).
et al.’s estimates for 2010 (ref. 4). Further, the assumption was made that for the 13. Ter Halle, A. et al. Understanding the fragmentation pattern of marine plastic
given period, the fraction of the global plastic waste entering the Atlantic Ocean debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5668–5675 (2016).
every year was similar to that in 2010 (0.3–0.8%; ref. 4). 14. Gewert, B., Plassmann, M. M. & MacLeod, M. Pathways for degradation of
Plastic stocks in the Atlantic Ocean were based on the mass load of buoyant plastic polymers floating in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Process.
plastics in the Atlantic sea-surface reported in refs. 7,39 (also references therein) and Impacts 17, 1513–1521 (2015).
based on the data from net/trawl surveys in combination with large-scale surface 15. Long, M. et al. Interactions between microplastics and phytoplankton
ocean circulation models (Supplementary Table 2). aggregates: impact on their respective fates. Mar. Chem. 175, 39–46 (2015).
Due to the scarcity of data on plastic accumulation in the deep-sea sediments, 16. Kooi, M., Nes, E. H. V., Scheffer, M. & Koelmans, A. A. Ups and downs in the
their loads in global and regional scales are currently very crude. Ref. 60 quoted the ocean: effects of biofouling on vertical transport of microplastics. Environ. Sci.
load plastic debris of >5 mm size category on the global seabed being on the order Technol. 51, 7963–7971 (2017).
of around 25–65 MT; we scaled these values to the area of the Atlantic Ocean 17. Cole, M. et al. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol.
(81.2 × 106 km2, excluding the Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas; ref. 59). The 47, 6646–6655 (2013).
resulting Atlantic-wide sedimentary loads must be considered in light of the 18. Cole, M. et al. Microplastics alter the properties and sinking rates of
uncertainties associated with variable distribution of plastic litter on the seafloor zooplankton faecal pellets. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 3239–3246 (2016).
due to different processes responsible for their supply, removal, transit, degradation 19. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R. & Law, K. L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics
and redistribution in the marine environment.
ever made. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782 (2017).
Basin-wide extrapolation of the abundances of polymer-specific microplastics
20. Erni-Cassola, G., Zadjelovic, V., Gibson, M. I. & Christie-Oleza, J. A.
measured in our study is described in the main text. The range of stocks reported
Distribution of plastic polymer types in the marine environment; a meta-
for each polymer type results from the assumption of different particle shapes
analysis. J. Hazard. Mater. 369, 691–698 (2019).
when converting concentration units from number to mass (see relevant ‘Methods’
section and Supplementary Information). 21. McDonnell, A. M. P. et al. The oceanographic toolbox for the collection
of sinking and suspended marine particles. Prog. Oceanogr. 133, 17–31
(2015).
Statistical analyses. The statistical comparisons are based on nonparametric 22. Bishop, J. K. B., Lam, P. J. & Wood, T. J. Getting good particles: accurate
statistics (Mann–Whitney U test) and performed using the open source R software sampling of particles by large volume in-situ filtration. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10,
(version 3.4.1; https://www.r-project.org/). The significance level was chosen to be 681–710 (2012).
1% (α = 0.01). 23. Ayliffe, J. O. AMT26 (JR16001) CTD profiles (pressure, temperature, salinity,
potential temperature, density, fluorescence, transmissance, downwelling
Reporting summary. Further information on research design is available in the Nature PAR, dissolved oxygen concentration) calibrated and binned to 1 dbar. British
Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. Oceanographic Data Centre, National Oceanography Centre, NERC, UK.
https://doi.org/10.5285/aa51baf6-2095-6c28-e053-6c86abc0d7f7 (2020).
24. Pabortsava, K. Abundance and size of microplastic particles in filtered
Data availability seawater samples collected on a north-south transect in the Atlantic Ocean
All polymer-specific data underlying this study can be downloaded from the British during cruise AMT26 (JR16001), September–November 2016. British
Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC; https://doi.org/10.5285/aadd4168-0398-14f5-e053- Oceanographic Data Centre, National Oceanography Centre, NERC, UK.
17d1a68b059d and ref. 24) or are available from the corresponding author upon request. https://doi.org/10.5285/aadd4168-0398-14f5-e053-17d1a68b059d (2020).
The Argo data of monthly mixed layer climatology under product name ‘May 2018 25. Kara, A. B., Rochford, P. A. & Hurlburt, H. E. An optimal definition for ocean
netcdf format’ were downloaded from the Argo Mixed Layer website (http://mixedlayer. mixed layer depth. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 105, 16803–16821 (2000).
ucsd.edu/) hosted by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. The Argo data 26. England, M. H. The age of water and ventilation timescales in a Global Ocean
used to create this climatology were collected and made freely available by the Model. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 25, 2756–2777 (1995).

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 9

ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9

27. Dehaut, A. et al. Microplastics in seafood: benchmark protocol for their 58. Kosore, C. et al. Occurrence and ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in
extraction and characterization. Environ. Pollut. 215, 223–233 (2016). Kenya’s marine environment: first documented evidence. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 40,
28. Kühn, S. et al. The use of potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution as a suitable 225–234 (2018).
approach to isolate plastics ingested by marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 59. Eakins, B. W. & G. F. Sharman, Volumes of the World’s Oceans from
115, 86–90 (2017). ETOPO1, NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, CO. https://
29. Isobe, A., Iwasaki, S., Uchida, K. & Tokai, T. Abundance of non-conservative www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html (2010).
microplastics in the upper ocean from 1957 to 2066. Nat. Commun. 10, 417 60. Booth, A. M. et al. Microplastic in Global and Norwegian Marine
(2019). Environments: Distributions, Degradation, Mechanisms and Transport
30. Kooi, M. et al. The effect of particle properties on the depth profile of buoyant (SINTEF Oceans AS, 2017).
plastics in the ocean. Sci. Rep. 6, 33882 (2016). 61. Bergmann, M. et al. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from
31. Poulain, M. et al. Small microplastics as a main contributor to plastic mass the Alps to the Arctic. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax1157 (2019).
balance in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 62. Ter Halle, A. et al. Nanoplastic in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre.
1157–1164 (2018). Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 13689–13697 (2017).
32. Jennings, B. R., Parslow, K. & Ottewill, R. H. Particle size measurement: the 63. Koelmans, A. A., Besseling, E. & Shim, W. J. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter
equivalent spherical diameter. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 419, 137–149 (1988). (eds Bergmann, M., Gutow, L. & Klages, M.) 325–340 (Springer International
33. Peeken, I. et al. Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and means of Publishing, 2015).
transport for microplastic. Nat. Commun. 9, 1505 (2018). 64. Hurley, R., Woodward, J. & Rothwell, J. J. Microplastic contamination of river
34. Enders, K., Lenz, R., Stedmon, C. A. & Nielsen, T. G. Abundance, size and beds significantly reduced by catchment-wide flooding. Nat. Geosci. 11, 251
polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean (2018).
and their modelled vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100, 70–81 (2015). 65. Wang, T. et al. Emission of primary microplastics in mainland China: invisible
35. Kanhai, L. D., Officer, R., Lyashevska, O., Thompson, R. C. & O’Connor, I. but not negligible. Water Res. 162, 214–224 (2019).
Microplastic abundance, distribution and composition along a latitudinal 66. Cheung, P. K. & Fok, L. Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs
gradient in the Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 115, 307–314 (2017). and their estimated emissions in Mainland China. Water Res 122, 53–61
36. Lusher, A. L., Burke, A., O’Connor, I. & Officer, R. Microplastic pollution in (2017).
the Northeast Atlantic Ocean: validated and opportunistic sampling. Mar. 67. Boucher, J. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of
Pollut. Bull. 88, 325–333 (2014). Sources (IUCN Publication, 2017).
37. Maximenko, N., Hafner, J. & Niiler, P. Pathways of marine debris derived 68. Obbard, R. W. et al. Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in
from trajectories of Lagrangian drifters. Mar. Pollut. Bul. 65, 51–62 (2012). Arctic Sea ice. Earth’s Future 2, 315–320 (2014).
38. Lebreton, L.-M., Greer, S. & Borrero, J. C. Numerical modelling of floating 69. Andrady, A. L. & Neal, M. A. Applications and societal benefits of plastics.
debris in the world’s oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 653–661 (2012). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1977–1984 (2009).
39. Eriksen, M. et al. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion 70. Ashby, M. F. Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice
plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 9, e111913 (Elsevier, 2012).
(2014). 71. Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., Vom Saal, F. S. & Swan, S. H. Plastics, the
40. Law, K. L. et al. Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos.
Science 329, 1185 (2010). Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2153–2166 (2009).
41. Law, K. L. Plastics in the marine environment. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 72. Planquette, H., Fones, G. R., Statham, P. J. & Morris, P. J. Origin of iron and
205–229 (2017). aluminium in large particles (>53 µm) in the Crozet region, Southern Ocean.
42. Kukulka, T., Proskurowski, G., Morét-Ferguson, S., Meyer, D. W. & Law, K. L. Mar. Chem. 115, 31–42 (2009).
The effect of wind mixing on the vertical distribution of buoyant plastic 73. Amigo, J. M., Babamoradi, H. & Elcoroaristizabal, S. Hyperspectral image
debris. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051116 (2012). analysis. A tutorial. Anal. Chim. Act. 896, 34–51 (2015).
43. Reisser, J. et al. The vertical distribution of buoyant plastics at sea: an 74. Karlsson, T. M., Grahn, H., van Bavel, B. & Geladi, P. Hyperspectral imaging
observational study in the North Atlantic Gyre. Biogeosciences 12, 1249–1256 and data analysis for detecting and determining plastic contamination in
(2015). seawater filtrates. J. Near Infrared Spectrosc. 24, 141–149 (2016).
44. Lebreton, L., Egger, M. & Slat, B. A global mass budget for positively buoyant 75. Vidal, M. & Amigo, J. M. Pre-processing of hyperspectral images.
macroplastic debris in the ocean. Sci. Rep. 9, 12922 (2019). Essential steps before image analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. 117, 138–148
45. Kühn, S., Bravo Rebolledo, E. L. & van Franeker, J. A. In Marine (2012).
Anthropogenic Litter (eds Bergmann, M., Gutow, L. & Klages, M.) 75–116 76. Primpke, S., Lorenz, C., Rascher-Friesenhausen, R. & Gerdts, G. An
(Springer International Publishing, 2015). automated approach for microplastics analysis using focal plane array (FPA)
46. Markic, A. et al. Double trouble in the South Pacific subtropical gyre: FTIR microscopy and image analysis. Anal. Methods 9, 1499–1511 (2017).
increased plastic ingestion by fish in the oceanic accumulation zone. Mar. 77. Erni-Cassola, G., Gibson, M. I., Thompson, R. C. & Christie-Oleza, J. A. Lost,
Pollut. Bull. 136, 547–564 (2018). but found with nile red: a novel method for detecting and quantifying small
47. Kokorin, N. V. & Istomin, I. G. Use of a deep-water longline of the “Spanish microplastics (1 mm to 20 μm) in environmental samples. Environ. Sci.
type” and his modifications in the Russian research of Ross Sea toothfish Technol. 51, 13641–13648 (2017).
during the season 2004/05-2005/06. CCAMLR WG-FSA-06/5 (2006). 78. Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis.
48. Robertson, G. et al. Line weights of constant mass (and sink rates) for Spanish- Nat. Methods 9, 676 (2012).
system Patagonian toothfish longline vessels. CCAMLR Sci. J. 15, 93–106 79. Holte, J., Talley, L. D., Gilson, J. & Roemmich, D. An Argo mixed layer
(2008). climatology and database. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 5618–5626 (2017).
49. Krag, L. A. et al. Size selection of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) in trawls. 80. Holte, J. & Talley, L. A new algorithm for finding mixed layer depths with
PLoS ONE 9, e102168 (2014). applications to argo data and subantarctic mode water formation. J. Atmos.
50. Schwaben, H. D. Commodity plastics. Trend report. Polystyrene. Kunstoffe Ocean Technol. 26, 1920–1939 (2009).
Plast Europe 95, 68–70 (2005).
51. Zhu, L., Zhao, S., Bittar, T. B., Stubbins, A. & Li, D. Photochemical dissolution
of buoyant microplastics to dissolved organic carbon: rates and microbial
impacts. J. Hazard. Mater. 383, 121065 (2020). Acknowledgements
52. Cutter, G. et al. Sampling and Sample-handling Protocols for GEOTRACES We thank the captains and crew of the RRS James Clark Ross, J. Wynar and H. King from
Cruises (GEOTRACES International Project Office, 2017). the National Marine Facilities Team for deploying and recovering stand alone in situ
53. Carpenter, E. J. & Smith, K. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 175, pumps during AMT 26 JR16001 cruise. We thank R. Sanders and D. Mayor for parti-
1240–1241 (1972). cipation in results discussion and feedback on this manuscript, O. Savard and Perki-
54. Ye, S. & Andrady, A. L. Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne Bay nElmer Ltd. colleagues for their support with the FTIR imaging work, S. Henson for help
exposure conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22, 608–613 (1991). with visualising the Argo Mixed layer data, K. Kouvaris for his help with particle size
55. Holmström, A. Plastic films on the bottom of the Skagerack. Nature 255, analysis, J. Habgood for her support during the procurement of the FTIR system and
622–623 (1975). J. Ayliffe (BODC) for his support with the data submission to BODC. This work was
56. Fazey, F. M. C. & Ryan, P. G. Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics: An supported by the H2020 AtlantOS programme and the National Oceanography Centre,
experimental study into the effect of size on surface longevity. Environ. Pollut. Southampton (grant agreement #633211). The Atlantic Meridional Transect is funded by
210, 354–360 (2016). the UK Natural Environment Research Council through its National Capability Long-
57. Michels, J., Stippkugel, A., Lenz, M., Wirtz, K. & Engel, A. Rapid aggregation term Single Centre Science Programme, Climate Linked Atlantic Sector Science (grant
of biofilm-covered microplastics with marine biogenic particles. Proc. R. Soc. B number NE/R015953/1). This study contributes to the international IMBeR project and
285, 20181203 (2018). is contribution number 355 of the AMT programme.

10 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 ARTICLE

Author contributions Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
K.P. and R.S.L. designed and conducted the research. K.P. analysed the data and wrote published maps and institutional affiliations.
the manuscript together with R.S.L.

Competing interests Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
The authors declare no competing interests. Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Additional information Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
020-17932-9.
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.P.
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
Peer review information Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for
licenses/by/4.0/.
their contributions to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints © The Author(s) 2020

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020)11:4073 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 11